Model Of Extraversion Research Articles

The Extravert Advantage

Extraverts are better than introverts at building rapport, but it remains unknown what they do behaviorally to better connect with other individuals. We hypothesized that extraverts mimic more than introverts as a way to build rapport; however, we predicted that this social skillfulness of extraverts emerges only when they are motivated to affiliate. In Study 1, we found that extraversion predicted increased mimicry when an affiliation goal was present, but not when an affiliation goal was absent. In Study 2, we found that mimicry mediates the relationship between extraversion and rapport, but only when an affiliation goal is present. Our findings are the first to identify a behavior that extraverts engage in that helps them build rapport. Furthermore, our studies show that this skillfulness of extraverts emerges only when they are motivated to affiliate, providing evidence in favor of the reward-sensitivity-as-core model of extraversion over the sociability-as-core model of extraversion.

The structure of extraversion in preschool aged children

Theorists have hypothesized that the construct of extraversion is comprised of several factors, including positive mood, reward seeking/sensitivity, and sociability. The structure of extraversion was examined in a sample of preschool aged children who participated in both home and laboratory observations. A model of extraversion that included these three factors fit the data well. Analyses suggested that each of the facets examined are highly related to extraversion and none stands out as the core of the construct.

Relationship between speed of information-processing and two major personality dimensions — Extraversion and neuroticism

Recent studies show increasing evidence of interdependence of personality traits and mental speed. Probably the most useful theoretical framework for an explanation of these phenomena is offered by the theory of Eysenck [Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas] of extraversion and neuroticism and by the model of extraversion, proposed by Brebner and Cooper [Brebner, J. (1985). Personality theory and movement. In B. D. Kirkcaldy (Ed.), Individual differences in movement (pp. 27–41). Lancaster: MTP Press.]. The aim of the present study was to test several hypotheses, deduced from the above mentioned theories. Predictions concerned the relationship of several mental speed parameters (e.g. speed and accuracy, variability of performance, decision- and movement-speed) to extraversion, neuroticism and their components. Measures of mental speed included the Hick-Jensen reaction time paradigm, Sternberg's STM scan paradigm, ZVT trail-making test and d2 concentration-endurance test. Extraversion and its components were assessed by means of the 16 Personality Factors questionnaire and the Big Five Questionnaire. In some cases extraversion correlated with speed, but we found no evidence confirming the existence of speed-accuracy trade-off among extraverts and introverts; the correlation between extraversion and mental speed probably depends on the “arousability” of the testing conditions. In some cases extraversion correlated with variability of performance. These results are more conforming to the arousal theory of Eysenck [Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: psychometric and experimental approaches. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 3–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press than to Brebner and Cooper's model of extraversion. Neuroticism correlated negatively with the speed of response; some departures from linearity were also found. No significant correlation with error rate was found. Neuroticism also correlated with variability, whereby the direction of correlation probably depends on measurement conditions.

A model of extraversion

A model of extraversion is presented which attempts to allow for the amalgamation of Eysenck's views on extraversion with neo-Pavlovian theories which continue to develop Pavlovs conception of temperament. Experimental tests of the new model are outlined. It is concluded that, despite the problems involved in attempting to unify the several theories in their fullest forms, it is worth continuing with the model.