Abstract—We consider the strong possibility that extraverted and intraverted women differ on preference for some aspects of programming, and how this difference might be more significant than its expression among men. We discuss the reasons why we are moved to design a new study confirming a gender-specific relation of Myers-Briggs personality types to programming paradigms and specific language features. We discuss the implications of a significant gender difference on representation in industry, advancement in profession, and curriculum design. We invite hypotheses that explain a significant difference. Past classroom questionnaires and future questions will be shown (but not data, since we are bound by IRB rules not to report them), as well as method of analysis and test for robustness in subcategories. We have a specific method for mitigating ambiguity and non-repeatability in Myers-Briggs type determination. Our cohort is expected to include about 500 Master's students per year, most from the same region in India, with about 25% women respondents, if we sample at past rates.
Keywords—java; object oriented programming; scripting; personality type; human factors; gender; software engineering; curriculum; programming language paradigm
I. INTRODUCTION It is well known that many programmers have a strong
preference for one programming language, or a strong dislike. Many programmers will defend one paradigm, such as object oriented programming, while others will attack it.
A common way of investigating personal preference is to
look for frequency distinctions among personality types. Perhaps the best-known way of “sorting temperaments” is based on Jung's theory, as adapted by Katharine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, over a half century ago. It remains one of the longest-lasting theories of personality, and is especially pertinent because it aims at differing styles of information processing and decision making (other personality tests aim at worker agreeableness, for example).
Myers Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI) have been correlated with many kinds of professional competence, including a long tradition in software engineering (pair programming / Katira 2004, code review / Cunha and Greathead 2007, team compatibility / Gorla and Lab 2004) and in student learning and retention (e.g., Koubek 1985, Felder 1988). MBTI has been used in the design of systems even before it was popular as a framework for understanding programmers. L. F. Capretz and his collaborators have been studying these issues for decades (e.g., Capretz 2003).
It is important to note that the main contention of this
paper has to do with gender and extraversion, and that trait is part of several different personality theories, not just the Myers Briggs/Jung theory, e.g., Eysenck, Big Five and HEXACO. Hence, some of the claims are specific to MBTI personality theory, but the central claim is not.
In the MBTI E/I dichotomy, the essential question is
whether a person expends "mental energy" with large groups of people, and whether a person is outwardly directed toward social gatherings or constructs. For example, a President might be very good at public speaking, and greeting large crowds of strangers, but may still take greater pleasure in solitary activities, or have a need to "recharge" with close family after large events. A doctor might possess a coolness toward people, and might tend toward professional reserve in social gatherings, but he could still be extraverted if standing in the community were extremely important to him.
II. PROPOSED STUDY We have much anecdotal evidence and informal polling of
past students from prior years: enough to suggest that a formal study is worth performing. Our current data are not reportable because polling was done informally, without IRB approval. Informal study has been valuable nevertheless, to suggest a specific protocol and questionnaire for formal study.
appearance of E/I, N/S, T/F, or J/P will be a small fraction of the total. We view this as removing measurement error, though some might contend that it is a restriction to those respondents who are strongly-E or strongly-I.
We expect to poll 250 students per semester, which would match our earlier informal polling rates, with 25% women. These students are all the same age from the same region with similar undergraduate preparation for computer science. Most importantly, they have not been pre-selected for compatibility with the U.S. programming standards and curriculum, which would represent a bias.
We also expect the study to show robustness to subsamples by time, delivery (online or on-campus), MBTI-determination method, and MBTI subclasses (e.g., rational NT, engineer NTP, and architect INTP). Statistical significance should be possible in the larger classes, such as N (e.g., IN vs. EN). A byproduct of our study will be ratios of the frequency of personality appearance among Master's in CS vs. the general population (we expect ENTJ types to be over-represented, and ISTJ to be under-represented). We expect to show that IS types do not all have trouble programming, as suggested in the past: most ISTP types might like programming.
III. CONCLUSIONS Why should extraverted and intraverted people disagree
over their preference for Java over scripting, or vice versa? Our suggestion is that it is the object oriented paradigm, naming regimen, and expectation of code reuse that might be at work. Exportable names and reusable code seem to be extraverted characteristics. OOP tends to be as much about communication as manipulation of signifiers. Using a short, personal, polysemous name, "$x", fits the intravert, while a more globally meaningful, proper, embeddable and acceptable name, "Fall2014_CSC570_testScores", fits the extrravert. The former perhaps does not want anyone else looking at the code, while the latter has an expectation of shared source control and external review.
Why should a more pronounced preference be observed among females? The authors entertain several hypotheses. Perhaps the wrong programming paradigm acts as a multiplier of other hurdles. Perhaps it is viewed more as a privacy or control issue for women. Perhaps women have more options and can choose to avoid incompatible professional dogmas.
Whatever the cause, the implications would be eye opening. An insistence that all students, employees, or contractors program in a single paradigm will drive out as much as half of the female population. This would happen regardless of which paradigm was forcefully imposed. Men might put up with monoculture, but a full engagement of women could require multiple programming paradigms.
Our initial interest was not in gender. We wanted to show that P/J personality difference correlated with scripting/Java. But there was a first year woman having trouble in Java who wanted to drop out of computing, and one author suggested taking web programming first, then deciding. That student switched majors instead, thinking she could not program. Perhaps she was simply an intravert.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Naga Durga Jakka, Lakshmisoumya Chillamcherla, and
[1] C. Bishop-Clark and D. D. Wheeler, The Myers Briggs personality type and its relation to computer programming, Journal of Research on Computing in Education 26:3, 1994.
[2] L. F. Capretz, Personality types in software engineering, Intl Journal of Man Machine Studies 58:2, 2003.
[3] L. F. Capretz and F. Ahmed, Making sense of software development and personality types, IT Professional 12:1, 2010.
[4] L. F. Capretz and F. Ahmed, Why do we need diversity in software engineering? ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 35:2, 2010.
[5] H. G. Chen and R. P. Vecchio, Nested IF-THEN-ELSE constructs in end-user computing: personality and aptitude as predictors of programming ability, Intl Journal of Man Machine Studies 36:6, 1992.
[6] L. S. Corman, Cognitive style, personality type, and learning ability as factors in predicting the success of the beginning programming student, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 1986.
[7] A. D. Cunha and D. Greathead, Does personality matter? An analysis of code review ability, CACM 50:5, 2007.
[8] N. Gorla and Y. W. Lam, Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams, CACM 47:6, 2004.
[9] R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman, Learning and teaching styles in engineering education, Engineering Education 78:7, 1988.
[10] W. Halliburton, M. Thweatt, N. J. Wahl, Gender differences in personality components of computer science students: a test of Holland's congruence hypothesis, SIGCSE Bulletin, 1998.
[11] L. T. Hardiman, Personality types and software engineers, IEEE Computer 30:10, 1997.
[12] P. E. Jones and R. E. Wall, Computer experience and computer anxiety: two pilot studies, Technical Report ED 275 315, US Dept of Education, 1985.
[13] N. Katira, et al., On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36:1, 2004.
[14] R. J. Koubek, W. K. LeBold, G. Salvendy, Predicting performance in computer programming courses, Behaviour and Information Technology, 4:2, 1985.
[15] L. E. Meunier-Cinko, Gender differences in cooperative computer-based foreign language tasks, UAZ Dissertation, 1993.
[16] I. B. Myers, M. H. McCaulley, N. L. Quenk, A. L. Hammer, MBTI Manual, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1998.
[17] M. L. Pope, A comparison of personality traits of computer programmers and computer technicians using the CPI, MBTI, and Strong, UCSF Dissertation, 1988.
[18] J. Teague, Personality type, career preference, and implications for computer science recruitment and teaching, Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian Conference on Computer Science Education, 1998.
[19] D. Varona, L. F. Capretz, Y. Pinero, A. Raza, Evolution of software engineers' personality profile, ACM SIGSOFT 37:1, 2012.
[20] L. H. Werth, Predicting student performance in a beginning computer science class, CACM 18:1, 1986.
[21] P. Westbrook, Frequencies of MBTI types among computer technicians, Journal of Pyschological Types, 15:49, 1988.
[22] K. L. Whipkey, Identifying predictors of programming skill, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 1984.
[23] A. B. Woszczynski, H. M. Haddad, A. Zgambo, An IS student's worst nightmare: programming courses, Proceedings of the Southern Association of Information Systems Conference, 2005.
![21 Reasons Why We Dislike Legacy Incident Management Systems [Infographic]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/58eeabdf1a28ab473c8b468d/21-reasons-why-we-dislike-legacy-incident-management-systems-infographic.jpg)
