Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 83, No. 1, 245–252 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.245

What Is the Central Feature of Extraversion?

Social Attention Versus Reward Sensitivity

Michael C. Ashton Kibeom Lee

Brock University University of Western Australia

Sampo V. Paunonen
University of Western Ontario
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

R. E. Lucas, E. Diener, A. Grob, E. M. Suh, and L. Shao (2000) recently argued that the core of the
personality dimension of Extraversion is not sociability but a construct called reward sensitivity. This
article accepts their argument that the mere preference for social interaction is not the central element of
Extraversion. However, it claims that the real core of the Extraversion factor is the tendency to behave
in ways that attract social attention. Data from a sample of 200 respondents were used to test the 2
hypotheses with comparisons of measures of reward sensitivity and social attention in terms of their
saturation with the common variance of Extraversion measures. The results clearly showed that social
attention, not reward sensitivity, represents the central feature of Extraversion.

Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, and Shao (2000) have recently in- with the various facets of Extraversion (Watson & Clark, 1997)
vestigated the nature of the fundamental features of the individual- and that extraverts tend to experience pleasant affect across a
differences dimension known as Extraversion, one of the Big Five variety of rewarding situations, both social and nonsocial (Cun-
factors of personality (e.g., Goldberg, 1993). In a series of studies ningham, 1998). These findings are consistent with the idea that an
using participants from the United States and around the world, underlying positive incentive motivational system (Depue & Col-
they tested two alternative possibilities regarding the common lins, 1999), or behavior activation system (BAS; Gray, 1970), is
element that links various facets of Extraversion: (a) that aspects of responsible for individual differences in Extraversion. According
Extraversion are linked by an underlying preference for social to this second interpretation, extraverts are sociable because (a)
interactions, and (b) that aspects of Extraversion are linked by an reward sensitivity is the core of Extraversion and (b) social situ-
underlying sensitivity to reward. Reward sensitivity refers to the ations tend to be rewarding.
tendency to experience “an incentive motivational state that facil- To compare the two models of Extraversion, Lucas et al. (2000)
itates and guides approach behavior to a goal” (Depue & Collins, first developed a new Extraversion scale that comprised three
1999, p. 495). subscales representing known features, or constituent traits, of that
The rationales for the two competing interpretations were, given personality dimension—specifically, affiliation, ascendance, and
briefly, as follows. Sociability was considered as a possible core venturesomeness. They also developed a new scale designed to
feature of Extraversion on the basis both of popular conceptions of measure social interaction, a variant of sociability that involves a
Extraversion and of numerous empirical studies that have found preference for social over solitary activities that is independent of
social behaviors to be loaded on the Extraversion factor (e.g., the extent to which those activities are rewarding. No direct
McCrae & Costa, 1987). Reward sensitivity was considered as a measure of reward sensitivity was used in Lucas et al.’s study.
possible core feature of Extraversion on the basis of several Instead, individual differences in that variable were inferred from
empirical findings and theoretical formulations. For example, it measures of positive affect, which Lucas et al. (2000) viewed as
has been found that measures of pleasant affect (thought to be a closely linked to reward sensitivity. The authors then administered
manifestation of reward sensitivity) are correlated substantially those scales to participants in four separate studies and used the
data to compare two structural equation models.
In Lucas et al.’s (2000) first model, sociability was postulated as
Michael C. Ashton, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. the core feature of Extraversion. It was therefore hypothesized that
Catharines, Ontario, Canada; Kibeom Lee, Department of Psychology, their Social Interaction Scale would define an Extraversion factor
University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; Sampo V. Paunonen, jointly with the personality measures of affiliation, ascendance,
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, On-
and venturesomeness and that this factor would show only mod-
tario, Canada.
Some of this research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities
erate correlations with the Positive Affect Scale (Watson & Clark,
Research Council of Canada Grant 410-98-1555 to Sampo V. Paunonen. 1997), their proxy measure of reward sensitivity. In their second
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Michael C. model, reward sensitivity was postulated as the core feature of
Ashton, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, L2S Extraversion. It was therefore hypothesized that social interaction
3A1 Ontario, Canada. E-mail: mashton@spartan.ac.brocku.ca would not load on the Extraversion factor, which would be defined

245
 246 ASHTON, LEE, AND PAUNONEN

only by the Affiliation, Ascendance, and Venturesomeness facet domain of endeavor. Specifically, Conscientiousness was ex-
scales, and that the Extraversion factor would show strong corre- plained as active engagement within task-related endeavors, Intel-
lations with positive affect. lect/Imagination was explained as active engagement within idea-
In all four studies, the results of Lucas et al.’s (2000) analyses related endeavors, and Extraversion was explained as active
were clear: Social interaction did not load on the Extraversion engagement within social endeavors.
factor defined by the traits of affiliation, ascendance, and venture- On the basis of our interpretation of Extraversion as a dimension
someness. Furthermore, the Extraversion factor was very strongly of active engagement within social endeavors (Ashton & Lee,
correlated with positive affect, which itself was uncorrelated with 2001), we suggest that the core element of this broad construct is
social interaction. On the basis of these results and the postulated a tendency to behave in ways that attract or hold social attention
theoretical link between positive affect and reward sensitivity, and also to enjoy those behaviors. To understand this more clearly,
Lucas et al. (2000) concluded that reward sensitivity, not socia- consider the item content of three Extraversion facet scales that
bility, represents the core of the Extraversion dimension. were developed by Lucas et al. (2000): Affiliation items describe
A subsequent study by Lucas and Diener (2001) has provided a tendency to engage in and enjoy warm and friendly social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

further support for the view that reward sensitivity, not social interactions; Ascendance items describe a tendency to engage in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

interaction, represents the central feature of Extraversion. Lucas and enjoy leadership, dominance, and assertive behavior; and
and Diener (2001) found that Extraversion was correlated posi- Venturesomeness items describe a tendency to engage in and enjoy
tively with the tendency to enjoy pleasant situations (both social exciting social interactions such as those experienced in bars or at
and nonsocial) but not unpleasant situations (either social or non- parties. Each of these three aspects thus involves active engage-
social). Moreover, the correlations between Extraversion and the ment within some kind of social endeavor—involving friendship,
enjoyment of pleasant situations were not very much higher when leadership, or revelry—and each attracts social attention to the
those situations were social in nature, as opposed to nonsocial. individual who performs these behaviors.
Thus, it was primarily the pleasantness of a situation, not the social The distinction between our social attention construct and the
versus nonsocial nature of a situation, that predicted whether social interaction construct described by Lucas et al. (2000) is
extraverts would enjoy the situation more than introverts would. straightforward. Social attention involves a tendency to engage and
We are convinced by the data and arguments of Lucas et al. enjoy social attention, whereas social interaction involves a ten-
(2000; Lucas & Diener, 2001) that sociability, in the narrow sense dency to gain little satisfaction from solitary activities and to prefer
of social interaction as described above, is not the central aspect of social activities over solitary activities under nearly all circum-
Extraversion. In our view, Lucas et al. have demonstrated clearly stances (see the items in Appendix A of Lucas et al., 2000). The
that the mere preference for social interaction, independent of the former construct seems to us a much more plausible candidate as
rewardingness of such interaction, does not represent the core of the core of Extraversion, whereas the latter construct seems instead
the Extraversion factor. However, we also believe that Lucas et al. to involve a lack of independence or an avoidance of introspection
have not unequivocally demonstrated that reward sensitivity is the at least as much as it involves traditionally extraverted behavior.
core of Extraversion. We say this because they did not rule out a At this point we should differentiate social attention from other
third plausible hypothesis; namely, that the central feature of constructs that might seem superficially similar. First, we do not
Extraversion is a tendency to engage and enjoy social attention. If define the construct either as the extent to which one is distressed
this third hypothesis is true, then that tendency should define by the absence of social attention (i.e., what might be called a
Extraversion more strongly than should either reward sensitivity or histrionic tendency) or as the extent to which one believes that one
social interaction. is somehow entitled to social attention (i.e., what might be called
a narcissistic tendency). Although both of these tendencies would
Social Attention as the Central Feature of Extraversion be correlated with social attention as defined here, both would
likely represent a roughly equal combination of Extraversion and
Recently, two of us (Ashton & Lee, 2001) postulated a theoret- some other personality dimensions, such as low Emotional Stabil-
ical basis for the major higher level dimensions of personality. ity or low Honesty. In addition, we do not define the social
Specifically, we argued that there are six broad personality factors attention construct as a preference for negative or hostile social
that are repeatedly obtained in lexical studies of personality struc- attention. Presumably, extraverts dislike public ridicule almost as
ture. Five of these factors are the well-known Big Five dimensions, much as introverts do. But, under normal circumstances, people
usually referred to as Surgency (or Extraversion), Agreeableness, vary widely in the extent to which they enjoy social attention, and
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect/Imagination, we suggest that these individual differences are central to the
and the newly discovered sixth factor is known as Honesty. We Extraversion construct.
suggested that these six factors can be explained in terms of two
sets of three parameters. First, we explained the Honesty factor and Reward Sensitivity Versus Social Attention
rotated variants of the Agreeableness and Emotional Stability
factors in terms of three dimensions that govern prosocial versus Although we claim that the core of the Extraversion factor is
antisocial behavior. One of these three parameters corresponds social attention rather than reward sensitivity, our claim is fully
roughly to evolutionary biologists’ notion of kin altruism, and the consistent with the finding that measures of reward sensitivity (or,
other two correspond to complementary aspects of reciprocity. more precisely, pleasant affect) show fairly high correlations with
Second, we explained the Conscientiousness, Intellect/Imagina- Extraversion (Lucas et al., 2000). We believe that one of the
tion, and Surgency (or Extraversion) factors in terms of three fundamental qualities of social attention, whether derived in the
dimensions that involve active engagement within a particular context of friendship (affiliation), leadership (ascendance), or so-
 WHAT IS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF EXTRAVERSION? 247

cial play (venturesomeness), is that it has the potential to be Extraversion, derived from lexical studies of personality structure.
rewarding. (And, as Lucas et al., 2000, pointed out, social activity These simple and straightforward evaluations are therefore in-
is probably especially rewarding within the context of an individ- tended to identify the common variance of Extraversion-related
ualist culture.) Therefore, people who are high in reward sensitiv- traits and then to determine which of the candidate traits (social
ity are likely motivated to behave in ways that attract social interaction, social attention, or reward sensitivity) is most heavily
attention. saturated with that common variance.
An additional reason why reward sensitivity might be related to
Extraversion is more indirect: The display of pleasant affect may
serve to attract and, especially, to maintain the attention of other Method
people. That is, reward-sensitive persons tend to show enthusiasm,
Participants
energy, and excitement, and these positive emotions— even
though they are sometimes displayed in the absence of other Participants were undergraduate students and their friends and relatives,
people—frequently make those persons the favorite objects of who volunteered for this study in exchange for course credit or for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

others’ attention. This favorable reaction to the social activity of monetary payment. A total of 200 persons participated, of whom 88 were
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reward-sensitive persons likely encourages them to engage in men and 112 were women. Eighty-two of the participants were Australian,
further extraverted, social attention-drawing behavior. (Again, this and 118 were Canadian. The median age was 22 years, with a range
relation is probably most pronounced within individualist societ- from 15 to 70.
ies, in which social behavior is less governed by norms and
obligations.) Despite these links, however, we do not expect re- Materials
ward sensitivity to define Extraversion as strongly as does social
attention. This is because reward sensitivity does not explicitly Extraversion facets. To measure the Extraversion facets of affiliation,
involve being the object of social attention, a feature that is shared, ascendance, and venturesomeness, we simply used the scales developed
to some extent, by the main facets of Extraversion (e.g., affiliation, and reported by Lucas et al. (2000). Their Affiliation scale contains 11
items, whereas their Ascendance and Venturesomeness scales contain 6
ascendance, venturesomeness).
items each.
Our hypothesis that social attention represents the central fea- Social interaction. As a measure of social interaction, we used Lucas
ture of Extraversion is consistent with findings from lexical studies et al.’s (2000) new Social Interaction Scale, which contains nine items.
of personality structure. In many of those studies, the factor Reward sensitivity. To measure pleasant affect, which was Lucas et
identified as Extraversion is defined most strongly by terms that al.’s (2000) proxy for reward sensitivity (in their Studies 3 and 4), we used
suggest social attention. In contrast, terms that suggest positive self-ratings on the 10 positive affect adjectives from the Positive and
affect (considered a proxy for reward sensitivity) tend to have Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). However,
lower loadings on Extraversion, often splitting across several other we also wanted to use a second measure of reward sensitivity rather than
factors. For example, Hofstee, De Raad, and Goldberg (1992) rely on positive affect as the sole measure of that construct. This wish was
found that their Extraversion factor was defined most strongly by motivated by our concern that correlations between positive affect and the
Extraversion facets in our study might be attenuated by the different item
terms such as talkative and verbal versus shy and withdrawn.
formats in the scales (i.e., adjectives vs. statements, respectively). In
Terms related to positive affect were well represented in the addition, we thought that the Positive Affect scale might measure a
Hofstee et al. (1992) study, but those terms tended to divide their construct somewhat different from what we view as reward sensitivity and
loadings between Extraversion and other factors, such as Agree- that a better operationalization of that construct could be found.
ableness (e.g., cheerful, enthusiastic), Conscientiousness (e.g., ac- We chose the BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) as our second measure
tive, alert), and Emotional Stability (e.g., confident, strong). of reward sensitivity. The three BAS scales—Reward Responsiveness (five
items), Drive (four items), and Fun Seeking (four items)—are thought to
reflect individual differences in the sensitivity of the human physiological
Overview of the Present Study mechanism called the BAS. That system is thought to regulate what might
be called appetitive motivation, or the tendency to approach potentially
Lucas et al. (2000) argued that the search for the fundamental
rewarding stimuli. Our interpretation of these scales as measures of reward
features of a higher order personality factor involves identifying
sensitivity is consistent with other researchers’ interpretations of the BAS
the common variance of the factor’s constituent traits and then construct; that is, reward sensitivity has been viewed as an expression of
developing a parsimonious theory to explain why those trait facets individual differences in the BAS (Depue & Collins, 1999; Lucas &
are linked by that common variance. In this study, we adopted their Diener, 2001; Lucas et al., 2000). Reading the items of the three BAS
strategy in evaluating the fundamental feature of Extraversion in scales (Carver & White, 1994, p. 323) makes clear the relevance of these
the following way. First, we compared measures of three person- scales to the reward sensitivity construct. For example, consider the items
ality constructs that have been proposed to be the central feature of “When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized” (Reward
Extraversion (i.e., social attention, social interaction, and reward Responsiveness), “When I want something, I usually go all-out to get it”
sensitivity) in terms of their correlations with the common vari- (Drive), and “I will often do things for no other reason than that they might
ance of the three facets of Extraversion that Lucas et al. (2000) be fun” (Fun Seeking). We combined these three scales to obtain an overall
BAS score, which represents our second measure of reward sensitivity.
considered (i.e., affiliation, ascendance, and venturesomeness).
Social attention. To measure the construct of social attention, we
Next, we treated the three former, competitor traits as additional constructed a new ad hoc scale consisting of items intended to assess the
facets of Extraversion (along with the three Extraversion facets of tendency to behave in ways that attract social attention and to enjoy being
Lucas et al., 2000) and compared all of these facets in terms of the object of such attention. That is, high scorers on this scale tend to invest
their loadings on a first unrotated factor. Finally, we compared the time and energy in activities that involve the attraction of the attention of
correlations of the three traits with an independent measure of others. We originally wrote 13 items, and we kept all 13 items to form the
 248 ASHTON, LEE, AND PAUNONEN

Social Attention Scale. The items and item–total correlations of the Social values are satisfactory in general and roughly similar to those that
Attention Scale are shown in Table 1. have been reported for the previously existing scales (e.g., Carver
Other. We also assessed in this study the Big Five personality factors & White, 1994; Lucas et al., 2000). Note the somewhat lower
as derived from lexical studies of personality structure in the English mean interitem correlation among all the 23 Extraversion items
language. For this assessment we used Saucier’s (1994) Adjective Mini-
(mean r ⫽ .15) than among the three clusters of items within that
Markers, which represent a shortened 40-item version of Goldberg’s
scale, representing Affiliation (11 items, mean r ⫽ .23), Ascen-
(1992) Big Five marker scales. We intended to use these adjectives to
obtain a measure of Extraversion that is independent of those provided by dance (six items, mean r ⫽ .36), and Ventursomeness (six items,
Lucas et al.’s (2000) scales. mean r ⫽ .26). This result combined with the positive correlations
among these three scales indicates that there is a good basis for
Procedure considering the three lower level traits as distinct facets of a higher
level Extraversion factor.
Participants first completed an adjective self-rating form using a 9-point
response scale. This form contained the 40 adjectives intended to measure
the Big Five, plus the 10 Positive Affect adjectives. The 50 adjectives were Is Social Attention a Unitary Construct?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

listed in alphabetical order, and participants were instructed to “describe

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Before we proceed with the analyses designed to test the social

yourself as you are generally or typically (that is, on the average)” so that
attention and reward sensitivity interpretations of Extraversion, it
the responses would represent trait rather than state self-ratings.
After they completed the adjective self-ratings, the participants were is necessary to address one concern that might be raised regarding
asked to complete a self-report questionnaire that contained the items of the the present Social Attention Scale. This concern is that the social
remaining measures; that is, the Affiliation, Ascendance, Venturesome- attention variable might not be a unitary construct but instead
ness, Social Interaction, Social Attention, and BAS scales. Pronouns in the might be a mere combination of the three moderately intercorre-
BAS scale items were changed from I to you so that these items would be lated Extraversion facets—affiliation, ascendance, and venture-
consistent with the phrasing of the other items within the questionnaire. someness—that Lucas et al. (2000) studied. That is, some of the
Also, a 5-point response scale was used for all items of the questionnaire present Social Attention items might assess affiliation, some might
(the BAS scale items were originally developed using a 4-point response assess ascendance, and some might assess venturesomeness. If this
scale; Carver & White, 1994).
were true, then the Social Attention Scale would essentially be a
In addition to calculating total scores for each of these individual scales,
broad measure of Extraversion, one that would be roughly parallel
we also combined the 23 items of the Affiliation, Ascendance, and Ven-
turesomeness scales into a single Overall Extraversion scale. This scale to the scale that is created by combining Lucas et al.’s three
correlated .998 with scores on the first unrotated common factor that was Extraversion facets. High correlations of the Social Attention Scale
derived from the three constituent scales and that represents a large with those three facets could then be explained simply in terms of
component of variance that is common to the three Extraversion facets. overlapping content rather than in terms of saturation with the
common variance associated with all three Extraversion facets.
Results If this alternative interpretation of the Social Attention Scale as
a composite Extraversion scale were valid, then at least two
Scale Statistics features of the item statistics of this scale would be expected. First,
Table 2 lists the means and standard deviations as well as we would expect the mean interitem correlation of the Social
interitem correlations and internal consistency reliabilities (Cron- Attention Scale to be approximately as low as the mean interitem
bach’s alpha) for each of the questionnaire scales administered in correlation for the existing Overall Extraversion scale (r ⫽ .15; see
this study plus the adjective-based Positive Affect scale. These Table 2). Second, we would expect that individual Social Attention
items would tend to show higher correlations with one of the three
original Extraversion facets than with the rest of the Social Atten-
tion Scale. That is, some items would be very highly correlated
Table 1
with affiliation, others with ascendance, and others with venture-
Items of the Social Attention Scale
someness; moreover, these items would not be so strongly corre-
Item Item–total correlation lated with the other Social Attention items.
Neither of the features described above was observed for our
You like to entertain others. .50 Social Attention Scale. As shown in Table 2, the mean interitem
You are frequently the center of attention. .65 correlation of the Social Attention Scale was .37, which exceeded
You enjoy being the host of a social event. .55
You often tell stories or jokes in a group. .57
that of all three individual Extraversion facets and was more than
You are often “the life of the party.” .67 twice that of the Extraversion factor scale we produced by com-
You tend to do most of the talking. .64 bining those three facets. Moreover, when we investigated the
You often introduce yourself to others. .59 individual Social Attention items, we found that every one of them
You often go out to meet new people. .61 correlated more strongly with the rest of the Social Attention Scale
You are never at a loss for words. .40
You don’t like to stay in the background. .57 than with any of the three original Extraversion facet scales, even
You have good social skills. .52 when the correlations were corrected for attenuation due to the
You avoid drawing attention to yourself. (R) .55 unreliability of the scales. These empirical findings, in addition to
You rarely start conversations. (R) .59 a perusal of the item content shown in Table 1, suggest that our
Note. N ⫽ 200. (R) indicates a reverse-scored item. The item–total
Social Attention Scale assesses a unitary construct and is not
correlation is the correlation of the item with the scale total, minus that item merely a composite derived from the constructs of affiliation,
itself. ascendance, and venturesomeness.
 WHAT IS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF EXTRAVERSION? 249

Table 2
Scale Statistics

No. Mean interitem Internal consistency

Scale items M SD r reliability (␣)

Overall Extraversion 23 81.9 9.5 .15 .80

Affiliation 11 44.0 5.1 .23 .76
Ascendance 6 20.5 4.2 .36 .77
Venturesomeness 6 17.3 4.1 .26 .68
Behavior Activation System 13 49.1 7.2 .34 .87
Positive Affect 10 67.3 8.9 .28 .78
Social Attention 13 41.5 8.5 .37 .88
Social Interaction 9 23.8 6.2 .34 .82

Note. N ⫽ 200. Positive Affect items were answered on a 1–9 scale; items of other scales were answered on
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

a 1–5 scale.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Zero-Order Correlations Among the Scales must compare those variables’ correlations with the common vari-
ance that is shared by the lower level Extraversion facets.
Table 3 shows the zero-order correlations among the three Recall that the Overall Extraversion scale, which we created in
Extraversion facets, the two indicators of reward sensitivity (pos- this study by treating the items of the three Extraversion facets as
itive affect and BAS), the Social Attention Scale, and the Social items of a single scale, correlated .998 with the first unrotated
Interaction Scale. Perhaps the most prominent feature of these common factor obtained from the three facet scales, Affiliation,
results is the low correlations involving social interaction—the Ascendance, and Venturesomeness. Thus, we considered the Over-
values ranged from .06 to .36. This result indicates that the social all Extraversion scale as representing the common variance of the
interaction construct shares little variance with the various facets Extraversion facet measures. We therefore compared the different
of Extraversion and so cannot represent the central feature of that traits thought to represent the central feature of Extraversion in
factor. terms of their correlations with this Overall Extraversion scale.
Another interesting result in Table 3 is that the Social Attention As indicated by the correlations shown in the first column of
Scale actually correlated slightly more highly with the Positive Table 4, the results of these comparisons strongly favor the social
Affect scale (r ⫽ .49) and with the BAS scales (r ⫽ .48) than the attention hypothesis. Social attention was much more strongly
latter two scales correlated with each other (r ⫽ .41). Despite the correlated with the overall Extraversion composite (r ⫽ .74) than
somewhat modest relation between the two versions of reward was either BAS (r ⫽ .55) or positive affect (r ⫽ .52), and both of
sensitivity and without any objective basis for deciding which these very large differences reached very high levels of statistical
scale was the better operationalization of that construct, we con- significance, according to Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin’s (1992)
tinued to treat both the Positive Affect scale and the BAS scales as test (z ⫽ 4.00, p ⬍ .0001, and z ⫽ 4.23, p ⬍ .0001, respectively).
potential markers of that construct. Thus, our comparison indicates that the variance common to the
Extraversion facets is more strongly related to social attention than
Correlations With Common Variance of Extraversion it is to either of the two measures of reward sensitivity. This
Facets
As seen in Table 3, the Social Attention Scale tended to corre-
late more strongly than did its competitors—the Social Interaction Table 4
Scale and the two reward sensitivity measures—with the three Projections of Scales on Three Extraversion Indicators
Extraversion facet scales—Affiliation, Ascendance, and Venture-
someness. Nevertheless, to determine which of the competing Extraversion indicator
variables best represents the core of the Extraversion factor, we
Overall First Lexical
Scale Extraversiona factor Extraversion
Table 3 Social Attention .74 .86 .70
Scale Intercorrelations Behavioral Activation System .55 .63 .40
Positive Affect .52 .61 .45
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Social Interaction .28 .28 .29
Venturesomeness .61 .47
1. Affiliation — Ascendance .56 .50
2. Ascendance .25 — Affiliation .55 .45
3. Venturesomeness .28 .23 —
4. Behavioral Activation System .39 .31 .46 — Note. N ⫽ 200. Overall Extraversion is the sum of Affiliation, Ascen-
5. Positive Affect .36 .44 .31 .41 — dance, and Venturesomeness. Factor loadings are the scales’ loadings on
6. Social Attention .50 .56 .54 .48 .49 — the first unrotated common (principal-axis) factor. Lexical Extraversion is
7. Social Interaction .14 .11 .36 .16 .06 .22 — a factor derived from adjective markers of the Big Five.
a
Correlations of Affiliation, Ascendance, and Venturesomeness with
Note. N ⫽ 200. Correlations of .14 and above are significant at p ⬍ .05. Overall Extraversion are part–whole correlations and are not reported here.
 250 ASHTON, LEE, AND PAUNONEN

finding supports our claim that social attention, not reward sensi- Extraversion is extremely similar to that revealed in the factor
tivity, represents the core of the Extraversion factor. loadings of the previous analysis. In fact, the vector of the Extra-
version facets’ correlations with lexical Extraversion (shown in the
Loadings on the First Unrotated Common Factor third column of Table 4) correlated .90 with the vector of the
Extraversion facets’ factor loadings (shown in the second column
Another test to find which construct best represents the central of Table 4).
feature of Extraversion—social interaction, social attention, or
reward sensitivity—is to identify the variable that shows the high-
est loading on a common factor defined by the various facets of Discussion
Extraversion. We performed this test by factor analyzing the three
original Extraversion facet scales of Lucas et al. (2000)—Affilia- The evidence from this study indicates to us that the fundamen-
tion, Ascendance, and Venturesomeness—along with the four tal feature of Extraversion is social attention, not reward sensitiv-
variables that were hypothesized to represent the core of Extra- ity. Compared with the two variables we used to measure reward
sensitivity—positive affect and the BAS scales— our measure of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

version: social interaction, social attention, and both measures of

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reward sensitivity (the BAS scales and the Positive Affect scale). social attention was much more highly correlated with the com-
Loadings of the seven scales on the first unrotated common mon variance of the three Extraversion facets of Lucas et al.
factor (obtained through principal-axis factoring) are shown in the (2000). Also, the Social Attention Scale was much more highly
second column of Table 4. This large factor accounted for 37% of loaded than was either measure of reward sensitivity on the Ex-
the total variance of the scales. As would be expected on the basis traversion factor that was derived from the original Extraversion
of inspection of the correlation matrix of Table 3, the Social facets and the variables that were hypothesized to be the central
Interaction Scale had a low loading, only .28, on this factor. Five feature of Extraversion. Finally, our Social Attention Scale was
of the other scales—the three Extraversion facets and the two much more highly correlated with an independent, lexically de-
measures of reward sensitivity— had moderately high loadings of rived measure of the Extraversion factor than were the reward
approximately .60 on this factor. In contrast, the Social Attention sensitivity measures. These large differences reached very high
Scale had by far the highest loading, .86. Thus, this second test levels of statistical significance and clearly support the social
also indicates to us that social attention, not reward sensitivity, is attention hypothesis. Reward sensitivity might contribute causally
the central feature of Extraversion.
to individual differences in certain facets of Extraversion, but our
evidence indicates that it does not represent the core of the Extra-
Correlations With Lexical Extraversion Factor version construct. In our view, that central feature is, instead, the
tendency to engage and enjoy social attention.
One concern that might be raised regarding the analyses pre-
sented above is that they do not include any marker of Extraver-
sion that was derived independently of the scales developed by Generalizability of Our Findings
Lucas et al. (2000). Therefore, we also compared in this study the
measures of social interaction, social attention, and reward sensi- Our results, which lead us to conclude that social attention is at
tivity in terms of their correlations with a set of adjectives known the core of Extraversion, stand in contrast to those of Lucas et al.
to be highly loaded on the lexical Extraversion factor in the (2000), who concluded that reward sensitivity was the central
English language. Factor scores were obtained from the varimax- feature of Extraversion. One obvious reason for this difference is
rotated five-factor solution of a principal-components analysis of that Lucas et al. (2000) did not intend to test the social attention
(nonipsatized) self-ratings on the 40 adjective markers of the Big hypothesis and did not include a measure of that variable in their
Five. Within that solution, the 8 Extraversion marker adjectives study. Note that the findings of this study cannot be attributed to
showed an average loading of .67 on the Extraversion factor, thus differences in the other measures that were used, because those
confirming that these single-item variables are substantially satu-
other measures were, with one exception, identical across the two
rated with the common variance of the Extraversion factor. (If
studies. The three Extraversion facet scales and the Social Atten-
treated as an eight-item scale, these adjectives had a very high
tion Scale we used were those that had been constructed by Lucas
mean interitem correlation of .40 and an internal consistency
et al. (2000), and the Positive Affect scale of our study was the
reliability of .84.)
The third column of Table 4 shows the correlations between the same measure used in their investigation. To this variable set we
lexical Extraversion measure and the various Extraversion-related added only (besides the measure of social attention) a second
scales. Social interaction correlated only .29 with the lexical factor. measure of reward sensitivity, whose inclusion might have been
The three Extraversion facets and the two scales measuring reward expected to favor the reward sensitivity hypothesis. Indeed, this
sensitivity correlated moderately, between .40 and .50, with lexical second measure of reward sensitivity—the BAS scales—per-
Extraversion. But by far the highest correlation with lexical Ex- formed somewhat better than did the Positive Affect scale (Lucas
traversion was the .70 value obtained by social attention. Accord- et al.’s proxy measure of reward sensitivity) in terms of correla-
ing to Meng et al.’s (1992) test of the difference between corre- tions with overall Extraversion and loadings on the Extraversion
lated correlation coefficients, lexical Extraversion was indeed factor. Thus, our simple and straightforward analyses of the cor-
more strongly correlated with social attention than with either the relations and factor loadings derived from the present variable set
BAS scales (z ⫽ 5.46, p ⬍ .0001) or positive affect (z ⫽ 4.33, p ⬍ cannot be construed as having been contrived to favor the social
.0001). Note that this pattern of correlations involving lexical attention hypothesis.
 WHAT IS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF EXTRAVERSION? 251

The Cause and Function of Individual Differences in Although we do not propose any theory of the causal mecha-
Extraversion nisms that underlie the Extraversion factor, we suggest an expla-
nation of the adaptive function of individual differences in Extra-
The results of this study coincide nicely with Ashton and Lee’s version. (For a discussion of the complementarity of causal and
(2001) interpretation of the six major dimensions of personality. functional explanations of behavior, see Hogan, 1988, 1994.) Our
Within that framework, the Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and interpretation of Extraversion as a dimension of engagement
Intellect/Imagination dimensions were interpreted as dimensions within social endeavors suggests some similarities with the con-
of active engagement within social, task-related, and idea-related struct of social attention-holding power (Gilbert, 1989, 1992).
domains of endeavor, respectively. Our finding that the central Gilbert has suggested that among humans (and other primate
feature of Extraversion seems to be social attention—a construct species with complex social organization), one of the most impor-
that involves the investment of time and energy in activities that tant resources one can possess is the attention of other individuals
attract social attention (see the items of our Social Attention Scale (see also Chance & Jolly, 1970). By holding that attention, one has
listed in Table 1)—supports Ashton and Lee’s (2001) argument the opportunity to engage in potentially rewarding social interac-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

that Extraversion is fundamentally an axis of active engagement tions, including economic transactions, alliance formation, and the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

within social endeavors. attraction of desirable mates. But precisely because humans (and,
It should be emphasized that the results of this study do not again, some primate species) are capable of forming alliances, it is
contradict Lucas et al.’s (2000) claim that reward sensitivity has a difficult for any one individual to coerce others into bestowing
causal influence on Extraversion. In fact, the positive correlations social attention. Instead, one must compete with others to attract
between measures of reward sensitivity and the various facets of that attention voluntarily.
Extraversion are perfectly consistent with the notion of a causal We suggest that one’s social attention-holding power is influ-
link between reward sensitivity and social activity. However, our enced to a large extent by one’s level of Extraversion. That is,
results show that the covariation among the various facets of Extraversion represents a behavioral strategy for holding social
Extraversion cannot be adequately explained by reward sensitivity. attention through enthusiastic and energetic social behavior, such
The most that can be said is that reward sensitivity is probably an that a high level of Extraversion represents a high-intensity strat-
egy of gaining social attention. Other things being equal, extraverts
important cause of individual differences in Extraversion, whose
tend to win the competition for social attention over introverts and
defining traits are linked instead by a common saturation with
are thereby more likely to attract the most desirable allies, friends,
variance due to social attention.
and mates.
The findings of the present study can also be reconciled with
In opposition to the potential benefits of extraverted behavior,
those of Lucas and Diener (2001, Table 9), who found that Extra-
however, there are also costs. These include the time and energy
version was associated not only with the tendency to enjoy pleas-
that could otherwise be conserved in rest or invested in task- or
ant social situations (r ⫽ .33) but also, to a lesser extent, with the
idea-related activities (see Ashton & Lee, 2001). Also, there is
tendency to enjoy pleasant nonsocial situations (r ⫽ .16). The
some risk that excessive or inappropriate attention-drawing behav-
latter result suggests that Extraversion does involve a general
ior will be poorly appreciated by one’s audience, leading to a loss
sensitivity to rewards, but this is not inconsistent with the finding
of future social attention-holding power. In addition, the social
that social attention is the central feature of Extraversion. As we attention enjoyed by extraverts might arouse competitive feelings
noted earlier, reward sensitivity is likely to be causally related to on the part of other persons (including other extraverts), which
Extraversion, functioning both (a) to motivate the individual to could in turn engender potentially dangerous conflicts.
seek out potentially rewarding social attention and (b) to cause the The relative benefits and costs of Extraversion probably depend
individual to display positive affect, thereby attracting positive in part on the average level of Extraversion shown by the rest of
social attention and encouraging further social attention-drawing the population. If the people in a group tend to be introverted on
behavior. Nevertheless, the operation of reward sensitivity need average, then an extraverted person might easily attract social
not be limited exclusively to social contexts. We believe that the attention and its concomitant rewards. However, if those people
small positive correlation between Extraversion and the tendency tend to be extraverted overall, then there will be intense competi-
to enjoy pleasant nonsocial situations is simply an incidental tion to attract the attention of others, with the amount of attention
byproduct of the (presumably causal) relation between reward attracted perhaps being insufficient to justify the escalating time,
sensitivity and Extraversion. It remains the case that Extraversion energy, and competitive risks required. Therefore, Extraversion
is associated more strongly with the tendency to enjoy pleasant may be subject to a selective process somewhat similar to
social situations, and we expect that this relation is especially frequency-dependent selection, whereby the optimal level of Ex-
strong within situations in which potentially positive social atten- traversion varies inversely with the level already existing in the
tion is particularly salient (e.g., hosting a party, being a master of population (see, e.g., Wilson, 1994).
ceremonies).
Obviously, a great deal of future research is needed to explain
Conclusion
the causal mechanisms (probably including reward sensitivity) that
underlie the Extraversion factor and to more precisely explain the The results of this study support our claim that the fundamental
link between reward sensitivity and Extraversion facets. We offer feature of Extraversion is the tendency to engage and enjoy social
no theory regarding the causal mechanisms of Extraversion, but we attention, not the tendency to be sensitive to rewards. Compared
have established that these mechanisms must explain individual with measures of reward sensitivity, our Social Attention Scale
differences in social attention-drawing behaviors. was much more heavily saturated with the common variance
 252 ASHTON, LEE, AND PAUNONEN

underlying different facets of Extraversion. These findings are Hogan, J. A. (1988). Cause and function in the development of behavior
consistent with the interpretation of Extraversion as a dimension of systems. In E. M. Blass (Ed.), Developmental psychobiology and be-
active engagement within social endeavors. havioral ecology. Handbook of behavioral neurobiology (Vol. 9, pp.
63–106). New York: Plenum Press.
References Hogan, J. A. (1994). The concept of cause in the study of behavior. In J. A.
Hogan and J. J. Bolhuis (Eds.), Causal mechanisms of behavioural
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major development (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327– Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of
353. social situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000).
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of Extraversion.
318 –333. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452– 468.
Chance, M. R. A., & Jolly, C. J. (1970). Social groups of monkeys, apes McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validation of a five-factor model
and men. New York: Dutton. of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cunningham, M. R. (1998). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation and Emo- Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated
tion, 12, 309 –331. correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar
personality: Dopamine facilitation of incentive motivation and extraver- Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 503–516.
sion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional
Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of per-
Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. New York: sonality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Guilford Press. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26 – 42. scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Wilson, D. S. (1994). Adaptive genetic variation and human evolutionary
American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34. psychology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 219 –235.
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion–
extraversion. Behavioural Research and Therapy, 8, 249 –266.
Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of Received September 10, 2001
the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Revision received January 29, 2002
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146 –163. Accepted February 5, 2002 䡲