Cite as: Tiwari, G. K., Pandey, R., Sharma, D. N., Parihar, P., Pandey, R., Raj, R., Mudgal, S., Singh, A., Vishwakarma, S., & Singh, A. K. (2020).
Dissimilar mechanisms underlie perceived happiness of the introverts and extraverts: A Thematic Analysis [Preprint]. Preprints.
https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159793442.28371663 Introduction
Happiness refers to satisfaction with life coupled with a higher frequency of positive affect with a relatively low occurrence of negative affect over a period (Furnham & Petrides, 2003). Three major sources of happiness have been suggested: life circumstances and demographic, traits and dispositions and intentional behaviours (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Out of these, personality denotes an important source of happiness. Personality refers to a coherent patterning of affect, behaviour, cognition and desires over time and space which has been reported to be associated significantly with individual differences in affective level and environmental responsivity (Corr, 2008). The traits of extraversion and introversion nurture different cognitive and affective behaviours that, in turn, create differences in the experiences of positive and negative emotions of individuals (Cloninger, 2013; Costa & McCrae, 1980). Extraversion and neuroticism have been popular personality traits that have been reported to be stable over time and observable across different cultures (Lu et al., 1997). Individuals with high extraversion are talkative, dominant, and gregarious while the opposite is true about an individual with low on this personality trait (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Cloninger (2013) has suggested that personality traits have high predictive validity on many life outcomes including emotional experience. Besides, extraverts have been suggested to be inclined to experience more positive emotions, happiness and lower level of depression than those who score lower on this measure (Cloninger, 2013; Senf & Liau, 2013).
In their meta-analysis, DeNeve and Cooper (1998) have concluded that emotional stability, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness predispose individuals to experience the happiness of a particular level. Some researchers have argued that extraversion appears to mediate happiness through assertiveness social behaviours rather than any inherent bias towards happiness (Argyle et al., 1989; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Emotional stability and extraversion are linked with temperamental differences in positive and negative affect that are rooted in the biological basis of happiness (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007). It has been posited that different personality traits predispose individuals to choose the situations that fulfil specific personality trait needs (Furnham, 1981). In essence, different personality traits have been reported to be linked closely with varying degree of happiness. It led to conclude the researchers that happiness is a thing called stable extraversion (Eysenck & Kelly, 1983). Thus, the majority of these studies have reported extraversion to be closely linked with happiness than introversion.
If people with two personality traits carry dissimilar inclination, then it may be argued that they may be different in their conceptualizations of happiness as personality traits have been suggested to shape cognitions, environmental orientation and affective attributes (Corr, 2008). This conclusion seems empirically wrong. Is it possible that all extraverts are happier than introverts? We argue that the question raised by the previous researchers studying the personality differences in happiness was itself wrong. The real research question should have been as “What are the basic differences in the meaning, nature and sources of happiness of introverts and extraverts?”
Hills and Argyle (2001) have suggested that extraversion and introversion personality traits may be differently linked with happiness due to the differences in their sociability and social relationships but there are certain tendencies such as empathy and affiliation which are common to both and they are linked with happiness. These researchers also argued that both introverts and extraverts exhibited a similar preference for privacy, social relations and reflective activities which are essential ingredients of experiencing happiness. Besides, they also suggested that introverts and extraverts may differ in their mechanisms mediating their nature and extent of happiness and the relationship between introversion and extraversion personality traits need a fresh look to understand the nature and mechanisms of happiness of introverts and extraverts (Hills & Argyle, 2001).
In essence, these findings act as a reasonable ground to speculate that the differences in the happiness of introverts and extraverts reported in the previous studies may be due to the overlooking the differences in the conceptualization of nature, sources, processes and mechanisms of happiness in introverts and extraverts. It may be argued that dissimilar nature, mechanisms and sources of happiness along with contrasting emotional, cognitive, interpersonal and social goals of introverts and extraverts may underlie their experiences of dissimilar happiness. We argue that the happiness of introverts and extraverts are guided by their dissimilar meanings and sources of happiness. Dynamic systems theory has suggested combining state and trait dimensions by reflecting upon the study of short-term and live experiences of individuals that may be an essential source of deeper understanding personality processes and outcomes (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Sosnowska et al., 2020). Accordingly, we chose a thematic analysis, a form of qualitative research design, to explore the real causes behind differences in the happiness of introverts and extraverts based on their momentary and live experiences. A qualitative method has been suggested to be useful where the nature and attributes of the construct/s are not explicit or there is no guiding framework (Creswell, 2004). In this background, the study aimed to explore the meaning, nature and sources of happiness of introverts and extraverts.
Methods and procedure
Research Design
A qualitative research design was used to come up with a deeper understanding of the various aspects of happiness of the introverts and extraverts. The study used a constructivist approach which refers to a dialogical exchange between the interviewers and interviewees to the experiences and meanings held by them (Levitt et al., 2017, 2018).
Participants
The extreme scorers were screened from a pool of 225 participants who were initially administered Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Tiwari et al., 2009) to identify introverts and extraverts (n = 49, Age Range = 18 to 25 years, Mean Age = 21.76, SD = 2.16). Out of these, 22 were introverts (Mean Age = 21.57, SD = 2.62) and the rest 27 were extraverts (Mean Age = 21.93, SD = 1.70). The participants were students who were pursuing their undergraduate and postgraduate programmes from the various departments [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] who belonged predominantly to the lower middle class of the various Indian states. More details of their biographic attributes are given in Table 1.