SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2013, 41(5), 819-826

© Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.5.819

IMPACT OF EXTROVERSION AND INTROVERSION ON

LANGUAGE-LEARNING BEHAVIORS

M. NACI KAYAOĞLU
Karadeniz Technical University

Despite the fact that personality factors and learning strategies are of great importance in
success with language learning, the link between extroversion and introversion and language-
learning strategies has received little attention from researchers. Therefore, I investigated
whether or not there is any correlation between these personality traits and language-learning
strategies. Participants in the study were 106 extroverted and 94 introverted students.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Strategy Inventory for Second
Language Learning (SILL) were employed. The findings indicated that, with the exception
of communicative strategies, introverted learners used a greater range of metacognitive and
cognitive strategies than did extroverted learners.

Keywords: extroversion, introversion, language-learning strategies, personality factors,

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Strategy Inventory for Second Language Learning.

Although introverted and extroverted personality types have been identified

in studies as significant factors in other areas of educational and psychological
research, they have received only sporadic attention in studies of language-
learning strategies, which are very often associated with success in language
learning. Whether or not extroverts or introverts are better language learners has
been a subject of much debate. Some researchers tend to associate extroversion
with better language-learning performance (Dewaele & Furnham, 2000; Sidek,
2012), and some suggest counterevidence in favor of introverted learners (Gan,
2011).

M. Naci Kayaoğlu, Department of English Language and Literature, Karadeniz Technical University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: M. Naci Kayaoğlu, Department
of English Language and Literature, Karadeniz Technical University, Üniversite Caddesi, 61080
Trabzon, Turkey. Email: naci@ktu.edu.tr

819
820 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Ellis (1994) stated that there are two major hypotheses about the possible
relationship between the dichotomy of introversion/extroversion and language
learning. It is argued in the first hypothesis that extroverts are more successful
language learners as they are better at basic interpersonal communication
strategies. Conversely, it is claimed in the second hypothesis that introverts are
better language learners as they have developed cognitive academic ability. In
a rare study on personality types and language-learning strategies, Ehrman and
Oxford (1989) found that extroverts tended to employ more affective strategies.
Extroverts favored the use of visualization strategies whereas introverts were
keen to communicate meaning. Introverts were found to be slow to initiate, or
respond to, a conversation because they were concerned about meaning and
context.
Of the various psychological measurement inventories that researchers have
used to determine personality traits, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
has been widely used (Dörnyei, 2005; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). In addition,
the MBTI has served well as a psychometric tool to determine personality traits
of language learners in various studies (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003;
Dewaele & Furnham, 2000; Gan, 2011; Sidek, 2012).

Language-Learning Strategies and Personality Types

Learning strategies are generally deliberate, planned, and consciously
engaged behaviors, techniques, approaches, or activities undertaken by learners
to ease the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information (Chamot,
1987; Oxford, 1990). Although the definition of learning strategies varies
among researchers, there appears to be some agreement that strategies are (a)
learner-based processes, (b) approaches, actions, and techniques, (c) problem-
and goal-oriented, (d) intentional behavior, (e) conscious and unconscious
activities, (f) changeable and identifiable, (g) purposeful, (h) physical or mental,
and (i) particular tactics ( Kayaoğlu, 2011, 2012).
Various inventories of learning strategies have been developed (Bialystok,
1985; Chamot, 1987; Cohen & Macaro, 2007). Oxford (1990), building on
earlier classification schemes, has provided the most comprehensive and detailed
classification of learning strategies, and I employed it in this study. Oxford divides
language-learning strategies into two major categories, direct and indirect. Direct
strategies are subdivided into three subgroups, that is, memory, cognitive, and
compensation strategies, and indirect strategies involve metacognitive, affective,
and social strategies. Memory strategies are concerned with mental activities
designed to improve encoding and retrieval, whereas cognitive strategies refer
to the steps or operations used in learning or problem solving. Compensation
strategies are those that help learners make up for their lack of knowledge in the
target language. Metacognitive strategies refer to knowledge about cognition
 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 821
and regulation of cognition. Affective strategies involve the management of
affection and emotions, and social strategies are concerned with interaction with
other people.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The quantitative research tradition was used as the basis in this study, because I
was concerned with the comparison between introverted and extroverted learners
with regard to their use of language-learning strategies. From 1,640 students, 106
extroverted and 94 introverted students were chosen as a result of completing the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). They were
all enrolled in the intensive English preparatory program at the School of Foreign
Languages at Karadeniz Technical University in Trabzon, Turkey. This school
offers students a year of intensive, compulsory English study prior to study in
their respective departments. The participants, whose ages ranged from 18 to 20
years, were at intermediate language proficiency level.
In addition to the EPQ, the Strategy Inventory for Second Language Learning
(SILL; Oxford, 1990) was employed to investigate the participants’ strategy use.
I decided the SILL was the most appropriate tool for the following reasons: (a)
it addresses both formal and informal setting and language use, (b) it has a high
degree of structure so that the type of strategy and also the type of task and setting
are defined, and (c) it has been tested in various settings for internal consistency,
reliability, and content validity (Oxford, 1990).

Data Analysis
The use of language-learning strategies by introverted and extroverted
students (as defined in the EPQ) was analyzed on the basis of Oxford’s (1990)
strategy classifications. As the data were basically ordinal, the nonparametric
Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze ranked data to compare the two
independent groups.

Results

The use of strategies by introverted and extroverted learners is shown in

Table 1. Of the six major strategies, the introverted learners were observed
to use a significantly greater number than were the extrovert learners, despite
some variations in the use of certain specific strategies (see Appendix for
statistical information on specific strategies). I considered it to be important
that the introverted learners were found to use a significantly greater number
of cognitive strategies (including analyzing expression, using formulas and
822 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

patterns, repeating, and formally practicing with sounds and writing systems)
than were the extrovert learners (see Appendix). The fact that the analysis of
metacognitive strategies resulted in a statistically significant difference between
the introverted and extroverted learners may have some practical implications,
because metacognitive strategies are related to knowledge about cognition,
regulation, and actions that involve learners coordinating, organizing, and
arranging their learning, and setting goals, objectives, and plans for a language
task in an efficient way. The only metacognitive strategy in which the score for
extroverted learners were significantly higher than that of the introverted learners
was seeking practice opportunities. It is logical to anticipate that extroverts create
more opportunities and social situations for themselves to engage in conversation
in the target language. It has been shown that the self-monitoring strategy is used
significantly more often by proficient language learners who are considered to
be extroverts (Ellis, 1994). However, a result that I found surprising was that the
introverted students significantly more often used the self-monitoring strategy
than did the extroverted students (Z = 6.406, p < .000). This strategy is of great
importance because it enables learners to evaluate their overall progress and
learning performance. With regard to social strategies, the extroverted students
chose to cooperate with peers as a social strategy more frequently than did the
introvert learners, who, in contrast, preferred interaction with their teachers,
who were proficient users of the language being studied. In regard to affective
strategies, there was no statistically significant difference between introverts and
extroverts in terms of lowering anxiety level (Z = 5.014, p < .933).

Table 1. Use of Strategies by Introverted and Extroverted Learners

Strategy Personality N Mean rank Sum of ranks Two-tailed

Mann-Whitney U test

Cognitive Introvert 83 66.67 5534.00 Z = -5.156

Extrovert 90 105.74 9517.00 p < .000
Compensation Introvert 93 81.46 7576.00 Z = -4.094
Extrovert 104 114.68 11927.00 p < .000
Social Introvert 92 88.64 8155.00 Z = -2.491
Extrovert 106 108.92 11546.00 p < .013
Metacognitive Introvert 92 76.80 7066.00 Z = -4.883
Extrovert 102 116.17 11849.00 p < .000
Affective Introvert 94 82.80 7783.00 Z = -4.090
Extrovert 106 116.20 12317.00 p < .000
Memory Introvert 93 84.43 7852.00 Z = -3.578
Extrovert 106 113.66 12048.00 p < .000
 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 823
Conclusion

Contrary to the results in several studies in favor of the correlation between

introverted and extroverted personality types and success mediated by language-
learning strategies, the results in this study strongly indicate that introverted
learners use all the strategies more often than extroverted learners and both
extroverted and introverted learners reported a similar level of use of several
specific language-learning strategies.
The overall findings indicate that introverted learners consciously employed
goal-oriented specific behaviors and mental operations to ease the acquisition,
retrieval, storage, and use of information for both comprehension and production
and extroverted learners used more interpersonal communication strategies. Yet,
the fact that extroverted learners are relatively prone to start a conversation does
not necessarily enable them to be better learners, in view of the intricate nature of
the language-learning processes. It is, however, a mistake to equate success only
with speaking and to assess second-language achievement solely on the basis of
observable oral production, ignoring the comprehension and internal mechanism
in language learning. It appears that many researchers have undertaken their
studies with the premise that introverted learners are reticent, and, therefore,
deemed to be less successful than extroverted learners, because introversion
is associated with quiet, unsociable, reserved, passive behavior. This premise
very much appeals to high-context cultures, for example, USA and the United
Kingdom, in which communication exists mainly through speech. In contrast, in
high-context cultures such as Japan and Turkey, communication includes body
language and the use of silence (Würtz, 2005). Being quiet in these cultures is,
therefore, not necessarily a negative trait. Furthermore, in an English as a foreign
language setting, the use of English is not limited to simple conversational
communication. It includes the construction of knowledge or pragmatic needs
in a non-English-speaking environment. As this study took place in Turkey, a
high-context culture, it would, therefore, be reasonable to include low- and high-
context cultures as variables in further research.

References

Bialystok, E. (1985). The compatibility of teaching and learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6,
255-262. http://doi.org/b63j64
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
319-338. http://doi.org/cktx28
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
International.
824 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and
practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second
language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355-365. http://doi.org/c6tffk
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type
on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13. http://doi.org/
cs67ff
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gan, Z. (2011). An investigation of personality and L2 oral performance. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2, 1259-1267. http://doi.org/fntndn
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2011). Language learning strategies: Theory, practice and issues. Saarbrücken,
Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2012). Gender-based differences in language learning strategies of science
students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9, 12-24.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Sidek, H. M. (2012). EFL language learning personality traits and instruction. The International
Journal of Learning, 18, 255-272.
Würtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-text cultures and low-context
cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, article 13. Accessed at http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/wuertz.html
 EXTROVERSION/INTROVERSION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 825
Appendix
Statistical Information on Specific Strategies

Extrovert Introvert Two-tailed

Mean rank Mann-Whitney U test

Memory Strategies
Associating/Elaborating 112.72 86.72 Z = 6.277, p < .000
Using sounds 90.77 111.47 Z = 3.951, p < .009
Using imagery 112.63 86.82 Z = 6.268, p < .001
Representing sounds in memory 109.31 90.56 Z = 5.916, p < .012
Using mechanical technique 113.11 86.28 Z = 6.319, p < .001
Structured reviewing 117.51 81.32 Z = 6.785, p < .000
Cognitive Strategies
Repeating 112.67 86.78 Z = 6.272, p < .001
Formally practicing with sounds
and writing systems 110.26 89.49 Z = 6.017, p < .009
Practicing naturalistically 74.43 123.62 Z = 7.433, p < .000
Using formulas and patterns 118.79 79.54 Z = 6.852, p < .000
Reasoning deductively 97.98 103.34 Z = 4.715, p < .500
Analyzing expression 101.90 98.93 Z = 5.130, p < .709
Translating (into mother tongue) 122.48 81.01 Z = 2.916, p < .000
Compensation Strategies
Using mime or gestures 81.94 118.83 Z = 3.062, p < .000
Coining words 87.83 111.74 Z = 6.173, p < .002
Using a circumlocution or synonym 119.58 78.98 Z = 7.005, p < .000
Adjusting or approximating the message 116.54 82.41 Z = 6.682, p < .000
Using linguistic clues 115.61 83.46 Z = 6.584, p < .004
Getting help 81.28 122.17 Z = 2.945, p < .000
Metacognitive Strategies
Paying attention-directed 87.52 112.01 Z = 6.202, p < .002
Paying attention-selected 119.07 79.56 Z = 6.950, p < .000
Seeking practice opportunities 90.09 109.74 Z = 5.961, p < .014
Organizing 104.38 96.13 Z = 5.393, p < .289
Setting goals and objectives 103.72 91.73 Z = 5.325, p < .128
Self-monitoring 113.83 85.35 Z = 6.406, p < .000
Affective and Social Strategies
Making a positive statement 74.80 123.29 Z = 7.398, p < .000
Discussing feelings 93.86 106.39 Z = 5.605, p < .044
Taking emotional temperature 110.84 88.84 Z = 6.078, p < .000
Lowering anxiety level 100.80 100.16 Z = 5.014, p < .933
Cooperating with peers 92.10 107.95 Z = 5.772, p < .116
Cooperating with proficient users
of the studied language 120.53 75.27 Z = 7.105, p < .000
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.