You are on page 1of 1

Search Wikipedia

Extraversion and introversion


Article Talk

The trait of extraversion (also spelled extroversion[1]) and introversion are a central dimension in
some human personality theories. The terms introversion and extraversion were introduced into
psychology by Carl Jung,[2] though both the popular understanding and current psychological usage
are not the same as Jung's original concept. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing,
talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reflective and reserved
behavior.[3] Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through
subjective psychic contents", and extraversion as "an attitude-type characterised by concentration of
interest on the external object".[4]

Extraversion and introversion are typically


viewed as a single continuum, so to be higher in
one necessitates being lower in the other. Jung
provides a different perspective and suggests
that everyone has both an extraverted side and
an introverted side, with one being more
dominant than the other. Virtually all
comprehensive models of personality include
these concepts in various forms. Examples
Behavioral and psychological characteristics distinguishing
include the Big Five model, Jung's analytical
introversion and extraversion, which are generally conceived as
psychology, Hans Eysenck's three-factor model, lying along a continuum.
Raymond Cattell's 16 personality factors, the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.

Contents

History

Varieties
Extraversion

Introversion

Ambiversion

Relative prevalence

Measurement
Lexical self-reporting

Statement self-reporting

Eysenck's theory

Biological factors

Behaviour

Implications

Regional variation

Relation to happiness
Instrumental view
Personality trait as a cause of higher sociability

Social activity hypothesis

Social attention theory

Temperamental view
Affective reactivity model

Social reactivity theory

Affective regulation

The set-point model aka affect-level model

Pleasure-arousal relation

Complications to the extraversion-happiness correlation


Neuroticism and extraversion

Other Big 5 factors and extraversion

Other contributing personality factors

Culture

See also

References

External links

History

In September 1909, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used the term introverted in a lecture at Clark
University.[5] A transcript of this lecture was then published with two others in a journal in 1910,[6] the
first time the term appeared in print. In the lecture he mentions that love that is "introverted", "is
turned inward into the subject and there produces increased imaginative activity".[6]

His 1921 book Psychologische Typen[7] was published as Personality Types[8] in English in 1923. It
described the "introverted" in detail for the first time.[8] In his later paper, Psychologische Typologie,
he gives a more concise definition of the introverted type, writing:

He holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of
society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he
feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He
is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a
good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against
influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and
it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum
unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to
people...

For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbor, a carefully
tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His
own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are
made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative,
and in his own way...

Crowds, majority views, public opinion, popular enthusiasm never convince him of
anything, but mere make him creep still deeper into his shell.

His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and
when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and
consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.[8]

Varieties

William McDougall discussed Jung's conception, and reached this conclusion: "the introverts are
those in whom reflective thought inhibits and postpones action and expression: the extroverts are
those in whom the energies liberated upon the stirring of any propensity flow out freely in outward
action and expression."[9]

Extraversion

Extraversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from outside oneself.[10] Extraverts tend to
enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. Extraverts are
energized and thrive off being around other people. They take pleasure in activities that involve large
social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or
political groups. They also tend to work well in groups.[11] An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time
spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around
other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves.

Introversion

Introversion is the state of primarily obtaining


gratification from one's own mental life.[10]
Introverts are typically perceived as more
reserved or reflective.[11] Some popular
psychologists have characterized introverts
as people whose energy tends to expand
through reflection and dwindle during
interaction. This is similar to Jung's view,
although he focused on mental energy rather Introversion is a personality trait distinct from shyness and social
anxiety disorder.[12]
than physical energy. Few modern
conceptions make this distinction. Introverts often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading,
writing, or meditating. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent
with large groups of people. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social
gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference
for a quiet, more minimally stimulating external environment.[13] They prefer to concentrate on a single
activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in
developing children and adolescents.[14] They are more analytical before speaking.[15]

Mistaking introversion for shyness is a common error.


Introversion is a preference, while shyness stems from distress.
Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not
necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do.[17] Susan
Cain, author of the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World
Quiet: The Power of Introverts... author
That Can't Stop Talking, argues that modern Western culture Susan Cain defines introversion and
misjudges the capabilities of introverted people, leading to a extraversion in terms of preferences for
different levels of stimulation—
waste of talent, energy, and happiness.[18] Cain describes how
distinguishing it from shyness (fear of
society is biased against introverts, and that, with people being social judgment and humiliation).[16]
taught from childhood that to be sociable is to be happy,
introversion is now considered "somewhere between a disappointment and pathology".[19] In contrast,
Cain says that introversion is not a "second-class" trait but that both introverts and extraverts enrich
society, with examples including the introverts J. K. Rowling,[20] Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein,
Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Seuss, W. B. Yeats, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Page.[19]

Ambiversion

Most contemporary trait theories measure levels of extraversion-introversion as part of a single,


continuous dimension of personality, with some scores near one end, and others near the halfway
mark.[21] Ambiversion is falling more or less in the middle.[10][22]

Relative prevalence

Quiet author Susan Cain reported studies indicating that 33 to


50% of the American population are introverts.[24] Particular
demographics have higher prevalence, with a 6,000-subject
MBTI-based survey indicating that 60% of attorneys, and 90% of
intellectual property attorneys, are introverts.[25]

Measurement Research indicates that the prevalence of


extraversion is greater for people at
progressively higher management
The extent of extraversion and introversion is most commonly levels.[23]

assessed through self-report measures, although peer-reports


and third-party observation can also be used. Self-report measures are either lexical[3] or based on
statements.[26] The type of measure is determined by an assessment of psychometric properties, and
the time and space constraints of the research being undertaken.

Lexical self-reporting

Lexical measures use individual adjectives that reflect extravert and introvert traits, such as outgoing,
talkative, reserved and quiet. Words representing introversion are reverse-coded to create composite
measures of extraversion-introversion running on a continuum. Goldberg (1992)[27] developed a 20-
word measure as part of his 100-word Big Five markers. Saucier (1994)[28] developed a briefer 8-word
measure as part of his 40-word mini-markers. However, the psychometric properties of Saucier's
original mini-markers have been found to be suboptimal with samples outside of North America.[3] As
a result, a systematically revised measure was developed to have better psychometric properties, the
International English Mini-Markers.[3] The International English Mini-Markers has good internal
consistency reliabilities, and other validity, for assessing extraversion-introversion and other five-
factor personality dimensions, both within and, especially, without American populations. Internal
consistency reliability of the extraversion measure for native English-speakers is reported as a
Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.92, that for non-native English-speakers is α of 0.85.

Statement self-reporting

Statement measures tend to contain more words, and hence consume more research instrument
space, than lexical measures. Respondents are asked the extent to which they, for example, "Talk to a
lot of different people at parties or Often feel uncomfortable around others".[26] While some
statement-based measures of extraversion-introversion have similarly acceptable psychometric
properties in North American populations to lexical measures, their generally emic development makes
them less suited to use in other populations.[29] For example, statements asking about talkativeness in
parties are hard to answer meaningfully by those who do not attend parties, as Americans are
assumed to do. Moreover, the sometimes colloquial North American language of statements makes
them less suited for use outside America. For instance, statements like "Keep in the background" and
"Know how to captivate people" are sometimes hard for non-native English-speakers to understand,
except in a literal sense.

Eysenck's theory

Hans Eysenck described extraversion-introversion as the degree to which a person is outgoing and
interactive with other people. These behavioral differences are presumed to be the result of
underlying differences in brain physiology.[30] Eysenck associated cortical inhibition and excitation
with the ascending reticular activation system (ARAS), a pathway located in the brainstem.[31]
Extraverts seek excitement and social activity in an effort to raise their naturally low arousal level,
whereas introverts tend to avoid social situations in an effort to avoid raising their naturally high
arousal level too far. Eysenck designated extraversion as one of three major traits in his P-E-N model
of personality, which also includes psychoticism and neuroticism.

Eysenck originally suggested that extraversion was a combination of two major tendencies,
impulsiveness and sociability. He later added several other more specific traits, namely liveliness,
activity level, and excitability. These traits are further linked in his personality hierarchy to even more
specific habitual responses, such as partying on the weekend.

Eysenck compared this trait to the four temperaments of ancient medicine, with choleric and sanguine
temperaments equating to extraversion, and melancholic and phlegmatic temperaments equating to
introversion.[32]

Biological factors

The relative importance of nature versus environment in


determining the level of extraversion is controversial and the
focus of many studies. Twin studies have found a genetic
component of 39% to 58%. In terms of the environmental
component, the shared family environment appears to be far less
important than individual environmental factors that are not
shared between siblings.[33] Twin studies indicate that extraversion-
introversion has a genetic component
Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in
cortical arousal. He hypothesized that introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than
extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts. That extraverts require more
external stimulation than introverts has been interpreted as evidence for this hypothesis. Other
evidence of the "stimulation" hypothesis is that introverts salivate more than extraverts in response to
a drop of lemon juice. This is due to increased activity in their ARAS, which responds to stimuli like
food or social contact.[34][35]

Extraversion has been linked to higher sensitivity of the mesolimbic dopamine system to potentially
rewarding stimuli.[36] This in part explains the high levels of positive affect found in extraverts, since
they will more intensely feel the excitement of a potential reward. One consequence of this is that
extraverts can more easily learn the contingencies for positive reinforcement, since the reward itself is
experienced as greater.

One study found that introverts have more blood flow in the frontal lobes of their brain and the anterior
or frontal thalamus, which are areas dealing with internal processing, such as planning and problem
solving. Extraverts have more blood flow in the anterior cingulate gyrus, temporal lobes, and posterior
thalamus, which are involved in sensory and emotional experience.[37] This study and other research
indicate that introversion-extraversion is related to individual differences in brain function. A study on
regional brain volume found a positive correlation between introversion and grey matter volume in the
right prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction, as well as a positive correlation between
introversion and total white matter volume.[38] Task-related functional neuroimaging has shown that
extraversion is associated with increased activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus, prefrontal cortex,
middle temporal gyrus, and the amygdala.[39]

Extraversion has also been linked to physiological factors such as respiration, through its association
with surgency.[40]

Behaviour

Various differences in behavioural characteristics are attributed to extraverts and introverts. According
to one study, extraverts tend to wear more decorative clothing, whereas introverts prefer practical,
comfortable clothes.[41] Extraverts are more likely to prefer more upbeat, conventional, and energetic
music than introverts.[42] Personality also influences how people arrange their work areas. In general,
extraverts decorate their offices more, keep their doors open, keep extra chairs nearby, and are more
likely to put dishes of candy on their desks. These are attempts to invite co-workers and encourage
interaction. Introverts, in contrast, decorate less and tend to arrange their workspace to discourage
social interaction.[43]

Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has suggested that
there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts behave.[44] In these studies,
participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing)
they were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that
extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted
way. Indeed, there was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted
behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that extraverts tend to act
moderately extraverted about 5–10% more often than introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and
introverts are not "fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more
extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what one "does" than what one
"has".

Additionally, a study by Lippa (1978) found evidence for the extent to which individuals present
themselves in a different way. This is called expressive behaviour, and it is dependent upon the
individuals' motivation and ability to control that behaviour. Lippa (1978) examined 68 students who
were asked to role-play by pretending to teach a math class. The students' level of extraversion and
introversion were rated based on their external/expressive behaviours such as stride length, graphic
expansiveness, the percentage of time they spent talking, the amount of time they spent making eye
contact, and the total time of each teaching session. This study found that actual introverts were
perceived and judged as having more extraverted-looking expressive behaviours because they were
higher in terms of their self-monitoring.[45] This means that the introverts consciously put more effort
into presenting a more extraverted, and rather socially desirable, version of themselves. Thus,
individuals are able to regulate and modify behaviour based on their environmental situations.

Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum,
individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may
act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counter dispositional" ways in certain
situations. For example, Brian Little's free trait theory[46][47] suggests that people can take on "free
traits", behaving in ways that may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects
that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather
than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments,
and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their
happiness, as mentioned above.

Implications

Researchers have found a correlation between extraversion and self-reported happiness. That is, more
extraverted people tend to report higher levels of happiness than introverts.[48][49] Other research has
shown that being instructed to act in an extraverted manner leads to increases in positive affect, even
for people who are trait-level introverts.[50]

This does not mean that introverts are unhappy. Extraverts simply report experiencing more positive
emotions, whereas introverts tend to be closer to neutral. This may be because extraversion is socially
preferable in contemporary Western culture and thus introversion feels less desirable. In addition to
the research on happiness, other studies have found that extraverts tend to report higher levels of
self-esteem than introverts.[51][52] Others suggest that such results reflect socio-cultural bias in the
survey itself.[15] Dr. David Meyers has claimed that happiness is a matter of possessing three traits:
self-esteem, optimism, and extraversion. Meyers bases his conclusions on studies that report
extraverts to be happier; these findings have been questioned in light of the fact that the "happiness"
prompts given to the studies' subjects, such as "I like to be with others" and "I'm fun to be with," only
measure happiness among extraverts.[15] Also, according to Carl Jung, introverts acknowledge more
readily their psychological needs and problems, whereas extraverts tend to be oblivious to them
because they focus more on the outer world.[2]

Although extraversion is perceived as socially desirable in Western culture, it is not always an


advantage. For example, extraverted youths are more likely to engage in antisocial or delinquent
behavior.[53][54] In line with this, some evidence suggests that the trait of extraversion may also be
related to that of psychopathy.[55][56] Some researchers have also found that introverts are more likely
to be "gifted"[57][58] and tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extraverts may
find boring.[59] On the other hand, the largest meta-analyses of extraversion intelligence suggest
many positive correlations between components of extraversion (e.g., activity, sociability, enthusiasm)
and cognitive abilities (e.g., memory, visual processing, knowledge).[60]

Research shows that behavioral immune system, the psychological processes that infer infection risk
from perceptual cues and respond to these perceptual cues through the activation of aversive
emotions, may influence gregariousness. Although extraversion is associated with many positive
outcomes like higher levels of happiness, those extraverted people are also more likely to be exposed
to communicable diseases, such as airborne infections, as they tend to have more contact with
people. When individuals are more vulnerable to infection, the cost of being social will be relatively
greater. Therefore, people tend to be less extraversive when they feel vulnerable and vice versa.[61]

Although neither introversion nor extraversion is pathological, psychotherapists can take temperament
into account when treating clients. Clients may respond better to different types of treatment
depending on where they fall on the introversion-extraversion spectrum. Teachers can also consider
temperament when dealing with their pupils, for example acknowledging that introverted children need
more encouragement to speak in class while extraverted children may grow restless during long
periods of quiet study.[citation needed]

Regional variation

Some claim that Americans live in an "extraverted society"[62] that rewards extravert behavior and
rejects introversion.[63] This is because the U.S. is a culture of external personality, whereas in some
other cultures people are valued for their "inner selves and their moral rectitude".[64] Other cultures,
such as those in Japan, China and regions where Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Sufism etc. prevail,
prize introversion.[15] These cultural differences predict individuals' happiness in that people who
score higher in extraversion are happier, on average, in particularly extraverted cultures and vice
versa.[65]

Researchers have found that people who live on islands tend to be less extraverted (more introverted)
than those living on the mainland, and that people whose ancestors had inhabited the island for
twenty generations tend to be less extraverted than more recent arrivals. Furthermore, people who
emigrate from islands to the mainland tend to be more extraverted than people that stay on islands,
and those that immigrate to islands.[65]

In the United States, researchers have found that people living in the midwestern states of North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois score higher than the U.S. average
on extraversion. Utah and the southeastern states of Florida and Georgia also score high on this
personality trait. The most introverted states in the U.S. are Maryland, New Hampshire, Alaska,
Washington, Oregon and Vermont. People who live in the northwestern states of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming are also relatively introverted.[66]

Relation to happiness

As earlier stated, extraverts are often found to have higher levels of positive affect than
introverts.[49][67][68] However, this relationship has only been found between extraversion and
activated forms of positive affect.[69][70] There is no relationship between extraversion and
deactivated (calm) forms of positive affect such as contentment or serenity, although one study found
a negative relationship between extraversion and deactivated positive affect (i.e. a positive
relationship between introversion and calm positive affect).[69] Moreover, the relationship between
extraversion and activated positive affect is only significant for agentic extraversion, i.e. there is no
significant relationship between affiliative extraversion and activated positive affect, especially when
controlling for neuroticism.[69][71]

An influential review article concluded that personality, specifically extraversion and emotional
stability, was the best predictor of subjective well-being.[72] As examples, Argyle and Lu (1990)[73]
found that the trait of extraversion, as measured by Extraversion Scale of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ), was positively and significantly correlated with positive affect, as measured by
the Oxford Happiness Inventory. Using the same positive affect and extraversion scales, Hills and
Argyle (2001)[74] found that positive affect was again significantly correlated with extraversion. Also,
the study by Emmons and Diener (1986)[75] showed that extraversion correlates positively and
significantly with positive affect but not with negative affect. Similar results were found in a large
longitudinal study by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992),[76] which assessed 14,407 participants
from 100 areas of continental United States. Using the abbreviated General Well-Being Schedule,
which tapped positive and negative affects, and Costa and McCrae's (1986).[77] short version of the
NEO's Extraversion scale, the authors reported that extraverts experienced greater well-being at two
points in time, during which data were collected: first between 1971 and 1975, and later between 1981
and 1984. However, the latter study did not control for neuroticism, an important covariate when
investigating relationships between extraversion and positive affect or wellbeing.[78] Studies that
controlled for neuroticism have found no significant relationship between extraversion and subjective
well-being.[78] Larsen and Ketelaar (1991)[79] showed that extraverts respond more to positive affect
than to negative affect, since they exhibit more positive-affect reactivity to the positive-affect
induction, yet they do not react more negatively to the negative-affect induction.[80]

Instrumental view

The instrumental view proposes that personality traits give rise to conditions and actions, which have
affective consequences, and thus generate individual differences in emotionality.[80][81]

Personality trait as a cause of higher sociability

According to the instrumental view, one explanation for greater subjective well-being among
extraverts could be that extraversion helps in the creation of life circumstances, which promote high
levels of positive affect. Specifically, the personality trait of extraversion is seen as a facilitator of more
social interactions,[67][80][82] since the low cortical arousal among extraverts results in them seeking
more social situations in order to increase their arousal.[83]

Social activity hypothesis

According to the social activity hypothesis, more frequent participation in social situations creates
more frequent, and higher levels, of positive affect. Therefore, it is believed that since extraverts are
characterized as more sociable than introverts, they also possess higher levels of positive affect
brought on by social interactions.[84][85][86] Specifically, the results of Furnham and Brewin's study
(1990)[68] suggest that extraverts enjoy and participate more in social activities than introverts, and as
a result extraverts report a higher level of happiness. Also, in the study of Argyle and Lu (1990)[73]
extraverts were found to be less likely to avoid participation in noisy social activities, and to be more
likely to participate in social activities such as party games, jokes, or going to the cinema. Similar
results were reported by Diener, Larsen , and Emmons (1984)[87] who found that extraverts seek
social situations more often than introverts, especially when engaging in recreational activities.

However, a variety of findings contradict the claims of the social activity hypothesis. Firstly, it was
found that extraverts were happier than introverts even when alone. Specifically, extraverts tend to be
happier regardless of whether they live alone or with others, or whether they live in a vibrant city or
quiet rural environment.[49] Similarly, a study by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992)[76] showed
that although extraverts chose social jobs relatively more frequently (51%) than nonsocial jobs
compared to introverts (38%), they were happier than introverts regardless of whether their
occupations had social or nonsocial character. Secondly, it was found that extraverts only sometimes
reported greater amounts of social activity than introverts,[87] but in general extraverts and introverts
do not differ in the quantity of their socialization.[49] Similar finding was reported by Srivastava,
Angelo, and Vallereux (2008),[88] who found that extraverts and introverts both enjoy participating in
social interactions, but extraverts participate socially more. Thirdly, studies have shown that both
extraverts and introverts participate in social relations, but that the quality of this participation differs.
The more frequent social participation among extraverts could be explained by the fact that extraverts
know more people, but those people are not necessarily their close friends, whereas introverts, when
participating in social interactions, are more selective and have only few close friends with whom they
have special relationships.[74]

Social attention theory

Yet another explanation of the high correlation between extraversion and happiness comes from the
study by Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen (2002).[89] They suggested that the core element of extraversion
is a tendency to behave in ways that attract, hold, and enjoy social attention, and not reward
sensitivity. They claimed that one of the fundamental qualities of social attention is its potential of
being rewarding. Therefore, if a person shows positive emotions of enthusiasm, energy, and
excitement, that person is seen favorably by others and he or she gains others' attention. This
favorable reaction from others likely encourages extraverts to engage in further extraverted
behavior.[89] Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen's (2002)[89] study showed that their measure of social
attention, the Social Attention Scale, was much more highly correlated with extraversion than were
measures of reward sensitivity.

Temperamental view

Temperamental view is based on the notion that there is a direct link between people's personality
traits and their sensitivity to positive and negative affects.[67][79][80]

Affective reactivity model

The affective reactivity model states that the strength of a person's reactions to affect-relevant events
are caused by people's differences in affect.[79][90] This model is based on the reinforcement
sensitivity theory by Jeffrey Alan Gray, which states that people with stronger behavioral activation
system (BAS) are high in reward responsiveness and are predisposed to the personality trait of
extraversion, while people with a stronger behavioral inhibition system (BIS) are lower in reward
responsiveness and are more predisposed to personality trait of neuroticism and introversion.[91]
Therefore, extraverts are seen as having a temperamental predisposition to positive affect since
positive mood induction has a greater effect on them than on introverts, thus extraverts are more
prone to react to pleasant effects.[36][79][90][92][93] For example, Gable, Reis, and Elliot (2000).[94]
found in two consecutive studies that people with more sensitive BIS reported higher levels of average
negative affect, while people with more sensitive BAS reported higher levels of positive affect. Also,
Zelenski and Larsen (1999)[80] found that people with more sensitive BAS reported more positive
emotions during the positive mood induction, while people with more sensitive BIS reported more
negative emotions during the negative mood induction.[citation needed]

Social reactivity theory

The social reactivity theory alleges that all humans, whether they like it or not, are required to
participate in social situations. Since extraverts prefer engaging in social interactions more than
introverts, they also derive more positive affect from such situations than introverts do.[49][73][87] The
support for this theory comes from work of Brian R. Little, who popularized concept of "restorative
niches". Little claimed that life often requires people to participate in social situations, and since acting
social is out of character for introverts, it was shown to harm their well-being. Therefore, one way to
preserve introverts' well-being is for them to recharge as often as possible in places where they can
return to their true selves—places Little calls "restorative niches".[95]

However, it was also found that extraverts did not respond stronger to social situations than introverts,
nor did they report bigger boosts of positive affect during such interactions.[82][88]

Affective regulation

Another possible explanation for more happiness among extraverts comes from the fact that
extraverts are able to better regulate their affective states. This means that in ambiguous situations
(situations where positive and negative moods are introduced and mixed in similar proportions)
extraverts show a slower decrease of positive affect, and, as a result, they maintained a more positive
affect balance than introverts.[96] Extraverts may also choose activities that facilitate happiness (e.g.,
recalling pleasant vs. unpleasant memories) more than introverts when anticipating difficult tasks.[97]

The set-point model aka affect-level model

According to the set-point model, levels of positive and negative affects are more or less fixed within
each individual, hence, after a positive or negative event, people's moods tend to go back to the pre-
set level. According to the set-point model, extraverts experience more happiness because their pre-
set level of positive affect is set higher than the pre-set point of positive affect in introverts, therefore
extraverts require less positive reinforcement in order to feel happy.[93]

Pleasure-arousal relation

A study by Peter Kuppens (2008)[98] showed that extraverts and introverts engage in different
behaviors when feeling pleasant, which may explain underestimation of the frequency and intensity of
happiness exhibited by introverts. Specifically, Kuppens (2008)[98] found that arousal and
pleasantness are positively correlated for extraverts, which means that pleasant feelings are more
likely to be accompanied by high arousal for extraverts. On the other hand, arousal and pleasantness
are negatively correlated for introverts, resulting in introverts exhibiting low arousal when feeling
pleasant. In other words, if everything is going well in an extravert's life, which is a source of pleasant
feelings, extraverts see such a situation as an opportunity to engage in active behavior and goal
pursuit, which brings about an active, aroused pleasant state. When everything is going well for
introverts, they see it as an opportunity to let down their guard, resulting in them feeling relaxed and
content.[98]

Complications to the extraversion-happiness correlation

Though extraversion has consistently been shown to have a strong correlation with happiness and
well-being, these findings are complicated by the presence of other personality traits that act as
strong indicators of happiness.

Neuroticism and extraversion

In multiple studies, neuroticism has been shown to have an equal, if not larger, impact on happiness
and subjective well-being than extraversion. One study classified school children into four categories
based on their scores in assessments of extraversion and emotional stability (neuroticism).[99] The
results showed no significant difference between the happiness levels of stable introverts and stable
extraverts, while unstable extraverts and introverts both demonstrated significantly less happiness
than their counterparts. In this study, neuroticism appeared to be the more salient factor for overall
well-being.

Likewise, in later studies, researchers used assessment scales to test for categories such as self-
esteem and life-goal orientation, which they had positively correlated with happiness. Participants'
responses to these scales suggested that neuroticism actually had a larger impact than extraversion in
measures of well-being.[100][101]

Other Big 5 factors and extraversion

Though extraversion and neuroticism seem to have the largest effect on personal happiness, other Big
5 personality factors have also been shown to correlate with happiness and subjective well-being. For
example, one study showed that conscientiousness and agreeableness correlated about 0.20 with
subjective well-being.[102] While the effect of these traits was not as strong as extraversion or
neuroticism, it is clear that they still have some impact on happiness outcomes.

Similarly, interactions between extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness have demonstrated


significant impacts on subjective well-being. In one study, researchers used three scales to assess
subjective well-being. They found that extraversion only served as a predictor for one assessment, in
conjunction with neuroticism, while the other two assessment outcomes were better predicted by
conscientiousness and neuroticism.[103] In addition to the importance of including other factors in
happiness assessments, this study also demonstrates the manner in which an operational definition of
well-being changes whether extraversion emerges as a salient predictive factor.

Other contributing personality factors

There is also evidence that other non-trait elements of personality may correlate with happiness. For
instance, one study demonstrated that various features of one's goals, such as progress towards
important goals or conflicts between them, can affect both emotional and cognitive well-being.[104]
Several other researchers have also suggested that, at least in more individualistic cultures, having a
coherent sense of one's personality (and acting in a way that conforms to that self-concept) is
positively related to well-being.[105][106][107] Thus, focusing solely on extraversion—or even
extraversion and neuroticism—is likely to provide an incomplete picture of the relationship between
happiness and personality.

Culture

In addition, one's culture may also influence happiness and overall subjective well-being. The overall
level of happiness fluctuates from culture to culture, as does preferred expression of happiness.
Comparing various international surveys across countries reveals that different nations, and different
ethnic groups within nations, exhibit differences in average life satisfaction.

For example, one researcher found that between 1958 and 1987, Japanese life satisfaction fluctuated
around 6 on a 10-point scale, while Denmark's fluctuated around 8.[108] Comparing ethnic groups
within the United States, another study found that European Americans reported being "significantly
happier" with their lives than Asian Americans.[109]

Researchers have hypothesized a number of factors that could be responsible for these differences
between countries, including national differences in overall income levels, self-serving biases and self-
enhancement, and approach and avoidance orientations.[110] Taken together, these findings suggest
that while extraversion-introversion does have a strong correlation with happiness, it does not stand
alone as a sole predictor of subjective well-being, and that other factors must be accounted for when
trying to determine the correlates of happiness.

See also

Analytical psychology
Psychology portal
Alternative five model of personality

Big Five personality traits

Personality

Reinforcement sensitivity theory

Trait theory

References

1. ^ "Is it extraversion or extroversion?" . The Predictive Index. August 2, 2016. Retrieved 2018-02-21.

2. ^ a b
Jung, C. G. (1921) Psychologische Typen, Rascher Verlag, Zurich – translation H.G. Baynes, 1923.

3. ^ a b c d
Thompson, Edmund R. (2008). "Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-
Markers" . Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (6): 542–8. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013 .

4. ^ Jung, Carl (1995). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London: Fontana Press. pp. 414–5. ISBN 978-0-00-
654027-4.

5. ^ Jones RA (September 2011). "Storytelling scholars and the mythic child: Rhetorical aesthetics in two case
studies". Culture & Psychology. 17 (3): 339–358. doi:10.1177/1354067X11408135 . ISSN 1354-067X .
S2CID 145571722 .

6. ^ a b
Jung CG (1910). "The Association Method". The American Journal of Psychology. 21 (2): 219–269.
doi:10.2307/1413002 . hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-002B-AD55-2 . ISSN 0002-9556 . JSTOR 1413002 .

7. ^ Jung CG (1921). C.G. Jung - Psychologische Typen .

8. ^ a b c
Jung CG (1971). Psychological types . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-
691-09770-1 – via Internet Archive.

9. ^ McDougall, W. (1923/1932). The Energies of Men: a Study of the Fundamentals of Dynamic Psychology,
Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, p. 184.

10. ^ a b c
Merriam Webster Dictionary.

11. ^ a b
"Extraversion or Introversion" . The Myers & Briggs Foundation. Archived from the original on April 5,
2017. Retrieved April 6, 2015.

12. ^ Peterson, Ashley L. (April 11, 2019). "Introversion, Shyness & Social Anxiety: What's the Difference?" .
Mental Health at Home. Archived from the original on August 1, 2022. See also: ● Brown, Alexander (March
13, 2022). "Social Anxiety? Introvert? Or Shy?" . Mind Journal. Archived from the original on August 1,
2022.

13. ^ Cain, Susan, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, Crown Publishing 2012: quoted
by Szalavitz, Maia, "'Mind Reading': Q&A with Susan Cain on the Power of Introverts" (WebCite archive ),
Time Healthland, January 27, 2012; and Cook, Gareth, "The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet
Brilliance" (WebCite archive ), Scientific American, January 24, 2012.

14. ^ Introversion Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence. Gale Research, 1998.

15. ^ a b c d
Laney, Marti Olsen (2002), The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World, Workman
Publishing. ISBN 0-7611-2369-5.

16. ^ Szalavitz, Maia, "'Mind Reading': Q&A with Susan Cain on the Power of Introverts" (Archived 2012-03-
02 at the Wayback Machine) Time Healthland, January 27, 2012.

17. ^ All About Shyness Archived September 12, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Meredith Whitten, Psych
Central, August 21, 2001; Accessed 2007-08-02

18. ^ Glor, Jeff (January 26, 2012). " 'Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking,' by Susan
Cain" . CBS News. Archived from the original on July 12, 2023. (Glor's interview of Susan Cain)

19. ^ a b
Nair, Dinesh (September 12, 2012). "Book Review: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't
Stop Talking by Susan Cain" . Seattle Post-Intelligencer (SeattlePI.com). Archived from the original on July
12, 2023.

20. ^ Cain, Susan (January 24, 2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking . Crown.
ISBN 9780307452207. Retrieved February 24, 2019.

21. ^ The OCEAN of Personality Archived July 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Personality Synopsis, Chapter
4: Trait Theory. AllPsych Online. Last updated March 23, 2004

22. ^ Cohen, Donald; Schmidt, James P. (1979). "Ambiversion: Characteristics of Midrange Responders on the
Introversion-Extraversion Continuum" . Journal of Personality Assessment. 43 (5): 514–6.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4305_14 . PMID 16367029 .

23. ^ Ones, Deniz S.; Dilchert, Stephan (2009). "How Special Are Executives? HowSpecial Should Executive
Selection Be?Observations and Recommendations" . Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2 (2): 163–
170. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01127.x . Fig. 2.

24. ^ Cain, Susan (2012), Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking at page 3 (Introduction)
and page 280 (note 11). • Goudreau, Jenna (January 26, 2012). "The Secret Power Of Introverts" . Forbes.
Archived from the original on March 15, 2012.

25. ^ Gordon, Leslie A. (January 1, 2016). "Most lawyers are introverted, and that's not necessarily a bad thing" .
ABA Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2016.

26. ^ a b
Goldberg, Lewis R.; Johnson, John A.; Eber, Herbert W.; Hogan, Robert; Ashton, Michael C.; Cloninger, C.
Robert; Gough, Harrison G. (2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain
personality measures". Journal of Research in Personality. 40 (1): 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 .
S2CID 13274640 .

27. ^ Goldberg, Lewis R. (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure" . Psychological
Assessment. 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 . S2CID 144709415 .

28. ^ Saucier, Gerard (1994). "Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Goldberg's Unipolar Big-Five Markers" . Journal
of Personality Assessment. 63 (3): 506–16. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8 . PMID 7844738 .

29. ^ Piedmont, R. L.; Chae, J.-H. (1997). "Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality:
Development and Validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 28 (2): 131–
155. doi:10.1177/0022022197282001 . S2CID 145053137 .

30. ^ Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas Publishing.[page needed]

31. ^ Bullock, W. A.; Gilliland, K. (1993). "Eysenck's arousal theory of introversion-extraversion: A converging
measures investigation" . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (1): 113–123. doi:10.1037/0022-
:

You might also like