Personality Results

Personality/psychological outlook and its consequences

Following consultation with the Department of Psychology at Lancaster University, it was agreed to use an approved on-line personality test known as ‘The Big 5'. Responses to 100 questions were grouped and graded according to a template designed to generate a percentage ‘score’ along five variable scales: ‘extraversion’, ‘agreeableness’, ‘conscientiousness’, ‘neuroticism’, ‘openness (culture)’.

Table showing average personality scores for assistants of both nationalities:

In general, the students were well above the average on the ‘agreeableness’ parameter. Apart from the broad conclusions summarised in the table above, it is not yet possible systematically to relate the scores of individuals or groups to the quality of the outcomes of the exchanges with their MRs. Qualitative insights will be drawn from individual case studies in the next phases of the project. In addition more systematic conclusions can be drawn by identifying ‘moves’ of a certain type as defined by Sinclair and Coulthard [1975] and Tsui [1994] (e.g. what they term ‘challenge’ and ‘focus’ moves), and using these to find loci of misunderstanding or repair following pragmatic failure. It should then be possible to calculate any correlation between these and scores along the five (if you mean the personality variables, rather than culture/politics/language/personal issues) variables. This data can then be compared to the language of the students’ own reflections on the speech encounter.

In the meantime, qualitative generalisations can be made by establishing a complete data profile for the more extreme examples in the personality test. Of particular interest will be to compare the record of the assistants’ analysis of their relationship with their MR with the MR’s own account (in progress). It should be borne in mind that the participants in the project were self- selecting and therefore more likely to have above average levels of motivation and commitment. This has not inhibited them from making their views known in cases where they felt strongly about particular aspects of their experience.