PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERPRETER TRAINEES:
THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI)
Nancy Schweda Nicholson
University of Delaware
1. Introduction
People have been interested in personality for thousands of years. The Chinese
as well as the ancient Greeks, Aristotle and Hippocrates, developed various
systems and labels which enabled them to identify and define basic personality
traits.
In more recent times, Jung created his own way of looking at personality via
“personality types” based on individuals’ preferences for functioning in both the
personal and professional arenas of everyday life (Jung 1923, 1971). For the
past 50 years, the Japanese have been gathering data to support “Theory B”, a
system used to classify personality based on blood type (Nomi and Besher
1983). Theory B has become so popular in Japan that virtually every stratum of
society has been affected by it, from advertising to the development of
managerial strategies. Other models include “Spectral Theory”, which uses the
seven colors of the spectrum as a basis for identifying personality
characteristics, and VALS (Value and Life Styles), created in the 1970s by the
California-based SRI International. VALS has become very popular in the
business world (Oldenburg 1988). The ‘communication value orientation
model’ was developed by Casse (1981). Praendex Incorporated has produced a
“Performance Requirement Options” (PRO) worksheet which asks respondents
to indicate what they believe are important “behavioral requirements” for any
given job (PRO 1989). A list of 90 possibilities is offered. These include items
such as “maintaining complete, accurate records”, “making major decisions
independently”, and “being a patient, sympathetic listener” (PRO 1989: 1-3).
The general idea is that individuals’ qualifications and strengths can be matched
to the requirements for a particular position. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of
personality situates distinctive and restricted traits within an umbrella grouping
of five basic categories: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Openness to
Experience and Conscientiousness (Digman 1990; McCrae and John 1992).
There is a growing body of literature on the use of the FFM to assess personality
traits cross-culturally (see, for example, McCrae and Allik 2002; Hampson
2000; Saucier, Hampson and Goldberg 2000; Williams, Satterwhite and Saiz
1998. Also see Mohan 2000 for general cross-cultural studies of personality,
identity, and factors such as anxiety, stress and neuroticism). Saucier, Hampson
and Goldberg (2000) consider whether or not the basic dimensions employed to
Nancy Schweda Nicholson110
describe personality are generalizable across a wide variety of cultures and
languages. These include Germanic, Slavic, Romance and non-Indo-European
tongues. Block, writing about personality and affect, states that the psychology
of personality especially looks at how persons “perceive, respond to, and
understand their respective worlds as they seek to establish adaptive life modes”
(2002: xii).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed in the 1950s by a
mother-daughter team and based on Jung's theory of psychological type, plays
an influential role in personality evaluation in the United States (Bayne 1995;
Keirsey 1998; Myers 1987, 1980, 1962; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk and
Hammer 1998; Quenk 2000, 1993; Tieger 1995). The MBTI identifies our
preferences for (1) interacting with others, (2) gathering information, (3) making
decisions about what we experience, and (4) controlling ourselves and the world
around us. There is no one “perfect” or “ideal” personality type. All individuals
exhibit certain preferences and “preferences are not a matter of right or wrong;
they are a matter of what feels most natural” (Barr and Barr 1989: 3). Levesque
(2001) uses the MBTI as a basis for helping people to identify and develop their
creative talents.
The MBTI is the assessment tool employed in the current study and is
discussed in greater detail in Section IV. In sum, “one of the most natural things
in the world is the mind trying to make sense out of the data of everyday life ...
It does that by codifying and putting things into categories” (Hogan, cited by
Oldenburg 1988: C5).
2. Rationale for the current study
Interpreter trainers have long been involved in the development and refinement
of screening devices which attempt to best identify those individuals who have
the greatest chance of success in an interpreter training program (Herbert 1952;
Keiser 1978, 1964; Kurz 1996; Longley 1968; Moser 1978; Nilski 1967;
Pfloeschner 1965; Schweda Nicholson 1986b, Sofr 1976; Szuki 1988). The
search for a “perfect” screening examination, i.e., one which would consistently
select potentially successful interpreters and weed out those who are unsuitable,
goes on. Screening devices can include a variety of components. First and
foremost, though, it is critical to ascertain that candidates have a high level of
competence in their working languages. Exceptional facility in their “A”
language(s) is of paramount importance. An oral interview as well as written
tests of synonyms, antonyms and reading comprehension may be employed.
Some trainers include additional assessment components like shadowing and
sight translation, as well as consecutive and simultaneous interpretation
(Schweda Nicholson 1986b). The present study grew out of the author’s interest
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 111
in adding new elements with the goal of improving the current screening exam.
Inasmuch as it has been demonstrated that particular careers tend to attract
certain personality types, the author thought it might be useful to gather
personality data from interpreter trainees. An assessment device such as the
MBTI is not viewed as a replacement for a traditional screening test; rather, it is
proposed that such a personality inventory could be one component of a broader
exam. As a result, it might provide interpreter trainers with an additional
perspective on their potential trainees.
3. Personality and interpretation
A. What makes a good interpreter?
Practicing interpreters and interpreter trainers have wondered and spoken
about the “ideal” personality traits for the successful interpreter for many years.
Within the field of interpretation, the classic approach to the identification of
personality characteristics has been an introspective one. To be more specific,
interpreters have often examined their own personalities and attempted to
generalize based on their personal assessments. For example, an individual may
express the following ideas: “I am a good interpreter. I am outgoing,
intellectually curious, good at analysis and synthesis, and have an eye for
organization and detail. Therefore, all good interpreters are/should be like me
and possess these same qualities.” In this connection, if one asks an interpreter
what he or she believes to be the perfect temperament and personality for a new
trainee, the interpreter will, almost without exception, describe his or her own
personality. The requirements of the interpretation task such as speed with
accuracy, grace and calm under pressure, intense powers of concentration, the
ability to internalize large amounts of unfamiliar material quickly, and analytical
talent (just to name a few) have been projected into the arena of personality.
Hence, one finds a compendium of numerous characteristics from which to
choose. It will be interesting to identify which of these hypothesized traits
actually materialize in the personality inventories of those surveyed. While
introspective data can be useful for research purposes, its value should be
viewed in perspective. Such information may be included as one component of a
study in which more objective measures are also employed.
B. Review of the interpretation literature
Before proceeding to a more detailed description of the research method and
analysis of the data, it is useful to include a brief review of the interpretation
literature regarding personality. What has been written to date is based on both
observation and introspection, primarily within the field of conference
interpretation. The observation data come from people both within and outside
Nancy Schweda Nicholson112
the profession. In an early article, Paneth (1962) speculates on the procedures
for identifying those candidates who have the greatest chance for success in an
interpreter training program. She stresses the “qualities of split-mindedness” and
“concentration” and suggests that there are certain “right personality traits”;
however, Paneth does not elaborate on what these might be (1962: 109).
Longley (1968, 1978), Keiser (1978), and Seleskovitch (1978) also emphasize
the importance of concentration. Gerver et al (1984), Henderson (1980), and
Longley (1968) discuss the interpreter's ability to work as a member of a team.
In simultaneous interpretation, interpreters work in glass-fronted enclosures
with a partner, generally two colleagues per booth. Longley goes on to state:
“Some of us have sometimes wondered if it is the need to work constantly and
faithfully in a team that has made so many interpreters impossible individualists
outside the cabin” (1968: 52). In fact, interpreters are sometimes characterized
as “arrogant” (Henderson 1980: 222).
Interpretation can be a frustrating occupation for some. Those who make it a
career as well as those who move on to other professions often discuss the need
for interpreters to subjugate their own personality to that of the speaker, as it is
the lecturer's thoughts which are being expressed and not the interpreter’s. Over
the years, many have remarked that interpretation requires one to suppress
personal ego and ideas. The interpreter is not the originator of what is said;
rather, he/she is the human conduit through which ideas expressed in one
language are transferred via/to the structure of another. This is not to say that
interpreters do not have personal feelings and/or knowledge about the subjects
they interpret; their opinions, however, are not permitted to surface in the
context of the interpretation. This “suppression of ego” (constantly expressing
another’s thoughts and not one’s own) may become difficult and frustrating for
some interpreters. An article by Henderson (1980) includes the observation that
the role of the interpreter is a “subordinate” one (225). Longley (1978: 55)
discusses the fact that interpreters provide a service to others and are “constantly
under control of an outside will (the speaker)”. To wit, they (interpreters)
facilitate communication between individuals who, without their assistance,
would be unable to establish meaningful verbal contact.
Henderson (1980) conducted a study designed to examine personality
characteristics of professional interpreters and translators1
. He asked these two
groups to indicate those personality traits which they (1) ascribe to themselves
as well as those they (2) believe best describe their colleagues. More
1 Although Henderson’s respondents completed two separate questionnaires, one
which covered “biographical data, education, experience, career goals and
attitudes” (217), and a second which consisted of the 16 PF Test (Form C 1969
Edition), the 1980 article discussed solely responses to Questions 6 and 7 from the
first questionnaire. None of the data gathered from the 16 PF Test was included.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 113
specifically, interpreters not only suggested characteristics for their own group
but also were asked to describe translators as well. Henderson primarily
discusses the answers to two open-ended questions: (1) “In terms of personality,
how would you describe a ‘typical’ translator?” and (2) “Similarly, how would
you describe a ‘typical’ interpreter?” (217). For purposes of this study, the
responses to question #2 are of greatest interest. Some respondents offered only
one “terse” response while others provided as many as ten or more
characteristics. Of particular interest is that “... generally each group’s view of
the other tended to corroborate that group’s own self-image, e.g. the views of
interpreters on translators largely confirm those of translators on translators”
(218). In this connection, David C. Funder, a psychologist at the University of
Illinois at Urbana, is attempting to demonstrate that people’s instincts are
generally on target when they are asked to evaluate another’s personality
(Oldenburg 1988).
Much has always been made of the tremendous stress of the job (Longley
1968; Gerver et al 1984; Cooper et al 1982). In this connection, many agree that
it is particularly important for interpreters to be cool under pressure, to have
strong self-control, and “nerves of steel” (Henderson 1980, Keiser 1978,
Seleskovitch 1978). Related to the stressful nature of the occupation, the
interpreter is also expected to be quick-witted and provide interpreted material
in a split second (Gerver et al 1984, Henderson 1980, Seleskovitch 1978).
However, many have observed that interpreters are, as a result, "high-strung",
“temperamental”, “touchy” and “prima donna” types (Henderson 1980: 222).
Under Henderson’s category, “Empathy”, the interpreter is also characterized as
“sensitive” by some respondents (221).
Additional traits which are generally agreed upon include “inquisitiveness”
and “curiosity” (Henderson 1980, Keiser 1978, Seleskovitch 1978). Interpreters
are thought to prefer variety, to be tolerant, versatile, adaptable, and openminded.
As might be surmised, they are expected to be articulate and have a
“knack for communicating” (Seleskovitch 1978: 78). Moreover, proficiency in
analyzing and synthesizing material (Keiser 1978, Seleskovitch 1978) as well as
attention to detail (Longley 1968) are often discussed. Interpreters are also
thought to be self-confident, possessing the ability to take control of difficult
situations (Henderson 1980, 1987). In this connection, Seleskovitch writes about
the requirement that interpreters exhibit "great self-control" as well (1978: vi).
“Extraversion”2
is perhaps the characteristic employed most often when
talking about interpreters (Carroll 1978; Cattell 1971; Henderson 1980, 1987;
Seleskovitch 1978; Szuki 1988). People frequently say that interpreters can be
2 The most frequent dictionary spelling of this word is “extroversion.” However,
Jung wrote it as “extraversion”, and those who work in the field today have adopted
this spelling (Keirsey and Bates 1978).
Nancy Schweda Nicholson114
compared to actors, who enjoy appearing in public and have a flair for public
speaking (Henderson 1980; Keiser 1978; Longley 1978). Although rarely
mentioned in the literature, discussion has centered recently on the possibility
that introverts may actually make better interpreters because they are more
focused on the “inner world” (Myers 1987: 5) and are unlikely to be susceptible
to internal or external distractions. In fact, one respondent in Henderson’s
survey characterized an interpreter as “not a good mixer/often a loner” (1980:
221). One can draw a potential connection between the requirement for lengthy
concentration and the inner focus of the introvert.
Longley (1968) believes the interpretation profession is not for the “happygo-lucky”
type. She writes: “The need to concentrate for long hours on end, to
prepare carefully for meetings, to pay attention to detail, all of which are part of
an interpreter's job, do not usually go hand in hand with a bohemian nature”
(68). On the other hand, Henderson (1987) does include “happy-go-lucky” in his
interpreter profile.
Kurz (1996) employed the ‘communication value orientation model’ (Casse
1981), which is targeted for use in intercultural communication training. The
four major categories are: (1) action-oriented; (2) process-oriented; (3) peopleoriented;
and (4) idea-oriented. Although Casse believes that everyone
possesses all four characteristics to a certain extent, each individual has one
orientation that dominates, one whose comfort level is clearly higher than the
other three. His instrument consists of first-person statements arranged in forty
pairs that deal with personality traits as well as attitudes. Respondents are asked
to select the one in each pair that they believe is most reflective of their own
personalities. Kurz, however, modified the approach. Instead of asking her
sample (which consisted of 31 beginning and 39 advanced students3
who were
taking both translation and interpretation courses) to respond for themselves, she
asked students to go through the sentences twice. During one round, they were
asked to answer as they thought a translator would and, during the other, as an
interpreter would. Kurz’s analysis showed that the results were generally in line
with the literature cited in her review. Translators were considered to be both
“process-“ and “people-oriented” whereas interpreters were judged to be
“people-“ and “action-oriented.” Both beginning and advanced students
associated “process” more with translators and “people” more with interpreters.
Although Kurz’s study is an interesting one that uses a personality inventory
which differs from the MBTI, the reader is cautioned when interpreting her
results. Inasmuch as trainees were not responding with their own preferences in
mind, the author believes that it is possible that the answers reflected and/or
3 Kurz actually began with a set of 57 questionnaires from the beginners and 42 from
the advanced students. However, not all were usable, primarily because a
significant number were incomplete.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 115
reinforced existing stereotypes within the fields of translation and interpretation.
Kurz herself reflects on this particular limitation in her conclusions (1996).
In sum, although the literature does include some studies as well as much
introspective data regarding interpreters' personalities, a detailed and multifaceted
investigation employing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (a
well-known, standardized personality inventory) has yet to appear. As a result,
the current research seeks to fill that void by examining personality
characteristics of interpreter trainees using the MBTI.
Figure 1. Four scales of the MBTI
A. Extravert (E)/Introvert (I): gather energy
E I
--interaction --inner focus
--talkative --quiet, shy
--active, outgoing --prefer to work alone
B. Sensing (S)/Intuitive (N): collect information
S N
--five senses --abstract
--live in present --live in future
--clarity, simplicity --complexity (“big picture”)
--just right word --flexible
C. Thinking (T)/Feeling (F): make decisions
T F
--objective --subjective
--head --heart
--like problem-solving --thrive on harmony
(NOTE: Among T/F types, there is a clear gender distinction in the general population:
Women = 2/3 F and 1/3 T.)
D. Judging (J)/Perceiving (P): stance toward external world
J P
--decisive -- go with flow”,
“play by ear”
--plan/organize -- pontaneous
--control life -- nderstand life
(Sources: Keirsey and Bates 1978; Kroeger and Thuesen 1992, 1988; Myers 1987; Silver
and Hanson 1980)
Nancy Schweda Nicholson116
4. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is used to examine personality
characteristics. This assessment tool has become a standard in business,
education, career counseling, and government agencies. It is especially useful in
team-building and evaluation of learning styles (Pauley 2002; Scherdin 1994;
Sullivan 1994). In addition, research on personalities and careers has
demonstrated that certain types of people gravitate toward particular professions
because they allow individuals to exercise their favorite ways of doing things
(Myers and McCaulley 1985). A description of the four bipolar scales (or
“preferences”) measured by the MBTI follows along with a hypothetical
suggestion regarding the traits of an “ideal” interpreter at the end of each
section.
A. The Extraversion (E)/Introversion (I) Scale
The first scale defines one’s preferences in gathering energy: Extraversion
(E) vs. Introversion (I). Extraverts gain energy from direct interaction with
people and things. Talkative and gregarious, they tend to have a wide scope of
interests and prefer to live through experiences and talk about them later.
Extraverts like to act rather than take a passive role, and they often make
decisions spontaneously. Moreover, Extraverts are sociable and tend to like to
meet new people. They enjoy seeking out novel experiences. In contrast,
Introverts gather energy from within themselves. Quiet and sometimes even shy,
they favor depth over breadth and often devote considerable time to thinking
things through before acting. Many Introverts are overwhelmed by the outside
world and prefer to work alone. Based on the information provided in Section
III, one could hypothesize that the “ideal” interpreter would be an Extravert.
B. The Sensing (S)/Intuition (N) Scale
The second dimension of the MBTI, Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), deals
with how people prefer to collect information. Sensing types pay particular
attention to their five senses: what they can see, feel, hear, touch, and taste.
Living very much in the present, they prefer to take things one step at a time and
have a knack for keen observation and an impressive memory for concrete
details. Sensing individuals prefer tasks which require them to be careful and
extremely thorough. Conversely, they generally dislike activities which demand
intuition and imagination. Clarity and simplicity have great appeal for the
Sensing type. On the other end of the scale, Intuitive (N) types tend to skip over
the sensory data in order to focus on abstract ideas, possibilities, and concepts.
They tend to live in the future and enjoy bouncing around various ideas in no
fixed order. Intuitive people easily see how things are related; they are most
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 117
interested in the “big picture”. They are intellectually curious and adaptable to
the exploration of numerous relationships and connections among data. They are
good at anticipation and prediction inasmuch as they are future-oriented.
Moreover, Intuitive types are good guessers. Whereas the Sensing type has a
tendency to want to find the “right” word to express an idea, the Intuitive person
is flexible and can usually come up with various appropriate word choices
easily. Barr and Barr (1989) offer yet another comparison between the Sensor
and the Intuitor: “Sensors focus on what someone said. Intuitors focus on what
they meant” (3). Complexity is particularly enticing to the Intuitive individual,
who probably has a variety of intellectual interests. It appears that the “ideal”
interpreter would be an Intuitive type.
C. The Thinking (T)/Feeling (F) Scale
The third bipolar scale of the MBTI focuses on how people prefer to make
decisions: Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F). Before proceeding to a discussion of the
Thinking and Feeling types’ preferences, it is important to mention that “[t]he
T-F dimension is the only pair of preferences which shows a sex trend” (Keirsey
and Bates 1978: 20). More specifically, approximately two-thirds of women are
Feeling types, while only one-third of women are Thinking types (Kroeger and
Thuesen 1988: 20). Conversely, then, the great majority of men are Thinking
types as opposed to Feeling ones. The wide disparity between males and
females within this particular preference will be discussed in greater detail in
Section VI.C.
Thinking types favor an objective, logical approach. Problem solving has
great appeal, for it encourages their impersonal analytical skills. Thinking
individuals may be perceived by others as cold, even arrogant. They tend to be
critical and skeptical. “The Thinker appears to be head-dominated, while the
Feeler appears to be heart-dominated” (Barr and Barr 1989: 4). In this
connection, Thinkers like to focus on content and ideas rather than the
individual who generates the ideas. They dislike redundancy. In contrast,
Feeling (F) types take a subjective view and assess personal values, their own
and those of others. They focus much more on social relationships and social
climate. They thrive on friendship and harmony and are likely to be socially
aware and active in humanitarian causes. One can hypothesize that interpreters
would be Thinking types.
D. The Judgement (J)/Perception (P) Scale
The last scale deals with control: Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P). Judging
types prefer to control their environment. They are decisive, and constantly
move toward closure, toward the completion of tasks. They like to plan and
organize; they have a strong sense of duty and prefer to be on time. Making
Nancy Schweda Nicholson118
decisions comes easily and quickly to the Judging type. Conversely, Perceiving
(P) types prefer to control their participation in the environment. They like to
remain spontaneous, and are always open to new possibilities. Perceptive types
are curious and flexible, preferring to “go with the flow” and play things by ear.
Once again, based on data referred to earlier, one would surmise that many
interpreters would be Judging types, although characteristics of Ps are certainly
relevant as well. See Section VI.D. for additional discussion.
To sum up, it is hypothesized that many interpreters will be Extravert (E),
Intuitive (N), Thinking (T), and Judging (J) or, in the vernacular of the MBTI,
“ENTJ”.
However, it must be remembered that most personality tests demonstrate
that “... no one is a pure amalgam ... no pure introvert, no pure extrovert, no
pure type” (Hogan, cited by Oldenburg 1988: C5).
5. Subjects
A. Groupings
The current study examines the MBTI personality data of several groups of
interpreter trainees. First, the group classified as “Regular” (R) (N = 28) is
composed of those students who enrolled in and finished a one-year conference
interpretation program at either the University of Delaware or the University of
Hawaii. The “Vancouver” (V) category (N = 12) includes those trainees who
completed a seven-day intensive seminar in primarily simultaneous
interpretation at Vancouver Community College. “Government” (G) trainees
(N = 19) are those who participated in a five-day intensive course in consecutive
interpretation. Unlike most in the “Regular” and “Vancouver” groups, these
individuals are currently employed as “Language Specialists” in an agency
which utilizes language-skilled individuals for numerous purposes. Those
codified as “Not Finish” (NF) (N = 9) are trainees who began the one-year
program either at the University of Hawaii or Delaware but, for any number of
reasons, did not complete the course of study. The “Hawaii Applicants” (HA)
group (N = 56) comprises those individuals who took the Screening
Examination (which includes the MBTI) at the University of Hawaii but did not
enroll in the program.
In another attempt to garner relevant information from the sample, subjects
were also divided by language groups. All trainees had English as a working
language, so there is no separate English sample table. However, tables for
Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese are included. (See Section VI for detailed
discussion of all groupings.)
Of interest is that many in the current sample had no prior interpretation
experience whatsoever. Others possess various lengths and types of experience
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 119
in language-related fields. Experience or lack of it, however, is not of concern in
this study. The fact that these individuals chose to become involved in
interpretation and judged it to be a career for which they were suited is of
principal interest.
B. Gender
With respect to the subjects’ gender, the current primary sample (N = 68) is
represented by 51 females and 17 males. In percentages, one finds that a full
75% are women, while only 25% are men. These statistics closely parallel those
of Zeller (cited by Kurz 1989) who examined enrollment figures at the Institute
of Translation and Interpretation at the University of Vienna during the period
1983-84. During this particular academic year, “84.2% of the students were girls
and only 15.8% were boys” (Kurz 1989: 73). In Kurz’s 1996 study, she
surveyed two different groups: beginning and advanced students. In terms of
complete, usable surveys, the beginning students’ gender breakdown was 27
females (90%) and 3 males (10%), whereas that of the advanced students was
32 females (84%) and 6 males (16%). The reader notes the striking consistency
among all of these groups. In fact, the 1989 statistics re: male/female make-up
are virtually identical to those of the advanced students sampled in 1996.
In the author’s experience of over 20 years in the interpreter training field,
groups of interpretation students are generally overwhelmingly female. Most
recently, participants in two, two-week consecutive interpretation courses at the
University of Delaware in 2000 and 2001 numbered 10 females and 4 males
(2000) and 6 females and 0 males (2001). People who self-select into orientation
classes for prospective court interpreters in Delaware are predominantly female
as well, usually between 75 and 80%.
The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) also
maintains long-range statistics regarding membership. During the period 1978-
84, women constituted a full two-thirds of AIIC’s members. Moreover, during
the same period, “2.5 times as many women as men joined AIIC” (Kurz 1989:
73). As of June 18, 2003, AIIC membership is at 2667, and 75% are women
(www.aiic.net 2003). Zeller’s thesis posits a number of sociological and
linguistic reasons for the increased presence of women in the interpretation
profession, and concludes by saying that men may not be interested in the field
because they view it as a “serving” profession (Kurz 1989). Although not a
subject of the current study, the reasons for the feminization of the profession
are certainly worthy of further investigation.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson120
6. Results and discussion
TABLE 1. Interpreter trainees (R, G, V, NF) N = 68
ISTJ
N = 12
% =17.65
ISFJ
N = 4
% = 5.88
INFJ
N = 2
% = 2.94
INTJ
N = 2
% = 2.94
ISTP
N = 2
% = 2.94
ISFP
N = 1
% = 1.47
INFP
N = 4
% = 5.88
INTP
N = 6
% = 8.82
ESTP
N = 5
% = 7.35
ESFP
N = 2
% = 2.94
ENFP
N = 5
% = 7.35
ENTP
N = 5
% = 7.35
ESTJ
N = 6
% = 8.82
ESFJ
N = 3
% = 4.41
ENFJ
N = 3
% = 4.41
ENTJ
N = 6
% = 8.82
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution by the four preferences for TABLE 1:
N %
E 35 51.47
I 33 48.53
S 35 51.47
N 33 48.53
T 44 64.71
F 24 35.29
J 38 55.88
P 30 44.12
In order to provide an overview analysis, several groups are joined together
in TABLE 1. It represents the type distribution of a primary sample of
interpreter trainees (R, V, G and NF categories: N = 68). First, it is important to
note that the profession attracts all sixteen types. There is at least one in each
category. The greatest number, however, appears in the top left corner: ISTJs
constitute approximately eighteen percent of the total. Of interest, however, is
that a preponderance of the “Government” group falls into this category. These,
as noted, are already language professionals and cannot be considered “typical”
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 121
trainees. On the other hand, the fact that they have self-selected into the
profession is significant and cannot be overlooked.
The columns underneath TABLE 1 show the distribution across the eight
preferences. The sample is about evenly divided between Extraverts and
Introverts as well as between Sensors and Intuitors. However, there is a
preponderance of Thinkers over Feelers (65% versus 35%). Finally, Judgers
outnumbered Perceivers, but only slightly. A detailed discussion of the four
scales follows.
A. Extraversion vs. Introversion
The hypothesis that most interpreter trainees and, subsequently, interpreters
are outgoing and gregarious Extraverts is not supported. The sample contains
about the same number of Extraverts as Introverts. The common impression
held by those both within and outside the field is not verified by the current
data.
A discussion of working languages may serve to elucidate at least partially
the reason for the belief that interpreters are Extraverted. The most common
language combination for conference interpreters is English-French-Spanish
(Schweda Nicholson 1986a; 1989). Although the United Nations’ working
languages also include Russian, Arabic, and Chinese in addition to English,
French, and Spanish, interpretation from and into Arabic and Chinese is a
relatively recent phenomenon in international organizations (Schweda
Nicholson 1986a). English, Spanish and French have dominated over the years.
An examination of AIIC statistics shows that, of its 2667 current members,
100% have English as a working language while approximately 2300 have
French and about 1150 have Spanish4
(www.aiic.net 2003).
It is, of course, imprudent to make gross generalizations about groups of
people and cultures, but many people comment on the friendliness, openness,
and charm of Hispanics. Among those who count Spanish as a working
language, Extraverts dominate almost two to one over Introverts (total N = 28;
E = 18 and I = 10. See TABLE 2.) Moreover, without seeming too simplistic,
one can also cite the “joie de vivre” mentality of many French speakers.
Although the French sample is very small (N = 6), it is worthy of note that
approximately 85% are Extraverts (E = 5 and I = 1).
As a result, the data from the current study do support the hypothesis that
members of both the Spanish and French groups are highly Extraverted.
4 The numbers for AIIC’s Spanish and French interpreters are approximations. On
the website, the statistics are represented with bar graphs, which only have general
reference point numbers on the sides. As a result, the author had to make a good
faith estimate as to the approximate size of these two groups. An e-mail request sent
to the AIIC Secretariat for exact information went unanswered.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson122
TABLE 2. Spanish (SP) trainees N = 28
ISTJ
N = 4
% = 14.29
ISFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 4
% = 14.29
INTP
N = 2
% = 7.14
ESTP
N = 2
% = 7.14
ESFP
N = 2
% = 7.14
ENFP
N = 3
% = 10.71
ENTP
N = 4
% = 14.29
ESTJ
N = 1
% = 3.57
ESFJ
N = 2
% = 7.14
ENFJ
N = 1
% = 3.57
ENTJ
N = 3
% = 10.71
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution by the four preferences for TABLE 2:
N %
E 18 64.29
I 10 35.71
S 11 39.29
N 17 60.71
T 16 57.14
F 12 42.86
J 11 39.29
P 17 60.71
The English component is more complicated. Inasmuch as one finds native
English-speakers in numerous countries (which are often characterized by
widely differing cultural norms), it would be extremely hard to generalize. For
example, the following contrast clearly illustrates the point: Americans are
known throughout the world for their gregarious, friendly, and easygoing nature.
On the other hand, the British (also native English-speakers) generally have a
reputation for being more reserved and formal. Unfortunately, it is not possible
to compare the English-speakers in the same fashion as the Spanish and French
groups because all subjects have English as a working language.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 123
Whether the individuals would be equally as outgoing when speaking either
language is another question5
. Important to this study is the fact that the
interpreter trainees control these particular languages and, as a result, also are
knowledgeable about and/or members of the cultures in which they are spoken.
With all of this said, one could return to the original premise and state with a
fair amount of confidence that perhaps the “Extravert” trait among interpreters
has been perpetuated over the years simply because there are more Spanish,
French, and English interpreters than any others. In other words, people are
more likely, just because of sheer numbers, to come into contact with
interpreters of these languages.
Also of interest is the fact that Introverts react to stressful situations
“primarily by decreasing activity” (Barr and Barr 1989: 42). Inasmuch as stress
is a major part of the interpreter’s everyday life, it is a bit surprising to find so
many Introverts because it is not possible for interpreters to “retreat” when
things become difficult; they must persevere under all circumstances/conditions,
which are often difficult at best. Kroeger and Thuesen (1992) include a section
on stress management in their book. Of particular interest is their
characterization of the strategies employed by Introverts to deal with stress:
[...] because the workplace usually rewards Extraversion over
Introversion, there is a tendency for Introverts to ‘sell out’, giving up
their natural preference in favor of living and working on Extraverted
terms. So, they act Extraverted during the workday ... Co-workers are
shocked to learn that these chatty souls are Introverts in Es’ clothing. For
the Is it is simply a survival technique, but it can carry a high price in the
form of stress and related health issues. Indeed, Introverts tend to be
plagued with a range of stress- related illnesses” (234).
Once again, the above analysis (coupled with the previous one regarding
language combinations) may serve as a partial explanation for the impression
that all interpreters are Extraverted. The 50% in this sample who are Introverts
may act Extraverted in the workplace because of the reward attached to the
outgoing behavior. As such, the general perception of all interpreters being
Extraverted has perhaps been reinforced by the fact that many Introverts behave
like Extraverts. This notion is also treated cross-culturally by Allik and McCrae
(2002). For example, Asians generally respond like Introverts and are part of
collectivistic cultures. However,
5 A study of Spanish/English coordinate bilinguals suggests, however, that people
may exhibit different personalities when speaking different languages (Simon
1987).
Nancy Schweda Nicholson124
Asians living in close social groups may attribute sociability not to
themselves, but to their collectivistic circumstances. They may act like
extraverts, but believe it is their duty rather than their disposition (318).
A related point is that Extraverts like to talk with others as a means of
sorting out their experiences. On the other hand, Introverts prefer to think
quietly by themselves before acting on anything. Analysis is easier for the
Introvert than for the Extravert (Myers 1980). The large number of Introverts in
the current sample is once again unanticipated, as interpreters earn their living
by talking and interacting with others. Although it was predicted that most
interpreters would be Extraverts, the data clearly demonstrate that the profession
attracts quiet and retiring Introverts as well. Along with additional evidence
cited to this point, this result may partially derive from the fact that interpreters
dwell in the mind when working.
B. Intuitive vs. Sensing
Secondly, the hypothesis that most interpreters are Intuitive types is not
sustained. Rather, the profession attracts both Intuitors and Sensors in about
equal numbers. Examining the American population in general, it is interesting
to note that approximately 75% are Sensing types and only 25% are Intuitive
types (Myers and McCaulley 1985). Comparatively speaking, the current
sample includes a higher percentage of Intuitive types than would be found in
the general population.
Interpretation seems to offer opportunities for those who are highly
proficient at managing concrete details (S) as well as those who favor broad
abstractions (N). By way of explanation, upon examination of the Sensing
category in a more in-depth fashion, one notes that these types have a good
memory for facts and details and are talented at dealing with specifics. Sensing
types are performance-oriented. They tend to focus on the here and now.
“Sensors at their best are clear and accurate readers of the facts in the immediate
situation” (Barr and Barr 1989: 56). Moreover, they prefer tasks that require
soundness of understanding. These are all traits which can easily be related to
the task of interpretation.
C. Thinking vs. Feeling
With respect to the third bipolar division, the hypothesis that interpreters
tend to be logical, analytical Thinkers (T) is buttressed by the data. Thinking
types outnumber Feeling types almost two to one. By way of further
elaboration, Thinkers prefer precise work and tend to speak and write straight to
the point. They are not only good at organizing information but at synthesizing
it as well. Setting high standards of achievement for both themselves and others
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 125
is another characteristic of Thinkers (Silver and Hanson 1980). It is not
surprising, then, that a majority of the sample is represented by Thinking types.
A comparison of Thinkers' and Feelers' reactions to stress may shed some
light on the fact that the interpretation profession attracts more Thinkers than
Feelers: “One big difference between Thinkers and Feelers is that Ts want to
confront a stressful situation head-on, get it out of the way, and get back on
track. Fs want to avoid it at all costs, hoping that it will simply go away”
(Kroeger and Thuesen 1992: 235). Moreover, Thinkers “are able to stay cool,
calm and objective in situations when everyone else is upset” (Kroeger and
Thuesen 1988: 18). As previously stated, interpreters must constantly manage
the stress of not knowing a word, interpreting for a fast speaker, and so on. They
simply cannot avoid tense situations, which is what Feeling types prefer to do.
D. Judging vs. Perceiving
Finally, the prediction that interpreters would be mostly Judging (J) types is
not supported. Although the distribution is not as close as it is for the E/I and
S/N scales, approximately 56% of our sample are “J” and 44% are “P”. This is
also quite unexpected, for it was thought that interpreters would be extremely
concerned with organization and closure, not easygoing as is the P’s
characterization.
On the other hand, one can offer an explanation for the high percentage of
Ps. Perceiving types have a tendency to be curious, open-minded and often “fly
by the seat of their pants”. Of course, interpreters are required to do just this
quite regularly inasmuch as they are under extreme pressure to convey the
source language message on the spot. The perfect word may not always come to
them in a split second, and so they often have to choose a less attractive
alternative. Similarly, if interpreters are forced to omit a word because they
don't know it and cannot glean the meaning from context, they simply have to
accept the fact that they missed it and go on. In these cases, good interpreters
cannot and will not allow themselves to become bogged down by focusing on
what should have been said, but rather must continue/persevere and interpret
subsequent material to the best of their ability. Some interpreters pride
themselves on “winging it” and often discuss how they handled a difficult
concept or vocabulary problem (or, conversely, did not). Judgers become
stressed when they lose control of a situation (Kroeger and Thuesen 1992). This
brings to mind the previous discussion of interpreters being required to play a
subordinate role to the speaker. Although there are more Js than Ps in our
sample, the 44% which are Perceivers may be better at dealing with some of the
stressful situations which typify the interpretation profession.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson126
E. The ISTJ profile
Inasmuch as the largest group in the current sample is ISTJ (approximately
18%), it is useful to examine this personality type in greater detail. According to
Kroeger and Thuesen (1988), ISTJs are the “most private of the sixteen types”
(215). ISTJs can be best characterized as “trustees” (Keirsey and Bates 1984:
189). If one single adjective had to be selected for the ISTJs, it would be
“dependable”. Of interest in that ISTJs represent only about 6% of the
population in general (Keirsey and Bates 1984). They are quite sedate and
serious, and prefer to perform their assignments without fanfare or flourish.
ISTJs are interested in being thorough, and pay great attention to detail. In this
connection, they “absorb and enjoy using an immense number of facts” (Myers
1980: 104). Kroeger and Thuesen write that ISTJs are “contemplative, quiet,
grounded, objective, accountable, and conservative” (1992: 240). Keirsey and
Bates (1984) continue:
[ISTJs] … communicate a message of reliability and stability. [They] ...
make excellent bank examiners, auditors, accountants. ... ISTJs will see
that resources are delivered when and where they are supposed to be;
material will be in the right place at the right time. And ISTJs would
prefer that this be the case with people, too. (190)
Moreover, one of the ISTJs’ strengths is the ability to act quickly, and they
are “rock solid” in emergencies (Kroeger and Thuesen 1992: 303). On the other
hand, the unknown is considered to be a stress producer for the ISTJ (Kroeger
and Thuesen 1992).
Levesque (2001), in her book on creativity and personality characteristics,
names the ISTJ the “Navigator” (55). She writes:
Knowledge of facts and events and a sense of history are important in
making sense out of new situations and bringing invaluable experience to
bear on problems (72).
Scherdin (1994) reports on an MBTI study of 1600 librarians sponsored by
the Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Of the 16 possible
type configurations, ISTJ ranked first, a full 16.5% of the sample. When the
general population is examined, however, one finds that only 7% were ISTPs
based on 1985 data (Myers and McCaulley 1985) and a mere 5.4% fell into this
category in a 1998 sample (Quenk 1998). As a result, ISTPs are more than twice
as numerous (1985 data) and over three times as numerous (1998 data) among
librarians as they are within the general population. It is interesting to think
about the general traits of ISTPs and ponder how/why these individuals would
be drawn to professions as seemingly diverse as interpretation and library
science.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 127
Inasmuch as 75% of the current sample is female, it is also useful to examine
particular characteristics of ISTJ women. Kroeger and Thuesen (1988) offer the
following observations:
While all Thinking females swim upstream in our society, this is
particularly true for female ISTJs. The responsible, driven nature of this
type, while admirable, flies in the face of traditionally ‘feminine’ traits ...
... ISTJ is often dubbed ‘the macho type’ - a label with which few
women would feel comfortable (but which doesn't necessarily bother
those ISTJ women. (216)
Of interest is a parallel which can be drawn between comments from
Henderson’s 1980 study and the ISTJ profile offered by Keirsey and Bates
(1984). Cited in Henderson’s survey is the description “outwardly cool but
emotionally unstable” (222). Keirsey and Bates (1984) write: “Often this type
seem [sic] to have ice in their veins, for people fail to see an ISTJs [sic]
vulnerability to criticism” (190). However, stability is considered to be one of
the ISTJ’s strongest characteristics. On the other hand, Keirsey and Bates (1984)
write: “ISTJs have a distaste for and distrust of fanciness in speech, dress, or
home” (191). Henderson’s data include a comment made about interpreters by
translators: “if female, dresses elegantly and presents herself well” (1980: 223).
Whereas the first one appears to be quite accurate, the second is in sharp
contrast.
F. National (US) type distribution statistics
If one examines a “national representative sample” (Myers et al 1998)6
of
types in the United States, the group which is most represented across the board
(excluding gender differences) is ISFJ at 13.8%. The least common type is INFJ
(1.5%) followed closely by ENTJ (1.8%). The most prevalent type among
females is also ISFJ (19.4%); among males, it is ISTJ (16.4%). Least common
among females are ENTJ and INTJ (tied at 0.9%), and the rarest type among
males is INFJ (1.2%) The reader will remember that ISTJ is the most common
type found in our data (and the one which occurs most frequently among males
in the national sample), yet the majority of our subjects are women.
G. Additional group - Characteristics analyses
1. Actors
Inasmuch as interpreters are often compared to actors because of their
exuberance, flair for public speaking, and desire to be in the public eye, it was
6 The “National Representative Sample” consists of 1,478 males and 1,531 females,
totaling 3,009.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson128
decided to compare personality data gathered by the MBTI on a sample of 52
actors7
.
The results are quite interesting, as the comparison showed only one major
difference: While actors tend to favor Intuition strongly (81% vs. 19% Sensing),
slightly more than 51 per cent of the interpreter sample prefers Sensing
(I = 2.23, p <.01). As a result, the current group showed higher representations
of the ST (I = 2.39, p <.01), SJ (I = 2.73, p < .01), and IS (I = 3.63, Fisher's
exact p = .01) combinations. While some interpreters may well display
considerable acting skill, they prefer Sensing more than twice as often as might
be expected if acting talent were that helpful. The reader will remember that the
current interpreter data contain an approximately equal number of Sensors and
Intuitive types. When compared with actors, however, the current study includes
a much larger group of Sensors than the actor sample. This result also holds true
for the “ST” type combination. Moreover, there are fewer “NT”s among actors
than in our population. Surprisingly, the data show an almost equal distribution
between the Extraverts and Introverts. Finally, the interpreter group is
represented by “IS” types much more frequently than the actor group.
2. Level of education
Interpreters generally tend to be well-educated. Schweda Nicholson’s survey
of United Nations and free-lance interpreters demonstrates that virtually all
interpreters have a Bachelor’s degree, and many have a Master’s (1986a, 1989).
It is for this reason (and for the recurring emphasis on “intellectual curiosity” as
a trait ascribed to interpreters) that a MBTI comparison between the current
sample and college graduates is included. With only one major exception,
interpreter trainees are very much like college graduates8
. The EI, SN, and TF
scales showed no differences. On the JP scale, however, interpreters include a
higher than expected proportion of Perceptive types. While about 32 per cent of
college graduates are Perceivers, 44 per cent of the interpreters appear in this
category (I = 1.39, p < .05). As a result, the interpreters had higher proportions
of EPs (I = 1.56, p < .01), and almost twice as many TPs as would be expected
(I = 1.96, p < .01). Thus, interpretation appears to attract a greater percentage of
Perceptive types who are college graduates.
3. Smaller sample analyses
Dividing our sample of 68 cases into smaller groups and running Chi-square
analyses of various proportions loses statistical power. Thus, the comparisons
7 The personality profile data for the “actor” and “level of education” comparative
analyses were taken from the CAPT-MBTI Atlas (Macdaid et al 1986).
8 For this analysis, CAPT-MBTI Atlas tables for males and females were combined
(N = 14,769) (Macdaid et al 1986).
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 129
discussed below can only be considered suggestive at best. More research is
required to gather sufficient data to make such comparisons reliable.
TABLE 3. Regular (R) trainees N = 28
ISTJ
N = 5
% = 17.86
ISFJ
N = 2
% = 7.14
INFJ
N = 1
% = 3.57
INTJ
N = 1
% = 3.57
ISTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 1
% = 3.57
INTP
N = 2
% = 7.14
ESTP
N = 3
% = 10.71
ESFP
N = 1
% = 3.57
ENFP
N = 3
% = 10.71
ENTP
N = 1
% = 3.57
ESTJ
N = 2
% = 7.14
ESFJ
N = 1
% = 3.57
ENFJ
N = 2
% = 7.14
ENTJ
N = 3
% = 10.71
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution of the four preferences for TABLE 3:
N %
E 16 57.14
I 12 42.86
S 14 50.00
N 14 50.00
T 17 60.71
F 11 39.29
J 17 60.71
P 11 39.29
TABLE 3 shows the type configurations of the Regular(R) trainees (N = 28).
Dominant in this group is ISTJ, a result which is consistent with our overall
analysis in TABLE 1. Extraverts dominate, but not strongly. Sensors and
Intuitors are evenly distributed, while the T/F and J/P scales show a relatively
strong preference for the TJ combination.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson130
TABLE 4. Vancouver (V) trainees N = 12
ISTJ
N = 1
% = 8.33
ISFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISTP
N = 1
% = 8.33
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 1
% = 8.33
INTP
N = 2
% = 16.67
ESTP
N = 1
% = 8.33
ESFP
N = 1
% = 8.33
ENFP
N = 1
% = 8.33
ENTP
N = 2
% = 16.67
ESTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFJ
N = 1
% = 8.33
ENTJ
N = 1
% = 8.33
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution of the four preferences for TABLE 4:
N %
E 7 58.33
I 5 41.67
S 4 33.33
N 8 66.67
T 8 66.67
F 4 33.33
J 3 25.00
P 9 75.00
The 12 Vancouver subjects (TABLE 4) show a high percentage of
Perceptive types (I = 1.70, Fisher's exact p = .03), and especially TP (I = 1.89,
p < .05). As the reader shall see below, this preference may be influenced by
those specializing in Spanish.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 131
TABLE 5. Government (G) trainees N = 19
ISTJ
N = 6
% = 31.58
ISFJ
N = 1
% = 5.26
INFJ
N = 1
% = 5.26
INTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISFP
N = 1
% = 5.26
INFP
N = 2
% = 10.53
INTP
N = 1
% = 5.26
ESTP
N = 1
% = 5.26
ESFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESTJ
N = 3
% = 15.79
ESFJ
N = 2
% = 10.53
ENFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTJ
N = 1
% = 5.26
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution of the four preferences for TABLE 5:
N %
E 7 36.84
I 12 63.16
S 14 73.68
N 5 26.32
T 12 63.16
F 7 36.84
J 14 73.68
P 5 26.32
The 19 Government language specialists (TABLE 5) prefer Sensing almost
one and one-half times more than the rest of the sample (I = 1.43, Fisher’s exact
p = .03). In fact, there are nearly twice as many SJs (I = 1.72, p < .01) than in
the full group. A full one-third of the Government subset falls into the ISTJ
category.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson132
TABLE 6. Not Finish (NF) trainees N = 9
ISTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISFJ
N = 1
% = 11.11
INFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTJ
N = 1
% = 11.11
ISTP
N = 1
% = 11.11
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTP
N = 1
% = 11.11
ESTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFP
N = 1
% = 11.11
ENTP
N = 2
% = 22.22
ESTJ
N = 1
% = 11.11
ESFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTJ
N = 1
% = 11.11
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution of the four preferences for TABLE 6:
N %
E 5 55.55
I 4 44.44
S 3 33.33
N 6 66.66
T 7 77.77
F 2 22.22
J 4 44.44
P 5 55.55
There were 9 students who enrolled in but did not finish the one-year, fourcourse
program (TABLE 6: NF). Although the NF category is very small, the
data show that Intuitors outnumber Sensing types two to one and that Thinking
types are more than three times as prevalent as Feeling types.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 133
TABLE 7. Hawaii Applicants (HA) N = 56
ISTJ
N = 7
% = 12.50
ISFJ
N = 4
% = 7.14
INFJ
N = 1
% = 1.79
INTJ
N = 8
% = 14.29
ISTP
N = 1
% = 1.79
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 4
% = 7.14
INTP
N = 4
% = 7.14
ESTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESFP
N = 1
% = 1.79
ENFP
N = 6
% = 10.71
ENTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESTJ
N = 8
% = 14.29
ESFJ
N = 1
% = 1.79
ENFJ
N = 2
% = 3.57
ENTJ
N = 9
% = 16.07
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution by the four preferences for TABLE 7:
N %
E 27 48.21
I 29 51.79
S 22 39.29
N 34 60.71
T 37 66.07
F 19 33.93
J 40 71.43
P 16 28.57
A comparison of 40 trainees from Delaware, Hawaii (R) and Vancouver (V)
with an additional 56 individuals who applied to the Hawaii Program ((HA)
TABLE 7) who did not enroll is also included. The most significant difference
appeared among Judging types who predominated in the non-enrollers 71% vs.
29% (I = 1.46, Fisher’s exact p = .05). Over one-half of these applicants were
TJs (58%; I = 7.80, p = .05). The reader will remember that this profile agrees
with the preliminary hypothesis regarding the “typical” interpreter. Underrepresented
groups include EPs, SPs, and TPs (Fisher’s ps < .05). It is difficult
to know why these people did not enroll. Some reports indicated personal
obstacles (e.g., inability to find a babysitter, conflict between a work schedule
and the hours at which the courses were offered) and other circumstances
Nancy Schweda Nicholson134
beyond their control. There is no clear indication that those who did not register
refrained from doing so because of personality preferences.
4. Specific language groups in combination with English
a. Spanish
With respect to possible differences based on working languages, it is
important to note that TABLE 2 shows that almost half of the subjects are
Spanish speakers. This subset differed from the whole sample in its higher
percentage for Perceptive (I = 1.38, p < .05). Nearly one half of these, 13, were
NPs (I = 1.58, p < .01). The interest in flexibility and spontaneity may be related
to the native language or the culture from which the interpreters come (Simon
1987).
TABLE 8. Chinese (C) trainees N = 17
ISTJ
N = 3
% = 17.65
ISFJ
N = 3
% = 17.65
INFJ
N = 1
% = 5.88
INTJ
N = 1
% = 5.88
ISTP
N = 2
% = 11.76
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTP
N = 3
% = 17.65
ESTP
N = 2
% = 11.76
ESFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESTJ
N = 1
% = 5.88
ESFJ
N = 1
% = 5.88
ENFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution by the four preferences for TABLE 8:
N %
E 4 23.53
I 13 76.47
S 12 70.59
N 5 29.41
T 12 70.59
F 5 29.41
J 10 58.82
P 7 41.18
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 135
b. Chinese
Seventeen of the current sample specialize in Mandarin Chinese (TABLE 8).
A high proportion of these were Introverts (I = 1.58, Fisher’s exact p < .05),
especially IS (I = 1.68, p < .05), about one half of this subset. Conversely, none
of the Chinese fall into the EN category (I = 0.00, Fisher’s exact p < .05). The
idea of “inscrutable Asians” finds tentative support in this particular group.
Introverts are more reserved and less communicative than Extraverts, the
favorite American preference (Myers and McCaulley 1985).
TABLE 9. Japanese (JA) trainees N = 11
ISTJ
N = 2
% = 18.18
ISFJ
N = 1
% = 9.09
INFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTJ
N = 1
% = 9.09
ISTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ISFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
INTP
N = 1
% = 9.09
ESTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENTP
N = 0
% = 0.00
ESTJ
N = 2
% = 18.18
ESFJ
N = 0
% = 0.00
ENFJ
N = 1
% = 9.09
ENTJ
N = 3
% = 27.27
I=Introvert, E=Extravert, S=Sensing, N=Intuitive, F=Feeling, T=Thinking, J=Judging,
P=Perceiving.
Distribution by the four preferences for TABLE 9:
N %
E 6 54.55
I 5 45.45
S 5 45.45
N 6 54.55
T 9 81.82
F 2 18.18
J 10 90.91
P 1 9.09
c. Japanese
Out of 11 trainees specializing in Japanese (TABLE 9), 10 are Judging types
(I = 1.63, Fisher’s exact p = .02). In comparison, a sample of 47 students of
Nancy Schweda Nicholson136
Elementary Japanese at the University of Hawaii included 30 (about 64%)
Judging types (Moody: Personal communication 1991). Although personality is
basically genetic (Bouchard et al 1990; Bouchard and McGue 1990; Myers
1980), it may be true that a particular culture encourages development which
favors qualities of organization and decisiveness.
d. Arabic and French
Only six trainees fall into each of the Arabic and French groups.
Unfortunately, these numbers are simply too small to permit speculation.
7. Conclusions
Henderson (1980) offers a summary profile after analyzing all of his data:
What then is the ‘typical’ interpreter like? A self-reliant, articulate
extrovert, quick and intelligent, a jack of all trades and something of an
actor, superficial, arrogant, liking variety and at times anxious and
frustrated - such are only the major features of a complex picture which
... is of course a caricature, but the picture is composed from informed
observations (223).
Interpretation attracts people of all personality types. At least one subject
appears in each of the 16 categories. Looking back to some of the personality
characteristics listed by other authors in Section III.B. (Review of the
Interpretation Literature), the variety of traits represented there also figures in
the current sample.
One immediately sees the qualities of the Extraverts in their preference for
variety, their versatility and their knack for communicating. On the other side of
the EI scale, one notes the analytical skills and a tendency to be a loner among
the Introverts. Among the SN group, attention to detail clearly characterizes the
Sensing individual. Curiosity, versatility, and open-mindedness are traits of the
Intuitive person. Proceeding to the TF scale, Thinkers are represented by their
concentration, arrogance, analysis skills, and the ability to remain cool under
pressure. Feelers are sensitive, seek harmony, and work well as members of a
team. Finally, on the JP preference scale, Judging types are decisive, selfconfident,
strong in their convictions, and self-controlled. Perceivers, on the
other hand, are versatile, tolerant, open-minded, spontaneous and happy to “go
with the flow”. As such, it appears that the profession may offer opportunities
for all personality types to exercise their preferred ways of interacting, deciding
and being.
However, there are some favorites. While the trainees and language
specialists in the sample were about evenly divided between E-I, S-N, and J-P,
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 137
the T-F scale showed a meaningful difference: Thinking types outnumber
Feeling types two to one. This finding is extremely significant. In this
connection, in an examination of the general population, approximately 60% of
males are Ts while about 65% of females are Fs (Myers and McCaulley 1985).
In this sample, females outnumber males about four to one, yet Thinking types
predominate. To conclude, then, most of the predominantly female participants
in the current study display a preference for impersonal, logical analysis as well
as content and ideas (“head”) as opposed to focusing on traditional feminine,
subjective values and the promotion of group harmony (“heart”). Based on the
limited scope of this study, it is interesting to note that the current sample
includes a great number of “Thinking” females. This result is not a surprising
one, given the demands of the interpretation profession. The fact that there are
just about equal numbers of Extraverts and Introverts goes against conventional
wisdom in terms of peoples’ off-the-cuff impressions of interpreters’
personalities.
In terms of the value and potential use of these data, having the personality
profiles of interpreter trainees is of great interest, in principle. However, in
terms of looking at other components of a screening exam, for example, the
author is confident that all interpreter trainers would agree that skills such as L1
and L2 abilities are far more important than personality type.
However, one’s personality may definitely have an effect on that person’s
comfort level in different situations as well as on processing and organizational
behavior. Of course, some areas of work life can be controlled by the individual
worker but others cannot. Clearly, many factors play a role in one’s professional
and personal development over time. This study shows that the personality
profiles of interpreters can be as varied as the topics with which they work.
As far as suggestions for further research, other types of interpreters could
be surveyed. The emphasis in the existing literature has been on conference
interpreters and interpreter trainees. It would be worthwhile to investigate other
groups of interpreters, such as those who work in the courts and community
service settings. An expanded sample of various ethnic groups might inform us
about cross-cultural differences and similarities, perhaps breaking down some of
the stereotypical images. Additionally, it would be desirable to include a larger
number of subjects.
In summary, the MBTI is an interesting, broadly-used and widely-accepted
personality inventory. It is clear that people seem to enjoy learning about their
preferences for interacting, working, socializing, thinking and organizing. Isabel
Briggs Myers writes:
The MBTI is primarily concerned with the valuable differences in people
that result from where they to focus their attention, the way they like to
Nancy Schweda Nicholson138
take in information, the way they like to decide, and the kind of lifestyle
they adopt (1987:4).
Understanding how these differences appear in the interpreter population
provides insight into the personalities of those choosing this profession. This
perspective will assist both those involved in training and individuals interested
in learning whether they may be suited to interpretation careers.
Author’s Note: The author wishes to thank Prof. Ray Moody of the University of
Hawaii for his invaluable assistance with the statistical analysis and insights
regarding the study’s findings.
References
Allik J. and McCrae R.R. (2002) “A five-factor theory perspective”, in The
Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures. Ed. by R.R
McCrae and J. Allik, New York, Kluwer Academic / Plenum
Publishers, pp. 303-322.
Barr L. and Barr N. (1989) The Leadership Equation: Leadership, Management
and the Myers-Briggs, Austin, Texas, Eakin Press.
Bayne R. (1995) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and
Practical Guide, London, Chapman and Hall.
Block J. (2002) Personality as an Affect-Processing System, Mahwah, NJ,
Erlbaum.
Bouchard Th.J., Lykken D.T., McGue M., Segal N.L. and Tellegen A. (1990)
“Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota
study of twins reared apart”, Science 250 (12 October), p. 223-
250.
Bouchard Th.J. and McGue M. (1990) “Genetic and rearing environmental
influences on adult personality: An analysis of adopted twins
reared apart”, Journal of Personality 58/1, pp. 263-292.
Carroll J.B. (1978) “Linguistic abilities in translators and interpreters”, in
Language Interpretation and Communication. Ed. by D. Gerver
and H.W. Sinaiko, New York, Plenum Press, p. 119-129.
Casse P. (1981) Training for the Cross-cultural Mind: A Handbook for CrossCultural
Trainers and Consultants, Washington, Sietar.
Cattell R.B. (1971) Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action, Boston,
Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper G.L., Davies R. and Tung R.L. (1982) “Interpreting stress: Sources of
job stress among conference interpreters”, Multilingua ½, pp. 97-
107.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 139
Digman J.M. (1990) “Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor
Model”, Annual Review of Psychology 41, pp. 417-440.
Gerver D. and Sinaiko H.W. (1978) Language Interpretation and
Communication, New York, Plenum Press.
Gerver D., Longley P., Long J. and Lambert S. (1984) “Selecting trainee
conference interpreters: A preliminary study”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology 57/1, pp. 17-31.
Hampson S.E. (ed.). (2000) Advances in Personality Psychology (Volume One),
Philadelphia, Taylor and Francis Inc.
Henderson J. (1980) “Siblings observed”, Babel XXVI/4, pp. 217-225.
Henderson J. (1987) Personality and the Linguist, Bradford, UK, Bradford
University Press.
Herbert J. (1952) Manuel de l'interprète, Genève, Georg et Cie.
Jung C. (1923) Psychological Types, New York, Harcourt Brace.
Jung C. (1971) Psychological Types, Bollingen Series XX, The Collected
Works of C.G. Jung, vol. 6., Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
Keirsey D. (1998) Please Understand Me II, Del Mar, CA, Prometheus Nemesis
Books.
Keirsey D. and Bates M. (1978) Please Understand Me, (3rd
Edition), Del Mar,
CA, Prometheus Nemesis Books.
Keirsey D. and Bates M. (1984) Please Understand Me: Character and
Temperament Types, (4th
Edition), Del Mar, CA, Prometheus
Nemesis Books.
Keiser W. (1964) « Tendances récentes dans la formation d’interprètes de
conférences. », L’Interprète No. 2, p. 5-10.
Keiser W. (1978) “Selection and training of conference interpreters”, in
Language Interpretation and Communication. Ed. by D. Gerver
and H.W. Sinaiko, New York, Plenum Press, p. 11-24.
Kroeger O. and Thuesen J.M. (1988) Type Talk, New York, Delacorte Press.
Kroeger O. and Thuesen J.M. (1992) Type Talk at Work, New York, Delacorte
Press.
Kurz I. (1989) “Book Review: Causes and Effects of the Feminization of the
Profession of Translating and Interpreting”, (Thesis of Christa
Maria Zeller), The Interpreters' Newsletter No. 2, pp. 73-74.
Kurz I. (1996) “Scribe or actor? A survey paper of personality profiles of
translators and interpreters”, The Interpreters' Newsletter 7, pp. 3-
18.
Levesque L.C. (2001) Breakthrough Creativity, Palo Alto, CA, Davies-Black
Publishing.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson140
Longley P. (1968) Conference Interpreting, London, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons
Ltd.
Longley P. (1978) “An integrated programme for training interpreters”, in
Language Interpretation and Communication. Ed. by D. Gerver
and H.W. Sinaiko, New York, Plenum Press, p. 45-56.
Macdaid G.P., McCaulley M.H. and Kainz R.I. (1986) Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator: Atlas of Type Tables, Gainesville, FL, Center for
Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.
McCrae R.R. and John O.P. (1992) “An introduction to the Five Factor Model
and its applications”, Journal of Personality 60, pp. 175-215.
McCrae R.R. and Allik J. (eds.) (2002) The Five-Factor Model of Personality
Across Cultures, New York, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.
Mohan J. (ed.) (2000) Personality Across Cultures, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Moser B. (1978) “Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its
practical application”, in Language Interpretation and
Communication. Ed. by D. Gerver and H.W. Sinaiko, New York,
Plenum Press, p. 353-368.
Myers I.B. (1962) Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Palo Alto, CA,
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers I.B. (with P.B. Myers) (1980) Gifts Differing, Palo Alto, CA, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Myers I.B. (1987) Introduction to Type, Palo Alto, CA, Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Myers I.B. and McCaulley M.H. (1985) Manual: A Guide to the Development
and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Palo Alto, CA,
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers I.B., McCaulley M.H., Quenk N.L. and Hammer A.L. (1998) Manual: A
Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, (3rd
Edition), Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Nilski T. (1967) “Translators and interpreters - Siblings or a breed apart?”, Meta
12/2, pp. 45-49.
Nomi Toshitaka and Besher A. (1983) You Are Your Blood Type, New York,
Pocket Books.
Oldenburg D. (1988) “Typing a cast of character”, The Washington Post, p. C5.
Paneth E. (1962) “The interpreter’s task and training”, The Incorporated
Linguist ¼, pp. 102-109.
Pauley J.A. (2002) Here’s How to Reach Me: Matching Instruction to
Personality Types in Your Classroom, Baltimore, MD, P.H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Personality characteristics of interpreter trainees 141
Pfloeschner F. (1965) « Des tests d’aptitude à l’interprétation », L’Interprète 1,
pp. 5-7.
PRO (Performance Requirement Options) (1989) Wellesley Hills, MA,
Praendex Incorporated.
Quenk N.L. (1993) Beside Ourselves: Our Hidden Personality in Everyday Life,
Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press Books.
Quenk N.L. (2000) Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment, New
York, John Wiley and Sons.
Saucier G., Hampson S.E. and Goldberg L.R. (2000) “Cross-language studies of
lexical personality factors”, in Advances in Personality Psychology.
Ed. by S. Hampson, Philadelphia, Taylor and Francis Inc.,
pp. 1-36.
Scherdin M.J. (1994) “Vive la différence, Exploring librarian personality types
using the MBTI”, in Discovering Librarians: Profiles of a
Profession. Ed. by M.J. Scherdin, Chicago, IL, Association of
College and Research Libraries, pp. 125-156.
Schweda Nicholson N. (1986a) “A United Nations interpreter survey: The
specialist/generalist controversy I”, Multilingua 5/2, pp. 67-80.
Schweda Nicholson N. (1986b) “Screening interpretation candidates at
Delaware: A comparative study”, in Proceedings of the First FIT
North American Translators Congress. Ed. by P.E. Newman, A.
Zenker and J.-F. Joly, Medford, NJ, Learned Information, Inc.,
pp. 213-229.
Schweda Nicholson N. (1989) “An interpreter survey: The specialist/generalist
controversy II”, The Interpreters' Newsletter 2, pp. 38-45.
Seleskovitch D. (1978) Interpreting for International Conferences, Washington,
D.C., Pen and Booth.
Silver H. and Hanson J.R. (1980) User's Manual: The TLC Learning Preference
Inventory, Moorestown, NJ, Hanson Silver and Associates.
Simon Ch. (1987) “Dr. Jekyll, Señor Hyde”, Psychology Today, December
issue, p. 16.
Sofr O. (1976) “Test of aptitude for interpreting”, L’Interprète, No. 3/4, p. 3-8.
Sullivan M. (1994) “Using the MBTI for team building”, in Discovering
Librarians: Profiles of a Profession. Ed. by M.J. Scherdin,
Chicago, IL, Association of College and Resource Libraries,
pp. 173-180.
Szuki Atsuko (1988) “Aptitudes of translators and interpreters”, Meta
XXXIII/1, pp. 108-114.
Tieger P.D. (1995) Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You
Through the Secrets of Personality Type, Boston, MA, Little,
Brown.
Nancy Schweda Nicholson142
Williams J.E., Satterwhite R.C. and Saiz J.L. (1998) The Importance of
Psychological Traits: A Cross-Cultural Study, New York, Plenum
Press.
www.aiic.net (International Association of Conference Interpreters website)