ChapterPDF Available

Introversion, Solitude, and Subjective Well-Being



In this chapter we review personality differences in propensities for solitude, focusing on the dimension of introversion-extraversion, and its link with psychological well-being. Although extraversion is often linked with greater happiness, many object to this conclusion. We consider these objections and examine their veracity with regard to empirical work. Although we ultimately conclude that introversion is indeed associated with lower levels of happiness, our review also provides a more nuanced view of this association, for example, how its magnitude can depend on measurement tools or culture. Finally, we review and evaluate theoretical explanations for extraverts' characteristically higher levels of happiness.
Introversion, Solitude, and Subjective Well-Being
John M. Zelenski
Karin Sobocko
Deanna C. Whelan
Carleton University
In this chapter we review personality differences in propensities for solitude, focusing on the
dimension of introversion-extraversion, and its link with psychological well-being. Although
extraversion is often linked with greater happiness, many object to this conclusion. We consider
these objections and examine their veracity with regard to empirical work. Although we
ultimately conclude that introversion is indeed associated with lower levels of happiness, our
review also provides a more nuanced view of this association, for example, how its magnitude
can depend on measurement tools or culture. Finally, we review and evaluate theoretical
explanations for extraverts’ characteristically higher levels of happiness.
KEYWORDS: Personality, extraversion, introversion, subjective well-being, happiness
Zelenski, J. M., Sobocko, K., & Whelan, D. C. (2014). Introversion, solitude, and subjective
well-being. In R. J. Coplan and J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The Handbook of Solitude:
Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation, Social Withdrawal, and Being Alone. (pp.
184-201). Wiley-Blackwell.
Introversion, Solitude, and Subjective Well-Being
Solitude is primarily a momentary experience, but it is also clear that some people are
more prone to experience or desire solitude. The commonly discussed personality dimension of
introversion-extraversion describes this difference between people. Introverts tend to be
reserved, timid, and quiet; extraverts are more social, talkative, and bold. Extraverts also tend to
be happier (Wilson, 1967). As much as the prototypical ‘very happy person’ might seem quite
extraverted, some also wonder if this is really true. Couldn’t the quiet bliss of some tea (caffeine
free) and a good book rival the lurid excess of an all-night party? Perhaps introverts are equally
happy, but keep it inside, less available for all to see. In this chapter we explore personality
differences in propensities for solitude, focusing on the dimension of introversion-extraversion,
and its link with psychological well-being.
Overview of Introversion-Extraversion
Popular conceptions of introversion and extraversion are often attributed to Jung, but
empirical personality research on the topic has a history that is distinct from these. Beginning in
the 1940s, Hans Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) distinguished a dimension of introversion-
extraversion from neuroticism-stability noting that psychological distress seemed independent of
active sociability or lack thereof. He developed his personality model both theoretically and
empirically. That is, he developed a physiological theory of traits, suggesting that extraversion
results from chronic under-stimulation, thus extraverts seek compensatory stimulation in risky,
social, and generally active behavior. In contrast, introverts meet their stimulation needs much
more easily and can become over-stimulated in highly social contexts, thus preferring quieter
activities. Eysenck also employed the statistical tool of factor analysis to organize traits and
develop questionnaire measures. These analyses revealed which narrower traits clustered
together in the introversion-extraversion domain (e.g., sociability, assertiveness, activity,
sensation seeking) and also which characteristics were more distinct, deriving another broad trait
of neuroticism (anxiety, guilt, shyness) and later psychoticism (antisocial, impulsive, creative).
Other researchers began with natural language, yet arrived at similar conclusions
regarding the major dimensions of personality. The lexical hypothesis assumes that important
traits will occur more frequently in language; they will have many synonyms and occur in many
languages (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988). Early work by Allport and Odbert (1936)
literally scoured the English dictionary for every trait descriptive adjective and then honed a
seminal list of personality characteristics. Various researchers then reduced, amended, and
clustered them and then used factor analysis (of personality ratings using the adjectives) to
determine which tended to co-occur in people (see Goldberg, 1993 for a review of this history).
There has been some variation within, and disagreement with, this approach (Block, 1995, 2010),
but most personality psychologists now accept that about five broad factors –extraversion
(introversion), emotional stability (neuroticism), agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness— define personality trait space. Most important for our purposes, the trait of
introversion-extraversion appears again. In fact, virtually every attempt at comprehensively
describing personality includes a similar dimension. Assessment tools and theoretical
explanations sometimes disagree about specific narrower subtraits (as we discuss in more detail
in a later section), but the general construct of introversion-extraversion is ubiquitous (see Wilt
& Revelle, 2009 for a general review of extraversion).
Viewing introversion-extraversion in the context of these comprehensive taxonomies (i.e.,
Eysenck’s or the ‘Big 5’) underscores the vast breadth of the trait. The construct encompasses a
substantial portion of the entire personality trait space. Narrower traits or facets each contribute
to this ‘super trait’. Despite our focus at the broadest level, it is often useful to study these
narrower traits as they can offer additional nuance (see many other chapters in this volume). For
example, whereas people who are shy desire more social contact while being thwarted by anxiety,
people who are unsociable seem content with their low levels of social contact. Both shy and
unsociable people would score high on introversion. Some distinction might still be made at the
level of broad traits, however. Anxiously shy people would also score high on neuroticism where
as merely unsociable people would not. Introversion is statistically and conceptually
independent of trait neuroticism –some introverts are prone to negative emotions (a defining
feature of neuroticism), but a roughly equal number do not share this propensity. There is
nothing about introversion that necessarily suggests increased anxiety, yet some introverts also
have it. Constructs that overlap with introversion (e.g., social anxiety, shyness, loneliness,
sensitivity, social anhedonia) can be differentiated. Other broad traits (e.g., neuroticism) can be
helpful, but narrower or more dynamic constructs (e.g., anxious attachment) ultimately offer
more nuance. Introversion is broad; there are many ways to be introverted.
In addition, rather than the categorical types that the terms ‘extravert’ and ‘introvert’
imply, empirically minded personality psychologists see introversion-extraversion as a
continuous dimension with a relatively normal distribution (most people fall near the middle).
Linguistic convenience leads us to use these ‘type’ words when we actually mean the full
dimension. Also, it is a single bipolar dimension, so associations with introversion are exactly
opposite of associations with extraversion. Thus, for example, if we write, “Extraverts tend to
like spicy food,” readers should understand that we actually mean that people who score higher
on the dimension of extraversion like spicy food more than people who score lower, or
‘introverts’; we might describe the same finding as, “Introverts tend to dislike spicy food.”
A primary conceptual characteristic of introversion is increased experience of solitude.
There is considerable empirical support for this notion. For example, at the level of one-time
self-reports, broad trait introversion is correlated with narrower scales that directly assess the
preference for solitude (Burger, 1995; Long, Seburn, Averill, & More, 2003). Other studies have
asked research participants to estimate how much time they spend in solitary or social activities,
and again results support the idea that introverts spend more time in solitude (e.g., Argyle, & Lu,
1990; Leary, Herbst, & McCrary, 2003). Such global self-reports likely suffer from recall biases,
but the day reconstruction method attempts to minimize bias by keeping recall short-term and
concrete. Here, research participants break a specific recent day into about 15 episodes and then
answer questions about each episode. This creates something much closer to an actual average
of how time was spent compared to a single global question. This improved technique confirms
that introverts report more time alone (Srivastava, Angelo, & Vallereux, 2008).
Further eliminating the possibility of recall bias, the experience sampling method requires
subjects to report what they are doing ‘in the moment’ multiple times a day. Averages across
such reports again suggest that introverts spend less time in social activities (Asendorpf &
Wilpers, 1998; Lucas, Le, & Dyrenforth, 2008). Taking things a step further, experience can be
sampled via objective audio recording and then coded by people blind to participants’
dispositions, rather than relying on self-reports. This sampling method once again found that
introverts spend more time alone and speak less than extraverts (Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker,
2006). Thus, we can be quite confident that introverts are indeed more prone to solitude.
Despite this confidence, the effect sizes in this research are not enormous, and they tend
to get smaller as methods go from global reports to specific behavior counts. Accordingly,
although introverts may typically spend more time alone compared to their more extraverted
counterparts, it is also worth considering that people deviate from their average or preferred
behavior frequently (Fleeson, 2001). For example, situational demands (e.g., a job) or other
personal goals (e.g., getting a date) might require dispositional introverts to act extraverted and
vice versa. Research suggests that this happens frequently. Average (trait) differences in
behavior are robust, but momentary variation is also substantial (Fleeson & Gallaher, 2009).
Much of the research we review in the following sections focuses on trait level differences, and
thus addresses the issue of whether people who spend comparatively more time in solitude
(introverts) tend to be more or less happy than those who spend less time in solitude (extraverts).
This, however, is a slightly different question than whether or not moments of solitude are
themselves enjoyable, or whether some people enjoy solitude more than others.
A Closer Look at the Links between Introversion and Happiness
At the broad level of analysis, there is fairly robust evidence that people scoring higher
on extraversion report higher levels of happiness; introverts are less happy (DeNeve & Cooper,
1998). Despite this, our introverted academic colleagues, friends, and family bristle at this idea.
Here we consider their objections and evaluate relevant empirical evidence. Although we
ultimately conclude that introversion is indeed associated with lower levels of happiness, our
review also provides a more nuanced view of this association.
Objection #1: Happiness measures are biased towards extraverts. Defining
happiness can be tricky, and this objection suggests that the way we assess happiness accounts
for its association with extraversion. If happiness questionnaires assess only the exuberance of
parties rather than the contentment of quiet walks, they would be biased to a more extraverted
form of happiness.
This objection is plausible as happiness is a multifaceted construct (Kim-Prieto, Diener,
Tamir, Scollan, & Diener, 2005). One part of happiness is certainly affective, consisting of
emotional well-being, hedonic balance, or experiencing many pleasant and few unpleasant
emotions over time. Beyond emotional experience, most happiness researchers also include a
more cognitive assessment that things are “going well”, or life satisfaction. At the empirical
level, affective and cognitive measures are related but also somewhat distinct (Lucas, Diener, &
Suh, 1996). The combination of hedonic balance (sometimes split between positive and negative
emotions) and life satisfaction is often termed subjective well-being. This hedonic approach to
happiness is sometimes contrasted with a broader eudaimonic approach. In the eudaimonic
tradition, psychological well-being is viewed more broadly to include adaptive personal
characteristics. For example, Ryff’s (1989) psychological well-being inventory assesses
autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in
life, and self-acceptance. Although some question the usefulness of considering these
eudaimonic indicators as happiness per se (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008), they are the
kinds of things our introverted objectors often mention as more important than ‘extraverted
There are good reasons to think that the association between happiness and introversion-
extraversion might depend on the particular operationalization of happiness, and some widely
used measures may indeed favor extraverts. Although there are many ways to organize
emotional experience, personality psychologists often use a two-dimensional affect circumplex
model (Larsen & Diener, 1992). This conceptual space is defined by a dimension that
distinguishes pleasant from unpleasant feelings and a second dimension that varies in terms of
arousal. A very popular measure of affect, the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),
rotates these dimensions 45 degrees in assessment. Thus, positive affect captures activated
pleasant feelings (enthusiastic, excited, alert), whereas negative affect captures activated
unpleasant feelings (nervous, upset, irritable).
The PANAS may favor finding an association with extraversion because of the activation
component. For example, manipulating extraverted behavior in the lab leads most directly to
activated pleasant feelings, along with lesser degrees of arousal and merely pleasant feelings
(McNiel, Lowman, & Fleeson, 2010). Trait extraverts often show increased emotional reactivity
to positive incentive mood inductions, but this too appears primarily in activated pleasant
feelings (Lucas & Baird, 2004; Smillie, Cooper, Wilt, & Revelle, 2012). In addition, when asked
which emotions they would ideally like to feel, introverts tend to choose lower arousal and
somewhat less pleasant emotions (Rusting & Larsen, 1995). Turning to actual experience,
approach motivation (BAS), a trait similar to extraversion, moderates the within-person
correlation between pleasantness and arousal (Kuppens, 2008). That is, high approach people
(extraverts) have a positive correlation between arousal and valence in momentary feelings,
whereas low approach people (introverts) have a negative correlation (i.e., introverts feel better
when they feel less aroused). Thus, if happiness is defined solely as activated positive affect,
introverts may not even want to be happy (at least as much as extraverts). Indeed, the correlation
between extraversion and pleasant affect tends to be stronger for aroused states; however, the
correlation does not reverse with lower arousal pleasant states (e.g., Mitte & Kämpfe, 2008;
Rusting & Larsen, 1995; Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006; Zelenski & Larsen, 1999). Moreover,
two important meta-analyses confirm that the pure pleasantness dimension (moderate arousal) is
clearly correlated negatively with introversion, but that the magnitude is somewhat smaller
compared to activated pleasant affect (Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). In
the largest and most recent meta-analysis, Steel and colleagues (2008) reported a small
correlation with negative affect, suggesting that extraversion might even predict more low
arousal positive feelings (e.g., relaxed or content, the pole opposite high activated unpleasant
affect in a circumplex model). Thus, the particular type of pleasant affect seems to moderate the
strength of the extraversion-happiness link, but still no specific affects favor introversion.
Considering other aspects of happiness (e.g., life satisfaction, meaning), we still fail to
find evidence that introverts are happier. For example, our objecting introverts often tell us that
they have meaning in their lives, are satisfied, and that this is more important than ecstasy. The
data, however, suggest that even on these measures, introverts score lower than extraverts. For
example, introverts score lower than extraverts across all scales of Ryff’s (1989) psychological
well-being inventory (Abbott et al., 2008; Cooper, Okamura, & McNeil, 1995). More
comprehensively, meta-analyses show a clear positive association between life satisfaction and
extraversion (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Steel et al., 2008). Steel et al.
investigated a ‘quality of life’ category of happiness that included the Ryff scales and similar
others and again found a positive association with extraversion. Thus, we conclude that the
association between extraversion and happiness cannot be fully explained by biases in the
definition or measurement of happiness.
Objection #2: Extraversion measures are biased towards happiness. This objection
notes that some models/measures of extraversion actually include positive emotions as items or
facets (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised). With this in mind, it is perhaps
unsurprising that they correlate with happiness, particularly the emotional facets of happiness. In
the “extreme form” needed to refute the idea that introverts are less happy, this objection
suggests that including positive affect confounds measurement, thus obscuring the ‘true’
association. A less extreme form must concede that positive affect is, in fact, a part of
extraversion, thus also conceding an association between happiness and extraversion. The strong
form is difficult to defend, however, because decades of factor analyses support the idea that
people who experience more positive affect also tend to be social, active, and assertive (i.e., they
also have the other facets of broad extraversion). Thus, based on the logic of factor analysis
alone, we would expect that other facets of extraversion would correlate with positive affect
whether it is viewed as part of the broad construct or as a criterion variable. In other words,
removing positive affect from a broader extraversion measure should not substantially alter that
broader measure’s association with happiness (see Steel et al., 2008, p. 140 for examples).
Turning to the data, it appears possible that a construct akin to positive emotionality
could be the common core that links facets of extraversion with subjective well-being. For
example, facets like sociability and assertiveness predict life satisfaction considerably worse than
cheerfulness or positive emotion (Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, & Funder, 2009). Nonetheless, the
extent to which positive emotionality is explicitly included in measures of broad extraversion
does not seem to influence the correlations with happiness very much. For example, the two
meta-analyses that explored this issue found that the NEO (which includes a positive emotions
facet) and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (which does not) correlate with various
happiness indicators (positive affect, life satisfaction, quality of life, etc.) very similarly (Lucas
& Fujita, 2000; Steel et al., 2008). Interestingly, however, the Eysenck Personality Inventory,
which differs from the EPQ by including a substantial impulsivity component, tends to correlate
with happiness indicators significantly less strongly than the EPQ or NEO. Thus, the particular
facets of introversion-extraversion can have some influence on the magnitude of the happiness
link. That said, we cannot conclude that a positive affect confound explains the association.
Rather, valid overlap between the constructs of extraversion and well-being require theoretical
explanations (as we discuss in a later section).
Objection #3: Introverts are happier in cultures that aren’t so individualistic. This
objection does not fully refute the idea that introverts report less happiness, but it suggests a
boundary condition. That is, much of the research on extraversion and happiness is conducted in
Western cultures that prize individualism and assertiveness (particularly the United States); the
pattern might be different in cultures that place greater value on thoughtfulness, passivity, and
quiet reflection (see Chapter 6, this volume). Furthermore, introverts in individualistic cultures
might be happier if people just stopped expecting them to act more extraverted.
Turning to the data, this objection has some merit, but cannot be true in its strongest form.
That is, no culture appears to produce introverts that report more happiness than their extraverts.
However, cultural differences appear to moderate the strength of the extraversion-happiness
association. For example, Lucas et al. (1999) found a positive correlation between extraversion
and positive affect across 39 different cultures, yet they also found that social situations were
more rewarding in individualist cultures. Similarly, Fulmer et al. (2010) reported that
extraversion predicted life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem, and overall happiness more
strongly in cultures that tended to have higher levels of average extraversion. In other words,
having a personality that fit the culture was associated with higher subjective well-being. The
particular manifestation of introversion might also be important. For example Chen, Wang, and
Cao (2011) found that, among Chinese children, shyness predicts happiness whereas
unsociability predicted unhappiness. They explain that the social inhibition of shyness is valued,
whereas a diminished interest in connecting with others violates cultural norms (though these
associations may also change along with Chinese culture over time, see Chen, Cen, Li, & He,
Other data suggest that the particular operationalization of happiness might be important.
That is, extraversion may predispose people to experience positive affect regardless of culture,
but the satisfaction that follows might depend on cultural factors (Schimmack, Radhakrishnan,
Oishi, Dzokoto, & Ahadi, 2002). Consistent with this idea, Hong Kong Chinese and Asian
Americans seem to value low arousal pleasant affect, whereas Anglo Americans view high
arousal pleasant affect as ideal (Tsai et al., 2006). Although extraverts experience more high
arousal positive affect across all these cultures, the discrepancy in ideal affect enhances or
diminishes overall well-being.
Objection #4: Introverts have fewer, but stronger, friendships --enough to create
happiness. This objection assumes that good interpersonal relationships are a primary cause of
happiness, and that introverts’ superior relationships cause them greater happiness. We have
already reviewed sufficient evidence indicating that introverts are less happy than extraverts, and
thus, this objection must be false in its strong form. However, it is worth further considering the
links among introversion, social relationships, and happiness.
First, introverts do have friends and do engage in social activities. Moreover, introverts
appear to enjoy socializing as much, if not more, than extraverts (Fleeson et al, 2002; Lucas et al.,
2008; Srivastava et al., 2008). Introverts are not necessarily shy; social anxiety is much more
related to trait neuroticism. Moreover, they have social skills equal to extraverts’, though some
contexts may obscure those skills (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). In addition, strong
interpersonal relationships appear important to happiness. Diener and Seligman (2002)
concluded that such relationships were likely the only necessary (but still not sufficient)
condition for extreme happiness. The happiest people had stronger friend, family, and romantic
relationships. However, both the quality and the quantity of social interactions were important.
The happiest people also reported spending the least time alone and the most time with their
family, friends, and partners in daily reports. This result was corroborated by another study that
coded momentarily sampled audio recordings (Mehl, Vazire, Holleran, & Clark, 2010). The
study also found that happy people had more substantive conversation and less small talk, but
introversion-extraversion did not explain the difference. We have already reviewed evidence
suggesting that introverts spend more time alone, and thus extraverts likely derive more benefit
from their larger quantity of social interaction.
It also seems that, contrary to the intuitions of our objectors, extraverts may have higher
quality social relationships. The association with quality is weaker and less consistent than with
quantity, but there are some suggestions. For example, in a longitudinal study of new university
students, introverts consistently (i.e., over many time periods) perceived less support from their
peers (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). On the other hand, introversion-extraversion was not
significantly associated with conflict in these relationships. Other research suggests that
introverts report lower global relationship quality and that introversion is correlated with
avoidant and insecure attachment styles, a suboptimal profile (Noftle & Shaver, 2006; see also
Chapter 3 this volume). Attachment appeared much more important to relationship satisfaction
than extraversion, but the data make it very hard to argue that introverts have better relationships
than extraverts. Additionally, other factors such as agreeableness, emotional stability, and
conscientiousness appear more important to romantic relationships than introversion-
extraversion (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987). Thus, despite some
associations, it appears that the quantity of social relationships and time spent socializing likely
contributes more to the difference between introverts’ and extraverts’ happiness than differences
in the quality of those social relationships.
Objection #5: C’mon!?! My introvert friend and I are happy. By this point in our
review, the data seem pretty clear: extraverts are happier than introverts. Nonetheless, many
introverts seem happy (cf. Hills & Argyle, 2001); how can this be? The answer is relatively
straightforward. Most people are happy (Diener & Diener, 1996), most of the time (Zelenski &
Larsen, 2000). That is, even very disadvantaged people report a hedonic balance and sense of
satisfaction that is above the mid-point of measurement scales. Moreover, pleasant emotions are
by far the most frequent in momentary experience. Thus, the research we have reviewed
suggests not that introverts are miserable, but simply that they are somewhat less happy than the
very happy extraverts. In addition, many other factors beyond trait extraversion predict
happiness. As a single predictor, extraversion does well compared to other predictors and is
often described as one of the best (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999), explaining as much as
28% of the variance in positive affect (disattenuated, Steel et al., 2008). That said, trait
neuroticism may be even stronger, especially for some (un)happiness indicators (see Vittersø &
Nilsen, 2002), and the interaction between introversion and neuroticism may further add
substantial predictive power (Lynn & Steel, 2006). In sum, most introverts are somewhat happy,
but it seems possible that they could become happier like their more extraverted friends.
Understanding what causes differences in introversion-extraversion may also suggest
reasons for why the trait predicts happiness. At a broad level, both traits and happiness are quite
(though far from completely) heritable, and likely have common genetic sources (Eid, Rietmann,
Angleitner, & Borkenau, 2003; Weiss, Bates, & Luciano, 2008). That is, the same genes may
contribute to both personality and happiness. A few theories of extraversion suggest
physiological causes that might stem from genetic variations and lead to differences in behavior.
For example, Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) argued that extraverts were cortically under-
aroused or less sensitive to external stimulation. Further assuming an optimal level of arousal,
he suggested that their bold, outgoing, lively approach to life provided the stimulation they
require, whereas introverts’ quieter demeanor helped avoid overstimulation. Eysenck’s
explanation is much broader, but helps explain why extraverts might seek out pleasant social
situations more than introverts, i.e., because such situations tend to be arousing. Although the
exact physiological mechanism that Eysenck proposed (cortical arousal) is probably incorrect,
the notion that greater participation in social activity might cause extraverts’ higher happiness
remains influential. Suggesting a slightly different cause, extraverts’ social participation and
resulting enjoyment may stem from being noticed; extraverts thrive on social attention, and their
enthusiastic demeanor may help attract it (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). Regardless of the
particular reason, extraverts do spend more time in social situations. However, it is less clear
whether this social interaction causes their happiness or whether their happiness causes social
In studies using day reconstruction and experience sampling methods, the amount of time
spent in social situations partially mediated the association between trait extraversion and
happiness (Lucas et al., 2008; Srivastava, et al., 2008). This suggests that extraverts might be
happier, in part, because they socialize more. Despite similar results, these authors diverge on
how persuasive they find the partial mediation. Both agree, however, that social participation
seems unlikely to fully account for extraverts’ happiness. Other research has used experimental
methods with short-term manipulations and extrapolated results to personality implications. For
example, Fleeson et al. (2002) found that asking participants to act extraverted produced
substantially more positive affect than asking them to act introverted, suggesting that sociability
might cause happiness. However, the instructions were broader than sociability, so it is possible
that other aspects of extraverted behavior (e.g., assertiveness, activity) instead produced the
positive affect. In addition, experimentally inducing positive moods seems to create feelings of
sociability and preferences for social situations (Whelan & Zelenski, 2012a), demonstrating that
the reverse causal direction is also possible. That is, happiness, or something like it, may cause
sociability or extraversion.
This possibility is consistent with another prominent collection of theories suggesting that
the causal core of extraversion is reward sensitivity or a propensity for positive affect more
directly (see Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Zelenski & Larsen, 1999).
For example, Gray (1981; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) suggested that the conceptual personality
space defined by extraversion and neuroticism derived from two independent brain systems that
produce approach and avoidance motivation. Individual differences in the strengths of these
systems created the more observable traits of extraversion and neuroticism respectively.
Accordingly, extraverts are more likely to notice and respond vigorously to reward cues in the
environment, and likely experience more positive affect as a result. Consistent with this view,
extraverts respond to positive mood inductions with more positive affect than introverts (Larsen
& Ketelaar, 1991), particularly when pursuing incentives (Smillie et al., 2012). In addition,
extraverts tend to select pleasant rather than social situations when these factors vary
independently (Lucas & Diener, 2001), and reward sensitivity may link the other facets of
extraversion better than sociability (Lucas et al, 1999, but cf. Ashton et al., 2002). Moreover, as
our knowledge of relevant neurophysiology improves, it appears largely consistent with the
general idea of a reward system being important to extraversion, e.g., a role for dopamine
(Depue & Collins, 1999) and areas of the brain involved in reward processing and positive affect
being associated with extraversion (e.g., Canli, Sivers, Whitfield, Gotlib, & Gabrieli, 2002;
DeYoung et al, 2010; Hermes, Hagemann, Naumann, & Walter, 2011).
Slightly different than the reward reactivity view, it is also possible that extraverts simply
have higher baseline positive affect, largely regardless of situational variation (Gross, Sutton, &
Ketelaar, 1998; Lucas & Baird, 2004). This is not to say that they experience no hedonic
variability, but that their average ‘set point’ tends to be higher across most situations. Most
reactivity studies have been conducted in laboratory settings, and it is difficult to operationalize
and assess reward reactivity in daily life. That said, introverts enjoy social interactions about as
much as extraverts (Lucas et al., 2008; Srivastava et al., 2008), arguing against a ‘social
reactivity’ view (Argyle & Lu, 1990). Said another way, extraverts report more positive affect
than introverts even when alone.
From a more cognitive perspective, part of the happiness difference between introverts
and extraverts might be explained by differences in interpretation or mood regulation. That is,
introverts may be less prone to notice or seek out pleasant situations and experience, and less
likely to maintain positive feelings when they occur. Consistent with this idea, extraverts
maintain pleasant moods longer, while introverts maintain unpleasant moods longer, following
positive and negative laboratory mood inductions respectively (Hemenover, 2003). Extraverts
also maintained their pleasant moods better than introverts when confronted with an ambivalent
mood induction (i.e., with both pleasant and unpleasant aspects; Lischetzke & Eid, 2006).
Additionally, questionnaire data support the idea that mood maintenance ability, as an individual
difference, partially mediates the association between extraversion and subjective well-being
(Kämpfe & Mitte, 2010; Lischetzke & Eid, 2006). Extraverts also seem to choose pleasant
stimuli or situations more, at least in some contexts. For example, Tamir (2009) suggested that
pleasant moods might be more useful to extraverts, and showed that they chose positive tasks
and stimuli when they anticipated a future effortful task. That is, extraverts were more likely
than introverts to up-regulate mood, perhaps because they believed positive moods would help
their performance. Independent of current mood states, extraverts also display positive cognitive
biases (Rusting, 1998; Zelenski 2008). For example, extraverts rate the likelihood of positive
future events as higher (Zelenski & Larsen, 2002), evaluate hypothetical events more positively
(Uziel, 2006), interpret ambiguous homophones more positively (Rusting, 1999), and write more
positive story completions than introverts (Rusting, 1999). In short, extraverts appear more
prone to positive thoughts, and this might help them seek out and maintain pleasant moods. Of
course it is also possible that frequently experiencing happiness helped shape extraverts’ positive
cognitive biases over time.
A final explanation suggests that social pressures, stigma, subtle discrimination, etc.
might contribute to introverts’ diminished well-being, particularly in more extraverted societies
(cf. Cain, 2012). Interestingly, introverts in US samples do not see themselves as any less
‘normal’ than extraverts, but extraverts do see themselves as more unique than introverts do
(Wood, Gosling, & Potter, 2007). Although examples of introverts having difficulty fitting in
are easily imagined (e.g., parties, group work, public speaking), it is unclear whether they
outnumber examples of extraverts having difficulty conforming to situational norms (e.g.,
libraries, individual projects, yoga). Clearly more empirical work is needed to assess the validity
of a stigma explanation.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
In sum, it is clear that extraversion predicts happiness. Although the strength of this
association depends somewhat on how happiness and extraversion are defined, the general link
remains robust. Many potential explanations for extraverts’ higher happiness exist, and it seems
likely that more than one could be correct. Future research will be useful in further developing
these process explanations. At present, social participation, reward reactivity, set point, and
mood maintenance views are all somewhat supported. There is considerably less support for the
ideas that extraverts fit social situations better or enjoy social situations more than introverts. In
fact, virtually everyone seems to enjoy socializing more than spending time alone.
With this in mind, it seems useful to ask the question: would introverts be happier if they
acted more like extraverts? Traits and their links with happiness are fairly stable over time
(Abbott et al., 2008; Costa & McCrae, 1980), but there is some nontrivial change too (Roberts &
DelVecchio, 2000). Moreover, changes in trait extraversion (and neuroticism) seem to co-occur
with, and may even precede, changes in happiness (Scollon & Diener, 2006; Boyce, Wood, &
Powdthavee, 2012). In the short term, introverts are clearly capable of extraverted behavior, and,
in fact, exhibit it quite often (Fleeson & Gallaher, 2009). Moreover, when introverts act
extraverted in their daily lives, they experience more positive affect, just as extraverts do, and
this pattern holds across contexts (Fleeson et al., 2002); introverts are not just enjoying dancing
boldly while alone in their apartments. Even when instructed to act extraverted in lab settings,
introverts still report substantially more enjoyment compared to when instructed to act
introverted, or when they receive no instructions (McNiel & Fleeson, 2006; Zelenski, Santoro, &
Whelan, 2012). It is possible that hidden costs mitigate the happiness benefit of acting
extraverted, but these costs have been elusive in empirical work. For example, when instructed
to act extraverted, introverts do not experience concurrent negative affect, show indications of
self-regulatory depletion (Zelenski et al., 2012), or report greater effortfulness (Gallagher,
Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011). In fact, trait introverts even report feeling more authentic when they
behave extraverted compared to when they behave introverted (though only if you ask them in
the moment; they retrospect the opposite; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010; Whelan & Zelenski, 2012b).
Thus, the evidence to date suggests that acting extraverted is both possible and potentially
beneficial for trait introverts. An important caveat is that the costs of this counter-dispositional
behavior have not been assessed over the long term (cf. Little, 2008). It remains plausible that
prolonged periods of extraverted behavior would drain trait introverts, or that the negative
consequences do not appear until after time has passed.
Finally, as much as extraversion, both as a trait and momentary behavior, seems to
promote positive affect, we also recognize that there are other important things in life, and other
“tradeoffs” that come with being more or less introverted. For example, introverts appear to
more easily regulate their behavior; extraverts suffer cognitive and emotional deficits when
asked to act introverted (Gallagher et al., 2011; Zelenski et al., 2012). Taking an evolutionary
perspective, Nettle (2006) suggests that extraverts benefit from having more sexual partners and
exploration than introverts, but that they also suffer because of their risks (e.g., with injuries,
family instability). In addition, introverts do better on problem solving tasks (e.g., Moutafi,
Furnham, & Crump, 2003) and academic knowledge tests (Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999). Our
purpose here is not to review all the ways introverts outperform extraverts, but rather to
acknowledge via a few examples that being extraverted is not necessarily better than being
introverted. Extraversion is, however, clearly more conducive to happiness, and thus trait
introverts might seriously consider adding a little more extraverted behavior to their days.
Abbott, R. A., Croudace, T. J., Ploubidis, G. B., Kuh, D., Richards, M., & Huppert, F. A. (2008).
The relationship between early personality and midlife psychological well-being:
Evidence from a UK birth cohort study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
43, 679-687. doi:10.1007/s00127-008-0355-8
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Personalogical
Monographs, 47, No. 211.
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences,
11, 1011-1017. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90128-E
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1531
Ashton, M. C., Less, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?
Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 245-252. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.245
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.187
Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations.
Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2-25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences:
Five factors in mate selection and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107-
136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Powdthavee, N. (2012). Is personality fixed? Personality changes
as much as ‘‘variable’’ economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life
satisfaction, Social Indicators Research. Advanced Online Publication. doi:
Burger, J. (1995). Individual differences in preferences for solitude. Journal of Research in
Personality, 29, 85-108. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. New York:
Crown Publishers.
Canli, T., Sivers, H., Whitfield, S. L., Gotlib, I H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Amygdala
response to happy faces as a function of extraversion. Science, 296, 2191.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality:
Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-
751. doi:10.1177/0146167200268008
Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese
children: The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76(1), 182-195. doi:
Chen, X., Wang, L., & Cao, R. (2011). Shyness-sensitivity and unsociability in rural Chinese
children: Relations with social, school, and psychological adjustment. Child Development,
82, 1531-1543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01616.x
Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & McNeil, P. (1995). Situation and personality correlates of
psychological well-being: Social activity and personal control. Journal of Research in
Psychology, 29, 395-417. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1023
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective
well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38, 668-678. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.38.4.668
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality
traits and subjective well being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine,
facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Science, 22,
491-569. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99002046
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010).
Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five.
Psychological Science, 21, 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181-185.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R.E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276
Eid, M., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (2003). Sociability and positive
emotionality: Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariation between
different facets of extraversion. Journal of Personality, 71, 319-346. doi:10.1111/1467-
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach
and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
804-818. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.804
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural
science approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as
density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011-
1027. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.1011
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, M. P. (2009). The implications of big-five standing for the
distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097-1114.
Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An intraindividual process approach to
the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good”
as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1409-1422.
Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of big five trait content in behavior to subjective
authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable
authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1353-1382. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
Fulmer, C. A., Gelfand, M. J., Kruglanski, A. W., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E., Pierro, A., &
Higgins, E. T. (2010). On "feeling right" in cultural contexts: How person-culture match
affects self-esteem and subjective well being. Psychological Science, 21, 1563-1569.
Gallagher, P., Fleeson, W., & Hoyle, R. H. (2011). A self-regulatory mechanism for personality
trait stability: Contra-trait effort. Social Psychology and Personality, 2, 335-342.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,
26-34. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.48.1.26
Gray, J. A., (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A
Model For Personality (pp. 246-276). New York:Springer-Verlag.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect and personality:
Support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 279-288. doi:10.1177/0146167298243005
Hemenover, S. (2003). Individual differences in the rate of affect change: Studies in affective
chronometry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 121-131.
Hermes, M., Hagemann, D., Naumann, E., & Walter, C. (1998). Extraversion and its positive
emotional core - further evidence from neuroscience. Emotion, 11, 367-378.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Happiness, introversion-extraversion and happy introverts.
Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 595-608. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00058-
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A
historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-
203. doi:10.1002/per.2410020302
Kämpfe, N., & Mitte, K. (2010). Tell me who you are, and I will tell you how you feel?
European Journal of Personality, 24, 291-308. doi:10.1002/per.743
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of
distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3,
219–233. doi:10.1080/17439760802303044
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of
marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(1), 27-40. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27
Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse
definitions of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 6, 261-300. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-7226-8
Kupens, P. (2008). Individual differences in the relationship between pleasure and arousal.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1053-1059. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.007
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992) Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion.
Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25-59.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative
emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.
Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCreary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities:
Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 59-68. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00141-1
Lischetzke, T. & Eid, M. (2006). Why extraverts are happier than introverts: The role of mood
regulation. Journal of Personality, 74, 1127-1161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
Little, B. R. (2008). Personal projects and free traits: Personality and motivation reconsidered.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1235-1254. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties,
settings and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 578-
583. doi:10.1177/0146167203029005003
Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2004). Extraversion and emotional reactivity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 473-485. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.473
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social situations: The
importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 343-356.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. doi:10.1037//0022-
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between extraversion and
pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1039-1056.
Lucas, R. E., Le, K., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/ positive affect
relation: sociability cannot account for extraverts' greater happiness. Journal of
Personality, 76, 385-414. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00490.x
Lynn, M., & Steel, P. (2006). National differences in subjective well-being: The interactive
effects of extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 155-165.
McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. (2006). The causal effects of extraversion on positive affect and
neuroticism on negative affect: Manipulating state extraversion and state neuroticism in
an experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 529-550.
McNiel, J. M., Lowman, J. C., & Fleeson, W. (2010). The effect state of extraversion on four
types of affect. European Journal of Personality, 24, 18-35. doi:10.1002/per.738
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat:
Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862-877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clarke, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping on happiness:
Well-being is related to having less small talk and more substantive conversations.
Psychological Science, 21, 539-441. doi:10.1177/0956797610362675
Mitte, K., & Kämpfe, N. (2008). Personality and the four faces of positive affect: a multitrait-
multimethod analysis using self- and peer-report. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1370-1375. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.004
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of
intelligence: A study using the NEO personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs type
indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94. doi:10.1002/per.471
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American
Psychologist 61, 622-31. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits:
Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research
in Personality, 40, 179-208. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits for
childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 3-25. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.1.3
Rolfhus, E., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge:
Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 511–
526. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.511
Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information:
Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 165-196.
Rusting, C. L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood and emotion-congruent
memory and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1073-1086.
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1995). Moods as sources of stimulation: Relationships between
personality and desired mood states. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 321-329.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction:
A facet-level analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062-1075.
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture,
personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582-593. doi:10.1037//0022-
Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism
over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1152-1165.
Smillie, L. D., Cooper, A. J., Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2012). Do extraverts get more bang for the
buck? Refining the affective-reactivity hypothesis of extraversion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0028372
Srivastava, S., Angelo, K. M., & Vallereux, S. R. (2008). Extraversion and positive affect: A day
reconstruction study of person-environment transactions. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 1613-1618. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.002
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Schulz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161. doi:10.1037/0033-
Tamir, M. (2009). Differential preferences for happiness: Extraversion and trait-consistent
emotion regulation. Journal of Personality, 77, 447-470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288-307. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288
Uziel, L. (2006). The extraverted and the neurotic glasses are of different colors. Personality and
Individual Differences, 41, 745-754. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.011
Vittersö, J., & Nilsen, F. (2002). The conceptual and relational structure of subjective well-being,
neuroticism, and extraversion: Once again, neuroticism is the important predictor of
happiness. Social Indicators Research, 57, 89-118.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity) thing. Psychological
Science, 19, 205-210. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02068.x
Whelan, D. C., & Zelenski, J. M. (2012a). Experimental evidence that positive moods cause
sociability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 430-437.
Whelan, D. C., & Zelenski, J. M. (2012b, July). Subjective authenticity and counterdispositional
behaviour: Exploring the relation between behaving extraverted and feeling authentic.
Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the International Meaning Conference,
Toronto, ON, Canada.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 294-306.
Wilt, J. & Revelle, W. (2009). Extraversion. In M. Leary and R. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of
Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 27-45). Guilford.
Wood, D., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to
personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality, 93, 861-879. doi:10.1037/0022-
Zelenski, J. M. (2008). The role of personality in emotion, judgment, and decision making. In
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Loewenstein, G. Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision
Making? A Hedgefoxian Perspective. (pp. 117-132). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Susceptibility to affect: A comparison of three
personality taxonomies. Journal of Personality, 67, 761-791. doi:10.1111/1467-
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2000). The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: A
state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 178-197. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2275
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2002). Predicting the future: How affect-related personality
traits influence likelihood judgments of future events. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,28, 1000-1010. doi:10.1177/01467202028007012
Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S., & Whelan, D. C. (2012). Would introverts be better off if they
acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counter-
dispositional behavior. Emotion, 12(2), 290-303. doi:10.1037/a0025169
... Not surprisingly, positive linkages have been observed between neuroticism and dominance, given that this trait may uniquely correspond to rivalry, others' devaluation, and striving for supremacy (Back et al., 2013;Kokkinos et al., 2020). With regards to the social goal for intimacy, Zelenski et al. (2014) and Srivastava et al. (2008) claim that extraverted youth desire to spend more time in intimate relations is due to their experiences of enjoyment and positive affect. Although the associations between FFM traits and social goals have been barely established, less is known about how and why individuals with specific personality traits are predisposed to set specific social goals. ...
... If youth are oriented toward the social goal of intimacy, it appears that they see their relationships in a positive and optimistic manner and strive to feel safe in this relationship (Zelenski et al., 2014). Thus, they are less likely to engage in RAgg as they may view their friend as intimate and trustworthy (Murray-Close et al., 2010). ...
... Thus, they are less likely to engage in RAgg as they may view their friend as intimate and trustworthy (Murray-Close et al., 2010). Overall, it is possible that extraverted adolescents are more amiable in their social relations (Tackett et al., 2014;Zelenski et al., 2014), endorse less RAgg , and are more likely to pursue an intimacy goal. The examination of the links between the rest FFM traits and intimacy has resulted in nonsignificant results. ...
This study explored the short-term longitudinal associations between Five Factor Model (FFM) and social goals (social dominance, popularity, and intimacy), with relational aggression (RAgg) as a mediator. RAgg was claimed to mediate the positive correlations of neuroticism with dominance and popularity, whereas extraversion was argued to positively relate to intimacy through low RAgg. The participants were 2207 Greek 13-to 16-year-olds (M = 14.04; 52.8% female), mostly from middle-class families. Respondents completed three self-report measures (T1, T2; 6-month interval) during the school year. Confirmatory factor analysis explored a measurement model, whereas a longitudinal mediation model tested whether RAgg mediates the relationship between personality and social goals. Cross-lagged correlations revealed associations of RAgg with neuroticism, dominance, and popularity but not openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. Weak positive correlations emerged between FFM traits and intimacy, neuroticism, and dominance. Results indicated positive indirect effects from Τ1 neuroticism and negative from T1 agreeableness to Τ2 RAgg, which was then positively linked to T2 dominance and popularity. The research highlights the importance of RAgg as a mechanism for endorsing social goals for adolescents with specific personality traits. Intervention strategies aiming at limiting RAgg could consider agreeableness and neuroticism, providing adolescents with the behavioral tools to cope with anxiety and negative affect.
... However, although these findings have held up in various previous works (e.g., Zelenski et al., 2014), the current SARS-COV-2 crisis is different from previous exogenous shocks since it is a "socially distant" health crisis. As such, this particular crisis has resulted in a large decrease in social face-to-face connections to others, behavior that is closely related to extraverted individuals (Folk et al., 2020). ...
Full-text available
We examine the longitudinal relation between extraversion and state anxiety in a large cohort of New York City (NYC) residents using a linguistic analytical machine learning approach. Anxiety, both state and trait, and Big Five personality traits were predicted using micro-blog data on the Twitter platform. In total, we examined 1,336 individuals and a total of 200,289 observations across 246 days. We find that before the onset of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC (before 1st March 2020), extraverts experienced lower state anxiety compared to introverted individuals, while this difference shrinks after the onset of the pandemic, which provides evidence that SARS-COV-2 is affecting all individuals regardless of their extraversion trait disposition. Secondly, a longitudinal examination of the presented data shows that extraversion seems to matter more greatly in the early days of the crisis and towards the end of our examined time range. We interpret results within the unique SARS-CoV-2 context and discuss the relationship between SARS-COV-2 and individual differences, namely personality traits. Finally, we discuss results and outline the limitations of our approach.
... Extroverts exhibit behaviors that are more prone to sensory stimulation (Kayaoğlu 2013). On the other hand, introverts try to avoid situations that are overly stimulating (Zelenski, et al. 2014). It has been proven that extroverts outperform introverts in short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) (Özbay, et al. 2017). ...
Full-text available
The subject of individual learner differences (IDs) in English as a Second/Foreign (ESL/EFL) Language teaching and learning is an area which has been much debated and investigated. Since these differences vary according to the geographical or cultural influences of the learners, variations in results and opinions among language instructors are inevitable. However, the indubitable fact is that these differences considerably influence the ESL/EFL language learners’ performances. Individuals are different in personality styles, and these personality styles are influenced by age, cultural background and a whole lot of other factors. These IDs lead to dynamism in language acquisition. The current study thus examined three set of IDs to determine how they affect the learning style preferred by individuals. The individual differences analyzed in this study include: race, exposure to English Language, and personality type (i.e., introvert or extrovert). The study concluded that while race and exposure to English Language affected the preferred learning style significantly as expected English language acquisition, personality style, however, did not have an influence on the preferred learning style for this study sample. IDs are extremely complex, with a large number of variables. As a result, it is critical for researchers as well as English language instructors to identify the source of the problem from a psychological standpoint and consider variables that would aid in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) improvement.
... Extroversion is another trait that has shown strong correlations with mental health outcomes. As introverts and extroverts demonstrate substantially different attitudes toward social life [32,33], the effects of social distancing might vary depending on individuals' extroversion levels. Individuals who score high in extroversion tend to experience positive emotions, activity, assertiveness, need for stimulation, and gregariousness compared to people with low on extroversion [34,35]. ...
Full-text available
The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) epidemic was first detected in China in December 2019 and spread to other countries fast. Some studies have found that COVID-19 pandemic has had adverse mental health consequences. Individual differences such as personality could contribute to people’s behaviors during a pandemic. In the current study, we examine how personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion (using the Five-Factor Model as our framework) are related to the mental health of Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from an online survey with 1096 responses, this study performed multiple regres- sion analysis to explore how personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion predict the effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of Canadians. The results showed that personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion are associated with the current mental health of Cana- dians during COVID-19 pandemic, with extroversion positively related to mental health and neuroticism negatively related to it. Results contribute to the management of individual responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and could help public health services provide person- ality-appropriate mental health services during this pandemic.
... Of note, preference for solitude at the level of the individual has been shown to be correlated with but distinct from introversion. Introversion entails a tendency to spend more time in solitude for any reason, including a genuine appreciation for solitude; hence, whereas high preference for solitude is associated with positive experiences of solitude, introversion is associated with both positive and negative solitude experiences (Nestler et al., 2011;Zelenski et al., 2014). ...
Most adults spend a significant amount of their time alone. The present chapter calls for conceptual clarity regarding the distinct nature of solitude relative to other related constructs such as social isolation and loneliness. It also provides insight into unique links with physical and mental health, with a specific focus on older adults, before moving on to address why it may be important to disentangle processes that occur on different time scales. A review of prominent aging models offers potential explanations for the tremendous heterogeneity in solitude‐affect quality links along with potential moderators. We close by highlighting challenges that need to be overcome to move the field forward.
Full-text available
Within the solitude literature, two discrete constructs reflect different perspectives on how time spent alone is motivated. Self-determined motivation for solitude reflects wanting time alone to find enjoyment and gain meaningful benefits from it, whereas preference for solitude concerns wanting time for oneself over others’ company regardless of reasons for why time alone is wanted. We investigated two personality characteristics: introversion from Big-Five personality theory and dispositional autonomy from self-determination theory. In two diary studies university students completed personality measures and reported about their experiences with time spent alone over a period of seven days. Across both studies, contrary to popular belief that introverts spend time alone because they enjoy it, results showed no evidence that introversion is predictive of either preference or motivation for solitude. Dispositional autonomy–the tendency to regulate from a place of self-congruence, interest, and lack of pressure–consistently predicted self-determined motivation for solitude but was unrelated to preference for solitude. These findings provided evidence supporting the link between valuing time spent alone with individual differences in the capacity to self-regulate in choiceful and authentic way.
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic and policy measures enacted to contain the spread of the coronavirus have had nationwide psychological effects. This study aimed to assess the impact of the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of anxiety (GAD-7 scale) and depression (PHQ-9 scale) of the Belgian adult population. A longitudinal study was conducted from April 2020 to June 2021, with 1838 respondents participating in 6 online surveys. Linear mixed models were used to model the associations between the predictor variables and the mental health outcomes. Results showed that the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression was higher in times of stricter policy measures. Furthermore, after the initial stress from the outbreak, coping and adjustment were observed in participants, as symptoms of anxiety and depression decreased during times of lower policy restrictions to almost the same level as in pre-COVID times (2018). Though time trends were similar for all population subgroups, higher levels of both anxiety and depression were generally found among women, young people, people with poor social support, extraverts, people having pre-existing psychological problems, and people who were infected/exposed to the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, investment in mental health treatment programs and supports, especially for those risk groups, is crucial.
Full-text available
Whether to engage with the environment or not is critical to self-regulation and individual differences figure prominently in this decisional realm. The present studies (total N = 695) pursue the premise that important clues to these dynamics can be found by asking individuals whether they prefer the spatial concept of something (e.g., the self or the world) being “closed” or “open”, given that open objects interact with their environments more readily and lend themselves to resource acquisition. Individual differences in open-closed preferences were reliable and informative concerning individual differences in motivation and personality. In particular, greater preferences for openness were linked to higher levels of extraversion (Study 1), approach motivation (Studies 1 and 2), and positive affect (Studies 2 and 3). In addition, such preferences were linked to vigorous goal pursuit and achievement in a daily diary protocol (Study 3). Simple preferences among spatial concepts can therefore provide key insights into personality and self-regulation.
Full-text available
Ett av de mest robusta fynden inom personlighets- och välbefinnandeforskning är det starka sambandet mellan personlighetsdraget extraversion och positiva emotioner, lycka samt subjektivt och psykologiskt välbefinnande. Vad som kunde förklara varför extraverta är lyckligare har i årtionden ingående undersökts, om än osystematiskt och från skilda utgångspunkter. Detta har även noterats på fältet, och för att underlätta fortsatt forskning belyser denna litteraturöversikt hur frågeställningen undersökts till dags dato. Utifrån McCraes och Costas (1991) ursprungliga uppdelning i instrumentella och temperamentella modeller samt Hampsons (2012) indelning av medierande och modererande personlighetsprocesser identifieras, systematiseras och presenteras de huvudsakliga förklaringarna som förekommer i litteraturen för sambandet mellan extraversion och lycka. Resultatet består av ett konceptuellt diagram (se Figur 1 s. 20–21) med två övergripande förklaringsmodeller, sex distinkta mekanismer, tio personlighetsprocesser och tretton hypoteser som redovisas med tillhörande forskningslitteratur. Förutom en historisk överblick över tillvägagångssätt i forskningen presenteras även aktuell metodik för personlighetsprocesser. Vidare behandlas även hur resultaten är symptomatiska för den rådande problematiken kring konceptualisering, operationalisering samt metodologi inom personlighets- och lyckoforskning, samt resultatens och socialpsykologins relevans för fortsatt forskning och befrämjande av lycka och välbefinnande. [One of the most robust findings in personality and well-being research is the strong relationship between the personality trait extraversion and positive emotions, happiness, and subjective and psychological well-being. The factors explaining why extraverts are happier has been investigated in depth for decades, albeit unsystematically and from different points of view. This has also been noted in the field, and to facilitate further research, this literature review highlights how the issue has been investigated to date. Based on the original division into instrumental and temperamental models by McCrae and Costa (1991), and the division of mediating and moderating personality processes by Hampson (2012), the main explanations that appear in the literature for the relationship between extraversion and happiness are identified, systematized, and presented. The result consists of a conceptual diagram (see Figure 1, pp. 20–21) with two overall explanatory models, six distinct mechanisms, ten personality processes, and thirteen hypotheses, which are reported with associated research literature. In addition to a historical overview of research approaches, current methodology for personality processes is also presented. Furthermore, the issue of how the results are symptomatic of the prevailing problems around conceptualization, operationalization, and methodology in personality and happiness research is also discussed, as well as the relevance of the results and social psychology for continued research and the promotion of happiness and well-being.]
Full-text available
Learning through social interaction has been documented widely; however, how introverted people are socially engaged in learning is largely unknown. The aim of this study was, first, to examine the reliability and validity of the social engagement scale among students at Finnish comprehensive schools. Then, we aimed to examine the interaction effect of introversion and social engagement on self-esteem, schoolwork engagement, and school burnout. Based on a sample of 862 ninth grade students in Finland, we found that a two-factor model best fitted the social engagement scale (i.e., social engagement and social disengagement). Further, we found that introverts with high social engagement have higher self-esteem than introverts with low social engagement. Our results implied that introverts should be given extra support when they encounter group work in school.
Three experience-sampling studies explored the distributions of Big-Five-relevant states (behavior) across 2 to 3 weeks of everyday life. Within-person variability was high, such that the typical individual regularly and routinely manifested nearly all levels of all traits in his or her everyday behavior. Second, individual differences in central tendencies of behavioral distributions were almost perfectly stable. Third, amount of behavioral variability (and skew and kurtosis) were revealed as stable individual differences. Finally, amount of within-person variability in extraversion was shown to reflect individual differences in reactivity to extraversion-relevant situational cues. Thus, decontextualized and noncontingent Big-Five content is highly useful for descriptions of individuals' density distributions as wholes. Simultaneously, contextualized and contingent personality units (e.g., conditional traits, goals) are needed for describing the considerable within-person variation.
Extraversion is a broad, multifaceted trait, yet researchers are still unsure of its defining characteristics. One possibility is that the essential feature of extraversion is the tendency to enjoy social situations. An alternative possibility is that extraversion represents sensitivity to rewards and the tendency to experience pleasant affect. In three studies, participants rated situations that varied on two dimensions: (a) whether they were social or nonsocial and (b) whether they were very pleasant, moderately pleasant, moderately unpleasant, or very unpleasant. Extraverts only rated social situations more positively than introverts did when the situations were pleasant, and extraverts also rated nonsocial situations more positively than introverts did if the situations were pleasant. Thus, the pleasantness of situations was more important than whether they were social or nonsocial in determining extraverts' and introverts' enjoyment.
Philosophers have long tussled over whether moral judgments are the products of logical reasoning or simply emotional reactions. From Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility to the debates of modern psychologists, the question of whether feeling or sober rationality is the better guide to decision making has been a source of controversy. In Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? Kathleen Vohs, Roy Baumeister, and George Loewenstein lead a group of prominent psychologists and economists in exploring the empirical evidence on how emotions shape judgments and choices. Researchers on emotion and cognition have staked out many extreme positions: viewing emotions as either the driving force behind cognition or its side effect, either an impediment to sound judgment or a guide to wise decisions. The contributors to Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? provide a richer perspective, exploring the circumstances that shape whether emotions play a harmful or helpful role in decisions. Roy Baumeister, C. Nathan DeWall, and Liqing Zhang show that while an individual's current emotional state can lead to hasty decisions and self-destructive behavior, anticipating future emotional outcomes can be a helpful guide to making sensible decisions. Eduardo Andrade and Joel Cohen find that a positive mood can negatively affect people's willingness to act altruistically. Happy people, when made aware of risks associated with altruistic acts, become wary of jeopardizing their own well-being. Benoit Monin, David Pizarro, and Jennifer Beer find that whether emotion or reason matters more in moral evaluation depends on the specific issue in question. Individual characteristics often mediate the effect of emotions on decisions. Catherine Rawn, Nicole Mead, Peter Kerkhof, and Kathleen Vohs find that whether an individual makes a decision based on emotion depends both on the type of decision in question and the individual's level of self-esteem. And Quinn Kennedy and Mara Mather show that the elderly are better able to regulate their emotions, having learned from experience to anticipate the emotional consequences of their behavior. Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? represents a significant advance toward a comprehensive theory of emotions and cognition that accounts for the nuances of the mental processes involved. This landmark book will be a stimulus to scholarly debates as well as an informative guide to everyday decisions.
This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.
Twenty academic knowledge tests were developed to locate domain knowledge within a nomological network of traits. Spatial, numerical, and verbal aptitude measures and personality and interest measures were administered to 141 undergraduates. Domain knowledge factored along curricular lines; a general knowledge factor accounted for about half of knowledge variance. Domain knowledge exhibited positive relations with general intelligence (g), verbal abilities after g was removed, Openness, Typical Intellectual engagement, and specific vocational interests. Spatial and numerical abilities were unrelated to knowledge beyond g. Extraversion related negatively to all knowledge domains. Results provide broad support for R. B. Cattell's (1971/1987) crystallized intelligence as something more than verbal abilities and specific support for P. L. Ackerman's (1996) intelligence-as-process, personality, interests, and intelligence-as-knowledge theory of adult intelligence.
The territory that psychologists explore is still largely uncharted; so to find Eysenck’s model for personality in the middle of this terra incognita is rather like stumbling across St. Pancras Station in the heart of the African jungle. Faced with this apparition, one’s first question is, not “does it work?”, but “what’s it for?” This, indeed, is the right question to ask. Eysenck’s model bestrides the field of personality like a colossus. There have been other attempts to describe personality, notably Cattell’s and Guilford’s, and other attempts to explain it, above all, Pavlov’s and Teplov’s: but no one has tried to achieve both these aims on the same scale as Eysenck. In consequence, it is extremely difficult to see the Eysenckian edifice in perspective: there are too few other buildings with which to compare it, only the surrounding trackless jungle. It is by asking “what’s it for?” that we can best provide this perspective. In answer to this question, Fig. 8.1 dis plays what I take to be the general structure of Eysenck’s theory of extra version-introversion (E-I) and neuroticism (N).
Extraversion has two central characteristics: (1) interpersonal engagement, which consists of affiliation (enjoying and valuing close interpersonal bonds, being warm and affectionate) and agency (being socially dominant, enjoying leadership roles, being assertive, being exhibitionistic, and having a sense of potency in accomplishing goals) and (2) impulsivity, which emerges from the interaction of extraversion and a second, independent trait (constraint). Agency is a more general motivational disposition that includes dominance, ambition, mastery, efficacy, and achievement. Positive affect (a combination of positive feelings and motivation) is closely associated with extraversion. Extraversion is accordingly based on positive incentive motivation. Parallels between extraversion (particularly its agency component) and a mammalian behavioral approach system based on positive incentive motivation implicate a neuroanatomical network and modulatory neurotransmitters in the processing of incentive motivation. A corticolimbic-striatal-thalamic network (1) integrates the salient incentive context in the medial orbital cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus; (2) encodes the intensity of incentive stimuli in a motive circuit composed of the nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and ventral tegmental area dopamine projection system; and (3) creates an incentive motivational state that can be transmitted to the motor system. Individual differences in the functioning of this network arise from functional variation in the Ventral tegmental area dopamine projections, which are directly involved in coding the intensity of incentive motivation. The animal evidence suggests that there are three neurodevelopmental sources of individual differences in dopamine: genetic, "experience-expectant," and "experience-dependent." Individual differences in dopamine promote variation in the heterosynaptic plasticity that enhances the connection between incentive con text and incentive motivation and behavior. Our psychobiological threshold model explains the effects of individual differences in dopamine transmission on behavior, and their relation to personality traits is discussed.