Personality Preferences and Foreign Language Learning

Author(s): Raymond Moody

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 389-401
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language
Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/327751
Accessed: 10/12/2008 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
Personality Preferences
Language Learning
RAYMOND MOODY
University of Hawaii
SOMETIMES A WRITER CAN MAKE A POINT
most effectively when the reader participates
actively. With this in mind, the adventurous
reader is invited to join in. The reason will be
explained later. Less venturesome readers may
skip the next paragraph.
On a piece of paper, please write with theother
hand,your name, streetaddress,city, state, zip.
Stop here and do this much. Still with theother
hand, write: 1) one word describing how you
feel writing with that hand; and 2) one word
describing the quality of your work.
The faculty of the University of Hawaii at
Manoa has decided to require one year of a for-
eign language for all students beginning in
1988. Those entering in 1989 will be required
to complete two years before graduation. "All
students" includes not only those of arts and sci-
ences but also those of the professional schools,
including business, education, engineering,
nursing, social work, and tropical agriculture.
None of these professional schools has ever re-
quired a foreign language.
This paper reports a preliminary analysis of
data aimed at finding out what new learning
and teaching strategies these new students will
require. The primary focus is on personality,
the characteristic ways in which people respond
to the world and the ways they prefer to learn.
Although some relationships between personal-
ity and language learning have been explored,
apparently no previous study has sought to
compare the approaches of language learners
with those of other disciplines.
The effect of personality on language learn-
ing has been studied a number of times.2 For
example, Rossier found a positive correlation
TheModernLanguageJournal, 72, iv (1988)
0026-7902/88/0004/389 $1.50/0
?1988 TheModernLanguageJournal
and Foreign
between extraversion and oral fluency in Eng-
lish. Outgoing people get higher ratings. Such
announcements, while interesting, do not tell
the teacher who stands in front of a classroom
full of students specifically what teaching strate-
gies may help introverts succeed too.
Personality is important because personality
traits make a difference in how people learn and
what they learn (McCaulley & Natter; Myres
& Myres). Further, much of one's personality
is considered to be genetically determined
(Barron). Estimates range from fifty to eighty
percent. While habits may change, the funda-
mentals of personality do not.
For language teachers this means that dif-
ferent students perceive the world and inter-
pret it in basically different ways. As a result,
different students given the same presentation
may respond very differently, and these ways of
responding may be fundamentally unchange-
able. For this reason, one cannot expect a stu-
dent to adapt to the instructor. Rather, the in-
structor must design approaches that will take
advantage of the student's unique talents.
This report first outlines one measure of per-
sonality, the Myres-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) and reviews the relationship of its four
scales to research on learning. The report then
describes the personality types of 491 first- and
second-year students of French, German, and
Spanish at the University of Hawaii to see how
they compare with a large sample of college stu-
dents. The language students are also com-
pared with three specific groups: students of sci-
ence, engineering, and business. This analy-
sis will suggest what kinds of teaching problems
may be expected when a more diverse group
of students arrives in the classroom to complete
the new university requirement.
The MBTI is designed to measure differences
on four bi-polar scales: Extraversion-Introver-
sion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and
390 Raymond Moody

Judging-Perceiving. The first scale is familiar

to most people. Extraverts (E) tend to be out- FIGURE I
MBTI Scale Description
going. Their interests flow exuberantly to the
outer world of actions, objects, and persons. In
Extraverts Introverts
contrast, Introverts (I) are more restrained,
Oriented to the outer Oriented to the inner
focusing mainly on the inner world of concepts world world
and ideas.
Focusing on people, Focusing on ideas,
The Sensing-Intuition scale deals with how things, and action concepts, inner impres-
a person prefers to perceive the world, either sions
through the five senses, paying attention to the Using trial and error Considering deeply before
with confidence acting
concrete, real, solid facts of experience (Sens-
Scanning the environment Probing inwardly for
ing, S), or by concentrating on abstract possi- for stimulation stimulation
bilities, meanings, and relationships (Intuition,
N). Sensing Intuitive
The third scale, Thinking-Feeling, measures
Perceiving with the five Perceiving with memory
how a person likes to make judgments or deci- senses and associations
sions regarding the information he acquires in Attending to practical Seeing patterns and
the form of sensory data and ideas. Thinking and factual details meanings
In touch with the physical
(T) types tend to be objective and impersonal. Seeing possibilities
realities
They analyze facts and order them in terms of
cause and effect. A Feeling person (F), on the Attending to the present Projecting possibilities for
moment the future
other hand, bases decisions on a subjective and
Confining attention to Imagining; "reading be-
personal weighting of values, on the importance what is said and done tween the lines"
of the choice for himself or herself and for Seeing "little things" in Looking for the big picture
others. everyday life
The fourth scale assesses how a person pre- Attending to step-by-step Having hunches; "ideas out
fers to live by Judging (J), that is, in a planned, experience of nowhere"
Letting "the eyes tell the Letting "the mind tell the
orderly way, seeking to regulate and control mind" eyes"
events, or by Perceiving (P), that is, in a
flexible, spontaneous way, aiming to under- Thinking Feeling
stand and adapt to events.
Using logical analysis Applying personal priorities
Figure I, adapted from Lawrence (22), sum- Using objective and Weighing human values
marizes the major features of each scale. impersonal criteria and motives, my own
Normal people do all of these things. For ex- and others
ample, we all have to collect facts (Sensing) in Drawing cause and effect Appreciating
order to have something to put together in the relationships
Being firm-minded Valuing warmth in rela-
form of ideas (Intuition). Sometimes we like to
tionships
be out in the world directly involved with Prizing logical order Prizing harmony
people, doing things (Extraverting). Other Being skeptical Trusting
times we want to pull back and be alone with
our own thoughts (Introverting). We are not Judging Perception
cut off from operating on one side or another. Using thinking or feeling Using sensing or intuitive
Rather, we tend to prefer one pole of each scale. judgment outwardly perception outwardly
Our approach to the world is comparable to Deciding and planning Taking in information
handedness. Most of us prefer the right hand Organizing and schedul- Adapting and changing
ing
for most things, but that does not mean we can- Curious and interested
Controlling and regulat-
not use the left hand at all. We are simply better ing
at most things with one hand than with the Goal oriented Open-minded
other. The four personality scales work in much Wanting closure, even Resisting closure to obtain
the same way. when data are incom- more data
plete
Myres shows that personality has a substan-
tial impact on achievement independent of apti-
tude. In some instances, personality makes as IQ (Myres & McCaulley). Schurr and Ruble
much difference in grade point average as does note that personality differences of college fresh-
Personality Preferences and Language Learning 391

men account for about forty points on the SAT

FIGURE II
exam and about ten percentile points on high
Learning Preferences Associated with Dimensions
of MBTI Type
school ranking. Lawrence (23) reviews the
studies on the MBTI and learning. Figure II,
Extraversion Introversion compiled primarily from Lawrence (23) and
Specific facts Ideas, relationships Morgan, cited in Lawrence (24), summarizes
Spontaneous action the major findings.
Thinking, depth of con-
centration Based on previous research with the MBTI,
Examples first Rule first we can make some predictions about the learn-
Talking, discussion, with Reading/verbal reasoning ing preferences of language students. Since lan-
a group
Social interaction guage involves the manipulation of words, sym-
Work alone
Oral tests Written tests bols, and abstractions, we would expect lan-
Practical application Concepts guage study to attract more Intuitive types
Psychomotor activity than Sensing types. To the extent that language
learning involves abstract rules and logical
Sensing Intuition analysis, one is more likely to find more Think-
Real, concrete, tangible Meanings, words, symbols, ing types than Feeling types populating lan-
abstractions guage classrooms. No predictions are made
Uncomplicated Complex concerning Extraversion-Introversion and
Tasks that call for care- Tasks that call for quick-
ness of insight and see- Judging-Perception.
fulness, thoroughness,
and soundness of ing relationships
understanding THE METHOD
Going step-by-step Finding own way in new
material, discovery Subjects. Students and instructors at all levels
Observing specifics Flashes of insight of French, German, and Spanish were invited
Rule-example with many Enough examples to get to participate. Two deans of the college also
variations the principle
volunteered. A total of 561 students completed
Memory of facts, details Grasping general concepts
Practical interests the MBTI, of which 497 were at the first- and
Imagination, possibilities
Performance, motor Intellectual interests (inde- second-year levels. Most were completing the
spatial intelligence pendent of aptitude- language requirement in the College of Arts
intelligence) and Sciences, where all BA degrees require at
Reading least one year of a language. A few were lan-
Objective choice tests Timed, essay tests, theory
guage majors.
To insure that the analysis would be as accu-
Thinking Feeling
rate as possible, students who omitted ten or
Objective Subjective
more answers on the MBTI were excluded. Six
Logical, systematic Value, merit
organization students were dropped, two from Spanish, four
Learning through personal
relationships from German, none from French, leaving a
Skeptical, critical Harmony, friendship total of 491.
Math, science, technical Social awareness The Instrument. The Myres-Briggs Type Indi-
skill
cator was selected to assess personality. Widely
used in colleges and business, it produces results
Judging Perceiving
Decisive usually quite meaningful to the taker (Carska-
Curious
Work in steady, orderly Work in flexible way, don, 9), and shows unique distributions for
way follow impulses, free- many other disciplines (Myres & McCaulley).
wheeling Test-retest reliability coefficients for Form G
Formalized instruction, Informal problem solving calculated for continuous scores on each MBTI
structure scale separately for each sex ranged from .48
Prescribed tasks Discovery tasks to .87 with a median of .82 (Carskadon,
Drive toward closure, 10).
Managing emerging Procedure. The MBTI was administered by the
completing problems teachers on a day of their choice, in class. A
Play by ear
Duty, application Go with the flow print-out describing the participant's personal-
On time Still open to more data ity as well as some features of their general ap-
proach to learning was returned to them the fol-
392
lowing week (Myres & McCaulley; McCaulley
& Natter). The chi square test or, when a cell
frequency was zero, Fisher's exact probability
test was used to analyze the results.
RESULTS
Table I compares the distribution of 491 lan-
guage students with a sample of 18,592 general
college students and includes people both below
and above twenty-five years of age to match the
language students as closely as possible (Myres
& McCaulley: pp. 46, 48).
In Table I, the main panel displays in four-
letter symbols the sixteen possible personality
"
types. "N = indicates the number of language
students in each category. The vertical bars
provide a graphic representation of the percent-
age. One bar equals one percent. The italicized
I stands for the Selection Ratio Index
(McCaulley, 27). This ratio compares the per-
centage of respondents in two groups. When
I is one, the percentage in each group is the
same. When I is less than one, the proportion
is smaller in this group than in the comparison
group. When I is larger than one, the propor-
tion in this group is larger than in the compari-
son group. The panel at the right shows the
percentages of various combinations of type
and the corresponding Selection Ratio Indices.
Table I provides two important pieces of in-
formation. First, language students come in all
sixteen types, though the percentages falling
within each differ considerably. The most
popular single personality type is in the third
column, third row, ENFP, with about eleven
percent of the language students. The least
popular are ESFP and ISFP, with about three
percent and two percent, respectively.
Second, the table shows the percentage of
each type among language students compared
with the percentage among general college stu-
dents. Although the language students divide
about evenly on each scale (see right panel),
they differ significantly from the large college
sample.
In the main panel, the top-right corner under
INTJ, the Selection Ratio Index, I, is 2.12. A
little over twice as many INTJs are among the
language students as there are in the general
college sample. Just below, under INTP, lan-
guage students number two and one-third times
as many. In fact, the proportion of NTs study-
RaymondMoody
ing language (all down the fourth column) is
almost double that of the general college
sample. Twenty-nine percent of these language
students are Intuitive-Thinkers (see NT in the
right panel).
Conversely, there are fewer students under
ISFJ. Looking down the SF column, one sees
Selection Ratio Indices around .50. Among the
language students, Sensing-Feeling types make
up only about half the percentage we find in
the college sample. (See SF in the right panel.)
In the first column, the STs (Sensing-Thinking
types), the Selection Ratio Indices are close to
one, except for the last, ESTJ, which we shall
consider later. The proportion of Sensing-
Thinking types is almost the same for language
students and the college sample. In the third
column, the NFs (Intuitive-Feeling types), the
Ratios are a little larger than one. Actually NFs
make up about thirty percent of the language
students and constitute a significantly larger
proportion than appears in the general sample.
The asterisks indicate that the differences be-
tween language students and general college
students are probably not accidental but more
likely mark a true difference. The probability
that these differences are due to random varia-
tion is less than five in a hundred or better.
Turning to the four MBTI scales, the right
panel shows that Extraverts and Introverts are
fairly evenly divided (51-49) and differ signifi-
cantly from the general sample. The Selection
Ratio Index of 1.15 for Introverts shows that
language students are more often of this type
than are general college students. Language
students favor Introversion; the wider popula-
tion favors Extraversion. The fourth pair, the
Judgers and Perceivers, are also fairly evenly
divided and show a similar difference. Lan-
guage students tend to favor Perception while
the larger sample contains more Judgers.
As we have already noted, language study
tends to attract far more Intuitives than Sen-
sors, about one and a half times more than
might be expected, just reversing the pattern
in the college sample.
Finally, the third pair, T-F, shows that lan-
guage students, though almost equally divided,
tend to favor Thinking over Feeling more often
than the college sample.
In summary, language students differ from
the large college sample in two major ways:
First, there are many more Intuitive types and,
PersonalityPreferencesand Language Learning 393

TABLE I
MBTI Type Distribution of First- and Second-Year Language Students Compared with General College Sample

N = 491
% I
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
E 49 0.88**
N= 49 N = 30 N=27 N=31 I 51 1.15**
I= 1.17 I=0.60** I= 1.54* I=2.12***
11111 IIIII illII S 41 0.68***
Il I N 59 1.49***
T 52 1.31***
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP F 48 0.80***
N =22 N= 11 N =40 N =4 J 51 0.90*
I=1.15 1= 0.39*** I= 1.42* I= 2.34*** P 49 1.13*
1111 11 11111
III IJ 28 1.10
IP 23 1.22*
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP EP 26 1.05
EJ 23 0.74***
N= 18 N=17 N = 56 N = 36
= 0.99 I=0.51** I= 1.14 1= 1.79*** ST 23 0.92
1111 i1 IIII! till' SF 18 0.51***
11111 II
I NF 30 1.21**
NT 29 1.98***
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ SJ 27 0.68***
SP 14 0.69***
N = 26 N= 29 N =25 N=34
I= 0.57** I= 0.48*** I=0.90 I= 1.75*** NP 35 1.50***
1111 11111 IIIII 11111 NJ 24 1.47***
I 11
TJ 28 1.15
TP 24 1.56***
***p<.001 FP 25 0.89
**p< .01 FJ 23 0.71***
*p<.05
IN 28 1.78***
EN 31 1.30***
IS 23 0.80**
ES 18 0.57***
= 1%, I= selection ratio index, I = Introvert, E = Extravert, S = Sensing, N = Intuitive, F = Feeling, T = Thinking,
J =Judging, P = Perception.
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. See text for further explanation.

conversely, fewer Sensing types. Second,
Thinking types outnumber Feeling types.
Minor differences slightly favor Introverts and
Perceptives.
According toJung's theory, the high number
of Intuitive and Thinking types is just what one
should expect. Intuitives like to manipulate
symbols and words, i.e., language. Further-
more, a large number of language textbooks
consist mainly of a collection of rules and drills.
Language learning for many people involves
applying rules in a more or less logical manner,
precisely what Thinking types do best.
This analysis shows the kind of students, in
terms of personality, who are presently study-
ing a second language. The majority prefers to
focus on words and abstractions in ways that
may be quite complex and to follow logical pro-
cesses of reasoning. These results are consistent
with other studies of personality and language
learning (see Bartz; Boylan; Cavanaugh; Ehr-
man & Oxford; Ely; Lalonde & Gardner;
394 Raymond Moody
TABLE II
MBTI Type Distribution of Science Students Compared with First- and Second-Year Language Students

N = 705
% I
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
E 38 0.77***
N=39 N=12 N = 44 N=128 I 62 1.22***
= 0.55** = 0.28*** I=1.13 I= 2.88***
11111 II 11111 11111 S 17 0.41***
I I 11111 N 83 1.41***

IIII T 69 1.32***
F 31 0.65***
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP J 49 0.95
P 51 1.05
N=18 N=15 N= 58 N=123
= 0.57 I= 0.95 I= 1.01 I= 2.14*** IJ 32 1.13
ll II IIII' IIIII IP 30 1.32**
III
Hll EP 21 0.81*
II EJ 17 0.74**
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ST 12 0.50***
SF 5 0.29***
N=12 N=1 N=55 N = 79
= 0.46* 1=0.04*- I=0.68* I= 1.53* NF 26 0.87
11 I
IlII IIIII
IllI
NT 57 1.99***
III 1111I
SJ 10 0.37***
SP 7 0.47***
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ NP 45 1.28***
NJ 39 1.62***
N=13 N=8 N=27 N=73
I= 0.35*** I=0.19*** 1=0.75 I= 1.50* TJ 36 1.26**
II I II1 Ill' TP 33 1.39***
liIi
FP 18 0.72**
FJ 13 0.57***
***p<.001
**p<.01 IN 50 1.78***
*p <.05 EN 33 1.08
*_ indicates Fisher's exact probability. IS 12 0.52***
ES 5 0.26***

I= selection ratio index, I = Introvert, E = Extravert, S = Sensing, N = Intuitive, F = Feeling, T = Thinking,

I= 1%,
J =Judging, P = Perception.
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. See text for further explanation.

Wesche; Westcott). What Jung's theory predicts
is exactly what was found. The implication is
that the new students may differ considerably
from those now in language classes. Thus, we
must examine their personality types too. A
comparison of language students with three
groups -scientists, engineers, and business stu-
dents-provides a new perspective.
Table II compares students of science and
language (Myres & Myres: p. 43).
Most science students appear in column
four; most are Intuitive-Thinking types. In fact,
in the top-right corner, INTJ, the Selection
Ratio Index is 2.88. Almost three times more
INTJs are interested in science than in lan-
guage, and language students are strongly rep-
resented here in the first place. (Many language
students major in other subjects, including sci-
ence, and complete the college language re-
quirement.) The right panel shows where the
major differences lie between these two groups.
First, while language students are evenly
divided between Extraversion and Introver-
sion, students majoring in science include many
Personality Preferencesand Language Learning 395
TABLE III
MBTI Type Distribution of Engineering Students Compared with First- and Second-Year Language Students

N = 7062
% I
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
E 45 0.92
N = 995 N = 339 N = 268 N = 765 I 55 1.07
I= 1.41* I=0.79 1= 0.69 I= 1.72**
ll 11111 1111 S 47 1.15**
11111i 11111 N 53 0.89**
1111
1111i I
T 70 1.34***
F 30 0.63***
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
J 61 1.20***
N = 374 N=197 N = 343 N = 581 P 39 0.79***
I= 1.18 I= 1.25 I= 0.60** I= 1.01
11111 III 1111l 11111 IJ 34 1.20*
III IP 21 0.92
EP 17 0.67***
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP EJ 28 1.20*
N = 264 N= 156 N= 321 N = 487 ST 34 1.45***
I= 1.02 I= 0.64 I= 0.40*** I=0.94 SF 14 0.76**
1111 11 1111
II NF 17 0.55***
NT 36 1.25**
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ SJ 33 1.22**
SP 14 1.01
N = 760 N = 261 N= 246 N = 705
I= 2.03*** I= 0.63* I=0.68 I= 1.44* NP 25 0.70***
11111 11|1 II 11111 NJ 28 1.18*
11111
I TJ 46 1.60***
TP 24 1.02
***p< .001 FP 14 0.57***
**p<.01 FJ 16 0.70***
*p<.05
IN 28 0.99
EN 25 0.81**
IS 27 1.18*
ES 20 1.11
= 1%, I = selection ratio index, I = Introvert, E = Extravert, S = Sensing, N = Intuitive, F = Feeling, T = Thinking,
J = Judging, P = Perception.
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. See text for further explanation.

Introverts, almost two to one (right panel,
62/38). Second, science students include many
more Intuitives, better than four to one. Third,
Thinking types outnumber Feeling types about
two to one, much more than the current lan-
guage students. Fourth, science students are as
evenly divided as language students with regard
to Judging and Perception. The paired com-
bination in which the science students differ
most from language students is NT, logical in-
genious types. The Selection Ratio Index shows
that the proportion of science students is about
twice that of language students. Conversely, the
ES category attracts only a quarter as many
from science as from language.
In general, the personality traits that sepa-
rate language students from the general college
sample are more strongly emphasized among
students of science.
A new kind of student who will have to meet
the new language requirement is the engineer-
ing major. Table III compares language stu-
dents with engineers (Thomas).
A global view of the Table shows that engi-
396 Raymond Moody
TABLE IV
MBTI Type Distribution of Business Students Compared with First- and Second-Year Language Students

N = 488
% I
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
E 70 1.43***
N = 44 N=19 N= 1 N=13 I 30 0.58***
I= 0.90 I=0.64 I= 0.04*** I= 0.42**
III III S 72 1.75***
IIII N 28 0.48***
T 69 1.32***
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP F 31 0.66***
N = 35 N=7 N=11 N=15 J 53 1.03
I= 1.60 I= 0.64 I= 0.28*** I= 0.38*** P 47 0.96
IIIII I III
IJ 16 0.57***
IP 14 0.61***
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP EP 33 1.28*
EJ 37 1.60***
N= 63 N =34 N = 30 N=35
I= 3.52*** 1=2.01* I= 0.54** I=0.98 ST 51 2.17***
11111 11111 11111 SF 21 1.19
II I II
II NF 10 0.34***
NT 18 0.62***
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ SJ 43 1.59***
SP 28 2.06***
N= 106 N = 43 N=8 N =24
I= 4.10*** I= 1.49 I= 0.32** I=0.71 NP 19 0.53***
IIIII II 11111 NJ 9 0.40***
IIIII
TJ 38 1.34**
11111
IIlIl
1Ill
Hill
TP 30 1.28*

FP 17 0.67**
FJ 15 0.64**
***p<.001
**p<.01 IN 8 0.29***
*p<.05 EN 20 0.65***
* indicates Fisher's exact IS 22 0.94
probability.
ES 50 2.75***

I= 1%, I = selection ratio index, I = Introvert, E = Extravert, S = Sensing, N = Intuitive, F = Feeling, T = Thinking,
J =Judging, P = Perception.
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. See text for further explanation.

neers tend to cluster at the four corners, TJ.
The outside columns, STs and NTs, together
hold about seventy percent of the total. The
right panel of Table III reveals major differ-
ences on three of the four personality scales.
While the proportions of Extraverts and In-
troverts in the two groups reveal no significant
differences, engineering attracts more Sensing
types than does language, many more Think-
ing types, and more Judging types. Among the
paired scales, the NF types show a large differ-
ence. The proportion of engineers in this cate-
gory is half that of language students. Lan-
guage attracts many NFs. Engineering attracts
more STs. Dealing with the new kinds of stu-
dents who will enter language classes is begin-
ning to look more complex.
Let us turn now to the third group. Table
IV compares business and language students
(Myres & Myres: p. 42).
Comparing Tables I and IV, one does not
need magical statistics to see that business stu-
PersonalityPreferencesand Language Learning 397

dents are impressively different from those in
language. Business most often attracts Sensing-
Thinking types (Table IV, main panel, first
column). The proportion of STs in business is
a little over twice that of language students
(I = 2.17). However, the greatest difference be-
tween the two groups lies on the Sensing-Intui-
tion scale. Business students have about half
as many Intuitives as language students (I=
.48). In terms of proportions within business,
Sensing types outnumber their Intuitive
counterparts about two and one-half to one
(72/28). Further, with the paired combinations,
half of the business students are Extravert-Sens-
ing types. This is very clear in Table III, lower
left quadrant. This category makes up only
eighteen percent of language students (see
Table I).
The most popular personality types for busi-
ness are ESTP and ESTJ. The Selection Ratio
Indices show that three and a half and four
times more business students fall into these two
categories than do language students. Where
business is strongest, relatively few language
students appear.
DISCUSSION
Table V summarizes the proportion of stu-
dents in each of the eight MBTI types as well
as the Selection Ratio Indices comparing lan-
guage students with the general college sample,
and students of science, engineering, and busi-
ness. Selection Ratio Indices above one show
that the proportion of students in the group at
the top of the columns exceeds that of the com-
parison group. Chi-square analyses were per-
formed on the proportions for each scale across
the columns comparing students of language,
engineering, and business, the groups of pri-
mary interest. The science students were
omitted because language already includes
some science majors. (An analysis of all four
groups produced similar results.) Chi-square
for Extraversion-Introversion was 14.55, p<
.001; for Sensing-Intuition, 21.72, p<.001; for
Thinking-Feeling, 8.85, p< .01; and forJudg-
ing-Perception, 2.26, not significant.
The analysis shows that students appear in
all sixteen personality categories. All of the
groups differ strongly from the comparison
group on at least three of the four scales. Lan-
guage students strongly favor Intuition, when
compared with a large college sample, and to
a lesser extent, Introversion, Thinking, and
Perception. The proportion within each pref-
erence, however, is almost the same. Language
students split down the middle.
On the scale of Extraversionand Introversion,
students of language and engineering are about
the same. For these two groups, Introverts are
slightly more frequent. Huge differences appear
in comparing science (and language) with busi-
ness. In science, Introverts dominate almost
two to one. In business, Extraverts are in the
majority by better than two to one.
In terms of learning, on this dimension stu-
dents of language and engineering are about
the same. Only a little over half prefer to work
alone, reading, focusing on ideas and concepts,
with rules presented before examples. In the
language classroom, written drills will be quite

TABLE VII
Proportion of Students and Selection Ratio Indices on the Eight MBTI Types for Language, Science,
Engineering, and Business

Language Science Engineering Business

% I % I % I % I
E 49 0.88** 38 0.77*** 45 0.92 70 1.43***
I 51 1.15** 62 1.22*** 55 1.07 30 0.58***
S 41 0.68*** 17 0.41*** 47 1.15** 72 1.75***
N 59 1.49*** 83 1.41*** 53 0.89** 28 0.48***
T 52 1.31*** 69 1.32*** 70 1.34*** 69 1.32***
F 48 0.80*** 31 0.65*** 30 0.63*** 31 0.66***
J 51 0.90* 49 0.95 61 1.20*** 53 1.03
P 49 1.13* 51 1.05 39 0.79*** 47 0.96
***p<.001
**p<.01
*p<.05
398
acceptable. Written tests are also preferred. Sci-
ence students favor these approaches almost
two to one.
Business students are radically different. By
a ratio of almost two and a half to one, they
prefer spontaneous activities in group discus-
sion, and communicative activities, as when
pairs of students ask and answer questions,
focusing on specific facts with practical appli-
cations. Role-playing, acting out dialogues,
particularly when the Extravert can become the
center of attention, will inspire enthusiasm.
Oral testing will be welcome.
With reference to Sensing and Intuition, lan-
guage and engineering students again are about
the same, with Intuitives clearly in the major-
ity. Most students enjoy the complexities of
abstract words and symbols in tasks that re-
quire quick insight and the freedom to find
one's own way exploring the possibilities.
Applying the rules is a strength, but these stu-
dents want only enough examples to get the
rules. Timed tests which focus on theory,
applying rules, will have some appeal. Filling
in workbooks and doing pattern drills aimed
at overlearning will very likely turn them off.
Science students also favor these same ap-
proaches overwhelmingly, better than four to
one.
Students of business again are just the oppo-
site by a proportion of more than two to one.
The favorite Sensing types, like Extraverts,
have an eye for practical applications. Unlike
Intuitives, who are very much future-oriented,
Sensing types focus on the immediate reality
of here-and-now (Harrison & Lawrence). They
are most attracted by what is simple, real, con-
crete, and tangible. Sensing types react posi-
tively when the drills supply a great many
variations. Workbooks, pattern drills, and
simple transformations will be acceptable to
many. These students are excellent at tasks that
proceed step-by-step and require careful atten-
tion to details. They are likely to complain
about the complexities of translation and view
the difficulties of choosing between the subjunc-
tive and indicative, the preterite and imperfect,
or even the "intimate you" and the "formal you"
as unnecessarily picky and difficult. The per-
formance and motor skills of the Total Physi-
cal Response technique will be more welcome
(Asher), as well as the directness of audio
visuals and practical oral proficiency tests
(Roberts).3
Raymond Moody
With respect to Thinkingand Feeling, all four
groups agree by a substantial margin that the
first is preferred. The proportion for all but the
language group is better than two to one. The
Thinking preference involves a critical ap-
proach with objective, logical analysis. These
students want their work to be corrected and
to know the reasons why (rules).
About half of the language students, though,
and nearly a third of each of the other groups,
prefer Feeling: a subjective approach that
focuses on people and involves learning through
personal relationships and the maintenance of
harmony and personal values. Correcting for
them more likely means correcting people, not
work. Cooperating in pairs to discuss personal
feelings and preferences is likely to enjoy ac-
ceptance. Attention to cultural differences and
awareness, which language learning seeks to
promote, will be of direct interest to only a few
students (as little as thirty percent, as many as
forty-eight percent).
With regard to Judging and Perception,three
of the four groups are divided about evenly.
While half of the students favor working
steadily, in an orderly way, on clearly pre-
scribed tasks within specified time limits (J),
the other half will prefer the flexibility of fol-
lowing their impulses, allowing their curiosity
to run free without the constraints of time (P).
The first may prefer sticking to the book and
the teacher's objectives. The second will also
enjoy unexpected visits of native speakers.
Much school learning including language re-
lies on the ability to work rapidly with concepts
and symbols- skills of IN types (McCaulley,
26; Myres & Myres; Myres & McCaulley).
College level teaching is most likely to be
directed by these same types (Macdaid et al.).
As Schurr and Ruble point out (p. 35), "the
current approach to presenting material and
structuring learning (teaching style) is better
suited in general to learners a) who are able to
work alone efficiently, concentrate well, and
avoid outside distractions (Introverted); b) who
tend to be global learners, have a natural flair
for abstract thinking and have a tolerance for
theory (Intuitive); and c) who like to live life
in a planned, orderly, and organized way
(Judging)." This describes many students of
language and science, and some engineers, but
not all. "The environment is not rewarding for
learners a) who have broad interests and a
natural flair for interpersonal interactions
PersonalityPreferencesand Language Learning
(Extraverted); b) who like to work with known
facts and respond to concrete examples and
practical application (Sensing); and c) who like
to live life in a flexible, spontaneous, and
adaptable manner (Perceptive)" (Schurr &
Ruble: p. 35). The first two qualities are shared
by a large number of engineers and by even
more business students-just the opposite of
what appeals to many presently in language
courses.
Language teachers and text writers may un-
consciously design programs for only the
majority of the students, favoring Introversion,
Intuition, Thinking, and Judging, and against
Extraversion, Sensing, Feeling, and Percep-
tion. In a real way, this may structure the sys-
tem so that some students will succeed and
others will fail. Under such a system, the lan-
guage departments meet the needs of only
about half of the students.
One intriguing proposition is that the per-
sonality types and learning styles which the new
students bring do not really differ from those
of present language students. It is a matter of
proportion. Close to half of our students have
those other preferences. Table I shows that lan-
guage students are distributed in every row and
every column. Language textbooks, written by
talented and successful language learners, may
ignore the students who don't fit well within the
popular mold. Many of the new students are
precisely the kind which, until now, language
teachers have been able to flunk with impunity.
At the beginning of this article, you were
invited to see how it feels and what the results
are when you write with the other hand. This
invitation provides a physical analogy of how
it is to learn in different, unfamiliar, uncom-
fortable ways. You can now imagine how some
students may feel as they anticipate coming to
a language class. A few may actually be de-
lighted (Perceptive types). More may feel tight,
silly, awkward, uncomfortable, frustrated,
klutzy, and clumsy, and they may evaluate the
quality of their work as adequate (= inade-
quate?), illegible, shaky, poor, indecipherable,
unsatisfactory, junk. These are terms that some
forty people were willing to report aloud after
they had the opportunity to write with the other
hand. You may have thought of other descrip-
tive words.
If this is the way people feel in new or un-
comfortable settings, how enthusiastic can they
be about language learning, surely a predict-
399
ably awkward situation for many adult learn-
ers? How much time and effort can they be
willing to spend at it? What kind of grade will
they be satisfied with? In this light, the high
rate at which language students drop out holds
no mystery.
For many years methodologists have stressed
the importance of providing a variety of learn-
ing activities in the classroom (Chastain;
Rivers). This study adds support. Not every
kind of drill appeals to everyone. Spending very
much time on one activity will lose some stu-
dents. Instead, teachers will earn the students'
attention, participation, and success by provid-
ing a somewhat unpredictable set of ways of
performing, with frequent changes, stopping
well short of the point where students are
turned off or bored. Teaching texts cannot con-
tinue to be designed as teacher classroom ref-
erence grammars but must be written to in-
clude out-of-class practice with a very careful
sequence of activities that provide for minimal
steps, clear, easily identifiable cues, a satisfy-
ing set of unique examples and practice, rules
both before and after, the opportunity for spon-
taneity, and most important of all, success.4 In
order to keep first- and second-year classes
alive, the students must succeed easily from the
very first day and every day. They must know
it and feel it. Allowing students to succeed re-
quires that they be empowered to use their most
comfortable modes of learning for at least some
of the time. Ehrman and Oxford reach similar
conclusions.
Another important reason to provide a
variety of learning activities in the classroom
lies within the spirit of a liberal arts education.
Successful practice with a variety of activities
can help students to develop and expand their
repertory of response choices. Life presents a
host of expected and unexpected situations.
The same responses are not appropriate for all.
A person limited in the kinds of choices he can
make is limited in his ability to deal effectively
with tomorrow. By providing classroom prac-
tice in using a wider variety of activities,
favorites as well as not, language students have
a greater chance of developing less-used but
sometimes more appropriate strategies to ap-
proach the future. This is the very heart of a
liberal arts education.
The new students are quite different from the
majority of language students and teachers at
the university level. They perceive the world
400
and learn in radically different ways. We now
have some evidence on what kinds of activities
work best for differentJungian types. And we
have an outline of how these apply to people
learning a second language. The next step is
NOTES
'This paper is a revised version of one originally pre-
sented at the Joint Conference of the Hawaii Association
of Language Teachers and the Hawaii Council of Teachers
of English, 18 April 1987. The researchwas supported by
a grant from the President's Educational Improvement
Fund, University of Hawaii, Manoa. I am indebted to
Misczyslaw Dabrowski for legwork, tenacious, insightful
criticisms, and ideas, and to Roger Hadlich, Cornelia
Moore, and Jean Toyama, who read early versions of the
manuscript and offered many valuable suggestions.
2See for example Bartz; Boylan; Brewster; Brodkey &
Shore; Busch; Cappetta; Cavanaugh; Ehrman & Oxford;
Ely; Gayle; Genesee & Hamayan; Geiger; Hamayan,
Genesee & Tucker; Lalonde & Gardner; Leino; Naiman
et al.; Thames; Wesche; Westcott.
30ne device which some research shows clearly is very
unpopular is the language lab. Roberts asked students to
rank-orderthirteen modes of instruction such as lectures,
discussion, labs, reading, field trips, pictures/slides, and
audio tapes. While each personality type had its favorite
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Another
1. Asher, John J. Learning LanguageThrough Actions:
TheComplete Guidebook.
Teacher's Los Gatos, CA: Sky
Oaks, 1977.
2. Barron, Frank. "Twin Resemblances in Personality."
Twin Research3, PartB: Intelligence, Personality,and
Development.Ed. L. Gedda, P. Parisi& W. E. Nance.
New York: Liss, 1981: 27-30. In this volume, esti-
mates of the genetic influence on personality traits
range from fifty to eighty percent.
3. Bartz, Walter H. "A Study of the Relationship of Cer-
tain Learner Factorswith the Ability to Communi-
cate in a Second Language (German) for the Devel-
opment of Measures of Communicative Compe-
tence."DAI35 (1974) (Ohio State Univ.): 4852-53.
4. Boylan, Patricia C. "The Relationships Among Cer-
tain PersonalityTraits, ForeignLanguageAptitude,
Attitudes, and Achievement in a Learner-centered
Intermediate Spanish Conversation and Composi-
tion Course at the University Level."DAI39 (1978)
(Ohio State Univ.): 6595.
5. Brewster, Elizabeth S. "PersonalityFactors Relevant
to IntensiveAudio-lingualForeignLanguageLearn-
ing." DAI 33 (1972) (Univ. of Texas, Austin): 68.
Raymond Moody
to discover the specific learning strategies which
appeal to the various types so that we can pro-
vide success for a broader range of language
learners.
media, fourteen of the sixteen types rated audio near or
at the bottom. This lack of enthusiasm is consistent with
informal grumbles from language students and low lab
attendance.Listeningto tapesof people talkingan unknown
language, repeating the same thing over and over again,
can only be a gigantic bore perceived as a waste of time.
4Language texts are rarely developed to produce actual
learningresults.That is, they do not have carefullydefined,
tested performance objectives--actual tests; they are not
test taught before publication; they are not revised in ac-
cordance with student performance on exams and tested
and revised again until the objectivescan be achieved with
an appropriate student sample. The focus is NOT on stu-
dent achievement.Instead, the purposeof the text is to pro-
vide the instructor- the realbuyer-with the familiarrather
than the informative,with an abundantand comprehensive
list of classroom activities which are not integrated so that
one builds upon another, and which cannot all be covered
within the time available- a little somethingfor everybody.
As a result, many instructorsselect, and leave out, and add
more. They find that the text must be reorganized, re-
written, and supplementedin order to make it work. Thus,
it is an instructor'stext rather than a student's text. Lan-
guage texts are not written to teach but to sell.
6. Brodkey, Dean & Howard Shore. "StudentPersonal-
ity and Success in an English Language Program."
LanguageLearning26 (1976): 153-59.
7. Busch, Deborah. "Introversion-Extraversionand the
EFL Proficiency of Japanese Students." Language
Learning32 (1982): 109-32.
8. Cappetta, Kenneth M. "Characteristicsof High School
Students Who Choose to IndividualizeTheir Study
of Spanish II." DAI39 (1978) (Ohio State Univ.):
6578-79.
9. Carskadon, Thomas G. "Myres-BriggsType Indica-
tor Characterization:A Jungian Horoscope?"Re-
searchin Psychological Type5 (1982): 87-94.
10. . "Test-retestReliabilities of Continuous Scores
on Form G of the Myres-Briggs Type Indicator."
Researchin Psychological Type2 (1979): 83-84.
11. Cavanaugh, Neal F. "TheRoles of Attitude and Moti-
vation in Second-language Acquisition." DAI 38
(1977) (Univ. of California, Berkeley): 674.
12. Chastain, Kenneth. TheDevelopment of ModernLanguage
Skills:Theory Philadelphia:Centerfor Cur-
toPractice.
riculum Development, 1971.
13. Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford. "Effectsof Sex
Differences,CareerChoice, and PsychologicalType
on Adult Language Learning Strategies."Modern
LanguageJournal72 (1988): 253-65.
14. Ely, Christopher M. "Personality:Its Impact on Atti-
PersonalityPreferencesand Language Learning
tudes Toward Classroom Activities." ForeignLan-
guageAnnals21 (1988): 25-32.
15. Gayle, Grace M. H. "Another Look at Personality
Motivation and Second Language Learning in a
Bilingual Context."Alberta Journalof EducationalRe-
search27 (1981): 145-53.
16. Genesee, Fred & Else Hamayan. "Individual Differ-
ences in Second LanguageLearning."AppliedPsycho-
linguistics1 (1980): 95-110.
17. Geiger, Frederica L. "The Effects of Advanced Or-
ganizer Format and Learner Personality in the
Learning and Retention of Verbal Material." DAI
39 (1978) (Univ. of Southern California): 2721-22.
18. Hamayan, Else, Fred Genesee & G. Richard Tucker.
"AffectiveFactors and Language Exposure in Sec-
ond Language Learning." LanguageLearning27
(1977): 225-41.
19. Harrison, David F. & Gordon Lawrence. "Psychologi-
cal Type and Time Orientation: Do Middle School
Students Differ in Projecting Their Personal
Futures?"Journal Type9 (1985): 10-15.
ofPsychological
Types(H. G. Baynes;Transl.
20. Jung, Carl G. Psychological
& Rev. by R. F. C. Hull). NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press, 1921, 1971.
21. Lalonde, R. N. & Richard C. Gardner. "Investigat-
ing a Causal Model of Second Language Acquisi-
tion: Where Does Personality Fit?" Canadian Jour-
nal of BehavioralScience16 (1984): 224-37.
22. Lawrence, Gordon. PeopleTypesandTigerStripes: A Prac-
ticalGuidetoLearningStyles.2nd ed. Gainesville, FL:
Center forApplicationsof PsychologicalType, 1984.
23. . "A Synthesis of Learning Style Research In-
volving the MBTI." Journal of PsychologicalType8
(1982): 2-15.
24. Leino, Anna L. "English School Achievements and
Some Student Characteristics:II. On the Relation-
ships of Motivation and AuditoryVariablesto Eng-
lish School Achievements. Final Analysis."Research
Bulletin,Institute of Education, Univ. of Helsinki.
No. 40, 1974.
25. Macdaid, Gerald P., Mary H. McCaulley & Richard
I. Kainz. Myres-BriggsTypeIndicatorAtlas of Type
Tables.Gainesville, FL: Center for Application of
Psychological Type, 1986.
26. McCaulley, Mary H. "PsychologicalTypes in Engi-
401
neering: Implicationsfor Teaching."Engineering Edu-
cation66 (1976): 729-36.
27. . "The Selection Ratio Type Table: A Research
Strategyfor ComparingType Distributions."Journal
of Psychological Type 10 (1985): 46-56.
28. - & Frank Natter. Psychological
(Myres-Briggs) Type
Differences in Education.Gainesville, FL: Center for
Applicationsof PsychologicalType, 1980. Reprinted
from The Governors' Task Forceon DisruptiveYouth,
PhaseII Report.Ed. F. L. Natter & S. A. Rollin.
Tallahassee: Office of the Governor, 1974, 33.
29. Myres, Isabel B. & Mary H. McCaulley. Manual:A
GuidetotheDevelopment andUseof theMyres-Briggs Type
Indicator.Palo Alto: ConsultingPsychologists,1985:
107.
30. - with Peter B. Myres. GiftsDiffering.Palo Alto:
Consulting Psychologists, 1980.
31. Naiman, Neil, Maria Frolich, H. Stern & Angie
Todesco. The GoodLanguageLearner.Research in
Education Series, 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, 1978.
32. Rivers, Wilga. Teaching ForeignLanguage Skills.Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968.
33. Roberts, Dayton Y. "Personalityand Media Preferences
of Community College Students."Journalof Psycho-
logicalType5 (1982): 84-86.
34. Schurr,K. Terry & Virgil E. Ruble. "TheMyres-Briggs
Type Indicatorand First-yearCollege Achievement:
A Look Beyond Aptitude Test Results."Journalof
Psychological Type12 (1986): 25-37.
35. Thames, Richard W. "The Relationship between Spe-
cific PersonalityCharacteristicsand Other Learner
Factors and Success in the Study of a Second Lan-
guage."DAI 43 (1983) (Florida State Univ.): 3805.
36. Thomas, Charles R. "Results of an MBTI Utilization
in Engineering Technology."Journalof Psychological
Type8 (1984): 42-44.
37. Wesche, Marjorie B. "The Good Adult Language
Learner: A Study of Learning Strategies and Per-
sonality Factors in an Intensive Course." DAI 38
(1978) (Univ. of Toronto): 5371-72.
38. Westcott,Donald B. "PersonalityFactorsAffectingHigh
School StudentsLearning a Second Language."DAI
34 (1973) (Univ. of Texas, Austin): 2183.