The Big Five in SLA 9783030593230

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Contents
About the Author
Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories
1.1 Personality: An Overview
1.1.1 Definitions of Personality
1.1.2 An Outline of Personality Approaches
1.2 Type and Trait Theories
1.2.1 Type Theories
1.2.2 Trait Theories
1.3 Personality Across the Life Span
2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications
2.1 The Big Five
2.1.1 The Big Five Model
2.1.2 Five-Factor Theory
2.1.3 The Trait Hierarchy
2.1.4 The Measuring Tools
2.2 Neuroticism
2.2.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Neuroticism
2.2.2 Consequences of Neuroticism
2.3 Extraversion
2.3.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Extraversion
2.3.2 Consequences of Extraversion
2.4 Openness to Experience
2.4.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Openness to Experience
2.4.2 Consequences of Openness to Experience
2.5 Agreeableness
2.5.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Agreeableness
2.5.2 Consequences of Agreeableness
2.6 Conscientiousness
2.6.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Conscientiousness
2.6.2 Consequences of Conscientiousness
2.7 Gender and Age Differences in the Big Five
2.8 The Big Five Across a Lifespan
3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective
3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview
3.1.1 Basic Terminology
3.1.2 Uniqueness of SLA
3.1.3 Individual Learner Differences
3.2 Studying Personality in SLA
3.2.1 Why Study Personality in SLA?
3.2.2 Problems with Studying Personality in SLA
3.3 Personality Traits in SLA
3.3.1 Neuroticism in SLA
3.3.2 Extraversion in SLA
3.3.3 Openness to Experience in SLA
3.3.4 Agreeableness in SLA
3.3.5 Conscientiousness in SLA
3.3.6 Empirical Research on Personality in SLA with No Effects
4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions and Pedagogical Implications
4.1 Personality Research
4.1.1 Personality Traits and SLA: Now and Next
4.1.2 Dealing with Inconsistencies
4.1.3 Looking for Trait Clusters
4.2 Pedagogical Interventions
4.3 Final Comments
References
Author Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

Second Language Learning and Teaching

Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel

The Big Five in SLA

Second Language Learning and Teaching Series Editor Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland

The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas, they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists, curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt and taught.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129

Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel

The Big Five in SLA

123

Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel Institute of Linguistics Opole University Opole, Opolskie, Poland

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic) Second Language Learning and Teaching ISBN 978-3-030-59323-0 ISBN 978-3-030-59324-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my reviewers, Prof. Hanna Komorowska and Prof. Katarzyna Ożańska-Ponikwia, for their insightful criticism and valuable suggestions.

v

Introduction

The study of personality is a fascinating field, though very hard to grasp by someone without a psychological background. Nevertheless, personality pertains to every human being, as well as every walk of life; for this reason, there is a pressing need for specialists from other fields to come into grips with this specific area. Hence, the basic intention of the present study is to shed some light on the relevance of personality research in the second language acquisition (SLA) field. It gradually unfolds subsequent aspects of the research on personality, starting from establishing a general background, which is situated in psychology. It captures the basic terminology, an outline of historical advances devoted to the study of the concept, together with a focused analysis of the undertaken empirical research devoted to personality traits. From this foundation, the focus moves to second language acquisition—its basic terminology, role and its approach to personality. Specifically, the book consists of four chapters, the first two of which are situated within the discipline of psychology, while the two consecutive ones—within SLA. The aim of Chap. 1, entitled “Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories”, is to establish a foundation for further considerations of a psychological and linguistic nature. Consequently, it contains a description of the field of personality psychology together with the key term of “personality”. Then, a summary of the main approaches to the study of personality follows, including psychoanalytic, learning and humanistic perspectives. The objective of the second part is to present another perspective in personality studies, which are divided into two basic trends: type and trait approaches, outlined together with a scrutiny of respective measuring instruments. The first one, represented by ancient taxonomies, Jung’s and Myers-Briggs typologies, focuses on qualitative differences and discrete categories, while the other, represented by Allport’s, Cattell’s and Eysenck’s taxonomies, on the latent structure of personality, based on statistical procedures. The latter has led to the development of the trait model adopted as the groundwork of this volume— the Big Five. The last section of this chapter presents a general description of the most important theories exploring the development of personality across a lifespan (psychosexual by Freud, psychosocial by Erikson, cognitive by Piaget and social cognitive by Selman). vii

viii

Introduction

The next chapter, “The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications”, focuses on the analysis of the traits and their consequences, presented from various viewpoints. It starts from a general description of the Big Five model and its theoretical justification. First, its categories are depicted, then its theoretical foundations are explained on the basis of the Five-Factor Theory. The recent hierarchical organization of traits is presented in the following section, allowing for establishing a coherent personality structure. The chapter also includes a description of the most popular instruments used in assessing personality traits. The remaining part of the chapter is devoted to a detailed research review of each trait, in reference to its respective higher-order meta-trait of Stability or Plasticity, as well as lower-order phenotypic aspects. Thanks to such an organization, the trait can be comprehended as a unity. Then the six facets of each dimension are discussed, prompted by the observation that only a deep understanding of the trait at the facet level enables one to truly envision its specific ramifications. To bring this analysis to the fullest, the discussion of the traits’ meaning is broadened by outlining their most common socioaffective, cognitive and academic, as well as behavioural consequences. The chapter finishes with a description of gender and age differences in the context of each dimension, followed by an outline of the development of the Big Five traits across the lifespan, due to their relevance for the personality profile of the foreign language learner. Chapter 3, called “Big Five from the SLA Perspective”, aims to assess the role of personality traits in SLA. It starts with an overview of the discipline, that commences with an introduction of the basic terminology related to the field, which is relevant to the discussion of the studied issues. This is followed by a short presentation of the uniqueness of SLA when compared to other, apparently similar, research fields or subjects. Then an outline of the typologies of individual learner differences, among which personality can sometimes be found, is presented in order to demonstrate the standing of the analyzed concept in the field. In turn, this leads to a discussion of the merit of personality research in SLA that is not free from significant inconsistencies and limitations. The greatest part of the chapter is devoted to theoretical propositions pertaining to the prospective research on each Big Five trait, resulting from the socioaffective, cognitive and academic, as well as behavioural ramifications of each respective trait, outlined in the previous chapter. They are followed by a review of the existing, recent empirical research focusing on the specific personality dimensions in the SLA literature. The basic principles guiding the selection of the studies described herein are their relevance to the purpose of this synopsis, as well as their relatively recent publication date. The last chapter, “Personality Study in SLA: Future Directions and Pedagogical Implications”, is an attempt to integrate the existing theoretical and empirical studies on personality traits in SLA in order to consider possible future research directions related to the scrutiny of the Big Five traits. In the next step, possible solutions to problems of a theoretical and empirical nature, connected with conflicting research results generated by personality studies in SLA, outlined in the previous chapter, are offered. So far, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, the personality traits have been analyzed as independent entities; hence, the next

Introduction

ix

subsection is devoted to some considerations of trait clusters that might be useful to describe the ideal L2 achiever. The penultimate section contains an outline of pedagogical interventions the aim of which is to enhance specific strengths of given traits and to suppress their weaknesses, in order to gain better FL learning effects. The final comments included in this chapter address the importance of studying personality, both for the purpose of improving the teaching expertise, and common well-being. Aside from including a general outline on personality research, the main focus of this book is the Big Five conceptualization of personality traits in the area of SLA studies. Even with this narrowed focus, it was not possible to include all significant aspects of the impact of personality on the process of foreign language learning. Among them, biological approaches to personality or the role of culture and genetics or the links between personality and identity should be mentioned. Unfortunately, the scope of this book prevented the inclusion of these and many other broad topics. This monograph has been written for those who might be interested in learning more about human nature in the context of second language acquisition. Specifically, this study is directed to non-psychologists, applied linguists and language teaching specialists. It may also be of interest to advanced MA students, novice and seasoned researchers, as well as teacher trainees wishing to explore the intricacies of personality in reference to themselves, their students or their personal study focus. Finally, this book may be of use to anyone who wants to know and understand more about the role of personality in learning a foreign language.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories 1.1 Personality: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Definitions of Personality . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 An Outline of Personality Approaches . 1.2 Type and Trait Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Type Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Trait Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Personality Across the Life Span . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 1 1 4 11 11 15 23

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Big Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The Big Five Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Five-Factor Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 The Trait Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 The Measuring Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Neuroticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Neuroticism 2.2.2 Consequences of Neuroticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Extraversion . . . 2.3.2 Consequences of Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Consequences of Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Consequences of Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 28 28 31 33 36 37 37 41 47 47 51 57

... ... ...

57 62 68

... ...

68 72

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

xi

xii

Contents

2.6 Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Consequences of Conscientiousness . . . 2.7 Gender and Age Differences in the Big Five . . 2.8 The Big Five Across a Lifespan . . . . . . . . . . .

..............

78

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

78 82 88 91

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview . . . . . 3.1.1 Basic Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Uniqueness of SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Individual Learner Differences . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Studying Personality in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Why Study Personality in SLA? . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Problems with Studying Personality in SLA 3.3 Personality Traits in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Neuroticism in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Extraversion in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Openness to Experience in SLA . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Agreeableness in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Conscientiousness in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6 Empirical Research on Personality in SLA with No Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 95 96 98 100 103 104 105 107 108 118 129 138 143

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . 147

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions and Pedagogical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Personality Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Personality Traits and SLA: Now and Next . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Dealing with Inconsistencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Looking for Trait Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Pedagogical Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Final Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

151 151 152 164 167 169 175

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

About the Author

Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel, Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Institute of Linguistics, University of Opole (Poland). She specializes in the role of individual differences in the foreign language learning process (anxiety, motivation, willingness to communicate in L2, personality). Her interests also include special educational needs (developmental dyslexia, autism and AD/HD).

xiii

Abbreviations

16PF BFI CANOE CAPS CLIL E EFL EPQ EPQR ESTJ FFM FFT FL FLE GF HEXACO

ICC ID INFP IPIP IPIP B5 L1 L2 L3 L4 LA LX MBTI

16 Personality Factors Questionnaire Big Five Inventory Conscientiousness-Agreeableness-Neuroticism-Openness-Extraversion Cognitive-Affective Processing System Content and Language Integrated Learning Extraversion English as a foreign language Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Eysenck Personality-Revised Questionnaire Extravert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging Five-Factor Model Five-Factor Theory Foreign language Foreign language enjoyment General factor of personality Model of personality based on six dimensions (Honesty/HumilityEmotionality-Extraversion-Agreeableness-ConscientiousnessOpenness Intercultural communicative competence Individual differences Introverted/Intuitive/Feeling/Perceiving International Personality Item Pool International Personality Item Pool, measuring the Big Five traits Mother tongue, first language, native language Second language, foreign language Third language Fourth language Language anxiety Any foreign language acquired to any level of proficiency Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

xv

xvi

MPQ N NEO-AC NEO-FFI NEO PI-R OCEAN P PEN SLA TL TOEIC WTC

Abbreviations

Multicultural Personality Questionnaire Neuroticism Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness-Agreeableness-Conscientiousness Five-Factor Inventory Revised Five-Factor Inventory Openness-Conscientiousness-Extraversion-Agreeableness-Neuroticism Psychoticism Psychoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticism model Second language acquisition Target language, foreign language Test of English for International Communication Willingness to communicate

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3 Fig. 1.4 Fig. 1.5 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of Thinking as the dominant function in Jung’s personality model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of a personality type: INFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organisational structure of personality (adapted from Eysenck, 1950, p. 29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eysenck’s PEN model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Big Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of personality (adapted from DeYoung, 2015, p. 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facets of Neuroticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facets of Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facets of Openness to experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facets of Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facets of Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

9

.. ..

13 15

.. .. ..

20 21 29

. . . . . .

35 39 49 59 70 80

. . . . . .

xvii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1

Hippocrates’ and Galen’s classification of personality types . . . Low and high scores of the 16 PF characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions and facets of the Big Five with their extreme poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 18 30

xix

Chapter 1

Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

The main objective of this chapter is to describe the concept of personality and approaches to researching it. For this reason, first a view on outlining the field of personality psychology in its present form, then the key term—personality—is discussed. The next section contains a synopsis of the main approaches to the study of personality, including psychoanalytic, learning and humanistic perspectives. The objective of the second part is to present the main theoretical directions in personality studies, which are divided into two basic trends. The first one is represented by type theories that focus on qualitative differences and discrete categories. The other direction is composed of trait theories that aim to formulate the latent structure of personality on the basis of statistical procedures, this has led to the development of the trait model adopted as the groundwork of this volume—the Big Five. The last section of this chapter is devoted to a general description of the most important theories exploring the development of personality across a lifespan.

1.1 Personality: An Overview This section aims at presenting the domain of personality psychology, starting from outlining its key term—personality. Then, it focuses on presenting the chief approaches to the study of personality: psychoanalytic, behavioural and humanistic.

1.1.1 Definitions of Personality People differ from each other in their behaviour, cognition and emotions, which makes them unique and very special. Their individual differences lay the foundation for an understanding of personality as the popular conception of a person as a © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7_1

1

2

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

whole entity (Brunas-Wagstaff, 1998). It should not be surprisingly then, that human nature and individual differences constitute two key themes around which efforts at “grand personality theorizing” have been evolving (Buss, 2010, p. 27). Indeed, various approaches aiming at grasping this approximate shared concept so easily referred to by laymen have led to a massive amount of definitions produced by specialists in the field. This diversity has produced a myriad of definitions of the key term, most of them attempting to capture a number of issues that appear to be critical to its understanding. First of all, it is posited that there is a within-person organization of dynamically interrelated elements that constitute personality. Apart from that, their development over time must be taken into consideration, as well as the origin (internal or external) of their development, together with the role of motivational dynamics (Caprara & Cervone, 2000). In spite of the continuing debate pertaining to definitions, methods or theories of personality, specialists seem to concur about the contents of the domain of personality psychology. Most of all, it has been agreed that the basic subject matter is devoted to individual differences, understood as variations in how people feel, act, think, and their wants (Revelle et al., 2011) or, in simple words, “the nature of human nature” (Hogan, 2006, p. 119). For this reason, it can be conceived of as “the scientific study of the whole person” (McAdams, 2006, p. 12). Among the most frequently researched concepts are motivation, self-efficacy, intelligence, interests, self-esteem, aptitude and values. Aside from that, another focus of personality psychology is also placed on intraindividual coherence, i.e., stable patterns of individual behaviour variability, alongside with the interaction of biological and cultural processes that drive personality development. These processes affect one’s psychological growth, shaping their sense of personal identity and uniqueness. Last but not least, of interest are interpersonal relationships mediating the influence of the above processes on the individual, and creating a critical context for the development of personality (Caprara & Cervone, 2000). This multidimensional conceptualization of the scope of personality psychology demonstrates the vastness and complexity of the area. The diversity of personality theories can be attributed to a variety of factors: the personal backgrounds of their authors, childhood experiences, their unique philosophy of life or interpersonal relationships, and exceptional perceptions of the outside world (Feist & Feist, 2008). In spite of that, even different theories can be valuable due to their ability to inspire research and to explain data. Generally speaking, psychologists have different approaches to the understanding of the word personality. Yet, most of them acquiesce that it comes from the Latin persona, which described a theatrical mask worn by ancient Roman actors. Masks with strongly over-exaggerated facial features and expressions enabled them to accentuate their role (Kuritz, 1988). However, the contemporary meaning of the term denotes much more than a role. The contemporary definitions can be roughly divided into two groups: those focusing on uniqueness and universality of personality characteristics, considering people in their completeness as individuals and as complex beings (Pervin & John, 2001). The other group of definitions focus on the structure of personality that can be regarded as a collection of one’s qualities and dispositions distinguishing one person from another.

1.1 Personality: An Overview

3

From the first perspective, personality denotes the specific way in which a human being thinks, feels, behaves, and connects to others (Widiger et al., 1999). Similarly, it is conceived of as “the psychological forces that make people uniquely themselves” (Friedman & Schustack, 2006, p. 1) or “characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms – hidden or not – behind those patterns” (Funder, 2012, p. 5). In a similar vein, a general view proposes that personality principally regards individual differences in the ability to thrive (Hogan & Foster, 2016). The other group of definitions demonstrate that personality is a psychological system which is composed of interacting and developing parts or subsystems that influence an individual’s behaviour (Mayer, 2007). This organization may consist of the shared perceptions, emotions, cognitions, motivations, and actions of the individual that interact with numerous environmental situations (Patrick & Léon-Carrión, 2001). Other definitions specifically stress the organizational structure of the concept, viewing personality as an ordered, developing system within the human being, representing the composite action of their key psychological subsystems (Mayer, 2006). Similarly, it can be regarded as “the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interactions with, and adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environments” (Larsen & Buss, 2009, p. 4). However, one of the most often quoted definition proposes that “personality is a dynamic organisation, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create the person’s characteristic patterns of behaviour, thoughts and feelings” (Allport, 1961, p. 11). It is assumed that a dynamic organisation, inside the person signifies a continuous process of adapting to constant changes. Nevertheless, these changes cannot always be treated as profound or enduring. Organisation points to the modelling of the independent parts or structures of personality that are interrelated. From this point of view, personality is an active, responsive system that is internal and structural (Maltby et al., 2009). It can be inferred that a well-adjusted normal personality denotes “a highly correlated, structured person” (Shergill, 2010, p. 402). On the other hand, in an abnormal personality, disorganization can be observed. Psychophysical systems are connected with the interaction of the mind and body, producing behaviour. Hence, the term of personality covers a sense of consistency, internal causality and personal distinctiveness revealed in the person’s characteristic patterns. These imply the individual’s uniqueness that is relatively stable, so, as such, it can be measured. Behaviour, thoughts and feelings describe a broad assortment of human behaviours and experiences influenced by personality. The above definitions share three common assumptions (Caprara & Cervone, 2000). First of all, the complexity of psychological structures and processes is stressed. It is attributed to the interdependence and independence of multiple subsystems involved in the development of personality. Second, this development is a function of the mutual interaction of personality with the environment. Last, but not least, personality is characterized by persistence and coherence. It follows that a person, incessantly adapting to continuous changes, should be considered as a whole.

4

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

According to the latest advances in personality psychology aiming at consolidating various intellectual traditions, personality is conceived of as “an individual’s unique variation on the general evolutionary design for human nature, expressed as a developing pattern of dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life stories complexly and differentially situated in culture” (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 212). This conceptualization of the term stresses the importance of five principles. First, psychological individuality is provided by evolution. Second, individual differences form dispositional traits (broad trends). Third, traits become characteristic adaptations (specific responses to daily life demands) under the influence of time, situations, and social roles. Fourth, the transition from dispositional traits to characteristic adaptations takes place through integrative life narratives that explain how an individual creates meaning in their life. Fifth, culture modifies the progress of traits, adaptations, and life narratives in different ways. Altogether, this approach to personality allows for the understanding of how human nature has been shaped by evolution, and then to follow the sequence of individual differences that morph into traits, then adaptations, and how individual life narratives take their course in culture. This perspective allows for the reconciliation of two different approaches to personality research. The first one, nomothetic, is connected with quantitative inquiry into single dimensions of human variation within a large sample of informants (McAdams, 2006). This analytic approach allows for revealing and explaining larger patterns (the macro level) that apply to many individuals. The other one, idiographic, consists in providing accounts of individual cases by collecting qualitative findings pertaining to many different dimensions of the individual, who is perceived as a unique agent (the micro level). In this way, knowledge about the current psychological existence of an individual is gathered (Fleeson et al., 2002). Through the in-depth study of particular cases this synthetic approach aims at providing a contextualized interpretation of human experience. Consequently, combining the two approaches allows for conceptualizing personality as “a pattering of dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life stories set in culture and shaped by human nature” (McAdams, 2018, p. 18).

1.1.2 An Outline of Personality Approaches The majority of contemporary textbooks devoted to personality psychology categorize personality theories into three distinctive sets: psychoanalytic, learning and humanistic (Ellis, Abrams, & Abrams, 2009; McCrae & Costa, 2003). Each of these schools, in spite of their possible flaws, has strongly impacted the development of theories regarding personality psychology, allowing for a fuller understanding of this key concept. The type v. trait perspective will be discussed in an independent Sect. 1.2 due to its relevance for the topic of this book.

1.1 Personality: An Overview

1.1.2.1

5

The Psychoanalytic Perspective

This personality perspective, sometimes described as you are what you were (Wade & Tavris, 1993, p. 387), focuses on the significance of early childhood experiences and unconscious mental processes. The founder of this approach was psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, who developed hypothetical models of the functioning of the mind (psyche). According to the dynamic model, the human being is stimulated by two opposing forces: primitive instincts (drives) that urge them to release psychosexual energy, and conflicting societal expectations that demand its inhibition. This constant need to reduce tension in order to restore psychological balance determines psychological activity (Mitchell & Black, 1996). The topographic model of the psyche focuses on the organization of the mind. It is composed of three parts: the conscious, the preconscious, and the unconscious. The first one holds what an individual is aware of, the preconscious stores what one could be aware of but is not thinking about at the moment. The unconscious is the part of the mind that one is not usually aware of. It stores conflicting and painful thoughts, feelings and urges that affect the individual’s actions (Hewstone et al., 2005). Hidden in the unconscious, thoughts could reveal themselves through dreams, free associations, and slips of the tongue. The structural model of the psyche is an alternative to the topographic schema. The model posits that the psyche is composed of three major systems whose interaction results in human behaviour. • Id This is the primitive core, and the disorganized element of the personality structure, functioning in the unconscious. Unaffected by the environment and unconcerned with objective reality, it represents the intimate world of subjective experience. It contains two competing groups of instincts functioning as wishes that must be fulfilled: a drive for life, love, growth and self-preservation, together with a drive for aggression and death. When, due to stimulation, uncomfortable tension is created, it must be discharged, seeking instant pleasure and fulfilment, which can take the forms of reflex responses, physical symptoms or uncensored images or thoughts. • Ego This system functions as a mediator between the id and superego. It is a source of rationality, responsible for effective expressions of the id’s impulses in the context of the real world. Although the id is more poorly organized, it is much stronger than the ego, so the latter must use its energy to act. To release tension, the ego applies defence mechanisms that deny or distort reality, while operating unconsciously. Their aim is to prevent unconscious anxiety from reaching consciousness, as in the case of repressing memories or relying excessively on ‘rational’ interpretations of situations. Yet, sometimes the ego may achieve complete control (e.g., in the case of a psychologically mature person) (Feist & Feist, 2008). • Superego This last developed system of personality signifies moral guidance, the rules of the society, and the power of authority. It comprises two subsystems: the ego ideal

6

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

and the conscience. The first one pertains to moral and social standards that are believed to be rewarded (the basis for pride or satisfaction), while the other—to those that are wrong (the basis for guilt or shame). The role of the superego is to help the individual to be a fully functioning person in the society by acting in a way that is socially acceptable. Nevertheless, the superego’s strives toward perfection are impractical and unrealistic, while the id’s hedonism conflicts with social reality. Then, the role of the rational ego is to exact a balance between them, demonstrating that a healthy individual is in control of impulses and social duties (Snowden, 2006). The psychogenetic model of development proposes that personality develops in a fixed order of five stages of ‘psychosexual’ character, revealed in the dominance of an erogenous zone which derives pleasure from the environment. The stages follow the changing expression of sexual energy in different parts of the body as the child matures. Exaggerated fulfilment or frustration at any stage can lead to interference with normal personality development. Although Freud’s theories were considered valuable in explaining behaviour, they were also criticized because they were unable to predict behaviour, and have often been viewed as unscientific (Diesing, 1985). However, Freud attracted many followers who worked on their own adaptations of psychoanalytic theory, either modifying his theories or establishing schools of their own. They all are called neo-analytic (or neo-Freudian), post-Freudian or psychodynamic. One of the most outstanding followers of Freud was Henry Murray with his theory of personology that proposes that personality is a reflection of behaviours controlled by needs (Murray, 1938/2008). Although they are mostly unconscious, they play a crucial role in personality formation, in strong interrelation with perceived environmental factors. Other neo-Freudians, like Erik Erikson, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler and Karen Horney also believed in the importance of the unconscious, but mainly disagreed with the sexual character of psychic energy (starting a tendency which later resulted in the birth of the psychodynamic approach). They introduced other aspects, e.g. the sociocultural (Erich Fromm), interpersonal (Karen Horney) and more nuanced intrapersonal ones (Carl Jung, Alfred Adler), thus paving the way for the new concept of the Self.

1.1.2.2

The Learning Perspective

From this perspective personality can be regarded as the observable result of reinforcement, summarized as you are what you do (Wade & Tavris, 1993, p. 398), though it seems that the description you are what you learn would be more appropriate. Skinner (1950), like Freud, believed that behaviour is regulated by predictable causes. On the other hand, he did not accept the reliance upon hypothetical forces, like ‘the unconscious’ or ‘instincts’. He proposed that personality is merely an accumulation of behavioural patterns. These are learnt directly through rewards that play a role of positive reinforcement of good behaviour or punishment as a negative reinforcement of bad behaviour. Indirect learning takes place through observational

1.1 Personality: An Overview

7

learning or modelling. When thinking about the future, people behave covertly (their thought processes are not overtly observable), and all those thoughts are determined by past experiences, essentially formed by the environment (Skinner, 1990). Traditional behavioural approaches disregard the cognitive processes due to their being unobservable because they are not measurable, and cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry. To conclude, a person’s reinforcement history determines their behavioural tendencies because, although a unique individuality exists, a human being does not decide to act a certain way. Instead, they are a locus, a point of convergence for genetic and environmental conditions which determine behaviour. On these grounds, Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed their reinforcement theory. According to this theory, the structure of personality is shaped by habits. They are governed by drives (any stimuli), cues (external stimuli), responses (any behaviour, observable or internal) and rewards (reinforcement). Consequently, catering for the nature of drives, not only external but also be internal (such as hunger or loneliness) allowed for the inclusion of the idea of non-observable elements in a behavioural theory. In this view, the core of personality is shaped in childhood. This is the time of urgent drives, strong punishments and rewards, combined with social reinforcement resulting from care and appreciation from others. Hence, another important merit of the theory is the focus on cultural effects which impact personality development. This, in effect, led to the growth of social learning theories (Miller, 1993). Social cognitive and social learning approaches are based on many similar principles as behavioural theories, but include the cognitive element (i.e., perception, thinking, and other mental activities), omitted by behaviourists. According to George Kelly, who originated the constructivist perspective, people try to predict their worlds by applying unique, hierarchically organised systems of bipolar personal constructs (1955). These are specific ways in which every individual collects and evaluates information in order to interpret it. The primary representatives of this approach are Julian Rotter, Walter Mischel, and Albert Bandura. Rotter postulated that human behaviour depends on the interaction of people with their significant environments (the interactionist position). Hence, in order to understand one’s behaviour, both the individual (their life history of learning and experiences) and the environment (i.e., the stimuli that one is aware of and responding to) must be considered (Rotter, 1954). Personality and behaviour are thus connected because personality, revealed through behaviour, is a relatively stable array of potentials for reacting to situations in a specific way. Although it can change at any time, personality cannot be influenced by minor experiences due to its unity. Mischel also stressed that an individual’s behaviour depends on situational cues, instead of being consistent across situations that differed in meaning. In this way, both the stability and variability of behaviour that is produced by the underlying personality system allow it to capture the dynamic processes within the system itself (1968). Later, Mischel and Shoda (1995) proposed a theory of personality: the Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS) to reconcile paradoxical findings on the stability of personality and the variability of behaviour across situations (the so-called ‘personality paradox’). According to it, individuals differ in the availability of cognitive-affective mediating units: encoding (processing, storing and

8

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

applying information), beliefs/expectations (expected outcomes), goals/values (life goals and rewards), affect (emotional reactions), and competencies/self-regulation (intelligence, knowledge, and abilities). They also differ in the organization of relationships through which these units interact with one another and with the psychological characteristics of situations. By developing situation-behaviour profiles, it is possible to identify patterns in the apparent inconsistency of individual behaviour, viewed as essential expressions of the same underlying personality system. Similarly, Bandura (2001) agrees that personality is revealed in the interdependence of behaviour and environment. His theory of human agency is based on four essential properties of human agency (intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and selfreflectiveness). Humans learn through observing others’ actions, behaviours, and the outcome of these behaviours. Nevertheless, he later proposed that yet another factor must be considered to fully understand this mechanism: the individual’s psychological processes. Any mental processing affects behaviour and personality, and, at the same time is affected by them. The main concept of his theory is ‘reciprocal determinism’, understood as a complex reciprocal interaction among the individual, their behaviour, and environmental stimuli. It follows that the individual’s behaviour and personality is developed over time by their experiences. This is why he renamed his Social Learning Theory into Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986).

1.1.2.3

The Humanistic Perspective

This perspective proposes that in order to understand personality, it is not enough to observe individuals (you are what you become, Wade & Tavris, 1993, p. 403). Contrary to the unreasonable and involuntary tendencies of psychoanalytical (a ‘first force’ in psychology) and behavioural theories (a ‘second force’), the humanistic approach (a ‘third force’) considers human capabilities to love, think and grow (McCrae & Costa, 2003). A human’s own sense of self and experience should be taken into consideration, exposing the role of consciousness and experience. Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, and Carl Rogers are the main representatives of this perspective. Maslow’s (1943) holistic-dynamic theory posits that every part (not limited to a capacity or fragment) of the human being is motivated for various reasons, consciously or unconsciously. Motivation usually springs from a need that is replaced by another one after it has been satisfied. The same fundamental needs motivate all human beings, regardless or culture. These universal (also called ‘conative’—responsible for wishes, endeavours and free will) needs can be organized in the form of a pyramid, ranked according to their importance. The final, revised model (Maslow, 1970) is presented in Fig. 1.1. The needs included in the three lowest layers (lower order or deprivation needs) are evoked by a lack of satisfaction to meet them. At the bottom of the pyramid physiological needs including most fundamental requirements, like oxygen, hunger, thirst, and bodily comforts, are placed. Satisfying them is of crucial importance for a human being, downgrading all the other necessities. As soon as they are met, safety and stability needs begin to play a role, especially in case of emergencies. They

1.1 Personality: An Overview Fig. 1.1 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

9

TRANSCENDENCE SELF-ACTUALIZATION AESTHETIC COGNITIVE ESTEEM LOVE / BELONGING SAFETY PHYSIOLOGICAL

comprise health, freedom, and security, as well as needs for law and order (Maslow, 1943). When the needs placed at the two lowest levels are met, the love, affection and belongingness needs move to the foreground. They include the desire for gaining love, intimate relations or warm attachments. Esteem needs are next to be satisfied. They involve one’s requirements for strength and achievement, as well as the desire for status or respect, based on real competence. Their gratification produces feelings of self-confidence and worth. The needs for knowledge and meaning represent the cognitive desires, and the first one of the growth needs, allowing the individual to become everything they are capable of. An intelligent human being strives to systematize the universe, and to be conscious of reality, which in effect may point to the fact that also cognitive needs are of a conative character. In order to be fully developed individuals, people also strive for aesthetic needs. Satisfying these ‘higher-level’ desires allows human beings to relate to beauty and aesthetically agreeable encounters. Self-actualization is considered to be the instinctual need of the individual, striving to reach their full potential, and making most of their abilities, which causes feelings of productivity. Their behaviour is motivated by their desire for personal growth, instead of deficiencies, driving the human being to genuine advancement and fulfilment. As Maslow put it: “what a man can be, he must be!” (1943, p. 382). Finally, at the top of the pyramid self-transcendence (superior excellence), also called spiritual needs, is located. They are the ultimate desires the individual can strive for by altruistically and spiritually giving themselves to a higher goal. Satisfying such needs generates feelings of integrity and psychological health. All in all, in self-actualizing people coherence and a healthy personality can be detected. They are able to enjoy peak experiences, euphoric and blissful feelings of harmony with themselves and their surroundings. They manifest the realization of human potential and the pinnacle of personality development. Maslow’s theory has met with some criticism due to unclear representations of a ‘deficiency’ understood in general terms, as well as the ranking of the motives or lack of empirical evidence (Feist & Feist, 2008). Rogers’s theory of personality focuses on the connection between the self and the organism (person-centred theory). It emphasizes free will and the human capacity for

10

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

goodness (Millon, 2003). According to it, a normal, healthy individual is an active, ingenious person, who sustains, realises, and improves their potential due to the socalled actualizing tendency, that is the rudimentary drive to thrive at one’s highest possible competence. The most important aspect of personality is the self-concept— a conglomerate of perceptions and values connected with the self. In order to be a fully functioning person, the conscious self and their unconscious feelings should exist in harmony (congruence), supported by unconditioned positive regard and empathy (Rogers, 1961). These conditions guarantee the development of the person of tomorrow, who is more adaptable, open to their experiences, living fully and harmoniously in the moment, and trusting their organismic self instead of relying on others’ opinions. Being able to integrate their conscious and unconscious processes, such a person has faith in human nature, and enjoys a great intensity of experiences. Roger’s theory has been criticized mainly on the grounds of the lack of terminological precision. However, it is generally viewed as a valuable person-centred theory, and a significant stimulus to promote creative thinking in the area of personality studies. Similarly to Maslow and Rogers, May (1950) proposed that a human being is unique, endowed with personal freedom. Nevertheless, as an existentialist, he maintained that this freedom comes with the price of anxiety, alienation or loneliness. While fulfilling one’s potential, the individual needs to confront a fundamental sense of dread or anxiety, which motivates human behaviour. As a result, two opposite behavioural mechanisms can be evoked: inactivity and decline in those who are incapable of confronting their fate or progress and adjustment in healthy people who have the courage to exist in the present (May, 1950). May’s existential theory evoked some criticism, mostly connected with the exclusion of significant topics in human personality, such as cognition, learning or motivation. Aside from that, imprecise terminology has also been identified (Feist & Feist, 2008). All things considered, each of the three perspectives on personality accentuate their unique approach, enabling a combined, multi-faceted view on human nature. The psychoanalytical school stresses the role of instincts and drives in the irrational human being, who is controlled by guilt and anxiety. Nevertheless, this approach does not allow for predicting future behaviours. From the behavioural perspective, the social environment is responsible for shaping and prizing behaviours demonstrated by reactive human beings. In spite of rigorous verifications of the school’s advancements and the input of social learning theory, the overall neglect of the role of emotion or subjective experience have highlighted its limitations. Then, the humanistic approaches focus on the positive aspects of human nature, identifying irrationality and rigidity with the destructive influence of the society (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Yet, its inaccurate language hinders objective measurement of the proposed concepts. The development of these seemingly varying lines of inquiry can be attributed to the equally varying nature of human beings who can be aggressive, open or trusting. This incongruity has led to the development of a parallel strand in personality psychology focusing on traits or individual differences. This will be explored in further detail in the next part due to the fact that this approach constitutes the basis for the further considerations presented in this volume.

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

11

1.2 Type and Trait Theories Different views on what personality is, its formation and characterization have led to the development of two basic trends in personality: type theories and trait theories.

1.2.1 Type Theories Types are “a term used by early personality theorists, who divided people into different categories, or types” (Hewstone et al., 2005, p. 299). Type theories are connected with classifying individuals into a certain number of clear and non-overlapping types (Gerrig et al., 2015). Hence, being assigned to one type disqualifies the person from belonging to any other type of that system. In this approach, qualitative differences are the basis of discrimination among people, whose behaviour is an expression of a distinct type. On the other hand, trait theories that currently dominate the personality literature (Bayne, 2004) are open to a diversity of characteristics. They focus on individual personality as created with a combination of traits causing behaviour, measuring the relative strength of various personality characteristics (Cohen et al., 2013). The next part of the chapter opens with an outline of ancient perspectives on personality (Hippocrates and Galton), moving then to the type theories as postulated by Jung, and Myers Briggs.

1.2.1.1

Ancient Taxonomies

The present understanding of human behaviour is deeply rooted in ancient intellectual systems (Dumont, 2010). The pre-Socratics constructed a proto-psychological theory of personality based on the belief that there were four basic personality types affected by bodily fluids, also called humours (Hippocrates). Galen related them to the two pillars of temperament or, in other words, dispositional characteristics influencing the expression of a person’s actions (Stelmack & Stalikas, 1991). These pillars were conceptualized as: hot vs. cold, and moist vs. dry. Hence, the four basic humours were: yellow bile (hot and dry), black bile (cold and dry), blood (hot and wet), and phlegm (cold and wet). In the ideal personality, the four qualities were balanced. However, the excess or lack of any of them allowed the ancient theoreticians to propose a general typology of the four main temperamental categories (the dominant fluid type indicated an independent category). They are outlined in a greater detail in Table 1.1. Although abandoned in the VIII century, this conceptualization of personality is now said to have anticipated modern temperamental theories of personality (Green, 1997).

12

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

Table 1.1 Hippocrates’ and Galen’s classification of personality types Dominant fluid type Personality

Temperamental characteristics

Blood

Sanguine

Light-hearted, optimistic, happy, hopeful, active and social, talkative, outgoing, sociable, responsive, carefree

Yellow bile

Choleric

Irritable, angry, passionate, strong with an active imagination, short-tempered, fast or hostile, touchy, restless

Phlegm

Phlegmatic

Cold, sluggish, slow, indifferent, peaceful and relaxed or lacking energy, reliable, calm, passive, careful

Black bile

Melancholic Bad-tempered, dejected, sad, depressed, pessimistic, deplorable, self-involved, quiet, wise and analytical

Adapted from Mangal (2007, p. 403), and Hogan, Harkness, and Lubinski (2000)

1.2.1.2

Jung’s Typology

Another type approach to personality can be attributed to Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist. In his seminal work, Psychological types (1923), he presented his unique view on personality, basing it on the movement of psychic energy and the individual’s orientation in the world. He realized that the work of his predecessors (Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler) focused on opposite worlds (external and internal, respectively) when determining their patients’ behaviour. For this reason, he attempted to find a compromise between their theories in his own, independent conceptualization of personality. Accordingly, a normal personality is composed of three aspects: • integration of the conscious and the unconscious mind. This phenomenon is called the Self that expresses the unity of the personality as a whole; • orientation of conscious attitudes toward interaction with the unconscious because the nature of human life is a unity of opposites; • individuation designating the process of self-realization, whereby the individual takes responsibility for their life, living freely and independently (ibid.). Aside from that, Jung proposed two general psychological types (personality attitudes), called introverted and extraverted. They reflect the sources and direction of the flow of energy passing between the two worlds. Extraverted people are energized by interacting with their external surroundings, thereby orienting themselves to the world outside (Berens, 1999). On the other hand, introverts with their inward orientation get more energized by private, reflective activities. Additionally, aside from general orientation, he took into consideration the mental activities (also called functions, modes of orientation or cognitive processes) performed in these worlds. The functions were then split into dichotomous opposites. One of the modes was perception or “the process by which the brain organizes and interprets sensory information” (Wade & Tavris, 1993, p. 156). For Jung, it was an irrational process beyond reason, divided into two opposites: Sensing and Intuition. The first one designated the process of becoming aware of tangible and concrete information by means of the physical sense organs (Sharp, 1987), while Intuition involved gathering conceptual, abstract and theoretical information. The other type of mental activity is judging, a

1.2 Type and Trait Theories Fig. 1.2 An example of Thinking as the dominant function in Jung’s personality model

13 Thinking (primary) Intuition (auxiliary)

Sensation (auxiliary) Feeling (secondary)

rational process, a decision-making function involving the organization, evaluation and concluding of information (Berens, 1999). Again, it is divided into two opposing types applied in the two worlds: Thinking and Feeling. Thinking judgments involve objective criteria, while Feeling judgments (evaluations) are formed with values that are personal, interpersonal and universal. Jung speculated that the functions were not used equally, but one mode (judging or perceiving) dominated in an individual, while the other mode served an auxiliary function. In this way, he established the hierarchy of functions with auxiliary processes providing “balance to the dominant processes” (Berens, 1999, p. 4). On these grounds, to illustrate a personality type, Jung described four basic ones, based on the predominance of one of the four functions (dichotomies), in reference to both worlds, which led to the establishment of eight types: four introverted types, and four extraverted ones with one function dominant. These would be: extraverted or introverted sensation, extraverted or introverted intuition, extraverted or introverted thinking, extraverted or introverted feeling. For example (see Fig. 1.2), an extravert with the dominance of the function of Thinking judgements (extraverted thinker) is primarily governed by reason and “objectively oriented intellectual formulae” (Jung, 1923/1949, p. 611), showing stable emotions and intelligence. Their Intuition (e.g., focus on objects) supports their rational decisions by allowing them to envision a wide spectrum of possibilities in a situation, with the assistance of Sensation (e.g., pleasures) aiding their outwardly determined reason, with its concern with practicalities, and attention paid to details. Their Feeling mode (likes, dislikes, moods, etc.) remains suppressed, with virtually no interest in subjective and personal values. Similarly, an introverted thinker makes rational decisions relying on their Intuition and Sensation to support them, energized by solitary, reflective activities. This conceptual theory constitutes a basis for the development of the most popular psychometric instrument assessing personality characteristics proposed by Jung.

1.2.1.3

Myers–Briggs Character Types

Jung’s model was later modified by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, who attempted to develop a self-report questionnaire allowing individuals to assess their personality type. In order to uncover the dominant function based on cognitive processes, they complemented the model with the Judging-Perceiving

14

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

dichotomy. It enabled them to assess which of the modes prevailed in an individual, leading to the creation of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1980). From then on, Jung’s reshaped model and the corresponding assessment tool could be accessible to the general public (Berens, 1999). On this basis it was possible to introduce altogether 16 possible psychological types, uncovering the individual’s one preferred combination of type variations (eight extraverted and eight introverted types). Each of them is described by means of four letters, each of which stands for the preference type. Following Jung, Myers and Briggs affirmed that each of the 16 four-preference type demonstrated one function that is the most dominant, and evident earliest in life. In adolescence it becomes balanced by the auxiliary function, while in midlife the tertiary function develops. The last, inferior function that is least consciously developed appears in highly stressful situations. The first letter of each type delineates the direction of the preference; i.e., Extraversion/Introversion (E/I), demonstrating the focus on either of the two worlds (the preferred world gets the focus of attention). The next letter reveals the preferred perception process (how the information is taken in) with the sensing/intuition (S/N) dichotomy, differentiating between a sequential, step-bystep way of thinking (S), and the ability to take in and present information in a snapshot or big picture way (N). Next, the preferred judgment process (how decisions are made on the basis of the information) is uncovered, showing the preference for the thinking/feeling (T/F) function, whereby decisions are made either by distancing oneself from the problem and being objective (T) or by stepping ‘into somebody else’s shoes’ and being empathetic (F). Altogether, eight cognitive types are proposed: extraverted/introverted sensing, extraverted/introverted intuition, extraverted/introverted thinking, and extraverted/introverted feeling. Finally, the last letter denotes one’s predilection for judgement/perception (J/P), a function that describes one’s favourite ways of implementing information or overall style preference (how the outer world is dealt with), understood as either a planned approach to the world (J) or a spontaneous approach full of improvisations (P). In extraverts, the last letter demonstrates the dominant function of judging or perceiving, because this function refers to the outer world only. On the other hand, in the case of introverts this function becomes auxiliary due to their focus on the inner world. Their dominant functions are ingrained; hence their primary cognitive process is defined by the third letter. For example, the INFP type describes an individual naturally attracted towards the inner world with the dominant function of introverted feeling, and the perceiving function (auxiliary) rooted in extraverted intuition. The tertiary function is played by sensing, while extraverted thinking is inferior and underdeveloped (see the example in Fig. 1.3). The MBTI has become a very popular personality measure instrument used in various areas: education, psychotherapy, group behaviour or career development, to mention a few (Quenk, 2009). It consists of 93 questions that include word pairs and short statements. They are not polar opposites, so the tested subject takes the preferred answer. The example items are: “Change for me is: difficult/easy” or “I prefer to work: alone/in a team”. On the basis of the responses, one of 16 personality

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

15

Fig. 1.3 An example of a personality type: INFP

E/I S

N

T J

F P

J

T P

J

F P

J

P

types is indicated, together with its description, best career paths to follow, and basic recommendations to work with this type of person. In spite of the fact that it was developed within a strong theoretical structure allowing for specific predictions regarding the link between personality and behaviour, there is insufficient evidence supporting its principles, as well as claims about the utility of the test (Pittenger, 1993). So far, studies of its psychometric properties advocate caution in reference to making empirically verifiable predictions. Moreover, for most personality psychologists the MBTI appears unscientific (Hogan, 2007). Type theories in general are claimed to fail to uncover all the intricacies of one’s personality (Chitale et al., 2012) because it has become apparent that all people cannot be allocated to a small number of distinct categories. Aside from that, types cannot be separated in a precise manner. In effect, an individual may be classified across categories (Costa & McCrae, 2017). More importantly, the predictive value of such theories is seriously questioned because the move from individual personality structure to personality types reduces the knowledge about interindividual differences (Asendorpf, 2003). Nevertheless, in spite of this criticism, it needs to be admitted that type theories with their holistic approach to personality enable a broader understanding of an individual’s behaviour.

1.2.2 Trait Theories This section encompasses a display of studies on the structure of personality, rooted in trait theories, viewing personality as composed of wide-ranging dispositions (Hiriyappa, 2012). The outline of this section follows the historical development of trait theories, starting from Allport’s and Cattell’s typologies, moving to Eysenck’s super-traits, and finally, to the basic five factor model of personality or the Big Five. Traits are considered to be continuous rather than discrete entities. Understandably, instead of being segregated into categories, individuals are placed on a trait continuum signifying how high or low each individual is on any particular dimension. Thanks to the belief that all people possess each of these traits to a greater or lesser degree, comparisons can be made between them (Hewstone et al., 2005).

16

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

The crucial observations pertaining to the nature of traits can be summarized in the following points: • • • •

A trait is a relatively stable feature of an individual; It represents a relatively coherent pattern of behaviour, thinking or feeling; It is a characteristic distinguishing people from one another; It is a disposition, a probabilistic predisposition of an individual to behave in a certain way in a certain type of situation; • It varies from other traits in their universality (Haslam et al., 2017). Generally, there are two assumptions underlying the trait approach (Burger, 2014). The first one proposes that characteristics of personality are quite stable over time. Obviously, there are gradual changes evolving over a considerable period of time (e.g., moving into adulthood and old age); nevertheless, these changes are systematic, and occur due to maturational processes (Caspi et al., 2005). The other assumption is connected with the stability of personality characteristics across situations. It follows that an individual’s behaviour is determined by personality.

1.2.2.1

Allport’s Classification

The first comprehensive attempt to create a framework defining and expressing the uniqueness of the individual’s personality through traits (Carducci, 2009) was undertaken by Allport and Odler, who conducted a lexical study (1936). Guided by the lexical approach positing that significant personality characteristics have been encoded in the natural language, they analyzed the New International Dictionary(Webster et al., 1925). Their work led to extracting 17,953 mostly adjectives and participles that were later organized into four general categories facilitating classification. The first category encompassed personality traits defined as “generalized and personalized determining tendencies – consistent and stable modes of an individual’s adjustment to his environment” (Allport & Odbert, 1936, p. 26), for example ‘aggressive’ or ‘sociable’. The second category contained present activities, temporary states, and moods, like ‘rejoicing’ or ‘frantic’. The third one referred to characterological evaluations, such as’excellent’ or ‘irritating’. The last category included physical characteristics, talents and abilities, like ‘experienced’ or ‘infantile’. On these grounds, Allport (1961) proposed a typology of traits: • cardinal traits They are the most dominant, though rarest of human characteristics constituting a basis for one’s activities, and shaping the individual’s behaviour in a way that ‘honesty’ describes Abraham Lincoln’s personality (Coon & Mitterer, 2006), though only a few people can be described by these types of characteristics. Such descriptions mostly refer to historical figures; • central traits Although regarded as more common, yet more limited qualities, they are frequently referred to as the core constituents of personality. However, they are

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

17

less dominating than cardinal traits. They constitute about five to ten general characteristics shaping one’s behaviour that are frequently used to describe one’s personality; • secondary traits They are the superficial traits that refer to broad qualities connected with specific situations, such as food preferences, political views or musical tastes. Their role is to complete the description of the individual’s personality. This typology, however fuzzy and imprecise, offered some introductory organization for the personality lexicon (John & Srivastava, 1999). Allport was the first one to propose that traits are components of human personality; hence, he is now considered a founder of the field of personality psychology (Mischel & Shoda, 2008).

1.2.2.2

Cattell’s 16 Personality Types

Allport and Odler’s pool of personality descriptors constituted a starting point for designing a multidimensional model of personality structure, proposed by Cattell. Like Allport, Raymond Cattell believed that language could be a valuable source of information about personality traits, because they can be reflected in words expressing it. Building on his predecessor’s work, Cattell (1943) analyzed a subset of 4500 trait names, later reduced to 171 words. He noticed that some of these visible features of personality (surface traits) emerged concurrently in groups, seemingly representing one basic trait (source trait), representing a vital aspect of personality (Coon & Mitterer, 2006). A fierce opponent of ‘armchair speculation’, Cattell strongly favoured a data-based approach to delineating the character and operation of personality, predicted by one’s behaviour (Carducci, 2009). To determine it, he used a statistical procedure called ‘factor analysis’, a tool allowing for the summarization of relationships among groups of variables by distinguishing those that co-vary and are dissimilar from other sets of variables. In personality theory, “factor analysis can be used to identify which sets of variables most simply and accurately reflect the structure of human personality” (Hewstone et al., 2005, p. 299). The main source of empirical data he relied upon were records of life events and ratings made by others, also called life record data (L-data), self-ratings on questionnaires and personality tests (Q-data), and observations of a selected aspect of personality in a limited range of situations, i.e., objective psychometric test data (T-data). Over the course of his work, he managed to identify 12 personality factors, then four covert factors that could be revealed only when self-ratings were added. The basic 16 structural elements of personality (or source traits) were: Warmth, Reasoning, Emotional Stability, Dominance, Liveliness, Rule-Consciousness, Social Boldness, Sensitivity, Vigilance, Abstractedness, Privateness, Apprehension, Openness to Change, Selfreliance, Perfectionism, and Tension, as based on Carducci (2009). They were conceived of as bi-polar (each one was placed on a scale with distinct, meaningful definitions of both ends). They were more specific factors revealing the uniqueness

18

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

Table 1.2 Low and high scores of the 16 PF characteristics Low score

Factor

High score

Cold selfish

←

Warmth

→

Instinctive unstable

←

Reasoning

→

Cerebral analytical

Irritable moody

←

Emotional stability

→

Level headed calm

Modest docile

←

Dominance

→

Controlling tough

Supportive comforting

Somber restrained

←

Liveliness

→

Wild fun loving

Untraditional rebellious

←

Rule-consciousness

→

Conforming traditional

Shy withdrawn

←

Social boldness

→

Uninhibited bold

Coarse tough

←

Sensitivity

→

Touchy soft

Trusting easy going

←

Vigilance

→

Weary suspicious

Practical regular

←

Abstractness

→

Strange imaginative

Open friendly

←

Privateness

→

Private quiet

Confident self-assured

←

Apprehension

→

Fearful self-doubting

Closeminded set-in-ways

←

Openness to change

→

Curious exploratory

Outgoing social

←

Self-reliance

→

Loner craves solitude

Disorganized messy

←

Perfectionism

→

Orderly thorough

Relaxed cool

←

Tension

→

Stressed unsatisfied

Adapted from Cattell and Mead (2008, p. 136) and Cattell (2004, p. 44)

of individual personality, allowing for the predicting of authentic behaviour. Table 1.2 displays the 16 factors with their descriptors. Aside from determining the sixteen traits, Cattell was also able to uncover five general dimensions which are now considered an alternative of the ‘Big Five’ (Cattell & Mead, 2008). They constituted global personality factors describing personality at a wider, theoretical level with the following factors: Extraversion/Introversion, High/Low Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity, Independence/Accommodation, and Self-Control/Lack of Restraint. This hierarchical structure of personality was later complemented with two third-order categories that did not quite depict personality, but reflected some general, “abstract level of sociological or biological influences” (p. 140). Factor I was connected with human activities directed outward, while Factor II captured the internal categories of processes and events. Altogether, this multi-level, hierarchical structure of personality provided a broader framework encompassing developmental, environmental, and hereditary trait patterns, together with their evolution across the life span (Cattell, 1980). According to contemporary researchers, Cattell’s trait selection comprised of indications to the most notable dimensions of personality delineation (John et al., 1988). However, the model was severely criticized due to the inability of replicating it. Although he made the effort to identify the major personality traits, it seems that he overestimated their number, causing the general weakness of the model (Eysenck, 1994).

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

19

On the basis of his personality model, Cattell created a measuring tool called the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Its latest revision contains 185 multiple-choice items, with a three-point answer format. It contains indirect questions that ask about actual everyday behaviour, interests, and opinions in a non-threatening manner. The questionnaire is written at a fifthgrade reading level, and meant for use with people 16 years and older. It is easy to administer, requiring only 35–50 min to complete. Commercially available personality measures, recent 16PF translations are culturally adapted, with local norms and reliability and validity information available in individual manuals. The validity of the 16PF has been documented in many studies (see Conn & Rieke, 1994). The tool is used by psychologists and counsellors in a wide range of settings, starting from industrial/organizational, counselling and clinical, basic research, educational, and medical settings. The questionnaire is also widely used in career counselling: employee selection, promotion, and development, entrepreneurship, police, security, and protective services, creativity or career development counselling and coaching (Cattell & Mead, 2008). Nevertheless, its results need to be combined with information from other sources (interviews or other psychological measures) in order to predict behaviour in a reliable manner (Cattell, 2004).

1.2.2.3

Eysenck’s Supertraits

A contemporary of Cattell, Hans Eysenck developed his distinctive structural personality model (Eysenck, 1950). Instead of focusing on many moderately intercorrelated traits, he came up with a simple system of orthogonal factors (Caprara & Cervone, 2000). According to it, there are four levels of the organization of behaviour. At the lowest one, there are specific responses that can be understood as acts performed in response to everyday experiences or experimental manipulation, observed, though not necessarily typical for the individual (SR1 , SR2 , …, SRN ). The next, upper layer is the lowest layer of organization, because it accommodates similar, habitual responses, evoked by similar circumstances (HR1 , HR2 , …, HRN ). The layer above represents traits, understood as observed collections of individual emotion-linked behaviours (Eysenck, 1950). They are composed of habitual acts (T1 , T2 , …, TN ). At the highest, fourth layer traits are organized into a general type, higher-order construct or observed syndromes of traits. Such an organisation of personality allows for analysis to be conducted at various levels; i.e., that of supertraits, traits, habits and actions. Each supertrait is constructed of a number of traits, which come from habitual responses and specific responses (actions). All levels are important in determining behaviour (see Fig. 1.4). Initially, at the core of this theory are two independent personality dimensions (types): Extraversion-Introversion (E) and Neuroticism-Stability (N) (Eysenck, 1950). Extraversion is a personality feature consisting most of all in sociability with an element of impulsiveness. People with high levels of Extraversion are friendly and outgoing; they seek excitement and the company of others. Contrarily, people with high levels of Introversion are quiet and reflective; they have a tendency to

20

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

Type or Supertrait

T1

T2

Tn

T1

HR

HR

HR

HR

HR

HR

HR

HR

HR

1

2

n

1

2

n

1

2

n

SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn SR1 SR2 SRn

Fig. 1.4 Organisational structure of personality (adapted from Eysenck, 1950, p. 29)

spend time alone, and they plan their lives cautiously. On the other hand, Neuroticism encompasses anxiety, tension, depression, and other negative emotional traits (Eysenck, 2004). People who are highly neurotic tend to be nervous, unstable and vulnerable, whereas people who are low on Neuroticism tend to be stable, relaxed and well-balanced. These independent supertraits of Extraversion and Neuroticism were believed to constitute a foundation for different personalities arising from their combinations, as, when combined, they allow for describing general individual differences in behaviour, similar to the typology proposed by Hippocrates: High N and high E → Choleric type High N and low E → Melancholic type Low N and high E → Sanguine type Low N and low E → Phlegmatic type These dimensions are the basis for the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). It contains 57 “Yes–No” items. Aside from the measurement of Extraversion (24 items) and Neuroticism (24 items), it includes a falsification (lie) scale (nine items) to detect response distortion. In general, three measurements are obtained, showing the degree of the two supertraits and social desirability. It is worth mentioning that the two supertraits are contained in Cattell’s 16PF. This has been confirmed by empirical studies, such as the one by Saville and Blinkhorn (1981). Later, Eysenck decided to introduce a third dimension into his personality model— Psychoticism-Normality (P). High levels of the trait describe a person who tends to be aggressive, hostile and uncaring, and is predisposed to psychotic breakdowns. On the other hand, its low levels are attributed to someone who is empathic, concerned about other people, and well-balanced. The three-component construct (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) is now called the PEN model. Hereby, personality traits reflect

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

21

LOW unsocial, cautious

EXTRAVERSION

HIGH sociable, impulsive

LOW/ STABLE relaxed

NEUROTICISM

HIGH/ UNSTABLE tense, anxious

LOW warm, emphatic

PSYCHOTICISM

HIGH egocentric, cold

Fig. 1.5 Eysenck’s PEN model

individual differences in the ways that people’s nervous systems operate. An individual is likely to show some degree of each of these superfactors on a continuum. For this reason, the three universal factors should be interpreted as a set of bipolar dimensions. The Extraversion/Introversion dimension of personality refers to people who either tend to be sociable, active, assertive, irresponsible, dominant, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, expressive, venturesome or they tend to be quiet, unsociable, passive and careful (Matthews et al., 2003). The Stability/Instability (Neuroticism) dimension describes individuals who are inclined to be reliable, calm, even-tempered, carefree and have leadership qualities versus those who are anxious, depressed, have guilt feelings, low-self-esteem, are tense, moody, irrational, shy, emotional. Finally, Psychoticism/Normality is described by characteristics such as aggressiveness, extreme ruthlessness, egocentricity, insensitivity, antisocial behaviour, impulsiveness and tough-mindedness (high Psychoticism), while a person with low Psychoticism is altruistic, socialized, empathic, and conventional (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Ultimately, Eysenck et al. (1981) claimed that the superfactors of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism are universal dimensions, which means that these personality traits emerge in many different nations and cultures (see Fig. 1.5). The three major and universal dimensions are stable and independent of one another, being firmly grounded in the individual’s physiological profile. Extraversion is caused by cortical arousal (activity in the brain). Its variability is fundamental for Extraversion levels as “introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985, p. 197). It follows that introverts with their cautious and more reserved attitude to life intuitively seek lower levels of arousal. Contrary, extraverts want to heighten their stimulation levels by increased activity, impulsiveness, social engagement and other stimulation-seeking behaviours (Eysenck, 2004). Neuroticism, on the other hand, is proposed to be modulated by the sympathetic nervous system or visceral brain activation, involving the functioning of the hippocampus, amygdala, cingulum, septum, and the hypothalamus (Eysenck, 1994). The nervous system as the basis for emotional states of neurotic individuals is more reactive, causing them to be more excitable, reactive, tense or anxious in comparison to stable individuals. However, the physiological theory of Psychoticism, supposed to be produced by

22

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

gonadal hormones and enzymes, has not been sufficiently developed. Still, little is known about the influence of genetic factors on the physiological system (Eysenck, 1994). The importance of Eysenck’s taxonomy of personality dimensions lies in the inclusion of different approaches: experimental, correlational, physiological and genetic approach (Revelle & Oehlberg, 2008), which allowed for a great deal of breadth and depth of this theory. Hence, aside from a mere description of personality structure, this theory also advanced an explanation of the causes of differences in personality thanks to incorporating genetic studies with biological theory (Maltby et al., 2009). All the three supertraits can be measured by means of The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). A substantial revision to the EPI, it not only introduces the dimension of Psychoticism but also a change of the approach to Extraversion, focusing solely on its sociability aspect. It includes 90 items taking the form of questions requiring a ‘yes/no’ response. Due to severe criticism referring to its reliability, the low range of scoring, and very skewed distribution, it was revised as The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–Revised (EPQr) (Eysenck et al., 1985) with some minor modification of the Extraversion and some improvements to the Psychoticism scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994). The EPQr contains 100 items in the full-scale version, 32 items in the Psychoticism (P) scale, 23 in Extraversion (E), 24 in Neuroticism (IV), and 21 in Social Desirability. The short form version of the test contains 48 items (12 in each scale). All of them are commercially available to psychologists only. They were originally developed in Great Britain and then extended to other English-speaking areas. The cross-cultural extension of personality research quickly led to the translation and testing of the instruments in non-English speaking environments (e.g., Francis, Lewis, & Ziebertz, 2006). In spite of its unquestionable assets, the PEN model seems to give way to another personality taxonomy—the Five Factor Model (FFM) (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), also called the Big Five (Costa, McCrae, & Kay, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 2004). As Cattell’s 16 factor taxonomy may be considered too broad, and Eysenck’s two supertraits classification—too narrow, the Big Five model appears to reconcile these apparently discrepant systems by elegantly capturing human personality by means of a more suitable model. Now “the Big Five dominates the landscape of current psychological research” (Ewen, 1998, p. 141), and has achieved a principal status in personality studies (John et al., 2008). Due to its importance for personality and SLA studies, it will be described in a greater detail in the next chapter. The strengths of trait theories are mostly connected with their ability to classify behaviours that are observable (Hampson, 2012). Aggregated, they correlate with traits, and provide evidence for trait theories. Aside from that, the criteria used for classifying and measuring behaviour have been found to be objective, which can be evidenced on the basis of the fact that independent teams of researchers working on defining a universal set of traits arrived at similar conclusions (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992). More importantly, some theories, instead of explaining behaviour, only describe it (DeYoung, 2017). Nevertheless, some trait theories are not free from criticism. They are said to be “conceptually vacuous” (Hogan & Foster, 2016, p. 38) because traits, contrary

1.2 Type and Trait Theories

23

to behaviour, cannot be observed. Aside from that, they are claimed to confuse prediction with explanation. Identifying regular patterns of behaviour (i.e., traits) is not identical with explaining these patterns by means of traits (Block, 2001).

1.3 Personality Across the Life Span The conceptualization of the development of personality is reflected in various personality theories. For the sake of simplicity, this section will include a presentation of the most representative ones focusing on the entire life span, i.e. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, Erikson’s psychosocial theory, and theories of social-cognitive development (Piaget’s cognitive-developmental approach and Selman’s social perspective taking theory). Although these theories take into account various aspects of reality, they are also characterized by a significant amount of similarity. According to the psychosexual stage model, developed by Freud, the psychological development of adult personality depends on the first five years of the individual’s life. The five psychosexual stages represent the fixation of sexual drives (libido) on specific body areas. The oral stage (birth to one year) is connected with the importance of the infant’s sexually sensitive region of the mouth. The ability to satisfy oral fixation leads to the development of a personality distinguished by friendliness, optimism, and generosity. When oral fixation is not satisfied, an oral-aggressive personality develops, characterized by hostility, criticism, and envy. At the anal stage (one to three years) satisfaction drawn from refraining to defecate produces an adult analretentive personality, characterized by frugality, stubbornness, and orderliness. On the other hand, a fixation on expelling faeces generates an aggressive and disorderly anal-expulsive personality. The genitals are the source of pleasure at the phallic stage (three to six years), when the child becomes aware of anatomical sex differences. The adult phallic personality is recognized by narcissistic behaviour that is characterized by arrogance, egotism and/or aggression. The latency stage (six years to puberty) is the time when sexual energy is directed to school work, acquisition of new skills, and play with other children, mostly of the same gender. The final, genital stage (puberty to adulthood) is related to the development of the adult, fully mature personality. Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development, based on Freud’s ideas, proposes that personality develops in a fixed order under the influence of social experience (1974). At each stage, there is a different battle (crisis) between two opposite concepts. At the infant stage (birth to 18 months of age), positive relationships with the caregivers are considered essential for the later development of self-esteem and healthy interpersonal relationships, while the growing mistrust induced by neglect or lack of love generates problems later in life (crisis of trust vs. mistrust). At the toddler stage (ages 1½ to three), the child learns to be self-reliant and self-confident if parents are not overly critical or overprotective (autonomy vs. shame/doubt). The pre-schooler (ages three to five) pursues goals through fantasy or play. Unable to attain objectives, the child may develop feelings of self-doubt and guilt (initiative vs. guilt). At the grade-schooler stage (ages six to 11 years), the primary source of

24

1 Personality: Definitions, Approaches and Theories

the child’s self-esteem is the peer group whose approval is the foundation for a sense of pride or incompetence (industry versus inferiority). At the fifth, adolescent stage (ages 12–18), the individual experiments with social roles, forming either a positive or negative identity (identity vs. identity confusion). The young adult stage (19–40) allows for achieving true intimacy (intimacy vs. isolation). The middle-age adult stage (40–65 years) is the time for achieving, taking parental and social responsibilities. In the case of self-absorption, a sense of uselessness appears (generativity vs. stagnation). At the final stage of the older adult (65+), a sense of integrity opposes despair and fear of death, stemming from the individual’s reflections on their life (crisis of integrity vs. despair). An insight into personality development has also been reflected in Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (1950). According to his theory, interactions between the child and their environment produce reactions of a cognitive and affective nature, leading to the development of personal characteristics underpinning future interactions. The sensorimotor stage (birth to two years) is the time when motor activity and the senses are the basis for intellectual development. At the second, preoperational stage (toddler and early childhood), intelligence is expanded through the use of symbols, e.g., language use. Egocentric thinking prevails, in connection with the inability to take in the perspective of others. The concrete operational stage (elementary and early adolescence) accommodates the time when intelligence is revealed through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Egocentric thinking is gradually replaced by operational thinking, allowing for decentring, i.e., the ability to understand things from other perspectives. The last stage is formal operational stage (adolescence and adulthood), encompassing hypothetical and deductive reasoning, as well as abstract thinking and logical processes. The processes of cognitive growth and personal development are also revealed in Selman’s role-taking theory (1980). Stage 0 (ages 3 to 6 years) denotes the egocentric (undifferentiated) perspective when children are unaware of any other perspective apart from their own. At Stage 1, subjective role taking (ages 5 to 9 years), children become conscious of the fact that others may have perspectives different from their own. Stage 2 (ages 7 to 12 years), self-reflective and reciprocal role taking, is the time when children recognize the perspectives of others, but are unable to consider their own and others’ points of view at the same time. At Stage 3 (ages 10 to 15 years), mutual role taking, the child is able to consider different perspectives. Stage 4 (ages 12–15 and beyond), societal role taking, the adolescent is able to refer to another person’s social environment and culture. These stages reflect personality development, from personality as a motive at Stage 1 to personality as a combination of complementary and opposing systems at Stage 4. These lifespan theories of personality development view it from different perspectives: sexual drives (Freud), role confusion induced by social interactions (Erikson), intellectual evolution (Piaget), and the growth of interpersonal understanding (Selman). Nevertheless, these models have not escaped criticism. Freud’s focus on sexuality being the main driving force of personality development, not to mention his views on women’s constitutional inferiority, could not be tested scientifically

1.3 Personality Across the Life Span

25

(Lester, 1995). Erikson’s theory has been criticized for not establishing clear stages of personality development or its heavy focus on crises (Côté, & Levine, 1987). Piaget’s theory has been claimed to overemphasize the role of physical maturation in cognitive development at the expense of the role culture and experience (Babakr et al., 2019). As to Selman’s views, his theory has been criticized for not to being sufficiently holistic (Shaffer, 2008). Nevertheless, it must be stressed that, in spite of these negative comments, these lifespan models not only offer a systematized account of an individual’s personal development, but also help to trace the relationships between formative mechanisms occurring earlier and later in one’s life. The main objective of this chapter was to introduce a general background of personality study, starting with providing the basic definitions of the key term, together with an overview of the personality domain. Next, the main approaches to the study of personality were outlined in order to demonstrate the broad diversity in personality research. The psychoanalytic perspective, mostly connected with the work of Freud, viewed personality as a results of conflicts among the id, ego and superego. The learning approaches conceptualize personality as an accumulation of habits (behaviourism represented by Skinner or Dollard and Miller) or the interaction of people with their environment (constructivism represented by Rotter or Bandura). The humanistic perspective, on the other hand, posits that the roots of personality can be attributed to human capabilities to love, think and grow (Maslow or Rogers). Importantly, these perspectives were complemented with yet a different approach, i.e., that of types and traits. Type theories focus on characterizing people in terms of qualitative differences and discrete categories (e.g., Hippocrates’ and Galen’s classifications, followed by Jung’s typology, and more contemporary Myers-Briggs character types). Trait theories, on the other hand, apply continuous dimensions, placing individuals on parts of larger continua. They were represented by the most influential classifications: Allport’s and Cattell’s taxonomies, as well as by Eysenck’s supertraits, constituting a foundation for the conceptualization of personality in terms of the Big Five typology. The last section of this chapter was devoted to an outline of the most prominent theories pertaining to the development of personality across the lifespan: psychosexual by Freud, psychosocial by Erikson, cognitive by Piaget, and social cognitive by Selman. The next chapter is devoted to a discussion of the Big Five traits from the point of view of the theory, structure and specific consequences of each trait.

Chapter 2

The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

This chapter focuses on the analysis of the Big Five traits and their consequences presented from various viewpoints. First, the origins of the Big Five model, rooted in the trait perspective on personality study outlined in the previous chapter, are presented. They are traced back to the work of Allport and Odbert, as well as Cattell, inspiring research carried independently by several parties that has led to establishing five replicable traits, presently known as the Big Five. The structure of the model incorporates each trait placed on a continuum. The empirically derived Big Five taxonomy is then theoretically explained by the respective theory (Five-Factor Theory), presented in the consecutive section. It is followed by an outline of the modern views on the trait hierarchy that places two meta-traits of Stability and Plasticity at the top. Each of them subsumes specific traits (domains), which, in turn, contain two aspects incorporating respective facets. The broadest part of the chapter is devoted to the analysis of each trait from the perspective of this higher- and lower-order perspective. Specifically, each trait (domain) is explored in relation to its respective higher-order phenotypic meta-trait, as well as in relation to its lower-order aspects. In the next step, the six, classical facets of each dimension are discussed, bearing in mind the fact that only a deep understanding of the trait at the facet level enables to truly envision its specific ramifications. To bring this analysis to the fullest, the discussion of the traits is broadened by outlining their most common consequences categorized into three types. The first category contains socioaffective consequences that reflect emotional and attitudinal processes. The cognitive and academic category pertains to trait ramifications that influence thought and learning processes. The last category, behavioural, is related to behaviour of an individual characterized by a specific trait. These particular perspectives are reflected in the social nature of the language acquisition process that takes place in the educational/academic/formal setting, as well as in the informal/naturalistic context. Finally, the chapter finishes with a description of gender and age differences in the context of each dimension due to their relevance for outlining the individual profile of the foreign language learner. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7_2

27

28

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2.1 The Big Five This part of the chapter focuses on a description of the Big Five model and its respective theory.

2.1.1 The Big Five Model The five-factor model of personality (also called FFM) was based on a lexical analysis of trait adjectives in natural languages, aiming to reveal “the broadest and most pervasive themes that recurred in personality measures” (Costa & McCrae, 1995, p. 23). These parts or patterns can be described in every language by means of adjectives that represent fundamental personality traits. It follows that natural language dictionaries can be treated as a vital source of broad, though finite collections of features that are important in daily interactions. These characteristics underpin the most important qualities for people using that language (Goldberg, 1990). The traits, in turn, are identified and organized into extensive personality dimensions (Dörnyei, 2005). Work on the lexical approach began with the efforts of Allport and Odbert (1936), among others, who proposed a preliminary framework for the personality dictionary. The work was then taken over by Cattell (1943), who aimed at providing a more systematic framework thanks to which individual differences in human behaviour and experiences could be identified, named and ordered (John & Srivastava, 1999). His pioneering work led to the defining of quite a short list of variables that inspired other researchers to inspect the proposed structure (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1990, to mention a few). The outcome of their work was the typology of personality traits: • • • • •

(I) Surgency (or Extraversion); (II) Agreeableness; (III) Conscientiousness; (IV) Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism); (V) Culture.

Afterwards, Factor V was defined as Intellect (e.g., Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981), and Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1978). In the original conceptualization, the Big-Five traits are placed at the highest level of the description of human behaviour (Goldberg, 1993), incorporating a myriad of individual differences characterizing human beings. Although the work on the model was carried out by several independent research teams in the 1970s, and the term ‘Big Five’ was initially coined by Goldberg (1990), it has been most strongly connected with the work of Costa and McCrae (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Instead of their initial pursuit of a three

2.1 The Big Five

29

factor model adapted from Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969), they followed Goldberg’s conceptualization of a five factor model that best accounted for observable (phenotypic) personality differences (Goldberg, 1993). These factors are now known as the Big Five to show that each of them is very wide. Now Costa and McCrae’s (1992) classification can be considered as one of the most prominent models in contemporary psychology due to its practicality and applicability (Digman, 1990). The model incorporates five broad dimensions of personality traits or domains (Costa & McCrae, 1995) that can describe an individual, regardless of language or culture. This does not mean that personality differences can be limited to only five traits; their role is to represent personality at a very broad level of abstraction with each dimension summarizing a large number of clear-cut, precise personality characteristics (John et al., 2008). The traits are postulated to form the highest level of the personality hierarchy, as they are placed at the apex of the personality hierarchy (Goldberg, 1993). Aside from that, for practical reasons, the five domains are claimed to be independent (Costa & McCrae, 2017). The Big Five construct retains Eysenck’s Extraversion and Neuroticism, but replaces Psychoticism with three additional dimensions: Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to experience. Hence, the model’s acronym is OCEAN, CANOE or NEO-AC. Thanks to such a categorisation, personality factors can be perceived as independent variables in research studies in an easier and more reliable manner for non-psychologists (Dörnyei, 2006) (see Fig. 2.1). Each dimension is placed on a continuum with two extreme poles, labelled as: • • • • •

Openness to experience versus low Openness, Conscientiousness versus low Conscientiousness, Extraversion versus Introversion, Agreeableness versus Antagonism, and Neuroticism versus Emotional Stability.

Fig. 2.1 The Big Five

30

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

At the same time, according to Costa and McCrae (1986), each domain is represented by six constituent facets that represent their respective domains (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Moreover, the facets can be broken down to even more distinct concepts (Clark & Watson, 2008). A detailed representation of the traits/dimensions with corresponding facets can be found in Table 2.1. There are several arguments in favour of the model: • the five factors occur in certain situations, which has been confirmed by longitudinal studies (e.g., Terracciano et al., 2005); • the occurrence of the factors isdescribed in everyday language, as revealed in the main personality questionnaires (e.g., Herzberg & Brähler, 2006); Table 2.1 Dimensions and facets of the Big Five with their extreme poles Dimension

Facet

–

+

Neuroticism

Anxiety Hostility Depression Self-consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability

Calm Even-tempered Self-satisfied Comfortable Emotionala Hardy

Worrying Temperamental Self-pitying Self-conscious Unemotionala Vulnerable

Extraversion

Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-seeking Positive emotions

Reserved Loner Quiet Passive Sober Unfeeling

Affectionate Joiner Talkative Active Fun-loving Passionate

Openness to experience

Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values

Down-to-earth Uncreative Conventional Prefer routine Uncurious Conservative

Imaginative Creative Original Prefer variety Curious Liberal

Agreeableness

Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tendermindedness

Ruthless Suspicious Stingy Antagonistic Critical Irritable

Soft-hearted Trusting Generous Acquiescent Lenient Good-natured

Conscientiousness

Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement-striving Self-discipline Deliberation

Negligent Lazy Disorganized Late Aimless Quitting

Conscientious Hard-working Well-organized Punctual Ambitious Persevering

Adapted from Costa and McCrae (1986, p. 410) a According to the evidence presented in Sect. 2.1.3 or 2.2, it seems to be more adequate to phrase these categories as ‘Inclined to negative emotions’ and ‘Disinclined to negative emotions’, respectively

2.1 The Big Five

31

• the factors, not significantly influenced by age or gender, are identified in various cultures (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2007), (although see Sects. 2.7 and 2.8); • they have a biological foundation (e.g., Jang et al., 2006). As the authors propose: “the Big Five structure captures, at a broad level of abstraction, the commonalities among most of the existing systems of personality description, and provides an integrative descriptive model for personality research” (McCrae & Costa, 1999, p. 45). This taxonomy does not replace previous systems; it aims at representing various systems of personality description in a collective structure (John & Srivastava, 1999). The traits included in the model demonstrate reliability and cohesion in various types of measurements, like interviews or observations. Moreover, their consistency is identified in a wide range of participants, regardless of age, ethnicity and culture (Schmitt et al., 2007). It is theoretically neutral, which means that it can comply with alternative theoretical models (Widiger, 2017). The authors of the model posit that it is a broad-spectrum scheme that provides a complete description of individual behavioural, attitudinal and reactional differences, enabling one to comprehend personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Big Five model is now the most widely accepted structure among trait theorists and in personality psychology today, as well as being the most precise estimation of basic trait dimensions (Funder, 2001). It has been found to have a solid biological foundation, and may represent a universal legacy of the human species (Yamagata et al., 2006). However, the model has met with a lot of criticism due to its methodological and theoretical limitations (Jarmu˙z & Lach, 2007). Adequacy of the factor-analytic methodology appears to be severely criticized (Block, 2001). Aside from that, the model’s heavy reliance on the lexical hypothesis or the restricted number of dimensions makes it “a less than optimal account of human personality structure” (Boyle, 2008, p. 3), mostly due to the fact that it does not deliver an all-embracing theory of personality. The limitations of the scope of the Big Five model as an explanatory or predictive theory raise concerns of many specialists in the field, because each of the broad dimensions has multiple underlying environmental and genetic determinants (McAdams, 1995). Hence, more profound biological understanding of the sources and effects of traits is needed (Block, 2010).

2.1.2 Five-Factor Theory The empirically derived Big Five taxonomy is theoretically explained by the FiveFactor Theory (FFT). It is also called the FFT personality system, so that it can be distinguished from the five-factor model. It may be viewed as a trait theory grounded in empirical research (McCrae & Costa, 1999) or a metatheory describing the dynamics of psychological organization that integrates experience and action. It constitutes an attempt to conceptualize findings pertaining to personality traits in the context of the development and functioning of a unified personality system.

32

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

The basic assertions of the theory focus on specific definitions of the core components, and on the dynamic processes describing their relationships. The personality system is composed of several constituents. The basic ones refer to the central components, which are: traits, characteristic adaptations and the self-concept. Traits are hereby defined as measures of individual differences that display regular patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting (McCrae & Costa, 2003), that represent abstract underlying potentials of the individual. The authors distinguish them from characteristic adaptations which are attitudes, roles, and goals created in response to the interplay between basic tendencies and external demands that accumulate over time. In their view, they are contextualized realizations of inner potentials (traits) (Costa & McCrae, 2017). This means that basic tendencies are constant, as also proposed by Allport (1937) and Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), contrary to characteristic adaptations that are changeable as they demonstrate plasticity over time. Abstract dispositions assembled into five wide-ranging areas (the Big Five traits) can be expressed by a multitude of acquired adaptations, consistent with underlying traits. The self-concept is a subset of adaptations which refers to the individual’s sense of identity. It comprises self-knowledge, self-schemas and personal myths that are all shaped by traits. The peripheral elements of the personality system are biological bases, objective biography and external influences (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Biological bases (currently unspecified) constitute the input. They are represented by genes, which influence basic tendencies. FFT postulates that the structure of personality is identical for every human being because of the sharing of the same genome. It is based on the finding that the dimensions included in the model have an equally significant genetic basis (John & Srivastava, 1999). Personality traits originate from biological structures (e.g., brain regions) and processes (such as those caused by neurotransmitters or hormones)(McCrae et al., 2001). It follows that traits are of causal consequence. The objective biography refers to a set of all the significant actions, thoughts or feelings performed in the individual’s lifespan (the output). For this reason one of the largest parts of one’s objective biography is actual behaviour and interactions with the outside world. Finally, there is external influence. This is comprised of elements of the surrounding environment—cultural norms, situations, life events. These influences may be formative, like education, or socially provided, like social cues or cultural demands. They serve to shape both the objective biography and the characteristic adaptations of individuals. All these elements of the personality system are shaped by dynamic processes (currently unspecified) that include cognition, affect or defence mechanisms, etc. They act between the elements of the personality system, as well as within (i.e., characteristic adaptations), moulding the functioning of personality over time and space. They are universal and pertain to every individual, but at the same time, they may be influenced by individual variation. As the authors propose, this theory is based on the following premises: • knowability It refers to the belief that it is appropriate to study personality as a scientific subject, which distinguishes psychologists from visionaries or theologians;

2.1 The Big Five

33

• variability This belief refers to the differing personalities of human beings, and the need to pursue the universals of human nature; • proactivity It rests on the assumption that people not only react to the external pressures of their environment but also actively pursue favourable situations that are revealed in their traits, i.e., their real nature; • rationality This is the belief that responses to the measurement of the individual’s traits are consistent and meaningful, while the bias is eliminated, giving a practical estimation of the informant’s personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 14). The Five-Factor Theory, as its authors maintain, “has proven particularly useful in understanding the functioning of traits across cultures” (McCrae & Costa, 2008, p. 277). It cannot be treated as an exhaustive explanation of one’s particular behaviour, instead it renders a broad perspective incorporating specific elucidations. Moreover, a clear operationalization of this theoretical distinction is hardly attainable because only trait manifestations (i.e., characteristic adaptations) can be observed and assessed. Additionally, these manifestations cannot be viewed as perfect indicators of traits because they are shaped by the environmental setting. This is the reason why circumstances, behaviours, and clarifications are regarded approximated indicators of genetic traits (Costa & McCrae, 2017). In other words, external influences can induce personality development mostly at the level of characteristic adaptations. Although the FFT is often described as a useful framework for understanding personality within the trait approach, providing a good basis from which a more unified approach to understanding personality can be formulated (Laher, 2013), it has met with some criticism. First of all, some researchers stipulate that it is still in development (DeYoung, 2010), and atheoretical (Block, 2010). Another criticism refers to the fact that the dynamic processes are not sufficiently explained or that the lifespan stability of the five traits can be questioned (DeYoung, 2015).

2.1.3 The Trait Hierarchy Initially, the Big Five traits were presumed to be independent and, thus, placed at the highest level of the hierarchy (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, it turns out that the Big Five domains cannot be viewed as entirely orthogonal to each other (Digman, 1997). This means that the dimensions are not independent of each other (Davis & Panksepp, 2018). What is more, they have been found to be intercorrelated, constituting yet higher level traits (Digman, 1997). Agreeableness and Conscientiousness intercorrelate positively with each other, and negatively with Neuroticism, forming a higher-order factor, first neutrally called Alpha. This trait cluster was later renamed as Socialization because it represents socially desirable traits. The remaining two traits, Openness and Extraversion, intercorrelating positively, create the other one—Beta,

34

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

later called Personal growth (opposed to restriction). There are two broad developmental processes responsible for the rise of these higher-order traits. The first one is incorporating broad societal norms regulating prosocial behaviour, while the other—exposure to a broad versus limited span of personal experiences. To demonstrate the complementary nature of these meta-traits, the factors are now known as Stability and Plasticity (DeYoung et al., 2002). These terms represent the stability and plasticity of one’s objectives, elucidations, and strategies, describing the broadest psychological attributes of the individual that might be conceptualized in a cybernetic model of human personality (DeYoung, 2015). They differentially predict engagement and restraint of behaviour in human beings (Hirsh et al., 2009). Each of them has been linked to two particular chemicals (neurotransmitters) in the brain: serotonin and dopamine. The meta-trait Stability (similar to Digman’s Alpha) designates the faculty and propensity of the human being to evade disruption, and resist the temptation to replace a long-term goal with less important, short-term goals (like losing control or being distracted) that could impede attaining longer-term goals (DeYoung, 2010). It is based on the functioning of serotonin that regulates mood, behaviour and cognition, providing a signal of ‘avoidable danger’ and greater impulse control (Hirsh et al., 2009). It can be expressed by high Agreeableness connected with keeping harmonious social relationships (social stability), high Conscientiousness (motivational stability), maintaining progress toward long-term or abstract goals, and low Neuroticism (emotional stability), which is responsible for supressing defensive disruption, which in effect leads to reducing spontaneity (DeYoung, 2010). On the other hand, the meta-trait Plasticity (i.e., Digman’s Beta) can be described as “the degree to which the personality system is prone to generating new goals, new interpretations of the present state, and new strategies to pursue existing goals, even when this generation is not required by threat to an existing goal” (DeYoung, 2010, p. 27). In other words, it is an exploratory tendency, connected with the individual’s active engagement with the possibilities of the environment, by producing and pursuing novel aspects of experience, drawn by the rewarding aspects of novelty, in response to the effects of dopamine, strongly implicated in reward sensitivity (DeYoung, 2015). Altogether, Stability is associated with the inclination to be well-socialized, whereas Plasticity—with personal growth. To date, research suggests that there are probably four levels of the trait hierarchy (Haslam et al., 2017). They are captured by a comprehensive organization of the so-called cybernetic system of personality, a goal-directed, self-regulating system (DeYoung, 2015), based on the principles of personality development, proposed by McAdam and Pals (2006). It comprises the Big Five trait model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and Digman’s meta-traits (1997). At the highest level there are two metatraits, Stability and Plasticity, the broadest descriptive dimensions of personality. below which the Big Five are located as domains. Between them and their facets, an intermediate level of traits can be found—aspects. They represent related, though independent trait dimensions (DeYoung et al., 2007). In the case of Neuroticism, these are Volatility (its primary features of include high hostility and irritability and low tranquillity and imperturbability) and Withdrawal (susceptibility to negative affect,

2.1 The Big Five

35

expressed by anxiety, depressive outlook, and self-consciousness). Extraversion is composed of Assertiveness (activity level, social dominance, and leadership-striving) and Enthusiasm (positive emotions, such as warmth, and affability: sociability, gregariousness, friendliness). Openness to experience can be broken into aesthetic Openness (artistic values, imagination, and culture for clarity) and Intellect (quickness, creativity, and ingenuity). Agreeableness comprises Compassion (compassionate emotional affiliation with others, i.e., empathy, sympathy, and warmth) and Politeness (consideration of and respect for others’ needs and desires: pleasantness, cooperation, and straightforwardness). The two Conscientiousness factors are Industriousness and Orderliness. The first one refers to productivity and work ethic (i.e., achievement-orientation, self-discipline, and purposefulness), while the other—the desire to keep things organized and tidy (deliberation, tidiness, and cautiousness) As far as facets are concerned, traditionally each domain consisted of six of them; however, the actual number and precise nature is has not been exactly determined, making most lists arbitrary (Haslam et al., 2017). Altogether, these lower-order factors are specific to the Big Five, which allows for identifying sources of personality, and understanding relationships between the Big Five and other phenomena (DeYoung et al., 2007). The visualization of the personality system is presented in Fig. 2.2. META-TRAIT

DOMAIN

ASPECT Withdrawal

Neuroticism Volatility Compassion Stability

Agreeableness Politeness Industriousness Conscientiousness Orderliness Enthusiasm Extraversion Assertiveness

Plasticity Intellect Openness/Intellect Openness

Fig. 2.2 Structure of personality (adapted from DeYoung, 2015, p. 36)

36

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2.1.4 The Measuring Tools One of the most widely used instruments for measuring the Big Five attributes is The Revised NEO Personality Inventory(NEO PI-R), consisting of 240 items, by Costa and McCrae (1978). Aside from measuring the five dimensions, it also assesses the six respective facets (subordinate aspects of each trait). It has been found to be the most comprehensive, and presumably, best validated NEO-Personality Inventory. However, it has also been criticized for not including traditional validity scales (Young & Schinka, 2001) or, for the fact that the items of the inventory generally are subject to item popularity (Bäckström & Björklund, 2013). Its shortened version with 60 items is called the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), including 12 items per domain. Both questionnaires assess “emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational characteristics” (Costa & McCrae, 2014, p. 231). Nevertheless, NEO-FFI measures only the five factors in terms of a self-report form and observer ratings: Openness to experience Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, exploring six subordinate dimensions (facets) of each of the main personality factors. The test was developed for use with adult men and women without overt psychopathology, but also turned out to be useful at younger ages (over 15 years of age). The sample items on the inventory are: I keep my belongings neat and clean or When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to pieces. Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree. The factors can be estimated by domain scores, which sum the relevant six facets, or more precisely by factor scores, which are a weighted combination of all the 30 facets (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It showed to be highly reliable and valid, gaining popularity in various languages and cultures, as observed in McCrae and Terracciano (2005). Their comparisons of individuals within cultures confirmed the universality of personality traits and the scale’s usefulness particularly legible due to its compact structure (Rossier et al., 2004). One of the strongest criticisms against the instruments is that NEO-FFI requires modification and improvement because it does not truly measure the five traits (Egan et al., 2000). Aside from that, both instruments were strongly criticised for their market-oriented, and proprietary nature (Goldberg, 1999). In order to produce an instrument capable of measuring personality traits that could be made available to the general public, Goldberg proposed an international collaboration to develop an easily available, broad-bandwidth personality inventory. The items are designed as the analogues to the commercial NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI. Now, these items are known collectively as the International Personality Item Pool, among which Goldberg’s IPIP Big Five (IPIP B5) 50-item instrument (1999) can be found. According to Guenole and Chernyshenko (2005), it is an easily accessible and transparent Big Five measure. This 50-item inventory can be freely downloaded from the internet for use in research (www.ipip.ori.org). The ten items for each of the Big-Five personality factors are: Openness to experience Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Each item is in a sentence fragment form (e.g., “Am the life of the party”), so “I” must be added at the beginning so that

2.1 The Big Five

37

the items would be easier to read, and more closely match the other inventories used, as the IPIP scale is meant to mimic the commercial scale of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Goldberg et al., 2006). Participants must rate how well they believe it describes them on a 5-point scale (very inaccurate to very accurate). The scale has turned out to be valid (Lim & Ployhart, 2006), while the mean correlations among the 30 facet scales of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) have also been high (Goldberg et al., 2006), which means that the IPIP scale has good internal consistency and relates strongly to the major dimensions of personality (Gow et al., 2005). It has been found to be robust across languages, cultures, genders, and age groups (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005). The above presentation of the Big Five model, corresponding theory and measuring scales has paved the way for a detailed discussion of each independent trait (domain) from the perspective of its higher and lower-order structure, and then its various consequences.

2.2 Neuroticism This is probably one of the most well-researched traits, whose long history can be traced back to Galen (the melancholic type) and Hippocrates (black bile). Nowadays it is included in many personality models, such as the Big Five.

2.2.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Neuroticism The dimension of Neuroticism is now characterized as a fundamental domain of personality functioning and whose structure has so far been reliably identified (Widiger, 2009). It is connected with negative emotionality and nervousness, denoting “the general tendency to experience negative effects such as fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust” (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, p. 14). This trait accommodates people who are not in control of their impulses, and have problems coping with stress. Anxiety and volatility are the bases of Neuroticism, so it is proposed that this dimension is defined by stability and low anxiety at one end, and instability and high levels of anxiety at the other end (Pervin & John, 2001). It contrasts negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense, and emotional stability and even-temperedness (John et al., 2008).

2.2.1.1

Aspects of Neuroticism

The domain of Neuroticism belongs to the Stability meta-trait category. It comprises of two higher-order aspects, formulated as:

38

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

• Volatility This aspect designates externalizing (i.e., aggressive) responses to stress (Herlache et al., 2018). It can refer to behavioural instability and problems with controlling emotional responses, revealed through irritability and anger tendencies. This propensity to attend to negative information in the environment, and generate negative attributions (DeYoung et al., 2007) also reflects hyper-vigilance to negative stimuli followed by a behavioural decision to approach (act), even in the case of the negative valence of the stimulus (Cunningham et al., 2010); • Withdrawal This describes internalizing (i.e., dysphoric or distressed) responses to stress. In contrast to volatility, this is a propensity to avoid threatening events when experiencing negative affect, expressed by self-doubts, anxiety and depressive reactions (Herlache et al., 2018). Aside from inaction, this aspect of Neuroticism is connected with a general distress that approach behaviours may cause, especially in threatening situations (Cunningham et al., 2010). Altogether, these aspects demonstrate how individuals deal with threats and anxiety in distinctively different ways. One’s behaviour depends on the activation of amygdala, functioning as a threat detector or the focal point of the subcortical networks that are responsible for identifying and reacting to threats (LeDoux, 2003). In short, Neuroticism reflects a general sensitivity to threatening stimuli, although the expression of that sensitivity is a combination of distinct tendencies toward volatility and withdrawal. More precisely, individuals high in Neuroticism-Volatility display more amygdala activation in response to negative rather than positive stimuli, both approached and avoided. Aside from difficulty controlling emotional impulses, they may have problems with emotional lability, irritability or anger (DeYoung et al., 2007). Conversely, in individuals high in Neuroticism-Withdrawal more amygdala activation is detected in response to stimuli that are more approached than avoided, irrespective of their valence (i.e., value) (Cunningham et al., 2010). Hence, Volatility is connected with approach behaviour activated in response to a negative stimulus, while Withdrawal with avoidance of any kind of approach stimuli (DeYoung et al., 2007).

2.2.1.2

Facets of Neuroticism

The respective facets of each trait will be analysed according to the taxonomy proposed by Costa and McCrae (1992), mostly due to the fact that this typology is popular, well-researched, and still present in contemporary taxonomies (Judge et al., 2013). The facets of Neuroticism (anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability) are presented in Fig. 2.3. The facet of anxiety is conceptualized as an unpleasant reaction of the organism to a potentially threatening situation (Yan, 2006). Its principal function is to enable the early discovery of danger signals. In effect, it triggers passive avoidance that is realized by means of goal restriction, clarifications and strategies produced in

2.2 Neuroticism

39 Neuroticism

anxiety

vulnerability

angry hostility depression

impulsiveness self-consciousness

Fig. 2.3 Facets of Neuroticism

response to doubt or error (Allen & DeYoung, 2017). These reactions culminate in increased attentiveness, unintentional behavioural suppression, and a rising arousal of the sympathetic nervous system (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). Hence, Neuroticism may reflect general sensitivity to a threat that takes place through two mechanisms: turning attention to threat signals, and a tendency to automatically orient toward task-irrelevant cues, which also makes the individual more susceptible to distraction (van Doorn & Lang, 2010). The next facet of angry hostility describes “a tendency to experience anger and related states such as frustration and bitterness” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 16). These feelings of anger, rage, hostility, resentment and frustration denote fundamental components of negative affectivity. Anger is mostly viewed as “a negativelyvalenced affect that arises from the blockage of movement towards a desired goal” (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009, p. 184). It thus involves negative activation, causing the individual to release the tension through active behaviour (Williams, 2017), in connection with the perception of one’s own state (bodily distress). Another symptom is negative expression towards others, which is connected with a negative social judgement of them (Bak, 2016). Anger could be viewed as an incentive or motivating energy for aggressive behaviour (Widiger, 2009). The activation of anger serves the purpose of self-defence, saving the angry individual from a disturbing stimulus and, at the same time, a warning signal for others. This is the reason for the connection of Neuroticism with impulsive aggressive behaviours, as the trait is described to activate the ‘hot’ circuits related to impulsivity, anger, and aggression (Ode et al., 2008). Hostility, on the other hand, is traditionally regarded as an attitude involving the aversion and negative assessment of others (Eckhardt et al., 2004). Now, it is defined as a cognitive trait that indicates “a devaluation of the worth and motives of others, an expectation that others are likely sources of wrongdoing, a relational view of being in opposition toward others, and a desire to inflict harm or see others harmed” (Smith, 1994, p. 26). The basic features of the concept comprise three basis components. First, there is the feature of cynicism, focusing on the belief that selfishness is the source of other people’s motivations. The second component, co-occurring with cynicism, is mistrust, understood as the expectation that others are spiteful and deliberately provoking. Denigration, on the other hand, is connected with evaluating others as deceptive, nasty, unkind, and non-social (Eckhardt et al.,

40

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2004). Altogether, both constructs appear to overlap, but, to put it more precisely, anger refers to a feeling, and hostility—to an attitude (Harrington, 2013). Due to its commonality, depression is often called “the common cold of psychiatric disturbances” (Wade & Tavris, 1993, p. 585). It however indicates a mood disorder, connected with symptoms of sadness, fatigue, loss of interest and appetite, and feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness, to mention a few (Doktorchik et al., 2019). Aside from that, it negatively affects one’s thought processes because depressed individuals demonstrate a negative, pessimistic way of explaining and interpreting failure (Burger, 2014). This is mostly connected with a specific style of thinking, rumination, whereby the negative affect induces the recycling of unpleasant thoughts. Importantly, among the most prominent consequences of depression can be difficulty concentrating and making decisions. As the depressed individual’s self-worth is undermined, the facet is mostly linked to unhappiness and pessimism (Judge & Locke, 1993). As far as self-consciousness (also termed self-focused attention) is concerned, it is conceptualized as “a tendency to engage in self-focused attention” (Eisenberger et al., 2005, p. 171). It is connected with a self-evaluative process through which the individual compares their current state in a specific domain to their standard. Although awareness of one’s feelings and thoughts is a part of the normal selfregulation process, the inability to meet standards is associated with negative affect, leading either to efforts to reduce the discrepancy or to evade self-focus (Mor & Winquist, 2002). Hence, rumination (motivated by a perceived threat) as a form of persistent, negative thoughts, significantly increases one’s connection with the negative understanding of themselves and their environments. In effect, questioning one’s own capabilities may evoke anxiety and self-doubt, which are the main outcomes of self-focused attention (Eisenberger et al., 2005, p. 178). So, neurotic individuals are worried about themselves due to their anxiousness and cautiousness about changes in their internal states (Panayiotou & Kokkinos, 2006). Impulsiveness (or impulsivity) is associated with giving in “to temptations and to be overwhelmed by desires” (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 48). Although there is still a lack of agreement on what constitutes impulsivity (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), it can generally be proposed that the construct is mainly connected with low selfcontrol, which specifically means that “people high in impulsiveness cannot resist doing what they do not want themselves to do” (Piedmont, 1998, p. 91). On the other hand, low self-control is primarily linked to low levels of Emotional Stability. Altogether, impulsivity is viewed as a multifaceted construct, with aspects related to the inability to terminate actions that have already been initiated, lack of tolerance of any delay, lack of consideration of further consequences of actions, and sensitivity to rewards (Wiers et al., 2010). The concept of vulnerability can be understood as a propensity to feel unable to deal with stress, and to feel dependent, pessimistic, or to overreact when facing a danger (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Vulnerable individuals perceive a stimulus as unmanageable, unpredictable, thwarting or repulsive (Armfield, 2006). As a facet of Neuroticism, vulnerability represents tendencies towards feeling an inability to cope with stress (O’Súilleabháin et al., 2019). Recurring stress, assessed as aversive,

2.2 Neuroticism

41

requires vulnerable individuals to cope with it in specific ways. Among them there are dependency or self-criticism (Dunkley et al., 1997). The first type of behaviour is connected with being highly concerned with interpersonal relationships, apprehensive of abandonment and rejection, as well as having problems with expressing anger for fear of losing companionship. Self-criticism, in turn refers to concern with achievement-related people and events that might help the individual to feel recognized and favoured.

2.2.2 Consequences of Neuroticism The consequences of the trait are placed within three categories: socioaffective, cognitive and academic, as well as behavioural.

2.2.2.1

Socioaffective

As previously mentioned, the principal drawback of Neuroticism is experiencing negative affect, especially feelings of sadness, anxiety, and anger (Tackett & Lahey, 2017). Hence, affective consequences of Neuroticism may be of primary importance. For this reason, Neuroticism is sometimes referred to as ‘negative affectivity’ or ‘negative emotionality’ (Tellegen & Waller, 2008). It can be explained by means of a sequence of distinct, though interrelated processes, called the ‘neurotic cascade’ (Suls & Martin, 2005). The first process is the hyperreactivity to life problems (major events or minor hassles), stemming from the biological or learned sensitivity to negative signals. It may instigate other processes, like differential exposure (the second process, whereby more frequent experiences to negative events take place due to neurotics’ greater sensitivity of noticing and remembering negative information), leading to the impairment of decision making, conflicts, and dysfunctional behaviour, which is cumulated in negative life events. The third process is differential appraisal which is a mechanism describing neurotics’ exaggerated threat assessment of events, as well as their underestimation of coping resources. Then, there is mood spill-over—inertia that makes it longer to recover from frequent episodes of intense negative affect (lag effect) (Suls & Martin, 2005). The final process is the sting of familiar problems: neurotics may have more difficulties when old problems resurface due to their flawed reasoning, unsuitable decision making, and negative affect. Altogether, neurotics are understandably more susceptible to experiencing negative emotions, such as apprehension, sadness, irritability or anxiety (Weaver III, 2005). As this trait is originally defined to comprise such emotions, like affective instability, tension and self-pity, highly neurotic individuals demonstrate intense subjective stress responses on stress tasks, accompanied by lower feelings of control (Xin et al., 2017). Undoubtedly, they may tend to experience a higher level of chronic stress. Their negative feelings are rooted in their poor response to environmental stress, followed by interpretations of many everyday situations as

42

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

dangerous (Widiger, 2009), as presented in the description of the neurotic cascade. Among factors producing the highest levels of stress there is uncertainty. It is so discomforting for neurotics that “they seem to prefer ‘the devil they know’ (unambiguously negative information) over an uncertain outcome” (Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2008, p. 4). Evidently, they find unpredictable experiences extremely distressing and overwhelming (Barlow et al., 2014). Their exaggerated stress levels prompt them to identify quite large numbers of stressful events in their lives, which exacerbates their undesirable emotions. To make things worse, neurotics tend to focus on the negative features of such incidents, unable to appraise stressors as challenges, and classifying them as threats (Trnka et al., 2012). Overloaded with emotions they are mostly unable to cope with, they frequently have problems with effective emotion regulation, therefore they are unable to successfully manage their affective states, as well as physiological, attentional and behavioural processes related to emotions (Pocnet et al., 2017). For this reason, highly neurotic individuals are found to declare low levels of Emotional Intelligence, viewed as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). The concept has recently been reformulated to separate self-perceived abilities (trait Emotional Intelligence) from the objective ones (ability Emotional Intelligence) (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). According to this approach, trait Emotional Intelligence refers to “individual differences in people’s self-perceptions of their emotional abilities” (Petrides et al., 2010, p. 906). Emotionally intelligent individuals are able to perceive and express emotions, to control impulses and regulate them. However, those with low levels of trait Emotional Intelligence tend to have problems with controlling negative emotions; hence, they are perceived as worrying, anxious, insecure, selfconscious, and emotional (Smith, Saklofske, & Nordstokke, 2014). Unsurprisingly, neurotic individuals often describe their activities and situations as boring, stressful, of poor-quality and negative (Kane et al., 2017). Feeling personally inadequate, and perceiving a low level of enacted social support, they tend to display maladaptive emotional responses to perceived loss, personal comments, threats, and frustrations (Lahey, 2009), among which wishful thinking, blame, and self-denial can be placed (Kokkonen & Pulkkinen, 2001). On the other hand, people who are low scorers for the trait of Neuroticism (high Emotional Stability) are emotionally stable, calm, and able to cope well with stress (Haslam et al., 2017). They tend to stay self-assured, undisturbed and free from worry and distressing feelings. They also experience a range of positive emotions, feel secure even in the face of challenging circumstances and stressors, and enjoy the social benefits deriving from sharing their positive feelings with others (Caprara et al., 2013). The social consequences of Neuroticism may be captured by the concept of ‘neurotic social shyness’, coined by Eysenck (1969). It refers to self-consciousness and anxiety about social situations, representing “a tendency to wish to indulge in social activity but an active fear which prevents a person from doing so in case he might be snubbed, hurt, offended, etc.” (p. 27). It follows that the likely stressfulness of social contacts tends to pose significant threats to self-esteem. Due to a stress reaction to social situations, neurotic individuals are likely to allocate resources to manage

2.2 Neuroticism

43

stress, which prevents them from cognitively cultivating beneficial interactions. In effect, neurotics’ stressful reactions to social situations may limit their capability to participate in meaningful and motivating social contacts, leading to reduced benefits for cognitive functioning (Segel-Karpas & Lachman, 2018). Hence, a neurotic person wants to be with others but at the same time, is afraid of doing so, hence they may appear to be less friendly. Conflicts and tensions with others are the main source of daily stress (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). The lack of sociability, negative and confrontational behaviour can be tied to antisocial behaviour (e.g., criminality) that is a feature of a higher level of Neuroticism, driven predominantly by the facets of high angry hostility and high impulsiveness (Miller et al., 2003). Accordingly, it is demonstrated that neurotics are inclined to engage in negative interactions and communication patterns with others (Marshall et al., 2015). This may be attributed to the fact that such communicative situations enable them to demonstrate their negative feelings (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014), and at the same time, self-defeating behaviours (Thomson, 2017). They use more self-deception, culminating with their impatience, exaggeration, and awkwardness (Weaver III, 2005). Evidently communicative circumstances may exert a considerable pressure on their competence, as well as performance. In effect, when they become aware that their communicative behaviour generates negative affect they say and do things that are necessary (e.g., by making acquiescent or deceptive statements) to terminate the exchange. For this reason Neuroticism is meaningfully associated with interpersonal problems. It appears that individuals high in Neuroticism may have a tendency to experience daily interpersonal conflicts, and undesirable relationship outcomes, which is connected with a hyperreactivity to negative or uncertain feedback and a heightened sensitivity to threats, especially of a social nature (Hirschmüller et al., 2015). Unsurprisingly then, they are “likely to be especially compromised and to suffer greatly in the realm of human communion—that is, in love, friendship, family life, interpersonal cooperation, social integration and the sense of belonging to a defining human community” (McAdams, 2009, p. 125). Individuals low in Neuroticism, however, demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction with family and romantic relationships. They tend to have younger and same-sex friends whom they see quite often (Laakasuo et al., 2017). Moreover, they also feel more successful with their occupation and financial security (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006).

2.2.2.2

Cognitive and Academic

The cognitive effects of Neuroticism can be explained by means of referring to the concept of cognitive bias—a cognitive phenomenon involving generating representations that are systematically inaccurate when compared to some aspect of objective reality (Haselton et al., 2016). It means that the unaware individual, erring in their reasoning, trusts their own judgments, decisions and memory, perceiving them as unbiased. Neuroticism indeed appears to be related to a negative bias in attention, interpretation and recall of information, augmented reactivity, and unsuccessful coping (Ormel, Bastiaansen, et al., 2013). Specifically, this trait comprises problems

44

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

with cognitive operations due to mind wandering, connected with shifting on-task thoughts to internal, self-generated thinking (Robison et al., 2017). It follows that the processing of task-irrelevant cognitive information takes place when attention is shifted away from the task to current worries, pessimistic mood, or somatosensory input (preoccupations). Aside from that, there are also reactivity processes pertaining to an increased investment of effort when task requirements appear too difficult (resulting in increased energy depletion and fatigue). These two types of processes are the basis for the so called ‘mental noise’ or irregularity of basic cognitive operations (Robinson & Tamir, 2005). Hence, neurotic individuals are inclined to experience difficulties with attentional control. They find themselves unable to disengage attention from mostly negative stimuli because of motivationally salient nature of the stimuli (Bredemeier et al., 2011). This leads to performance deficits in reference to tasks that relate to the central executive of the working memory system (Coombes et al., 2009). It is the control system of working memory that is vulnerable to anxiety and high physiological arousal, such as increases in adrenaline. For this reason, individuals high in Neuroticism have more memory lapses in comparison to non-neurotic individuals (Flehmig et al., 2007). Aside from that, personal concerns, anxiousness and the persistent negative mood of a neurotic individual are likely to make them ‘mind-wanderers’, i.e., they redirect attention from the task to internal, self-generated thoughts. In effect, the completion of task-relevant goals is hindered, and cognitive performance—significantly reduced (Robison et al., 2017), bringing more negative consequences as “a wandering mind is an unhappy mind” (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). However, Neuroticism is also claimed to be linked to creativity, especially intellectual, and creative problem solving. These associations originate from the benefits of rumination-related processes, such as problem-solving processes that worrying represents (Perkins et al., 2015). It is not clear, though, how Neuroticism facilitates cognitive processes underlying creativity (Rybakowski et al., 2008). The relationship between Neuroticism and creativity has been severely criticised due to insufficient evidence (Pickering et al., 2016). As to Emotional Stability, it is connected with less pronounced levels of activity in brain circuits (mind-wandering). Consequently, less mental noise, higher working memory capacity, and more effective attentional control in individuals with a low level of Neuroticism can be observed (Robison et al., 2017). Emotional Stability is also implicated in weaker reactions to stresses and negative stimuli. Consequently, stable individuals feel free from persistent negative feelings, ltend to be ess readily disheartened or anxious, less prone to distractions, more confident about their own capabilities, and free from other changing and distressing emotions (Ormel, Jeronimus, et al., 2013). Their effective coping can diminish interference with goal-directed behaviour, and facilitate learning from errors (Zhao, 2011). Neuroticism can also impact behaviours in the academic context (a performance setting). It turns out that anxiety, fears, doubts, and other problems diminish academic performance in students with high levels of the trait. It is especially relevant for situations inducing heightened levels of stress and arousal, such as exams but also long-term projects (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003b). Neurotic students tend to focus on their emotional state and self-talk, which interferes with attention to

2.2 Neuroticism

45

academic tasks and, consequently, decreases performance (Poropat, 2009). Indeed, in the classroom, students with higher levels of Neuroticism are found to declare greater stress and anxiety (Matthews et al., 2006). This may constitute the primary cause of lower achievement that may also be connected with their surface approach to learning (Furnham et al., 2009), when students are passive recipients merely trying to pass assessment (performance goals; Jensen, 2015). Another manifestation of avoidance behaviour is classroom absence (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003b), which can further impede students’ educational achievement (Hakimi et al., 2011). Nevertheless, aside from the negative relationship between Neuroticism and academic performance, a positive relationship has also been found (Komarraju et al., 2009). This finding can be attributed to higher levels of preparation for classes in neurotic people (Bratko, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Saks, 2006). Again, the main cause for such behaviour may be anxiety that may paradoxically make neurotics work harder (McCrae & Löckenhoff, 2010). Nevertheless, this facet of Neuroticism may also be regarded as crucial in retarding academic achievement (Furnham, Zhang, et al., 2005) due to its debilitating effect on cognitive processing and attentional control (Berggren & Derakshan, 2013). Such is the case of the effect of this trait on academic achievement in middle school. However, it may not be observed in college age students (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003), especially that this age-related change is not always evidenced (Laidra et al., 2007). In general, it appears that neurotic students are likely to evade many aspects of academic life; they may also perceive “education as a means to an end rather than an intrinsically fulfilling enterprise” (Komarraju & Karau, 2005, p. 564). Greater worry and anxiety generally produce neurotic behaviours, such as vigilance. This, in turn, may lead to greater preparedness and effort, especially when threats are infrequent and hard to detect. In such conditions, the neurotic students’ preparedness allows them to remain motivated, opting for final success (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). For this reason, students with high levels of Neuroticism and anxiety perform comparatively better than students low in these indices (Ackerman et al., 2011). Over-studying or the application of other compensatory behaviours may alleviate signs of stress caused by anxiety that limits their attention (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). As far as emotionally stable students are concerned, they tend to have higher academic achievement, and also score higher on ability tests. The main reason for this observation is attributed to their being less affected by anxiety (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003b). Thanks to that, they are able to switch attention away from anxiety-inducing information, which allows them to reduce the degree to which they are distracted by ruminative thoughts actively interfering with learning (Kircanski et al., 2008). They are also more able to remain concentrated on learning activities like homework (Lubbers et al., 2010). Emotional Stability is also connected with self-efficacy, which in turn is positively related to academic performance (Poropat, 2009). However, it has been found that older, emotionally stable students (secondary school education) demonstrate lower levels of academic performance, which may be attributed to grading practices and loosened bonds with the teacher in comparison to primary school observations.

46

2.2.2.3

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

Behavioural

Among the behavioural effects of Neuroticism, behavioural inhibition can be placed. It is a stable inclination of to demonstrate fear and avoidance behaviour in new situations, and is highly identifiable in children. It is correlated with Neuroticism (Vreeke & Muris, 2012), and constitutes a risk factor for developing anxiety disorders, a type of mental illness, later in life (Svihra & Katzman, 2004). In spite of the fact that individuals who are high and low in Neuroticism initiate a similar number of exchanges, neurotics tend to get engaged more often when the conversation topic is uncertain (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014). Their communication style, i.e. the typical way they send various kinds of signs in social interactions, is characterized by emotionality (Ahmed & Naqvi, 2015) and defensiveness (de Vries et al., 2013). Neurotics may tend to use more negative than positive words (Pennebaker & King, 1999), so their communication is marked with sadness, irritability, anger, and tension (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Siberg, Gameren, & Vlug, 2009). Aside from that, neurotic behaviour can be traced in eye movement. Such individuals display a tendency to fixate longer when stimuli are non-threatening, and to fixate less and shorter when they are potentially negative or aversive (Rauthmann et al., 2012). In response to stress and anxiety, neurotic individuals have a tendency to react with displacement behaviour, a certain type of activity that may be regarded as irrelevant to the situation (e.g., scratching, self-grooming and face touching). Such behaviour may have an important role in regulating the impact of stressors (Mohiyeddini et al., 2015). Neurotics are also likely to overreact, and are easily offended or upset. They fall on emotion-focused strategies that aim at relieving tension, such as avoidance, hostility, and emotional venting (e.g., complaining, self-blame) (Lee-Baggley et al., 2005). The trait has also been positively related to delinquency, conduct disorder and substance use disorders (Anderson et al., 2007), especially in adolescence. These delinquent behaviours comprise aggression, disobedience, theft, lying, destruction of property, and violence or peer rejection. Neurotics’ verbal behaviour is characterized by the use of negative emotion words, crying or arguing (Mehl et al., 2006). Moreover, they display a variety of somatic symptoms, such as difficulty sleeping, as well as physical problems, like bodily complaints (John & Srivastava, 1999). They also employ unhelpful problem-focused strategies that are self-defeating, like planning negatively (Karimzade & Besharat, 2011). Another behavioural consequence of Neuroticism is connected with a preference for avoiding acting when encountering a life stressor (Ireland et al., 2015). Although this reflects the basic withdrawal and inhibition features of the trait (overcontrolled behaviour), it must be indicated that in certain contexts neurotics also demonstrate increased, impulsive activity (Pocnet et al., 2017). It mostly concerns increased motor activity (e.g., fidgeting or restlessness). Aside from that, Neuroticism can also be manifested as either action (e.g., alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking) or inaction (e.g., unpunctuality or lack of planning) (Ireland et al., 2015). All in all, the trait has been found to constitute a valid predictor for behaviour that could be attributed to vulnerability: compulsive, excessive buying (Otero-López & Villardefrancos, 2013), workaholism and compulsion to work (Clark et al., 2010) or problem gambling (Mowen et al., 2009). On the other

2.2 Neuroticism

47

hand, emotionally stable individuals manage to resist temptations, e.g., they seldom overindulge or eat too much of their favourite food (Weiner & Greene, 2008). Facing challenges, they employ problem-focused coping styles, such as positive reinterpretation and growth(Karimzade & Besharat, 2011) or strategies that are productive (Gunthert et al., 1999). The review of research on Neuroticism presented above tends to demonstrate that the trait has mainly negative connotations pertaining to all spheres of the neurotic’s life. Their sensitivity to threat signals and the resulting negative emotionality are augmented by their inability to control mental noise, and to perform cognitive operations successfully. In effect, this neurotic cascade induces the application of defensive strategies. Trying to protect themselves in uncertain and threatening situations, they activate the fight-or-flight response. It allows them either to escape from danger or to approach it quickly to relieve tension, regardless of costs. Unsurprisingly, such problem-solving strategies often backfire, leaving neurotics with strong feelings of inadequacy. In order to relieve them, they may resort to face saving excuses, attributing potential failures to others’ incompetence or poor external circumstances. In view of these unfavourable conditions, it may be justified to claim that high levels of Neuroticism may not constitute a socially desirable phenomenon, especially in connection to neurotics’ tendency to have interpersonal problems. However, the unclear links between Neuroticism and creativity allow one to hope that high levels of the trait might be related to creative problem solutions (if not genius, as in the case of Isaac Newton). The observations made in the academic domain allow one to assume that growing familiarity with the learning environment and the challenges it poses may allow neurotic students to deal with them effectively, as the research on middle school compared to college students proposes. It may be concluded that the vigilance attributed to Neuroticism may in fact allow neurotics to be well prepared for the worst, though hoping for the best may be unattainable. Conversely, being free from negative emotionality does not always protect emotionally stable individuals from culminating hazards, eroding their composure during crises.

2.3 Extraversion Alongside with Neuroticism, this dimension can be found in most influential personality models, whose fundamentality has already been established in a string of taxometric and experimental studies.

2.3.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Extraversion Extraversion is often identified with energy and enthusiasm. Defined as one pole of the Extraversion-Introversion dimension, it describes “an energetic approach to the social and material world” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Nowadays, it is

48

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

referred to as the tendency to experience positive emotions related to the expectation or enjoyment of reward (DeYoung et al., 2007). This trait is characterized by “a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown” (Ewen, 1998, p. 289), which describes it as an interpersonal dimension. A conceptual definition of the term implies an approach toward the outer world (social and material) of lively nature, including traits of friendliness, activity, confidence, and positive emotionality (John et al., 2008). It involves a focus on social interaction, pertaining to an energetic, passionate, and bold approach to life and to social relations (Digman, 1997).

2.3.1.1

Aspects of Extraversion

This domain is placed within the Plasticity category, and contains the two higherorder aspects of: • Enthusiasm Also called affiliative Extraversion, it combines sociability (or gregariousness) and positive emotionality (DeYoung et al., 2007). In this way, the satisfaction caused by sociability (social component) is paired with the positive affect (sense of satisfaction) that sociability may induce. The characteristics subsumed under the concept are friendliness, warmth, gregariousness, and general positive emotionality. They reflect a combination of ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’, produced in response to the promise or provision of reward. In other words, enthusiasm appears to reflect the degree to which social interactions are experienced as pleasurable (DeYoung, 2013); • Assertiveness It is conceptualized as a compromise between the more universal and hypothetical idea of agency and the more socially specific sense of dominance. For this reason, it is also termed agentic Extraversion (DeYoung et al., 2007). In contrast to Enthusiasm, Assertiveness is a purer reflection of wanting (DeYoung, 2013), denoting a tendency to be leader-like, assertive and provocative. Associated with induced activated positive affect, this aspect is related to the motivation to actively seek and approach reward (Smillie et al., 2012). Extraversion, reflecting the primary manifestation in personality of sensitivity to reward (conceptualized as promises or the probability of achieving a goal, and the actual attainment of a goal), is generally linked to dopamine in the current literature on personality (DeYoung, 2013). It is mostly viewed as a social trait with sensitivity to the affiliation reward value connected with the aspect of enthusiasm. Yet, it also incorporates behaviours and emotions of non-social nature, represented by sensitivity to the status reward value, signified by assertiveness. Hence, the tendency toward drive, social status, and leadership (Assertiveness) reflects a motivation to attain desired goals—wanting. Enthusiasm, on the other hand, focuses on sociable interaction and, simultaneously, positive emotions, so it combines mostly liking

2.3 Extraversion

49

(the enjoyment experienced on receiving or imagining a reward) but also wanting that stems gregariousness. The functional complementarity of liking and wanting helps to clarify the conceptual distribution of Extraversion into the two aspects of Assertiveness and Enthusiasm (DeYoung, 2015). Consequently, in spite of being a strongly social trait, Extraversion refers to all types of rewards, not only sociallydriven (DeYoung, 2013). In general, extraverts are viewed as spontaneous, cheerful, joyful, enthusiastic, heartfelt, and outgoing. Introverts, who appear to be more influenced by punishments than by rewards, are less communicative, reserved, private and timid. Between the two extremities of Extraversion and Introversion, ambiverts can be located. They combine the qualities of the extremes, and in certain cases, may manifest introverted behaviour, while in others—more extraverted behaviour (Eysenck, 1981). In general, however, although high Extraversion may be generally related to greater positive emotion and attainment of rewards, it also brings about negative effects, like greater risk-taking and injury (DeYoung et al., 2012).

2.3.1.2

Facets of Extraversion

According to Costa and McCrae (1992), the six facets of Extraversion are represented by warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and, most of all, by positive emotions (see Fig. 2.4). Warmth is a facet of Extraversion characterizing the propensity to be interpersonally intimate with others. Warm individuals are inclined to be highly friendly and caring. Thanks to being benevolent to people, they are able to create affectionate and cooperative relationships with them (Abele et al., 2016). The ease with which they develop close relationships with others (Costa et al., 1995) is induced by the warmth facet that includes improved empathic processing (Haas et al., 2015). Being good-natured and sincere helps the individual to assess the other’s perceived intentions in a social context (Cuddy et al., 2008). The social significance of warmth may be attributed to evolutionary pressure that assigns it to the primary dimension of social judgment, which is necessary for survival (Fiske et al., 2007). It appears that people most desire trustworthiness and cooperation in others (Cottrell et al., 2007). In this way, those who are not friendly are perceived as more dangerous, which Extraversion

warmth

positive emotions

gregariousness assertiveness

Fig. 2.4 Facets of Extraversion

excitement-seeking activity

50

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

makes warmth other-profitable (Cuddy et al., 2007), and a designator of interpersonal acceptance (Rohner, 2016). Another facet of enthusiasm is gregariousness. It is connected with “enjoyment of social events and of others’ company”(Soto & John, 2012, p. 885). It is often used interchangeably with sociability (or liveliness), and regarded as a key feature of the trait (John & Srivastava, 1999). This facet of Extraversion is mostly connected with social interaction and inter-personal interaction (Li et al., 2010); more specifically— with a preference for and enjoyment of being with others rather than being alone. Thus, it represents a high social approach motif (Asendorpf & Meier, 1993). Sociability is conceptually and empirically associated with positivity and pleasantness, which might be, at least to some extent, generated by biological and genetical individual differences (Eid et al., 2003). Apart from that, the facet may be particularly pronounced in situations that are distinguished by low-effort, low negativity, as well as a lack of duty (Breil et al., 2019). The agentic perspective of assertiveness characterizes the facet as an orientation toward action, drive, and social dominance (e.g., subjective effectiveness for attaining goals) (Kirkland et al., 2015). It is conceptualized as an ability to pursue one’s own rights with confidence and dignity while respecting the rights of others (Bratko et al., 2002), including traits like leadership, dominance, drive, and persuasiveness (DeYoung, 2013). It follows that the facet represents a balance between being aggressive and being submissive, which induces self-respect, recognition of others and their needs, as well as collaboration. It is often regarded as an important social ability (Kammrath et al., 2015), involving little social anxiety, adequate performance in interpersonal behaviour, and overall optimal social skills (Kuntze et al., 2016). Assertive behaviour may be manifested as proactive (e.g., expressing needs) and reactive (e.g., defending), both verbal and nonverbal (e.g., showing irritation), and immediate (e.g., a face-to-face argument) or prolonged (e.g., influencing behaviour over time) (Ames & Flynn, 2007). As far as the facet of activity is concerned, it is mostly related to vigour, energy and liveliness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It represents an inclination for “a fast lifestyle, being high energy, fast-talking, and keeping busy as opposed to a more laissez faire disposition” (Rhodes, 2013, p. 540). When lively activity leads to excitement, excitement in turn breeds happiness (McCrae & Costa, 2003). A variety of physical, cognitive, and social activities may satisfy one’s need and preference for vigorous movements and social interactions, which can further enhance their mood and energy (Artese et al., 2017). Engaging in a greater quantity and quality of pleasant activities is connected with experiencing greater positive arousal (affect) and energy from being active (Kern & Friedman, 2011). Frequent, stimulating activities involve physical, cognitive, and, more importantly, social components (Stephan, Boiché, et al., 2014). It follows that time spent with others increases positive affect (Lucas et al., 2008); the more so because the qualitative nature of social experience may result from extraverted behaviour (Smillie et al., 2015). The facet of excitement-seeking is close to sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1994), as correlations between the two terms are nearly perfect (Zuckerman & Cloninger, 1996). Placed within the enthusiasm aspect, it is related to the inclination to pursue

2.3 Extraversion

51

and appreciate new and energizing experiences (Mann et al., 2017). It enables divergent thinking (Gocłowska et al., 2019) and curiosity (Byman, 2005). It may also entail planning or endurance. However, aside from the need for sensations that are novel, complex, varied and intense, the extraverted individual is also ready to take risks that may be physical or social in order to be able to have such experiences (Zuckerman, 1994). Yet, although sensation seeking predicts frequency of behaviours, such as gambling, alcohol and drug use, it is not connected with problematic levels of engagement in those behaviours (DeYoung, 2013). The reason is that in the case of this facet, risk assessment tends to be accurate, taking into account attempts to keep the danger below or at an optimal level. Thus, sensation seeking is connected with the frequency of pursuing new and risky sensations, and generally, not to other aspects of risk (Smith et al., 2007). Positive emotions that can be placed within the enthusiasm aspect constitute one of the most important facets of Extraversion. They are viewed as satisfying or beneficial situational responses that oscillate from interest and contentment to love and joy, involving “specific motivational effects” (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009, p. 14). According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998), they are evolved adaptations whose purpose is to generate enduring resources. Among them, joy, contentment, pride, love, compassion, amusement and awe can be placed (Shiota et al., 2006). Their purpose is to broaden the individual’s momentary thought-action repertoires and create their long-lasting personal resources of physical, intellectual, social and psychological nature (Fredrickson, 2001). Broadly speaking, different positive emotions aim at maximizing the beneficial response to different kinds of chances. The resources built by means of positive emotions function as assets that can be exploited later to increase the likelihood of effective coping and survival (Fredrickson, 2004). Specifically, these can include wider visual exploration patterns, innovative and original thoughts and actions, more open social groups, and a variety of objectives and mindsets (Cohn et al., 2009).

2.3.2 Consequences of Extraversion Again, the trait is connected with an array of ramifications, some of which are crucial for successful functioning of the individual.

2.3.2.1

Socioaffective

Among the most important affective ramifications of Extraversion the inclination to experience positive affect can be placed. The relationship between positive emotions and Extraversion is identified not only in relation to trait levels of positive affect but also to momentary and current positive affectivity (Wilt & Revelle, 2017). It is now hypothesized that extraverts demonstrate stronger activated positive reactions in rewarding situations, and that they participate in social activities to a greater extent

52

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

in comparison to introverts (Smillie et al., 2015). Furthermore, the accumulation of positive states may induce higher levels of positive affect in general (Wilt & Revelle, 2017). It appears that positive emotions experienced by extraverted individuals are frequent and highly intense and, at the same time, last for a long time. Their duration is the strongest predictor of Extraversion (Verduyn & Brans, 2012). Overall, extraverts are more sensitive to pleasant rewarding stimuli (e.g., food, music, monetary, etc.) and motivation to obtain future rewards (DeYoung et al., 2014). Their reward sensitivity is connected with “an incentive motivational state that facilitates and guides approach behaviour to a goal” (Depue & Collins, 1999, p. 495), which is connected with approaching rewarding situations and experiencing strong positive emotions and energy. It follows that extraverts’ sensitivity to appetitive motivation is closely related to positive affect. With increased amounts of positive emotions, Extraversion also relates to a more positive hedonic balance (the ratio of positive and negative affect), with positivity outweighing negative affect. Hence, an extravert can be regarded as a satisfied person with their low levels of anxiety and depression, and high levels of positive emotions and activity (Røysamb et al., 2018). Moreover, the positive affect of extraverts might be connected with their ability to regulate their mood. First, they are able to increase their positive affect by maintaining a positive mood by engaging in positive experiences. Second, they can repair their negative mood, as well (Hervás & López-Gómez, 2016). Consequently, a positive relationship between the trait and Emotional Intelligence is identified (Petrides et al., 2010), allowing for their smooth regulation of emotions. Understandably, Extraversion is related to the ability of savouring and enjoying pleasurable experiences, which are expressed openly (Purnamaningsih, 2017). In a similar vein, it appears as a negative predictor for suppression strategies because people with high Extraversion levels do not tend to hide, inhibit or reduce their emotions (Zelenski et al., 2014). At the same time, it is negatively associated with joy-killing (e.g., reminding oneself of what might go wrong) or dampening(e.g., anticipating interacting with a stranger) (Wood et al., 2003). Unsurprisingly then, Extraversion is a strong predictor of life satisfaction, which can be attributed to these specific affective dispositions that influence hedonic balance (Schimmack et al., 2002). Also, it has been established that more extraverted individuals are happier than more introverted individuals (Fleeson et al., 2002). On the other hand, introverts have a tendency to overestimate negative emotions, so it may appear that introverts do not want to be happy as much as extraverts (Zelenski et al., 2013). Being introverted is connected with orientation inward, sensitivity to threat, punishment, and the unknown (novelty cues), which breed avoidance motivation (Dietrich & Verdolini Abbott, 2012). However, a key conceptual feature of Introversion is the increased experience of solitude (Zelenski et al., 2013). Introverts are able to experience minimal difficulty interacting with others when necessary, which is not the case with extraverts. As they can easily get (chronically) overstimulated in highly social contexts, they display greater preference for quieter activities, savouring time alone. In other words, “introverts want to be liked and appreciated, and they need help just as much as anyone else: they are just not as motivated to seek out opportunities to build up that kind of positive social feeling and exchange” (McGonigal, 2011, p. 91).

2.3 Extraversion

53

In the case of the social ramifications of Extraversion, social attention, the key feature of this dimension (Ashton et al., 2002), should be taken into consideration. It can be described as “a tendency to behave in ways that attract or hold social attention and also to enjoy those behaviors” (p. 246). The situations that are particularly salient for investing time and energy that induce greater social attention are connected with the centrality of the individual in the event, like being the host of an event (e.g., party or ceremony). Gaining other people’s attention also serves the purpose of engaging in challenging activities of various natures (e.g., intellectual or social), and developing wide social and professional networks (Monzani et al., 2014). Understandably then, extraverts carefully choose favourable situations, aiming to approach mostly those with potential benefits for them or those producing positive emotion (Purnamaningsih, 2017). The trait is correlated with positive emotion words and social references (Pennebaker & King, 1999). All in all, the extravert’s increased enjoyment of and engagement in socialization being the core of Extraversion can also be explained by means of their greater use of affect regulation strategies (Augustine & Hemenover, 2012). Thanks to their nurturing existing social ties (a significant prerequisite for the trust and reciprocity mechanism), they are able to benefit from expressive social capital, i.e., from the social support that constitutes a very important type of resources nested in people’s networks, that can improve one’s life chances (Tulin et al., 2018). Aside from more active social lives and participation in more social situations, their behaviour is characterized by frequent laughter and swear words, more numerous conversations and less time spent alone (Mehl et al., 2006). Extraverts enjoy working under the stress created in competitive situations, so they have been found to perform better in a work setting that emphasizes competition (Bentea & Anghelache, 2012). They openly convey trust in affiliation and social opportunities because they aim to manage good relations with others (e.g., with friends, colleagues, and strangers). In the long run, it helps them to establish satisfaction with life in general in various kinds of situations (Depaula et al., 2016). Their high frequency of social interaction is paired with a felt sense of community, as well as with positive perceptions of conversation partners, and their perceived control in social contexts (Duffy et al., 2018). However, it is less clear if social interaction causes their happiness or vice versa (Zelenski et al., 2014). Moreover, it has also been found that affective and social bonds of extraverts with others may be quite superficial (Bauer et al., 2006). As to introverts, they tend to avoid or withdraw from many situations (Purnamaningsih, 2017). They are also more sensitive than extraverts to social prohibitions, pain, and fatigue, so they may suffer from performance drawbacks, especially when they are excited. But they have been found to perform better in relaxing and non-intensity environments (Bentea & Anghelache, 2012). They are speculated to be able to experience more positive affect on some occasions when they are able to act extraverted on demand, which is likely to produce higher happiness levels in their daily lives (Gundogdu et al., 2017).

54

2.3.2.2

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

Cognitive and Academic

The cognitive ramifications of Extraversion are mostly connected with the effects of positive cognitive bias (Zelenski, 2008). Consequently, this trait is related to attentional biases toward pleasant stimuli and greater reactivity to reward processing (Zelenski & Larsen, 2016). It may mean that these stimuli possess greater motivational significance for extraverts so they are assigned a greater degree of attentional processing (Inglis et al., 2018). For this reason, the likelihood of positive future events is assessed by them at a higher level (Zelenski & Larsen, 2016). They also appraise hypothetical events more positively (Uziel, 2006). It is possible that the happiness so frequently experienced by extraverts help them shape their positive cognitive biases over time (Zelenski et al., 2014). Moreover, the association between Extraversion and cognition appears to be restricted to specific areas of functioning. Specifically, extraverts perform better on tests of speed-attention-executive and fluency (Sutin et al., 2019). These associations are likely caused by their vigour and energy that may lower endurance (Rammstedt et al., 2018). This trait has been associated with faster performance and, obviously, more automatic processing, especially in the case of assertive individuals. However, their performance worsens when deeper, more effortful processing is required (Graham & Lachman, 2014). In fact, extraverts have been found to have better working memory skills than introverts, which is attributed to differences in the central executive component of working memory, making introverts slower than extraverts in comparing the contents of working memory to an external target (Lieberman, 2000). Although extraverts are “relatively good at divided attention, verbal short-term recall, retrieval from memory and speech production”, they also happen to be quite “poor at vigilance, long-term memory and reflective problem-solving” (Matthews et al., 2003, p. 355). Facing a stressor, extraverts rely on using constructive thinking strategies characterized by perceiving the situation as a learning experience, and analysing possible learning benefits stemming from it (Turban et al., 2009). However, Extraversion is often found a generally significant negative predictor of intelligence (Rammstedt et al., 2018), so it is negatively related to fluid intelligence (reasoning ability that consists in producing, transforming and manipulating different types of new information in real time) Zaval et al. 2015). The reason for this relationship is attributed to the facet of sociability. Moreover, a similar relationship is observed in the case of crystallized intelligence (the ability to use the knowledge acquired by education and experience, that can be measured by means of vocabulary tests), this time due to the facet of energy. It must though be noted though that contradictory results can be found in the literature of the field, positing no relationship between Extraversion and intelligence (Kretzschmar et al., 2018). As to Introversion, introverts do better on problem-solving tasks, especially those requiring insight and reflection (Moutafi et al., 2003). Also, in the case of nonspeeded crystallized intelligence tests, they outperform extraverts (Rammstedt et al., 2018). In monotonous environments, introverts are able to sustain attention; they are also able to tolerate the stress of boredom, so they are capable of continuing work activities in the absence of immediate reward or help (Matthews, 2008). For this

2.3 Extraversion

55

reason, they are better at solving complex problems, and long-term recall. Nevertheless, those low in Extraversion are likely to show biases for negative stimuli, which affects their social behaviour. Anticipating future social encounters, they may tend to experience elevated levels of anxiety about such situations (Duffy et al., 2018). To conclude, Extraversion may be connected with superiority in complex environments with diverse stimuli, while Introversion appears to be a good match for quiet activities requiring grit. It appears that the differences in cognition are the cause for dynamic social environments to play the role of “the extravert’s natural habitat” (Wilt & Revelle, 2017, p. 71). Also, in the academic context, Extraversion may play an important role. First of all, extraverts have been found to fail their courses more often in comparison to introverts (Sanchez et al., 2001), which may mostly be attributed to their activity and gregariousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a). They may also demonstrate lower general academic achievement (Nechita et al., 2015), especially after their childhood years (Laidra et al., 2007). In primary education, higher activity levels may increase the student’s performance ratings because of enhancing teachers’ recall of that student’s performance. However, this effect would decline when teachers become more distant in secondary education (Poropat, 2009). The negative link between Extraversion and performance may be attributed to the specificity of the trait. On the one hand, extraverts are more active and inquisitive, which can help them learn more efficiently, which may be the reason why they benefit from discovery learning (Saklofske et al., 2012). On the other, they are characterized by distractibility and impulsiveness; moreover, their active social lives may interfere with their learning because they are likely to devote less time to studying. For this reason, extraverts tend to have a higher number of absences in school, and school performance problems (Ciorbea & Pasarica, 2013). It specially pertains to students at the college level, although it has also been identified in adolescence (Laidra et al., 2007). However, it appears that extraverts may achieve academically when they take their work more seriously, and engage in social interaction that improves their bothering and disturbing emotional experience (Gallagher, 1996). Unsurprisingly, it has been demonstrated that introverts outperform extraverts in higher educational levels: secondary and tertiary (Banai & Perin, 2016). They also do generally better on academic knowledge tests (Zelenski et al., 2014). Aside from that, they receive higher grades than extraverts during their first exams, as well as during re-examinations and grade improvement sessions (Nechita et al., 2015). Actually, introverts, by failing to socialize, have more time for themselves, so they are able to spend time on effective studying (Ciorbea & Pasarica, 2013), especially benefitting from reception learning (Saklofske et al., 2012).

2.3.2.3

Behavioural

The most pronounced behavioural ramifications of Extraversion are identified with behaviour characterized by enthusiasm and energy, and with tendencies to be entertaining, dominant, socially proficient and approaching (Funder et al., 2000). These

56

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

dynamic social interactions typifying extraverts are mainly attributed to their prosocial behaviour. Extraverts are able to construct a positive social environment by means of their own positivity and, in return, by requiring positivity from others (Eaton & Funder, 2003). The specific social abilities represented by high levels of the trait may include their proactive behaviour, i.e., self-initiated, future-oriented actions aimed at changing situations and/or oneself, rooted in a high-activated positive affect (Wang et al., 2019). Extraversion breeds energy, stimulation, and eagerness to facilitate commitment and persistence in activities, which are fundamental elements of proactivity. Aside from high energy levels, the trait is also connected with approach motivation to tasks, which induces taking proactive steps that enhance chances for success (Turban et al., 2009). Obviously then, Extraversion positively predicts problem-focused strategies, e.g., rational action, and negatively—emotionfocused coping, e.g., responsibility acceptance (Mirnics et al., 2013). In general, extraverts display flexible coping skills, which helps them to adapt to a variety of situations (Lee-Baggley et al., 2005). They are active both verbally and physically. They initiate more conversations, regardless of the conversation situation features, such as certainty about the conversation topic (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014). Their communication style is characterized by expressiveness (de Vries et al., 2013) that constitutes a combination of verbosity (vs. uncommunicativeness), certainty (vs. uncertainty), energy, and eloquence (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting Siberg, et al., 2009). They often use words pertaining to social processes, communication, family, and human beings, which captures their pivotal characteristics of active social explorers (Hirsh & Peterson, 2009). They also speak faster and louder, use more words overall (especially those related to societal relationships and positive emotions), and a more unprecise and care-free communication style with heightened levels of language abstraction (Beukeboom et al., 2012). Aside from being verbally active, extraverts are also physically active, which helps them to preserve their energetic capacity and behaviour (Stephan, Sutin, et al., 2014). Understandably, the trait is negatively related with total sitting time, as well as with leisure screen time (TV viewing and electronic gaming) (Burnett et al., 2016). Quite unsurprisingly, Extraversion is also connected with alcohol use, smoking, popularity, parties attended or dating variety (Paunonen, 2003). No wonder that extraverts like to be busy, act vigorously and talk rapidly, attracted by fast cars, flashy clothes, and risky endeavours (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Their higher risk tolerance stems from excitement seeking (Oehler & Wedlich, 2018). In spite of the fact that introverts may appear less proactive in general, they can become dynamic when motivated by energizing higher levels of positive affect. Taking part in engaging and energizing events that elicit excitement and inspiration may lead them to generate more proactive behaviour (Wang et al., 2019). Verbally, introverts differ from extraverts, as they use more articles, numbers, and quantifications. Their linguistic style is relatively concrete and descriptive, inducing a higher perception of trustworthiness than an extraverts’ style (Beukeboom et al., 2012). Contrary to Neuroticism, the research on Extraversion renders quite mixed results that do not allow for a straightforward interpretation of the strengths and weaknesses of the extreme levels of the trait. At first glance, high trait levels are connected with positive emotionality and, importantly, with effective regulation of negative

2.3 Extraversion

57

emotions. This ability allows extraverts to enjoy good social contacts and overall life satisfaction levels. Their attention is constantly directed to pleasant stimuli, in search of rewards, which stimulates their carefree attitude. Their dynamism and inquisitiveness can induce good performance in various fields, especially that they possess flexible coping skills, allowing them to adapt to a variety of situations. Nevertheless, in order to be successful, they expect their efforts to be praised, so that their need for social attention could be satisfied. When deprived of chances to demonstrate their pro-sociality or chances to stay in the limelight, they may become disheartened, and abandon previous commitments. The active and energetic nature of extraverts stands in opposition to private and solitary disposition of introverts, who do not easily tolerate stimulation, and tend to keep away from social pressures. Their virtues are covert, and not easily detected by the public eye. However, their high concentration levels and the ability to solve complex problems can assure optimal performance, especially in stress-free conditions. The issue of the relationship between Extraversion and both types of intelligence (fluid and crystallized) that is either non-existent or negative is quite puzzling. On the one hand, it may seem that the extravert’s attentional bias is focused on the self and the impression they make on others are of primary importance, overshadowing matters that do not appear relevant to the extravert. That would also explain why introverts, who stay away from distractions are able to concentrate and solve complex problems successfully. On the other, no links between Extraversion and intelligence would point to the relevance of other individual characteristics associated with intelligence.

2.4 Openness to Experience This trait, also called Openness/Intellect (DeYoung, 2015), appears to be quite difficult to grasp, as probably it is the most controversial of the five traits (McCrae & Costa, 1997). It is multifaceted, covering a wide range of behavioural inclinations, attitudes, and interests associated with the pursuit of newness and diversity.

2.4.1 Higher and Lower Order Structure of Openness to Experience This dimension describes “individual differences in imagination, sensitivity to aesthetics, depth of feeling, preference for novelty, cognitive flexibility, and social and political values” (Sutin, 2017, p. 83). It reveals the specificity of one’s consciousness through the range of their interests, density of associations held between ideas, and flexibility of mental boundaries (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Altogether, it describes

58

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

the scope, depth, uniqueness, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121), which makes it an intrapsychic dimension. Open people have numerous and diverse interests, are able to connect ideas in a creative manner, while their curiosity induces their pursuit for variety, novelty and experience. On the other hand, closed individuals prefer routine and familiarity, the connections they make between ideas are more ordinary and practical. Hence, this characteristic includes emotional and motivational traits (e.g., seeking new experiences and feeling a wide range of emotions), cognitive traits (e.g., intellectuality and imaginative thinking), social expression exposed through nonconformity and liberal attitudes, and traits related to self-regulation (e.g., absorption and tolerance of ambiguity) (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015). Altogether, it describes the tendency to pursue, discover, value, comprehend, and apply both sensory and abstract information (DeYoung, 2015). It is a form of cognitive exploration, indicating both reasoning and perception. It follows that individuals high in this trait tend to pursue, perceive, understand, and use more information than those low in this trait (DeYoung et al., 2007).

2.4.1.1

Aspects of Openness to Experience

The domain of Openness to experience is contained by the Plasticity meta-trait category, which subsumes two higher-order aspects that are distinct but related concepts connected with information exploration: • Aesthetic openness It is also called ‘Openness to cultural experience’ (Woo et al., 2015), and explains how sensory and perceptual (aesthetic) information is examined through perception, fantasy, and artistic endeavour, generating creative achievement in the domains of art, beauty, feelings and values. Hence, it involves aesthetic interests and fantasy predisposition (DeYoung, 2010). It is associated with verbal intelligence (as the only form of intelligence), which may be traced back to the relationship of this aspect with implicit learning (DeYoung et al., 2007). This ability to automatically detect patterns (spatial and temporal) in sensory experience predicts creative success in the arts (DeYoung, 2015), providing unusual aesthetic experiences (e.g., chills, feeling touched, and absorption) (Fayn et al., 2015); • Intellect It is also called ‘Openness to intellectual stimulation’ (Woo et al., 2015), and reflects intellectual engagement with abstract and semantic information. It appears to be responsible for producing logical and causal knowledge about the world (DeYoung, 2015), encompassing descriptors of fluid (nonverbal; reasoning) and crystallized (verbal; knowledge) intelligence. Consequently, the cognitive mechanisms that promote intelligence, such as those associated with working memory,

2.4 Openness to Experience

59

are subsumed by the intellect (DeYoung et al., 2007). For this reason, Intellect reflects the ability to analyse causal and logical patterns and predicts creative success in the sciences (Kaufman et al., 2016). Taken together, Openness to experience describes the tendency toward cognitive exploration (DeYoung, 2015), both in beauty (Openness) and in truth (Intellect) (Johnson, 1994). The two aspects of Openness describe the ways in which individuals deal with novel stimuli (Woo et al., 2015). The aspect of Aesthetic openness that reflects dealing with raw stimuli (such as forms, colours, flavours, and human beings) is supplemented by the aspect of Intellect, catering to managing encoded stimuli (e.g., signs and equations used in scientific theories and models) (Woo et al., 2015). Through inquisitiveness, imagination, ingenuity, and innovation that are at the core of the Openness to experience domain, it is possible to detect how individuals process experience—investigate and interpret the world perceptually, abstractly, and imaginatively (DeYoung, 2015). Aside from its unquestionable assets, such as cognitive abilities, creativity and innovation, curiosity, willingness to learn, and adaptability to change (Woo et al., 2015), it carries a serious potential cost of evolutionary significance (DeYoung et al., 2012). It may cause higher levels of Neuroticism, i.e., suffering connected with apophenia—false detection of patterns or causal connections, especially when paired with lower levels of intelligence. This is why “madness and genius” are rooted in Openness to experience and its aspects (DeYoung et al., 2012, p. 76), as open individuals notice more about the world, are creative but pay a great price for their unusual capabilities.

2.4.1.2

Facets of Openness to Experience

In the traditional Big Five Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the facets of Openness to experience are conceptualized as: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values, presented in Fig. 2.5. Openness to fantasy indicates an expressive imagination and a tendency to foster detailed daydreams (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Individuals who are open in fantasy believe that their active imagination and elaborate fantasies contribute to “a rich and creative life” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 17). The facet is strongly associated Openness to experience

fantasy

values

aesthetics feelings

Fig. 2.5 Facets of Openness to experience

ideas actions

60

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

with a person’s cognitive and emotional predisposition. Fantasizing not only involves elaborate thinking but also a high level of creativity, which is important for artistic vision (Perrine & Brodersen, 2005). Obviously, fantasizing produces an outlet for contemplating and probing a world beyond what is immediately available (Connelly et al., 2014). It enables an open individual to gain a sense of control over their own inner existence, and triggers a desire to act in order to change their reality. Obviously, daydreaming plays a positive role when fantasies are achievable and held within realistic confines (Nekljudova, 2019). It may though have negative effects. Fantasizing might lead to getting absorbed in the inner world, which is connected with detachment from social interactions (Sánchez-Bernardos et al., 2015). It may thus cause health problems, bringing the risk of depression, especially in open individuals, mostly females, who have experienced a loss or failure (Nekljudova, 2019). Openness to aesthetics is connected with a deep appreciation for art and beauty (Kaufman, 2013), as well as less conventional domains and forms of art. This facet has been found to correlate with artistic interests and preferences for paintings. Indeed, it appears essential for creativity in the field of the fine arts (Perrine & Brodersen, 2005). Although those with higher levels of aesthetics may not have artistic talent or good taste, they are easily “moved by poetry, absorbed by music, and intrigued by art” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 17). Their interest in beauty allows them to appreciate art even when they do not comprehend an artwork emotionally (Swami & Furnham, 2014). In response to beauty, they experience a variety of emotional responses; from the so-called aesthetic chills, awe, mystic ecstasy to simple pleasure (McCrae, 2007). Sensitivity to art and beauty connected with this facet may take on various forms: a desire to collect art, enjoyment of beautiful commodities, having graceful handwriting, learning painting or believing the government should subsidize the arts (McCrae & Costa, 2003). What is more, it is also connected with serious health benefits: those who appreciate art and beauty have a reduced risk of cardiac death or inflammation (Sutin, 2017). On the other hand, openness to feelings entails a “receptivity to one’s own inner feelings and emotions and the evaluation of emotion as an important part of life” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 17). This facet of Openness to experience is of a particularly emotional nature because it is connected with attentiveness to frequent and complex inner feelings and affective experiences (Terracciano, McCrae, et al., 2003). People who score higher on the measurement of this characteristic are emotionally alert, empathic, and appreciate their own feelings. Contrarily, low scorers, insensitive to their private emotions and surroundings, have been found to display a limited range of emotions (McCrae & Costa, 1997). This facet is positively related to survival and longevity as low levels of emotional awareness may be connected with disease through various physiological, behavioural, social, or cognitive mechanisms (Jonassaint et al., 2007). However, high levels of emotional sensitivity pertaining to experiencing one’s own emotions more strongly can also induce some negative outcomes. Individuals (especially women) with high levels of Openness to feelings can easily become disoriented and devastated, affected with anxiety and mood changes (Nekljudova, 2019).

2.4 Openness to Experience

61

One of the traditional facets of the Aesthetic openness aspect of Openness to experience is constituted by actions. This facet is connected with a willingness to try new things or a general preference for novelty (Sutin, 2017), being “the opposite of rigidity” (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 49). Behaviourally, it shares some meaning with the concept of sensation seeking, and is partly related to Extraversion (Dollinger, 2012). Aside from being a behavioural tendency, it also incorporates a cognitive element because the tendency to explore, seek, and inquire is paired with thinking abilities and depth of processing (Gocłowska et al., 2019), constituting a dispositional and motivational form of Openness. It appears that individuals with a high level of Openness to actions in general select behaviour that makes them happy, so they have much better physical and mental health (Nekljudova, 2019). Their preference for new activities may promote greater physical functioning (e.g., aerobic capacity), which in turn is related to reduced cardiac mortality (Terracciano et al., 2013). It is also connected with fewer symptoms of depression, which means that unwillingness to prefer novelty, variety, and action engagement may be related to depressive symptoms (Chioqueta & Stiles, 2005). The concept of openness to ideas is related to intellectual curiosity or interests in intellectual pursuits (Sutin, 2017). It also pertains to “open-mindedness and a willingness to consider new, perhaps unconventional ideas” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 17). Aside from a cognitive component, expressed by greater flexibility in information processing and environmental exploration (DeYoung et al., 2005), it also comprises a motivational one with its emphasis on the engagement in activities breeding intellectual independence (Wainwright et al., 2008). Thus, open individuals take pleasure in deep, more effortful thinking; they also like theoretical considerations (Dollinger, 2012). Closed individuals, though, appear to have limited curiosity and, even when highly intelligent, they generally focus their resources on limited topics (McCrae & Costa, 1997). The ideas facet has been found to be critical for creative contributions in the field of science (Perrine & Brodersen, 2005) because it is connected with the ability to simultaneously weigh various competing ideas (Perrine & Brodersen, 2005). A high level of openness to ideas is also related to various health benefits, like protection against cardiac deaths (Jonassaint et al., 2007) or successful aging—through its links with fluid reasoning (Gregory et al., 2010). The facet of values is associated with the readiness to reconsider social, political, and religious values (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In other words, it can be conceptualized as the degree of the individual’s susceptibility to change or “the general tendencies toward being open-minded” (Sutin, 2017, p. 89). High scorers demonstrate a preference for independent thinking, and action. Their curiosity and quest for knowledge allows them to reflect on various possibilities, and respect diversity (McCrae & Costa, 2003). They are often branded ‘liberal’ or ‘nonconformist’ because they are likely to admit that the concept of good or bad is relative. With their approval for changes, they are able to appreciate knowledge for its own sake, and are ready to express their support for revolts (Nekljudova, 2019). However, low scorers have a tendency to protect stability and safety, so they accept authority and honour tradition, demonstrating their conservative preferences. Openness to values has been found to be positively correlated with successful aging (in reference to memory and everyday

62

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

functioning) (Gregory et al., 2010). On the other hand, high scorers may also suffer from higher rates of cardiac arrest and increased mortality rates (Jonassaint et al., 2007).

2.4.2 Consequences of Openness to Experience Although cognitive ramifications of the trait appear most substantial, other consequences may also shed some light on the understanding of this dimension.

2.4.2.1

Socioaffective

Affective implications of the trait are primarily connected with “the experience of more differentiated emotional states”, though this capability does not necessarily mean that open individuals are happier or sadder (Sutin, 2017, p. 86). This greater intrapersonal sensitivity to emotions may extend to identifying emotions in other people, and better emotion recognition (Terracciano, Merritt, et al., 2003). Aside from an awareness of emotions, open individuals also disclose these feelings to others, and tend to be able to regulate their own and others’ emotions. Individuals with high levels of Openness appear to be able to translate their predilection for new ideas and intellectual or artistic interests into creative behaviour thanks to their ability to handle and transform emotions occurring in the course of the creative process (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015). Yet, it is still unclear whether this mixed emotions experience is connected with increased susceptibility to mixed emotions, better tolerance for them, and/or a tendency to seek out such experiences (Barford & Smillie, 2016). For this reason, it is often argued that the ability to experience more positive and negative emotional states may be viewed as a ‘double-edged sword’ (Lilienfeld et al., 2020). This experience of going through conflicting emotions of high intensity appears to predispose individuals to fall victim to irrational thinking or mental problems, as extreme Openness may be reflected in an inability to separate reality from fiction, to identify non-existing meaningful patterns, and problems with the accurate interpretation of significant stimuli (Carter et al., 2018). Nevertheless, Openness to experience is significantly correlated with the ability to recognize emotions both from facial expressions and from sentences, reflecting a general ability to identify emotions. In response to acute stress, open individuals demonstrate a smaller increase in negative affect (Schneider et al., 2012). It is argued that in spite of the fact that such individuals are more sensitive to their experiences and emotions, they also have a more flexible brain, and are able to regulate their negative affect (Xin et al., 2017). On the other hand, their experience of positive affect is related to the enhancement of other positive emotions, like compassion, and love (Shiota et al., 2006). Aside from that, such individuals do not distance themselves from their emotions, even when they are distressed and induced by stressful circumstances (Lee-Baggley et al., 2005), which may point to the fact that the trait is positively related to Emotional

2.4 Openness to Experience

63

Intelligence (Petrides et al., 2010). Additionally, their responses to beauty and art evoke aesthetic emotions that are intense and clear (John & Gross, 2007). Among them are chills, a strong cross-cultural marker of Openness to experience (McCrae, 2007), fascination or awe, which suggests a variety of aesthetic experiences (Fayn et al., 2015). Conversely, closed individuals experience lower-intensity emotions, which they are not likely to demonstrate; however, by way of example, they are more likely to hold their anger back (Mill et al., 2018). They are uncomfortable with strong emotional reactions (McCrae & Sutin, 2009), and prefer to ignore problems or refuse to become emotionally involved (Lee-Baggley et al., 2005). In many cases, their negative emotions, such as anxiety, may be a consequence of their familiarity preference (Cochrane, 2019). As McCrae (1996) suggested, “most of the research to date underscores the importance of Openness to shaping interpersonal interactions” (p. 331). Thus, the social consequences of Openness to experience, summarized under the concept of ‘social engagement’, are worth outlining. Open individuals like to spend their time in environments that allow them to interact with the outer world (e.g., restaurants, bars, and coffee shops) (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). When they meet a new person, they are curious and attentive, and spend more time sustaining visual contact with their interaction partner, and less time talking about themselves. Hence, high Openness is related to connecting with new people due to open individuals’ curiosity and openmindedness. Nevertheless, the quality of their social contacts is positively related to how similar others are in terms of Openness (Nezlek et al., 2011). It appears that individuals high in Openness tend to attribute more behavioural accommodation to their conversation partners who are also open (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). They often do so because they are bored by closed individuals. With open partners, they can frankly articulate their feelings, and cooperate to solve conflicts (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). They are also generally more willing to cater for their interlocutor’s position on an issue, not necessarily agreeing but showing an increased understanding of the other’s rationale (Nezlek et al., 2011). Their problem-focused coping skills allow them to rely on their natural capability to find new solutions to problems, as well as their readiness to test novel tactics when old ones no longer work. Nevertheless, open individuals are not focused on deepening existing relationships (Zhu et al., 2013). Consequently, they form less traditional friendships; they are likely to have friends who live further away, of the opposite sex and another ethnic group, whom they meet less often (Laakasuo et al., 2017). For this reason, Openness may be useful for instrumental social capital, i.e., wealth or knowledge, that can be mobilized to improve one’s life chances because of an increased diversity of contact opportunities (Tulin et al., 2018). Openness may be less important in routine social interactions than in intimate family relationships (McCrae, 1996). Then, open individuals are ready to merge the self and the other, including their partner’s perspectives and identities in the self (Nezlek et al., 2011). As parents, they are emotionally expressive, warm, and encourage children to voice their opinions (Metsäpelto & Pulkkinen, 2003), which leads to their greater respect for the child’s rights and sensitivity to their needs. As to closed individuals, they are likewise more likely to have friends who are similar, but who are densely connected (Zhu et al., 2013). They care about already existing

64

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

relationships, and are a better source of trust and social support (Tulin et al., 2018). However, in response to interpersonal conflicts with friends or spouses, they tend to apply passive-aggressive strategies (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). As parents they request obedience, they also demand their children to follow their rules without objections, limiting their autonomy (Metsäpelto & Pulkkinen, 2003). Aside from that, closed individuals tend to demonstrate ethnocentric attitudes, which in turn, predispose them to increased prejudice against ethnic outgroups (Huxley et al., 2015). Low levels of openness are also highly connected with zealous patriotism (McCrae, 1996).

2.4.2.2

Cognitive and Academic

As to the cognitive effects of Openness, they are underpinned by the cognitive flexibility and intellect of open individuals (Sutin, 2017). The link between the trait and measured intelligence is well established, indicating substantial bonds with measures of crystallized intelligence. However, in relation to fluid intelligence, the relationship is weak, especially when numbers or abstract figures are involved, rather than pictures or other meaningful visual stimuli (Ashton, Lee, Vernon, et al., 2000). Also, its relationship with memory and speed of processing appears to be quite unpronounced (Gregory et al., 2010). Nonetheless, in the case of divergent thinking, this bond is strong, revealing that open people are able to produce plentiful, diverse, and original ideas for a given scenario in the verbal (e.g., uses for a brick) or figural (e.g., drawing objects by completing given lines) domain (Käckenmester et al., 2019). The connection between Openness and verbal intelligence is related to its relationship with implicit learning, understood as the ability to learn patterns unconsciously. Hence, open individuals have higher levels of verbal skills partly due to their greater capacity for implicit learning of the patterns of language (DeYoung et al., 2007). However, the bonds of Openness to experience with cognitive abilities are also reflected in their need for cognition (Sutin, 2017). Open individuals engage in and enjoy activities that are cognitively challenging, demonstrating higher levels of the need for cognition. At the same time, their need for closure is lower, which means that they do not crave definite and final answers. Understandably, the dimension is regarded as an investment trait promoting cognitive abilities and creative potential through curiosity and augmented engagement in different intellectual activities (Benedek et al., 2014). These activities result in an increased performance on such indices of intelligence knowledge (crystallized abilities), like information and vocabulary. Consequently, Openness to experience is a psychological factor that stimulates the achievement of cognitive creative potential and facilitates everyday creative activities, while intelligence is exclusively related to actual creative achievement (Jauk et al., 2014). It follows that open individuals who are high in creative potential focus on pursuing creative activities (and perform minor/personal creative accomplishments), but it is their intelligence that may determine if these accomplishments are personal or publicly acknowledged. This is the reason why Openness to experience is an ‘investment trait’ pertinent for creativity, fostering the pursuit for broader general knowledge, driven by curiosity (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

2.4 Openness to Experience

65

The foundation for creative achievement of open individuals with high intelligence is their divergent thinking that has been conceptualized as a key cognitive prerequisite of creativity (Carter et al., 2018). Moreover, high Openness to experience is also related to the concept called cultural intelligence. This is a kind of intelligence which indicates “an individual’s ability to deal effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds” (Li et al., 2016, p. 105), which typifies high levels of the trait. However, open individuals may not necessarily function well in an international context if their level of Agreeableness is low, hence both traits must work in concert to enable successful intercultural contacts. On the other hand, closed individuals may generally shun creative activities, which to a large extent deprives them of chances to acquire a foundation for experience and knowledge that might induce their later achievements. That may be considered a particularly serious drawback in those with low levels of intelligence. Aside from that, they detest chaos and disorder, experiencing affective discomfort in the presence of ambiguity, and a pressing desire to attain closure (Wastell, 2013). They also tend to perceive “the world in terms of real, practical, and tangible details” (Dollinger, 2012, p. 2523). Openness to experience can also be recognized in the academic environment. It appears that the trait is related to good academic outcomes mostly when accompanied by higher levels of intelligence (Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2012). Specifically, the aspect of Intellect appears to be connected with valuable skills required in a range of various subject domains, placing unique demands on the student. Altogether, Openness to experience appears to be a chief correlate of academic achievement and success in this domain. It is positively associated with final grades, even when intelligence is controlled (Noftle & Robins, 2007). It appears that open students are able to attain a wider range of academic benefits, not only those connected with being clever and motivated to attend classes (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). It is suggested that the trait enables the application of learning strategies impacting academic success. Aside from strategy choice (e.g., critical evaluation, in-depth analysis or independent research), open students use strategies more frequently. They also adjust their learning strategies to the demands of each specific learning situation due to their preference for diversity, intellectual curiosity and independent judgment (Marcela, 2015). Indeed, Openness to experience appears to be linked with achievement through independence, which can be particularly evident at higher educational levels (as represented by higher college GPA; grade point average). Open students are inclined to have an intellectual style that is compatible with contexts rewarding intellectual autonomy and creativity (Noftle & Robins, 2007). They also have higher academic aspirations, irrespective of gender (Rottinghaus et al., 2002). Moreover, the trait is also associated with a deep approach to learning, critical thinking, elaborative learning, meaning-directed learning, and constructive learning approach through the aspect of Intellect (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). Apart from being correlated with final grades, Openness to experience is also related to academic efficacy. The significance of this link pertains to fostering the student’s attitudes towards school-related matters, as well as to augmenting their epistemic motivation and cultural interests (Caprara et al., 2011). Nevertheless, it is also argued that the magnitude of correlation between Openness (as a broad trait) and academic performance is quite modest (Woo et al.,

66

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2015). Again, that can be attributed to the conceptual overlap between the Intellect aspect of Openness and intelligence. However, it is also proposed that the trait influences academic achievement mostly at an earlier stage, functioning as a substitute of cognitive capability nurturing learning. At higher educational levels it becomes less important due to the development of self-efficacy beliefs, and the growing capacity to regulate one’s learning (Caprara et al., 2011). However, in spite of that fact that Openness to experience is associated with characteristics that facilitate learning, it may also hinder achievement until graduation because open students with their preference for diversity and curiosity are likely to change subjects or interests, which may be an obstacle in their pursuit of a unified educational program (Trapmann et al., 2007).

2.4.2.3

Behavioural

The main behavioural manifestations of Openness to experience consist in the talkativeness, gregariousness, social poise and assertiveness of open individuals (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Verbally fluent, humorous, and expressive, they also use fewer third-person pronouns and past tense verbs (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). They do not differ from closed individuals in the number of initiated conversations, certainty about the conversation topic, familiarity of the conversation partner or their features (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014). Their communication style is characterized by reflectiveness, consisting mainly of the components of engagement, analytical reflectiveness, and philosophical or poetic communication behaviours (de Vries, BakkerPieper, Alting Siberg, et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the trait is negatively related to linguistic markers of immediacy in a consistent manner (Pennebaker & King, 1999). Open individuals love novelty and originality, which is manifested in distinctive and unconventional ways in which they decorate their personal and professional space (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Their general behaviour is devoted to preserving cognition (Sutin, 2017), revealed in their tendency to enjoy new ideas and experiences, and preference for variety. This may lead them to be actively engaged in developmental activities, such as reading, attending courses and conferences, intellectual and physical (e.g., weight lifting, aerobics or cycling) (Stephan, Boiché et al., 2014). They also demonstrate a preference for use of new technology but are not interested in religious activities (Jopp & Hertzog, 2010). Instead of being engaged in a limited set of activities, they prefer to participate in a range of different undertakings that offer diverse cognitive, physical, and social experiences (Stephan, Boiché, et al., 2014). At work, they less willingly undertake algorithmic tasks that can be accomplished in a well-defined and direct way. They prefer heuristic tasks whose accomplishment is unpredictable due to unclear ends, unclear means, or multiple means (George & Zhou, 2001). Moreover, their behaviour is most creative when they receive positive feedback and have uncertain means on their jobs. However, they are also inclined to quitting (and changing) their jobs, manifesting the ‘hobo syndrome’ of moving from one job to another (Woo, 2011). This finding may be attributed to their tendency to experience versatility, accompanied by positive views about it. They also show

2.4 Openness to Experience

67

a natural capacity to become leaders, mostly due to their tendency to instigate new ideas, ask more questions, and give more opinions (Kickul & Neuman, 2000), while pursuing greater autonomy and chances to increase their range of skills. Aside from that, they are inclined to produce creative works of art in the fields of literary work (e.g., poetry or journalism), the visual arts (e.g., painting or sculpting), as well as the performing arts (e.g., ballet or theatre) (Dollinger, 2012). There is a strong relationship between Openness to experience and liberal views (left-wing parties and ideologies) in many domains (e.g. abortion or immigration) (Caprara & Vecchione, 2013) with open individuals overtly manifesting different forms of political participation, e.g., voting, signing petitions or attending political meetings. On the other hand, closed individuals are behaviourally conventional. Their conduct is often branded as boring, submissive, overcontrolled or aversive, as they are more likely to attend to business and follow precise routines (Sutin, 2017), as well as participate in religious activities (Jopp & Hertzog, 2010). Their closed-mindedness may induce their conviction that the world is a dangerous and hostile place, which might prompt individuals to develop a more authoritarian mindset (Caprara & Vecchione, 2013). Conscious and conservative, they are inclined to support right-wing political actors with orderly, conventional, and organized appearance. The literature review included in the previous sections implies that the primary characteristic identified in Openness to experience is independence, that may refer to various aspects of the individual’s life. At the level of emotions, it can be viewed as freedom from the schematic uniformity of the positive or negative emotional impact. Open individuals enjoy the ability not only to recognize their own and others’ affect, but also to regulate it, even though the emotions they experience are highintensity. They are also cognitively independent, curious and versatile, enjoying divergent thinking, originality of ideas and have creative problem-solving skills. Their independence is also visible in the social sphere, where they remain open not only to ideas, but also to people or circumstances which stimulate their curiosity and need for cognition. With their intellectual potential, they are good candidates for excelling in the academic domain. Their deep approach to learning, strengthened by critical thinking, and meaning-directed learning enables them to attain longterm educational goals. However, their broadly understood independence can also constitute a cause of concern. The high-intensity emotions of open individuals may negatively affect their interpretation of events, while their overt focus on cognitive challenges may endanger their pursuit of a unified educational program. For this reason, the modest link between Openness and academic performance can also be ascribed to the independence factor that hinders the open individual’s pursuit of collective, external goals. Additionally, being closed to experience could be regarded as beneficial in some respect. In spite of the negative connotations of emotional and cognitive rigidity, being practical, organized and consistent may be regarded as socially acceptable due to the predictability and reliability embedded in closedness to experience.

68

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2.5 Agreeableness The trait of Agreeableness is connected with social harmony and cooperativeness. It is occasionally called the ‘Cinderella’ trait of the Big Five because its relationship with education, health, and work outcomes is quite inconspicuous, assisted by doubts about it being a trait or its understanding in cross-cultural studies (Furnham, 2017).

2.5.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Agreeableness Agreeableness is typically linked with differences in social behaviour and interpersonal relationships, being defined as “a superordinate summary term for a set of interrelated dispositions and characteristics manifested as differences in being likable, pleasant, and harmonious in relations with others” (Graziano & Tobin, 2017, p. 121). It describes differences between people in their orientations toward interpersonal relations, contrasting “a prosocial and communal orientation toward others with antagonism” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Subsuming behavioural tendencies to be kind, selfless, easy-going, compliant, or supportive) (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), it may also be conceptualized as “a substantive personality dimension related to the motivation to maintain positive relations with others” (Graziano & Tobin, 2002, p. 723). Thus, in terms of motives and emotions, it refers to altruistic consideration for other people, as well as to unsuspecting and big-hearted attitudes towards others (McCrae & Costa, 2003), while in terms of thoughts and attitudes—to trusting and generous sentiments. As far as the characteristics of people are concerned, those low in Agreeableness are fault-finding, suspicious, patronizing, likely to exceed boundaries, and openly communicate resentment. On the other hand, high levels of Agreeableness are connected with expressions of sympathy, consideration, warmth, compassion, and generosity, arousing liking from others (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). In other words, the trait explains how certain forms of social behaviour express individual differences through links to the psychological processes of cognition and affect.

2.5.1.1

Aspects of Agreeableness

This dimension is subsumed under the Stability meta-trait category. Agreeableness, in turn, contains two higher-order aspects. These are distinct but related concepts connected with affiliation with others or altruistic social behaviours: • Politeness This aspect reflects self-discipline and control of aggression and other disrespectful behaviour (DeYoung, 2015). Polite individuals are considerate of others

2.5 Agreeableness

69

and control their hostile impulses that may violate rules (Zhao et al., 2017). Politeness then appears to indicate the components of Agreeableness that are more closely linked to obedience of norms and traditionalism (Hirsh et al., 2010). With its correspondence to pleasantness, cooperation, and straightforwardness, it focuses on contrasting suppression and avoidance of aggressive or norm-violating impulses and tactics with general belligerence and antagonism (Judge et al., 2013); • Compassion This aspect refers to the tendency to associate with others emotionally and to be interested in their emotions (DeYoung et al., 2007). It also predicts readiness to intervene when others are treated unfairly (Zhao et al., 2017). In other words, from this perspective, Agreeableness is marked by empathy and interpersonal concern, stressing fairness and equality (Hirsh et al., 2010). Compassion focuses on nurturance, collaboration, and amiability tendencies, which is reflected in the measurement of empathy (Allen & DeYoung, 2017), due to that fact that it is crucial for recognition of affiliative stimuli (DeYoung et al., 2013). Originally, this trait is viewed as a combination of low dominance and high warmth (McCrae & Costa, 1989), which is now reflected in its contemporary perspective (Hirsh et al., 2010). This dimension might be derived not only from restraint of aggression, but can be represented by Politeness. It is also a function of an active expression of social affiliative systems (Hirsh et al., 2009). Although correlated, these two aspects of Agreeableness are differently associated with individual differences. The processes comprised by Compassion are relatively automatic, related to empathic emotional processes. On the other hand, Politeness is reflected in more voluntary top-down control (inhibitory processes) (DeYoung & Weisberg, 2019). Focusing on following social rules, this aspect complements Compassion embedded in connecting with others emotionally. All in all, these two aspects of Compassion and Politeness are administered by associative bonding and social regulatory systems (DeYoung, 2015).

2.5.1.2

Facets of Agreeableness

In the traditional conceptualization of the lower-order structure of Agreeableness, its facets are composed of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). They are displayed in the graph (Fig. 2.6). The facet of trust (vs. suspicion) is mostly conceptualized as the tendency to ascribe benign intent to others, while its opposite, distrust, is the suspicion that others are deceitful or threatening (Costa et al., 1991). More specifically, according to the interpersonal perspective, “trust is a psychological state or attitude of the truster to a specific partner (the trustee) with whom the actor is in some way interdependent (that is, the truster needs the trustee’s cooperation to attain valued outcomes or resources)” (Simpson, 2016, p. 264). It follows that trust pertains to a risky decision to rely on another person without being able to control their actions (Thielmann &

70

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications Agreeableness

trust

tendermindedness

straightforwardness altruism

modesty compliance

Fig. 2.6 Facets of Agreeableness

Hilbig, 2015); hence, it is engineered by properties of the self, their specific partner, and the particular goal in a specific situation. For this reason, it is considered the basis for psychosocial development, playing a role in dysfunctional behaviour and psychopathology (Graziano & Tobin, 2017), as well as in successful relationships. It is inversely related to such problem behaviours such as those connected with sexism (Christopher et al., 2013) or prejudice (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007). On the other hand, high trust pertains to greater satisfaction and positive feelings, while low trust—to exaggerations of consequences of the partner’s negative behaviour, and the diminishing of the implications of positive actions (Rempel et al., 2001). The next facet, straightforwardness (opposed to deception), is implied in directness and frankness in dealing with others (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Individuals with a high level of straightforwardness have a tendency to be forthright, truthful, and honest; at the same time, they are less likely to be manipulative (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Frank, sincere, ingenious, they trust others, and are themselves trustworthy (McCrae & Costa, 2003). An outcome of this positive feature are their better health outcomes that are likely to stem from good relationships with their physicians (Weiss & Costa, 2005). The importance of the trait mostly refers to moral philosophy because it negatively and independently predicts Machiavellianism, defined by manipulative inclinations, a cynical and dishonest opinion about human nature, and absence of conventional morality (Kowalski et al., 2019). Understandably, straightforward individuals have a higher normative expectation and perception of fairness. For this reason, they are more likely to dismiss and oppose unfairness or to reject unjust proposals (Takahashi et al., 2012). Conversely, low scorers are inclined to manipulate others, using flattery, foxiness and deceit (Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000). Altruism (versus exploitation) may refer to a variety of conceptualizations; from self-sacrifice to politeness and respect. However, in personality studies it is related to the concept of selflessness and concern for others (Costa et al., 1991). Altruistic individuals are willing to help others, sympathize with their needs, and consider others to be equally benevolent. They are also frequently rated by others as respectful, kind, compliant, and sympathetic (Piedmont & Weinstein, 1993). On the other hand, those with low altruism are uninvolved and self-interested. A high level of altruism, accompanied by warmth, is connected with an increased ability to distinguish the emotional states of others (Haas et al., 2015). Indeed, there is a strong link between

2.5 Agreeableness

71

this facet and prosocial behaviour, mediated by a sincere desire to aid another person, without expecting any benefits (Feigin et al., 2014). Altruistic behaviour toward kin helps one’s own genes, and toward non-kin may have a potential beneficial effect in future. This beneficial effect of this facet is particularly observable in reference to friends and acquaintances (Oda et al., 2014). Compliance, contrasted with aggression, is connected with tendencies to follow rules and norms (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Facing a conflict, compliant individuals are inclined to concede to others, instead of struggling. They are meek and mild, willing to cooperate (Costa et al., 1991). In contrast to compliant individuals, those who score low in compliance are antagonistic, compete instead of cooperating, and do not hesitate to express anger (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This facet of Agreeableness in childhood, when paired with restraint, is connected with fostering positive social interactions. Later in life, they cumulate in a benevolent disposition (Larsen et al., 2002). Consequently, middle-childhood compliance predicts adolescent academic performance, personal conduct, and social competence ten years later (Shiner, 2000). Other positive life outcomes also include years of education, being employed, a lower risk of early fatherhood, and lower risk of criminal conviction (Kern et al., 2013). The next facet of Agreeableness is modesty (vs arrogance), also called humility. It refers to an aspect of the self-concept, referring to “public under-representation of one’s favorable traits and abilities” (Cialdini et al., 2016, p. 473). Modest people, humble and unassuming, are not preoccupied with themselves, and do not talk about their successes. On the other hand, arrogant individuals are overconfident, and have an inflated view of themselves (Costa et al., 1991). In general, modesty is connected with a moderate self-view—perceiving oneself “as intermediate, rather than as very positive or very negative”, which generally tends to be accurate (Sedikides et al., 2007, p. 164). It covers a prosocial disposition or relational harmony by minimizing a focus on the self and encouragement of a wider, self-transcendent perspective. Regarded as a feminine quality, modesty demonstrated by women is connected with perceiving them as more likeable and even influential (Cialdini et al., 2016). Their modest behaviour in the workplace is received as compatible with social norms, and rewarded accordingly. On the other hand, low modesty or boastfulness appear to be a masculine characteristic, linked to high-status positions. However, modesty may also curtail self-positivity due to its link with prosocial orientation (Shi et al., 2017). Tender-mindedness (opposed to tough-mindedness) comprises the tendency to follow feelings, especially those of understanding, when judging and forming attitudes (Costa et al., 1991). This facet is related to “attitudes of sympathy and concern for others” (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, p. 18). Tender-minded individuals are sensitive to others’ needs, and attach great importance to the human aspect of social policies. On the other hand, those who score low on the measurement of this facet are hardheaded and unresponsive to others’ needs. Hence, it appears quite reasonable that women score higher on tender-mindedness (Feingold, 1994), which is also confirmed in studies on different forms of female supportiveness (Burleson, 2008). No wonder that tender-mindedness has also been found to be a strong predictor of sexism and prejudice (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007).

72

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

2.5.2 Consequences of Agreeableness It is proposed that Agreeableness is typically connected with differences in social behaviour (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). However, there also other ramifications connected with the uniqueness of the trait.

2.5.2.1

Socioaffective

In relation to the affective domain, it appears that prosocial motivation may be regarded as the affective basis for the construct of Agreeableness (Graziano et al., 2007). Although there is still significant scarcity of research on the links between the trait and affective processes, certain connections can be detected. Due to the fact that the main goal of agreeable individuals is to maintain positive relationships, the implications of these relations may underlie two types of emotion-related processes. They are connected with the emotional experience of the agreeable individual, who is subjected to empathic distress when their friend is in trouble; or pleasure—when their significant others encounter positive events. Another type of process pertains to emotional control efforts (e.g., when the individual’s emotional expression may threaten their relationship) (Tobin et al., 2000). Highly agreeable individuals are inclined to be more attuned to their own and others’ emotional states, they are also more apt to be both concerned and aware of how emotion may affect them. Indeed, greater emotional experience of agreeable individuals, accompanied by greater efforts to control their own negative emotions, points to the ability of regulating affect to maintain smooth interpersonal relations (Tobin & Graziano, 2011). However, the ties of the trait with Emotional Intelligence are quite weak (Petrides et al., 2010). One of the reasons may be that in the case of agreeable individuals, emotional control pertains only to preventing the display of their own negative emotions, while the display of positive emotions remains unregulated (Tobin & Graziano, 2011). Indeed, the regulation of negative affect and its expression can be identified in various age ranges of agreeable individuals; i.e., in school-aged children and university students (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Understandably, highly agreeable individuals provide more help to the needy, irrespective of situational contexts, mostly due to their chronic experience of empathic concern evoked even in the case of outgroup members, in ways that the persons low in Agreeableness do not. It may be possibly explained by means of their receptiveness of others’ mental states (Habashi et al., 2016), which enables them to apply various their-directed responses. Having experienced personal distress, agreeable individuals manage to regulate their own emotions by focussing on others (Graziano et al., 2007). In this way, Agreeableness is responsible for suppressing hostility-related feelings and response tendencies even before they may be demonstrated (Ode et al., 2008). On the other hand, those low in Agreeableness tend to provide less help to a smaller number of needy recipients because they are unable to shift the focus of their emotional reactions to the victim and their needs, mainly due to the fact that they are blocked by their primitive self-centred

2.5 Agreeableness

73

egoist motives of personal distress. Specifically, low Agreeableness is related to trait anger, which means that anger is connected with a relatively negative interpersonal attitude (Kuppens, 2005). Agreeableness then predicts suppression of aggressive impulses, annoyance, anger, and other socially disruptive emotions (Meier et al., 2006). Hence, the trait plays a significant role in self-regulation of negative affect, ‘cooling’ (inhibiting) anger and aggression (Ode et al., 2008). What is more, the trait is also connected with greater recovery from a negative emotion (e.g. sadness) (Pearman et al., 2010). On the bright side, agreeable individuals also frequently experience positive emotions, such as those comprised by joviality and self-assurance, unsurprisingly derived from intimate social bonds (Shiota et al., 2006). Their prosocial behaviour may nurture self-worth and effective psychosocial adaptation. It may also amplify experiences that boost positive feelings, such as others’ affection or appreciation (Caprara et al., 2009). To sum up, Agreeableness may be understood in terms of various emotional and motivational processes that take place when the individual faces a ‘person in distress’ situation (Furnham, 2017). The first process—fightflight, primitive and affective—is activated without conscious deliberation, causing emotions, such as distress. However, in agreeable individuals it is then supressed by the so-called ‘care process’ that is more developed and cognitive. It produces different emotions, such as relief at an opportunity to provide help (Graziano & Tobin, 2019). Hence, agreeable people are more disposed to use the care system, although it may take place at the cost of high levels of personal distress experienced in response to daily life conflicts evoked by differences in their private judgments and public behaviour (Kammrath & Scholer, 2011). The particular behavioural tendency of pro-sociality encapsulates the specificity of Agreeableness (Caprara et al., 2009). It covers a broad spectrum of interpersonal actions that bring benefits to others within a socio-cultural system (Habashi et al., 2016). Agreeableness is related to automatic tendencies toward prosocial responding through the mechanisms of deeply internalized social values. They include such society-related factors as intrinsic social motivation, well-practised social behaviours, and automatic prosocial responding (Cortes et al., 2014). Agreeable individuals find pleasure in the company of others, and connect with them without difficulty in order to create and cultivate relationships (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). This easiness is attributed to their lifespan of practice that has enabled them to thrive, succeeding at precisely “the kinds of active social effortful behaviours that comprise the social dos” (Cortes et al., 2014, p. 382). Helping, sharing, cooperating, even with strangers, are typical prosocial activities performed by individuals with an agreeable personality. They are activated by means of empathic concern through perspective taking (imagining oneself in the victim’s situation). This creates prosocial and altruistic motivation; however, the perspective taking stimulus is not necessary for agreeable individuals to help (Habashi et al., 2016). Their pro-sociality is mostly activated in response to stress that arises when the distress of others is observed, so they are ready to help even in the absence of perspective taking, irrespective of cost (Cortes et al., 2014). Understandably, they are skilled at constructive conflict resolution and intragroup cooperation (Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Agreeable individuals excel at performing effortful behaviours that benefit others, especially

74

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

outside of their in-group (Bolino & Grant, 2016). Sadly, they may not be skilled at performing such behaviours for themselves. Their seeming superiority of having positive relationships may be outweighed by the cost of being exploited by the recipients of their high empathy and kindness. For this reason, Agreeableness is not related to successes (such as a better salary or position), as kind individuals may not be able to maximize personal profits (Montag & Panksepp, 2017). Aside from that, in spite of the fact that highly agreeable individuals are often regarded as ‘Pollyanna’ perceivers who focus on the best in everyone, they are sensitive to both the prosocial and antisocial behaviour of others, and more harshly judge communal transgression when compared to other people (Kammrath & Scholer, 2011). Interestingly, the socially accepted behaviours of agreeable individuals constitute a model for non-agreeable transgressors who seek pardon. Forgiveness is facilitated by conciliatory gestures used following conflict and aggression. These specific signals and behaviours connected with apology are generally attributed to Agreeableness (e.g., offers to make amends, and attempts to compensate). So even non-agreeable transgressors performing such gestures are able to evoke their victims’ forgiveness and feelings of friendship (Tabak et al., 2012). In this way, following agreeable individuals’ behaviour may ensure a positive perception of the wrongdoer by their victim. Nonetheless, it appears that low Agreeableness (or antagonism) is the root of ‘undercontrolled’ personalities, whose hostile and impulsive styles induce maladaptive and antisocial behaviour (Laursen et al., 2002).

2.5.2.2

Cognitive and Academic

The ability to regulate emotions by the agreeable individual, mentioned above, would not be possible without effortful control, composed of emotional and cognitive selfregulatory components. As a cognitive construct, Agreeableness is linked theoretically to the cognitive control regions of the brain (Ode & Robinson, 2007). It pertains to differences in sustaining and shifting attention (voluntary attentional regulation), as well as to voluntary initiating and inhibiting action (inhibitory control)—the ability to inhibit behaviour when necessary. This mechanism allows one to suppress a dominant behaviour to perform a subdominant response (Graziano & Tobin, 2013), culminating in directing attention away from obstructed goals and towards adaptive action (Tobin & Graziano, 2011). Specific distress regulation develops in early childhood, and is continued into adulthood (Eisenberger et al., 2005). Hence, mature agreeable individuals have already experienced numerous opportunities for effortful attempts to counteract negative thoughts and actions, and successfully managed to self-activate prosocial thoughts. In this way, the structure of their semantic network has been altered to automatically trigger prosocial thoughts in response to aggression-related cues (Meier et al., 2006). In other words, “agreeable individuals, it appears, have taught themselves to turn the other cheek in semantic memory” (p. 140). The process of effortful control is regarded “the foundation of regulation within adult personality, particularly individual differences in Agreeableness in dealing with persons” (Tobin & Gadke, 2015, p. 464). The trait is also connected with need for cognition (Kassner,

2.5 Agreeableness

75

2011). It is a tendency to seek, acquire and reflect on information to make sense of the surrounding stimuli. It is reflected in higher levels of cognitive functioning and selfreported engagement in cognitive activities that have also been correlated with Agreeableness (Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997). Aside from that, need for cognition is related to susceptibility to compliance tactics that can also be identified with a high level of Agreeableness, attributed to the processing of social information (Kassner, 2011). Thus, attentional processes of aggregable individuals focus on prioritizing prosocial thoughts (Wilkowski et al., 2006). This biased allocation of attention enables them to disengage from aggression-related thoughts, further guiding their behaviour in a more positive social direction. Moreover, high Agreeableness is also related to cultural intelligence. It develops from reacting to external stimuli of a cultural nature and learning from interacting with others from different cultures (Li et al., 2016, p. 105). It may be concurred that although cultural intelligence is predominantly connected with Openness to experience, this relationship is entirely dependent on high levels of Agreeableness. The significance of Agreeableness for the link between Openness to experience and cultural intelligence pertains to three aspects of the latter: behavioural (the ability to develop or modify behaviours suitable for a new culture), metacognitive (the process of ‘thinking about thinking’ used to gain and comprehend cultural knowledge, and to understand intercultural experiences), and cognitive (the ability to understand similarities and differences among cultures by means of one’s general knowledge and mental maps about different cultures) (Ang et al., 2016). It follows that even a high level of Openness to experience is not sufficient to function successfully in an international environment without coexisting high levels of Agreeableness. On the other hand, sole Agreeableness is not sufficient in this situation due to the agreeable individual’s inability to adapt to new ideas and behaviours, and to openly communicate their discord (Li et al., 2016, p. 105). As far as general cognitive ability in Agreeableness is concerned, the trait is found to be associated with a cognitive style of a more analytical-over-intuitive cognitive nature (Cuneo et al., 2018). The trait has been found to be positively connected with general intelligence. This finding is attributed to the cooperative attitudes of agreeable individuals, that may be a driving force of human cognition (Bartels et al., 2012). On the other hand, disagreeable individuals have a tendency to dwell on antisocial cues, unable to disengage their attention from negative thoughts, such as those connected with anger and aggression. Due to the so-called ‘spreading activation’ process, their hostile thoughts kept in memory may activate other aggression-related concepts, often culminating in aggressive behaviour in response to aggression-related cues (Meier et al., 2006). In the academic domain, Agreeableness appears to be modestly linked with achievement (Vedel & Poropat, 2017). In childhood, these relationships are quite high (Poropat, 2009), demonstrating a predilection for time and effort regulation in learning contexts in agreeable children, which may be attributed to compliance with, for example, teacher instructions, effort, and sustaining focus on learning activities (McCrae & Löckenhoff, 2010). However, there are cases that such a relationship does not exist at all (Shiner, 2000). Instead, it is established that Agreeableness is related modestly to achievement ten years later, possibly due to the negative links of the trait with antisocial conduct. Similar findings pertain to the students’ achievement after

76

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

20 years (Shiner & Masten, 2012). Agreeable students with their accommodating and cooperative attitudes want to cooperate with others, like teachers or peers. The trait is also positively related with persistence, desire for self-improvement and good grades, as well as negatively with competing (Komarraju & Karau, 2005). Aside from that, agreeable students tend to be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. They are stimulated by their desire to gain knowledge and to attain tasks, as well as by requirements and standards (Clark & Schroth, 2010). Hence, academic performance is a socially accepted value in educational settings that may be treated by them with respect. More precisely, Agreeableness has been found to be positively linked to verbal IQ and negatively with seminar absenteeism (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). As the authors propose: “[i]f one had to pick a single proxy for a combination of intelligence and motivation (…), therefore, it would probably be Agreeableness” (ibid., p. 1234). Nonetheless, the relationship between Agreeableness and academic achievement has not always been confirmed. Such is the case of middle school children whose GPA turns out to be related to Agreeableness only when aggression is not controlled for (Barthelemy & Lounsbury, 2009). Similarly, academic achievement appears to be unrelated to Agreeableness in children at a similar age (Zuffianò et al., 2013). Such discrepancies of research results may be attributed to the nuanced nature of the trait, as well as measures of academic competence (Tackett et al., 2019). Accordingly, Agreeableness appears to be linked with GPA through effort regulation during academic tasks, as agreeable students invest more time and effort in their learning (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). This relationship is detected even in spite of low critical thinking skills, which stresses the importance of Agreeableness in allowing students who lack the intellectual potential to deal effectively with academic challenges. The trait also correlates positively with surface (reproductive) learning (Vermetten et al., 2001). The result can be attributed to the compliance and cooperativeness characteristics of agreeable individuals that are linked to effort orientation and external regulation represented by teacher instructions, which are part of surface learning. Also, the quality of the teacher-student relationship and motivational beliefs mediate the relationship between Agreeableness and academic achievement. It appears that the trait may have a significant role in maintaining high-quality relationships between the teacher and the student, characterized by closeness and peacefulness (Zee et al., 2013). On the other hand, it appears that low levels of agreeability may be related to academic difficulties in childhood and then, in young adulthood due to problem behaviours (Shiner & Masten, 2012).

2.5.2.3

Behavioural

Agreeableness seems to be extremely difficult to describe in behavioural terms. It mainly correlates with generosity, health-related behaviours, and avoidance of alcohol (Hirsh et al., 2009). Differences in behaviour that distinguish people with higher and lower levels of the trait pertain to characteristics comprised by such features as being amiable, welcoming, and harmonious in relations with others

2.5 Agreeableness

77

(Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Compliance and self-control of agreeable individuals that can already be observed in their childhood, later produce a compliant interpersonal style and kind disposition (Larsen et al., 2002). There are generally positive effects connected with high Agreeableness because such individuals are generally less prone to problem behaviours (Caprara et al., 2009). Hence, agreeable children demonstrate fewer disobedience and concentration problems, followed by less alcoholism and depression, fewer arrests, and more career stability in adulthood (Laursen et al., 2002). It, consequently, follows that Agreeableness appears to augment the benefits of positive traits, while its low levels may seem to aggravate the negative impact of less desirable traits. Trying to maintain positive relationships, agreeable individuals initiate positive conversations with partners they know (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014). Their communication styles are characterized by low levels of verbal aggressiveness (de Vries et al., 2013), defined by messages that respect the interactional partner’s self-concept (e.g., character, abilities, or appearance) (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting Siberg, et al., 2009). Among prosocial behaviours of agreeable individuals, forgiveness can also be placed. Obviously, the trait is correlated with the general tendency to grant pardon. The inclination to forgive is also related to many lower-order traits subsumed by Agreeableness, like empathy, moral responsibility and helping (McCullough, 2016). Forgiveness is also important in the case when directed to people high in Agreeableness. They may respond to it in accordance with the norm of reciprocity, which makes them less likely to upset their forgiving partner. It appears that lower levels of forgiveness on the part of others may induce anger, which collides with their prosocial mind-set (McNulty & Russell, 2016). However, higher levels of Agreeableness sometimes come with a price in the behavioural domain—Agreeableness may be positively linked to internalizing problems connected with high levels of self-control (Tackett et al., 2019). In the case of overcontrolled children and youth, these behaviours may comprise withdrawal, anxiety, inhibition, and depression. It appears that high compliance, with observable politeness and altruism, can sometimes be described as inhibited, frightful and apprehensive behaviour that under stress may become repetitive (Oshri et al., 2013). In contrast, among the most predominant behaviours revealed by disagreeable individuals there are externalizing behaviours, marked by aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity. They are accompanied by lack of control and noncompliance, caused by their inability to regulate emotions and behaviours (Meier et al., 2006). Such conduct is produced in response to the lack of experiences that endorse social skills, so disagreeable children may implement an intimidating interpersonal style that later makes them unhappy and unpleasant (Larsen et al., 2002). Individuals with a disagreeable personality have a tendency to demonstrate deviant behaviour and substance dependence (alcohol or cannabis use) during the transition from adolescence to adulthood (Oshri et al., 2013). In adults, substance abuse disorders (e.g., alcohol, caffeine or cannabis) can be observed. They are also marked by a high disinhibition that can be revealed in disrespect for social conventions, impulsivity, and poor risk assessment (Kotov et al., 2010). The overt behaviours of disagreeable individuals also comprise less empathic concern in observing victims of misfortune, and more prejudice against out-group members. Aside from that, such individuals tend

78

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

to demonstrate a higher rate of aggressive responses to such stimuli, as provocation (Graziano & Tobin, 2019). Apart from problem behaviours, low Agreeableness may also be marked by mental disorders (mood, anxiety and eating disorders) (Malouff et al., 2005). The research on Agreeableness unanimously stresses that the main goal of agreeable individuals is to maintain positive relationships. In order to satisfy it, they are ready to go to great lengths, regardless of personal costs. In their pursuit of smooth relationships, they empathize with others, and help them regulate their affect, because the quality of their own emotional experiences depends on others’ emotions. Their attentional processes prioritize prosocial thoughts, breeding cooperative attitudes. In effect, they are socially perceived as amiable, welcoming and cooperative. Thanks to these characteristics, agreeable individuals are socially desired, and demonstrate a lesser proneness to problem behaviours, regardless of their age. At the same time, the compliance and cooperativeness that accompany low critical thinking skills demonstrated by such individuals allow them to be accepted in various groupings. They mostly become accommodating partners, employees or students whose needs are of lesser importance in comparison to those of others’. For this reason, it may turn out that prioritizing other people’s needs come at a price. Agreeable individuals have to supress their own negative emotions because they find them socially disruptive. In effect, their high levels of self-control can sometimes lead to disillusionment or passivity, even severe internalizing problems. Unable to stand up for their rights, they rarely make a career or maximize personal profits. However, being disagreeable does not protect one from negative outcomes. The antagonism of such individuals fuels maladaptive and antisocial behaviour, evoked by uncontrollable, negative thoughts. Altogether, the Agreeableness extremes indicate quite unhappy and incomplete individuals—those unable to speak for themselves, who sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, and those who speak and act too much, ignorant of other people’s needs.

2.6 Conscientiousness It seems that the trait cannot be genuinely conceptualized as a single, homogenous construct. It can rather be regarded a collection of particular characteristics and features.

2.6.1 The Higher and Lower Order Structure of Conscientiousness This trait is usually described as “socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task-and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing and prioritizing tasks”

2.6 Conscientiousness

79

(John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). It comprises both proactive and inhibitive aspects, referring to movement and focus. The proactive attributes of Conscientiousness comprise the need for achievement and work commitment or dutifulness, while the inhibitive aspects are defined by moral thoroughness and carefulness (also, orderliness and self-control) (Costa et al., 1991). In this way, the conceptualization of the trait focuses on “a careful adherence to the dictates of conscience” that extends from simple tidiness of dress to avid dedication to a cause that may take a lifetime (Costa & McCrae, 1998, p. 131). However, this broad range of characteristics point to an internal unity founded in organized and purposeful behaviour. Altogether, the trait needs to be regarded as a spectrum of constructs that describe one’s “propensity to follow socially prescribed norms for impulse control, to be goal directed, to plan, and to be able to delay gratification and to follow norms and rules” (Roberts et al., 2009, p. 369). From the point of view of a broad-trait level, highly conscientious individuals are fastidious, principled and self-disciplined. They are also determined, achievement-oriented and diligent, at times to the point of ‘workaholism’ (Costa & McCrae, 1992). On the other hand, low levels of Conscientiousness are related to carelessness, even-temperedness and lack of self-discipline (McCrae & Costa, 2003).

2.6.1.1

Aspects of Conscientiousness

Similarly to Neuroticism and Agreeableness, this dimension is also comprised by the Stability meta-trait category. Its two higher-order aspects relate to the difference between prioritizing non-immediate goals and obeying rules (DeYoung, 2015): • Industriousness This concept involves willpower and the tendency to work hard and efficiently without distraction until the full completion of tasks (DeYoung, 2015). This ability to control disturbing impulses allows the individual to continue working toward distant goals (Allen & DeYoung, 2017). Consequently, this aspect is related to environmental mastery, life purpose and sense, as well as achievement. In other words, high industriousness levels inducing self-discipline and hard work are connected with feelings of competence, purposefulness, and accomplishment (Sun et al., 2018). • Orderliness This aspect of Conscientiousness encompasses order and cautiousness (Judge et al., 2013). In other words, it centres on a preference for tidiness and routine, as well as on an orientation to follow rules (Sun et al., 2018). However, these rules of conduct and organisation may not necessarily be set by other people; they are also self-imposed, and may not be shared by others (DeYoung, 2015). Aside from that, neatness, perfectionism, and attention to rules represented by orderliness may have negative consequences. Its positive relationship with Neuroticism (especially anxiety) indicates that some varieties of Conscientiousness could be maladaptive (DeYoung et al., 2007).

80

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

In general, Conscientiousness seems to indicate the inclination to exercise topdown control of behaviour and impulses for the sake of following rules and pursuing goals that may be quite distant (DeYoung, 2010). In order to follow an objective, it allows the conscientious individual to select behaviours that may be appropriate in a given situation. With its focus on the protection of distal or nonconcrete objectives and strategies from disruption, the trait of Conscientiousness reflects general motivational stability (Allen & DeYoung, 2017). It follows that both aspects of the trait distinctly deal with the regulation of motivation. In the case of Industriousness, the motivation to pursue long-term goals through effective strategies is connected with incentive reward sensitivity that helps to resist distractions (DeYoung, 2013). As far as Orderliness is concerned, it promotes attention to rules as a protective strategy in the case of distractions, and accelerating progress toward non-immediate goals. Consequently, Conscientiousness differentiates between two types of goal achievement processes, depending on the goal specificity, and differing, in the long-term, from rule-based goals (DeYoung, 2015).

2.6.1.2

Facets of Conscientiousness

The contemporary research and theory of consciousness offer various perspectives on the taxonomy of Conscientiousness-related traits. The most prominent ones include six facets, some of which may overlap, such as achievement, dependability, impulse control, order, moralistic and persistence (Hough & Ones, 2001) or industriousness, order, self-control, traditionalism, responsibility and virtue (Roberts et al., 2005). Aside from qualitative differences pertaining to nomenclature, the exact number of factors has not been selected (Roberts et al., 2014). However, as in the case of the preceding traits, the analysis of Conscientiousness facets outlined in this volume will pertain to the classical categorisation, proposed by Costa and McCrae (1992) in their seminal Big Five model. As such, these facets comprise competence, order, dutifulness, achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation. They are outlined in the graph below (Fig. 2.7). The competence facet of Conscientiousness belongs to the proactive side of the trait, that is revealed in “the need for achievement and commitment to work” (Costa & Conscientiousness

competence

deliberation

order dutifulness

Fig. 2.7 Facets of Conscientiousness

self-discipline achievement-striving

2.6 Conscientiousness

81

McCrae, 1998b, p. 889). It is connected with the inclination to be proficient, prudent, rational, and accomplished. It appears to be closely related to self-esteem (Costa et al., 1991), self-efficacy beliefs, expectancy beliefs, and self-concept (Trautwein et al., 2009). It can be deduced that individuals regarding themselves as competent (at least in a specific domain) tend to exert more effort and persistence in order to succeed than those with lower competence levels. Competence is also connected with self-perceived intelligence (Costa et al., 1991), as well as with domain-specific academic effort in connection with specific experiences in educational environments (Trautwein et al., 2009). Aside from that, the bonds of competence with self-esteem reveal the importance of the facet for psychological well-adjustment and mental health (Costa & McCrae, 1998). Order is regarded as the tendency to keep one’s environment neat and wellarranged, facilitating effectiveness in work (McCrae & Costa, 2003). It belongs to the inhibitive side of Conscientiousness, “seen in moral scrupulousness and cautiousness” (Costa & McCrae, 1998b, p. 889); however, in more contemporary conceptualizations of Conscientiousness the order facet is classified as proactive (Roberts et al., 2005). Orderly individuals are inclined to be tidy and clean, while their belongings are stored in an organized way (Jackson et al., 2009). On the other hand, individuals with low levels of the facet are sloppy and disorganized. Aside from that, the factor may, to a lesser extent, refer to a tendency to make and adhere to plans by means of to-do lists and planners in order to arrange a more systematically organized schedule (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Order, also called orderliness or meticulousness, is most often manifested in the individual’s immediate surroundings, such as home and the workplace, by means of behaviours connected with tidiness. Pathological forms of order are reflected in compulsive behaviour (Costa et al., 1991). Interestingly, the levels of the facet remain virtually stable across the lifespan in comparison to the others, showing a positive trend (Soto & John, 2012). Dutifulness (also called reliability or responsibility) is a proactive facet in the Conscientiousness models (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). It focuses on a “strict adherence to standards of conduct” (Costa et al., 1991, p. 889). This conceptualization of the facet allows one to view dutiful individuals as quite inhibited, rigorously obeying their moral principles (McCrae & Costa, 2003), unrelated to moral development or reasoning (Costa et al., 1991). However, the latest perspectives on the understanding of the meaning of the facet appear less radical. They allow one to formulate it as a tendency to face responsibilities and obligations toward other people in a trustworthy way (Eisenberg et al., 2014). In other words, individuals high in responsibility are inclined to keep promises, and follow rules, so that social groups may function effectively (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). On the other hand, those low in responsibility tend to be unreliable and irresponsible, skipping their obligations on a whim (Jackson et al., 2010). They also miss appointments, or oversleep, and try to bend or break rules and promises (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Achievement striving (also called industriousness) is connected with pursuing excellence in everything the individual does (Costa et al., 1991). Such people “have high aspiration levels and work hard to achieve their goals” and “are diligent and purposeful” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 18). It appears that they pursue objectives

82

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

with energy and order, valuing achievement and excellence, and ignoring social climbing, economic ambition, or aggressive competition (Costa & McCrae, 1998). They like to finish what they start, and are ready to sacrifice (take long hours or extra work) in order to do a good job (Mike et al., 2015). Owing to their propensity to work hard to attain goals, maintaining focus and perseverance (Eisenberg et al., 2014), they are able to succeed in various walks of life. Industriousness observed in early adolescence predicts employment, economic status, and mental health in middle age. Obviously, it is also connected with succeeding in achievement domains such as academics and work (Mike et al., 2015). On the other hand, individuals low in industriousness may refrain from work, procrastinate, or withdraw easily when difficulties arise. Self-discipline describes individuals who “have the ability to motivate themselves to get the job done” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 18). As a form of Orderliness (Jackson & Roberts, 2017) and self-control (Mike et al., 2015), this facet should mostly be viewed in terms of a proactive determination that enables the disciplined individual to continue working on a task that may not be appealing, even in spite of distractions such as boredom (Costa et al., 1991). Their behaviour can be regarded productive, characterized by “a rapid personal tempo” (Costa & McCrae, 1998b, p. 127). In the educational context, self-disciplined students show a tendency to have less problems with disengagement (Komarraju et al., 2009). On the other hand, the individual low in self-discipline tends to postpone or evade action, unwilling to commit themselves to any specific course of action. The facet of deliberation pertains to caution, planning, and thoughtfulness, represented by a planful, prudent approach in one’s behaviour and decisions (NaragonGainey & Simms, 2017). It represents the inhibitive side of Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1998). Like self-discipline, it may also be regarded as a form of impulse control or self-control (Mike et al., 2015). As such, it is connected with the ability to supress impulses and avoidance of being irresponsible or unreasonable. Being high on self-control denotes the ability to delay instant gratification for the purpose of achieving larger goals. Consequently, deliberate people tend to suppress action (Costa & McCrae, 1998) and control their emotions (Roberts et al., 2005). They also display low tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in information processing (Costa & McCrae, 1998). On the other hand, being low on self-control is related to impulsive buying, to postponing or cancelling plans at the last moment, and an inability to control behavioural responses when feeling annoyed or upset (Mike et al., 2015). Low deliberation predicts externalizing disorders, such as alcohol and substance abuse disorders, as well as antisocial personality disorder, distinctively linked to risk-taking and a disregard for the rules (Naragon-Gainey & Simms, 2017).

2.6.2 Consequences of Conscientiousness Similarly to Agreeableness, the social ramifications of the trait seem to be crucial; however, other types of consequences also deserve a thorough analysis.

2.6 Conscientiousness

2.6.2.1

83

Socioaffective

The trait is known to be “the least emotionally charged of the Big Five domains and least correlated with either positive or negative emotion” (John & Gross, 2007, p. 356). Although Conscientiousness certainly is connected with a range of emotionrelated outcomes, its direct relationship to affect cannot be clearly established, as in the case of Neuroticism or Extraversion (Fayard et al., 2012). The general affective ramifications of the trait point to links of the trait with both positive and negative affect as Conscientiousness has positive correlations with emotion recognition (Jenkins, 2017). On these grounds, it is proposed that its bonds with positive emotion are derived from agency in the environment (Shiota et al., 2006). More specifically, the conscientious individual’s experience of positive emotions, like joy, contentment, and pride, is rooted in the impact of agentic, goal-oriented behaviour producing these emotions. This specific behaviour type is also helpful in the effective management of negative emotions created by emotional distress (Roberts et al., 2014). Hence, in order to reduce negative emotions, the individual with high Conscientiousness levels is able to change their mind, and reconsider the situation. Understandably, the trait levels are inversely associated with general negative affect (Fayard et al., 2012). Among the negative emotions with the strongest bonds to the trait guilt can be placed, specifically guilt experience and guilt proneness. This specific experience in conscientious children serves the purpose of repairing transgression, and evoking responsibility (Eisenberg et al., 2014). In conscientious adults, guilt produces an even stronger need to produce achievement outcomes (Fayard et al., 2012). On the whole, conscientious individuals have an ability to evade guilt by changing situations that may cause negative emotions (emotion regulation) (John & Gross, 2007). Understandably, when experiencing negative emotions (e.g., anger or anxiety), they are able to reduce them automatically; they also quickly recover from them (Javaras et al., 2012). This faster recovery and decreased reactivity to negative emotions may be attributed to their effective emotion regulation linked with the process of effortful control. As they are less predisposed to apply negative reciprocity, like anger or revenge, they also have a tendency for forgiveness, which helps them to control emotions according to socially desired norms (Balliet, 2010). Overall, Conscientiousness is involved in emotion perception, so its links with Emotional Intelligence may be quite pronounced (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Low Conscientiousness, in turn, is related to such internalizing conditions, as anxiety and depression (Kotov et al., 2010), as well as obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (Kotov et al., 2007). This link is attributed to low perceptions of self-efficacy related to initiating and maintaining efforts towards goals in daily life (Naragon-Gainey & Simms, 2017). Hence, it may be assumed that low Conscientiousness (represented by a limited sense of self-efficacy and goal-related striving) may be related to proneness to failures and poor coping (Kotov et al., 2007). The personality trait of Conscientiousness connected with the propensity to follow socially prescribed norms and rules, and the socially desired qualities of goaldirectedness, abilities to delay gratification, and to control impulses (John et al., 2008) has great benefits for different social contexts of achievement setting: school,

84

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

work, health, and relationships (Mike et al., 2015). Conscientious individuals’ effective behaviours performed at school (see the section below) are later transmitted to the workplace, producing behaviours underpinning greater occupational success (Jackson & Roberts, 2017), as a consequence of their drive to excel (Mike et al., 2014). With their serious attitude to work responsibilities, investment and commitment, they abstain from counterproductive workplace behaviours (e.g., stealing, drinking on the job, being late, or absent). In this important achievement setting, conscientious individuals can develop their careers (Jackson et al., 2010), get promoted, earn more, and achieve higher satisfaction levels (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Their prosocial behaviours extend into older age, when retired conscientious individuals are more likely to volunteer, mostly due to their willingness to satisfy their achievement striving and success drives (Mike et al., 2014).Consequently, conscientious individuals are generally able to fulfil explicit and subtle expectations regarding their social roles in spite of the trait being regarded as intrapsychic (Ansell & Pincus, 2004). Their inclination to support and follow social norms can also be expressed with their conventionality, thanks to which they are more likely to maintain family and cultural traditions (Mike et al., 2015). High Conscientiousness levels are connected with healthier romantic relationships (Weidmann et al., 2016), as well as with marital satisfaction and stability (Roberts & Bogg, 2004). In general, it is posited that Conscientiousness might be helpful for upholding relationships, as it correlates with friendship quality and decreased relationship conflict, though it does not predict closeness or irritation (Selden & Goodie, 2018). Nevertheless, owing to their personal characteristics, like trustworthiness and reliability, conscientious individuals are more likely to take vital positions in both professional and friendship networks (Tulin et al., 2018). In the workplace, they often become leaders, while in friendship networks they are regarded important sources of investment (Selden & Goodie, 2018). Unsurprisingly, higher levels of social connections induced in Conscientiousness are coupled with positive health outcomes and longevity (Roberts & Bogg, 2004). Nevertheless, although the qualities attributed to high Conscientiousness are desirable and associated with a number of positive outcomes, they can also be disadvantageous when taken to extremes. In certain cases, very high trait levels are related to obsessive–compulsive tendencies and unrealistic expectations such individuals may hold about themselves and others (Carter et al., 2016). Also, any failure to achieve may decrease their levels of life satisfaction, eroding their core sense of purpose (Boyce et al., 2010). Aside from that, low Conscientiousness, not viewed as a socially desirable trait, with negative outcomes related to school, work, health, and relationships (Mike et al., 2015), may be beneficial in highly prestigious jobs requiring spontaneity and flexibility (Tulin et al., 2018).

2.6.2.2

Cognitive and Academic

The links between cognitive ability, viewed as measures of intelligence, and Conscientiousness appear to be negative (Moutafi et al., 2005). Most of all, it is argued

2.6 Conscientiousness

85

that more intelligent individuals are not conscientious, and can count on their intelligence to accomplish most tasks, with no aid of organization or effort. Nevertheless, it appears that in the case of the conscientious individual who may happen to be less intelligent, the qualities of being more organized, methodical and persevering would be advantageous. Active participation in the educational process may lead to an increase of crystallized intelligence (the accumulated knowledge of facts, information and skills, as measured by vocabulary tests) (Moutafi et al., 2004). At the same time, low levels of fluid intelligence (the biologically based ability to reason, think quickly and detect relationships between ideas) may also be compensated for with hard work performed over time (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006). Therefore, Conscientiousness at the school age triggers the increased development of crystallised intelligence. It follows that less intelligent conscientious individuals who stay in school need to compensate for fluid intelligence, while those who leave school earlier need to compensate for the crystallised constituent of intelligence (Wood & Englert, 2009). All in all, it is assumed that the association of Conscientiousness with intelligence—positive with crystallized and negative with fluid—is rooted in general intelligence. The lack of an intelligence subtype (e.g., fluid) may induce higher levels of the other type (i.e., crystallized). Conversely, low levels of crystallized intelligence may cumulate in higher levels of the fluid type (Furnham, Moutafi, et al., 2005). For this reason, the link between intelligence and Conscientiousness should be analysed from two perspectives: intelligence as performance and intelligence as cognitive ability (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006). The association of Conscientiousness with cognitive abilities that are linked with strong control over impulses also points to a certain flexibility of the cognitive ability of conscientious individuals, as well as to their ability to adapt to varying environmental and task requirements (Fleming et al., 2016). It also appears that the Conscientiousness facets may play an important role in predicting intelligence. Specifically, achievement striving and deliberation are negatively related to IQ, while dutifulness—positively (Zajenkowski & Stolarski, 2015). Achievement striving, connected with pursuing a clear set of objectives in an orderly manner, may compensate for a lower cognitive ability. Similarly, deliberation helps to deal with the high complexity and speed of life. Dutifulness, on the other hand, reflects high moral standards, induced by intelligence. Nevertheless, the above findings appear to be refuted in other studies, establishing no relationship between Conscientiousness and general intelligence (Murray et al., 2014). Such an apparently contradictory finding may be attributed to the fact that, aside from the compensating value of Conscientiousness, the trait may also have a deteriorating impact on an individual with lower intelligence levels. Hence, instead of the reinforcement of behaviour connected with effort intensification, the need to increase efforts may also lead to discouragement in some conscientious individuals. It may be inferred that the results of the combination of Conscientiousness and intelligence depend on other factors. The finding that Conscientiousness predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy in a reliable manner (Roberts et al., 2007) may constitute a possible explanation, aside from the role of such factors as motivation, reward sensitivity or locus of control (Murray et al., 2014).

86

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

As in the case of many other achievement settings, the trait of Conscientiousness appears to have great advantages also in the academic domain (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Of the Big Five traits, this one has been established to be the strongest predictor of academic performance at the three educational levels: primary, secondary and tertiary (Vedel & Poropat, 2017), with conscientious students generally having better grades (Trautwein et al., 2015). It appears that this trait’s social desirability extends to the academic context by facilitating learning (Poropat, 2009). This unsurprising finding is connected with conscientious individuals’ typical features of being more organised, thorough, reliable, self-disciplined and achievement oriented (Steel, 2007). Each specific facet of Conscientiousness (e.g., diligence, dependability, selfdiscipline, prudence, competence, dutifulness, order, and achievement striving) has been found to predict GPA and exam grades, with dutifulness and achievement striving, together with self-discipline at the primary level (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a). Nevertheless, it appears that the industriousness facets of the trait (achievement-striving, persevering, and self-control) play a more dominant role than the orderly or organized facets of Conscientiousness at higher educational levels (i.e., in reference to high school and college achievement) (Noftle & Robins, 2007). They seem to facilitate performance in these academic settings, attainment of academic honours, and lower disciplinary transgressions. Conscientious students have higher levels of achievement motivation capacity that allows them to persevere in the face of academic challenges (Richardson & Abraham, 2009). Their motivation to achieve is assisted by the belief that they will be successful within school settings (Caprara et al., 2011). The ability to regulate effort over the course of their scholastic career also contributes to academic success (Steel, 2007), especially that it is usually assisted by high competence beliefs that are highly domain specific (Trautwein et al., 2009). It follows that student effort depends on the consequence of specific experiences in academic learning. Unsurprisingly, conscientious students skilfully manage their learning efforts, and efficiently structure their time and learning environment (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). Their self-regulation abilities, especially those pertaining to effort regulation, enable them to excel in an academic setting. Their focus on achievement and performance feedback induces positive attitude to school by coupling interests and self-concept in the domains in which they are successful (Denissen et al., 2007). A conscientious student’s achievement (e.g., good grades), connected with a better perception of abilities, leads to a positive attitude to the specific subject, as well as their interest in it. It follows that such students work harder on the subjects they find most interesting, giving them a strong sense of competence, which seems to be especially important in language learning (Furnham et al., 2011). Aside from that, they engage in effective academic behaviours (Mike et al., 2015). They have been found to devote more time to studying, completing projects, and following deadlines, which helps them persevere in school, even when stress and difficulties arise (Tackman et al., 2017). They also pay attention to homework, though time spent on it is less important than effort (Göllner et al., 2017). On top of that, they are found to be “masters at preparing for specific tasks within a certain timeframe” (Jensen, 2015, p. 97), which allows them to obtain good grades but not necessarily broader general knowledge and comprehension. For this reason, it appears that students who are

2.6 Conscientiousness

87

low on Conscientiousness are likely to underperform in the educational environment because of their limited effort and unsuitable goal-setting (Poropat, 2009).

2.6.2.3

Behavioural

The uniqueness of Conscientiousness pertains to the socially determined control of impulses, which facilitates goal-accomplishing behaviours (Purnamaningsih, 2017). It follows that behaviours specific for the trait are comprised by two basic domains: goal achievement and self-control, which are represented by the constructs of responsibility, order, impulse control, and laziness, as well as formality, appearance, and punctuality, together with conventionality and cleanliness (Jackson et al., 2010). Generally, goal-achievement behaviours of conscientious individuals are reflected in a very efficient processing strategy whereby the whole chains of actions necessary to achieve a goal are performed in an ordered manner (Stock & Beste, 2015). A higher level of Conscientiousness is hence related to a more pronounced step-by-step processing approach, pertaining to a more effective progression of multicomponent behaviour. Conscientious individuals work hard, and follow the rules of society and social decorum. They are well organized, think before doing, and are clean and tidy. They are also able to delay gratification and cancel happiness, follow the norms, plan, manage and prioritize jobs (Purnamaningsih, 2017). Specifically, a conscientious, hard-working individual is able to endure challenges and setbacks, work long hours or even accept extra work in order to do a decent job (Jackson et al., 2010). At the same time, they tend to keep their promises, appointments, and rarely oversleep. Their typical behaviours also include avoidance of the negative consequences of their behaviours that might be caused by impulsive purchases, plans cancelled at the last moment or displays of negative emotions when feeling frustrated (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Sensitive to social norms, they are more likely to support family and cultural traditions. Their respectful and well-mannered behaviour is expressed by the use of formal titles, polite expressions and lack of swearing (Jackson et al., 2010). Their achievement behaviours, like planning, hard work, temptation resistance and respect for others, is facilitated by punctuality (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Conscientious individuals can be recognized by a neat hairstyle, polished shoes or erect silhouette (Jackson et al., 2009). They are also likely to be better drivers, which can be attributed to their sensitivity to social responsibility norms (Arthur & Graziano, 1996). In general, Conscientiousness tends to be marked by a lack of indiscreet and unproductive behaviours (Hirsh et al., 2009). Aside from socially desired behaviours, their communication style may also support their prosocial image. Although the trait levels are not related to the reported number of conversations started (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014), the conscientious individual tends to use a communication style that is characterized by preciseness (de Vries et al., 2013), viewed as a collection of clarity, conciseness, efficiency, and purposefulness (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting Siberg, et al., 2009). High Conscientiousness levels are related to a well-structured way of communicating, to the application of a suitable number and selection of words, and to talking about substantive matters (Bakker-Pieper & Vries, 2013). On

88

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

the other hand, individuals with a low level of Conscientiousness appear to be less able to exercise top-down behavioural control, so they tend to process parallel stimuli and task goals ineffectively (Stock & Beste, 2015). Unable to prioritize objectives, they are inept at performing multicomponent behaviour efficiently. Individuals low in Conscientiousness are likely to escape work, procrastinate, and easily give up in the face of a challenge (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). They may often exceed their credit limit, watch more TV, cancel plans, swear, oversleep, as well as break promises and rules (Jackson et al., 2010). They tend to be less sensitive to social norms, so their behaviour is characterized by riskiness, expressed by a higher rate of accidents, abuse of drugs and alcohol (Arthur & Graziano, 1996). The review of literature on Conscientiousness demonstrates that socially prescribed norms and rules are the main guideposts directing conscientious individuals’ lives. All aspects of their existence are in line with these guidelines. Thanks to them, they are able to harness their emotions and cognitions, revealing a stable and well-balanced emotionality, and cognitive flexibility. It allows them to avoid distractions and control impulses, even in spite of lower intelligence levels. In effect, they are perceived as socially desirable individuals who are able to adapt to varying environmental and task requirements. This propensity to adjust, strengthened by their need to achieve, strong goal setting, effort regulation, and self-efficacy constitute attributes of a socially accepted individual who can thus succeed in various domains. Positive outcomes of the qualities connected with high Conscientiousness are generally associated with academic, professional and private successes, especially when they like the things that they do. Nevertheless, an excessive focus on hard work, self-discipline, reliability and achievement-striving is likely to induce negative consequences. Among them obsessive–compulsive tendencies or unrealistic expectations about themselves and others can be found. It follows that when a conscientious individual is unable to attain these exaggerated standards by following the tried so far attitudes and behaviours, they may lose their sense of life purpose, and become discontented and resentful. Also, low levels of Conscientiousness prevent individuals from performing effectively in social and private contexts. Unable to exert sufficient self-control or suitable goal-setting, they threaten social norms of conduct. Consequently, such people do not make good students or employees. Surprisingly, though, they may succeed in unpredictable conditions, requiring the use of their unpredictable skills.

2.7 Gender and Age Differences in the Big Five Gender-related differences have been well researched in personality studies. As far as Neuroticism is concerned, they are specially noted in reference to negative emotionality. Women have been found to have significantly higher levels of the trait in comparison to men, especially in European and American cultures (Costa et al., 2001). Their scores of Withdrawal and Volatility are also higher (Weisberg et al., 2011). More precisely, females score higher than men on related measures, such as

2.7 Gender and Age Differences in the Big Five

89

those of anxiety, depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability than men (Costa et al., 2001). As far as Volatility is concerned, is has been observed that women do not always exhibit higher scores in the measurement of anger or angry hostility. On the other hand, men sometimes score higher on traits such as anger or hostility (Weisberg et al., 2011). This finding may be attributed to cultural differences in social norms pertaining to the expression of anger (Matsumoto et al., 2008). It also appears that the gender difference in Neuroticism is moderated by age. It follows that less pronounced general gender differences are observed in older age. Specifically, from late childhood into adolescence, females tend to declare increased levels of anxiety and depression; then in the college years, a negative trend on depression is detected. In the case of males, anxiety decreases across late childhood and adolescence, while depression remains stable (Soto et al., 2011). In general, Neuroticism tends to decrease with age (Kandler, 2012). However, in some studies, a significant association between aging and Neuroticism has not been found, indicating that the mean Neuroticism level is stable (Steunenberg et al., 2005). According to empirical research, there are some gender differences noted within the Extraversion domain, although they appear to be quite inconclusive. Men have sometimes been found to be more extraverted than women (e.g., Kokkonen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2009). In other studies, although the effects are quite small, women appear to score higher than men (e.g., Rahmani & Lavasani, 2012). Nevertheless, in the case of the aspects of the trait, Enthusiasm and Assertiveness, the results are less clear. In the case of Enthusiasm (facets of sociability, gregariousness, and positive emotion), women are found to outscore men (Weisberg et al., 2011). They also reveal higher levels of warmth (Chapman et al., 2007). In the case of Assertiveness, it appears that men score higher in the measurements of the facets of Assertiveness, related to social status and dominance (Weisberg et al., 2011) and excitement seeking (Costa et al., 2001), as males have significantly higher thrill and adventure seeking levels (Rahmani & Lavasani, 2012). They also show more positive emotions and higher levels of sociability and activity (Ismatullina & Voronin, 2017). However, women may also score higher on the measurement of activity, especially in older age (Chapman et al., 2007). The inconsistencies related to the measurement of Extraversion levels may mostly be attributed to the role of facets (Costa et al., 2001). It follows that gender differences in the measurement of Extraversion depend on the dominance level (Weisberg et al., 2011). Aside from that, they have been either inconsistent or negligible (Rahmani & Lavasani, 2012). In the case of stability of the trait, it seems that Extraversion has a tendency to be generally stable (Kandler, 2012). However, some decline can be observed with age (Kokkonen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Costa et al., 2019). In the case of women, after a strong increase from age 21 to 30, Extraversion decreases significantly from age 31 to 60. As far as men are concerned, a weak and barely significant decrease in adulthood is observed (Srivastava et al., 2003). There are significant gender differences in both aspects of Openness to experience (Intellect and Openness), with women scoring higher than men on Openness (Weisberg et al., 2011). In contrast, men appear to have higher levels of Intellect than women. A similar pattern can be revealed in reference to the facet level of the

90

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

trait. Specifically, women score higher than men on facets referring to the Openness aspect: aesthetics and feelings, while men outscore women in reference to the ideas facet (Costa et al., 2001). However, it does not mean that men are more intelligent that women because gender differences in general intelligence are insignificant (van der Sluis et al., 2008), in spite of the fact that men self-assess their intelligence levels higher. This regularity might reflect a gender biases of male hubris and female humility (Weisberg et al., 2011). As far as the developmental trajectory of Openness to experience is concerned, the research results are quite mixed, owing to the confounding caused by the application of different measurement scales or cultural influences. However, it is proposed that after the initial increase, Openness to experience levels stabilize in emerging adulthood (Wortman et al., 2012), instead of increasing, as proposed in other research (Borghuis et al., 2017). In middle adulthood, Openness is found to decrease (Wortman et al., 2012) or remains constant (Roberts et al., 2006). There are nevertheless more consistent results in reference to old age, when a decrease is identified (Roberts et al., 2006; Wortman et al., 2012). More recently it has been proposed that the levels of Openness to experience mostly increase from early childhood through midlife, reaching a plateau around age 60. Then they decrease in old age, following an inverted U-shaped trajectory (Schwaba et al., 2018). Yet, there are certain discrepancies in relation to specific gender groups. The decrease of the trait level is more pronounced in men than women after age 30 (Srivastava et al., 2003). By and large, only relatively small gender differences are found in relation to Agreeableness with women displaying stronger tendencies to be agreeable, trusting and compliant (Costa et al., 2001). They have also been found to behave similarly to high-agreeable men during dyadic interaction (Graziano et al., 1996). Aside from a more pronounced tendency to be agreeable in general, females are also inclined to be more tender-minded (Feingold, 1994). They score higher on the measures of Compassion and Politeness. It follows that they are ready to invest in others emotionally and affiliate on an emotional level, and to show respect to others and refrain from taking advantage of them (Weisberg et al., 2011). These gender differences in Agreeableness may be connected with gender differences in self-construal, i.e., perception of the self, originating in “social influences promoting independent ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving for men and relational ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving for women” (Cross & Madson, 1997, p. 7). For this reason, men’s self-construal is independent, unrelated to cognitive representations of others, while women’s is more interdependent, and related to others (Weisberg et al., 2011). As far as the relationship between age and Agreeableness is concerned, the trait levels have been found to slightly decline between ages 12 and 18 but then to mount considerably after age 18, which is connected with the development of socialization (Allik et al., 2004). They continue increasing from adolescence to middle adulthood (McCrae et al., 1999), and then to old age. In general, Agreeableness demonstrates positive links with age, starting from the middle teen years to beyond age 70 (Lucas et al., 2008). As in the case of the other Big Five traits discussed above, there are some research inconsistencies identified in relation to Conscientiousness (Rahmani &

2.7 Gender and Age Differences in the Big Five

91

Lavasani, 2012). Nevertheless, some gender differences in the total Conscientiousness measurement have been identified in the age-related US samples (Costa et al., 2001). Thanks to higher Conscientiousness, men can be regarded as more trustworthy, which may be connected with success in the work place (Averett et al., 2018). In other words, lower levels of Conscientiousness can be more dangerous for men, but they can compensate for this by behaving in a more conscientious manner (Tulin et al., 2018). Aside from that, certain discrepancies have been identified in the assessment of Industriousness and Orderliness, indicating a small difference between genders on either specific aspects of Conscientiousness or its facets (Rahmani & Lavasani, 2012). Specifically, women generally tend to outscore men on Orderliness, as well as on other the facet levels of order, dutifulness, and self-discipline (Weisberg et al., 2011). Conscientiousness is the trait that demonstrates the largest increase across the lifespan (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). After a decrease from late childhood into adolescence, followed by little or no change of the trait levels in adolescence and the college period, the greatest increase is noted during young to middle age, especially in reference to Conscientiousness and self-discipline (Roberts et al., 2006). This trend is especially pronounced for females than for males, with young females being slightly more conscientious in comparison to males (Soto et al., 2011). In older adulthood, a certain decline can be noted, with a plateau between the ages of 50 and 70, which can be attributed the onset of retirement or deteriorating health(Jackson & Roberts, 2017). Finally, old age is connected with a further decline of Conscientiousness.

2.8 The Big Five Across a Lifespan Traditionally, personality has been viewed as fairly fixed and permanent, especially after the age of 30, when it was said to be “set like plaster” (James, 1890/1981, p. 126). Some modern psychologists claim that by that age “personality is essentially fixed” (Costa & McCrae, 1994, p. 146). However, later studies have disproved the ‘hard plaster theory’ by suggesting that the plaster is ‘soft’. Nowadays, the proponents of this approach admit that the plaster hypothesis is “ripe for minor revision” (McCrae & Costa, 1999, p. 145). Now it is proposed that personality development is apparently completed by the end of one’s 20 s, which means that basic tendencies (personality traits) remain stable across the course of an adult life. There are also further personality changes identified even beyond 30 and across the entire life cycle (Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003) that are mostly attributed to a group of factors, each undergoing considerable transformation (John & Srivastava, 1999). They are called characteristic adaptations, i.e., attitudes, roles, relationships, and goals that expose the interactions between personality and environmental requirements collected over time. These are mainly socialization, stressful life events or changes in circumstances and social roles (Haslam et al., 2017). For this reason, most often changes in personality structure can be attributed to maturational modifications, for example

92

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

continuing physiological changes, social-contextual changes, like life events and one’s environment, and age-specific life functions (John & Srivastava, 1999). These modifications are most frequently examined by means of mean-level changes and rank-order consistencies (Specht, 2017). The first type of measurement represents the average levels of independent personality traits in groups of coevals over a certain time span. On the other hand, rank-order consistencies reflect the consistency of the arrangement of individuals in coeval groups with regard to particular traits across time. High rank-order consistencies signalize the individuals’ essentially unaltered status, while low—their altered trait values (higher or lower). It follows that personality trait levels remain surprisingly constant across the lifespan (stability in mean levels and rank-ordering), though this constancy is quite relative. Hence, personality changes systematically with age, and in reaction to the environment (Specht, 2017b). In general, the change of personality traits takes place in the direction of maturation (Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). According to a meta-analysis of the previous research performed on trait stability, the least consistency can be identified in the earliest years of life, especially the infant and toddler ages. Beyond then, trait consistency increases gradually, starting from the preschool years, into young adulthood, and then again in middle age (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). More specifically, in childhood serious developmental changes take place, nevertheless the formation of the Big Five at an early age predicts personality in later adulthood (Herzhoff et al., 2017). Although Conscientiousness is not pronounced in adult personality models, it is a significant trait in children (Caspi et al., 2005). Aside from that, Openness in the adult years is related to sensitivity to internal and external sensory stimulation. Similarly, raised energy and activity levels that are aspects of Extraversion are often observed among children. Adolescence, though, is the time when personality traits appear to be least stable, and exhibits inconsistent personality changes (Hill & Edmonds, 2017). The main fluctuations include moderate increases in Emotional Stability (the extreme of Neuroticism) and social dominance (a facet of Extraversion). This pattern has also been observed in the case of Openness to experience, which tends to expand after early adolescence (Branje, van Lieshout, & Gerris, 2007). At this specific developmental period, two main formative challenges shape the teenager’s personality. The first one is identity formation, with which every Big Five trait is related. For this reason, it appears that the process of establishing one’s identity is likely to coincide with the development of the personality traits. The other factor responsible for interacting with the development of personality traits is the anticipation of maturation, which is connected with feeling pressed to take socially expected roles, and develop certain traits (Hill & Edmonds, 2017). The transitory period between adolescence and adulthood is called young/emerging adulthood. It is the time when young adults (18- to 25 year olds) are not yet fully independent, and have not yet committed to a particular identity (Bleidorn & Schwaba, 2017). This demographically and subjectively distinct life stage is connected with a notable increase of traits indicating greater social maturity, such as an increase in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, together with a decrease

2.8 The Big Five Across a Lifespan

93

in Neuroticism. These age trends indicating increasing psychological maturity are explained by genetic factors, along with the result of normative life transitions to adult roles (Bleidorn et al., 2013). Specifically, individual differences in personality development are connected with life transitions and individual life experiences (Trautwein et al., 2015). Adulthood covers quite a long span of time – from about the mid-20ies until 60 years of age. In young adulthood, Emotional Stability increases, together with Conscientiousness. On the other hand, the initial increase in Openness to experience either stabilizes or is followed by a slight decrease in later years (Specht, 2017a). In the case of Extraversion, the research shows that young people become more independent and self-confident but their sociability and dynamism reduce as they grow older. There is conflicting evidence on the development of Agreeableness, still its relative stability is postulated. Middle adulthood (30–40 years of age) is the time of the continuing increase of Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness, while the levels of Openness to experience remain relatively stable. Similarly, the development of Agreeableness and Extraversion can be regarded as constant, though the research results in the case of the latter are quite mixed. On the whole, in this period trait consistency reaches the highest point after the age of 50 (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Nevertheless, there are surprisingly quite pronounced changes in personality development in older age (after 60). Extraversion and Openness still increase, Agreeableness remains stable, while Neuroticism and Conscientiousness diminish (Mueller et al., 2016). After 80, the traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Intellect appear to decline significantly, contrary to rises in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Mõttus, Johnson, & Deary, 2011). The personality traits are then affected by biological changes that may influence the brain’s functioning. Also, social changes can lead to isolation or feelings of worthlessness (Srivastava & Das, 2013). However, a personality can exhibit continuity over time as well as discontinuity across situations (Martin et al., 2002). The main objective of this chapter was to present a detailed analysis of the Big Five traits in relation to their origins, and model, grounded in the respective theory (Five-Factor Theory). The model was then discussed in relation to the modern views on the trait hierarchy, placing two meta-traits of Stability and Plasticity at the top of the hierarchy. They contain the Big Five traits (domains) that in turn subsume respective facets. In the next section the socioaffective, cognitive and educational, as well as behavioural ramifications of each trait were discussed in order to create a general background for the analysis of the Big Five in the foreign language learning context, included in Chap. 3. In the light of the above considerations, each trait turned out to have beneficial, and also negative effects for the individual’s functioning. Neuroticism, for example, has mainly negative consequences, evokes sensitivity to threat signals and negative emotionality that distort cognitive operations, and induce the application of defensive behaviours. However, vigilance identified in high Neuroticism levels may help neurotics to prepare for adverse circumstances. Also, the research on Extraversion demonstrated that the trait might have mixed connotations. Although it is connected with positive emotions, good social contacts and

94

2 The Big Five Traits and Their Ramifications

overall life satisfaction levels, extraverts get discouraged when deprived of social attention or positive stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, who do not easily tolerate stimulation, and tend to keep away from social pressures, have the ability to solve complex problems. Openness to experience is related to independence in the affective, cognitive and behavioural spheres, which allows them to enjoy divergent thinking, originality of ideasand creative problem solving skills. However, it may hinder the pursuit of collective, external goals. The research on Agreeableness demonstrated its focus on maintaining positive relationships, even at the price of supressing own negative emotions, and ignoring personal needs, which might lead to disillusionment or passivity. Conscientiousness, in turn, appeared another socially desired trait due to its the propensity to adjust, strengthened by the need to achieve, strong goal setting or effort regulation. Yet, again, an excessive focus on hard work, self-discipline, and achievement-striving might produce obsessive– compulsive tendencies or unrealistic expectations about oneself and others. The final section of this chapter was devoted to a discussion of age and gender differences in the Big Five, and their development across the lifespan. The aim of Chapter Three is to outline the specificity of the second language acquisition process. In the next step, the possible consequences of each trait for SLA will be provided, together with an analysis of the selected empirical research devoted to the respective domains.

Chapter 3

The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

This chapter focuses on a general assessment of the role of personality in SLA. For this purpose, first an overview of this scientific area is presented, starting with an introduction of the basic terminology pertaining to the field (which is relevant for the discussion of the studied issues), through a short presentation of the uniqueness of SLA when compared to other, apparently similar, research fields or subjects, to an outline of typologies of individual learner differences, among which personality can sometimes be found. In the next step, there is a discussion of the theoretical and empirical approaches to personality traits in SLA. Then, on the basis of the affective, cognitive, behavioural and social ramifications of each respective trait, outlined in the previous chapter, some theoretical propositions pertaining to the prospective research on each Big Five trait are offered. These are followed by a review of the existing, recent empirical research devoted to the specific personality dimensions. The basic principles guiding the selection of the studies described herein are their relevance for the purpose of this synopsis, as well as their relatively recent publication date (this millennium).

3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview In order to understand the role of personality factors in the process of foreign language learning, specifically related to Second Language Acquisition, which has its own metalanguage and unique position, the field of SLA must be scrutinized. Hence, below there is a presentation of the particular terminology related to this field. It is followed by a short discussion of the specificity of this research area, which places unique demands on the FL learner. Finally, the place of personality in SLA will be outlined by means of presenting the most relevant taxonomies of individual learner differences.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7_3

95

96

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

3.1.1 Basic Terminology In order to discuss the basic term of second language acquisition, the sociocultural nature of the learning environment and the order in which the language is learned must be taken into consideration. From the perspective of the nature of the learning environment, the concept of a/the second language (L2) is related to any language that is learned after the first language (L1), also called the mother tongue (MT), pointing to a lower level of actual or self-perceived proficiency in that language when compared to the primary (dominant language) (Stern, 1983). From the perspective of language proficiency, L1 is the language mastered to the highest level (e.g., MT may lose its dominant status for the sake of a new language in immigrant learners). The sequence of languages then incorporates the third (L3), fourth (L4), or subsequent languages (LX) (Gass & Selinker, 2008), also called additional languages (SavilleTroike, 2012). From the perspective of the chronology of language learning (Stern, 1983), the second language (L2) may be distinguished from a foreign language (FL), aka the target language (TL). The first language may be regarded as a non-native language to which the learner is naturally exposed, as in the case of French Canadians learning English, one of the two official languages of Canada, aside from French. Conversely, a foreign language is not an official language of the majority of the population. It may be one of the subjects taught at school, or used for communicating with foreigners (Miao, 2015), for example English taught at Polish schools. It follows that a second language usually “has official status or a recognized function within a country which a foreign language has not” (Stern, 1983, p. 16). It also needs to be borne in mind that the difference between these two types of languages may significantly pertain to the quality and quantity of language attainment. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this volume, the terms will be used interchangeably, safe for instances when purposeful distinctions between the two will be made. Aside from that, acquisition is often distinguished from learning. It is proposed that the first term refers to a subconscious process that is similar to the process used in developing first language abilities by children, when the acquirer is only aware of using the language for communication, and not of acquiring it (Krashen, 1982). On the other hand, learning describes conscious knowledge of a second/foreign language, entailing a knowledge of rules, awareness of them, and the ability to discuss them. This is usually connected with the learning of a non-native language in an environment in which that language is not natively spoken, as in the above example of Polish people learning English at school. Similarly to the distinction between second versus foreign language discussed above, the terms second language acquisition and foreign language learning will be used interchangeably, following the practice of most researchers in the field (e.g., Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Gass & Selinker, 2008), unless noted otherwise. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the sociocultural nature of the learning environment may also be regarded a significant factor when analysing the language learning process. Languages can be studied in classrooms, laboratories or other places which enable its intentional learning (Spada & Lightbown, 2013). This

3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview

97

formal (tutored) type of study, often called ‘instructed second language acquisition’, is impacted by teachers, peers, or pedagogic materials (Long, 2017). It may also be termed ‘classroom second language acquisition’ (Doughty & Williams, 1998) or ‘instructed second language learning’ (Gass & Selinker, 2008). On the other hand, languages can be learned or acquired in a naturalistic setting that offers informal opportunities of exposure, with no provision of organized language instruction (Ortega, 2014). It can take place through residence overseas or study abroad, when learners participate in mobility programmes, learning the language in a natural context. There is also an intermediate environment of the immersion classroom where content subjects are taught by means of the target language (Pérez Vidal et al., 2018). All in all, the concept of second language acquisition (SLA) broadly pertains to the learning of a non-native language after the first language has been mastered, regardless of the learning environment (second vs. foreign), naturalistic (informal) or formal (classroom), and regardless of the order in which the language is learned (second vs. third, or fourth) (Miao, 2015). Aside from that, SLA is also a research domain that “investigates the human capacity to learn additional languages during late childhood, adolescence, or adulthood, once the first language, in the case of monolinguals, or the first languages, in the case of bilinguals and multilinguals, have been acquired” (Ortega, 2011, p. 171). As such, it is the study of the acquisition of a language beyond the native language, whose main aim is to find answers to fundamental questions that focus on systematizing the specific ways of creating new language systems by learners with limited exposure to a second language (Gass, 2009). More specifically, it includes a focus on ways of learning additional languages, the differences stemming from first language acquisition, the factors contributing to additional language learning variability, and to their mastery (Ortega, 2011). In this way, SLA investigates an array of multifaceted effects and experiences that support “a puzzling range of possible outcomes when learning an additional language in a variety of contexts” (Ortega, 2014, p. 2). Drawing on multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives, SLA concentrates on the specific issue of how people acquire a second language, as well as on the related problem of why language success is not ever-present (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). It follows that the role of SLA is twofold. First, it advances an understanding of the theoretical puzzles involving the human language faculty by describing and explaining L2 acquisition phenomena. Second, it links these understandings to the real-world problems encountered by L2 language learners (Ortega, 2014). Second language acquisition is part of the broader field of applied linguistics (Markee, 1997), defined as “the academic field which connects knowledge about language to decision making in the real world. Generally speaking, the role of applied linguistics is to make insights drawn from areas of language study relevant to such decision making” (Simpson, 2011, p. 1). In other words, applied linguistics attempts to solve real-world language problems through clarification, reformulation, and reference to the abstract representations of language, offered by linguistics (theoretical or general) (Widdowson, 2005b). However, the connection between the two domains of inquiry does not only allow for idealising and analysing problems on the grounds of current linguistic theory (Davies, 2007). It appears that the movement from practice

98

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

to theory also takes place in the opposite direction, constituting a cyclical process from which both disciplines benefit (Bruthiaux, 2005). However, applied linguistics is not related only to linguistics. In fact, its problem-driven and real world based nature makes it “a mega-field” (Ortega, 2014, p. 7), informed by a variety of branches of science embedded in the social sciences and the humanities (Block, 2014). Collectively, they constitute a large collection of disciplines focusing on the formal study of language and other relevant fields with their own methodologies and principles (Spolsky, 2005). With its roots firmly established in language education (Mercer & Ryan, 2016), applied linguistics is also strongly related to a variety of disciplines, such as psychology or sociology (Widdowson, 2005a).

3.1.2 Uniqueness of SLA Similarly to the parent field of applied linguistics, the domain of SLA is also interdisciplinary, benefitting from insights gained from different fields of study. Among them, formal linguistics (Gass, 2009), with various branches of linguistics related to psychology (psycholinguistics), sociology (sociolinguistics) (Kramsch, 2000) or neurology (neurolinguistics) (Long, 2012) should be placed. Another vital domain is education (Spinner & Gass, 2015), mostly due to the educational implications for the ways in which languages can be taught in educational settings (Kramsch, 2000). Apart from that, the role of sociology and anthropology, helping to uncover and understand the mechanism of acquisition (Miao, 2015) must be taken into consideration, to mention the basic disciplines inspiring SLA research. From the perspective of this study, the links between SLA and psychology are of special importance. In the past, it appeared that the focus of interest of linguists and psychologists specializing in language was predominantly identical: uncovering the fundamental nature of language (Segalowitz, 2001). However, in spite of this seeming commonality, the two disciplines have parted, mostly due to their differing perspectives on language. Linguistics, with its focus on the form, meaning or context of language neglected the psycholinguistic validity of proposed language models, while in psychology, stress on the mental processes and structures underpinning language acquisition culminated in underestimating the understated linguistic patterns of language (Dörnyei, 2009b). Fortunately, the growing interest in individual language variation and other cognitive abilities has offered a chance for new approaches bridging psychology and linguistics (Segalowitz, 2001). These influences have also affected contemporary SLA theory, fuelled by advances in knowledge about the brain, which has been expanded by contributions of cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and cognitive neuroscience. Moreover, SLA has also benefitted from the widespread research on first language acquisition, traditionally inspected by developmental psycholinguists (Dörnyei, 2009b). Nowadays, these influences have led to the emergence of a new field—the psychology of language learning (Mercer & Ryan, 2016), also funnily enough, called psycho-SLA (Dörnyei, 2009b). This new area is “concerned with the

3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview

99

mental experiences, processes, thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviours of individuals involved in language learning” (Mercer et al., 2012, p. 2). It is now regarded as an established research field that can be placed within SLA and applied linguistics, connecting psychology and language learning (Tatzl et al., 2016). However, it also has diverse ties with communication studies, education studies and cultural studies. The contributions of educational psychology and language learning psychology have enabled not only to inspect the interactions between diverse psychological characteristics involved in the foreign language learning process, but also to expand the understanding of learners as socially situated beings (Mercer & Ryan, 2016). The distinctiveness of SLA as a research field is defined by the uniqueness of the processes it captures when compared to learning other skills or other academic subjects. It can be understood that, as in any other scholarly domain, language learning involves studying the content matter (L2 language system and subsystems involved in language production and development, such as phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics or lexicology). Interrelated as they are, they also contain integrated aspects of the L1 system that are embedded in other systems: cognitive, physical, and environmental (Lowie et al., 2018). Their productive character is reflected in the intrinsic dynamics of the learner that interacts with the contextual variables of a cultural nature (e.g., the roles of the teacher and students), as well as social (interpersonal relationships), physical (e.g., the confinement of the classroom), pedagogical (e.g., language instruction), and socio-political (e.g., language policy), etc. (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Language learning is also interactive because it is shaped by what the learners already know about their native language and other languages (Kootstra et al., 2015). Moreover, acquiring a body of knowledge is assisted by the study of new ways of communicating, the most basic tools for establishing meaning and making social contact. As language is a fundamental means of presenting oneself to the world (Brown, 2007), learning it may be considered “qualitatively different from other types of learning” (MacIntyre & Noels, 1994, p. 278). In sum, what makes language learning a very special and unique experience is the powerful interplay of acquiring various communicative, intercultural and social aspects of the language learning process. Among them, motivation and other influential variables, like the relationship between attitudes toward the second language speaking group and the classroom, language aptitude, self-determination, personality, and anxiety can be mentioned (MacIntyre et al., 2007). These complex psychological processes generate an amalgam of demands, restrictions, and challenges for the foreign language learner, especially since the learning process takes place outside the national linguistic and cultural norm (Kramsch, 2000). They also induce the application of a variety of language learning strategies and behaviours that allow for a successful management of the language learning process from the perspective of communication, affect and intercultural understanding (MacIntyre & Noels, 1994). Accordingly, the highly complex study of the second language is usually characterized as “fundamentally different (…) compared to learning another skill or gaining other knowledge, namely, that language and self are so closely bound, if not identical, that an attack on one is an attack on the other” (Cohen & Norst, 1989, p. 65). From this perspective, foreign language learning cannot be conceived of as just

100

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

acquiring a neutral medium of communication, but rather as constantly organizing and reorganizing the individual’s sense of self through an identity construction (Jang, 2006) (though it must though be admitted that language learners not always identify themselves with the speakers of the language they learn). Moreover, the apparent imposed and artificial use of the foreign language in the classroom induces a significant lack of control, augmented by the ambiguity embedded in the specificity of the language learning process (e.g., the unclear meaning of new vocabulary items, different uses of grammatical tenses, or doubts about pronunciation). L2 students are surrounded by numerous unfamiliar grammatical, lexical, phonological and cultural cues that cannot be easily interpreted (Chapelle & Roberts, 1986). With their specific nature of novelty, complexity and insolubility, these situations bring about considerable ambiguity. They also generate strong feelings of discomfort and anxiety, threatening the learner’s language ego, which makes foreign language learning “an emotionally loaded experience” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 10). When facing obstacles and challenges, a language student may remain passive, depriving themselves of chances to develop their linguistic proficiency in an environment that is perceived as dangerous and uncertain. No wonder that this “profoundly unsettling psychological proposition” (Guiora, 1984, p. 8) of the foreign language learning process thwarts the learner’s potential, and demands a great deal of personal investment, concentration, patience, and active involvement. As a result of these interrelated mechanisms, ambivalent feelings of being simultaneously willing and unwilling to participate in this process are evoked (Macintyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011). For this reason, it may appear that, on the one hand, the learner may recognize the importance of learning the language, and is drawn to participate in the learning process. However, on the other, they may avoid it because of their awareness of own linguistic shortcomings, that may in effect lead to losing face in front of those whose opinion matters to them, that is, their teacher and peers. It may further be deduced that the challenges encountered on the long path to proficiency may be satisfactorily addressed through various favouring factors, among which the distinctive qualities of the learner’s personal characteristics.

3.1.3 Individual Learner Differences A wide interest in human nature and behaviour is reflected in many subject areas of modern psychology (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). However, a focus on the universality of psychological mechanisms, and, also their variation (differences) is the subject of scientific research performed by a special branch of modern psychology, called differential psychology, also termed individual difference research (Revelle et al., 2011). These individual differences (IDs) can fall into the following broad categories: • inter-individual (differences between individuals), • intra-individual (differences within the same person over time),

3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview

101

• inter-individual differences of intra-individual differences, i.e., trajectories (differences between individuals with respect to changes over time within one person) (Lonsdorf & Merz, 2017, p. 704). Individualdifferences are broadly conceptualized as “the more-or-less enduring psychological characteristics that distinguish one person from another and thus help to define each person’s individuality” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007, p. 472). Shaping behaviour and the individual’s sense of self, they pertain to various spheres of human functioning, such as affect (i.e., feelings, emotions, and moods), behaviour (i.e., motor actions such as walking and talking, as well as physiological processes such as heart rate), cognition (i.e., thoughts and beliefs as well as how one makes meaning from the world and out of one’s life), desires or motivation (i.e., motivational tendencies, drives, and one’s short and long-term goals) (Revelle et al., 2011). The most significant individual differences include intelligence, personality traits, and values. A critical part of the study of second language acquisition centres on understanding learner variation, mainly due to the interest in reasons for varying levels of learners’ ultimate success in L2 mastery (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). It has always seemed clear that L2 learners “are not merely ‘empty vessels’ that will need to be filled by the wise words of the teacher; instead, they carry a considerable ‘personal baggage’ to the language course that will have a significant bearing on how learning proceeds” (Cohen, 2013, p. 161). However, the conceptualization of this ‘personal baggage’ has been severely impacted by trends that have dominated SLA research. In SLA, individual differences are defined as “characteristics or traits in respect of which individuals may be shown to differ from each other” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 1) or, more specifically, as “background learner variables that modify and personalize the overall trajectory of the language acquisition processes” (Dörnyei, 2009a, p. 231). These stable personal characteristics are applicable to every individual, and exposes the differences among them. In this way, permanent and regular deviations from a normative model can be revealed (Dörnyei, 2005). The ‘classic’ conceptualization of IDs was based on the following assumptions: • IDs are clearly definable psychological constructs, • IDs are relatively stable, • different IDs compose quite monolithic units pertaining to different aspects of human functioning; as such they can only be moderately related to one another, • IDs are learner-internal, which makes them unrelated to external factors, such as the environment (Dörnyei, 2009a). However, such an approach is now regarded “part of an idealized narrative” (ibid., p. 232) due to neglecting the role of context. It cannot be helpful in resolving the basic dilemma of the scientific study of human differences that focuses on investigating human uniqueness along with respecting general principles of describing human individuality. Hence, the role of learner qualities can only be evaluated with regard to their interaction with specific environmental and temporal factors or conditions. From this point of view, most learner characteristics are now conceptualized as complex, higher

102

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

order mental attributes, resulting from the integrated operation of several subcomponents and subprocesses, and the cooperation of components of a very different nature (e.g., cognitive, motivational, or emotional), thus producing ‘hybrid’ attributes. They are considered “powerful background learner variables with potential make-or-break quality, affecting different aspects of the acquisition process” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 5). Their situated and multi-componential character requires a different approach allowing for the investigation of a number of higher order groupings of different attributes that function as integrated wholes (Dörnyei, 2009a). This is the reason why recent L2 research has turned to applying a dynamic perspective that takes into account the interactions between variables that are mediated by context (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Such an approach has allowed for the consideration of several, sofar neglected aspects of human functioning. One of them is the study of emotions (or affect) that play a key role in human thought and behaviour. Another aspect that has been taken into consideration is the highly integrated nature of the mind, incorporating three interrelated but conceptually distinct mental systems: cognition, motivation, and affect. Also, their dynamic interaction conceptualized in terms of a complex dynamic system has been recognized. Finally, it should be acknowledged that individual differences occur at different levels of situatedness, as revealed in McAdams’s personality model (2006), whereby different personality characteristics interact with one another but also within unique personal narratives (see Chap. 1). The contemporary taxonomies of individual differences in SLA point to ‘enormous variation’ (Pawlak, 2012, p. xxi). Aside from demographic factors, like age or gender, there are some variables which tend to continuously receive special attention in SLA research, mostly due to their strong positive relationship with L2 attainment. They comprise: • language aptitude (e.g., Skehan, 1989; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Williams & Burden, 1997). This is conceptialized as a talent for learning languages, mostly connected with a cognitive view of second language acquisition. Presently, it is being revitalized and has been postulated to be approached from an aptitude complexes perspective (Skehan, 2012), • motivation (e.g., Ellis, 1985; Gardner, 1985; Dörnyei, 2006). This factor is primarily related with effort, desire, and positive affect toward learning the language, as well as with its social/psychological bases (orientations and attitudes) (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012), • learning styles and strategies (e.g., Cook, 1991; Williams & Burden, 1997; Brown, 2000). The first are considered as an individual’s favourite ways of processing information and interacting with other people (Ellis, 2004). Learning strategies, on the other hand, are “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferrable to new situations” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8). In an attempt to link the conceptualization of learning strategies with individual differences, they are now understood as “[a]ctivities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own learning” (Griffiths, 2008, p. 87).

3.1 Second Language Acquisition: An Overview

103

Some classical, contextual taxonomies also include various collections of cognitive and affective factors, like Extraversion/Introversion, risk-taking, intelligence, field independence, and anxiety (Skehan, 1989; 1991) or memory, awareness, will, language disability, interest, prior experience (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), to mention a few. Consequently, it appears that personality received a very limited place therein, in spite of being regarded as important (Ellis, 1985). However, some recent taxonomies of individual differences tend to propose a more selective choice of variables in an attempt to avoid classifying them into broader categories, defining the complex interaction between cognition, affect and social influences (Pawlak, 2012). An example of such a classification is the taxonomy proposed by Ellis (2004), who introduces four broad categories, each comprising several factors. There is a category of abilities for language learning with intelligence, aptitude and memory; propensities with learning style, motivation, anxiety, personality, and willingness to communicate; learner cognitions about L2 learning related to learner beliefs; and learner actions, i.e., learning strategies. It thus follows that personality has not always been included in the taxonomies of individual differences. This is the case of the categorization proposed by Dörnyei and Skehan (2003), who deliberately omit it, arguing that that its scope is too extensive, while research has been quite sluggish, when viewed from the perspective of methodology or “systematic patterns of results” (p. 590). Similarly, Ehrman, Leaver and Oxford (2003) assign personality a limited place, treating it as part of the broader contexts of language aptitude, styles or affect. In some other classifications, the concept is addressed in a very limited manner: as the introvert/extravert distinction (Cook, 1991) or as split into sub-categories of self-esteem, Extraversion, anxiety, risk-taking, sensitivity to rejection, empathy, inhibition, tolerance of ambiguity (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Nevertheless, contemporary taxonomies addressing individual differences from an educational perspective tend to include personality, along with ability/aptitude, motivation, learning styles and language learning strategies, as well as with other ID variables: anxiety, self-esteem, creativity, willingness to communicate (WTC), and learner beliefs (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Also Gass and Selinker (2008), catering for affect, include social distance, age, aptitude, motivation, learning styles and learning strategies, and embrace personality in their taxonomy.

3.2 Studying Personality in SLA From the point of view of the purpose of this volume, the acknowledgement of personality as an individual difference in SLA research demands greater attention. As seen from the outline of the above taxonomies, it has not always garnered the attention it deserves, although “[i]ntuitively, personality is a key factor for explaining individual differences in L2 learning” (Ellis, 2004, p. 541).

104

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

3.2.1 Why Study Personality in SLA? It has widely been acknowledged that personality “is the most individual characteristic of a human being” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 10). The most effective way to understand it in the educational context is to consider how learners “vary across a narrow range of generalizable features” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 14), hence the study of personality is one of the major themes in psychology. It has also been argued that personality might contribute to second language acquisition (Krashen, 1981). Hence, the importance of this individual difference has long been regarded as influential in the language acquisition process, mainly due to the observed relationship between personality and avoidance behaviour (Krashen, 1982) or its relationship with motivation (Krashen, 1981). Obviously, personality traits are important in daily interaction, and are a significant factor in achieving educational goals for students learning foreign languages (Erton, 2010). As Cook (1991) proposes, “there are three reasons for being interested in personality. They are: first, to gain scientific understanding, second, to access people and next, to change people” (p. 3). Consequently, studying the role of personality in the field of second language acquisition appears to be of primary importance, especially because there has been little research on this subject (Dewaele, 2012b). In the area of learning and education, personality is conceptualized both at the basic dispositional level, and then at the levels of organized patterns of behaviour (e.g. learning styles) and goal-directed strategies (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996). However, relating its effect to fine-grained behaviours may not render reliable information because people behave differently in different situations, so personality may predict behaviour when the behaviours are aggregated or averaged across various situations (Srivastava et al., 2003). It follows that analysing very narrow behaviours (such as those represented by language learning strategies or even learning styles may not turn out to be valid due to the dynamic complexity of contextual factors (Nel, 2008). However, it appears that the phenomenon has been constantly neglected in SLA research (Biedro´n, 2011); hence, progress in the realm of personality has been slow (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Indeed, this research area within the SLA field still leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to methodology, as well as establishing systematic patterns of results in L2 learning. It appears that there may be several reasons pertaining to the scarcity and obscure or confounding research outcomes (see Sect. 3.3. below for a detailed discussion). As Ellis (1994) argues, the personality variables form “a very mixed bag” (p. 517) lacking firm grounding in psychological theory. They may also constitute a collection of vague and overlapping dimensions. Aside from that, the instruments used to measure them may lack validity and reliability, giving way to inconsistent results. All in all, personality factors tend to explain not more than 15% of the variance in academic success (ibid.). This result can be explained by the fact that personality per se may not exact a direct effect on L2 behaviours and success, but constitutes a

3.2 Studying Personality in SLA

105

powerful shaper of other variables, such as motivation and ability, that in turn have a more observable, straightforward function in the SLA process.

3.2.2 Problems with Studying Personality in SLA Following Dörnyei’s (2005) and Dörnyei and Ryan’s (2015) classification of reasons for the mixed findings pertaining to the link between personality and learning outcomes, similar explanations may be offered to elucidate the origins of personalityrelated inconsistent and counter-intuitive results encountered in the SLA literature. Among them, the following explanations can be offered: • Interaction with situation-specific variables The specific mixture of features of the learning situation and its social context may not to a great degree permit obtaining statistically significant linear relationships (such as correlations). One such influential variable is age, underpinning the development of personality (see Sect. 1.1.3 for a general description of personality, and Sect. 2 for a depiction of the growth of each trait). Similarly, the context of the second language acquisition process, both formal and informal, may be characterized not only by an equally confusing mixture of undetected variables, but mostly by the change of language (see Sect. 3.1.2). This impact of situational factors could be considered the most substantial cause of the confounding encountered in this context (Dörnyei, 2005). Its complexity and dynamics hampers the disentanglement of the effect of personality from the assembly of potential cognitive, social, and situational aspects of SLA (Dewaele, 2012a). • Small effect size The significant relationships (mostly correlations) between personality variables and L2 measures found in the literature of the field tend to have small effect sizes. They express “the magnitude or strength of a relationship” (Loewen & Plonsky, 2016, p. 56), whose interpretation needs to follow strict guidelines, such as those proposed by Cohen (1988). • Need for less simplistic models The frequently sought-for personality trait–learning outcome relationships that are found in educational studies are of a simplistic nature—the investigated links are usually linear, and mostly correlational. However, it appears that such a relationship, frequently believed to be direct and linear, may be indirect or curvilinear, and can be better understood with the help of various mediating or modifying variables (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015) that have the power to explain the established relationships. Hence, in the case of empirical research within the SLA domain, similar simplistic practices, producing inconclusive findings, impede the locating of more reliable findings pertaining to the role of personality in the context of foreign language learning. • Supertraits or primary traits

106

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

Another reason for the inconclusive research findings related to the relationship between personality and learning outcomes can be attributed to the fact that in many cases, personality is operationalized as one or more supertraits. However, operationalizing supertraits as being composed of six facets (‘primary traits’) each may obscure the input of independent facets. As proposed by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003), the examination of the effects of personality, operationalized at the level of facets, on learning outcomes is more likely to shed more light on this link. Thus, the researcher’s decision related to the measurement of personality may be twofold. On the one hand, it has to be borne in mind that the adaptation of the trait as a unity is connected with a significant reduction of its predictive power. On the other, the examination of the trait’s role at the facet level may imply the abandonment of the Big Five concept together with its advantages (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). • Methodological issues A significant reason for the inconclusive results related to the studies on the relationship between personality and learning outcomes may also be attributed to the confounding caused by the numerous limitations caused by research methodology. Problems generated by data collection procedures or sampling methods may preclude obtaining statistically significant results. Such complications are often encountered in SLA research, when convenience samples are used, as most studies take place in educational institutions. • Operationalizing academic achievement (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015) The measurement of academic achievement may take on various forms of operationalizations, from standardized tests to types of classroom participation. This influential cause of inconsistent findings is frequently observed in SLA research that may aim to explore different aspects of the foreign language acquisition process—those pertaining to language use (e.g., perception or reception) or language learning (e.g., the diverse aspects of memory, language learning strategies or language skills, to mention some examples). Findings obtained from instruments that are designed to investigate a specific aspect of the SLA process may not necessarily turn out useful as a reference point when investigating another feature of the process. Aside from these more general causes for inconsistent results of studies on the link between personality and learning outcomes, some other factors particularly related to the SLA field may be responsible for the mixed findings.

3.2 Studying Personality in SLA

107

• Personality theory The theoretical role of the language involved in communication as deeply ingrained in the Chomskyian ‘monolingual’ view of language “spoken by the ‘idealised’ monolingual native speakers” (Pavlenko, 2005, p. 3) has greatly affected the views of linguists, psychologists, and anthropologists. In effect, this specific view of language has for a long time prevented them from acknowledging the role of other languages spoken by their informants. This is the reason why it has been argued that speech production is not considered significant in personality studies (Furnham, 1990 in Dewaele & Furnham, 2000). This ignorance on the part of personality scientists is accompanied by problems with finding the appropriate level for analysis on the part of applied linguists who want to analyse linguistic subsystems in a more detailed manner (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000). Confused by the multiplicity of personality theories, they may find it extremely challenging to integrate some of the incongruent approaches (Dörnyei, 2005). • Personality measurement Another source of problems connected with the research on personality carried out in the SLA field is related to the measurement of the construct. As already discussed in Chap. 1, there are various scales that pertain to different personality approaches. Some of them are commercially available and/or reserved only for trained psychologists (e.g., NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI, outlined in Sect. 1.3.4), while others may lack a sound theoretical basis (e.g., MBTI, discussed in Sect. 1.2.1.3). The results might be difficult to interpret and compare for novice researchers, due to this operational range. For this reason, selecting a proper instrument that will ensure reliable results that may later be compared to findings from other studies may become of primary importance (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000). • Research expertise Undoubtedly, the role of personality in SLA is difficult to examine due to the fact that “it is difficult to acquire sufficient expertise in two such different fields as linguistics and psychology” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 219). Researching personality may require the abilities of a psychologist and linguist. In view of these aforementioned challenges, it may appear that the study of the association between personality and the course or outcomes of the second language acquisition process constitutes a serious problem for a linguist.

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA The Big Five model enables a researcher to capture the cumulative effects of different variables reflected in trait complexes. This aggregated formulation of the dimensions allows for a clearer inspection of their effects on academic achievement (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). This is the reason why this taxonomy will be used for the analysis of the theoretical and empirical research on personality in SLA. The aim of this section is two-fold. First, the ramifications of each trait will be analysed on the

108

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

basis of the information collected in Chap. 2 in order to propose a collection of trait consequences that may be regarded as beneficial and disadvantageous for the second language acquisition process. Second, this section will also include an analysis of the most recent and relevant empirical research pertaining to the role of each trait independently in the foreign language learning process in order to complement the theoretical investigation with actual empirical scrutiny.

3.3.1 Neuroticism in SLA This trait is mostly connected with negative consequences concerning all the spheres of an individual’s life. For this reason, it can be expected that also the quality and quantity of the foreign language learning process is likely to suffer when undertaken by a neurotic individual, whose specific personality trait is characterised by the facets of anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability.

3.3.1.1

Needs for Research on Neuroticism in Foreign Language Learning

The key to the understanding of the consequences of Neuroticism for the SLA process is the concept of negative emotionality that may be especially acute in the unpredictable and stressful environment of the foreign language acquisition process (e.g., a classroom). This susceptibility to experiencing negative affect is connected with the tendency to perceive the environment as more threatening than it really is, which causes greater subjective functioning difficulty. Neurotic students may be unable to appraise language learning-related stressors as challenges, and thus, they may consider them as threats (Trnka et al., 2012). These negative perceptions lead to a variety of negative outcomes that can severely disturb the SLA process and may be especially perceived as dangerous by someone predisposed to experience negative affect. On the basis of the ramifications of Neuroticism presented in Chap. 2, it can be proposed that the most serious effects of Neuroticism on the quality and quantity of the foreign language learning process can be ascribed to negative affect (Widiger, 2009). The ‘ripple effect’ of Neuroticism can mostly be attributed to the activation of anxiety (Kao et al., 2015), permeating all spheres of the individual’s life. This negative emotion has received a lot of attention, also in the SLA field. It can take on the SLAspecific form of anxiety, called language anxiety(LA), which could be defined as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986, p. 128). Neurotic students are then likely to suffer from high levels of LA (Sim¸ ¸ sek & Dörnyei, 2017), which impacts various aspects of their language learning-related qualities. The effects of language anxiety range from

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

109

raising self-doubt, and lowering competence and self-esteem, through diminishing enthusiasm and motivation, to hindering academic success, and weakening their will to communicate in the L2 (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). The SLA process is socially-constructed, inducing stressfulness of social contacts, which requires its intense management on the part of neurotic individuals. Their high stress and anxiety levels are likely to deprive them of chances to cultivate cognitively beneficial interactions (Segel-Karpas & Lachman, 2018). For this reason, the language learning advantages stemming from contacts with the teacher and classmates may be severely impaired, and assisted by their lower achievement. The willingness to communicate in the foreign language (L2 WTC), understood as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547) is one of the L2 phenomena heavily impacted by Neuroticism. Its task is to adjust preplanned actions to sudden changes, which means that L2 learners initiating communication need to be convinced that they are able to send a comprehensible message that may later require their own response (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2014). Understandably, WTC pertains to a voluntary decision of initiating communication in the L2 (MacIntyre & Doucette, 2010), which can hardly be expected from a neurotic individual who feels constantly threatened. Their vulnerability is highly concerned with interpersonal relationships and may also be related to hyperreactivity to negative or uncertain feedback concerning their communication, as well as to a heightened sensitivity to threats (Hirschmüller et al., 2015). The social nature of classroom interactions may culminate in the avoidance of any voluntary participation in class communication, depriving them of chances of bettering their language skills. It follows that the social aspects of the language learning process may cause their communicative skills to deteriorate in response to their ‘neurotic social shyness’ (Eysenck, 1969) that may produce higher levels of social awkwardness breeding the negative affect (Weaver III, 2005), and undermining their FL mastery. Moreover, it appears that their inclination to experience negative affect, accompanied by their inability to control it may also be related to lower levels of Emotional Intelligence (Saklofske et al., 2003). This may have a detrimental effect on their L2 communication. It also appears that neurotics’ negative affectivity is likely to trigger a range of cognitive drawbacks preventing successful language acquisition. Among them, negative cognitive bias in attention, interpretation and recall of information, augmented reactivity, and unsuccessful coping (Ormel, Bastiaansen, et al., 2013) may impact a variety of cognitive operations required in the FLL process. Due to their mind-wandering (Robison et al., 2017) and mental noise (Robinson & Tamir, 2005), neurotic L2 students may suffer from performance and memory problems (Coombes et al., 2009) with malfunctioning working memory and attention, which again may largely impact successful L2 learning (Robinson, 2008). Their ability to guess and infer well, connected with efficient information gathering, storing, and retrieval may be seriously obstructed due to their cognitive bias (Haselton et al., 2016), inducing incorrect, i.e., more negative, assessment of the language learning situation. Problems with disengaging attention from negative stimuli may cause deficits in attentional control (Bredemeier et al., 2011); hence, Neuroticism may constitute a factor

110

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

responsible for the student’s ineffective focus on language patterns. Behavioural inhibition produced by the trait may be another sign of a neurotic L2 student. First of all, they are threatened by language learning-related stressors; hence, they may be inclined to escape the anxiety-breeding context of the foreign language learning situation by means of avoidance behaviours (e.g., refraining from L2 communication, absenteeism or eye-contact avoidance). Their negative affectivity may also prevent them from the acceptance of their own mistakes as a part of learning due to their self-consciousness and vulnerability (Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2008, p. 4), causing rigidity in the L2 learning context. The heightened levels of anxiety are likely to parallel higher levels of distraction and self-consciousness, culminating in questioning their own capabilities (Eisenberger et al., 2005, p. 178). They may also suffer from problems with tolerating ambiguity (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015). There is a specific way a neurotic L2 learner has of perceiving and processing information about unclear situations or stimuli when clues are unknown, complex, or contrasting. When tolerance of ambiguity is low, the individual experiences stress, reacts prematurely, and avoids ambiguous stimuli. But, when tolerance is high, the individual “perceives ambiguous situations/stimuli as desirable, challenging, and interesting and neither denies nor distorts their complexity of incongruity” (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995, p. 179). For this reason, unpredictability, novelty, complexity and insolubility of L2 learning situations, characterized by a high level of ambiguity (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018b), may deepen the neurotic student’s negativity, causing augmenting learning difficulties. Conversely, it appears that the particular merit of tolerance, also attributed to Emotional Stability, is connected with risk-taking (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995). This concept can be understood as “any purposive activity that entails novelty or danger sufficient to create anxiety in most people. Risk taking can be either physical or social, or a combination of the two” (Levenson, 1999, p. 1073). In the SLA process, emotionally stable students may enjoy risky skills, such as the ability to refrain from using the native language when appealing to authority, e.g., the teacher (Ellis, 1994), and the ability to refrain from frustration and resulting in diminished performance (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Nevertheless, the trait of Neuroticism is likely to effect in at least one positive consequence: greater preparedness. It is claimed that greater worry and anxiety generate vigilance that may lead to greater preparedness and effort (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). For this reason, persistent practice may help neurotic students cope with the unpredictability of language learning situations, as well as with the retrieval of knowledge. Then again, it must be borne in mind that the overwhelming affective challenges of the SLA process may largely outweigh the significance of this positive ramification of Neuroticism.

3.3.1.2

Empirical Research on Neuroticism in SLA

In spite of a significant paucity of empirical research on Neuroticism in SLA (Dewaele, 2012a), there are some relevant findings related to the role of Neuroticism

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

111

in foreign language learning. Indeed, some of them appear to corroborate the speculations suggested above, that result from the general affective, cognitive, behavioural and social ramifications of the trait. It seems that the most unequivocal findings in the SLA field pertain to the associations of Neuroticism with its apparently most influential facet—anxiety (for a thorough overview of the empirical research on language anxiety see Dewaele, 2017). The study by Dewaele (2013) examined the link between global personality traits, Neuroticism among them, one sociobiographical factor (knowledge of languages), and levels of language anxiety (LA). The participants came from two multilingual locations: London, UK (N = 86 with 51 females and 35 males; 20 bilinguals, 32 trilinguals, and 34 quadrilinguals) and Mallorca, Spain (N = 62 with 49 females and 13 males; 30 trilinguals and 32 quadrilinguals, with 3 pentalinguals recorded as quadrilinguals), who acquired languages in instructed settings and natural conditions. Their personality was assessed on the basis of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQr) (Eysenck et al., 1985). The results revealed that Neuroticism was positively related to LA in all the foreign languages, due to the role of anxiety underpinning LA and Neuroticism. Among other studies exploring the relationship between linguistic skills, personality types, and language anxiety, the research by Abu-Rabia, Peleg, and Shakkour (2014) can be placed. It was carried out among 80 Israeli Grade 11 students with L1 Hebrew and L2 English (31 boys and 49 girls). The personality questionnaire administered to them was the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), translated into Hebrew. The findings revealed a significant positive association between Neuroticism and L1/L2 anxiety. Altogether, the personality traits predicted 48% of the L2 anxiety variance. Neuroticism also predicted L2 performance levels in tasks testing spoken language (listening and conversation), phonological processing, and orthographic knowledge. The authors argued that anxiety underpinning Neuroticism hampered involvement in social interactions in L2. Also, the research by Šafranj and Zivlak (2019) was devoted to the effects of the Big Five personality traits on language anxiety. The sample consisted of 296 Croatian English for Specific Purposes engineering students who completed the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1992). The results showed that low levels of Emotional Stability (i.e., high levels of Neuroticism) consistently predicted language anxiety and its variations. It was posited that students low in Emotional Stability were predisposed to experience more negative emotional reactions, Thus, they were concerned about their language performance and expected a negative outcome. Conversely, emotionally stable students were less exposed to stress when they faced the pressure of using a foreign language. The effect of personality on language anxiety was one of the objectives of the research by Dewaele and Al-Saraj (2015). It comprised 348 participants (250 females, 98 males), who were native speakers of Arabic. Their personality assessment was carried out by means of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire-Short Form (van der Zee et al., 2013), whose purpose was to assess multicultural activity in order to predict international orientation and desire for an international career. The results demonstrated that Emotional Stability (the inclination to stay calm in stressful

112

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

situations) was related to lower levels of LA, protecting informants from anxiety. This finding demonstrated the importance of an active approach to social situations in relieving anxiety. On the other hand, Gargalianou, Muehlfeld, Urbig and Van Witteloostuijn (2015) investigated the relationship among personality, gender and foreign language anxiety in the second language. Their participants were 320 adult L1 Dutch bilinguals with L2 English. Their personality was measured by means of the 60-item HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (Lee & Ashton, 2005). The results demonstrated that there were gender differences in the experience of language anxiety (with females declaring significantly higher levels). This relationship turned out to be almost fully mediated by the personality traits dimensions of (negative) emotionality, i.e. Neuroticism. The authors proposed that neurotic women, as more sensitive to emotions, reacted emotionally to foreign language use, hence their higher language anxiety levels. ˇ Cizmi´ c and Rogulj’s study (2018) investigated the link between personality, anxiety and general English language competence, measured by a cloze test. The sample included 184 (96 females and 88 males) Croatian students from various scientific study programmes who had studied English in primary and/or secondary school. The 100-item version of the IPIP Personality Test (Goldberg, 1999) was used to assess the informants’ personality. The results of the study showed a negative link between General English language competence and personality traits with anxiety levels positively related to Neuroticism. Similarly, the aims of the study by O˙za´nska-Ponikwia (2018) was to examine the relationship between personality and measures of FL proficiency (grades received on L2 subjects—grammar, writing, and integrated skills, scores on the national secondary school exit exam, and the preferred skills aiming at acquiring L2: speaking, listening, writing and reading, as well as those concerning the acquisition of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and spelling), and language anxiety. The informants were 140 (105 females and 35 males) English philology students. Their personality traits were measured by means of the NEO-FFI questionnaire (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results demonstrated that Neuroticism was the only personality trait predicting language anxiety. It was argued that the anxiety resulting from Neuroticism impeded social interaction and practising productive skills in the foreign language. The trait, though, was unrelated to measures of FL proficiency. Aside from a focus on language anxiety, the relationship of Neuroticism with other anxiety-related phenomena was also scrutinized. A study by Dewaele (2002) aimed to analyse the link between personality and a form of language anxiety— communication anxiety, among others, in the French L2 and English L3 speech production of 100 Flemish secondary grammar school students (49 males and 51 females). The assessment of the informants’ personality was carried out by means of the short version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQr) (Eysenck et al., 1985). The findings suggested that L2 (French) communication anxiety could not be predicted by any of the personality traits. However, in the case of L2 (English) communication anxiety, Neuroticism turned out to be the weakest positive predictor of the three personality traits. It was proposed that through its connection with a predisposition to nervousness, the trait could reinforce the level of language anxiety.

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

113

Similarly, the link between Neuroticism and a form of language anxiety— speaking anxiety—was the object of the study by Vural (2019). There were 923 participants, who were the 4th year students of English Language Teaching departments and 922 from English Language and Literature departments at different universities in Turkey. The Big Five Inventory questionnaire consisting of 44 short-phrase items was used to assess their personality traits (John et al., 1991). The results revealed that more neurotic students felt higher levels of anxiety in L2 communication. The author argued that the strongest power of Neuroticism could be ascribed to the bonds between the trait and emotions. Also, Babakhouya (2019) examined the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and English language speaking anxiety among non-English major university students: Moroccans (N = 270; 130 males and 140 females) and Koreans (N = 257; 132 males and 125 females). Their personality was tested with the help of the International Personality Item Pool scale (Goldberg, 1999). It was demonstrated that Neuroticism could be treated as a significant predictor of English language speaking anxiety. The authors argued that neurotic students displayed higher speaking anxiety due to their lack of control and proneness to extreme worrying, which prevented them from asking questions. Conversely, Khany and Ghoreyshi (2013) sought to explore the influence of personality traits on foreign language speaking confidence in the classroom. The sample contained 227 EFL learners, including 119 females and 108 males, from several language institutes in Iran, whose personality was assessed by means of the Big Five Inventory questionnaire (John et al., 1991). Multiple regression analysis revealed that learners’ foreign language speaking confidence was predicted by all the five personality traits. Neuroticism negatively influenced speaking confidence due to its focus on avoidance of engagement in classroom activities. The ties of skills and strategies with Neuroticism have also been regarded as a promising avenue of SLA research. The aim of the study by Fazeli (2011) was to investigate the relationship between Neuroticism and English language learning strategies in 213 Iranian female university majoring in English as a foreign language. Their personality was assessed by means of the NEO-Five Factors Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), translated into Persian. There were significant, negative correlations detected between the Neuroticism levels and the use of four categories of language learning strategies (memory, cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies). The relationship between personality traits and different self-regulatory and learning strategies specifically applied to foreign language learning was also the objective of the study by Ghyasi, Yazdani and Farsani (2013). The research sample consisted of 231 undergraduate students of English at various universities in Iran. Their personality was assessed by means of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results of the study allowed the researchers to establish that Neuroticism predicted the use of rehearsal strategies, and self-regulatory strategies of help-seeking (negatively). As the authors argued, their application could be viewed as the outcome of neurotic students’ worry, lack of self-confidence, and surface learning. Also, Alibakhshi, Qaracholloo and Mohammadi (2017) researched the predictive power of personality factors for the choice of language learning strategies. The

114

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

sample was comprised of 100 (69 females and 31 males) BA and MA students from two Iranian universities, majoring in English language and literature. Their personality was assessed by means of the Big Five Factors Inventory (Goldberg, 1993). It was established that Neuroticism negatively predicted memory and metacognitive strategies, which was attributed to the trait’s debilitative outcomes, hampering the appropriate application of learning strategies in the right time and manner. The exploration of associations between language learning strategies and learners’ personality types, in relation to the FLL context, was also the objective of the research by Liyanage and Bartlett (2013). The sample included 948 secondary school students learning English as a foreign language in Sri Lanka. Their personality was measured with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck et al., 1985). The results demonstrated that learners’ strategy preferences were affected by their internal states (personality profiles and metacognitive, cognitive or socio-affective domains of operation), as well as by external factors represented by learning contexts. Extraversion, as well as Introversion, turned out most strongly predictive of the informants’ strategy preferences, especially in combination with low Neuroticism, allowing for effective strategy use, in relation to listening or speaking, inside or outside a classroom. This was especially applicable to the metacognitive strategies. Aside from that, the study by He (2019) investigated the predictive relations among personality facets, writing strategy use, and writing performance. 201 Taiwanese college students learning English participated in the research. The Personality Facet Scale (Soto & John, 2009), assessing ten specific facet traits within the broad Big Five domains, was used to identify the informants’ personality. It was established that the Neuroticism facets of anxiety and depression negatively predicted writing performance, which was attributed to disruption of emotional instability and the negative affect hampering the student’s ability to stay focused on writing tasks. Neuroticism also predicted the use of writing strategies (other than social strategy), such as memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and affective strategy. Finally, Jackson and Park (2020) investigated the potential relationships between self-regulation in L2 writing and two personality factors (Conscientiousness and Neuroticism) in a university EFL context. Study 1 comprised 364 English, 110 International Communication, and 171 Asian Languages majors from a Japanese university who participated in an EAP course. The two personality traits were measured by means of the scales of the ten aspects of the Big Five (DeYoung et al., 2007). The results of the structural equation modelling demonstrated that personality and selfregulatory capacity in L2 writing were linked with Neuroticism, as represented by volatility and withdrawal, and negatively related to self-regulation. The aim of Study 2 was to examine the temporal dynamics of the researched issue by adopting a longitudinal case study. Of the same sample, three interviewees were selected. It turned out that their personality tended to fluctuate over time. Again, it was established that Neuroticism competed with the capacity of self-regulation, with varying patterns from person to person. The authors argued that the findings of Study 1 suggested that the personality traits influenced self-regulation. The results of Study 2, though, might indicate that self-regulatory processes might moderate the influence of personality. However, it was also possible that both processes could coexist. Initially, L2 writing

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

115

might be influenced by personality. With the growth of self-regulatory capacity, L2 writers might be able to control this effect. Among the researched linguistic consequences of Neuroticism, several aspects of L2 learner behaviour can be found, such as accent, willingness to communicate, selfefficacy, autonomy, intelligence, code-switching and even loneliness. For example, Zárate-Sández (2017) sought to determine to what extent personality traits accounted for learners’ foreign accent during quasi-spontaneous and unplanned speech. 51 students (29 females and 22 males) of an advanced Spanish course at an American university participated in the study. Their personality was assessed by means of an online test based on the Big Five typology. It turned out that Neuroticism was the strongest predictor of a foreign accent, which was attributed to the learners’ nervousness, anxiety and worry. Especially, anxiety could influence the L2 accent; if not by itself, then by impacting other factors in communication. Then, Šafranj and Kati´c (2019) investigated the relationship between personality traits and willingness to communicate in the foreign language learning process. The informants were 303 students (56.4% female) from a Serbian university. Their personality profiles were established by means of the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1992). The results of the correlative research suggested small, negative correlations between L2 WTC and Neuroticism. It was proposed that students who were emotionally stable might be more inclined to communicate in a foreign language. Aside from that, Piechurska-Kuciel (2019) researched the relationship between Neuroticism and foreign language attainment (operationalised as final grades and self-perceived foreign language skills), mediated by L2 (domain-specific) selfefficacy. The study’s informants consisted of 495 secondary grammar school students at the intermediate to upper-intermediate levels of English proficiency with their personality assessed by means of the IPIP scale (Goldberg, 1992). The results revealed that the link between Neuroticism and self-perceived L2 skills was weak, though statistically significant, while L2 efficacy fully mediated this association. It was proposed that one’s beliefs in their capacity to effectively manage the foreign language learning process might play a crucial role in understanding the relationship between Neuroticism and L2 attainment. It means that neurotic students could gain higher L2 achievement on condition they had greater L2 self-efficacy. This domain-specific type of self-efficacy may function as a buffer between personality (Neuroticism) and its behavioural consequences (L2 attainment), protecting neurotic students from the negative effects of their personality within this domain. The predictability of FL learner autonomy by means of the assessment of the BigFive personality traits was the focus of the research by Nikoopour and Hajian (2016). Their informants were 150 EFL students (59% women and 41% men) from a university in Iran. Their personality traits levels were established by means of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results of the study indicated a significant relationship between learners’ autonomy and their personality traits, with Neuroticism showing a negative correlation. The authors inferred that autonomy toward language learning could be enhanced by personality traits.

116

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

Shirdel and Naeini (2018) wanted to explore the relationships between personality types, crystallized intelligence, and foreign language achievement (measured by means of an English C-Test). The participants were 213 undergraduate English language university students (168 female, 45 male) in Iran. The measurement of personality was the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), translated into Persian. It turned out that FL achievement could be negatively predicted by Neuroticism, though to a very weak degree. Among studies investigating the linguistic consequences of Neuroticism, the study by Dewaele and Wei (2013) can also be placed. It attempted to research the inter-individual variation (such as personality) in attitudes towards code-switching. Their sample consisted of 2070 multilinguals (1535 females, 428 males). The most frequent L2 was English (N = 881), followed by French (N = 456), Spanish (N = 245), German (N = 137), etc. In the case of L3, it was French (N = 412), followed by German (N = 314), English (N = 249) and Spanish (N = 215), etc. As to L4, it was German (N = 198), Spanish (N = 189), French (N = 168). The L5 most frequently used was Spanish (N = 100), followed by Italian (N = 67) and French (N = 44). The participants’ personality was identified by means of the short version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck et al., 1985). The results demonstrated that that lower levels of Neuroticism, accompanied by higher levels of tolerance of ambiguity and cognitive empathy, contribute to having a more positive attitude towards code-switching. It was argued that people who were emotionally stable might suffer less from worry or anxiety, so they had more positive attitudes towards code-switching. Their lower levels of worry about communication in the foreign language might be related to more relaxed feelings about communication breakdown and the anticipation of mutual embarrassment. A more positive attitude to code-switching in emotionally stable individuals could also be linked to their strong capacity to empathise with interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds, and sympathy for the linguistically unexpected. Finally, Kao (2012) attempted to explore the relationships between personality traits, loneliness, and EFL (English as a foreign language) achievement. The research sample consisted of 137 freshman students from two universities in Taiwan. To measure personality, a version of the Big Five inventory (John et al., 1991), adapted to suit the local Taiwanese context, was applied. The correlational analyses revealed that Neuroticism was negatively related to EFL achievement. The authors justified this finding to Neuroticism being the foundation for language anxiety and confidence. As to loneliness, its positive relationship with this personality trait was argued to explain the poor EFL achievement of lonely students. Their lack of positive peer interaction might lead to peer rejection and poor language learning skills. The author proposed “the bi-directional loops” between the variables, pointing to personality being shaped over time by such factors as loneliness. Along these lines, a very interesting research area pertaining to the personality change impacted by foreign language use can be identified. Obviously, also some important results related to Neuroticism can be found, such as those in the study by Tracy-Ventura, Dewaele, Köylü, and McManus (2016). Their research aimed to explore personality changes after a one year residence abroad. The sample included 59 (11 males and 47 females) UK university students who had spent about nine

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

117

months abroad, in France (N = 28), Spain (N = 18), Mexico (N = 9), and Chile (N = 3). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (van der Zee et al., 2013) was used to measure their personality. It turned out that the only trait showing statistically significant changes was Emotional Stability (the opposite end of Neuroticism), demonstrating the respondents’ growth in being emotionally stable after a year abroad. Aside from that, qualitative data from a reflective interview pointed to the respondents’ greater confidence and independence. The authors argued that personality development was driven by social investment that could be triggered by a study abroad experience. Interestingly, Veltkamp, Recio, Jacobs, and Conrad (2013) focused on investigating personality differences in response to a test language, regardless of the respondents’ native cultural background. The sample included 40 native German, and 28 native Spanish speakers who had acquired their L2 (respectively Spanish and German) after the age of 12. Their personality was assessed by means of both the German and Spanish versions of the NEO-Five Factor Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results demonstrated that there were differences in the informants’ personality profiles, depending on the language in which they were tested. In the case of Spanish, the levels of Neuroticism became higher. However, the finding was not confirmed when German was the language of the test, evidencing cultural frame shifts consistent with cultural norms associated with the language used. The authors speculated that not only early bilingual but also late second language learners might demonstrate consistent cultural frame shifts (transfering from one cultural mindset to another) in personality that tended to take place regardless of their L1 or cultural background. This suggested that learning a second language was likely to imply the automatic representation of new cultural frames connected with this language. They enabled the learner to enrich their personal space with a new range of perception which was displayed in their personality. To sum up, the existing research on the role of Neuroticism in SLA appears to confirm the negative effects of the trait on foreign language knowledge and use processes. The detrimental effects of the anxiety facet taking the form of language anxiety have been confirmed in a variety of studies (e.g., Abu-Rabia et al., 2014; Dewaele, 2013; Dewaele & Al-Saraj, 2015; O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). Similar findings pertain to L2 skill-specific anxieties (e.g., Dewaele, 2002, 2005; Vural, 2019). Several examples of studies can be found in the literature of the field, proving that Neuroticism deteriorates L2 competence (Jackson & Park, 2020), as well as perforˇ mance (e.g., Alibakhshi et al., 2017; Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018; Zárate-Sández, 2017). Moreover, Neuroticism, often identified with anxiety, has also been found to hamper the development of L2 skills by negatively impacting the learners’ self-governing abilities, like self-efficacy (e.g., Piechurska-Kuciel, 2019) or autonomy (Nikoopour & Hajian, 2016). It also tends to negatively affect neurotic students’ involvement in the social interactions necessary for developing L2 proficiency, by limiting their L2 willingness to communicate (e.g., Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019), and breeding withdrawal that may take the form of loneliness (Kao, 2012). Luckily, it has also been established that foreign language acquisition may have significant positive effects on this negative personality trait, such as the decrease of Neuroticism caused by a long exposure

118

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

to a foreign language (Tracy-Ventura et al., 2016), although it may also depend on the language studied (Veltkamp et al., 2013).

3.3.2 Extraversion in SLA This trait, encompassing an energetic approach to the outer world (John & Srivastava, 1999), is strongly related with positive emotions and a keen interest in other people. The positive outcomes associated with the trait, defined by the facets of warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotions, may help to identify it as a valuable asset of the foreign language learner whose personality may enable them to achieve success within this domain.

3.3.2.1

Needs for Research on Extraversion in Foreign Language Learning

The foreign language classroom, with its challenges and variety can be regarded as a dynamic social environment or “the extravert’s natural habitat” (Wilt & Revelle, 2017, p. 71). It thus appears that extraverts may have the upper hand in this specific context. Their apparent advantage may be attributed to several factors, as suggested from the contents of the information included in Chap. 2. First of all, their generally experienced positive affect allows them to identify many positive experiences connected with their foreign language learning process. Aside from that, they may also have the ability to balance positive and negative emotions, pairing low levels of anxiety and depression with high levels of positive emotions and activity (Røysamb et al., 2018). Consequently, they may outweigh their negative emotions, such as language anxiety, with positive ones. Positive emotions allow for subjective feelings of control, bringing about sustained effort and a perceived significance of accomplishment (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2017), and play the role of valuable resources for controlling negative emotional experiences in daily life (Fredrickson, 2013). One of such positive emotions related to the SLA process is foreign language enjoyment (FLE), viewed as “a state of being satisfied with, or pleased about, one’s participation in an activity connected with foreign language learning and use” (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2017), when one’s needs are exceeded due to the accomplishment of something new or even unpredicted (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016). Hence, positive emotions, like foreign language enjoyment, are crucial for general FL success, making the experience of enjoyment essential to the learning progress. For this reason, more successful and active learners clearly have higher levels of FLE (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). It can be expected that FLE may help to regulate LA levels as both emotions are interdependent (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016). Also, the positive relationship of Extraversion and Emotional Intelligence levels appears to indicate extraverts’ ability to regulate emotions, allowing them to handle L2 learning, especially communicative, situations with greater ease. Extraverts’ sensitivity to pleasant rewarding stimuli, alongside

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

119

motivation to obtain future rewards (DeYoung et al., 2014) may be viewed as one of the influential qualities of a good language learner who intends to develop their L2 skills—on condition that more pleasant than unpleasant experiences are identified in the foreign language learning process, alongside such rewards, like growing language proficiency or good grades. As extraverts are socially oriented, the social aspects of SLA can have a significant value for them, bringing about excitement and inspiration, producing their more proactive behaviour (Wang et al., 2019). This can be demonstrated by means of verbal activity, such as verbosity and eloquence (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting Siberg, et al., 2009), so it may turn out to be extremely valuable in this specific context. Social orientation may allow them to enjoy communicative activities, like debates or dialogue presentations, which is not only likely to trigger their language development, but may also allow them to be at the centre of events and to gain attention of their peers and the teacher. Extraverts may as well be able to identify more positive affect when cooperating with classmates in group or pair work, which can be attributed to their warmth and gregariousness. In language testing situations, they may also perform well, especially in cases of speed and fluency tests (Sutin et al., 2019), as they take pleasure in competing under the pressure of time. Extraverted students’ positive emotions tend to produce positive thoughts and cognitions, i.e., positive cognitive bias (Zelenski, 2008), that might also be related to the process of working on language activities. Their activity and inquisitiveness make them efficient learners who like to discover, hence inductive teaching may be of great use. Aside from that, the ambiguity embedded in language learning situations, both formal and informal, may be easily accepted, challenging their outgoing personality. Consequently, they are ready to take risks (McCrae & Costa, 2003), such as volunteering to participate in unpredictable activities or to guess and pretend to know even when they are not sure. It may though be hard to foresee if these guesses may be well informed and accurate because guessing may also stem from the excitement and unpredictability of the situational aspects of L2 learning. Accordingly, there may be severe drawbacks connected with the trait that may negatively impact extraverted learners’ foreign language learning development. As far as the mentioned above overreliance on guessing is concerned, it may be claimed that instead of systematically progressing with their interlanguage system, they may easily get satisfied with skills that are superficial and unreliable. What is more, their distractibility and impulsiveness can also be regarded as an obstacle, especially when assisted by demands that may not seem appealing enough to draw and sustain their attention. In effect, they may generate some negative emotions, such as boredom. This can be defined as a lack of engagement, effort, interest, enthusiasm and/or prosocial conduct, involving the student’s total non-commitment and withdrawal (Pawlak et al., 2020). Boredom in the classroom setting comprises disengagement, dissatisfaction, attention deficit, altered time perception and decreased vitality, manifested in withdrawal and avoidance behaviours. When not stimulated sufficiently, extraverted language learners may assess their language learning process as monotonous and repetitive, unable to offer them an appropriate level of stimulation, challenge and satisfaction. Testing can be regarded as a type of such situation, especially when deeper, more effortful processing is required (Graham & Lachman, 2014). Hence,

120

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

essays or complex projects may turn out to be too demanding due to extraverts’ problems with long-term memory and reflective problem-solving (Matthews et al., 2003), which can constitute a serious disadvantage in the case of reasoning required in the SLA field. Extraverts tend to achieve academically when they take their work more seriously, so their happy-go-lucky attitude (Thompson et al., 2019) to learning may greatly disturb gradual and steady language acquisition. Another factor endangering their successful language progress is their preference for a lack of duty (Breil et al., 2019), which per se can be regarded as an obstacle because SLA requires hard work and dedication. Paradoxically, the social aspects of SLA may also induce some potentially thwarting stimuli. With high levels of their activity and gregariousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a), they may quickly become disheartened, and may tend to fail their language classes. Yet, it can be expected that even in spite of these drawbacks, the foreign language classroom, regarded as a stressful and complex environment with diverse stimuli, can offer extraverts chances for obtaining a variety of constructive, personality-related benefits, allowing them to perceive foreign language learning as a valuable learning experience. Conversely, it should be made clear that lower levels of Extraversion, i.e., Introversion (contrary to higher levels of Neuroticism that bring about evidently negative connotations) may be related to a variety of possible consequences for the language learning process. Introverts’ successful reflective problem solving skills, accompanied by higher intelligence levels (Rammstedt et al., 2018) may allow them to outperform extraverts in quiet activities requiring perseverance, such as extensive reading, essay writing or monotonous grammar exercises, allowing for developing reliable interlanguage systems. They may manage the stress caused by the negative emotion of boredom effectively (Matthews, 2008), which could be helpful while dealing with tedious vocabulary or grammatical tasks. Moreover, exposing introverts to social challenges attributable to the language learning situations, like acting extraverted in classroom tasks with other peers, may produce higher levels of their positive affect and motivate them to excel. It follows that intertwining socially demanding communicative tasks in group or pair work with more relaxed activities, like reading for gist or structured information sharing are likely to aid high achievement in introverted language learners.

3.3.2.2

Empirical Research on Extraversion in SLA

Extraversion has turned out to be one of the most willingly studied personality traits in the SLA domain, especially in relation to L2 competence and performance, though the trait has not always been assessed in a consistent manner. Specifically, the purpose of the study by Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002) was to examine the relations between components of communicative competence and the Big Five dimensions of personality in 213 primary school children (144 native Dutch speakers, 69 of a primarily Turkish or Moroccan background), 9–12 years old. Observational scales referring to the Big Five personality factors formulated for the teacher were used to characterize the children’s personalities. The correlational analyses revealed that the L2

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

121

learners’ Extraversion was related to strategic competence. The authors justified their finding by referring to its focus on the abilities allowing for compensating for limited language skills. Azadipour (2019), on the other hand, intended to establish what kinds of personality types facilitated learners’ competence in an intercultural context. 236 students of two Iranian universities with English knowledge at intermediate and upperintermediate levels participated in the study. To assess their personality, the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers et al., 1998) was used. The differential analyses revealed greater general competence in cultural adjustment connected only with higher Extraversion. This result was ascribed to the extravert’s tendency to be more culturally adaptable through their pursuit of novelty and social stimulation. It was also established that thinking and judging students were more tolerant of the ambiguities of foreign cultures than those with feeling and perceiving personality types. Among other personality traits there were Sensing, connected with higher levels of interaction, and also Feeling and Judging, allowing for more respect for otherness than Thinking and Perceiving. It follows that intercultural understanding could be promoted by attending to specified student personality types. As to L2 performance, the study by Dewaele and Furnham (2000) focused on the relationship between personality, i.e., Extraversion, and L2 production (operationalized as conversations in interpersonally stressful and neutral situations). The informants were 25 Flemish university students (8 female and 17 male) who had studied French in high school. Their degree of Extraversion was determined by means of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). The main research results exposed the introverts’ decrease of fluency in various types of situations, especially formal. The authors attributed their findings to extraverts’ reliance on more implicit speech styles and production of shorter utterances. The discrepancy between the speech performance of extraverts and introverts was augmented by the stress of the formal situation, causing an excessive degree of arousal in the brain of the introverts. Thus, a breakdown of fluency might appear in connection with their overloaded short-term memory and handicapped incremental processing. Also, Oya, Manalo and Greenwood (2004) attempted to research the relationship between personality and anxiety features with oral performance in L2 (English). The participants were 73 native-speakers of Japanese studying English at various language schools in New Zealand. Their personality was measured with the Japanese version of the Maudsley Personality Inventory, measuring Extraversion and Neuroticism. The significant positive correlations between Extraversion and global impression scores established in the study pointed to several abilities attributed to extraverted learners. It was argued that among the most advantageous features of extraverts, confidence and ability to establish rapport with their audience should be placed. Moreover, their faster access to information from long term memory and easiness to perform parallel processing of several items of information might also be of great importance. Similarly, the effect of Extraversion on language anxiety was one of the objectives of the research by Dewaele and Al-Saraj (2015), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2. The results demonstrated that Social Initiative (related to Extraversion) protected the informants

122

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

from anxiety, showing that an active approach to social situations might be helpful in relieving anxiety. The objective of the study by van Daele, Housen, Pierrard and Debruyn (2006) focused on examining L2 learners’ speech production in two foreign languages in order to check the stability of the effect of Extraversion across different languages. At the same time, the study aspired to investigate the potential effect of Extraversion on the accuracy of linguistic fluency and the complexity of learners’ L2 speech production longitudinally. The participants were 25 Dutch-speaking secondary school students learning both English and French as foreign languages in Flanders, Belgium. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-r (short version) was used to measure the learners’ degree of Extraversion (Eysenck et al., 1985). It was revealed that Extraversion had an effect on the informants’ lexical complexity in both FLs, but did not influence their accuracy scores or syntactic complexity or oral fluency measures in either language. The relatively weak effects were inconsistent over time, as the positive influence of Extraversion on lexical complexity disappeared for French and was even reversed for English. The authors argued that the effects of Extraversion might not be strong enough to compete with other cognitive, affective and contextual factors influencing the development of L2 proficiency. Then Ehrman (2008) attempted to define the personality of foreign language learners who achieved a ‘distinguished’, near-native proficiency level. The participants of the study were recruited from two databases kept on the learners by the Foreign Service Institute (USA). Of the 3145 students, 2% had achieved the soughtfor level in the following languages learnt in adulthood: Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Korean, Lao, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish. The personality measurement with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers et al., 1998) pertained to 67 people. The results of the assessment revealed that the INTJ personality profile (Introversion-Intuition-Thinking-Judging) was most frequently detected in high achievers. As the author argued, Introversion, connected with sensitivity to universal patterns, might induce perceptivity of language universals. Intuition with a focus on meanings and the relationships between concepts allowed for accepting constant change. The combination of Intuition and Thinking designated an interest in intellectual mastery of the world, allowing for high levels of self-confidence, logic and precision. Finally, the addition of Judging explained Intuition used in the introverted mode, i.e., sensitivity to language universals. The study by Ghapanchi, Khajavy and Asadpour (2011) examined the predictability of the L2 proficiency by personality and L2 motivational self-system variables in 141 Iranian EFL university students assessed with the use of the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1992) as a personality measure. The most important research results demonstrated that more extraverted students had higher levels of L2 skills, which predicted Ideal L2 self, and L2 Learning Experience. Together with Openness, Extraversion explained 13% of the variance of L2 skills. Contrary to expectations valuing Introversion, it appeared that Extraversion might be more appreciated in language learning because second language learning involved assignments and actions beyond learning-by-doing.

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

123

Then, the purpose of the research by Ockey (2011) was to investigate the extent to which assertiveness (among others) could explain variables of L2 oral ability. The informants were 360 first-year Japanese university students majoring in English. Personality was measured with the Japanese version of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The study results demonstrated that assertiveness (a facet of Extraversion) was a significant explanatory variable of L2 oral ability, though the effect size was rather small. It indicated that assertive learners were at a slight advantage in acquiring communication skills and fluency, as well as proficiency with grammar and vocabulary. Their reliance on a willingness to take the lead, interact verbally with others, and to be conversationally aware might facilitate L2 oral acquisition. The research carried out by Liang and Kelsen (2018) was to examine the influence of personality and motivation on L2 performance (an aggregated value of instructor and peer ratings). The informants in the study were 257 Chinese (168 females and 89 males) with their personality assessed by means of the Chinese version of the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991). It was established that the only personality trait significantly correlated with presentation performance was Extraversion. There were significantly positive correlations between all the measurements of L2 performance (especially those of ‘pronunciation/clarity of voice/fluency’, ‘eye contact/body language’ and ‘enthusiasm/presence’) and the trait. Aside from that, five items inside the Extraversion domain (being talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive and outgoing/sociable) indicated a successful oral presentation. It seemed that the significance of Extraversion was specially related to ability—the outgoing personality of students with lower L2 ability, and higher Extraversion was likely to compensate for their deficits. Also, the study by O˙za´nska-Ponikwia (2018), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, demonstrated that only Extraversion was a positive predictor of the score on the Polish national oral exam, the grades received on the course of integrated skills, as well as preference for the speaking and pronunciation skills. The author ascribed these findings to extraverts’ superiority in L2 verbal production, and better verbal processing functions in and out of the classroom. Extraversion also negatively predicted the score of the written part of the Polish national exam, the grades received on the grammar part of the test, and a preference for L2 reading. Introverts’ advantage in this respect was argued to pertain to their independence and self-sufficiency. Finally, the objective of a study by Faisal (2019) was to investigate the impact of personality types on FL achievement on a general English language test. The sample comprised 676 secondary students of Bangladesh, whose personality was established by means of the Big Five Inventory, adopted from John et al. (2008). It was revealed that Extraversion was the only personality trait that positively predicted EFL learners’ academic achievement. It was suggested that the advantages of the trait, such as position in the group, a tendency to talk, and to be contended might allow such individuals to excel in EFL learning. Extraversion, as related to positive emotionality, has also been examined from the anxiety perspective. For example, Blakeley, Ford and Casey (2015) aimed to establish whether personality, among others, could influence the experience of language

124

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

anxiety in the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) context. The informants were 219 Spanish–English immigrants from Latin American countries (147 females and 72 males) with L1 Spanish and L2 English. The personality measurement was based on the 50-item IPIP scale (Goldberg, 1993). The findings of the research established that L2 self-competence could be negatively predicted by Extraversion, though to a very small extent. The authors argued that emotionality (positive in the case of Extraversion) might not fully explain the self-perceived levels of FL skills, as mainly the social and communicative demands of the L2 interaction was responsible for driving SLA. Also, Simons, Vanhees, Smits and Van De Putte (2019) aimed to establish whether personality, among others, could influence the experience of language anxiety in the CLIL context. The data came from samples of pupils, teachers and parents in Flemish-speaking Belgium. The sample included 133 pupils learning geography through English, 43 learning art history in English, and 11 learning economics in French. Their personality was identified by means of a short, free version of the Big Five test (Gosling et al., 2003), adapted from Costa and McCrae (1992). As to personality, it was established that Extraversion positively predicted language anxiety. The authors attributed this finding to the pupils’ immersion communication anxiety, as well as to the increase of external motivation (obligations, expectations), which augmented language anxiety. ˇ Finally, Cizmi´ c and Rogulj’s study (2018) investigated the link between personality, language anxiety and general English language competence, measured by a cloze test. The sample included 184 (96 females and 88 males) Croatian students from various scientific study programmes who had studied English in primary and/or secondary school. The 100-item version of the IPIP Personality Test (Goldberg, 1999) was used to assess the informants’ personality. The results of the study showed a negative link between general English language competence and personality traits, as represented by Extraversion, among others. It was also revealed that Extraversion negatively predicted competence, even when language anxiety was controlled for. The authors ascribed those results to the fact that more gregarious, active and outgoing students might perform less successfully on a written test of language competence. They concluded that the best language learners might be hard-working, quiet and introverted. The examination of the bonds between Extraversion and language anxiety also included the role of one of its forms—speaking anxiety. This was the aim of the study by Vural (2019). There were 923 participants, who were 4th year students of English Language Teaching departments and 922 from English Language and Literature departments at different universities in Turkey. The Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991), consisting of 44 short-phrase items, assessed personality traits. The results revealed that the more extraverted participants felt less anxious while speaking English. The authors argued that the strongest power of Extraversion could be assigned to the bonds between the traits and emotions. Similar findings were revealed in the research described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, devoted to the empirical research on Neuroticism. For example, Blakeley, Ford and Casey (2015) established that language anxiety was negatively predicted by Extraversion, though

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

125

to a very small extent. Extraverts were less anxious when speaking with friends, at work, and in public, which was attributed to their sociability, approachability, and straightforwardness. The authors argued that emotionality might not fully explain self-perceived levels of FL skills, as mainly the social and communicative demands of the L2 interaction were responsible for driving SLA. Also, in the studies carried out by Dewaele (2002, 2013), as well as Khany and Ghoreyshi (2013), the negative relationship of Extraversion and language anxiety was unanimously confirmed in various samples, and with personality assessed by means of different instruments: the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck et al., 1985) or the Big Five Inventory questionnaire (John et al., 1991). This finding was attributed to the greater fluency of extraverts (Dewaele, 2002), their risk-taking behaviours (Dewaele, 2013), and greater confidence stemming from extraverts’ engagement in social activities and tasks in the classroom (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013). Another significant research path is created by a string of research studies devoted to the link between Extraversion, and styles and strategies. The differences between extraverted and introverted learners in this respect was the aim of the study by Wakamoto (2000). The informants were 254 junior college students majoring in English. To estimate personality levels, the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) was used (the Japanese trial version form G). It was established that Extraversion significantly correlated with functional practice strategies (focusing on the language form, grammatical accuracy, or pronunciation accuracy) and social-affective strategies. Extraverted learners more often encouraged themselves to speak English even when being afraid of making a mistake. As the author claimed, thanks to these strategies they could get the interactive modified input from others. As to introverted students, no significant relationships were found. The influence of personality type on perceptual learning style preference and language learning strategies was the focus of the study by Chen and Hung (2012). The participants were 364 senior high school students studying English as a foreign language in Taiwan. The instruments used to collect data were the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers et al., 1998). Aside from no statistically significant relationships between perceptual learning style preferences and personality types, extraverted students, contrary to introverted ones, used more compensation, metacognitive, cognitive, memory, affective, and social strategies. Also, intuitive types used more memory and compensation strategies in contrast to sensing types. Also, Noprianto (2017) aimed to investigate the use of language learning strategies by introverted and extraverted students. 58 (6 males and 52 females) senior high school students participants took part in the study. Their personality profiles were established by means of McCroskey’s Introversion scale (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989). The results showed that extraverts appeared to use a larger collection of language learning strategies, especially in relation to affective strategies in learning English. Aside from that, both extraverts and introverts used social strategies related to interaction with native speakers least frequently. Similar findings were established in some studies described in Sect. 3.3.1.2. Ghyasi, Yazdani and Farsani (2013) linked Extraversion with elaboration, peer

126

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

learning and help-seeking strategies, which reflected to the sociability and assertiveness features of the trait. The results of the study by Liyanage and Bartlett (2013) revealed Extraversion as a strong predictor of learners’ strategy preferences (metacognitive strategies), especially when the trait was assisted by low levels of Neuroticism. It pointed to the effectiveness of both Extraversion and Introversion, depending on the specific language learning strategy. Similarly, Alibakhshi, Qaracholloo and Mohammadi (2017) demonstrated that Extraversion could positively predict the use of metacognitive strategies (i.e., overall, global, problem-solving and support strategies). The authors argued that environmental factors directly impacting Extraversion did not control the use of such strategies. Specifically, He (2019) confirmed that the Extraversion facets of assertiveness and activity positively predicted the writing performance due to the participants’ active engagement in tasks and constant sharing of drafts. The relationship of Extraversion with L2 willingness to communicate has also turned out to create a significant research area. For example, the impact of Extraversion on language learning (i.e., willingness to communicate and familiarity of study situations) was one of the objectives of the study by MacIntyre, Clément and Noels (2007). Their informants were 127 (91 females and 36 males) high school students learning L2 French in Canada. To measure Extraversion, the researchers used the 23item Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). It was established that introverts were more willing to communicate than extraverts in a familiar setting, while extraverts performed best when conditions involved a moderate degree of novelty, in spite of the expectation that Extraversion might reliably predict WTC across a variety of situations. The authors justified their findings by relating personality effects to the specific experience of learning situations. The person by situation interaction would be expected to produce noticeable effects on language achievement in a longer time span. For this reason, in this specific research study, Extraversion might not reliably predict whether students were accustomed to studying in either a group or solitary setting. A similar study focus was taken in the research by Oz (2014). The participants were 168 university students majoring in English as a foreign language at a major state university in Ankara, Turkey. The International Personality Item Pool by Goldberg (1992) was used to assess personality. It was revealed that Extraversion was among the strongest predictors of L2 WTC. They indicated that L2 WTC was driven by sociability and inter-, as well as intrapersonal tendencies. More generally, Šafranj and Kati´c (2019) investigated the relationship between personality traits and willingness to communicate in the foreign language learning process. The informants were 303 students (56.4% female) from a Serbian university. Their personality profiles were established by means of the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1992). The results of the correlative research suggested that L2 WTC and Extraversion were moderately related. It was proposed that students who were sociable, person-oriented, talkative, and friendly might be more inclined to communicate in a foreign language.

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

127

Also, the relationship between L2 willingness and unwillingness to communicate, together with the personality traits of Openness to experience and Extraversion was the aim of the research carried out by Khany and Nejad (2016). The sample included 217 students (110 males, 100 females and seven unspecified). The Big Five scale (John & Srivastava, 1999) was used to measure the personality traits. The results showed that, aside from Openness to experience, Extraversion was the main predictor of L2 WTC. The paths from Openness to experience and Extraversion to unwillingness were not significant. The relationship between Extraversion and language use was related to the specific attributes of L2 WTC, such as assertiveness, gregariousness, and pursuit of opportunities to talk. These were also closely related to Extraversion, hence the trait’s significance in predicting L2 WTC. Finally, the role of Extraversion in predicting L2 WTC levels was investigated by Piechurska-Kuciel (in press). The research participants were 494 secondary grammar school students (308 girls and 186 boys), whose Extraversion levels were estimated by means of the 20-item IPIP scale (Goldberg, 1992). According to the results, this personality trait had a statistically significant, though quite modest positive predictive value for estimating L2 WTC due to the extravert’s tendency to interact verbally in various situations and settings, the foreign language classroom among others. Aside from that, it was also argued that Extraversion could impact L2 WTC indirectly, by shaping the immediate antecedents of WTC: communicative anxiety (or, more precisely, language anxiety) and perceived communicative competence in a foreign language. Hence, extraverted students declared lower levels of language anxiety due to their inclination to experience positive emotions. They also declared higher levels of their FL achievement, which could be ascribed to their general tendency to optimistically measure their self-perceived ability. There are also two interesting studies pertaining to the relationship between personality traits (i.e., Extraversion) and the concept of ‘feeling different’ while using a foreign language. Such was the focus of the study by O˙za´nska-Ponikwia (2012). The informants were 102 Polish-English bilinguals and Polish L2 users of English, living in an English-speaking country (72 females and 30 males). Their personality traits were analysed by means of the ‘OCEAN’ questionnaire. The results demonstrated that Extraversion, among others, significantly correlated with self-perceived changes in behaviour or body language that occurred while a foreign language was used. Of the five personality traits, it was the strongest predictor of ‘feeling different’ while using the L2. Also, the extraverted participants reported frequent L2 usage. The author suggested that this might be linked to the fact that extraverts tended to actively participate in social interactions in both L1 and L2. As they lived in an English-speaking country, they had more opportunities to engage in L2 interactions. They reported feeling different when using the L2 more often than the introverted informants, which might point to the connection of this personality trait with selfperceived personality changes that might take place while operating in a foreign language. Also, the four studies by Ramírez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, and Pennebaker (2006) aimed to establish if Spanish–English bilinguals displayed different personalities when using different languages (cultural frame switching)

128

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

in ways that reflected culture-oriented personality tendencies. Study 1 focused on directly examining real personality differences between the two cultures in terms of the Big-Five framework. The sample included two groups of informants: 168,451 (44% men and 55% women) individuals living in the US, and 1031 (34% men and 65% women) living in Mexico. They responded to the Big Five Inventory in English and Spanish, respectively (Srivastava et al., 2003). The results pointed to modest personality differences between English-speaking Americans and Spanish-speaking Mexicans. US informants had higher means in Extraversion, among others, than the participants in Mexico. However, people in Mexico scored higher on the Neuroticism scale than people in the US. Studies 2–4 were devoted to the examination of the personality switch of bilinguals in three different samples: 25 Spanish–English bilinguals (10 men and 15 women) living in Austin, Texas, 54 participants (24 men and 30 women) living in the US (N = 32) and Mexico (N = 22), and 170 bilinguals (66 men and 104 women) living in the San Francisco Bay Area. The general results revealed that all the bilinguals were more extraverted in English than in Spanish. The authors argued that English-language speaking cultures valued Extraversion with its focus on communication directness and uniqueness. Moreover, the phenomenon of cultural frame switching of bilinguals could be induced by an interplay of two personality types: a self-enhancing personality, characterizing the individualistic American, English-speaking culture, and a self-effacing personality of the collectivist Mexican, Spanish-speaking culture, with less need for positive self-evaluation, and exposure of personal attributes. The authors also stressed that the personality change of a bilingual was not abrupt, but followed a path of simultaneous continuity and change that was similar to the age-related development of personality. Code-switching appears to be another aspect of the SLA process that may have ties with personality. For this reason, Dewaele and Wei’s study (2014) focused on examining intra- and inter-speaker variation, with a focus on personality traits such as Extraversion, among others. The sample comprised 2,116 teenage and adult multilinguals (1,564 females, 443 males). Their most frequently used L2 was English (N = 924), followed by French (N = 455), and Spanish (N = 248). French was the most popular L3 (N = 422), followed by German (N = 330) and English (N = 248). Among L4s, there were German (N = 205), Spanish (N = 196) and French (N = 174) speakers. As to L5, it was Spanish (N = 101), Italian (N = 69) and French (N = 50). The informants’ Extraversion levels were measured with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck et al., 1985). The results demonstrated a highly significant effect of Extraversion on self-reported code-switching in four situations: speaking with friends, with some family members, with strangers and with some colleagues or clients at work or school. The existence of this positive link could be attributed to perceiving code-switching as a form of impulsive linguistic risk-taking that might produce thrills. Code-switching might allow extraverted language users to converge towards their interlocutors. Aside from that, the authors argued that the higher levels of (verbal) creativity of extraverts enabled them to introduce elements of originality and freshness in their communication. Also, some studies reported in Sect. 3.3.1.2, related to Neuroticism, point to the significance of Extraversion in relation to several aspects of FL behaviour,

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

129

such as foreign accent, autonomy or loneliness as related to FL achievement. So, Zárate-Sández (2017) established that Extraversion correlated with the degree of foreign accent. The author argued that more sociable, talkative, and outgoing learners tended to be perceived as having less of a foreign accent, particularly in the case of an unplanned and spontaneous linguistic task. Extraversion might also explain FL success with a high positive predictive value for establishing learner autonomy (Nikoopour & Hajian, 2016), as well as with a negative relationship with loneliness, which appears to hamper FL achievement (Kao, 2012). Summarizing, it appears justified to state that Extraversion may generally be approached as a positive personality trait from the point of view of L2 success, though its effects may not always be pronounced (van Daele et al., 2006). It allows for compensating for limited language skills (e.g., Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002; Liang & Kelsen, 2018), and allowing for better cultural adjustment through greater adaptability and flexibility (Azadipour, 2019; Oya et al., 2004). The positive ramifications of the trait are also attributed to stress resilience (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000), social skills (Liang & Kelsen, 2018), risk-taking (Dewaele, 2013), and assertiveness (Ockey, 2011) ). Positive affectivity, connected with Extraversion, has been confirmed by establishing the negative ties of the trait with language anxiety and its derivatives (Dewaele, 2013; Gargalianou et al., 2015; Simons et al., 2019). Unsurprisingly, the positive predictive value of the trait for establishing L2 willingness to communicate levels is also likely to be induced by the specific abilities incorporated by Extraversion, like assertiveness or activity (e.g., Khany & Nejad, 2016). However, Extraversion has also been found to be a negative predictor of general L2 language competence, which might be attributed to extraverts’ distractibility or gregariousness, as opposed to introverts’ focus on hard work, concentration and peacefulness ˇ (Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018). Hence, Introversion has been argued to fuel L2 success due to its connection with sensitivity to universal patterns that might induce perceptivity of language universals (Ehrman, 2008), as well as to introverts’ independence and self-sufficiency (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018).

3.3.3 Openness to Experience in SLA The trait of Openness to experience focuses on one’s appreciation for variety, novelty and experience, underpinned by their mental and experiential life (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). From the point of view of the trait’s characteristics, this dimension may turn notable in the field of foreign language learning due to its intrapsychic value. Its facets: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, values, and, especially, ideas, seem to be of critical value for SLA.

130

3.3.3.1

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

Needs for Research on Openness to Experience in Foreign Language Learning

Similarly to Neuroticism or Extraversion, the benefits of Openness to experience may also turn out useful in the foreign language acquisition process, though their importance may not be related to interpersonal qualities, but to intraindividual characteristics. These comprise cognitive flexibility and intellect (Sutin, 2017). The significance of intelligence, primary related to the facet of ideas, pertains to the engagement of open individuals in activities breeding intellectual independence, together with deep, more effortful thinking and theoretical considerations (Dollinger, 2012). Thus intelligence, frequently identified with the ‘ability to learn’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 37), may assist open students in their foreign language learning. Particularly, its substantial bonds with crystallized intelligence, i.e., verbal abilities or domainspecific knowledge, appears to be influential due to the contribution of cognitive abilities to L1 skills that are a springboard for the development of the initial level of L2 competence (Kormos, 2013). Consequently, a form of intelligence—verbal intelligence—related to implicit learning, observed in open individuals (DeYoung et al., 2007), may allow them to demonstrate higher levels of verbal skills, not only in their mother tongue, but also in the foreign language. Their greater capacity for implicit learning of language patterns, revealed in their deep approach to learning, critical thinking, elaborative learning, meaning-directed learning, and a constructive learning approach (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007), may also be identified in second language acquisition, which is “a form of sustained deep learning” (Schumann, 1994, p. 238). Consequently, thanks to their intellectual abilities, open individuals are likely to excel in this area, generating new ideas, asking more questions, and giving more opinions. Their need for cognition, visible in their enjoyment of new ideas and experiences, and preference for variety can be satisfied in the course of their foreign language learning process that induces diverse affective, cognitive and social experiences which they are ready to encounter with curiosity and engagement. No wonder then that open students may perform well on different tests, such as grammar or vocabulary that may increase the range of their skills. The learning tasks they tend to prefer are characterized by unpredictability, as they are able to tolerate more ambiguity and have a lesser need for closure (Sutin, 2017). Such learners can comprehend complex learning situations, and are not easily distracted by uncertainty, for example when constructing their interlanguage over a long period of time. They can greatly benefit from learning tasks whose accomplishment is unforeseeable, like discovery learning, implicit pattern detection, elicitation of explanations, working through manuals or simulations (Alfieri et al., 2011) and role-plays. Although this type of learning turns out most effective when guided, in the case of open students, such assistance may turn out quite needed mostly at the initial levels of their learning. At later stages, they are likely to become more autonomous, and make good use of their personality characteristics which may allow them to enjoy more successes on the path to language proficiency. Among the specific characteristic that may largely shape the foreign language learning process of open language learners, the capacity to regulate their own learning

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

131

(Caprara et al., 2011) can be indicated. Thanks to this, they may be able to preserve cognition (Sutin, 2017), and actively engage in developmental activities performed in the process of foreign language acquisition, such as the use of IT technology and new media (Piasecka et al., 2014) or intellectual challenges identified in the development of the four skills. This may be the case of foreign language communication, which is cognitively demanding (Baker, 2006). It requires fast language analysis and synthesis or the use of specialized concepts (such as those related to a specific culture), hence open learners may tend to respond to such challenges with commitment and satisfaction. They have good communication skills, that can be attributed to verbal fluency and expressiveness (McCrae & Sutin, 2009), and an augmented understanding of the interlocutor’s rationale (Nezlek et al., 2011). Their communicative proficiency may be intertwined with low levels of personality-grounded L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998), whose direct antecedents are constituted by perceived communication competence and communication anxiety (MacIntyre, 1994). Hence, it can be expected that open individuals know that they can rely on their L2 communicative abilities, and are not anxious to voluntarily initiate language contacts. Their effective management of negative emotions can also be attributed to Emotional Intelligence, which allows them to freely use the L2 (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2016). Students with high levels of Openness to experience tend to be motivated to attend classes (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003), and effectively use learning strategies (Marcela, 2015). This may also apply to the second language acquisition process, showing that good language learners select their language learning strategies carefully, use them more frequently, and adjust them to specific learning situations (Griffiths, 2008). Another characteristic feature of their general functioning is creativity in arts (DeYoung, 2015) and sciences (Kaufman et al., 2016). Broadly defined as a “person’s ability to come up with a large number of novel and statistically rare solutions on a given task” (Albert & Kormos, 2011, p. 79), creativity is also relevant in second language acquisition, whereby creativity can be conceptualized as originality, i.e., the quality of creative ideas. However, the creativity of open individuals may also be reflected in their creative fluency—speech productivity, which is fuelled by versatility and augmented engagement. Their creative behaviour also stems from their ability to handle and transform emotions (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015). Although sensitive to emotions, they are able to enhance positive emotions and harness their negative affect with their flexible brain, which may have a beneficial effect on their learning, leading to lower levels of LA and higher of FLE. Aside from that, the variety of aesthetic experiences (Fayn et al., 2015), to which the open learner is sensitive may allow them to appreciate the formal features of the foreign language as a symbolic system, perceiving them through their emotions, memories and fantasies (Kramsch, 2009). Last but not least, the relationship of Openness to experience with cultural intelligence as a factor responsible for the L2 success of open students should be noted. This kind of intelligence allows for effective contacts with people from different cultures (Li et al., 2016). Thus, it may be expected that open language learners are likely to enjoy higher levels of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), understood as “the ability to interact with people from another country and culture in a foreign

132

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

language” (Byram, 1997, p. 71). It follows that they may not only be able to communicate effectively in another language, but also build relationships with people from different backgrounds, respecting their needs and viewpoints. Nevertheless, it can also be expected that in some cases, Openness to experience may not be regarded as a necessary prerequisite of L2 success. From the point of view of its modest relationship with academic performance (Woo et al., 2015), it appears that open students may quickly tire of L2 learning demands when their drive for diversity and curiosity is not satisfied. It seems then that in order to sustain their motivation, they need to be provided with constant intellectual and aesthetic stimulation, offering diverse cognitive, physical, and social experiences, which may be difficult to provide in a formal setting with its specific requirements. They can easily get bored with peers or teachers who appear closed to them. In such a case, they cannot openly articulate their feelings or cooperate to solve conflicts (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). For this reason, in spite of their great potential, they may not always succeed in their second language process when unmotivated by insufficient intellectual and aesthetic stimulation, routine social/classroom interactions or negative feedback (George & Zhou, 2001).

3.3.3.2

Empirical Research on Openness to Experience in SLA

The ties of Openness to experience with L2 proficiency have been the subject of several studies. For example, O˙za´nska-Ponikwia and Dewaele (2012) investigated the unique personality characteristics that might predict the frequency of L2 users’ engagement in L2 interactions. The research sample included 102 adult Polish immigrants living in Ireland and the UK. The participants filled out the Polish version of the OCEAN personality questionnaire. The results revealed that Openness to experience (alongside with self-esteem) was a significant predictor of frequency of L2 English use. The trait was also the best predictor of self-perceived English L2 proficiency. In sum, these results suggested that progress in the L2 depended not just on immersion in the L2 but also on the L2 user’s basic inclination to seek out social interactions in the L2. The authors speculated that the participants who were open to new experiences, friendly and cooperative in social interactions, as well as curious about the L2 language and culture were more likely to seek opportunities for interaction in L2 English. Such individuals might gradually build a large network of L2 interlocutors, speeding up their L2 socialisation and developing their L2 proficiency. Openness to experience might thus be treated as the most important personality trait underlying L2 development and L2 use among immigrants. The aim of Zohoorian, Purya and Mahsa’s research (2018) was to investigate the role of personality in the FL speaking ability. A sample of 150 students (107 females and 43 males) of English from an Iranian university took part in the study. Their personality was estimated with the help of a translated and validated version of the Big Five personality traits questionnaire (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It was established that, aside from very small correlations between the speaking ability and the personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, it was Openness to

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

133

experience that could be treated as a reliable positive predictor of the speaking ability. The results were attributed to the interested and insightful nature of the FL students, allowing them to make the learning process personally relevant. Similarly, the study by Ghapanchi, Khajavy and Asadpour (2011), described in Sect. 3.3.2.2, demonstrated that more extraverted and open students had higher levels of L2 skills. More importantly, the mediational analyses demonstrated that the relationship between Openness to experience and L2 proficiency (i.e., self-assessed L2 skills) was explained by two factors. The first one was L2 motivation, i.e., the ‘Ideal’ L2 self or the imaginary picture one holds of themselves as a fluent L2 user. The other one was L2 learning experience, understood as situation-specific motives pertaining to the immediate learning environment and experiences. The authors argued that language learners who were curious might be more proficient if they wanted to become competent L2 users or to enjoy learning a foreign language. Also, the research by Shirdel and Naeini (2018) (see Sect. 3.3.1.2) exposed Openness to experience as the only personality variable significantly related to English language proficiency. The authors suggested that the trait’s connection with an innovative, creative, and studious performance, as well as with intellectual creativity and a variety of experiences might boost FL achievement. ˇ Then, Cizmi´ c and Rogulj’s study (2018) (see Sect. 3.3.1.2) revealed that the intellectual ability derived from Openness to experience positively predicted competence. The authors suggested that the focus on intelligence, represented by the trait, along with intrinsic and achievement motivation, facilitated the acquisition of L2 knowledge. Also, the study by O˙za´nska-Ponikwia (2018), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, demonstrated that Openness to experience positively predicted scores on the oral part of the Polish national exit exam, as well as preference for the speaking skill. These results were ascribed to the ease with which open individuals conversed in the L2, due to their active pursuit for new experiences. Noteworthy is the study by Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002), which demonstrated that Openness yielded significant correlations with all measures of communicative competence. The authors argued that L2 learning in childhood might primarily depend on Openness to experience that facilitated integrative processes in minority children who displayed a great desire to belong to and identify with target language speaking peers. The impact of Openness to experience on L2 WTC has also drawn researchers’ attention. A correlational study by Paviˇci´c Takaˇc and Požega (2012) examined the relationship between personality traits, willingness to communicate (i.e. group discussion, meetings, interpersonal communication, public performance, strangers, acquaintances, friends, and total WTC) and oral proficiency in English as a foreign language. The sample included 324 L2 English secondary school (85 boys 239 girls), whose personality was inspected by means of the Croatian version of the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). It was revealed that of the five traits, Openness correlated positively in the strongest manner with all WTC groupings, safe for interpersonal communication. According to the authors, the findings of their

134

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

research suggested that the personality traits and WTC might influence learners’ oral proficiency. Openness to experience was also among the strongest predictors of L2 WTC in the research by Oz (2014), described in Sect. 3.3.2.2. The author argued that L2 WTC was driven by broad-mindedness and inter-, as well as intrapersonal tendencies. A similar finding was confirmed in the research carried out by Khany and Nejad (2016) (see Sect. 3.3.2.2). The significance of Openness to experience was attributed to the learner’s curiosity, imaginativeness, and actively seeking out new experiences and novelty. Hence, open students were inclined to strive more in L2, and to gain original thoughts. Also, Piechurska-Kuciel (2018a) aimed to provide empirical evidence for the relationship between Openness to experience and L2 willingness to communicate. The sample included 534 secondary grammar school students (312 girls and 222 boys), who responded to Goldberg’s (1992) International Personality Item Pool in order to measure their personality traits. According to the findings, Openness could be regarded as a significant predictor of L2 WTC, explaining 21% of its variability. It was postulated that Openness directly impacted L2 WTC with its focus on the student’s cognitive capacities, as well as their propensities for analysis and thought, captured by the facets of ideas or intellectual curiosity, which might influence their readiness to initiate communication in a foreign language. Aside from that, the author argued that Openness might potentially have a positive indirect effect on L2 WTC, impacting its immediate antecedents: perceived communicative competence and language anxiety. Aside from that, the results of the correlative research by Šafranj and Kati´c (2019) suggested high correlations between L2 WTC and the intellectual ability (Openness to experience). It was proposed that students who were curious and creative might be more inclined to communicate in a foreign language. The links between Openness to experience and speaking anxiety were examined by two studies described in Sect. 3.3.1.2. The first one by Babakhouya (2019) established that Openness was the strongest, negative predictor, especially in the Moroccan sample, of speaking anxiety. Openness, incorporating curiosity, allowed the Moroccan participants (in contrast to Korean participants) to consider English to be of fundamental importance. The other study, by Vural (2019), demonstrated that informants who were more open to new experiences felt less anxious while speaking English. Hence, it was not surprising that Openness to experience was revealed as a strong predictor of foreign language speaking confidence in the classroom, as established in the research by Khany and Ghoreyshi (2013), described in the same section. Openness, related to speaking self-competency, was argued to induce higher speaking confidence. The trait has been revealed to play a role in preferred language learning strategy use, as demonstrated in the study of Obralic and Mulalic (2017). The informants were 70 students of the International University of Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina). Their personality was assessed by means of the Revised NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The highest levels of personality traits were noted in the case of Openness to experiences. The several preferred types of language learning strategies included mostly cognitive, memory and metacognitive learning

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

135

strategies. The least preferred learning strategy was compensation. Unfortunately, the authors did not examine the specific links between personality traits and particular strategies. Also, the research by Ghyasi, Yazdani and Farsani (2013), outlined in Sect. 3.3.1.2, confirmed these findings, and specified that Openness to experience predicted the application of elaboration and managing time and study environment strategies, which might reflect open students’ deep and elaborative learning. The specific ways in which open learners learn languages have been investigated in a string of studies devoted to their reliance on explicit and implicit L2 knowledge, phonetic convergence aptitude, attitudes and autonomy. The personality-dependent use of explicit and implicit L2 knowledge was the objective of the research carried out by Jackson (2018). The informants were a group of 60 undergraduate US students (40 female, 20 male). Their personality was measured by means of the ten aspects of the Big Five scale (DeYoung et al., 2007). On this basis, they were divided into two groups representing the top and bottom one-third of the Openness score distribution. It was revealed that the two groups clearly differed with respect to their performance when using implicit (intuition) versus explicit (memory) sources with open students’ more accurate and better performance (especially in the case of incidental learning). The authors attributed the better performance of open individuals in the case of explicit knowledge to their reliance on the similarity of items rather than on direct recall from memory. As to implicit knowledge, the better performance of open students might be related to their cognitive advantage, especially in incidental settings. Aside from that, it was also argued that they might explore their own consciousness in a profoundly different manner when they described the source of their responses. Finally, more open learners used such strategies as seeking patterns, repeating words aloud, and generating keywords. The use of such techniques might be caused by the bonds of Openness with flexibility in the exploration of sensory or perceptual information. Also, the research by Miller and Godfroid (2020) investigated the influence of positive, negative, and neutral mood states on several aspects of second language acquisition (implicit and explicit knowledge of the L2 syntax), in interaction with personality characteristics (i.e., Openness to experience split into its two aspects: Openness and Intellect). 120 participants were randomly assigned to three experimental groups trained on a semiartificial language under incidental learning conditions and one control group. The assessment of personality was carried out by means of the Big Five Aspect Scale (DeYoung et al., 2007). It was revealed that the informants exhibited substantial variability in how emotions impacted their learning. As to Openness, it was established that it did not significantly influence learning performance. The authors attributed this finding to the accuracy being driven by the participants’ explicit knowledge of the L2 syntax. As Openness and intuition were mostly associated with implicit learning processes, the influence of this personality trait remained limited. As far as Intellect was concerned, a positive association with test performance was established, due to the explicit nature of learning. Also, positive mood states were related to a greater use of explicit source attributions (i.e., conscious knowledge) in the participants with higher levels of Intellect. It followed that learners with higher Intellect levels gained best results of the learning aspects of the L2 syntax, even in the face of emotional distractors.

136

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

The study by Lewandowski and Jilka (2019) aimed at assessing the degree to which the individual’s personality, among others, affected phonetic convergence (the condition where two talkers become more alike in their pronunciation in the course of a dialogue) in a second language setting. The informants were 20 German native speakers, involved in two dialogue tasks with two native speakers of English. Their personality was assessed by means of the NEO-FFI inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The findings exposed the role of Openness to experience in phonetic adaptation, mostly due to their greater perceptiveness and the higher communicative competence of open individuals. The authors also speculated that greater imagination might positively influence two types of the open learner’s resources playing a role in a natural conversational situation. First, they might have a more accurate theory of their conversational partner’s mind, and, second, a greater understanding of speaker differences, like style and pronunciation. It followed that the focus on communicative and partner-oriented skills might be more pronounced in Openness to experience in comparison to Extraversion. As to aptitude, Biedro´n (2011) attempted to investigate the predictive validity of the Big Five for foreign language aptitude levels in two groups of students. The first one was comprised of 44 gifted L2 learners (31 females and 13 males), who were also accomplished multilinguals. The other group of nongifted L2 learners consisted of 46 year-one students (39 females and seven males). For assessing their personality, the Polish adaptation of the Revised NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) by Zawadzki et al. (1998) was used. The findings of the study exposed the weak role of personality traits in predicting foreign language aptitude. Only Openness to experience appeared to be the most powerful personality variable that might affect the researched construct. The investigation of the relationship between global personality traits and attitudes towards foreign language learning in a Turkish context was the aim of the study by Pourfeiz (2015). The informants were 157 university students majoring in English as a foreign language (EFL). To estimate personality trait levels, Goldberg’s (1992) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was used. It turned out that the traits, except for Neuroticism, were positively correlated with attitudes towards foreign language learning. Aside from that, the components of attitudes could be predicted by the traits. The cognitive and behavioural/personality component of attitudes was predicted by Openness to experience. Finally, the predictability of FL learner autonomy by means of the Big-Five personality traits was the focus of the research by Nikoopour and Hajian (2016), presented in Sect. 3.3.1.2. Openness to experience turned out to be the second-best predictor of learner autonomy (after Extraversion). The authors inferred that autonomy toward educational learning could be enhanced by personality traits. Last, some studies shed light on Openness to experience as a factor shaping the social and cultural aspects of the individual’s life. Dewaele and Botes’s (2019) study aimed to investigate the effect of multilingualism, a social factor, on personality. A total of 651 foreign language learners (138 bilinguals, 230 trilinguals, 131 quadrilinguals, 91 pentalinguals, 34 sextalinguals and 27 participants reporting knowing seven or more languages) participated in the study. They filled out an online questionnaire with the personality assessment carried out by means of the Multicultural Personality

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

137

Questionnaire (short form) (van der Zee et al., 2013). The research findings revealed that the total number of languages known was significantly linked to three out of five personality traits, open-mindedness among them. This trait was most consistently linked with multilingualism. The authors argued that multilinguals tended to find out quite early that their own linguistic, cultural values and practices might not be shared by their interactants. Their awareness and interest in these differences could induce self-reflection and acceptance of these differences. Hence, multilingualism/multiculturalism could be considered an enduring environmental factor playing a role in shaping personality profiles, such as Openness to experience. Aside from that, Khodadady and Zabihi (2011) attempted to investigate the differences in grades, personality, social and cultural capital in L1 and FL (English) of university students in Iran. The participants were 172 L1 (Persian) and 230 FL English (altogether 319 females and males) majors. The Persian version of the NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was applied to measure personality levels. The correlational analyses demonstrated in both groups revealed that there were significant relationships only between social capital and GPAs. The investigation of particular relationships between capital types and personality traits in both groups showed that the cultural capital in FL majors was only related to Openness to experience, while in the L1 group—to Conscientiousness and Extraversion. The authors attributed this dissimilarity to the role of Openness as an indicator of intellectual competence, which played an important role in FL majors’ cultural capital (literacy and cultural activities). The remaining four traits turned out to be significant in relation to the social capital factors in FL majors. As to L1 majors, all their personality factors turned out to be significant as well in these relationships. The authors argued foreign language learners approached a foreign language as a goal in itself, whereas students of the native language aimed at achieving various objectives, such as establishing interpersonal relationships. To sum up, it appears that among the most influential findings pertaining to the role of Openness to experience in the SLA process, its strong ties with L2 proficiency can be placed. It appears striking that immersion may be less important than the L2 user’s basic inclination to seek out stimulation through social interactions in the L2, as O˙za´nska-Ponikwia and Dewaele (2012) proposed. The importance of the intrapsychic nature of the trait makes the learning process personally relevant, enabling L2 success (e.g., Zohoorian et al., 2018; Shirdel & Naeini, 2018). The trait’s positive ties with L2 WTC appear to induce greater levels of L2 proficiency, due to its focus on curiosity, imaginativeness, as well as seeking out new experiences and novelty (e.g., Paviˇci´c Takaˇc & Požega, 2012; Khany & Nejad, 2016), along with direct ties to immediate antecedents of L2 WTC: perceived communicative competence and language anxiety (e.g., Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a). The beneficial effects of Openness to experience extend to combating the negative ramifications of speaking anxiety (e.g., Babakhouya, 2019), and augmenting speaking confidence in the classroom (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013). Importantly, the trait has turned out significant by facilitating the learning process through the application of both explicit and implicit knowledge, owing to open learners’ flexibility in the exploration of sensory or perceptual information (Jackson, 2018), and the role of intellectual ability

138

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

ˇ the (Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018). This advantage of open learners prevails even in the case of emotional distractors (Miller & Godfroid, 2020). The beneficial effects of Openness to experience can be found in the range of L2 learner behaviours, such as acquiring a good accent by means of phonetic convergence (Lewandowski & Jilka, 2019), their aptitude (Biedro´n, 2011) or autonomy (Nikoopour & Hajian, 2016). It also positively shapes one’s social and cultural life by creating chances for linking with other (multilingual and multicultural) societies (Dewaele & Botes, 2019), and by positively influencing the social capital of open learners (Khodadady & Zabihi, 2011).

3.3.4 Agreeableness in SLA Apparently, this trait with its focus on a prosocial and communal orientation toward others (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121), may not be regarded as relevant for the second language acquisition process. However, it may also appear that due to the socially oriented character of SLA, certain features of this dimension, expressed by the facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness, may be worthy of analysis.

3.3.4.1

Needs for Research on Agreeableness in Foreign Language Learning

It seems that pro-sociality being the main indicator of Agreeableness (Caprara et al., 2009) may also be considered an important factor in the effective acquisition of a foreign language. The socially accepted value (McCrae & Löckenhoff, 2010) of foreign language proficiency may be a powerful motivator for agreeable learners, pushing them to succeed in this area. Their sensitivity to their own and others’ emotional states, related to the empathic concern of others’ emotions (Habashi et al., 2016) allows them to experience empathy. This “willingness and capacity to identify with others” (Stern, 1983, p. 381) may play a key role in L2 communication skills, fostering appreciation of other people’s feelings, ideas or cultures (Mercer, 2016). It is placed among significant psychological forces assisting learners in their pursuit of well-being and rapid progress, development of proficiency, and savouring of the language learning experience due to its focus on building relationships (Oxford, 2016). It may also be a requirement for successful intercultural communication, that may allow them to enjoy higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. This ‘mental state’ or understanding of the significance of cultural differences and viewpoints of people from other cultures (Sarwari & Wahab, 2017) is likely to promote effective communicative behaviour, stressing positive emotions towards understanding and appreciating cultural differences. High Agreeableness is also connected with cultural intelligence, facilitating effective contacts with people from different cultural backgrounds (Li et al., 2016). Higher levels of Agreeableness enable the open student

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

139

to build interpersonal relationships and the competencies needed in intercultural communication. At the same time, agreeable learners may tend to reveal greater L2 WTC when facing communication with people from other cultures or those in need. Their focus on others may also allow them to adapt to the challenges of the language learning situation, and boost their positive feelings about it. It may be especially relevant in the case of such emotions as foreign language enjoyment. The social component of FLE (FLE-Social) enables pleasant relationships with peers, feelings of camaraderie and the development of shared legends (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2019). In this way, learning together is considered a joyous activity, strengthening social bonds. The positive emotions shared with others are also likely to nurture the learner’s self-worth or self-esteem, understood as “a psychological and social phenomenon in which an individual evaluates his/her competence and own self according to some values, which may result in different emotional states” (Rubio, 2007, p. 5). It shows beneficial effects for the foreign learner’s motivation, anxiety, information processing and autonomy, as higher self-esteem is connected with the growth of proficiency, especially of the productive skills, not to mention interpersonal relationships (Habrat, 2018). Skilled emotion regulation, mostly referring to the management of negative affect, rooted in pro-sociality is attributed to Agreeableness, and may also impact language learning processes. The need for cognition (Kassner, 2011), strengthened by general intelligence levels and the verbal IQ of agreeable students, may induce their interest in the cognitive aspects of second language acquisition, especially those pertaining to the processing of social information. Their accommodating and cooperative attitudes, comprising compliance and self-control allow for the smooth cooperation with peers while working on classroom tasks, as well as for sustaining good contacts with the teacher or significant others partaking in the foreign language learning process. Another beneficial characteristic of the agreeable learner is their persistence and desire for self-improvement (Komarraju & Karau, 2005). Obviously, the socially accepted value of foreign language proficiency is likely to boost their language study efforts, stemming from their understanding of the requirements of the demands of language learning, such as those received from the teacher or the language learning environment. The pro-sociality of agreeable students also shapes their motivation which can be both intrinsic and extrinsic (Clark & Schroth, 2010). For this reason, it can be expected that their motivation “as a socially mediated process” that inevitably undergoes different strains and tensions in the social learning setting (Ushioda, 2003) may successfully resist these negative demands due to the learner’s prosocial needs that produce fewer concentration and behavioural problems in spite of peer pressure. Nevertheless, it may be speculated that pro-sociality may not constitute a significant prerequisite for successful second language acquisition because there are certain burdens that can be identified in relation to this trait. The gravest one seems to be connected with the positive links of Agreeableness with high levels of selfcontrol (Tackett et al., 2019). Overcontrolled language learners may demonstrate behaviours that may deteriorate their successful language progress. One of them is withdrawal, which may deprive agreeable individuals of chances for language practice that demands forms of public engagement, such as solo presentations or extensive

140

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

reading. Withdrawal may also be connected with inhibition that involves the reduction in accessibility of a memory trace, hampering learning mostly at the early stages of foreign language learning (Hulbert & Anderson, 2008). This is related to lower fluency and accuracy in formal situations that might frequently be encountered in the SLA process (Dewaele, 2001). There may also be other, cognitive costs of high Agreeableness, such as those represented by low critical thinking skills, which may affect the agreeable language learner’s access to all available facts and information, and endanger their ability to make logical and well-informed decisions. Hence, an overreliance on the input that is externally regulated can, in fact, limit their autonomy and self-regulation. Last, but not least, the correlation between Agreeableness and surface learning (Vermetten et al., 2001) is also connected with external regulation and needs to be considered. This is distinguished by a preoccupation with unreflective strategies (memorisation and reproduction of the learning material to in order to pass a course), and an inability to see relationships between ideas or concepts (fragmented knowledge) (Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2019). Such an approach to learning may inhibit the foreign language learning process that may be disorganized and ineffective.

3.3.4.2

Empirical Research on Agreeableness in SLA

Agreeableness appears to be the least researched dimension of personality as there are virtually no studies including it as an independent variable (Dewaele, 2012b). However, in some of the researches presented in previous sections devoted to more popular personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness to experience) several mentions of findings pertaining to the role of Agreeableness in the foreign language learning process can be found. Among the most frequent topics pursued in relation to Agreeableness, the relationship between personality types and the use of language learning strategies can be mentioned. This was the case of the research by Fazeli (2012). The sample included 213 Iranian female university level learners of the English language in Iran, whose personality was assessed by means of the short form of NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992), translated into Persian. The results of the correlational research demonstrated that a significant positive relationship existed only between the overall compensation strategy use and Agreeableness. Unfortunately, no justification of the received results was provided. Similarly, in the research by Obralic and Mulalic (2017), presented in Sect. 3.3.3.2, it was established that Agreeableness was correlated with the use of an affective learning strategy. Nevertheless, no justification for the finding was provided. The study of the links between personality traits and foreign language achievement also offered some findings. As reported in the study by Shirdel and Naeini (2018), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, FL achievement could be negatively predicted by Agreeableness (though to a small degree). Also, Paviˇci´c Takaˇc and Požega (2012) (see Sect. 3.3.3.2) established that Agreeableness was the only personality trait that correlated significantly with oral proficiency in a negative manner, though the result, again, was very weak. According to the authors, the findings of their research suggested

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

141

that the personality traits and WTC might influence learners’ oral proficiency. Understandably, the positive links between Agreeableness and foreign language speaking confidence in the classroom could also be expected, such as the ones established in the study by Khany and Ghoreyshi (2013), outlined in Sect. 3.3.1.2. The predictive value of the trait was attributed to Agreeableness’s connection with the inclination to cooperate and sympathize with others, which allowed for being more integrated to the target language use, which contributed to higher speaking confidence. Agreeableness has also been linked to the second language pronunciation talent (Hu & Reiterer, 2009), understood as an aggregated performance score in tests of speech production and perception (Jilka, 2009). The participants of the study were a group of 62 native German-speaking students (31 men and 31 women) with L2 English. Their personality was assessed by a variety of tools, the German version of NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992), among others. Contrary to expectations, no significant correlations were found in reference to Extraversion, Openness to experience or Neuroticism. On the other hand, Agreeableness was positively related to pronunciation talent, to a moderate degree. The authors posited that pronunciation aptitude, different from other oral language proficiency measures, was a very specific (phonetic-articulatory) aspect of the oral language, not requiring the social capability of Extraversion. In essence, more talented persons tended to be more agreeable. A significant research strand can be identified in the case of the links between Agreeableness and language anxiety. An example of a study establishing such a link is the research by Simons, Vanhees, Smits and Van De Putte (2019), described in Sect. 3.3.2.2. Agreeableness was found to positively predict language anxiety levels, though to a small extent. The authors attributed this finding to external motivation (obligation, expectations), augmenting language anxiety. A similar finding was identified in the relationship between Agreeableness and speaking anxiety, as presented in the study by Vural (2019), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2. Agreeable students felt higher levels of anxiety in L2 communication. The authors maintained that high levels of Agreeableness in a majority of the participants, positively predicting foreign language speaking anxiety, might explain why Turkish people could not speak English. The research on the associations between Agreeableness and L2 willingness to communicate also demonstrated the negative effects of the trait for one’s readiness to initiate communication in the foreign language (L2 WTC). For example, the research by Oz (2014) (see Sect. 3.3.2.2) established that Agreeableness, aside from Extraversion and Openness to experience, was one the strongest predictors of L2 WTC. The authors suggested that L2 WTC was driven by inter-, as well as intrapersonal tendencies. Also, Šafranj and Kati´c (2019), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, found a small correlation between Agreeableness and L2 WTC. It was proposed that students who were person-oriented and friendly might be more inclined to communicate in a foreign language. Also, several aspects of L2 student characteristics have been found to be related to their Agreeableness levels. One of them is autonomy, found to be positively predicted by the trait in the research by Nikoopour and Hajian (2016), included in Sect. 3.3.1.2. Unfortunately, no justifications of the finding were provided. Agreeableness has also been found to be related to attitudes towards foreign language

142

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

learning, as revealed in the study by Pourfeiz (2015) (see Sect. 3.3.3.2). It was established that the affective/evaluative and behavioural/personality components of attitudes could be predicted by Agreeableness. The author argued that helpful and straightforward individuals tended to display more positive attitudes toward foreign language learning, and to display more willingness to identify and interact with the members of the L2 community. Also, the negative ties of Agreeableness with the loneliness often associated with FL students were established in the study by Kao (2012) (Sect. 3.3.1.2). The author maintained that this could explain the poor EFL achievement of lonely students who lacked the ability to develop the positive peer interaction seen in agreeable students. Finally, the significance of feeling and being different when changing a language in connection to Agreeableness should be mentioned. The research by RamírezEsparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, and Pennebaker (2006), described in Sect. 3.3.2.2, allowed for the establishment of the hypothesis that bilinguals tended to be more agreeable in English than in Spanish, which is consistent with the personality displayed in the English-language culture. The authors attributed this finding to bilinguals’ unusually high scores on the facet of ‘superficial’ friendliness (Agreeableness), related to individualist cultures. Such cultures were argued to promote independent selves, accentuating the Agreeableness that exposed behaviour regulation when interacting with others. Similarly, the research on cultural frame shift in late second language learners, carried out by Veltkamp, Recio, Jacobs, and Conrad (2013), established the relevance of personality in this respect (see Sect. 3.3.1.2). Their study sample composed of bilinguals became more agreeable when German was the language of the personality test, demonstrating consistent cultural frame shifts in personality. The research on the role of personality in the SLA process seems to suggest that Agreeableness may also play a role, though to a lesser degree. It appears that the trait may have some relevance for the learner’s affective processes, by breeding language speaking confidence through its focus on cooperation and sympathy with others (e.g., Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013). The positive role of Agreeableness has been confirmed in studies related to L2 willingness to communicate, stressing the importance of good intrapersonal relationships (e.g., Oz, 2014; Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019). Agreeableness also appears to be influential in the learners’ pronunciation talent (Hu & Reiterer, 2009) or positive attitudes to language learning (Pourfeiz, 2015), owing to agreeable students’ willingness to connect with the members of the L2 community. Their social contacts may ensure their greater FL fluency by limiting their loneliness (Kao, 2012). Aside from that, being agreeable may allow foreign language users to approximate a FL culture that is characterized by high levels of the trait, such as English-speaking (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006) or German-speaking cultures (Veltkamp et al., 2013). The Agreeableness’s focus on positive social relationships may also pertain to the positive relationship between the use of compensation strategies and the trait levels (Fazeli, 2012). Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Agreeableness may have negative connotations. It may augment the experience of language anxiety, especially in the case of speaking anxiety, leading to problems in L2 communication (Paviˇci´c

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

143

Takaˇc & Požega, 2012; Vural, 2019), possibly due to the role of external motivation (Simons et al., 2019).

3.3.5 Conscientiousness in SLA Similarly to Agreeableness, socially prescribed impulse control (John & Srivastava, 1999), underpins Conscientiousness due to its social implications that are also relevant for the second language acquisition process, and may bear significant consequences. Its facets: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement-striving, selfdiscipline and deliberation, may comprise characteristics that are likely to signify a successful language learner to a great extent.

3.3.5.1

Needs for Research on Conscientiousness in Foreign Language Learning

The conscientious language learner’s predilection to obey rules, follow goals, delay gratification, and to control impulses (Mike et al., 2015) may induce a variety of effects beneficial for the second language acquisition process. Among the most influential ones, grit can be placed. Viewed as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087), it focuses on persistent work (perseverance), and is accompanied by sustaining long-term effort and interest in spite of failure (consistency of interest). In the realm of SLA, “(1) gritty students remain persistent in their efforts in L2 learning, passionate about using the target language, and attentive to unfolding events in L2 class; (2) gritty students believe that they can become smarter by working harder; and (3) gritty students feel less anxious in class and enjoy their L2 learning experiences” (Teimouri et al., 2020, p. 16). These broadly conceptualized benefits of grit may lead to several implications. It may follow that conscientious language students, guided by their achievement striving and drive to excel (Mike et al., 2014), can be seriously committed to language learning, in spite of the length and complicated nature of the process. These proactive attributes of the trait enable such learners to attain the goals (both long-term and rule-based), dictated by their high aspiration levels through effective, organized and purposeful behaviour. Their self-regulated learning, viewed as “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453), can be considered an important characteristic of conscientious foreign language learners. They tend to be able to persevere in self-controlling efforts aimed at resisting social pressures and temptations to behave in ways that undermine their language achievement. Hence, they are likely to adopt organized and purposeful behaviour, like the application of effective language learning strategies and a more pronounced step-bystep processing approach, allowing them to perceive themselves as agents of their

144

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

language learning process. Aside from efficient deployment of learning strategies, the conscientious foreign language learner may also be likely to regulate their learning through developing motivation in order to succeed in the language learning situation (Seker, 2016). As “motivation must emanate from the learner, rather than be externally regulated by the teacher, (…) learners must see themselves as agents of the process that shape their motivation” (Ushioda, 2008, p. 30), bonds of Conscientiousness with achievement striving and self-discipline allow such learners not only to endure challenges and setbacks, but also to sacrifice their time and effort to the language learning goals, no matter how distant. Their self-imposed dedication to a cause, such as attaining foreign language proficiency, may be supported by their high self-efficacy beliefs that allow them to enjoy higher L2 attainment (PiechurskaKuciel, 2016). From the point of view of the social aspects of second language acquisition, conscientious language students are ready to fulfil others’ explicit and subtle expectations (Ansell & Pincus, 2004), catering for effective functioning of social groups, such as those formed in a language classroom. Although Conscientiousness is negatively related to intelligence, such learners tend to be cognitively flexible and easily adapt to varying environmental and task requirements (Fleming et al., 2016). This capability may be regarded as important in the SLA process, as it allows for shifting between languages and mental sets (Meskill et al., 1999). Their tendency to regulate their negative affect may predestine them to experience higher levels of FLE than LA, and to make use of their Emotional Intelligence. These positive implications largely stem from their agentic, goal-oriented behaviour (Shiota et al., 2006), which is implicated in self-regulated learning. Regrettably, there are some features of Conscientiousness that may interfere with successful language acquisition. First of all, its negative relationship with intelligence, often used to denote the ‘ability to learn’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), may indicate learning problems with acquiring L2 proficiency. Hence, it can be expected that conscientious learners’ generally lower levels of intelligence may not be sufficiently compensated for with dutifulness and industriousness. They may even be augmented by unrealistic expectations such students may hold about themselves as language learners and their language learning progress. For this reason, their potential failure to achieve in this domain may limit their sense of purpose, as well as resilience (Nguyen et al., 2015), which is conceptualized either as the individual’s ability for a speedy recovery from the psychological effects produced by an adverse event, or as remaining psychologically healthy or stable in spite of being exposed to an adverse event (Terte & Stephens, 2014). Specifically, the conscientious L2 learners’ success may be thwarted when they are not resilient or able to persevere in their language development (Kim & Kim, 2017). The facets of dutifulness that may induce inhibition, and deliberation, connected with action suppression and emotion control (Roberts et al., 2005), are likely to produce low tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in language information processing. Also, affective drawbacks, especially when the trait is linked with Neuroticism, can be expected. In such circumstances, grave emotional and language processing drawbacks can occur, such as higher levels of LA or lower L2 WTC, to mention the basic ones. Aside from that, it needs to

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

145

be remembered that the conscientious student’s focus on achievement and performance feedback is likely to induce their positive attitude to learning mostly when they succeed (Denissen et al., 2007). Hence, failures may have a detrimental effect on their language learning development (Furnham et al., 2011), when their grades may not necessarily be related to broader language knowledge and comprehension.

3.3.5.2

Empirical Research on Conscientiousness in SLA

Similarly to Agreeableness, the empirical study of Conscientiousness is quite scarce. However, the existing research within the SLA domain has managed to establish some findings pertaining to the role of the trait in the foreign language learning process. A significant research path is constituted by the examination of its ties with FL achievement. The study by Kao (2012), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2, pointed to the importance of the trait in combating loneliness that may deteriorate FL proficiency due to an insufficient development of language learning skills. Also, in the study by O˙za´nska-Ponikwia (2018) (Sect. 3.3.2.1), Conscientiousness turned out to be a predictor of preference for acquiring L2 writing, reading, grammar, and spelling. The author attributed these results to the links of the trait with planned and structured behaviour. Their persistence and goal-directed behaviour allowed conscientious students to acquire grammar, writing and spelling. Importantly, Novikova et al.’s research (2020) aimed at examining the predictive role of personality traits and creativity in assessing success in foreign language acquisition, operationalized as final grades. The sample included 128 (105 female and 23 male) first- and second-year university linguistics students of the Institute of Foreign Languages, at a Russian university. The Big Five traits were measured by means of the Russian version of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It turned out that Conscientiousness was the only personality trait with a significant and positive impact on the measures of foreign language acquisition (diligence, creativity, and total score), proving that it could be regarded as the most universal and positive predictor of academic achievement, including foreign language learning, due to its ties with industriousness and persistence, rather than with initiative, Openness or curiosity. Aside from that, conscientious FL learners might turn out good foreign language speakers due to the ties of the trait with organizational competence, an aspect of communicative competence. Thanks to it, as Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002) proposed (see Sect. 3.3.2.2), basic pragmatic skills and monitoring strategies of a foreign language learner might be developed. The interplay of Conscientiousness with such influential affective factors as language anxiety was researched by Gargalianou, Muehlfeld, Urbig and Van Witteloostuijn (2015), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2. The trait explained the relationship between gender and language anxiety. This finding prompted the authors to argue that women reacted emotionally to foreign language use, especially when they had high Conscientiousness levels. The relationship of Conscientiousness with another form of anxiety—speaking anxiety—was studied by Vural (2019), outlined in Sect. 3.3.1.2. The results revealed that more conscientious participants felt less

146

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

anxious while speaking English. The author justified these findings by referring to the connection of the trait with organization and discipline, allowing for employing good study habits and a readiness to learn. In a similar vein, Khany and Ghoreyshi (2013) (see Sect. 3.3.1.2) established that foreign language speaking confidence could be positively predicted by Conscientiousness, as related to the learners’ awareness of the social context both inside and outside of the classroom, and also of their future goals. Hence, its impact on study habits and preparedness might affect faith in their communicative abilities. Unsurprisingly, positive relationships between Conscientiousness and L2 willingness to communicate were established (Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019), described in Sect. 3.3.1.2), pointing to the importance of the trait for the inclination to initiate communication in the foreign language. Among most relevant language learning strategies whose use was attributed to Conscientiousness, mostly time and study management ones were established, according to the study by Ghyasi, Yazdani and Farsani (2013) (Sect. 3.3.1.2). Their use was related to conscientious learners’ study habits, as well as facets of the trait that promoted learning. It was also established in the study by Alibakhshi, Qaracholloo and Mohammadi (2017) (see Sect. 3.3.1.2) that compensation strategies might be predicted by the trait, due to its focus on optimal learning, inducing feelings of competence and achievement, which might also be the case of the findings established in the research by Obralic and Mulalic (2017). The links between Conscientiousness and FL skills have been researched in relation to writing in the study by Jackson and Park (2020), presented in Sect. 3.3.1.2. It demonstrated that Conscientiousness, represented by Industriousness and Orderliness was positively related to self-regulation. Although personality traits tended to fluctuate over time, Conscientiousness supported the self-regulatory capacity longitudinally, with varying patterns from person to person. Also, the study by He (2019), presented in Sect. 3.3.1.2, ascertained that the two facets of Conscientiousness (selfdiscipline and order) positively predicted students’ writing performance, allowing for careful regulation of one’s writing efforts and systematization of the writing tasks. Aside from that, the Conscientiousness facets predicted the use of writing strategies (other than social strategy), such as memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and affective strategy. The research on the association of Conscientiousness and several characteristics of FL learner behaviour has also rendered some promising results. The study by Pourfeiz (2015), presented in Sect. 3.3.3.2, demonstrated that the affective/evaluative component of FL attitudes might be predicted by the trait. However, according to the research by Hu and Reiterer (2009) (see Sect. 3.3.3.2), the second language pronunciation talent was negatively related to Conscientiousness, though to a moderate degree. It appeared that more talented persons tended to be less conscientious. Finally, this personality trait might be related to cultural personality differences. The research by Ramírez-Esparza, Goslinga, Benet-Martínez, Potter, and Pennebaker (2006), presented in Sect. 3.3.2.2, established that Spanish–English bilinguals were more conscientious in English than in Spanish, which was consistent with the personality displayed in the English language culture, favouring achievement, attributed to

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

147

Conscientiousness, as well as with a greater need for positive self-evaluation, and exposure of personal attributes. All in all, several beneficial effects of Conscientiousness have been determined in the SLA field. First of all, it may be expected to boost FL proficiency by limiting the FL student’s loneliness (Kao, 2012), and positively impacting the measures of foreign language acquisition, such as acquiring L2 writing, reading, grammar, and spelling, due to planned and structured behaviour (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). The trait may also allow learners to excel, owing to its impact on industriousness and persistence (Novikova et al., 2020). That finding may also be explicated by the use of time and study management strategies (Ghyasi et al., 2013), and the links of the organizational aspect of communicative competence with the trait (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002). This may be the reason why Conscientiousness is negatively related to speaking anxiety (Vural, 2019), which exposes the importance of organization and discipline that may induce good study habits and a readiness to learn. Nonetheless, the establishment of the positive predictive ability of Conscientiousness for foreign language speaking confidence (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013) may not pertain to women (Gargalianou et al., 2015). However, the finding of a positive relationship between Conscientiousness and L2 willingness to communicate (Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019) points to the relevance of Conscientiousness for FL communicative abilities. Conscientious FL learners may have a pronunciation talent (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006), and tend to make a good use of strategies allowing them to experience an optimal learning environment (e.g., Alibakhshi et al., 2017), and employ effective self-regulation strategies (He, 2019; Jackson & Park, 2020).

3.3.6 Empirical Research on Personality in SLA with No Effects The empirical research devoted to the role of personality traits outlined above included findings on the relevance of the Big Five traits for the second language acquisition process. However, aside from them, there have been studies that did not manage to confirm a relationship of any trait whatsoever with L2-specific variables. An example of such studies was the research on the links between attitudes, communicative behaviour and enduring influences, such as personality, among others, by Dewaele (2005). The study informants were 100 Flemish secondary school students (49 males and 51 females), learning English and French. The assessment of their personality was carried out by means of the short version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQr) (Eysenck et al., 1985). According to the results, no personality dimension had a significant effect on attitudes towards either French or English. Only the personality characteristics shaped by the social context (e.g., communicative anxiety) were linked with attitudes in both foreign languages.

148

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

Similarly, Dewaele’s another research project (2007) brought disappointing results. It was devoted to the investigation of the effects of three higher-level personality dimensions (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism), among others, on the participants’ language grades. This study’s informants were 89 Flemish high-school students studying L2 (French), L3 (English) and L4 (German). The assessment of their personality was carried out by means of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck et al., 1985). Analyses of variance revealed no significant effects of the higher-level personality dimensions on foreign language grades (i.e., composite measures of written and oral performance) in all the languages. The author attributed the lack of effect to the nature of the dependent variable that was not an objective assessment but the teacher’s judgement of students’ language proficiency within the specific instructional context. Aside from that, it was also speculated that the links between global personality traits and language learning outcomes were too weak, most probably caused by “a hugely complex combination and dynamic interaction of multiple social, didactic and purely personal variables that will drive the language learner on the way to elusive ‘success’” (p. 185). Another study investigating the broad topic of the influence of psychological differences on language acquisition was undertaken by Asfar, Born, Oostrom, and van Vugt (2019). The informants were Syrian (N = 1054) and Eritrean refugees (N = 500), residing in a Dutch municipality for over 16 months. Their personality traits of Conscientiousness and Openness were assessed by means of the Dutch version of the Multicultural Personality Test, based on the HEXACO model of personality (Lee & Ashton, 2005). It was revealed that no positive linear effects were observed for either of the traits in relation to local language proficiency. Also, the broad study by Choi (2018) that aimed to investigate the relationship between personality traits and L2 learning turned out to be inconclusive. The research sample comprised 176 Korean EFL college students whose personality was assessed by means of the 44 item Big Five Inventory (BFI) available online. It was revealed that the personality traits were not significantly correlated with their English proficiency test scores (TOEIC). The author suggested that the failure to find any meaningful relationships might have been caused by the insufficient sample size, as well as by the application of an unreliable instrument measuring English proficiency. Even in the case of a much narrower research focus, similarly unsatisfactory results have been established. For example, the main aim of the study by Mutlu (2018) was to investigate the relationship of students’ personality types and their language learning strategy choices, controlling for their language proficiency levels. There were 68 students from different departments of a state university in Turkey, whose foreign language proficiency levels (the language was not stated) varied from “starter to intermediate” (p. 152). Their personality profiles were identified by means of the Myers and Briggs Personality Test (Myers et al., 1993). As the author described, it was discovered that most of them were the ESTJ (extravert, sensing, thinking, judging) type, and they largely used compensating strategies, followed by memory, metacognitive and cognitive strategies. The type of strategies used least frequently were affective strategies. However, no significant statistical relationship between strategy choices or language levels and personality types was detected.

3.3 Personality Traits in SLA

149

Similarly, the investigation of the reasons for a decision to pursue or drop the study of a foreign language, which was the aim of the study by Dewaele and Thirtle (2009), brought about disappointing results. The sample consisted of 79 young teenagers enrolled in foreign language classes in a London school. Their personality was estimated with the help of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), measuring personality-related multicultural effectiveness (van der Zee & Oudenhoven, 2000). After establishing three groups of learners: those who wished to continue FL classes, those who decided to abandon them, and those undecided, it turned out that the decision to quit FL learning was not linked to any higher-level personality dimension. The authors suggested that the learner’s internal characteristics pertaining to this decision might not be of a general nature. They were rather connected to their psychological dimensions, like language anxiety, which was influenced by situational and environmental factors. On the basis of these studies, it may be inferred that this lack of any connections between personality traits and aspects of the foreign language learning process might appear quite striking, judging from the overwhelming majority of studies presented in earlier sections. However, the convincing justification of some of these findings may reliably explain these inconsistencies. First of all, as Asfar et al. (2019) suggested, in the case of collectivist cultures (such as those represented by their study participants), the impact of personality on behaviour could be less pronounced, which might be caused by their higher responsibility to social roles and relationships. Hence, it could be expected that their behaviour could be less predicted by personality. The authors also argued that the specificity of their sample (refugees) might be responsible for such results because the inclination to migrate might be related to specific personality traits (e.g., low Conscientiousness and high Openness), decreasing the statistical power allowing for detecting relationships between personality traits and local language acquisition. Also, the lack of effect might be related to the interaction of contextual, uncontrolled variables whose interplay could blur the final assessment (Dewaele, 2007). Hence, more data about the wider social context would be needed to assess the exact influence of personality (Dewaele & Thirtle, 2009). Last but not least, general sampling problems or application of certain assessment instruments might impede a clear understanding of the studied relationships, as in the case of the study by Choi (2018), where the TOEIC test measured only the receptive skills of FL listening and reading, that could not necessarily involve higher levels of Openness to experience and Extraversion. The aim of this chapter was to reflect on the general assessment of the role of personality in SLA, analysed from the theoretical and empirical perspectives. In order to do that, the scientific area of Second Language Acquisition was presented, together with the specific terminology that might be needed for a better understanding of the researched issues. Then, the SLA discipline was examined in order to locate it within the realm of the social sciences, explaining its strong bonds with other disciplines, like sociology or psychology. Especially, the last discipline appears of great importance due to its firm focus on the concept of personality that was outlined in the first two chapters. In the next step, SLA as a research area and a unique learning

150

3 The Big Five from the SLA Perspective

process was presented in order to reveal a variety of its subject- and individualspecific characteristics. Then, the position of personality within several taxonomies of Individual Differences proposed in this field was presented in order to show how it has evolved to gain its stable recognition in recent classifications. Aside from outlining the importance of studying the role of personality in the second language acquisition process, several problems related with carrying out reliable theoretical and empirical research, stemming from the uniqueness of the personality theory, as well as from the interaction of situation-specific variables or methodological issues, were mentioned. This undertaking was necessary to explicate the inconsistent empirical findings pertaining to the role of personality in SLA that were then analysed in the consecutive sections. Consequently, the greatest part of the chapter was devoted to the examination of the theoretical and empirical standing of each Big Five trait within the SLA domain. For this purpose, first, on the basis of the socioaffective, cognitive and academic, as well as behavioural ramifications of each trait, outlined in Chap. 2, some theoretical propositions pertaining to the prospective research of every Big Five dimension were presented. Every theoretical section was then completed with an examination of the existing, recent empirical research on a given trait to show the similarities and differences between these two strands. Globally, it can be summarized that there is still a vast opportunity for empirical research in relation to personality. Specifically, it was revealed that in the case of Neuroticism, several research strands are already being explored, such as those concerning the role of anxiety, that is language anxiety or types of skill-specific anxieties or L2 willingness to communicate. However, there are several issues related with Neuroticism that still require exploring, like the role of the greater preparedness of neurotic students that might compensate for their drawbacks. As to Extraversion, it was proposed that there were several issues worth exploring, such as its ties with foreign language enjoyment or boredom, aside from the benefits of Introversion for language study and use. The existing empirical research points to cultural adaptability or stress resilience, as well as to the advantages of extraverts in relation to several linguistic aspects of learner verbal behaviour (e.g., accuracy and complexity). In relation to Openness to experience, self-regulation or motivational issues require a thorough study, especially since Openness requires constant intellectual stimulation. Hence, the positive effects that have already been empirically established (e.g., curiosity about L2 language and culture) may not prevail over time in unsatisfying conditions. The consecutive traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness seem to be quite neglected in SLA research. In spite of their reasonably great potential for the language learning research area (e.g., links of Agreeableness with cultural intelligence or the role of Conscientiousness in language proficiency), there is a noteworthy paucity of studies devoted to these dimensions. It follows that there are still great possibilities for fruitful theoretical and empirical undertakings that may clarify the understanding of the role of personality in foreign/secong language learning. The last chapter focuses on a detailed outline of future research and pedagogical interventions that might explore the role of personality in the SLA process, from the perspective of the Big Five traits.

Chapter 4

The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions and Pedagogical Implications

This chapter is an attempt to integrate the existing theoretical and empirical study on personality traits in SLA in order to consider possible future research directions related to the scrutiny of isolated traits. For this reason, it commences with an outline of existing empirical findings on the role of each trait in the process of foreign language learning. On the basis of the findings, an outlook on future investigation is proposed. It is followed by an attempt to depict the cluster of traits that might be included to describe the characteristics of the ideal L2 achiever. In the next step, an outline of pedagogical interventions is included. It addresses ways in which specific strengths identified with each trait might be boosted, followed by possible interventions that would help control effective language learning. The last section of the chapter is devoted to final comments regarding the studied topic.

4.1 Personality Research The focus of this section is to synthetize the knowledge of the role of personality traits in the SLA process. Hence, an interpretation of the empirical research on every trait is complemented with an outline of possible future research that can be carried out in this respect. The section continues with a discussion of a possible study of trait clusters that may characterise a successful foreign language learner. Finally, the inconsistencies identified in the personality studies carried out in the SLA field (Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.2) are addressed with the objective of finding possible solutions to the encountered problems.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7_4

151

152

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

4.1.1 Personality Traits and SLA: Now and Next The examination of socioaffective, cognitive and academic, together with behavioural consequences of each Big Five trait, followed by an analysis of recent empirical research performed in the SLA field, all presented in Chapter 3, has exposed several issues that need to be addressed. They can be related to three distinctive areas: the interpretation of the empirical findings in terms of the direct and indirect effects of personality traits, the relevance of facets, and possible new research directions.

4.1.1.1

Neuroticism

The review of selected empirical studies devoted to Neuroticism within the SLA field, enclosed in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.3.1.2), tends to corroborate the cumulated, negative effects of Neuroticism on aspects of the foreign language learning process, that may be of direct, indirect and bidirectional nature. As to direct effects, they have been confirmed in relation to tasks testing spoken language (listening and conversation), phonological processing, and orthographic ˇ knowledge (Abu-Rabia et al., 2014) or general English language competence (Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018; Shirdel & Naeini, 2018). Nevertheless, such an effect has not always been confirmed in relation to FL attainment, as operationalized in different ways (e.g., Asfar et al., 2019; Choi, 2018; O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). Judging from the differences in sampling techniques, measurement tools, and statistical analyses, these discrepancies in the acquired results may not be a surprising finding. For this reason, caution is needed when interpreting them. On the other hand, the direct links between Neuroticism and anxiety are generally substantiated, as demonstrated in the studies by Dewaele and Al-Saraj (2015) or Šafranj and Zivlak (2019), among others. A similar pattern of findings pertains to the association of Neuroticism with SLA-specific forms of anxiety, like speaking anxiety (e.g., Babakhouya, 2019; Vural, 2019). Opposite associations, such as those between Neuroticism and the L2 willingness communicate tend to confirm this research path (Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019). It may thus seem that the link between Neuroticism and SLA-related factors may be much easier to confirm in the case of facet-specific forms of Neuroticism (i.e., anxiety), as in the case of Dewaele’s (2005) research, where no personality traits were directly linked to attitudes, contrary to communicative anxiety. As far as other facets of Neuroticism are concerned, the empirical research has acknowledged their importance, though not in a straightforward manner. For example, the role of depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability can be revealed in the studies devoted to styles and strategies, which exposed problems in the self-regulation of neurotic students (e.g., Ghyasi et al., 2013; Jackson & Park, 2020) or their memory difficulties (Alibakhshi et al., 2017), as well as the direct role of the facets of anxiety and depression in this respect (He, 2019). As to the facets of vulnerability and self-consciousness, their importance

4.1 Personality Research

153

was revealed in the study of neurotics’ inability to imitate the L2 accent (ZárateSández, 2017) or difficulties with code-switching (Dewaele & Wei, 2013), autonomy (Nikoopour & Hajian, 2016), and social relationships, i.e., loneliness (Kao, 2012). The indirect effects of Neuroticism on FL attainment have also been confirmed (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2019). Thanks to mediation analysis, this relationship, though weak, was explained by means of L2 (domain-specific) self-efficacy. It follows that although this association may be difficult to capture due to the complex interplay of contextual factors, catering for the significance of another, meaningful element (L2 efficacy, in this respect) with intermediary links with both variables, may expose the intricacies of this association. The bidirectionality of the connection between Neuroticism and aspects of the FL process has also been examined. First of all, taking into consideration the study by Jackson and Park (2020), it appears that certain reciprocal relationships between the trait and the investigated factors might come into play when investigated from the point of view of time effects. This presumption was mirrored in studies on the effects of a long language exposure on personality that were likely to supress the negative ramification of Neuroticism (Tracy-Ventura et al., 2016). In view of the above findings, it appears that although the investigation of the directness of the relationships of personality with other factors may constitute a tempting project due to its seeming simplicity and transparency, it may be more enlightening to contemplate more intricate interconnections. As to regarding novel research directions pertaining to the investigation of the role of Neuroticism in foreign language learning, indeed, there are several research strands that may offer valuable insights into the researched issue. It appears of primary importance to examine an effect of Neuroticism that might have positive repercussions for language learning—namely, preparedness. Its importance has already been hinted in the study by Ghyasi, Yazdani, and Farsani (2013), establishing the importance of rehearsal strategies of neurotic students. Greater preparedness, produced by vigilance and vulnerability, boosted by the inclination to experience negative emotions, is likely to compensate for missing attributes of a good language learner, such as learning autonomy or self-confidence (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Focusing on this specific outcome of Neuroticism may help to understand the trait as inducing not entirely negative consequences, but as a way of managing in advance a variety of potential threats. Hence, the prospective links of preparedness of neurotic students with various forms of FL attainment, such as performance on cloze tests in timed and untimed conditions, may be of interest. It also appears that a more focused investigation of the facets of Neuroticism deserves greater attention, as the results obtained so far do not fully explain the impact of distinct primary traits. Aside from the research on anxiety that is still gaining popularity in SLA studies, other forms of behavioural inhibition of neurotic students pertaining to withdrawal from language learning situations may be taken into consideration. Among them, the investigation of depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability seem to render interesting data, due to their connection with anxiety. Self-consciousness involving lower self-perceptions might be reflected in an inappropriate (i.e., lower) self-assessment of one’s FL abilities, heavily impacting neurotic students’ test performance or working memory. It is also worth shedding more light on the approach behaviour of neurotic students, revealed

154

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

through the role of the anger and depression facets that might promote risk seeking (Lauriola & Weller, 2018). Being able to take risks is considered a valuable asset of a good language learner, on condition that these risks are “reasonable (…) despite the possibility of making a mistake” (Oxford, 1990, p. 142). However, in the case of anger and depression in a neurotic student, uninformed guesses would be expected with greater probability. As to the approach behaviours of neurotic students, they may also be connected with angry hostility and impulsiveness, culminating in aggression (Ramírez & Andreu, 2006). It may thus be regarded relevant to empirically assess sources of student effective and ineffective guessing because of impulsiveness, which is mostly connected with regulating negative mood (Lauriola & Weller, 2018), and is likely to decrease the neurotic student’s guessing ability. In addition to the suggested research related to the facets of Neuroticism, it appears justified to examine its relationship with factors that may be of paramount importance in the SLA field: tolerance of ambiguity and Emotional Intelligence. As to the first factor, it appears that its standing in the foreign language learning process has been quite well substantiated (Liu, 2015), though not in relation to personality. Hence, the link between Neuroticism and aspects of FL learner behaviour, such as language perception and production, when mediated by tolerance of ambiguity, are worthy of study. Also, Emotional Intelligence has become a significant research area in respect to education, and language learning. It seems that Neuroticism stimulates and biases lower-order facets of personality, such as trait Emotional Intelligence (Petrides, 2009). For this reason, the interconnections between the two factors may be of interest due to the relevance of both for the SLA process.

4.1.1.2

Extraversion

It appears that Extraversion may be considered as a key personality trait in connection to general L2 achievement. Among the advantages of the trait justifying the dominance of Extraversion, several characteristics are enumerated: risk-taking behaviours (Dewaele, 2013), greater confidence arising from engagement in social activities and tasks in the classroom (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013), stress resilience (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000), higher levels of Ideal L2 self, and overall positive L2 learning experience (Ghapanchi et al., 2011). Also, the position in the group, tendency to talk, and to be contended (Faisal, 2019) seem to play a role. Moreover, the empirical findings unanimously expose the advantage of extraverts on various measures of L2 performance. Such language learners are not only more fluent (Dewaele, 2002), but also make a better general impression (Oya et al., 2004), which can be attributed to the specific Extraversion characteristics of being talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive and outgoing/sociable, paired with good presentation skills (Liang & Kelsen, 2018). Aside from these general communication capabilities, the language-related advantages identified in Extraversion comprise superiority in L2 verbal production (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018), especially when conditioned by a moderate degree of novelty (MacIntyre et al., 2007). Such language learners reveal a relaxed attitude to code-switching (Dewaele & Wei, 2013), which may also enable

4.1 Personality Research

155

them to dispose of a foreign accent (Zárate-Sández, 2017). Their faster access to information from long term memory and easiness to perform parallel processing of several items of information (Oya et al., 2004) is also mentioned, alongside with a focus on lexical complexity, but not accuracy, owing to risk-taking (van Daele et al., 2006). It is also maintained that the L2 oral ability can be fuelled by assertiveness, due to its relationship with self-assurance which may be advantageous in fluency acquisition (Ockey, 2011). The same facet, together with that of activity, is a positive predictor of writing performance, as both underlie active engagement (He, 2019). Extraverts’ good oral and writing L2 performance appears to be supported by their high competence levels. Particularly, the relationship of Extraversion with strategic competence facilitates limited language skills compensation (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002). This trait is also connected with greater general competence in cultural adjustment, owing to its focus on novelty and social stimulation (Azadipour, 2019). Unsurprisingly, this specific orientation also allows extraverts to willingly communicate in a foreign language (MacIntyre et al., 2007), although there are varying magnitudes of strength in this relationship (e.g., Khany & Nejad, 2016; Oz, 2014; Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019). Aside from common sociability and inter-, as well as intrapersonal roots of the link between Extraversion and L2 WTC, it can be expected that the trait could have an indirect influence on WTC, by impacting the immediate antecedents of WTC: communicative anxiety and perceived communicative competence in a foreign language (Piechurska-Kuciel, in press). Consequently, it is not surprising that language anxiety should be negatively predicted by the trait (Dewaele, 2002, 2013; Khany & Nejad, 2016; Vural, 2019) because this negative emotion could be relieved with an active approach to social situations (Dewaele & Al-Saraj, 2015), ultimately driving students’ SLA (Blakeley et al., 2015). The positive role of Extraversion in the foreign language learning process appears to be expressed also through the application of a greater variety of language learning skills (Noprianto, 2017), such as functional practice and social-affective strategies, enabling extraverted learners to acquire interactive modified input from others (Wakamoto, 2000), compensation, cognitive, memory, affective, social strategies (Chen & Hung, 2012), as well as metacognitive ones (Alibakhshi et al., 2017). Extraverts’ social orientation also underpins their ‘feeling different’ while using the L2 (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2012). Their self-perceived personality changes are confirmed by the study on cultural frame switching (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006), proving that Extraversion is related to the use of English, the language of cultures valuing communication directness and uniqueness, allowing one to express a self-enhancing personality. Then again, in spite of the reported strengths of Extraversion, several contradictory results have also been identified. One of the gravest refers to the general profile of high achievers who tend to be introverted (when equipped with intuition and thinking) (Ehrman, 2008), which allows them to outperform extraverts in general ˇ English language competence tests (Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018). The special benefit of Introversion is connected with sensitivity to perceptivity of language universals, and more thoughtful processing, which is observed in a sequence of FL attainment measures related to the skills of reading and writing, as well as learning grammar (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). Aside from that, Extraversion has also been found to

156

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

positively predict language anxiety (Simons et al., 2019), which may also point to introverts’ greater resilience to the stress caused by external obligations and expectations augmenting communication anxiety. It may then point to their greater independence and self-sufficiency (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018), inducing their greater levels of L2 willingness to communicate in a familiar setting (MacIntyre et al., 2007). As seen from the above paragraph, it is extremely difficult to clearly separate positive and negative language-related effects of the Extraversion dichotomy, as each extreme may be related to positive and negative linguistic consequences. Some of the research results appear to be extremely perplexing and difficult to interpret, especially those pertaining to the time effects of the influence of the trait on lexical complexity (van Daele et al., 2006) or on L2 WTC, that might be associated with learners’ growing proficiency and the familiarity of language learning situations (MacIntyre et al., 2007). Aside from that, the input of other variables should be controlled, such as the role of foreign language enjoyment that might be examined not only directly, in the Extraversion—FLE relationship, but also indirectly, mediating the Extraversion— FL attainment link. Similarly, Emotional Intelligence demands greater attention due to its growing importance not only in the educational sphere, but also in the individual’s every day functioning. Altogether, the empirical examination of the input of extraverts’ positive cognitive bias in their development of FL mastery may offer significant implications for language teaching, even more so with general positive effects of the positive affect for human functioning (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998, 2001, 2004). Hence, widening the study focus to such emotions, like curiosity, excitement, interest or pride may not only help to understand how Extraversion and Introversion operate in the FL learning process, but also to establish the link between positive emotions and the reward system in various conditions. Aside from that, it appears noteworthy to examine how the positive emotions of extraverts (though not only) may protect them from experiencing several aspects of negative affect in the SLA process, such as language anxiety, boredom and frustration or confusion (that might be viewed from the perspective of ambiguity tolerance). Finally, the explicit examination of the role of Extraversion facets demands greater attention. The existing research already suggests that assertiveness (Ockey, 2011) and activity (He, 2019) play a positive role in FL acquisition. However, there is still a lot to examine in relation to the facets of positive emotions, warmth, gregariousness, and excitement-seeking. Finally, the concept of bidirectionality of the personality—FL achievement relationship requires a deep insight. One of the features of this link pertains to the type of the language used. Since Extraversion is associated with English (the language of individualism) (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006), the role of personality-related features of other languages need to be investigated, especially from different points of view, for example, that of the learners’ language advancement. Such a research project might be able to establish the stage at which ‘feeling different’ while using another language is experienced, controlling the input of personality. Another research focus offering an exciting study area pertains to the perspective of multilingualism. Catering for this specific variable, it might be possible to ascertain whether and to what extent being multilingual might influence the perception of not only feeling different in a specific language, but also being personally different.

4.1 Personality Research

4.1.1.3

157

Openness to Experience

It appears that this personality trait of an intrapsychic nature may underpin FL attainment, though under specific conditions. The overwhelming majority of studies appear to indicate that certain levels of Openness to experience are necessary for ultimate success, as demonstrated in the studies on multilingualism (e.g., Dewaele & Botes, 2019). The research pertaining to general FL proficiency (e.g., Shirdel & Naeini, 2018) or self-assessed L2 skills (Ghapanchi et al., 2011) tend to demonstrate that the trait is part and parcel of a good language learner who focuses on their own cultural capital (literacy and cultural activities) (Khodadady & Zabihi, 2011). It not only predicts L2 proficiency, but also frequency of L2 use (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia & Dewaele, 2012). Importantly, its positive predictive power has also been established in relation to the speaking ability (Zohoorian et al., 2018) or its preference (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). These global abilities identified in Openness to experience derive from the general communicative competence of open learners (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002), confirming general research on verbal intelligence in Openness to experience (DeYoung et al., 2007). There are several justifications for these unanimous findings obtained in SLA research, predominantly stemming from specific characteristics of open learners. The basic one is connected with being intellectually curious, which allows them to know more and learn effectively, as confirmed by the cognitive and behavioural/personality component of attitudes (Pourfeiz, 2015). In the case of L2 attainment, their curiosity about the foreign language and culture drives their willingness to become more proficient. Moreover, they also enjoy intellectual creativity, which enables them to generate innovative language learning orientations. The trait’s focus on intelligence obviously assists their acquisition of knowledge. Nevertheless, alongside with the inquisitive and perceptive nature of open language learners, the merit of being inclined to seek social interactions, also in the L2, may greatly induce the development of their L2 proficiency. Having a large social network ensures a large frequency of communicative, as well as cultural interactions, at the same time satisfying the open students curiosity, providing variety, and solidifying their developing interlanguage skills. The sensitivity to external clues and higher communicative competence of open students is also revealed in their phonetic convergence (Lewandowski & Jilka, 2019). It may be possible that open students have a more accurate theory of their conversational partner’s mind, and a greater understanding of speaker differences, like style and pronunciation. Importantly, mediation analyses establish the importance of motivational goals, such as Ideal L2 self (Ghapanchi et al., 2011). It is a powerful force promoting autonomous learning or motivated learner behaviour (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2013) in open students (Nikoopour & Hajian, 2016). Together with positive L2 learning experience, these factors enable them to excel in the process of foreign language learning, pointing to their greater FL aptitude (Biedro´n, 2011). Consequently, it is important to bear in mind that gaining excellence in this field is mostly connected with the open student’s autonomous drive to become proficient, which stems from making the learning process personally relevant, and stimulating (Zohoorian et al., 2018). In view of the above findings, it does not seem surprising that Openness to experience is positively related to L2 WTC

158

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

(Khany & Nejad, 2016; Oz, 2014; Paviˇci´c Takaˇc & Požega, 2012). This finding is also strengthened by establishing high correlations between L2 WTC and intellectual ability the (Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019). The significant predictive value of the trait can be ascribed to its direct, as well as indirect influences that can modify the immediate antecedents of WTC: perceived communicative competence and language anxiety (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018). The greater communicative drive in open students, who are stimulated by intellectual curiosity and creativity, is revealed in their lower levels of speaking anxiety (Babakhouya, 2019; Vural, 2019), and higher language speaking confidence (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013). Altogether, these findings point to a certain cognitive advantage of open learners. Their flexibility in the exploration of sensory or perceptual information allows them to use different sources of information in reference to explicit and implicit knowledge, attaining more accurate and better performance (Jackson, 2018), especially in relation to implicit knowledge (DeYoung et al., 2007). Aside from that, aspects of Openness to experience—Openness and Intellect—may have a different effect on learning, demonstrating the valuable input of Intellect in explicit learning, even in the face of emotional distractors (Miller & Godfroid, 2020). Their deep and complex learning is signified by the use of elaboration and managing time and study environment strategies (Ghyasi et al., 2013), and specially by seeking patterns, and generating keywords (Jackson, 2018) that point to the creative and inquisitive nature of open language learners. As seen from the above outline, the research on Openness to experience has confirmed the importance of the trait for successful FL acquisition. However, there are many research areas pertaining to the advantageous language learning-related characteristics or related concepts that still require further examination in order to establish a clearer picture of factors conditioning successful language acquisition in open learners. One of them is the input of intelligence types, which can be both fluid and crystallized. Although the importance of crystallized intelligence is generally confirmed (e.g., Kormos, 2013), more studies are required in connection to the role of other intelligence types, some of which may not in fact be driven by the intellectual ability. Aside from the cognition-related characteristics of Openness to experience, it is also necessary to explain the affect-related role of the trait in the SLA process. A more detailed investigation of the attribute of Openness to experience focussing on the ability to regulate negative affect, and to enhance positive emotions could help to clarify the input of specific emotions. Among them, the cluster of the most popular ones—language anxiety and enjoyment—certainly deserves greater attention; however, an examination of other, so far neglected emotions, like boredom or curiosity, might be of special importance in relation to Openness to experience. It also appears that the scrutiny of other intelligence- and emotion-related concepts in connection to this personality trait may offer some new explanations concerning the open student’s route to FL success. One of them is Emotional Intelligence, capturing self-perceptions of own emotional abilities. In relation to Openness to experience, it may be expected that this factor might be able to explain the possible differences of FL achievement in open individuals. It also appears that the examination of the isolated feelings facet of the trait may have a significant value in connection to Emotional Intelligence because perceiving each dimension as a complex of facets may obstruct

4.1 Personality Research

159

the true significance of the trait. Another intelligence type worth investigating, especially in connection to Openness to experience, is cultural intelligence. It appears that this specific factor might be detrimental for comprehending FL attainment in relation to this personality trait from the perspective of the relevance of intellectual curiosity, which can be allied with social orientation. The interest of open learners in other cultures, underpinning their success in the SLA field may also be captured through the investigation of intercultural communicative competence and sensitivity. Including such factors in mediation models of the relationship between Openness to experience and FL attainment may explain the extent to which the cultural orientation of open learners impacts their achievement. It may generally be expected that in the SLA context the beneficial effects of Openness to experience pertain to greater ambiguity tolerance. However, it has not yet been established whether this specific association might be linked to L2 learning conditions or learning experience, especially when taking into consideration the comparison of levels of L2 proficiency. Among other tolerance-related concepts, the regard for self-regulation and learner autonomy could allow for the establishment of specific characteristics of the learning environment that may favour self-regulated learning. At the same time, this focus could also elucidate the motivational forces behind the autonomous learning of open students. Another factor attributable to their effective FL study is creativity, which is reflected in various learning conditions. It appears worth investigating how the impact of ingenuity embedded in Openness to experience may be revealed in the quality and quantity of oral performance, but also in the management of affect and cognition. Finally, it may be rewarding to investigate the direct relationship of independent facets of Openness to experience in shaping FL attainment, as well as its aspects, which might be assessed directly or indirectly, when mediated by other, relevant concepts. At the same time, the bidirectionality of the above relationship demands scrutiny in order to establish effective pedagogical interventions.

4.1.1.4

Agreeableness

Of the Big Five traits, Agreeableness appears to escape the SLA researchers’ attention to the greatest degree. However, judging from the review of empirical research presented in the previous chapter, several implications of the trait’s impact on the foreign language learning process appear surprisingly consistent. It seems that most of the findings pertain to prosocial orientation and behaviour of agreeable learners. In the foreign language learning process, this specific focus is mainly related to interpersonal communication. In this situation, the agreeable learners’ tendency to integrate and have good relationships with other people may be realized through the participation in communicative tasks, group and pair work. To start, this is revealed in the positive links between the trait and L2 willingness to communicate (Oz, 2014b; Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019). Their foreign language speaking confidence is high (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013), while pronunciation—above the average (Hu & Reiterer, 2009). It follows that agreeable learners are focused on interpersonal relationships, which

160

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

is also revealed in the negative ties of the trait with loneliness (Kao, 2012), and positive—with behavioural/personality components of attitudes (Pourfeiz, 2015). It may then seem surprising that FL achievement should be negatively predicted by Agreeableness (though to a small degree) (e.g., Shirdel & Naeini, 2018), and negatively correlate with oral proficiency (Paviˇci´c Takaˇc & Požega, 2012). This apparently conflicting research strand is confirmed by other results confirming the positive relationship of the trait with language anxiety (Simons et al., 2019), and, paradoxically, with speaking anxiety (Vural, 2019), in spite of the fact that agreeable learners want to communicate and are confident about their skills. These findings, though seemingly conflicting, appear to confirm a general behavioural pattern attributable to Agreeableness (i.e., prosocial orientation), that can also be identified in the foreign language acquisition process. The focus on the inter-individual relationships of agreeable students takes place irrespective of private, emotional costs. These may be ascribed to the ability to manage the negative affect of others, but not necessarily their own emotions (Kammrath & Scholer, 2011). It may be inferred that the heightened levels of language anxiety and, especially speaking anxiety, could be rooted in problems with managing their own negative affect. Consequently, the costs of being socially oriented in the specific situation of learning and using a foreign language may destabilize the agreeable student’s overall performance, not to mention their affective selfregulation. Indeed, the correlation of Agreeableness with affective learning strategy (Obralic & Mulalic, 2017), and compensation strategy use (Fazeli, 2012), strengthened by its relationship with the affective/evaluative and behavioural/personality components of attitudes (Pourfeiz, 2015), appears to confirm problems with effective management of their own emotions in Agreeableness. However, the finding established in the research by Nikoopour and Hajian (2016), positing that autonomy can be positively predicted by Agreeableness, appears to be inconsistent with the findings quoted above. Autonomous learners should be “active participants and managers of their own learning” (p. 285), which would require equally effective management of achievement emotions. For this reason, this issue definitely demands greater attention in order to specify the explicit requirements of autonomy that may be favoured by agreeable students. Similarly, the inconsistency of findings devoted to the association of Agreeableness with FL proficiency, that appears either negative (Shirdel & Naeini, 2018) or non-existent (Choi, 2018) needs to be clarified. Aside from the existing research on the role of Agreeableness in the SLA process, there are several study areas that have not been tackled. It seems that it may not be an easy task to investigate the advantages and shortcomings of Agreeableness at the facet level because these primary traits of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness do not appear to have a clear-cut connection with the experience and effects of the foreign language process. However, their empirical examination may offer some indirect explanations for the functioning of such a language learner. For example, an interesting aspect of Agreeableness that may turn out important in this specific field is related to sensitivity to the emotional states of others (Tobin & Graziano, 2011), that may be reflected at the facet level. It follows that a study of affect-related features of the foreign language learning process

4.1 Personality Research

161

might be of interest because it may allow establishing the extent to which agreeable learners are ready to cooperate in different learning conditions. An example of such a study strand is reflected in the examination of the role of empathy that may be regarded crucial for intercultural interaction. Moreover, it may also reflect the advancement in communicative development (Jaray-Benn, 2019). Although the Agreeableness’s focus on the emotional state of others takes place at the expense of the learner’s own emotions, the input of empathy should not be disregarded, due to its impact on learning by fostering the motivation and the interest to learn(Zeyer & Dillon, 2019). At the same time, there is still a need to empirically verify the input of Emotional Intelligence, due to its ties with empathy (Petrides et al., 2004). Although the links of Agreeableness with Emotional Intelligence are quite weak (Petrides et al., 2010), there is a possibility of explaining them with the mediation of empathy. Moreover, the social orientation of agreeable language learners may play a role in their intercultural communication, not only from the point of view of empathy, but also other culturally-related phenomena, such as intercultural sensitivity or cultural intelligence. It may be expected that these factors, focusing on the understanding of others, are likely to induce greater levels of effective communicative behaviour, in spite of the existing research pointing to the negative ties of Agreeableness with FL oral proficiency (Paviˇci´c Takaˇc & Požega, 2012). Again, this specific result requires further examination by means of more elaborate models, including the above variables. The feature of the agreeable foreign language learner that appears quite worrying in the context of SLA is their inability to manage their own negative emotions, as confirmed by the link between the trait with language anxiety and its types (Simons et al., 2019; Vural, 2019). It is especially relevant due to the impact of self-control (Tackett et al., 2019), which may obstruct the foreign language learning process at early stages (Hulbert & Anderson, 2008). However, it may be stimulating to investigate the relationship between Agreeableness with the emotional experience of foreign language enjoyment. It may be suspected that agreeable learners may tend to have higher levels of pleasant emotions, impacted by the social component of FLE (FLE-Social) that supports congenial relationships with others (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2019). It may play a significant role, helping agreeable learners to feel socially contended. This strong other-oriented drive, identified in Agreeableness, may also affect the student’s study skills because their overreliance on the input from the outside, uncritically appraised, may impede their FL learning progress. For this reason, it seems worthwhile to examine their autonomy and self-regulation in connection with socially-oriented tasks and procedures. Paradoxically, the externally received input may also have a beneficial effect on the FL achievement of agreeable students when directed at motivating them to excel in the foreign language learning process, by exposing the socially accepted value of language learning. Hence, further studies on the learner self-system may be of great value, especially when included in mediation and moderation models that may examine the bidirectional effects of the Agreeableness—FL attainment relationship.

162

4.1.1.5

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

Conscientiousness

The organized and purposeful behaviour of the conscientious student is also revealed in the empirical research performed in the SLA domain. It has been established that this may be the only personality trait positively influencing various aspects of FL learning, such as diligence, creativity, and final grades (Novikova et al., 2020) in a consistent manner. Such a range of factors impacted by Conscientiousness points to a certain universality of the trait, that can be regarded as an underlay of a generalized learning ability. Although the links of the trait with self-perceived FL attainment have not been studied, it appears that the positive effects of Conscientiousness functioning as a foundation for good study habits have been revealed through several studies. For example, it has been found that it is a positive predictor of preference for acquiring L2 writing, reading, grammar, and spelling (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). All these aspects of the foreign language learning process aim at developing sustainable knowledge that constitutes a reliable basis of L2 development. Obviously, planned and structured behaviour in Conscientiousness is also revealed in studies devoted to language learning strategies, that have established the use of time and study management (Ghyasi et al., 2013), and compensation strategies (Alibakhshi et al., 2017), aside from memory, cognitive, metacognitive, and affective strategies (He, 2019). These factors underpinning the Conscientiousness’s focus on optimal learning are likely to induce greater feelings of competence and achievement. This is also revealed in the research on various aspects of language learning, such as the positive attitudes of conscious learners to FL learning (Pourfeiz, 2015), although, to be frank, no relationship has been observed (Dewaele, 2005). In connection to L2 communication, the positive relationship between Conscientiousness and L2 willingness to communicate (Šafranj & Kati´c, 2019), as well as foreign language speaking confidence (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013), point to a general advantage of conscientious learners. Understandably, their speaking anxiety has been found to be low (Vural, 2019), which may enable their effective L2 development. In spite of the fact that they may be deprived of pronunciation talent (Hu & Reiterer, 2009), they still remain skilful communicators, as also confirmed by their lower levels of loneliness (Kao, 2012). However, it may be suspected that the female language learner, even with high levels of Conscientiousness, may have more problems controlling their negative emotions, such as language anxiety (Gargalianou et al., 2015). This result might be attributed to conflicting processes taking place in females, that might be attributed to specific characteristics comprised by facets of Conscientiousness—dutifulness and competence, referring to language learning abilities (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2012). Hence, it appears that overall FL acquisition might be positively linked with Conscientiousness. This specific observation exposes conscientious language students as not only competent learners, but also active participants of the foreign language acquisition process. Their orderly behaviour can also be related to skilful self-regulation that might be performed throughout the length of the process (Jackson & Park, 2020). Also, the correlation of Conscientiousness with organizational competence, an aspect of communicative competence, reveals their focus on language learning competencies (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002). It is also worth adding that the empirical research

4.1 Personality Research

163

on the trait has already established the importance of its facets, such as self-discipline and order which positively predict students’ writing performance (He, 2019). The general positive image of a conscious language learner stems from the capabilities underlined by the research on the two aspects of the trait: Industriousness and Orderliness, that were positively related to self-regulation (Jackson & Park, 2020). From the above overview, it can be inferred that further studies devoted to Conscientiousness are still required, especially those related to the relationship between the trait and FL mastery, operationalized as skill-related instruments among others. A specific focus on the facets of the trait demand greater attention, as it is still unclear how they might impact different aspects of the FL learning process. The role of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation may explain the exact mechanisms through which Conscientiousness underlies effective foreign language learning. As the direct links between the trait and L2 learning phenomena may not offer sufficient understanding of the role of personality in the foreign language learning process, the explanatory value of mediating variables could be of great use. Among them, several concepts can be placed. One of them is grit, whose implications may not only be related to behavioural aspects of learner functioning (perseverance), but also motivational (internally driven effort), and affective (less anxiety and more enjoyment) (Teimouri et al., 2020). Aside from the complex processes underlying grit, the concept of self-regulated learning, due to its strong motivational focus, should also be taken into consideration. Its strong ties with Conscientiousness (Eilam et al., 2009) need to be verified in the SLA domain, whose uniqueness may have its specific consequences. Another study area requiring empirical verification pertains to the role of the trait in shaping motivational processes aiming at attaining FL mastery (Seker, 2016). The mediation of self-efficacy, L2 learning orientation or self-determination, encompassing a range of intrinsic and extrinsic needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000), may explain the effectiveness of the particular characteristics of conscientious language learners learning and foreign language study and use. As to the affective factors that may play a role in the relationship between personality and aspects of FL attainment, attention should be paid to Emotional Intelligence because it may explain how interpersonal awareness or resilience embedded in Emotional Intelligence are of help when accompanying Conscientiousness. Aside from that, it is still unknown how intelligence (fluid or crystallized) shapes this relationship. In view of the expectation that Conscientiousness might not compensate for missing intelligence levels, including intelligence in a mediation model could explain the personality—L2 achievement link. Finally, the role of a potential failure of a conscientious language student needs a deeper insight. As positive attitudes of such students are most likely to prevail when accompanied by success (Denissen et al., 2007), failures are equally interesting to study. For example, it is worthy to establish which particular facet of Conscientiousness might be decisive for explaining the lack of success of certain students. A study of deliberation might appear specially interesting in this context because of its negative relationship with tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in information processing (Costa & McCrae, 1998b). Last but not least, the research on bidirectionality of the association between

164

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

this personality trait and L2 attainment (e.g., Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006) appears to offer exciting results due to apparent personality changes caused by L2 use.

4.1.2 Dealing with Inconsistencies The problems connected with conflicting research results generated by personality studies in SLA, some of which were presented in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.2, should be addressed. Basically, they fall into two broad categories, formed by theoretical and empirical issues. In relation to theoretical problems, it appears that there may be several inconsistencies, demanding greater attention, as revealed in the review of the empirical research carried out in respect to the Big Five traits within the SLA domain. The most relevant ones pertain to personality theory. Due to a multiplicity of personality theories or approaches, some of which were presented in Chapter 1, their integration may appear extremely challenging in SLA research (Dörnyei, 2005). From the point of view of the present study, it appears that the Big Trait Theory can be effectively applied in SLA research because of its solid theoretical foundations in psychology, as well as sound measurement tools, some of which have already been effectively used in the applied linguistics research. Moreover, this conceptualization also offers promising theoretical and empirical research prospects with its focus on aspects, as presented in the research by DeYoung (2010) or McAdams and Pals (2006). At the same time, it must be noted that other valuable approaches to personality study, like the narrative perspective, may render valuable information pertaining to the understanding of the language acquisition process and communicative behaviours. Another reason for the inconclusive research findings related to the relationship between personality and learning outcomes can be attributed to the fact that in many cases personality is operationalized as one or more supertraits. However, viewing supertraits as being composed of six facets (‘primary traits’) may obscure the input of independent facets due to the fact that some of them may denote dissimilar contents, in spite of their grounding in one specific trait. This may be the case of Neuroticism, encompassing such facets as angry hostility or anxiety. In the case of the first one, the affective basis of Neuroticism, that is negative affectivity, is related to anger and resentment (approach). Conversely, anxiety is connected with withdrawal (avoidance). Although both facets underpin Neuroticism, they describe opposite mechanisms: direction towards the threat (anger), and away from it (anxiety). Similar, opposite mechanisms can be connected with other traits. For this reason, a conceptualization of a trait as consisting of facets that may be incompatible to a certain degree lowers its predictive power. On the other hand, the examination of the trait’s role at the facet level may imply that the comprehension of the whole trait as part of a system may be endangered (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Hence, it may appear that studying a cluster of facets subsumed by a dimension may constitute a valuable source of information on a trait as a unity. For example, while studying Openness to experience, it may be worthwhile to examine the facet of ideas independently from the remaining

4.1 Personality Research

165

facets (i.e., fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, and values). Another interesting approach to studying personality traits, catering for their heterogeneity, would be to follow the conceptualization of the Big Five, as exemplified by the study by Jackson (2018). Finally, the problem connected with the interaction with situation-specific variables is probably the gravest source of inconsistencies found in the SLA literature because it subsumes a significant area of SLA-related concepts. One of them is the change of language that ‘dramatically’ changes the relationships between the investigated concepts. This qualitative modification obscures the otherwise clear and well-researched links, such as those already established between Extraversion and a willingness to communicate in L1 (Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1991). Also, the situational nature of the language learning process may not be clearly investigated while ignoring the impact of its dynamics. For this reason, it appears justified to cater for temporal and situational variations of learner behaviour (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). The other category of inconsistencies in personality studies includes empirical problems of a methodological nature. It seems that violating methodological rigour involving the design, variables, samples, and subsequent data analysis may generate inconsistencies that further endanger obtaining reliable results, which in effect may turn ambiguous or useless (Coolican, 2017), limiting their generalizability. Also, problems with small effect size should be mentioned here. In order to understand the significance of the relationship between variables, the magnitude of its effect size should be interpreted by means of the established guidelines, such as those pertaining to social sciences, as proposed by Cohen (1988). According to them, the effect sizes for correlation coefficients (r) should be regarded small when at the level of 0.10, medium—0.30, and large—0.50. However, recently these guidelines have become much stricter. As proposed by Loewen and Plonsky (2016), in applied linguistics the correlation is regarded ‘small-ish’ at the level of 0.25, ‘medium-ish’— 0.45, and ‘large-ish’—0.65. As to mean differences (d) between- and within-groups, even greater restrictions are proposed. Another source of methodological problems is connected with an overreliance on simple research models. The review of the recent empirical research included various examples of correlational studies whose reliable interpretation may be difficult to carry out. Abandoning such abridged research designs for the sake of more elaborate, nonlinear models might give way to the construction of a more meaningful understanding of the role of personality in the SLA process. More complex research designs, like mediation or moderation, enable a researcher to demonstrate either the scientific significance or practical use of personality constructs (Chaplin, 2007). An example of such an elaborate and more conclusive study is represented by the research by Ghapanchi et al. (2011) or Gargalianou et al. (2015), allowing for a greater understanding of the relationship between personality and the dependent variables. Also, applying a time series or longitudinal design enables a researcher to observe developmental changes, and, at the same time, to control confounding (Graziano & Raulin, 1993). Aside from that, there are also problems caused by personality measurement instruments. As already discussed in Chapter 1, there are various scales that pertain to different personality approaches. Some of them are commercially available and/or reserved only for trained psychologists (e.g., NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI, outlined in Sect. 1.3.4 or the Eysenck Personality

166

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

Questionnaire, see Sect. 1.2.2.3), while other personality measurements may lack a sound theoretical basis (e.g., MBTI, discussed in Sect. 1.2.1.3). Recently, other instruments assessing personality have started to appear in the literature of the field. However, they have not been discussed in Chapter 1, due to their scarce application the SLA field. Among them, there is the HEXACO model, developed from the FFM (Ashton et al., 2000), used in some of the analysed research projects (e.g., Asfar et al., 2019). It refines the traits of Agreeableness and Neuroticism (versus Emotional Stability), while adding a sixth trait, that of ‘honesty-humility’. Another interesting tool is the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (van der Zee et al., 2013), also used in some of the analysed publications (e.g., Dewaele & Botes, 2019). It measures five traits that are relevant for intercultural success: cultural empathy, open-mindedness, social initiative, Emotional Stability, and flexibility. As such, the inventory may be of a good use within the SLA area; however, it extends beyond the Big Five in predicting such criteria as international orientation. All in all, the results of their own and others’ research might be difficult to interpret and compare for novice researchers, due to the operational range of personality measurement instruments. For this reason, selecting a proper instrument that will ensure reliable results that may later be compared to findings from other studies may become of primary importance (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000). Aside from that, deciding on the proper operational definition of a researched concept, such as forms of FL achievement requires some reflection. In the empirical studies analysed in Chapter 3, it took the form of ˇ general English language competence, measured by a cloze test (Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018) or conversations in interpersonally stressful and neutral situations (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000). Finally, the role of personality in SLA is difficult to examine due to the fact that “it is difficult to acquire sufficient expertise in two such different fields as linguistics and psychology” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 219). However, these combined competences are likely to enable the identification of the interconnections within and across both disciplines in a reliable manner (Mercer & Ryan, 2016). Moreover, the substantial knowledge and methodological skills stemming from other fields, like educational psychology, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics may also offer significant input (Dewaele, 2012b). In view of these aforementioned challenges, it may appear that the study of the association between personality and the course or outcomes of the second language acquisition process constitutes a serious problem for a linguist. Nevertheless, it can be believed that these seemingly grave obstacles can be overcome thanks to interdisciplinary research cooperation, which may lead to growing experience on all sides, making the theoretical and empirical study of personality in SLA more consistent and effective.

4.1 Personality Research

167

4.1.3 Looking for Trait Clusters So far, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, the personality traits have been analysed as independent entities. However, they obviously coexist in every individual, creating a unique constellation of higher and lower orders of personality traits. Consequently, every foreign language learner is equipped with their exceptional trait characteristics, which means that their private SLA process undergoes specific, idiosyncratic modifications. Using the nomenclature borrowed from personality studies devoted to identifying the best candidates for space missions (Musson et al., 2004), on the basis of the theoretical and empirical findings, the ‘Right Stuff’ of personality characteristics describing the ideal L2 achiever can be proposed at three levels of conceptualization—trait, facet and aspect. In reference to the trait level, it seems that several theoretical propositions that have already been empirically corroborated quite unanimously point to low levels of Neuroticism, protecting the learner from negative emotions, and the resulting cognitive, behavioural, social and educational consequences (e.g., ˇ Cizmi´ c & Rogulj, 2018; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2019; Shirdel & Naeini, 2018). They might preferably be accompanied by at least a moderate degree of Extraversion that establishes the L2 achiever’s superiority in L2 verbal production (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, 2018). Higher levels of the trait may not be regarded as conducive to learning, due to the focus on rewards, and distractibility. However, lower levels of the trait (Introversion) could point to greater overall L2 achievement (Ehrman, 2008). As to Openness to experience, it might appear that at least a moderate degree of the trait might be of use, due to intellectual and social curiosity (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia & Dewaele, 2012), on condition that the learner is able to identify language learning as personally relevant (Zohoorian et al., 2018). As to Agreeableness, its input should also be acknowledged, especially in regarding the role of persistence. Although the trait has been found to negatively predict FL achievement (e.g., Shirdel & Naeini, 2018), it can still be assumed that its low levels might destabilize the learning process, revealed in the social nature of the process. Finally, at least a moderate to high level of Conscientiousness should also be included in this specific collection, owing to its relationship with good study habits (e.g., Jackson & Park, 2020), achievement motivation and effort regulation. On the basis of the aforementioned summary, it appears that superior L2 learning and performance might be associated with a personality profile characterized by a combination of at least moderate levels of Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness along with lower levels of Neuroticism. The ‘Right Stuff’ can also be contemplated at the level of facets or aspects of personality traits, though mostly theoretically, as it is even harder to find empirical evidence of hypothesized models. As to the facets of Neuroticism (anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability), all of them have negative connotations (see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.1.1.2). It may thus be inferred that low levels of all the facets might be included in this model. As to Extraversion (see Chap. 2, 2.2.1.2), the value of the facets for a successful oral presentation have been

168

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

pointed out (Liang & Kelsen, 2018): being talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive (also confirmed by Ockey, 2011), and outgoing/sociable. Additionally, assertiveness and activity positively predict L2 writing performance (He, 2019). It follows that high levels of at least two facets (i.e., assertiveness and activity), accompanied by moderate levels of the remaining ones, might be included in the model. In the case of the facets of Openness to experience (see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.2), i.e., fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values, it may appear that high levels of the facet of actions, connected with a general preference for novelty, might greatly attribute to effective L2 learning, especially when accompanied by equal levels of the facet of ideas, related with intellectual curiosity. Also, moderate levels of the facet of values could be helpful in accepting otherness that may be revealed in cultural diversity, as well as a certain degree of aesthetics, which is responsible for a vivid imagination. In the case of Agreeableness (see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.1.2), some of its facets might be regarded as helpful in this collection. For example, a certain degree of trust may be beneficial, at least at the beginning stage of language acquisition, especially when combined with a moderate degree of compliance that might help in interpersonal contacts in and out of the educational context. As to straightforwardness, altruism or tendermindedness, their value may not be of crucial importance. In the case of the Conscientiousness facets of competence and achievement-striving (see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.5.1.2), it appears that that high levels of both may produce a significant relationship with L2 success, especially when assisted by moderate levels of self-discipline and a certain degree of deliberation. Regarding order and dutifulness, these two facets could turn out to be less decisive; however, they may be useful for a systematic development of the foreign language learning process. The ‘Right Stuff’ can also be contemplated at the aspect level of personality traits. Again, it appears that low levels of Volatility and Withdrawal, embedded in Neuroticism, may be important in successful language acquisition, excluding hypervigilance to negative, and, sometimes, unclear stimuli. Low Volatility ensures control of negative emotions and lack of aggression, while low Withdrawal is connected with greater participation in language activities. As to Extraversion, it can then be expected that at least a moderate degree of Enthusiasm (a combination of sociability and positive affect) is needed, while Assertiveness may guarantee a substantial degree of motivation, though, again, high levels of trait aspects can be deranging. In reference to the aspects of Openness to experience, the role of Intellect appears indispensable for the ultimate L2 success, as confirmed in relation to explicit learning, even in the face of emotional distractors (Miller & Godfroid, 2020). In the case of Aesthetic Openness, a moderate degree of the aspect might be needed, owing to its ties with verbal intelligence and pattern detection abilities. The aspects of Agreeableness, Politeness and Compassion, might play a secondary role in second language acquisition. A moderate amount of the first aspect may ensure cooperation that might be needed in harmonious social relationships, while Compassion acknowledges empathy, which is also needed in language learning. Finally, in reference to the Conscientiousness aspects, a moderate to high degree of Industriousness and Orderliness can ensure L2 success, even in spite of missing aptitude or language-oriented endowments that can be compensated for with hard work and stamina.

4.2 Pedagogical Interventions

169

4.2 Pedagogical Interventions Personality, which underlies the behaviour, cognitions and emotions of every human being, has been a focus of interest not only for SLA researchers, but also for foreign language teachers and teacher trainees. Taking into consideration the fact that every learner is a unique person, with a distinctive collection of personality traits, it appears virtually impossible for the language teacher to tailor their pedagogical interventions to every student’s needs. Nevertheless, certain steps can be taken in order to make personality work for the benefit of L2 learning. Obviously, the first step would be to find out more about the students’ personality, so it is of paramount importance to observe them keenly in the classroom and outside it. However, in order to obtain more valid information about their personality, a non-commercially available assessment tool could be used, of course with the students’ consent. One such instrument is the test available at: bigfive-test.com. Based on the development of the IPIP scale (Johnson, 2014), it is offered in various language versions: English, German, Arabic, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. It presents the individual’s detailed results in a form of bar graphs and a short description of the findings. A teacher can also use the IPIP questionnaire already translated into the students’ L1 language from https://ipip. ori.org/newItemTranslations.htm. Obviously, knowing, i.e., establishing the levels of the traits is not enough—it is not even half the battle (the so-called ‘GI Joe Fallacy’) because cognitive knowledge rarely controls behaviour which depends more on contextual and situational variables, habit formation, or emotion regulation (e.g., Santos & Rosati, 2015). For this reason, there is a need to act and undertake pedagogical interventions catering for the effects of personality. They may have two clear objectives aiming at regulating L2 learning. The first one is connected with eliminating the harmful effects of personality traits that impede the second language acquisition process, while the other one should focus on breeding those conducive to SLA. Nevertheless, it appears unworkable to address the needs of each and every student at the same time; hence, for the sake of practicality, it seems worthwhile to apply a one-fits-all approach, that might be beneficial for, at least most learners. As has already been revealed, every personality trait has its specific strengths and weaknesses which also seem relevant for the SLA process (the ‘Right Stuff’). Addressing Neuroticism, it seems that anxiety is the factor related to it in a direct and straightforward manner, whose negative effect has already been clearly demonstrated. Limiting its influence can be found to benefit all learners. This can be mostly done through several interventions, some of which require the teacher’s guidance only at the introductory level. First of all, it seems that a stress-free atmosphere in the classroom is of paramount importance, also for learners with high aggression levels, thus saving them from temper tantrums. It will enable all of them to identify more positive than negative experiences, making ground for achieving L2 success. One of basic interventions may focus on the teacher’s granting emotional support, which is important in threatening language learning situations. The teacher should be genuinely interested in students and their problems, help them with their learning, and thus, facilitate their communication attempts (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2013). Neurotic students

170

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

may also benefit from predictable classroom routines; hence, following certain regimens may alleviate their stress, which is related to unpredictability (a collection of practical and effective L2 classroom techniques can be found in Young, 1998). Aside from the direct emotional support offered in the classroom, the learners can also be instructed to independently apply stress-relieving techniques, such as mindfulness training. Its benefits extend from the improvement of learners’ cognitive abilities (Mrazek et al., 2013) to inducing novel patterns of thinking and emotional expression, as well as stress reduction and other beneficial health outcomes (Grossman et al., 2004). Importantly, it also lowers language anxiety levels and augments their coping with self-efficacy (Fallah, 2017) (for more practical guidance, consult Teasdale et al., 1995), owing to the fact that students with high emotional reactivity levels are able to cope better with their reactivity to stress when they learn to improve their emotional regulation (de Vibe et al., 2015). Another effective way of combatting negative emotions might be the acknowledgment of code-switching in the FL classroom. The use of the mother tongue may be quite liberating, giving learners the impression of being always able to rely on well-known and familiar linguistic and cognitive patterns. In the long run, it may lead to a more reliable cognitive cohabitation of the languages in the learner’s mind (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2013). Importantly, the use of L1 as a learning resource may help to protect their mother tongue, and secure language rights of their speakers, boosting their self-esteem (Komorowska, 2013). The benefits of high levels of Extraversion are clearly related to the social orientation and sensitivity to positive affect. Such students may appear good candidates for L2 success, especially in relation to the development of oral L2 skills. However, it is the teacher’s task to attend to the needs of other students who may be significantly less willing to participate in oral communication, such as introverted or neurotic learners. For this reason, assigning extraverts to various groupings may enhance performance of less socially-oriented students. The development of oral proficiency may take place through creating more opportunities for learning and using the FL in and out of the classroom by inducing authentic communication (authentic films or videos, introducing native speakers to the classroom, or exploring real-life facts and events in the classroom) (Piechurska-Kuciel, in press). Classroom interactions may stem from simple drilling techniques that may be favoured by neurotics), and gradually, under the teacher’s guidance, evolve into independent communication in the safe pair work or group work setting. Greater feelings of safety within the classroom are likely to breed greater confidence on the part of neurotic and introverted students, which can later transpire to a wider, unpredictable communicative environment. As much as introverted students need to be guarded against overstimulation (e.g., pressure of time or demands), extraverted ones require to be controlled due to their dominating tendencies and distractibility. Hence, it appears justified to promote a serious attitude to language learning, through a focus on learner autonomy and intrinsic motivation (for practical guidance, consult Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). Extraverts’ distractibility, impulsiveness and social dominance also need to be controlled by means of a conscious focus on such linguistic elements as grammar or vocabulary that can be explored by means of pair work, in which extraverts might be assigned

4.2 Pedagogical Interventions

171

a supporting role. Last but not least, the effects of extraverts’ distractibility can be experienced by everyone in the classroom. Consequently, it should be taken care of before it ruins an activity or even the whole lesson. This can be controlled by means of assigning extra tasks to extraverted students before they get bored. At the same time, their attention may be suspended by means of giving them immediate rewards, such as positive affective feedback on the part of the teacher (e.g., facial expressions or gestures) that confirm the learner’s conviction that they are appreciated. Aside from that, the explicit introduction of lesson objectives and effects might be of help. Last but not least, it needs to be kept in mind that the quiet power of Introversion, misunderstood by modern Western culture, should also be acknowledged, as it may be a valuable asset in the SLA process, owing to its focus on what really matters (Cain, 2013). The learning advantages of Openness to experience are certainly worth exploring, due to the trait’s connection with intelligence, underlying effective language acquisition. It appears that even very closed-minded students may benefit from a conscious focus on the development of all the six facets of Openness in the foreign language learning process. This can be done through the application of media in the classroom—newspaper clips, the Internet, or films (Yang & Chen, 2007), which may allow for the presentation and analysis of diverse, often conflicting viewpoints and values—which is especially relevant in familiarizing students with different cultural behaviours and norms (Levy, 2007). Thanks to such interventions, intercultural competence that is a long-term, broad aim of general education can be developed in the SLA process (Komorowska, 2006). A batch of practical activities pertaining to aspects of intercultural communication can be found in Gregersen and MacIntyre (2017). The process of language acquisition can also benefit from familiarizing learners with the arts (Farokhi & Hashemi, 2012), which permits students to develop abilities captured by the fantasy and aesthetics facets of the trait, raising awareness of their emotions (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). Examples may include the application of strategies of describing and discussing works of art represented by such paintings as The persistence of memory by Dali or The Scream by Munch. Aside from that, extensive reading of some graded readers, like The Legends of Sleepy Hollow or Rip Van Winkle, available as audiobooks and traditional books on the editor’s website (McMillan) might be of help (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018) At the same time, the application of the affect-related activities included in such manuals as that by Moskowitz (1991) does not only develop awareness of one’s emotions but also preferences for novelty and intellectual curiosity, embedded in an Openness to experience. The positive relationship of this personality dimension with mindfulness training (van den Hurk et al., 2011) makes it a reliable tool in practising emotional control and sustaining on-task attention. That might be especially relevant in the case of open students who happen to be highly extraverted. It seems important to remember that open students independently choose to focus on acquiring personally-relevant information. For this reason, the teacher needs to make FL learning authentic and personal (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). It may also be appropriate to guard open learners from drifting away from the learning process and its participants through providing diverse activities in various interpersonal contexts demanding greater independence,

172

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

such as projects on which collaboration with their more agreeable or introverted mates might broaden all the students’ mindsets. Indeed, both high and low levels of Agreeableness might turn out highly problematic in the SLA process. As to high levels of the trait, it may be stated with certainty that agreeable students make likable class mates, and their efforts to make friends are reciprocated, which in fact can be helpful in creating a good atmosphere in the classroom. However, the focus on being liked might turn out to be counterproductive due to mounting problems with their own negative emotions. In this case, the interventions aiming at harnessing negative affect might be of good use (e.g., desk yoga or learning to breathe). A focus on positive emotions may also underlie motivation for L2 learning (MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017). Another reservation connected with high levels of the trait is connected with cherishing close bonds with the teacher, even at the expense of the student’s vital, personal needs. On the one hand, such behaviour is beneficial for the classroom atmosphere; yet, on the other, an extremely complacent behaviour might be harmful for the learner’s feelings of agency. For this reason, it may appear justified to follow classroom techniques that may be helpful in developing learner autonomy. These can be tasks and projects that require students to practise the language on their own or with classmates, and then to use their experience to fulfil a subsequent task, for example, through online games, like treasure hunts. Aside from that, learners need to be taught to reflect on their own learning, which can be done through learner diaries. Also, creating opportunities for self-assessment might help to raise the students’ awareness of their own learning needs (Reinders, 2010). Students may also design lessons or materials to be used in class in order to control the management of learning resources. Aside from that, they may participate in the evaluation of others’ and their own performance, in collaboration with the teacher (Inozu, 2011). Low levels of Agreeableness may also be harmful for effective language acquisition, due to behavioural problems that may be identified in this case. Hence, focusing on positive experiences and emotions may produce equally positive learning effects. Among them, a conscious focus on the student’s character strengths and virtues may appear important (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The strengths can be identified in reference to basic virtues (wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence), all of which have been empirically verified. For example, in reference to the first virtue, all the strengths (creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective and innovation) are relevant for effective SLA. The identification of strengths may enable students to use them to function effectively in different settings, to increase and sustain well-being or, simply, to have a good life (a free survey is available at https://www.viacharacter.org/). As to high levels of Conscientiousness, they appear relevant for not only SLA success, but also general attainment. Conscientiousness, represented by such positive features, as ego control, effortful control, self-regulation , grit, constraint, and, meaningfully, by delay of gratification, can be regarded as a key feature of a successful achiever, also in the SLA field. For this reason, it may be worthwhile to consciously develop behaviours connected with the trait. These may be small steps, relevant for a more organized approach to learning, such as being punctual and prepared for the classes or keeping a tidy desk. Another way in which Conscientiousness could be

4.2 Pedagogical Interventions

173

promoted is to motivate students, following the basic guidelines of attribution theory (Weiner, 1985). According to this theory, a person’s own perceptions or attributions referring to the reasons why they have succeeded or failed at an activity regulate the amount of effort they will put into such activities in the future. This can be done by giving positive feedback on students’ hard work (e.g., You got this right because you worked hard and properly applied the missing words). Attention should be drawn to a lack of appropriate effort. Providing such feedback in the context of competency (i.e., foreign language development) allows the promotion of rapid problem solving, selfefficacy, and achievement that stem from the beliefs that FL success can be gained due to the students’ own behavior, rather than external circumstances (easy tasks or luck) (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2014). Taking full responsibility for the actions and effort students make when working towards FL mastery also leads to the growth of positive emotions, like pride or gratitude (Graham & Taylor, 2014). Apart from that, the teacher could instruct students on applying a technique called ‘mental contrasting’, whereby students imagine a goal, the path to it, and potential obstacles that need to be overcome (‘implementation intentions’). These are captured in the WOOP technique (Oettingen, 2014), which consists of four steps: Wish—Outcome—Obstacle—Plan (creating if/then plans in the face of obstacles). Its effectiveness for attaining longterm goals has been confirmed empirically in reference to various walks of life (e.g., Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), so it may also apply to effective foreign language study, which requires delayed gratification and high levels of self-regulation. Last but not least, the role of teacher personality, as involved in the process of formal language acquisition, should be addressed. A foreign language teacher is expected to skilfully assist their students on the path to gaining FL mastery, which may draw heavily on their feelings of inconsequentiality or ambivalence. It may be speculated that the demands a FL teacher has to face in their work greatly exceed the obligations of a teacher of any other subject, which may point to the importance of personality traits that might have a positive association with teacher effectiveness. It has been widely confirmed that the extent of the relationship between teachers’ personality traits and their effectiveness is largely unknown, with Agreeableness most consistently negatively related to a greater number of outcomes across most studies (Kell, 2019). Nevertheless, it may be assumed that effective FL instruction might be associated with certain personality features that might be regarded as beneficial by language learners. For this reason, it seems good to start with analysing one’s own personality traits by means of the tools mentioned above. Deeper reflectivity on own personality strengths and weaknesses in relation to the teaching process (Gabry´sBarker, 2012) may to a great degree allow the teacher to realize the reasons for their preferred teaching strategies or behaviours. In consequence, it will be possible to adjust their interventions to the current requirements of the educational environment. As to the ‘Right Stuff’ of personality traits, it may well be expected that high levels of Neuroticism might undermine effective instruction, so students might require greater Emotional Stability that ensures control of negative emotions, and induce feelings of personal adequacy (Lahey, 2009). Specifically, high levels of Neuroticism may be threatening in the case of potential teacher burnout, “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur

174

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind” (Maslach & Jackson, 1986, p. 1). It appears specifically dangerous in relation to the first stage of burnout— emotional exhaustion, which causes fatigue, a reduction of resources and a depletion of mental and physical strength. As to Extraversion, it appears that higher levels of the trait may facilitate interaction with students, due to expressiveness and social orientation. In the case of lower levels of Extraversion, acting extraverted is advantageous for both introverted students and their introverted teacher (Little, 2017). At the same time, it may ensure a significant degree of approachability, enthusiasm and amicability that are often considered important by students, making extraverted teachers more popular. In fact, teacher approachability negatively predicts students’ language anxiety levels, which stresses the role of positive teacher-learner interaction (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2010), which is often induced by Extraversion. Similarly to students’ qualities captured by the ‘Right Stuff’, a high degree of Openness to experience also seems to be an important feature of a good language teacher. Intelligence, broad-mindedness, and creativity might be connected with a great degree of knowledge, which generally is an appreciated quality. However, it may also denote teacher preferences connected with social contacts with students who are similarly open (Nezlek et al., 2011), which may threaten their relationships with other learners. At the same time, it is worth remembering that the trait is linked with depersonalization (Burisch, 2002), a symptom of burnout also referred to as cynicism, coldness or callousness with which a teacher may treat their students (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2011). In the case of Agreeableness, it must be stressed that being friendly and compassionate is necessary for the teacher in establishing a good rapport with their students. However, in spite of the fact that students tend to prefer agreeable instructors (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005), too high levels of the trait may endanger effectivity of the foreign language learning process. The task of the teacher is to guide the learning process, which involves a certain degree of respect on the part of the students who generally need to comply with the teacher’s directions. Being too complacent and trusting may produce control and discipline problems. As far as Conscientiousness is concerned, it appears to be one of the beneficial traits of an effective FL teacher, mostly due to its focus on the drive to excel, and devotion to work. Such teachers are able to offer quality instruction, working hard on students’ and their own success. At the same time, they are able to provide a sense of reliability and safety, although students’ disruptive behaviour may be less tolerated by them (Kokkinos et al., 2005). It is worth remembering though that extremely high levels of the trait are related to unrealistic expectations about themselves and others, which in effect may turn out disastrous for student–teacher cooperation. All in all, it is extremely difficult to judge what exact cocktail of personality traits might be most beneficial for effective FL instruction because the association between personality and teaching outcomes is very complex, and context-dependent (Kell, 2019). Although students tend to prefer highly conscientious, open, stable, extraverted, and agreeable lecturers, it should be remembered that their preferences generally mirror their own personality characteristics (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005). Consequently, an awareness of their own and others’ personality traits, limitations and strengths may be a valuable asset of a teacher willing to strive for excellence

4.2 Pedagogical Interventions

175

in order to achieve professionally, socially, and privately (more advice on bettering oneself and living a more fruitful life at https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-scienceof-well-being).

4.3 Final Comments The understanding of what personality is and how it operates, seems to remain a puzzle in spite of advanced progress in theoretical and empirical research. Alongside popular models, there are other derivative conceptualizations that might shed a different light on the comprehension of the construct and its organisation. One of them is represented by the concept of the Big One, a superfactor that is a common underlying basis for the Big Five traits. This general factor of personality (GF) is claimed to be located at the top of the hierarchy of the personality structure (Musek, 2007). At the lower level of the personality hierarchy, Plasticity and Stability are placed (the level of the Big Two), subsuming the trait level of the Big Five. The model extends to the lower-order levels, containing facets, then items, and, finally, specific responses. The Big One represents a range of behavioural characteristics, ranging from low Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness to high levels of the traits. Similarly, it can be characterised as the combination of low to high Stability and Plasticity. The general factor of personality is significantly associated with “emotionality (or affect, or activation), satisfaction with life (well-being), and self-esteem” (p. 1228). Nevertheless, like any personality model, this one has also been criticized on the grounds that a varied evolutionary development would have to favour a single collection of traits, which does not seem to be the case (e.g., Muncer, 2011). Such criticisms might induce a conclusion that a magical window into one’s soul does not exist, and it is futile to even try to understand the intricacies of one’s nature. Clearly, there are many ways in which human personality can still be explored. Its versatility allows for numerous conceptualizations and research foci. Nevertheless, the establishment of the Big Five allows an interested researcher to understand the important applications of personality testing in different walks of life: from education and medicine, through to business, economics and technology, to happiness and general well-being. Developing a better understanding of how personality works enables a search for more effective ways of improving the functioning of societies and individuals. However, it should be kept in mind that the elaboration of these fixed personality traits does not mean that people always behave according to their traits. Hence, personality predicts behaviour when individual behaviours in various situations are averaged (Srivastava et al., 2003). In order to understand the effects of personality on the individual’s functioning, a different perspective can be proposed. It conceptualizes personality as existing at three different layers (Little, 2017). The first layer of personality is fixed, defined by genes that influence some of the traits of one’s character (the biogenic self). The next layer, the sociogenic self, is composed of other personality traits that are shaped by the social context and culture. Finally, the third

176

4 The Big Five Study in SLA: Future Directions …

layer, the idiogenic self, pertains to the individual’s choices, plans and projects. This conceptualization of personality allows one to view it as not only a biologically fixed organization of traits, but as an evolving structure with a defined starting point, though susceptible to external influences, as well as to internally-driven modifications. It may thus appear that personality could be less stable than expected; however, it does play a role in reliable predicting of behaviour across situations by shaping “the way people respond to their learning environment” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 30). Consequently, in the foreign language learning process such predictions may be quite relevant. However, untangling the complicated interconnections between sociobiographical and educational variables in this complex environment is extremely difficult. As Dewaele put it, “[n]o single personality trait therefore predetermines success in SLA. At best, some combinations of traits create a potential for success, which the learner can decide to boost through hard work and practice” (2012a, p. 6). Luckily, it seems clear that ‘acting out of character’ (Little, 2017), i.e., behaving contrary to the trait expectations in order to attain a goal, may allow teachers and students to successfully purse personal projects even though they are not in accordance with their personality traits. L2 mastery can be regarded as such a venture, assigning both parties an agentic role. Thanks to a greater awareness of their personality traits and their ramifications, they may be able to consciously expand their personal projects, bettering themselves not only as participants of the language learning and teaching process, but as empowered agents of their personal development.

References

Abele, A. E., Hauke, N., Peters, K., Louvet, E., Szymkow, A., & Duan, Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—Communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810. Abu-Rabia, S., Peleg, Y., & Shakkour, W. (2014). The relation between linguistic skills, personality traits, and language anxiety. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 04(01), 118–141. https://doi. org/10.4236/ojml.2014.41011. Ackerman, P. L., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2011). Trait complexes and academic achievement: Old and new ways of examining personality in educational contexts. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X522564. Ahmed, J., & Naqvi, I. (2015). Personality traits and communication styles among university students. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13(2), 53–59. Albert, Á., & Kormos, J. (2011). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 61(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00643.x. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0021017. Alibakhshi, G., Qaracholloo, M., & Mohammadi, M. J. (2017). A cultural inquiry into personality factors and language learning strategies in an Iranian EFL context. The International Journal of Humanities, 24(4), 1–16. Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality neuroscience and the Five Factor Model. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (Vol. 1, pp. 319–349). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199352487.013.26. Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullmann, H. (2004). Personality development from 12 to 18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits. European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.524. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360. Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307–324. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307. Anderson, K. G., Tapert, S. F., Moadab, I., Crowley, T. J., & Brown, S. A. (2007). Personality risk profile for conduct disorder and substance use disorders in youth. Addictive Behaviors, 32(10), 2377–2382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.02.006.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7

177

178

References

Ang, S., Dyne, L. V., & Koh, C. (2016). Personality correlates of the Four-Factor Model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/105 9601105275267. Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the five-factor model of personality: An examination using the structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 167–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_3. Armfield, J. M. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability: A model of the etiology of fear. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 746–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.03.007. Artese, A., Ehley, D., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2017). Personality and actigraphy-measured physical activity in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 32(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pag0000158. Arthur, W., Jr., & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 593–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.1996.tb00523.x. Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17(5), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.492. Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 1072–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6. 1072. Asfar, D., Born, M. P., Oostrom, J. K., & van Vugt, M. (2019). Psychological individual differences as predictors of refugees’ local language proficiency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(7), 1385–1400. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2592. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of Extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3c359:AIDPER382%3e3.0.CO;2-Y. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and the openness/intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2276. Augustine, A. A., & Hemenover, S. H. (2012). Extraversion, social interaction, and affect repair. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1253–1255). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1744. Averett, S. L., Bansak, C., & Smith, J. K. (2018). Behind every high earning man is a conscientious woman: A study of the impact of spousal personality on wages. IZA Discussion Papers, 11756, 1–44. Azadipour, S. (2019). Personality types and intercultural competence of foreign language learners in education context. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8. https://doi.org/10.4103/ jehp.jehp_447_18. Babakhouya, Y. (2019). The Big Five personality factors as predictors of English language speaking anxiety: A cross-country comparison between Morocco and South Korea. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(4), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/174549 9919894792. Babakr, Z., Mohamedamin, P., & Kakamad, K. (2019). Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory: Critical review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3), 1–9. Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2013). Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 152–159. https://doi. org/10.1111/sjop.12015. Bak, W. (2016). Personality predictors of anger. The role of FFM traits, shyness, and self-esteem. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 47(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0044.

References

179

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bakker-Pieper, A., & de Vries, R. E. (2013). The incremental validity of communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Human Performance, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10. 1080/08959285.2012.736900. Balliet, D. (2010). Conscientiousness and forgivingness: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(3), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.021. Banai, B., & Perin, V. (2016). Type of high school predicts academic performance at university better than individual differences. PLoS ONE, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.016 3996. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. Barford, K. A., & Smillie, L. D. (2016). Openness and other Big Five traits in relation to dispositional mixed emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2016.07.002. Bartels, M., van Weegen, F. I., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., Carlier, M., Polderman, T. J. C., Hoekstra, R. A., & Boomsma, D. I. (2012). The five factor model of personality and intelligence: A twin study on the relationship between the two constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.007. Barthelemy, D. J. J., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). The relationship between aggression and the Big Five personality factors in predicting academic success. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802687125. Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.91.2.298. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bayne, R. (2004). Psychological types at work: An MBTI perspective. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence, 46, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014. 05.007. Bentea, C., & Anghelache, V. (2012). Comparative aspects concerning the effects of extraversion on performance in a cognitive task in competitive and cooperative conditions. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.183. Berens, L. V. (1999). Dynamics of personality type: Understanding and applying Jung’s cognitive processes. Huntington Beach, CA: Telos Publications. Berggren, N., & Derakshan, N. (2013). Attentional control deficits in trait anxiety: Why you see them and why you don’t. Biological Psychology, 92(3), 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio psycho.2012.03.007. Beukeboom, C. J., Tanis, M., & Vermeulen, I. E. (2012). The language of extraversion: Extraverted people talk more abstractly, introverts are more concrete. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12460844. Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001. Biedro´n, A. (2011). Personality factors as predictors of foreign language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(4), 467–489.

180

References

Blakeley, M. G. de, Ford, R., & Casey, L. (2015). Second language anxiety among Latino American immigrants in Australia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1083533. Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2530–2540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396. Bleidorn, W., & Schwaba, T. (2017). Personality development in emerging adulthood. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 39–52). London: Academic Press. Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: the five-factor approach to personality description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000. 2293. Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478401003596626. Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. London and New York: Routledge. Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of Neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x. Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670. https://doi.org/10.5465/194 16520.2016.1153260. Borghuis, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Oberski, D., Sijtsma, K., Meeus, W. H. J., Branje, S., Koot, H. M., & Bleidorn, W. (2017). Big Five personality stability, change, and codevelopment across adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000138. Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness: Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.001. Boyle, G. J. (2008). Critique of the five-factor model of personality. The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, 1, 295–312. Bratko, D., Vukosav, Ž., Zarevski, P., & Vrani´c, A. (2002). The relations of shyness and assertiveness traits with the dimensions of the five-factor model in adolescence. Review of Psychology, 9(1–2), 17–23. Bredemeier, K., Berenbaum, H., Most, S. B., & Simons, D. J. (2011). Links between neuroticism, emotional distress, and disengaging attention: Evidence from a single-target RSVP task. Cognition & Emotion, 25(8), 1510–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.549460. Breil, S. M., Geukes, K., Wilson, R. E., Nestler, S., Vazire, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Zooming into real-life extraversion—How personality and situation shape sociability in social interactions. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.170. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Longman. Brunas-Wagstaff, J. (1998). Personality: A cognitive approach. London and New York: Routledge. Bruthiaux, P. (2005). Introduction. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 3–11). Clevedon & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Burger, J. M. (2014). Personality. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Burisch, M. (2002). A longitudinal study of burnout: The relative importance of dispositions and experiences. Work & Stress, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370110112506. Burleson, B. R. (2008). What counts as effective emotional support? In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207–227). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Burnett, C., Allen, M., & Vella, S. (2016). Personality and sedentary behaviour in Australian adults. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(3), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1612197x.2016.1212083.

References

181

Buss, D. M. (2010). Human nature and individual differences: Evolution of human personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 29–60). New York, London: Press. Byman, R. (2005). Curiosity and sensation seeking: A conceptual and empirical examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1365–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004. 09.004. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Cain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New York: Books. Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Di Giunta, L., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). The contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality. European Journal of Personality, 24(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.739. Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, dynamics, and potentials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2013). Personality approaches to political behavior. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 23–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.0002. Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279. 002004. Caprara, G., Vecchione, M., Barbaranelli, C., & Alessandri, G. (2013). Emotional Stability and affective self-regulatory efficacy beliefs: Proofs of integration between trait theory and social cognitive theory. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/per. 1847. Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications. Malden: Wiley. Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2016). The downsides of extreme Conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12177. Carter, N. T., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). Extreme personalities at work and in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372 1418793134. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013965. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902. 141913. Cattell, H. E. (2004). The sixteen personality factor (16PF) questionnaire. In M. J. Hilsenroth & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, personality assessment (pp. 39–49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 135–178). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116. Cattell, R. B. (1980). Personality and learning theory. Vol. 2. A systems theory of maturation and structured learning. New York: Springer. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF): In clinical, educational, industrial, and research psychology, for use with all forms of the test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.473.

182

References

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 3, 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.251. Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00367.x. Chaplin, W. F. (2007). Moderator and mediator models in personality research: A basic introduction. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 602–632). New York: The Guilford Press. Chapman, B. P., Duberstein, P. R., Sörensen, S., & Lyness, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in Five Factor Model personality traits in an elderly cohort: Extension of robust and surprising findings to an older generation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(06), 1594–1603. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.028. Chen, M.-L., & Hung, L.-M. (2012). Personality type, perceptual style preferences, and strategies for learning English as a foreign language. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(9), 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.9.1501. Chioqueta, A. P., & Stiles, T. C. (2005). Personality traits and the development of depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1283–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.010. Chitale, A. K., Mohanty, R. P., & Dubey, N. R. (2012). Organizational behaviour: Text and cases. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Choi, S. (2018). A study of the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and second language (L2) learning. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 18(2), 250–260. Christopher, A. N., Zabel, K. L., & Miller, D. E. (2013). Personality, authoritarianism, social dominance, and ambivalent sexism: A mediational model. Individual Differences Research, 11(2), 70–80. Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Heszen, I. (2016). When social role salience leads to social role rejection: Modest self-presentation among women and men in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 473–481. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0146167298245003. Ciorbea, I., & Pasarica, F. (2013). The study of the relationship between personality and academic performance. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sbspro.2013.04.319. ˇ Cizmi´ c, I., & Rogulj, J. (2018). Individual variables and English language performance. In B. Plazibat & S. Kosanovi´c (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Economy and Technology (CIET 2018), Conference proceedings (pp. 280–291). Split: University of Split. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 265–286). Thousand Oaks: The Guilford Press. Clark, M. A., Lelchook, A. M., & Taylor, M. L. (2010). Beyond the Big Five: How narcissism, perfectionism, and dispositional affect relate to workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(7), 786–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.013. Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 19–24. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.002. Cochrane, T. (2019). The emotional mind: A control theory of affective states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

183

Cohen, A. D. (2013). Focus on the language learner: Styles, strategies and motivation. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 161–178). London: Hodder Education. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum. Cohen, L., Pooley, J. A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Penner, L. A., Roy, E. J., Bernstein, D. A., Provost, S., Gouldthorp, B., & Cranney, J. (2013). Psychology: An international discipline in context: Australian & New Zealand Edition. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia. Cohen, Y., & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence, and loss of self-esteem: Affective barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 20(2), 61–77. Cohn, M. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positive emotions. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 13–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361– 368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952. Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (Eds.). (1994). 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., Davies, S. E., & Birkland, A. (2014). Opening up openness: A theoretical sort following critical incidents methodology and a meta-analytic investigation of the trait family measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00223891.2013.809355. Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold. Coolican, H. (2017). Research methods and statistics in psychology. London and New York: Psychology Press. Coombes, S. A., Higgins, T., Gamble, K. M., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M. (2009). Attentional control theory: Anxiety, emotion, and motor planning. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(8), 1072– 1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.009. Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. (2006). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Cortes, K., Kammrath, L. K., Scholer, A. A., & Peetz, J. (2014). Self-regulating the effortful “social dos”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0035188. Costa, P. T. C., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). Objective personality assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. Siegler, & M. F. Elias (Eds.), The clinical psychology of aging (pp. 119–143). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3342-5_5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 6(5), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-735 8(86)90029-2. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Manual for the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO- PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the explication of facet-level traits: Examples from Conscientiousness. European Journal of Personality, 12(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10. 1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199803/04)12:2%3c117:AID-PER295%3e3.0.CO;2-C. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (2017). The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 11–38). New York: Oxford University Press.

184

References

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: Career assessment using the Revised NEO Personality inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279500300202. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 423–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & Mccrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1987). A formulation of Erikson’s theory of ego identity formation. Developmental Review, 7(4), 273–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(87)90015-3. Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 5–37. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In Advances in experimental social psychology ( Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0. Cuneo, F., Antonietti, J.-P., & Mohr, C. (2018). Unkept promises of cognitive styles: A new look at old measurements. PLoS ONE, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203115. Cunningham, W. A., Arbuckle, N. L., Jahn, A., Mowrer, S. M., & Abduljalil, A. M. (2010). Aspects of Neuroticism and the amygdala: Chronic tuning from motivational styles. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3399–3404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.026. Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015741. Davies, A. (2007). An introduction to applied linguistics. From practice to theory (2nd ed., Vol. 96). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Davis, K. L., & Panksepp, J. (2018). The emotional foundations of personality: A neurobiological and evolutionary approach. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. de Blakeley, M. G., Ford, R., & Casey, L. (2015). Second language anxiety among Latino American immigrants in Australia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1083533. De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199 612)10:5%3c303:AID-PER262%3e3.0.CO;2-2. de Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Tyssen, R., Friborg, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., Sørlie, T., Halland, E., & Bjørndal, A. (2015). Does personality moderate the effects of mindfulness training for medical and psychology students? Mindfulness, 6(2), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0258-y. de Vries, R. E. de, Bakker-Pieper, A., Siberg, R. A., Gameren, K. van, & Vlug, M. (2009). The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research, 36(2), 178–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330250. de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., & Schouten, B. (2013). The communication styles inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365021 1413571.

References

185

Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I Like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01007.x. Depaula, P. D., Azzollini, S. C., Cosentino, A. C., & Castillo, S. E. (2016). Personalidad, fortalezas del carácter e inteligencia cultural: “Extraversión” o “apertura” como factores en mayor medida asociados a las habilidades culturales [Personality, and cultural intelligence: “Extraversion” or “Openness” as further factors associated to the cultural skills]. Avances En Psicología Latinoamericana, 34(2), 415–436. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and Extraversion. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002046. Dewaele, J.-M. (2001). Activation or inhibition? The interaction of L1, L2 and L3 on the language mode continuum. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 69–89). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595509-006. Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10. 1177/13670069020060010201. Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Sociodemographic, psychological and politicocultural correlates in Flemish students’ attitudes towards French and English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(2), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630508668400. Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The effect of some psychological and sociocognitive variables. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(3), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.2167/ijm080.0. Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dewaele, J.-M. (2012b). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 42–57). Palgrave Macmillan. Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism among adult Bi- and multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12036.x. Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Are perfectionists more anxious foreign language learners and users? In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J. M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety theory, research and educational implications (pp. 70–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.-M., & Al-Saraj, T. M. (2015). Foreign language classroom anxiety of Arab learners of English: The effect of personality, linguistic and sociobiographical variables. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.2. Dewaele, J.-M., & Botes, E. (2019). Does multilingualism shape personality? An exploratory investigation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/136700691 9888581. Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 355–365. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0191-8869(99)00106-3. Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 237–274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5. Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2016). Foreign Language Enjoyment and Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. The right and left feet of FL learning? In P. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 147–167). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2019). The predictive power of multicultural personality traits, learner and teacher variables on foreign language enjoyment and anxiety. In M. Sato & S. Loewen

186

References

(Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 263–286). London: Routledge. Dewaele, J.-M., & Thirtle, H. (2009). Why do some young learners drop foreign languages? A focus on learner-internal variables. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(6), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802549656. Dewaele, J.-M., & Wei, L. (2013). Attitudes towards code-switching among adult mono- and multilingual language users. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.859687. Dewaele, J.-M., & Wei, L. (2014). Intra- and inter-individual variation in self-reported codeswitching patterns of adult multilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2013.878347. DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Toward a theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478401003648674. DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2013.00762. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004. DeYoung, C. G. (2017). In defense of (some) trait theories: Commentary on Hogan and Foster (2016). International Journal of Personality Psychology, 3(1), 13–16. DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003. DeYoung, C. G., Hawes, D. R., Civai, C., & Rustichini, A. (2014). Extraversion predicts neural sensitivity to reward in large fMRI studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.361. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 825–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. DeYoung, C. G., & Weisberg, Y. J. (2019). Cybernetic approaches to personality and social behavior. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 387–414). New York: Oxford University Press. DeYoung, C. G., Weisberg, Y. J., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2013). Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12020. Diesing, P. (1985). Comments on “Why Freud’s research methodology was unscientific” by von Eckhardt. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought, 8(4), 551–566. Dietrich, M., & Verdolini Abbott, K. (2012). Vocal function in introverts and extraverts during a psychological stress reactivity protocol. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(3), 973–987. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1602_2.

References

187

Doktorchik, C., Patten, S., Eastwood, C., Peng, M., Chen, G., Beck, C. A., Jetté, N., Williamson, T., & Quan, H. (2019). Validation of a case definition for depression in administrative data against primary chart data as a reference standard. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12 888-018-1990-6. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy: An analysis in terms of learning, thinking, and culture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dollinger, S. J. (2012). Openness to Experience. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2522–2524). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-14286_87. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42–68. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59(1), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.005 42.x. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Wiley. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087. Duffy, K. A., Helzer, E. G., Hoyle, R. H., Helzer, J. F., & Chartrand, T. L. (2018). Pessimistic expectations and poorer experiences: The role of (low) Extraversion in anticipated and experienced enjoyment of social interaction. PLOS ONE, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0199146. Dumont, F. (2010). A history of personality psychology: Theory, science, and research from hellenism to the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Flett, G. L. (1997). Specific cognitive-personality vulnerability styles in depression and the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00079-2. Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2003). The creation and consequences of the social world: An interactional analysis of Extraversion. European Journal of Personality, 17(5), 375–395. https:// doi.org/10.1002/per.477. Eckhardt, C., Norlander, B., & Deffenbacher, J. (2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-178 9(02)00116-7. Ehrman, M. E. (2008). Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511497667.007. Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330. Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05417.x. Eid, M., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (2003). Sociability and positive emotionality: Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariation between different facets of

188

References

Extraversion. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.710 3003. Eilam, B., Zeidner, M., & Aharon, I. (2009). Student Conscientiousness, self-regulated learning, and science achievement: An explorative field study. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20387. Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A. L., Spinrad, T. L., & Valiente, C. (2014). Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1331–1349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030977. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Satpute, A. B. (2005). Personality from a controlled processing perspective: An fMRI study of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and self-consciousness. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN. 5.2.169. Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From Big Five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75(5), 899–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.004 60.x. Ellis, A., Abrams, M., & Abrams, L. (2009). Personality theories: Critical perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Erton, I. (2010). Relations between personality traits, language learning styles and success in foreign language achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 115–126. Ewen, R. B. (1998). Personality: A topical approach—Theories, research, major controversies, and emerging findings. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1950). Dimensions of personality. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Eysenck, H. J. (1981). General features of the model. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 1–37). Berlin: Springer. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach (1st ed.). New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. San Diego, CA: R. R. Knapp. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire (Junior and Adult). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1994). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire: (EPQ-R Adult). San Diego, CA: EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Eysenck, M. W. (1994). Individual differences: Normal and abnormal. Hove and Hillsdale: Psychology Press. Eysenck, M. W. (2004). Psychology: An international perspective. Hove, and New York: Taylor & Francis. Eysenck, S. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21–29. Faisal, R. A. (2019). Influence of personality and learning styles in English language achievement. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(8), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.78022. Fallah, N. (2017). Mindfulness, coping self-efficacy and foreign language anxiety: A mediation analysis. Educational Psychology, 37(6), 745–756. Farokhi, M., & Hashemi, M. (2012). The impact/s of using art in English language learning classes. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(Supplement C), 923–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sbspro.2011.12.170. Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1225–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00111-3.

References

189

Fayard, J. V., Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., & Watson, D. (2012). Uncovering the affective core of Conscientiousness: The role of self-conscious emotions. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00720.x. Fayn, K., MacCann, C., Tiliopoulos, N., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877. Fazeli, S. H. (2011). The relationship between the Neuroticism trait and use of the English language learning strategies. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl. v3i1.963. Fazeli, S. H. (2012). The relationship between the Agreeableness trait and use of the English language learning strategies. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 168–191. Feigin, S., Owens, G., & Goodyear-Smith, F. (2014). Theories of human altruism: A systematic review. Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Functions, 1(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7243/2055-344 7-1-5. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429. Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2008). Theories of personality. McGraw-Hill. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10. 1037/h0057198. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between Extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10. 1037//0022-3514.83.6.1409. Flehmig, H. C., Steinborn, M., Langner, R., & Westhoff, K. (2007). Neuroticism and the mental noise hypothesis: Relationships to lapses of attention and slips of action in everyday life. Psychology Science, 49(4), 343–360. Fleming, K. A., Heintzelman, S. J., & Bartholow, B. D. (2016). Specifying associations between Conscientiousness and executive functioning: mental set shifting, not prepotent response inhibition or working memory updating. Journal of Personality, 84(3), 348–360. https://doi.org/10. 1111/jopy.12163. Francis, L. J., Lewis, C. A., & Ziebertz, H. (2006). The short-form revised Eysenck personality Questionnaire (EPQ-S): A German edition. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2). http://collec tions.crest.ac.uk/335/. Frederickx, S., & Hofmans, J. (2014). The role of personality in the initiation of communication situations. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/ a000124. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10. 1098/rstb.2004.1512. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–53). Burlington: Academic Press. Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2006). Personality: Classic theories and modern research. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 197–221. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197. Funder, D. C. (2012). The personality puzzle (6th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

190

References

Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside Behavioral Q-sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 451–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-6494.00103. Furnham, A. (1990). Language and personality. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 73–95). Oxford: Wiley. Furnham, A. (2017). Agreeableness. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and individual differences (pp. 1–11). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-28099-8_1200-1. Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Individual differences in students’ preferences for lecturers’ personalities. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 176–184. https://doi.org/10. 1027/1614-0001.26.4.176. Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1348/978 185409X412147. Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00296.x. Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0268 6907. Furnham, A., Rinaldelli-Tabaton, E., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). Personality and intelligence predict arts and science school results in 16 year olds. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychological Sciences, 54(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2011.39. Furnham, A., Zhang, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). The relationship between psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 25(2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.2190/530V-3M9U-7UQ8-FMBG. Gabry´s-Barker, D. (2012). Reflectivity in pre-service teacher education a survey of theory and ´ askiego. practice. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Sl˛ Gallagher, D. J. (1996). Personality, coping, and objective outcomes: Extraversion, Neuroticism, coping styles, and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3), 421– 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00085-2. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gargalianou, V., Muehlfeld, K., Urbig, D., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. (2015). The effects of gender and personality on foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals. Schumpeter Discussion Papers, 2015–002, 1–40. Gass, S. M. (2009). Second language acquisition. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 109–139). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240780_6. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When Openness to experience and Conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513. Gerrig, R. J., Zimbardo, P. G., Campbell, A. J., Cumming, S. R., & Wilkes, F. J. (2015). Psychology and life. London: Pearson Higher Education AU. Ghapanchi, Z., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. (2011). L2 motivation and personality as predictors of the second language proficiency: Role of the Big Five traits and L2 motivational self-system. Canadian Social Science, 7(6), 148–155. Ghyasi, M., Yazdani, M., & Farsani, M. A. (2013). The relationship between personality types and self-regulated learning strategies of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(4), 74–82.

References

191

Gocłowska, M. A., Ritter, S. M., Elliot, A. J., & Baas, M. (2019). Novelty seeking is linked to Openness and Extraversion, and can lead to greater creative performance. Journal of Personality, 87(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12387. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005. 08.007. Göllner, R., Damian, R. I., Rose, N., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Is doing your homework associated with becoming more conscientious? Journal of Research in Personality, 71, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.08.007. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A metaanalysis of effects and processes. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69– 119). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0092-6566(03)00046-1. Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011. Graham, E. K., & Lachman, M. E. (2014). Personality traits, facets and cognitive performance: Age differences in their relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 89–95. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.011. Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2014). An attributional approach to emotional life in the classroom. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 96–119). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (1993). Research methods. A process of inquiry. New York: HarperCollins. Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50031-7. Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for Agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820–835. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.820. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70(5), 695–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494. 05021. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2013). The cognitive and motivational foundations underlying Agreeableness. In M. D. Robinson, E. R. Watkins, & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 347–364). New York: Guilford Press.

192

References

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2017). Agreeableness and the Five Factor Model. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 105–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2019). Theoretical conceptualizations of agreeableness and antagonism. In Miller & D. R. Lynam (Eds.), The handbook of antagonism (pp. 127–139). London: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814627-9.00009-8. Green, R. G. (1997). Psychophisiological approaches to personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 387–416). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gregersen, D. T., & MacIntyre, D. P. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality: From premise to practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gregersen, D. T., & MacIntyre, D. P. (2017). Optimizing language learners nonverbal behavior: From tenet to technique. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gregory, T., Nettelbeck, T., & Wilson, C. (2010). Openness to experience, intelligence, and successful ageing. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 895–899. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2010.02.017. Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In Carol Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 83–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-3999(03)00573-7. Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg’s Big Five IPIP personality markers in New Zealand: A dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 86–96. Gundogdu, D., Finnerty, A. N., Staiano, J., Teso, S., Passerini, A., Pianesi, F., & Lepri, B. (2017). Investigating the association between social interactions and personality states dynamics. Royal Society Open Science, 4(9). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170194. Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.77.5.1087. Haas, B. W., Brook, M., Remillard, L., Ishak, A., Anderson, I. W., & Filkowski, M. M. (2015). I know how you feel: The warm-altruistic personality profile and the empathic brain. PLoS ONE, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120639. Habashi, M. M., Graziano, W. G., & Hoover, A. E. (2016). Searching for the prosocial personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1177–1192. Habrat, A. (2018). The role of self-esteem in foreign language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75283-9. Hakimi, S., Hejazi, E., & Lavasani, M. G. (2011). The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic achievement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.312. Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych120710-100419. Harrington, R. (2013). Stress, health & well-being thriving in the 21st century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Murray, D. R. (2016). the evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 724–746). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych241. Haslam, N., Smillie, L. D., & Song, J. (2017). An introduction to personality, individual differences and intelligence. London: Sage. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/an-introduction-to-per sonality-individual-differences-and-intelligence/book238137.

References

193

He, T. (2019). Personality facets, writing strategy use, and writing performance of college students learning English as a foreign language. Sage Open, 9(3), 2158244019861483. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2158244019861483. Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2012). When IQ is not everything: Intelligence, personality and academic performance at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 518–522. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.024. Herlache, A. D., Lang, K. M., & Krizan, Z. (2018). Withdrawn and wired: Problematic internet use accounts for the link of neurotic withdrawal to sleep disturbances. Sleep Science, 11(2), 69–73. https://doi.org/10.5935/1984-0063.20180015. Hervás, G., & López-Gómez, I. (2016). The power of extraverts: Testing positive and negative mood regulation. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 32(3), 710–716. https://doi.org/ 10.6018/analesps.32.3.261641. Herzberg, P. Y., & Brähler, E. (2006). Assessing the Big-Five personality domains via short forms: A cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.139. Herzhoff, K., Kushner, S. C., & Tackett, J. L. (2017). Personality development in childhood. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 9–24). London: Academic Press. Hewstone, M., Fincham, F. D., & Foster, J. (2005). Psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hill, P. L., & Edmonds, G. W. (2017). Personality development in adolescence. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 25–38). London: Academic Press. Hiriyappa, B. (2012). Development of personality and its theories. Bloomington, IN: Booktango. Hirschmüller, S., Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Accurate judgments of Neuroticism at zero acquaintance: A question of relevance. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12097. Hirsh, J. B., Deyoung, C. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Metatraits of the Big Five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1085–1102. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00575.x. Hirsh, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2008). The devil you know: Neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19(10), 962–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008. 02183.x. Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Personality and language use in self-narratives. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 524–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.006. Hogan, R. (2006). Who wants to be a psychologist? Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_01. Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hogan, R., & Foster, J. (2016). Rethinking personality. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 2(1), 37–43. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x. Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology—Volume 1: Personnel Psychology (Vol. 1–2, pp. 233–277). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320. Hu, X., & Reiterer, S. M. (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent in second language acquisition. In G. Dogil & S. M. Reiterer (Eds.), Language Talent and Brain Activity (pp. 97–129). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9783110215496/ 10.1515/9783110215496.97.xml. Hulbert, J. C., & Anderson, M. C. (2008). The role of inhibition in learning. In A. S. Benjamin, J. S. De Belle, B. Etnyre, & T. A. Polk (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 139, pp. 7–20). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)10002-4. Huxley, E., Bizumic, B., & Kenny, A. (2015). The role of ethnocentrism in the relationship between openness to experience and ethnic prejudice. In A. D. Warner (Ed.), Ethnic and cultural identity (pp. 85–101). New York: Nova Science.

194

References

Inglis, G., Obonsawin, M. C., & Hunter, S. C. (2018). Cognitive appraisals mediate affective reactivity in affiliative Extraversion. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018. 00782. Inozu, J. (2011). Developing learner autonomy in the language class in Turkey: Voices from the classroom. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-0119154-0. Ireland, M. E., Hepler, J., Li, H., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Neuroticism and attitudes toward action in 19 countries. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12099. Ismatullina, V., & Voronin, I. (2017). Gender differences in the relationships between big five personality traits and intelligence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 638–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.031. Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. A. (2015). Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039826. Jackson, D. O. (2018). The potential relationship between openness and explicit versus implicit l2 knowledge. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 936-018-9603-6. Jackson, D. O., & Park, S. (2020). Self-regulation and personality among L2 writers: Integrating trait, state, and learner perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100731. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100731. Jackson, J. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Conscientiousness. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 133–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, J. J., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., Bogg, T., Wood, D., Lodi-Smith, J., … Roberts, B. W. (2009). Not all Conscientiousness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of Conscientiousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014156. Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp.2010.06.005. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Ando, J., Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Riemann, R., & Spinath, F. (2006). Behavioral genetics of the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005. 11.033. Jaray-Benn, C. (2019). Empathy as a source of motivation in language learning and language teaching. Humanising Language Teaching, 21(1). https://www.hltmag.co.uk/feb19/empathy-asa-source-of-motivation. Jarmu˙z, S., & Lach, Ł. (2007). Metacecha a struktura czynnikowa kwestionariusza NEO-FFI. Przegl˛ad Psychologiczny, 50(3), 303–317. Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). The road to creative achievement: a latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1941. Javaras, K. N., Schaefer, S. M., van Reekum, C. M., Lapate, R. C., Greischar, L. L., Bachhuber, D. R., Love, G. D., Ryff, C. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2012). Conscientiousness predicts greater recovery from negative emotion. Emotion, 12(5), 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028105. Jenkins, L. (2017). Does personality effect facial emotion recognition? A comparison between the older Ekman Emotion Hexagon test and a newly created measure. Madridge Journal of Neuroscience, 1(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.18689/mjns-1000107. Jensen, M. (2015). Personality traits, learning and academic achievements. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 91. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n4p91. Jilka, M. (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent in second language acquisition. In G. Dogil & S. M. Reiterer (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 17–66). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215496.97.

References

195

John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203. https://doi. org/10.1002/per.2410020302. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big-Five Inventory-Version 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California. John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Individual differences in emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 351–372). New York & London: Guildford Press. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York & London: Guilford Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York, London: Guilford Press. Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of Factor Five with the help of the AB5C Model. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080408. Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003. Jonassaint, C. R., Boyle, S. H., Williams, R. B., Mark, D. B., Siegler, I. C., & Barefoot, J. C. (2007). Facets of Openness predict mortality in patients with cardiac disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69(4), 319–322. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e318052e27d. Jopp, D. S., & Hertzog, C. (2010). Assessing adult leisure activities: An extension of a self-report activity questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00 17662. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional Intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00 17286. Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective wellbeing and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.78.3.475. Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901. Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation, translated by H. Godwyn Baynes. London: Keegan Paul. Käckenmester, W., Bott, A., & Wacker, J. (2019). Openness to experience predicts dopamine effects on divergent thinking. Personality Neuroscience, 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2019.3. Kammrath, L. K., McCarthy, M. H., Cortes, K., & Friesen, C. (2015). Picking one’s battles: how assertiveness and unassertiveness abilities are associated with extraversion and agreeableness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 622–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/194855 0615572635. Kammrath, L. K., & Scholer, A. A. (2011). The Pollyanna myth: How highly agreeable people judge positive and negative relational acts. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1172–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407641. Kandler, C. (2012). Nature and nurture in personality development: The case of neuroticism and extraversion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 290–296. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0963721412452557. Kane, M. J., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Smeekens, B. A., Meier, M. E., Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2017). For whom the mind wanders, and when, varies across laboratory and daily-life settings. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1271–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617706086.

196

References

Kao, P.-C. (2012). Exploring personality traits and loneliness in university EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners. The New Educational Review, 30(4), 236–245. Kao, P.-C., Craigie, P., Kao, P.-L., & Hu, C.-S. (2015). Analyzing the predictive power of foreign language learning anxiety and personality traits on the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) achievement in university students. STUST Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 13, 79– 109. Karimzade, A., & Besharat, M. ali. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between personality dimensions and stress coping styles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.155. Kassner, M. P. (2011). Personality moderators of the door-in-the-face compliance technique (Unplublished MA dissertation). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University. Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.33. Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jopy.12156. Kell, H. J. (2019). Do teachers’ personality traits predict their performance? A comprehensive review of the empirical literature from 1990 to 2018. ETS Research Report Series, 2019(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12241. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (p. 1991). New York: Norton. (republished by Routledge). Kern, M. L., Duckworth, A. L., Urzúa, S., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. R. (2013). Do as you’re told! Facets of Agreeableness and early adult outcomes for inner-city boys. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.008. Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2011). Personality and differences in health and longevity. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbooks of personality and individual differences (pp. 461–489). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Khany, R., & Ghoreyshi, M. (2013). The nexus between Iranian EFL students’ Big Five personality traits and foreign language speaking confidence. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 2(2s), 601-611–611. Khany, R., & Nejad, A. M. (2016). L2 willingness to communicate, Openness to experience, Extraversion, and L2 unwillingness to communicate: The Iranian EFL context. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 48(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368 8216645416. Khodadady, E., & Zabihi, R. (2011). School performance, cultural, social and personality factors and their relationships with majoring in foreign and first languages. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p63. Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007714801558. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932–932. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439. Kim, T.-Y., & Kim, Y.-K. (2017). The impact of resilience on L2 learners’ motivated behaviour and proficiency in L2 learning. Educational Studies, 43(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698. 2016.1237866. Kircanski, K., Craske, M. G., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Thought suppression enhances memory bias for threat material. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(4), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. brat.2008.01.009. Kirkland, T., Gruber, J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2015). Comparing happiness and hypomania risk: A study of Extraversion and Neuroticism aspects. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0132438. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0132438.

References

197

Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20031. Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Extraversion and Neuroticism as antecedents of emotion regulation and dysregulation in adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.425. Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the big five personality traits and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 557–567. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2005.02.013. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001. Komorowska, H. (2006). Intercultural competence in ELT syllabus and materials design (pp. 59– 81). VIII: Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia. Komorowska, H. (2013). Multiligualism: Its open and hidden agendas. SSLLT, 3(4), 463–682. Kootstra, G. J., Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Starren, M. B. P. (2015). Second language acquisition: A processing-based perspective. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 349–359. Amsterdam: Elservier. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/ 2066/140302. Kormos, J. (2013). New conceptualizations of aptitude in second language attainment. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 131– 152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://www.academia.edu/4418122/New_conceptualizati ons_of_aptitude_in_second_language_attainment. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768– 821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327. Kotov, R., Watson, D., Robles, J. P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2007). Personality traits and anxiety symptoms: The multilevel trait predictor model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(7), 1485–1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.11.011. Kowalski, C. M., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2019). The dark triad and facets of personality. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00518-0. Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 311–326. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon. Kretzschmar, A., Spengler, M., Schubert, A.-L., Steinmayr, R., & Ziegler, M. (2018). The relation of personality and intelligence—What can the Brunswik symmetry principle tell us? Journal of Intelligence, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030030. Kuntze, J., van der Molen, H. T., & Born, M Ph. (2016). Big Five personality traits and assertiveness do not affect mastery of communication skills. Health Professions Education, 2(1), 33–43. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.009. Kuppens, P. (2005). Interpersonal determinants of trait anger: Low Agreeableness, perceived low social esteem, and the amplifying role of the importance attached to social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.006. Kuritz, P. (1988). The making of theatre history. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laakasuo, M., Rotkirch, A., Berg, V., & Jokela, M. (2017). The company you keep: personality and friendship characteristics. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 66–73. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550616662126.

198

References

Laher, S. (2013). Understanding the Five-Factor Model and Five-Factor Theory through a South African cultural lens. South African Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 208–221. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0081246313483522. Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of Neuroticism. The American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309. Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001. Larsen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The antecedents and correlates of Agreeableness in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 591–603. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Personality psychology: Domains of Knowledge about human nature (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050020010X. Larsen-Freeman, D. L., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language research. London: Longman. Lauriola, M., & Weller, J. (2018). Personality and risk: Beyond daredevils-Risk taking from a temperament perspective. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological aspects of risk and risk analysis: Theory, models, and applications (pp. 3–36). Cham: Springer. Laursen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The antecedents and correlates of Agreeableness in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649. 38.4.591. LeDoux, J. (2003). The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4–5), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025048802629. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016. Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with interpersonal stress: Role of Big Five traits. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1141–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005. 00345.x. Lester, D. (1995). Theories of personality: A systems approach. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Levenson, M. R. (1999). Risk taking and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1073–1080. Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104–127. Lewandowski, N., & Jilka, M. (2019). Phonetic convergence, language talent, personality and attention. Frontiers in Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00018. Li, J., Tian, M., Fang, H., Xu, M., Li, H., & Liu, J. (2010). Extraversion predicts individual differences in face recognition. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 3(4), 295–298. Li, M., Mobley, W. H., & Kelly, A. (2016). Linking personality to cultural intelligence: An interactive effect of openness and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.050. Liang, H.-Y., & Kelsen, B. (2018). Influence of personality and motivation on oral presentation performance. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 936-017-9551-6. Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Introversion and working memory: Central executive differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)001 13-0. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

199

Lilienfeld, S. O., Basterfield, C., Bowes, S. M., & Costello, T. H. (2020). Nobelists gone wild: Case studies in the domain specificity of critical thinking. In R. Sternberg & D. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 10–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg’s international personality item pool a multitrait-multimethod examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283193. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2019). What constitutes the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2183–2195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1482267. Little, B. R. (2017). Who are you, really?: The surprising puzzle of personality. New York: Simon and Schuster. Liu, C. (2015). Relevant researches on tolerance of ambiguity. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(9), 1874–1882. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0509.15. Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. (2013). Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours. System, 41(3), 598–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.011. Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A–Z of applied linguistics research methods. London & New York: Macmillan International Higher Education. Long, M. H. (2012). Current trends in SLA research and directions for future development. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2012-0011. Long, M. M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.33314. Lonsdorf, T. B., & Merz, C. J. (2017). More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of fear in humans – Biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 703–728. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.007. Lowie, W., Verspoor, M. H., & van Dijk, M. (2018). The acquisition of L2 speaking. A dynamic perspective. In R. A. Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a Second Language (pp. 105–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality and academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005. Lucas, R. E., Le, K., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/positive affect relation: Sociability cannot account for extraverts’ greater happiness. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 385– 414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00490.x. MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/088240994093 59951. MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (2007). Affective variables, attitude and personality in context. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), French applied linguistics (pp. 270–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/lllt.16.15mac. MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control. System, 38(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.013. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positivebroadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193–213. MacIntyre, P., & Noels, K. (1994). Retrospective review article: The good language learner. System, 22(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90062-0. MacIntyre, P. D., & Vincze, L. (2017). Positive and negative emotions underlie motivation for L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 61–88.

200

References

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). The relationship between the fivefactor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862005-5384-y. Maltby, D. J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2009). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. New York: Prentice Hall. Mangal, S. K. (2007). Essentials of educational psychology. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Mann, F. D., Engelhardt, L., Briley, D. A., Grotzinger, A. D., Patterson, M. W., Tackett, J. L., Strathan, D. B., Heath, A., Lynskey, M., Slutske, W., Martin, N. G., Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2017). Sensation seeking and impulsive traits as personality endophenotypes for antisocial behavior: Evidence from two independent samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.018. Marcela, V. (2015). Learning strategy, personality traits and academic achievement of university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3473–3478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.01.1021. Markee, N. (1997). Second language acquisition research: A resource for changing teachers’ professional cultures? The Modern Language Journal, 81(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.1997.tb01628.x. Marshall, E. M., Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2015). Personality, communication, and depressive symptoms across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic longitudinal investigation. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1980. Martin, P., Long, M. V., & Poon, L. W. (2002). Age changes and differences in personality traits and states of the old and very old. The Journals of Gerontology, 57(2), P144–P152. https://doi. org/10.1093/geronb/57.2.P144. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Religions, values, and peak-experiences. New York: Penguin. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311854. Matthews, G. (2008). Personality and information processing: A cognitive-adaptive theory. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 56–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200462.n3. Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, G., Emo, A. K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., Costa, P. T., & Schulze, R. (2006). Emotional Intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 12(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.2.96. May, R. (1950). The meaning of anxiety. New York: Press. Mayer, J. D. (2006). Personality: A systems approach. Boston: Pearson. Mayer, J. D. (2007). Asserting the definition of personality. The Online Newsletter for Personality Science, 1, 1–4. McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63(3), 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x. McAdams, D. P. (2006). The role of narrative in personality psychology today. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.04mca. McAdams, D. P. (2009). The person: An introduction to the science of personality psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. McAdams, D. P. (2018). Narrative identity: What is it? What does it do? How do you measure it? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 37(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/027623661875 6704.

References

201

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.61.3.204. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323. McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of Openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9053-1. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586–595. https:// doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.4.586. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50032-9. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A Five-Factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed). Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-886 9(03)00118-1. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 273–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200462.n13. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Pedroso de Lima, M., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Marusi´c, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J. H., & Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.35.2.466. McCrae, R. R., Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2001). Sources of structure: Genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 511–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694154. McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2010). Self-regulation and the five-factor model of personality traits. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 145–168). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318111.ch7. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In Thomas A. (Ed.), In M. Leary & R. Hoyle, Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). New York: Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the Observer’s Perspective: Data From 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.88.3.547. McCullough, M. E. (2016). Forgiveness: Who does it and how do they do it? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00147. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New: York: Penguin Press. McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 285–305. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.005. McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2016). Forgive and forget, or forgive and regret? Whether forgiveness leads to less or more offending depends on offender Agreeableness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637841.

202

References

Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 862–877. Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17(2), 136–142. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01676.x. Mercer, S. (2016). Seeing the world through your eyes: Empathy in language learning and teaching. In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 91–111). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2016). Stretching the boundaries: Language learning psychology. Palgrave Communications, 2(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.31. Mercer, S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (2012). Introduction. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 1–9). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Meskill, C., Mossop, J., & Bates, R. (1999). Bilingualism, cognitive flexibility, and electronic literacy. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2–3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1999. 10668689. Metsäpelto, R.-L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.468. Miao, R. (2015). Second Language Acquisition: An introduction. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.pp. 360–367). Oxford: Elsevier. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92096-8. Mike, A., Harris, K., Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2015). Conscientiousness. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 658–665). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25047-2. Mike, A., Jackson, J. J., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2014). The conscientious retiree: The relationship between conscientiousness, retirement, and volunteering. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.002. Mill, A., Kööts-Ausmees, L., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2018). The role of co-occurring emotions and personality traits in anger expression. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.00123. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through the lens of the Five Factor Model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29(6), 497–514. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ab.10064. Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Miller, Z. F., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Emotions in incidental language learning: An individual differences approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 115–141. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S027226311900041X. Millon, T. (2003). Evolution: A generative source for conceptualizing the attributes of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (pp. 3–30). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0501. Mirnics, Z., Heincz, O., Bagdy, G., Surányi, Z., Gonda, X., Benko, A., Molnar, E., Jakši´c, N., Lazary, J., & Juhasz, G. (2013). The relationship between the big five personality dimensions and acute psychopathology: Mediating and moderating effects of coping strategies. Psychiatria Danubina, 25(4), 379–388. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268.

References

203

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 208–241). New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1996). Freud and beyond. A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. New York: Basic Books. Mohiyeddini, C., Bauer, S., & Semple, S. (2015). Neuroticism and stress: The role of displacement behavior. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.100 0878. Montag, C., & Panksepp, J. (2017). Primary emotional systems and personality: An evolutionary perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00464. Monzani, L., Ripoll, P., & Peiró, J. M. (2014). Followers’ Agreeableness and Extraversion and their loyalty towards authentic leadership. La Afabilidad y Extraversion de Los Seguidores y Su Lealtad Hacia El Liderazgo Auténtico, 26(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.67. Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 638–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.638. Mõttus, R., Johnson, W., & J Deary, I. (2011). Personality traits in old age: Measurement and rankorder stability and some mean-level change. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 243–249. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0023690. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.471. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2003.11.010. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004. 06.023. Mowen, J. C., Fang, X., & Scott, K. (2009). A hierarchical model approach for identifying the trait antecedents of general gambling propensity and of four gambling-related genres. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1262–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.11.007. Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and gre performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659. Mueller, S., Wagner, J., Drewelies, J., Duezel, S., Eibich, P., Specht, J., Demuth, I., SteinhagenThiessen, E., Wagner, G. G., & Gerstorf, D. (2016). Personality development in old age relates to physical health and cognitive performance: Evidence from the Berlin Aging Study II. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.08.007. Muncer, S. J. (2011). The general factor of personality: Evaluating the evidence from meta-analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and evolutionary theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.029. Murray, A. L., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). How are Conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.06.014. Murray, H. (1938/2008). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1213–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003. Musson, D. M., Sandal, G. M., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Personality characteristics and trait clusters in final stage astronaut selection. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(4), 342–349. Mutlu, V. (2018). Relationship of personality types and strategy choices in foreign language learning. Sustainable Multilingualism, 13(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2018-0015.

204

References

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Pub. Myers, I. B., Kirby, L. K., & Myers, K. D. (1993). Introduction to type: A guide to understanding your results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Naragon-Gainey, K., & Simms, L. J. (2017). Clarifying the links of conscientiousness with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 85(6), 880–892. https://doi. org/10.1111/jopy.12295. Nechita, F., Alexandru, D. O., Turcu-Stiolic˘ ¸ a, R., & Nechita, D. (2015). The influence of personality factors and stress on academic performance. Current Health Sciences Journal, 41(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.41.01.07. Nekljudova, S. V. (2019). Six aspects of openness to experience. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 10(10), 78–81. Nel, C. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 49–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511497667.006. Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Schröder-Abé, M., & Smith, C. V. (2011). A cross-cultural study of relationships between daily social interaction and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 811–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00706.x. Nguyen, K., Stanley, N., Stanley, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). Resilience in language learners and the relationship to storytelling. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X. 2014.991160. Nikoopour, J., & Hajian, M. (2016). A study on psychological characteristics of efl learners: predicting learners’ autonomy through personality types. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 4(4), 285–290. Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116. Noprianto, E. (2017). Extravert versus introvert students: What EFL learning strategy do they use? ASIAN TEFL Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 119–135. https://doi. org/10.21462/asiantefl.v2i2.34. Novikova, I. A., Berisha, N. S., Novikov, A. L., & Shlyakhta, D. A. (2020). Creativity and personality traits as foreign language acquisition predictors in university linguistics students. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010035. Obralic, N., & Mulalic, A. (2017). Correlation between personality traits and language learning strategies among IUS students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(5), 76–84. Ockey, G. (2011). Self-consciousness and assertiveness as explanatory variables of L2 oral ability: A latent variable approach. Language Learning, 61(3), 968–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00625.x. Oda, R., Machii, W., Takagi, S., Kato, Y., Takeda, M., Kiyonari, T., Fukukawa, Y., & Hiraishi, K. (2014). Personality and altruism in daily life. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.017. Ode, S., & Robinson, M. D. (2007). Agreeableness and the self-regulation of negative affect: Findings involving the neuroticism/somatic distress relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2137–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.035. Ode, S., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2008). Can one’s temper be cooled?: A role for Agreeableness in moderating Neuroticism’s influence on anger and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.007.

References

205

Oehler, A., & Wedlich, F. (2018). The relationship of Extraversion and Neuroticism with risk attitude, risk perception, and return expectations. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 11(2), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000088. Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. New York: Penguin Random House. Ormel, J., Bastiaansen, A., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Servaas, M., Ellenbogen, M., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Aleman, A. (2013). The biological and psychological basis of Neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.neubiorev.2012.09.004. Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr. 2013.04.003. Ortega, L. (2011). Second language acquisition. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 171–184). New York: Routledge. Ortega, L. (2014). understanding second language acquisition. London & New York: Routledge. Oshri, A., Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2013). Child maltreatment and mediating influences of childhood personality types on the development of adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416. 2012.715366. O’Súilleabháin, P. S., Hughes, B. M., Oommen, A. M., Joshi, L., & Cunningham, S. (2019). Vulnerability to stress: Personality facet of vulnerability is associated with cardiovascular adaptation to recurring stress. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 144, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijpsycho.2019.06.013. Otero-López, J. M., & Villardefrancos, E. (2013). Five-Factor Model personality traits, materialism, and excessive buying: A mediational analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.013. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle ELT. Oxford, R. L. (2016). Toward a psychology of well-being for language learners: The ‘EMPATHICS’ vision. In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 10– 88). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Oya, T., Manalo, E., & Greenwood, J. (2004). The influence of personality and anxiety on the oral performance of Japanese speakers of English. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1063. Oz, H. (2014). Big Five personality traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 42(9), 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1473. O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, K. (2012). What has personality and Emotional Intelligence to do with ‘feeling different’ while using a foreign language? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.616185. O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, K. (2016). Personality, Emotional Intelligence and L2 use in an immigrant and non-immigrant context. In D. Gabry´s-Barker & D. Gałajda (Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 175–191). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-32954-3_10. O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, K. (2018). Personality and emotional intelligence in second language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. O˙za´nska-Ponikwia, K., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality and L2 use: The advantage of being openminded and self-confident in an immigration context. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102 904.190127.

206

References

Panayiotou, G., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2006). Self-consciousness and psychological distress: A study using the Greek SCS. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2005.10.025. Patrick, P. D., & Léon-Carrión, J. (2001). Mood and aorganic personality disorder following brain injury. In M. O. Ponton & J. Leon-Carrion (Eds.), Neuropsychology and the Hispanic patient: A clinical handbook (pp. 243–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paviˇci´c Takaˇc, V., & Požega, D. (2012). Personality traits, willingness to communicate and oral proficiency in English as a foreign language. In L. Pon, V. Karabali´c, & S. Cimer (Eds.), Applied linguistics today: Research and perspectives (pp. 67–82). Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). Individual differences in language learning and teaching: Achievements, prospects and challenges. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. xix–xlvi). Heidelberg: Springer. Pawlak, M., Kruk, M., Zawodniak, J., & Pasikowski, S. (2020). Investigating factors responsible for boredom in English classes: The case of advanced learners. System, 91, 102259. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102259. Pearman, A., Andreoletti, C., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2010). Sadness prediction and response: Effects of age and Agreeableness. Aging & Mental Health, 14(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/136 07860903292586. Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.77.6.1296. Pérez Vidal, C., López-Serrano, S., Ament, J., & Thomas-Wilhelm, D. J. (2018). Context effects in second language acquisition: Formal instruction, study abroad and immersion classrooms. In C. Pérez Vidal, S. López-Serrano, J. Ament, & D. J. Thomas-Wilhelm (Eds.), Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Language Science Press. Perkins, A. M., Arnone, D., Smallwood, J., & Mobbs, D. (2015). Thinking too much: Self-generated thought as the engine of Neuroticism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(9), 492–498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.003. Perrine, N. E., & Brodersen, R. M. (2005). Artistic and scientific creative behavior: Openness and the mediating role of interests. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(4), 217–236. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01259.x. Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (2001). Personality: Theory and research. New York: Wiley. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington & New York: Oxford University Press. Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). In J. D. A. Parker, Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 85–101). Boston: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-88370-0_5. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416. Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Martin, G. N. (2004). Estimates of emotional and psychometric intelligence: Evidence for gender-based stereotypes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.2.149-162. Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., Ligthart, L., Boomsma, D. I., & Veselka, L. (2010). Relationships between trait Emotional Intelligence and the Big Five in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 906–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2010.02.019. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piasecka, L., Adams-Tukiendorf, M., & Wilk, P. (Eds.). (2014). New media and perennial problems in foreign language learning and teaching. Heidelberg: Springer.

References

207

Pickering, A. D., Smillie, L. D., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Neurotic individuals are not creative thinkers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.001. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2008). Language anxiety in secondary grammar school students. Opole: Opole University Press. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2010). The interplay of good teacher qualities and language anxiety levels. Strani Jezici, 39(1–2), 29–50. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). Foreign language teacher burnout: A research proposal. Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 211–223. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2012). Gender: A cause for stable differences in willingness to communicate in L2? In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & L. Piasecka (Eds.), Variability and stability in foreign and second language learning contexts (Vol. 2). Newcastle upon Thyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2013). Teacher support and student willingness to communicate in L2: The gender perspective. In M. Kleban & E. Willim (Eds.), PASE papers in linguistics (pp. 277–290). Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2014). Attributions in high and low willingness to communicate in L2. Anglica Wratislaviensia, 52, 129–146. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2016). Self-regulatory efficacy and foreign language attainment. In D. Gabry´s-Barker & D. Gałajda (Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 337–351). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31932954-3_19. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2017). L2 or L3? Foreign language enjoyment and proficiency. In D. Gabry´sBarker, D. Gałajda, A. Wojtaszek, P. Zakrajewski (Eds.), Multiculturalism, multilingualism and the self (pp. 97–111). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018). Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC. System, 72, 190–200. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018). The influence of ambiguity tolerance on willingness to communicate in L2. In M. Pawlak & A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak (Eds.), Challenges of second and foreign language education in a globalized world (pp. 167–184). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2019). Mediation effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between Neuroticism and L2 attainment. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684929. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (in press). Positive predictive value of extraversion in diagnosing L2 WTC. Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The revised NEO personality Inventory: Clinical and research applications. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3588-5. Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the new NEO-PIR facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60(2), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6002_8. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170497. Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293. 57.3.210. Pocnet, C., Dupuis, M., Congard, A., & Jopp, D. (2017). Personality and its links to quality of life: Mediating effects of emotion regulation and self-efficacy beliefs. Motivation and Emotion, 41(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9603-0. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996. Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Exploring the relationship between global personality traits and attitudes toward foreign language learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 467–473. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.119.

208

References

Purnamaningsih, E. H. (2017). Personality and emotion regulation strategies. International Journal of Psychological Research, 10(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.2040. Quenk, N. L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment. Hoboken, NY: Wiley. Rahmani, S., & Lavasani, M. G. (2012). Gender differences in five factor model of personality and sensation seeking. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2906–2911. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.587. Ramírez, J. M., & Andreu, J. M. (2006). Aggression, and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity); some comments from a research project. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.015. Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.001. Rammstedt, B., Lechner, C. M., & Danner, D. (2018). Relationships between personality and cognitive ability: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10. 3390/jintelligence6020028. Rauthmann, J. F., Seubert, C. T., Sachse, P., & Furtner, M. R. (2012). Eyes as windows to the soul: Gazing behavior is related to personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.010. Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 40–55. https:// doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n5.4. Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.81.1.57. Revelle, W., & Oehlberg, K. (2008). Integrating experimental and observational personality research—The contributions of Hans Eysenck. Journal of Personality, 76(6), 1387–1414. Revelle, W., Wilt, J., & Condon, D. M. (2011). Individual differences and differential psychology. A brief history and prospect. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 3–38). Chichester: Wiley. Rhodes, R. E. (2013). Personality traits and exercise. In R. C. Eklund & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 278–280). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Richardson, M., & Abraham, C. (2009). Conscientiousness and achievement motivation predict performance. European Journal of Personality, 23(7), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.732. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1989). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Roberts, B. W., & Bogg, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness and the social-environmental factors and substance-use behaviors that influence health. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00264.x. Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.1.3. Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–381). New York: Guilford Press. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916. 2007.00047.x.

References

209

Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315–1330. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0031109. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. Robinson, M. D., & Tamir, M. (2005). Neuroticism as mental noise: A relation between Neuroticism and reaction time standard deviations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 107–114. Robison, M. K., Gath, K. I., & Unsworth, N. (2017). The neurotic wandering mind: An individual differences investigation of Neuroticism, mind-wandering, and executive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218. 2016.1145706. Robinson, P. (2008). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–662). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10. 1002/9780470756492.ch19. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable. Rohner, R. (2016). Introduction to Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory (IPARTheory) and Evidence. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919. 1055. Rossier, J., de Stadelhofen, F. M., & Berthoud, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5*. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 27–38. https://doi. org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.27. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rottinghaus, P. J., Lindley, L. D., Green, M. A., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Educational aspirations: The contribution of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1843. Røysamb, E., Nes, R. B., Czajkowski, N. O., & Vassend, O. (2018). Genetics, personality and wellbeing. A twin study of traits, facets and life satisfaction. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29881-x. Rubio, F. (2007). Self-esteem and foreign language learning: An introduction. In F. Rubio (Ed.), Selfesteem and foreign language learning (pp. 2–12). Newcastle upon Thyne: Cambridge Scholars. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Rybakowski, J., Klonowska, P., Patrzała, A., & Jaracz, J. (2008). Psychopathology and creativity. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 1, 37–47. Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big-Five Factor structure. The Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603517. Šafranj, J., & Kati´c, M. (2019). Five personality traits and willingness to communicate. Andragogija, 65(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.19090/ps.2019.1.69-81. Šafranj, J., & Zivlak, J. (2019). Effects of Big Five Personality Traits and Fear of Negative Evaluation ˇ on Foreign Language Anxiety. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj i Obrazovanje, 21(1), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v21i1.2942. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait Emotional Intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 707–721. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00056-9. Saklofske, D. H., Eysenck, H. J., Eysenck, S. B. G., Stelmack, R. M., & Revelle, W. R. (2012). Extraversion-Introversion. Encyclopedia of human behavior: Second Edition, 150–159. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00164-6. Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, Introversion, and self-reported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisons. Communication Research Reports, 8(1), 55–64.

210

References

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence: Imagination. Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG. Sanchez, M. M., Infante Rejano, E., & Troyano Rodriguez, Y. (2001). Personality and academic productivity in university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(3), 299–306. https://doi. org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.3.299. Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L., Hernández Lloreda, M. J., Avia, M. D., & Bragado-Alvarez, C. (2015). Fantasy proneness and personality profiles. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 34(4), 327– 339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236615572584. Santos, L. R., & Rosati, A. G. (2015). The evolutionary roots of human decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015310. Sarwari, A. Q., & Wahab, M. N. A. (2017). Study of the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence among international postgraduate students: A case study at University Malaysia Pahang. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311886.2017.1310479. Saville, P., & Blinkhorn, S. (1981). Reliability, homogeneity and the construct validity of Cattell’s 16PF. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-886 9(81)90088-X. Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.4.582. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202210629 7299. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2009). “Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures”: Correction to Schmitt et al. (2008). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 118–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0014651. Schneider, T. R., Rench, T. A., Lyons, J. B., & Riffle, R. R. (2012). The influence of Neuroticism, extraversion and openness on stress responses. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(2), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1409. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A history of modern psychology. Boston: Cengage Learning. Schumann, J. H. (1994). Where is cognition?: Emotion and cognition in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722 63100012894. Schwaba, T., Luhmann, M., Denissen, J. J. A., Chung, J. M., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Openness to experience and culture-Openness transactions across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000150. Sedikides, C., Gregg, A. P., & Hart, C. M. (2007). The importance of being modest. In C. Sedikides & S. J. Spencer (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology. The self (pp. 163–184). New York: Psychology Press. Segalowitz, N. (2001). On the evolving connections between psychology and linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000010. Segel-Karpas, D., & Lachman, M. E. (2018). Social contact and cognitive functioning: The role of personality. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73(6), 974–984. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw079. Seker, M. (2016). The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners and its role in language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1362168815578550.

References

211

Selden, M., & Goodie, A. S. (2018). Review of the effects of Five Factor Model personality traits on network structures and perceptions of structure. Social Networks, 52, 81–99. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.socnet.2017.05.007. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Sharp, D. (1987). Personality types: Jung’s model of typology. Toronto: Inner City Books. Shergill, H. K. A. U. (2010). Psychology. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Shaffer, D. R. (2008). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Shi, Y., Sedikides, C., Cai, H., Liu, Y., & Yang, Z. (2017). Disowning the self: The Cultural value of modesty can attenuate self-positivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(6), 1023–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1099711. Shiner, R. L. (2000). Linking childhood personality with adaptation: Evidence for continuity and change across time into late adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.310. Shiner, R. L., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Childhood personality as a harbinger of competence and resilience in adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 507–528. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0954579412000120. Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833. Shirdel, T., & Naeini, M. B. (2018). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits, crystallized intelligence, and foreign language achievement. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 519–528. Simons, M., Vanhees, C., Smits, T., & Putte, K. V. D. (2019). Remedying Foreign Language Anxiety through CLIL? A mixed-methods study with pupils, teachers and parents. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 14, 153–172. Simpson, J. (2011). Introduction. Applied linguistics in the contemporary world. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 107–114). London & New York: Routledge. Simpson, J. A. (2016). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 264–268. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x. Sim¸ ¸ sek, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Anxiety and L2 self-images: The “anxious self.” In C. Gkonou, J.-M. Dewaele, & M. Daubney (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety. Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 51–69). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979. Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203808184. Skimina, E., & Cieciuch, J. (2020). Explaining everyday behaviours and situational context by personality metatraits and higher-order values. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/per.2230. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216. Skinner, B. F. (1990). To know the future. The Behavior Analyst, 13(2), 103–106. Smillie, L. D., Cooper, A. J., Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2012). Do extraverts get more bang for the buck? Refining the affective-reactivity hypothesis of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028372. Smillie, L. D., Wilt, J., Kabbani, R., Garratt, C., & Revelle, W. (2015). Quality of social experience explains the relation between Extraversion and positive affect. Emotion, 15(3), 339–349. https:// doi.org/10.1037/emo0000047. Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., Cyders, M. A., Annus, A. M., Spillane, N. S., & Mccarthy, D. M. (2007). On the validity and utility of discriminating among impulsivity-like traits. Assessment, 14(2), 155–170.

212

References

Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke, D. W. (2014). The link between Neuroticism and perfectionistic concerns: The mediating effect of trait Emotional Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.013. Smith, T. W. (1994). Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. In A. W. Siegman & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 23–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Snowden, R. (2006). Teach yourself Freud. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of big five domains and facets in adulthood: Meanlevel age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 881–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00752.x. Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2013). Instructed second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 319–327). London: Routledge. Specht, J. (2017). Personality development in adulthood and old age. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 53–68). London: Academic Press. Specht, J. (2017). Personality development research: State-of-the-art and future directions. In J. Specht (Ed.), personality development across the lifespan (pp. 3–6). London: Academic Press. Spinner, P., & Gass, S. (2015). Second language acquisition and linguistics: A bidirectional perspective. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1010. Spolsky, B. (2005). Is language policy Applied Linguistics? In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 26–36). Clevedon & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Srivastava, K., & Das, R. C. (2013). Personality pathways of successful ageing. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 22(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.123584. Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.133.1.65. Stelmack, R. M., & Stalikas, A. (1991). Galen and the humour theory of temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90111-N. Stephan, Y., Boiché, J., Canada, B., & Terracciano, A. (2014). Association of personality with physical, social, and mental activities across the lifespan: Findings from US and French samples. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12056. Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2014). Physical activity and personality development across adulthood and old age: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 49, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.12.003. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching: Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives on applied linguistic research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steunenberg, B., Twisk, J. W. R., Beekman, A. T. F., Deeg, D. J. H., & Kerkhof, A. J. F. M. (2005). Stability and change of Neuroticism in aging. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 60(1), P27–P33. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/60.1.P27. Stock, A.-K., & Beste, C. (2015). Conscientiousness increases efficiency of multicomponent behavior. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15731. Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00356.x.

References

213

Sun, J., Kaufman, S. B., & Smillie, L. D. (2018). Unique associations between big five personality aspects and multiple dimensions of well-being. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 158–172. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12301. Sutin, A. R. (2017). Openness. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 83–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sutin, A. R., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M., & Terracciano, A. (2019). Five-factor model personality traits and cognitive function in five domains in older adulthood. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 343. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1362-1. Svihra, M., & Katzman, M. A. (2004). Behavioural inhibition: A predictor of anxiety. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 547–550. Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and aesthetic experiences. In P. Tinio & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 540–561). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabak, B. A., McCullough, M. E., Luna, L. R., Bono, G., & Berry, J. W. (2012). Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 503–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.007 28.x. Tackett, J. L., Hernández, M. M., & Eisenberg, N. (2019). Agreeableness. In McAdams, R. L. Shiner, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 171–184). New York: Guilford Press. Tackett, J. L., & Lahey, B. B. (2017). Neuroticism. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 39–56). New York: Oxford University Press. Tackman, A. M., Srivastava, S., Pfeifer, J. H., & Dapretto, M. (2017). Development of Conscientiousness in childhood and adolescence: Typical trajectories and associations with academic, health, and relationship changes. Journal of Research in Personality, 67, 85–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.002. Takahashi, H., Takano, H., Camerer, C. F., Ideno, T., Okubo, S., Matsui, H., Tamari, Y., Takemura, K., Arakawa, R., Kodaka, F., Yamada, M., Eguchi, Y., Murai, T., Okubo, Y., Kato, M., Ito, H., & Suhara, T. (2012). Honesty mediates the relationship between serotonin and reaction to unfairness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(11), 4281–4284. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118687109. Tatzl, D., Gkonou, C., & Mercer, S. (2016). Introduction: New directions in language learning psychology. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl, & S. Mercer (Eds.), New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 1–6). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31923491-5_1. Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)E0011-7. Teimouri, Y., Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (2020). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for secondlanguage learning. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216882 0921895. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol 2: Personality measurement and testing (pp. 261–292). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978184 9200479.n13. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.493. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Hagemann, D., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Individual difference variables, affective differentiation, and the structures of affect. Journal of Personality, 71(5), 669–703.

214

References

Terracciano, A., Merritt, M., Zonderman, A. B., & Evans, M. K. (2003). Personality traits and sex differences in emotion recognition among African Americans and Caucasians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000, 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1280.032. Terracciano, A., Schrack, J. A., Sutin, A. R., Chan, W., Simonsick, E. M., & Ferrucci, L. (2013). Personality, metabolic rate and aerobic capacity. PLoS ONE, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/jou rnal.pone.0054746. de Terte, I., & Stephens, C. (2014). Psychological resilience of workers in high-risk occupations. Stress and Health, 30(5), 353–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2627. Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). Trust: An integrative review from a person–situation perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046. Thompson, E. R., Prendergast, G. P., & Dericks, G. H. (2019). Do the happy-go-lucky? Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00554-w. Thomson, W. (2017). Sabotaging the self—A Trait? And it’s relationship with neuroticism. Clinical and Experimental Psychology, 03(04), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-2701.1000175. Tobin, R. M., & Gadke, D. L. (2015). Agreeableness. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 463–470). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25044-7. Tobin, R. M., & Graziano, W. G. (2011). The disappointing gift: Dispositional and situational moderators of emotional expressions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(2), 227– 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.010. Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669. Tracy-Ventura, N., Dewaele, J.-M., Köylü, Z., & McManus, K. (2016). Personality changes after the ‘year abroad’?: A mixed-methods study. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 1(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar.1.1.05tra. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132. Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, N., Lenski, A., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2015). Using individual interest and Conscientiousness to predict academic effort: Additive, synergistic, or compensatory effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pspp0000034. Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2009). Different forces, same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent predictors of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1115–1128. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0017048. Trnka, R., Balcar, K., Kuska, M., & Hnilica, K. (2012). Neuroticism and valence of negative emotional concepts. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(5), 843–844. Tulin, M., Lancee, B., & Volker, B. (2018). Personality and social capital. Social Psychology Quarterly, 81(4), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272518804533. Turban, D. B., Stevens, C. K., & Lee, F. K. (2009). Effects of Conscientiousness and Extraversion on new labor market entrants’ job search: The mediating role of metacognitive activities and positive emotions. Personnel Psychology, 62(3), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570. 2009.01148.x. Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2013). Forming a clearer image of the ideal L2 self: The L2 motivational self system and learner autonomy in a Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.836205. Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. G. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 91–102). Dublin: Authentik.

References

215

Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In Carol Griffiths & C. Griffiths (Eds.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.004. Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 396–409). Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808184. Uziel, L. (2006). The extraverted and the neurotic glasses are of different colors. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(4), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.011. van Daele, S., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & De Bruyn, L. (2006). The effect of extraversion on oral L2 proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.6.13dae. van den Hurk, P. A. M., Wingens, T., Giommi, F., Barendregt, H. P., Speckens, A. E. M., & van Schie, H. T. (2011). On the relationship between the practice of mindfulness meditation and personality—An exploratory analysis of the mediating role of mindfulness skills. Mindfulness, 2(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0060-7. van der Sluis, S., Derom, C., Thiery, E., Bartels, M., Polderman, T. J. C., Verhulst, F. C., Jacobs, N., van Gestel, S., de Geus, E. J. C., Dolan, C. V., Boomsma, D. I., & Posthuma, D. (2008). Sex differences on the WISC-R in Belgium and The Netherlands. Intelligence, 36(1), 48–67. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.01.003. van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3c291:AIDPER377%3e3.0.CO;2-6. van der Zee, K., van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (2013). Multicultural personality questionnaire: Development of a short form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.718302. van Doorn, R. R. A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2010). Performance differences explained by the Neuroticism facets withdrawal and volatility, variations in task demand, and effort allocation. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.004. Vedel, A., & Poropat, A. E. (2017). Personality and academic performance. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–9). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_989-1. Veltkamp, G. M., Recio, G., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M. (2013). Is personality modulated by language? International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(4), 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/136 7006912438894. Verduyn, P., & Brans, K. (2012). The relationship between extraversion, neuroticism and aspects of trait affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 664–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2011.12.017. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(03), 361–374. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S014271640200303X. Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 149–170. https://doi. org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1042. Vreeke, L. J., & Muris, P. (2012). Relations between behavioral inhibition, big five personality factors, and anxiety disorder symptoms in non-clinical and clinically anxious children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 43(6), 884–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-0120302-5. Vural, H. (2019). The relationship of personality traits with English speaking anxiety. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 1(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.01.01.5. Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (1993). Psychology. New York: Harper Collins College. Wainwright, M. A., Wright, M. J., Luciano, M., Geffen, G. M., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Genetic covariation among facets of Openness to experience and general cognitive ability. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.11.3.275.

216

References

Wakamoto, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extraversion and introversion. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.71. Wang, Y., Ang, C., Jiang, Z., & Wu, C.-H. (2019). The role of trait Extraversion in shaping proactive behavior: A multilevel examination of the impact of high-activated positive affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.035. Wastell, C. A. (2013). The impact of closed-mindedness on the assessment of threat: An empirical study. The Open Psychology Journal, 6(1), 10–19. Weaver, J. B., III. (2005). Mapping the links between personality and communicator style. Individual Differences Research, 3(1), 59–70. Webster, N., Harris, W. T., Allen, F. S., Hadley, J., & Kittredge, G. L. (1925). New international dictionary. Springfield: G & C Merriam. Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2016). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples: A review. European Psychologist, 21(4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1016-9040/a000261. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548. Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2008). Handbook of personality assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011. 00178. Weiss, A., & Costa, P. T. (2005). Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(5), 724–733. https://doi. org/10.1097/01.psy.0000181272.58103.18. Whiteside, S., & Lynam, D. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7. Widdowson, H. G. (2005a). Applied Linguistics, interdisciplinarity, and disparate realities. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 12–25). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Widdowson, H. G. (2005b). Is language policy Applied Linguistics? In R. B. Kaplan & P. Bruthiaux (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 12–25). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In In M. Leary & R. Hoyle, Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 129–146). New York: Guilford Press. Widiger, T. A. (2017). Introduction. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. 1093/oxfordhb/9780199352487.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199352487-e-9. Widiger, T. A., Verheul, R., & van den Brink, W. (1999). Personality and psychopathology. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 347–366). New York: Guilford Press. Wiers, R. W., Ames, S. L., Hofmann, W., Krank, M., & Stacy, A. W. (2010). Impulsivity, impulsive and reflective processes and the development of alcohol use and misuse in adolescents and young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00144. Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2006). Agreeableness and the prolonged spatial processing of antisocial and prosocial information. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1152–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.12.004. Williams, R. (2017). Anger as a basic emotion and its role in personality building and pathological growth: The neuroscientific, developmental and clinical perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01950.

References

217

Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2017). Extraversion. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 57–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks. com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199352487.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199352487-e-15. Woo, S. E. (2011). A study of Ghiselli’s hobo syndrome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.003. Woo, S. E., Saef, R., & Parrigon, S. (2015). Openness to experience. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 231–235). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25072-1. Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., & Michela, J. L. (2003). Savoring versus dampening: Self-esteem differences in regulating positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.566. Wood, P., & Englert, P. (2009). Intelligence compensation theory: a critical examination of the negative relationship between Conscientiousness and fluid and crystallised intelligence. The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 2, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajop.2. 1.19. Wortman, J., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Stability and change in the Big Five personality domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 867–874. Xin, Y., Wu, J., Yao, Z., Guan, Q., Aleman, A., & Luo, Y. (2017). The relationship between personality and the response to acute psychological stress. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-017-17053-2. Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Livesley, W. J., & Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.90.6.987. Yan, C. H. (2006). Factors affecting the state anxiety level of higher education students in Macau: The impact of trait anxiety and self-esteem. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600760934. Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y.-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 860–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.015. Young, D. J. (1998). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. San Francisco: McGraw Hill. Young, M., & Schinka, J. (2001). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Additional evidence for reliability and validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 412–420. https://doi.org/10. 1207/S15327752JPA7603_04. Zajenkowski, M., & Stolarski, M. (2015). Is conscientiousness positively or negatively related to intelligence? Insights from the national level. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.009. Zárate-Sández, G. (2017). Reexamining foreign accent: How much can personality explain? Ilha Do Desterro, 70(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2017v70n3p227. Zaval, L, Li, Y, Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2015). Complementary contributions of fluid and crystallized intelligence to decision making across the life span. In T. M. Hess, J. Strough, & C. E. Löckenhoff (Eds.), Aging and decision making. Empirical and applied perspectives (pp. 149–168). London: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417148-0. 00008-X. ´ Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Szczepaniak, P., & Sliwi´ nska, M. (1998). Inwentarz osobowo´sci NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae: Adaptacja polska : podr˛ecznik. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. Zee, M., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Van der Veen, I. (2013). Student-teacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper elementary school: The role of student personality. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.003.

218

References

Zelenski, J. M. (2008). The role of personality in emotion, judgment, and decision making. In K. D. Vohs, R. F. Baumeister, & G. Loewenstein (Eds.), Do emotions help or hurt decision making? A Hedgefoxian perspective (pp. 117–132). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2016). Predicting the future: How affect-related personality traits influence likelihood judgments of future events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720202800712. Zelenski, J. M., Sobocko, K., & Whelan, D. C. (2014). Introversion, solitude, and subjective well-being. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 184–201). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Zelenski, J. M., Whelan, D. C., Nealis, L. J., Besner, C. M., Santoro, M. S., & Wynn, J. E. (2013). Personality and affective forecasting: Trait introverts underpredict the hedonic benefits of acting extraverted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1092–1108. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0032281. Zeyer, A., & Dillon, J. (2019). The role of empathy for learning in complex Science|Environment|Health contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 297– 315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1549371. Zhao, B. (2011). Learning from errors: The role of context, emotion, and personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.696. Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. D. (2017). Politeness and compassion differentially predict adherence to fairness norms and interventions to norm violations in economic games. Scientific Reports, 7, 3415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02952-1. Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35(3), 382–393. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005. Zohoorian, Z., Baghaei, P., & Parikari, M. (2018). On the interrelationships among undergraduate English foreign language learners’ speaking ability, personality traits, and learning styles. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 6(3), 65–86. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zuckerman, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Relationships between Cloninger’s, Zuckerman’s, and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00042-6. Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Di Giunta, L., Milioni, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and self-esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.010.

Author Index

A Abduljalil, A. M., 38 Abele, A. E., 49 Abraham, C., 8, 16, 86 Abrams, L., 4 Abrams, M., 4 Abu-Rabia, S., 111, 117, 152 Achille, N. M., 4, 52 Ackerman, P. L., 45 Adams, R., 71, 77 Adams-Tukiendorf, M., 131 Adler, A., 6, 12 Ahadi, S., 52 Aharon, I., 163 Ahmed, J., 46 Akrami, N., 70, 71 Albarracín, D., 46 Albert, Á., 7, 131 Aldrich, N. J., 130 Aleman, A., 41, 62 Alexandru, D. O., 55 Alfieri, L., 130 Alibakhshi, G., 113, 117, 126, 146, 147, 152, 155, 162 Allen, F. S., 16 Allen, M., 56 Allen, T. A., 39, 69, 79, 80 Allik, J., 90 Allport, G. W., 3, 16, 17 Al-Saraj, T. M., 111, 117, 121, 152, 155 Ament, J., 97 Ames, D. R., 50 Ames, S. L., 40 Anderson, I. W., 46 Anderson, M. C., 140, 161 Ando, J., 31

Andreoletti, C., 73 Andreu, J. M., 154 Ang, C., 56, 119 Anghelache, V., 53 Angleitner, A., 18, 22, 29, 31, 32, 37, 48, 50, 60, 83, 90, 113, 116, 123–125 Annus, A. M., 51 Antonietti, J.-P., 75 Arakawa, R., 70 Arbuckle, N. L., 38 Arendasy, M., 64 Armeli, S., 47 Arnone, D., 44 Asadpour, S. F., 122, 133 Asendorpf, J. B., 15, 50 Ashton, M. C., 53, 64, 70, 112, 148, 166 Austin, E. J., 128 Averett, S. L., 91 Avia, M. D., 60 Azzollini, S. C., 53

B Baas, M., 51, 61 Babakr, Z., 25 Bachhuber, D. R., 83 Back, M. D., 43, 50, 109, 120 Bagdy, G., 56 Baghaei, P., 137, 157, 167 Baird, B., 170 Bakker-Pieper, A., 46, 56, 66, 77, 87, 119 Balcar, K., 42, 108 Balliet, D., 83 Bansak, C., 91 Barbaranelli, C., 42, 65, 66, 73, 77, 86, 131, 138

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7

219

220 Barefoot, J. C., 60–62 Barendregt, H. P., 171 Barrett, P., 21, 22, 111, 112, 114, 116, 122, 125, 128, 147, 148 Bartels, M., 75 Bartholow, B. D., 85, 144 Bartlett, B., 114, 126 Basterfield, C., 62 Bastiaansen, A., 43, 109 Bates, R., 144 Bauer, S., 53 Bauer, T. N., 53 Baumeister, R. F., 101 Bayne, R., 11 Beck, C. A., 40 Beekman, A. T. F., 89 Benedek, M., 64 Benet-Martínez, V., 43, 127, 142, 146 Benko, A., 56 Bentea, C., 53 Berenbaum, H., 44, 109 Berens, L. V., 12–14 Berggren, N., 45 Berg, V., 43, 63 Berisha, N. S., 145, 147, 162 Bernstein, D. A., 11 Berry, J. W., 74 Berthoud, S., 36 Besharat, M., 46 Besner, C. M., 52–55 Beste, C., 87, 88 Beukeboom, C. J., 56 Bidjerano, T., 65, 76, 86, 130 Biedro´n, A., 104, 136, 138, 157 Birkland, A., 60 Bizumic, B., 64 Bjork, R. A., 45 Bjørndal, A., 170 Black, M. J., 5 Blakeley, M. G. de, 123, 124, 155 Blankstein, K. R., 41 Bleidorn, W., 92 Blinkhorn, S., 20 Block, D., 98 Block, J., 23, 31, 33 Bogg, T., 84 Boiché, J., 50, 66 Bolger, N., 43 Bolino, M. C., 74 Bono, G., 74 Boomsma, D. I., 42, 52, 63, 72, 75, 90, 161 Borgen, F. H., 65 Borghuis, J., 90

Author Index Borkenau, P., 50 Born, M. Ph., 50 Bos, E. H., 43, 44, 109 Bott, A., 64 Bowes, S. M., 62 Boyce, C. J., 84 Boyle, G. J., 31 Boyle, S. H., 60, 61 Brackett, M. A., 58, 62, 110, 131 Bragado-Alvarez, C., 60 Brähler, E., 30 Branje, S., 92 Brans, K., 52 Brant, L. J., 30, 61, 62 Bratko, D., 45, 50 Bredemeier, K., 44, 109 Breil, S. M., 50, 120 Briley, D. A., 51 Brodersen, R. M., 60, 61 Brook, M., 49, 70 Brooks, P. J., 130 Brown, G. D. A., 84 Brown, H. D., 99 Brown, S. L., 51 Brunas-Wagstaff, J., 2 Bruthiaux, P., 98 Brzezinski, M., 63 Burger, J. M., 16, 40 Burisch, M., 174 Burleson, B. R., 71 Burnett, C., 56 Buss, D. M., 2, 3 Byman, R., 51 Byram, M., 132

C Cai, H., 71 Cain, S., 171 Camerer, C. F., 70 Cameron, L., 99 Campbell, A. J., 11 Canada, B., 50, 56, 66 Caprara, G. V., 2, 3, 19, 42, 66, 67, 73, 77, 86, 131, 138 Carducci, B. J., 16, 17 Carter, N. T., 62, 65, 84 Carver, C. S., 39 Casey, L., 123, 124 Caspi, A., 16, 92 Castillo, S. E., 53 Cattell, H. E., 18, 19 Cauraugh, J. H., 44, 109

Author Index Cervone, D., 2, 3, 19 Chae, J. H., 32, 60, 90 Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 44, 45, 55, 64, 85, 86, 106, 120, 174 Chan, W., 30, 60, 62 Chapelle, C., 100 Chaplin, W. F., 165 Chapman, B. P., 89 Chartrand, T. L., 53, 55 Chen, G., 40 Chen, M.-L., 125, 155 Chen, Y.-J., 171 Chernyshenko, O. S., 36, 37 Chioqueta, A. P., 61 Chitale, A. K., 15 Choi, S., 148, 149, 152, 160 Christopher, A. N., 70 Chun, C. A., 42 Cialdini, R. B., 71 Ciarrochi, J., 65 Cicchetti, D., 77 Ciorbea, I., 55 ˇ Cizmi´ c, I., 112, 117, 124, 129, 133, 138, 152, 155, 166, 167 Clarke-Stewart, A., 11 Clark, L. A., 30, 46 Clark, M. A., 46, 76, 139 Clark, M. H., 46, 76, 139 Clément, R., 126 Cloninger, C. R., 50 Cochrane, T., 63 Cogburn, H. E., 75 Cohen, A. D., 11, 101 Cohen, J., 105, 165 Cohen, L., 11, 101 Cohen, L. H., 47 Cohen, Y., 47 Cohn, M. A., 51 Collins, P. F., 52 Condon, D. M., 2, 100 Congard, A., 42, 46 Connelly, B. S., 60 Conn, S. R., 19 Conrad, M., 117, 142 Conway, A. M., 51 Cook, V., 102–104 Coolican, H., 165 Coombes, S. A., 44, 109 Coon, D., 16, 17 Cooper, A. J., 48, 50, 52 Cope, J., 108 Corr, P. J., 39 Cortes, K., 73

221 Cosentino, A. C., 53 Costa, P. T. C., 4, 8, 10, 32, 33, 36 Costello, T. H., 62 Côté, J. E., 25 Cottrell, C. A., 49 Craigie, P., 108 Cranney, J., 11 Craske, M. G., 45 Crawford, E. R., 38, 69, 79 Cross, S. E., 90 Crump, J., 54, 84 Cuddy, A. J. C., 49 Cumming, S. R., 11 Cuneo, F., 75 Cunningham, S., 38 Cunningham, W. A., 50 Cuperman, R., 63 Cyders, M. A., 51 Czajkowski, N. O., 52, 118 D Dabul, A. J., 71 Dai, D. Y., 65, 76, 86, 130 Damian, R. I., 86 Danner, D., 54, 120 Dapretto, M., 86 Das, R. C., 93 Davazoglou, A. M., 174 Davidson, R. J., 83 Davies, A., 97 Davies, S. E., 60 Davis, K. L., 33 Day, L., 3, 22 Deary, I. J., 45, 93, 110 De Bruyn, L., 129, 155, 156 Deci, E. L., 163 Deeg, D. J. H., 89 Deffenbacher, J., 39, 40 de Geus, E. J. C., 90 DeLongis, A., 46 DelVecchio, W. F., 92, 93 Demuth, I., 93 Denissen, J. J. A., 86, 145, 163 Depaula, P. D., 53 Depue, R. A., 52 De Raad, B., 104 Derakshan, N., 45 Dericks, G. H., 120 Derom, C., 90 de Vibe, M., 170 de Vries, R. E., 46, 56, 66, 77, 87, 119 Dewaele, J.-M., 104, 105, 107, 110–112, 116–118, 121, 125, 128, 129, 132,

222 136, 139, 140, 147, 149, 152, 154, 155, 157, 161, 162, 166, 167 DeYoung, C. G., 22, 33–35, 38, 39, 48–50, 52, 57–59, 61, 64, 68, 69, 79, 80, 114, 119, 130, 131, 135, 157, 158, 164 Diesing, P., 6 Dietrich, M., 52 Di Giunta, L., 42, 65, 73, 77, 86, 130, 138 Digman, J. M., 28, 29, 33, 34, 48 Dijkstra, A. F. J., 99 Dillon, J., 161 Doktorchik, C., 40 Dolan, C. V., 90 Dollard, J., 7, 25 Dollinger, S. J., 61, 65, 67, 130 Donahue, E. M., 18, 22, 29, 37, 48, 83, 113, 116, 123–125 Donnellan, M. B., 90 Dörnyei, Z., 22, 28, 29, 98, 100–108, 130, 144, 164–166, 176 Doucette, J., 109 Doughty, C., 97 Drewelies, J., 93 Duan, Y., 49 Duberstein, P. R., 89 Dubey, N. R., 15 Duckworth, A. L., 143 Duezel, S., 93 Duffy, K. A., 53, 55 Dumont, F., 11 Dunkley, D. M., 41 Dupuis, M., 42, 46 Dye, D. A., 49, 69–71, 79, 81, 82, 88–91 Dyrenforth, P. S., 50, 90 Dzokoto, V., 52

E Eastwood, C., 40 Eaton, L. G., 56 Eber, H. W., 19 Eccles, J. S., 86, 145, 163 Eckhardt, C., 39 Edmonds, G. W., 92 Egloff, B., 43, 109 Eguchi, Y., 70 Ehrman, M., 103, 110, 122, 129, 155, 167 Eibich, P., 93 Eid, M., 50 Eilam, B., 163 Eisenberger, N. I., 40, 74, 110 Eisenberg, N., 68, 73, 81–83 Ekehammar, B., 70, 71

Author Index Ellenbogen, M., 43, 44, 109 Elliot, A. J., 51, 61 Ellis, A., 4 Ellis, R., 102–104, 110 Emo, A. K., 21, 45, 54, 120 Engelhardt, L., 51 Englert, P., 85 Erdogan, B., 53 Erton, I., 104 Evans, M. K., 30, 61, 62 Ewen, R. B., 22, 48 Eysenck, H. J., 19–22, 32, 49, 114, 125, 126, 128, 148 Eysenck, M. W., 18, 21, 22, 116, 122, 125, 148 Eysenck, S. B. G., 20, 29, 42, 109, 121, 122, 128, 147

F Faisal, R. A., 123, 154 Fallah, N., 170 Fang, X., 50, 65, 75, 131, 138 Farokhi, M., 171 Farsani, M. A., 113, 125, 135, 146, 153 Farsides, T., 45, 65, 76, 131 Fayard, J. V., 83 Fayn, K., 58, 63, 131 Fazeli, S. H., 113, 140, 142, 160 Feigin, S., 71 Feingold, A., 71, 90 Feist, G. J., 2, 5, 9, 10 Feist, J., 2, 5, 9, 10 Ferguson, E., 69 Ferrucci, L., 30, 60–62 Fietzer, A. W., 111, 117, 137, 166 Filkowski, M. M., 49, 71 Fincham, F. D., 5, 11, 15, 17 Finnerty, A. N., 53 Fischer, S., 51 Fiske, D. W., 28, 49 Fiske, S. T., 49 Fleeson, W., 4, 52 Flehmig, H. C., 44, 85 Fleming, K. A., 85, 144 Flett, G. L., 41 Flynn, F. J., 50 Fontaine, J., 89 Ford, R., 123, 124 Foster, J., 3, 22 Francis, L. J., 22 Franklin, M. S., 170 Frederickx, S., 43, 46, 56, 66, 77, 87

Author Index Fredrickson, B. L., 51, 118, 156 Friborg, O., 170 Friedman, H. S., 3, 50 Friesen, C., 50 Fromm, E., 6 Fukukawa, Y., 71 Funder, D. C., 3, 31, 55 Funke, G., 21, 45, 54, 120 Furnham, A., 42, 44, 45, 55, 60, 68, 73, 85, 86, 106, 107, 110, 120, 121, 129, 145, 154, 166, 174 Furtner, M. R., 46

G Gabry´s-Barker, D., 173 Gadke, D. L., 74 Gallagher, D. J., 55 Gamble, K. M., 44, 109 Gamez, W., 77, 83 Gardner, R. C., 102 Gargalianou, V., 112, 129, 145, 147, 162, 165 Garratt, C., 48, 50, 52 Gass, S. M., 96–98, 103 Gath, K. I., 44, 109 Geffen, G. M., 61 George, J. M., 66, 132 Gerbino, M., 65, 73, 77, 86, 131, 138 Gerrig, R. J., 11 Gerstorf, D., 93 Geukes, K., 50 Ghapanchi, Z., 122, 133, 154, 157, 165 Ghoreyshi, M., 113, 125, 134, 137, 141, 142, 146, 147, 154, 158, 159, 162 Ghyasi, M., 113, 125, 135, 146, 147, 152, 153, 158, 162 Gilbert, D. T., 44 Giommi, F., 171 Gkonou, C., 99 Glick, P., 49 Gocłowska, M. A., 51, 61 Godfroid, A., 135, 138, 158, 168 Goldberg, L. R., 22, 28, 29, 36, 37, 111–115, 122, 124, 126, 127, 134, 136 Göllner, R., 86 Gollwitzer, P. M., 173 Gonda, X., 56 Goodie, A. S., 84 Goodyear-Smith, F., 71 Gosling, S. D., 91, 124, 127, 142 Gough, H. G., 37 Gouldthorp, B., 11 Gow, A. J., 37

223 Graham, E. K., 54, 119, 173 Graham, S., 54, 120, 173 Grant, A. M., 74 Gray, J. R., 59, 131 Graziano, A. M., 68, 72, 73 Graziano, W. G., 68, 70–74, 77, 78, 87, 88, 90, 160, 165 Grazioplene, R. G., 34, 35, 38, 48, 49, 52, 58, 59, 61, 64, 69, 79, 114, 119, 130, 135, 157, 158 Greene, R. L., 47 Green, M. A., 65 Green, R. G., 11 Greenwood, J., 121 Gregersen, D. T., 170, 171 Gregory, T., 61, 62, 64 Greischar, L. L., 83 Griffiths, C., 102, 131 Grob, A., 84 Gross, G. M., 42 Gross, J. J., 63, 83 Grossman, P., 170 Grotzinger, A. D., 51 Gruber, J., 50 Guan, L., 62, 65, 84 Guan, Q., 41, 62 Guenole, N., 36, 37 Gundogdu, D., 53 Gunthert, K. C., 47

H Haas, B. W., 49, 70 Habashi, M. M., 72, 73, 138 Habrat, A., 139 Hadley, J., 16 Hagemann, D., 30, 60–62 Hair, E. C., 72, 90 Hajian, M., 115, 117, 129, 136, 138, 141, 153, 157, 160 Hakimi, S., 45 Halland, E., 170 Hammer, A. L., 121, 122, 125, 148 Hampson, S. E., 22 Hankin, B., 43, 44, 109 Harden, K. P., 51 Harmon-Jones, E., 39 Harms, P. D., 81, 84, 87, 88 Harrington, R., 40 Harris, K., 82, 84, 86, 143 Harris, W. T., 16 Haselton, M. G., 43, 109 Hashemi, M., 171

224 Haslam, N., 16, 34, 35, 42, 91 Hauke, N., 49 Heath, A., 51 Heaven, P. C. L., 65 Heimpel, S. A., 52 Heincz, O., 56 Heintzelman, S. J., 85, 144 Hejazi, E., 45 Hell, B., 66 Helmreich, R. L., 167 Helzer, E. G., 53, 55 Helzer, J. F., 53, 55 Hendriks, A. A. J., 45 Hepler, J., 46 Herlache, A. D., 38 Hernández Lloreda, M. J., 60 Hernández, M. M., 76, 77, 139, 161 Hertzog, C., 66, 67 Hervás, G., 52 Herzberg, P. Y., 30 Herzhoff, K., 92 Heszen, I., 71 He, T., 114, 126, 146, 147, 152, 155, 156, 162, 163, 168 Hewstone, M., 5, 11, 16, 17 Higgins, D. M., 34, 35, 38, 48, 52, 58, 59, 61, 64, 69, 79, 114, 119, 130, 135, 157, 158 Higgins, T., 44, 109 Hilbig, B. E., 70 Hill, P. L., 92 Hiraishi, K., 71 Hiriyappa, B., 15 Hirn, J.-O. W., 66 Hirschmüller, S., 43, 109 Hirsh, J. B., 34, 69, 76, 87 Hnilica, K., 42, 108 Hofmann, W., 40 Hofmans, J., 43, 46, 56, 66, 77, 87 Hogan, R., 2, 3, 12, 15, 22 Holmes, J. G., 70 Hoover, A. E., 72, 73, 138 Horney, K., 6 Horwitz, E. K., 108 Horwitz, M. B., 108 Hough, L. M., 80 Housen, A., 129, 155, 156 Hoyle, R. H., 53, 55 Hu, C.-S., 108 Hughes, B. M., 40 Hulbert, J. C., 140, 161 Hung, L.-M., 125, 155 Hunter, S. C., 54

Author Index Hu, X., 141, 142, 146, 159, 162 Huxley, E., 64 I Iacono, W. G., 85 Ickes, W., 63 Ideno, T., 70 Infante Rejano, E., 55 Inglis, G., 54 Inozu, J., 172 Inzlicht, M., 42, 110 Ireland, M. E., 46 Isaacowitz, D. M., 73 Ishak, A., 49, 70 Ismatullina, V., 89 Ito, H., 70 Ivcevic, Z., 58, 62, 110, 131 J Jackson, D. O., 81, 82, 84, 86–88, 91, 114, 117, 135, 137, 146, 147, 152, 158, 162, 163, 165, 167, 174 Jackson, J. J., 81, 84, 86–88, 91, 114, 117, 147, 152 Jackson, S. E., 81, 84, 87, 88, 174 Jacobs, A. M., 117, 142 Jacobs, N., 90, 117, 142 Jahn, A., 38 Jakši´c, N., 56 Janelle, C. M., 44, 109 Jang, K. L., 31, 100 Jaracz, J., 44 Jaray-Benn, C., 161 Jarmu˙z, S., 31 Jauk, E., 64 Javaras, K. N., 83 Jenkins, L., 83 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., 72, 90 Jensen, M., 45, 86 Jeronimus, B. F., 44 Jetté, N., 40 Jiang, Z., 56, 119 Jilka, M., 136, 138, 141, 157 John, O. P., 2, 17, 18, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 46, 47, 50, 58, 63, 68, 79, 81, 83, 91, 92, 113, 114, 116, 118, 123–125, 127, 129, 133, 138, 143 Johnson, E. J., 54 Johnson, J. A., 37, 59, 169 Johnson, W., 93, 169 Jokela, M., 43, 63 Jonassaint, C. R., 60–62

Author Index Jopp, D. S., 66, 67 Joseph, D. L., 83 Joshi, L., 40 Judge, T. A., 38, 40, 69, 79 Juhasz, G., 56 Jung, C. G., 13

K Kabbani, R., 48, 50, 52 Käckenmester, W., 64 Kakamad, K., 25 Kammrath, L. K., 50, 73, 74, 160 Kandler, C., 89 Kane, M. J., 42 Kao, P.-C., 108, 116, 117, 129, 142, 145, 147, 153, 160, 162 Kao, P.-L., 108 Karau, S. J., 45, 76, 139 Karimzade, A., 46, 47 Kassner, M. P., 75, 139 Kati´c, M., 115, 117, 126, 134, 141, 142, 146, 147, 152, 155, 158, 159, 162 Kato, M., 70 Kato, Y., 71 Katzman, M. A., 46 Kaufman, S. B., 59, 60, 131 Kell, H. J., 173, 174 Kelly, D. R., 143 Kelly, G. A., 7 Keltner, D., 51, 62, 73, 83, 144 Kenny, A., 64 Kentle, R. L., 18, 22, 29, 37, 48, 83, 113, 116, 123–125 Kerkhof, A. J. F. M., 89 Kern, M. L., 50, 71 Khajavy, G. H., 122, 133 Khany, R., 113, 125, 127, 129, 134, 137, 141, 142, 146, 147, 154, 155, 157, 159, 162 Khodadady, E., 137, 138, 157 Kickul, J., 67 Kijima, N., 31 Killingsworth, M. A., 44 Kim, T.-Y., 144 Kim, Y.-K., 144 King, L. A., 46, 53, 66 Kirby, L. K., 121, 122, 125, 148 Kircanski, K., 45 Kirkland, T., 50 Kittredge, G. L., 16 Kiyonari, T., 71 Klimstra, T. A., 92

225 Klinger, R. L., 38, 69, 79 Klonowska, P., 44 Kodaka, F., 70 Kokkinos, C. M., 40, 174 Kokkonen, M., 42, 89 Komarraju, M., 45, 76, 82, 139 Komorowska, H., 170, 171 Konings, F. E., 46, 56, 77, 87 Koomen, H. M. Y., 76, 111, 117, 137, 166 Koot, H. M., 90 Kööts-Ausmees, L., 63 Kootstra, G. J., 99 Kormos, J., 130, 131, 158 Kotov, R., 77, 83 Kowalski, C. M., 70 Köylü, Z., 116 Kramsch, C., 98, 99, 131 Krank, M., 40 Krashen, S. D., 96, 104 Kretzschmar, A., 54 Krizan, Z., 38 Krueger, R. F., 79–83, 85, 90, 91, 144 Kruk, M., 119 Kuncel, N. R., 79–83, 85, 90, 91, 144 Kuntze, J., 50 Kuppens, P., 73 Kuritz, P., 2 Kushner, S. C., 92 Kuska, M., 42, 108 Kuyper, H., 45 Kwapil, T. R., 42

L Laakasuo, M., 43, 63 Lach, Ł., 31 Lachman, M. E., 43, 54, 109, 120 Laher, S., 33 Lahey, B. B., 41, 42, 173 Laidra, K., 45, 55 Lancee, B., 53, 63, 64, 84, 91 Lang, J. W. B., 39 Lang, K. M., 38 Langner, R., 44 Lapate, R. C., 83 Larsen, B., 71, 77 Larsen-Freeman, D. L., 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 110 Larsen, R. J., 3, 54 Lauriola, M., 154 Laursen, B., 74, 77 Lavasani, M. G., 89, 91 Lazary, J., 56

226 Leaver, B. L., 103 Lechner, C. M., 54, 120 Ledermann, T., 84 LeDoux, J., 38 Lee-Baggley, D., 46 Lee, F. K., 54, 56 Lee, K., 53, 64, 112, 166 Lejuez, C., 79–83, 85, 90, 91, 144 Le, K., 50, 90 Lelchook, A. M., 46 Lenski, A., 81, 86, 93 Léon-Carrión, J., 3 Lepri, B., 53 Lester, D., 25 Leukefeld, C., 43 Levine, C., 25 Lewis, C. A., 22 Liden, R. C., 53 Lieberman, M. D., 54 Lightbown, P. M., 96, 153 Ligthart, L., 42, 52, 63, 72, 161 Li, H., 46, 50, 65, 75, 131, 138 Lilienfeld, S. O., 62 Lim, B.-C., 37 Lindblom-Ylänne, S., 140 Lindley, L. D., 65 Li, N. P., 49 Little, B. R., 174–176 Liu, C., 154 Liu, Y., 71 Livesley, W. J., 31 Li, Y., 50, 65, 75, 131, 138 Liyanage, I., 114, 126 Locke, E. A., 40 Löckenhoff, C. E., 45, 75, 138 Lodewijks, H. G., 76, 140 Lodi-Smith, J., 81, 84, 87, 88 Loeber, R., 71 Loewen, S., 105 Long, M. H., 96–98, 102, 103, 110 Long, M. V., 93 Lonsdorf, T. B., 101 López-Gómez, I., 52 López-Serrano, S., 97 Louvet, E., 49 Love, G. D., 83 Lowie, W., 99 Lubbers, M. J., 45 Lucas, R. E., 50, 90 Luchetti, M., 54, 56, 119 Luciano, M., 61 Lüdtke, O., 81, 86, 93 Luengo Kanacri, B. P., 76

Author Index Luna, L. R., 74 Luo, Y., 41, 62 Lynam, D. R., 40 Lyness, J. M., 89 Lynskey, M., 51

M Macaskill, A., 3, 22 MacCann, C., 58 Machii, W., 71 MacIntyre, P. D., 99, 100, 109, 118, 126, 131, 139, 154–156, 161, 170–172 Madson, L., 90 Malanos, A. B., 4, 52 Malouff, J. M., 78 Maltby, D. J., 3, 22 Manalo, E., 121 Mangal, S. K., 12 Mann, F. D., 51 Maples, J. L., 62, 65, 84 Marcela, V., 65, 131 Mark, D. B., 60–62 Markee, N., 97 Marshall, E. M., 43 Martin, G. N., 42, 52, 63, 72, 161 Martin, N. G., 51 Martin, P., 41, 93 Martin, R., 41 Marusi´c, I., 60, 90 Maslach, C., 174 Maslow, A. H., 8, 9, 25 Masten, A. S., 76 Matsui, H., 70 Matsumoto, D., 89 Matthews, G., 21, 45, 54, 110, 120 Matthews, M. D., 143 Mayer, J. D., 3, 42 May, R., 8, 10 Mccarthy, D. M., 50 McCarthy, M. H., 50 McCaulley, M. H., 121, 122, 125 McCrae, R. R., 4, 8, 10, 15, 22, 28–34, 36– 40, 45, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59–61, 63, 64, 66, 68–71, 75, 79–82, 90, 91, 111– 113, 115–117, 119, 123, 124, 131, 132, 134, 136–138, 140, 141, 145, 163 McCroskey, J. C., 125 McCullough, M. E., 77 McGonigal, J., 52 McGue, M., 85 McManus, K., 116

Author Index McNaughton, N., 39 McNulty, J. K., 77 Mead, A. D., 18, 19 Meeus, W. H. J., 92 Mehl, M. R., 46, 53 Meier, B. P., 75 Meier, G. H., 50, 73–75, 77 Meier, M. E., 42 Meints, J., 79–83, 85, 90, 91, 144 Mercer, S., 98, 99, 138, 166 Merritt, M., 62 Merz, C. J., 101 Meskill, C., 144 Metsäpelto, R.-L., 63, 64 Miao, R., 96–98 Michela, J. L., 52 Mike, A., 82, 84, 86, 143 Mikels, J. A., 51 Milioni, M., 76 Mill, A., 63 Miller, D. E., 70 Miller, J. D., 62, 65, 84 Miller, N. E., 7 Miller, P. H., 7 Miller, Z. F., 135, 138, 158, 168 Millon, T., 10 Minski, P. S., 55, 109 Mirnics, Z., 56 Mischel, W., 7, 17 Mitchell, S. A., 5 Mitterer, J., 16, 17 Mobbs, D., 44 Mohamedamin, P., 25 Mohammadi, M. J., 113, 126, 146 Mohanty, R. P., 15 Mohiyeddini, C., 46 Mohr, C., 75 Molnar, E., 56 Montag, C., 74 Monzani, L., 53 Mor, N., 40 Mossop, J., 144 Most, S. B., 44, 109 Mõttus, R., 93 Moutafi, J., 54, 84 Mowen, J. C., 46 Mowrer, S. M., 38 Mrazek, M. D., 170 Muehlfeld, K., 112, 145 Mueller, S., 93 Mulalic, A., 134, 140, 146, 160 Muncer, S. J., 175 Murai, T., 70

227 Muris, P., 46 Murray, A. L., 85 Murray, D. R., 43, 85, 109 Murray, H., 6, 85 Musek, J., 175 Musson, D. M., 167 Mutlu, V., 148 Myers, I. B., 14, 121, 122, 125, 148 Myers, K. D., 121, 122, 125, 148 N Naeini, M. B., 116, 133, 140, 152, 157, 160, 167 Nagengast, B., 86 Nagy, N., 81, 86, 93 Naqvi, I., 46 Naragon-Gainey, K., 82, 83 Naumann, L. P., 18, 22, 29, 37, 48, 83, 113, 116, 123, 124 Nealis, L. J., 52–55, 119 Nechita, D., 55 Nechita, F., 55 Nejad, A. M., 127, 129, 134, 137, 155, 158 Nekljudova, S. V., 60, 61 Nel, C., 104 Nes, R. B., 52, 118 Nestler, S., 50, 120 Nettelbeck, T., 61, 64 Nettle, D., 43, 109 Neubauer, A. C., 64 Neuberg, S. L., 49 Neuman, G., 67 Newman, D. A., 83 Nezlek, J. B., 63, 131, 174 Nguyen, K., 144 Niemann, L., 170 Niggli, A., 81, 86, 93 Nikoopour, J., 115, 117, 129, 136, 138, 141, 153, 157, 160 Noels, K. A., 99, 126 Noftle, E. E., 65, 86 Noprianto, E., 125, 155 Nordstokke, D. W., 42, 51 Norlander, B., 39 Norst, M. J., 99 Novikova, I. A., 145, 147, 162 Novikov, A. L., 145, 147, 162 O Oberski, D., 90 Obonsawin, M. C., 54 Obralic, N., 134, 140, 146, 160

228 Ockey, G., 123, 129, 155, 156 Oda, R., 71 Odbert, H. S., 16, 27, 28 Ode, S., 39, 72–74 Oehlberg, K., 22 Oehler, A., 56 Oettingen, G., 173 Oishi, S., 52 Okubo, S., 70 Okubo, Y., 70 Oldehinkel, A. J., 43, 44, 109 Oltmanns, T. F., 82, 84, 86, 143 Ones, D. S., 80 Ono, Y., 31 Oommen, A. M., 40 Ormel, J., 43, 44, 109 Ortega, L., 97, 98 Oshri, A., 77 Ostendorf, F., 22, 29, 31, 32, 37, 48, 60, 83, 113, 116, 123–125 O’Súilleabháin, P. S., 40 Otero-López, J. M., 46 Owens, G., 71 Oxford, R. L., 102, 103, 110, 138, 154 Oya, T., 121, 129, 154 Ozer, D. J., 43 Oz, H., 126, 134, 141, 142, 155, 158, 159

P Paltiel, L., 54, 84, 85 Panayiotou, G., 40 Panerai, L., 42, 65, 73, 77, 86, 131, 138 Panksepp, J., 33, 74 Parikari, M., 137, 157, 167 Park, S., 114, 117, 146, 147, 152, 153, 163, 167 Parpala, A., 140 Parrigon, S., 52, 58, 59, 66, 132 Pasarica, F., 55 Pasikowski, S., 102, 103, 119 Passerini, A., 53 Patrick, P. D., 3 Patrzała, A., 44 Patten, S., 40 Patterson, M. W., 51 Pattie, A., 37 Paviˇci´c Takaˇc, V., 133, 137, 140, 143, 158, 160, 161 Pavlenko, A., 107 Pawlak, M., 102, 103, 119 Pearman, A., 73 Pedroso de Lima, M., 32, 60

Author Index Peetz, J., 73 Peiró, J. M., 53 Peleg, Y., 111 Peng, M., 40 Pennebaker, J. W., 46, 53, 66, 127, 142, 146 Penner, L. A., 11 Pérez Vidal, C., 97 Perkins, A. M., 44 Perrine, N. E., 60, 61 Pervin, L. A., 2, 37 Peters, K., 49 Peterson, C., 143, 172 Peterson, J. B., 34, 35, 38, 48, 49, 52, 58, 59, 61, 64, 69, 76, 80, 114, 119, 130, 135, 157, 158 Petrides, K. V., 42, 52, 63, 72, 154, 161 Pfeifer, J. H., 86 Phillips, D. T., 170 Piaget, J., 23–25 Pianesi, F., 53 Piasecka, L., 131 Pickering, A. D., 44 Piechurska-Kuciel, Ewa, 1, 27, 95, 109, 110, 115, 117, 118, 127, 134, 137, 144, 151, 153, 155, 158, 162, 167, 169–171, 173, 174 Piedmont, R. L., 40, 70 Pierrard, M., 122 Pintrich, P. R., 143 Pittenger, D. J., 15 Plonsky, L., 105, 165 Ployhart, R. E., 37 Pocnet, C., 42, 46 Polderman, T. J. C., 75 Ponterotto, J. G., 111, 117, 137, 166 Pooley, J. A., 11 Poon, L. W., 93 Poropat, A. E., 45, 55, 75, 86, 87 Porter, C., 63 Postareff, L., 140 Posthuma, D., 90 Potter, J., 93 Potter, J. P., 142, 147, 155, 156, 164 Pourfeiz, J., 142, 146, 157, 160, 162 Požega, D., 133, 137, 140, 143, 158, 160, 161 Preece, M., 46 Prendergast, G. P., 120 Provost, S., 11 Pulkkinen, L., 42, 63, 89 Pullmann, H., 45, 55, 90 Purnamaningsih, E. H., 52, 53, 87

Author Index Putte, K. V. D., 124, 129, 141, 143, 156, 160, 161 Q Qaracholloo, M., 113, 126, 146 Quan, H., 40 Quenk, N. L., 14 Quilty, L. C., 34, 35, 38, 48, 52, 58, 59, 61, 69, 80, 114, 119, 130, 135, 157, 158 R Radhakrishnan, P., 52 Rahmani, S., 89, 91 Ramírez-Esparza, N., 127, 142, 146, 147, 155, 156, 164 Ramírez, J. M., 142, 147, 155, 156, 164 Rammstedt, B., 54, 120 Raulin, M. L., 165 Rauthmann, J. F., 46 Realo, A., 90 Recio, G., 117, 142 Reinders, H., 172 Reiterer, S. M., 141, 142, 146, 159, 162 Remillard, L., 49, 70 Rempel, J. K., 70 Rentfrow, P. J., 93, 124 Revelle, W. R., 22, 51, 55, 100, 101, 118 Rhodes, R. E., 50 Rholes, W. S., 43 Richards, J. M., 86 Richardson, M., 86 Richmond, V. P., 125 Rieke, M. L., 19 Riemann, R., 50 Riese, H., 44, 109 Rinaldelli-Tabaton, E., 45, 85, 86, 145 Ripoll, P., 53 Ritter, S. M., 51, 61 Roberts, B. W., 16, 83, 92 Roberts, C., 79–85, 87, 88, 90–93, 100, 144 Roberts, R. D., 21, 45, 54, 120 Robinson, M. D., 39, 44, 72–75, 77, 109 Robinson, P., 44, 74, 109 Robins, R. W., 83 Robison, M. K., 44, 109 Robles, J. P., 77, 83 Rodell, J. B., 38, 69, 79 Rogers, C., 8–10, 25 Rogosch, F. A., 77 Rogulj, J., 112, 117, 124, 129, 133, 152, 155, 166, 167 Rohner, R., 50

229 Rosati, A. G., 169 Rose, N., 86 Rosenvinge, J. H., 170 Rosmalen, J. G. M., 43, 44, 109 Rossier, J., 36 Ross, M., 70 Rotkirch, A., 43, 63 Rotter, J. B., 7, 25 Rottinghaus, P. J., 65 Roy, E. J., 11 Røysamb, E., 52, 118 Rubio, F., 139 Russell, V. M., 77 Ryan, R. M., 22, 28, 98–103, 105–107, 130, 144, 163–166 Ryan, S., 22, 28, 29, 98, 100, 101, 104–107, 130, 144, 164, 165 Rybakowski, J., 44 Ryff, C. D., 83

S Sachse, P., 46 Sadowski, C. J., 75 Saef, R., 52, 58, 59, 66, 132 Šafranj, J., 111, 115, 117, 126, 134, 141, 142, 146, 147, 152, 155, 159, 162 Saklofske, D. H., 42, 55, 109 Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., 165 Salovey, P., 42 Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L., 60 Sanchez, M. M., 55 Sandal, G. M., 167 Santoro, M. S., 52–55 Santos, L. R., 169 Sarwari, A. Q., 138 Satpute, A. B., 40, 74, 110 Saville, P., 20 Saville-Troike, M., 96 Schaefer, S. M., 83 Schermer, J. A., 70 Schilling, E. A., 43 Schimmack, U., 52 Schinka, J., 36 Schmeck, R. R., 45 Schmidt, F., 77, 83 Schmidt, N. B., 77, 83 Schmidt, S., 170 Schmitt, D. P., 31, 89 Schmukle, S. C., 43, 109 Schnyder, I., 81, 86, 93 Scholer, A. A., 73, 74, 160 Schooler, J. W., 170

230 Schouten, B., 46, 56, 77, 87 Schouwenburg, H. C., 104 Schrack, J. A., 30, 61, 62 Schröder-Abé, M., 63, 131, 174 Schroth, C. A., 76, 139 Schubert, A.-L., 54 Schuler, H., 66 Schulze, R., 21, 45, 54, 120 Schutte, N. S., 78 Schütz, A., 63, 131, 174 Schwaba, T., 90, 92 Scott, K., 46 Sedikides, C., 71 Segalowitz, N., 98 Segal, Z., 170 Segel-Karpas, D., 43, 109 Seker, M., 144, 163 Selden, M., 84 Seligman, M. E. P., 172 Selinker, L., 96, 103 Selman, R. L., 23–25 Semple, S., 46 Servaas, M., 44, 109 Seubert, C. T., 46 Shaffer, D. R., 25 Shakkour, W., 111 Sharp, D., 12 Sheeran, P., 173 Sheese, B. E., 68, 72 Shergill, H. K. A. U., 3 Shiner, R. L., 71, 75, 76 Shiota, M. N., 51, 62, 71, 73, 76, 83, 144 Shirdel, T., 116, 133, 137, 140, 152, 157, 160, 167 Shi, Y., 71 Shlyakhta, D. A., 145, 147, 162 Shoda, Y., 7, 17 Siberg, R. A., 46, 56, 66, 77, 87, 119 Siegler, I. C., 60–62 Sijtsma, K., 90 Silvia, P. J., 58, 63, 131 Simms, L. J., 82, 83 Simões, A., 60 Simon, L. S., 38, 69, 79 Simons, D. J., 44, 109 Simonsick, E. M., 30, 60–62 Simons, M., 129, 141, 143, 156, 160, 161 Simpson, J. A., 69, 97 Sim¸ ¸ sek, E., 108 Skehan, P., 102–104 Skinner, B. F., 6, 25 ´ Sliwi´ nska, M., 136 Slutske, W., 51

Author Index Smallwood, J., 44 Smeekens, B. A., 42 Smillie, L. D., 48, 50, 52, 62 Smith, C. V., 63, 131, 174 Smith, G. T., 51 Smith, J. K., 91 Smith, M. M., 42, 51 Smith, T. W., 39, 51 Smits, T., 124, 141 Snowden, R., 6 Sobocko, K., 52–55 Solhaug, I., 170 Sommer, M., 64 Song, J., 16, 34, 35, 42, 91 Sörensen, S., 89 Sørlie, T., 170 Soto, C. J., 50, 81, 89, 91, 114 Spada, N., 96, 153 Specht, J., 92, 93 Speckens, A. E. M., 171 Spengler, M., 86 Spillane, N. S., 51 Spinath, F. M., 31 Spinner, P., 98 Spinrad, T. L., 40, 74, 81–83, 110 Spolsky, B., 98 Srivastava, K., 17, 28, 31, 32, 46, 47, 50, 58, 68, 79, 89–91, 93, 104, 118, 127–129, 133, 138, 143, 175 Srivastava, S., 18, 22, 29, 48, 83, 113, 116, 123 Stacy, A. W., 40 Stadelhofen, F. M. de, 36 Staiano, J., 53 Stalikas, A., 11 Stanley, L., 144 Stanley, N., 144 Stark, S., 79–83, 85, 90, 91, 144 Starren, M. B. P., 99 Steel, P., 86 Steinborn, M., 44 Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., 93 Steinmayr, R., 54 Stelmack, R. M., 11 Stephan, Y., 50, 56, 66 Stephens, C., 144 Stern, H. H., 96, 138 Steunenberg, B., 89 Stevens, C. K., 54, 56 Stiles, T. C., 61 Stock, A.-K., 87, 88 Stolarski, M., 85 Stouthamer-Loeber, M., 71

Author Index Strathan, D. B., 51 Strelau, J., 136 Suhara, T., 70 Suls, J., 41 Sun, J., 79 Surányi, Z., 56 Sutin, A. R., 54, 56, 57, 60–64, 66, 67, 119, 130, 131 Suzuki, A., 31 Svihra, M., 46 Swami, V., 60 Swann, W. B., 124 Szczepaniak, P., 136 Szymkow, A., 49

T Tabak, B. A., 74 Tabandeh, F., 143, 163 Tackett, J. L., 41, 76, 77, 139, 161 Tackman, A. M., 86 Takagi, S., 71 Takahashi, H., 70 Takano, H., 70 Takeda, M., 71 Takemoto-Chock, N. K., 28 Takemura, K., 70 Takeuchi, O., 157 Tamari, Y., 70 Tamir, M., 44, 109 Tanis, M., 56 Tassinary, L. G., 72 Tatsuoka, M. M., 19 Tatzl, D., 99 Tavris, C., 5, 6, 8, 12, 40 Taylor, A. Z., 173 Taylor, M. L., 47 Teasdale, J. D., 170 Teimouri, Y., 143, 163 Tellegen, A., 41 Tenenbaum, H. R., 130 Terracciano, A., 30, 36, 60–62 Terte, I. de, 144 Teso, S., 53 Thielmann, I., 69 Thiery, E., 90 Thomas-Wilhelm, D. J., 97 Thompson, E. R., 120 Thomson, W., 43 Thorsteinsson, E. B., 78 Tiliopoulos, N., 58, 63, 131 Tobin, R. M., 68, 70–74, 77, 160 Tracy-Ventura, N., 116, 118, 153

231 Trapmann, S., 66 Trautwein, U., 81, 86, 93 Trnka, R., 42, 108 Troyano Rodriguez, Y., 55 Tucker-Drob, E. M., 51 Tulin, M., 53, 63, 64, 84, 91 Turban, D. B., 54, 56 Turcu-Stiolic˘ ¸ a, R., 55 Twisk, J. W. R., 89 Tyssen, R., 170 U Ueki, M., 157 Unsworth, N., 44, 109 Urbig, D., 112, 145 Urzúa, S., 71 Ushioda, E., 102, 139, 144 Uziel, L., 54 V Valiente, C., 40, 68, 74, 81, 83 van Daele, S., 122, 129, 155, 156 van den Brink, W., 3 van den Hurk, P. A. M., 171 van der Molen, H. T., 50 van der Sluis, S., 90 Van der Veen, I., 76, 111, 117, 137, 166 Van Der Werf, M. P. C., 45 van der Zee, K. I., 111, 117, 137, 166 van Dijk, M., 99 van Doorn, R. R. A., 39 van Gameren, K., 46, 56, 77, 87 van Gestel, S., 90 Vanhees, C., 124, 141 Vanman, E. J., 72 van Oudenhoven, J. P., 111, 117, 137, 166 van Reekum, C. M., 83 van Schie, H. T., 171 Vassend, O., 52, 118 Vazire, S., 50, 120 Vecchione, M., 67 Vedel, A., 75, 86 Vella, S., 56 Veltkamp, G. M., 117, 118, 142 Verdolini Abbott, K., 52 Verduyn, P., 52 Verheul, R., 3 Verhoeven, L., 120, 129, 133, 145, 147, 155, 157, 162 Verhulst, F. C., 90 Vermeer, A., 120, 129, 133, 145, 147, 155, 157, 162

232 Vermetten, Y. J., 76, 140 Vermeulen, I. E., 56 Vermunt, J. D., 76, 140 Vernon, P. A., 64 Verspoor, M. H., 99 Veselka, L., 42, 52, 63, 72, 161 Viechtbauer, W., 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 90, 91 Villardefrancos, E., 46 Vincze, L., 172 Vlug, M., 46 Vohs, K. D., 101 Volker, B., 53, 63, 64, 84, 91 Voronin, I., 89 Vrani´c, A., 50 Vreeke, L. J., 46 Vukosav, Ž., 50 Vural, H., 113, 117, 124, 134, 141, 143, 145, 147, 152, 155, 158, 160, 162

W Wacker, J., 64 Wade, C., 5, 6, 8, 12, 40 Wagner, G. G., 93 Wagner, J., 93 Wahab, M. N. A., 138 Wainwright, M. A., 61 Wakamoto, N., 125, 155 Walach, H., 170 Waller, N. G., 41 Walton, K. E., 79–85, 87, 90, 91, 144 Wang, Y., 56, 119 Wastell, C. A., 65 Watson, D., 30 Wayne, S. J., 53 Weaver III, J. B., 41, 43, 109 Weber, E. U., 54 Webster, N., 16 Wedlich, F., 56 Weidmann, R., 84 Weiner, B., 47, 173 Weinstein, H. P., 70 Weisberg, Y. J., 69, 88–91 Weiss, A., 70 Weller, J., 154 Westhoff, K., 44 Whelan, D. C., 52–55 Whetstone-Dion, R., 71 Whiteman, M. C., 45, 110 Whiteside, S., 40 Widdowson, H. G., 97, 98 Widiger, T. A., 3, 31, 37, 39, 42, 108 Wiers, R. W., 40

Author Index Wilkes, F. J., 11 Wilkowski, B. M., 75 Wilk, P., 131 Williams, J. M. G., 39, 97, 102 Williams, M., 99 Williamson, R. L., 62, 65, 84 Williamson, T., 40 Williams, R. B., 60–62 Wilson, C., 61, 62, 64 Wilson, R. E., 50, 120 Wilt, J., 2, 100, 101 Wingens, T., 171 Winquist, J., 40 Witteloostuijn, A. V., 112, 145 Wood, A. M., 84 Wood, D., 81, 84, 87, 88 Woodfield, R., 45, 65, 76, 131 Wood, J. V., 52 Wood, P., 52 Woo, S. E., 58, 59, 66, 132 Wortman, J., 90 Wosinska, W., 71 Wright, M. J., 61 Wu, C.-H., 56, 119 Wu, J., 41, 62 Wynn, J. E., 52–55

X Xin, Y., 41, 62

Y Yamada, M., 70 Yamagata, S., 31 Yan, C. H., 38 Yang, S. C., 171 Yang, Z., 71 Yao, Z., 41, 62 Yazdani, M., 113, 125, 135, 146, 153 Yoo, S. H., 89 Yoshimura, K., 31 Young, D. J., 170 Young, M., 36

Z Zabel, K. L., 70 Zabihi, R., 137, 138, 157 Zajenkowski, M., 85 Zárate-Sández, G., 115, 117, 129, 153, 155 Zarevski, P., 50 Zarrett, N. R., 86, 145, 163 Zaval, L., 54

Author Index Zawadzki, B., 136 Zawodniak, J., 102, 119 Zee, M., 76, 111, 117, 166 Zeidner, M., 163 Zelenski, J. M., 52–55, 119 Zeyer, A., 161 Zhang, J., 45 Zhao, B., 44, 69 Zhao, K., 69 Zhou, J., 66, 132

233 Zhu, X., 63 Ziebertz, H., 22 Ziegler, M., 54 Zimbardo, P. G., 11 Zivlak, J., 111, 152 Zohoorian, Z., 132, 137, 157, 167 Zonderman, A. B., 30, 60–62 Zuckerman, M., 50 Zuffianò, A., 76

Subject Index

A Age differences, 27, 88 Agreeableness, aspects Compassion, 35, 68, 69, 90, 174 Politeness, 35, 68, 69, 77, 90 Agreeableness, facets altruism, 30, 69, 70, 77, 138, 160, 168 compliance, 30, 69, 71, 75–78, 138, 160, 168 modesty, 69, 71, 138, 160 straightforwardness, 30, 35, 69, 70, 138, 160, 168 tendermindedness, 30, 69, 138, 160, 168 trust, 30, 69, 138, 160, 168 Allport’s typology of traits cardinal, 16 central, 16 secondary, 17 Ambiguity tolerance, 156, 159 Approaches to personality behavioural, 95 humanistic, 4 psychoanalytic, 4 Attitudes towards foreign language learning, 136, 142 Attributions, 38, 135, 173 Authentic materials, 172 Autonomy, 23, 64, 65, 67, 115, 117, 129, 135, 136, 138–141, 153, 159–161, 170, 172

B Behavioural inhibition, 46, 110, 153 Big-Five model, 22, 27, 28, 31, 37, 59, 80, 107

Boredom, 54, 82, 119, 120, 150, 156, 158

C Character strengths, 172 Code-switching, 115, 116, 128, 153, 154, 170 Cognitive bias negative, 109 positive, 54, 119, 156 Cognitive development, stages cognitive, 23–25 concrete operational, 24 formal operational, 24 preoperational, 24 Cognitive flexibility, 57, 64, 88, 130 Communication anxiety, 112, 124, 131, 156 Communicative competence, 120, 127, 131, 133, 136, 145, 147, 155, 157, 159, 162 Conscientiousness, aspects Industriousness, 79, 91 Orderliness, 79, 91 Conscientiousness, facets achievement-striving, 85, 86, 143, 163, 168 competence, 30, 80, 81, 86, 143, 162, 163, 168 deliberation, 30, 80, 82, 85, 143, 144, 163, 168 dutifulness, 30, 80, 81, 85, 86, 91, 143, 144, 162, 163, 168 order, 30, 80, 81, 91, 143, 146, 163, 168 self-discipline, 30, 80, 82, 86, 91, 143, 146, 163, 168

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Piechurska-Kuciel, The Big Five in SLA, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7

235

236 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), 124 Creativity, 19, 35, 44, 47, 59, 60, 64, 65, 103, 128, 131, 133, 145, 157, 159, 162, 172, 174 Cultural capital, 137, 157 Cultural frame shift, 117, 142 Cultural intelligence, 65, 75, 131, 138, 150, 159, 161

D Desk yoga, 172

E Effect size, 105, 123, 165 Emotional intelligence, 42, 52, 62, 72, 83, 109, 118, 131, 144, 154, 156, 158, 161, 163 Emotional stability, 17, 28, 29, 37, 40, 42, 44, 92, 93, 110, 111, 117, 166, 173, 175 Empathy, 10, 35, 69, 74, 77, 103, 116, 138, 161, 166, 168 Extraversion, aspects Assertivenss, 48 Enthusiasm, 48 Extraversion, facets activity, 30, 49, 50, 126, 168 assertiveness, 30, 49, 50, 123, 126, 168 excitement-seeking, 30, 49, 50, 156 gregariousness, 30, 49, 50, 156 positive emotions, 30, 49, 51 warmth, 30, 49, 156 Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–Revised (EPQr), 22, 111, 112, 116, 122, 125, 128, 147, 148, 166 Eysenck’s supertraits extraversion, 19–21 Neuroticism, 20–22 Psychoticism, 21, 22

F Five-Factor Model (FFM), 15, 22, 28, 29, 31, 166 Five-Factor Theory (FFT) biological bases, 32 characteristic adaptations, 4, 33, 91 dynamic processes, 32, 33 objective biography, 32 self-concept, 32 Foreign accent, 115, 129, 155

Subject Index Foreign language enjoyment (FLE), 118, 131, 139, 144, 150, 156, 161 Foreign language speaking confidence, 113, 134, 141, 146, 147, 159, 162

G Galen’s classification, 12, 25 Gender differences, 89–91, 94, 112 General factor of personality (Big One), 175 Grade Point Average (GPA), 65, 76, 86, 137 Grit, 55, 143, 163, 172

H HEXACO Personality Inventory, 112 Hippocrates’s types, 11, 12, 25, 37

I Individual differences, 1–4, 10, 15, 20, 21, 28, 32, 42, 50, 57, 68, 69, 74, 93, 100–104, 150 Intellectual curiosity, 61, 65, 134, 158, 159, 168, 171 Intelligence crystallized, 54, 64, 85, 116, 130, 158 fluid, 54, 64, 85 Intercultural communicative competence (ICC), 131, 159 Intercultural sensitivity, 138, 161 IPIP bigfive, 36

J Jung’s types, 12, 25

L L2 knowledge explicit, 135 implicit, 135 L2 proficiency, 117, 122, 132, 133, 137, 144, 157, 159 Language anxiety, 108, 111–113, 116–118, 121, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 134, 137, 141, 142, 144, 145, 149, 150, 155, 156, 158, 160–162, 170, 174 Layers of personality biogenic, 175 idiogenic, 176 sociogenic, 175 Learner motivational self-system ideal L2 self, 157

Subject Index L2 learning environment, 103, 133, 157, 163, 172 Learning deep, 130 surface, 76, 113, 140 Learning strategies, 65, 99, 102–104, 106, 113, 114, 125, 126, 131, 134, 135, 140, 143, 144, 146, 148, 160, 162 Learning styles, 102–104, 125 Loneliness, 7, 10, 115–117, 129, 142, 145, 147, 153, 160, 162 M Mediational analysis, 133 Memory long-term, 54, 120 short-term, 121 Mental noise, 44, 47, 109 Meta-traits Plasticity, 27, 34, 58, 93 Stability, 27, 34, 37, 68, 79, 93 Mindfulness, 170, 171 Mind wandering, 44 Multilingualism, 136, 137, 156, 157 Myers-Briggs character types, 13, 25 N Need for closure, 64, 130 Need for cognition, 64, 67, 74, 75, 130, 139 Negative emotionality/negative affect, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 47, 52, 62, 73, 83, 88, 93, 108, 109, 114, 131, 139, 144, 156, 158, 160, 172 NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), 36, 37, 115, 145 NEO-PI-R, 107, 123, 165 Neurotic cascade, 41, 42, 47 Neuroticism, aspects Volatility, 34, 37, 38 Withdrawal, 34, 38, 114 Neuroticism, facets angry hostility, 38, 39, 43, 89, 108, 154, 164, 167 anxiety, 20, 30, 35, 37, 38, 40–42, 44– 46, 50, 79, 89, 108, 110–117, 121, 150, 152, 153, 155, 164, 167, 169 depression, 20, 30, 38, 89, 108, 114, 152, 167 impulsiveness, 19, 21, 30, 38, 43, 108, 154, 167 self-consciousness, 30, 35, 38, 40, 42, 89, 108, 110, 152, 153, 167

237 vulnerability, 30, 38, 40, 46, 89, 108, 110, 152, 153, 167 Neurotic social shyness, 42, 109

O Openness to experience, aspects Aesthetic Openness, 35, 58 Intellect, 28, 35, 57–59, 65, 66, 89, 130, 158 Openness to experience, facets actions, 30, 59, 61, 129, 165, 168 aesthetics, 30, 57, 59, 90, 129, 165, 168 fantasy, 30, 58, 59, 129, 168, 171 feelings, 30, 58–60, 63, 70, 90, 129, 132, 158, 165, 168, 170, 172 ideas, 30, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 75, 85, 90, 94, 129–131, 134, 140, 164, 168 values, 30, 35, 57, 61, 129, 137, 141, 158, 165, 168, 171

P PEN model, 20–22 Personology, 6 Perspective-taking, 23, 73 Phonetic convergence, 135, 136, 138, 157 Positive affect, 48, 50–53, 56, 62, 102, 118– 120, 156, 168, 170 Preparedness, 45, 110, 146, 150, 153 Pronunciation talent, 141, 142, 146, 147, 162 Prosociality, 34, 68, 71–75, 77, 78, 79, 87, 88, 138, 139, 159, 160 Psychoanalytic development, stages anal, 23 genital, 23 oral, 23 phallic, 23

R Resilience, 129, 144, 150, 154, 156, 163 Revised NEO Personality Inventory, 36, 111 Role-taking development, stages egocentric, 24 mutual, 24 self-reflective, 24 societal, 24 subjective, 24

S Self-efficacy, 2, 45, 66, 81, 83, 85, 88, 115, 117, 144, 153, 163, 170, 173

238 Self-esteem, 2, 21, 23, 24, 42, 81, 103, 109, 132, 139, 170, 175 Self-perceived proficiency, 96 Self-regulation, 8, 40, 58, 73, 86, 114, 140, 146, 150, 152, 159–163, 172, 173 16 personality factors questionnaire, 19 Social capital, 53, 63, 137, 138 Solitude, 18, 52 Speaking anxiety, 113, 124, 134, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147, 152, 158, 160, 162 T Teacher burnout, 173

Subject Index U Unpredictability, 110, 119, 130, 170

W Willingness to communicate in the foreign language (L2 WTC), 109, 115, 126, 127, 131, 133, 134, 137, 139, 141, 144, 155, 156 WOOP method, 173