Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The role of extraversion, neuroticism and positive and

negative mood in emotional information processing
Parvin Rafienia a,*, Parviz Azadfallah a, Ali Fathi-Ashtiani b,
Kazem Rasoulzadeh-Tabatabaiei a
a
Department of Psychology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Received 23 June 2007; received in revised form 28 August 2007; accepted 31 August 2007
Available online 22 October 2007

Abstract

The present research investigates the role of the personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism
in emotional information processing and the moderating role of positive and negative mood. Six hundred
and fifty-four university female students completed the Persian version of the Eysenck Personality Ques-
tionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R); then, on the basis of extreme scores in extraversion and neuroticism dimen-
sions from the main sample, four groups (each with 30 Ss) were selected. All groups experienced positive
and negative induced mood in two separate sessions with 2 weeks interval. After mood induction in each
session, subjects performed three cognitive tasks: free recall, probability rating and story completion. The
findings revealed that subjects with higher extraversion, made more positive judgments and interpretations
in the positive mood condition; and individuals with higher neuroticism, made more negative judgments
and interpretations in the negative mood condition; but extraverted and neurotic subjects did not differ sig-
nificantly in the number of positive and negative recalled words in the two mood conditions. Overall, the
results indicated that personality traits influence emotional information processing, and support the mod-
erating role of mood states in judgment and interpretation.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Extraversion; Neuroticism; Emotion congruence; Mood; Information processing

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 912 606 00 46.
E-mail address: rafienia@modares.ac.ir (P. Rafienia).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.018
 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402 393

1. Introduction

Several studies found that while extraversion (E) correlates strongly with positive affect, neurot-
icism (N) correlates strongly with negative affect (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1980; Gomez, Cooper, &
Gomez, 2000; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989, 1991; Robinson, Ode, Moller, & Gotez, 2007). Gray
(1970, 1981, 1987) offers an explanation for emotional susceptibility in extraverts and neurotics.
Based on Gray’s theory, E and N represent individual differences in the relative strengths of the
behavioral activation system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), respectively. Gray
suggested that the anxiety component of N represents an increased sensitivity to punishment sig-
nals and the impulsivity component of E represents an increased sensitivity to reward signals
(Rusting, 1999). A number of researchers (e.g., Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989, 1991) have noted that
individual differences in susceptibility to positive and negative affect could be the result of under-
lying individual differences in sensitivity to signals of reward and punishment. These sensitivities
suggest that E and N might also relate to cognitive processing of positive and negative emotional
information. Extraverted individuals should retrieve rewarding or positive information from
memory (and make positive judgments), and neurotic individuals should retrieve punishing or
negative information from memory (and make negative judgments) (Rusting, 1999).
A number of studies have found that processing of emotional stimuli is associated with both
current mood and stable personality traits (e.g., Rusting, 1999; Zeleneski & Larsen, 2002). This
raises the possibility that personality traits associated with mood states are useful predictors of
selective processing of emotional information (Gomez, Gomez, & Cooper, 2002). According to
Mood congruency hypothesis (Bower, 1981, 1991), current mood states influence memory, judg-
ment and other cognitive processing in an emotion-congruent manner; positive mood states
should increase the tendency to make positive judgments and retrieve positive memories; negative
mood states should increase the tendency to make negative judgments and retrieve negative mem-
ories. Some studies have obtained evidence supporting the mood congruent processing (e.g.,
Barber, 2001; Forgas, 1990; Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978; Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman,
& Evans, 1992; Mayer, McCormick, & Strong, 1995). However, some researches have not found
the mood congruent effects (e.g., Gayle, 1997; Parrot & Sabini, 1990).
Trait congruency hypothesis (Rusting, 1998) suggests that people preferentially process emo-
tional stimuli that are congruent in emotional tone with their personality traits. A number of stud-
ies have obtained results consistent with this hypothesis (e.g., Bradley & Mogg, 1994; Gomez
et al., 2002; Rusting & Larsen, 1998). Many of the previous studies that have examined the effects
of mood states or personality traits on emotion-congruent processing, have been guided by asso-
ciative network theories, such as, Bower’s ‘‘network theory of affect’’ (1981, 1991). According to
this theory, each specific emotion is represented by a particular emotion node within a cognitive
network consisting of emotion related memories and cognitions. When an emotion is experienced,
the corresponding emotion node is activated and past events and beliefs associated with that emo-
tion are brought to mind. This theory suggests that a specific-emotion node by a related emotion
evokes emotion-related attention, perception, memory, interpretation and judgment.
Just as previous research shows, most studies have only examined one of these variables (mood
states or personality traits). Although, some researchers have examined the interactive effects of
moods and traits on cognitive processing (e.g., Bradley & Mogg, 1994; Jansson & Lundh,
2006; Rusting, 1999; Taimer & Robinson, 2004; Zeleneski & Larsen, 2002), the results are not
394 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

consistent. These inconsistencies may be related to participants, tasks or mood (natural versus in-
duced) characteristics (Blaney, 1986; Forgas, 1994; Rusting, 1998, 1999); many of these studies
have focused on natural mood or they conducted their study on pathologic samples (e.g., Denny
& Hunt, 1992; Fullam & Dolan, 2006). Thus, the role of manipulated mood states in relation to
personality-cognitive processing in normal individuals has not been investigated properly.
So in the present study, the role of personality traits on processing (judgment, recall and inter-
pretation) of positive and negative emotional information and the moderating role of positive and
negative induced mood states were examined. It is speculated that the effects of personality traits
on the processing of emotional information in positive mood state as compared with negative
mood state would be different. In other words, especially it is expected that extraverted individuals
process more positive emotional information in positive mood states than in negative mood states,
and neurotic individuals process more negative emotional information in negative mood states
than in positive mood states.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

Subjects were selected from a large group (656 participants) of university female students who
had completed the Persian Version of the EPQ-R. The mean and SD of E (M = 13.88; SD = 4.21)
and N (M = 11.64; SD = 5.16) scales were computed for the group with 654 subjects. On the basis
of extreme scores in E (selecting individuals with E scores higher than 19 for E+ group; individ-
uals with E scores lower than 8 for E group) and N (selecting individuals with N scores higher
than 19 for N+ group; individuals with N scores lower than 5 for N group) dimensions from the
main sample, four groups were selected: E+, E , N+ and N (each group 30 subjects). It should
be mentioned that the individuals with N scores higher than 17 had been excluded from Extra-
verted and introverted groups and the individuals with E scores higher than 17 and lower than
8 had been excluded from neurotic and stable groups. Therefore extravert (E scores with
M = 21.10; SD = 0.80) and introvert (E scores with M = 5.80; SD = 1.34) groups had nearly
average N scores (M = 8.90; SD = 5.47 and M = 11.83; SD = 3.93, respectively) and neurotic
(N scores with M = 21.10; SD = 1.24) and stable (N scores with M = 3.06; SD = 1.01) groups
had already average E scores (M = 11.80; SD = 2.63 and M = 14.43; SD = 2.72, respectively).
The mean age for subjects was 26.08 (SD = 3.11).

2.2. Materials

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R): E, N and lie indices were measured by the
Persian Version of EPQ-R (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985). EPQ-R scales have been trans-
lated into Persian by a psychologist and then back-translated into English by a bilingual univer-
sity student. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’ a) of extraversion, neuroticism and lie scales
for the sample in this research were 0.76, 0.84 and 0.67, respectively.
Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS): mood states were measured by PANAS
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402 395

Mood inductions: guided imagery based on short vignettes, and music procedures were com-
bined to induce positive and negative mood states. Subjects were asked, after reading each vign-
ette (two vignettes for each session) to imagine the situations described in the vignettes (3 min for
each vignette), as vividly as they could, while listening to either pleasant or unpleasant music in
the background.
To prepare these short vignettes, first 10 vignettes describing positive situations and 10 vignettes
describing negative situations similar to the described positive or negative situations by Larsen
and Ketelaar (1991), Mayer, Allen, and Beauregard (1995) were written on a sheet of paper; then
39 students were asked to read and identity the emotional content of each situation. On the basis
of their assessment, two vignettes describing the most positive situation and two vignettes describ-
ing the most negative situation were selected for the mood induction. To choose the music, some
pieces of Iranian pleasant or unpleasant music was presented to 10 students and they were asked
to rate the emotional content of those pieces of music; on the basis of their ratings, two most
pleasant and two most unpleasant pieces of music were selected for inducing positive and negative
mood, respectively.
The processing of emotional information was assessed by three cognitive tasks: a probability
rating task, a free recall task and a story completion task.
Probability rating task: 16 probability judgment items containing 8 clearly positive (e.g., What
are the chances that you will have an exceptionally gifted child?) and 8 clearly negative (e.g., What
are the chances that you will be the victim of a violent crime?) items were taken from likelihood
judgment items (Zeleneski & Larsen, 2002). 16 items were randomly arranged on a sheet of paper.
Subjects were asked to rate on a 7-point scale, from 1 = absolutely won’t happen to 7 = extremely
likely to happen.
Free recall task: to prepare this task, a list of 238 positive, negative and neutral words were gi-
ven to 25 psychology students who rated emotional content of those words on a 7-point scale,
from 1 = not at all positive to 7 = extremely positive. After their rating, a total of 36 words, con-
taining 12 positive, 12 negative and 12 neutral were selected so that these three sets of selected
words did not differ in length and frequency of occurrence. Subjects were given 4 min to rate
the pleasantness–unpleasantness of each word on a scale from 1 = very unpleasant to 5 = very
pleasant. Immediately following these ratings, subjects were given a recall test in which they
had 3 min to recall as many words as they could from the list.
Story completion task: to prepare this task, first, 18 sentences describing emotionally ambiguous
situations were written on a sheet of paper; then two sentences that had a similar mean score on the
basis of 39 students’ rating of these sentences were selected. In each session, one of these sentences
was used for this task. Subjects were given 5 min to write the rest of the story. In order to score this
task, two judges who did not know the hypotheses of the present study rated the positive and neg-
ative emotional content of each story on two separate scales. Positive emotional content was rated
on a 5-point scale, from 1 = not at all positive to 5 = extremely positive. Negative emotional con-
tent was rated on a similar 5-point scale, from 1 = not at all negative to 5 = extremely negative.

2.3. Procedure

The subjects were assessed individually. First, they completed the PANAS and were asked to
rate how they felt ‘‘right now’’ on that scale. Positive and negative mood were induced for each
396 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

subject in two separate sessions with 2 weeks interval and using one of two random orders for
minimizing any residual effects of induced mood order on performance. While half of the subjects
in each group experienced positive mood in the first and negative mood in the second session, the
other half in each group experienced vice versa. Following the mood induction (lasted so far
6 min), subjects completed the PANAS once again, and then subjects were asked to complete
the three cognitive tasks while listening to the music in the background. At the end of each ses-
sion, subjects were thanked and fully debriefed.

3. Results

3.1. Mood manipulation assessment

The effectiveness of positive and negative mood manipulation was analyzed with two t-tests.
The analysis of the results indicated that, subjects reported stronger positive mood after the po-
sitive mood manipulation (M = 38.46; SD = 6.19) than before the manipulation (M = 33.87;
SD = 5.81), t(119) = 11.10, P < 0.001. Subjects also reported stronger negative mood after the
negative mood manipulation (M = 24.00; SD = 10.43) than before the manipulation (M =
16.00; SD = 7.04), t(119) = 9.64, P < 0.001.

3.2. Bivariate correlations between personality-mood (post-induction) variables in each mood

condition

The correlation coefficients presented in Table 1 reveal that E was related to positive mood pos-
itively only in positive mood condition, but in two mood conditions, N was correlated with po-
sitive mood negatively and with negative mood positively.

3.3. Regression of cognitive tasks variables on E and N in positive and negative mood conditions

A series of regression analyses were performed to examine how E and N (as predictor variables)
predicted the emotional information processing (performance on each cognitive task) measures
(as criterion variables) in each mood condition. As shown in Table 2, in the positive mood con-

Table 1
Bivariate correlations between personality and mood (post-induction) variables in two mood conditions
Variables Negative mood condition Positive mood condition
Negative mood Positive mood Negative mood Positive mood
E 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.34***
N 0.22* 0.24** 0.49*** 0.29**
Note: E = extraversion; N = neuroticism.
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.
*** P < 0.001.
 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402 397

Table 2
The results of regression analyses for predicating cognitive tasks performance on E and N in positive and negative
mood conditions
Variable Mood condition
Positive mood Negative mood
b t b t
Probability rating (positive events) on E and N
E 0.44 5.64*** 0.33 4.36***
N 0.27 3.47** 0.40 5.26***
[R2 = 0.34; F(2,117) = 29.55***] [R2 = 0.35;F(2,117) = 32.09***]
Probability rating (negative events) on E and N
E 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.52
N 0.36 4.04*** 0.43 4.89***
[R2 = 0.13; F(2,117) = 9.05***] [R2 = 0.17; F(2,117) = 12.30***]
Free recall (positive words) on E and N
E 0.02 0.85 0.05 0.58
N 0.08 0.40 0.05 0.61
[R2 = 0.01; F(2,117) = 0.36] [R2 = 0.00; F(2,117) = 0.22]
Free recall (negative words) on E and N
E 0.24 2.62* 0.10 1.15
N 0.05 0.55 0.10 1.12
[R2 = 0.06; F(2,117) = 4.32*] [R2 = 0.03; F(2,117) = 1.79]
Story completion (positive content) on E and N
E 0.17 2.02* 0.02 0.19
N 0.38 4.44*** 0.28 3.06**
[R2 = 0.21; F(2,117) = 15.55***] [R2 = 0.08; F(2,117) = 5.28**]
Story completion (negative content) on E and N
E 0.19 2.09* 0.00 0.03
N 0.27 2.99** 0.36 4.03***
[R2 = 0.13; F(2,117) = 9.07***] [R2 = 0.13; F(2,117) = 8.74***]
Note: E = extraversion; N = neuroticism.
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.
*** P < 0.001.

dition, probability rating of positive events and positive content of story were predicted positively
by E, while recall of negative words and negative content of story were predicted negatively by E.
The results show that in the positive mood condition, probability rating of negative events and
negative content of story were predicted positively by N, while probability rating of positive
events and positive content of story were predicted negatively by N. Table 2, also shows that
in the negative mood condition, only probability rating of positive events was predicted positively
by E. The results also indicate that in the negative mood condition probability rating of negative
events and negative story content are predicted positively by N while probability rating of positive
events and positive story content are predicted negatively by N.
398 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

3.4. Effects of mood and personality dimensions on cognitive tasks performance

In order to examine the main effects of mood and personality dimensions on cognitive tasks,
data were analyzed with a series of 4 (group: E+, E , N+ and N ) · 2 (mood condition: posi-
tive–negative) repeated measures ANOVA. As these repeated measures ANOVA analyses pre-
sented in Table 3 indicate, for probability rating of negative events, positive content of story,
and negative content of story there were significant effects for group and mood, but there were
no group · mood interaction effects. The results for probability rating of positive events and recall
of negative words show the group effect but no mood or group · mood interaction effects.

Table 3
Mean scores, standard deviations of cognitive tasks and results of repeated measure ANOVA: the main effects of group,
mood condition and group · mood interactions
Dependent variable Group: mean (SD) F-Value (df = 1,116)
E+ E N+ N

Probability rating (positive events)

Positive mood condition 5.14 (0.71) 3.64 (0.88) 3.87 (0.91) 4.79 (0.95) Group: 23.28***
Negative mood condition 4.90 (1.01) 3.65 (0.85) 3.59 (0.79) 4.87 (0.91) Mood: 3.07
Group · mood: 1.95
Probability rating (negative events)
Positive mood condition 2.52 (1.31) 2.71 (0.92) 2.97 (0.87) 2.03 (0.86) Group: 5.94**
Negative mood condition 2.91 (1.41) 2.96 (0.95) 3.34 (0.92) 2.17 (1.00) Mood: 20.56***
Group · mood: 0.81
Free recall (positive words)
Positive mood condition 5.90 (1.76) 6.16 (1.87) 5.46 (1.65) 6.06 (1.96) Group: 1.63
Negative mood condition 5.53 (1.97) 6.23 (1.92) 5.66 (1.86) 6.36 (1.97) Mood: 0.05
Group · mood: 0.43
Free recall (negative words)
Positive mood condition 4.60 (1.99) 5.96 (2.12) 5.43 (1.77) 5.00 (1.55) Group: 2.72*
Negative mood condition 4.86 (2.12) 5.53 (1.77) 5.63 (1.84) 5.26 (1.65) Mood: 0.13
Group · mood: 0.68
Story completion (positive content)
Positive mood condition 4.04 (1.02) 3.41 (0.91) 2.76 (1.25) 3.80 (1.02) Group: 8.10***
Negative mood condition 3.06 (1.33) 2.98 (0.87) 2.55 (1.02) 3.28 (1.03) Mood: 17.11***
Group · mood: 1.55
Story completion (negative content)
Positive mood condition 1.60 (0.87) 2.08 (1.12) 2.50 (1.35) 1.81 (0.95) Group: 6.21**
Negative mood condition 2.40 (1.34) 2.46 (1.20) 3.16 (1.06) 2.08 (0.97) Mood: 17.74***
Group · mood: 0.97
Note: E+ = extravert; E = introvert; N+ = neutrotic; N = stable.
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.
*** P < 0.001.
 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402 399

Table 4
The mean differences (MD) and t statistics for each group’s performance on each cognitive task in the positive and
negative mood conditions
variable Group
Extravert Introvert Neurotic Stable
MD t(df = 29) MD t(df = 29) MD t(df = 29) MD t(df = 29)
Probability rating (positive events) 0.24 1.97* 0.00 0.02 0.27 2.37* 0.07 0.56
Probability rating (negative events) 0.39 3.38** 0.24 1.95 0.36 2.72* 0.15 1.12
Free recall (positive words) 0.36 0.91 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.46 0.30 0.61
Free recall (negative words) 0.26 0.60 0.43 1.09 0.20 0.45 0.27 0.75
Story completion (positive content) 0.97 3.41** 0.43 1.80 0.20 0.81 0.52 2.10*
Story completion (negative content) 0.80 3.00** 0.38 1.50 0.66 2.56* 0.27 1.21
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.

3.5. Group differences in performance on cognitive tasks in positive and negative mood condition

In order to examine E+, E , N+ and N groups’ differences on cognitive task performance, in

the positive and negative mood condition, a series of t-tests were employed. Table 4 summarizes
the mean differences and t statistics for each groups’ performance on each cognitive task between
two mood conditions.
As shown in Table 4, extraverted Ss, in the positive mood condition as compared with the neg-
ative mood condition, rated the occurrence probability of positive events more; wrote more po-
sitive content in stories; rated less occurrence the probability of negative events and wrote less
negative content in stories. There were no significant differences between the two mood conditions
on recall of positive words in extraverted individuals. Introverted Ss difference for performance on
cognitive tasks, in the positive mood condition as compared with the negative mood condition,
was not significant. As can be seen in Table 4, neurotic Ss, in the negative mood condition as com-
pared with the positive mood condition, rated the occurrence probability of negative events more
and wrote more negative stories. They also rated the occurrence probability of positive events
more in the positive mood condition as compared with the negative mood condition. Stable Ss
wrote more positive content stories in the positive mood condition than in the negative mood
condition.

4. Discussion

In the present research, the role of E and N personality dimensions and the moderating role of
manipulated mood states in emotional information processing were examined.
The results of regression analyses showed that in the positive mood condition, E correlates pos-
itively with positive judgment (probability rating for positive events) and positive interpretation
(writing story with positive content), and negatively with the number of recalled negative words.
In the negative mood condition, E correlates positively with positive judgment, while the relation-
ships between E and performance on negative content tasks are not significant. In both mood
400 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

conditions, N correlates positively with negative judgment (probability rating for negative events)
and negative interpretation (writing story with negative content), and negatively with positive
judgment and positive interpretations. These trait congruent judgments and interpretations sup-
port the trait congruency hypothesis and are consistent with the results of some studies (e.g., Go-
mez et al., 2002; Rusting, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Zeleneski & Larsen, 2002). According to
Gray’s theory (1970, 1981, 1987), Rusting (1999) suggested that sensitivity to reward in extra-
verted individuals and sensitivity to punishment in neurotic individuals are associated with their
tendencies to process positive and negative information, respectively. The trait congruent recall
was not found for E in the negative mood condition and for N in both mood conditions in that
it could be explained in terms of free recall task characteristic used in this research, so that the
words in this task were not encoded as self referent (see Blaney, 1986; Rusting, 1998).
Results of ANOVA implies that mood does not moderate the effect of personality on emotional
information processing, but it indicates that the effects of mood on negative judgment and positive
and negative interpretations are significant. The results of t-tests revealed that extraverted individ-
uals in the positive mood condition made more positive judgments and more positive interpreta-
tions than in the negative mood condition. Neurotic individuals in the negative mood condition
made more negative judgments and more negative interpretations than in the positive mood con-
dition. The mood congruent judgments and interpretations obtained in the present research are
consistent with the findings of some studies (Barber, 2001; Forgas, 1990; Mayer et al., 1992);
and are also supportive of Bower’s (1981, 1991) mood congruency hypothesis that suggests that
affect infusion works through the selective priming of similar or related cognitive categories. An-
other explanation for this mood congruency can be an affect-as information mechanism (Clore
et al., 1993; see Forgas, 1994) that supposes moods have a direct informational role, as people
use affect as a heuristic cue to infer their reactions to the situation.
According to findings of the present research, extraverted and neurotic subjects do not differ
significantly in the number of recalled positive and negative words in the two mood conditions.
This result is consistent with Gayle’s findings (1997) and is inconsistent with findings of some pre-
vious studies (e.g., Isen et al., 1978; Mayer et al., 1995, 1995). It is speculated that similar to trait
incongruent recall, the mood incongruent recall, could be the result of free recall task character-
istics in the present search. Smith and Petty (1995) findings, suggested that mood regulation may
also account for the mood incongruent recall. According to Parrot and Sabini’s (1990), mood
incongruent recall occurs only when subjects are not aware of the relevance of their mood to
the experiment; subjects in this research were also unaware of the relevance of their mood to
the experiment.
It can be argued that positive mood state increases extraverted individuals’ tendency to make
more positive judgments and interpretations and negative mood state increases neurotic individ-
uals’ tendency to make more negative judgments and interpretations. In line with these findings,
most studies that have manipulated mood, reported interaction effects of personality traits and
mood states on processing of emotional information (e.g., Rusting, 1999; Smith & Petty, 1995;
Taimer & Robinson, 2004), but natural mood studies have not obtained evidence for these
interactive effects (Gomez et al., 2002; Rusting, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Zeleneski &
Larsen, 2002).
According to Bower’s (1981, 1991) network theory, Rusting (1999) discussed that extraverted
individuals could have more extensive associative networks for positive emotional material and
 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402 401

neurotic individuals could have more extensive associative networks for negative emotional mate-
rial. During the positive or negative mood states, the connections among emotional memories and
thoughts associated with these emotional traits become easily activated and the activation spreads
to other emotion nodes of the same valence influencing cognitive processing in an emotion-con-
gruent direction. Thus, individuals process not only information that is congruent with stable cog-
nitive structures related to personality traits but they also process information, that is, congruent
with cognitive structures that have been activated by temporary mood.
In sum, the findings of this research support the view that E is associated with processing of
positive emotional information and N is associated with processing of negative emotional infor-
mation and also reveal that current mood states moderate the judgments and interpretations of
emotional information in extraverted and neurotic individuals.
The findings of this research have some limitations: The sample in the present study was uni-
versity female students. Therefore, the extent to which these findings can be generalized is uncer-
tain. These findings rely on laboratory setting and may not assess real life experience.
Future research needs to explore the interactive effects of traits and moods in other samples and
using other personality measures and other cognitive tasks (such as self-referent words for recall
task). It is also needed to examine the moderating role of moods in real life instead of experimen-
tal setting.

References

Barber, N. (2001). Gender differences in effects of mood on body image. Academic Research Library, 44, 99–108.
Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologists, 36, 129–148.
Bower, G. H. (1991). How might emotions affect learning? In S. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and
memory (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (1994). Mood and personality in recall of positive and negative information. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 32, 137–141.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of E and neuroticism on subjective wellbeing: Happy and unhappy
people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Denny, E. B., & Hunt, R. R. (1992). Affective valence and memory in depression: Dissociation of recall and fragment
completion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 575–580.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.
Forgas, J. P. (1990). Affective influences on individual and group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20,
441–453.
Forgas, J. P. (1994). The role of emotion in social judgments: An introductory review and an affect infusion model
(AIM). European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 1–24.
Fullam, R., & Dolan, M. (2006). Emotional information processing in violent patients with schizophrenia: Association
with psychopathy and symptomatology. Psychiatry Research, 141, 29–37.
Gayle, M. C. (1997). Mood-congruency in recall: The potential effects of arousal. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 12, 471–480.
Gomez, R., Cooper, A., & Gomez, A. (2000). Susceptibility to positive and negative mood states: Test of Eysenck’s,
Gray’s and Newman’s theories. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 351–365.
Gomez, R., Gomez, A., & Cooper, A. (2002). Neuroticism and E as predicators of negative and positive emotional
information processing: Comparing Eysenck’s, Gray’s, and Newman’s Theories. European Journal of Personality,
16, 333–350.
402 P. Rafienia et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 392–402

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion–extraversion. Behavior Research and Therapy, 8,
249–266.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality
(pp. 246–272). New York: Springer.
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21,
493–509.
Isen, A. H., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A
cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1–12.
Jansson, B., & Lundh, l. G. (2006). The interactive role of worried mood and trait anxiety in the selective processing of
subliminally presented threat words. Personality and individual differences, 41, 1195–1204.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative mood
induction procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1221–1228.
Larsen, R., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.
Mayer, J. D., Allen, J. P., & Beauregard, K. (1995). Mood inductions for four specific moods: A procedure employing
guided imagery vignettes with music. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 133–150.
Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T. W. (1992). Mood-congruent judgment is a general effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119–132.
Mayer, J. D., McCormick, L. J., & Strong, S. E. (1995). Mood-congruent memory and natural mood: New evidence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 736–746.
Parrot, W. G., & Sabini, J. (1990). Mood and memory under natural conditions: Evidence for mood incongruent recall.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 321–336.
Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., Moller, S. K., & Gotez, P. W. (2007). Neuroticism and affective priming: Evidence for a
neuroticism-linked negative schema. Personality and individual differences, 42, 1221–1231.
Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual
frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165–196.
Rusting, C. L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion- congruent memory and judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1073–1086.
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1998). Personality and cognitive processing of affective information. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 200–213.
Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. (1995). Personality moderators of mood effects on cognition: The role of self-esteem and
negative mood regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1092–1107.
Taimer, M., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Knowing good from bad: The paradox of neuroticism, negative affect and
evaluative processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 913–925.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Zeleneski, J. M., & Larsen, R. (2002). Predicating the future: How affect – related personality traits influence likelihood
judgments of future events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 100–110.