Individual differences in Social Behaviour Extraversion Definition and
Individual differences in Social Behaviour Extraversion
Definition and Measurement • Talkative, assertive and bold • Roots from • Tyrtamus of lesbos- Theophratus – known for his speaking ability • Talker • Chatty • Boastful • Garrulous (laf ebesi) • Hippocrates and Galen described the term • Then Wundt and Jung
Definition and Measurement • The measurement • Eysenck described the core features MPQ, Eysenck Personality Inventory, The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, The Eysenck Personality Profile. • Current taxonomies: BIG FIVE • HEXACO • IPIP ( International Personality Item Pool) • Adaptation conducted by Somer, Korkmaz & Tartar (2002) in Turkey
It is important to study because…. • Fundamental dimensions of personality • Predicts effective functioning and well being across many domains from cognitive performance to socioeconomic status • Predict risk for some forms of psychopathology
Theoretical Approaches • Hans Eysenck • Human personality have a biological basis • Acqusition and extinction of behavior was influenced by extraversion • Cortical excitability -uyarılma • Introverts have higher moodiness than extraverts thus would condition more efficiently. • Arousal theory: Introverts have lower threshold for arousal in ARAS (ascending reticular activating system– feedback loop connecting the cortex to the reticular activating system) than extraverts. Two testable hypotheses: • Extraverts perform better than introverts in highly arousing situations. • Because they are less prone to overarousability • Introverts outperform extraverts in low arousing situations because they are less prone to underarousability • For an elegant test of this hypothesis see Anderson ( 1990
Theoretical Approaches • Wundt • People try to maintain moderate arousal • Extraverts on average respond faster than introverts ( in order to increase their arousal) during performance tasks. • Extraverts seek arousal • Use of stimulant drugs • Sexual activities • Social interaction
Theoretical Approaches • Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ( Jeffrey Gray) • Based on animal research 1 -The behavioural approach system (BAS) trait impulsivity Sensitivity of the BAS was thought to underlie trait impulsivity 2 -The behavioural inhibition system (BIS) trait anxiety Sensitivity to BIS was thought to underlie trait anxiety Impulsivity- Anxiety 3 -The fight- flight system • RST makes prediction about performance but the evidence is based on animal research so harder to generalize to human research. However, predictions regarding learning and affect are made • Because extraverts are more sensitive to reward than introverts extraverts should condition faster to rewarding stimuli and experience more positive affect than introverts.
Theoretical Approaches • The Eyseck- Gray Debate • Eysenck’s Conditioning and arousal theories • Eysenck’s early theories of conditioning has not received support Eysenck’s Arousal theory received moderate support • Introverts are aroused more than extraverts ( Revelle et al. , 1980) • Gray’ s theory received support • Extraverts experience more positive affect than introverts • This finding is one of the most robust in all personality psychology (Lucas et al. , 2000). • Extraverts condition faster to rewarding stimuli
Theoretical Approaches Contemporary Approaches • Evolution and genetics • Personality dimensions evolved to deal with domain specific tasks in the social environment. «Getting along» or «Getting ahead» . Universality- all humans develop behavioral approach and avoidance systems. The former is associated with extracersion • Criticisms aroused • How come between person variation exist under selective pressure? • If a characteristic is determined from multiple genes it will take long time to minimize variations in these constructs. • Many adaptations along the same dimension can be equally benefical • High levels of extraversion may lead to more mating behaviour and succeed socially but they more likely to die from risky behaviour • Psychological theories based on evolution can not be tested by examining and finding support for hypothesis of IPIP extraversion. • Extraversion is moderately heritable • Heritability for extraversion declines with age – evidence showing that environment becomes a more important source for extraversion
Extravertion and brain function • Neurobiological basis of extraversion? • Relationship between dopamine levels and extraversion • Extraversion and activation in the lateral parietal cortex, right anterior cingulate cortex. These areas of brain are associated with task focused and self focused self control. Right anterior cingulate cortex is also associated with excitement seeking and warmth. • Extraversion is positively correlated with gray matter in the left amygdala. Reductions in gray matter predict depression.
Temperament • Extraversion has a strong biological component • Trait extraversion should appear early in development • A temperament dimension of extraversion – positive affect could be identified in infants in early months – 3 months- in middle childhood and even in adulthood. • Derryberry and Reed (1994) adult extraversion and positive affect predicted difficulty in shifting attention away from positive stimuli but not from negative stimuli. • Extraversion is related to attentional biases toward positive stimuli and approach behaviour.
How do extraverts feel? • Extraverts feel higher levels of positive affect than introverts • Trait extraversion predicts trait positive affect • r=. 40 • Extraversion also predicts social activity, leadership and number of friends. • Affect reactivity model • Extraverts and introverts may feel the same levels of positive affect at the baseline but they react more strongly to positive stimuli than introverts. • Extraverts should be happier than introverts in negative, neutral situations • Instrumental explanations • The relationship between extraversion and positive affect is based
How do extraverts feel? • Sociability theory: Instrumental explanations for the extraversion and positive affect link • Extraverts are happier than introverts because they engage in more social activities • Extraverts indeed participate more social activities and social activities mediated the link between extraversion and happiness. ( Arhyle & Lu, 1990) • Pavot, Diener and Fujita ( 1990) contradicts sociability theory. • Extraverts and introverts spend the same amount of time in social situations and introverts experience the same amount of happiness. • Diener, Sandvik, Pavot and Fujita (1992) found that extraverts are happier than introverts across a variety of both social and non-social situations.
How do extraverts feel? • Recent studies showed that state extraversion predicted state happiness • Participants felt more positive affect in experiments in which they were instructed to act extraverted ( Mc. Niel & Fleeson, 2006).
How do extraverts behave? • Extraverts behave more socially and they create a more positive social environment – they influence behaviour, affect and interpersonal judgement of those whom they interacted (Eaton & Funder, 2003). • They have certain abilities that lack in introverts • They are better in decoding non verbal cues than introverts. ( Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001).
How do extraverts think? • Extraverts judge neutral events more positively than introverts ( Uziel, 2006). They predict categorization of words by their positive affective quality rather than their semantic quality. For instance: • More likely to think hug and smile as similar than smile and face.
What do extraverts want? • Little research • Extraversion is associated with high motivation for social contact, power and status ( Olson& Weber, 2004), personal strivings for intimacy ( Emmons, 1995) and interdepence. Wishes for higher levels of positive affect and interpersonal contact. • Having more hedonistic, economic, political goals ( Roberts & Robins, 2000).
Extraversion and Psychopathology • Low extraversion predicted anxiety and depression. • Extraversion and personality disorders? • Conduct disorders • Affective disorders and substance use
Agreeableness • Individual difference variable that is defined as • • Likeable Pleasant Harmonious in relationship with others From ancient times the value of agreeableness is commented ( e. g. , Aristotle) Although the importance given to this construct changes across cultures, all cultures describe the construct Agreeableness is conceptualized as moderators in most of research
Agreeableness • Agreeable people are popular • They project positivity on to others • Make excuses for others’ shortcomings • Agreeable people expect their partners to be • Pleasant and thoughtful • In line with reciprocity theory
Agreeableness People with low in agreeableness were less influenced by persuasive communications regardless of the quality of the argument Strong arguments are more influential for people low in agreeableness
Measuring Agreeableness • Mostly measured by self report • IPIP Goldberg et al. , (2006) • NEO (Costa & Mc. Crae, 1988) • Observation by knowledgeable informants such as spouses and supervisors and teachers • Teachers rate girls as more agreeable than boys. In self report measures from the same children little evidence is found. • Agreeableness is correlated more higly with psychological feminity than masculunity. • Agreeableness is negatively correlated with neuroticism -. 20 to. 30 • Agreeableness may even be manipulated experimentally as an IV.
Measuring Agreeableness • Ahadi & Rothbart (1994) offered a developmental hypothesis • Effortful control is a part of common developmental system underlying two personality characteristics – AGREEABLENESS AND CONSIENTIOUSNESS • Ability to initiate and inhibit action voluntarily • Ability to suppress a dominant behavior or even an opposing dominant response • Both are related with self regulation
Measuring Agreeableness • Effortful control is a part of a common developmental system underlying two major personality dimensions (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994) • Agreeableness • Conscientiousness • Effortful control is the ability to suppress a dominant response. Is associated with self regulation.
Agreeableness and Interpersonal Behaviour • Positively related adaptive social behaviour • Conflict resolution • Low agreeable people see destructive tactics as acceptable than people high in agreeableness • Diary study conducted with middle school children. Agreeableness as moderator. Agreeable students engaged in more constructive conflict resolution tactics in interaction. • Cooperation • Agreeableness is negatively related to competition • School age children high in agreeableness tend to change competitive situations into cooperative situations
Agreeableness and Interpersonal Behaviour • Helping behaviour • Agreeable people tend to help outgroup members – students from different universities • Emotional responsiveness
Agreeableness and Interpersonal Behaviour • Individuals high in agreeableness reported less negative reactions to stigmatized groups (i. e. , homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics) • Studies conducted by Graziano et al.
Agreeableness and Emotional Processes • Empathy and agreeableness are related • Agreeable people feel more empathic concern and they help more • Agreeableness is related to frustration control • Due to their motivation to maintain good relationships with others people high in agreeableness are probably more willing to or better able to regulate the inevitable frustration that come from interacting with others. • Agreeableness is related to activation of the right lateral prefrontal cortex following exposure to negative stimuli • Individuals high in agreeableness automatically engage in emotion regulation processes when exposed to negative stimuli
Agreeableness and Emotional Processes • Individuals high in agreeable experience stronger emotional reactions to evocative stimuli. • Children high in agreeableness showed less negative affect when receiving an undesirable gift (Cole, 1986).
Agreeableness and Motivational Processes • Individuals high in agreeable experience stronger emotional reactions to evocative stimuli. • Children high in agreeableness showed less negative affect when receiving an undesirable gift (Cole, 1986).
- Slides: 30