The importance of individual differences in the field of second language acquisition has been established in a significant body of research (Dörnyei, 2005, 2006). Individual differences significantly influence human thinking and behavior and researchers have, thus, confirmed the relationship between the variation in language learning outcomes and various learner characteristics (Dörnyei, 2005, 2006).

As with affective factors, personality factors such as the personality traits and self-appraisal of language learners, have the potential to either facilitate or debilitate learning a second or foreign language (L2; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). Individual differences encompass a vast variety of personality factors, such as self-esteem, attributions, self-efficacy, motivation, inhibition, empathy, flexibility, language ego and aptitude, and cognitive and affective factors, such as intelligence and risk taking (Pavičić Takač & Požega, 2011). Other individual differences include personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 2004) and willingness to communicate (WTC; McCroskey & Baer, 1985).

Researchers have shown that personality factors can significantly affect language learning success (Dewaele, 2012, 2013; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Pavičić Takač & Požega, 2011). Over the last three decades, many researchers in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have investigated L2 WTC from various perspectives (MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011; MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998; Peng, 2011; Zarrinabadi, 2014). However, to the best of my knowledge, few (Ghonsooly, Khajavy, & Asadpour, 2012; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Pavičić Takač & Požega, 2011) have approached the issue from the perspective of personality traits.

Literature Review

Personality Traits and Language Learning

According to Goldberg (1992), the origin of the Big Five factor representation of personality factors can be traced to Tupes and Christal’s (1961) attempt to reanalyze the “various data sets using bipolar variables constructed by Cattell (1957)” (p. 26). The Big Five markers were later introduced by Costa and McCrae, who developed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (1985). This inventory is used to measure the five domains of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. However, the Big Five structure does not mean that differences in personality can be reduced to only five traits (John & Srivastava, 1999). Rather, these five dimensions “represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction, and each dimension includes a large number of distinct, more specific personality characteristics” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 105). These basic dimensions of personality are “the most important ways in which individuals differ in their enduring emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles” (McCrae & John, 1992, p. 175). Pervin, Cervone, and John (2005) give a complete account of the Big Five model of personality traits in their book.

Personality traits have been shown to affect L2 learning and communication. It is argued that language students with a higher level of openness to experience may perceive themselves as more well-informed and even more proficient L2 learners (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996), and – because openness to experience may trigger perceived communicative competence – also as being more competent in L2 communication (McIntyre & Charos, 1996). Similarly, extraversion has set the groundwork for social interaction and, thus, greatly decreased language anxiety (MacIntyre & Noels, 1994). Kind, helpful, and straightforward people with a higher level of agreeableness are expected to be more willing to interact with the members of the L2 community (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Pavičić Takač & Požega, 2011). MacIntyre and Charos found that agreeable and pleasant people are more likely to have pleasant contact with the target language community or international community (see also Yashima, 2002).

According to MacIntyre and Charos (1996), lower emotional stability may lead to language anxiety even though “language anxiety is not strongly related to general trait anxiety, which would be reflected in a lack of emotional stability” (p. 11). However, L2 learning anxiety has the potential to affect L2 communication through the mediating effect of the integrativeness construct as a motivational variable. In contrast, Dewaele (2013) found a significant correlation between neuroticism (a proxy for trait anxiety) and foreign language anxiety, suggesting that participants with high neuroticism have a significantly higher level of foreign language anxiety, and vice versa. This contradicts some researchers (e.g., MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991), who stated that language anxiety is independent of trait anxiety. Finally, well-organized, self-disciplined, and persevering individuals may learn in a more systematic manner, because conscientious and hard-working students may exhibit “better cognitive processing of language instruction” (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996, p. 11).

Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language

L2 WTC as an individual difference variable is defined 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). MacIntyre et al. (1998) developed a L2 WTC model with various linguistic, communicative, and social psychological variables that may influence one’s communicative behavior in learning a L2. As with personality traits, L2 WTC is recognized as “a composite identity variable that draws together a host of learner variables that have been well-established as influences on second language acquisition and use, resulting in a construct in which psychological and linguistic factors are integrated in an organic manner” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 210).

According to McCroskey and Richmond (1987), WTC evolved from three concepts: unwillingness to communicate, predispositions toward verbal behavior, and shyness. The WTC construct developed by McCroskey and Baer (1985) is essentially considered to be an enduring personality-based trait-like predisposition that does not change across contexts and receivers. Indeed, WTC was originally developed to characterize one’s trait-like personality in first language communication. McCroskey and Baer referred to trait level WTC as a learner’s stable personalities or “enduring influences” that represent no fluctuations across different contexts. Similarly, McCroskey and Richmond argued that WTC is “a personality-based traitlike predisposition which is relatively consistent across a variety of communication contexts and types of receivers” (p. 134).

L2 WTC has been recognized as a situational or state-level construct which is transient and open to change across situations (MacIntyre et al., 1998) as it involves the unstable variables of an individual’s L2 proficiency and communicative competence. L2 competence level “can range from almost no L2 competence (0%) to full L2 competence (100%)” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 546). However, MacIntyre, Babin, and Clément (1999) found that trait and situational level L2 WTC are complementary rather than being mutually exclusive. The former serves as a preparatory influence in L2 communication milieu, and the latter empowers L2 users to initiate communication within a specific context. I have used this finding, in which WTC is viewed as a composite construct encompassing both stable and unstable influences, as the operational definition of the WTC construct in this study.

It is now beyond dispute that the WTC construct is central to an individual’s L2 communication and language proficiency. MacIntyre and Charos (1996) asserted that WTC captures the implications that communication apprehension, introversion, extraversion, reticence, and shyness have for communicative behavior. There are many factors directly and indirectly influencing an individual’s WTC in the target language. These factors, or antecedents, of L2 WTC, which play a significant role in successful language learning and L2 communication, include introversion, self-esteem, communication competence, communication apprehension, and cultural diversity (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). Zarrinabadi (2014) found that teachers’ wait time, error correction, decision on the topic, and support exert influence on learners’ WTC.

The Present Study

Personality traits and WTC are interrelated as they both fall within the individual differences domain of human behavior. To my knowledge, there is little research on the relationship between L2 WTC and personality traits and their contribution to second language communication in both a worldwide foreign language learning context and in a Turkish context. Therefore, in this study I examined the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and WTC in an English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom. In addition, I focused on how these concepts can be explained by gender constraints and age differences within Turkish society. Thus, I proposed the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What are EFL learners’ perceived levels of WTC in a second language?
Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between personality traits and WTC in EFL?
Research Question 3: Do differences in gender, age, and academic achievement affect personality traits and WTC in EFL?

Method

Participants

Participants were enrolled in a preservice EFL teacher education program at a major state university in Turkey. The university students (N = 168; female: 110, 65.5%; male: 58, 34.5%) participated voluntarily and gave consent for data collection. They ranged in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 19.87, SD = 0.95).

Procedure

I used a quantitative research design and survey methodology to collect data. Participants provided perceptions of their personality traits, L2 WTC, and socio-demographic characteristics.

Measures

The Willingness to Communicate (WTC) Scale (McCroskey & Richmond, 2013) was used to assess the participants’ tendency to initiate or avoid communication. Participants indicated the percentage of times they would choose to communicate in each type of situation, from 0 (never) to 100 (always). The internal consistency of the scale was α = .92.

The 50-item version of Goldberg’s (2001) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), which was used to assess the Big Five personality traits, consists of 10 items for each item. Participants rated how well the items described them on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very inaccurate to 5 = very accurate. The internal consistency of the five subscales ranged from α = .85 to α = .93.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages, and means) were used to characterize the participants’ perceived levels of personality traits and L2 WTC. Independent-samples t test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine if differences in gender, age, and academic achievement affected L2 WTC. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive power of personality traits vis-à-vis L2 WTC.

Results

Descriptive statistics results revealed that while 20% of the participants had high L2 WTC, and 14% had low L2 WTC, 66% had a moderate level of L2 WTC. In addition, when communicating with strangers, 44% of the participants reported a high level of L2 WTC, 6.5% low L2 WTC, and 49.5% moderate L2 WTC. Furthermore, there was a moderate correlation between the stranger dimension and extraversion. This suggests that nearly 16% of the variance in desire to talk to strangers can be predicted by extraversion. Conversely, when talking to an acquaintance, 8% of participants had high L2 WTC, and 15% had low L2 WTC. Similarly, when communicating with friends, 8.5% of the participants stated that they felt comfortable (high L2 WTC), 29% had low L2 WTC, and 62.5% had a moderate level of L2 WTC.

Pearson correlation coefficients revealed statistically significant positive correlations between extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and L2 WTC. On the basis of the effect size indices proposed by Cohen (1988), there was a strong correlation for extraversion, a moderate correlation for openness to experience, and slight correlation for agreeableness. However, no significant relationship was found between neuroticism, conscientiousness, and L2 WTC (see Table 1).

Extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience emerged from the multiple regression analysis results as predictors of L2 WTC, together accounting for 32.1% of the variance, R² = .321, F(1, 167) = .49.02, p < .01. Extraversion was the strongest predictor, followed by openness to experience (see Table 2).

Pearson correlation coefficients also showed statistically significant positive correlations between extraversion (r = .17, p < .05), agreeableness (r = .31, p < .01), conscientiousness (r = .27, p < .01), and academic achievement. Moreover, on the basis of the effect size indices (Cohen, 1988), agreeableness was moderately correlated with academic achievement, r < .49, and the other two significant personality traits had a slight correlation with academic achievement (r < .29). Likewise, there was a significant correlation between academic achievement and L2 WTC (r = .27, p < .01), suggesting a small significant effect size (r < .29).

The results also demonstrated significant differences between male and female students in their scores for agreeableness, t(166) = 2.49, p < .05, and emotional stability, or neuroticism, t(166) = -2.10, p < .05, with females having higher mean scores (M = 38.48, SD = 5.79) than males (M = 36.25, SD = 5.05) in agreeableness, and males scoring higher (M = 28.95, SD = 6.28) than females (M = 26.95, SD = 5.64) in neuroticism. With regard to L2 WTC, although no differences were obtained between groups, males had higher scores for L2 WTC (M = 68.34, SD = 15.47) than did females (M = 66.27, SD = 16.28). Finally, the one-way ANOVA results revealed no significant differences between participants’ scores in L2 WTC according to age and academic performance differences.

Discussion

The findings in this study indicated a satisfactory level of L2 WTC among students majoring in EFL. These results are not consistent with those of Pavičić Takač and Požega (2011), who, using a survey methodology, examined the relationship between personality traits, WTC, and oral proficiency of 324 secondary school EFL learners, aged between 15 and 17 years, in Croatia. They found only 12.04% of higher L2 WTC. It is interesting that the participants in their study were more willing to communicate with strangers than with their acquaintances and friends. This indicates that they do not feel confident in one-to-one communication with their friends, teachers, and those who are more familiar to them.

The results also revealed positive correlations between three components of personality traits, that is, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and L2 WTC. That extraversion and openness to experience were the strongest predictors of L2 WTC, indicates that students who are extraverted or sociable, talkative, person-oriented, and friendly as well as curious and creative are more willing to communicate in a L2. Likewise, those who are good-natured, trusting, helpful, and straightforward also show a stronger tendency toward L2 WTC. This also implies that agreeableness and openness to experience have a bearing on L2 WTC and greatly contribute to L2 learning. Unlike Dewaele (2013), who found a significant link between foreign language classroom anxiety and neuroticism (sharing between 9% and 25% of variance), in this study no significant relationship was found between neuroticism and L2 WTC. That is, communication anxiety or apprehension among L2 students is not reinforced by lack of emotional stability. This result, to some extent, validates that of MacIntyre and Charos (1996), who found a significant path from emotional stability to integrativeness, suggesting that people with less anxiety are more willing to integrate with L2 community. However, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) concluded that the social and communicative demands of L2 interaction, and not predisposition to anxiety, drive language anxiety.

These findings are consistent with those of Pavičić Takač and Požega (2011), that there were significant positive correlations between personality traits (except for neuroticism and conscientiousness) and L2 WTC. Ghonsooly et al. (2012) found that openness to experience indirectly influences L2 WTC through the mediation of attitude toward the international community.

Other individual difference variables, such as gender and age, had no significant relationship with willingness or unwillingness to communicate. However, participants’ academic achievement was linked with neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. In other words, there is a significant relationship between neuroticism, agreeableness, and academic achievement, and it can be concluded that some personality traits are potentially liable to moderate L2 WTC, educational outcomes, and quality language learning.

Overall, I demonstrated the links between personality traits and second or foreign language communication. Learners who are interested in interpersonal interaction and have a tolerance for, and a willingness to explore, unfamiliar thoughts and feelings, will probably be willing to interact with others. On the other hand, it can be assumed that learners who are reserved, sober, task-oriented, conventional with narrow interests, and uncooperative are less willing to engage in L2 communication with their friends, teachers, and acquaintances.

Therefore, notwithstanding the generalizability limitations of sample size and setting, the strength of this study is in its valuable theoretical and practical implications for language teachers and researchers. When the stability of personality traits across ages is taken into consideration, the correlations of extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness with L2 WTC levels suggest that they are very likely be linked with other areas of L2 learning, such as oral proficiency and speaking skills. Therefore, from a classroom management perspective, it seems logical to take personality trait rankings into account when placing students in a L2 communication classroom.

From a pedagogical perspective, it is important for language teachers to consider the dominant personality traits of their students and their psychological readiness to communicate in a L2, when adopting their teaching methods, classroom techniques, and strategies. It is also important when assessing students’ performance, because it is beyond dispute that some students are reticent and others are more willing to speak in a L2 classroom. Therefore, language teachers should adopt strategies, techniques, and approaches in their practical teaching to address students’ individual differences and personality traits. For example, to create student confidence in speaking English, teachers should provide plenty of speaking opportunities in the classroom. Lack of practice in speaking may hinder students from perceiving themselves to be proficient and competent speakers of English. In light of these findings, further research is needed to investigate the issue of L2 WTC using other variables that are interrelated with personality traits and may have the potential to affect L2 WTC. A larger sample size and use of mixed-method research designs are also recommended.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Learner internal psychological factors. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 159-179). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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, 670-684. http://doi.org/t9x

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68. http://doi.org/b8s5fb

Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. (2012). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian non-English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 197-211. http://doi.org/t9z

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. http://doi.org/cd8

Goldberg, L. R. (2001). International Personality Item Pool. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1AfXuFc

Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on individual differences: From premise to practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

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 (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.

MacIntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clément, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47, 215-229. http://doi.org/bstqhx

MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81-96. http://doi.org/ckhp25

MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26. http://doi.org/b3xstm

MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562. http://doi.org/bk63vg

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-117. http://doi.org/bnzhf8

MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Communication apprehension, perceived competence, and actual competence in a second language. Paper presented at the 55gh Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Penticton, BC, Canada.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587-596. http://doi.org/fk9h3s

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. http://doi.org/b3vtj3

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO, USA.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate and interpersonal communication. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2013). Willingness to communicate (WTC). Measurement instrument database for the social science. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1rZgalB

O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971-990. http://doi.org/frs6ct

Pavičić Takač, V., & Požega, D. (2011). Personality traits, willingness to communicate and oral proficiency in English as a foreign language. In L. Pon, V. Karabaliş, & S. Cimer (Eds.), Applied linguistics today: Research and perspectives (pp. 67-82). Berlin, Germany: Lang.

Peng, J.-E. (2011). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203-213. http://doi.org/t96

Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66. http://doi.org/bh4g2f

Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288-295. http://doi.org/t97

Huseyin Oz, Department of English Language Teaching, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara 06800, Turkey. Email: hoz@hacettepe. edu.tr