Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC

System 72 (2018) 190e200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel Institute of English, University of Opole, Pl. Kopernika 11, 45-040, Opole, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 26 April 2017 Received in revised form 29 December 2017 Accepted 1 January 2018

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence for the relationship between openness to experience and L2 willingness to communicate (WTC). The study posits that openness as a personality dimension may have a dual effectdboth direct and indirectdon one's L2 WTC levels. First, openness directly influences L2 WTC through its stable character, shaping one's cognition, affect and behaviour. Also, it has a possible dual indirect impact by mediating perceived communicative competence and language anxiety. According to the results of step-wise multiple regression, openness can be regarded a significant predictor of L2 WTC, explaining 21% of its variability. It may be concluded that students with high levels of openness demonstrate their stable predispositions to look for gratification through initiating verbal encounters in a foreign language. Together, the variables included in the model explain over 45% of L2 WTC variability, stressing the mediating role of perceived communicative competence (operationalized as self-perceived levels of FL skills) and language anxiety. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper seeks empirical evidence for the relationship between the personality dimension of openness to experience and L2 willingness to communicate (WTC) within the Polish educational context. Although the perception of WTC has recently been more focused on its dynamic nature as a communicative event (e.g., Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017; Yashima, MacIntyre, & Ikeda, 2016), this study addresses its trait-like nature by exploring personality and its relative permanence (Peng, 2016) in relation to the stable personality characteristic of openness. Because the base of the L2 WTC € rnyei, Cle ment, & Noels, 1998) is comprised of the distal and prevailing influences of perpyramid model (MacIntyre, Do sonality and intergroup climate, one may expect the impact of personality on one's WTC would to be notable. Specifically, openness can be hypothesized to directly regulate one's willingness to communicate in a foreign language. This relationship is likely also mediated by the immediate antecedents of L2 WTC: language anxiety and perceived communication competence (operationalized as self-perceived levels of foreign language skills). Despite the strong theoretical linkage summarized in the model, there still is a paucity of research on the indirect and direct effects of personality (openness to experience) on the foreign language process in general, not to mention L2 WTC. This fact necessitates the current study. 2. Willingness to communicate in a foreign language The construct of willingness to communicate (WTC) was coined to examine an individual's general propensity to initiate communication with other people (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). This phenomenon has been established as “a personalityE-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.001 0346-251X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

191

based, trait-like predisposition which is relatively consistent across a variety of communication contexts and types of receivers” (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, p. 129). Viewed from this perspective, verbal communication is a volitional act that demonstrates the cognitive nature of human communication behaviour and underlies the concept's stable character (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). Consequently, the individual's personality ensures the stability of the individual's WTC by affecting one's cognitive choices about communication, while remaining stable across contexts (e.g. public speaking, talking in meetings, small groups or dyads) and receivers (e.g. strangers, acquaintances or friends). Speaking generally, however, a higher level of WTC is usually connected with a smaller number of receivers/interlocutors and closer relationships with them (Zakahi & McCroskey, 1989). Therefore, aside from being stable, the WTC concept is also conceived of as situation-dependent, i.e., modified by the personal, temporal and spatial context (Barraclough, Christophel, & McCroskey, 1988). It follows that situational variables may affect an individual's willingness to communicate (e.g., one's frame of mind or previous experiences connected with communicating with a specific person, or a probable gain or loss signaled by the specific communication act). The person's inclination to communicate is also shaped by communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence (McCroskey, 1992). The first concept designates anxiety experienced in communicating. When the levels of anxiety are high, one's willingness to communicate is greatly limited. The other concept is connected with one's perception of their communication abilities. It appears that when a person is convinced they possess effective communication skills, their level of communication apprehension decreases, while the level of WTC increases (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). As a result, perceived competence may play a more significant role in predicting WTC than actual competence (MacIntyre, MacMaster, & Baker, 2001). The above conceptualization of WTC in L1 (or universal WTC) serves as a basis for the analysis of communication performed in foreign and second languages (FL/SL). In this context WTC is defined as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). WTC is also seen as “an individual's volitional inclination towards actively engaging in the act of communication in a specific situation, which can vary according to interlocutor(s), topic, and conversational context, among other potential situational variables” (Kang, 2005, p. 291). This concept encompasses not only a trait-like tendency to engage in communication, but also stresses the role of situational factors that may shape one's inclination (Peng, 2012). When learning and using L2, the language of communication holds the key to the individual's willingness, and causes a substantial modification of the communication act (MacIntyre et al., 1998) regarding, for instance, one's readiness to initiate communication. The L2 learner's decision to commence communication (volunteering answers in class, or seeking out an L2 conversation partner) is seen as a product of the action control system involving the ability to begin a task (hesitation), to focus on it (preoccupation), and to follow the task through to completion (volatility) (MacIntyre & Doucette, 2010). These specific challenges make L2 WTC distinct from the universal (L1) concept. Consequently, L2 WTC cannot be regarded a simple transfer from the L1 trait-like model, mostly because of individually varying L2 communicative competence. Predominant positive or negative perceptions of one's own competence in a € rnyei, 2003). It seems that, aside from the foreign language, rooted in past L2 contact, play a crucial role in shaping L2 WTC (Do trait-like nature of WTC responsible for the individual's overall predilections for communication in L2, state-like WTC also shapes verbal behaviour at a particular moment within a particular situationdwhen, for instance, a learner assesses an opportunity to communicate as suitable and enters into the communication act (Cao & Philp, 2006). It follows that trait-like WTC produces a tendency to behave in a certain manner in an L2 communicative situation, while situational WTC affects the decision to initiate an exchange in a specific situation (Zarrinabadi, 2014). The state-dependent and dynamic fluctuations of WTC influenced by situational variables are thus complementary to the stable trait-like nature of WTC, a fact that enables a deeper understanding of the WTC phenomenon (MacIntyre & Doucette, 2010). The early model of WTC (adapted from L1) that accommodated perceived communication competence and language anxiety (called communication anxiety in L1 studies) has failed to explain the role of situational variables and more stable factors (such as personality) in influencing communication initiation. The current multi-layered pyramid model of WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998) comprises WTC antecedents arranged in a proximal-distal continuum in six layers, showing their immediate and more distant influence on the individual's WTC. The three bottom layers contain enduring/distal influences, while situational/immediate stimuli can be found in the three upper layers. The lowest and most distal level (Layer VI) is devoted to the social and individual context (i.e., intergroup climate and stable personality characteristicsdthe focal point of this study). Above it, in Layer V, is the affective-cognitive context with its more individually-based variables (intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative competence). Layer IV comprises motivational propensities (interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, and L2 self-confidence). Situated antecedents, the most proximal and strongest determinants of WTC, are found in Layer III with the desire to communicate with a specific person, and state communicative self-confidence. At the next level (Layer II) there is behavioural intention, i.e., the actual construct of willingness to communicate, representing the final psychological phase in one's preparation for L2 communication. Finally, Layer I contains communication behaviour, or direct L2 use. All these factors included in the model, personality among them, have the potential to affect WTC. Placing personality at the lowest and broadest layer of the pyramid appears to indicate its permanent and unwavering, though subtle effect on L2 WTC. Though personality may not directly influence one's readiness, it sets “the stage for L2 communication” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 558). L2 WTC is now considered an influential unified complex variable underlying the second and foreign language learning processes because its higher levels offer “increased opportunity of L2 practice and authentic L2 usage” (MacIntyre, Baker, ment, & Conrod, 2001, p. 382). With high WTC the student has the chances to develop the skill of using the foreign Cle language, and to increase levels of L2 mastery. Moreover, developing WTC in the L2 classroom can help produce dynamic

192

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

language learners who are more likely to use L2 in authentic communication (Kang, 2005), and actively seek communication opportunities outside the classroom (Peng, 2012). The empirical research on L2 WTC demonstrates that greater WTC is connected with higher self-perceived competence (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). Students who are willing to communicate are confident and highly motivated, and use the language more frequently in the classroom (e.g., Khajavy, Ghonsooly, Hosseini Fatemi, & Choi, 2016). Among other influential WTC correlates are various affective and social psychological variables, which include gender, age (Amiryousefi, 2016), classroom environment, and learner beliefs (Peng & Woodrow, 2010). Other salient shapers of WTC are the student's attitude to the international community (Cetinkaya, 2005) and international posture (Yashima et al., 2004), though not in the Polish context (Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pietrzykowska, 2011). 3. Personality and openness to experience in foreign language learning The term personality usually refers to “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” (Larsen & Buss, 2009, p. 4). In other words, personality is a psychological structure composed of interacting and developing parts or subsystems that influence an individual's behaviour (Mayer, 2007). These parts or patterns can be described in every language by means of adjectives that represent fundamental personality traits. €rnyei, 2005). These traits, in turn, are identified and organized into extensive personality dimensions (Do The Five Factor Model (FFM), also called the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 2004) is now regarded dominant in personality studies (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). It incorporates five broad dimensions of personality traits that can describe an individual, regardless of language or culture. Personality differences, of course, cannot be limited to five traits only; their role is to represent personality at a broad level of abstraction, with each dimension summarizing a large number of clear-cut, precise characteristics (John et al., 2008). Each dimension is placed on a continuum with two extreme poles, labelled as: openness to experience vs. low openness, conscientiousness vs. low conscientiousness, extraversion vs. introversion, agreeableness vs. antagonism, and neuroticism vs. emotional stability. Within this categorisation, personality factors can be perceived as in€ rnyei, 2006). dependent variables in research studies (Do Traditionally, personality has been viewed as fairly fixed and permanent, especially after the age of 30, when it was said to be “set like plaster” (James, 1890/1989, p. 126). However, later studies have disproved the ‘hard plaster theory’ by suggesting that the plaster is ‘soft’. Though personality development is apparently completed by the end of one's 20s (Costa & McCrae, 1994), further personality changes can be identified even beyond 30 and across the entire life cycle (Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003)dmost often due to life events and one's environment, or continuing physiological changes. In general, the change of personality traits takes place in the direction of maturation (Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). This pattern has been observed in the case of openness to experience, which tends to increase after early adolescence (Branje, van Lieshout, & Gerris, 2007). Openness, also called openness to experience (also labelled intellect), is most often identified with originality and openmindedness because it describes the scope, depth, uniqueness, and complexity of an individual's mental and experiential life. This characteristic includes emotional and motivational traits, like seeking new experiences and feeling a wide range of emotions, the cognitive traits of intellectuality and imaginative thinking, social expression through nonconformity and liberal attitudes, and traits related to self-regulation, such as absorption and tolerance of ambiguity (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2015). Openness can be described by means of six facets: an active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity (McCrae & John, 1992). People who score high in this dimension are described as intelligent, creative, active, imaginative, exploratory, inquisitive, of broad interests, and non-conventional. They enjoy learning, often watch documentaries or educational TV, organize their living space with novel setups, or look for stimulating activities that break up their routine. Those who score low are not curious, not interested in discovery, conventional, down-to-earth, narrow-minded, limited, and inartistic (Pervin, 1989). They are also practical, not likely to be moved by art, quick to stick to routines, and demonstrate conservative attitudes and political party preferences. As they are likewise closed to experience and have a narrower range of interests (John et al., 2008). Personality traits are important in daily interaction, and are a significant factor in achieving educational goals for students learning foreign languages (Erton, 2010). As Cook (1991) proposes, “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” (p. 3). Consequently, studying the role of personality in the field of second language acquisition appears to be of primary importance, especially because there has been little research on this subject (Dewaele, 2012). Also important, personality is a significant predictor of foreign language proficiency, accounting for 13% of its variance (Ghapanchi, Khajavy, & Asadpour, 2011). Hence, personality €rnyei & Ryan, 2015) as a unique aspect of human likely plays a major role in the process of foreign language learning (Do individuality. Nevertheless, its impact on language learning has not been clearly explained for a variety of reasons. First, the study of personality requires expertise on the part of the researcher, who should possess the skills of a psychologist and applied linguist (Dewaele, 2012). A confusing array of personality measurements also exist (Furnham, 1999), and there is considerable difficulty in attempting to isolate the precise influences of personality in the process of foreign language learning €rnyei & Ryan, 2015). Linguists also struggle with measures of success in FLL, trying to restrict the confounding effect of (Do situations and tasks, and ignoring the adaptive role of personality (MacIntyre, Clement, & Noels, 2007). In this intricate environment, inconclusive results pertaining to the role of personality in FLL are unsurprising.

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

193

There exists a proposed two-way relationship between personality and language learning, in which personality can influence second/foreign language and vice versa (Ellis, 1985). Although “no single personality trait has ever been found to predict overall success in second language learning” (Dewaele, 2007, p. 171), global personality traits may also have an indirect influence on various aspects of the foreign language learning process, i.e., on willingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety, etc. (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Openness to experience, now viewed as perhaps the most important trait _ n  ska-Ponikwia & Dewaele, 2012), is one of the personality dimensions popular in foreign/second language studies. It has (Oza been linked to basic organizational skills connected with functional, lexical, syntactic, and discourse abilities (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002). However, the most promising finding relates to the acceptance of constant change revealed by open FL students (Ehrman, 2008). These learners actively seek ways to explore the unfamiliar and pursue social interaction in a FL, _ n  ska-Ponikwia & Dewaele, 2012) by picking up native-like ways of selfensuring that they make continual progress (Oza expression (Dewaele, 2013). It is therefore not surprising that openness is positively linked to the frequency of L2 use in _ n  ska-Ponikwia, 2016). Yet, there is still no straightforward evidence that immigrant and non-immigrant settings (Oza  , 2011). Nevertheless, recent empirical research openness is a predictor of success in learning a foreign language (Biedron appears to demonstrate that L2 WTC is both directly (Mahdi, 2014) and indirectly related to personality through linguistic self-confidence and language anxiety (Xie, 2011). Openness to experience likewise appears to be one of the three most influential personality dimensions (aside from extraversion and agreeableness) that shapes the L2 WTC levels of Iranian and Turkish English language learners (Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013; Oz, 2014)dthough there are studies where no direct effect of personality (extraversion) on L2 WTC can consistently be confirmed (Alemi, Tajeddin, & Mesbah, 2013; Kamprasertwong, 2010). The language learning experience is “a profoundly unsettling psychological proposition” (Guiora, 1984, p. 8) that threatens the learner's ego, and requires a great deal of personal investment, concentration, patience, and active involvement. Aside from studying the content matter (language systems and subsystems), one needs to master the language skills (speaking, listening, writing and reading), and acquire various aspects of another culture. Such demands are not typical of other school subjects (Gardner, 2001). All these requirements induce complex psychological processes within an individual, assisted by the powerful interplay of the social aspects of language learning motivation and other influential variables, like the relation between attitudes to the second language speaking group and the classroom, language aptitude, self-determination, personality, and anxiety (MacIntyre et al., 2007). Although the psychological consequences of learning a foreign language are not always negative, they may induce ambivalent feelings of being simultaneously willing and unwilling to communicate (MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011). On the one hand, the learner is conscious of the importance of practising communication skills, but on the other they are afraid of losing face in front of others whose opinion matters to them, i.e., the teacher and € rnyei & Otto  , 1998), a phrase that designates peers. This psychological dilemma has been likened to ‘crossing the Rubicon’ (Do the abandonment of one's comfort zone, or the transition from learning to communicating. However, the challenges encountered on the long path to proficiency may be satisfactorily faced with the distinctive qualities of the learner's openness to experience. Individuals with high levels of this personality dimension voluntarily search for activities that bring meaning to their lives, and help them think about things in a different way (Costa & McCrae, 1998). They are also sensitive to emotionality, adventure, novel ideas, curiosity, and a variety of experience. They also crave new rewards (Smits & Boeck, 2006). 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. On these grounds, it may be speculated that openness to experience as a personality dimension may have a dual effectdboth direct and indirectdon one's L2 WTC levels. The direct effect of openness can be attributed to the lasting (stable) influence of personality on the factors shaping communication in an FL, captured within the pyramid model proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998). The connection between WTC, viewed as a trait, and openness, characterized by stable emotional and motivational features, may be emphasized by the relatively enduring nature of both factors. The individual's persisting inclinations to communicate in L2 are then likely to stem from one's fixed broadmindedness about communication, in general. Aside from that, both phenomena under scrutiny share similar, cognitive foundations. The theory of universal WTC, based on the principle of volitional choice, demonstrates that WTC is inherently subordinated to cognition because the decision to communicate is subject to choice (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). Also, openness to experience understood as “the translation of cognitive ability into personality dispositions related to cognitive functioning” (Vukman & Demetriou, 2011, p. 47) is used to describe intellectual orientation. Although openness to experience is not “a cognitive disposition”, its socially-directed characteristics lead to behaviours that are mediated by cognitive processes (McCrae & Sutin, 2009, p. 257). A double indirect impact of openness on WTC can also be proposed. Firstly, as the creators of the pyramid model observe, openness to experience underlies perceived communicative competence (see also MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) as already reported in L1 WTC studies (though only in relation to extraversion and neuroticism) (Richmond, Mccroskey, & McCroskey, 1989). The learner's perception of their linguistic skills appears to have a strong relationship with WTC, in spite of variation in ment, & Donovan, 2003). Secondly, the influence of personality (i.e., openness) on their actual abilities (MacIntyre, Baker, Cle communication and language anxiety ascertained herein also holds an analogous dependence in relation to the influence of personality on language anxiety. Because both variables (perceived communication competence and language anxiety) are the most proximal antecedents of L2 WTC, their influence should be regarded predominant. Hence, openness can be hypothesized to have a double-sided impact on WTC, which may turn out significant. For the purpose of this paper, the following general research question was addressed:

194

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

What is the predictive power of openness to experience in estimating L2 WTC levels?

4. Method 4.1. Participants The participants in this study were 534 students from 23 randomly selected classes of the six secondary grammar schools in an urban center located in south-western Poland. The cohort comprised 312 girls and 222 boys (mean age: 18.50, range: 18e21, SD ¼ 0.53). They were third grade students, with three to six hours a week of compulsory English instruction. Their level of proficiency was intermediate, and the average length of their English language experience amounted to almost eleven years, with the vast majority (above 90%) studying for seven to 17 years. Apart from English, they also studied another compulsory foreign language: French or German (four to two lessons a week). The participants came from different residential locations, mostly urban (270 of them from the city, 117 from neighboring towns), with 147 students from rural areas. 4.2. Instruments The basic instrument adopted was a questionnaire. It included demographic variables: age, gender (1emale, 2efemale), and place of residence (1evillage: up to 2500 inhabitants, 2etown: from 2500 to 50,000 inhabitants, 3ecity: over 50,000 inhabitants). Students also assessed the length of their English instruction by stating how long they had studied the language in a formal context (private classes, school education, etc.). The participants' openness to experience was measured with the 20-item IPIP scale devoted to openness (Goldberg, 1992). It consisted of 20 items assessing this dimension with ten positively and ten negatively worded items, which were then keyreversed. Sample items included: I am full of ideas and I am not interested in abstractions. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1estrongly disagree to 5estrongly agree. The minimum number of points on the scale was 20, while the maximum was 100. The scale's reliability was measured in terms of Cronbach's alpha, ranging the level of a ¼ 0.82. Another measuring instrument adopted was the Willingness to communicate in the classroom scale (MacIntyre et al., 2001a,b), consisting of 27 items assessing the students' willingness to engage in communication tasks during class time in the four skill areas. There were eight items measuring WTC in speaking, six for reading, eight for writing, and five for comprehension (listening). Sample items in the scale were: How often are you willing to speak to your teacher about your homework assignments? or How often are you willing to read reviews of popular movies? The participants indicated their answers within a range from 1 to 5, assessing how willing they would be to communicate in given contexts. 1 indicated almost never willing, 2esometimes willing, 3ewilling half of the time, 4eusually willing, and 5ealmost always willing. The minimum number of points on the scale was 27, while the maximum was 135. The scale's reliability was measured in terms of Cronbach's alpha, ranging the level of a ¼ 0.94. Another scale, Willingness to communicate outside the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 2001a,b), was applied to determine the students' willingness to engage in communication tasks outside the classroom in the four skill areas. It included the same items as the previous scale, adopted to the out-of-school context. Again, they were evaluated by means of the same Likert scale with the same minimum and maximum numbers of points. Its reliability was a ¼ 0.96. The results obtained on the WTCI and WTCO scales were aggregated to create a joint measurement of one's eagerness to initiate communication in L2 both in and out of the FL class. The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) was used to estimate the degree to which the students felt anxious during language classes. Sample items were: I can feel my heart pounding when I'm about to be called on in language class and I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am. A Likert scale was used (from 1eI totally disagree to 5eI totally agree). The minimum number of points was 33, the maximum was 165. The scale's reliability was a ¼ 0.94. There were two additional types of assessment tools used: external (self-reported grades) and internal (self-assessment of the foreign language skills). As far as grades are concerned, the participants gave the final grades they received in junior high school and in the first semester of secondary grammar school. They also included the grade they expected to receive at the end of the school year. The three grades were reported on the Likert scale ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 6 (excellent) and then aggregated, creating a scale whose reliability was a ¼ 0.87. The scale describing self-perceived levels of FL skills (speaking, listening, writing and reading) was an aggregated value of separate self-assessments of the FL skills, measured with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 6 (excellent). The minimum number of points on the scale was 4, while the maximum was 24. The scale's reliability was Cronbach's a ¼ 0.88. 4.3. Procedure The data collection procedure took place in all the six grammar schools located in the city area. After the schools' headmasters had given their consent, the classes in which the research was supposed to take place were randomly selected. In each class, the students were informed about the purpose of the research and granted full confidentiality. They could

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

195

withdraw from the study without any consequences at any time. All the participants gave their oral consent, and were then asked to fill in the questionnaire. The time given for the activity was 15e45 min. The participants were instructed to give sincere answers without taking excessive time to think. A short statement introducing a new set of items in an unobtrusive manner preceded each part of the questionnaire. The data were computed by means of the statistical program STATISTICA, with the main operations being descriptive statistics (means and SD), correlations, represented by a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient r, and an inferential statistics operation: backward step-wise hierarchical multiple regression whose purpose was to predict the levels of the criterion variable (here: WTC). It allowed for including potential independent variables in the model. The predictor variables were: openness to experience, language anxiety, length of study, final grades, and self-perceived levels of FL skills. Then at each step the least significant variable was removed. The indicator of significance of variables inserted in consecutive blocks was the range of the explained variance R2 (the unique contribution of new predictors), as well as the value and significance of the b weights (standardized regression coefficients showing how strongly each predictor variable influences the criterion variable, i.e., WTC). Nevertheless, because R2 has a tendency to overestimate the appropriateness of the model when applied to the real world, an Adjusted R2 value, taking into account the number of variables in the model and the number of observations (participants), was calculated. This value was treated as the most useful measure of the success of the model (Graziano & Raulin, 1993). 5. Results First, means and SD were calculated for all the variables included in the study. The summary of the results is found in Table 1 below. Then, all the variables measured on interval scales were correlated with one another. The results showed that all the findings were statistically significant. As far as WTC was concerned, its correlations with other variables of medium effect size were detected. Higher levels of WTC were accompanied by lower levels of language anxiety and higher levels of openness to experience, final grades, and self-perceived FL skills. The summary of the correlation procedures is presented in Table 2. In order to compute the predictive value of the variables for assessing WTC levels, hierarchical multiple regression was subsequently performed. In the first step, the item correlated with L2 WTC to the weakest degree was chosen for predicting the WTC level: final grades. It demonstrated weak (though statistically significant) predictability of the WTC results with b ¼ 0.24, p ¼ .00. The variable was found to be responsible for about 6% of the WTC variability with F(1,492) ¼ 29.11, p ¼ .00. In the next step, the two most WTC powerful predictors were entered in a cumulative mannerdlanguage anxiety and selfperceived levels of FL skills (the immediate predictors of L2 WTC proposed in the pyramid model by MacIntyre et al., 1998). The results were the following: b ¼ 0.19, p ¼ .00 in the case of language anxiety, and b ¼ 0.29, p ¼ .00 for self-perceived levels of FL skills. The two variables, independently from other factors, turned out to be responsible for 18% variance of L2 WTC, with F(3,490) ¼ 36.96, p ¼ .00. In the last step, the variable considered most important the study, openness to experience, was entered. The result obtained was b ¼ 0.18, p ¼ .00. The variable appeared responsible for 21% of WTC variability, independent of other variables. As a result, a robust model of L2 WTC predictors emerged, with F(4,489) ¼ 33.35, p ¼ .00, explaining 45% variance of the dependent variable. The summary of the multiple regression procedure can be found in Table 3. 6. Discussion This study investigates the role of openness to experience as a predictor of WTC levels. The regression model created for this purpose considered variables correlated with WTC in a statistically significant manner. The results obtained led to the conclusion that openness to experience can be regarded a significant predictor of L2 WTC. The prognostic value of openness is statistically significant and reliable, showing that this personality dimension is responsible for as much as one-eighth of L2 WTC variance. Its strength, however, cannot be compared with that of the immediate antecedents of WTC, i.e., language anxiety and self-perceived FL skills. As previously proposed, this effect can be attributed to several factors. First, the direct links between openness to experience and L2 WTC originate from the same sources: human cognition, affect, and behaviour. Thus, cognitive capacities, as well as propensities for analysis and thought captured by the facets of ideas or intellectual curiosity, may have long-range repercussions, such as one's verbal behaviour, represented by willingness to communicate. By

Table 1 Means and SD of the variables. Variable

Mean

SD

WTC Openness to experience Language anxiety Length of study Final grades Self-perceived FL skills

159.42 71.67 83.96 8.94 12.21 15.75

45.46 11.83 23.87 2.48 2.33 3.51

196

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

Table 2 Correlation matrices for the variables.

1. WTC 2. Openness to experience 3. Language anxiety 4. Final grades /5. Self-perceived FL skills **

p < .01,

2

3

4

5

.28** e e e e

.34*** .29*** e e e

.24*** .12** .35*** e e

.39*** .21*** .51*** .51*** e

***

p < .001.

Table 3 Summary of hierarchical multiple regression results for L2 WTC. Variable Step 1* Final grades Step 2 Language anxiety Self-perceived FL skills Step 3 Openness to experience

b

Standard error

.24***

.04

.18

.19*** .29***

.05 .05

.21

.18***

.04

Adjusted R2 change

*

Adjusted R2 ¼ .06. *** p < .001.

the same token, L2 WTC, especially when approached from the trait perspective, can be viewed as a product of brain functions (MacIntyre & Doucette, 2010), indicating its cognitive connection with openness to experience. What is more, higher levels of openness are connected with less stressor-related negative affect (Leger, Charles, Turiano, & Almeida, 2016). It follows that negative and debilitating emotions are less profound in individuals who are open to experience. Indeed, as the research results demonstrate, the open study participants not only declared higher WTC levels, but also lower language anxiety, assisted by positive perception of their FL skills and reported final grades. It follows that with their ability to regulate emotions effectively (Purnamaningsih, 2017) and to accumulate positive experiences, open individuals are likely to perceive their language encounters as more rewarding than threatening. They may not hesitate to speak voluntarily, even when their abilities are mediocre, so they are able to develop a string of good experiences that grows into a positive attitude to the language and leads to a significant degree of L2 WTC. Although the change of language also changes communicative routines, the effects of openness to experience may still exert a positive influence on one's verbal behaviour, keeping those who are open on the look-out for pleasure. The FL process enables open learners to satisfy their inquisitiveness and test their language abilities. Focusing on positive emotions and exuding optimism about their FL skills, they readily ‘cross the Rubicon.’ In effect, significant development in proficiency can be expected. Students lacking openness to experience are in a far worse position. With poorer language skills and lower grades, they not only refrain from initiating communication in L2, but also suffer from greater negative emotions. They may feel extremely insecure and thrown off balance by the constant unpredictability of the language learning situation due to their sensitivity to stress (Eriega, Chidozie, Tunde, & Adebunmi, 2014). They are also likely to perceive their FL process as ambiguous. This perception generates unnecessary tension and negativity. Yet, such students must subjugate themselves to educational demands, and persevere at the expense of their feelings of security. They are likely to believe they must save their energy and avoid exposing themselves, so every decision to initiate communication in the FL is difficult. Such students may finally learn to communicate, but their minimized openness makes it extremely difficult to grasp the intricacies of the language system, its communicative shifts, and, above all, unpredictability. Alongside the direct influence of personality on L2 WTC, indirect causal links between the variables can be deduced. As the research results demonstrate, there are two mediating variables that may play a crucial role in shaping WTC: language anxiety and self-perceived levels of FL skills. In the study, language anxiety appears to be one of the two most powerful predictors. Its relation to openness can be mostly attributed to its special situation-specific characteristics. Initial, transient moments of anxiety encountered in the process of foreign language learning solidify over the course of time, creating an acquired and relatively stable response to the dangers of the FL learning process (Horwitz, 2010; Horwitz et al., 1986). Afterwards, the student's growing proficiency allows for more effective management of negative emotions and for decreasing language anxiety levels (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989). Nevertheless, it may be postulated that the dynamics of language anxiety's development are fairly stable. This observation points to common denominator for the construct of language anxiety and openness to experience. Negative emotions, exacerbated by closed-mindedness, are likely to hamper voluntary communication and cause growing uncertainty (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). Another mediating variable of great importance to L2 WTC is perceived communicative competence, operationalized as self-perceived levels of foreign language skills. In this study, communicative competence is the most influential WTC predictor. A high degree of openness (or intellect) produces a more positive perception of competence in the foreign language,

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

197

paired with optimistic risk assessment, which in turn leads to a greater willingness to communicate. Obviously, students who decide to ‘cross the Rubicon’ must be convinced that they can successfully communicate, meaning that perception of one's high ability is a guarantee of attainment. It may therefore be deduced that self-perception of FL skills is stimulated by openness. This close link between self-perceived levels of FL skills and openness is likely to support the mediating function of self-perception of ability in shaping L2 WTC. The significant role of openness to experience as a predictor of L2 WTC levels found in this study sheds more light on the nature of FL communication. The personality dimension of openness is of intrapsychic character, which means that it is defined in terms of consciousness characteristics. These features are realised internally but have effects within the interpersonal sphere. Openness to experience and its close ties to L2 WTC, an apparently interpersonal factor, underline the intrapsychic character of one's readiness to communicate in a foreign language. This bond is further stressed by the strong relationships of L2 WTC to other intrapsychic variables, such as language anxiety and self-perceived FL skills. 7. Pedagogical implications and concluding remarks The results of this study point to several implications. Because openness to experience is connected with higher L2 WTC levels, which in turn leads to greater FL success, the teacher should focus attention on raising the students' levels of both factors. The research on openness demonstrates that the trait is amenable to experimental manipulation (Hogan, Staff, Bunting, Deary, & Whalley, 2012). However, for obvious reasons it is unrealistic to expect the teacher to skillfully modify student personality. On the other hand, fine-tuning specific abilities associated with this trait may be helpful in language learning, especially when learners are in the adolescent phase, as in this study's sample. Even very closed-minded students may benefit from a conscious focus on the development of the six facets of openness that may be incorporated in FL instruction: imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, variety, and curiosity. Such an intervention can be performed through the application of media in the classroomdnewspaper clips, the Internet, or films (Yang & Chen, 2007). The media allow for presenting and analysing diverse, often contradictory, viewpoints and valuesdespecially relevant in familiarizing students with different cultural behaviours and norms (Levy, 2007). The process of language acquisition can also benefit from familiarizing learners with arts (Farokhi & Hashemi, 2012). A conscious focus on the facets of openness such as fantasy, aesthetic sensitivity and awareness of one's emotions can be provoked through the strategies of describing and discussing works of art such as The persistence of memory by Dali or The scream by Munch. Another tool helpful in expanding these specific abilities are graded readers, like The legends of Sleepy Hollow or Rip Van Winkle, available as audiobooks and traditional books on the editor's website (McMillan). Meanwhile, the application of affective activities included in e.g., Moskowitz (1991), not only develop awareness of one's emotions but also preferences for novelty and intellectual curiosity. Deliberate interventions by teachers may also include mindfulness training, which is positively related to the personality dimension of openness to experience (van den Hurk et al., 2011). Generally, conscious development of mindfulness improves one's cognitive functions (Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013). Its other valuable effects include opening the students to novel patterns of thinking and emotional expression, and stress reduction and other beneficial health outcomes (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004). Thus, mindfulness, meditation and engagement within challenging life experiences (features of openness) may be viewed as beneficial in the process of FL learning, leading to lower language anxiety levels (Fallah, 2016) (for more practical information see Teasdale, Segal, & Williams, 1995). As far as raising the student's WTC level is concerned, lowering the student's negative affect and language anxiety is of paramount importance. Students need to be educated about possible stress reactions to raise awareness of their own and others' emotional states. Providing a stress-free environment that allows students to encounter more positive experiences is a requirement for language success. This goal can be achieved by granting emotional support, which is important in threatening situations. Aware that language learners' willingness to communicate in language classes is a product of the interaction of various individual and contextual factors (Shao & Gao, 2016), a teacher should be genuinely interested in students' problems, help them to effectively manage their learning, and thus facilitate their communication attempts. A collection of practical and easy classroom techniques is available in Young (1998) or Gregersen and MacIntyre (2013). Obviously, creating opportunities of positive experiences with authentic English are highly relevant. This can be done through providing chances for authentic communication, such as the previously mentioned use of media, authentic videos, the introduction of native speakers into the classroom, and analysis of real-life facts and behaviours. This study is not free from limitations. Its cross-sectional character does not allow for a greater degree of generalization, while the study cohort comes from a specific part of Poland; hence their attributes may not reliably relate to cohorts from other parts of the country (or the world). Moreover, the age of the informants cannot be overlooked. Late adolescence is the time when openness reaches its highest levels, sodas suchdits strong connection with other variables may be reserved for this specific developmental phase. There may also be some doubts stemming from the measurement of openness to experience by means of the IPIP questionnaire. Currently, there are no established norms, so it would be appropriate to verify the results with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The final regression model presented in this study confirms the predictive value of all the variables, especially openness to communicate. However, the unrecognized proportion of variation in L2 WTC (about 55%) suggests that the variable is likely dependent on a myriad of other linguistic, psychological, and contextual precursors (Peng, 2007) disregarded in the present research. Additionally, the regression model lacks a significant variable that may explain a great deal of L2 WTC, i.e., L1 WTC, due to its universal nature. Another potential drawback of the study is connected with its understanding of openness to experience. Although it is one of the fundamental

198

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

dimensions of personality, it remains controversial (McCrae & Costa, 1997). The concept is difficult to grasp, though recent advances in neuro- and psychological research have allowed for its better understanding (Schretlen, van der Hulst, Pearlson, & Gordon, 2010). Still, the results here must be treated with caution because of the ‘soft’ nature of openness. The personality dimension of openness may be enduring and stable, but its trait-like nature can be modified by the environment or life events (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). Hence, this cross-sectional study is only able to give a limited glimpse into the role of openness in L2 WTC. Finally, only one selected personality dimension was chosen for this study. Research on L2 WTC would certainly benefit from including all five dimensions in the regression model. Ultimately, then, willingness to communicate as the immediate antecedent of L2 use deserves more study to broaden our knowledge and understanding of successful language acquisition.

References Alemi, M., Tajeddin, Z., & Mesbah, Z. (2013). Willingness to communicate in L2 English: Impact of learner variables. Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 42e61. Amiryousefi, M. (2016). Willingness to communicate, interest, motives to communicate with the instructor, and L2 speaking: A focus on the role of age and gender. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1170838. Barraclough, R. A., Christophel, D. M., & McCroskey, J. C. (1988). Willingness to communicate: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 187e192.  , A. (2011). Personality factors as predictors of foreign language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(4), 467e489. Biedron Branje, S. J. T., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2007). Big Five personality development in adolescence and adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 21(1), 45e62. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.596. Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480e493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002. Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005). Turkish college students' willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language. The Ohio State University. Retrieved from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession¼osu1133287531&disposition¼inline. Cook, V. J. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Manual for the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO- PIR) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139e150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the explication of facet-level traits: Examples from conscientiousness. European Journal of Personality, 12(2), 117e134. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199803/04)12:2<117::AID-PER295>3.0.CO;2-C. 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), 169e197. https://doi.org/10.2167/ijm080.0. Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 42e57). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). Personality in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1e8). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. €rnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 55(1), Do 3e32. €rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Do € Dornyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42e68. €rnyei, Z., & Otto  , I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University), 4, Do 43e69. €rnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York , London: Routledge. Do Ehrman, M. (2008). Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 61e72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP. Eriega, E. G., Chidozie, I. G., Tunde, O. T., & Adebunmi, W. A. (2014). Personality and demographic factors as correlates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among flood victims. British Journal of Education, 2(3), 82e88. Erton, I. (2010). Relations between personality traits, language learning styles and success in foreign language achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 115e126. Fallah, N. (2016). Mindfulness, coping self-efficacy and foreign language anxiety: A mediation analysis. Educational Psychology, 37(6), 745e756. Farokhi, M., & Hashemi, M. (2012). The impact/s of using art in English language learning classes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(Supplement C), 923e926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.170. Furnham, A. (1999). Personality and creativity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 88(2), 407e408. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.2.407. €rnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Do (pp. 1e19). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. 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), 148e155. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26e42. Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (1993). Research methods. A process of inquiry. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2013). Capitalizing on language learners' individuality: From premise to practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7. Guiora, A. Z. (1984). The dialectic of language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 3e12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb01321.x. Hogan, M. J., Staff, R. T., Bunting, B. P., Deary, I. J., & Whalley, L. J. (2012). Openness to experience and activity engagement facilitate the maintenance of verbal ability in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 849e854. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029066. Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(02), 154e167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480999036X. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125e132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x. Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. A. (2015). Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 480e487. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039826. James, W. (1890/1989). The principles of psychology (vols. 1e2). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

199

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 (pp. 114e158). New York: Guildford. Kamprasertwong, M. (2010). Willingness to communicate in english speech as a second language: A study of Thai, Chinese, and Dutch samples. University of Groningen. Retrieved from: http://arts.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/9753/1/MA_1700820_T_Kamprasertwong.pdf. Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277e292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2004.10.004. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in english: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. Tesol Quarterly, 50(1), 154e180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.204. Khany, R., & Ghoreyshi, M. (2013). The nexus between Iranian EFL students' Big Five personality traits and foreign language speaking confidence. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 601e611. Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 898e912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014746. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (4th Revised edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Leger, K. A., Charles, S. T., Turiano, N. A., & Almeida, D. M. (2016). Personality and stressor-related affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 917e928. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000083. Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Language, Learning and Technology, 11(2), 104e127. ment, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Cle students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(03), 369e388. https://doi.org/null. ment, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2003). Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Cle Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589e607. MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students' willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81e96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x. MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3e26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001. MacIntyre, P. D., Clement, R., & Noels, K. A. (2007). Affective variables, attitude and personality in context. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), French applied linguistics (vol. 16, pp. 270e298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. €rnyei, Z., Cle ment, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and MacIntyre, P. D., Do affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545e562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x. MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control. System, 38(2), 161e171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.013. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251e275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00423.x. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 103e118). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_8. MacIntyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of multiple models of motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, €rnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 461e492). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Kuhl, and McCroskey. In Z. Do Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Mahdi, D. (2014). Willingness to communicate in english: A case study of EFL students at King Khalid University. English Language Teaching, 7(7). https://doi. org/10.5539/elt.v7n7p17. Mayer, J. D. (2007). Asserting the definition of personality. The Online Newsletter for Personality Science. Retrieved from: https://www.personality-arp.org/ html/newsletter01/jdm.pdf. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO five-factor inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587e596. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. C., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825e847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175e215. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257e273). New York: Guilford. McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16e25. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 119e213). Newbury Park, CA. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(2), 19e37. Moskowitz, G. (1991). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Rowley, Mass: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776e781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pietrzykowska, A. (2011). L2 willingness to communicate (WTC) and international posture in the Polish educational context. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 119e134. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.1.7. Oz, H. (2014). Big Five Personality Traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social Behavior & Personality: International Journal, 42(9), 1473e1482. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1473. _ n  ska-Ponikwia, K. (2016). Personality, emotional intelligence and L2 use in an immigrant and non-immigrant context. In D. Gabrys-Barker, & D. Gałajda Oza (Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 175e191). Cham: Springer. _ n  ska-Ponikwia, K., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality and L2 use: The advantage of being open-minded and self-confident in an immigration context. Oza EUROSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 112e134. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza. Peng, J.-E. (2007). Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative motivation among college students in an intensive English language program in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 2(1), 33e59. Peng, J.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40(2), 203e213. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.system.2012.02.002. Peng, J.-E. (2016). The context sensitivity of self-concept and willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL classroom: A case study. In J. King (Ed.), The dynamic interplay between context and the language learner (pp. 84e103). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834e876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00576.x. Pervin, L. A. (1989). Personality: Theory and research (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Purnamaningsih, E. H. (2017). Personality and emotion regulation strategies. International Journal of Psychological Research, 10(1), 53. https://doi.org/10. 21500/20112084.2040. Richmond, V. P., Mccroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1989). An investigation of self-perceived communication competence and personality orientations. Communication Research Reports, 6(1), 28e36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824098909359829.

200

E. Piechurska-Kuciel / System 72 (2018) 190e200

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31e35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8721.2008.00543.x. Schretlen, D. J., van der Hulst, E. J., Pearlson, G. D., & Gordon, B. (2010). A neuropsychological study of personality: Trait openness in relation to intelligence, fluency, and executive functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(10), 1068e1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13803391003689770. Shao, Q., & Gao, X. (Andy) (2016). Reticence and willingness to communicate (WTC) of East Asian language learners. System, 63, 115e120. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.system.2016.10.001. Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the Big five. European Journal of Personality, 20(4), 255e270. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.583. Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041e1053. Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(1), 25e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)E0011-7. van den Hurk, P. A. M., Wingens, T., Giommi, F., Barendregt, H. P., Speckens, A. E. M., & van Schie, H. T. (2011). On the relationship between the practice of mindfulness meditation and personalitydan exploratory analysis of the mediating role of mindfulness skills. Mindfulness, 2(3), 194e200. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12671-011-0060-7. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 23(03), 361e374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640200303X. Vukman, K. B., & Demetriou, A. (2011). Cognitive ability, self-understanding and personality: Dynamic interactions in adulthood. Anthropos, 43(1/2), 35e50. Xie, Q. (Melody) (2011). Willingness to communicate in English among secondary school students in the rural Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom (MA thesis). Auckland University of Technology. Retrieved from: http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/2548. Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y.-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 860e879. Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2016). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 1e23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816657851. Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119e152. Young, D. J. (1998). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. San Francisco: McGraw Hill. Zakahi, W. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1989). Willingness to communicate: A potential confounding variable in communication research. Communication Reports, 2(2), 96e104. Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of teacher on learners' willingness to communicate. System, 42(Supplement C), 288e295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.014.