Document Type : Research Article


1 Associate Professor of TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University of Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran.

2 MA Student of TEFL, Bu Ali Sina University of Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran.


The researchers have been interested to explore the impact of personality traits on second or foreign language learning. The current study is an attempt to investigate whether there exists a statistically significant relationship between introvert and extrovert EFL learners’ willingness to communicate and ambiguity tolerance. To this end, a total of 150 EFL learners completed the Introversion/Extroversion Scale developed by McCroskey (1998), the Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire (McIntyre et al, 2001) and the Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (Ely, 1995). The findings of Pearson correlation coefficient revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between (a) introvert EFL learners’ WTC and ambiguity tolerance, and (b) extrovert EFL learners’ WTC and ambiguity tolerance. Independent samples t-tests indicated a significant meaningful difference between introvert and extrovert EFL learners’ WTC and ambiguity tolerance. Whereas extrovert EFL learners were positively different from introvert learners in their willingness to communicate (WTC), introvert EFL learners were found to be more tolerant of ambiguity than extrovert EFL learners. The findings imply that EFL teachers and policy makers need to consider personality types as determining factors for the success of foreign language learners and accordingly modify their educational practices.
Keywords: Introversion, Extroversion, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Willingness to Communicate.


Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

تمایل به برقراری ارتباط و تحمل ابهام زبان آموزان EFL درونگرا و برون گرا

Abstract [Persian]

مدتهاست محققان علاقمند به کاوش در زمینه ی تاثیر خصیصه های شخصیتی بر یادگیری زبان خارجی یا دوم می باشند. مطالعه ی کنونی تلاشی است در جهت بررسی اینکه آیا رابطه ی آماری بامعنا میان میل به برقراری ارتباط و تحمل ابهام زبان آموزان درون گرا و برون گرا وجود دارد یا خیر. به این خاطر 150 زبان آموز، پرسشنامه های درون گرایی/برون گرایی مک کروسکی (1998)، تمایل به برقراری ارتباط مکین تایر (2001)، و همچنین تحمل ابهام الی (1995) را تکمیل کردند. نتایج بدست آمده از ضریب رابطه پیرسون وجود یک رابطه مثبت بامعنا میان 1) میل به برقراری ارتباط و تحمل ابهام زبان آموزان درونگرا و 2) میل به برقراری ارتباط و تحمل ابهام زبان آموزان برونگرا را نشان دادند. افزون بر این، در حالیکه زبان آموزان برونگرا در تمایل به برقراری ارتباط از همتایان درونگرای خود پیشی گرفتند، زبان آموزان درونگرا سطوح بالاتری از تحمل ابهام را از خود نشان دادند. یافته های مطالعه ی حاضر دلیلی است بر اینکه معلمان، شاغلان در حرفه، و سیاست گذاران، جنبه های روانشناختی و ویژگیهای شخصیتی را فاکتورهای تعیین کننده ای در موفقیت زبان آموزان در نظر گرفته و براین اساس اقدام به اصلاح برنامه های آموزشی خود نمایند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • درونگرایی
  • برونگرایی
  • تحمل ابهام
  • و گرایش به برقراری ارتباط
Baradaran, A., &Alavi, M, R. (2015). The difference between extrovert/introvert EFL learners' cooperative writing.International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 8(2), 13-24.
Brown, L. H. (2000). Using personality type to predict student success in a technology-rich classroom environment.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, USA.
Brumfit, C. J. (1979). ‘Communicative’ language teaching: An educational perspective. In C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp.183-191). Oxford UP.
Budner, S. (1962).Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable.Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29-50.
Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communications Monographs, 43(1), 60-69.
Chapelle, C. (1983). The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and success in acquiring English as a second language in adult learners.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, United States.
Chu, W. H., Lin, D. Y., Chen, T. Y., Tsai, P. S., & Wang, C. H. (2014).The relationships between ambiguity tolerance, learning strategies, and learning Chinese as a second language.System, 49, 1-16.
Cook, V. (1996). Second Language Learning (2nd Ed.) New York: Arnold.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997).Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct.Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 741-750.
Ely, C. M. (1986).An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom.Language Learning, 36, 1-25.
Ely, C. M. (1988). Personality: its impact on attitudes toward classroom activities. Foreign Language Annals, 21, 25-32.
Ely, C. M. (1989).Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies.Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445.
Ely, C. M. (1995).Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL.In J. M. Reid (Ed.).Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the situation - a pseudo issue?A response to Alker.Journal of Personality, 41, 287-303.
Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable.Journal of Personality, 11(1), 108−143.
Furnham, A., &Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.
Gass, S., &Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerance Erlbaum.
Hampson, S. E. (1982). The construction of personality: an introduction. Retrieved March 27, 2009 from: &source=gbs_navlinks_s.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: the Japanese ESL context. Second language studies, 20(2), 29-70.
Jalili, S., & Mall-Amiri, B. (2015).The difference between extrovert and introvert EFL teachers’ classroom management.Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 826-836.
Kazamia, V. (1999). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign language ambiguities? Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 69-78.
Kumar Panth, M., Sahu, V., & Gupta, M. (2015).A comparative study of emotional intelligence and intelligence quotient between introvert and extrovert personality.International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature (IMPACT: IJRHAL), 3(5), 41-54.
Laney, M. O. (2002). The introvert advantage: How to thrive in an extrovert world. New York: Workman Pub.
MacDonald, A. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26, 791-798.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142.
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.Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., &Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 9(1), 564-576.
McCroskey, J. C. (1998). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Acton, MA: Tapestry Press.
McCroskey, J., & Baer, E. (1985).Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.
McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: a new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183-189.
Mischel, W. (1981). Personality and cognition: something borrowed, something new? In N. Cantor, & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition and social interaction (pp. 3-19) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Naiman, N., Froanhlich, M., Stern, H. H., &Toedesco, A. (1978).The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance.Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Papadopoulos, R. K. (1992). Carl Gustav Jung: The structure and dynamics of the psyche. London, New York: Routledge.
Piepho, H-E. (1981). Establishing objectives in the teaching of English. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), The communicative teaching of English: Principles and an exercise typology (pp. 8-23). Essex: Longman.
Riasati, M. J. (2012). EFL learners' perception of factors influencing willingness to speak English in language classrooms: a qualitative study. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10), 1287-1297.
Senechal, D. (2011). Republic of noise: The loss of solitude in schools and culture. Maryland: Rowman& Littlefield Education.
Silverman, L. (2012). Introversion and giftedness. Denver, Colorado: Gifted Development Center in Denver, Colorado.
Thompson, S. (2012). Introvert or extrovert?Tips for a balanced classroom. Canadian Teacher Magazine, 5, 6-18.
Watanabe, M. (2011).Motivation, self-determination, and willingness to communicate by English learners at a Japanese high school.Temple University, Philadelphia.
Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003).A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18-38.
Yea-Fen, C. (1995).Language learning strategies used by beginning students of Chinese in a semi-immersion setting.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, United States.
Zarfsaz, E., &Takkac, M. (2014). Silence in foreign language learning: an analysis of students’ risk taking behavior in an EFL classroom. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6(3), 307-321.
Zhou, N. (2014). Communication research in the EFL context: Challenges and directions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 11-20.