Text, Don't Call: A Rambling Review

Text, Don't Call: An Illustrated Guide to the Introverted Life by Aaron Caycedo-Kimura

I don't typically review non-fiction books, so this is a bit of a change for me! However, I am unapologetically an introvert, so when I was offered the chance to review this book by the publisher, of course I said yes.

The online personality of INFJoe and his cartoons were totally new to me. I think the artwork itself is simple but gets the point across very effectively -- a minimalist sort of approach to cartooning. The humour isn't laugh-out-loud funny, but it's often enjoyable in an "oh man, I can sure relate to that" kind of way. There were a couple aspects of the cartoons that I found questionable, though. One is that the introverts are always portrayed wearing glasses; I realize that this is so it is always clear which individual is intended to be the introvert, but it does perpetuate a bit of a stereotype about introverts being bookish, nerdy people. (Sure, plenty of introverts are, but I'm sure it's a generalization!). The other element was a metaphor of introverts being like computers/appliances -- needing to "recharge," or be "dimmed," which I feel paints a picture of introverts as emotionless robots. I know it's a metaphor that's intended to communicate an aspect of an introverted personality, but I feel like it plays on stereotypes that already exist about introverts rather than representing them in a more accurate way.

The cartoons in this book are really the star of the show; the text that accompanies them provides basic information about handling being introverted in an extrovert-appreciative world, but it wasn't anything I hadn't read before. Other books about introversion, such as Quiet, go into far more detail. That said, I thought the cartoons did a good job at capturing moments of introverted life — particularly snippets of internal monologue — that felt familiar to me (and likely to many introverts). It was nice to feel like someone else "got" it.

3 shooting stars.

Disclaimer: I received this book for review from the publisher.

"Introvert" Is Not a Bad Word!

 Hello. My name is Danya, and

I am an introvert.

Okay, so perhaps there are no Introverts Anonymous groups — after all, who would show up? — but there is definitely a tendency in Western culture to pathologize introversion and champion extroversion.

More on that in a moment, but first, let's go over the definitions of 'introvert' and 'extrovert', just so we're all on the same page:

 introvert: "1 Psych. a person predominantly concerned with his or her own thoughts and feelings rather than with external things. 2 a shy, inwardly thoughtful person (compare extrovert)"

 extrovert: "1 Psych. a person whose thoughts and interests are predominantly concerned with things outside the self. 2 an outgoing or sociable person (compare introvert)"

- from the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary

From this, it looks like there's a distinction between the meaning of "introvert" and "extrovert" when used in a particular discipline (psychology/psychiatry), and when used colloquially by the general public. The second definition of each word may be the one that most people associate with these terms, but personally, I think the first definition is more on the mark. It's very straightforward, and it doesn't use adjectives that muddy the waters.

For instance, in contrasting the second definitions of each of these terms, we might assume that introverts just aren't sociable, or that extroverts don't think deeply. These are blanket generalizations that I'd argue only serve to pit one of these personality types against the other. Introverts certainly can be sociable (I love hanging out with my friends!), and I'm sure extroverts can be introspective when they feel like it. Furthermore, the words "shy" and "outgoing" have connotations in Western culture — the former with a negative sense, the latter with a positive.

I believe that the distinction that should be drawn between these two is not of ambiguous adjectives describing personality, but rather the answer to a simple question: how does an individual "re-charge"? By and large (and yes, this is another generalization, albeit a more useful one), introverts re-charge by spending time by themselves; extroverts re-charge by spending time with people.  (For specifics on this, check out this Psychology Today article.)

Really, if you think about it, introversion and extroversion are just two different ways to re-energize oneself —with neither one being superior to the other (although certain situations may favour one method over the other). So why are introverts treated like they need to be "fixed"?

It's been my experience that if you're an introverted kid, people wonder what's wrong with you. "Why is she so shy? How come he doesn't like socializing with the others?" Teachers describe you as "shy" and "quiet" and ask your parents to encourage you to speak up more in class.

If you're an extroverted kid, you're in the clear. No one says, "I wish she wouldn't be so outgoing!" or "Why can't he keep his opinions to himself?" (Unless the individual is so outgoing he/she is disrupting the rest of the class, but then there's probably something else, beyond personality traits, going on.)

We see it in YA books and teen movies all the time. There's the "shy" protagonist, usually a girl, who through the help of a guidance counselor/a surprising friendship/a newfound connection with horses/etc. "blossoms," coming out of her "shell" and garnering a large group of friends who all adore her, and usually a boyfriend too.

In Grease, shy Sandy tries to be a whole lot more outgoing in order to get the guy — and she succeeds.

Do we ever see an extrovert turning to introversion to solve her problems? Do we ever see a loudmouthed social butterfly realizing she should think before she speaks, and starting to value close friendships over being the most popular?

It's rare. (If you can think of a book that demonstrates this, let me know!)

What this trend is telling teens, then, is that they should try to be more outgoing, make more friends, step outside their "comfort zone," in order to become who they're supposed to be. It's telling teens that being introverted is a bad thing, a lesser thing, than being extroverted. That extroversion is what they should be aiming for.

And that INFURIATES me. Introversion has its own and equal advantages to extroversion — just different ones. For instance, extroversion may be positively correlated with job salaries, promotion, and satisfaction with career, but introverts often make better leaders. For an in-depth look at what introversion brings to the table, I'd highly recommend checking out Susan Cain's Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.

I'd like to see some YA where an introvert learns to embrace that quality of themselves, rather than trying to push themselves to be someone they just aren't. A YA story where introverted qualities are appreciated — where they help the girl to get the guy (or vice versa).

And most of all, I'd like to see the popular North American attitude of valuing extroversion over introversion die. I know, it's a tall order.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to meet up with a friend. She's an extrovert, I'm an introvert, but we both love YA — and that means we never run out of things to talk about.

Guest Post: Agreeableness in YA Characters (OCEAN #4)

This is the fourth in the series of guest posts about personality traits in YA characters from Najela of Brave New Adventure! She's talked about openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion in her previous posts.

A stands for agreeableness which refers to people who are pleasant and friendly, and well, agreeable. Agreeableness, like extraversion, seems to be incredibly varied and situationally based. People who are on the opposite end of the spectrum tend to be less pleasant and friendly, but that doesn't mean that they aren't or can't be. In nearly all of the personality traits, these are just the natural tendency that people tend to fall into. None of these are fixed.

Agreeable characters in young adult novels are typically going  to the generally nice and relatable characters, pleasant to be around, relatively sociable, and fun to be around. They might be the people pleasers, the ones who can never say no, or sacrifice themselves for other people in the story. Most characters in young adult novels have to have a certain level of agreeableness, not many people want to read about overtly rude or unpleasant people. Not to say that characters can't be rude, but most people read characters that could be real people. So they can have their moments, but if a characters were unexplicably rude for no reason, a reader might be turned off and ultimately put the book down.

Characters who don't start off agreeable, the crux of their conflict is to be more aggreeable. And vice versa. Some of my favorite examples of this trait are shown in Bianca from The Duff and Anna from Anna and the French Kiss.


I chose Bianca because she's cynical, sometimes rude and mean, and definitely not always agreeable as far as traits are concerned. She's been burned by love before and is hesistant to start a new love. She's not very nice to anyone, but experiences with her parents divorce, using sex as a distraction, and taking her friends for granted allow her to mature and see the error of her ways. She's still not completely aggreeable, nor does she have to be, but she is more aggreeable to the people in her inner circle-- her parents, her friends, and a certain special someone.


I choose Anna because she is generally aggreeable, pleasant to be around, friendly and charismatic (when she finally gets comfortable with everyone), but she goes through periods of time when she closes herself off to people who care about her and doesn't see the people who are willing to talk with her about her problems (there's one scene in particular where Anna is confronted by her other friends that she ignored during some of her rough times that sticks out to me). After Anna survives her ordeal and *spoiler alert* gets the guy, she is back to her old self, but wiser, and more mature.

As with the previous post, think of how this trait would interact with other traits. What about a character who is low on conscientiousness but high on agreeableness? How do you think they would act? Think about some of your own characters or your favorite characters in books? How do you think they'd fair on the agreeability scale? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Najela is a recent graduate from UC Riverside with a dual degree in Psychology and Creative Writing. She is actively trying to combine the two majors while working as a Behavioral Interventionist for children that have autism. She is current pursuing a Master's Degree in Exceptional Student Education and working on an illustrated college guidebook set to release hopefully by (late) November 2011. You can follow her at her website or her tumblr. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on agreeableness as a trait in YA characters, Najela!

Guest Post: Extraversion in YA Characters (OCEAN #3)

Najela from Brave New Adventure has stopped by previously to discuss the personality traits of openness and conscientiousness in YA characters, and today she's back to talk about extraversion!

E stands for Extraversion and is probably one of the most varied in terms of YA characters. Extraversion refers to personality traits of people who are outgoing, sociable, and more assertive. Introversion refers to people who prefer to keep to themselves and are more reserved. Most people tend to be ambiverts, people who have both traits of extraversion and interversion. According to Wikipedia, most people tend to be ambiverts (up to 68% of the population) with extraversion and introversion being the extremes.

I believe that most characters in YA tend to be ambiverts with leanings closer to either side of the spectrum when the situation calls for it. For example, characters in a new setting, while they may be originally outgoing and sociable maybe be a little reserved when encountering new people. They may have to warm up to the new group before returning to their usually outgoing self. Conversely, a character who is usually reserved may be forced to be sociable and outgoing in the same situation. One could never know how they would act in an unknown situation. Essentially in writing, this is what the point of the entire story would be about.

The best examples of Extraversion, Introversion, and essentially Ambiversion are novels involving an ensemble casts. One the best known, in my opinion would be The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants series by Ann Brashares in which each girl invokes a different trait. For those who are unfamiliar with the Sisterhood series, the books follows the friendship of four girls, Carmen, Tibby, Bridgette, and Lena and their journey through their teenager years and their subsequent adulthood. The most vivid characterization in my opinion would be from the first book where you can see the range of girls go from and everything inbetween. Bridgette, who seems popular and outgoing becomes reserved and dispassionate after a situation crushes her emotions.

As with the last post, many characteristics interact and enhance or dimension each other. Imagine a character such who is high on agreeableness(which we'll discuss in the next post) and extroversion such as June, an eager to please young girl from The Extraordinary Secrets of April, May, and June. Or characters such as Katniss from the Hunger Games who I'd say is high on conscientiousness, but more of introvert? Especially in the case where a character is put through a situation they had never gone through before? In the case of Katniss, even though I see her as being introverted, she was forced into a situation where she had to be more extroverted, yet she still had to be smart about who she allied herself with.

What about your characters? What do they classify as? Intorverted? Extroverted? Or something inbetween? Share in the comments.

 Najela is a recent graduate from UC Riverside with a dual degree in Psychology and Creative Writing. She is actively trying to combine the two majors while working as a Behavioral Interventionist for children that have autism. She is current pursuing a Master's Degree in Exceptional Student Education and working on an illustrated college guidebook set to release hopefully by (late) November 2011. You can follow her at her website or her tumblr. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the extraversion-introversion spectrum in YA, Najela!

Guest Post: Conscientiousness in YA Characters (OCEAN #2)

Najela from Brave New Adventure is stopping by the blog today with her second guest post on personality traits! To read the first post on openness in YA characters, go here.

In continuing with the psychology of character or OCEAN, today is for C. C stands for conscientiousness, which refers to attention to detail, conscious decision making (thinking before they act) . Someone who is high on conscientiousness may be a perfectionist, but have a good work ethic and dependable. Someone who is low on conscientiousness probably jumps into situations without thinking through them.

In my opinion, I do not think many characters in YA novels are high on conscientiousness. The prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain involved with decision making, is not fully developed at this age. This is why teenagers tend to make poor choices. It's really inevitable that a character will make a bad choice. Characters should make bad choices, it makes them flawed, it makes them human. Just because a character is high on conscientiousness doesn't mean they still don't make bad choices. They may be more inclined to think the situation over beforehand and still go ahead and make the wrong decision.

Characters low on conscientious may not think through there actions. The conflict of this character may be learning to think of the consequences of their actions or to be come more self-aware. A character who is high on conscientiousness may think too much on their actions. The conflict of this character may be to learn to not analyze situations and jump in. There are many characters that fall on the range.

In looking through my reviews for a character that represents this trait, I thought of Marcelo from Francisco X. Stork's Marcelo in the Real World. Marcelo, in my opinion, is highly self-aware and is incredibly perceptive and particular about the way he keeps things and goes through his routine. He knows what he can do, but in this course of the story he learns his limitations and his strengths. I think its an interesting look at conscientiousness because we have a character who is thought to have a condition that affects his level of self-awareness (the book never explicitly says but it's a form of autism/aspergers). And yet, it turns out, he is one of the most conscientious characters in the novel because he constantly thinks through his actions and the implications of what he does. The struggle of the novel is whether he is going to do what is right or do what is easiest. I chose Marcelo because he seems to embody the trait, but also subvert it by being subjected to situations that is not black and white.

As mentioned in the last post, think about Tolstoy's theory of shading. How would conscientiousness play with other traits such as extraversion or agreeableness? How do these traits play out in the course of the story? Does it help or hinder your characters?

Discussion: Do you know any characters in books that are high or low on conscientiousness? What about your characters, how would they rate? Share your thoughts!

Najela is a recent graduate from UC Riverside with a dual degree in Psychology and Creative Writing. She is actively trying to combine the two majors while working as a Behavioral Interventionist for children that have autism. She is current pursuing a Master's Degree in Exceptional Student Education and working on an illustrated college guidebook set to release hopefully by (late) November 2011. You can follow her at her website or her tumblr. 

Thanks, Najela, for this interesting look at conscientiousness (or the lack thereof!) in YA characters.

Guest Post: Openness in YA Characters (OCEAN #1)

 I'm happy to welcome Najela from Brave New Adventure to the blog today for a Psychtember guest post! This is the first of 5 guest posts from Najela, each discussing a different personality trait of the "Big Five" in YA novels.

The Big Five Personality Approach

The Big Five Approach is a way of studying various aspects of personality. The five traits in this personality category are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Emotional Stability). Together these words make the acronym OCEAN (or CANOE, if you're old school according to my teachers.)

Openness to experience refers to the ability to think creatively or imaginatively and to be open to new experiences. The testable measures of openness are fantasy, values, aesthetics, feelings, actions, and ideas.

Someone who is high on openness may be impulsive and sensation seeking. Someone who is low on openness maybe reserved and withdrawn. However, this trait alone isn't the end all or be all of your characters. My creative writing teacher refers to Tolstoy's idea of shading your characters. All of these traits interplay with each other and give your character depth. Try exploring how these traits would play off one another. What would happen to someone who is high on openness and high on neuroticism?

Some characters that speak out to me as being high on openness tend to be teenagers. In fact, I feel that most teenagers in YA books need to have some degree of openness. That's one reason why I read YA novels because these characters are open to experience as ultimately most teens are. These experiences shape their identities and that's the interesting part to me. Whereas in adults, openness tends to decline with age and unless there are extremely well-written and/or can have me invest in the characters, are not as open to new experiences as teenagers tend to be. Most young adult novels deal with changes that usually can't be controlled (moving, losing a best friend, romance, etc...)so they have to find some way to cope. That is the conflict.

What happens when you get too high on the spectrum? One character that comes quickly to mind would be Alaska from John Green's Looking for Alaska. When you read the novel, you can see that all the characters are sensation seeking and impulsive, but not to the point where its an overall problem. Except for maybe, Alaska, who's openness interacts with other traits (neuroticism?) to cause the conflict to come into play.

A character who has a decent balance of openness would be typically most teenagers in YA fiction. They can sometimes be a bit apprehensive, but at the same time willing to try new things. When I was a teenager, I was a bit reserved, but could be prone to being impulsive when the mood struck me. Others I know were constantly doing something impulsive, possibly even reckless, and they had to deal with consequences. Others I know hardly took any chances and as a result didn't have to deal with the consequences of their own actions, but the actions of others. That can make for great tension and a good read. Characters from books like this would be Caleb and Corinne from Jumping Off Swings by Jo Knowles who have to deal with the consequences of their friend's actions. Also Clay Jensen from Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher. Each of these characters are a balance of control and impulsiveness, but ultimately they are paying for the consequences of the others around them. (Ellie and Josh from Jumping Off Swings and Hannah from Thirteen Reasons Why)

Very rarely will you find a character that is low in openness. They may start off that way, but for the story to work and be compelling, the conflict comes when they pushed into the open and need to start dealing with the situation. Most urban fantasies and paranormal romances start off like this. An inciting incident or encounter with paranormal, a disbelief, another encounter, belief, then action. One book that follows this pattern is The Iron King by Julie Kagawa. At the beginning, Meghan does not believe in faeries. Ultimately, a character needs to overcome that problem to protect the ones they love. A story about a character who isn't inclined to experience anything makes for a boring novel and a passive character.

So readers: Do you know any characters that would rate high, low, or balanced in a novel? What about your own characters, how would they rate on the openness scale? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Najela is a recent graduate from UC Riverside with a dual degree in Psychology and Creative Writing. She is actively trying to combine the two majors while working as a Behavioral Interventionist for children that have autism. She is current pursuing a Master's Degree in Exceptional Student Education and working on an illustrated college guidebook set to release hopefully by (late) November 2011. You can follow her at her website or her tumblr.  

Thanks, Najela, for sharing your insights on openness in teens and how this is reflected in YA novels! 

Personality & Genre Survey: The Results, Part 2 (aka. The Bar Graphs)

So if any of you remember, a while ago I ran a survey looking at whether personality was connected to genre preference in YA (yes, I admit it, I'm a psychology geek). Respondents were asked to give their top 2 favourite genres as well as answer some questions about their personality. I took a look at the overall trends earlier, and now I'm going to get down to the specifics. (Sorry it's been forever since the last post on this but the craziness of A Cornucopia of Dystopia took over!)

Of course, this survey was just for fun and none of these results are in any way representative of formal personality assessment!

In my personality-predicting quiz (give me your favourite YA genres, and I'll try to predict your personality) I gave each of the groups a fun name loosely based on the survey results, so that's how I'm going to go through the combinations of genres. You'll see that in some cases there are clear personality patterns depending on which genre was chosen first and which second, and others are much more muddied. In some of the groups, several genres have been combined as the 2nd choice, because I had too few people to warrant separating each into its own group.

And so, in no particular order...

1.) Paranormal People Person: Paranormal as #1 choice, Realistic as #2 (P+R)

There aren't any really strong trends in the P+R individuals, but they are more likely to be extroverted "thinkers" (individuals who solve decisions through logic, as opposed to "feelers" who go by their emotions) who stress easily and are "people people."

2.) Paranormal Party Animal: Paranormal as #1 and Science Fiction as #2 (P+SF)

P+SF people definitely tend towards being extroverted. They're also more likely to stress easily over small things and be animal people (this last one does not surprise me at all, because, well, it's paranormal. Hello, werewolves and other shapeshifters.)

3.) Paranormal Hermit: Paranormal as #1, Urban Fantasy as #2 (P + UF)

We've seen a lot of people who choose Paranormal or Urban Fantasy as #1 be extroverts (see Paranormal Party Animals, Urban Fantasy Control Freaks and Urban Fantasy Chicken Littles) which is why this result here is such a counter-intuitive surprise. Unlike these other groups, readers who like Paranormal first and Urban Fantasy second are almost all introverts (thus the "hermit" name). They are also far more likely to prefer theories and concepts ("intuiters") to concrete knowledge ("sensers"), be both open-minded and spontaneous, stress out over even small things, and be animal people (once again, not a surprise given how often animals pop up in paranormal books).

4.) Paranormal Spock: Paranormal as #1, Traditional Fantasy or Historical as #2 (P + F or H)

Only 4 people in this category, so we can't really draw any inferences very confidently, but all of them like to make decisions based on logic (hence the Spock), and most prefer abstract knowledge and are cautious planners.

5.) Urban Fantasy "Chicken Littles": Urban Fantasy as #1 choice, Sci-Fi/Dystopian as #2 (UF + SF)

Another group with some obvious patterns going on. Much more likely to be extroverted, and almost every single one of these people identified as stressing easily, even over little things (which is why I called them "Chicken Littles.") Interestingly, they are more likely to prefer the familiar, but they are also tend to be spontaneous rather than planners. Also, this is one of only two groups that have equal numbers of thinkers and feelers (all the others have greater numbers of thinkers).

6.) Urban Fantasy Control Freaks: Urban Fantasy as #1, Traditional Fantasy, Historical or Paranormal as #2 (UF + F, H or P)

Seeing some similarities with all the Urban Fantasy people? Yep, this group tends to be extroverted too. Here, though, the "planners" beat out the spontaneous individuals by a long shot (which is why I titled them "control freaks.")

7.) Historical Paradoxes: Historical as #1, and Traditional Fantasy, Sci-Fi/Dystopian, Paranormal or Realistic as #2 (H + F, SF, P, or R)

Given that there weren't that many people who chose Historical as #1 (which is why I grouped them all together), and they had several different choices for #2, I was quite surprised to note the similarities in personality. They tend to be extroverted, prefer abstract knowledge and theories to facts, prefer the familiar but be spontaneous (hence the "paradox" name), and oddly enough more of them identify as "animal people." Also, along with the Fantasy Spock crowd this group seems to be more relaxed, rolling with the curveballs life throws them. 

8.) Realistic Factualists: Realistic as #1 choice, Sci-Fi/Dystopian as #2 (R+SF)

This group likes the cold hard truth. They don't care about abstract ideas and theories – it's the data they're after. They're logical, tend to prefer the familiar, and they LOVE to plan everything out. Spontaneity does not enter into their daily schedule. This is one of the combinations that appears to have some very clear trends.

 9.) Realistic Randoms: Realistic as #1, Mystery as #2 (R+M)

These guys are all over the map...very random! The one thing they all have in common is that they see themselves as a people person.

10.) Realistic Creatures of Habit: Realistic as #1, Traditional Fantasy, Historical, or Urban Fantasy as #2 (R + F, H, or UF)

More likely to be extroverted, prefer cold hard facts, be cautious (preferring the familiar, hence the 'creatures of habit'), "thinkers" who stress easily and tend to be "people people." As you can see, though, the differences in this group are pretty minimal, no strong trends apart from there being no "feelers" here.

11.) Realistic Control Freaks: Realistic as #1, Paranormal as #2 (R+P)

This group is also pretty mixed, although like the Realistic Factualists almost every single one likes to plan their days out. I'd thought this group might tend to be "animal people," seeing as their 2nd choice is Paranormal, but it seems like the #1 genre trumps #2, at least in that regard.

12.) Mysterious Outliers: Mystery as #1, anything else as #2 (M + anything)

There were only 3 out of those first 115 respondents that chose Mystery as #1, so I'm not even going to bother showing a graph. Suffice it to say any trends in mystery lovers remain, well...a mystery.

13.) Fantasy Spocks: Traditional Fantasy as #1 choice and Science Fiction as #2 (F+SF)

The Fantasy Spock group, as you can see, is very much a mixed bag; the genre seems to welcome all personality types. Both introverts and extroverts, cautious and open-minded, and no difference in terms of being an "animal person" or "people person." However, they are more likely to be "intuiters" (people who prefer abstract knowledge) rather than "sensers" (people who prefer cold hard facts), be thinkers rather than feelers (Spock...), planners rather than spontaneous, and interestingly enough, they were one of only 2 groups to have a greater number of people who don't stress out easily. Apparently Fantasy + Sci-Fi/Dystopian draws a lot of really relaxed readers.

14.) Fantastical Creatures (of Habit): Traditional Fantasy as #1, Urban Fantasy as #2 (F + UF)

These people are pretty mixed in personality, but a couple things stand out. They tend to be more comfortable with the familiar (creatures of habit), and stress easily.

15.) Fantastic Minglers: Traditional Fantasy as #1, Historical, Paranormal or Realistic as #2 (F + H, P or R)

This crew seems to be extroverted (hence the "minglers"), cautious thinkers.

 Now, it's also a good idea to look at the respondent sample as a whole, so we don't get carried away seeing trends where there are none. You can check out all the general results here, but a couple I think are particularly interesting:

• Overall more extroverts than introverts answered the survey 
• There were more thinkers than feelers
• The book blogging community appears to stress out rather easily

It's important to take into consideration that with an internet survey there'll be a lot of self selection going on, and it may be that certain types of people are more likely to fill out the survey, leading to biases in the data. 

Obviously I'd need a much larger sample (and I'd need to apply some actual statistical tests, like chi-square, to get an idea of statistical significance of any difference) to be able to conclude anything with any confidence. In particular I'd need more people who choose Historical, Sci-Fi/Dystopian or Mystery as their 1st choice, and I'd like to see personality results for every possible genre combination (I didn't get some genre combinations at all – for instance, Paranormal as 1st choice and Mystery as 2nd never came up, which is kind of surprising given the number of paranormal mysteries out there!) It does seem interesting that certain genre combinations popped up much more often than others. But I think the results do suggest a connection between genre preference and personality, at least for certain genres (and certain people!)

What do you think about these results? Do you see a reflection in your own personality and genre choices? (And if you managed to make it through this entire post, congrats!)

Personality & Genre Survey: The Results, Part 1 (aka. The Pie Charts)

So a while ago I wanted to try and find out if personality was connected to genre preference in YA (what can I say, that's my psychology background talking) so I came up with this survey. 115 of you were kind enough to fill it out and give me some data!

In this first part I thought I'd explain the questions, how I came up with them, and show some of the general results. Just want to throw out a disclaimer to start with that this survey was just for fun and is not representative of any kind of personality assessment!

The first few questions were just to get an idea of the demographic (age, gender) and the genres you like to read. That in itself was interesting, because the response was not at all even across genres. For the favourite genre, the response looked like this:

The top favourite genre was realistic/contemporary (about 27%), followed closely by paranormal and then traditional fantasy. The "miscellaneous", by the way, just refers to when the person selected "other" and wrote in a different genre. But the second favourite genre pie chart looked totally different:

The genre of sci-fi/dystopian was extremely popular (31%) as a second favourite genre, the only other ones coming close being urban fantasy and paranormal. Totally would not have predicted that!

Then I asked,

Of the following, which do you most highly value in a novel?

• Well-drawn, realistic characters?
• Rich, complex world-building?
• Exciting, action-filled plots?
• Witty, humorous dialogue?
• A good dose of romance?

I thought this might relate to personality in some way, but a massively high amount of the sample, regardless of genre preference, responded with "well-drawn, realistic characters." I was really surprised at this too...I know characters are important to some readers (they are to me) but I definitely underestimated how many!

Next question was:

When you read a book, do you prefer characters...

• You admire and attempt to emulate?
• You empathize with and feel close to?
• That make you feel glad your life is nothing like theirs?

With this one I was trying to get at social comparison a bit (if you want to know all about the theory, here is the Social Comparison Theory article on Wikipedia). However, a huge amount of people (80%) responded with, "You empathize with and feel close to." I wasn't expecting many people to choose the last option but I was surprised that there weren't more who preferred characters they "admire and attempt to emulate."

Then came the questions I based on the Myers-Briggs personality theory. (For an explanation of the official Myers-Briggs personality type questionnaire, go to this Wikipedia article).

Does spending time with others leave you...

• More energized?
• Less energized?

I was getting at the introverted/extroverted axis with this one. As Wikipedia states (yes, I love to use Wikipedia), "extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone." This is rather different from the popular misconception that introversion/extroversion has to do with whether or not you are "shy" or "socially awkward" or other misused terms.

I'm not too surprised I got more extroverts than introverts responding, since of course the sample will be biased in terms of what types of people are likely to answer online surveys.

When you're faced with an important decision, do you...

• Weigh all the pros and cons carefully, following a logical train of thought?
• Go with your gut, following your feelings?

This one was looking at decision-making, specifically thinking vs. feeling. I was a little surprised that the "thinkers" had such a lead over the "feelers."

 

Do you prefer...

• Cold hard facts?
• Theories and patterns?

This question was tapping the sensing vs. intuition aspect (how we gather information), and the sample was basically split 50/50.


I loosely based the next 3 questions on part of the OCEAN personality theory, also known as the "Big Five." OCEAN is an acronym which stands for "openness to experience," "conscientiousness," "extroversion," "agreeableness" and "neuroticism."

Would you describe yourself as more...

• Curious and eager to try new things?
• Cautious, preferring the familiar?

This one was representing the "openness to experience" part, and once again it was split quite evenly between the two responses.

You find out at the last minute that you've got the day off from work/class. Are you more likely to:

• Set off on a spontaneous day trip, not sure where you'll end up?
• Start making lists of everything you're going to get done that day?

This one was getting at "conscientiousness" and tendency towards planned vs. spontaneous action. There are slightly more who chose "planning" but not a large difference.

Do you find that...

• You get stressed easily, even by little things?
• You're relaxed most of the time, even when life throws you a curveball?

I was trying to get at the "neuroticism" aspect of the Big Five with this one...seems like quite a few of you get stressed out easily! (I certainly do.)


And finally, as a kind of fun question, I threw in:

Would you describe yourself as...

• More of a people person?
• More of an animal person?

Wasn't too surprised that this one was just about dead even!

Anyway, so those are the overall results for the survey responses. I'll be doing another post later looking specifically at genre combinations and their relationship to certain personality traits (but if I had tried to put it all in one blog post, it would have gone on forever and I'm sure I've made you hungry for pie now as it is.)

So, any results here you might not have expected? Did you learn something about personality psychology? :P

If you'd like, you can still add your data to the Is Personality Related to Genre? survey. Oh, and if you haven't yet taken my Can I Predict Your Personality from Your Genre Preference? quiz yet (based on my preliminary survey results), go ahead and see how accurate it is!