Extroversion and introversion are typically viewed as a single continuum, so to be high in one necessitates being low in the other. Carl Jung and the developers of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator provide a different perspective and suggest that everyone has both an extroversion side and an introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other. Rather than focusing on interpersonal behavior, however, Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" (focus on one's inner psychic activity) and extroversion as "an attitude type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object" (focus on the outside world).
Varieties
Extraversion
Extraversion (also spelled as extroversion) is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from outside oneself. Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive,
and gregarious. Extraverts are energized and thrive off being around
other people. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social
gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public
demonstrations, and business or political groups. They also tend to work
well in groups.
An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and
find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when
around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by
themselves.
Introversion
Introversion is the state of being predominantly interested in one's own mental self. Introverts are typically perceived as more reserved or reflective. Some popular psychologists have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction.
This is similar to Jung's view, although he focused on mental energy
rather than physical energy. Few modern conceptions make this
distinction.
Introverts often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, using computers, hiking, or fishing. The archetypal
artist, writer, sculptor, scientist, engineer, composer, and inventor
are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent
alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people,
though they may enjoy interactions with close friends. Trust is usually
an issue of significance: a virtue of utmost importance to introverts is
choosing a worthy companion.
They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to
observe situations before they participate, especially observed in
developing children and adolescents. They are more analytical before speaking. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating external environment.
Mistaking introversion for shyness
is a common error. Introversion is a preference, while shyness stems
from distress. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do
not necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do. Susan Cain
argues that modern Western culture misjudges the capabilities of
introverted people, leading to a waste of talent, energy and happiness.
Cain describes how society is biased against introverts, and that, with
people being taught from childhood that to be sociable is to be happy,
introversion is now considered "somewhere between a disappointment and
pathology".
In contrast, Cain says that introversion is not a "second-class" trait
but that both introverts and extraverts enrich society, with examples
including the introverts J. K. Rowling,, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Seuss, W. B. Yeats, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Page.
Ambiversion
Although
many people view being introverted or extraverted as mutually
exclusive, most contemporary trait theories measure levels of
extraversion-introversion as part of a single, continuous dimension of
personality, with some scores near one end, and others near the half-way
mark. Ambiversion is falling more or less directly in the middle.
An ambivert is moderately comfortable with groups and social
interaction, but also relishes time alone, away from a crowd.
In simpler words, an ambivert is a person whose behaviour changes
according to the situation they are in. In face of authority or in
presence of strangers, the person may be introverted. However, in the
presence of family or close friends, the person may be highly energetic
or extraverted.
Relative prevalence
Susan Cain's 2012 book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking reports that studies indicate 33–50% of the American population are introverts. Particular subpopulations have higher prevalence, with a 6000-subject MBTI-based survey indicating that 60% of attorneys, and 90% of intellectual property attorneys, are introverts.
Measurement
The
extent of extraversion and introversion is most commonly assessed
through self-report measures, although peer-reports and third-party
observation can also be used. Self-report measures are either lexical or based on statements.
The type of measure is determined by an assessment of psychometric
properties and the time and space constraints of the research being
undertaken.
Lexical measures use individual adjectives that reflect
extravert and introvert traits, such as outgoing, talkative, reserved
and quiet. Words representing introversion are reverse coded to create
composite measures of extraversion/introversion running on a continuum.
Goldberg (1992) developed a 20-word measure as part of his 100-word Big Five markers. Saucier (1994)
developed a briefer 8-word measure as part of his 40-word mini-markers.
However, the psychometric properties of Saucier's original mini-markers
have been found suboptimal with samples outside of North America.
As a result, a systematically revised measure was developed to have
superior psychometric properties, the International English
Mini-Markers.
The International English Mini-Markers has good internal consistency
reliabilities and other validity for assessing extraversion/introversion
and other five factor personality dimensions, both within and,
especially, without American populations. Internal consistency
reliability of the Extraversion measure for native English-speakers is
reported as .92, that for non-native English-speakers is .85.
Statement measures tend to comprise more words, and hence
consume more research instrument space, than lexical measures.
Respondents are asked the extent to which they, for example, Talk to a lot of different people at parties or Often feel uncomfortable around others.
While some statement-based measures of extraversion/introversion have
similarly acceptable psychometric properties in North American
populations to lexical measures, their generally emic development makes
them less suited to use in other populations.
For example, statements asking about talkativeness in parties are hard
to answer meaningfully by those who do not attend parties, as Americans
are assumed to do. Moreover, the sometimes colloquial North American
language of statements makes them less suited to use outside America.
For instance, statements like Keep in the background and Know how to captivate people are sometimes hard for non-native English-speakers to understand except in a literal sense.
Eysenck's theory
Hans Eysenck
described extraversion-introversion as the degree to which a person is
outgoing and interactive with other people. These behavioral differences
are presumed to be the result of underlying differences in brain
physiology.
Eysenck combined cortical inhibition and excitation with the ascending
reticular activation system (ARAS), a pathway located in the brainstem.
Extraverts seek excitement and social activity in an effort to heighten
their arousal level, whereas introverts tend to avoid social situations
in an effort to keep such arousal to a minimum. Eysenck designated
extraversion as one of three major traits in his P-E-N model of
personality, which also includes psychoticism and neuroticism.
Eysenck originally suggested that extraversion was a combination
of two major tendencies, impulsiveness and sociability. He later added
several other more specific traits, namely liveliness, activity level,
and excitability. These traits are further linked in his personality
hierarchy to even more specific habitual responses, such as partying on
the weekend.
Eysenck compared this trait to the four temperaments
of ancient medicine, with choleric and sanguine temperaments equating
to extraversion, and melancholic and phlegmatic temperaments equating to
introversion.
Twin studies find that extraversion-introversion has a genetic component.
Biological factors
The relative importance of nature versus environment in determining the level of extraversion is controversial and the focus of many studies. Twin studies
have found a genetic component of 39% to 58%. In terms of the
environmental component, the shared family environment appears to be far
less important than individual environmental factors that are not
shared between siblings.
Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical
arousal. He hypothesized that introverts are characterized by higher
levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more
cortically aroused than extraverts. That extraverts require more
external stimulation than introverts has been interpreted as evidence
for this hypothesis. Other evidence of the "stimulation" hypothesis is
that introverts salivate more than extraverts in response to a drop of
lemon juice. This is due to increased activity in their reticular activating system, which responds to stimuli like food or social contact.
Extraversion has been linked to higher sensitivity of the mesolimbic dopamine system to potentially rewarding stimuli.
This in part explains the high levels of positive affect found in
extraverts, since they will more intensely feel the excitement of a
potential reward. One consequence of this is that extraverts can more
easily learn the contingencies for positive reinforcement, since the
reward itself is experienced as greater.
One study found that introverts have more blood flow in the frontal lobes of their brain and the anterior or frontal thalamus,
which are areas dealing with internal processing, such as planning and
problem solving. Extraverts have more blood flow in the anterior cingulate gyrus, temporal lobes, and posterior thalamus, which are involved in sensory and emotional experience.
This study and other research indicates that introversion-extraversion
is related to individual differences in brain function. A study on
regional brain volume found a positive correlation between introversion
and grey matter volume in the right prefrontal cortex and right
temporoparietal junction, as well as a positive correlation between
introversion and total white matter volume.
Extraversion has also been linked to physiological factors such as respiration, through its association with surgency.
Behaviour
Extraverts
and introverts have a variety of behavioural differences. According to
one study, extraverts tend to wear more decorative clothing, whereas
introverts prefer practical, comfortable clothes. Extraverts are more likely to prefer more upbeat, conventional, and energetic music than introverts.
Personality also influences how people arrange their work areas. In
general, extraverts decorate their offices more, keep their doors open,
keep extra chairs nearby, and are more likely to put dishes of candy on
their desks. These are attempts to invite co-workers and encourage
interaction. Introverts, in contrast, decorate less and tend to arrange
their workspace to discourage social interaction.
Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience
sampling studies has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in
the way that extraverts and introverts behave.
In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how
extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were
acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher
(2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way,
and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was
more within-person variability than between-person variability in
extraverted behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts
and introverts was that extraverts tend to act moderately
extraverted about 5–10% more often than introverts. From this
perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally
different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more
extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what
one "does" than what one "has".
Additionally, a study by Lippa (1978) found evidence for the
extent to which individuals present themselves in a different way. This
is called expressive behaviour, and it is dependent upon the
individuals' motivation and ability to control that behaviour. Lippa
(1978) examined 68 students who were asked to role-play by pretending to
teach a math class. The students' level of extraversion and
introversion were rated based on their external/expressive behaviours
such as stride length, graphic expansiveness, the percentage of time
they spent talking, the amount of time they spent making eye contact,
and the total time of each teaching session. This study found that
actual introverts were perceived and judged as having more
extraverted-looking expressive behaviours because they were higher in
terms of their self-monitoring.
This means that the introverts consciously put more effort into
presenting a more extraverted, and rather socially desirable, version of
themselves. Thus, individuals are able to regulate and modify behaviour
based on their environmental situations.
Humans are complex and unique, and because
introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have
a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one
situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in
"counterdispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian
Little's free trait theory
suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that
may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects
that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view
of what extraversion is. Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals
vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments, and can
choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even
increase their happiness, as mentioned above.
Implications
Acknowledging
that introversion and extraversion are normal variants of behavior can
help in self-acceptance and understanding of others. For example, an
extravert can accept their introverted partner's need for space, while
an introvert can acknowledge their extraverted partner's need for social
interaction.
Researchers have found a correlation between extraversion and
self-reported happiness. That is, more extraverted people tend to report
higher levels of happiness than introverts.
Other research has shown that being instructed to act in an extraverted
manner leads to increases in positive affect, even for people who are
trait-level introverts.
This does not mean that introverts are unhappy. Extraverts simply
report experiencing more positive emotions, whereas introverts tend to
be closer to neutral. This may be because extraversion is socially
preferable in contemporary Western culture and thus introverts feel less
desirable. In addition to the research on happiness, other studies have
found that extraverts tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than
introverts. Others suggest that such results reflect socio-cultural bias in the survey itself.
Dr. David Meyers has claimed that happiness is a matter of possessing
three traits: self-esteem, optimism, and extraversion. Meyers bases his
conclusions on studies that report extraverts to be happier; these
findings have been questioned in light of the fact that the "happiness"
prompts given to the studies' subjects, such as "I like to be with
others" and "I'm fun to be with," only measure happiness among
extraverts.
Also, according to Carl Jung, introverts acknowledge more readily their
psychological needs and problems, whereas extraverts tend to be
oblivious to them because they focus more on the outer world.
Although extraversion is perceived as socially desirable in
Western culture, it is not always an advantage. For example, extraverted
youths are more likely to engage in antisocial or delinquent behavior. In line with this, certain evidence suggest that the trait of extraversion may also be related to that of psychopathy.
Conversely, while introversion is perceived as less socially desirable,
it is strongly associated with positive traits such as intelligence and "giftedness."
For many years, researchers have found that introverts tend to be more
successful in academic environments, which extraverts may find boring.
Research shows that behavioral immune system,
the psychological processes that infer infection risk from perceptual
cues and respond to these perceptual cues through the activation of
aversive emotions, may influence gregariousness. Although extraversion
is associated with many positive outcomes like higher levels of
happiness, those extraverted people are also likely to be exposed to
interpersonally transmitted infectious disease as they tend to contact
more people. When individuals are more vulnerable to infection, the cost
of being social will be relatively greater. Therefore, people are less
extraversive when they feel vulnerable and vice versa.
Although neither introversion nor extraversion is pathological, psychotherapists
can take temperament into account when treating clients. Clients may
respond better to different types of treatment depending on where they
fall on the introversion-extraversion spectrum. Teachers can also
consider temperament when dealing with their pupils, for example
acknowledging that introverted children need more encouragement to speak
in class while extraverted children may grow restless during long
periods of quiet study.
Regional variation
Some claim that Americans live in an "extraverted society" that rewards extravert behavior and rejects introversion.
This is because the US is currently a culture of external personality,
whereas in some other cultures people are valued for their "inner selves
and their moral rectitude".
Other cultures, such as Japan, China and regions where Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Sufism etc. prevail, prize introversion.
These cultural differences predict individuals' happiness in that
people who score higher in extraversion are happier, on average, in
particularly extraverted cultures and vice versa.
Researchers have found that people who live on islands tend to be
less extraverted (more introverted) than those living on the mainland,
and that people whose ancestors had inhabited the island for twenty
generations tend to be less extraverted than more recent arrivals.
Furthermore, people who emigrate from islands to the mainland tend to be
more extraverted than people that stay on islands, and those that
immigrate to islands.
In the United States, researchers have found that people living in the midwestern states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois score higher than the U.S. average on extraversion. Utah and the southeastern states of Florida and Georgia also score high on this personality trait. The most introverted states in the United States are Maryland, New Hampshire, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Vermont. People who live in the northwestern states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are also relatively introverted.
Relation to happiness
As earlier stated, extraverts are often found to have higher levels of positive affect than introverts. However, this relationship has only been found between extraversion and activated forms of positive affect.
There is no relationship between extraversion and deactivated (calm)
forms of positive affect such as contentment or serenity, although one
study found a negative relationship between extraversion and deactivated
positive affect (i.e. a positive relationship between introversion and
calm positive affect).
Moreover, the relationship between extraversion and activated positive
affect is only significant for agentic extraversion, i.e. there is no
significant relationship between affiliative extraversion and activated
positive affect, especially when controlling for neuroticism.
An influential review article concluded that personality,
specifically extraversion and emotional stability, was the best
predictor of subjective well-being. As examples, Argyle and Lu (1990) found that the trait of extraversion, as measured by Extraversion Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(EPQ), was positively and significantly correlated with positive
affect, as measured by the Oxford Happiness Inventory. Using the same
positive affect and extraversion scales, Hills and Argyle (2001) found that positive affect was again significantly correlated with extraversion. Also, the study by Emmons and Diener (1986) showed that extraversion correlates positively and significantly with positive affect but not with negative affect. Similar results were found in a large longitudinal study by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992),
which assessed 14,407 participants from 100 areas of continental United
States. Using the abbreviated General Well-Being Schedule, which tapped
positive and negative affects, and Costa and McCrae's (1986). short version of the NEO's Extraversion scale, the authors reported that extraverts experienced greater well-being
at two points in time, during which data were collected: first between
1971 and 1975, and later between 1981 and 1984. However, the latter
study did not control for neuroticism, an important covariate when
investigating relationships between extraversion and positive affect or
wellbeing. Studies that controlled for neuroticism have found no significant relationship between extraversion and subjective well-being. Larsen and Ketelaar (1991)
showed that extraverts respond more to positive affect than to negative
affect, since they exhibit more positive-affect reactivity to the
positive-affect induction, yet they do not react more negatively to the
negative-affect induction.
Instrumental view
The instrumental view proposes that personality traits
give rise to conditions and actions, which have affective consequences,
and thus generate individual differences in emotionality.
Personality trait as a cause of higher sociability
According to the instrumental view, one explanation for greater subjective well-being among extraverts could be that extraversion helps in the creation of life circumstances, which promote high levels of positive affect. Specifically, the personality trait of extraversion is seen as a facilitator of more social interactions,
since the low cortical arousal among extraverts results in them seeking
more social situations in order to increase their arousal.
Social activity hypothesis
According
to the social activity hypothesis, more frequent participation in
social situations creates more frequent, and higher levels, of positive affect.
Therefore, it is believed that since extraverts are characterized as
more sociable than introverts, they also possess higher levels of positive affect brought on by social interactions. Specifically, the results of Furnham and Brewin's study (1990)
suggest that extraverts enjoy and participate more in social activities
than introverts, and as a result extraverts report a higher level of
happiness. Also, in the study of Argyle and Lu (1990)
extraverts were found to be less likely to avoid participation in noisy
social activities, and to be more likely to participate in social
activities such as: party games, jokes, or going to the cinema. Similar
results were reported by Diener, Larsen, and Emmons (1984)
who found that extraverts seek social situations more often than
introverts, especially when engaging in recreational activities.
However, a variety of findings contradict the claims of the
social activity hypothesis. Firstly, it was found that extraverts were
happier than introverts even when alone. Specifically, extraverts tend
to be happier regardless of whether they live alone or with others, or
whether they live in a vibrant city or quiet rural environment. Similarly, a study by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992)
showed that although extraverts chose social jobs relatively more
frequently (51%) than nonsocial jobs compared to introverts (38%), they
were happier than introverts regardless of whether their occupations had
social or nonsocial character. Secondly, it was found that extraverts
only sometimes reported greater amounts of social activity than
introverts, but in general extraverts and introverts do not differ in the quantity of their socialization. Similar finding was reported by Srivastava, Angelo, and Vallereux (2008),
who found that extraverts and introverts both enjoy participating in
social interactions, but extraverts participate socially more. Thirdly,
studies have shown that both extraverts and introverts participate in
social relations, but that the quality of this participation differs.
The more frequent social participation among extraverts could be
explained by the fact that extraverts know more people, but those people
are not necessarily their close friends, whereas introverts, when
participating in social interactions, are more selective and have only
few close friends with whom they have special relationships.
Social attention theory
Yet another explanation of the high correlation between extraversion and happiness comes from the study by Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen (2002).
They suggested that the core element of extraversion is a tendency to
behave in ways that attract, hold, and enjoy social attention, and not
reward sensitivity. They claimed that one of the fundamental qualities
of social attention is its potential of being rewarding. Therefore, if a
person shows positive emotions of enthusiasm,
energy, and excitement, that person is seen favorably by others and he
or she gains others' attention. This favorable reaction from others
likely encourages extraverts to engage in further extraverted behavior. Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen's (2002) study showed that their measure of social attention, the Social Attention Scale, was much more highly correlated with extraversion than were measures of reward sensitivity.
Temperamental view
Temperamental view is based on the notion that there is a direct link between people's personality traits and their sensitivity to positive and negative affects.
Affective reactivity model
The
affective reactivity model states that the strength of a person's
reactions to affect-relevant events are caused by people's differences
in affect. This model is based on the reinforcement sensitivity theory by Jeffrey Alan Gray, which states that people with stronger behavioral activation system (BAS)
are high in reward responsiveness and are predisposed to the
personality trait of extraversion, while people with a stronger
behavioral inhibition system (BIS) are lower in reward responsiveness and are more predisposed to personality trait of neuroticism and introversion. Therefore, extraverts are seen as having a temperamental predisposition to positive affect since positive mood induction has a greater effect on them than on introverts, thus extraverts are more prone to react to pleasant effects. For example, Gable, Reis, and Elliot (2000). found in two consecutive studies that people with more sensitive BIS reported higher levels of average negative affect, while people with more sensitive BAS reported higher levels of positive affect. Also Zelenski and Larsen (1999) found that people with more sensitive BAS reported more positive emotions during the positive mood induction, while people with more sensitive BIS reported more negative emotions during the negative mood induction.
Social reactivity theory
The
social reactivity theory alleges that all humans, whether they like it
or not, are required to participate in social situations. Since
extraverts prefer engaging in social interactions more than introverts,
they also derive more positive affect from such situations than introverts do.
The support for this theory comes from work of Brian R. Little, who
popularized concept of "restorative niches". Little claimed that life
often requires people to participate in social situations, and since
acting social is out of character for introverts, it was shown to harm
their well-being. Therefore, one way to preserve introverts' well-being
is for them to recharge as often as possible in places where they can
return to their true selves—places Little calls "restorative niches".
However, it was also found that extraverts did not respond
stronger to social situations than introverts, nor did they report
bigger boosts of positive affect during such interactions.
Affective regulation
Another
possible explanation for more happiness among extraverts comes from the
fact that extraverts are able to better regulate their affective states.
This means that in ambiguous situations (situations where positive and
negative moods are introduced and mixed in similar proportions)
extraverts show a slower decrease of positive affect, and, as a result,
they maintained a more positive affect balance than introverts.
Extraverts may also choose activities that facilitate happiness (e.g.,
recalling pleasant vs. unpleasant memories) more than introverts when
anticipating difficult tasks.
The set-point model a.k.a. affect-level model
According
to the set-point model, levels of positive and negative affects are
more or less fixed within each individual, hence, after a positive or
negative event, people's moods tend to go back to the pre-set level.
According to the set-point model, extraverts experience more happiness
because their pre-set level of positive affect is set higher than the
pre-set point of positive affect in introverts, therefore extraverts
require less positive reinforcement in order to feel happy.
Pleasure-arousal relation
A study by Peter Kuppens (2008)
showed that extraverts and introverts engage in different behaviors
when feeling pleasant, which may explain underestimation of the
frequency and intensity of happiness exhibited by introverts.
Specifically, Kuppens (2008) found that arousal and pleasantness are positively correlated
for extraverts, which means that pleasant feelings are more likely to
be accompanied by high arousal for extraverts. On the other hand,
arousal and pleasantness are negatively correlated
for introverts, resulting in introverts exhibiting low arousal when
feeling pleasant. In other words, if everything is going well in an
extravert's life, which is a source of pleasant feelings, extraverts see
such a situation as an opportunity to engage in active behavior and
goal pursuit, which brings about an active, aroused pleasant state. When
everything is going well for introverts, they see it as an opportunity
to let down their guard, resulting in them feeling relaxed and content.
Complications to the extraversion-happiness correlation
Though
extraversion has consistently been shown to have a strong correlation
with happiness and well-being, these findings are complicated by the
presence of other personality traits that act as strong indicators of
happiness.
Neuroticism and extraversion
In
multiple studies, neuroticism has been shown to have an equal, if not
larger, impact on happiness and subjective well-being than extraversion.
One study classified school children into four categories based on
their scores in assessments of extraversion and emotional stability
(neuroticism).
The results showed no significant difference between the happiness
levels of stable introverts and stable extraverts, while unstable
extraverts and introverts both demonstrated significantly less happiness
than their counterparts. In this study, neuroticism appeared to be the
more salient factor for overall well-being.
Likewise, in later studies, researchers used assessment scales to
test for categories such as self-esteem and life-goal orientation,
which they had positively correlated with happiness. Participants'
responses to these scales suggested that neuroticism actually had a
larger impact than extraversion in measures of well-being.
Other Big 5 factors and extraversion
Though
extraversion and neuroticism seem to have the largest effect on
personal happiness, other Big 5 personality factors have also been shown
to correlate with happiness and subjective well-being. For example, one
study showed that conscientiousness and agreeableness correlated about
0.20 with subjective well-being.
While the effect of these traits was not as strong as extraversion or
neuroticism, it is clear that they still have some impact on happiness
outcomes.
Similarly, interactions between extraversion, neuroticism, and
conscientiousness have demonstrated significant impacts on
subjective-well being. In one study, researchers used three scales to
assess subjective well-being. They found that extraversion only served
as a predictor for one assessment, in conjunction with neuroticism,
while the other two assessment outcomes were better predicted by
conscientiousness and neuroticism.
In addition to the importance of including other factors in happiness
assessments, this study also demonstrates the manner in which an
operational definition of well-being changes whether extraversion
emerges as a salient predictive factor.
Other contributing personality factors
There
is also evidence that other non-trait elements of personality may
correlate with happiness. For instance, one study demonstrated that
various features of one's goals, such as progress towards important
goals or conflicts between them, can affect both emotional and cognitive
well-being.
Several other researchers have also suggested that, at least in more
individualistic cultures, having a coherent sense of one's personality
(and acting in a way that conforms to that self-concept) is positively
related to well-being.
Thus, focusing solely on extraversion—or even extraversion and
neuroticism—is likely to provide an incomplete picture of the
relationship between happiness and personality.
Culture
In
addition, one's culture may also influence happiness and overall
subjective well-being. The overall level of happiness fluctuates from
culture to culture, as does preferred expression of happiness. Comparing
various international surveys across countries reveals that different
nations, and different ethnic groups within nations, exhibit differences
in average life satisfaction.
For example, one researcher found that between 1958 and 1987,
Japanese life satisfaction fluctuated around 6 on a 10-point scale,
while Denmark's fluctuated around 8.
Comparing ethnic groups within the United States, another study found
that European Americans reported being "significantly happier" with
their lives than Asian Americans.
Researchers have hypothesized a number of factors that could be
responsible for these differences between countries, including national
differences in overall income levels, self-serving biases and
self-enhancement, and approach and avoidance orientations.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while
extraversion-introversion does have a strong correlation with happiness,
it does not stand alone as a sole predictor of subjective well-being,
and that other factors must be accounted for when trying to determine
the correlates of happiness.
