Discussion
The findings proved the contention that introverts and extraverts significantly differed in their meaning, nature, sources and mechanisms of happiness. The introverts reported endurance, serenity and sense to be important for happiness whereas newness, meaningfulness and propinquity were relevant in the meaning of happiness of the extraverts. These conceptualizations of happiness may be linked with the basic features of introverts and extraverts. For example, introverts are shy, imaginative and solitude whereas extraverts are talkative, sociable and cheerful (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Costa & Mccrae, 1998; Hills & Argyle, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1987). It has also been argued that these personality traits significantly shape the cognitive and affective structuring of people (Costa & Mccrae, 1998; Hills & Argyle, 2001).
It was observed that introverts showed meaningfulness and endurance as important ingredients of happiness while extraverts reported transient and exciting attributes relevant for happiness. Introverts are more rational and imaginative and confined to smaller relationships as compared to the extraverts (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Hills & Argyle, 2001). This might be the possible reasons behind dissimilar inclinations towards happiness. The two groups also differed in the predisposition of their nature of happiness. The introverts reported happiness to be originating from within and accomplished things whereas extraverts referred to external and given sources for their happiness. Their different orientations to receive happiness and satisfaction may be argued to be originating from their different preference for arousability, liking and neurological makeup (Fishman et al., 2011). Most importantly, introverts showed their interest in personal sources of happiness whereas extraverts recognized the importance of interpersonal sources for their happiness. In earlier studies, it has been argued that introverts and extraverts exhibit their sensitivity to different social stimulations and reward sensitivity (Ashton et al., 2002; Fishman et al., 2011). The happiness of the two groups also reflected dissimilar temporal attributes. This may be due to their dissimilar emotionality and temperaments (Schmidt, 2016). The findings explicitly suggest that both introverts and extraverts experience happiness but their happiness is guided by dissimilar conceptualizations, sources and mechanisms.
There is a lack of studies in this line of research. We could find only a single study that can be said to be a bit close to the arguments of the present study and support our findings to some extent. It was Hills and Argyle (2001) who argued that introverts and extraverts are similar in their preference for solitude, relations with friends and participating in reflective activities. Both introverts and extraverts experience happiness but they may differ in their meanings, sources and mechanisms of happiness. It has been argued that the relationship of a particular personality trait with the happiness may be mediated by some social skills and interpersonal interactions styles, social conditions and environmental attributes, verbal and non-verbal cues of extraverts and introverts. Some cultural values associated with happiness may also be important (Kirkpatrick, 2015). For example, children in India who were social, active and less shy were happier. Besides, personality differences in happiness may be associated with social affiliation, partying and clubbing, mental control, instrumental goal pursuit, passive leisure, active leisure, religion, and direct attempts (Kirkpatrick, 2015). In short, the findings of the present study prove the contention that introverts and extraverts differ in their conceptualizations, processes, sources and mechanisms of happiness not as reported by earlier studies which were exclusively based on the quantitative measurements of objective happiness through happiness questionnaires in.
Small sample, use of only student sample and use of only qualitative method were some of the limitations of the study. These findings may be generalized with cautions as they are based on only a small student sample drawn from the Indian population. These findings provide initial clues to understand personality differences in happiness in a novel way. It necessitates further exploration of the relationship between personality and happiness in cross-cultural settings. The study may represent a unique contribution to the field of personality and happiness with significant theoretical and practical implications. The future researchers may consider age, gender, socio-cultural and socialization differences while studying the relationship between personality and happiness. Besides, conceptualizing personality in terms of a dynamic system that combines stable and dynamic aspects of personality, traits and states levels of analysis and regulatory mechanisms, dynamic interactions between the elements and temporal dimensions may be more insightful (Sosnowska et al., 2020). Future researchers may contribute to this field by understanding the dynamics of personality differences in other areas of human performance and functioning adopting qualitative or mixed methods. Practitioners may develop unique invention plans for enhancing positive life outcomes keeping the findings of this study in their minds. Future researchers may find these findings useful while planning to devise new measures of happiness.
References
Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a Function of Personality and Social Encounters. In J. P. Forgas, & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent Advances in Social Psychology: An International Perspective (pp. 189-247). Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322(7294), 1115-1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Bennett, E., & Furnham, A. (2007). The happy personality: Mediational role of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8), 1633-1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.029
Cloninger, S. C. (2013). Theories of personality: Understanding persons (6th ed). Pearson Education.
Corr, P. J. (2008). The reinforcement sensitivity theory. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (First, pp. 347-376). Cambridge University Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668-678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668
Costa, P. T., & Mccrae, R. R. (1998). Trait Theories of Personality. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced Personality (pp. 103–121). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8580-4_5
Creswell, J. W. (2004). Designing A Mixed Methods Study In Primary Care. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.104
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). SAGE Publications.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
Eysenck, H. J., & Kelly, B. N. (1983). I do: Your guide to a happy marriage. J. Wiley & Sons Canada.
Fishman, I., Ng, R., & Bellugi, U. (2011). Do extraverts process social stimuli differently from introverts? Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2010.527434
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole Trait Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009
Furnham, A. (1981). Personality and activity preference. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1981.tb00474.x
Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(8), 815-823. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.815
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Happiness, introversion-extraversion and happy introverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 595-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00058-1
Kirkpatrick, B. L. (2015). Personality and Happiness. Undergraduate Honors Theses, 28.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
Lu, L., Shih, J. B., Lin, Y. Y., & Ju, L. S. (1997). Personal and environmental correlates of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(3), 453-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)80011-6
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Schmidt, S. J. (2016). Personality Diversity: Extrovert and Introvert Temperaments. Journal of Food Science Education, 15(3), 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12091
Senf, K., & Liau, A. K. (2013). The Effects of Positive Interventions on Happiness and Depressive Symptoms, with an Examination of Personality as a Moderator. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 591-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9344-4
Sosnowska, J., Kuppens, P., De Fruyt, F., & Hofmans, J. (2020). New Directions in the Conceptualization and Assessment of Personality-A Dynamic Systems Approach. European Journal of Personality, per.2233. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2233
Tiwari, T., Singh, A., & Singh, I. (2009). The short-form revised Eysenck personality questionnaire: A Hindi edition (EPQRS-H). Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 18(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.57854