Extraversion and introversion

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

Behavioral and psychological characteristics distinguishing introversion and extraversion, which are generally conceived as lying along a continuum

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 1950s, British psychologist Hans Eysenck theorized that the trait of introversion-extraversion could be explained in terms of Clark Hull's drive theory of motivation. He later developed his own arousal theory to explain individual differences in the trait, suggesting that the brains of extraverts were chronically under-aroused, leading them to seek out stimulation from the environment. The trait of introversion-extraversion would become one of three central traits in Eysenck's PEN theory of personality.

Varieties

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

Extraversion

Extraversion 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 a personality trait distinct from shyness and social anxiety disorder.

Introversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from one's own mental life. 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, or meditating. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating external environment. 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.

Quiet: The Power of Introverts... author Susan Cain defines introversion and extraversion in terms of preferences for different levels of stimulation—distinguishing it from shyness (fear of social judgment and humiliation).

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, author of the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, 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 Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Seuss, W. B. Yeats, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Page.

Ambiversion

Most contemporary trait theories measure levels of extraversion-introversion as part of a single, continuous dimension of personality, with some scores near one end, and others near the halfway mark. Ambiversion is falling more or less in the middle.

Relative prevalence

Research indicates that the prevalence of extraversion is greater for people at progressively higher management levels.

Quiet author Susan Cain reported studies indicating that 33 to 50% of the American population are introverts. Particular demographics have higher prevalence, with a 6,000-subject MBTI-based survey indicating that 60% of attorneys, and 90% of intellectual property attorneys, are introverts.

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 self-reporting

Lexical measures use individual adjectives that reflect extravert and introvert traits, such as outgoing, talkative, reserved and quiet. Words representing introversion are reverse-coded to create composite measures of extraversion-introversion running on a continuum. Goldberg (1992) 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 to be suboptimal with samples outside of North America. As a result, a systematically revised measure was developed to have better 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 a Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.92, that for non-native English-speakers is α of 0.85.

Statement self-reporting

Statement measures tend to contain more words, and hence consume more research instrument space, than lexical measures. Respondents are asked the extent to which they, for example, "Talk to a lot of different people at parties or Often feel uncomfortable around others". 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 for use outside America. For instance, statements like "Keep in the background" and "Know how to captivate people" are sometimes hard for non-native English-speakers to understand, except in a literal sense.

Eysenck's theory

Hans Eysenck described extraversion-introversion as the degree to which a person is outgoing and interactive with other people. These behavioral differences are presumed to be the result of underlying differences in brain physiology. Eysenck associated 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 raise their naturally low arousal level, whereas introverts tend to avoid social situations in an effort to avoid raising their naturally high arousal level too far. Eysenck designated extraversion as one of three major traits in his P-E-N model of personality, which also includes psychoticism and neuroticism.

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

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

Twin studies indicate 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 ARAS, 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 indicate that introversion-extraversion is related to individual differences in brain function. A study on regional brain volume found a positive correlation between introversion and grey matter volume in the right prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction, as well as a positive correlation between introversion and total white matter volume. Task-related functional neuroimaging has shown that extraversion is associated with increased activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus, prefrontal cortex, middle temporal gyrus, and the amygdala.

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

Behavior

Various differences in behavioral characteristics are attributed to extraverts and introverts. 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 behaviors. 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 behavior, and it is dependent upon the individuals' motivation and ability to control that behavior. 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 behaviors 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 behaviors 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 behavior based on their environmental situations.

Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counter dispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's free trait theory 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 behaviors across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as mentioned above.

Implications

Researchers have found a correlation between extraversion and self-reported happiness. That is, more extraverted people tend to report higher levels of happiness than introverts. 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.

Extraverts report experiencing more positive emotions, whereas introverts tend to be closer to neutral. This may be because extraversion is socially preferable in contemporary Western culture and thus introversion feels less desirable. In addition to the research on happiness, other studies have found that extraverts tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than introverts. 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." Though more recent, large-scale meta-analyses have found that the activity facet of extraversion has the most sizable positive relations with cognitive abilities. 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 more likely to be exposed to communicable diseases, such as airborne infections, as they tend to have more contact with people. When individuals are more vulnerable to infection, the cost of being social will be relatively greater. Therefore, people tend to be less extraversive when they feel vulnerable and vice versa.

Regional variation

Some claim that Americans live in an "extraverted society" that rewards extravert behavior and rejects introversion. This is because the U.S. is a culture of external personality, whereas in some other cultures people are valued for their "inner selves and their moral rectitude". Other cultures, such as those in China, India, Japan, and regions where Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, 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. Despite this, extraverts are still seen as prototypical leaders in traditionally introverted cultures.

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 U.S. are Maryland, New Hampshire, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Vermont. People who live in the northwestern states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are also relatively introverted.

A study comparing regions in the United States found that mountainous terrain was associated with lower extraversion. That study also asked people to choose whether they preferred mountains or the beach. People who chose mountains were more extraverted on average than people who chose the beach.

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.^{[citation needed]}

Social reactivity theory

The social reactivity theory alleges that all humans, whether they like it or not, are required to participate in social situations. Since extraverts prefer engaging in social interactions more than introverts, they also derive more positive affect from such situations than introverts do. 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 aka affect-level model

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

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^{[clarification needed]} 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.

See also

• Psychology portal

• Analytical psychology
• Big Five personality traits
• Reinforcement sensitivity theory
• Trait theory
• Personality test

References

1. Jung CG (1923). Psychologische Typen. Translated by Baynes HG. Zürich, Leipzig, Stuttgart: Rascher & Verlag, A.G.
2. Barnett G (August 2, 2016). "Is it extraversion or extroversion?". The Predictive Index. Retrieved February 21, 2018.
3. Thompson ER (2008). "Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers". Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (6): 542–8. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013.
4. Jung C (1995). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London: Fontana Press. pp. 414–5. ISBN 978-0-00-654027-4.
5. Jones RA (September 2011). "Storytelling scholars and the mythic child: Rhetorical aesthetics in two case studies". Culture & Psychology. 17 (3): 339–358. doi:10.1177/1354067X11408135. ISSN 1354-067X. S2CID 145571722.
6. Jung CG (1910). "The Association Method". The American Journal of Psychology. 21 (2): 219–269. doi:10.2307/1413002. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-002B-AD55-2. ISSN 0002-9556. JSTOR 1413002.
7. Jung CG (1921). C.G. Jung - Psychologische Typen.
8. Jung CG (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-09770-1 – via Internet Archive.
9. Revelle, W. & Oehlberg, K. (2008). Integrating experimental and observational personality research – the contributions of Hans Eysenck. Journal of Personality, 76, 1387-1414.
10. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
11. McDougall, W. (1923/1932). The Energies of Men: A Study of the Fundamentals of Dynamic Psychology, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, p. 184.
12. Merriam Webster Dictionary.
13. "Extraversion or Introversion". The Myers & Briggs Foundation. Archived from the original on April 5, 2017. Retrieved April 6, 2015.
14. Peterson AL (April 11, 2019). "Introversion, Shyness & Social Anxiety: What's the Difference?". Mental Health at Home. Archived from the original on August 1, 2022. See also: ● Brown A (March 13, 2022). "Social Anxiety? Introvert? Or Shy?". Mind Journal. Archived from the original on August 1, 2022.
15. Cain S (2012). Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking (1st ed.). New York, NY: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-307-35214-9.
    • Szalavitz M (January 27, 2012). "'Mind Reading': Q&A with Susan Cain on the Power of Introverts". Time Healthland. Archived from the original on March 2, 2012.
    • Cook G (January 24, 2012). "The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brillianc". Scientific American. Archived from the original on February 19, 2012.
16. "Introversion". Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence. Gale Research. 1998. Archived from the original on January 29, 2009.
17. Laney MO (2002). The introvert advantage: how to thrive in an extrovert world. New York: Workman Pub. ISBN 978-0-7611-2369-9.
18. Szalavitz M (January 27, 2012). "Mind Reading: Q&A with Susan Cain on the Power of Introverts". Time Healthland. Archived from the original on March 2, 2012.
19. Whitten M (August 21, 2001). "All About Shyness". Psych Central. Archived from the original on September 12, 2016. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
20. Glor J (January 26, 2012). "'Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking,' by Susan Cain". CBS News. Archived from the original on July 12, 2023. (Glor's interview of Susan Cain)
21. Nair D (September 12, 2012). "Book Review: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain". Seattle Post-Intelligencer (SeattlePI.com). Archived from the original on July 12, 2023.
22. Cain S (January 24, 2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. Crown. ISBN 9780307452207. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
23. Heffner CL (March 23, 2004) [August 21, 2002]. "Chapter 4: Trait Theory: The OCEAN of Personality". Personality Synopsis. AllPsych Online. Archived from the original on July 7, 2011.
24. Cohen D, Schmidt JP (October 1979). "Ambiversion: characteristics of midrange responders on the Introversion-Extraversion continuum". Journal of Personality Assessment. 43 (5): 514–516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4305_14. PMID 16367029.
25. Ones DS, Dilchert S (2009). "How Special Are Executives? HowSpecial Should Executive Selection Be?Observations and Recommendations". Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01127.x. Fig. 2.
26. Cain, Susan (2012), Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking at page 3 (Introduction) and page 280 (note 11). • Goudreau J (January 26, 2012). "The Secret Power Of Introverts". Forbes. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012.
27. Gordon LA (January 1, 2016). "Most lawyers are introverted, and that's not necessarily a bad thing". ABA Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2016.
28. Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, et al. (2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures". Journal of Research in Personality. 40 (1): 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007. S2CID 13274640.
29. Goldberg LR (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure". Psychological Assessment. 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26. S2CID 144709415.
30. Saucier G (December 1994). "Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers". Journal of Personality Assessment. 63 (3): 506–516. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8. PMID 7844738.
31. Piedmont RL, Chae JH (1997). "Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Development and Validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 28 (2): 131–155. doi:10.1177/0022022197282001. S2CID 145053137.
32. Eysenck HJ (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas Publishing.^{[page needed]}
33. Bullock WA, Gilliland K (January 1993). "Eysenck's arousal theory of introversion-extraversion: a converging measures investigation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (1): 113–123. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.113. PMID 8421248.
34. Laura P (November 1965). "The Eysenck Personality Inventory by H. J. Eysenck; S. G. B. Eysenck". British Journal of Educational Studies. 14 (1): 140. doi:10.2307/3119050. JSTOR 3119050.
35. Tellegen A, Lykken DT, Bouchard TJ, Wilcox KJ, Segal NL, Rich S (June 1988). "Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54 (6): 1031–1039. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.318.4777. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1031. PMID 3397862.
36. Larsen RJ (2014). Personality psychology : domains of knowledge about human nature. David M. Buss. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-07-803535-7. OCLC 816153864.
37. "Lemon juice experiment". BBC. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
38. Depue RA, Collins PF (June 1999). "Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion". The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 22 (3): 491–517, discussion 518–69. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99002046. PMID 11301519. S2CID 8217084.
39. Johnson DL, Wiebe JS, Gold SM, Andreasen NC, Hichwa RD, Watkins GL, et al. (February 1999). "Cerebral blood flow and personality: a positron emission tomography study". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 156 (2): 252–257. doi:10.1176/ajp.156.2.252. PMID 9989562. S2CID 43261841.
40. Forsman, L. J., de Manzano, Ö., Karabanov, A., Madison, G., & Ullén, F. (2012). Differences in regional brain volume related to the extraversion–introversion dimension—a voxel based morphometry study. Neuroscience research, 72(1), 59–67.
41. Lei X, Yang T, Wu T (December 2015). "Functional neuroimaging of extraversion-introversion". Neuroscience Bulletin. 31 (6): 663–675. doi:10.1007/s12264-015-1565-1. PMC 5563732. PMID 26552800.
42. Shiner R, Caspi A (January 2003). "Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 44 (1): 2–32. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00101. PMID 12553411.
43. Sharma RS (1980). "Clothing behavior, personality, and values: A correlational study". Psychological Studies. 25 (2): 137–42.
44. Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD (June 2003). "The do re mi's of everyday life: the structure and personality correlates of music preferences". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (6): 1236–1256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1236. PMID 12793587. S2CID 16489081.
45. Gosling S (2008). Snoop. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02781-1. ^{[page needed]}
46. Fleeson W, Gallagher P (December 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 (6): 1097–1114. doi:10.1037/a0016786. PMC 2791901. PMID 19968421.
47. Lippa R (1978). "Expressive control, expressive consistency, and the correspondence between expressive behavior and personality". Journal of Personality. 46 (3): 438–461. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb01011.x.
48. Little BR (1996). "Free traits, personal projects and idio-tapes: Three tiers for personality research". Psychological Inquiry. 8 (4): 340–344. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0704_6.
49. Little BR (2008). "Personal Projects and Free Traits: Personality and Motivation Reconsidered". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2 (3): 1235–1254. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00106.x.
50. Myers DG (July 1992). "The Secrets of Happiness". Psychology Today.
51. Pavot W, Diener E, Fujita F (1990). "Extraversion and happiness". Personality and Individual Differences. 11 (12): 1299–306. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90157-M.
52. Fleeson W, Malanos AB, Achille NM (December 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 (6): 1409–1422. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.317.9301. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1409. PMID 12500821.
53. Swickert R, Hittner JB, Kitos N, Cox-Fuenzalida LE (2004). "Direct or indirect, that is the question: A re-evaluation of extraversion's influence on self-esteem". Personality and Individual Differences. 36 (1): 207–17. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00080-1.
54. Cheng H, Furnham A (2003). "Personality, self-esteem, and demographic predictions of happiness and depression". Personality and Individual Differences. 34 (6): 921–42. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00078-8.
55. Rushton P, Chrisjohn R (1981). "Extraversion, neurotiscism, psychoticism and self-reported delinquency: evidence from eight separate samples". Personality and Individual Differences. 2 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(81)90047-7.
56. Ryckman R (2004). Theories of Personality. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.^{[page needed]}
57. Newman JP, Widom CS, Nathan S (May 1985). "Passive avoidance in syndromes of disinhibition: psychopathy and extraversion". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48 (5): 1316–1327. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1316. PMID 3998992.
58. Ghaderi D, Borjali A, Bahrami H, Sohrabi F (2011). "Survey of the relationship between five factor model and psychopathic personality in a sample of male prisoners in Iran" (PDF). Annals of Biological Research. 2 (6): 116–122.
59. Furnham A, Forde L, Cotter T (1998). "Personality and intelligence". Personality and Individual Differences. 24 (2): 187–92. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00169-4.
60. Gallagher SA (1990). "Personality patterns of the gifted". Understanding Our Gifted. 3 (1): 11–13.
61. Hoehn L, Birely M (1988). "Mental process preferences of gifted children". Illinois Council for the Gifted Journal. 7: 28–31.
62. Stanek KC, Ones DS (June 2023). "Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 120 (23): e2212794120. Bibcode:2023PNAS..12012794S. doi:10.1073/pnas.2212794120. PMC 10266031. PMID 37252971.
63. Eysenck HJ (1971). Readings in Extraversion-Introversion. New York: Wiley.^{[page needed]}
64. Schaller M (December 2011). "The behavioural immune system and the psychology of human sociality". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 366 (1583): 3418–3426. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0029. PMC 3189350. PMID 22042918.
65. Diamond SA (November 7, 2008). "The Therapeutic Power of Sleep". Psychology Today. Retrieved February 4, 2012.
66. "Quiet, Please: Unleashing 'The Power Of Introverts'". NPR. January 30, 2012. Retrieved February 4, 2012.
67. Cain S. "The Power of Introverts". TED. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
68. Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ, Kruglanski AW, Kim-Prieto C, Diener E, Pierro A, et al. (November 2010). "On "feeling right" in cultural contexts: how person-culture match affects self-esteem and subjective well-being". Psychological Science. 21 (11): 1563–1569. doi:10.1177/0956797610384742. PMID 20876880. S2CID 30924754.
69. Lim Leung S, Bozionelos N (2004). "Five-factor model traits and the prototypical image of the effective leader in the Confucian culture". Employee Relations. 26 (1): 62–71. doi:10.1108/01425450410506904.
70. Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD, Potter J (September 2008). "A Theory of the Emergence, Persistence, and Expression of Geographic Variation in Psychological Characteristics". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 3 (5): 339–369. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00084.x. PMID 26158954. S2CID 17059908.
    • Simon S (September 23, 2008). "The United States of Mind". The Wall Street Journal.
71. Oishi S, Talhelm T, Lee M (October 1, 2015). "Personality and geography: Introverts prefer mountains". Journal of Research in Personality. 58: 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.07.001. ISSN 0092-6566.
72. McCrae RR, Costa PT (1991). "Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The Full Five-Factor Model and Well-Being". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (2): 227–32. doi:10.1177/014616729101700217. S2CID 47803208.
73. Furnham A, Brewin CR (1990). "Personality and happiness". Personality and Individual Differences. 11 (10): 1093–6. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90138-H.
74. Smillie LD, DeYoung CG, Hall PJ (October 2015). "Clarifying the Relation Between Extraversion and Positive Affect". Journal of Personality. 83 (5): 564–574. doi:10.1111/jopy.12138. PMID 25234441.
75. Yik MS, Russell JA (2001). "Predicting the Big Two of affect from the Big Five of personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 35 (3): 247–277. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2322.
76. Smillie LD, Geaney JT, Wilt J, Cooper AJ, Revelle W (2013). "Aspects of extraversion are unrelated to pleasant affective-reactivity: Further examination of the affective-reactivity hypothesis". Journal of Research in Personality. 47 (5): 580–587. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.008.
77. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999). "Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress". Psychological Bulletin. 125 (2): 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.
78. Argyle M, Lu L (1990). "The happiness of extraverts". Personality and Individual Differences. 11 (10): 1011–7. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90128-E.
79. Hills P, Argyle M (2001). "Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness". Personality and Individual Differences. 31 (8): 1357–64. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00229-4.
80. Emmons RA, Diener E (1986). "Influence of impulsivity and sociability on subjective well-being". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (6): 1211–5. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1211.
81. Diener E, Sandvik E, Pavot W, Fujita F (1992). "Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. National probability sample". Journal of Research in Personality. 26 (3): 205–215. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90039-7.
82. Costa PT, McCrae RR (June 1986). "Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 1. Development and validation of survey measures". Psychology and Aging. 1 (2): 140–143. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.140. PMID 3267390.
83. Vittersø, 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(1), 89-118.
84. Larsen RJ, Ketelaar T (July 1991). "Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (1): 132–140. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.132. PMID 1890584. S2CID 12665279.
85. Zelenski JM, Larsen RJ (October 1999). "Susceptibility to affect: a comparison of three personality taxonomies". Journal of Personality. 67 (5): 761–791. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00072. PMID 10540757.
86. Watson D (2000). Mood and Temperament. New York, NY: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-526-6.^{[page needed]}
87. Lucas RE, Le K, Dyrenforth PS (June 2008). "Explaining the extraversion/positive affect relation: sociability cannot account for extraverts' greater happiness". Journal of Personality. 76 (3): 385–414. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00490.x. PMID 18399958.
88. Eysenck HJ (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.^{[page needed]}
89. Campbell A, Converse P, Rodgers W (1976). The quality of American life. New York, NY: Sage. ISBN 9780871541949.^{[page needed]}
90. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck MW (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York, NY: Plenum Press. ISBN 9780306418440.^{[page needed]}
91. Snyder M (1981). "On the influence of individuals on situations". In Cantor N, Kihlstrom J (eds.). Personality, cognition and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 309–29.
92. Diener E, Larsen RJ, Emmons RA (September 1984). "Person x situation interactions: choice of situations and congruence response models". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47 (3): 580–592. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.580. PMID 6491870.
93. Srivastava S, Angelo KM, Vallereux SR (2008). "Extraversion and positive affect: A day reconstruction study of person–environment transactions". Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (6): 1613–8. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.002.
94. Ashton MC, Lee K, Paunonen SV (July 2002). "What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83 (1): 245–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245. PMID 12088129.
95. Tellegen A (1985). "Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report". In Tuma AH, Maser JD (eds.). Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 681–706.
96. Gray JA (1994). "Personality dimensions and emotion systems". In Ekman P, Davidson R (eds.). The nature of emotions: Fundamental questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 329–31.
97. Carver CS, Sutton SK, Scheier MF (2000). "Action, Emotion, and Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integration". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (6): 741–51. doi:10.1177/0146167200268008. S2CID 144235545.
98. Rusting CL, Larsen RJ (1995). "Moods as sources of stimulation: Relationships between personality and desired mood states". Personality and Individual Differences. 18 (3): 321–329. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00157-N.
99. Gable SL, Reis HT, Elliot AJ (June 2000). "Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (6): 1135–1149. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.712.8730. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1135. PMID 10870914.
100. Little BR (2000). "Free traits and personal contexts: Expending a social ecological model of well-being". In Welsh WB, Craik KH, Price RH (eds.). Person-environment Psychology: New Directions and Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp. 87–116. ISBN 978-0-8058-2470-4.
101. Lischetzke T, Eid M (August 2006). "Why extraverts are happier than introverts: the role of mood regulation". Journal of Personality. 74 (4): 1127–1161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00405.x. PMID 16787431.
102. Tamir M (April 2009). "Differential preferences for happiness: extraversion and trait-consistent emotion regulation". Journal of Personality. 77 (2): 447–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00554.x. PMID 19220724.
103. Kuppens P (2008). "Individual differences in the relationship between pleasure and arousal". Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (4): 1053–9. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.007.
104. Young R, Bradley M (2008). "Social withdrawal: self-efficacy, happiness, and popularity in introverted and extraverted adolescents". Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 14 (1): 21–35. doi:10.1177/082957359801400103. S2CID 143483585.
105. Hills P, Argyle M (2001). "Happiness, introversion-extraversion and happy introverts". Personality and Individual Differences. 30 (4): 595–608. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00058-1.
106. Hills P, Argyle M (2001). "Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness". Personality and Individual Differences. 31 (8): 1357–1364. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00229-4.
107. DeNeve KM, Cooper H (September 1998). "The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being". Psychological Bulletin. 124 (2): 197–229. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197. PMID 9747186. S2CID 13614077.
108. Hayes N, Joseph S (2003). "Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being". Personality and Individual Differences. 34 (4): 723–727. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00057-0.
109. Emmons RA (1986). "Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51 (5): 1058–68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1058.
110. Cantor N, Sanderson CA (1999). "Life task participation and well-being: the importance of taking part in daily life" (PDF). Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology: 230–243.
111. Higgins ET, Grant H, Shah J (1999). Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds.). "Self regulation and quality of life: emotional and non-emotional life experiences". Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology: 244–266.
112. Scheier MF, Carver CS (1993). "On the power of positive thinking: the benefits of being optimistic". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2 (1): 26–30. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572. S2CID 145393172.
113. Veenhoven R (1993). Happiness in Nations: Subjective Appreciation of Life in 56 Nations 1946–1992 (PDF). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University.
114. Oishi S (2000). Culture and memory for emotional experiences: on-line vs. retrospective judgments of subjective well-being (Ph.D. thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
115. Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE (2003). "Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life". Annual Review of Psychology. 54: 403–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056. PMID 12172000.

Further reading

• Cain S (February 6, 2012). "Secrets of a super successful introvert". CNN Living.
• Cain S. "The power of introverts". TED talks. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012. talk by Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking (January 2012), talks about reasons we should celebrate and encourage introversion
• Helgoe L (September 1, 2010). "Revenge of the Introvert". Psychology Today.
• Jones D (September 3, 2011). "Not all successful CEOs are extroverts". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 3, 2011.
• Jung CG. "General description of the types". Classics in the History of Psychology. Translated by Baynes HG. Toronto, Ontario: York University.
• Kaufman SB (June 9, 2014). "Will the Real Introverts Please Stand Up". Scientific American. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014.
• Kaufman SB (September 29, 2014). "What Kind of Introvert Are You?". Scientific American. Archived from the original on October 8, 2014.
• Rauch J (March 2003). "Caring for Your Introvert". The Atlantic.

External links