"Professional Writers, Personality Types, & Genre Choice"

About the Author

Kim Darnell graduated summa cum laude from the University of Nevada, Reno in May 2011. Her studies in English and Psychology led her to take on this research project, under the gracious guidance of Dr. Lynda Walsh. Kim continues to reside in Reno with her husband and chihuahua mix, Roxy. She currently works as a Family Consultant at the Davidson Institute for Talent Development.

Contents

Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Results
Works Cited
Appendices

Results

Phase I

Interview data suggested that writers themselves perceive differences between different types of writers and are interested in pinpointing them but face difficulty in doing so. There was an articulation of dissimilarity between poets and other writers in which poets are thought to be short-term oriented and a bit more “whimsical” while fiction writers are assumed to be more long-term oriented and “serious” in demeanor. This dissimilarity was noted in two of the three interviews, with poets seeming to be characterized as the most different in personality from other professional writers.

Phase II

Survey responses were tallied and are summarized in Table 1 (see Appendix A). Since the three responses in the “Other” category were too few to process, they were left out of the significance testing.

Fisher’s Exact Test was performed on the survey data (see Tables 2.1-2.4). This test measures the significance of the association between variables. It is comparable to the chi-square test, except that it produces an exact calculation rather than an approximation and it can be used on small sample sizes. The p-value that results from the test represents the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was observed, assuming that there is no association between the two variables. Whereas in many other statistical tests, a researcher would mandate that the p-value be equal to or less than 5% in order to attribute a significant relationship between the variables, there is a controversy that Fisher’s test is too conservative for such a model, so fixed significance levels should not be used.

With this in mind, the data comparing the index of judging-perceiving to the different genres of writing may be significant. While Tables 2.1 through 2.3 all have high p-values (and therefore no statistically significant relationships), Table 2.4 has a p-value of .0899, just .0399 from the standard .05 p-value that generally establishes significance. For this reason, further tests were run on this personality dimension comparing just two genres at a time (see Tables 3.1-3.6). In all three comparisons of poetry to other genres, relatively low p-values emerge (.0656 for fiction versus poetry, .0516 for nonfiction versus poetry, and .0406 for academic writing versus poetry). This pattern suggests that poets tend to identify with a perceiving style while fiction, nonfiction, and academic writers tend to identify with a judging style, with an especially pronounced difference between poets and academic writers.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that writers of different genres may differ significantly on the personality index of judging-perceiving, with poets tending to identify with a perceiving style, while fiction, nonfiction, and academic writers tend to identify with a judging style. In lay terms, this means that poets may be characterized more by a preference for freedom as opposed to routine and structure (see a more detailed description in Question Four of the Cognitive Style Inventory, Appendix C). This finding seems to echo the notions put forth in the interviews as well, that poets are perceived as especially unique from other writers.

The knowledge of this distinction between poets and other writers may be useful to professional writers, aspiring writers, and writing teachers/advisors. For professional writers, it offers some confirmation and understanding of the perceived differences amongst themselves. It also adds to societal understanding of why writers compose what they do, pointing to at least one of the factors that make their choice of genre a good fit. This awareness is even more relevant for aspiring writers who need guidance in finding the genre that fits them (i.e. since there seems to be a relationship between poets and perceiving styles, aspiring writers with perceiving styles might want to try out poetry whereas those with judging styles might not). Writing professors and advisors would be great candidates to guide this process if they had pupils in need of professional direction.

Of course, these conclusions should be verified, as the limitations of this study were substantial. In regards to the interviews, they were few and informal, and while they did suggest that professional writers may be interested in the personality differences between writers of different genres as well as provide insight into what some of the perceptions of those differences are, it did not seem that writers are well-equipped to speak spontaneously about personality in ways that lead to conclusive reflections. If future studies should choose to include the use of interviews, a more formal vocabulary of personality that can serve as a prompt to discussion and reflection would be recommended.

In regards to the survey, although there were 67 responses, the majority of those responses were from nonfiction writers, leaving much less data on poets and fiction writers (see Table 1). Ideally, one would want to have enough writers so that a chi-square analysis could be performed. Secondly, the reported personality types may not be accurate, as the Cognitive Style Inventory only gives an approximation of a person’s MBTI score and is not a valid substitute. Another concern is the interpretation of the genre categories. For example, although “academic writing” could certainly fall under the category of “nonfiction,” seven participants chose to differentiate it by typing it into the “other” category. The question then becomes, Did all academic writers classify themselves as such or did some classify themselves under “nonfiction”? It is suspected that some classified themselves one way while others classified themselves another way, in which case there may be some inconsistency in the data. Future studies would need to more precisely define each genre category, or at least give more guidance to academic writers as to how to categorize themselves.

Conclusion

This study’s aim was to answer the question: Are there associations between professional writers’ personality types and the genres in which they write? Surveys of professional writers have pointed to at least one significant association: Poets tend to identify with a perceiving style while fiction, nonfiction, and academic writers tend to identify with a judging style. Interviews informally supported this notion, with an articulation that poets did seem to be set apart from other writers in some way.

Not only does this finding offer some confirmation and understanding of the perceived differences amongst professional writers; it also has the potential to offer guidance to writing professors and advisors in how to direct their pupils into genre choices that fit their personalities. If confirmed and researched further, personality differences could lay the foundation for vocational counseling to aspiring writers trying to find their professional genre of choice.

A suggested follow-up study would be one that mimicked the survey methods of this study on a larger scale with the fine-tuning of the genre categories and the use of a valid personality inventory. As noted above, verification of the found differentiation between poets and other writers would serve as useful knowledge to professional writers, aspiring writers, and writing teachers/advisors, in vocational and personal capacities.