RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT
Academic Year: 2012/2013
Title: The relationship between Happiness, Impulsivity and Sociability.
Author: Ronan Hegarty
Supervisor: Dr Maarten Milders
‘I, Ronan Hegarty, confirm that this B.Sc. Research Project is my
own and is
expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of
other authors
in any form (e.g., ideas, equations, figures, text, tables, programs)
are properly
1
School of Life Sciences
BSc in Applied Psychology
acknowledged at the point of their use. A full list of references cited
is included.
The Relationship between
Happiness, Impulsivity and
Sociability.
By Ronan Hegarty (Supervised by Maarten Milders)
Word Count- 7,354
2
CONTENTS
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
1. Abstract……………………………………………………………………….
5
2. Introduction..............................................................................6
3. Methods..................................................................................17
3.1 Participants.......................................................................17
3.2 Measures..........................................................................17
3.3 Procedure....................................................................................................19
3.4 Plan of Analysis..........................................................................................19
3
4. Results....................................................................................20
5. Discussion..............................................................................24
6. Conclusion..............................................................................32
7. References.............................................................................34
8. Appendices.............................................................................43
List of Tables
Description page number
1. Correlations between Happiness, Impulsivity and
Extraversion 20
2. Collinerarity Statictics; Tolerance and VIF 21
3. Variance in Happiness impacted by Extraversion and
Impulsivity 22
4. Correlation Coefficients: Impact on Happiness 23
List of Figures
4
1. Correlation scatter plot with line of best fit between happiness
and extraversion.
21
2. P-Plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent variable: Happiness) 22
1. Abstract
There is a wealth of studies which have shown extraversion to be
positively correlated with happiness. Argyle (1987) and Vallereux
(2005), for example, clearly found in their research that extraverts
with strong social ties reported greater levels of happiness
compared to introverts. Although this correlation is widely accepted
in psychology the nature behind it is not yet fully understood. In an
attempt to better understand why extraversion is positively
correlated with happiness this study broke extraversion down into
5
key components to discover which of these were making a greater
contribution to the relationship between extraversion and
happiness.
After reviewing previous research, some of which was conducted by
Eysenck (1980), Revelle and Rocklin (1981), Godoy et al (2007) and
Becchetti (2007), two key components of extraversion were selected
to analyse which were impulsivity and sociability. The study utilised
online questionnaires to gather the data. The results showed
extraversion had a strong positive correlation with happiness as
hypothesized. Only a negative trend was observed between
impulsivity and happiness which was surprising as it was believed
impulsivity would have had a more significant effect on happiness
scores. This research concludes that sociability has a much greater
contribution to happiness than impulsivity. More research should be
carried out to explore this issue further and see if these results are
replicated.
2. Introduction
6
This study aims to investigate whether happiness is correlated with impulsivity and
sociability. The reason why this research is beneficial to society is because although
much independent research has been carried out on happiness, impulsivity and
sociability there have been few studies linking these personality traits directly
together. The relationship between extraversion and happiness has been heavily
tested. However, breaking down extraversion into key components such as sociability
and impulsivity and examining their relationship to happiness is an under researched
area of psychology that arguably needs to be addressed. This research will hope to
yield important insights into how impulsivity and sociability are linked to happiness.
Theoretical Background
It is important to note that this study accepts the theory that extraversion has a strong
correlation with happiness. This is because prior studies have consistently found
evidence of a strong relationship between extraversion and happiness. For example
Argyle (1987) reported that young individuals, who are happy, have stronger
relationships in their social networking and family relationships, than unhappy people.
Likewise Vallereux (2005) reported that young individuals who are more extraverted
are more headed for positive life events and well-being. Additional research carried
out by Costa and McCrae found evidence of a positive relationship between
extraversion and happiness. A study conducted by Watson and Clark (1997)
discovered that feelings of sociability were correlated with admissions of happiness.
All of these studies and many more clearly show that there is a significant relationship
between happiness and extraversion, which, that after much research, has been proven
to be valid and reliable.
7
This relationship is not fully understood, however some theories to explain the
relationship between happiness and extraversion have emerged in an attempt to
explain this links. Lucas and Diener (2001) ,argued that extraverts may be more
sensitive to rewarding social situations than introverts and this is manifested as greater
feelings of happiness perceived by extraverts. Gray (1972) also came to this
conclusion, he stated that the reason the correlation between extraversion and
happiness exists is because extraverts magnify rewards, and introverts magnify
punishment. This has been disputed by Ballenger (1983). What is not in dispute is that
extroverts possess greater social skills than introverts. Thorne (1987) is one of many
studies that have found that extraverts emitted more positive non-verbal signals than
introverts. Additionally, Pavot, Diener and Fujita (1990) suggested that extraverts and
introverts both enjoy social situations; however extraverts select more social
situations resulting in greater happiness. Vallereux (2005) tested both these
hypotheses with a repeated measure of happiness on multiple reconstructed episodes.
The results clearly showed support for the situation seeking hypothesis with no
significant support for reward sensitivity. It seems clear that extraversion is a driving
force that needs to be investigated to better understand why social situations are
making extroverts happier than introverts.
A crucial piece of theoretical background to the current study, is the theory that
extraversion is made up of various psychological components. Eysneck was one of the
first to try to describe the core features of extraversion and developed scales to assess
personality. These include the Maudsley Personality Questionnaire, MPQ, (Eysenck,
1959), the Eysenck Personality Inventory, EPI, (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968), the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, EPQ, (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), and the
Eysenck Personality Profiler, EPP, (Eysenck & Wilson, 1991). Eysenck came to the
8
conclusion that extraversion consists of various psychological traits such as being
sociable, impulsive, excitable, optimistic, active, responsive, lively, carefree, having
leadership qualities and being changeable. Guilford (1975) put particular emphasis on
sociability and impulsiveness as key dimensions of extraversion.
Eysenck’s theories have been supported in studies carried out by Campbell (2004), in
an experiment testing introversion and extraversion in a library setting. Eysenck’s
theory on extraversion has also been biologically supported by brain scans showing
that extraverts require more mental stimulation than introverts and this is possibly
why they seek out more new experiences. Rocklin and Revelle (1981) have confirmed
Eysenck’s methodology as reliable and valid and it is important to note that Eysenck
has taken a great deal of time, effort and made modifications to his theory which has
made it widely accepted and very reliable.
It is important to note that extraversion is not the only personality trait correlated with
happiness. Past research indicates that there is a relationship between other
personality traits and happiness, DeNeve and Cooper (1998) performed a meta-
analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well being. They reported that
repressive-defensiveness, emotional stability, locus of control, hardiness, positive
affectivity, self-esteem and leisure are strongly correlated to happiness. In addition
Furnham and Cheng (1997) found personality traits such as stability and
conscientiousness to be significantly related to happiness. All these studies combined
arguably show that happiness is correlated with various personality traits.
9
Previous Research
Happiness is a broad term and there are numerous definitions. Tatarkiewicz (1976)
defines happiness as a sense of overall satisfaction with one’s whole life. Other
definitions of happiness characterize it as a crucial motivator for humans and a
positive internal experience (Lu et al., 2001). Perhaps one of more complete
definitions of happiness is the one by Argyle (1987) who reported happiness to be a
multidimensional entity consisting of emotional and cognitive parts.
There has been much research on what causes happiness and there is even a relatively
new area of psychology known as positive psychology devoted to this area. Positive
psychology is concerned with variables which promote well-being, such as social
relations (Campbell, et al., 1976; Kraut & Johnston, 1979) and marriage (Diener,
Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000; Stutzer & Frey 2006). The primary reason why we
experience feelings of happiness in the first place according to Gray (1972) is because
happiness is is an amplified biological signal to encourage behaviours that are
beneficial to the organism. This has been supported by McPhillamy and Lewinsohn
(1976) who reported the most common activities that increased happiness in general
were ,eating ,sex, exercise, success and socialising. These behaviours are important
for evolutionary success and are thus encouraged by the brain viva the emotion of joy.
In their paper ‘the psychological causes of happiness’ Argyle and Martin (1991)
highlight the issue of measuring happiness. When people are asked what they
perceive as happiness they often give two kinds of answer. They tend to either
describe it as being in a state of joy or as a state of satisfaction. It is key to note
this ,because the first is an emotion and the second is cognition, the result of
reflection. Based on this information Argyle and Martin (1991) suggested that
10
happiness may have three partly independent components. The first is the frequency
and degree of positive affect, or joy. The second is the average level of satisfaction
over a period and the third is the absence of negative feelings, such as depression.
Life satisfaction, the cognitive component of well-being, may involve comparing
one’s own life to other’s (Argyle & Martin, 1991). This theory argues that people
compare what they have with what others have and base their satisfaction on this
comparison. Based on this theory, there would not be absolute elements necessary to
make one happy, but rather satisfaction would depend on appraising what one has as
being better than what someone else has. Another theory on well-being suggests it is
not one’s comparison to others that determines happiness, but their comparison to
their ideal (Argyle & Martin, 1991). A person compares what they have to what they
would like to have in an ideal world. Both theories however have limited
applicability (e.g., they would not be applicable to feeling pain).
One particular personality trait and its relation to happiness that this paper will be
focusing on is impulsivity. Impulsivity has had many definitions due to it being a
multidimensional construct involved in various personality traits. These are arguably
the most relevant definitions due to the fact that they have been supported by
empirical experiments which will also be discussed below. Matthys et al (1998) define
Impulsivity as ‘the perseverance of a response that is punished or unrewarded’.
Ainslie’s (1975) definition varies somewhat, he defines impulsivity as ‘preference for
a small immediate reward over a larger delayed reward’. Finally Dougherty et al
(1999) defines impulsivity as ‘A series of response disinhibition/attentional
paradigms, in which impulsivity is defined either as making responses that are
premature or as the inability to withhold a response’.
11
With regards to impulsivity it has been linked to being one of the main psychological
components of extraversion according to Eysenck (1980) who in his extraversion
scale added questions based on impulsivity to get a better sense of extraversion.
Revelle and Rocklin (1981) also came to the same conclusion in their paper.
Impulsivity has also been linked as a central component of uncontrolled stimulation
seeking and psychopathic behaviour (Zuckerman, 1994). Murray (1938) arguably
gives an overall encompassing definition of Impulsivity which is ‘A tendency to
respond quickly and without reflection and does not always consider the future
consequences of his conduct”.
Bachorowski and Newman (1985) revealed the nature of impulsivity in an experiment
involving change of response rates. Participants were instructed to regularly change
the speed in which to draw a figure. People with high impulsivity often had an
inability to change the speed of response when told to draw a figure as slowly as
possible. This study revealed that Murrays (1938) definition was too simplistic
because the findings suggest that impulsivity is an inability to inhibit responding
rather than just a fast rate of responding.
Analyses of the many separate scales of impulsivity by (Revelle (1995) indicate that it
is a multidimensional construct. This comes from an examination of the multivariate
structure of a pooled set of 378 items taken from the existing impulsivity scales and
measures. From this large set of items, 15 oblique first order factors and three broad
and correlated second order factors were identified. From the 12 first order factors of
self-report(impulsive, energetic, quick decision making, thrill seeking, avoiding
planning, impulsive purchases, unreflective, avoids complexity, distractible, restless,
12
impatient, and happy go lucky). Three second level factors of spontaneous, not
persistent, and carefree were formed.
Impulsivity has had a varied life in its identification. Rocklin and Revelle (1981) note
that impulsivity has been identified in various personality spaces. For example Costa
and McCrae (1992) considered it a facet of emotionality. Digman (1994) expanded on
this idea and came to the conclusion that impulsivity was a facet of non-
conscientiousness. Not only does impulsivity significantly affect personality and
behaviour, it also has been identified as a central feature in arousal based theories of
cognitive performance (Anderson &Revelle, 1994; Humphreys and Revelle, 1984).
Research in molecular biology by Schalling and Åsberg (1985) and Zuckerman
(1991) have found that impulsivity has a strong biological basis with specific genes
related to higher levels of impulsivity.
With regards to why extraverts seek out more social interaction in the first place, the
conclusion from Eysencks theory of Biological Basis of Personality (1967) is that
introverts are chronically more aroused than are extraverts. This, with the assumption
that there is an optimal level of stimulation, leads to the prediction that extraverted
behaviour represents a greater stimulus hunger on the part of the less aroused
extraverts. In a reanalysis of a previous result that had shown extraverts prefer to
study in noisier conditions than introverts, Campbell (1983) found that this effect was
due to impulsivity rather than to sociability. If Campbell’s (1983) conclusion is
correct then this essentially means that impulsivity is a driving force behind why
extraverts seek out more social interaction than introverts and is worth exploring in
more depth. Arguably, this is because impulsive people are more sensitive to cues for
rewards than to punishments. This then leads impulsive people to be more likely to
13
engage in behaviours that put them in highly arousing situations and thus increases
happiness.
Campbell’s (1983) evidence could be interpreted as impulsivity having a positive
effect on happiness but previous research has actually shown that people who score
very highly on impulsive scales tend to not be happy. This was shown in a study
discussing personality traits. Costa and McCrae (1980) reported fearfulness,
hostility, and impulsivity to be related to lower degrees of happiness while extravert
personality traits such as sociability and activity were related to higher degrees of
happiness. In extreme cases people who score high on impulsivity scores can be
mentally unstable i.e. people who score very highly are often in prison or a psychiatric
hospital. This is arguably because they do not consider consequences, resulting in
damaging behaviour. High Impulsivity scores have also been linked to attempted
suicide. Corruble (2005) et al found higher clinical impulsivity scores among patients
who had attempted suicide compared to those who had not.
However there is evidence to counter this claim. Dear (2010) in a study involving
prisoners set out to discover a correlation between dysfunctional impulsivity and suicidal
ideation. Data was collected from prisoners (half of whom had recently attempted
suicide). Results indicate that a direct association between impulsivity and suicidal ideation
is unlikely. It is important to note that the personality trait impulsivity is not always
necessarily negative and in general most people will not score excessively high to the point
where they are a danger to themselves and others. Mild impulsivity will inevitably lead
people to be less constrained by fears and other psychological barriers that may have
prevented them to trying new things, meet new people resulting in more excitement
and higher levels of happiness (Revelle 1995).
14
The final personality trait of key interest in this study is sociability. The reason why
we are interested in this personality trait is because previous literature strongly
supports the view that sociability is a major key to happiness. Campbell et al (1976)
studied what is important for life satisfaction and found that one of the most important
factors that predicated happiness was , sociability (i.e., family, marriage, and
friendships). Social relations’ role in well-being may be caused by the positive
activities associated with them such as eating, talking, and playing games. This
supports the theory that it is the social interaction with others that is linked to greater
well-being. Argyle’s (1988) explanation of why sociability is closely associated with
happiness is because it is a source of bonding and positive effect.
There are various studies that support Campbell et al (1976) findings. An example of
a positive effect gained from socialising would be smiling. In a study carried out by
Godoy et al (2007) results showed the more time a person spends in social leisure, the
more likely the person will smile. Genuine Smiling is generally regarded as the universal
symbol of happiness. Kraut and Johnston (1979) found that players at a bowling alley smiled
at each other a lot but not at the skittles. This suggests that smiling is a directed social signal
rather than just a pleasure response. The reason why smiling increases happiness, is because it
is a form of giving and receiving positive feedback from others (Laird 1984).
Another reason why sociability has been linked to greater well-being is because it is generally
regarded as being a major predictor of ones love life. Becchetti (2007) et al argue that
individual satisfaction (and also productivity in economic life)
depends so much on the success/failure of love relationships and on
the capacity of developing a good social life. Studies examining love
relationships and happiness have found that people with low
sociability find it hard to find partners and feel feelings of isolation
15
and rejection which can be damaging to one’s happiness and health
(Seligman 2002). This has been supported by Diener, et al., (2000) and
Dush & Amato (2005) who found that happiness is significantly higher for those who
are married than those are single. They also claim that this effect is similar in different
nations around the world. All of these studies, examining sociability suggest a higher
level of sociability will result in a higher level happiness. Not only can more social
interactions make a person happier in general, but also make it more likely that they
will find a romantic partner which will, in turn lead to even greater levels of happiness
In conclusion, it is clear that impulsivity and sociability are important dimensions of
extraversion and extraversion has been proven to be directly correlated to happiness.
Although there is substantial research on happiness, impulsivity and sociability
individually, it has very rarely been the primary focus of a study to correlate these
variables. It is also important to note that in relation to impulsivity many studies are
arguably done on the extreme end looking at patients who are mentally ill and
prisoners. Many of these participants may score high on impulsivity but are often
depressed due to other factors such as their environment. This study will help us
understand the relationship between happiness and these two key dimensions of
extraversion, to discover which dimension has a more prevalent effect on happiness.
Current Study
This study aims to investigate if happiness is correlated with impulsivity and
sociability. The reason this relationship is worth exploring is because there is a wealth
of evidence that suggests there is a correlation between extraversion and happiness.
Exploring this relationship in depth by breaking down key components of
extraversion will yield a greater insight into happiness and enhance knowledge about
16
this relationship. To date there is no conclusive reason why previous research has
often found a significant correlation between extraversion and happiness. This
research will attempt to provide some answers to this question and validate previous
research that has been conducted examining impulsivity and sociability.
Our hypothesis is that a higher sociability score will be positively correlated with a
high happiness score. This is arguably because the more sociable you are, the more
friends you will have, leading to more mental interaction/stimulation and self-
worth ,creating more feelings of being happy. People with a higher sociability score
will be more likely to be involved in a romantic relationship which also increases
happiness according to the evidence discussed above. We expect to yield similar
findings to past research which has consistently found a strong correlation between
sociability and happiness.
In relation to the personality trait, impulsivity, there have been many studies carried
out on mental health patients and prisoners, providing strong evidence that high levels
of impulsivity can be damaging to happiness and lead to suicide. On the other hand a
small amount of impulsivity allows one to try new things and not be constrained by
others resulting in greater levels of happiness Based on this research discussed in the
introduction our hypotheses is that high levels of impulsivity will be negatively
correlated to happiness. However it is important to note that there is a lack of research
with impulsivity being linked to happiness among mentally healthy people which
needs to be explored in more detail an area which this study is trying to address.
In summary, the question we are trying to address is which one of these two key
factors of extraversion (impulsivity and sociability) has a stronger influence over
happiness? We also hope to validate the claim that extraversion itself is correlated
17
with happiness. The results generated from this research will also to attempt to answer
an aspect of the very complex question which is “Why is there a significant
correlation often found between happiness and extraversion?”. Examining the key
component sociability and the often overlooked impulsivity will yield a fresh insight
into the relationship between happiness and extraversion.
3. Methods
3.1 Participants- All participants were selected from Scotland and live in
Edinburgh. A total of 45 participants took part, 39 participants were female and
6 were male. The vast majority of participants were primarily students aged 18-
22 with a mean age of 19. There were some slightly older participants taking
part in the study. All participants were educated since they were all Heriot Watt
University students. Participants came from varying socio-economic
backgrounds.
All participants gathered were Herriot Watt University psychology students. We
used the STREP system provided by the university to advertise our study online
so that people were aware of the study and filled out the questionnaire online
viva this system. Since this is a correlational study we collected as many
participants as possible.
3.2 Measures- This study used three measures. The first is the Oxford happiness
scale which was used to obtain a participants level of happiness. The Oxford
Happiness Inventory (Argyle, et all., 1989) is a 29 item multiple choice
instrument. For each question the participant is given 6 options to answer from
which range from strongly agree with this statement to strongly disagree. The
18
reason we utilized this scale to measure happiness was because it has been
confirmed to be an extremely valid and reliable measure of happiness. This is
due to the fact that it has been found to behave consistently cross-culturally to
compare students in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA (Francis, Brown,
Lester, & Philipchalk, 1998). Vallereux (2005) tested the oxford happiness scale
and came to the same conclusion as Argyle that it was valid and reliable
Likewise Liaghatdar et all (2008) found the scale to be highly reliable and were
able to replicate results found by Argyle and Vallereux.
The second measure the study employed was the Barratt impulsivity scale. This
scale is a 30 item-self report instrument designed to assess the personality
behavioural construct of impulsiveness. For each question there are 4 options to
answer the question ranging from rarely/never to almost/always. We decided to
use this scale because it is arguably the most commonly administered self-report
measure for the assessment of impulsiveness in research settings. During the
past decade, multiple translations of the BIS-11 have been published in Spanish,
German, French, Italian, Japanese and Korean. Stanford et all (2009) found the
scale to be a reliable and valid measurement. The scale is also supported by
neuroimaging studies carried out by Baca-García et al (2005) that found Barrat
impulsivity scale scores to correlate with prefrontal integrity and function, as
well as to central serotoninergic function.
The last measure we utilized was the Eysencks Extraversion Scale (1959) (EPI)
which measures extraversion as a reasonable mix of impulsivity and sociability
(Revelle 1981) . This scale contains 57 items where the answers to a statement
range from completely agree to completely disagree. We decided to measure
19
sociability with this scale because it also served the benefit of further analysing
impulsivity which would enrich the data. The reason why we did not use newer
models of the extraversion scale is because they do not have the same equal
balance of sociability and impulsivity according to Revelles (1981) comparison
of EPI and EPQ scales. This scale has also been shown to be highly efficient
and be reliable and valid according to Heffernan et all (2000). It has been
widely used in psychology especially in the first ten years after its publication.
The EPI scale was at one point the operational definition of Extraversion and
was the basis for a great deal of genetic, physiological, and cognitive research.
3.3 Procedure- Participants were asked to fill out 3 questionnaires which were the
Barrats impulsivity scale, the Oxford happiness scale and the Eysenck
extraversion scale. The Participants then proceeded to fill out these 3
questionnaires. Participants were told beforehand if any questions made them
feel uncomfortable to make this clear and if they wanted to stop at any time they
were allowed to do this. After the study was completed participants had the
opportunity to know the underlying nature of the study if they wished.
Participants who are interested and express this will be sent an email explaining
the purpose of the study. Our procedure was consistent with the ethical
standards set by the British Psychological Society.
3.4 Plan of Analysis- This is a quantitative study using correlational research.
Correlational research attempts to determine whether and to what degree a
relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables. However, it
never establishes a cause-effect relationship. The study aimed at exploring a
relationship between three variables. The study analyzed the correlation
20
between impulsivity and happiness and the correlation between sociability and
happiness. The test used to analyze the relationship between the three variables
was a standard multiple regression correlational test on an SPSS system. The
reason for this is because it had the capability to produce multiple correlations
necessary for the study and was the most appropriate test.
4. Results
To explore the relationship between the three variables a standard multiple regression
test was utilized. It is important to note that we are measuring sociability viva the
extraversion scale, this will be explained further in the discussion.
Table 1. Correlations between Happiness, Impulsivity and
Extraversion
Happiness Impulsivity ExtraversionHappiness Pearson Correlation 1 -.236 .591**
Sig.(1-tailed) .119 .000N 45 45 45
Impulsivity Pearson Correlation -.236 1 .236Sig.(1-tailed) .119 .118
N 45 45 45
Extraversion Pearson Correlation .591** .236 1Sig.(1-tailed) .000 .118
N 45 45 45
Correlations
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
A strong positive correlation was observed between extraversion and happiness
(0.591) which was also significant p<0.000, as shown in Table 1 above. No
significant correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness. The strong
21
positive correlation between extraversion and happiness (0.591) which was also
significant p<0.000 is clearly demonstrated in scatter plot shown in Figure 1 below.
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
5 10 15 20 25 30
Happ
iness
Extraversion
Figure 1. Correlation scatter plot with line of best fit between Happiness and
Extraversion.
There are two values given in the collinerarity statistics, Tolerance and VIF.
Tolerance is an indicator of how much of the variability of the specified independent
variable is not explained by the other independent variables. If this value is very small
( less than .10) it indicates that the multiple correlation with the other variables is
high. This suggests a possibility of multicollinearity (tolerance value of less than .10,
or a VIF value of above ten).
Table 2. Collinerarity statistics: Tolerance and VIF
Model (Constant)
Tolerance VIF
Impulsivity .994 1.059Extraversion .994 1.059
22
Table 2 shows that the tolerance value for each independent variable is .944 which is
not less than 1. Therefore we have not violated the multicollinearity assumption. This
is also supported by the VIF value, which is 1.059, this is well below the cut-off of 10.
Figure 2. P-Plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent variable:
Happiness).
A Normal Probability Plot of the regression standardized residual as shown in Figure
2 above suggests that there were no major deviations from normality. The straight
diagonal line from bottom left to top right show that there is no major outliers
corrupting the data.
Table 3. Variance in Happiness impacted by Extraversion and Impulsivity.
R Square Change
F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .591a .349 .334 .58771 .349 23.055 1 43 .0002 .706b .498 .474 .52216 .149 12.475 1 42 .001
Model Summary Change Statistics
Model R R SquareAdjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the
Estimate
a. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion
23
b. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion, Impulsivity
In Table 3 above, the R square illustrates how much of the variance in the dependent
variable is explained by the model. The first row shows how much extraversion
explains the variance in happiness which is .349. This can be interpreted as 34.9%.
What is interesting is that although impulsivity by itself has been shown to not
correlate with happiness when added a as a predictor with extraversion impulsivity
increases the R squared significantly to 49.8%.
Table 4. Correlation Coefficients: Impact on Happiness
ModelStandardized Coeffi cients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.(Constant) 5.256 .743 7.078 .000Impulsivity -.018 .011 -.236 -1.590 .119
(Constant) 4.366 .567 7.702 .000Impulsivity -.030 .009 -.397 -3.532 .001
Extraversion .107 .018 .685 6.086 .000
Unstandardized Coeffi cients
1
2
Table 4 shows how each of the variables included in the model contributed to the
prediction of the dependent variable which is happiness. We are interested in
comparing the contribution of each independent variable therefore we will be
analyzing the beta values. Extraversion had a strong positive correlation coefficient
with a beta coefficient score of .685 which was also significant P<0.000. This score
indicates that in general a higher extraversion score will result in a higher happiness
score. Impulsivity had a negative correlation coefficient with a beta coefficient score
of-.397 and was also significant P<0.001. This score indicates that as the impulsivity
score rises then the happiness score decreases. These results are important because
they clearly show that extraversion had the strongest unique contribution to happiness
24
while showing that impulsivity also had a significant contribution to happiness when
entered with extraversion. . It is important to note however that this relationship only
occurs when extraversion has already been entered as predictor. This is because in
table 1 no significant correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness.
5. Discussion
The results partly supported our hypotheses. Our first hypothesis was that we
expected to observe a positive significant correlation between sociability and
happiness. A strong positive correlation was observed between sociability and
happiness (0.591) which supported our first hypothesis. Our second hypothesis was
that we expected impulsivity to have a significant negative correlation with happiness.
The results did not support this hypothesis. This was because only a negative trend
was observed between impulsivity and happiness (-2.36). The reason it is a minor
trend and not a significant correlation is because the P value was over 0.05. Since the
P value generated from this study was not significant we can assume that the negative
relationship between impulsivity and happiness may be due to chance. However the
Beta coefficients for impulsivity were negative which meant that higher impulsivity
was associated with lower happiness. But this relationship only occurred when
extraversion had already been entered as a predictor. There was nothing inherently
wrong with the design of the study. There were no outliers or major deviations from
normality and the multicollinearity assumption was not violated.
Theoretical Implications of findings
25
The primary implication of this study is that it has enhanced
knowledge particularly in the field of positive psychology. By taking
two key components of extraversion, sociability and impulsivity the
link between extraversion and happiness is now better understood.
Research by Campbell et al (1976) placing emphasis on sociability
as a main predicator of happiness has been verified. The study has
also validated Becchetti (2007) findings that developing a good social life
is crucial to all aspects of happiness. All of this evidence combined
clearly shows that sociability is a driving force of extraversion. This
insight is highly beneficial because now that sociability’s role in
happiness has become clearer, this opens up future research
possibilities as to why sociability is so essential to happiness. This
could be due a multitude of factors such as Seligman’s (2002)
explanation that low sociability will entail feelings of isolation and
rejection. It is important to note that sociability has been closely
regarded as a predictor of how successful ones personal
relationships are. Findings by Diener, et al., (2000), Dush & Amato (2005) and
Stutzer & (Frey 2006) provide further answers as to why sociability is so closely
linked with happiness. These studies come to the conclusion that people who have
more social interactions in general will be more likely to attract a romantic partner
and it is the consensus of these studies that being in a stable romantic relationship
significantly increases happiness. An idea for future research would be to explore this
aspect of sociability further to measure the extent personal relationships are playing
on sociability’s relationship with happiness.
26
Another major implication of this study is that it has raised new issues
regarding the role of impulsivity and its contribution to happiness. Campbell’s
(1983) research may show that impulsivity is a key factor in why extraverts seek out
more social interaction than introverts. However, it is not the reason why extraverts
are reporting greater levels of happiness. While a significant correlation was not
observed in this study between impulsivity and happiness when entered with
extraversion impulsivity did have a significant negative contribution to happiness
scores. These results partly support previous research by Costa and McCrea (1980)
that found impulsivity to be related to lower degrees of happiness while extravert
personality traits such as sociability and activity were related to higher degrees of
happiness. Likewise Corruble (2005) found clinical impulsivity to be detrimental to
one’s happiness and in serious cases to be linked with suicide. It is the conclusion of
this study that there is definitely a negative relationship between impulsivity and
happiness although it is likely to be a weaker relationship than previous literature
suggests. More research should be carried out among the normal population due to the
fact that there are limited studies analysing people with ordinary levels of impulsivity.
The vast majority of research on impulsivity is similar to Corruble’s (2005) work
which has focused on the extreme end of impulsivity which is not representative of
the population.
The reason why impulsivity seems to be negatively associated with happiness is likely
due to Murray’s (1938) explanation that an inability to inhibit responding could
seriously impact ones social life. High levels of impulsivity would make it difficult to
sustain meaningful relationships and socialise effectively .The results generated from
this study make sense since no participants in this study suffered from severe clinical
impulsivity. This is the most likely reason a high negative correlation between
27
impulsivity and happiness was not observed. One of the reasons why impulsivity’s
relationship with happiness was not significant as hypothesized could be due to the
fact that there were simply not enough participants. Maybe with more participants the
scores would have balanced out producing a significant correlation between
impulsivity and happiness.
Summary of theoretical implications
In summary this research has had many interesting theoretical implications. The first
is that it has validated sociability’s importance to happiness. It has also shown that
sociability is a key component of extraversion that is responsible for the high positive
correlation between extraversion and happiness. This is demonstrated when
impulsivity was correlated in isolation with happiness and was found to have no
significant relationship to happiness. Although it is important to note that impulsivity
had a small influence over the correlations observed between sociability and
happiness the results suggest it was contributing less to happiness scores than
sociability. This study is limited because it cannot provide a definitive reason to why
this is. Another major implication is that the study has also shown is that impulsivity’s
contribution to happiness is less than previous research suggests although more
research is needed to verify this. The reason for this is due to the fact that the majority
of studies that have analysed impulsivity’s effect on happiness have often looked at
people with very high impulsivity scores which is not representative of the population.
All of this information combined has enhanced knowledge regarding what personality
traits are key to promoting ones happiness.
Practical applications of findings
28
The insight gained from this study into the relationship happiness shares with
sociability and impulsivity is not just limited to theory. This study also offers practical
applications to assess common psychological approaches which aim to treat people
with depression and increase happiness. This may improve people’s lives in general
because the study offers fresh insight into how to improve psychological treatments.
This is an important contribution to the field of psychology.
Lewinsohn et al (1976) developed the first behavioural treatment of depression, in
which patients increased the number of both pleasant activities and positive
interactions with their social environment. Techniques such as goal-setting, self-
monitoring and self-reward were utilised to encourage social behaviours. Although
several promising trials were conducted this method of tackling depression was
largely replaced by the emergence of cognitive behaviour therapy in the 1980s. The
basic idea of cognitive therapy is to change negative thinking patters into positive
ones with the aim that this will in turn improve relationships and productivity.
Based on our findings, we believe that cognitive behaviour therapy should continue to
be utilised because it can help people overcome social avoidance strategies that are
typically employed by depressed people. This will promote sociability which will
increase happiness. Cognitive behaviour therapy has also been shown by Opdyke and
Rothbaum (1998) to be effective at helping people deal with impulse control
disorders. This is of particular relevance to our findings, which has shown impulsivity
to have a negative trend with happiness and sociability to have a strong correlation
with happiness. This being said it is important to note that cognitive behaviour
therapy does have flaws and should not be solely used to treat depression and help
people increase happiness. This was discovered by Jacobson et al (1996) who set up
29
an important study to assess the value of the components of cognitive therapy. After
randomizing 150 people with depression into three groups they found that the
cognitive component of therapy was contributing less to happiness than previously
thought.
It has been established by this study that a major contributor to happiness is the
sociability aspect of extraversion. Therefore it is suggested that happiness training
courses which place emphasis on sociability should be utilised more in psychology.
This includes methods such as assertiveness training and social skills training for
those who have difficulty with relationships, friendships and work etc (Argyle
1987).The findings which we have reported on the happiness of extraverts suggest
that developing traits common to extraverts such as positive non-verbal signals and
the ability to reach for similarity will greatly increase peoples experience of social
interaction which will lead to a more successful and happy life.
Based on the results from this study, arguably, the most effective way of treating
people with depression and increasing happiness is to combine cognitive behaviour
therapy, social skills training, and Lewinsohn et al (1976) behavioural approach. If
these methods of increasing happiness were used in conjunction with each other then
it would aid people in overcoming negative thinking patterns which often lead to
social avoidance strategies, successfully inhibit damaging behaviour and promote
social activity. All of these benefits combined would possibly significantly reduce
depression relapse rates and would be a more effective way of increasing happiness.
Problems and Future research Ideas
30
The first and most major methodological issue that may have confused the reader to
this point is the issue of utilizing a well-known Eysenck EPI extraversion scale
(1968) to measure sociability. This scale was justified initially because it was rare in
that it was an equal mix of sociability and impulsivity (Revelle 1981). The benefit was
that the scale served the dual purpose of examining impulsivity in more depth as well
as measuring sociability. The methodological problem of this however became
apparent when the results were analyzed viva SPSS. We could not get access to the
sub-scale for this questionnaire which prevented sociability and impulsivity to be
isolated separately. The r squared values and correlation coefficients showed that
when impulsivity was entered as a predictor with extraversion it was significantly
increasing the variance explained in happiness.This hindered us from effectively
analyzing sociability by itself since impulsivity was influencing the data.
This methodological problem was mostly overcome. Analyzing the Barrat
impulsivity scale (1995) results provided us with a reasonable estimate to what extent
impulsivity was contributing to extraversion. For example if a high significant
correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness then we could conclude
that impulsivity was also having a significant contribution on the extraversion scale.
This would have in turn made it impossible to effectively assess sociability since
impulsivities relationship with happiness would be significantly altering the data.
After reviewing the relationship between impulsivity and happiness no significant
correlation was observed. Since not even a weak significant correlation was observed
we can assume that the strong positive correlation (0.591) generated by the Eysneck
EPI scale (1968) was largely due to sociability. This is because when impulsivity was
assessed in isolation viva the Barrat impulsivity scale it proved to have a very small
negative effect on happiness but this was not significant so only a small trend was
31
observed. It is likely therefore that while impulsivity influenced the extraversion score
to a small degree it was not seriously altering the data and may have only made the
correlation slightly weaker.
There were various methodological issues in this study that should be highlighted. Out
of the 45 participants 39 were female. The original intention of the study was to
explore the issue at hand, equally, between the sexes. Due to an imbalance in more
females opting to participate in this study over males, arguably the results are not
representative of the male population. Past research conducted by Yanna et al (2011)
examined the differences between the personalities of men and women and came to
the conclusion that men and women personalities are systematically different.
Extraversion scores were generally higher among females who also reported higher
sociability, positive emotions and lower impulsivity. Their findings were consistent
with previous research showing similar patterns in Big Five facets of Gregariousness
and Positive Emotions (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al.,2001). These studies show key
psychological differences between men and women and thus we cannot assume that
the results generated from this study can be applied to males. Although only
speculation at this point one of the reasons that our hypotheses regarding impulsivity
was wrong could be due to the vast majority of participants being female.
An idea for further research would be to replicate this study and primarily focus on
male participants and explore the difference, if any between the sexes. This could
significantly alter the findings that this study has found. For example male scores
could alter the data so that the relationship impulsivity shares with happiness and
extraversion is no longer a trend but a significant correlation. In summary the lack of
32
male participants in this study is a methodological weakness that could have
significantly altered the results and provided greater insight.
Another issue worth noting about the study was that it was purely a quantitative study
utilising questionnaires. This has the methodological strengths of being easy to
replicate making it reliable. The results are also clear and easy to generalize. However
there is a problem of validity since participants may have answered some questions
superficially or misinterpreted questions. An idea for future research could be to
incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods respectively enriching the data,
particularly in the area of validity.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion this study found that sociability had a significant positive correlation
with happiness. This supported our hypotheses and validated previous findings with
regards to higher levels of sociability being linked to higher levels of happiness. The
results were surprising with regards to the relationship impulsivity shares with
happiness. No significant correlation was observed in this study, only a minor
negative trend was found between impulsivity and happiness. This conflicted with
previous research that often found that impulsivity had a significant negative effect on
happiness. However when entered as a predictor with extraversion impulsivity did
influence the variance of happiness. It also weakened the positive correlation between
extraversion and happiness due to its negative beta coefficient value. This study was
of particular importance as it revealed that sociability had a significantly greater
contribution to ones happiness than impulsivity. This has enhanced knowledge with
regards to discovering what aspects of extraversion are contributing to the high
correlation scores with happiness. This being said this study is only a stepping stone
33
to understanding personality traits and their effect on happiness. More research needs
to be carried out in this area. For example it is still unclear why impulsivity did not
have more of an effect on happiness and this is worth exploring further. Finally it is
important to note that this study does have some methodological issues which can be
overcome with future research.
34
7. References
Ainslie G (1975): Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse
control. Psychol Bull; 82:463-496.
Anderson, K. J. (1994). Impulsivity, caffeine, and task difficulty: A within-subjects
test of the Yerkes-Dodson law. Personality & Individual Differences, 16, 813-829.
Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1994). Impulsivity and time of day: Is rate of change
in arousal a function of impulsivity? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67,
334-344.
Argyle, M. (1987) The Psychology of Happiness. London: Methuen.
Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (1991). The psychological causes of happiness. In F.
Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz, Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective (pp.77-100). Toronto: Pergamon Press Canada Ltd.
Argyle,M (1988). Social cognition and social interaction, The psychologist:1,177-83.
Baca-García E, Salgado BR, Segal HD, Lorenzo CV, Acosta MN, Romero MA, et al
(2005). A pilot generic study of the continuum between compulsivity and impulsivity
in females: the serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism. Prog
Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2005;29(5):713-7.
Bachorowski, J. A., & Newman, J. P. (1985). Impulsivity in adults: Motor inhibition
and time interval estimation. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 133-136.
35
Ballenger, J.C (1983), Biochemical correlates of personality traits in normal: An
exploratory study. Personality and Individual differences, 6, 615-25.
Barratt ES, Patton JM, Stanford MS (1995). Factor Structure of the Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774.
Becchetti, L Pelloni, A Rossetti, F. (2007). Sociability and Happiness. Available:
http://www.aiccon.it/file/convdoc/n_44.pdf. Last accessed 6th March 2012.
Brebner, J. (1998). Happiness and personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25, 279-296.
Brebner, J., Donaldson, J., Kirby, N., & Ward, L. (1995). Relationships between
happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 251-258.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The Quality of American
Life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Campbell, J & Hawley, C. (2004). Study Habits and Eysenck's theory of extraversion-
introversion.
Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0092656682900708. Last
accessed 6th March 2012.
Campbell, J. B. (1983). Differential relationships of extraversion, impulsivity, and
sociability to study habits. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 308-314.
Cheng, H. & Furnham, A. (2001). Attributional style and personality as predictors of
happiness and mental health. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 307-327.
Corruble, E Damy, E Guelf, J.D. (2005). Impulsivity: A relevant dimension regarding
suicide attempts. Available:
36
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016503279800130X. Last accessed
6th March 2012.
Costa, P. T. Jr., Terracciano, A., and McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
81, 322–331.
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, 668-678.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality &
Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.
Cruise, S & Lewis C (2005). Internal Consistency Reliability And Temporal Stability
Of The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form Test-Retest Data Over Two
Weeks.
Dear,G. (2010). Functional and Dysfunctional Impulsivity, Depression, and Suicidal
Ideation in a Prison Population. Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980009600850. Last accessed 6th
March 2012.
Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship
quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of
Happiness Studies.
37
Deneve, K &Copper H (1998) The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well being. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (1998),
pp.197-229.
Diener, E., Gohm, C.L., Suh, E.M., Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations
between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology 31 (4), 419–436.
Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: does the five factor model
embrace both domains. In C. F. Halverson Jr., . A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin
(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to
adulthood. (pp.323-338). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dougherty DM, Moeller FG, Steinberg JL, Marsh DM, Hines SE, Bjork JM (1999):
Alcohol increases commission error rates for a continuous performance test. Alcohol
Clin Exp Res; 23:1342-1351.
Dush, C. M. K. & Amato P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and
quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5),
607-627.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A model for personality. New York: Springer Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J.(1959). The Maudsley Personality Inventory" as determinant of
neurotic tendency and extraversion. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte
Psychologie. 6 Apr-Jun 1959, 167-190.
38
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality
Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D.(1991). The Eysenck Personality Pro_ler. Australia:
Cymeon.
Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J.(1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire. London: Hougter & Soughton.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.
116, 429–456.
Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., Lester, D., & Philipchalk, R. (1998). Happiness as stable
extraversion: A cross-cultural examination of the reliability and validity of the Oxford
happiness inventory among students in the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada.
Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 167–171.
Furnham, A. and H. Cheng: 1997, ‘Personality and happiness’, Psychological Reports
80, pp. 761–762.
Godoy, V Leonard,T Tanner,S McDade,T Vadez, V Boresch, J Fitpatrick, I Gerkey,
D Giovannini, P. (2007). The pay-offs to sociability:. Available:
http://www.tsimane.org/working%20papers/TAPS-WP-25.pdf. Last accessed 6th
March 2012.
Guilford, J.P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82,
802-814.
39
Gray, J. A(1972). The psychophysiological nature of introversion-extraversion: A
modification of Eysenck’s theory. In V.D. Neblitsyn and J.A. Gray (eds), Biological
basis of individual behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Heffernan, T Ling, J. (2000). The Impact of Eysenck’s Extraversion-Introversion
Personality Dimension on. Available: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/728/1/The
%20Impact%20of%20Eysenck%E2%80%99s%20Extraversion-Introversion
%20Personality%20Dimension%20on%20Prospective%20Memory.pdf. Last
accessed 11th March 2012.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact
scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 1071-1082.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance:
A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information
processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153-184.
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., et al (1996) A component analysis of
cognitive–behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 64, 295–304.
Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An
ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1539-
1553.
MacPhillamy, D. J., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1976).Manual for the Pleasant Events
Schedule. Eugene: University of Oregon.
40
Opdyke D, Rothbaum B (1998). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of Impulse Control
Disorders. In: Caballo VE, editor. International Handbook of Cognitive and
Behavioural Treatments for Psychological Disorders. England: Pergamon/Elsevier
Science Ltd; p. 417-39.
Laird, J. D. (1984). The real role of facial response in the experience of emotion: A
reply to Tourangeau and Ellsworth, and others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 909-917.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Biglan, A. & Zeiss, A. S. (1976) Behavioral treatment of
depression. In The Behavioral Management of Anxiety, Depression and Pain (ed. P.
O. Davidson), pp. 91–146. Brunner/Mazel.
Liaghatdar, J ,Jafari, E Abedi ,M Samiee, F. (2008). Reliability and Validity of the
Oxford Happiness. Available:
http://www.ucm.es/info/psi/docs/journal/v11_n1_2008/art310.pdf. Last accessed 13th
February 2012.
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social
situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 343–356.
Matthys W, van Goozen SH, de Vries H, Cohen-Kettenis PT, van Engeland H (1998):
The dominance of behavioural activation over behavioural inhibition in conduct
disordered boys with or without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry; 39:643-651.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study
of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
41
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 11, 1299-1306.
Rad, R. (2009). Happiness: A Literature Review of Cross Cultural Implications.
Available: http://www.selfknowledgebase.com/files/happinessliteraturereview.pdf.
Last accessed 13th February 2012.
Revelle, W. (1995). Extraversion and Impulsivity: The Lost Dimension?. Available:
http://www.personality-project.org/revelle/publications/impulsivitytext.pdf. Last
accessed 13th February 2012
Rocklin, T & Revelle W. (1981). A Measurement of Extraversion. British Journal Of
Social Psychology. 1 (1), 279-284.
http://129.105.171.49/revelle/publications/rr81.small.pdf
Schalling, D., & Åsberg, M. (1985). Biological and psychological correlates of
impulsiveness and monotony avoidance. In J. Strelau, F. H. Farley, & A. Gale (Eds.),
The biological bases of personality and behaviour, Vol. 1: Theories, measurement
techniques, and development. Washington, Dc, Us: Hemisphere Publishing
Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.
Seligman, M. (2002). Using New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potenital For
Lasting Fulfilment. New York: The Free Press. P185-208.
Stanford, M Manthais, C Dougherty, D, Lake, S Anderson, A Patton, J. (2009). Fifty
years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909001639. Last accessed
1st May 2012.
42
Steel, P. & Ones, D. S. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national level analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 767-781.
Stutzer, A. & Frey, B., S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy
people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 326-347.
Thorne, A (1987). A press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts
and extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology;53, 718-26.
Vallereux, S. (2005). The Relationship between Extraversion and Happiness: A Day
Reconstruction Study. Available:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3032/Relationship
%20between%20Extraversion%20and%20Happiness.pdf?sequence=1. Last accessed
13th February 2012.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Hand-book of personality psychology (pp.
767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yanna J. Weisberg1 , Colin G. DeYoung and Jacob B. Hirsh. (2011). Gender
differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five . Frontiers in
Psychology. 2 (1), p9-10.
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
43
8. Appendices
1. Oxford Happiness Scale questionnaire
Instructions:
Below are a number of statements about happiness. Would you please indicate how
much you agree or disagree with each by entering a number alongside it according to
the following code:
1=strongly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=slightly disagree;
4=slightly agree; 5=moderately agree; 6=strongly agree.
You will need to read the statements carefully because some are phrased positively
and others negatively.
Don’t take too long over individual questions; there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers
and no trick questions.
The first answer that comes into your head is probably the right one for you.
If you find some of the questions difficult, please give the answer that is true for you
in general or for most of the time.
1*. I don’t feel particularly pleased with the way I am. ___
2. I am intensely interested in other people. ___
3. I feel that life is very rewarding. ___
44
4. I have very warm feelings towards almost everyone. ___
5*. I rarely wake up feeling rested. ___
6*. I am not particularly optimistic about the future. ___
7. I find most things amusing. ___
8. I am always committed and involved. ___
9. Life is good. ___
10*. I do not think that the world is a good place. ___
11. I laugh a lot. ___
12. I am well satisfied about everything in my life. ___
13*. I don’t think I look attractive. ___
14*. There is a gap between what I would like to do and what I have done. ___
15. I am very happy. ___
16. I find beauty in some things. ___
17. I always have a cheerful effect on others. ___
18. I can fit in everything I want to. ___
19*. I feel that I am not especially in control of my life. ___
20. I feel able to take anything on. ___
21. I feel fully mentally alert. ___
22. I often experience joy and elation. ___
45
23*. I do not find it easy to make decisions ___
24*. I do not have a particular sense of meaning and purpose in my life. ___
25. I feel I have a great deal of energy. ___
26. I usually have a good influence on events. ___
27*. I do not have fun with other people. ___
28*. I don’t feel particularly healthy. ___
29*. I do not have particularly happy memories of the past. ___
2. Eysenck EPI Extraversion Scale
Instructions:
Here are some questions regarding the way you behave, feel and act. After each
question is a space for answering YES or NO.
Try to decide whether YES or NO represents your usual way of acting or feeling.
Then put a tick in the box under the column headed YES or NO. Work quickly, and
don’t spend too much time over any question, we want your first reaction, not a long
drawn-out thought process. The whole questionnaire shouldn’t take more than a few
minutes. Be sure not to omit any questions.
Start now, work quickly and remember to answer every question. There are no right
or wrong answers, and this isn’t a test of intelligence or ability, but simply a measure
of the way you behave.
1. Do you often long for excitement? YES NO
46
2. Do you often need understanding friends to cheer you up? YES NO
3. Are you usually carefree? YES NO
4. Do you find it very hard to take no for an answer? YES NO
5. Do you stop and think things over before doing anything? YES NO
6. If you say you will do something do you always keep your promise, no matter how inconvenient it might be to do so? YES NO
7. Do your moods go up and down? YES NO
8. Do you generally do and say things quickly without stopping to think? YES NO
9. Do you ever feel ‘just miserable’ for no good reason? YES NO
10. Would you do almost anything for a dare? YES NO
11. Do you suddenly feel shy when you want to talk to an YES NO attractive stranger?
12. Once in a while do you lose your temper and get angry? YES NO
13. Do you often do things on the spur of the moment YES NO
14. Do you often worry about things you should have done or said YES NO
15. Generally do you prefer reading to meeting people? YES NO
16. Are your feelings rather easily hurt? YES NO
17. Do you like going out a lot? YES NO
47
18. Do you occasionally have thoughts and ideas that you YES NO would not like other people to know about?
19. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and YES NO sometimes very sluggish?
20. Do you prefer to have few but special friends? YES NO
21. Do you daydream a lot? YES NO
22. When people shout at you do you shout back? YES NO
23. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? YES NO
24. Are all your habits good and desirable ones? YES NO
25. Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself a YES NO lot at a lively party?
26. Would you call yourself tense or ‘highly strung’? YES NO
27. Do other people think of you as being very lively? YES NO
28. After you have done something important, do you come YES NO away feeling you could have done better?
29. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? YES NO
30. Do you sometimes gossip? YES NO
31. Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep? YES NO
32. If there is something you want to know about, would you rather YES NO look it up in a book than talk to someone about it?
48
33. Do you get palpitations or thumping in your heart? YES NO
34. Do you like the kind of work that you need to pay close YES NO attention to?
35. Do you get attacks of shaking or trembling? YES NO
36. Would you always declare everything at customs, even if YES NO you knew you could never be found out?
37. Do you hate being with a crowd who play jokes on one another?YES NO
38. Are you an irritable person? YES NO
39. Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly? YES NO
40. Do you worry about awful things that might happen? YES NO
41. Are you slow and unhurried in the way you move? YES NO
42. Have you ever been late for an appointment or work? YES NO
43. Do you have many nightmares? YES NO
44. Do you like talking to people so much that you YES NO never miss a chance of talking to a stranger?
45. Are you troubled by aches and pains? YES NO
46. Would you be very unhappy if you could not see YES NO lots of people most of the time?
47. Would you call yourself a nervous person? YES NO
48. Of all the people you know, are there some whom YES NO you definitely do not like?
49
49. Would you say that you were fairly self-confident? YES NO
50. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or your work? YES NO
51. Do you find it hard to really enjoy yourself at a lively party? YES NO
52. Are you troubled by feelings of inferiority? YES NO
53. Can you easily get some life into a dull party? YES NO
54. Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing about? YES NO
55. Do you worry about your health? YES NO
56. Do you like playing pranks on others? YES NO
57. Do you suffer from sleeplessness? YES NO
3. Barrat Impulsivity Scale
Instructions:
People differ in the ways they act and think in different situations. This is a test to
measure some of the ways in which you act and think. Read each statement and put an
X on the appropriate circle on the right side of this page. Do not spend too much time
on any statement. Answer quickly and honestly.
Rarely/Never = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Almost Always/Always = 4
1 I plan tasks carefully. 1 2 3 4
2 I do things without thinking. 1 2 3 4
3 I make-up my mind quickly. 1 2 3 4
4 I am happy-go-lucky. 1 2 3 4
50
5 I don’t “pay attention.” 1 2 3 4
6 I have “racing” thoughts. 1 2 3 4
7 I plan trips well ahead of time. 1 2 3 4
8 I am self controlled. 1 2 3 4
9 I concentrate easily. 1 2 3 4
10 I save regularly. 1 2 3 4
11 I “squirm” at plays or lectures 1 2 3 4
12 I am a careful thinker. 1 2 3 4
13 I plan for job security. 1 2 3 4
14 I say things without thinking 1 2 3 4
15 I like to think about complex problems 1 2 3 4
16 I change jobs. 1 2 3 4
17 I act “on impulse.” 1 2 3 4
18 I get easily bored when solving thought problems. 1 2 3 4.
19 I act on the spur of the moment. 1 2 3 4
20 I am a steady thinker. 1 2 3 4
21 I change residences. 1 2 3 4
22 I buy things on impulse. 1 2 3 4
23 I can only think about one thing at a time. 1 2 3 4
51
24 I change hobbies. 1 2 3 4
25 I spend or charge more than I earn. 1 2 3 4
26 I often have extraneous thoughts when thinking. 1 2 3 4
27 I am more interested in the present than the future. 1 2 3 4
28 I am restless at the theatre or lectures. 1 2 3 4
29 I like puzzles. 1 2 3 4
30 I am future oriented. 1 2 3 4
52
Top Related