Enacted Extraversion as a Well-Being Enhancing Strategy in Everyday Life: Testing Across Three, Week-Long Interventions. Zack M. van Allen; Deanna L. Walker; Tamir Streiner; John M. Zelenski. Collabra: Psychology (2021) 7 (1): 29931. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.29931
Abstract: Lab-based experiments and observational data have consistently shown that extraverted behavior is associated with elevated levels of positive affect. This association typically holds regardless of one’s dispositional level of trait extraversion, and individuals who enact extraverted behaviors in laboratory settings do not demonstrate costs associated with acting counter-dispositionally. Inspired by these findings, we sought to test the efficacy of week-long ‘enacted extraversion’ interventions. In three studies, participants engaged in fifteen minutes of assigned behaviors in their daily life for five consecutive days. Studies 1 and 2 compared the effect of adding more introverted or extraverted behavior (or a control task). Study 3 compared the effect of adding social extraverted behavior or non-social extraverted behavior (or a control task). We assessed positive affect and several indicators of well-being during pretest (day 1) and post-test (day 7), as well as ‘in-the-moment’ (days 2-6). Participants who engaged in extraverted behavior reported greater levels of positive affect ‘in-the-moment’ when compared to introverted and control behaviors. We did not observe strong evidence to suggest that this effect was more pronounced for dispositional extraverts. The current research explores the effects of extraverted behavior on other indicators of well-being and examines the effectiveness of acting extraverted (both socially and non-socially) as a well-being strategy.
Keywords:happiness, personality, positive affect, well-being, extraversion
General Discussion
This research further explores the robust link between extraversion and positive affect with a more novel focus on intentionally adding extraverted behaviors to daily life. Consistent with observational data, laboratory-based experiments, and real-world interventions, across three studies, we observed that engaging in extraverted behavior was associated with elevated levels of in-the-moment positive affect compared to introverted behavior and/or other control behaviors (Hypothesis 1). However, general, retrospective reports suggested that participants did not consistently experience increased positive affect from extraverted behavior during the week of the intervention, compared to the preceding week (Hypothesis 2). Further, we did not find clear support for the idea that dispositional extraverts might benefit more from engaging in more extraverted behavior compared to dispositional introverts (Hypothesis 3). These three studies suggest that average levels of momentary positive affect can be increased through the addition of extraverted behavior; however, these results do not support the idea that enacted extraversion interventions of 15-minutes daily behavior change are sufficient to produce lasting changes in well-being.
One strength of our studies was the randomized controlled trial designs in Studies 2 and 3. Interestingly, the effect of extraverted behavior on positive affect in our studies varied depending on the control group. We observed the strongest effect of extraverted behavior when compared to enacted introversion (Studies 1 and 2) or journaling about daily happenings (Study 3). In contrast, when compared to an arguably more ‘active’ control, reflecting on one’s childhood (Study 2), the relative benefits of extraverted behavior were not clear. Taken together with conceptually similar experiments, increases in positive affect appear to be most consistent when compared to enacted introversion (present studies; Margolis & Lyubomirsky, 2020) or tasks which contain several elements of introverted behavior (i.e., a ‘sham’ condition which included instructions to act unassuming, sensitive, calm, modest, and quiet; Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019). Said another way, some of the suggested benefits of extraverted behavior could be equally well-described as costs of introverted behavior.
When considered with the available observational (e.g., Fleeson et al., 2002; McNiel et al., 2010; McNiel & Fleeson, 2006) and experimental data collected both in laboratory (e.g., Zelenski et al., 2012; Zelenski, Whelan, et al., 2013) and naturalistic settings (e.g., Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019; Margolis & Lyubomirsky, 2020), our results contribute to the confidence in a robust effect of state extraversion on positive affect. Although we did not find strong evidence that this effect varied as a function of trait extraversion (cf., Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019), correlational evidence in the present studies did suggest that trait introverts perceived extraverted behavior to require more effort, and that trait extraversion was (inconsistently) related to feelings of authenticity when completing extraverted tasks. These interactions were generally non-significant in regression models, though even our larger studies may be underpowered to detect interactions reliably. To be clear, we did not design our studies to test null trait by condition interactions given the pattern of null interactions in the existing literature. Following planned analysis, we considered the application of equivalence tests (e.g., Lakens et al., 2018; Schuirmann, 1987) to determine if we could rule out interactions that were larger than trivially small (i.e., similar to concluding the null). Recently, the equivalence testing framework has been expanded to apply to interaction terms in multiple regression (Alter & Counsell, 2021). However, post-hoc applications of equivalence testing are problematic, and the size of our samples were not well suited to the use of equivalence testing for multiple regression (Alter & Counsell, 2021). Detecting significant interactions, and persuasively ruling them out, both require substantial power. Additionally, equivalence testing requires the identification of a SESOI (smallest effect size of interest) and after careful consideration we were unable to arrive at a reasonable SESOI based on available research given the scarcity of similar studies employing multiple regression and difficulty of translating ‘just noticeable differences’ to interactions including a continuous (trait) predictor. Ultimately, we believe that any reasonable SESOI would be likely to produce an ‘inconclusive’ result due to our sample sizes. Therefore, while we cannot rule out the possibility that the enacted extraversion-positive affect association depends on dispositional extraversion, we did not observe strong evidence for its influence. Our research is ultimately inconclusive regarding interactions, and future work will likely need substantially larger samples (and to define a SESOI a priori) to provide more definitive answers.
It is also possible that we did not observe stronger evidence of ‘costs’ to acting counter-dispositionally (cf. Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019) due to methodological differences between studies. For example, participants in our experiments were asked to engage in fifteen extra minutes of introverted or extraverted behavior each day (mirroring the length of time used in lab-based studies), whereas Jacques-Hamilton and colleagues (2019) asked participants to modify their behavior in interactions with others “as much as possible” for one week, and Margolis et al. (2020) likewise instructed participants to ‘be as introverted/extraverted as you can’. Although comparisons of the duration and intensity of extraverted behavior are not possible between studies, it is likely that people engaged in extraverted behavior less frequently in our studies.
Notably, fewer trait interactions have been observed when participants have been asked to report on specific instances of behavior, for example via experience sampling methods or questionnaires on one’s day. Specifically, the moderating effect of trait extraversion on positive affect in the Jacques-Hamilton et al. (2019) study was observed in retrospective accounts but not in momentary data. The difference in task instruction within the present studies (i.e., 15 minutes) may make it more reasonable for introverts to introduce short bursts of extraverted behavior into their daily lives, rather than trying to adjust their general approach when interacting with other people (which would naturally be easier for dispositional extraverts). Therefore, dispositional levels of extraversion may influence the costs and/or benefits derived from extraverted behavior, at least for positive affect, when such behavior is enacted more frequently and is sustained over longer durations of time. Further research is required to determine the trade-offs between short-term and long-term counter-dispositional behavior and the hedonic benefits of sustained enacted extraversion.
Collectively, the accumulating evidence from observational and experimental data supports the trait-state isomorphism hypothesis (Fleeson, 2001). The trait-state isomorphism hypothesis also predicted the association between subjective vitality and state extraversion observed in each of our three experiments. Specifically, the association between trait extraversion and vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) is predicted by the isomorphism hypothesis to hold at the state level, an association we observed consistently. However, given the strong correlations between measures of positive affect and subjective vitality, both measuring high-arousal and high-pleasantness constructs, the tendency for these outcomes to co-vary with state extraversion is perhaps not surprising and has been observed previously (Pickett et al., 2020).
Although consistently observed through a variety of methods, the mechanisms underlying the state extraversion/positive affect association are still not well-understood. One potential hypothesis for this association is that the relationship between extraversion and social interactions may partially explain this link. We attempted to dissociate social from non-social forms of extraversion in Study 3 with separate instructions. Participants who added socially motivated extraverted behavior to their daily lives (e.g., “I made plans with a friend and consciously made the effort to be more talkative and outgoing…”) did not report any more positive affect than did participants who engaged in non-social extraverted behavior (e.g., ”After finishing work, I took the bus down to the market and tried Ethiopian food, I went alone and made my way around the market until I found something that was new to me”). This finding is consistent with mediation analysis (Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019) which did not detect a mediating role of social activity frequency and the positive affect/state extraversion relationship. Taken together, these results suggest a possible ‘alternative path’ for dispositional introverts who wish to elevate their positive affect through primarily non-social activities or for situations in which social contact is not feasible.
Limitations and Future Research
Our three experiments provide experimental confirmation that intentionally incorporating more extraverted behavior into one’s daily life can increase momentary levels of positive affect. However, four main limitations should be noted. First, the studies are each limited by low compliance rates, with many participants excluded from analysis for failing to complete a minimum number of daily activities or for non-compliance. This could be a result of the length of the study and/or loss of interest over the course of the week (Lefever et al., 2007). However, we cannot rule out the possibility that some degree of selective participation (i.e., person-activity fit) was present and may potentially bias the results, or limit generalizability in ways that would decrease the efficacy of a broad intervention. Additionally, although we attempted to assess participants two weeks following the post-test with the goal of assessing longer-term changes in well-being, significantly high attrition prevented analysis of these data.
Second, the experimental designs in Studies 2 and 3 were implemented entirely online, which we suspect resulted in lower task compliance and the selection of activities which may not be ideal for the purposes of the studies. In our first study, participants’ activities were discussed and selected with the assistance of a researcher; however, the transition to an entirely online intervention (which facilitated scalability) resulted in a reduced capacity for quality control. Although it is tempting to attribute the stronger results observed in Study 1 to this characteristic of the experimental design, especially when identifying significant pre-post changes in well-being, the smaller sample size and possible experimenter effects cannot be overlooked as being limiting factors.
Third, the ‘dosage’ of the experimental manipulation may have been insufficient to produce detectable changes in affect and well-being over time. One tentatively supporting piece of evidence for this suggestion comes from a recent 15-week study where participants who engaged in more enacted extraversion tasks were more likely to report positive changes in trait extraversion over time (Hudson et al., 2019). Although this experiment focused on trait change rather that well-being outcomes, it highlights the possibility that a higher frequency of enacted extraversion may be required for sustained changes in trait-related outcomes (e.g., positive affect, well-being).
Fourth, although the promise of enacted extraversion as a well-being increasing strategy is to provide individuals with a simple behavioural tool to increase their mood and well-being, our experiments are conducted at the group level and results cannot be inferred at the individual level. The findings from our two randomized controlled trials provide some evidence that average levels of positive affect may be enhanced at the group level. However, without further researching using idiographic methods, we must refrain from committing an ecological fallacy (Robinson, 1950) by suggesting that our experiments support enacted extraversion as a strategy for any given individual. Moreover, across the recent acting extraverted studies, there appears a possible trade-off between the amount of activity needed for lasting change and the emergence of concurrent costs for dispositional introverts (cf., Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2019).
Finally, although participants in all conditions received similar behavioural instructions, it is possible the behavioural adjectives of extraversion were more socially desirable than those for introversion and influenced participants’ expectations regarding the purpose of the study. Behavioural instructions in the introversion conditions were designed to counter this potential effect, however, it is unclear whether the study outcomes were influenced by social desirability.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment