The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language (Second Language Learning and Teaching) 3031459393, 9783031459399

Citation preview

Second Language Learning and Teaching

Brygida Lika

The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language

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.

Brygida Lika

The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language

Brygida Lika Department of ELA Opole University Opole, Poland

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic) Second Language Learning and Teaching ISBN 978-3-031-45939-9 ISBN 978-3-031-45940-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 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 Paper in this product is recyclable.

To Ewa and my family

Preface

This book presents two personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, in the domain of individual learner differences and focuses on their impact on students’ achievements during the learning process. So far, very few studies have been devoted to the interaction of these personality traits in second/foreign1 language learning and teaching, and therefore, the volume is an attempt to fill this research niche and shed more light on understanding the complicated process that happens while learning a second/foreign language. The book consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the subject of this book. The next six chapters offer a theoretical background, as well as empirical findings. Chapter 2 is devoted to personality, its development, the most well-known personality theories, and a description of personality factors. Many famous scholars like Hippocrates, Allport, Eysenck, Skinner, Watson, Freud, Erikson and Maslow were interested in the research of personality, and they characterized it using different approaches. Next, the Big Five model is described with its dimensions and influence on foreign language learning. The last part of the chapter presents the openness to experience trait. In the beginning, the history of research on openness to experience and some definitions of the trait are also outlined. Subsequently, the roles of this factor in everyday life, education and second language acquisition are described. Chapter 3 provides the theoretical background for the concept of ambiguity tolerance. First, an overview and definitions are presented to establish a working definition of the term. Then, the concept of ambiguity tolerance is characterised in detail, as well as the differences between tolerance and intolerance of ambiguity are described. Next, the importance of ambiguity tolerance in everyday life, education, and second language acquisition is discussed. Finally, the connections between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are described. Chapter 4 is intended as an overview of the most influential and recent empirical studies on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Therefore, the general empirical research of both factors is presented first. Next, the impact of 1

Although the author is aware of Ellis’s (2008) theoretical distinction between the terms ‘second language’ and ‘foreign language’, in this book these terms are used interchangeably. vii

viii

Preface

openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on educational success and second language acquisition is outlined. Finally, the chapter presents research highlighting the relevance and cooperation of both traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Chapter 5 focuses on the empirical study devoted to the investigation of the relationships between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance and consists of two parts. The first part presents information about the methodology of the study; the research rationale, then, the description of the research setting, participants, procedures, and the techniques of data collection. The second part includes the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data of the study. First, the descriptive results of the research variables are presented, and then, the results of the inferential statistics are analysed. In the end, the results of the qualitative analysis are outlined. Chapter 6 of this book is devoted to the discussion of the results that were arrived at on the basis of the analyses according to the research blueprint outlined in the previous chapter. The data were gathered using both quantitative and qualitative methods and organised in relation to how the traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are related to the forms of attainment (self-assessment and grades). All the findings are interpreted to show the profiles of students with different levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. At the end of the chapter, the limitations of the study are presented. The concluding Chap. 7 addresses the most important findings of this study. It outlines the profiles of foreign language learners with high, medium, and low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Furthermore, this chapter presents the relationship between students’ level of personality traits and their attainment (grades with their corresponding self-assessment). Additionally, several pedagogic suggestions are presented regarding the results of the outcomes of the study. These implications will be useful for language teachers or even language learners who want to achieve success in language teaching and language learning. The created profiles allow teachers to identify students’ personality types and identify opportunities for developing the four language skills of their students, as well as students to learn how their own type of personality determines their choice of short- and long-term goals. This book is directed to applied linguists, language teachers, and advanced MA students wishing to broaden their knowledge about individual learner differences, especially the role of personality in foreign language acquisition. Foreign language learning is a winding path, full of difficult moments, but at the end of the path is a prize, the language proficiency to which everyone aspires. Opole, Poland

Brygida Lika

Reference Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 What is Personality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 History of Personality Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 The Big Five Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 History of Research on Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Definitions of Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Facets of Openness to Experience and Their Role . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 The Importance of Openness to Experience in Everyday Life and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 The Role of Openness to Experience in Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 What is Ambiguity Tolerance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Tolerance Versus Intolerance of Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Ambiguity Tolerance in Everyday Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition . . . .

1 4 7 7 7 8 10 18 27 27 28 29 32 34 36 37 47 47 47 48 51 53 54 54 58 59

ix

x

Contents

3.4 The Connections Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Openness to Experience in General Functioning . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Openness to Experience in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Openness to Experience in Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Ambiguity Tolerance in General Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition . . . . 4.4 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance/ Intolerance During the Transition to Academic Life and in Different Social Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Research Rationale, Hypothesis and Research Question . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Descriptive Results of the Research Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Inferential Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Qualitative Results—Interviews with Selected Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 64 65 71 71 71 71 74 77 82 82 85 87 91

91 94 96 96 101 101 101 104 104 107 110 112 113 113 116 120 127 127

Contents

6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Links Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels of Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . 6.4 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations for the Foreign Language Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Recommendations for the Foreign Language Classroom . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

131 131 131 136 147 149 149 153 153 153 157 160 162 163

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Appendix B: Questionnaire 2—Summary of the Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerace . . . . . . 173 Appendix C: Students’ Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Abbreviations

16 PF AB5C ACL ANES AT ATQ BFM CMC DPES EFL FFM FLCA FLCAS GPA IPIP L2 L2 WTC NEO PI-R O OCEAN SILL SLA SLTA SLTAS SPM TIPI TTCT WTC

16 Personality Factors Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex Adjective Checklist American National Election Studies Ambiguity Tolerance Ambiguity Tolerance Questionnaire The Big Five Model Computer-Mediated Communication Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales English Foreign Language Five-Factor Model Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale Grade Point Average International Personality Item Pool Second Language Willingness to Communicate in the Second Language Revised NEO Personality Inventory Openness to Experience Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Second Language Acquisition Second Language Tolerance Ambiguity Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale Standard Progressive Matrices Ten-Item Personality Inventory Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Willingness to Communicate

xiii

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Freud’s structure of the human mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The hierarchical model of openness to experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grades in the O and AT terciles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-assessment in the O and AT terciles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 31 116 116

xv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7

Table 4.8 Table 5.1 Table 5.2

Openness to experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neuroticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The comparison of AB5C model and FFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intolerance versus tolerance of ambiguity—primary attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intolerance versus tolerance of ambiguity—secondary attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in general functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in general functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the selected research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance/intolerance during the transition to an academic life and in different social groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in second language acquisition . . . . . . Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 359) . . . . . . . Demographic characteristics of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance terciles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 21 22 23 23 24 55 56 75 78 81 85 88 90

94 95 105 106 xvii

xviii

Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10

List of Tables

Descriptive results of the research variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations of all variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of mean school grades and self-assessment of groups with a high, medium, and low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance . . . . . . . . . . Two multiple regression models: openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on dependent variables: school grades and self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two-way ANOVA of the dependent variable final grades . . . . . Two-way ANOVA of the dependent variable self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bonferroni post-hoc tests of final grades in O and AT terciles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bonferroni post-hoc tests of self-assessment in O and AT terciles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 114

115

117 117 118 118 119

Chapter 1

Introduction

Foreign or second language acquisition1 is a demanding process for nearly all learners. The levels of achievement among language learners, even if they experience similar conditions, are completely different.2 Ellis (2008) suggests that the related factors of learning a foreign language need to be analysed in-depth at the meeting point of language acquisition studies, psychology and sociology. However, such investigations are not easy due to their various interpretations of understanding foreign language learning. Therefore, individual learner differences (ID) should be taken into consideration as each individual perceives information, reacts to stimuli and organises his/her work differently. According to Dörnyei (2005), individual differences “are characteristics or traits in respect of which individuals may be shown to differ from each other” (p. 1). There are many individual differences that stimulate foreign language learning, for example, age, sex, aptitude, motivation, personality and learning styles (Pawlak, 2019). They are intricately interlocked with each other and play important roles, therefore, some of the ones presented below have been in the area of interest of researchers and still need to be investigated. The first one, age, suggests that children are more successful foreign language learners than adults, which is connected with the critical period hypothesis (Kim et al., 1997). Moreover, Long (1990) adds that after the age 15, it is difficult to acquire native like fluency, especially in pronunciation. However, Saville-Troike (2012) suggests that older learners can achieve native-like proficiency in other areas of a second (L2)/foreign languages (FL), also, as Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) emphasize, adults have an advantage in learning a foreign language because they have experience, clear aims and patience to solve demanding exercises while learning. Moving on to sex (biological) or gender 1

Although Krashen’s (1985) and Krashen and Terrell’s (2000) theoretical distinction between the terms ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ is generally used in second language acquisition resources, in this book these terms are used interchangeably for practical reasons (Navés et al., 2002). 2 In this book, foreign/second language achievement is operationalized as forms of assessment: self-assessment and school grades. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

(socially constructed), it has been found that females show more integrative motivation and positive attitudes towards a foreign language, as well as, use many more learning strategies (Oxford et al., 1988). The next individual difference is aptitude, which many researchers (Saville-Troike, 2012; Singleton, 2017; Skehan, 1989) have linked with success in foreign language acquisition, however, they also claim that not only does aptitude determine language learning ability but also other factors like personality, motivation or learning styles. Motivation is considered one of the most important IDs which often guarantees success in acquiring a foreign language (Saville-Troike, 2012). As Gardner (1985) suggests, learners’ aims may be integrated with and became “a part of a target community/culture” (Zafar & Meenakshi, 2012) or an instrument to gain benefits from knowing a foreign language. Both aims can lead to success in acquiring a new language. Over the past few years, Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self-System has been one of the most important motivational theories which assumes that the effort put into learning a L2 is dictated by the desire to reduce the gap between the current state and the vision of one’s language proficiency. It is known that motivation fluctuates during a learning process, even in a lesson (Pawlak, 2017). Learning styles are related to cognitive variations in learning a foreign language, as they show an individual’s preferred way of absorbing, processing and recalling information from the L2/FL (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). The central issue of this book is the personality with its selected traits: openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. According to Dewaele (2021), psychologists divide traits into higher- and lower-order personality traits that “are assumed to be relatively stable over time” (p. 113). The higher-order traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience) and lower-order ones (e.g., Emotional Intelligence, anxiety and tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity) are often correlated with each other. Dörneyi and Ryan (2015) underline the importance of personality factors but also the difficulties in recognising the combinations that form the foundation of the psychological profile of the good foreign language learner. For second and foreign language learners, the personality traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are on various levels. They play a very important role in the complex process of language acquisition, but most students and teachers are not aware of them. Teachers often characterise their students as either active, willing to learn, and curious to the new or withdrawn and not participating in classes. They do not attribute and/or connect students’ attitudes and involvement during classes with their personality traits, they are only concentrating on their foreign language abilities. However, knowing one’s personality features helps both teachers and learners to implement proper learning strategies, and to understand someone’s behaviour and reactions. The researcher, who, with her experience in teaching, as well as being a teachers’ adviser for many years, can confirm that in Polish schools it is very seldom the case that the influence of students’ personality is being paid attention to in the educational process, however it is often heard that particular students are good or bad learners. The qualities of good and bad learners have gradually been characterised in more detail in the professional literature when dealing with foreign/second language acquisition studies. Good foreign language learners are motivated to learn, are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, are not afraid of making mistakes, and have good

1 Introduction

3

organizational skills. It is important that they accept teachers’ suggestions, willingly practise English, and, moreover, tolerate uncertainty (Oxford, 1999). On the opposite side, teachers talk about students who are not involved in learning, afraid of making mistakes and are not aware of their strengths. These different approaches to language acquisition may be caused by personality traits, specifically, those that are under investigation in this book. All foreign language teachers want to have good language learners or be one of them, but it is seldom heard that individual personality traits are responsible, to a large extent, for their students’ successes. Some scholars such as MacIntyre or Dornyei, who are active interdisciplinary psychologists and applied linguists, claim that an individual’s personality profile will determine an individual’s language acquisition (MacIntyre et al., 2001a, 2001b). Foreign language learning is a complicated process and demands involvement, curiosity, and hard work. The higher level of the trait openness to experience affects intellectual curiosity, creativity, and awareness of feelings, and, moreover, contributes to unconventional ideas. Curiosity, creativity, or unconventional ideas have an impact on success in learning a foreign language. A foreign language learner needs to see the opportunities that the language provides from learning new cultures to a variety of social interactions. Individuals who have the trait on the low level are very conservative, therefore, they prefer their own culture and are not curious to discover more about the surrounding world, further they do not see the necessity to learn a new language. Students with a low level of openness to experience do not believe in their abilities, therefore, they assess their language skills as low and achieve lower grades than learners with a higher level of this trait. The concept of ambiguity tolerance referring to language learning was adopted from psychology. Its origins date back to the mid-twentieth century but the growing interest in second language acquisition and foreign language teaching was rediscovered with the developing knowledge of individual differences in second/ foreign language acquisition. In the beginning, ambiguity tolerance was related to perceptual flexibility in complex situations. With time, ambiguity tolerance was associated more and more with resistance to a changeable emotional climate, and a tolerance for insecurity at being overwhelmed by different stimuli. It has become obvious that when some learners overcome unnecessary confusion, stress, and achieve satisfactory progress, they must be equipped with a certain degree of ambiguity tolerance. Its proper level allows learners to discover patterns in the language structures, and thanks to their existing emotional state help them to remember and develop the foreign language (Brown, 2000). However, a successful student has to cope with all four language skills—listening, speaking, reading and writing, which is not easy. They all require personal involvement but at the same time, they provide various stimuli with which the learner has to manage. The levels of these two traits are likely to influence the learning process and it is worth investigating if they relate to students’ attainment operationalized as self-assessment and school grades. This investigation may shed more light on understanding the complicated processes that occur during foreign language acquisition. The research group of students in the study was chosen from different types of schools, but they all were at the age from 17 to 18, which ensured stable personality

4

1 Introduction

features. The size of the group provided an accurate picture of the distribution of the traits openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in a society. Participants attended technical and secondary schools; they had different backgrounds and places of living (towns and small villages), which also influenced students’ behaviour, as well as their attitudes towards life and learning foreign languages. The aim of the book is to present the theoretical claims and the results of the empirical research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance which have a marked impact on students’ language attainment, self-assessment and school grades in a foreign language. So far, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have been studied separately. Those studies have shown the positive effects of these traits on foreign language acquisition. A few studies have been devoted to the interaction of these personality traits on foreign language acquisition and therefore, the present book is an attempt to fill this research niche.

References Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Education Company. Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170– 193). Arnold. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288516804_Focus_on_the_language_ learner_Motivation_styles_and_strategies Dewaele, J.-M. (2021). Personality. In T. Gregersen & S. Mercer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching (pp. 112–123). Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). Psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold. Kim, K. H., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K. M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388(6638), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/40623 Krashen, S. D. (1985). Second language acquisition and second language learning (Reprinted). Pergamon Pr. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Longman/Pearson Education. Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009165 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(3), 369–388. Maclntyre, P., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. (2001). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 461–492). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

References

5

Navés, T., Muñoz, C., & Pavesi, M. (2002). Module 2 second language acquisition for CLIL. In G. Lange & P. Bertaux (Eds.), Second language acquisition for CLIL (pp. 53–102). Ministero della’ Istruzione della’Universita e della Ricerca. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Second language learning: Individual differences. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 552–560). Elsevier. Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., & Ehrman, M. (1988). Vive la Différence? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21(4), 321–329. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1988.tb01076.x Pawlak, M. (2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). John Benjamins. Pawlak, M. (2019). Czym s˛a ró˙znice indywidualne w nauce j˛ezyka obcego i jak sobie z nimi radzi´c? J˛ezyki Obce w Szkole, 2, 5–12. Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511888830 Singleton, D. (2017). Language aptitude: Desirable trait or acquirable attribute? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.5 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Routledge. Zafar, S., & Meenakshi, K. (2012). Individual learner differences and second language acquisition: A review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4. 639-646

Chapter 2

Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

2.1 Introduction The aim of the present chapter is to provide the theoretical background of the concept of personality, and the trait of openness to experience. The first part is devoted to personality, its development, the best-known personality theories and a description of personality factors. Next, the Big Five model is described with its dimensions (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism), and influence on foreign language learning. The last part of the chapter presents openness to experience trait. At the beginning, the history of research on openness to experience and some definitions of it are outlined. Subsequently, the roles of this factor in everyday life, education and second language acquisition are described.

2.2 Personality The interest in personality originated together with the development of civilisation, its research has led to many theories that try to explain the complexities of human nature. This part of the chapter presents the history of personality research from Hippocrates, with his classification of human’s types, to Costa’s and McCrea’s model of the Big Five, which is very popular nowadays. Researchers always want to answer some philosophical questions, i.e. “Who am I?”, “Is there free will?”, “What is human nature?”, “Why do people differ from each other?” (Mayer, 2007, p. 5), such questions caused the study of personality to branch into several different approaches. The main approaches are represented by the grand theories of personality: biological, behavioural, psychodynamic, humanist, types, or traits. The biological approaches focus on the role of genetics, and how the genes influence the shaping of personality. The behavioural approaches are connected with responses to external stimuli. The psychodynamic theory was originated by Sigmund Freud and assumes that human © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_2

7

8

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

behaviour is the interaction among various components of the mind: the id, ego and superego. The humanistic approach studies the whole person with the uniqueness of each individual and free will as the most important determinant of behaviour. Type theories are based on physique and temperament. Trait theories state that personality is characterized as a set of traits which show various patterns of behaviour, and those traits are different from person to person but for an individual, they are stable. The modern interest in personality started when Allport deeply analysed the terms: personality and characters. Meanwhile other researchers focused on statistical studies of groups and then, over the next few decades concentrated on individuals. Therefore, nowadays researchers pay more attention to the uniqueness of everyone.

2.2.1 What is Personality? From the dawn of history, people have been interested in human nature, its diversity and uniqueness. Despite many similarities, they observe that even identical twins are completely different in styles of thinking, feeling and acting. It is known that personality has a major influence on life, life satisfaction and behaviour (Ellis et al., 2009; Pavot & Diener, 2008). Furthermore, people are categorized into distinct groups of personality and based on that division, others expect them to act in a certain way. Some individuals are quiet and introverted, others like social contacts and are extroverted. It is not easy to explain the meaning of personality because psychologists differ among themselves, with many of them creating their own definitions. According to Feist et al. (2012), most psychologists accept the origin of the word personality from the Latin persona, which alluded to a mask worn in Greek dramas by Roman actors. The mask was worn to project a role or change the actor’s appearance. Psychologists use the term personality to indicate something more than the role people have or play in life, they try to explain the influence of the surrounding world on that person as well. This aspect is also linked to the fact that many of the personality theorists had different backgrounds. Some immigrated to other parts of the world, some were influenced by various religions, many were trained in psychiatry or psychology and others relied on empirical research on human personality (Feist et al., 2012). Several researchers (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Skehan, 1989) have observed that some aspects of personality can change during a person’s life and are influenced by the environment, just like personality affects people’s decisions or choice of professional career. It is not easy to define personality because it can be analysed in different ways—for an individual or a group of people. There are many definitions of this term, and they often depend on the approach of theories, sometimes one perspective influences the other. Regardless of the previous statement, some of the most relevant theories are presented below. One of the best-known general explanations of the term personality is presented in Encyclopaedia Britannica as:

2.2 Personality

9

(...) a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality embraces moods, attitudes, and opinions and is most clearly expressed in interactions with other people. It includes behavioural characteristics, both inherent and acquired, that distinguish one person from another and that can be observed in people’s relations to the environment and to the social group (Holzman, 2013).

Personality, as defined in the biological approach, is a set of characteristics or traits that cause individual differences in people’s behaviour. The psychodynamic approach characterises personality as enduring conflict between people’s impulses to do whatever they feel like, and their restraint to control these urges. In the humanistic perspective, personality is viewed as open-mindedness and trustfulness to his/her own feelings and the environment during self-actualisation (Rogers, 1961). Behavioural theorists (Skinner, 1953; Watson et al., 1988) describe personality as a result of the interaction between the individual and the environment. There are several definitions presented by researchers of the traits approach. Allport (1937, p. 48) defines personality as, “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment”. According to Cattell (1950, pp. 2–3), “personality is that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation”. McAdams and Pals (2006, p. 212) explain personality in a more modern way 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”. Pervin and John (2001, p. 4) define personality as a set of characteristics of the person that “account for consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving”. Larsen and Buss (2009, p. 4) characterise personality 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”. To sum up, personality is a stable collection of psychological traits that influence someone’s thinking, feeling, and behaving. It is something that creates an individual as a unique person. However, many psychologists (James, 1890) since the beginning of the research on personality have reflected on its stability, whether some aspects of it, including personality traits change during a person’s lifespan. At the beginning of the studies on personality, researchers claimed that personality is formed and permanent by the age of 30. James (1890, p. 121) even stated that “in most of us, by the age of thirty, the character has set like plaster, and will never soften again”. Little (2016) suggests that it is only true in part because people’s behaviour is influenced by the core personality traits which have a strong genetic component and are stable in life. He adds that people can change and behave differently to their real selves, when the situation calls for an adjustment, they can control their actions. The different points of view are presented in the hard and soft plaster theories related to the stability of personality. The hard plaster is connected to the biological view which assumes that biology is the determining factor in personality development, and by the age of 30 individuals have reached full maturity. According to the hard plaster theory, personality dimensions change little or even not at all after early adulthood. Over the years, the plaster theory has changed, and some research has been presented

10

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

that, as Costa and McCrae (1994) suggest, a person’s personality development in fact is completed by the end of their 20s, but changes can happen over the course of an entire life (Srivastava et al., 2003). Personality changes are characteristic of the soft plaster theory which assumes that personality continues to develop in a positive way after young adulthood, but at a slower rate. At first, personality traits develop in adolescence (Klimstra et al., 2010) and then, because of some events in life, and a person’s surroundings, further personality changes occur. Costa and McCrae (1994) state that people become more neurotic and introverted from the age 18 to 30, also they are less open to experience, but this refers to the fact that around the age of 30, a person’s life is more fully formed, that is, they are more experienced and wiser. Summarising all the information about personality, it is possible to describe it as a set of characteristic features (traits) for each individual which causes their uniqueness. This uniqueness results from the various levels of the traits influencing the human-being—thinking, behaving, and feeling. Certain traits are more dominant for someone in different situations, and they can change slightly according to their life experience.

2.2.2 History of Personality Research The study of personality has a long history, dating to the time of Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle. Plato perceived the human soul as the place of personality (Ellis et al., 2009), and claimed that “the soul consists of three basic forces guiding human behaviour: reason, emotion and appetite” (ibidem, p. 3). He gave reason the highest value and appetite the lowest. He also believed that reason was the most powerful force which had control over the appetite and emotion. Aristotle was Plato’s student and he located personality in the psyche. He described the psyche as the product of biological processes; furthermore, he thought it included a set of faculties. All the faculties were placed in a hierarchy of importance, the first one was the nutritive which was connected with bodily needs, next was the perceptual one, which was responsible for interpreting sensory data and the highest one was the intellectual (ibidem). However, the best-known theory from ancient times which analysed an individual’s personality was created by the Greek physician Hippocrates, who divided human beings into sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic and choleric types (Munger, 2003). He believed that a human being consisted not only of a body but also of a soul, and all illnesses were caused by an imbalance of bodily fluids: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. The fluids, which he called humours, were also responsible for personality traits and human behaviours. It is not clear who developed the division into sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic and choleric personality types, but it is known that the Greek physician Galen developed many of Hippocrates’s theories (Rockwood, 2007) and the typology of personality. The sanguine personality type, in modern language, characterises an optimistic, cheerful and confident person with a lot of energy, who sometimes has difficulties of where to direct it. Someone with the choleric personality type is a doer, a leader who can dominate

2.2 Personality

11

other people but is also easily angered and bad tempered. The next personality type, the melancholic type, is thoughtful, creative, kind and obsessed by the tragedy and cruelty of the world. The phlegmatic type is a calm, unemotional, relaxed, more reliable and compassionate person. Hippocrates’s division was and still is a point of departure for many personality theories. In the early twentieth century, the growth of interest in personality started not only with psychologists but also among many scholars in different disciplines, including sociology, psychiatry or education (Winter & Barenbaum, 1999). Personality was intensively studied by Allport (1921), who did the first review on personality and character. He emphasized the difference between the terms: personality and character, and claimed that personality was a more objective and scientific term (Allport, 1927). At the beginning of personality research, various investigators focused on statistical studies of groups instead of single individuals (Young, 1931). But the following decades of the twentieth century, the direction of research shifted and emphasised the studies of individuals, as unique and integrated wholes (Winter & Barenbaum, 1999). The systematic study of personality began in the 1930s with the publication of Psychology of Personality by Stagner (1937) and Personality: A Psychological Interpretation by Allport (1937). There are a number of theories which try to explain personality in more detail. Those theories are divided according to different approaches: biological, behavioural, psychodynamic, humanist, type or traits. The biological theories are mostly based on heredity. Eysenck (1965) was one of the best-known biological theorists. He combined the traits of personality with biological processes. His theory of personality is supported by a long period of research and after using statistical techniques, he marked out two primary dimensions of personality, namely extraversion and neuroticism. Afterwards, he added a third dimension—psychoticism. Eysenck claimed that these three traits can be found all around the world and genetics supports them (1965). In his opinion, each aspect of personality has a connection with a different biological cause and a person’s personality depends on the balance between the excitation and inhibition process of the automatic nervous system. The nervous system is inherited, affects the ability to learn and adapt to the environment. The first trait, extraversion, in general stands for sociability and stimulation seeking. Eysenck (1965) described extroverts and introverts in the following way: The typical extrovert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He (…) always has a ready answer, and generally likes change (…). The typical introvert, on the other hand, is quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant, except with intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead (…) and distrust the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered mode of life (…) (pp. 59–60).

According to Eysenck (1965), neuroticism or emotionality is characterized by the reactivity of a person’s sympathetic nervous system. The nervous system of a stable person reacts calmly to stressful situations and they remain level-headed. However, people with a high level of neuroticism are emotionally unstable, spontaneous and

12

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

often prone to overreact to stimuli. They become worried very quickly, angry and have difficulties calming down. The third trait, psychoticism is characterised by such features as dominance-leadership and dominance-submission, in which the person also looks for sensation, and does not contain their superego (Kelland, 2014). Psychoticism is associated with the tendency to be very impulsive, aggressive, often cruel and without empathy. Individuals with a low level of psychoticism are often warm, sensitive, concerned about others and demonstrate normal balanced behaviour (Carducci, 2009). The main representatives of behavioural theories are Watson (1913) and Skinner (1971). The forerunner of behaviourism was Watson and the publication of Psychology as the Behaviourist views it in 1913 initiated its development. Watson summed up his theory in these words: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggarman and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors (1924, p. 104).

Behaviourists suggested that personality is a result of the interaction between individuals and the environment (Skinner, 1971). They maintained that only observable manners can be studied to establish a person’s personality dimensions. They also claimed that behaviours are the result of experience, and everyone can be trained to behave in a particular way given the right conditioning. There are two types of conditioning: classical and operant. The classical type is based on the neutral stimuli which caused the same response as the naturally occurring stimuli. In this way, learned behaviour is known as the conditioned response. Operant conditioning is connected with reinforcements and punishments, which in the end, impact the behaviour. Skinner doubted the existence of everything he could not observe (Kelland, 2014) and said that human behaviour is complex. Furthermore, familiarity with different types of behaviour makes it difficult to be really objective and he claimed that people disagree with the suggestion that it is possible to understand and predict human behaviour as a result of environmental stimuli and their consequences. In his research, Skinner focused on cause and effect relationships in behaviour. He described cause as a change in an independent variable and effect as a change in a dependent variable, however, this does not mean that the cause leads to a deliberate pattern of behaviour. Skinner (1953) suggested that personality is often used to describe the characteristic way of someone’s behaviour as “a functionally unified system of responses” (p. 285). The next example of personality theories are psychodynamic theories which were influenced by the great thinkers—Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson and Alfred Adler. The psychodynamic theories declare that events in childhood have an influence on adult lives and create a personality. All events that happen in childhood remain in the memory and can cause problems in adulthood. The psychodynamic researchers emphasized that personality is shaped by various situations during psychosexual

2.2 Personality

13

development (McLeod, 2021). The psychodynamic approach focuses on human functioning, especially the interaction within the person between the different structures of personality. Sigmund Freud is one of the best known and most influential scientists in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. He is called the father of psychoanalysis, which is the treatment of mental disorders, focusing on various unconscious mental processes. Freud (1920) observed and listened to his patients in order to understand how someone had become the person she/he was and explained the common processes that shaped all people (Kelland, 2014). Freud also worked on personality and was the first who established a coherent theory of its development. According to him, the human mind consists of three parts: the id, the ego and the superego (Freud, 1920). The id is the primitive instinct and is responsible for the individual’s survival at all costs. It consists of inherited elements of personality like life and aggressive instincts. It is the unconscious part of the psyche which reacts instinctively and remains unchanged throughout someone’s life. The id operates on the pleasure principle (Freud, 1920), each wish should be fulfilled immediately with no regard for consequences. When the demands of the id are satisfied then pleasure is experienced, in the opposite situation, the id experiences displeasure. The second part of the human mind according to Freud is the ego, which is modified by the impact of the external world (Freud, 1961). The ego shows the connections between the unrealistic id and the real world, and it acts by reason. Furthermore, it operates according to the various social norms and rules which influence its behaviour. The ego also looks for pleasure and tries to avoid pain, although it does not know if something is right or wrong. It is often weaker than the strong id and can only point it in the right direction. Furthermore, it is identified with secondary process of thinking which is responsible for rational problem-solving and finding a solution (Freud, 1961). With hard work it is possible to enhance the ego’s functioning in thinking over different options. The last, third element of the psyche structure is the superego which contains the values and morals of the society, provided especially by parents and other people from the closest circle. The superego develops from the age of three to five during a person’s psychosexual development. Freud (1961) stated that the main function of the superego is to control the id’s impulses, especially sex and aggression, and persuade it to turn to moralistic goals. The superego is also responsible for striving for perfection. The superego consists of two systems: the conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt. For example, if the ego gives in to the id’s demands, the superego may make the person feel bad through guilt (McLeod, 2019, p. 6).

The ideal self represents an imaginary picture of the perfect herself or himself, shows career aspirations and behaviour in society. The superego assesses the ideal self, when it behaves correctly then a person feels proud of herself or himself. Parental values and being raised by parents can influence the ideal self, though this occurs mostly during childhood. To sum up, the ego and the superego have “conscious and unconscious elements, while the id is completely unconscious” (Stangor & Walinga, 2014, p. 65). The visualisation of Freud’s structure of the human mind is presented in Fig. 2.1.

14

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

Fig. 2.1 Freud’s structure of the human mind

Erikson (1950) proposed the next psychodynamic theory about the stages of psychosocial development. His theory was based on personality progress which follows a series of stages. According to Erikson (1950), in each stage, a person must overcome some challenges to become successful in the next ones. There are eight stages in life, the first one starts after birth to the age of one, where the child must develop the ability to trust others, otherwise, he will not be able to trust anybody in the future. The next stage is between the age of one to three, the child must create his autonomy in order to avert suffering from shame and doubt. The third stage is between three and six, when the child has to learn to be assertive in preparing and leading activities, otherwise, he will feel guilty and will mostly be a follower not a leader. The fourth stage starts at the age of six to and continues to age twelve and relates to rearing a child with a sense of pride and confidence. It is an important period in life because it helps to be courageous, and a child knows what he/she can do. In the next stage during adolescence, a teenager must create his or her own identity or else he/she will have personality problems, and always doubt what he/she wants to achieve. The sixth stage falls in young adulthood when people are involved in close relationships. When a young adult has difficulties in creating a healthy romantic relationship, then he or she becomes pessimistic and sees the world negatively. Middle adulthood as the seventh stage in life is responsible for feeling productive when a person contributes to the development of the society. The person feels unnecessary and unimportant in the case he or she fails at the job or thinks that his/her job is not worth someone’s recognition. The last stage relates to late adulthood, it provides information about ego integrity, the person’s personality and attitude towards life.

2.2 Personality

15

Erikson (1950) claimed that when looking back at life the person feels it was productive and joyful, then the personality is positive, on the other hand, the personality is negative when the person appreciates the fact that his or her life was unproductive. Adler (2013), as one of the creators of psychodynamic theories always disagreed with Freud’s point of view that sexual desire plays the most important role in the development of personality. He suggested to focus on children’s striving for superiority instead and emphasised the importance of social relationships (Kelland, 2014). Adler believed that individuals striving to improve themselves are typical for personality development, as they can achieve more in cooperation with others. Adler’s theory is called Individual Psychology because it is associated with people’s uniqueness and their strength to overcome feelings of inferiority. He claimed that inferiority is a feeling that humans feel since birth. During childhood, they are dependent on their parents, they know that they should not do anything without their permission. Humans do everything in life to achieve perfection and superiority. Some people never cast their feelings of inferiority aside, which causes smaller motivation to strive for superiority. Adler divided people into four different psychological types: 1. Ruling type—people, who belong to this type push others to gain superiority, but they usually have a lot of energy which is used to get rid of humans who are in their way. 2. Learning type—characterises sensitive people with a low level of energy. They often build a shell around themselves, but they like to help others with life’s difficulties, it helps them to subsist in the daily life. When they are overwhelmed by something, phobias, obsessions, and anxiety, they have problems coexisting in society. 3. Avoiding type—people who form the avoiding type, have the lowest level of energy and survive by avoiding life, and existing in their own world. 4. Socially useful type is characteristic for a healthy person with the right amount of energy and interest in others. Adler’s Personality Theory has some weaknesses, the main one is that the theory is not very scientific. Moreover, it is based on a striving for superiority, a feeling of inferiority which is connected with the impossibility of explaining every personality of humans (Boeree, 2006). It is also worth mentioning the humanist theories and their famous creators, like Rogers (1961) and Maslow (1968). Those theories revolve around the importance of free will and their own experience in the development of personality. The humanist theories developed in psychology as opposition to some limitations of the behaviourist and psychodynamic psychology. Maslow (1968) called the humanistic approach the third force because it turned down the assumptions of the behaviourist and psychodynamic psychology. Humanistic psychology developed and dominated in the 1970s and 1980s. Its main principles are based on an understanding of human nature and the human condition. One of the main terms in humanistic psychology is ‘personal agency’, which means the exercise of free will and refers to the choices people make in life (McLeod, 2021). Rogers and Maslow claimed that the psychological development is very important in life, it can give fulfilment and provide help

16

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

in self-actualization. They also concentrate on the subjective experiences of a person, for them, the objective picture of reality is less important than the subjective one. All researchers who have been interested in the study of personality formulated various theories to explain the complicated term of personality. There is also another division of the personality theories into two approaches: 1. Types—theories explain personality on the basis of physique and temperament. 2. Traits—theories are based on traits that show tendencies to behave in relatively consistent and distinctive ways in various situations. There are some well-known type theories of personality: Jung’s Theory of Extraverts and Introverts (1921), Kretschmer’s Type Theory (1921) and Sheldon’s Body Type Theory (1940). Jung divided personality on the basis of a person’s character related to sociability, named introverts and extraverts. People who belong to introverts can be characterised as shy, social withdrawn, and have the tendency to talk less. They often focus on themselves, are very sensible and future oriented. Extraverts are friendly, talkative, and they also prefer social contacts. This group of people shows more interest in the present reality than the future, moreover they are not so easily affected by difficulties, and can make decisions quickly. Psychologists who followed Jung’s classification added a third group ambiverts, people who possess both qualities of introverts and extraverts because there are not pure representatives of these groups. Kretschmer based his theory on a correlation between physique and character, he found that body types are related to particular types of mental disorders. He divided personalities into four types: 1. Pyknic—short people with a round body, they have the personality of extraverts. 2. Asthenic—a slender or slim body and the personality of introverts. 3. Athletic—a strong body with a lot of energy, but also quite aggressive. Their personality is similar to ambiverts. 4. Dysplastic—people who have an unproportionate body and do not belong to any of the three types mentioned above. In his theory, Sheldon (1940) proposed the division of personality into three types—Endomorth, Ectomorth and Mesomorth. He based it on a correlation between temperament and body type. Endomorth (can be compared to the pyknic type in Kretschmer’s theory) often has a soft and round body but is sociable and relaxed. Ectomorth (can be compared to the asthenic type in Kretschmer’s theory) is tall, thin but shy, reserved and self-conscious. The last type, mesomorth (can be compared to the athletic type in Kretschmer’s theory) characterise well-built people who are active, noisy, and adventurous by nature. The main idea of the types theories is to categorise an individual in one or the other type. However, in reality it is not easy to classify someone, for example, as an introvert or extrovert, because it depends on the life situation in which the person is. Each individual has a mixture of both of these features and a particular situation causes which one is dominant in it (Quenk, 1993). The structure of personality is presented in the type theories but not the development of it that leads to the shape of personality. It is worth mentioning that a number of factors (family, society, culture)

2.2 Personality

17

during life influence the shape of the development of personality (Grotevant, 1987). Next, type theories that are based on physical appearance (for example, Sheldon’s Theory) do not take into account various factors shaping personality like culture, society or heredity. In contrast to type theories of personality, the trait theories focus on the differences between individuals, their combinations, and the interactions among the various traits, which are grouped into personality factors or dimensions, these, in turn particularly determine someone’s behaviour. The chief exponents of the trait theories— Allport (1937), Cattell (1945) and Eysenck (1965) use traits as a means of studying personality and measures individuals on how much of each trait they reveal. A trait is “a tendency to reaction which when measured with reliability demonstrates as an independence of other variables” (Allport, 1927, p. 285). Allport’s (1937, p. 295) other concept of a trait is “a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behaviour”. According to the trait theory, each individual is a unique personality and behaves in certain ways. Allport was the pioneer of the trait approach in the study of personality. In 1936, Allport and Odbert used Webster’s New International Dictionary to form a list of words that describe personality and behaviour. First, they extracted around 18,000 words, divided them into four categories: personal traits, temporary moods, evaluative terms, and miscellaneous, then reduced the list to approximately 4500 personalitydescribing adjectives. Afterwards, they chose all adjectives that described observable and permanent personality traits. At the end, Allport organised these traits into a hierarchy of three levels: cardinal traits, central traits and secondary traits. Cardinal traits are the most dominant, but the rarest. These traits are tied to an individual’s personality, the person is best known with these qualities, i.e., aggressive and introverted. Allport (1937) suggested that cardinal traits tend to develop later in life, they serve to create plenty of aspects of the individual’s behaviour and attitudes. Central traits are the general characteristics that form the basis of personality, words like honesty, friendliness, generosity and anxiety can describe them. Allport (1937) believed that most people have five to ten such traits. Furthermore, a lot of people can have these traits to a certain degree. Central traits are not as dominant as cardinal traits, and they are often used to describe other people. Secondary traits are related to attitudes and preferences. They appear in certain situations or under specific circumstances, i.e., when someone is a pretty easy-going person and has to speak in public, then under a lot of pressure such a person can change into an anxious one. Allport (1937) claimed that internal and external forces influence an individual’s behaviour and personality. The internal forces (genotypes) are used to interact with the world, the external forces (phenotypes) show the relationship between an individual and their surroundings. Cattell (1945) is the next trait theorist who reduced the number of main personality traits from Allport’s initial list, from more than 4000 to 171. He eliminated uncommon traits and linked common characteristics, then classified a large sample of individuals for 171 various traits. Cattell (1945), used a statistical technique known as factor analysis, identified related terms and reduced his list to 16 key personality traits.

18

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

The list of 16 key personality traits could be used to describe and explain differences among people’s personalities. Cattell (1945) claimed that each person has all of these 16 traits but with different intensities, some can be higher, while others lower. Cattell also worked out the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire which became one of the most commonly used personality rating tools (Cattell & Mead, 2008). Many contemporary researchers suggest that Cattel’s or Eysenck’s trait theories are too complicated (Gray, 1981; Rollinson, 2005), therefore they are convinced that the traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism are the universal traits that characterise the individual personality. The five traits create The Five-Factor Theory that is based on McCrae’s and Costa’s (1999) research. It tries to explain the functioning of the personality system consisting of the main five traits and some elements of lesser importance (McCrae & Costa, 2008). The main traits are responsible for the way of thinking and behaving of an individual. The elements of lesser importance like biological bases, objective biography and external influences also have an impact on personality. Biological bases through genes shape basic tendencies, the objective biography through events of the lifespan influence shapes a person’s attitude to the outside world and the last but not least important element, external influence is connected with cultural norms and events from the past. Personality can be better understood when all the elements are taken into consideration. The main five traits create The Big Five Model which is analysed in the next part of the chapter.

2.2.3 The Big Five Model Nowadays, the Big Five Model (BFM) (Goldberg, 1990) and Five Factor Model (FFM) (McCrae & Costa, 1985b, 1987) are the most popular models of personality that are the most widely accepted trait theories because they present the most precise estimation of the traits (Funder, 2004) and have a solid biological foundation (Yamagata et al., 2006). The origins of these models go back to Galton’s research at the end of the nineteenth century. Goldberg (1990) acknowledged that Galton (1884) was one of the first scientists who was aware of the existence of a lexical hypothesis— he knew about the important dissimilarities and hoped that one day, they would be encoded as single expressions in some or all languages. Later, Allport and Odbert (1936) formed the lexical hypothesis that suggests the importance of the various aspects of a human’s behaviour. The hypothesis assumes that the aspects of human behaviour will be encoded in language, while the aspects that are the most important will be encoded as single words. Cattell continued Allport’s and Odbert’s work with the identification of descriptive terms of personality, he tried to bring order to them. After analysing them, he eventually created a set of 60 clusters and called them surface traits (Cattell, 1956). Then, he collected data, carried out a factor analysis and finally, he came up with a set of 16 source traits. Fiske (1949) was the next researcher who contributed to the development of the Big Five model. He created simplified descriptions in comparison with the 22 of Cattell’s variables (John & Srivastava,

2.2 Personality

19

1999), and based his research on the factor analysis of peer, self and psychologist ratings of 128 clinical trainees. However, Tupes and Christal (1961) re-examined the correlation matrices that were available from eight different samples (John & Strivastava, 1999) to clarify the factors. After all the analyses, they found five relatively strong and repeating factors (Tupes & Christal, 1961). The five factors presented and described by Fiske, Tupes and Christal are similar to those defined by the Big Five Model today. Norman (1963) returned to the beginning of Allport’s and Odbert’s research. Like them, he sorted his set of terms, focused his work on expressions that he labelled ‘biophysical traits’ after recognizing some limitations in Cattell’s conceptual sorting. First, all the terms were arranged into the endpoints of the five factors identified by Tupes and Christal, which gave him ten groups of words. The ten groups were analysed by factor scores, the result is the following five factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Extraversion or Surgency (talkative, assertive, energetic). Agreeableness (good-natured, cooperative, trustful). Conscientiousness (orderly, responsible, dependable). Emotional Stability versus Neuroticism (calm, not neurotic, not easily upset). Culture (intellectual, polished, independent-minded).

Also, Goldberg (1981) conducted research to confirm the existence of those five factors. His research was based on common words, not on the variables identified by Cattell. He confirmed that the five factors were general, not only for the specific variables. The importance of a factor is checked by factor analytic studies, if it is replicable in different samples or across cultures. Many researchers have proven that the Big Five factors have been replicated in different languages, for example, German (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1992), Spanish (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998) and even Japanese (Bond et al., 1975). McCrae and Costa (1985b, 1987) worked on the five factors, too, resulting in interpreting the culture factor as openness to experience. Costa and McCrea’s model adapts the five factors to the Big Five as its basic structural model and contains some theoretical assumptions (John & Robins, 1993). According to McCrae and Costa (1990): Personality can be described in terms of five broad content domains, each of which subsumes several more narrowly defined and correlated subsets or facets; individual differences in these domains are stable over long periods of time, have a genetic basis, and derive in part from as yet unspecified internal (e.g., psychological) mechanisms; individuals can be described both in general terms by their scores on the five dimensions and more detail by their scores on the larger number of facets (quoted in John & Robins, 1993, p. 224).

The set of dimensions, openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, create a model of personality that is called the Big Five. It describes how the dimensions interact with each other and shows an individual’s perception of the world. Although the terms Big Five Model and Five Factor Model are used interchangeably today, they are derived from two different research traditions: The Big Five Model originated with the lexical research tradition and the Five Factor Model from the psychometric approach (John & Srivastava, 1999). From both traditions a relatively coherent picture has emerged—the five factors. The five

20

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

main components of the Big Five model are: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (emotional stability). The five initials form the acronym OCEAN which will be used in this book. The five dimensions represent personality at a wide level of abstraction, they also summarize an extensive number of characteristics (John et al., 2008). All of the OCEAN’s dimensions have two extreme poles which are described by some key adjectives at the high and the low points. Each of the five factors is described by six facets; they provide more specific descriptions of what a person is like, and provide information of how a person will do in a variety of different situations. Individuals are characterised by all the five dimensions; however, each dimension “is placed on a continuum with two extreme poles” (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2020, p. 29). The first personality trait, openness to experience, refers to the person’s attitude to the surrounding world and their interests, it also measures the extent of how imaginative and creative he/she is. People with a high level of this trait are imaginative, curious, flexible, creative and moved by art. They are original, untraditional, and open to new experiences and cultures. People with a low level of openness to experiences are conservative, conventional, down-to-earth, inartistic and practical. The factor ‘openness to experience’ has also been called culture (Norman, 1963) or intellect (Goldberg, 1981). As was mentioned above, each domain consists of six facets characterised by particular adjectives. Table 2.1 presents the facets with their extremes and provides some examples of adjectives that are characteristic for a particular level of facets. Someone with a high level of openness to experience creates a richer and more interesting inner-world and has an awareness of his own feelings. A person with a high degree of openness often becomes easily involved in artistic events. It should also be noticed that people with wide interests are always ready to challenge authority, traditional values; furthermore, tolerance for diversity is characteristic for them (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The next trait, conscientiousness, is the measure of carefulness, deliberation, and self-discipline of an individual. It reflects the tendency to be organised, responsible, hardworking, goal-directed and to follow rules. A high score of conscientiousness is characteristic for systematic, meticulous, efficient, organized, reliable, responsible, Table 2.1 Openness to experience

Dimension—openness versus closedness to experience Facet

Ideas Fantasy Aesthetics Actions Feelings Values

Correlated trait adjective with their extreme poles HO

LO

Curious Imaginative Creative Wide interests Excitable Liberal

Uncurious Down-to-earth Uncreative Prefer routine Conventional Conservative

HO high openness, LO low openness

2.2 Personality Table 2.2 Conscientiousness

21

Dimension—conscientiousness versus lack of direction Facet

Correlated trait adjective with their extreme poles HC

LC

Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement striving Self-discipline Deliberation

Conscientious Hard-working Well-organized Punctual Ambitious Persevering

Negligent Lazy Disorganized Late Aimless Quitting

HC high conscientiousness, LC low conscientiousness

and hard-working people. They prefer punctuality and structured behaviour rather than spontaneity and creativity. In contrast, people with a low score are often unreliable, aimless, careless and disorganized. They often do things impulsively without thinking about the consequences. Individuals high in conscientiousness lead regular and well-structured lives, they have better health and live longer (John & Srivastava, 1999). A low level of conscientiousness causes laziness, negligence and often being late. This factor correlates positively with success in foreign language learning (Janaszek, 2013), especially in the area of grammar and the memorization of vocabulary. However, it is possible that the positive influence of conscientiousness arises due to the attitude of the sense of responsibility of the language learners. The adjectives in Table 2.2 describing the extreme poles of conscientiousness accurately present someone’s attitude to some duties or responsibilities. Conscientiousness refers to responsibility, orderliness and deliberateness. People with a high level of this trait have a strong sense of duty and obligation, they also try to cope with difficult and unpleasant tasks. For them, it is important to be wellorganized, tidy and neat, they strive to be excellent, achieve success but before some assignments they think carefully about how to act. Individuals with a low level of the trait tend to avoid demanding activities, often miss appointments and break promises. For sure, it is impossible to say that they are self-disciplined (Costa & McCrea, 1992). The third personality trait is extraversion-introversion (Table 2.3) which reflects the tendency and intensity of interactions with the surrounding world, especially socially. It presents the comfort and assertiveness levels of people in various social situations. The extraversion-introversion trait measures how sociable, outgoing, and energetic a person is. Highly extraverted people are sociable, gregarious, active, assertive, passionate and talkative. They are warm-hearted, friendly, and full of energy. This trait’s correlation with language aptitude is controversial. Some researchers like Skehan (1989) or Ellis (1994) claim that thanks to their openmindedness and empathy it becomes easier for them to communicate and to learn a new language through dialogues and teamwork. Rossier (1976) showed a positive correlation between extraversion and oral fluency. Strong (1983) also found an advantage of extraversion in communication skills. On the other hand, the same researchers reveal, that extraversion correlates negatively with language aptitude. Eysenck (1957)

22 Table 2.3 Extraversion

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

Dimension—extraversion versus introversion Facet

Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-seeking Positive emotions Warmth

Correlated trait adjective with their extreme poles E

I

Sociable Talkative Energetic Adventurous Passionate Affectionate

Joiner Quiet Passive Sober Unfeeling Reserved

E extraversion, I introversion

says that extraverts cannot concentrate and learn with the same attention for a long time. By contrast, introverts are passive, quiet, reserved, withdrawn sober and aloof (Dörney, 2005). Burruss and Kaenzing (1999) claim that introverts want to work on their own. They like to stay in the background and need more time to carry out a task. They prefer writing to speaking, which makes oral exercises more difficult. They need accurate instructions of what and how to do something. Introverts are often afraid of making mistakes, and they do not experiment with the language. People who are high in extraversion are often leaders in groups, they enjoy the excitement of crowds and love to be involved in many activities. It is known that extraverts need a high level of stimulation, and they demonstrate positive feelings toward others. Leading a fast-paced and busy life is in accordance with their nature (Costa & McCrea, 1992). The fourth trait, agreeableness (Table 2.4), refers to modesty, compassion, altruism, and honesty. It is a measure of an individual’s respect for social harmony, and reflects how the individual gets along with other people. Moreover, it shows cooperativeness and scepticism about interactions within a group. People with a high score of this trait are friendly, helpful, and often see the best features in people. They try to have good relationships with other people and avoid anger and aggression. Agreeableness is helpful in better phonological coding and pronunciation, maybe this is caused by listening more attentively and trying to use his/her voice to harmonize with a conversationalist (Ellis, 1994). A low level of agreeableness is characteristic for cold, cynical, rude and unpleasant people (Dörney, 2005). They are unconcerned with others’ well-being, vengeful and uncooperative. Characteristic facets for agreeableness are modesty, sincerity, sympathy, compliance, trust in others and altruism. People with a high level of the trait believe in honesty and the good intentions of others, they love helping and for them, this is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. A high level of compliance means that they do not like confrontations, they love to reach a compromise and deny their own needs (Costa & McCrea, 1992). The last dimension, neuroticism (Table 2.5), measures the ability of an individual to cope with stress. It is a trait connected with sadness, moodiness and emotional

2.2 Personality Table 2.4 Agreeableness

23

Dimension—agreeableness versus antagonism Facet

Correlated trait adjective with their extreme poles AG

AN

Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tendermindedness

Soft-hearted Trusting Generous Acquiescent Lenient Good-natured

Ruthless Suspicious Stingy Antagonistic Critical Irritable

AG agreeableness, AN antagonism

instability. People with a high score tend to experience mood swings, anxiety, irritability, and sadness, they often interpret ordinary situations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative reactions last usually long periods of time and this causes an inability to think clearly. A person with a high level of trait neuroticism has to cope with stress most of the time. People with a low score of trait neuroticism are: calm, relaxed and unemotional. They seldom experience negative feelings; they frequently feel positive emotions. It is also worth mentioning that they are not nervous in social situations, they are clear-thinking under stress (Dörney, 2005). People with high facets of neuroticism often feel uncomfortable, frightened and scared about what can happen. Their mood changes very fast as a reaction to life’s ups and downs, also they are sensitive about what others think of them. A self-conscious person is easily embarrassed, afraid of big groups and has difficulty coping with stress. Such a person experiences panic and annoyance very fast; furthermore, this combines with helplessness in emergency situations (Costa & McCrea, 1992). The two five factor models: the Five Factor Model (FFM) of Costa and McCrea and the Big Five of Goldberg differ from each other (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996) (Table 2.6). Costa and McCrea’s model has the acronym OCEAN for the main five factors: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (which is also called emotional stability) which is easy to remember but not Table 2.5 Neuroticism

Dimension—neuroticism versus emotional stability Facet

Anxiety Hostility Depression Self-consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability

Correlated trait adjective with their extreme poles N

ES

Worrying Temperamental Self-pitying Self-conscious Emotional Hardy

Calm Even-tempered Self-satisfied Comfortable Unemotional Vulnerable

N neuroticism, ES emotional stability

24

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

meaningful, and the factors are not all named according to the positive pole of each axis. Goldberg’s model AB5C (Abridged Big Five—Dimensional Circumplex) (Hofstee et al., 1992) has the factors in order of their positive poles and this is determined through factor analysis: urgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellect. To sum up, there are three main aspects in which the AB5C model differs from the hierarchical FFM of Costa and McCrae (1992). The first aspect refers to the origins of each model. The AB5C model was developed within the lexical tradition whereas the FFM follows a questionnaire approach, and is an empirical generalization (Novikova, 2013). The second aspect refers to the number of facets, there are nine facets in the AB5C model and six facets in FFM for each factor. The third aspect refers to the relationship between factors and facets. In the AB5C model, most of the facets are blends of the main factors, only 5 facets belong to a single factor (one core facet to basic factor). The Big Five provide an extensive description of phenotypic personality traits, but it does not mean that they have a biological basis. There is a debate about the fifth factor, which is more appropriate, openness to experience or intellect and what the difference between intellect and general intelligence is (Acton, 1998). With the advent of personality models, researchers started to work on tools which would help in assessing a person’s personality type. This could be useful in different areas, for example: to understand someone’s behaviours in multiple situations, to choose professional preferences or the methods of learning languages. The bestknown tools for the types of personality assessment connected with the AB5C and OCEAN models are: IPIP–NEO (Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg et al., 2006) and NEO– PIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was created in the Netherlands as a personality item-writing project (Hofstee et al., 2002). The project was based on the lexical hypothesis which shows the important differences among people encoded in the natural language (Goldberg, 1981). Hofstee, with his colleagues, focused his research on short, concrete behavioural phrases; as they created three teams of five to ten members. Each team had to follow ten guidelines, for example, phrase items in the third person singular, avoid modifiers, avoid idioms, that were provided by Hofstee et al. (2002), and then they had three points of departure to create the item content. The first team worked with the 90-facet AB5C model of personality (Hofstee et al., 1992), in which trait adjectives are organized around pairs of the Big-Five personality factors. The result of the team discussions were 909 Table 2.6 The comparison of AB5C model and FFM Factors

AB5C model

FFM

Factors

Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellect

Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience

Origins

Developed within the lexical tradition

An empirical generalization

Number of facets

Nine

Six

2.2 Personality

25

items representing a facet of the AB5C model. The second way of collecting item content was the list of 1557 personality-descriptive verbs prepared by de Raad et al. (1988). This list helped to produce 136 items; followed by 266 items to describe the Intellect. With the translation of the 1311 Dutch items into American English with the help of Goldberg and German by Angleitner, the project became international. Those items which could be translated very well in English and German were retained, resulting in the International Personality Item Pool with 914 items created in three languages: Dutch, English and German. Further IPIP studies were led by Goldberg and Saucier in the United States. They chose a group of 500 men and 500 women from the ages of 18–85 to participate in the study. After the research, they completed a sub-inventory of 360 trait-descriptive adjectives. In the spring of 1994, an inventory of 858 American English items was finished, in which the items had been adjusted from third person into the first (Goldberg, 1999). Nowadays, the IPIP contains over 3000 items. Goldberg (1999) first presented this theory at the 8th European Conference on Personality in 1996. After the conference, researchers started to translate the IPIP into their own languages, but they were also concerned about the open source of it. According to Goldberg et al. (2006), the open-source personality measurement and education about the Five Factor model of personality is a good idea. The IPIP inventory was designed to measure constructs similar to 30 facet scales in the NEO PI-R. There are also different measures created from the IPIP-NEO item pool: 20-item IPIP, 50-item IPIP, and all of them are free of charge. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) is a personality inventory which is based on the Big Five personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism with six subcategories of each trait. Costa and McCrae were working on age-related changes in personality in the 1970s and focused their attention on neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. They called their inventory the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Inventory (NEO-I), and it was included in the Baltimore Study of Aging (Shock et al., 1984). According to McCrae and Costa (2008), there was a stagnation in personality psychology in the 1970s, however they wanted to research the individual differences by asking the appropriate questions, analysing them, and developing useful measures of traits. They started with analyses of the 16 PF (Cattell & Mead, 2008). First, they wanted to find an answer to the question about structural changes and age (McCrae & Costa, 2008), and their research showed that “there are no age differences in structure” (ibidem, p. 180). Since neuroticism and extraversion were already known from an analysis of the 16 PF, they added a third dimension, openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1986). It gave them specific information on traits, with empirical demonstration of the predictive value of measuring traits and confirmed the usefulness of them. The NEO-I helped to understand only three major personality factors and consisted of 180 items, with facet scales for each of the trait and some instructions to measure agreeableness and conscientiousness. Then, they worked with the natural language of personality traits and came to the conclusion that the 5-factor inventory model was needed. In 1992, the NEO-FFI was introduced, which was a short version with new norms for use with college-age and adult respondents (Costa & McCrea, 1992). The NEO-FFI is a 12-item scale that includes the items on the highest level on each of the

26

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

factors, 60 altogether. Although the items were chosen to ensure a suitable amount of facets which represent the factors, the number of them can be different for each factor. The NEO-FFI is correlated with NEO PI-R, and the full version that contains 240 items—simple sentences describing specific behaviours and attitudes. The NEO PI-R includes six facets for each factor (30 in total), 48 questions per factor, with six sub-facets per domain and eight questions per sub-facet. The scale is divided into five points from strongly agree to strongly disagree, furthermore, it can be in two forms: self-report and observer report. McCrae and Costa wanted to measure all the dimensions in many different areas. The NEO scales are used in a commercial way. The presented history of the formation IPIP-NEO and NEO PI-R, two instruments that help in assessing an individual’s personality type, show how much work was needed to create a useful measuring tool. IPIP and NEO PI-R are quite similar, the biggest difference concerns the fifth factor in IPIP-intellect and NEO PI-R’s openness to experience. Although intellect measures a tendency toward intelligence and an intellectual style, openness to experience measures creativity and imagination, both scales have similar content. Several research projects have confirmed that five factors are enough to describe personality, however the interpretation of the Big Five structure sometimes differs in certain publications (Amelang & Borkenau, 1982; Zuckerman et al., 1991). Even though numerous studies have been published, the Big Five structure has not been accepted as “a taxonomic super structure by all researchers in the field” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 17). This problem could be caused by difficulties with identifying which model is the actual Big Five (John, 1989), since the factors have various labels, i.e.: “the first factor has appeared as confident self-expression, surgency, assertiveness, social, social extraversion and power” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 17). The last factor, openness, has been called: “intellect, culture, intelligence, intellect, intellectual interests, and intellectance” (ibidem, p. 17). The differences among the dimensions in various studies arise from the variables which researchers include and the way they present them, even when the content of the factor is quite the same. Researchers like Norman, Goldberg, McCrae and Costa and Hogan claim that personality is similar to biology and needs a system where various levels of generality and inclusion are known (Simpson, 1961). John et al. (1991) pointed out that a trait taxonomy must contain: middle-level categories and narrower descriptors. As a consequence, Norman and Goldberg have developed middle-level categories attributed to the Big Five dimensions. However, Briggs (1989) questioned Norman and Goldberg’s work stating that “middle-level categories have not been investigated systematically nor have they been included in an assessment instrument” (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 34) but it is the opposite to Costa and McCrae’s 30 facets which “represent the most elaborated and empirically validated model” (ibidem, p. 34). It is difficult to judge which research and explanations are more valuable, but it must be said that the five dimensions with facets give a good image of personality. However, some researchers still ponder over the question if the Big Five model gives a full description of personality (Klinkosz & S˛ekowski, 2008). Some scholars claim that the model provides a good picture of personality which can be used in various fields of life (Costa et al., 2001; Digman, 1990; John et al., 1991; McCrae &

2.3 Openness to Experience

27

Costa, 1999) and some even think that the Big Five is universal (McCrae, 2004). Despite its universality, the model has raised and still raises a number of doubts, theoretical and methodological (Block, 1995; Borsboom, 2006; Jarmu˙z, 1994). The development of the Big Five taxonomy has also intensified interest between personality and adult psychopathology (e.g., Wiggins & Pincus, 1989) and brought order to many confusing findings in the field (Friedman & Brownell, 1995).

2.3 Openness to Experience The aim of this subchapter is to provide valuable insights into the dimension of openness to experience. First, the history of research on openness to experience is presented. Next, some definitions of this trait are outlined. Then, the dimension is analysed in detail. Finally, this part provides some information about the influence of openness to experience in various areas of life. At the beginning, the importance of the trait in everyday life is presented. Then, the role of openness in some fields of education is described. Finally, the role of the trait in second/foreign language acquisition is shown.

2.3.1 History of Research on Openness to Experience Openness as a broad domain has been a major research topic for personality psychologists (McCrae & Costa, 1997). The origins of openness to experience could be noticed in Cattell’s (1947) work, when he derived the primary factors of personality in his research. He found three factors that resemble the contemporary aspects of openness to experience: intelligence, imaginative emotionality, and Bohemian intellectualism. Rogers (1961) tried to compare openness to feelings, Fenigstein et al. (1975) equated it to self-consciousness. Rokeach (1960) equates openness with an open mind, for Tellegen and Atkinson (1974), openness means absorbing experience. The dimension of openness, sometimes called openness to experience, was created thanks to four independent discoveries. The first discovery comes from Cattell’s works where personality is shown in language traits and psychological tests. Then, Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961) presented the five-factor model. It formed the grounds of the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987). In Tupes and Christal’s work, openness was called Culture, but Fiske decided to name it Inquiring Intellect. The researchers noticed that not only intelligence or intellectual activity create openness but also cultural sophistication and imagination. Tellegen and Atkinson (1974) based their work on an analysis of the measures connected to hypnotic susceptibility, ego resiliency and control. They found three factors: stability, introversion and “openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences” (p. 273) or absorption. Absorption is related to mystical experiences, hypnosis, artistic creativity, and the ability to absorbed attention. Optimal personality was the subject Coan (1974)

28

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

worked on to identify it in a wide range of personality theories. He based his observations on the work of (Fitzgerald, 1966), who measured the extent of awareness and was concerned with regressive behaviour and experience. Coan added his own items and created an instrument, Experience Inventory, that helped to find out a general factor of openness. The items “were correlated with measures that suggest emotional sensitivity, aesthetic interests, liberalism and independence and a certain intellectual and emotional flexibility” (Coan, 1974, pp. 80–81). After his research, he was impressed that the individuals who are open have a larger scope of awareness. All the presented discoveries show openness as an indispensable element of every human life, from using a language, imagination, interests in culture to flexible emotional and intellectual reactions. The name of the dimension can differ, but it describes individuals who are open to some degree to new experiences in every area of life. In their studies, Costa and McCrae noticed that the construct of openness had various forms in the history of research, the changes have appeared on numerous occasions (McCrae, 1993). They claimed that after the various research studies which were carried out by, i.e.: Guilford et al., (1976), Myers and McCaulley (1985) and McCrae and Costa (1985a, 1985b), they drew conclusions that their concept of openness to experience had its roots outside the lexical tradition, which can be seen in many theoretical contexts. The two facts led them to the statement that, “whereas intellect is a basic factor of English-language trait adjectives, openness is a basic dimension of personality itself, imperfectly represented by the lay terms that define intellect” (McCrae, 1993, p. 41).

2.3.2 Definitions of Openness to Experience As mentioned above, openness to experience is one of the factors which presents a broad assessment of an individual’s personality, and shows a person’s attitude to the surrounding world and unconventional ideas. Openness describes an individual’s mental and experiential life, shows its uniqueness, complexity, and capabilities to do exciting things in life. It is connected to emotions and motivation, also includes intellectual curiosity and interests (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Carson et al., 2003; DeYoung et al., 2005). McCrae and Costa (1985a, 1985b, p. 146) claim that, “openness is seen in the breadth, depth, and permeability of consciousness, and in the recurrent need to enlarge and examine experience”. According to McCrae (1993, p. 41), “openness to experience is a broad dimension of individual differences with both structural and motivational aspects”. He also defines openness as a personality disposition for creativity (McCrae, 1994, 1996). The trait is defined as a way in which a person actively searches and values various experiences but also tolerates and explores novel situations (Pervin, 2002). DeYoung et al. (2013) claim that openness to experience reflects personal differences in reacting to different perceptual or sensory information.

2.3 Openness to Experience

29

Openness to experience has its alternative labels, one of them is Intellect, which is defined as “the ability to learn and reason … [and the] capacity for knowledge and understanding” (Morris, 1976, p. 682). The term suggests that intellect is responsible for cognitive abilities which allow for the acquisition, transformation, and usage of information. It occurred that after some studies, openness is positively related to psychometric measures of intelligence (e.g., McCrae, 1987), and to the heritability of intelligence that may explain the heritability of openness. Intelligence was and is still studied, and thanks to the term intellect it is possible to adopt some knowledge in the personality sphere. Although the label intellect was shown as similar to openness to experience, the researchers (Maddi & Berne, 1964; McCrae & Costa, 1990) reject it because further studies showed that one of the ability terms, intelligence, is related to two factors: openness and conscientiousness. It is also noted that open people are not only able to understand new things but they like using them. Open people more often have not only interests in specialized fields, but they have a wide range of interests, and they go beyond intellectual pursuits (McCrae & Costa, 1985a). Openness is often motivated by variety, tolerance of ambiguity and complexity. Woo et al. (2014) view openness as a multifaceted, hierarchically organized construct that relates to an individual’s preference for diversity and novelty, especially at the highest level of abstraction. To sum up, by collecting all the provided explanations of openness to experience, it is possible to give the working definition of it as a factor that influences human behaviour and an individual’s attitude to life. It is a desirable trait that helps achieve success in different areas, from social relationships to academic achievements. The trait often means creativity, tolerance of ambiguity, motivation to get involved in many projects and intellectual curiosity.

2.3.3 Facets of Openness to Experience and Their Role The work of Rokeach (1960) constitutes the most highly developed version of the structural model of openness. He posits that open and closed people have differently structured ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Wyrick (1969), after using Coan’s openness scale (1974) concluded that open individuals more often revise their attitudes than closed ones. All the individual differences are caused by various levels of openness which is characterised by six facets: imagination/fantasy, artistic interests/ aesthetics, emotionality/feelings, adventurousness/actions, intellect/ideas and liberalism/values. These facets are created by some areas of experience to which the individual is open. Many of the research studies which are devoted to openness to experience are more closely related to The Big Five factors. Nowadays, openness is often estimated by the NEO PI-R using 48 items, with eight for each facet. Costa and McCrae (1992) described the facets as follows: • Imagination/fantasy—is strongly associated with a person’s emotional predisposition to be involved in fantasy. Fantasizing can express a willingness to change

30

•

•

•

•

•

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

or demonstrates the power of judgement that contributes to someone’s perception of an event. If it is on a high level, then people use fantasy to create a richer and more interesting world. A low level of imagination causes a bigger interest in facts than fantasy. Artistic interests/aesthetics—this facet is one of the most emotional aspects, it presents the ability to evaluate different forms of art. A high level of the aesthetics facet is associated with creative activities and reaction to all types of internal and external stimuli. Individuals with a high score, love beauty in art and nature, what influences their involvement in artistic and natural events. They are impressed by poetry, love listening to music, and puzzled by art. Emotionality/feelings—this facet relates to emotions, and individuals show their sensitivity to emotional events. High scores describe people who have good access to, and awareness of their own feelings. They are opened to their inner feelings and emotions, evaluate their emotions because they know how important they are in life. Individuals with a high level of this facet, experience deeper and more diverse emotional states, like anxiety and neuroticism. They feel both happiness and unhappiness very intensely. Individuals who have the facet on a low level are less aware of their feelings and do not show their emotions openly. Adventurousness/actions—this facet is connected with the person’s motivation to do something new and complex, also with a willingness to take on physical and social risks which can be related to such an experience. Individuals who score high on this facet are eager to try new activities, love travelling abroad and experience various things. They are bored with familiarity and routines; they prefer novelty and variety. People with a high level of this facet of openness to action often have better physical and mental health caused by their behaviour as they choose to be happy. Low scorers feel uncomfortable with change, they prefer routines and well-known activities and surrounding. Intellect/ideas—is one of the most important, central facets of openness to experience. It reflects cognitive flexibility, and moreover, carries the potential to increase life satisfaction, and self-esteem. Openness to ideas encourages people to make reasonable changes in life, furthermore, it contributes to reduction in stress. Individuals with a high score prefer to play with ideas and are open-minded to new ideas. They enjoy debating intellectual issues and solving riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. This facet should not be equated with intelligence because it is a style of thinking not an ability, but research on ideas showed that high scorers achieve slightly higher scores on standardised intelligence tests. People with a low level of this facet prefer dealing with people and things than ideas and think that intellectual exercises are a waste of time. Liberalism/values—this facet refers to a willingness to re-examine social, political and religious values. Openness to values is often recognised as the opposition of dogmatism. Individuals with the highest score can represent outright hostility toward rules, they show a love of ambiguity. It encourages independent thinking, action, and willingness to change in some aspects of life. On the opposite side, scorers, often called—psychological conservatives, prefer stability which is carried by traditions, and security without chaos and disorder.

2.3 Openness to Experience

31

Many researchers examined the facet structure of openness to experience but they based their studies on theory and expected some theoretical openness facets. The research that was based on the theory generated theory-dependent results which were hard to integrate in a real life. As Costa et al. (1991) suggested that their taxonomy of six subscales was made rather on their own intuitions than through an empirical and theoretical analysis, therefore, it is worth mentioning the study led by Woo et al. (2014). They claimed that novel stimuli can appear in different forms, from new sensations to new ideas, and it all depends on what kinds of stimulations an individual prefers. They uncovered the six facets of openness, three facets related to intellect (intellectual efficiency, ingenuity, and curiosity), and three facets to culture (aesthetics, tolerance, and depth). The visualisation of the model is presented in Fig. 2.2. According to Woo et al. (2014), openness also has a facet—specific relationships with the Big Five traits, for example, tolerance with agreeableness, intellectual efficiency, and ingenuity with emotional stability. The names of facets are different in various studies, but their descriptions are similar. Their level in the openness dimension influence people’s behaviour. As other major personality constructs, openness to experience has a hierarchical structure, and it offers an extensive description of the behavioural tendency in various situations. It is also worth mentioning openness in terms of the structure of consciousness. Open people perceive more thoughts and feelings simultaneously, they react to impulses spontaneously (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Furthermore, very characteristic for open people is emotional ambivalence and perceptual synaesthesia, they also

Fig. 2.2 The hierarchical model of openness to experience

32

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

have a higher level of tolerance to ambiguity. Closed people have relatively isolated ideas, feelings and perceptions, as they have to compete for attention. All in all, individuals with a higher level of facets (there are individual differences within the domain), as Costa and McCrae (1992) described, are interested in both inner and outer worlds, and they lead a much richer life. They love to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values; also, they experience different emotions from positive to negative but more keenly than closed individuals. Openness to experience varies throughout a lifespan (Costa et al., 1986). Costa et al. (1986) carried out some research about stability in openness, they used data of 10,063 people from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey. The results showed that younger respondents are more open than older ones and the willingness to try new experiences gradually decreases with age.

2.3.4 The Importance of Openness to Experience in Everyday Life and Education Some people look for new and varied experiences, this may be caused by a higher level of openness which includes higher motivation, and a need for variety (Maddi & Berne, 1964), cognition (Osberg, 1987) and understanding (Jackson, 1984). When we compare the daydreams of open and close people, they are completely different. Closed individuals have conceptional and repetitive daydreams, they try to escape from stress, therefore, they prefer routines and everything which is well-known by them (McCrae & Costa, 1982). Open individuals in their daydreams always seek for attractive and intrinsic interests. If an open individual does not get any new experience, it can lead to distracting thoughts, troubling impulses, and cognitive inconsistencies (Maddi, 1968). It is known that the need for experience spurs a tolerance for ambiguity and defeats the need for security. According to McCrae (1993, 1994), closed and open people are well-adjusted, talkative, or silent, affectionate, or reserved, however, open people prefer variety to routine, although it does not mean that they are disorganized. Psychologists debate about “the relative importance of cognitive and affective determinants of experience” (McCrae, 1993, 1994, p. 51), and claim that they are interrelated. The function of openness is to create the degree of interrelation of processes with the cognitive and affective determinants. Closed minds often isolate ideas and affects, this can contribute to an objective assessment of the reality. Open people have well-developed consciousness with blurred boundaries between perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. For some people, a thing is only an object and they do not try to find any other meaning in it, but for individuals with high openness it can be a topic for opening a discussion. Openness to experience is often characterised as a healthier and more mature dimension by psychologists, they suggest that open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different areas of living (Williamson, 2018). The intellectual style rather demands an open person, and would be a good feature of a professor.

2.3 Openness to Experience

33

Some research has shown that closed thinking can be useful in police work, sales, and service occupations. Openness to experience shows numerous connections with introspective and expressive behaviour, which allows a person to improve their self-esteem, flexibility and life satisfaction (Nekljudova, 2019). In life, people have to deal with many changes, they have to analyse and define their identity and reflect on current events. In such situations, a person who is open is more flexible and willing to think and do something, and even make sensible changes in life. Whitbourne (1986) suggested that thanks to flexibility, people are more self-confident, they have a sense of control which is useful in overcoming different life situations. In her research, she observed that people with a higher level of openness more often look for opportunities to complete their knowledge and attain higher education. Costa and McCrae (1980) in their research proved that people with a high degree of openness are less susceptible to stress, and that there is a link between important life events and openness. Oswald et al. (2006) and Schneider et al. (2012) confirmed that a higher level of openness means a lower level of cortisol and stress. Openness to experience is characterised as the degree of a person’s susceptibility to change. Individuals with a higher level can reject some norms and traditions. They are better socially adapted, more often support protests, and accept changes. Openness is desirable in everyday life because it encourages independent thinking, action, and susceptibility to change, therefore, an open individual can determine if they want some changes in their life or not. It also contributes to the development of the ability to evaluate different forms of art and is associated with creative activities. It helps to express emotions which are similar to those which people feel during a sublime emotional state. People with a high level of openness react to all types of internal and external stimuli, they enjoy being involved in absorbing events and feel emotional connection with them (Nekljudova, 2019). Openness to experience is also connected with an individual’s emotional predisposition, like openness to aesthetics, it develops thinking and creativity, however, it can carry a risk of depression in some situations (Wolfenstein & Trull, 1997). Pyszczynski et al. (1987) suggested that people sometimes experience negative emotions connected with loss and failure, then they start to struggle between their actual and ideal state, such a situation can lead to depression and negative emotions. When Carrillo et al. (1996) researched openness, they found that women who have a higher level of fantasy are more susceptible to depression than men. According to Costa and McCrae (1980), open people experience and often reflect on the positive and negative events in their life, and they try to find a balance between positive and negative reactions. They added that, for most open people, fantasizing can be a source of motivation for change, it helps to foresee a negative result in the future, but for others, fantasizing can be a source of depression. Nekljudova (2019, p. 80) sums up that “fantasizing has a significant impact; it demonstrates the power of judgment in which thinking about a situation can influence one’s perception of an event”. Openness can sometimes lead to frustration, and a high level of it is associated with anxiety. Coan (1972) suggested that women have a higher level of openness, it explains their higher rates of anxiety and mood changes. Jonassaint et al. (2007) added

34

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

that openness has a significant impact on irritation and a protective effect against disease. Some research (Schneider, 2008) showed that individuals react better under stress if the level of openness is higher and this increases the positive outcome. A higher level of openness helps to regulate their emotions and to notice useful things. Openness to experience provides the joy that increases knowledge and helps to cope with problems. People with a high score of openness to experience like learning, often enjoy watching documentaries or educational TV, create their space of living in innovative ways, or search for such activities that help them break their daily routines (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a). Individuals with a higher degree of openness try to think positively even in the sphere of health and finance. They look for possibilities to develop their personality, expand their life experiences, just to obtain higher life satisfaction. People with a low level of openness to experience are often unable to adapt or cope with problems in life and they are exposed to more stress (Nekljudova, 2019). Everyone knows that different traits of personality influence people’s behaviour. But it might be useful to consider how they affect learning. Over the past few decades, several studies have tried to identify how personality traits correlate with academic achievements (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). A high rate of openness is connected with greater flexibility in information processing from the surrounding environment (DeYoung et al., 2005). This means a willingness to try new things, explore them and show much more interest in actions that help to increase knowledge (Nekljudova, 2019). Silvia et al. (2009) found that the level of openness influences the level of creativity in the areas of the arts and humanities. Students with a high level of creativity and openness show much more interest in the sciences associated with art (Nekljudova, 2019). Also, Gatzka and Hell (2018) stated that openness is positively related to academic performance. They suggested that openness is a strong predictor of academic performance, and the results are quite stable in different areas of science. An open mind and a certain willingness to deal with new perspectives are very important in gaining academic skills and knowledge. However, they added that other specific individual differences including motivation, academic aspiration and intellectual ability can influence the learning process more than openness. Gatzka and Hell claimed that subjects that demand critical thinking and creative ideas, such as English, German and French, are correlated more strongly with openness. On the other side, mathematics, which demands more rules and regulations, means a high level of openness can be detrimental.

2.3.5 The Role of Openness to Experience in Second Language Acquisition It is said that personality traits influence people’s interaction all the time and are important in education, as well as in learning foreign languages (Erton, 2010).

2.3 Openness to Experience

35

According to Cook, “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” (Cook, 1991, p. 106). It is important to know more about the impact of personality on second language acquisition. However, in this field there has been little research and it is worth expanding the areas of research in the psychology of second language acquisition and how personality plays a role (Dewaele, 2012). For example, personality also plays a role in the fluency and proficiency of the second language (Ghapanchi et al., 2011). It is often difficult to correctly interpret the results after a research study because researchers must possess the skills of psychologists and applied linguists (Dewaele, 2012). Furthermore, to study the influence of personality on language learning is hard due to the need to isolate the proper variables (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). According to Dörnyei (2005), if we analyse the components of each five dimensions, then we notice that there are two dimensions closely related to learning languages: openness to experience and conscientiousness. Some researchers confirmed that these two dimensions have a positive impact on learning. The research of Spengler et al. (2013) indicated the positive effect of openness on achievement in German, French and English, too. In this book, the focus will be on openness to experience. The results reported in the academic literature usually vary widely in many studies from confirming to denying the existence of the influence of personality on academic learning (Dörnyei, 2005). Dörnyei claimed that it often depends on the interpretation of the scholars conducting the research. Nowadays, openness to experience is viewed as one of the most important traits that influences different aspects of the foreign language learning process (O˙za´nskaPonikwia & Dewaele, 2012), and, therefore is studied in many links with language skills. Furthermore, Mulalic et al. (2017) suggested that the trait is significantly correlated to language learning achievements because openness to experience may help individuals to raise their motivation to study a foreign language. Learning a foreign language “requires a great deal of personal investment, concentration, patience, and active involvement” (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018b, p. 103). According to Gardner (2001), studying a foreign language does not mean acquiring language systems and subsystems but above all, it means acquiring language skills like speaking, listening, writing, and reading, and is also connected with another culture with all its aspects. Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience are more sociable, and they cope better with language learning (Asmali, 2014; Kato, 2009; Sharp, 2008). Thanks to their sociability, they have well developed communicative skills and listening skills. More social people speak a lot; therefore, they use a foreign language more often. As was mentioned above, openness to experience is also correlated with listening skills (Fayyaz & Kamal, 2011) because it is a trait that shows an admirable receptiveness to new things surrounding individuals. Language acquisition demands many more abilities at the same time than any other subject at school. There are many complicated psychological processes which occur within an individual caused by different variables such as motivation, language aptitude, self-determination, personality, attitude to the language speaking group or anxiety (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a). Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) suggested that learners should be aware of leaving their comfort zone while communicating. The entire process

36

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

to reach proficiency in a foreign language is full of challenges and is easier if one has typical openness to experience features. Individuals who are open to experience have the need for activities that will bring positive changes to their lives and different ways of thinking to various matters (Costa & McCrae, 1998). “All these needs can be accommodated by the challenges of the foreign language learning process, in which one is exposed to a multitude of new, often contradictory ideas” (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018b, p. 193). Some scientists (MacIntyre et al., 2001a, 2001b; Oz, 2014; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a) consider that openness to experience has both a direct and indirect influence on the level of someone’s second language willingness to communicate. The higher the level of openness to experience, the less stress in communicating and the lower the level of language anxiety. Individuals with a high level of openness to experience like speaking, they do not treat it as something threatening but rather as a reward that helps in developing their language skills. They are more often accompanied by the positive emotions that contribute to the development in language acquisition and that lead to proficiency. On the opposite side are students with a low level of openness, they feel insecure in many life situations, but especially challenging for them is to communicate in a foreign language. They feel stress, tension, often do not believe in their language skills, their way to communicate in a foreign language is extremely difficult and they need much more time (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018b). People with a higher level of openness to experience “are receptive to constructive criticism, may have an easier time learning the language” (Eisenberg & Lee, 2020, p. 152). They prefer cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are defined as “mental strategies that learners use to make sense of their learning” and metacognitive as strategies that “help the learner regulate their learning” (Asmali, 2014, p. 17). It means that they can control their own learning and coordinate the process. Highly open students learn through interactions, using their emotions and try to reduce their anxiety, and what is more, they motivate themselves. They store and retrieve new information using grouping, guessing or reasoning deductively (Ayhan & Turkyilmaz, 2015). Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience like doing things that are worth their interests and want to have an influence on the results. The research of Spengler et al. (2013) indicated the positive effect of openness on achievement in German, French and English, as well. Knowing that openness to experience is a trait influencing students’ involvement in various areas of life, it is worth checking whether it has an impact of their success in foreign language learning. Therefore, the present research should provide an answer to this issue.

2.4 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to present personality in detail as a collection of psychological traits that influence someone’s way of thinking, behaving and feeling. It has been in the centre of attention of researchers for centuries, from the ancient time of Hippocrates to modern theories of Costa, Macrae and Goldberg’s. The above

References

37

review of selected literature—from the history of personality research, the presented personality definitions, through the Big Five Model with its main factors: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience, to the role of openness in different areas—allows a researcher to conjecture that one of the personality traits in particular, openness to experience, has an influence on foreign language acquisition. The history of personality research has shown how complex the term is, furthermore, how difficult it has been to explain all processes connected with it, especially language acquisition. The development of civilization has allowed researchers to find out more details about the complexity of personality, and to easier analyse some data that helped to discover the five dimensions. The last discovered dimension, openness to experience still arouses a lot of emotion how to label it, but all researchers agree that a higher level of it is desirable to achieve success and satisfaction in life. Openness to experience, thanks to its characteristic features like flexibility, curiosity to the surrounding world or open mind to novelty contributes to the development of an individual in various areas of life. It is also true that many other interrelations require further analysis and descriptions. One such correlation is between openness to experience and tolerance ambiguity, therefore tolerance ambiguity is presented in detail in the next chapter of this book. The following chapter of the book is devoted to the concept of ambiguity tolerance. The history of ambiguity tolerance and some definitions of it are presented. Finally, ambiguity tolerance is characterised in various aspects of life.

References Acton, G. S. (1998). Classification of psychopathology: The nature of language. The Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 19(3), 243–256. Adler, A. (2013). Understanding human nature. Routledge. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Review Company. Allport, G. W. (1921). Personality and character. Psychological Bulletin, 18, 441–455. Allport, G. W. (1927). Concepts of trait and personality. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 284–293. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Henry Holt and Co. Amelang, M., & Borkenau, P. (1982). Über die faktorielle Struktur und externe Validität einiger Fragebogen-Skalen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Extraversion und emotionalen Labilität. [The factional structure and external validity of some questionnaire scales for measurement of the dimensions of extraversion and emotional lability.]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3(2), 119–145. Asmali, M. (2014). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and language learning strategies. The Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17(32), 1–18. Ayhan, U., & Turkyilmaz, U. (2015). The use of meta-cognitive strategies and personality traits among Bosnian university students. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 5, 40–60. Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

38

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 Boeree, C. G. (2006). The ultimate theory of personality (p. 13). Psychology Department, Shippensburg University. http://www.social-psychology.de/do/pt_ultimate.pdf Bond, M. H., Nakazato, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 346–357. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1992). Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables. European Journal of Personality, 6(3), 199–214. Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6 Briggs, R. (1989). Introduction. Measurement and Control, 22(6), 164–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002029408902200601 Burruss, J., & Kaenzing, L. (1999). Introversion: The often-forgotten factor impacting the gifted. SENG. https://www.sengifted.org/post/introversion-the-often-forgotten-factor-impact ing-the-gifted Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications (2nd Revised ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Carrillo, J. M., Rojo, N., & Staats, A. W. (1996). Vulnerable personality in depression: Investigating commonality in the search for unification. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.12.3.202 Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499 Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 135–159). Sage Publications Ltd. Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417576 Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12(3), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289253 Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/10773-000 Cattell, R. B. (1956). Validation and intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195607)12:3% 3c205:AID-JCLP2270120302%3e3.0.CO;2-0 Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0 Coan, R. W. (1972). Measurable components of openness to experience. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 346–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033385 Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. Columbia University Press. Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7(2), 103–117. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139–150). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

References

39

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.38.4.668 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: I. Development and validation of survey measures. Psychology and Aging, 1(2), 140–143. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.140 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Trait theories of personality. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality (pp. 103–121). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4419-8580-4_5 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., McCrae, R., Zonderman, A., Barbano, H., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. (1986). Crosssectional studies of personality in a national sample: Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology and Aging, 1, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144 Costa, P. T., Jr., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 de Raad, B., Mulder, E., Kloosterman, K., & Hofstee, W. K. (1988). Personality-descriptive verbs. European Journal of Personality, 2(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020204 Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 42–57). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978 1137032829_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. Deyoung, C., Quilty, L., Peterson, J., & Gray, J. (2013). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/002 23891.2013.806327 Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistcs (Thames Valley University), 4, 43–69. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). Psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327. Eisenberg, S., & Lee, K. (2020). A literature review on the relationship between personal traits and language learning. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 10(6), 147–155. https:// doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2020.10.06.147 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University. Ellis, A., Abrams, M., & Abrams, L. (2009). Personality theories: Critical perspectives (1-USA). SAGE. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W W Norton & Co. Erton, I. (2010). Relations between personality traits, language learning styles and success in foreign language achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 115–126. Eysenck, H. J. (1957). Sense and nonsense in psychology. Penguin Books, Inc. Eysenck, H. J. (1965). A Three-Factor Theory of Reminiscence. British Journal of Psychology, 56(2–3), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00956.x

40

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

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 Fayyaz, W., & Kamal, A. (2011). Personality traits and the metacognitive listening skills of English as a foreign language in Pakistan. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 21, 59–76. Feist, J., Feist, G., & Roberts, T.-A. (2012). Theories of personality (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0076760 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 Fitzgerald, E. T. (1966). Measurement of openness to experience: A study of regression in the service of the ego. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 655–663. Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the Id. W W Norton & Co. Freud, S. (1920). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. Horace Liveright. https://doi.org/10. 1037/10667-000 Friedman, M. A., & Brownell, K. D. (1995). Psychological correlates of obesity: Moving to the next research generation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.117.1.3 Funder, D. (2004). The personality puzzle (3rd Revised ed.). W. W. Norton & Co. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. In Z. Dornyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu: Publishing Company, Ltd. Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185. Gatzka, T., & Hell, B. (2018). Openness and postsecondary academic performance: A meta-analysis of facet-, aspect-, and dimension-level correlations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000194 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. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Sage. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.59.6.1216 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. 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. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). 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 Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_8 Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2(3), 203–222. Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford, J. P. (1976). The Guilford-Zimmerman temperament survey handbook: Twenty-five years of research and application. EdITS Publishers.

References

41

Hofstee, W., Hendriks, J., & Raad, B. (2002). The five-factor personality inventory: Assessing the Big Five by means of brief and concrete statements. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 79–108). Hogrefe Publishing. Hofstee, W., Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.63.1.146 Holzman, P. (2013). Personality: Definition, types, nature, & facts. Britannica. https://www.britan nica.com/topic/personality Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research from Manual (3rd ed.). Sigma Assessment Systems. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. https://archive. org/details/theprinciplesofp01jameuoft/page/124/mode/2up Janaszek, K. (2013). Predyspozycje indywidualne studentów wyró˙zniaj˛acych si˛e. Studia Rossica Posnaniensia, 38(1), 89–99. Jarmu˙z, S. (1994). Metodologiczne problemy zwi˛azane z weryfikacj˛a modelu „Wielkiej Pi˛atki”. Przegl˛ad Psychologiczny, 37, 195–203. John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0634-4_20 John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California. 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 Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of inter judge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five Domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 1–71). Guilford. 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 Jung, C. G. (1921). General description of the types. In Psychological types. www.Abika.com Kato, S. (2009). The relationship of language learning strategies and personality on English proficiency in Japanese university students. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(1). Kelland, M. D. (2014). Personality theory: A multicultural perspective. Createspace Independent Pub. Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., III., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Identity formation in adolescence: Change or stability? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9401-4 Klinkosz, W., & S˛ekowski, A. E. (2008). Pi˛ecioczynnikowy model osobowo´sci a narz˛edzia pomiaru Wielkiej Pi˛atki. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 11(1), 142–152. Kretschmer, E. (1921). Körperbau und Charakter. Untersuchungen zum Konstitutionsproblem und zur Lehre von den Temperamenten. Springer. https://books.google.com/books?id=tSEyAQ AAMAAJ Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2009). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. McGraw-Hill Education. Little, B. R. (2016). Me, myself, and us: The science of personality and the art of well-being (Reprint ed.). PublicAffairs. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001a). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388.

42

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

Maclntyre, P., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. (2001b). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 461–492). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Maddi, S. R. (1968). Meaning, novelty, and affect: Comments on Zajonc’s paper. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025751 Maddi, S. R., & Berne, N. (1964). Novelty of productions and desire for novelty as active and passive forms of the need for variety. Journal of Personality, 32(2), 270–277. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-6494.1964.tb01340.x Maslow, A. B. (1968). Toward a psychology of being by Abraham H. Maslow. Van Nostrand. Mayer, J. D. (2007). The big questions of personality psychology: Defining common pursuits of the discipline. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 27(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC. 27.1.b 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. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13(1), 39–55. McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404 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. (2004). Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.009 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1982). Self-concept and the stability of personality: Cross-sectional comparisons of self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1282–1292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1282 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985a). Openness to experience. In Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145–172). R. Hogan & W. H. Jones. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985b). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012 134645-4/50032-9 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (1999). A Five-Factor theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, Jr., P. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol 1: Personality theories and models (pp. 273–294). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/978184 9200462.n13 McCrae, R., & Costa, R. (1990). Cross cultural assessment of the five-factor model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188. McLeod, S. (2019). Kolb—Learning styles. https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html McLeod, S. (2021). Theories of personality/simply psychology. Theories of Personality. https:// www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html Morris, W. (1976). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Houghton Mifflin.

References

43

Mulalic, A., & Obralic, N. (2017). Correlation between personality traits and language learning strategies among IUS students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(5), 76–84. Munger, M. P. (2003). The history of psychology: Fundamental questions. Oxford University Press. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press. Nekljudova, S. (2019). Six aspects of openness to experience. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 10(2), 78–81. Norman, W. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291 Novikova, I. (2013). Big Five (the five-factor model and the five-factor theory). In D. K. Kenneth (Ed.), The encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 685–706). John Wiley & Sons. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp054 Osberg, T. M. (1987). The convergent and discriminant validity of the Need for Cognition scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 441–450. Oswald, L. M., Zandi, P., Nestadt, G., Potash, J. B., Kalaydjian, A. E., & Wand, G. S. (2006). Relationship between cortisol responses to stress and personality. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 31(7), 1583–1591. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301012 Oz, H. (2014). Big Five personality traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality an International Journal, 42, 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1473 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, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/174397 60701756946 Pervin, L. A. (2002). The science of personality (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (2001). Personality: Theory and research. Wiley. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018a). Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC. System, 72, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.001 Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018b). 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). Springer. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2020). The Big Five in SLA (1st ed.). Springer. Pyszczynski, T., Holt, K., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Depression, self-focused attention, and expectancies for positive and negative future life events for self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 994–1001. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.5.994 Quenk, N. L. (1993). Personality types or personality traits: What difference does it make? Bulletin of Psychological Type, 16(2), 9–13. Rockwood, C. (2007). Chambers biographical dictionary (8th ed.). Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin Company. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. Basic Books. Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach. Pearson Education. Rossier, R. (1976). Extroversion-introversion as a significant variable in the learning of oral English as a second language. University of Southern California.

44

2 Personality and Openness to Experience: Theoretical Background

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1099-0984(199603)10:1%3c61:AID-PER246%3e3.0.CO;2-D Schneider, T. R. (2008). Evaluations of stressful transactions: What’s in an appraisal? Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 24(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1176 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 Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4(11), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n11p17 Sheldon, W. (1940). The varieties of human physique. An introduction to constitutional psychology. Harper & Brothers. Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Costa, P. T., Andres, R., Lakatta, E. G., Arenberg, D., & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal human aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. NIH Publication. https://doi.org/10.13016/sclw-iccq Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1087–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015 Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.7312/simp92414 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Routledge. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf/Random House. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. Spengler, M., Lüdtke, O., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Personality is related to educational outcomes in late adolescence: Evidence from two large-scale achievement studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.008 Srivastava, S., John, O. P., & Gosling, S. D. (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. Stagner, R. (1937). Psychology of personality. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Stangor, C., & Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to psychology. BCcampus OpenEd. https://opente xtbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/2-2-psychodynamic-and-behavioural-psychology/ Strong, M. (1983). Social styles and the second language Acquisition of Spanish-speaking kindergartners. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 241–340. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036681 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Tech. Rep. USAF ASD Tech. Rep., No. 61-97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: US Air Force. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). Openness to experience, identity flexibility, and life change in adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.50.1.163 Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(4), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.4.305

References

45

Williamson, J. M. (2018). Self-reflection as a way of improving instruction. In J. M. Williamson (Ed.), Teaching to individual differences in science and engineering librarianship (pp. 133–145). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101881-1.00009-1 Winter, D. G., & Barenbaum. (1999). History of modern personality research and theory. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Wolfenstein, M., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Depression and openness to experience. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 614–632. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_14 Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z.-X., Chiu, C.-Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower-level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 29–45. Wyrick, L. C. (1969). Correlates of openness to experience [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Arizona. 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). https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/ 1598776 Young, E. F. (1931). Balance and imbalance in personality. In E. F. Young (Ed.), Social attitudes (pp. 75–99). Henry Holt. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Young/1931/05_Young.html Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90182-B

Chapter 3

The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

3.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide the theoretical background for the concept of ambiguity tolerance. First, an overview and definitions are presented to establish a working definition of the term. Then, the concept of ambiguity tolerance is characterised in detail. Next, the importance of ambiguity tolerance in everyday life, education and second language acquisition is discussed. Finally, the connections between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are described.

3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance It is easy to observe that some people have a more flexible reaction to different ideas and beliefs that vary from their point of view, while others reject everything which differs from their mindset. People often have to deal with situations that provide too little information regarding a particular stimulus or context. Such situations are ambiguous, and individuals react differently. A readiness to adapt to different situations is a highly prized quality in the modern world. An ability to cope with challenges is required from people in many professions, in reality, it helps to function in the present complex reality. The modern world abounds in a plethora of stimuli which need to be carefully analysed and absorbed. The expression of ambiguity tolerance appeared in various branches of psychology more than 60 years ago (Merrotsy, 2013). At the beginning, the concept of ambiguity tolerance focused on sociological correlations not on ambiguous stimuli, furthermore various scholars had divergent views on how an individual reacts to ambiguity. The first view referred to individuals who had problems with the proper interpretations of situations, they were psychologically weaker than other people (Jaensch, 1938). The second view, which was introduced

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_3

47

48

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), who described intolerance of ambiguity as a personality trait, and pointed to its function in forming judgements about other people and cultures. A lot of the early research extended that point of view, and a group of scholars (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950) who focused on that concept claimed that ambiguity intolerance clarified different negative behaviours and social reactions, and even explained prejudice against people (McLain et al., 2015). According to Ray (1990), the empirical evidence of previous studies turned out to be deficient, so the concept of ambiguity tolerance needed refinement. The refinement meant a bigger interest in individual differences in cognitive reaction to stimuli (McLain, 1993). To sum up, decades of studies have led researchers to create the theory of ambiguity (Budner, 1962; Ellsberg, 1961; Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949).

3.2.1 What is Ambiguity Tolerance? The traits of personality are hierarchically organised. There are five broad dimensions called higher-order traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience) and lower-order-traits that affect foreign/second language acquisition. The lower-order personality traits are often linked to higherorder traits. According to Dewaele (2012), the lower-order traits which are important in foreign language acquisition are: • Risk taking—an ability to take risks in various language situations without avoiding them for fear of embarrassment. • Tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity—the way how individuals perceive and deal with ambiguous situations. • Self-efficacy—beliefs in one’s own skills. • Foreign language anxiety—is a feeling of fear, nervousness while learning or using a foreign language. • Trait emotional intelligence—characterises the differences which learners attend to, process, and utilize some information. • Perfectionism—influences the progress of perfectionists who learn slower because of a fear of making mistakes. • Musicality—it helps learners in correct pronunciation. In this book, the main focus is on ambiguity tolerance as a lower-order trait, therefore it will be presented in detail. It is useful to explain the terms ambiguity and tolerance first, before concentrating on the concept of ambiguity tolerance. The term ambiguity refers to the vagueness of words, uncertainty of conditions and situations; furthermore, a lack of clarity can have multiple interpretations and views (Visser & Visser, 2004). Ambiguity in various forms can cause attractiveness, opportunities or it can produce aversion in different situations. All reactions depend on the perception of ambiguous stimuli and the interaction between information about the context and anticipated result. Ambiguity is something that individuals experience every day. People interpret someone’s words or actions, handle complex emotions,

3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance

49

or find themselves in situations that are not clear and simple. After studying people’s behaviour and different cultures, Adorno et al. (1950) described ambiguity as something different from the familiar. The cognitive psychology approach characterises ambiguity as “a lack of distinction between multiple interpretations or meanings in a situation” (McLain et al., 2015, p. 2). Neuroscientists also researched what happens in the brain when it receives some ambiguous information. From their point of view, ambiguity is a situation when there is too little information to understand something clearly and to perform adequate actions (Hsu et al., 2005). Budner (1962) defined an ambiguous situation as “one which cannot be adequately structured or categorized … because of lack of sufficient cues” (p. 30), and he divided ambiguous situations into three types: • new situations—occur without any familiar or sufficient cues, there is no framework of action; • complex situations—“are a great number of cues to be taken into account” (Budner, 1962, p. 31) and a lot of stimuli; • contradictory situations—“in which different elements suggest different structures” (Budner, 1962, p. 31) and the cues are not easy to distinguish. Researchers suggest that a healthy brain needs support in the form of available information to produce a proper response. If it gets too little information, anxiety or stress are generated. An ambiguous situation can also be threatening because it may hide possible harm (Budner, 1962). In that case, ambiguity produces more anxiety than fear. In an ambiguous situation, it is difficult to predict the outcome because the brain needs a lot of time examining the situation before the situation can be predicted. Budner (1962) suggested four ways of how to perceive threatening ambiguous situations. He divided them into two overarching domains: phenomenological and operative. Each domain has two categories: denial and submission. The submission category characterises the recognition of the situation as something that an individual cannot change. Denial shows the performance when the objective or subjective reality of an individual is changed to adopt the avoidance of desires. The two-by-two model of tolerance creates a hierarchical model describing the following responses or behaviours: • • • •

phenomenological denial, i.e., distortion and denial, phenomenological submission, i.e., anxiety and discomfort, operative denial, i.e., destructive behaviour, operative submission, i.e., avoidance behaviour.

Budner (1962) claimed that if an individual shows one of the four responses, then he/ she is probably threatened by ambiguity. According to Folkman (1984), “ambiguity can intensify a threat by limiting the individual’s sense of control and/or increase a sense of helplessness over the danger” (p. 106), which has a negative effect on the actions of an individual. The idea of ambiguity as a threat represents the negative part of the concept of ambiguity tolerance. Individuals feel negative emotions connected with ambiguity when the potential outcome may result in harm (McLain, 2009), however ambiguity can be attractive

50

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

when it generates curiosity and satisfaction. Erten and Topkaya (2009) suggested that individuals with ambiguity tolerance remain comfortable in uncertain situations, and Atef-Vahid et al. (2011) claimed that people who are more tolerant react with greater flexibility to ambiguous situations. “In general, people who do not tolerate ambiguity tend to rely on their previous experience when interpreting situations” (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018b, p. 171). The terms of tolerance, sensitivity and the types of stimuli should also be presented before introducing a definition of ambiguity of tolerance. According to McLain (1991, p. 4), tolerance/intolerance “describes a range of reactions” and “suggests begrudging acceptance, intolerance suggests rejection”, but “tolerance extends along a continuum from rejection to attraction”. Ely (1995) explains that tolerance is associated with the concept of ambiguity and is connected with the acceptance of uncertainties. Tolerance can also be described as “an ability to address ambiguous new stimuli without frustration or without appeals to authority. It allows for indeterminate rather than rigid categorization” (Ellis, 1994, p. 518). As regards foreign language learning, tolerance is the ability to feel well when learners must handle ambiguous situations in the process of language learning (ibidem). Sensitivity shows the degree of reaction to ambiguous stimuli that is characteristic for an individual and can vary from extreme aversion to extreme attraction. The stimuli have three characteristics: novelty, complexity, or insolubility. Nowadays, ambiguity tolerance is a very popular subject for research and its definition has changed many times. The majority of scholars agree that ambiguity tolerance is a comparatively stable individual difference (McLain et al., 2015), but beyond that, they have a broad spectrum of viewpoints. Seventy years ago, FrenkelBrunswik (1949) promoted the concept of ambiguity tolerance (AT) and defined it as “a general personality variable relevant to basic social orientations” (p. 268). Then Budner (1962, p. 29) described AT as “the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable”. Norton (1975, p. 608), harkening back to the origins of AT, defined it as “a tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat”. The definition given by Chapelle and Roberts (1986, p. 30) describes AT as “a person’s ability to function rationally and calmly in a situation in which interpretation of all stimuli is not clear”. One of the best-known definitions is McLain’s (1993, p. 184), which presents AT as “a range from rejection to attraction, of reactions to stimuli perceived as unfamiliar, complex, dynamically uncertain or subject to multiple conflicting interpretations”. Ambiguity tolerance is also defined as: The way an individual (or group) perceives and processes information about ambiguous situations or stimuli when confronted by an array of unfamiliar, complex, or incongruent clues. …The person with low tolerance of ambiguity experiences stress, reacts prematurely, and avoids ambiguous stimuli. At the other extreme of the scale, however, a person with high tolerance for ambiguity perceives ambiguous situations/stimuli as desirable, challenging, and interesting and neither denies nor distorts their complexity of incongruity (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995, p. 179).

3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance

51

According to Furnham and Marks (2013, p. 717), Frenkel-Brunswik generalized AT “to the various aspects of emotional and cognitive functioning of an individual, characterizing cognitive style, belief and attitude systems, interpersonal and social functioning and problem-solving behaviour”. Brown (2000) explained that ambiguity tolerance is “the degree to which you are cognitively willing to tolerate ideas and prepositions that run counter to your own belief system or structure of knowledge” (p. 119). Stoycheva (2011) suggested that tolerance is often compared with intolerance of ambiguity “on the continuum of individual differences in AT, denoting how well people cope with ambiguous situations from avoidance to acceptance to deal with” (p. 178). Ellis (1994) defines ambiguity tolerance as “an ability to deal with ambiguous new stimuli without frustration or without appeals to authority. It allows for indeterminate rather than rigid categorization” (p. 518). All the definitions present the concept of ambiguity tolerance as a kind of behaviour in reaction to different stimuli. Individuals differ from each other according to the level of AT they have; furthermore, the level of AT dictates the interpretation of stimuli. It is possible to say that AT is a desirable feature that helps to deal with stressful situations and avoids feelings of discomfort. Brown’s explanation even suggests that AT is related to knowledge and the belief system that the individual possesses. The obtained knowledge contributes to coping with ambiguous situations and also provides the individual with innovative solutions. To sum up all the presented explanations of the concept of ambiguity tolerance, a working definition can be given. Ambiguity tolerance is an ability that helps in adapting to and finding the best solution in various ambiguous situations. It is needed to accept other ideas or attitudes from those that are well-known. Every individual must develop a specific level of tolerance of ambiguity in uncertain situations and react adequately to them. Ambiguity tolerance is characteristic for each individual and affects different aspects of daily life, e.g., routine tasks, work, or language learning.

3.2.2 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance Ambiguity tolerance, as an individual difference construct, shows how a person reacts to information the brain receives. The information can be retrieved from all the physical senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch, and is transmitted to the brain. In the brain cortex, all the information is processed, and ambiguity comes out if there is too little knowledge about events or situations (Hsu et al., 2005). In situations where the brain does not receive a full description to interpret, it generates anxiety that tries to resolve the ambiguity. The degree of anxiety depends on the indefinite collection of data received about a situation or event. The intensity of the reaction of perceived ambiguity is dependent on the level of the individual’s ambiguity tolerance (McLain et al., 2015). It is known that different individuals react differently to ambiguous situations, for some it will be a possibility to show their creativity but for others, ambiguity causes a lot of stress and anxiety. According

52

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

to Bhushan and Amal (1986), there are three distinctive reactions that show the different levels of AT: 1. Cognitive reactions—include responses which show a tendency of the individual with a low level of AT to see an ambiguous situation rather in black or white, however people with a high level of AT present more cognitive flexibility (Martin & Rubin, 1995). 2. Emotional reactions—response to an ambiguous situation which is related to expressions of uneasiness, discomfort, dislike, anger and anxiety for an individual with low AT, nonetheless people with a high level of AT feel curiosity, interests and even excitement. 3. Behavioural reactions—relate to responses which show rejection or avoidance of individuals with low AT in an ambiguous situation, whereas people with a high level of AT rather face an ambiguous situation and cope with it. People with high AT show a large variability of resulting actions, whereas intolerant people are characterised with a small variability of them (Stoycheva, 2010). Ambiguous situations cause discomfort, sometimes even feelings of threats or confusion to intolerant people. According to McLain et al. (2015), two aspects of ambiguity tolerance, anxiety and sensitivity influence people’s behaviour and attitudes. The degree of anxiety that is generated depends on the ambiguity tolerance of the individual, and the intensity of the reaction refers to the individual’s ambiguity tolerance. Sensitivity shows the feedback of an individual to respond to sensing an ambiguous stimulus. In theory, sensitivity can range from extreme aversion to extreme attraction. Extreme aversion can be either a rejection of the stimulus or the motivational arousal to reduce the ambiguity. Extreme attraction is the highest motivation to handle ambiguity and has a positive affect (Hirsh et al., 2012). Ambiguity tolerance is related to one’s self-concept: a subjective perception of one’s own qualities originated from one’s own experience, as well as the opinions of others (Felson, 1981). Self-concept does not always reflect the reality but is highly influenced by ambiguity, specifically, it is how someone creates a picture of himself/ herself. Individuals with high self-esteem can create a very positive unreal picture of themselves, on the opposite side, people with low self-esteem see themselves less positively. Felson (1981) observed that individuals with high self-esteem and ambiguity tolerance, evaluating themselves in ambiguous situations, are more optimistic, though sometimes they are also less objective. Furthermore, he noticed that ambiguous situations supported their empathy. Ambiguity tolerance correlates also with self-confidence, individuals with a higher level of AT are more self-confident and more innovative (Koh, 1995). The trait is characteristic for creative people because they rely on their abilities, and they have enough skills to convince other individuals. Ehrman (1993, 1999) explained the concept of ambiguity tolerance in foreign language acquisition claiming that tolerance of ambiguity works on three levels: intake, proper and accommodation. On the intake level, tolerance allows students to receive linguistic input and ambiguity tolerance helps to encounter and incorporate new information with unknown elements. At this level, learners notice some

3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance

53

information and then, they use it as a part of the knowledge they already have. The second level—proper—is intended “to hold contradictory or incomplete information without either rejecting one of the contradictory elements or coming to premature closure on an incomplete schema” (1993, p. 331). At this level, a learner receives new information that is often contradictory or incomplete, for example, unknown vocabulary is inferred by learners while reading an article. Tolerant students cope with all the information, and they make a selection of items that they have to remember. Intolerant students often have problems with the selection of information and which pieces of data from the intake level they need to save. The last level—accommodation—concerns adopting new material and integrating it into existing knowledge. Individuals on this level of AT are also able to restructure (information that they have received and adapted) the information for themselves (White, 1999). At the accommodation level, tolerant students do not have problems relating new bits of knowledge with existing ones. Intolerant students have difficulties with data subsumption and manipulation, moreover they do not know what to do with the new material. The three levels on which AT works, contribute to learning and widening the knowledge in a foreign language. The more an individual is ambiguity tolerant the more information from the new language is taken, then the information is stored and, in an appropriate moment, used. With increasing interest in the concept of ambiguity tolerance in the mid-1950’s, researchers had to establish reliable measuring tools. The first tests to investigate the concept of AT were experimental, that is, a picture was shown, and then gradually substituted by another one, someone who noticed the change quickly was more ambiguity tolerant than the others (Greiner et al., 2005). With time, there was also a test that required people to solve a problem, individuals who asked more questions about it, were less tolerant (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995). Those tests were gradually replaced by psychological instruments that presented the real level of ambiguity tolerance. There are some of the best known: • 16-item Budner’s Scale (1962), • 50-item Norton’s Measure of Ambiguity Tolerance (MAT-50) (1975), • 40-item Bhushan and Amal’s Situational Test of Intolerance of Ambiguity (STIA) (1986), • 22-item self-report scale Multiple Stimulus Types of Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTAT-I) (McLain, 1993). The given psychological instruments to measure ambiguity tolerance are much more reliable than the forms of measurement at the beginning of studies on the trait.

3.2.3 Tolerance Versus Intolerance of Ambiguity Researchers have tried to provide a more standard concept of ambiguity tolerance but most of the current concepts are based on the work of Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), who claimed that tolerance or intolerance of ambiguity can influence someone’s

54

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

behaviour in ambiguous situations. Bochner (1965) was one of the few investigators who further worked on the concept of ambiguity intolerance (AIT) and incorporated the categorization of attributes given by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949, p. 394) into her theory of intolerance to ambiguity. She organized them into a set of primary characteristics describing intolerance. Bochner’s attributes describing intolerance of ambiguity show opposite attributes to tolerance of ambiguity (Skaggs, 2022), and on this basis, it is possible to present how tolerant and intolerant individuals differ from each other. Table 3.1 presents the comparison of features between intolerance and ambiguity tolerance. Bochner (1965) also gave secondary characteristics that describe people intolerant of ambiguity. The secondary attributes show more visible features of intolerant and tolerant individuals for the surrounding, and they are presented in Table 3.2. The primary and secondary attributes of intolerant and tolerant of ambiguity individuals present differences between these groups in all areas of life. Intolerant ones are linked to higher stress (Caulfield et al., 2014); therefore, they do such activities that they know well, then their level of anxiety is also lower. This causes them to be close-minded, rigid and uncreative, especially when they have to manage with foreign language learning and the ambiguous situations connected with it. On the opposite side, ambiguity tolerant individuals see ambiguous situations as a possibility of development where they can present their creativity and flexibility. They know that to achieve success they have to experience failure many times. In adulthood, higher stress and anxiety lead to burnout (Cooke et al., 2013), therefore, the rates of burnout among intolerant people is much higher than by tolerant ones.

3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance People face ambiguous situations in various places: at home, work, in daily life situations, in interactions between individuals in social groups and public services (Stoycheva, 2010). Some empirical research suggests that an individual’s toleranceintolerance of ambiguity is influenced by cognitive, affective, and behavioural traits. Individual reactions to ambiguous situations are shaped by intelligence, creative thinking, cognitive style, anxiety, dogmatism and rigidity. Furthermore, they effect someone’s behaviour, motivation, value system and social attitude (ibidem, 2010).

3.3.1 Ambiguity Tolerance in Everyday Life Over the past 70 years, psychologists from several areas have investigated the construct of ambiguity tolerance with different variables. In organizational psychology, researchers have investigated the function of ambiguity tolerance, especially for entrepreneurs, because their main task is to make decisions under stress in ambiguous situations. In 1995, Koh found a strong positive relationship between AT

3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance

55

Table 3.1 Intolerance versus tolerance of ambiguity—primary attributes Attributes of AIT

Attributes of AT

Need for categorization—rigid dichotomizing into fixed categories—relates to a situation when there are no clear categories or classes, and people with a high need for categorization in such a situation will after some instructions classify the stimulus objects into more categories than is needed

Do not need categorization—and thanks to this, individuals see more possibilities and have more ideas in various situations

Need for certainty—seeking for certainty and Feel comfortable with uncertainty, have low avoiding ambiguity—relates to a situation level of fear to changes and unfamiliarity, they without clear categories or classes when people rely on their own mind with a high need for certainty need much more time to classify the stimulus objects than people with a low need for certainty Inability to allow for the co-existence of positive and negative features in the same object—as an example, it is not possible for good and bad traits to exist in the same person

Allow the co-existence of positive and negative features in the same object, for example, someone can have good and bad traits

Acceptance of attitude statements representing a rigid white-black view of life—for people who are intolerant, situations are black or white in life, they do not accept that something can be between them. It is very difficult to convince intolerant people to change their point of view

Acceptance of attitude statements representing various views of life—for people who are tolerant, situations are from black to white in life, they accept that something can be grey

A preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar—intolerant people feel good in an environment which is well-known to them, they are terrified before the unknown and it relates to all areas of their life from their home to education

A preference for the unfamiliar over the familiar—tolerant people feel good in an environment which is new for them, they are not terrified in front of the unknown, it is connected with all areas of their well-being

Rejection of the unusual or different—intolerant people feel uncomfortable when they have to leave their comfort zone. They prefer everything that is typical and ordinary, but they feel anxious when a thing or situation is unusual or different

Curiousness about the unusual or different—tolerant people feel comfortable when they can try something new. They prefer everything that is different and unique, and they do not feel anxious when a thing or situation is unusual

Resistance to a reversal of fluctuating stimuli—relates to stimulus objects that try to influence perceptions of something in slowly changing situations. Even such a procedure does not help intolerant people to change their mind

Acceptance to different stimuli—relates to stimuli that try to influence perceptions of something in various situations. Tolerant people change their mind when they are convinced of the rightness of such behaviour (continued)

56

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

Table 3.1 (continued) Attributes of AIT

Attributes of AT

Early selection and maintenance of one solution in an ambiguous situation—intolerant individuals hardly ever change their mind, when they are at the beginning of an ambiguous situation and need to decide about something, then they follow the solution

Selection of solutions in an ambiguous situation during its development—tolerant individuals change their mind, when they are at the beginning of an ambiguous situation and decide about something if the situation warrants it

Premature closure—intolerant people make their decision before the end of the development of a situation. They want to avoid stress and ambiguity

Final closure—tolerant people make their decision after the end of the development of a situation. They are not afraid of stress or ambiguity

Table 3.2 Intolerance versus tolerance of ambiguity—secondary attributes

Secondary attributes of AIT

Secondary attributes of AT

Authoritarian

Not authoritarian

Dogmatic

Not dogmatic

Rigid

Flexible

Closed minded

Open minded

Ethnically prejudiced

Not ethnically prejudiced

Uncreative

Creative

Anxious

Low level of anxiety

Extra-punitive

Not extra-punitive

Aggressive

Calm

and entrepreneurial inclination. Also Begley and Boyd (1988) provided evidence that entrepreneurs have a higher level of AT. After their research, Endres et al. (2009) confirmed that AT is very important in ambiguous decision-making situations. In a clinical psychology setting, investigators studied the correlation between AT and anxiety (Buhr & Dugas, 2002, 2006). They claimed that individuals intolerant of ambiguity show exaggerated worry about the future, because it is full of uncertainties (Dugas et al., 1998), and ambiguity intolerant people more often have obsessions, worries and panic sensations (Buhr & Dugas, 2006). McLain (1993) worked in the field of cognitive psychology and found that ambiguity tolerant people present less dogmatism and high receptivity, which helps them to be more open to innovative solutions. Rotter and O’Connell (2007) claimed that people with a high level of AT express more cognitive complexity and cope with abstractness. In the process of communication, ambiguity refers to multiple meanings of words, phrases, and sometimes strange behaviour during a discussion. It is the same with problem solving; i.e., when people do not have enough information, no clear criteria and are still required to make a decision. Ambiguity can also be observed in social roles when individuals are in unclear relationships. This is always connected with a lack of information, so it is impossible to understand what is going on. How people

3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance

57

experience and react to ambiguous situations depends on their level of ambiguity tolerance (Stoycheva, 2010). Individual differences in ambiguity tolerance depend on the behaviour of individuals, the intensity of their reactions and the variability of the resulting actions. Ambiguous intolerant individuals create anxiety and stress that is visible in their disorganised reactions. Intolerant individuals like clear judgements and stereotyped behaviours which “lead them to less than optimal solutions to the problem” (Stoycheva, 2010). Intolerant people prefer well-known, familiar, and non-ambiguous situations. People with high ambiguity tolerance can tolerate the feelings of anxiety and in such situations, their reactions are less intense. Furthermore, they often interpret and react more adequately; their behaviour is coordinated to the specific situation even if it is a big challenge for them. Ambiguity tolerance is one of the individual differences which is useful in life and helps an individual to achieve success. It is one of the soft skills that are difficult to define because they describe the personal attributes, personal traits, and the person’s interactions in his or her relationships with others. Ambiguous situations abound in the modern world. It is important to know how an individual interacts in ambiguous situations because it helps to identify those who will cope excellently in an ambiguous environment, and it will be possible to develop their ambiguity tolerance. In a workplace, people with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance are characterised by such attitudes as: high job performance and satisfaction, quick decision making, creativity, critical thinking, risk acceptance, organisational commitment and health and wellbeing (Nicolaidis & Katsaros, 2011). Tolerant individuals are open to new experiences, thanks to their “open attitudes toward unique or different situations” (Chiang, 2016, p. 64). Zenasni et al. (2008) claimed that if a person can tolerate ambiguous situations in life, then they can deal with them. Individuals with high ambiguity tolerance usually remain open and have a willingness to solve problems or the will to find a novel solution if the rate of complicated situations increases. Stoycheva (1998, 2003a, 2003b) suggested that tolerance of ambiguity is linked to creativity because individuals with a high level of it can accept the feelings of anxiety and psychological discomfort associated with difficult situations. AT also has an impact on creative thinking. Therefore, Urban (2003), in his model of creativity, included tolerance of ambiguity as one of its elements because it empowers the willingness to search for new, and unusual stimuli. Creative people must defeat the uncertainty they encounter, however, they spend more time and energy trying to find unusual stimuli (Maw & Magoon, 1971). The relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and creativity was tested by Furnham and Avison, (1997), Tegano, (1990), and they observed a positive correlation between these two aspects of personality. Many researchers (Kerr et al., 1999; Walberg et al., 1980) have also studied the influence of family environment on creativity. They have reported that there is a positive relationship between parents’ creativity and their children’s creativity.

58

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

3.3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance in Education Life is full of uncertain and ambiguous situations, and we, as individuals are required to deal with them. Everyone is tolerant of ambiguity, although some more and some less. This causes people to interpret ambiguous situations differently, and their ways of coping are often related to the cultural heritage of the society (Hofstede, 2001). This cultural heritage is transferred through education and science, which is a powerful tool that helps the individual to face the unknown. Science provides knowledge about the nature of the phenomena, it is a source of technologies and provides useful information about technical objects that “appeared as a result of the practical application of scientific knowledge” (Stoycheva, 2003a, 2003b, p. 32). Thanks to education, young people acquire knowledge, gain command of technology and the skills to use technical objects. Furthermore, schools teach boys and girls the rules and norms that help them to cope with ambiguity in different situations. Students at school or universities learn a system of values and often form attitudes while developing their various abilities. According to Stoycheva (2003a, 2003b), the need to avoid uncertainty is universal but different nations approach it differently. Schools that try to avoid high uncertainty often have a stronger theoretical orientation, while schools with low uncertainty avoidance have a more pragmatic approach, and they look for usable knowledge. Schools within the first group, generally prefer standardisation, they have more structured activities, rules in writing and while teaching avoid situations calling for individual and risky decisions. The second group of schools are mostly pluriform in structure and functions, and the specialists who work there are “more interpersonally oriented and flexible in their style, who are involved more in strategy than in details and are more willing to make change and assume risks” (ibidem, p. 33). Cultural experiences enable young people to learn how to cope with ambiguities in life and science provides the knowledge, technology and technique that help better deal with the stresses of modern life. It is suggested that education must integrate conservative and innovative cultural aspects and it needs to be taught in balance by reproductive and productive activities. According to Jonassen and Grabowski (1993), tolerant students do better than intolerant ones in complex learning situations and analyse ideas more, effectively select information sources, generate metaphors, and evaluate implications. Encountering incomplete information on a day-to-day basis, individuals try to accustom to them and apply their knowledge to cope with ambiguous information (Shou & Smithson, 2015). In the study of personality, Tatzel (1980) found that AT was associated with positive traits, such as originality and openness to new ideas. Tatzel (1980) and Budner (1962) claimed that individuals with intolerance of ambiguity had lower mental flexibility and negative personality traits like: rigidity, conformity, and ethnic prejudice. For example, medical students and physicians encountered complex situations when they had to choose appropriate diagnoses and treatments that included a wide ambiguity. According to Weissenstein et al. (2014), ambiguity tolerance influenced medical students’ attitudes and behaviour. If they had a low level of AT, they presented “negative attitudes toward the undeserved and fear of making mistakes”

3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance

59

(ibidem, p. 2). Students with a higher level of AT often evinced greater leadership abilities and a willingness to practice in rural areas. Weissenstein et al. (2014) suggested that students with a high level of AT might provide better care in ambiguous conditions, demonstrated increased humility, and did not like social conflicts, and they preferred to exchange views about sensitive or controversial issues. In the field of business and economics, AT was also researched by Roskin and Margerison (1983); as well as Begley and Boyd (1988). Begley and Boyd (1988) studied the psychological characteristics that distinguished entrepreneurs from managers of small businesses. They found that entrepreneurs had a higher level of AT than managers. Kimmel (1995) researched accounting students and pointed out that it was important to teach them to recognize ambiguity and show solutions from different perspectives. Then, individuals with higher AT felt more comfortable about ambiguous situations and they performed better than individuals who perceived ambiguity as a source of stress and discomfort. Creativity is very important in everyday life, but especially in education and work. Some research suggests that AT influences creative problem solving. Students with high AT present unusual, unique and original solutions to divergent tasks (Stoycheva, 2003a, 2003b; Zenasni et al., 2008). People in their life are often required to make decisions and AT helps to make these in a creative way. Decision making is a complicated process that requires evaluation and a selection of solutions before they are implemented in practice. Creativity is supported by motivation which regulates the investment of time and effort placed in solving problems. In her research, Stoycheva (1998, 2003a, 2003b, 2008) found that creative motivation is positively correlated with the desire to achieve something but AT separately “does not correlate with the need for achievement” (Stoycheva, 2010, p. 183). Tolerance of ambiguity is a variable which contributes to the strengthening of motivation for the exploration of novel, unusual and complex stimuli, and situations. The concept of ambiguity tolerance has been analysed in many studies of different disciplines. Psychology was the first field where ambiguity tolerance was researched by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) during the study of ethnocentrism in children and then, in research of AT in connection to the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950). The research presents findings of how children respond in an ambiguous situation when they are ethnically prejudiced before some events. It follows from them that children more often stand for dichotomous conceptions of the sex-roles, they also respect the relationship between parents-children and general social relationships. They follow a rigid categorization of cultural norms like power—weakness, morality—immorality. Furthermore, they are against perceptual ambiguity because they do not like thinking in terms of probability.

3.3.3 Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition Linguists have often wondered as to why two students having the same learning conditions achieve different levels of language proficiency, therefore, they decided

60

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

to research (Oxford, 1992; Skehan, 1986; Wells, 1986) the importance of individual differences in language acquisition. They have presented many language learning theories, some of them are based on the linguistic view, while others are based on the psychological view of language cognition (Moeller & Catalano, 2015). Skehan (1986) suggested that individual differences like aptitude, motivation, IQ, personality and age were responsible for language achievements. Oxford (1992) emphasised the importance of tolerance of ambiguity among the individual differences that interacts with other components, such as anxiety, self-esteem, motivation, and learning styles. Ambiguity tolerance can be shown in language learning as the ability to deal with a new ambiguous situation that does not cause any frustration without checking sources of knowledge (Ellis, 1994). Kamran (2011) added that students with a high level of ambiguity tolerance feel comfortable learning a new language, dealing with uncertainties and unfamiliar phenomena in both structural and cultural aspects. Foreign language learning is one among numerous ambiguous tasks which require a wide range of abilities and is influenced by how individuals approach it. Rubin (1975) describes a good language learner as someone “who is often not inhibited and who is willing to make mistakes in order to learn and to communicate, and who is willing to live with a certain amount of vagueness” (p. 47). Learning a foreign language is unpredictable and a serious challenge that demands broad skills and the ability to adjust to complex linguistic fields. First and foremost, a foreign language is connected with new lexical items and grammar structures which are different from the mother tongue. Moreover, the new language not only carries dissimilarities between the meanings of words, but it also requires proper interpretation—the interrelation between meaning and context. According to Ehrman and Oxford (1990), thanks to AT it is possible to notice differences between learners. Students with a low level of AT like a structured curriculum and dislike ambiguity, they are less relaxed during lessons and behave like judges. Students with a high level of AT dislike a structured curriculum, they enjoy ambiguous situations and are more relaxed during lessons. They are the ‘perceiver’ type of learners. Ely (1989) also found that students with low AT pay more attention to details, they feel uncomfortable when they have to miss some information and have to plan what to say next. They think about grammar structures while writing, as well as speaking, and they often ask teachers if they are using the right words. Students with high AT like to look for the overall message in a text and use compensation strategies in dealing with the foreign language. Nishino (2007) suggested that ambiguity tolerant students do not like using dictionaries while reading because it can interrupt them in correctly understanding the context and feelings in the text. Students with low AT read a text mostly in parts while checking the vocabulary. There are many ambiguous situations in language learning that can happen in a classroom (Ely, 1995) or in self-instructed language study (White, 1999). When students try to learn new lexical and grammatical structures, they often encounter a shortage or lack of information, equivocal meanings and unclear explanations. All of these situations cause anxiety and may create “a degree of apprehension and frustration which may be deleterious to progress” (White, 1999, p. 456). Another example of an ambiguous situation for learners during the acquisition of a foreign

3.3 The Importance of Ambiguity Tolerance

61

language can be reading exercises with its linguistic forms and text structures. Since they have incomplete background knowledge (Alderson, 2000; Carrell, 1987) and can also have different habits to the learning environment; collectively, these situations may negatively influence reading comprehension (Alptekin, 2006). McLain (1993) claimed that students who are tolerant of ambiguity often enjoy taking risks, try to cope with various types of challenges, and are open to change. They want to communicate in the foreign language fluently (Chapple & Roberts, 1986). Chapelle and Roberts (1986) claimed that the same students have good results on the end-ofterm multiple choice grammar tests, dictation tests and parts of speaking tests thanks to ambiguity tolerance. Naiman et al. (1978) and Lori (1990) showed that ambiguity tolerance influences the good results in listening comprehension and imitation tasks. El-Koumy (2003) found a positive relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and reading comprehension. Some researchers (Brown, 2000; Ehrman, 1993; Ely, 1995) suggested that people who have moderate levels of AT are able to achieve more success in language learning than people with a low level of AT. According to Brown (2000), too high a level of ambiguity tolerance can have a negative influence on behaviour and attitudes. People with a high level of AT accept all ideas and propositions, and tend not to analyse necessary facts, which results in them not being properly integrated into the cognitive organizational structure. Brown explained that a moderate level of AT is optimal, as it helps integrate linguistic rules into a whole system, so they are not meaningless chunks. Intolerance also has some advantages, it prevents precipitable decisions and ideas, however, it has more disadvantages especially if the ambiguity produces a threat and limitation on creative thinking. Furthermore, Brown compared AT in language learning to colours, as learners do not see everything in black and white, meaning, they have to go through different shades of grey, i.e. the process of language acquisition. Most research confirmed that AT influences the language learning process and students “should be encouraged to tolerate as much linguistic input as possible” (Chiang, 2016, p. 71). Although there is a high degree of diversity among individuals, researchers are required to make certain generalizations to formulate useful guidelines for language learners and their educators. Ambiguity tolerance is one of the constructs influencing human functioning every day and helping those engaged in foreign language acquisition. Many linguists claimed that second/foreign language learning situations contain ambiguity (Brown, 2000; Chapple & Roberts, 1986). According to Chapple and Roberts (1986), a foreign/second language situation is considered as ambiguous because of the characteristic features similar to each of the four kinds of ambiguous situations: 1. Novel—a situation in foreign language learning is recognised by learners as novel when the grammatical, lexical, phonological, and cultural clues are unknown, and it is impossible to create a meaningful interpretation. 2. Complex—in a case when the same information, clues can be perceived as a huge amount to interpret, then it can be a complex situation. 3. Insoluble—for learners when multiple language clues may be contradicting, the situation is found as insoluble.

62

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

4. Unstructured—a situation is unstructured when learners cannot interpret the received language clues. Ambiguity tolerant people are open to new and diverse experiences because of their openness to unique or various situations (Chiang, 2016). For ambiguity tolerant individuals, learning a language means accessing incomplete information, and the need to be sensitive to the lack of it. This incomplete information often requires the personal judgement of the learner and also, her/his knowledge when analysing the ambiguous information (Shou & Smithson, 2015). Learning a language is connected not only with scholastic material but entire cultural aspects and is related to a new language system and the cultural issues of the language community using it (Brown, 2000; Ehrman, 1993; Ely, 1995). AT is the element that can help language learners, which is why they should develop it. Cultural aspects, difficult vocabulary, grammar structures and unknown contexts often cause ambiguous situations. Furnham (1990) claimed that in the 1950’s and 1960’s there was no interest in examining the correlations between personality and language learning, not even concerning the first language, because it was difficult to select the right combination of instruments to measure them. Many years of observation have demonstrated a wide variation among language learners regarding their abilities in using the second language (L2). This was the reason why since the 1960s researchers have focused more on individual differences (e.g., Cohen & Dornyei, 2002; Cornwell & Robinson, 2000; Ehrman, 1996; Oxford, 1999; Skehan, 1989, 1991, 1998), and the aspect of ambiguity tolerance in the second language. Linguists have noticed that AT is one of the main factors responsible for learners’ progress in the language being studied (Atamanova & Bogomaz, 2014). However, as Carver et al. (2006) suggested, more research is needed on AT in general learning and the same needs to be applied to learning a foreign language (Kamran, 2011). There are many factors to be examined such as: aptitude, intelligence, attitudes, motivation, and personality (Ellis, 1985) which influence achieving success in learning foreign languages and one of them is the ambiguity tolerance that students exhibit during the usage of their language skills.

3.4 The Connections Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance In this research, the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience is studied. Openness to experience as a higher order personality trait and ambiguity tolerance as a lower order personality trait have many common features. However, it is difficult to find studies comparing the general trait of openness to experience with ambiguity tolerance (Tynan, 2020), as most research has concentrated on the facets of openness and ambiguity tolerance independently. Some researchers (Bardi et al., 2009; McCrae, 1996) suggest that ambiguity tolerance focuses on emotional reactivity, which is probably a motivational component of openness to

3.4 The Connections Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

63

experience. According to the research of Bardi et al. (2009) and Caligiuri and Tarique (2012), openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are moderately correlated, however, it is expected that some aspects of openness to experience are related more to ambiguity tolerance. The facets of adventurousness, intellect, and liberalism present positive and negative attitudes to novel or unknown situations. Judge et al. (1999) showed in their research that the general trait of openness to experience is correlated strongly with ambiguity tolerance. Jach and Smillie (2019) proposed that two facets of openness to experience are from moderately to strongly correlated with ambiguity tolerance, the first one—openness as an appreciation of sensory complexity, and intellect as an appreciation of intellectual complexity. Furnham and Ribchester (1995) suggested that intolerance of ambiguity is related to lower mental flexibility and other negative personality traits, this are tantamount to low openness to experience. In the research of Lauriola et al. (2016), various factors of ambiguity tolerance, such as discomfort with ambiguity, and the need for complexity and novelty are analysed. They claimed that discomfort with ambiguity is characteristic for people inversely associated with openness to experience but the need for complexity and novelty is positively associated with openness. Ambiguity tolerance is related to openness to experience because both traits provide a preference for unfamiliarity or novelty. As is presented above, both traits—openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance contain many common features and are related to foreign language acquisition. First of all, ambiguity tolerance represents the motivational aspect of openness (McCrae & Costa, 1997). For this reason, it may be speculated that individuals characterized by high levels of the traits are strongly motivated to learn a foreign language, and it is known how important motivation in foreign language learning is (Dörnyei & Schmidt, 2001; Nurhidayah, 2020). Next, open individuals are characterized by their non-traditional attitudes to various life situations, as are ambiguity tolerant people thanks to their creative thinking (Zenasni et al., 2008). In essence, they show a different approach to learning or life situations than intolerant people and those with a low level of openness to experience. Open to experience and ambiguity tolerant individuals prefer novelty to conventionality, so in relation to foreign language learning, they are open to using active learning activities like brainstorming, discussion or group work. On the other hand, students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance like working in traditional way, where the teacher is the leading individual and explaining everything step by step. Openness provides rich and complex emotions in people’s lives, as well as ensuring their behavioural flexibility. Open individuals are curious, imaginative and often involved in tasks, the same with ambiguity tolerant ones who are open to new ideas and cooperative in trying to solve various problems. Learning a foreign language is full of critical comments from teachers or other learners, but open to experience and ambiguity tolerant individuals use them to improve their language abilities. Openness to experience is connected with some aspects of learning like a willingness to learn and divergent thinking (McCrae & Costa, 2010). In the educational process, openness helps with absorbing new knowledge and reducing the level of anxiety (Fitch, 2004). Also, ambiguity tolerance, is responsible for lowering the level of anxiety. Lower anxiety leads to a higher level of language proficiency. It is important that language

64

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

learners do not feel anxious during language acquisition, because there are a lot of ambiguous situations, for example, unknown vocabulary or grammar structures. Then, they have to ask for some explanations or make mistakes, and anxiety in such situations negatively influences the process, therefore, a higher level of these traits is desirable. As McCrae and Costa (1997, p. 838) suggest “open individuals have access to more thoughts, feelings, and impulses in awareness, and can maintain many of these simultaneously”, and ambiguity tolerance is the hallmark of an open person. The higher level of AT is helpful in different kinds of situations and activities, especially those related to learning a foreign language. Individuals who are open to new experiences and people can cope with ambiguity often treat an unknown circumstance as a challenge. After taking into account all the collected information it can be proposed that, students with higher levels of these traits should achieve higher foreign language attainment, such as better school grades or have higher self-assessment than those with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. They ought to be more involved in foreign language acquisition because they need novelty and are open to the new possibilities that the foreign language gives them. The mentioned research also suggests that people with a low level of openness and ambiguity tolerance feel anxiety in new ambiguous situations and are less motivated in gaining new abilities. Therefore, the participants of this research with a lower level of openness will have lower grades and self-assessment than the opposite group with high levels of these traits.

3.5 Conclusion This chapter provided the theoretical background of the trait ambiguity tolerance. Ambiguity tolerance is a lower order trait affecting all areas of life, from everyday situations, through education to foreign language learning. It is the ability that helps to adapt, react and interpret various stimuli or ambiguous situations. Individuals manage with them differently depending on their level of ambiguity tolerance. People with a low level of ambiguity tolerance prefer everything that is familiar to them, they hardly ever change their mind and hate leaving their comfort zone. A low level of ambiguity tolerance causes the feeling of anxiety and increases stress. Individuals with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance feel comfortable with uncertainty, they are curious, creative and change their mind when they are convinced about something. Their level of anxiety and stress is lower; therefore, they are open-minded and motivated in exploring the new and novel which contributes to their development in various areas of life. Learning a foreign language is dealing with ambiguity all the time, therefore, from the point of view of people interested in foreign language learning, ambiguity tolerance appears to be an essential construct that affects learners’ behaviour, emotions, and reactions. Learners with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance have a lower level of anxiety. They are open to gaining new knowledge from a foreign language, storing it, and using it in the appropriate moment without stress.

References

65

Ambiguity tolerant individuals also show creativity connected with motivation in solving problems, both these elements contribute to achieving the objectives set by the individual student. The research on ambiguity tolerance has been conducted over many years and can provide a lot of useful clues for educators and learners, however there are still many unanswered questions that are associated with the different effects of ambiguity tolerance to the foreign language learning process. Learning a foreign language requires an understanding of complicated structures, ambiguous words, and intercultural knowledge, therefore it is worth knowing how a higher order personality trait, openness to experience, and a lower order personality trait, ambiguity tolerance, cooperate together. Also, it is worth knowing how the traits can be developed to make the learning process more effective. The next chapter of the book is devoted to selected empirical research projects that have contributed to present the role and importance of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in different aspects of life.

References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality (Vol. 1). Harper & Brothers. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511732935 Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494–508. Atamanova, I., & Bogomaz, S. (2014). Ambiguity tolerance as a psychological factor of foreign language communicative competence development. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.161 Atef-Vahid, S., Kashani, A. F., & Haddadi, M. (2011). The relationship between level of ambiguity tolerance and cloze test performance of Iranian EFL learners. Libri, 2(2), 149–169. Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. S. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003 Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1988). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79–93. Bhushan, L., & Amal, S. (1986). A situational test of intolerance of ambiguity. An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 29, 254–261. Bochner, S. (1965). Defining intolerance of ambiguity. The Psychological Record, 15(3), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393605 Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Education Company. Budner, S. N. Y. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the English version. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 931–945. Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222–236. Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012. 01.014

66

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461– 481. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586498 Carver, R. H., College, S., & Ma, E. (2006). Ambiguity intolerance: An impediment to inferential reasoning? http://www.Statlit.Org/Pdf/2006CarverASA.Pdf. http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2006Ca rverASA.pdf Caulfield, M., Andolsek, K., Grbic, D., & Roskovensky, L. (2014). Ambiguity tolerance of students matriculating to U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine, 89(11), 1526–1532. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000485 Chapple, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field dependence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–45. Chiang, H.-H. (2016). A study of interactions among ambiguity tolerance, classroom work styles, and English proficiency. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n 6p61 Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170– 193). Arnold. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288516804_Focus_on_the_language_ learner_Motivation_styles_and_strategies Cooke, G. P., Doust, J. A., & Steele, M. C. (2013). A survey of resilience, burnout, and tolerance of uncertainty in Australian general practice registrars. BMC Medical Education, 13(1), 2. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-2 Cornwell, S., & Robinson, P. (2000). Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence, and motivation: conference proceedings, March 26th and 27th, 1999. Aoyama Gakuin University, Department of English. Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 42–57). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978 1137032829_4 Dörnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition. Natl Foreign Lg Resource Ctr. Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3 Ehrman, M. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: Toward a model of personality and learning. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ego-boundaries-revisited%3A-toward-a-model-of-and-Ehr man/96e7c4332d25043db4c34f01c3797e9ea2c81857 Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452243436 Ehrman, M. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 68–86). Cambridge University Press. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327. El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2003). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.236 5143 Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. OUP Oxford. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669. Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22(5), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02766.x Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Heinle & Heinle.

References

67

Endres, M. L., Chowdhury, S., & Milner, M. (2009). Ambiguity tolerance and accurate assessment of self-efficacy in a complex decision task. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(1), 31–46. Erten, ˙IH., & Topkaya, E. Z. (2009). Understanding tolerance of ambiguity of EFL learners in reading classes at tertiary level. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1), 29–44. Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 64–69. Fitch, B. D. (2004). A test of the relationship between personality traits and test anxiety [Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Science, 65(12-A)]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/9346c32622895b9d248f9621e6d1574e/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46. 4.839 Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Tolerance toward ambiguity as a personality variable. American Psychologist, 3, 268. Furnham, A. (1990). Language and personality. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 73–95). John Wiley & Sons. Furnham, A., & Avison, M. (1997). Personality and preference for surreal paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 923–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00131-1 Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Scientific Research, 4(9), 717–728. 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 Greiner, S., Barrette, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 593–600. Hirsh, J. B., Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychological Science, 23(6), 578–581. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956797611436349 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. SAGE Publications. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/unf_resear ch/53 Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science (New York, N.Y.), 310(5754), 1680–1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115327 Jach, H. K., & Smillie, L. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JRP.2019.02.003 Jaensch, E. (1938). Der Gegentypus. Barth. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. H. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Routledge. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107– 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107 Kamran, S. K. (2011). Effect of gender on ambiguity tolerance of Iranian English language learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(11 & 12), 25–33. Kerr, B., Gottfried, M., & Chopp, C. (1999). Families and creativity. In M. Runco (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 709–715). CA: Academic Press Kimmel, P. (1995). A framework for incorporating critical thinking into accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 13(3), 299–318. Koh, H. C. (1995). Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: An empirical study of business. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 29–41.

68

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

Lauriola, M., Foschi, R., Mosca, O., & Weller, J. (2016). Attitude toward ambiguity: Empirically robust factors in self-report personality scales. Assessment, 23(3), 353–373. Lori, A. A. (1990). Self-concept, tolerance of ambiguity, English achievement, Arabic achievement and overall school achievement as factors contributing to Bahraini high school seniors’ attitudes toward learning English as a foreign language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/fe86de222b6963c582590738 888720da/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76, 623–626. Maw, W. H., & Magoon, A. J. (1971). The curiosity dimension of fifth-grade children: A factorial discriminant analysis. Child Development, 42(6), 2023–2031. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127604 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., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012 134645-4/50032-9 McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2010). Professional manual for NEOTM personality inventory (NEO TM—FFI-3). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. McLain, D. L. (1991). Social information processing, individual differences and workplace health and safety [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316 4493053001020 McLain, D. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale-II (MSTAT-II) 1. Psychological Reports, 105, 975–988. McLain, D. L., Kefallonitis, E., & Armani, K. (2015). Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: Definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00344 Merrotsy, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality? Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783762 Moeller, A. J., & Catalano, T. (2015). Foreign language teaching and learning. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 327–332). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92082-8 Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Nicolaidis, C., & Katsaros, K. (2011). Tolerance of ambiguity and emotional attitudes in a changing business environment. A case of Greek IT CEOs. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(1), 44–61. Nishino, T. (2007). Beginning to read extensively: A case study with Mako and Fumi. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(2), 76–105. Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607–619. Nurhidayah, R. (2020). The role of motivation in second language acquisition. Jurnal Ilmiah Spectral, 6, 096–104. https://doi.org/10.47255/spectral.v6i2.59 Oxford, R. L. (1992). Who are our students? A synthesis of foreign and second language research on individual differences with implications for instructional practice. TESL Canada Journal, 9(2), 30–49. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Second language learning: Individual differences. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 552–560). Oxford: Elsevier. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018b). 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). Springer. Ray, J. J. (1990). The old-fashioned personality. SAGE Journals, 43, 997–1013.

References

69

Roskin, R., & Margerison, C. (1983). The effectiveness of some measures of managerial effectiveness. Human Relations, 36, 865–882. Rotter, N. G., & O’Connell, A. N. (2007). The relationships among sex-role orientation, cognitive complexity, and tolerance for ambiguity. Sex Roles, 8, 1209–1220. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3586011 Shou, Y., & Smithson, M. (2015). Adapting to an uncertain world: Cognitive capacity and causal reasoning with ambiguous observations. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0140608. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0140608 Skaggs, P. (2022). Tolerance for ambiguity. Industrial Designers Society of America. https://www. idsa.org/sites/default/files/Tolerance%20for%20Ambiguity%20by%20Paul%20Skaggs.pdf Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning. Language Testing, 3, 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228600300207 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Routledge. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Research Gate. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/231912628_Individual_Differences_in_Second_Language_Lea rning Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press. Stoycheva, K. (1998). Ambiguity tolerance: Adolescents’ responses to uncertainty in life. Research report, September 1996–December 1997. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED422547 Stoycheva, K. (2011). Intolerance, uncertainty, and individual behaviour in ambiguous situations. In K. Stoycheva & A. Kostov (Eds.), A place, a time and an opportunity for growth (pp. 63–73). FABER Publishing House. https://www.academia.edu/2005303/Stoycheva_K_2 011_Intolerance_uncertainty_and_individual_behaviour_in_ambiguous_situations_In_K_Sto ycheva_and_A_Kostov_Eds_A_Place_a_Time_and_an_Opportunity_for_Growth_Bulgarian_ Scholars_at_NIAS_pp_63_73_Veliko_Tarnovo_FABER_Publishing_House Stoycheva, K. (2003a). Ambiguity tolerance and creativity: Intersection points. Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2, 18–23. Stoycheva, K. (2003b). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities. In P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Talent recruitment and public understanding (pp. 31–43). IOS Press. Stoycheva, K. (2008) The new and the best: Ambiguity tolerance and creativity motivation. International Journal of Psychology, 43(3/4), 65–73. Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology, 1–4, 178–188. Tatzel, M. (1980). Tolerance for ambiguity in adult college students. Psychological Reports, 47(2), 377–378. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.47.2.377 Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66(3 Pt 1), 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.66.3.1047-1056 Tynan, M. (2020). Multidimensional tolerance of ambiguity: Construct validity, academic success, and workplace outcomes. Doctor of Philosophy, Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/ etd-20200902-158 Urban, K. K. (2003). Toward a componential model of creativity. In Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 81–112). Hampton Press. Visser, J., & Visser, Y. L. (2004). Ambiguity, cognition, learning, teaching, and design. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(1), 40–43. Walberg, H. J., Rasher, S. P., & Parkerson, J. (1980). Childhood and eminence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 225–231. Weissenstein, A., Ligges, S., Brouwer, B., Marschall, B., & Friederichs, H. (2014). Measuring the ambiguity tolerance of medical students: A cross-sectional study from the first to sixth academic years. BMC Family Practice. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259649770_Measur ing_the_ambiguity_tolerance_of_medical_students_A_cross-sectional_study_from_the_first_ to_sixth_academic_years

70

3 The Characteristics of Ambiguity Tolerance

Wells, C. G. (1986). Variation in child language. In P. Fletcher & T. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 109–139). Cambridge University Press. White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System, 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00044-5 Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Tolerance for ambiguity and creativity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–72.

Chapter 4

Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

4.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide valuable insights into the selected empirical studies on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Therefore, the general empirical research of both factors is presented first. Next, the influence of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on educational success and second language acquisition is outlined. Finally, the chapter presents the research showing the relevance and correlation of both traits, that is openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance.

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience It is said that those people who are open to experience are usually intellectually curious, creative and imaginative. They also process information in different ways and see the world differently than people who have this trait on a low or average level. The brain of an open person has a propensity for exploring abstract and sensory information deeply and from various perspectives. All the above-mentioned notions are based on many research studies, some of which are presented in this part of the book.

4.2.1 Openness to Experience in General Functioning Researchers have often disagreed with the results of studies on openness, which has inhibited the progress in exploring this dimension (Woo et al., 2014). Therefore, in their research Woo et al. (2014) wanted to present a hierarchical, multifaceted © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_4

71

72

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

conceptual and measurement model of openness based on an empirically driven strategy because it would help to predict the reactions and behaviours to new stimuli. A good measurement model would allow the researchers to identify the real levels of facets that would help individuals in developing their personality. Woo et al. benefited from the existing facet model of openness. At the outset, they assumed that none of the facets had a better position, then they performed factor analyses of the openness-related scales from existing personality inventories. The entire research project consisted of three studies. The aim of the first was to identify the facet structure of the openness construct. They used seven personality inventories with thirty-six existing scales to construct a facet-level structure of openness. The participants of this study were from 22 to 90 years old, and their educational levels were diverse, on average, it consisted of two years of postsecondary schooling. The research was carried out between the years 1993–1998 and the participants had to complete seven personality inventories: • • • • • • •

The NEO PIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, 1945). The Californian Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987). The Multidimensional personality Questionnaire (Tellegen, 1982). The Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised (Jackson, 1994). The Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 2007). The AB5C-IPIP (Goldberg, 1999).

After the factor analysis, the researchers uncovered six facets of openness. The first three: intellectual efficiency, ingenuity, and curiosity are similar to the factors that were obtained in lexical studies (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). Intellectual efficiency is related to memorising, reading, or remembering textbook or academic information. This facet is also responsible for processing novel abstract information. Individuals who score high in this facet transform new information quickly and others describe them as knowledgeable, astute, and intellectual. Ingenuity, as the second facet, is close to the imagination factor found by Saucier and Ostendorf (1999). This facet is responsible for manipulating ideas, concepts, and artefacts. A person with a high level of this facet can expand existing information, concepts, products and create new ones. Scientific curiosity is related to ambitions of learning about scientific principles and associated themes. People with a high scientific curiosity level are curious and perceptive, they like reading about popular science and doing scientific activities. Woo et al. (2014) suggested that these first three facets constitute the Intellect aspect of openness. The remaining three facets are: aesthetics, cultural tolerance, and depth. The aesthetic facet connects openness with the artistic world. People with a high level of this facet are very interested in the arts, ranging from paintings to architecture, whereas individuals with a low-level show a marked disinterest in art. The tolerance facet is characterised with flexibility. The last facet, depth, helps in gaining an insight into someone’s mind and the world, thus indirectly influencing self-improvement and self-reflection.

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience

73

As presented, the first three facets: intellectual efficiency, ingenuity and curiosity refer to the individual differences that are responsible for processing novel intellectual information (intellectual efficiency), creating new intellectual knowledge (ingenuity), and encouraging novel intellectual ideas (curiosity). Aesthetics, tolerance, and depth refer to non-intellectual experiences, like culture and self-transformation. In the study, Woo et al. (2014) noticed that all the six facets positively correlated with one another, especially the three facets in the intellectual cluster and those in the cultural cluster. If someone has the intellectual cluster on a higher level, this is very useful in daily functioning, as individuals’ problems can be solved thanks to ingenuity and curiosity. The cultural cluster contributes to experiencing pleasure in life originating in the world of culture. To sum up, openness to experience is a complex dimension and the hierarchical model shows how all the facets influence our life. A higher level of openness to experience helps individuals in gaining knowledge and using it in daily life, moreover, it also contributes to life satisfaction. The hierarchical model explains the differences in people’s behaviour and attitudes to life. Silvia et al. (2015) were interested in openness to experience, especially the particular aspect related to artistic sensibility. The aim of their study was to examine the role of openness in contact with music and nature. So far, the correlation between openness and awe was based on people’s self-reports, but Silvia et al. tried to check it in laboratory conditions. In the research study, 103 participants (83 women and 20 men) who were ethnically diverse and with a mean age of 18.75, took part. They used the NEO FFI (McCrae & Costa Jr., 2007) to measure the five personality factors, and the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales (DPES; Shiota et al., 2006) to measure the seven positive emotions from joy, through contentment to awe. The items in the DPES were on a 7-point response scale, and they were particularly interested in the awe subscale. Then, the Unusual Aesthetic Emotions scale (Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011) was used to assess the items with reference to music. The part had two phases: in the first one, some images of the sky and space were shown, in the second one, the participants had to listen to music. After analysing all the data, as expected, openness to experience was strongly correlated with profound emotional responses to images of nature and music. This research showed that people with a high level of openness liked reflective and unconventional music, had the same reaction to songs, and admired images of nature enthusiastically. As Silvia et al. suggested, the research showed that openness was the element that helped provide participants with a sense of awe from music and art, on the opposite side were people with a low level of openness who liked conventional music and images of nature that did not stir any special emotions. In conclusion, openness to experience as a personality trait is responsible for people’s attitudes towards nature and music. Individuals with a higher level of this trait appreciate nature and like reflective and unconventional music, on the opposite side of the continuum are people for whom nature has no particular significance, and they prefer conventional music. Ross et al. (2009) carried out a study in which they examined the nature of Facebook use, and how personality dimensions influenced its use. They wanted to check if there was a correlation between personality and competency in using a computer. They predicted that openness as a dimension based on curiosity and a desire to

74

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

explore new things would cause individuals with a high level of it, to use Facebook more willingly, and also to have a greater knowledge of it. 97 students (15 men, 82 women) with a mean age of 21.69 years participated in this research. The participants had to fill in the Facebook Questionnaire with three categories: • the assessment of the basic use of Facebook, • the users’ attitudes associated with Facebook, • personally—identifying information. The first part tested the users’ attitudes, then they had to complete the Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) Competence measure (Spitzberg, 2006). The measure checked three domains of competence: motivation, knowledge and efficacy. In the end, they filled out the NEO-PIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992) to know the level of each of the personality dimensions. After analysing the results, they found that openness to experience was related to online sociability and Computer Mediated Communication Knowledge. As they expected, participants with a higher level of openness had a greater tendency to be sociable on Facebook. Open individuals had different interests, so Facebook is the perfect outlet to look for unusual means (Butt & Phillips, 2008). The researchers noticed that the level of CMC was lower than they had expected. They explained that new forms (tools) of CMC were not well described, and the participants did not know how to use them. Another explanation was that people with a high level of openness like to try new things, however, they are not interested in how they work. To sum up, individuals with a higher level of openness to experience are not afraid of using new tools, they are more sociable, even online. The presented selected empirical research about the openness to experience dimension in everyday life shows how positive the influence of openness can be. Knowing the role and level of each facet, it is possible to predict somebody’s reactions and behaviour, but also helps in choosing a path of professional development (Woo et al., 2014). A lot of times, people wonder why the reactions to cultural events of individuals are so different, the answer is simple, it depends on the level of openness, the higher the level, the more enthusiastically people show their emotions (Silvia et al., 2015). Higher openness also explains a willingness to learn new things, which in turn contributes to personal development (Ross et al., 2009). The research described above is summarized in Table 4.1.

4.2.2 Openness to Experience in Education Personality traits play an important role in achieving a person’s educational goals, and a high level of openness to experience allows a lot of information to come into the brain for analysis. Individuals who are more open often see things that others block out, furthermore scholars also discovered that open people can experience very complex emotional states because apparently incompatible feelings penetrate their consciousness simultaneously (Smillie, 2017). People with high openness on tests of creativity cope much better than average people. It turned out that less open people

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience

75

Table 4.1 Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in general functioning Researcher

Aim

Result

Woo et al. (2014)

To examine the facet structure of openness to experience and their influence on individuals’ behaviour and attitudes in life, also to check if the hierarchical model coincides with the lexical categories of facets

Openness to experience is organised as a hierarchical model of six facets. Three of the facets (intellectual efficiency, ingenuity and curiosity) create the intellectual aspect that is responsible for gaining, analysing and memorising knowledge, and the next three facets (aesthetics, tolerance and depth) create the cultural aspect and is connected with no-intellectual things and self-transformation. The hierarchical model organises the facets of openness, but they are similar to the lexical approach

Silvia et al. (2015)

To study the influence of openness to experience regarding aesthetic pleasure through listening to different kinds of music and contact with nature in daily life

People with a higher openness level feel pleasure from listening to reflective and unconventional music, they admire nature. People with a low level of openness rather prefer conventional music and they do not feel excitement in contact with nature

Ross et al. (2009)

To examine the influence of openness to experience through the use of Facebook, also to check the correlation between openness and competence in using a computer

Openness to experience is related to online sociability and Computer Mediated Communication Knowledge. A higher level of openness results in higher sociable activity but this does not result in a higher level of competence and knowledge in using Facebook as a tool

produce the typical expected answers in contrast to high open ones who generate a lot of unconventional possibilities. All these features are very useful in the process of learning at all levels of education. Some studies showing the impact of openness on the learning process are presented below. Laidra et al. (2007) decided to study academic achievement in a large group of Estonian schoolchildren. The aim of the research was to investigate the correlation among academic achievement, intelligence, and personality traits, especially conscientiousness and openness-related traits. The researchers wanted to check if these traits demonstrated higher correlations than other personality dimensions. Two groups of children participated in the study, the first consisted of 2746 adolescents (1466 girls and 1280 boys), and they attended grades 6, 8, 10 and 12, coming from different regions of Estonia. There were 1435 children (682 girls and 753 boys) in the second group, who came from 17 schools and ranged from age 7 to 11. Intelligence was measured by Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) (SPM; Raven, 1981). Academic achievement was assessed by a five-scale system (5—very good, 1—weak). The scale was then converted into the grade point average (GPA) from the

76

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

last semester or two previous quarters. They chose subjects such as: Estonian, literature, two foreign languages, mathematics, chemistry, physics, geography, biology and history. The GPA was the average of those subjects that were taught in the researched period. The participants’ personality dimensions were measured by the Estonian version of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Allik et al., 2004; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Big Five Questionnaire—Children’s version (BFQC) was used for children from the elementary school (Barbaranelli et al., 2003). After collecting all data, they noticed that girls had better GPAs and scored higher in agreeableness than boys. Younger children gave fewer correct answers on the SPM than older ones. Additionally, they found the correlation between grades and intelligence and, also noticed that openness showed a significant positive correlation with the GPA throughout all grades. Openness to experience is the factor that helps to predict academic achievement through all grades. It also refers to the features of openness that are responsible for seeking novel educational experiences and the ability to understand new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In elementary school, the correlation between openness and GPA was higher, probably because two different tools were used. All in all, openness to experience exerts an influence on students’ grades. The higher the level of this trait, the better the grades. In their research, Meyer et al. (2019) studied the relationship of personality traits and different measures of domain-specific achievement in upper secondary education. The main aim of the study was to learn more about the “predictive value of personality traits on academic achievement in upper secondary education over and above cognitive ability” (Meyer et al., 2019, p. 47). Meyer et al. measured achievement in mathematics and English as a foreign language. Shortly before graduating from secondary school, 3637 students from vocational (compulsory education, plus, for example, technical or economic courses) and academic classes, were participants of this study. As tools, the researchers used the German short version of the Big Five Inventory. Then, they obtained information about the study’s participants’ gender, socioeconomic status and course level from the school administration. To assess the student’s general cognitive ability, they used the verbal and figural reasoning subscales of the cognitive ability test for class levels 4–12 (Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen) (KFT4-12R; Heller & Perleth, 2000). Finally, they collected end-of-school year grades of the domains, the GPA (grade point average) and allowed the students to solve a standardized mathematics test, which examined the following two dimensions: • content areas in the field of mathematics, • the cognitive component of mathematical competence in solving mathematical problems. Listening and reading comprehension exercises measured English achievement, and the test items were based on the national curricula. At the end, the researchers collected the students’ grades received on the written final exams in mathematics and English. During the analysis, they examined the changes between personality traits and academic achievement, using different covariates.

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience

77

After the research, Meyer et al. claimed that different measures of academic achievement presented high inter-correlations between measurements. They found the highest correlations between final exams and grades in both subjects, mathematics and English, but there was no significant correlation between openness and cognitive ability. They suggested that maybe the instrument used presented the senseo-aesthetic aspect of openness more than the intellectual one did. Meyer et al. confirmed that openness positively influences English grades but has a negative effect on mathematics grades. They explained that this may happen because students with a high level of openness usually are “less interested in more analytical, less creative thinking as required in mathematics” (Meyer et al., 2019, p. 54). Probably, students with a lower level of openness are more interested in mathematics because they are practical, conventional, rational (McCrae & Costa, 1987), and might like tasks with only one correct answer. Meyer’s et al. obtained results of openness were correlated with gender, stating that girls had a higher level than boys. The results were different from the research of Schmitt et al. (2008) where girls had higher scores in all personality traits except for openness. Those researchers paid attention to significantly different school tracks and concluded in their research that their results would be quite similar to other educational systems. They also suggested that it would be worthy to continue the study of personality and their influence on academic achievement using different types of covariates. In conclusion, openness to experience influences achievements in learning English as a foreign language and mathematics. Students who are more open to experience have better grades in English than those with a low level of this trait. However, students with higher openness have lower grades in mathematics than those with a low level of openness. The role of openness to experience is invaluable in the area of education. As the presented research shows, openness has a positive influence on school subjects that need creative thinking like English (Meyer et al., 2019). The researchers proved that students with a higher level of openness to experience have better grades on all educational levels (Laidra et al., 2007). Knowing that individuals score higher in openness in a class, it is possible to choose proper learning strategies, which contribute to better results and provide demanding free-time activities. See Table 4.2 for a summary of the presented research.

4.2.3 Openness to Experience in Second Language Acquisition It is often said that personality traits have an influence on foreign language acquisition but there is no evidence that one single trait guarantees overall success (Dewaele, 2007). However, the main dimensions can have an indirect impact on it (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Mulalic and Obralic (2017) studied the correlation between personality traits and language learning strategies among their students. The aims of their study were to find the personality traits that influenced academic achievement and to

78

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

Table 4.2 Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in education Researcher

Aim

Result

Laidra et al. (2007)

To check the relationship among intelligence, personality traits—especially openness—and academic achievement

There is a correlation between intelligence and academic achievement. In addition, there is a significant correlation between grades and personality traits: openness to experience

Meyer et al. (2019)

To examine the influence of openness to experience on academic achievement, also over and above cognitive ability

Openness to experience positively influences English grades but has a negative effect on mathematics grades. There is no significant correlation between openness and cognitive ability

learn about students’ favourite learning strategies in foreign/second language acquisition. Furthermore, they tried to discover which personality trait was dominant, and if their gender was related to the predominant personality trait. 70 students, 45 males and 25 females took part in the study, and the researchers used two set of questionnaires: the Big Five and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (SILL; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). The SILL showed how students perceived themselves when they learnt a language and if they knew what language learning strategy they could use. In the SILL, language strategies were divided into “six categories for assessment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Memory strategies for storing and retrieving information. Cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language. Compensation strategies for overcoming limitations in language learning. Meta-cognitive strategies for planning and monitoring learning. Affective strategies for controlling emotions, motivation. Social strategies for cooperating with others in language learning” (Mulalic & Obralic, 2017, p. 78).

The second questionnaire—the Five Factor Model—was used to study the five personality traits: Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). After analysing the results, openness to experience turned out to be the dominant personality trait and extraversion with neuroticism scored the lowest value. The results from the SILL questionnaire showed that the Cognitive strategy was the students’ favourite, followed by the Memory strategy and in last place was the Social strategy. Mulalic and Obralic also studied if any difference between male and female students connected with personality traits could be observed. However, they found that only openness significantly differed between female and male students. The test scores indicated that female students were more open than male ones, but male and female students did not differ in their strategy use, so the result was statistically insignificant. They also investigated the correlation between a predominant personality trait and the favourite language learning strategy. However, it emerged

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience

79

that openness only had a weak correlation between Memory, Cognitive, Metacognitive and Social strategies, but a significant correlation between Compensation and Effective strategies. The other traits had some stronger correlations with the language learning strategy than openness to experience, for example: Extraversion had strong correlations with all the strategies, and Agreeableness with the Effective learning strategy. The research of Mulalic and Obralic showed that most students had the trait— openness to experience—on a high level and that the students’ favourite strategy was the Cognitive one. According to Mulalic and Obralic (2017), the learning strategy had changed due to new trends in technology and different approaches to education. They claimed that the analysis confirmed a strong correlation between personality traits and language learning strategies, but also that openness to experience was a desirable trait. As they suggested, this could be caused by the relationship between intellectual abilities and an enormous dependence on genetic factors. Mulalic and Obralic (2017) emphasized that students should know more about their strongest personality traits and language learning strategies, because it could be helpful in language acquisition and could increase students’ interest and motivation. To sum up, learners with a higher level of openness to experience prefer Cognitive strategies. Their preferences change with new trends in technology and education. Foreign language learning strategies play an important role in language acquisition, they help to acquire a foreign language faster, easier, and more effectively. In the research, Kölemen (2018) investigated the impact of openness to experience on the choice of language learning strategies and if the levels of this personality trait have any influence on the choice of language learning strategies. In the study, 252 participants took part from different nationalities, in the range of ages 18–26. The main instruments applied in this study were the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990) and the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The SILL was in two forms, the first one was a 50-item questionnaire for students learning a foreign language and the second one was an 80item questionnaire for native English speakers. Items in the SILL were divided into six categories of strategies: memory, cognitive, compensatory, metacognitive, affective and social. The SILL was used to uncover learners’ attitudes towards learning strategies and the NEO PI-R Scale measured the level of openness to experience. The results of the research showed that students with a high level of openness very often used all types of language learning strategies in comparison to students with a low level of this trait who less frequently used various learning strategies. Analysing further on the level of facets, it was established that two facets, aesthetics and feelings correlated with all strategies which meant that those participants appreciated art and had an intensive sensitivity to various emotions. Students with a higher fantasy facet preferred novelty and they overcame limitations in the target language. Participants with a higher level of idea facet correlated with five strategy types (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social), which meant that they had intellectual curiosities and used different language learning strategies more often than students with low scores of this facet. To sum up, openness to experience plays a significant

80

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

role in choosing language learning strategies. Students with a higher level of this trait control their learning and can coordinate it. A willingness to communicate is seen as a very important construct that influences individuals’ tendency to start communication with other people. In her research, Piechurska-Kuciel (2018a) studied the relationship between openness to experience and the willingness to communicate in a second language (L2 WTC). In the study, 534 students (312 girls, 222 boys) from six secondary grammar schools took part. The participants came from urban areas in south-western Poland, and their English was on an intermediate level. The participants had to fill out a demographic questionnaire, then, the 20-item IPIP scale which was devoted to measure openness. Next, they had to respond to 27 items of willingness to communicate in a classroom (MacIntyre et al., 2001a, b); the items described the willingness of students to be involved in the learning process during lessons in the four skill areas. Also, they had to fill in the willingness to communicate outside the classroom scale (MacIntyre et al., 2001a, b). The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al., 1986) was used to estimate the degree of anxiety which students felt during language lessons. At the end, the participants reported the final grades they had achieved in junior high and the first term of secondary school, then the self-assessment of the foreign language skills, and the grade that they probably would receive. After analysing all data, the results showed that the willingness to communicate (WTC) was correlated with language anxiety, openness to experience, final grades, and self-perceived FL skills. Piechurska-Kuciel provided empirical evidence that openness had a direct and indirect impact on language acquisition. The direct influence was connected with curiosity and a preference for variety. The indirect influence was related to language anxiety. A higher level of openness to experience was accompanied by a higher level of WTC, and this caused a lower level of language anxiety. Higher values of openness and WTC contributed to better final grades, and selfperceived FL skills. Piechurska-Kuciel suggested that the direct connection between openness and the L2 WTC has their origins in human cognition, and behaviour. The open individuals have lower language anxiety, which causes a more positive perception of FL skills, even if they have to test their language abilities. Furthermore, with growing self-perceived levels of foreign language skills, communicative competence is higher as well. Piechurska-Kuciel claimed that openness probably stimulates the self-perception of FL skills. The close relationship between openness and self-perceived levels of FL helps in shaping the L2 WTC, underlining someone’s readiness to communication. All in all, openness to experience has an impact on the willingness to communicate and language anxiety. A higher level of openness is followed by a higher level of willingness to communicate, and this, in turn, contributes to a lower level of language anxiety. Students with a higher level of openness and willingness to communicate, but also with a lower level of anxiety achieve better grades in foreign language learning.

4.2 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience

81

Learning a foreign language is a demanding activity. Each individual learns a foreign language and makes progress at different rates. One of the elements influencing the progress is personality with its various dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Openness to experience, thanks to its features: curiosity, flexibility, imaginativeness and creativity is desired in the foreign language learning process (Mulalic and Obralic, 2017). As the presented research shows, openness influences the willingness to communicate (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a, b), reduces anxiety and contributes to higher self-assessment. Higher self-assessment of an individual’s skills impacts the willingness to use a foreign language in various situations. The research described above is summarized in Table 4.3. All the presented studies show openness to experience, as a trait, has a major impact on individuals’ lives in different areas. In everyday life, openness to experience contributes to the enjoyment of life, as well as an appreciation of art and nature (Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011). It is also important in social contacts (Ross et al., 2009). In the area of education, openness has an influence on academic achievements (Laidra et al., 2007), students with a higher level of the trait have better grades because they are characterised by creative thinking. It is worth remembering that openness Table 4.3 Summary of the selected research on openness to experience in second language acquisition Researcher

Aim

Result

Mulalic and Obralic (2017)

To check the influence of personality traits on language acquisition, and to discover what trait was dominant in the process. Further, to examine what learning strategies students preferred in learning a second language, also to learn if students’ gender was related to the personality trait

The research showed that openness to experience is the dominant personality trait in the process of language acquisition. Students prefer the Cognitive strategy, then the Memory strategy. Female students are more open than males, but male and female students do not differ in their strategy use

Kölemen (2018)

To investigate the impact of openness to experience on the choice of language learning strategies

The research showed that openness to experience has a significant impact on the choice of language learning strategies. Students with a higher level of openness use various learning strategies more than students with a low level of this trait, especially with high scores of aesthetics, feelings and idea facets

Piechurska-Kuciel (2018a)

To check the relationship between openness to experience and the willingness to communicate in second language acquisition. Also, to examine the influence of openness on grades, self-assessment, and anxiety

A higher level of openness to experience is accompanied by a higher level of WTC. With a higher level of openness, individuals have better grades and a lower level of anxiety. Openness contributes to a higher level of self-assessment

82

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

to experience increases students’ interests in various areas of life, and motivation to develop their skills. The trait has an impact on language acquisition, the higher the level, the easier an individual learns. The study of Piechurska-Kuciel (2018a) shows that people with a higher level of openness to experience also have a higher level of willingness to communicate and self-assessment, moreover, they have a lower level of anxiety. All research has shown that openness to experience is a very desirable trait.

4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance Ambiguity tolerance is a needed trait because it helps the individual to adapt to various situations and find the best solution in ambiguous ones. People encounter ambiguous situations in all areas of life from general life, through education to foreign language acquisition. A higher level of ambiguity tolerance gives people more optimism and the feeling that they can manage any and every situation. Ambiguity tolerant individuals are more confident and innovative; therefore, they are not anxious when encountering the unknown. All the mentioned positive features of ambiguity tolerance above are only part of the array of aspects that will be presented in the research studies in this part of the book.

4.3.1 Ambiguity Tolerance in General Functioning Ambiguity tolerance is one of the personality traits that has an impact on creativity. Zenasi et al. (2008) hypothesized that there was a correlation between creativity and tolerance of ambiguity. If individuals were more tolerant to ambiguity, then they had a greater potential for creativity. The researchers focused on the relationship between personality and problem solving. They also examined if the tolerance of ambiguity of parents was related to the tolerance of ambiguity of their children and if parents’ tolerance of ambiguity was correlated to their children’s creativity. 34 pairs of adolescents and their parents participated in the study. The adolescents ranged in age from 11 to 17, their parents (28 mothers and 6 fathers) from 39 to 61 years old. Three independent measures of creativity were used: 1) a divergent thinking task, 2) a story-writing task, 3) self-evaluation of creative attitudes and behaviour. They focused on the same type of environment to limit differences between tasks. First, the participants had to do the divergent thinking task to generate ideas concerning ambiguous stimulus and had to write titles for an ambiguous text. Each participant was assessed for:

4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance

83

1) fluency (the number of correct responses), 2) originality (frequency of the appearance of new ideas in the text), 3) unicity (number of unique ideas). Additionally, they used the Runco et al. (1987) method, where the unique ideas and high scores corresponding to rare ideas were counted. In the story-writing task, participants had to work with a picture presenting a high degree of ambiguity. To measure creativity, they used the Creativity Personality Scale from the Adjective Check-List (ACL) (Gendre et al., 1982). This scale is based on indicative adjectives and the scores describe examined individuals. To measure the tolerance of ambiguity, Zenasni et al. used a short version of the French adaptation of the Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance (Norton, 1975; Zenasni & Lubart, 2001) and the Behaviour Scale of Tolerance of Ambiguity (Stoycheva, 1998). Zenasni et al. (2008) started their analysis with the creativity measures, then tolerance of ambiguity and finally, the relationship between creativity and tolerance of ambiguity. All the results showed that divergent thinking was a distinct facet of creativity. Further, they claimed that the more creative parents were, the more their children tended to be. The results of the tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity research study suggested that there were no significant correlations between parents’ scores of tolerance ambiguity and those of their children. The last part of the research was devoted to checking the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and creativity. The results showed that the level of ambiguity tolerance contributes to the creation of ideas in a divergent thinking task when the participants were confronted with ambiguous stimuli. They noticed that individuals with a low level of tolerance of ambiguity produced less original and unique ideas, their stories were less creative, and they had a lower score on the Adjective Check-List measure. In conclusion, there is a significant positive relationship between creativity and tolerance of ambiguity. The more individuals are tolerant of ambiguity, the more creative they are. The research of Zenasni et al. (2008) however did not show a significant correlation between parents’ ambiguity tolerance and their adolescents’ ambiguity tolerance or creativity. But, according to them, this can be caused by the age of the adolescents because personality is not stable at such an age. They suggested further studies which should produce interesting results. All in all, ambiguity tolerance has an impact on individuals’ creativity. The higher the level of ambiguity tolerance the more creative individuals are. Xu and Tracey (2014) decided to examine the role of ambiguity tolerance in career decision making because thus far, researchers had focused on collecting and utilizing information that could help to choose a proper career, but not on the individual construct of ambiguity tolerance. After reviewing the existing empirical research about ambiguity tolerance, Xu and Tracey suggested that AT would be correlated with career decision making and, also the level of AT would influence the anxiety felt during the process. So far, it was known that collecting information about the self and different ways of career paths was the first step to choosing a future profession. They claimed that a higher level of AT would cause more interest in gathering information about occupations and better coping with inevitable information which could inhibit

84

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

the career decision. 275 undergraduate students (111 boys and 164 girls) took part in the study. They attended a southwestern state university, their age ranged from 17 to 29 and they belonged to various ethnic groups: African/American Black, Asian American, Latino, White, Native American and Multiracial. In the beginning, the participants had to give all of their demographic information. Then, they had to fill out a Career Exploration Survey (Stumpf et al., 1983), which consisted of the six-item Environmental Exploration subscale and the five-item Self Exploration Subscale. Next, the researchers used the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance ScaleII (MSTAT-II; McLain, 2009), which measured 13-items, for example: unfamiliar, complex, novel and illogical stimuli. The last tool was the Career Decision-making Difficulty Questionnaire (DDQ; Gati et al., 1996), which contained: • • • •

the 3-item General Indecisiveness Scale, the 4-item Dysfunctional Beliefs Scale, the 12-item Lack of Information Scale, the 10-item Inconsistent Information Scale.

After analysing their data, Xu and Tracy stated that ambiguity tolerance played a significant role in career decision making. They said that AT showed individual differences in preferences and tolerance for ambiguity. Individuals who can cope with the inevitable ambiguity in decision making often do not lose their beliefs, which is the reason for the researchers to underline that it is worth accepting the inevitable ambiguity. Moreover, a higher level of ambiguity tolerance reduces the level of anxiety during the period of time of decision making. The current research also confirmed that AT is a supportive construct in reducing the information deficit, therefore, it is worthy to work with people on their ambiguity tolerance, so they can manage a lack of information better, which will contribute to proper career decision making. As the researchers suggested, the study investigated students, therefore, the results might not be characteristic to other groups, and it would be worthy to continue similar research in different groups. To sum up, ambiguity tolerance has an impact on individuals’ creativity, career decision making and their level of anxiety. The higher the level of ambiguity tolerance, the more creative individuals are. A higher level of ambiguity tolerance indirectly influences career decision making, as these individuals manage better with a lack of information during the process, and they have a lower level of anxiety. The presented empirical studies show the positive influence of ambiguity tolerance in general functioning. In daily life, everyone needs to be creative because it helps in coping with life and having a higher level of ambiguity tolerance is beneficial. If someone scores high in ambiguity tolerance, then she/he is able to produce more original and unique ideas (Zenasni et al., 2008). Ambiguity tolerance also contributes to career decision making, as people with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance more often make choices that require bravery (Xu & Tracey, 2014). Ambiguity tolerance causes people to be more open to new information that widens their horizons. What is more, a higher level of ambiguity tolerance also reduces the level of anxiety during the process of important decision making. The research described above is summarized in Table 4.4.

4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance

85

Table 4.4 Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in general functioning Researcher

Aim

Result

Zenasni et al. (2008)

To check the correlation between ambiguity tolerance and creativity. To examine the relationship between the tolerance of ambiguity of parents to the tolerance of ambiguity of their children and if parents’ tolerance of ambiguity is correlated to their children’s creativity

There is a significant positive relationship between creativity and the tolerance of ambiguity. The level of tolerance ambiguity contributes to the creation of ideas in a divergent thinking task. Individuals with a low level of tolerance of ambiguity produce less original and unique ideas. The more creative the parents are, the more their children are, too. There is no significant correlation between parents’ ambiguity tolerance and those of their children

Xu and Tracy (2014)

To examine the impact of ambiguity tolerance in career decision making. To check if ambiguity tolerance moderates the relationship of environmental and self-exploration with a lack of information. To check if ambiguity tolerance influences the level of anxiety during career decision making

Ambiguity tolerance plays a significant role in career decision making. Thanks to AT, a lack of information does not destroy an individual’s career plans. AT also has an indirect influence on career decision making through supporting environmental and self-exploration. Also, ambiguity tolerance reduces the level of anxiety during the process of career decision making

4.3.2 Ambiguity Tolerance in Education Stoycheva conducted a line of research that studied the influence of ambiguity tolerance on creativity, the development of creative talent, education and behaviour. In the first presented research study, Stoycheva (1998) examined the relationships between ambiguity tolerance and the level of education. In her first research project, 392 high school students, 472 university students and 116 working younger adults (from 18 to 25-year-old) took part. She used the MAT-50 (Norton, 1975) questionnaire for measuring AT and, the questionnaire was adapted to the Bulgarian population. Stoycheva expected that knowledge, skills and attitudes helped people to cope with uncertainty in life and she confirmed her expectation through empirical data. University students had a higher level of AT than their peers at the same age who were not attending university. She compered the results with a study that she led on adults, which confirmed that a higher educational level was connected with a higher ambiguity tolerance during life. However, she emphasized that research with university students did not show an obvious relationship between university attendance and an increase in the tolerance of ambiguity. All in all, ambiguity tolerance contributes to higher achievements in education. Furthermore, her study seems to indicate that university students and graduates appear to have a higher level of this trait. In the second study, Stoycheva (2003a, b) wanted to compare AT with the student’s intelligence, creative thinking abilities, temperament, anxiety, need for achievement

86

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

and self-concept. She tested two contrasted groups of high school students, the first one contained students with a low level of AT (n = 51), the second one, students with a high level of AT (n = 55). Stoycheva also used different studies in her analyses that helped her to determine the influence of AT on an individual’s education. One of the studies was conducted among high school students (31 boys and 75 girls, aged 14–19) who specialized in the applied arts. They had to fill in questionnaires to measure ambiguity tolerance, creative motivation and the need for achievement (Stoycheva, 2000). To measure creativity, she used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1999). After analysing all her results, Stoycheva suggested that students with a low level of ambiguity tolerance came up with rather generalized ideas in creative problem solving. Students with a high AT level created more original and unique ideas. One of the participants’ tasks was to imagine titles to pictures, where high ambiguity tolerant students generated more abstract and inventive titles. She also found in the research that AT correlated positively with creative motivation. Students with a higher level of AT scored higher on intelligence, probably due to the higher number of demanding courses. High ambiguity tolerant students had a lower level of anxiety and a higher positive self-concept (often having feelings of mastery). According to Stoycheva (2003a, b), the learning process should be personalised and flexible, ambiguity ought to be used as a creative challenge. Ambiguity tolerance can produce better results in the learning process than methods which adherence to structured anonymous knowledge. She showed that at the beginning of university studies, art and medical students slightly differ statistically, but at the end, the difference is significant. In conclusion, students with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance are more creative in developing unique ideas. Further, they are motivated in challenging tasks and feel less anxiety in coping with them. Also, they have a positive view of their achievements. The third presented research study was carried out by Stoycheva and Popova (2019) to assess teachers’ and parents’ attitude to the development of AT in adolescents. They wanted to check if parents and teachers encouraged adolescents to ambiguity tolerant behaviour. The study was conducted among a group of high school students (n = 303), their teachers (n = 52) and parents (n = 236). Stoycheva (1998) designed an original psychological instrument that helped them to estimate the importance adolescents assign to the behaviours and if adults encouraged them to ambiguity tolerance. They used the results of a study that was carried out by her student, Glutnikova (2000), as well. The study compared university students with non-university youths. They wanted to know how all the participants referred to their tolerance of ambiguity and how parents encouraged their children to ambiguity tolerant or intolerant behaviours. Stoycheva and Popova examined whether students with a high level of AT and characteristic behaviours for them, were rewarded or punished by teachers and parents. They used scales that indicated seven typical ambiguity tolerance and seven ambiguity intolerance behaviours. Teachers were asked to present how they encouraged students to some behaviours on a 4-point rating scale. Then, the students also took part in this research, and had to indicate on a 4-point rating scale, how AT behaviours were important in their life, and if teachers encouraged them to such behaviours.

4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance

87

After analysing the data, they suggested that ambiguity tolerance development as a personality construct was in line with the adjustment of relevant values and beliefs. They also emphasised that Bulgarian adolescents valued more importance to ambiguity tolerant than to ambiguity intolerant behaviours. Students preferred situations where they had the chance to achieve success even when it was connected with risks and experimenting in various situations. From the teachers’ point of view, they tried to encourage students to more ambiguity tolerant behaviours, which was probably due to the fact that they had the highest degree of AT encouragement. However, students assessed their teachers as people who valued intolerance of ambiguity of their students more than tolerance. Both groups, students and teachers, saw themselves differently. This might be caused by teachers more often describing their group as open to new and understanding the needs of adolescents. But on the other side, students saw their teachers as a group that was not supportive for ambiguity tolerant behaviours, they thought that such behaviour of the teachers was caused by their concern for them. This resulted in them avoiding risks and uncertain outcomes. The researchers explained the results in the way that students were opposed to teachers’ expectations, and adult authority was seen as an evaluative pressure. Students’ parents valued intolerance behaviours as more desirable, however, the attitude depended upon demographic factors (age, education and settlement). Students’ parents living in small towns and with secondary education encouraged their children to intolerant behaviours. To sum up, ambiguity tolerance as a construct develops with students’ beliefs and values. High ambiguity tolerant students know how important the trait is in achieving success, opposite to their parents who value less ambiguity tolerant behaviour. Teachers appreciate students with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance, but their students think the opposite. Ambiguity tolerance, as the presented empirical research shows, contributes to higher education. People who finish university have a higher level of ambiguity tolerance than those who finish their education in secondary or vocational school (Stoycheva, 1998). Ambiguity tolerance is responsible for creative motivation, that is necessary in schools, because it translates into better grades. Ambiguous learning situations are treated as challenges causing development of creativity and an increase of motivation to choose the best solution (Zenasni et al., 2008). Students value people who teach them ambiguity tolerant behaviour, as they know that with such a behaviour, they can achieve success in life (Stoycheva & Popova, 2019). The research described above is summarized in Table 4.5.

4.3.3 Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition El-Koumy (2003) decided to study the correlation between AT and second/foreign language reading comprehension, since none of the previous research had analysed that particular relationship. He wanted to explore the differences in foreign language reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students at the university level. El-Kumny noticed that students when they were asked to read

88

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

Table 4.5 Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in education Researcher

Aim

Stoycheva (1998)

To check the University students have a higher level of relationship of ambiguity tolerance while studying and then, after ambiguity tolerance and graduation the level of education

Result

Stoycheva (2003a)

To examine the influence of AT on student’s intelligence, creative thinking abilities, temperament, anxiety, need for achievement and self-concept

Students with a high level of AT have a higher level of intelligence. A high level of AT has a positive influence on creativity and creative thinking. A higher AT contributes to more original and unique ideas. A higher level of AT contributes to a lower level of anxiety and more positive self-concept

Stoycheva and Popova (2019)

To check if teachers and parents encourage adolescents to ambiguity tolerant behaviours

The construct of AT develops in line with the adjustment of relevant values and beliefs. Adolescents value more AT behaviour because it can help them to achieve success. Adolescents think that teachers do not support them, but teachers have the opposite point of view. Parents value more intolerant behaviour in their children

a text, reacted variously, from panic and giving up to staying calm and open-minded in dealing with their difficulties. In this study, 150 students (18 male and 132 female) representing the three levels of AT were questioned, taught using the same textbooks and for the same time—six years. There were 50 participants on each level of AT, who were asked to fill in the MAT-50 and the reading comprehension subtest (TOEFI). The MAT-50 is a 61 item Likert scale of AT, that is highly reliable and the TOEFI reading comprehension subtest consists of five passages with 50 questions altogether. AT was set as the independent variable and foreign reading comprehension as the dependent one. The researcher controlled all the groups during the testing, so that the conditions were identical. The results showed a significant difference in reading comprehension scores among the high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance groups. It indicated that the middle AT group had better results than the low and high AT groups and there was no significant difference between the low and high group. Students with middleambiguity tolerance achieved good results in second language reading comprehension that meant a moderate degree of AT was better than high or low level of AT. According to El-Koumy (2003), the results of the research could also explain the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and learning strategies. The readers with a high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance preferred various reading strategies, which could lead to the received results. Therefore, students should be allowed to use their favourite learning strategies during lessons and while being taught compensation strategies. To sum up, the level of ambiguity tolerance influences the results of

4.3 Empirical Research on Ambiguity Tolerance

89

reading comprehension tasks and the choice of a student’s favourite learning strategies. The worst results were achieved by students with a low level of ambiguity tolerance, but the best students were ones with a moderate level of this trait. Dewaele and Ip (2013) decided to investigate the correlation between second language tolerance ambiguity (SLTA) and foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA). The aim was to prove that if someone could deal with ambiguity in a foreign language then while in class such a person was less anxious. Dewale and Ip noticed that scholars had not been focusing on that area so far, therefore they opted for filling the gap in SLA. FLCA is a unique kind of anxiety, that can be described as a feeling of worry. The anxiety feeling in a classroom can cause negative performance and, also effect grades. 73 students (33 male and 40 female) from secondary school, ranging in age from 16 to 20 (mean age—18) participated in the study. The participants attended different schools in Hong Kong, had learnt English for more than nine years, most of them speak at least one other foreign language, some (4) even eight languages. The research started with filling in personal background questions, about gender, age, and information connected with the knowledge of English. Afterwards, the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz et al., 1986) was applied to measure foreign language anxiety, as well as the Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (SLTAS; Ely, 1995) to measure second language tolerance of ambiguity. The answers were provided on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agreed. Furthermore, to ensure the students understood the scales, they were provided in multiple languages. After collecting and analysing the data, they concluded that the gender and age had no influence on FLCA and SLTA. But they noticed that the higher the level of AT the participants had, the less anxious they were in their English classes. The research confirmed that learners with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance had a lower level of anxiety, but Dewaele and Ip remarked that FLCA was a special anxiety scale, so it sometimes could more or less affect the learning process in class. Sometimes, a class could generate more anxiety, even for people who had high AT. In the case of grades, students with a higher level of SLAT and lower FLCA had better grades and a higher level of proficiency in English. Dewaele and Ip emphasised that AT is such a personality trait thanks to which it is possible to strengthen students’ confidence and the interest in English. Ezzati and Farahian (2016) conducted a study which aimed at investigating the ambiguity tolerance/intolerance of advanced English language learners (ELL), as well as the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and grammar acquisition of advanced English foreign language learners. They also wanted to see if there was a difference between female and male students in terms of their ambiguity tolerance. 69 intermediate and advanced ELLs took part in the study, ranging in age from 16 to 22. The first used instrument was low, intermediate and high TOEFL Actual Tests to establish the language level and divide the participants into three groups with a low, intermediate and high language proficiency level. The next tool was the Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (SLTAS) (Ely, 1995). After collecting and analysing the data, they concluded that advanced participants were more tolerant of contexts connected with unknown vocabulary but less tolerant in relationships when

90

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

they did not understand everything the teachers said. Next, they revealed that there was a statistically significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and overall grammar knowledge. In the study, Ezzati and Farahian also found that female students were less ambiguity tolerant than male students. As they suggested, female students were impatient and did not recognise a confusing situation before making decisions. To conclude, ambiguity tolerance has a positive impact on learning English because a higher level of ambiguity tolerance helps to overcome grammar problems while learning a foreign language. Male students often have a slightly higher level of ambiguity tolerance than female students. The presented empirical research shows that ambiguity tolerance significantly influences foreign language learning. El-Koumy’s (2003) research proves that the best level for reading comprehension is moderate, furthermore he suggests that the appropriate pairing of learning strategies to each level of ambiguity tolerance is very important in order to improve the results in language acquisition. It should be remembered that during the process of learning a foreign language, classroom anxiety is a very important aspect (Dewaele & Ip, 2013). A higher level of ambiguity tolerance helps to overcome anxiety and contributes to higher self-assessment of students’ level of English proficiency. Ambiguity tolerance majorly influences the grades students achieve in the subject and raises interest in the English language. Moreover, advanced students with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance overcome grammar problems in learning a foreign language (Ezzati & Farahian, 2016). The research described above is summarized in Table 4.6. All the presented studies show that ambiguity tolerance is a very important personality trait that has an impact on individuals’ lives in various areas. In the area of Table 4.6 Summary of the selected research on ambiguity tolerance in second language acquisition Researcher

Aim of the research

Result of the research

El-Koumy (2003)

To check the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and reading comprehension

The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and reading comprehension has been observed. Students with a moderate degree of AT achieve the best results

Dewaele and Ip (2013)

To examine the correlation between foreign/second language ambiguity tolerance and foreign language classroom anxiety. To check the correlation among SLTA, FLCA and grades

The correlation between SLTA and FLCA has been observed. People with a higher level of second language ambiguity tolerance had a lower level of foreign language classroom anxiety. Students with a higher level of SLAT and lower FLCA had better grades and a higher self-assessment

Ezzati and Farahian (2016)

To investigate the correlation between English/foreign language ambiguity tolerance and overall grammar knowledge. To check if there was a difference between female and male levels of ambiguity tolerance

Ambiguity tolerance plays an important role in English/foreign language acquisition. Advanced students with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance overcome grammar problems while learning a foreign language. Male students have a slightly higher level of ambiguity tolerance than females

4.4 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

91

general functioning, ambiguity tolerance influences creativity (Zenasni et al., 2008), which is essential in most situations of life. It is worth remembering that unique ideas contribute to human development. The trait of ambiguity tolerance plays a role in career decision making (Xu & Tracey, 2014), which is probably the reason that university students have a higher level of it (Stoycheva, 1998). It is worth noting that ambiguity tolerance induces a lower level of anxiety in the educational processes and individuals have a more positive self-concept (Dewaele & Ip, 2013). Ambiguity tolerance also has an impact on foreign/second language acquisition. There is a relationship between ambiguity tolerance and reading comprehension, students with a moderate level achieve better results (El-Koumy, 2003). A higher level of ambiguity tolerance also contributes to better grades and higher self-assessment; therefore, students should be taught how to raise their level of ambiguity tolerance from an early age by their parents and teachers.

4.4 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance The empirical research presented above separately showed the traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and how important they are in all areas of human life. This part of this chapter is concentrated on both these cooperating traits, and how together they influence individuals’ behaviours in different life situations. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance characterise people who are open to new experiences and are creative. If individuals have these traits on high levels, will it contribute to greater successes, for example, in foreign language acquisition? The described studies below will provide the answer.

4.4.1 Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance/ Intolerance During the Transition to Academic Life and in Different Social Groups Bardi et al. (2009) expected that openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance/ intolerance would be related to subjective well-being at the start of a life transition through an assessment threat and the challenges of new situations in life. They also wanted to check if openness was related to life satisfaction in the context of appraisals. They suggested that during university studies, challenge and threat appraisals were not related to ambiguity tolerance/intolerance, however they were related to openness, which was still relevant to well-being due to its component of intellect. Bardi et al. began their study at the beginning of the academic year, where they compared 298 first year students with 212 more advanced ones. The following aspects were measured: openness, ambiguity intolerance/tolerance, challenge and threat appraisals

92

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

of life situation and well-being. To measure ambiguity intolerance/tolerance, Bardi et al. used the 8-item Uncertainty Tolerance Scale (Dalbert, 1999), furthermore openness was measured with the 10-items from the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991). To measure threat and challenge appraisals, a further questionnaire was created. They made some modifications to the Cognitive Appraisal Scale (Skinner & Brewer, 1999) so as to measure threat and not anxiety, they adopted some of the challenge items to university studies. Subjective well-being contains three components: positive affect, negative affect and satisfaction with life. Bardi et al. (2009) decided to measure them all, and added anxiety which is important in the beginning of a life transition and is connected with stress occurring during a new life situation (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). To measure well-being, the satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al., 1985) was used and for anxiety—Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (1983). The 20-item PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) was used to measure the positive and negative affect of subjective well-being. After analysing their research, the authors found significant differences on openness and anxiety between first- and advanced-year students, with the advanced-year students scoring higher on both variables. The research showed that the correlation between openness and ambiguity intolerance/tolerance was much stronger with first year students than the more advanced ones. The data suggested that openness was positively related to beneficial affect through challenge appraisals and satisfaction with life. The study also showed that openness was related as a side effect to anxiety and negatively affected it, through threat assessment. According to Bardi et al. (2009), openness was connected to the subjective well-being through challenge and threat assessment from the beginning of university studies and then later, during them. Furthermore, ambiguity intolerance/tolerance was indirectly correlated to have a positive effect on life satisfaction through challenge appraisals. After analysing the results for advanced-year students, the researchers concluded that with time, ambiguity intolerance/tolerance was reduced and did not have any influence on challenge, threat, negative affect, and anxiety. Bardi et al. (2009) showed that in the beginning of university studies, ambiguity intolerance/tolerance and openness are both correlated with challenge and threat appraisals, but thanks to these appraisals the relationships between traits change to well-being. However, over time, since students get used to life situations, then ambiguity intolerance/tolerance is neither related to appraisals nor to well-being, but openness is still related to challenge and threat appraisals. They claimed that openness is a broader trait than ambiguity intolerance/tolerance and therefore, has many aspects of the component of novelty and the component of intellect. The aspect of novelty is more likely correlated to a person’s well-being at the beginning of university studies and the aspect of intellect is relevant the entire time of their university education. All in all, the higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have a positive impact in challenging life situations, especially, at the beginning of new stages in life, as for example, to start studying at a university. Both traits help to manage with threat and stress. Brandt et al. (2015) examined the relationship between openness to experience and tolerance in their research. They wanted to validate if people who are more open were more tolerant toward different social groups. They also studied the interaction

4.4 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

93

between openness and conventionality, where they suggested that people with a higher level of openness should accept diverse viewpoints and show more tolerance toward similar and dissimilar worldviews to their own. In the first phase of the research, 1314 participants from the American National Election Studies (ANES) took part, however only 1253 completed all responses. Tolerance was measured by thermometer ratings, from 0 (very cold) to 100 (very warm) for the target groups. The groups chosen by the researchers were: Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Muslims. The participants checked their willingness to vote, from one (a lot more likely) to five (a lot less likely), for each of the nine Presidential candidates. Next, besides having to fill the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003), the participants also had to report their age, gender, race/ethnicity and level of education. In the second phase, the researchers used a bigger group of the American National Election Sample consisting of 5510 people, who had to complete the Intolerance questionnaire (a feeling thermometer) for 16 target groups and the openness measure from the TIPI. Conventionality was examined by asking the participants to evaluate the groups measured in the ANES with a range from one (not conventional) to seven (very conventional). After analysing the data, the research highlighted a correlation between openness and tolerance, but its level was dependant on the target group. Individuals with a higher level of openness expressed greater tolerance for unconventionality, their intolerance for conventionality was negative, which meant that more open people tolerated unconventionality, as well as conventionality. Participants with a low openness preferred conventionality, and they were intolerant to unconventional groups. The researchers also noticed that individuals with a high level of openness were not necessarily open to new people, they sometimes showed bounded openness which related to perceiving the differences among various target groups. The study revealed that lower tolerance caused more negative feelings and less willingness to vote. Examining the question about the worldview conflict perspective, people at all levels of openness were worried about the perceptions of the worldview conflict. However, highly open people tried more to mitigate intolerance in various cases. In conclusion, open to experience and ambiguity tolerant individuals are tolerant of unconventional groups and they try to mitigate intolerance in various cases. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are correlated together in different areas of general functioning. During their lifetime, people often have to cope with new situations as there are a lot of transitions. That is why a high level of openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance is useful. These two constructs help a person to find himself/herself in new situations (Bardi et al., 2009). Also, individuals with higher levels of these traits are more tolerant to unconventional groups and try to mitigate intolerance in various life situations (Brandt et al., 2015) (Table 4.7).

94

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

Table 4.7 Summary of the selected research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance/ intolerance during the transition to an academic life and in different social groups Researcher

Aim

Result

Bardi et al. (2009)

To check the relationship of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance to subjective well-being at the start of a life transition through assessment threat and challenges of a new life situation. To examine if openness is related to life satisfaction in the context of appraisals

A correlation between openness and ambiguity tolerance has been observed. It is much stronger with first year students than the more advanced ones. Openness is positively related to a beneficial affect through challenge appraisals and satisfaction with life. Openness is also observed to have a negative influence on anxiety, through threat assessment

Brandt et al. (2015)

To check if a relationship between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance exists. To examine if openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance influence the attitude to conventional and unconventional groups. To find out what the attitude of individuals who score high and low in openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance to world conflicts is

There is a positive correlation between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. People with a higher level of openness are more tolerant to unconventional groups and try to mitigate intolerance in different cases. Individuals with a lower level of openness are less tolerant, they prefer conventional groups, however they are also against worldview conflicts, being similar to more open people

4.4.2 Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance in Second Language Acquisition There is not much research, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, investigating the influence of both traits—openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance together on foreign/second language acquisition. One of the research projects was the study of Tabrizi and Hassanzadeh (2016) who decided to examine the relationships among Iranian EFL (English Foreign Language) learners, motivation, personality traits and ambiguity tolerance. They stated a hypothesis that there was a significant correlation between Iranian EFL learners’ personality traits, motivation, and ambiguity tolerance. 120 participants (60 male and 60 female) at the intermediate level of English took part in this research. At the beginning, they used the Nelson English Language Test to select participants on a similar level of English—students (aged from 18 to 22)—who reached scores “between one standard deviation minus and plus the mean” (Tabrizi & Hassanzadeh, 2016, p. 26). They conducted a test which consisted of grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension tasks, to make sure that the students were homogeneous. After the research, a group was selected, and the participants were asked to complete the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) to review their personality traits, The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & Groot, 1990) and The Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (Ely, 1995). They observed a significant positive correlation between

4.4 Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

95

the learners’ motivation and openness to experience, as well as their motivation and ambiguity tolerance. The higher the level of openness and ambiguity tolerance, the higher motivation to achieve their goals the students had. Next, the correlation between personality traits and ambiguity tolerance was analysed. The results showed that the learners’ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience had a significant positive correlation, therefore, the traits are responsible for new ideas and thoughts. A correlation between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in foreign language acquisition can be observed. The presented empirical research shows that the higher the level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, the higher the motivation to study and achieve goals the students have (Tabrizi & Hassanzadeh, 2016). Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance influence students’ attitudes, as they are more open to experience new things. It is important to know the levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance because it helps to choose good strategies to work with students. The research described above is summarized in Table 4.8. All the presented research shows that the traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, correlate with each other. Individuals with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieve higher life satisfaction and the traits reduce the level of anxiety. Both these traits contribute to a positive attitude towards unconventional groups and try to mitigate intolerance. In foreign/second language acquisition, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have an impact on a higher motivation to study a foreign language and to achieve goals in learning. The studies analysed above focused on two personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Results of the presented research show the importance of these personality traits in everyday life, education, and foreign language acquisition. Therefore, in this research, students with a higher level of these traits should achieve better grades, as well. During the learning process, many situations are full of ambiguity and the higher level of ambiguity tolerance helps to manage with them. That is why, in this study, students with higher ambiguity tolerance should assess their language skills higher than those of the opposite side of the continuum. Both traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, have a positive impact on many areas of life, but the influence on foreign language learners is especially important. Learners with higher levels of both traits are motivated to achieve their language Table 4.8 Summary of research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in second language acquisition Researcher

Aim

Result

Tabrizi and Hassanzadeh (2016)

To check the relationships among EFL (English Foreign Language) learners’ motivation, personality traits, and ambiguity tolerance

The higher the level of openness and ambiguity tolerance, the higher motivation to achieve goals the students have. There is a significant positive correlation between the learners’ ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience, both of these traits contribute to new ideas and thoughts

96

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

goals, they are full of new ideas and positive thoughts in general, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance should have a positive impact on the forms of students’ assessment (grades and self-assessment).

4.5 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to present empirical research on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The review of the described empirical research results on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance unquestionably show that the role they have in human functioning cannot be overestimated. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance appear to be significant predictors of learners’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviour in the process of foreign language learning, but also in general functioning and education, as well. Higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance contribute to unique ideas, creative thinking, willingness to communicate and to lower the level of anxiety. Both these traits on higher levels have a positive impact on the perception of different life situations and encourage individuals to make difficult decisions. They cause people to be more willing to try new tools or be more open to new challenges. Furthermore, the traits influence peoples’ social activities, namely, the higher the traits, the more people are open to new cultures, and they enjoy art. Higher levels of openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance are very important in education. They help individuals to achieve better grades, especially in courses where creative thinking is necessary, for example, in English. It is worth remembering that they raise individuals’ motivation to study and to achieve the goals they set for themselves. So far, there has not been much research referring to the correlation between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, so there are many unanswered questions related to the different effects the constructs might have on the processes connected with language learning. In the next chapter of the book, a detailed account of research exploring the relationship between personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and students’ attainment is presented.

References Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullmann, H. (2004). Personality development from 12 to 18 years of age: Cshanges in mean levels and structure of traits. European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.524 Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 645–664. Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. S. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003

References

97

Brandt, M. J., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., Wetherell, G., & Reyna, C. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 549–568. https://doi. org/10.1037/pspp0000055 Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self-reported mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.019 Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417576 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Dalbert, C. (1999). Die Ungewißheitstoleranzskala: Skaleneigenschaften und Validierungsbefunde [The uncertainty tolerance scale: Scale properties and validation results]. Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie, 1. Dewaele, J. -M., & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt. 2013.3.1.3 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 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_ 13 El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2003). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.236 5143 Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Heinle & Heinle. Ezzati, M., & Farahian, M. (2016). Exploring the tolerance of ambiguity and grammar achievement of advanced EFL learners. Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10. 5296/jsel.v4i2.9919 Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.510 Gendre, F., Lavoegie, M., & Gough, H. G. (1982). Validité conceptuelle de l’adjective check list (ACL): Une étude factorielle interdomaine de l’adjective check list et de l’inventaire psychologique de californie (CPI). Le Travail Humain, 45(2), 223–240. JSTOR. Glutnikova, E. (2000). Tolerance of ambiguity in young adulthood (18–25 years) [Unpublished BA Thesis in Psychology]. New Bulgarian University. 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. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press. 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 Gough, H. G. (1987). CPI, California psychological inventory: Administrator’s guide. Consulting Psychologists Press. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). KFT 4-12+R: Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision. Beltz Test. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan personality inventory manual. Hogan Assessment Systems. Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4 Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317

98

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson personality inventory-revised manual. Research Psychologists Press. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California. Kölemen, Ü. (2018). The role of openness personality trait in the choice of language learning strategy. International Journal of Language Academy, 6. https://doi.org/10.18033/ijla.4011 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 MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26. https://doi. org/10.1177/0261927X960151001 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(3), 369–388. Maclntyre, P., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. (2001). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 461–492). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116 McLain, D. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II (MSTAT-II) 1. Psychological Reports, 105, 975– 988. Meyer, J., Fleckenstein, J., Retelsdorf, J., & Köller, O. (2019). The relationship of personality traits and different measures of domain-specific achievement in upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.005 Mulalic., A., & Obralic, N. (2017). Correlation between personality traits and language learning strategies among IUS students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(5). Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607–619. Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publishers. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018). Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC. System, 72, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.001 Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018b). 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). Springer. Pintrich, P. R., & Groot, E. V. D. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. Raven, J. (1981). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford Psychologists Press. Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024 Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428298700500206

References

99

Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 613–627. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 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 Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021914 Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000028 Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (1999). Temporal characteristics of evaluation anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(3), 293–314. Smillie, L. (2017). Openness to experience: The gates of the mind. Scientific American. https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/openness-to-experience-the-gates-of-the-mind/ Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait-anxiety inventory: STAI (form Y). Consulting Psychologists Press. Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 629–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x Stoycheva, K., & Popova, K. (2019). Tolerance/intolerance of ambiguity: Assessing its perceived importance. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 22, 12. Stoycheva, K. (1998). Ambiguity tolerance: Adolescents’ responses to uncertainty in life. Research report, September 1996–December 1997. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED422547 Stoycheva, K. (2000). Ambiguity tolerance in adolescents: Its relations to creativity-relevant traits. In 7th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence, Jena, Germany. Stoycheva, K. (2003). Ambiguity tolerance and creativity: Intersection points. Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2, 18–23. Stoycheva, K. (2003). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities. In P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Talent recruitment and public understanding (pp. 31–43). IOS Press. Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the Career Exploration Survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22(2), 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/00018791(83)90028-3 Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Hassanzadeh, S. (2016). The relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ motivation, personality traits, and ambiguity tolerance. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences, 3(9), 23. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire [Unpublished manuscripts]. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota]. Torrance, E. P. (1999). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual Figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z.-X., Chiu, C.-Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower-level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 29–45.

100

4 Selected Empirical Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity …

Xu, H., & Tracey, T. (2014). The role of ambiguity tolerance in career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.04.001 Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2001). Adaptation française d’une épreuve de tolérance à l’ambiguïté: Le M.A.T. [French adaptation of a test of tolerance of ambiguity: The Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance (MAT).]. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 51(1–2), 3–12. Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Tolerance for ambiguity and creativity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–72.

Chapter 5

The Study

5.1 Introduction The aim of the present chapter is to provide details of the empirical study devoted to the investigation of the relationships between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, in a group of high school students. This chapter consists of two parts. The first part presents the research rationale, hypothesis and research question for the study, then, information about the method, the research setting, participants, procedures and the techniques of collecting the data. The second part includes the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data of the study. First, the descriptive results of the research variables, next, the results of inferential statistics are presented. Finally, the results of the qualitative results are outlined.

5.2 Research Rationale, Hypothesis and Research Question The research aims are to investigate the relationship between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, higher and lower order personality traits, and their links with students’ self-assessment and school grades in foreign language acquisition. The openness to experience personality dimension is connected with people’s wide interests, imagination, intelligence, optimism and satisfaction with life (McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1985b). People with a high level of openness to experience are creative, and open to new experiences and cultures. They are not only interested in the surrounding world, art and nature, but also in their inner-world and feelings. In reference to foreign language acquisition, open individuals concentrate on the meaning and possibilities that a language creates, they also understand that there are a lot of ambiguous situations during the learning process (Ehrman, 2008). As foreign language learners, they can be characterized in the following way: they look for hidden patterns and their reading ability is relatively high, moreover, they are © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_5

101

102

5 The Study

good listeners, and as a result, they effectively acquire ways of proper self-expression. Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience more often use a foreign language because this trait is a significant predictor of the frequency of usage and the self-perceptiveness of the listener’s proficiency (O˙za´nska-Ponikwia & Dewaele, 2012). Ambiguity tolerance as a lower order personality trait is related to the way individuals deal with ambiguous stimuli or situations. They can view them in a neutral and open way or as a threat. The trait of ambiguity tolerance encloses curiosity, openness to new ideas and confidence (Norton, 1975). In reference to foreign languages, this trait relates to language curiosity and language fluency. A higher level of ambiguity tolerance allows students to be creative and choose their favourite techniques or strategies to learn foreign languages. They prefer active ones, unlike students with a low level of ambiguity tolerance who prefer traditional ways of learning. Individuals with a low level of ambiguity tolerance have a tendency to look for supportive information from their teachers, for example, what they can do well, and what they have improved in the learning process. They do not need objective truth that often leads to a loss in their willingness to learn (McPherson, 1983). Ambiguity tolerance can also pose a threat to self-esteem, therefore individuals with a lower level of ambiguity tolerance feel anxious when they have to provide an answer in a non-native language; however, with a higher self-assessment, it is possible to cope with such situations. Both personality features of openness to experience (as a higher order personality trait), and ambiguity tolerance (as a lower order personality trait) are important factors influencing all areas of life. Higher levels of both these personality traits provide internal motivation to take responsibility for one’s life and progress of activities, even in language acquisition (Salikhova et al., 2019). It is known that higher openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance can cause different behaviours in various situations than when those features are on a low level (McCrae & Costa, 1990). Therefore, students with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance cope better in challenging life situations. This can be caused by their higher/stronger belief in their abilities and their more positive self-assessment (Bardi et al., 2009). Both personality traits—openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance—often contribute to original and unique ideas during the process of solving problems or challenging situations (Stoycheva, 2003a, 2003b). Moreover, individuals with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance deal with unknown situations because they believe in their creativity. On the other side of the continuum are students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance who do not like unknown situations, are more reserved towards new people, and often feel discomfort or even anxiety (Jach & Smillie, 2019; McCrae & Sutin, 2013). In reference to foreign languages, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are relevant traits. Individuals who score high in openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have a higher motivation to learn a foreign language (Tabrizi & Hassanzadeh, 2016). A higher motivation contributes to better grades and self-assessment. Research shows that openness to experience is positively related to motivation to pursue a goal when it is connected with hopes and aspirations (Vaughan et al., 2008). When learning a foreign language, people hope and aspire that one day

5.2 Research Rationale, Hypothesis and Research Question

103

they will be fluent in it, so ambiguity tolerance helps them to achieve the goal with its focus on freedom of choice, alternatives, and opportunities for acting during the educational process. The higher the level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance the more confident the users of a foreign language are. Learning a foreign language is often demanding and stressful, especially when the users have to speak in bigger groups or during exams. Then, learners with at least a moderate level of both these traits manage well. These traits allow the individual to perceive the ambiguous input connected with a different accent, pronunciation, new vocabulary, or grammar as challenging, furthermore, they do not feel stress, but rather curiosity and understanding of linguistic differentiation. Open and tolerant individuals are characterised by the willingness to experience new things; therefore, they know that fluent communication in a foreign language provides them with the possibility of meeting new people or allows them to travel abroad. Furthermore, they try to imitate the ‘native’ way of speaking (Dörnyei, 2005; Furnham & Marks, 2013; McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1985b). Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance mostly have a positive picture of themselves, always set higher goals, and they also do not give up easily while facing difficulties. The belief in one’s own effectiveness or the power of self-control correlates with higher self-assessment (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995). Learners who are convinced of their aptitude for languages achieve a higher level of language fluency and they know how to behave in different and difficult situations (Liu et al., 2022). Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience are more often open to critical thinking, they know their strengths and weaknesses in a foreign language, and ambiguity tolerance indirectly affects achievements through coping with criticism or self-criticism and risk. Students who manage in various language situations, perform better in English classes, because their higher level of ambiguity tolerance is equal with the acceptance of confusing situations that happen in the educational process (Liu, 2012). The positive image of their own personality and the belief in her/himself can be the key to success in learning languages, as well as in other disciplines of life. Self-assessment has a direct impact on all aspects of foreign language acquisition and the final result of using it (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). It is also higher in learners achieving success in foreign language fluency and translates into better grades. As presented above, the two traits—openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance—tend to be highly correlated. Individuals with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance perform better in many areas of life, as well as in foreign language acquisition. Therefore, it is possible to formulate the study hypothesis as follows: H: Students with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have a higher foreign language assessment operationalized as self-assessment and final grades than students with a lower level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance.

Taking into consideration the formulated hypothesis, it is worth asking a broad research question that might shed more light on the link between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance by exploring the learning context. Moreover, it can show the link between the traits and students’ assessment (self-assessment and school

104

5 The Study

grades) in the context of foreign language acquisition. All the collected data in the research will provide the answer to the research question: What is the profile of foreign language learners with different levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance?

The answer to the stated research question will be sought in the course of the study, the principles of which can be found below.

5.3 Method The method part of this chapter contains detailed information about the study participants, instruments, procedure, and analyses.

5.3.1 Participants The research was conducted on a sample of 359 students, 203 females (56.55%) and 156 males (43.45%), from the second grade of four secondary grammar schools in K˛edzierzyn-Ko´zle, Krapkowice and Strzelce Opolskie, as well as two technical schools in Krapkowice and Strzelce Opolskie, Poland. In the group, 345 (96.1%) students were 17 years old, and 14 (3.9%) students were a year younger because they started their education at the age of 6. 188 (52%) of the participants lived in the towns, mostly students from the secondary grammar schools, the rest (171, 48%) lived in the surrounding villages, and 110 of them attended the technical schools. Most students had three English classes per week, whereas students attending Englishoriented classes had six lessons per week. All English classes were based on the same curriculum and teaching attainment plans. The technical colleges had three more English classes of professional English. Most of the participants of the study were experienced language learners, their mean length of study amounted to 11.1 years, which means that they usually started learning English in kindergarten. The values of standard deviation (SD = 2.87) confirmed that the participants of the study were a homogeneous group in terms of their foreign language learning experience length. 132 students had visited an English-speaking country, which represents 36.77% of the total number of participants. The same number of participants (n = 132) received extra-curricular tuition, with the mean totalling 0.37 (SD = 0.48). The participants were asked why they had been learning English, and what motivated them. 285 (79.39%) students pointed out that English offered them the chance for a better job in the future, further, moreover, it is worth mentioning that English was the most popular foreign language among the participants. There were 256 (79.39%) students who claimed that thanks to using English, people could communicate nearly everywhere in the world. It was also

5.3 Method

105

important for them that English allowed them to meet foreigners and communicate with them. The demographic characteristics are presented in Table 5.1. For the purposes of the quantitative analysis, the participants were divided into groups, based on the terciles of the personality traits scores: openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. A tercile is any of two points that divide all participants of a research sample into three groups, each containing a third of the participants. Table 5.2 presents the division of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance into terciles. As the results in Table 5.2 show, the highest tercile for openness to experience was in the range of points between 33 and 50 and for ambiguity tolerance it was between Table 5.1 Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 359) Variable

N

%

Gender

Girls Boys

203 156

56.55 43.45

Age

16 17

14 345

3.9 96.1

Place of residence

Village Town

171 188

48 52

School type

Upper secondary school Technical school

159 200

44.29 55.71

Length of language study

1–6 years 7–9 years 10–12 years < 13 years

7 41 264 47

1.95 11.4 73.5 13.1

Extra-curricular tuition

Yes No

132 227

36.77 63.23

Travels to English-speaking countries Yes No

132 227

36.77 63.23

Yes

267

74.4

No

92

25.6

Yes

280

77.99

No

79

22.01

• To get better jobs

285

79.39

• English is the most popular foreign language

260

72.42

• English helps to communicate around the world

256

71.31

• English helps to make friends around the world

224

62.40

• English helps to understand songs and films

182

50.84

Likes the subject of English

At the beginning of the research:

At the end of the research:

Motivation for learning English

106

5 The Study

Table 5.2 Demographic characteristics of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance terciles Personality trait Openness to experience

Ambiguity tolerance

Tercile

N

Percentage of the sample research group (%)

Range of points

3 (upper)

125

34.8

33–50

2 (middle)

130

32.2

27–32

1 (lower)

104

29

10–26

3 (upper)

126

35.1

33–48

2 (middle)

114

31.8

22–32

1 (lower)

119

33.1

1–21

33 and 48. The lowest terciles described participants with the range of points for openness to experience between 10 and 26 and ambiguity tolerance between 1 and 21. The medium terciles were created between the upper and lower ones, for openness, it was between 27 and 32 points and for ambiguity tolerance, between 22 and 32 points. After calculating the terciles, it was possible to notice that some participants had the traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on the same tercile but some of them had the traits on various terciles, for example, third tercile of O and first tercile of AT, or first tercile of O and third of AT. On that basis, five groups of participants were identified, three groups where the students had similar terciles of O and AT, and two groups where one of the traits was on a high level and the second one on a low level. From each group, one student was randomly selected as a representative for the next part of the study (interviews). They represented the traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on the following levels: • A high level of openness to experience (33–50 points) and a high level of ambiguity tolerance (33–48 points), (HO HAT). • A low level of openness to experience (10–26 points) and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (1–21 points), (LO LAT). • A medium level of openness to experience (27–32 points) and a medium level of ambiguity tolerance (22–32 points), (MO MAT). • A high level of openness to experience (32–50 points) and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (1–21points), (HO LAT). • A low level of openness to experience (10–26 points) and a high level of ambiguity tolerance (33–48 points) (LO HA). All the selected students from the above-mentioned groups agreed to participate in the interviews. There were three boys and two girls, three lived in K˛edzierzyn-Ko´zle and two in Krapkowice. They attended secondary grammar schools with various extended curricula. Kuba (O = 50, AT = 42), a student with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance (HO HAT), and Maja (O = 26, AT = 38), a student with a low level of openness to experience and a high level of ambiguity tolerance (LO HAT), both learnt in a class with extended biology and chemistry. Marcel (O = 25, AT = 12), a student with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance (LO LAT), and Julia (O = 45, AT = 12), a student with

5.3 Method

107

a high level of openness to experience and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (HO LAT), attended a class with extended Polish and history. Piotrek (O = 29, AT = 28) was a student with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance (MO MAT) and attended a class with extended maths and IT. All of them had extracurricular classes, but their achievements were different, which varied from three as the average grade to six. Also, a different spread of self-assessment could be observed, students with lower school grades had a lower level of self-assessment.

5.3.2 Instruments The aims of the study required the implementation of several sources of data. The data came from three types of instruments, both qualitative and quantitative: 1) questionnaires (two), 2) school records, 3) interviews. The questionnaires and school records provided quantitative data, and the interviews provided qualitative data. The data were obtained from three different sources, in order to provide triangulation, defined as “a process of combining data from different sources to study a particular phenomenon” (Rugg, 2010, p. 13). This process is used to deepen and widen one’s understanding and explain complex research more fully; enriching a study because it offers a variety of datasets that help explore a subject of interest. There were two questionnaires in Polish applied during the research. Questionnaire 1 (Appendix 1) consisted of two parts. In the first one, the participants gave biodata information concerning their demographic data: gender (1—male, 2— female), age and place of residence (1—village, 2—town). Further questions were related to their length of experience using English (number of years), the number of lessons and extracurricular classes in English (1—yes, 2—no), and visits to English speaking countries (1—yes, 2—no). The participants were also asked to provide information about their grades from the final year of lower secondary school, as well as their first and second years of upper secondary school (in the case that some grades would not be available in the electronic school records, especially from the lower secondary school). If there had been a lack of data, it would have reduced the research group. A six-point Likert-scale from 6—excellent to 1—very poor was used with the minimum number of points being three and the maximum 18. The scale’s reliability was 0.91. Moreover, they had to self-assess their skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English. The scale followed a six-point Likert answer form, ranging from 1—very poor, 2—poor, 3—sufficient, 4—good, 5—very good to 6—excellent. The minimum number of points was four and the maximum—24. Its reliability was estimated by means of Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.88). It is known that school grades and self-assessment (Andrade, 2019; Panadero et al., 2016) carry the danger

108

5 The Study

of not being authoritative in every situation, but as one of many researchers, I analysed the subjective measurement of the respondents’ beliefs, that is, the student and the teacher, regarding language proficiency. The final items of this questionnaire were devoted to their attitude to English, if they liked or disliked this school subject (1—yes, 2—no), motivation for learning (chance for a better job, English is the most popular foreign language, helps to communicate abroad and meet new friends, helps to understand songs and films, allow to read newspapers, books, or articles on the Internet). Further, the participants were asked about their favourite ways of learning English during lessons on a scale from 1 to 8 where 1—meant the best way of learning and 8—the least favourite way of learning. The participants could choose among brainstorming, discussion, associations, educational plays, projects, watching films and work with computer programmes and on the Internet. Last but not least, they were asked about their favourite ways of learning the four language skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing, and to present their opinion about online English courses. The next part of the questionnaire was the Openness to Experience Scale taken from the International Personality Item Pool BFM-50 (IPIP-BFM-50) (Goldberg, 1992), the Polish adaptation by Strus et al. (2014). The questionnaire does not involve any restrictions in the use of scientific research. The IPIP-BFM-50 Polish version can be used for free. Its purpose is to assess students’ level of openness to experience. It consists of 10 items, samples are as follows: I believe in the importance of art, or I am not interested in abstract ideas. The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale from one to five, where 1—very inaccurate, 2—moderately inaccurate, 3—neither inaccurate nor accurate, 4—moderately accurate and 5—very accurate for the items that described them. The maximum number of points that could be obtained in the scale was 50, while the minimum was 10. The scale’s reliability was assessed in terms of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.77. The last part of the questionnaire was the Second Language Ambiguity Tolerance Scale adapted from Tolerance of Ambiguity and the Teaching of ESL created by Ely (1995), and translated into Polish. In her scale, Ely used the term “uncertainty” to characterise situations in learning a foreign language which were unpleasant and uncomfortable. The questionnaire consisted of 12 items, evaluated with the use of a 5point Likert-type scale. The items contained grammatical, lexical, and phonological ambiguities. The scale measures ambiguity tolerance in learning situations and is well-balanced for: • The linguistic skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. • The linguistic domains: grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Those 12 items are divided into: two items for reading, two for writing, one for listening, one for speaking, two for vocabulary, two for grammar, and two for pronunciation. Sample items on the scale are as follows: When I am reading something in English, I feel impatient when I do not totally understand the meaning, or It bothers me that I do not understand everything the teacher says in English. The tool characterised the individuals’ tendency to perceive ambiguous language situations as stressful and awkward. The participants presented their opinions to the questions

5.3 Method

109

by ticking the appropriate numbers where 4—strongly disagree, 3—disagree, 0— undecided, 2—agree and 1—strongly agree. The minimum number of points on the scale was 0, and the maximum that could be obtained was 48. The higher the number of points the participants scored, the higher level of ambiguity tolerance they had. Its reliability in terms of the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82. Questionnaire 2 was distributed at the end of a school year to complete information about learners with varying levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance (Appendix 2). The information would be helpful to answer the research question about students’ profiles with various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The participants were asked about their attitude to English lessons during the school year, and if it had changed from the beginning to the end of the school year. Again, the questionnaire checked their self-assessment and inquired about issues that influenced students’ success in the school year. The first item checked students’ satisfaction with their progress in English in their last school year (1—yes, 2— no). If yes, they should have pointed to the factors that helped them to achieve success (1—their willingness and motivation, 2—systematic work, 3—teachers, 4— extracurricular evening classes). Then, they presented their willingness to attend English lessons (1—definitely yes, 2—rather yes, 3—definitely no, 4—rather no). Next, the students explained the reasons why they had not participated in lessons. Further, the item examined which group of students the teacher concentrated on the most during classes was answered by the participants (1—on talented children, 2— on students with difficulties in learning, 3—both groups on the same level). In the last item, participants had to name the statement that described them best, 1—learning English is more enjoyable after the year than it was before, 2—I like learning English less and less after the year, 3—my attitude for learning English has not changed after the year. School records were the next quantitative instrument applied in the study. They were used for collecting the final grades in English (the first and second grades of upper secondary school, and the third grade of lower secondary school). The aggregated value of these grades created the school grades’ variable. The last instrument for this research was an interview to enrich the overall information with the qualitative data necessary to create profiles of a high, medium, and low achiever student. As was mentioned before, the five interviewees were chosen on the extent of their openness to experience and the levels of ambiguity tolerance. The participants were asked about their preferences during English lessons and their most and least favourite ways of learning English. They had to give answers to seven questions: If you have to use the English language, are you nervous? Why?; Do you know your strengths and weaknesses in using the English language? List them!; What do you prefer, specific exercises with the given instructions, or those in which you decide on the choice of content and form? Why?; What do you prefer during English classes, when the teacher discusses the phases of the lessons at the beginning of the lesson and what will happen then, or do you prefer activities that bring surprises? Why?; Do you prefer explanations in English during your classes, or you prefer that the teacher explains various issues in Polish? Why?; When you want to

110

5 The Study

say something or write in English, but you can’t. How do you feel and react then?. All the questions of the interview are in Appendix 3. All these items will provide a detailed picture of students with various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and their ways of learning English. They will present students’ strengths and weaknesses, and also help to explain students’ behaviour and attitudes during the foreign learning process.

5.3.3 Procedure The data collection procedure consisted of four phases that took place between October 2018 and June 2019. Before the study started, the headteachers of the four grammar secondary schools and two technical schools were informed about the aims of the research and the time it would require, then they gave their consent on the research to be conducted in their schools. Next, the English teachers were asked to help with the research. At the beginning, the researcher explained to the students that they would take part in scientific research and asked for their oral consent. The research would be related to foreign language learning and their participation in it would be voluntary. They were told that the questionnaires checked the students’ opinions, furthermore, they were asked to read the instructions carefully and to give honest answers. All their answers would be equally significant and there would be no correct or incorrect ones. According to Wilczy´nska and Micho´nska-Stadnik (2010), the ethical standards of the research were met. One of them was assuring the respondents that the researcher was the only person with access to the obtained data and she was not personally connected with their schools. It was also important to inform the participants that the results of the research would not influence their school grades in any way. All the students reported that they were satisfied with the standards. They were allowed to withdraw from the research at any time. In the first phase, the students had to fill out the Questionnaire 1. The time of this part was limited to 45 min in order to prevent the participants from reconsidering their answers too much, since this could change the truthfulness of the results. Questionnaire 1 was filled out by 366 students at their schools during English lessons using the Google Platform Forms. The instruments were not too long, so they could fill them in during one lesson in which each of the respondents had a computer station to use in a computer lab. However, seven students were excluded from any further proceedings due to their incomplete questionnaires. The number of students qualified for the research amounted to 359. In the second phase, which was held at the end of May and beginning of June 2019, the participants had to fill out Questionnaire 2 that showed if something had changed in their attitude towards English after a year of studying. This questionnaire completed information about the students’ profiles. In the third phase, on the basis of the responses to the Openness to Experience and the Ambiguity Tolerance Scales, it was possible to select five participants with varying openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance levels for the interviews

5.3 Method

111

that were held in June. Before the interview, all the interviewees were asked for permission to take part in the qualitative part of the research study. The interviewees received sheets with a few questions and had some time to think about them. First, they made some notes on their sheets with items to answer. Then, the interviews were recorded with a Dictaphone and transcribed by the researcher. The interviews were conducted in Polish to get comprehensive replies, which would not be influenced by language limitations. In addition to recording the participants’ answers, the researcher also asked for further clarification of some statements. Thanks to those interviews, the collected information was more complete and comprehensive, therefore, providing a broader insight on the research topic (Ushioda, 2001). After transcribing the interviews, the text was assigned to the questions and compared among all the interviewees. Next, similar and different characteristics of the five representatives with various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were searched. The interviews provided specific information of the participants who had various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The findings that characterised each interviewee could not be generalised in any statistical sense, but the comparison, and then, interpretations helped to shed more light on the students’ behaviours and attitudes during the learning process. In the fourth phase, at the end of June 2019, the final grades of English were collected from the official school records. The research was mixed, cross-sectional, descriptive but also longitudinal with both qualitative and quantitative data, which helped expose the nature of the studied relationship between the personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and the forms of assessment in foreign language learning. Both questionnaires provided detailed biodata information and showed the changes in the attitude to learning a foreign language during the school year 2018/2019. There were three main kinds of variables in the study: • Independent variables were “selected and systematically manipulated by the researcher to determine whether, or the degree to which, it had any effect on the dependent variable” (Brown, 1993, p. 11). In this study, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were the independent variables, and they were measured by the Openness to Experience Scale (Goldberg, 1992) and Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (Ely, 1995). • Dependent variables were used to “determine what effect, if any, the other types of variables might have on it” (Brown, 1993, p. 10). In this study, self-assessment and final grades were the dependant variables and they were created by the aggregated values of final grades and self-assessment. • Control variables were chosen to “neutralize all other extraneous variables that are likely to have an effect on the relationship between the independent and dependant variables” (Brown, 1993, p. 11). The control variables were: – – – –

length of foreign language learning, number of English lessons, activities during English lessons, preferred ways of learning English,

112

5 The Study

– ways of developing language skills, – motivation for learning English. The present study focused on the links between two independent variables: openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and on the dependent variables: self-assessment and final grades.

5.3.4 Analyses The data obtained from all the questionnaires was analysed and interpreted with the use of the data analysis tool Statistica 7.1. The main operations applied were descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive procedures characterised the sample by means (arithmetic average) and standard deviation (SD), which showed how far individuals differed from the mean. SD measures the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean (Bhandari, 2020a, 2020b). If the data points are further from the mean, then the SD is higher. There were also parametric correlations (Pearson’s productmoment correlation r) to assess the degree of the relationship between the quantitative variables. The term ‘correlation’ stands for coexistence and is used to calculate the relationship between quantitative variables, it also informs the researcher about the strength and direction of the relationship between the variables (Graziano & Raulin, 2006). Parametric correlations assessed the degree of the relationship between quantitative variables, openness to experience and school factors, as well as ambiguity tolerance and school factors. After the descriptive statistics were completed, the next step was to investigate the interdependence among the variables using inferential statistics. In the study, inferential statistical operations, like multiple regression analyses, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and two Bonferroni post-hoc tests were also performed. Multiple regression allows the researcher to make predictions about one variable based on the information that is known about another variable (Hinkle et al., 2002). This statistic is used to describe the relationship among features, which is possible when a dependent variable is connected with more than one independent variable. In this study to further analyse the relationship between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance using school related factors such as school grades and self-assessment, two multiple regression analyses were performed. The next statistical procedure used was a two-way ANOVA (all conditions were met to apply the analysis of variance) to assess how the mean of the quantitative variable changed according to the level of the two categorical variables (Bevans, 2020a, 2020b). It was performed to understand how the independent variables (openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance), in combination, influenced the dependant variables (final grades and self-assessment). Inferential statistics, multiple regression and a two-way ANOVAs were used in this research to provide the answer to the question if openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance had an impact on students’ self-assessment and final grades. At the end, the two Bonferroni posthoc tests were performed to compare more than three groups after conducting the

5.4 Results

113

ANOVA. It illuminated how one group differed from a certain other group to show students with the level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance who had achieved the best school grades and had the highest self-assessment. This broad spectrum of different statistical procedures served as a clear description of the various relationships between variables.

5.4 Results The second part of this chapter is devoted to quantitative and qualitative findings. First, the descriptive results will be described with means, minimums, maximums, and SD of the research variables: openness to experience, ambiguity tolerance, selfassessment, and school grades that the research group of upper secondary school students’ sample obtained. Then, the results of inferential statistics (multiple regression, two-way ANOVAs, Bonferroni post-hoc tests) will be presented. At the end, the qualitative results included in the interviews will be described.

5.4.1 Descriptive Results of the Research Variables First, the independent variables, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and the dependent ones, school grades and self-assessment, were analysed. The summary of all the descriptive results of openness to experience, ambiguity tolerance, self-assessment and school grades can be found in Table 5.3. The descriptive statistics results show the means (M), minimums (Min), maximums (Max) and standard deviations (SD) of the independent and dependent variables. The mean value of openness to experience was 29.72 with the minimum value 10.00 and the maximum value 50.00. The standard deviation of openness to experience was 5.08 (SD), which meant that the SD was low (data were clustered around the mean), and participants with a medium level of the trait were in the range from 27.18 to 32.26. The value of SD 5.08 suggested that the group of participants was homogeneous (similar/comparable to each other). The second independent variable, ambiguity tolerance, had the mean value 27.43 with a minimum value of 1.00 and a maximum value of 48.00. The standard deviation was 10.80 which meant that the Table 5.3 Descriptive results of the research variables M

Min

Max

Openness to experience

29.72

10.00

50.00

SD 5.08

Ambiguity tolerance

10.80

27.43

1.00

48.00

Self-assessment

3.70

1.00

6.00

1.12

School grades

3.80

2.00

6.00

0.85

114

5 The Study

Table 5.4 Correlations of all variables

AT

SA

G

Openness to experience

0.03

0.12*

0.15*

Grade

0.29*

0.57*

–

Self-assessment

0.45*

–

–

Ambiguity tolerance

–

–

–

group was heterogeneous (various). The mean value of the dependent variable, selfassessment, was 3.70 with the minimum value of 1.00 and the maximum value of 6.00. The standard deviation was 1.12. The last dependent variable—school grades— had the mean value of 3.80 with the minimum value of 1.00 and maximum value of 6.00. The standard deviation was 0.85. In the next step, correlations between all the variables were calculated. The strongest significant correlation could be observed between self-assessment and school grades, which was 0.57. Such a correlation meant that in many cases, selfassessment was reflected by grades. It was easy to observe that lower self-assessment was equivalent with lower grades. Then, there was a moderate correlation between ambiguity tolerance and self-assessment (0.45), which was close to the range of values of strong correlation (0.5–0.7) (Schober et al., 2018). Further, it was possible to notice a correlation between ambiguity tolerance and grades (0.29), this was close to the moderate correlation range (0.3–0.5). The rest of the correlations were very weak i.e., between openness to experience and grades (0.15), and openness to experience and self-assessment (0.12). To sum up, there were correlations among the variables. The strongest significant correlation was between grades and selfassessment, and the moderate correlation was between ambiguity tolerance and self-assessment. The summary of all the correlations between independent variables (openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance) and dependent variables (final grades and self-assessment) is presented in Table 5.4. The research was conducted to investigate the link between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Therefore, as the next step, descriptive statistics were used to count the average for school grades and self-assessment in the two types of terciles. Analysing the results, it was possible to notice that the higher the level of openness to experience the participants had, the better grades and higher self-assessment they achieved. Students with a medium level of openness to experience had a mean selfassessment of 3.75 and the group with the highest level had a mean self-assessment (MSA) of 3.79 and school grades (MSG) of 3.93. The tercile with a low level of openness to experience had a mean self-assessment of 3.52 and school grades of 3.63. When the results of openness were compared between self-assessment and grades, in all cases, school grades were higher than the self-assessment. It was especially seen in the group with the best results (MSG—3.93, MSA—3.79), where the difference between the two values was 0.14, moreover it confirmed the perceptions that some students with very good grades did not believe in their abilities and assessed themselves lower than the grades they had. A lot of students with medium levels of openness to experience had the same or higher grade than their self-assessment.

5.4 Results

115

However, the above results allowed the researcher to draw the conclusion that the higher students’ levels of openness to experience, the better school grades in the second/foreign language skills they have. The tercile with the lowest level of ambiguity tolerance, where students had a mean self-assessment of 3.17 and school grades were 3.67. The middle tercile, which consisted of 114 students with a medium level of ambiguity tolerance had a mean self-assessment of 3.78 and the same mean of school grades—3.78. The upper tercile with 126 students was characterised with a high level of ambiguity tolerance and the mean self-assessment was 4.12 but their mean school grade was lower and amounted to 3.94. The above results showed that the level of ambiguity tolerance was related to the self-assessment of L2 skills. The summery of mean school grades and self-assessment at high, low and medium levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance is presented in Table 5.5. In conclusion, the participants with a low level of openness to experience had lower grades than the students with a high level of openness to experience. Students with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance appeared to have better school grades. The visual representation of the results can be found in Fig. 5.1. The upper tercile with the highest level of openness to experience had an average self-assessment of 3.79. Students with a moderate level of this trait achieved an average self-assessment of 3.75 and participants with a low level of openness to experience had an average self-assessment of 3.52. The ambiguity tolerance upper tercile group of students’ self-assessment was 4.12. The tercile of participants with a medium level of ambiguity tolerance had an average self-assessment of 3.78. In the tercile with the lowest level of ambiguity tolerance, there was an average selfassessment of 3.17. The visual representation of the results can be found in Fig. 5.2. The descriptive statistics showed that a higher level of openness to experience is connected with better grades, and the higher level of ambiguity tolerance with higher self-assessment. Table 5.5 Summary of mean school grades and self-assessment of groups with a high, medium, and low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance Level of the trait

N

MSG

MSA

Level of the trait

N

MSG

O—low

104

3.63

3.52

AT—low

119

3.67

3.17

O—low

104

3.63

3.52

AT—high

126

3.94

4.12

O—high

125

3.93

3.79

AT—low

119

3.67

3.17

O—high

125

3.93

3.79

AT—high

126

3.94

4.12

O—medium

130

3.81

3.75

AT—medium

114

3.78

3.78

MSG—mean grade, MSA—mean self-assessment

MSA

116

5 The Study

Fig. 5.1 Grades in the O and AT terciles

Fig. 5.2 Self-assessment in the O and AT terciles

5.4.2 Inferential Statistics In order to make assumptions about foreign language learners with various levels of personality traits (openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance), inferential statistics were performed. First, the results of multiple regression analyses, then, the two-way ANOVA and last, Bonferroni post-hoc tests will be presented in order to show the links among all the variables.

5.4 Results

117

The multiple regression models investigated the impact of openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance on self-assessment and the school grades of the participants. In both cases, the models turned out to be statistically significant, which means that the traits had a significant impact on the self-assessment and school grades of the participants. The first model devoted to school grades showed that openness to experience (β = 0.16) and ambiguity tolerance (β = 0.29) had a significant impact on school grades, where F (2.35) = 10.91 and p < 0.001. Both factors elucidate 5% of the school grades’ variability. The second model devoted to self-assessment showed a significant influence of the openness to experience (β = 0.11) and ambiguity tolerance (β = 0.45) on the self-assessment variable where F (2.35) = 35.50 and p < 0.001. Both factors elucidate 16% of the variance of the self-assessment variable showing that self-assessment was more dependent on openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance than grades (Table 5.6). In the next step, a two-way ANOVA was applied to check the differences between groups of data were statistically significant. It was shown that openness to experience F (2.35) = 3.51, p < 0.5 and ambiguity tolerance F (2.35) = 3.22, p < 0.5 had a significant relationship with the school grade variable, there was an interaction effect between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance F (4.35) = 2.68, p < 0.5. The results are presented in Table 5.7. After analysing the results of the next dependent variable, self-assessment, it was noticed that only ambiguity tolerance: F (2.35) = 24.84, p < 0.001 had a significant impact on the self-assessment variable. Openness to experience and the interaction between both independent variables did not have an influence on self-assessment. The results are presented in Table 5.8. Analysis of the variance confirmed that openness to experience, ambiguity tolerance and their interaction were related to grades, but only ambiguity tolerance influenced self-assessment, the higher the trait the student had, the higher the self-assessment. Table 5.6 Two multiple regression models: openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on dependent variables: school grades and self-assessment Variable

Variable

Beta

R

R2

F

p

School grades

O

0.16

0.24

0.05

F = 10.92

p < 0.001

AT

0.29

O

0.11

0.41

0.16

F = 35.50

p < 0.001

AT

0.45

Self-assessment

Table 5.7 Two-way ANOVA of the dependent variable final grades

Variable

F

p

Openness to experience

3.51

0.03

Ambiguity tolerance

3.22

0.04

Openness to experience ambiguity tolerance

2.68

0.03

118

5 The Study

Table 5.8 Two-way ANOVA of the dependent variable self-assessment

F

Variable Openness to experience Ambiguity tolerance Openness to experience ambiguity tolerance

p

1.56

0.21

24.84

0.00

0.77

0.54

Finally, to compare the openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance tercile results, two post-hoc analyses were conducted with the Bonferroni test (Tables 5.9 and 5.10). This test also explained which trait had a more important influence on school grades and self-assessment. There was a strong correlation between the terciles of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance (r = 0.56; p < 0.05). This means that the higher the level of openness of the participants, the higher their level of ambiguity tolerance. Significance levels were marked in bold indicating a significant difference between the selected means (Table 5.9). Table 5.9 Bonferroni post-hoc tests of final grades in O and AT terciles Personality trait O

AT

Mean school grade {1} 2.81

LAT Low (LO)

Medium (MO)

{3} 2.88

{4} 3.82

{5} 3.90

{6} 3.82

{7} 4.73

{8} 4.62

{9} 4.77

0.76

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.56

0.78

1.00

< 0.01

0.01

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.52

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.09

MAT

–

HAT

–

–

LAT

–

–

–

MAT

–

–

–

–

HAT

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

LAT High (HO)

{2} 3.00

MAT HAT

–

0.27

O—openness to experience, AT—ambiguity tolerance, LO—low openness to experience, LAT— low ambiguity tolerance, MO—medium openness to experience, MAT—medium ambiguity tolerance, HO—high openness to experience, HAT—high ambiguity tolerance, {…}—mean school grade (MSG) for different levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance {1} 2.81—MSG for LO and LAT {2} 3—MSG for LO and MAT {3} 2.88—MSG for LO and HAT {4} 3.82—MSG for MO and LAT {5} 3.90—MSG for MO and MAT {6} 3.82—MSG for MO and HAT {7} 4.73—MSG for HO and LAT {8} 4.62—MSG for HO and MAT {9} 4.77—MSG for HO and HAT

5.4 Results

119

Table 5.10 Bonferroni post-hoc tests of self-assessment in O and AT terciles Personality trait O

AT

Mean school grade {1} 2.35 {2} 3.67 {3} 5.04 {4} 2.46 {5} 3.79 {6} 4.81 {7} 2.45 {8} 3.91 {9} 5.02

LAT Low (LO)

MAT HAT LAT

Medium (MO)

MAT HAT LAT

High (HO)

MAT HAT

1.00 –

< 0.01

1.00

1.00

0.13

1.00

1.00

0.01

1.00

0.93

1.00

1.00

0.09

1.00

1.00

< 0.1

0.05

1.00

< 0.01

0.01

1.00

1.00

0.07

1.00

1.00

< 0.01

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.10

< 0.01

0.29

1.00

1.00

< 0.01

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.01 –

O—openness to experience, AT—ambiguity tolerance, LO—low openness to experience, LAT— low ambiguity tolerance, MO—medium openness to experience, MAT—medium ambiguity tolerance, HO—high openness to experience, HAT—high ambiguity tolerance, {…}—mean school grade (MSG) for different level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance {1} 2.35—MSG for LO and LAT {2} 3.67—MSG for LO and MAT {3} 5.04—MSG for LO and HAT {4} 2.46—MSG for MO and LAT {5} 3.79—MSG for MO and MAT {6} 4.81—MSG or MO and HAT {7} 2.45—MSG for HO and LAT {8} 3.91—MSG for HO and MAT {9} 5.02—MSG for HO and HAT

In relation to school grades, there were two significant differences found in the scores between the group with a low level of openness and a medium level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 3), and for the groups with a high level of openness and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 4.73), and for the group of participants with a high level of openness and a medium level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 4.62). The Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that students with the highest level of openness to experience had the best school grades, even when the level of ambiguity tolerance was low or medium. However, the students’ mean school grade was the highest when openness and ambiguity tolerance were at the highest levels. The results of Bonferroni post-hoc tests of self-assessment in openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance terciles are presented in Table 5.10. There were significant differences in self-assessment between the group of participants with a low level of openness to experience and a high level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 5.04) and the group of participants with low levels of openness and

120

5 The Study

ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 2.35), then the group with a medium level of openness and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 2.46), next with the group with medium levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 3.79), and finally, with the group with a high level of openness and a low level of ambiguity tolerance (MSG = 2.45). Individuals in the group with MSG = 5.04 had significantly higher self-assessment results than the other groups listed. Participants in the group with MSG = 5.02 had significantly higher self-assessment scores of individuals in groups with MSG = 2.35, MSG = 2.46, MSG = 2.45 and MSG = 3.91. Individuals in the group with MSG = 4.82 had significantly higher self-assessment than individuals in the group with MSG = 2.45. The Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that ambiguity tolerance was the most important element that influenced students’ self-assessment. Students with ambiguity tolerance at a high level had the highest self-assessment: 5.04 (LO), 4.81 (MO), and 5.02 (HO). To sum up, a good predictor of achieving very good school grades and having a higher level of self-assessment in foreign/second language acquisition was a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Openness to experience as a higher order personality trait, thanks to its features, influenced the entire learning process, and ambiguity tolerance as a lower order personality trait was helpful in it. It was found that ambiguity tolerance supports openness to experience on the path to success in foreign language acquisition.

5.4.3 Qualitative Results—Interviews with Selected Students The qualitative data were collected by means of interviews that were carried out with students who had the traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on levels varying from the lowest to the highest. The purpose of the interviews was to enrich the information about the role of openness and ambiguity tolerance in foreign language acquisition. The questions allowed the researcher to learn more about the students’ reactions during lessons, their preferred teaching techniques, positive and negative feelings, and finally, how teachers could support them in language acquisition. Kuba (O = 50, AT = 42, SG = 5, SA = 6) was the first participant chosen for the interview because his levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were both very high. When Kuba entered the room where the interview was held, it was possible to feel the positive energy radiating from him. The teenager sitting in front of the researcher seemed to be confident, open to other people and curious as to what would happen next. In the interview, Kuba often spoke English, especially when he wanted to sum up his answers. At the beginning, Kuba was asked about his opinion with regards to learning English and his attitude of using it in various situations. He said that he loved English, he tried to use it in all possible situations to speak, for example, playing on-line games with people from English speaking countries, chatting on social media or going abroad. In response to Question 1—“If you have to use the English language, are you nervous? Why?” Kuba answered that

5.4 Results

121

he seldom felt nervous, and he was convinced that using English was not stressful for him, he rather enjoyed speaking English (I don’t get nervous, on the contrary, I feel confident even making small mistakes). He summed up his answer: React to mistakes with a smile! Afterwards, he was asked to name his strengths and weaknesses in using the English language. Kuba said that it was easy for him to communicate with others in different situations, further, he was good in reading and listening. He complained that he should know more sophisticated vocabulary, also his accent could be better. The third question intended to identify the participant’s preferences in doing exercises, whether he preferred specific exercises with the given instruction, or those in which he himself decided on the choice of content and form and explain his answer. Kuba explained that he preferred those exercises where he could decide about the form and choice of content because it stimulated creativity and forced the student to participate in classes, at the end, he added: be unique. The fourth question asked about the student’s preferences during English classes: “What did he like more, when the teacher discussed the phases of the learning process at the beginning of the lesson and what would happen next, or he preferred activities that brought surprises, also he should explain why?”. Kuba said that classes with constant surprises were much better because he was more interested in what would happen next—(I love the constant surprises because, I never know what will happen and for sure the lesson will turn out to be more interesting). He suggested that classes with objectives and phases described at the beginning were boring and predictable. He summarised it as: Surprise! Not as tasty as Kinder Surprise but still cool! The next question checked the student’s attitude for writing and speaking in English. How did he feel and react in situations when he had to use English, but he could not express his thoughts? Kuba was convinced that he always managed with difficulties, he tried to find easier words or would say something in a circular way. He claimed that he accepted such situations and said, “You can always find the way out”. The researcher also asked about the language which should be used during the teacher’s grammar or vocabulary explanations in the classes. The participant preferred explanations in English and pointed out that English classes were intended not to speak Polish, otherwise there would be no point in such classes. He believed that lessons in a foreign language helped breaking a certain reluctance for communicating (All in English, the language then consolidates, some people can break through and start communicating. Besides, it is a good idea to practise vocabulary and pronunciation). Kuba summed it up the following way: So, let your English be real English! The last question was about the feelings that accompanied him when he realized that he was making mistakes, and how he dealt with them. After asking Kuba the question, he smiled and answered that he continued speaking and the next time tried to improve himself: Just keep going. After finishing the interview, the researcher started to chat with Kuba and he became more open, he expressed what really annoyed him. He complained that as a good English learner, he was often ignored when he wanted to actively take part in a lesson. He emphasised that teachers in his school concentrated more on students who had difficulties in English, therefore, he had chosen extra-curricular classes in a language school, and there he could really develop his language skills. He appreciated the creativity of the teacher in the external language school because

122

5 The Study

he learnt a lot of new things: I love it when the teacher can be my master! To sum up, Kuba as a person with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance was an open individual who knew that he could manage all language situations, and he was not afraid of the unknown in life or language learning. However, he realised that he had a long way to go to perfect his English. The next student, Piotrek (O = 29, AT = 28, SG = 5.5, SA = 5), was chosen for the interview because his levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were at medium levels. Piotrek gave more descriptive answers in the two questionnaires prepared by the researcher, so it was worth to discuss the items from the interview questionnaire with him. To the questions related to his language skills, he answered that his English was very good, therefore, he was not nervous when he had to use it. He also knew that his strengths were reading and listening comprehension, he was convinced that he coped well with grammar. Piotrek said that he had to work on his range of vocabulary and speaking. He found it difficult to make and maintain eye contact with interlocutors, so sometimes, it could be seen as problems with communicating, but it was rather caused by his shyness. Piotrek said about his preferences during English lessons that it all depended on the exercises, therefore he sometimes preferred tasks where he had exact instructions on what to do, because then, he knew what he should focus on. But on the other side, sometimes, he suggested when the topic was interesting, it would be better working without instructions, then he could show imaginative ideas and do more—(I am a creative person, when I am interested in something I can show interesting ideas). Then, Piotrek answered the next four questions, especially the ones with preferences to the execution of English classes that it all depended on the teacher. He mostly did what the teacher expected, but the lesson topics had the biggest influence on his behaviour. Then, Piotrek was asked about his reactions when he wanted to say or write something in English, but he could not say how he felt in that moment and what he did. Piotrek explained that he experienced similar situations many times, therefore, he treated them as something natural in the learning process, and he tried to find other words that more or less matched his statements. Piotrek also emphasized that he preferred full English lessons, even vocabulary should be explained in English because he did not need to look for definitions in dictionaries, as he understood the meaning directly in proper situations. Further, he was asked how he behaved when he realised that he made mistakes in conversations. After a while, slowly with a hint of uncertainty, he started to say that he tried to continue talking, but then checked on how it should be said correctly. At the end of the interview, the researcher asked the interviewee if he wanted to add something about learning English. Piotrek added that he had been working very hard because his dream was to study in England, and he needed to pass the IELTS exam. To sum up, Piotrek, as an individual with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance often treated language situations with reserve, he also underlined the importance of teachers and interesting topics during lessons. He felt some anxiety, but he was able to overcome it. The third interviewee was Julia (O = 45, AT = 12, SG = 5, SA = 4), who had a high level of openness to experience and a low level of ambiguity tolerance. Julia was a special person from the beginning because she was really surprised that she was

5.4 Results

123

chosen for the interview. After entering the classroom, she explained that she was an ordinary student, maybe with quite good grades but with rather low self-esteem resulting from her opinion that she was not as interesting as her friends (Why me? Well, yes I have good grades, but there are so many more interesting people). The researcher clarified that they would talk about learning English and her preferences in choosing her favourite techniques and strategies used by teachers. First, she answered the first three questions from the interview. Julia said that she knew her English was not perfect, and she still had a lot to learn but she did not feel nervous when she had to use it, as over the years she had become accustomed to using it (No, after years of participation in fandom, no more). She knew her strength was vocabulary, and she understood a lot. Julia loved learning new words, especially in areas of her interest, like art or poetry. She loved using social media to have contact with teenagers from abroad who, like her, tried to write their own poems. She was proud that she could communicate with people who were similar to her. However, she thought that she should work more on grammar which caused her problems, particularly on tests. When she was asked about her preferences with regards to specific exercises with the given instructions, or those in which she decided on the choice of content and form, she claimed that if she could choose, then it was better for her when she decided. She loved writing different forms from emails, through essays to articles, she continued that thanks to writing she could express herself in English. Julia suggested that writing was easier than speaking because, if it was necessary, she could always look for the proper words. The fourth question, about her preferences during English classes— whether she preferred when the teacher discussed the phases at the beginning of the lesson and what would happen then, or she preferred activities that brought surprises. She answered that spontaneous lessons were much better and thought that classes when the teachers were observing the learning process and adopted techniques and working forms, accordingly, were much more interesting (I prefer when the teacher figures out a bit during the lesson, it’s more interesting). She noticed that lessons related to their interests were more similar to the natural environment, and everyone was involved in them. When Julia was asked about her reaction when she wanted to say something or write in English, but she could not, at once she said that she was irritated, and quickly tried to find the word in the dictionary, even during lessons she often asked the teacher to wait a moment because she needed to look for a word or she asked the teacher for help (I get slightly irked and reach for the dictionary, not caring about others having to wait for me). The researcher suggested that it was difficult to check for the needed vocabulary while giving an answer or in a conversation. However, Julia claimed that she did not care about it, if she needed a word then she searched for it and was a proponent of using dictionaries if she had access to them. Julia also preferred English lessons when they were fully conducted in English because her brain was set into English. She also explained that it was one of the reasons which influenced her language development. She heard from previous teachers that she should start thinking in English when she wanted to be a good English learner, and Julia tried to follow this tip. Then, she continued with the next questions related to her awareness in making mistakes using English. She thought that her speaking was the one where she made the most mistakes, but she also realised

124

5 The Study

that only to speak a lot could help her improve it (I know I make mistakes but how else can I learn, I have to jabber a lot). Julia emphasised that she tried to correct her mistakes, also she listened to the interlocutor carefully because it really helped, especially in pronunciation. At the end of the interview, Julia told the researcher how important it was for her to use English correctly and she was dreaming that one day she would be as good as a native speaker. Julia, as a person with a high level of openness to experience and a low level of ambiguity tolerance was open to the surrounding world, but her self-assessment was lower than her school grades. She did not believe in her language skills, but she wanted to learn the foreign language. The next interviewed person was Maja (O = 26, AT = 38, SG = 4, SA = 5) with a low level of openness to experience but a high level of ambiguity tolerance. The first impression about Maja when she came in was that she was a nice, calm girl. When Maja sat down, she timidly smiled and after clarifying the reasons by the researcher why she was there, Maja replied that she would be happy to help. First, Maja was asked the questions related to her feelings during English lessons. She said that it was long ago when she felt nervous using English because she defeated her inner fear of speaking English (In the past, I fought a lot with myself to speak because I was afraid, but now I know that I can do a lot). Maja knew her strengths and weaknesses, and she mentioned them. As one of her most important strengths, the student considered that watching movies/series in which she understood the vocabulary and knew the correct context in which it was used. Thanks to that, she felt more confident talking to people, even if she did not know them. As one of the weaknesses, she mentioned her writing. Maja suggested that she had learnt a lot of new words while watching movies but then she could not write them, furthermore, she also often dropped letters (I make many writing mistakes, I like to eat letters and sometimes I don’t know how to write new words I heard while watching movies). When she was asked about her preferences in the kind of exercises, she suggested that exercises where she could decide about the content and form were her favourite, because such exercises forced her creative and logical thinking. She emphasized that a lot of things from lessons she remembered only because some tasks were different than usual. Next, Maja explained that she preferred lessons which were constantly changing because in such situations the usage of English was more spontaneous and similar to the natural environment (I like lessons when a lot is going on, but I get frustrated when the right words are missing and I have to replace them with some substitute that doesn’t quite convince me). However, when she wanted to say or write something in English, but she could not find the right words, and she felt confused. The participant thought that people should not worry about the words they did not know or forget, the best way was to look for synonyms which they remembered. Maja was convinced that lessons only in English were more demanding, however they forced her brain into thinking. She remembered lessons where the teacher had explained everything in Polish, and she did not even try to understand the grammar rules in English, because she knew that in a while, she would have them in Polish. With time, when her English teacher tried to talk more in English, her classmates from the language group complained, therefore, she was pleased when she entered the secondary school, because there most English lessons were conducted speaking mostly the foreign language. When the participant

5.4 Results

125

was asked about her feelings whenever she made a mistake, Maja thought for a while and tried to explain that we were only people, and everyone made mistakes. She continued that the native users of a language also made mistakes, therefore, she did not care about making them herself. The researcher later asked her about her general attitude to English. Maja emphasised that English was one of her favourite subjects, she had plans for the future and knew that without English it would be difficult to achieve them. She knew that she had to work hard to be more fluent, but she had to work on her self-esteem also. Maja said that she often wanted to take part in some discussions, but she was afraid that someone from the group would make fun of her or try to convince her of their views, so she did not participate. To sum up, Maja as a student with a low level of openness to experience and a high level of ambiguity tolerance who strongly believed in her language skills. She was afraid of the surrounding world but wanted to try new things, especially in learning English. The next student, Marcel (O = 25, AT = 12, SG = 4, SA = 3), was chosen for the interview because his level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were one of the lowest. During the interview, he often emphasised that his English was poor. At the beginning, Marcel was asked how he was that day, and to shortly describe himself as a person. From the beginning of his visit, it was possible to notice that he was a shy person, mostly looking down and feeling uncomfortable. The researcher asked if they could start the interview. The participant said “yes” and answered the first question. Marcel explained that he felt very nervous when he had to use English, because he was never sure if he was talking correctly and what the rest of the language group thought (I never know if I speak right or wrong, I am afraid of the reaction of my group when I say something wrong, they like to make jokes about me). He told the researcher that he often raised his hand to answer but did not know if he had compromised himself. Marcel knew his strengths and weaknesses, but he started to talk about his weaknesses. He felt stressed when he had to speak English and the worst was that he often forgot the basic words. Whenever, he forgot some words, he started to make more and more mistakes (When I want to do something well, it always comes out the other way around, I forget simple words, and if I miss the first one then it flies, the next one and the next one). He sometimes felt that he should not attend his language group, when he heard the others, he was jealous and rude to his friends. Marcel claimed that he paid too much attention to grammar mistakes, he knew it, but he wanted to be perfect. The researcher suggested that communication was more important than grammar, however Marcel insisted on his point of view about the importance of grammar. After thinking a while, the participant continued that his strength was communication. He could understand nearly everything, or could ask someone to say it in a different, easier way. He gave examples of trips abroad, when he talked with people, also he was the one in his family who always handled all matters at the hotels where they stayed (I always fix everything for my family, but they do not know English). Then, he was asked about his preferences in the types of English class exercises. The student preferred exercises where he had the details described in the instructions, what to do and how, because then everything was clear for him. He liked practicing new structures in this way, it helped to know the situations in which they could be used and practiced the sentence-building mechanism. Marcel

126

5 The Study

emphasised that he always had workbooks, even if they were not necessary, and filled in all tasks because he practiced more than the others. Further, Marcel answered the questions connected to the lesson’s plan. Without hesitation, Marcel also said that he preferred lessons when, at the beginning, the teacher discussed how the lesson would look, because then he knew what to expect and was less stressed. He appreciated predictability (I like it when the teacher tells me what we are going to do, I can prepare for the exercises, and I also quickly count which example is mine). He thought that when he knew what would be next, he could prepare for it, he confessed with a smile. Whenever the teacher proposed to do some examples one by one, he often counted which was his and could do it. When asked to respond to the question, “When he wanted to tell or write something in English, but he could not”, Marcel immediately said that he felt frustrated and upset but he tried to convey the information into other words. He told the researcher that he would one day be as fluent in English as in Polish when he gave his thoughts. The participant preferred when the teacher first explained everything in Polish and then he/she said it in English, because then he could be sure that he correctly understood and did not have to guess at anything. The student emphasised that for him it was the simplest way to learn difficult patterns. When the teacher first explained in Polish, he would not be exposed to jokes by the group that he did not know or understand such basic words or patterns (Do you know how they can laugh at me when I say some stupid thing?). Marcel also said that he did not try to think too much about his mistakes during communication with someone because he knew his weaknesses, but he used English in the best way he could. He said that he had lived in England for two years, however he did not take the chance to practise the language because he stayed with his mum at home in the afternoons and on the weekends instead of going out with teenagers from his neighbourhood. He also admitted that he persuaded his parents to return to Poland, and now he thought it was a mistake not to use the opportunity to learn English in an English-speaking country (How stupid I was that I didn’t take that chance to meet with my peers, and just sat at home). Marcel, as a student with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance was a very conservative person. He preferred everything he already knew. He did not like new things, and he felt anxiety most of the time. The data collected in all the interviews allows for the formulation of several concluding remarks. First of all, students with higher openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance valued learning English and the possibilities that it gave in many life situations. Moreover, the relevance of the learning material was important for students. The traits on higher levels caused those students to feel less stressed during lessons and love surprising learning situations. Furthermore, their self-assessment was rather high; they knew that they could achieve success in life. On the opposite side, there were students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance who always felt more or less nervous, they loved routines and appreciated teachers following the lesson plan. In particular, this group needed support which could raise their self-assessment. Learners on the medium levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance often emphasised that their reactions depended on various learning situations. If they were interested in a lesson, then they liked surprising twists during the educational process, but if a lesson was boring, then they

References

127

preferred the teacher to follow a plan. Students’ reactions in that group were often connected with their self-assessment, higher self-assessment led to lower nervousness and less stress in a language learning situation. The interviews showed changes deriving from the intensity of the features, and the influence of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on the learning process.

5.5 Conclusion This chapter provided basic information about the conducted research, particularly concerning the relationship between the personality traits of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance with self-assessment of the participants and their school grades. The main quantitative and qualitative results of the research can be summarised in the following points: • A higher level of openness to experience is connected with better grades and self-assessment. • A higher level of ambiguity tolerance plays a role in self-assessment. • Students with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance appreciate learning English and feel less stressed during foreign language acquisition. • Students with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance positively assess their four language skills, and their self-assessment is similar to their school grades. • Students with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance see their strengths and weaknesses in foreign language acquisition more objectively than students with high levels of these traits. • Students with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance feel anxiety in new language situations, i.e., they prefer well-known learning techniques. • Students with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance like predictability. ∗ ∗ ∗ The following chapter of the book will be devoted to a discussion of the results achieved during the research.

References Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087

128

5 The Study

Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. S. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003 Bevans, R. (2020, March 20). Two-way ANOVA | When and how to use it, with examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/two-way-anova/ Bhandari, P. (2020, September 17). Standard deviation | A step by step guide with formulas. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/standard-deviation/ Brown, J. D. (1993). Understanding research in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Ehrman, M. (2008). Personality and the good language learner. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 61–72). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9780511497667.007 Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Heinle & Heinle. Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Scientific Research, 4(9), 717–728. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Wewbury House. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2006). Research methods: A process of inquiry (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2002). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Jach, H. K., & Smillie, L. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JRP.2019.02.003 Liu, M. (2012). Predicting effects of personality traits, self-esteem, language risk-taking and sociability on Chinese University EFL learners’ performance in English. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 30–57. Liu, C., Jiao, Y., & Qiu, W. (2022). The roles of language aptitude and online self-regulated learning in foreign language achievements. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 31, 83–100. https:// doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2022.31.07 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985b). Openness to experience. In Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145–172). R. Hogan & W. H. Jones. McCrae, R., & Costa, R. (1990). Cross cultural assessment of the five-factor model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2013). Openness to experience. In Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. Guilford Publications. McPherson, K. (1983). Opinion-related information seeking: Personal and situational variables. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728 3091017 Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607–619. Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346251X(95)00023-D

References

129

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, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 Rugg, D. (2010). An introduction to triangulation. UNAIDS. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/ files/sub_landing/files/10_4-Intro-to-triangulation-MEF.pdf Salikhova, N., Lynch, M., & Salikhova, A. B. (2019). The associations between tolerance for ambiguity and internal and external motivation in the scholarly activities of doctoral students. Education & Self Development, 14(4), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd14.4.04 Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.000 0000000002864 Stoycheva, K. (2003). Ambiguity tolerance and creativity: Intersection points. Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2, 18–23. Stoycheva, K. (2003). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities. In P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Talent recruitment and public understanding (pp. 31–43). IOS Press. Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowi´nski, T. (2014). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza IPIP-BFM-50 do pomiaru pi˛eciu cech osobowo´sci w uj˛eciu leksykalnym. Roczniki Psychologiczne, XVII(2), 327–346. Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Hassanzadeh, S. (2016). The relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ motivation, personality traits, and ambiguity tolerance. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences, 3(9), 23. Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 93–125). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/get_publication.cfm?id=93&scriptname=searchsite_pub& keyword=rshrp&display_order=alphabetic Vaughan, L. A., Wormwood, J. B., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 886–894. Wilczy´nska, W., & Micho´nska-Stadnik, A. (2010). Metodologia bada´n w glottodydaktyce. Wprowadzenie. Avalon. https://bookmaster.com.pl/ksiazka-463884-metodologia-badan-w-glo ttodydaktyce-wprowadzenie-anna-michonska-stadnik-weronika-wilczynska

Chapter 6

Discussion

6.1 Introduction This chapter of the book is devoted to a discussion of the results, collected according to the research blueprint outlined in the previous chapter. The data were gathered with both quantitative and qualitative methods and then analysed to present how the traits openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are related to the forms of attainment (self-assessment and grades). All the findings are interpreted to show profiles of students with different levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. At the end of the chapter, the limitations of the study are presented.

6.2 The Links Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance The hypothesis formulated for the purpose of this research explored the relationship between two personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and their impact on forms of attainment: Students with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance declare a higher foreign language assessment— operationalized as self-assessment and final grades—than students with a lower level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The results of the research confirmed the hypothesis that the levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance were positively related to students’ achievements. To show the links between the personality traits and their impact on attainment, the findings of the descriptive statistics, multiple regression, a two-way ANOVA and two Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used. It was revealed that there were correlations between the independent and dependent variables. The first independent variable, openness to experience as the higher order personality trait was correlated weakly

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_6

131

132

6 Discussion

with grades and self-assessment. The second independent variable, ambiguity tolerance as a lower order personality trait was correlated moderately with self-assessment and close to a moderate correlation with grades. On the basis of the Openness to Experience Scale and the Ambiguity Tolerance Scale, students were divided into three groups with a high, medium and low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. To present the correlation in detail, it should be recalled that all the participants were divided into groups based on the terciles. First of all, the investigation confirms that openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance as personality traits are related to school grades and self-assessment, but self-assessment is more dependent on these two traits than grades. Moreover, there are strong correlations between self-assessment and school grades. Students with good grades have a higher level of self-assessment, and low grades are related to low self-assessment. The two models of multiple regression helped to explain the strong correlation between students’ personality traits, self-assessment and school grades. The first model presented the links between the dependent variable, school grades and the two independent variables of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The second model showed the links between the dependent variable of self-assessment and the two independent variables of these personality traits. Therefore, it is possible to claim that openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are unquestionably linked to both students’ forms of assessment. Secondly, final grades are mainly influenced by openness to experience, then, ambiguity tolerance and the interaction between the two personality traits. However, participants with the highest level of ambiguity tolerance have the highest selfassessment, therefore, ambiguity tolerance causes that difference. Furthermore, it is confirmed that the higher level of ambiguity tolerance contributes to higher selfassessment. Self-assessment influences the learner’s tenacity to achieve goals, as it relates to past experiences that can have an influence on present activities, and either encourage or discourage a person to further work. There is an interaction between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, as both traits work in unison which means that openness to experience, as a higher order personality trait has an impact on ambiguity tolerance, as a lower order personality trait. The positive influence of openness to experience on foreign language learning is enhanced by ambiguity tolerance. Good school grades and higher self-assessment contribute to better academic results (Hsieh & Kang, 2010; Laidra et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2019). The best predictors of success in learning a foreign or a second language are the beliefs about the abilities that someone possesses, those beliefs are vital forces which can determine success or failure (Pajares et al., 2000). Finally, the best grades and highest self-assessment are achieved by students with the highest levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. In this case, there is a strong correlation between these two personality traits. Furthermore, the lowest school grades and self-assessment are achieved by students with the lowest levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Students with medium levels of these traits achieve good grades. But there are some students with very good grades whose level of ambiguity tolerance is at a low level. Also, there are students with a very high level of self-assessment but with a low level of openness to

6.2 The Links Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

133

experience. These groups of students are very small, and contain only a few students, therefore it is difficult to generalize as regards the results to the whole population and still needs further research. In the research of Babaei et al. (2016), a similar situation with the difference between students and teachers’ assessment is described, and the researchers try to explain the situation as follows: some students cannot evaluate their abilities, they need clear information about the assessment criteria and their skills. However, it is perfectly seen thanks to the investigations which showed that students’ school grades and self-assessment depend on the levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The highest levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are linked to the best grades and the highest self-assessment. Students with a high level of these traits achieve a similar mean school grade, but the mean of self-assessment is different. Students with a high level of openness to experience have a higher mean school grade than their mean self-assessment. This probably refers to the features of openness that are responsible for seeking new experiences all the time, as has been shown in the research by Laidra et al. (2007). Also, Meyer et al. (2019) claim that openness to experience is a good predictor of good school grades in foreign language learning, they add that this is possible thanks to the more creative thinking required in learning English which is characteristic for the higher level of this trait. However, a high level of ambiguity tolerance contributes to a higher mean self-assessment than a mean school grade. This aspect of the research can be explained in the way that Felson (1981) suggests, namely, that individuals with a high level of ambiguity tolerance sometimes create a very positive picture of themselves, which probably leads to the difference in the research between the average school grade and the selfassessment, but they are still correlated. Felson observes that students with a high level of ambiguity tolerance are often used to ambiguous situations and their opinion about themselves is very optimistic, but less objective. According to the study of Piechurska-Kuciel (2018a), students with a high level of openness to experience achieve better grades and have a higher level of self-assessment. Also, the research of Dewaele and Ip (2013) indicates the influence of ambiguity tolerance on foreign language learners’ grades and self-assessment. Both these studies show the impact of the personality traits as this research suggests that good grades and high selfassessment lower the level of anxiety and contributes to less stressor-related negative effects (Leger et al., 2016). One of the biggest advantages of good grades and high self-assessment is the reduction of anxiety. Therefore, students with a high level of openness accumulate positive experiences, they remember language situations when they have managed well, it gives them the feeling that they can always cope with the foreign language. Students achieving better grades feel less anxious and know that they are making progress in learning a foreign language. Such situations lead to the development of the language and positive attitudes towards it (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a), as in the case of Kuba (Sect. 5.4.3), who has a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Several times, he emphasised that he manages with all learning skills, and he does not feel anxiety before ambiguous learning situations. His self-assessment is very high, but he complains that his teachers often ignore him because his grades are mostly excellent or very good.

134

6 Discussion

A medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, as the descriptive statistics show, contributes to good grades and has an impact on students’ positive self-assessment, which means that these students manage well with foreign language acquisition. This is essential, because their level of anxiety allows them to cooperate with a teacher and classmates during lessons. Students with a medium level of openness to experience assess themselves lower than their teachers. The average school grades are higher than self-assessment, probably because these participants are driven by their desire to learn and know more about the foreign language. Students with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance deserve more attention because it depends on their teachers and surroundings as to how they will react, therefore, when they are asked a question, they often give the answer of “it depends on”, and they emphasise that the topic should be interesting. It is imperative to stress the importance of teachers to this group because they build students’ positive attitudes during lessons and inspire them to develop their creativity. They also support students to expand their limits and accept failure. Students with a medium level of ambiguity tolerance have a mean school grade and a mean self-assessment on the same levels, which indicates that the participants assess their language skills very accurately. Some scholars (El-Koumy, 2003; Erten & Topkaya, 2009) claim that a moderate level of ambiguity tolerance has the best influence on second/foreign learners and those learners self-assess their achievements highly, similar to their teachers, moreover, they think that they are successful in foreign language learning because they feel comfortable with studying a new language. They are not afraid of unknown grammar structures, new vocabulary and are more likely to work because ambiguity tolerance characterises people open to changes and even, if necessary, helps them to take risks. The researchers emphasize (Erten & Topkaya, 2009), that the best mid-point of the trait is not known, and that is why some students from this group behave more like students with a low level of ambiguity tolerance and some like those with a typical high level of ambiguity tolerance. The group of participants with a moderate level of these personality traits mostly has a positive attitude towards learning a foreign language. Teachers know that a positive attitude is essential, and this helps to achieve satisfactory results. There are some examples of the benefits of a positive attitude, first of all, it helps to focus and absorb information quicker, then, increases motivation and causes those learners to be more productive, and finally, it helps students to retain and recall information because their mind associates the subject matter with pleasant experiences. Students with a medium level of ambiguity tolerance do not need too much attention from the surrounding world and/or they are not afraid of everything. It is enough when their teachers know how to interest them. Piotrek (Sect. 5.4.3), as a student with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, achieves very good grades, but his mean level of self-assessment is lower than his mean school grade. He knows that his English is good, therefore, he does not feel anxiety during lessons. He appreciates the teacher’s help, but he behaves with reserve in various tasks, because as he emphasizes, the topic of the classes should be interesting. Low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance contribute to poor or satisfactory grades and students assess their language skills very low, even lower

6.2 The Links Between Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

135

than the teachers assess them. In their study, O˙za´nska-Ponikwia and Dewaele (2012) reveal that students low in openness to experience use English less and they are not so cooperative in social interactions. They also do not believe in their abilities, therefore their school grades are better than their self-assessment. The studies presented in Chap. 4 (Dewaele & Ip, 2013; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a, 2018b) also indicate that individuals with a low level of the personality traits openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieve low grades and have a low self-assessment. The researchers suggest that low levels of these traits increase the level of anxiety which leads to an even more negative impact on the whole educational process. Students with a low level of openness to experience are self-contained and suspicious. They need some time to accustom themselves to the places and the people around them. Students with a low level of ambiguity tolerance are not open to change (Rubin, 1975), they feel frustration (Ellis, 1994), moreover, they are not convinced of achieving success in language acquisition (Chapple, 1983). Such students feel fear, stress and anxiety facing new ambiguous learning situations, which leads to various reactions like not participating in classes, not answering questions, or not cooperating with other language learners. Ehrman (1996) points out that students with low ambiguity tolerance and anxiety have doubts about the exact pronunciation, correct meaning of words or grammar forms. In this research, participants with a low level of ambiguity tolerance talk a lot about their doubts in English (Marcel, Sect. 5.4.3). They also emphasize that they feel fear answering teachers’ questions or taking part in conversations. Marcel, a student with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance says that his English is really poor, and he does not believe in his language abilities. He complains all the time that he feels fears that his classmates will make fun on him. His self-assessment is lower than his school grade. He is a conservative learner and prefers everything that he really knows like doing exercises in his workbook or repeating after his teacher. To sum up, a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance contributes to achieve the highest success in second/foreign language acquisition. Both of those traits ensure that students are open to new experiences because they are not afraid of ambiguous situations. Such learners are more self-confident and creative during more sophisticated exercises. They have good grades and higher selfassessment which positively influences their attitude in learning a foreign language. The medium level of these traits relates to good grades and self-assessment which allows them to overcome anxiety while using English doing various language tasks. Students with a medium level of these traits do not ask their teachers for help, but they should support their students which helps them to achieve better grades and their self-assessment raises. Students’ language skills can develop with their level of selfassessment. Students with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieve the lowest school grades and have a low level of self-assessment. These students need a lot of attention, and their teachers have to help them to increase their school grades which can contribute to higher self-assessment, which will improve their attitude towards English.

136

6 Discussion

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels of Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance Apart from the links between personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and students’ attainment (self-assessment and school grades), this study concentrates on defining students’ profiles with various levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance. As the results of the descriptive statistics, multiple regression, a two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc tests and qualitative data from the interviews reveal, it is possible to distinguish three main students’ profiles. A more detailed picture of the participants’ preferences and approach to the four language skills are described below. The first profile describes a group of students with high levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieving the best school grades and having the highest self-assessment. The second profile describes a group of students with medium levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieving medium school grades and having a medium level of self-assessment. The third one characterizes a group of students with the lowest levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieving the lowest school grades and possessing the lowest level of self-assessment. Participants from each group have some features and behaviours that are similar to all representatives of the group, but as has been mentioned before, everyone is unique, so they differ from each other. Experienced teachers easily recognise students who assess their skills as high or low, which is usually confirmed by school grades, therefore, it is important to acquaint them with the personality traits that are linked to students’ achievements and their work during foreign language classes. S˛ekowski and Rud´z (2011) claim that it is too simple to describe all students with a high level of openness as those who have higher selfassessment and grades. Therefore, it is difficult to provide one universal profile for students with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. However, students themselves can be a source of feedback thanks to their attitude during English lessons (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009), which reflects students’ own judgement of their abilities, goals and shows their motivation to learn a foreign language. From the teachers’ point of view, it is worth knowing how each student assesses his/her skills because it can improve the cooperation with students and give them support in the difficult journey of foreign language acquisition. It is also priceless for students when they know how to achieve better grades, increase motivation and self-confidence. The first group in this research, the participants with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have the highest self-assessment and grades, furthermore, they assess themselves higher than the grades they actually achieve. After analysing the answers from the participants with high levels of these traits, it is possible to present a general picture of those students. They like or even love English, moreover they believe they will achieve near-native fluency in the future. English, in their opinion is simple, clear, and logical and they do not understand how it is possible to have problems with learning it. They emphasise the importance of

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels …

137

all language skills, but it depends on the individual as to which is his/her favourite. Students from this group often know their weaknesses, but also what to do to improve them. Higher openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, give them confidence in the classroom to use and to practise their four skills—reading, listening, writing, and speaking. Besides providing some insights for how they work to develop them, presenting strategies, and exercises that suit them best, they also talk about things that make them nervous. The overwhelming majority of students with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance claim that speaking is the most important skill for them. Thanks to it, they can communicate with the whole world since they often use social media to talk with people from different countries. Since people with both traits—openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance—are open to new experiences, they reduce the feeling of anxiety and fear (Dewaele & Ip, 2013; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a, 2018b; Stoycheva, 2003a, 2003b). Speaking is an interactive process to produce and receive information (Burns & Joyce, 1997), furthermore it has some critical aspects such as pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, accent, and grammar. One of the most often used ways of checking speaking is interviewing. During an interview, students are asked several questions, by answering them they show their fluency and coherence, also their lexical resources, grammatical range and pronunciation. After an interview, as Kuba pointed out (Sect. 5.4.3), students must be informed about their mistakes, then they should be encouraged to speak and when they correct their mistakes, the others should appreciate them. In this way, students will know how well they speak; it allows them to become aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Students with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance gain awareness on their own learning process. A study led by Basak (2019) about teachers’ assessment shows that students and teachers assess speaking skills differently from each other. The study reveals that teachers assess students’ speaking higher for general speaking skills and components of speaking: grammar, vocabulary, fluency, pronunciation, and communication. The research indicates that students with a higher self-assessment, which means higher ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience, also have a higher language proficiency. The study also discloses that there is a correlation between speaking English outside the classroom and self-assessment. The more students use English outside of school in different life situations, the better they assess their speaking ability. This research confirms that students with a higher ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience try to find places where they can practise their language. In the questionnaires, they wrote about social media where they are looking for native users of English. They make friends around the world to discuss a lot of things, from teenage problems to commenting on interesting events that happen in the area of their interests. Students with a higher level of those traits are proud of themselves that they are able to manage with a foreign language in various situations, and often boast to their teachers about using the language. From most language learners, negative comments can be heard about their inability to communicate with other users of English, even after a few years of studying the second/foreign language (Tse, 2000). Nowadays, it is often said that the functional use of language is more important than the mastery of lexicon-grammatical structures. Therefore, students should learn to be responsible

138

6 Discussion

for their own learning process. Each student needs to know what he/she can and cannot do to improve the oral communicative abilities. The research group with a high openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance is not terrified when they have to use English, but they emphasise that they have a long way to go to be as fluent as native speakers. They know that in some situations they do not understand everything, or they do not use the best suited words during conversations, however, they are convinced that they are good enough to cope with all language problems. It often happens that they need a word, but they do not remember it and thanks to their judgement regarding their speaking skills, they try to say something in a different way. They will continue to talk long enough to ensure that what is said is really the point of view which they mean. They understand that making mistakes is a natural path of development, and they are not offended when a teacher or someone corrects their mistakes. High openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance give students the feeling of shared responsibility for development in language learning with teachers. Some students with a high ambiguity tolerance do not agree with teachers, they have the impression that they are better than teachers assess them, and they usually talk about their speaking skills very positively, I can …, I am proud of myself because …. The learners emphasise that they pay attention to the length of their utterances, they want to show their fluency and the richness of language that they have acquired. Students of this research study devoted a lot of time to the skill of writing, which is closely related to speaking, because the fluency of speaking helps learners to manage with tasks in writing. A lot of students and teachers claim that writing is the most difficult language skill to learn because of its complexity. Writing is a cognitive and creative process, moreover it involves other aspects like vocabulary, style and grammar. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance allow teachers to receive the learners’ feedbacks, because they are not afraid to ask their teachers what mistakes they have made and why. If students believe that they are able to write, then it affects their writing competency (Paramartha, 2016). It is worth mentioning that writing has gained much interest, since it is needed in communication in every area of life, from business, education to social media. To communicate does not mean only speaking but also writing, both of which are taught and practised during the entire process of foreign language learning. Writing must be understood by readers, furthermore, for example, in formal style, it requires more knowledge about the rules, including spelling, punctuation, capitalization or more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar structures. During the writing process, learners have to be able to provide arguments, comments and remember that whatever is written, cannot be taken back, so the piece of writing should be well thought through (Richard, 2004). It needs to be taken into consideration, that the topic is very important due to the knowledge the learners have. If the learners’ knowledge about some topics is poor, they cannot write about them in the first place, no matter the language. Students do not know or wonder how to assess their own writing skills and they base their opinion on their teachers’ assessments or only state that it is good or bad. This attitude can cause students to have difficulties with the improvement of their writing skills. Therefore, it is useful to present clear criteria of the assessment process to each piece of writing so that students are taught what is written well and what needs to be improved. After some time, learners are

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels …

139

able to self-assess their strengths and weaknesses and how to further to develop their skills (Boud, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002). Students with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have a higher level of self-assessment, it helps the writers to improve the text, correct mistakes and gain the skills for future use. To the knowledge of the researcher, very few studies can be found in the scientific literature about self-assessment, which is especially linked with a higher level of ambiguity tolerance, and writing skills, therefore, it is worth presenting the observations from the current study. In their study, Fahimi and Rahimi (2015) suggest that students’ self-assessment can help develop learners’ improvement in writing skills if they know how to assess the skill and what to improve in writing. They emphasise that self-assessment influences the speed of how someone develops their writing ability, therefore, writing models must be presented during learning, then they are used for comparison by students. At the beginning, it is hard to self-assess one’s own work, but with time, students are equipped with the knowledge on how a well-written piece of writing should look like. Self-assessment helps to monitor the progress of one’s own writing (Richard, 2004), and in knowing their strengths and weaknesses students can prepare plans to improve those skills. Furthermore, the learners are conscious about what they know and what their problems are. In many cases, higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance reduce passiveness of the learners because they want to improve their weaknesses. Learners with high levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are satisfied with their writing skills. Within this group, students assess their skill as excellent, very good and have good grades, however, they have their preferences in writing depending on their interests. The highest interest in writing skills is preferred by those students who are interested in other cultures, love chatting on social media and think about studying in an English-speaking country. They are confident, and believe in their abilities, although they often emphasise that they are still working on it. They like writing different forms of longer texts like opinion essays, for and against essays, articles, reports, reviews, or stories. They claim that English gives them a wide range of possibilities, that is why during English lessons they boast of having foreign acquaintances. However, what makes them nervous is unknown vocabulary. They sometimes ask for explanations, but mostly try to find the word on the internet, using dictionaries or translators. The participant with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, who was interviewed (Kuba, Sect. 5.4.3) described a situation when he misunderstood a British friend’s message. He was too lazy to check the meaning of a phrase, and answered quickly, which resulted in an awkward situation. Since then, he always asks for an explanation or checks the meaning in dictionaries. He, as an example of a conscious language learner, claims that especially writing provides the possibility to develop one’s vocabulary, because the learners can find the needed word or phrase in various sources. Students with a high openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance like to surprise their teachers with sophisticated words or phrases, they emphasise that their works are longer than they should be. They suggest that in this way they show how fluent they are, also that writing is not a problem for them. However, they do not always write about the given topic, often the given text does not contain the required information.

140

6 Discussion

Students with high levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance claim that their reading skills are very good or even perfect. They think that reading is the easiest skill and they do not have a problem with it, and this attitude has a huge impact on language development. Reading is often considered by specialists as one of the most difficult language skills to assess. According to Pierce and Duran (2014), reading is rather an internal process, and self-assessment can contribute to make it more external. Reading is a receptive skill; thus, a noticeable difference is related to the fact that people read at various speeds and ways. A lot of learners suggest that to be good at reading means to have an enormous range of vocabulary, understand grammar, and wisely connect both. But as Scrivener (2010) claims, it does not work in such a way in real life and many other factors affect the language skill of reading. At the beginning, teachers have to build awareness that not every word needs to be understood. Some students read slowly, and they should be taught to read faster because it can be perceived by other people as them having problems with reading. Reading skills are very useful even while practicing listening, speaking or writing tasks the learners have to read and interpret the given instructions. During reading activities, the readers have to analyse a text by finding the main ideas or focusing on the details but they usually do not have to clarify the meaning of separate words (Krashen & Terrell, 2000). To improve the language learners’ reading skills, it is important to choose texts on the appropriate language level and reading strategies related to his/her personality. As Krashen and Terrell suggest, appropriate texts contribute to language acquisition of all language skills, extend vocabulary and present the new words in the right context. Students need texts which are in the circles of their interests. Reading looms large in language acquisition, because thanks to it students do not learn new words by heart, they perceive some information with working new words into their lexis. According to Liepa (2011), students self-assess their reading skills quite well, and she explains that self-assessment is severely impacted by a number of aspects, from personal traits, motivation, family status to work conditions. She emphasises that conservative learning stereotypes also have a negative influence, indicating a lack of openness to new approaches. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance show that students’ attitudes vary, and they need an individual approach. From the questionnaires of this research, we can learn that students with high openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance like reading in English from different sources. They often read a lot on the internet, and especially look for articles in the area of their interests. They do not avoid reading because as they emphasise, it extends their vocabulary. They sometimes read texts that contain a lot of new words to find the appropriate range of vocabulary on a particular theme. They are confident that they read the new words correctly but sometimes, they check them in online dictionaries where it is possible to listen to native speakers pronouncing them. They also are pleased with the opportunity to listen to texts as it helps them to practise their pronunciation. They like reading books in English, although they know that it can be difficult, especially the first few pages. They explain that every author uses a characteristic vocabulary bank, for him/herself and then, they acknowledge that reading with it is easier. Students from this group think that playing online games really helps them in developing their reading skills because online players are from various places

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels …

141

around the world use English, and the player has to react very fast. The language of games is not always perfect but contains a lot of information from nearly all parts of life. Some students love reading blogs in English, and they emphasise, blogs are written by young people, and they use typical everyday language. Participants of this research study with a high openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance pointed out that thanks to reading, they not only learn new words but also, new grammar structures. They claim that texts show the situations where it is necessary to use an appropriate structure and how those structures can change the meaning of words. Participants of this research project with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance devoted the least attention to the skill of listening because they suggest that it is one of the easiest. It is a receptive language skill which is characterised by the ability of a learner to perceive aural information. Language learners should participate actively in listening exercises because they help to master the skill and the exercises ought to come from different sources, from street conversations to radio programmes. Listening exercises are often more complex texts then students can produce themselves. Therefore, teachers need to choose texts relating to students’ language proficiency and always remember that it is easier to understand than to speak. As Alibakhshi and Sharakipour (2014) present in their research, self-assessment is the link with higher openness and ambiguity tolerance which has an influence on the learners’ listening skills. They are convinced that selfassessment is very important especially in the first phases of learning. Their results are similar to Patri (2002), Dlaska and Krekeler (2008) who say that not only are beginners influenced by self-assessment, but also intermediate learners too. Alibakhshi and Sharakipour (2014) point that self-assessment has a higher impact on reading skills than listening; however, they think that it is caused by the difference between productive and receptive skills. Although Richards and Rodgers (2001) state that self-assessment is more important for the more advanced language learners because beginners are more dependent on the teacher’s assessment. Thus, the teachers have to support beginners and give them the necessary feedback to teach them how in the future they can assess their progress themselves. Also Butler and Lee (2010) confirm that self-assessment helps to gain more confidence in learning English. Tauroza and Allison (1994) suggest that more proficient students in English cope better with assessing their own abilities. They know what type of information they have to listen to and try to listen to a more global context because it helps in avoiding misunderstanding the message. The results of the present study show that students with a higher openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance manage better with listening skills, and they assess their abilities as higher. The first group with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance state that they understand almost all, if not in detail, then the main idea of the text. Participants from the group claim that they enjoy listening to activities, and they listen to English whenever it is possible. They watch English movies, sometimes with English subtitles. Then, they enjoy listening to English music and watching different types of videos on YouTube. They often write new words while watching, afterwards searching for them in dictionaries and learning them by heart. Some students add that they prefer to listen with headphones than with loudspeakers because the sound

142

6 Discussion

is clearer, and they understand more. A few of the students from the group point out that it is possible to say that you are good at English when you understand the news on CNN or BBC, if not, then it means that the learners have a long road before them. Students who scored high in those traits emphasise that they like practising listening exercises at school but when they make too many mistakes, they feel frustrated and try to find an excuse, including lack of concentration, bad quality of the recording or disturbances. All in all, students with high levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance have a reduced feeling of anxiety and fear. They claim that speaking is the most important skill of all and allows them to communicate with the whole world, however, they also assess their other skills as very high. They like using English not only at school, but also outside it whenever possible, and they know that they are good enough to cope with all language situations. Students with high levels of those traits speak as long as they know that the presented point of view reflects their thoughts, therefore they prefer working with active strategies like brainstorming or discussion. Some of them overestimate themselves in trying to imitate native speakers. They are interested in other cultures, especially in English-speaking countries, so they practise writing on social media sites corresponding with native users of English. Also, they like to surprise teachers with sophisticated vocabulary in their writing pieces. They like reading a lot and reading English materials from different sources because, as they claim, reading broadens their vocabulary and improves their grammar structures. Students with high levels of those traits like listening to everything that is in English, from lessons with listening exercises, to watching movies. Students with a moderate level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, as was mentioned by presenting the results of the Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance Scales, who are close to high or low terciles of the traits often behave like students from those groups. The traits influence students thinking in general, but also in the way in how they assess themselves. The results of final grades and selfassessment are close to each other; therefore, it means that participants with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance assess their skills similar to their teachers. The medium level of both traits allows the learners to see their strengths and weaknesses more critically, therefore, it contributes to further work and improvement of their language skills. Students with a medium level of openness and ambiguity tolerance show more curiosity in the lesson’s activities, furthermore, they are more involved in group work. They declare their interest in learning English and understand the necessity of communicating fluently in this language. The moderate level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance indicates positive thinking about their speaking abilities. They often talk, but they do not force teachers to allow them to give answers on the discussed topic. This group is more patient, and does not comment on other student’s speaking nor do they assess them. They also accept the teachers’ remarks, they do not quarrel with them, sometimes even ask more questions about what and how to improve. Openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance help them to have less anxiety to perform in class, and they do not avoid various possibilities to use English. The moderate level of ambiguity tolerance guarantees that they honestly assess their fluency of English on a real level, because

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels …

143

the highest level of ambiguity tolerance often means that students overestimate their skills. Related to the existing scientific literature (El-Koumy, 2003; Erten & Topkaya, 2009), it is possible to claim that a moderate level of ambiguity tolerance positively influences the foreign language learning process. In this research, the moderate group of students shows that they are patient enough to cooperate with other classmates, and do not comment openly on other student’s mistakes. In the interview, a representative of this group (Piotr, Sect. 5.4.3), says that everyone should have the opportunity to present his/her opinion, even if, he/she needs more time and makes mistakes. The group with medium levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, as with the group with high traits think that writing skills are very important. When they have to write an essay or other writing tasks, they never leave these tasks without an answer. Students from the medium group know that writing is equally needed as other language skills. They declare that they work on writing a lot, but their work looks different than in the first group. This group prefers tasks which the teachers give whether at school or as homework, they do not talk as much about friends from foreign countries. They are afraid that some situations while exchanging messages can be too difficult, and they may not be up to the task. They try to follow instructions of the given exercises and pay more attention to the length of the texts. They write the required number of words, no longer or shorter but if they have a problem with the topic, then they write as much as they can. The medium group likes to analyse the model samples, it gives them the knowledge on how something should be written and in what order, they also appreciate the phrases that are presented inside them. They practise writing skills by taking notes during lessons, as well as at home in English. The group does not complain about doing exercises in workbooks, because there they learn the grammar structures better. The group with medium openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance also thinks that they do not have problems with reading. They are pleased having the opportunity first to listen to a text and then reading it. In this way, they practise the correct pronunciation. Reading, as they emphasise, gives them the possibility to learn a lot of new things. Participants of this group prefer rather to read shorter forms in English, they think that books in English are too complicated for them, but with time, when they make further progress then, they will try. They do not avoid playing on-line games with English speaking players. Students in this group notice that the reading pace often depends on readers’ individual features too. Some of them like doing everything very fast, so they also read fast, but some individuals, in all life situations react slower, so with reading, there is no difference. Their openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on a medium level allow them to try reading unknown words, and not to feel fear that somebody will assess them. These features have a positive impact because their personalities admit their mistakes and further, want to improve them. Students with medium openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance like listening exercises, but they do not understand everything in the recordings. In their opinion, a lot of people are talking too fast or are not clear enough for them. They hear the differences among people using English from different parts of the world. They prefer typical British English, even over American English because the Americans

144

6 Discussion

speak too fast and, as they say, “often swallow parts of the words”. They suggest that it is better for them to listen to speakers when they are face to face because they can ask the speaker to repeat or say something using different words. It is important to see someone’s face, as it expresses emotions, and the statement is often at various speeds. During listening exercises, the speakers talk fast, and the listeners do not feel the same emotions as they do when they see the speakers face. Participants of the second group with a moderate level of those traits say that they know their strengths and weaknesses (Piotrek, Sect. 5.4.3), and they cope well with some listening tasks which motivate them for learning and taking part in the class discussion about the heard passage. However, when they have problems with understanding, they often lose their motivation, furthermore, they stop participating in the classes. Students with a moderate level of openness and ambiguity tolerance emphasise that they mostly understand the main topic of the task, but the more detailed information causes problems. They have a wider range of vocabulary in the areas that they are interested in, because they read about them on the internet and in this way, develop their vocabulary. They do not participate in areas which they find boring and uninteresting. To sum up, students with medium levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance positively assess their four language skills, which corresponds to teachers’ assessments. They are patient and allow others to speak, moreover, they accept teachers’ remarks and work to improve their weaknesses. They can cooperate with classmates during lessons and do not comment on others’ mistakes. Students with those traits can work with active strategies, but also with more traditional methods as well. They never leave something unanswered even though the topic is difficult, also they follow the instructions given in the tasks. They have no problems with reading but are aware that they sometimes make mistakes. They like first listening to a text and then, practising alone but they often complain about the pace of speaking in many situations. Students with medium levels of openness and ambiguity prefer speaking/listening face to face because they can always ask the speaker to speak slower. They think that speakers’ emotions are helpful in understanding statements. They often learn more words in areas which they are interested in, therefore, they understand more from some listening exercises. The last group of students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance create a very characteristic profile that is easy to recognise among English learners, because these students give themselves lower grades than the teachers who assess them, and they do not believe in their abilities. Learners from this group flee from opportunities to use English, they are so afraid that they do not try to speak English, all of which limits their development. Students from this group contrary to groups with high and moderate levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance avoid situations where they have to use English, they prefer contact only with native Polish speakers. Students with these low traits do not like speaking, they often prefer to practise other language skills like listening or reading. When they are asked what can help them to develop their speaking skills, they mostly answer that they do not know, sometimes they say that practising some dialogues in their books help them. They emphasise that they prefer when their material includes some examples of conversations about the presented topic, and they can practise them

6.3 The Profiles of Foreign Language Learners with Different Levels …

145

during lessons or at home to learn them by heart. Students with low openness and ambiguity tolerance hesitate to make sure they use the correct words and whether their pronunciation is good. Learners with a low openness to experience, in contrast to students with a high level of openness to experience do not like spending time with unknown people and listening to their stories. For them, to be in a new surrounding is connected with stress and anxiety. When language learners are more open, they often concentrate on the speakers and then try to answer doing their best that the words are pronounced similar to the words heard. Low openness and ambiguity cause shyness, because the learners think that the other users of English are much better. They answer in a classroom when they are asked with short, simple sentences, however if it possible, they tend to respond in the form of a single word or phrase. A low level of ambiguity tolerance influences the speakers’ behaviour, too. They try to avoid new situations by any means, feeling more comfortable knowing what happens next. For them, it is difficult to accept the different meaning of a lexical item, and they often use the word only in specific situations (Ely, 1995). Learners with a low level of ambiguity tolerance show intolerance to their difficulties to communicate their ideas. In this research, this group claims that it is better to say nothing than something that is not their real point of view. They do not understand the excitement in a classroom when working with active techniques like brainstorming or discussions, for them, it is the least desirable way of working. This aspect is related to their disbelief in their language abilities. They know that students in their language group who have a high level of openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance will impose their opinions on students with low levels of these traits. Participants from the low group state that they do not know enough words and during conversations they are concentrating strongly on the grammar forms, pronunciation or if they used the correct word (Marcel, Sect. 5.4.3). The group with the lowest levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance does not believe in their abilities in writing, as with other skills they do not know how to present their opinions when they do not have sufficient vocabulary. They often leave blank places when they have to describe something. They claim that they do not even start writing exercises because such tasks are too difficult for them. When they are asked how they can develop their skills they often answer, “I don’t know”, or “I don’t like writing, so I don’t write”. When they have to say more, then it is “I write” and they cannot further develop their reply. As such, low levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance cause low confidence in their capabilities. They usually write less than is required in the instructions. As Paramartha (2016) suggests, it is possible to help students with low levels of these traits by showing them how to assess their own writing and then, with small steps to point the way to improve their weaknesses. It is hard to engage them to write but when they are motivated and have goals then, their attitude will very slowly change. At the beginning, students do not follow the given criteria, they are not interested if their text contains anything from the checklist. When they are asked if they know how to write, they often reluctantly ask for more explanation. Writing is a creative process, which requires self-belief in his/her own competency. People who are low in openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance belong to a group of individuals who prefer reproductive work. It

146

6 Discussion

is known that a low level of these traits has an influence on creativity and, in their research, Zenasni et al. (2008) present the correlation between ambiguity tolerance and creativity. The higher the level of ambiguity tolerance, the more creative students are. The group of participants with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance say that they can read but they do not like reading. They claim that reading is boring, further, they know that they make a lot of mistakes. They suggest that speaking is more important, and texts have so many words that are not necessary. When they are asked about practising reading, they say that they seldom read, and they are not interested in it. Students with low levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance do not like reading during classes, they are afraid of making mistakes and that they will be laughed at. They have difficulties with correct pronunciation, which is probably caused by the low level of openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1985b) and ambiguity tolerance which they have. People with a higher level of these traits are not as conservative and they try not to worry about what other people think. The low-level group does not believe in their own abilities, which is often the consequence of the low level of fluency in English. When students from this group are asked how they can improve their reading skills, they mostly say “I don’t know”, “I didn’t think about it”. If they have difficulties with reading, then they also tend to have difficulties with the other skills. Students from the group with a low level of openness and ambiguity tolerance say that they have problems with understanding, they think that they know what the listening is about, but when they are asked questions, they cannot give answers. They like listening to English songs, but they do not pay attention to what the songs are about. They understand some words, rarely do they try to find new words in dictionaries, unless they really like the song. They do not believe in their abilities because they usually make a lot of mistakes. Problems with understanding are related to their loss of motivation. They sometimes hear from other students, probably very good students with higher levels of these personality traits, that it is not possible to make a mistake in some places because it is so easy to understand. Then, they feel fear at being laughed at. Students with low openness and ambiguity tolerance think that it is good when teachers explain new vocabulary or phrases before the listening exercise, such piece of advice is very important for them. All in all, students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance always feel fear and anxiety especially before speaking and reading. They do not like speaking, they prefer working on other language skills, however, they have low confidence in their own skills. Those students assess their speaking skills lower than their teachers do. They do not know how they can work to improve their language skills. Students with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance do not like to imitate the pronunciation of the native speakers, and they think that it is better to say nothing than something that it is not their point of view. They often complain about their lack of vocabulary, therefore, they do not know enough vocabulary to write and write the minimum number of words (if at all). They dislike reading and seldom practise it and they have problems with correct pronunciation. Those students admit that they have problems with listening skills

6.4 Limitations of the Study

147

and do not believe in their abilities, but they like listening to English songs, although do not try to understand them fully. To sum up, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have a positive impact on foreign language acquisition operationalized in the research hypothesis that higher levels of the personality traits openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance are related to a higher level of self-assessment and grades. Self-assessment makes the person aware of what they are good at and what they have to work on. If the participants assess themselves according to their skills, then they know what they need to do and, which skills to improve. Higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance increase self-assessment which motivates them to have better grades and achieve fluency in English. Negative self-assessment, as in many cases with an acceptable grade, causes lack of belief in their own capabilities, which also reduces the motivation to learn. This research indicates that students with higher openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are students who achieve good or very good grades. Thanks to their knowledge of the language, they know their strengths and weaknesses and can concentrate on them. This research points out that higher openness to experience, and ambiguity tolerance is related to higher self-assessment, which is very important in foreign language acquisition. Openness to experience allows students to accept meaningful comments given by their teachers or other users of the language with whom the learners are surrounded with. Ambiguity tolerance contributes to the will to practise, because learners are less stressed when making mistakes and thanks to that, they make progress. An individual, noticing that his/her language abilities are improving, also self-assess themselves higher. Higher openness and ambiguity tolerance, as is presented in all language skills, speaking, writing, reading, and listening—positively influence students’ language acquisition, and their belief in themselves. Low levels of these traits cause a lack of motivation, and a disbelief in their own possibilities; therefore, students should be taught from the beginning of their educational journey to manage with ambiguity in foreign language learning and raise their self-assessment. However, students with medium levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance sometimes need their teachers’ attention to point them in the direction of development, but they do not ask their teachers for help. If they know that their efforts develop their language skills, then they will try their best to achieve success in language proficiency.

6.4 Limitations of the Study The study described in the present book aimed at investigating the relationship between the personality traits openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance and forms of assessment, self-assessment, and final grades. The research design, including the participants, procedures, instrumentation, and types of analyses, was selected, and implemented with due diligence. The researcher paid attention to ensuring the reliability and validity of the research through diverse sources of data

148

6 Discussion

and a multifaceted interpretation of the results. Even though, having taken all the above measures into consideration, the researcher is aware of the limitations of her research. First of all, the number of participants in the research study could have been bigger in order to provide even more comprehensive and reliable data. In essence, the larger the sample the better in order to draw more stable conclusions and generalizations. Aside from that, in this research, participants were from towns of up to 45,000 thousand inhabitants and the villages surrounding them. There were not many participants who came from big cities or prestigious higher secondary schools where the most talented students from the district attended. The participants of the research were represented by students of secondary grammar schools (three-fifths) and two-fifths were from technical schools, but there were no students from vocational schools. As the research of W˛edzi´nska (2020) shows, students’ approach to important values of life is different in grammar, technical and vocational schools. Therefore, a group of participants from a vocational school would have complemented the research group because then, the population would be represented by all types of schools and provided more information about the distribution of the personality traits and foreign language attainment. Secondly, the students came from various types of schools where they were taught by different teachers, and it is known that teachers’ attitude to students, and their problems with some of the students’ behaviour play a very important role in the educational process. Next, the atmosphere during English lessons is important in foreign language acquisition, and it can have an impact on students’ approaches to learning English (Pulatova, 2018). A friendly atmosphere increases the willingness to learn but an unfriendly one can discourage students, and as a result, they do not always state their honest opinion about their attitude to the foreign language. The possible limitation in this research could have been that the students were not truthful, they could feel fear that their teachers would see their questionnaires despite the claims of the researcher that she was the only person who had access to them. Confidentiality was asserted, but there was a risk that part of the students would try to make a positive impression on the researcher and provide the answers that would put them in a positive light and sustain their positive selfimage. Another possible limitation was the fact that some students were taught how to self-assess their abilities. Also, as was presented in this research, students with lower levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance usually assessed their language skills even lower than when they were assessed by their teachers and with a high level of ambiguity tolerance, they did it in an opposite way. Next, the questionnaire contained some items about self-assessment and the various ways of learning which might be misinterpreted because not all students were acquainted with the characteristic terms. Further, some items were supplemented with a qualitative approach to gather in-depth information, but there were participants who responded with very general terms without providing additional information.

References

149

6.5 Conclusion This chapter was devoted to the discussion of the results obtained in the empirical research, which was presented in Chap. 5. It showed the verification of the research hypothesis, according to which, Students with higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance declare a higher foreign language assessment— operationalized as self-assessment and final grades—than students with a lower level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The discussion showed that openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are related to students’ selfassessment and final school grades in reference to the study results, as well as research carried out worldwide. Students with a higher level of these traits achieve very good or good grades, moreover, they highly assess their four language skills, speaking, reading, listening, and writing. The higher levels of these personality traits lower their anxiety and increase creativity to solve ambiguous language situations. Students with a medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance manage well with foreign language learning, as well. They more critically assess their skills, in contrast to their teachers. Furthermore, the level of anxiety allows them to react and solve the problems they encounter over the course of their studies. Students with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance achieve poor final grades and they have a low level of self-assessment. They feel anxiety while learning a language, also they do not believe in their language skills. At the end, some limitations of the research were presented. The concluding Chap. 7 addresses the most important findings of this study. It outlines the profiles of foreign language learners with a high, medium, and low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and the grades with selfassessment corresponding to them. Additionally, several pedagogic suggestions are presented as relates to the results of the outcomes of the study. The set of implications will be useful for language teachers or even language learners who want to achieve success in language teaching and language learning. Therefore, also students should possess knowledge about their own type of personality since their personal features determine the choice of short- and long-term goals.

References Alibakhshi, G., & Sharakipour, H. (2014). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’ receptive skills. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 39(1), 10. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577544 Babaei, A., Maktabi, G., Behrozi, N., & Atashafroz, A. (2016). The impact of successful intelligence on students’ critical thinking and tolerance of ambiguity. Fundamentals of Mental Health, 18, 379–386. Basak, H. (2019). Self-assessment of students’ speaking skills. Middle East Technical University. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12623025/index.pdf

150

6 Discussion

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728 Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209346370 Chapple, 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 at Urbana-Champaign. Dewaele, J. -M., & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt. 2013.3.1.3 Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2008). Self-assessment of pronunciation. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 506–516. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.system.2008.03.003 Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452243436 El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2003). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.236 5143 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University. Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Heinle & Heinle. Erten, ˙IH., & Topkaya, E. Z. (2009). Understanding tolerance of ambiguity of EFL learners in reading classes at tertiary level. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1), 29–44. Fahimi, Z., & Rahimi, A. (2015). On the impact of self-assessment practice on writing skill. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 730–736. Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 64–69. Hsieh, P.P.-H., & Kang, H.-S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60(3), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00570.x Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Longman/Pearson Education. 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 Leger, K. A., Charles, S. T., Turiano, N. A., & Almeida, D. M. (2016). Personality and stressorrelated affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 917–928. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/pspp0000083 Liepa, D. (2011). Self-assessment criteria of integrated foreign language acquisition. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 29, 89–101. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985a). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985b). Openness to experience. In Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145–172). R. Hogan & W. H. Jones. Meyer, J., Fleckenstein, J., Retelsdorf, J., & Köller, O. (2019). The relationship of personality traits and different measures of domain-specific achievement in upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.005

References

151

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, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1027 Paramartha, A. A. G. Y. (2016). Exploring the role of self-efficacy in the implementation of selfassessment for English writing. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 5(1), 790–802. Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt224oa Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018a). Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC. System, 72, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.001 Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018b). The influence of ambiguity tolerance on willingness to communicate in L2. In M. Pawlak, & A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Challenges of second and foreign language education in a globalized world (pp. 167–184). Springer. Pierce, J., & Duran, P. (2014). Developing and evaluating self-assessment reading competence descriptors for the European Language Portfolio. Porta Linguarum, 22, 127–143. Pulatova, Z. A. (2018). Improving classroom atmosphere in English lessons. Philology, 16(4), 3. Richard, J. C. (2004). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambri dge.org/lt/cambridgeenglish/catalog/teacher-training-development-and-research Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge University Press. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3586011 Scrivener, J. (2010). Learning teaching. Macmillan. S˛ekowski, A. E., & Rud´z, M. (2011). Charakterystyka osobowo´sci i stylów poznawczych osób uzdolnionych j˛ezykowo. J˛ezyki Obce w Szkole, 1, 37–42. Stoycheva, K. (2003a). Ambiguity tolerance and creativity: Intersection points. Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2, 18–23. Stoycheva, K. (2003b). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities. In P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Talent recruitment and public uderstanding (pp. 31–43). IOS Press. Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35–54). Cambridge University Press. Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10. 1111/0026-7902.00053 W˛edzi´nska, M. (2020). Preferencje warto´sci uczniów szkół ponadgimnazjalnych—Próba charakterystyki. Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego Płockiego, 12, 347–374. Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Tolerance for ambiguity and creativity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Chapter 7

Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations for the Foreign Language Classroom

7.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to outline the key findings of the study that focus on examining the effect of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on foreign language attainment. The aim is also to suggest the directions of further research in the area of the study of personality traits, in order to better understand their impact on students’ self-assessment and school grades. The final part offers several recommendations for teachers, focusing on the more effective teaching of students with various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance.

7.2 Summary of Findings As many applied linguists (e.g., Dewaele, 2012; Ellis, 2008; Griffiths & Soruç, 2020; Oxford, 1999) emphasise, foreign language learners’ individual differences play an important role in language acquisition. In line with the previous sentence, the main goal of the study was to identify the relationship between personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and the forms of attainment (final school grades and self-assessment) in foreign language acquisition. Both of these traits are important in language acquisition because they have an impact on curiosity about foreign language, creativity, and a willingness to become more proficient. Higher levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance always characterize good language learners (Oxford, 1992), because both of these personal traits have many common features (Jach & Smillie, 2019), as ambiguity tolerance completes openness to experience in its effects. Students with high openness and ambiguity tolerance enjoy intellectual creativity, which allows them to create innovative language learning ways, and social interactions that are invaluable in foreign language learning (McCrae & Costa, 1985). The second trait, ambiguity tolerance, helps to deal with © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5_7

153

154

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

ambiguous situations in foreign language acquisition (Ellis, 2008; Rubin, 1975), influencing the learners’ level of anxiety, motivation and self-assessment. A higher level of ambiguity tolerance reduces the level of anxiety and raises the level of selfassessment (Dewaele & Ip, 2013). Just as with openness to experience, ambiguity tolerance contributes to a higher motivation to learn a foreign language, high levels of the two traits are likely to produce proficient language learners. Ambiguity tolerance is a motivational aspect of openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1997), therefore, individuals with a high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are perceived as ones with the highest motivation for learning a foreign language. Motivation by learners is often expressed as a desire to learn another language to communicate with native and non-native English-speaking people around the world and to better understand various cultures (Quan, 2014). Next, open and ambiguity tolerant people present non-traditional attitudes, not only in life situations but also in different language learning situations during lessons (Zenasni et al., 2008). Then, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance as traits help to reduce the level of anxiety (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a, 2018b), which has a negative impact on all language skills but especially on the willingness to communicate. Although, there have been studies researching the links between the level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance on foreign language attainment independently from each other (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; Ely, 1989; Kamran, 2011; McCrae, 1994; PiechurskaKuciel, 2018a, 2018b), to the researcher’s knowledge, no existing study has focused on the relationship between the student’s personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and their link to foreign language learning effects, such as forms of assessment (self-assessment and grades). The results of the diagnostic study carried out for the purpose of the book show that personality traits such as openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance can be regarded as being among the most influential factors in second/foreign language acquisition. The individual combination of a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance contributes to foreign language success in improving fluency in the foreign language. This research allows for the researcher to profile students with varying levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The available scientific knowledge, combined with findings from this research, allows the researcher to also present the impact of the personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance performed on a high, medium and low level of foreign language acquisition. A high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance provide an accommodating attitude to new things (Ross et al., 2009) and a source of innovative ideas during the educational process (Zenasni et al., 2008). Students’ openness and creativity are seen during lessons through their activity, which means that they participate in them carrying out the teachers’ instructions, and moreover, they are innovative (Diseth, 2003). Students participate in a class by asking questions, giving their opinion during discussions, focusing their attention on the teacher, or taking notes. This research proves that students prefer more demanding ways of learning like brainstorming, projects or group work. Such activities confirm their creativity, openness to new challenges or an ability to cope with ambiguous learning situations. They

7.2 Summary of Findings

155

achieve very good or good school grades, furthermore, they are the most ambitious in class, and are able to fight for their grades. They always want to answer teachers’ questions during English lessons, do their homework or try to get very good grades from tests. If the grades do not satisfy them, they always ask their teacher to enable them to retake tests. Students with a high level of openness and ambiguity tolerance claim that foreign language teachers, on the one hand, appreciate them, because they are creative, motivated to learn and have positive attitude for the language. However, on the other hand, the students irritate their teachers because they say what they really think about lessons or other things connected with the educational process. For open learners, the most important thing is relevance of the gained knowledge, how and where they can use it. This is the typical behaviour for students with a high level of openness, who openly talk about their feelings and attitudes (McCrae & Costa, 1997), and ambiguity tolerance allows them not to feel fear of the unknown, so they are brave enough to explain their point of view (Felson, 1981). Such behaviour is also characteristic for people with high self-assessment, believing in their language abilities and, not being afraid of stating their opinion (Blanche, 1988). Students with high levels of those traits appreciate all the language skills but they suggest that speaking is the most important one because it gives them the freedom to communicate with the world, so they use English wherever they can (Eisenberg & Lee, 2020). They try to imitate native speakers (McCrae & Costa, 1985), furthermore, they are not afraid that someone will start making fun of them while listening to their efforts. Writing is the next skill which they value, because they know that sophisticated vocabulary and respect for the principles contained in all writing forms show how good they are. Students with a high openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance realise that fluency of the foreign language allows them to broaden their knowledge in the area of their interests thanks to the various sources available in English. They find reading and listening the easiest skills because they are not afraid of asking for help if they do not understand each word. The high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance is reflected in higher self-assessment and school grades, which is also confirmed in this study. In general, those personality traits, along with high self-assessment result in students becoming good language learners and doing everything to improve their skills to the highest level (Fatima et al., 2020). A medium level openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance is characteristic for students who are both very creative, curious and adventurous but who also prefer routines. Their interests during English lessons depend on the topic they work on. A medium openness to experience is connected with an ability to find a balance between ideas and practicality (Shi et al., 2016). This corresponds to a medium level of ambiguity tolerance when students more prudently solve ambiguous language situations (Ba¸söz, 2015). The interaction of both these traits contributes to students’ reliance on the tried-and true ways but also allow them to use their creativity to find new opportunities for their development. A medium level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance is likely to reduce a student’s level of anxiety, as it allows students to cope well with all language skills (Dewaele & Ip, 2013). Teachers are able to distinguish them easily from the first group because they do not demand the teachers’ attention constantly, as compared to the first group. This group of

156

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

students self-assess themselves based on the same final grades that they achieve from their teachers. They are more teacher-dependent because they sometimes need to be guided during demanding tasks or want a confirmation that they are managing well (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998). They more often control their emotions in comparison to the group with high levels of the traits. One of the most important features of individuals with medium levels of those personal traits is the ability to cooperate with other students in the class, therefore they can work using active and traditional techniques with their classmates (Eisenberg & Lee, 2020). Turning to their speaking skills, they are quite good, are able to lead conversations with other speakers, but they are patient enough to allow others to speak (Carver et al., 2006). The next skill, writing, is not difficult for them, they practise it by writing notes or doing exercises. However, they follow instructions and never exceed the limits of words, however, sometimes they have problems with the appropriate vocabulary. As to the other skills, students with medium levels do not have difficulties with reading but they realise that they make mistakes and have problems with intonation, therefore they may prefer first listening to a text and then, practise the reading, but the text should not be too long. The listening skill causes them the biggest difficulties because of the pace of speech. They notice differences among various users of English, in contrast with students with high openness and ambiguity tolerance they do not complain about, e.g., the quality of the recording but confirm that they do not know the words, or their language proficiency is not sufficient (Brown, 2000). Students belonging to this group have problems with motivation when they do not have enough new stimuli which peak their interests (Nekljudova, 2019). Individuals with a low level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, unlike the other language learners are quiet and try to be invisible in a class by keeping their heads down, often sitting in the back rows. Such students achieve the lowest grades in a class and do not believe in their language abilities. Low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance cause these foreign language learners to be closed and suspicious of the surrounding world (Kato, 2009; Sharp, 2009), therefore, they do not participate in social interactions. Also, those personality traits on low levels relate to a high level of anxiety (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2018a, 2018b) that students feel during English classes. Such students prefer conventional techniques of learning and step-by-step plans for the lessons. Positive reinforcement can help them to raise their self-assessment, which supports their language improvement. During lessons, they need a lot of attention, they should be informed what will happen next to lower their level of anxiety, as well as to enhance their positive attitude to English. They lose their motivation for learning because of low grades (Chamberlin et al., 2018). They claim that the foreign language is not necessary, and so, they do not need to learn; furthermore, it is the best way to avoid the feeling of danger which accompanies the language learning process. Speaking is the worst skill to learn, and the learners feel a high level of anxiety before speaking, they rather remain silent rather than saying something that might be wrong. This skill is unpredictable because the interlocutors do not know in which direction a conversation is developing, therefore, it poses a danger for them. Those learners avoid active techniques like brainstorming or discussion because they know that their weak points are lack of vocabulary and

7.3 Implications for Further Research

157

grammar structures. Writing, as a difficult skill, is mostly avoided by them, or they write the required minimum number of words in various tasks. Reading is the easiest skill to learn but they do not like practising it and they have problems with correct pronunciation (McCrae & Costa, 1985), as it is probably caused by a low level of openness to experience which is responsible for careful listening and then, the ability to repeat the heard words. Listening, as the last skill, is also difficult for those students (Fayyaz & Kamal, 2011). They understand only a portion of the listening part, and low self-assessment contributes to their negative attitude to it. They emphasise that their English is so poor that it is not worth concentrating and trying to understand. During tests or exams, they often select random answers. To sum up, students with a low level of openness and ambiguity tolerance love rules and predictability while learning a foreign language. The varying levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance are connected with different management styles and the effects of the learning process. Those traits influence not only the learners’ fluency of language skills, speaking, writing, reading, but also the students’ preferences for choosing the best ways of acquiring a foreign language. This research shows the links between openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, and the forms of attainment (self-assessment and school grades). To the knowledge of the researcher, such relationships have not been studied yet. Thanks to the findings and existing knowledge about openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, the profiles of students with various levels of those traits are presented. It is noteworthy that most research studies concentrate on high or low levels of personality traits, but this research also presents the results of the medium levels; a third of students with medium levels in a class who need a teacher’s attention to achieve success in foreign language acquisition as well, is something every teacher should consider.

7.3 Implications for Further Research This research was based on three different sources of data—questionnaires, interviews, and school records, and lasted a year. It was conducted among students who lived in towns of up to 40,000 inhabitants and small villages. Therefore, one of the aspects that needs to be researched is whether the place of residence has an impact on language acquisition. Where do students live with a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, in cities or villages? Maybe this is the reason why students in bigger cities have better, higher grades. The studies carried out so far (e.g., Zenasni et al., 2008; Stoycheva, 2003) did not consider the distribution of personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance between foreign language learners and their place of living. To the knowledge of the researcher, no one has been interested in the relationship among the place of residence, personality traits and language achievements. In this research, students from grammar and technical schools took part, and their results were analysed altogether. It is worth considering each group of students separately, because they vary in a lot of things. Students

158

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

attending grammar schools plan to go study at universities, they like learning and appreciate various values in life much more (W˛edzi´nska, 2020). Students attending technical schools often think about finishing their education after the final exams and start working in their professions. They do not like spending too much time learning. A lot of students from technical schools prefer going to such a type of school because they know that after they finish, they have a job. Most of them do not believe that they can achieve very good or good results on their A-level examinations which allow them to go to university. With this in mind, research should be proposed to see whether students in the two types of schools show a different distribution of personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The results of such research can be helpful to check if openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance have an impact on students’ decisions on the type of school they attend. In this research, the number of female students was bigger than male students because more female students were attending grammar schools than technical ones. Costa et al. (2001) suggest that young women are more open to experience in the facets of Aesthetics and Feelings than men, therefore it can be studied if this is the reason why they more often choose grammar schools. Grammar schools especially develop general knowledge in chosen subjects and try to broaden students’ horizons through showing them rather unknown and ambiguous situations. Interest in one’s surroundings, openness to other cultures and managing with something new are the characteristic features of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. This research shows the results of school grades and self-assessment for grammar and technical schools together, but it is worth studying them separately to see which group achieves a higher level of language fluency. Also, some research can be conducted to study students’ self-assessment in both these types of school, if it is as strongly related to students’ school grades as it is in this one. Some researchers (Kocaman & Kocaman, 2015; Sung & Padilla, 1998; Zhou, 2020) underline the importance of their surroundings, how parents, close relatives or friends can encourage students to learn foreign languages. It is worth knowing if they suggest more open reactions to ambiguous situations, or they persuade students to adopt a conservative stance by stopping their development of creativity and interest in other cultures. There are several implications for possible future research design and the instruments that can be used. When it comes to the design, two big group comparisons of students can be taken from grammar and technical schools. It is also possible to add a third group of students from vocational schools, but then, the research to carry out will be much more complicated and demanding. Next, quantitative and qualitative methods should be performed to see the distribution of personality traits and how they correspond to students’ achievements in the studied types of school. It is also worth considering a longitudinal research project to track participants throughout the length of their secondary school education and see the development and achievements of individuals in foreign language acquisition with various levels of openness and ambiguity tolerance. Such research could provide unique insights into foreign language acquisition, the elements of which curb the process and how the personality traits affect it; moreover, it could also identify trends and relationships that could be significant. During the longitudinal research, it would be valuable to design

7.3 Implications for Further Research

159

a cross-sectional measurement to investigate the differences among participants that vary by a level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. The data can be collected from selected individuals at a single point of time. Also, future researchers should consider language proficiency measurements. At the beginning, with language diagnostic tests, the level of language proficiency should be established and then, with cross-sectional measurements, the changes in language improvements can be observed. The cross-sectional measurements of language proficiency and changes in personality traits will show whether there is a significant link between them. Further, during a longitudinal study more attention can be paid to the impact of students’ backgrounds, how it contributes to the attitude for learning foreign languages, and if it translates into the various forms of assessment and motivation. All these answers to the asked questions, observations, and data from longitudinal research can explain a little more about the complex process of foreign language acquisition. Next, educational practitioners should think about an action research project that may adapt the results of this research in order to improve their pedagogy skills. Actionable research offers a critical reflection as to what can be done to develop an educator’s abilities, and consequently, enhance students’ engagement in foreign language learning. Further, it will produce knowledge useful in a classroom to increase students’ willingness to learn a new language. After leading an actionable research project, useful tips can be assigned to students with a respective level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Further, it is possible to try an experiment with a specific treatment in some class groupings for example, using more predictability of tasks and objectives versus less predictability or more independence versus less independence. In chosen groups with more predictability, teachers may explain all the steps of their activities with the objectives during lessons, and students will know what happens next. In groups with less predictability, teachers will not explain the objectives of the lessons or their activities, these groups of students will be surprised with various tasks all the time. Such teachers’ behaviour will have an impact on all students with various levels of the researched personality traits. It will provide the answer to the question of: if with time students with low levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance can become accustomed to unpredictability and feel less anxiety. Also, will students with high openness and ambiguity tolerance feel the excitement connected with the unknown all the time? The second suggestion of a class experiment will check students’ reactions and results related to their levels of independence. Teachers should choose participants and divide them into two groups. The first one will be more independent in choosing their favourite way of learning a foreign language, and the students can work at their own pace. Independence means taking full responsibility for the process and deciding what they want to learn. In the second dependent group, teachers will control all steps the students take, and decide about everything connected with the educational process. The results of such research could explain much about the unknown in foreign language acquisition. Findings of this research would allow researchers to continue many studies to shed more light on the importance of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance in foreign language learning.

160

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

7.4 Recommendations for the Foreign Language Classroom Since the research revealed several interesting findings, some pedagogical recommendations can be introduced. As was shown, students in a class are varied, there are individuals from the low to high level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance and related to those aspects, the level of self-assessment and grades. All the collected data helped to divide the students into groups and present their profiles. The knowledge about the profiles can be useful to the language teachers because they learn more about students’ attitudes and are able to explain their behaviour. A low level of openness to experience often correlates with bad grades, is also responsible for students’ conservative nature and what this entails is their bounding to traditional techniques of learning. Knowing this, teachers can start working with their students to show them that modern teaching and learning techniques are more pleasant, and they contribute to higher language fluency. They can try to develop openness in closed-minded students through using more media in a classroom, like newspaper clippings, films, or online programs (Yang & Chen, 2007). All the materials can present opposite points of view and familiarize the students with different cultures and encourage foreign language acquisition. Using media not only raises emotions, and as is known, they play an important role in learning, but also intellectual curiosity (Moskowitz, 1999). Open-minded students need personally relevant information because they focus on everything that is important and useful for them. Next, teachers can use interactive white boards containing interactive textbooks with videos, audio or hyperlinks to culture websites which expand their knowledge about English-speaking countries. The use of interactive white boards can increase communicative competence in a foreign language (Wang & Aziz, 2019), for example, by exchanging comments while doing exercises. A high level of openness to experience means curiosity, interest in what can happen next, and open-mindedness; moreover, students with higher openness have good or very good grades and feel less anxious before unknown language situations. Knowing this, teachers can suggest new techniques, or use various unexpected turns to raise students’ interests. They can create an authentic learning experience through helping students experience things virtually. For example, they can display scenes from various places through a video and students have the opportunity to go there, and then, on the basis of the visits, discuss the topics. Knowledge about personality traits is likely to cause a more friendly approach to students depending on their needs. Teachers will change their opinions about students, because nowadays, teachers may often think that students do not cooperate with them, they do not know about the personality traits which influence their behaviour and the entire educational process. After some time, teachers will be able to observe if their efforts bring results, and their students’ language fluency is improving. What is more, they can probably notice a greater involvement in the educational process and less anxiety. Additionally, the term ‘ambiguity tolerance’ is unknown for some teachers and they do not know how the level of the trait influences the learning process, therefore, it is worthwhile to familiarize them with it, as this

7.4 Recommendations for the Foreign Language Classroom

161

can help their students cope with ambiguous situations. Teachers have the responsibility to lower inhibitions in their students and to build their self-confidence with no assessment against them for making the smallest of mistakes. Also, they can create a judgement-free zone where stress will be lower. Teachers make a judgement-free zone in a corner of the class and students can present a speech about topics given as their homework. As is known, it is possible to increase students’ level of ambiguity tolerance, therefore, teachers should be acquainted with some knowledge how they can work with their learners to raise their level of this trait. It is worth checking if their efforts will have an impact on students’ attitudes, self-assessments and their level of foreign language acquisition. If students do not participate in lessons, it does not always mean that they are not interested in them, but often that they feel anxious, and their self-assessment is low, then, teachers should be aware of the existence of the phenomenon. First of all, at the beginning when a teacher gets a new class, he/she should create a friendly classroom atmosphere, it will especially help students who have a low level of ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience. They need time to be convinced that they do not have to feel fear and will not be criticised by the teacher or other students. According to Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014), students show their anxiety through their physical, emotional, linguistic or social behaviours, which is why teachers should know which personality traits are responsible for students’ various reactions and help them to overcome their fears. The cooperation between teachers and students is important because both sides need feedback. Students need to know how they can improve their English, what they have to work on, and teachers should acquire some information on how their students like learning a foreign language, and what strategies they prefer. In this research, students with various levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance explained the importance of their teachers in their educational process, they emphasized that teachers should support them by showing the best way to attain language proficiency. Moreover, teachers have to make English classes authentic by choosing diverse activities where, for example, students have to work on a project in teams, but each team should contain students with different personality traits to broaden their mindsets, show that everyone is different, and that they can learn from each other. As is mentioned above, not many teachers know a lot about ambiguity tolerance and openness to experience and, why they both are so important. It is important and necessary to teach them how to distinguish students’ levels of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance. Workshops, courses or webinars should be organized where teachers can learn more about the different types of personality and how to work with them. That is why the strong influence of ambiguity tolerance on foreign language learning must be explained to teachers, and they should remember these preferences while planning a lesson, and how they can help their students overcome psychological barriers. Further, everyone makes mistakes, so teachers have to show patience and not discourage students with correcting them all the time. This can lead to a higher level of anxiety, and some students will not even try to improve their language skills. As is presented in the students’ profiles, each group prefers different learning strategies; knowing this, learners should have the possibilities to work with their

162

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

favourite ones. Teachers’ approaches to each student, remembering his/her levels of personality traits will increase his/her self-assessment, attitude, and fluency in the foreign language. Additionally, during the educational process, teachers ought to formulate students’ assessments in various forms, as it is important to give them feedback which informs them about their strengths and weaknesses. It is not easy for most teachers to give students proper feedback due to different reasons, such as the number of students in a group or difficulties with formulating clear information or judging their work. However, clear and honest assessment with some tips for further work will contribute to achieving better results in foreign language acquisition. A clear and honest assessment means giving concise criteria of what and how students are assessed. Finally, this work’s research findings revealed that students, depending on the extent of the level of their personality traits, openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, have a different level of self-assessment. However, such an assessment is a stimulating force that can help students cope with learning all the language skills— speaking, writing, reading, and listening. For this reason, it is advised that teachers should try to strengthen their students’ self-assessment skills because errors occur frequently at the early stages of learning a foreign language, thereby discouraging them. Teachers should show students their progress by encouraging and motivating them to further foreign language learning. To strengthen students’ self-assessment means to indicate what they can do well by using expressions like, “You were great at managing this task”, “Good job”, etc. When students make mistakes, teachers should use corrective feedback, for example, during short conversations with their students they use the right structures, or elicitation, giving students a signal with rising intonation to continue an utterance to encourage them that they can answer a question (Herra & Kuli´nska, 2018). Then, teachers should not increase students’ level of anxiety and lower their level of self-assessment. Also, teachers should make students think about their progress in language acquisition instructing them to ask themselves questions such as, “What was I supposed to learn?”; “Did I understand the new language patterns?”; “Can I use them?” When students see that they make progress in a foreign language, their self-assessment rises and this translates into better school grades, as well.

7.5 Conclusion Nowadays, everyone knows that it is impossible to achieve success in the professional world or communicate with other people around the world without using a fluent foreign language, especially English. Educators should do everything to equip their students with a good knowledge of a foreign language, because it broadens mindsets, as well as openness to new cultures and people. The quotation of Derek Bok (Professor at Harvard University) (n.d.) best describes a perfect language learner as someone who

References

163

must have a curiosity in exploring the unfamiliar and unexpected, an open-mindedness in entertaining opposing points of view, tolerance of the ambiguity that surrounds so many important issues and a willingness to make the best decisions he can in the face of uncertainty and doubt.

As the quotation suggests, curiosity in explaining the unfamiliar or being openminded are characteristic features of the openness to experience trait and when the ambiguity tolerance trait is added then what seems unreachable with such features is possible to achieve. Many learners at the beginning of their journey in foreign language learning know that language acquisition is a complicated process but when they are supported by a higher level of openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, it will be easier to acquire all four language skills. However, not everyone has a high level of openness and ambiguity tolerance, therefore, it is worth knowing how to work with individuals with different levels of those personality traits, which can contribute to students’ foreign language proficiency. Also, students should possess knowledge about their own type of personality since their personal features determine the choice of short and long terms goals. Finally, it is worth mentioning that apart from a personality with its openness to experience and ambiguity tolerance, many other individual differences have an impact on foreign/second language acquisition. Individual differences accompany the winding path of foreign language learning that leads to the foreign language proficiency to which everyone aspires.

References Ba¸söz, T. (2015). Exploring the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity of EFL learners and their vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 53–66. Blanche, P. (1988). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: Implications for teachers and researchers. RELC Journal, 19(1), 75–93. Bok, D. (n.d.). Derek Bok Quotes. A-Z Quotes. Retrieved 13 March 2022, from https://www.azq uotes.com/quote/701748 Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Education Company. Carver, R. H., College, S., & Ma, E. (2006). Ambiguity intolerance: An impediment to inferential reasoning? http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2006CarverASA.pdf Chamberlin, K., Yasué, M., & Chiang, I.-C. A. (2018). The impact of grades on student motivation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1469787418819728. https://doi.org/10.1177/146978741 8819728 Costa, P. T., Jr., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 42–57). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978 1137032829_4 Dewaele, J.-M., & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt. 2013.3.1.3

164

7 Summary of Findings, Implications, and Recommendations …

Diseth, Å. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.469 Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistcs (Thames Valley University), 4, 43–69. Eisenberg, S., & Lee, K. (2020). A literature review on the relationship between personal traits and language learning. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 10(6), 147–155. https:// doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2020.10.06.147 Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22(5), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02766.x Fatima, I., Ismail, S., & Memon, U. (2020). The power of openness to experience, extraversion, L2 self-confidence, classroom environment in predicting L2 willingness to communicate. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13360a Fayyaz, W., & Kamal, A. (2011). Personality traits and the metacognitive listening skills of English as a foreign language in Pakistan. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 21, 59–76. Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 64–69. Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality: From premise to practice. Multilingual Matters. Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2020). Individual differences in language learning: A complex systems theory perspective. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-529 00-0 Herra, A., & Kuli´nska, A. (2018). The role of feedback in the process of learning English as a foreign language. Forum Filologiczne Ateneum, 1(6), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.36575/23532912/1(6)2018.127 Jach, H. K., & Smillie, L. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JRP.2019.02.003 Kamran, S. K. (2011). Effect of gender on ambiguity tolerance of Iranian English language learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(11 & 12), 25–33. Kato, S. (2009). The relationship of language learning strategies and personality on English proficiency in Japanese university students. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(1). Kocaman, N., & Kocaman, O. (2015). Parents’ views regarding foreign language teaching. In pre-school institutions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 383–393. McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012 134645-4/50032-9 Moskowitz, G. (1999). Enhancing personal development: Humanistic activities at work. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 177–193). Cambridge University Press. Nekljudova, S. (2019). Six aspects of openness to experience. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 10(2), 4. Oxford, R. L. (1992). Who are our students? A synthesis of foreign and second language research on individual differences with implications for instructional practice. TESL Canada Journal, 9(2), 30–49. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Second language learning: Individual differences. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 552–560). Elsevier.

References

165

Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018a). The influence of ambiguity tolerance on willingness to communicate in L2. In M. Pawlak & A Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Challenges of second and foreign language education in a globalized world (pp. 167–184). Springer. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2018b). Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC. System, 72, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.001 Quan, Z. (2014). Motivation for a second or foreign language learning. SHS Web of Conferences, 6, 04004. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140604004 Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024 Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3586011 Sharp, A. (2009). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n11p17 Shi, B., Dai, D. Y., & Lu, Y. (2016). Openness to experience as a moderator of the relationship between intelligence and creative thinking: A study of Chinese children in urban and rural areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00641 Stoycheva, K. (2003). Ambiguity tolerance and creativity: Intersection points. Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2, 18–23. Sung, H., & Padilla, A. M. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in the learning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01193.x Wang, X., & Aziz, A. (2019). Using modern technology to improve English teaching and learning. Innovation in Language Learning International Conference. https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Using-Modern-Technology-to-Improve-English-Teaching-Wang-Aziz/3cb528e088ba 802b50554d9612a4bfff707c5ed8 W˛edzi´nska, M. (2020). Preferencje warto´sci uczniów szkół ponadgimnazjalnych—Próba charakterystyki. Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego Płockiego, 12, 347–374. Yang, S., & Chen, Y.-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.015 Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Tolerance for ambiguity and creativity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–72. Zhou, Y. (2020). The Influence of family on children’s second language learning. Major Papers., 112, 54.

Appendix A

Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerance

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5

167

168

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience …

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience …

169

170

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience …

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience …

171

172

Appendix A: Questionnaire 1—Research on Openness to Experience …

Appendix B

Questionnaire 2—Summary of the Research on Openness to Experience and Ambiguity Tolerace

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5

173

174

Appendix B: Questionnaire 2—Summary of the Research on Openness …

Appendix C

Students’ Interview

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5

175

176

Appendix C: Students’ Interview

References Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87–95). Heinle & Heinle.

Bibliography

Fitch, B. D. (2005). A test of the relationship between personality traits and test anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Science, 65(12-A). https://www.proquest.com/openview/9346c32622895b9d248f9621e6d1574e/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Safter, H. T., & Torrance, E. P. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond... Creative Education Foundation Press. Watson, J. B. (1924). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Lika, The Impact of Openness and Ambiguity Tolerance on Learning English as a Foreign Language, Second Language Learning and Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45940-5

177