University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perception of experimentally manipulated state extraversion and extraversion-linked behaviors

(USC Thesis Other)

Perception of experimentally manipulated state extraversion and extraversion-linked behaviors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Runnin g h ea d: PERCEP T I ON OF STA TE EX T RAVER S ION 1

PERCEP TIO N OF EXPER I MENTALL Y M ANIPULA T ED S TA TE E XTRAVERSI ON AND
EXTRA V ERS I ON‐LINKE D BEHA V IORS

by

Mallory Kathleen Klum

A Th esis Pre sented to the
FACUL T Y O F THE USC GR ADUATE SC HOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P artial F ul fillment of th e
Requirem en ts for th e D e g ree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLO G ICAL SCIEN CES)

De cem be r 20 12

Copyright 2012 Mallory K athle e n Klu m
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2

Acknowledgments

To my advis o r, Dr. Ann R e nken, thank you for yo ur willingness to advise me in an area o f
psychology o utside of yo u r own. I appr eciate the gu i dance and s upport you h a ve g i ve n me
during th e p ast few y e ar s. You’ve tau g ht m e s o m uch and I h a ve truly enjoyed working with
you.

I would also l ike to sinc e rely th a nk t he me m b e rs of my th e sis c o mmittee, Dr. JoAnn F arver,
Dr. Richard John, and Dr. Michae l Daw s on, for your help and ad v ice.

Tha n k you t o all o f th e u ndergradu a t e students w h o worked o n th is projec t : Mary Br y ce,
Kerry L ee, S asha, Rach el, Liz, M ark, R yan, L aur e n, L aura, Yuti n g, Th e resa, E m ily, Ruth,
Antoni a, Brittany, and A n drew.

And last, but by n o means least, th a nk you t o my family and clo se frie n ds fo r the co n stan t
love and sup port you ’ve s h own me . Yo u have p ush e d me to do my b est and I hope I’ v e made
you pro ud.

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2

List of Figures 4

Abstract 5

Introduction 6

Method 17

Results 26
T able 1: Correlations of extrav ersion‐l i nked b ehavi o rs with 36
e xtraversion and affect r atings , in the i nstructed condition

Discussion 37

References 48

Appendices
Appendix A: Plane Crash Discussion Task 55
Appendix B: Parking Discussion Task 56
Appendix C: State Extraversion Rating Scale 57
Appendix D: Affect Rating Scale 58
Appendix E: Instruction Sheet 59

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4

List of Figures

Figure 1: Interaction Effect of R o le a n d Rater o n P o sitive A ffect Rating 28

Figure 2: Interaction Effect of R o le a n d Rater o n N e gative Affect Ratin g 29

Figure 3: Interaction Effect of R o le and Trait on Eyeblink R ate Cha ng e 3 1
f rom Baseline

Figure 4: Interaction Effect of R o le and Trait on Toward Arm Ge stures 3 2

Figure 5: Interaction Effect of R o le and Trait on G e sture Expansiveness 3 3
Rating

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to inv es tigat e which v erbal and n onver bal behaviors p e op le
used to ev aluate a str an ger’s st at e ext r aversion. P articipants who were matched in pairs by
sex and simil a r levels of extrav ersion engaged in t wo, 10‐ minu t e videotaped discussions. In
half of the pairs, preceding the first dis cussion, one particip ant r e ceived a wr i tten
instruction to use an extr avert e d conversation st yle (instructe d condition), while their
partner and both participants in the control group pairs receiv ed no i n struction o n how to
act (uni nstructed conditio n). In p airs c omposed of one i nstruct ed participa nt a nd on e
uninstructed participant, both p artner s rated th e i n structed pa rticipant higher on state
extraversion and p ositive affect than the uninstructed particip ant. Although no significant
differe nces w ere found on e x travers i on‐linked b ehavi o rs for t he instructed and contr o l
participants during the di scussi on tas k , instructed and uni nstr ucte d pa rtne rs e x hibite d
differe nt b eh aviors dep en ding o n whet her the y w ere intro v erts o r extraverts. Uninstructed
extraverts u sed more to w ard arm ge stures and m ade more e xpansiv e arm gestures than did
instructed extraverts. Uninstruc ted extraverts als o showed a gr eater d e crease in eyeblink
rate ( EBR) t han did instr u cted e xtraverts, while instructed int roverts experienced a gr eater
decrease in EBR than did uninstru cted introverts. In addition, Introverts att ended to facial
behaviors and extraverts attended to arm gestur es when evalu a ti ng stat e extraversion and
positive a nd ne g a tive a f f e ct e x h i b ited b y th emsel v es and t heir partners.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 6

T y p ica lly , most p e ople de scribe a nd c a teg orize each othe r ba s e d on p e rson ality
characteristics. The four temper ament model of personality prop osed by Hippocrates and
Galen included four tra its —san g uine, choleric, mel a ncholic, an d phlegmatic —which wer e
believ ed for c enturies t o be co n trolled by bodily humors (Stel m ack & Stali k as, 19 91).
Althoug h this m ode l ha s be en r ef ute d , the idea that pe rsona l ity is influ e nced by biologic al
processes is a well‐accep t ed notio n in the lit eratur e (E ysenck, 1 9 63; Hart m ann, 2 0 06). Both
sanguine and choleric characteri stics are included in the mod er n description of
extra v ersion (Stelm a ck & Stalikas, 1 9 91; Wilt & R e velle, 20 09) .
Trait extraversion is relatively stable across the lifespan; however, individuals
fluctuat e in state extraversion across situations (Fle e son, 2 00 1, 2 0 07; Heller, Ko m ar & L e e ,
20 07; Vaidy a, Gray, H aig & Wats on, 2002). Tr ait extraversion i s characterized by sociability,
sensation‐seeking, p ositive emoti o n a lity, and do mi nance (Cost a & McCra e , 19 92 ; McCra e &
Costa, 1 98 5; E ysenck & E ysenck, 1985; Ho gan, Jo hnson & Briggs, 19 97 ; Zuc kerma n, 2 00 5).
State extr av e r sion is defin ed as the level of ext raversion exhibited by an individual in a
specific situation. It is d escribed and evaluated usi n g th e s a m e dimensions and factors as
trait extraversion (McNiel & Flee son, 2 0 06). St ate extraversion scales ask individuals to
answer q ues t ions or r a te i tems b ased on th eir beh a vior or how the y fe e l a t tha t m ome nt.
Individuals occupy multiple role s in differen t asp ects of t h eir liv e s and e xpres s personality
states to v a rying e x tents in e ach o f th e se roles. F o r example, people expres s different levels
of state extr a version wh en with friend s, at work, or with their child (Heller, Watson, K o m ar,
Min & Perun o vic, 2007).
I n th e Unit ed States, pe o p l e who are p e rceived a s more e xtrav e rted ar e e v a luated
more p ositiv ely in a pr o fe ssional en vir onm ent; e xtr a vert ed peo p le are perceived as better
leaders than are intr o verts (Epitropa ki & Ma rtin 2 00 5 ) a nd s tud ents vi e w extraverted
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 7

teachers as more effec ti ve th a n introverted t e ach e rs (Radmacher & M artin , 200 1). This
suggests tha t people m ay be ev aluat e d more posit ively i n profes sional roles if they are able
to “act extr averted.” Extraverts r epor t high er well ‐ being th an do introverts (McCrae &
Costa, 1 99 1) and i ntrover t s report gr e ater h appine ss when th e y act extr aver ted than when
they b eh av e introverted ( H eller, Kom ar & Le e , 2 0 0 7 ; Zele nski, S antoro & Wh e lan, 2 0 12).
This pattern suggests that alter ing state extraversion has the p o tenti a l to p ositively i m p a ct a
person’s life in multiple ways.
Extraversion Theory
P ersonality t heorists (e.g. , Ey senck, Gr a y, a nd McCr a e and C o s ta) disagree on the
numb er o f p e rsonality traits that e xist and wh a t t h ey a re c alle d. However, almost e v e ry
theory i ncludes a tr ait th at com bines factors of sociability an d impulsivity, and this tr ait is
most o fte n c alled e x trav e r sion. The e xtraversion tr ait is relat i v e l y stable (Ta rdiff, 20 09) a nd
moderately heritable (Bouchard, Th omas & L oeh l in, 20 01). Trait extravers i on is also
associated w ith dopaminergic acti v ity (Depue, Luci ana, Arbisi, Collins & Le o n , 199 4;
Ramms ay er, 19 98), as we ll as the a ctiv ation of sev e r al brain re gi ons, including th e lat eral
prefront al co r tex, anterio r cing ulat e c o rtex, and or bitofro n tal c ortex (Deckersbach et al.,
20 06; Eise n b e rger, Li eb erman & S a tpu t e, 20 05).
E ysenck a nd E ysenck (1 9 85) t heoriz e d that extr av ersion h a d a b iologic a l basis and
conceptualized the trait as a co ntinuum, with introversion at o n e e nd and e xtraversion at
the other. Eysenck’s conceptuali zation of extraver sion has two major factors: sociability and
impulsivity. T he person a lity inv entori es bas ed on Eysenck ’ s th eories each emphasize
differe nt f act o rs of ex trav ersion. One o f thes e in ven t ories, th e Ey senck Perso n ality
Questionn aire Brie f V ersi on (E PQ‐BV) , was used in the pr esent s tudy and is composed o f
questions t h a t measur e activity a nd s ociability (S a to, 20 05).
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 8

G ray also pr o posed ther e was a biolo g ical b asis fo r personalit y traits, but hi s
conceptualiz ation of the major t r a its differed si gnificantly fr o m th a t o f E ys enck. Gray ( 19 70,
19 87) t heori z ed th a t a n i ndividual's p e rsonality is based o n th e activity and sensitivity of
two cognitive systems, called th e B e ha vioral Appro a ch Syste m ( B AS) and Behavior al
Inhibition System (B IS), respect ively, w hich he argued e xisted independ ently of the
personality traits of e xtraversion and neur oticism. The BAS is c haracteriz e d by a ppro a ch
tendency, s e nsitivity to r ewardi ng stimuli a nd cue s signalin g t he ter min a tion o f
punishment. The BIS is ch a racter iz ed by avoidant t endency, s en s itivity to p unishment and
termin ation of rew ards, aversion t o n ovel sti muli, increased ph ysiological arousal, and
increased a lertness to ne u tral stimuli. These two s ystems a re bipolar and functionally
independen t fro m o ne an o ther ( Zuckerman, 2005). Elliot and Thrash (20 02) perf ormed a
factor an a lys i s of p ersonality t raits, affect, and approach and avo idant tenden cies and fou nd
that trait extraversion, p ositiv e af fect , and appro a ch tende ncy loaded ont o one fact o r;
neuroticism, negative affect, and avoid a nt t endenc y loaded o nto a s e c ond fa ctor.
I ndividuals who score highly on tr ait extraversion scales tend to report higher
positive affect than those lower in trai t extr aversion (Rusting & La r se n, 1 99 7). E x trave r ts
also alter the ir enviro n m e n t positivel y , such that th ey h av e mo r e positive and enjoyable
conversati ons with strangers tha n do introverts (Berry & H ans e n, 20 00 ; T h orne , 19 87 ).
Research on Manipulation of Extraversion
M any studies found support for t he id e a th at e xtr a verts e x peri ence greater positive
affect than do introverts (Lucas, Dien er, Grob, Suh, & Sha o, 2 000; Wilt, Noftle, Fleeson &
Spain, 2 0 1 2 ; Rusting & La rsen, 19 97) a nd McNiel a n d Fleeso n ( 20 06) i nvest i gated the
causal direct i on o f this r e lations hip. The purpose o f their stu dy was to determine whether
experimentally manipulating a pe rson's state extraversion influ enced th eir positive affect.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 9

The current study uses t h e extravers i on inductio n techni que dev eloped b y McNiel a nd
Fleeson, as well as th e d iscussion tas k s and r a ting scales used i n their stud y .
I n McNiel a n d Fleeson ’s ( 20 06) stud y , three indivi duals had tw o, 10‐ minut e
discussions. Befor e th e fi r st discussion, one partici pant w as i ns tructed to us e an extraverted
conversati on style, while anoth er was instructed to use an intr o v erted co nversation style,
and the third participant served as a neutral obser v er, having r e ceived no instruction on
how to act. B e fore the sec ond discussion, the parti cipant who h ad be e n pr ev iously
instructed to act extr aver ted was th en instructed t o act i ntrov e r ted, the o ne who h ad b e e n
previously i nstructed to a ct intro vert ed was th e n asked to act extraverted, a nd th e n eut r al
observer was again not i nstructe d on how t o b e have. After eac h discussion, all three
pa rticipa nts com ple te d a se r ie s of scal e s in which they assesse d the l e vel of state
extraversion and p ositive affect that t hey b elie ved they and e a ch of their group members
had e x press e d in th e pre ceding discu ssion. The re s ults from th i s study demonstrated that
individuals who had been instruc ted to act extraverted reported acting more extraverted
a nd ex pe riencing m ore positiv e a ffect t h an did th e p articipants w ho had be e n instructed to
act intro v ert e d. The ne u t r al obser ver s also rat e d t h e participa nts who h a d been instruc ted
to act extraverted higher in sta te extraversion and positive af fect than the participants who
had be en tol d to act intro verted.
M cNiel and F l eeson ( 2 0 0 6 ) were t h e fir s t to de m ons trate th at a n extraverted state
can b e induc ed in an i ndividual b y si m ply instruc t ing th em to a ct extraverted in a
conversati on with a stran g er, a n d that i ncreasing st ate extr av e rsion results in increased
positive affect. This finding su ggests t hat variati o n in stat e extr aversion acr oss situations
may account for some o f the variation in positive affect that a n i n dividual displays across
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 0

situations. H o wever, it al so raises questions about which behav iors individuals use to
evalu a te thei r own sta te e xtrav e rsion and positive affect, as w el l a s tha t of a stra ng er.
T rait extr a version has been studied much more than has stat e e xtraversion, and no
previous stu dies hav e e x amin ed the b ehavi o rs tha t comprise instructed state extraversion.
Instructed state extr a version re fers to the stat e ext r aversion me a s ure d a f t er a n individua l
received an instruction to use a n extr averted co nversation styl e. The a im o f t he prese n t
study was to identify which spec ific di s played behaviors are as sociated with judgments of
relatively higher state extraver sion and positiv e a ffect. Ev alu at ions of stat e extraversion are
based o n a s ubset o f t he f actors that c o mprise trai t extr a v e rsi on, which usually includes
activity and t alkativeness (Ehr hart e t a l , 200 9). As d iscussed earlier, elev ated s tate
extraversion is associated with greater reported happiness and life s atisfaction ( Z elenski,
Santoro & W h elan, 20 12) , and e x tr aversion is a highly valued tr ait in pr o fess ional rol e s
(E pitropa ki & Ma rtin 200 5 ). If i nstructed state extraversion al ters an obser v er’s perception
of an actor’s extraversion , then this in duction tech nique has t h e pot ential t o positivel y
influence th e lives o f intr o verts.
Behaviors Associated with Judged Extraversion in Strangers
I n most p ersonality studies, tr aits are measur e d wi th self‐rep or t me asures o r scales
completed b y a person w h o is close t o the t a rget ( e . g. a p arent or close friend). However,
strangers ar e able to eval uate a target’s trait extraversion be tter than chance after viewi n g a
short video clip of th e t ar get (B orken a u & Li ebler, 1992; Car ne y, Colvin & H a ll, 2007;
Funder & Co l vin, 19 88), or a fter o bse r ving t he t ar get i n perso n (Beer & Wat son, 20 0 8 ;
Watson, 1 98 9). In additio n , people a re able to rate positive a f fect in a stranger mor e
accurately than chance (C a rney, Colvin & Hall, 2 00 7 ) . Since the p articipants i n these studi es
did not inter act with th e targets befor e evaluating their extra version, these findings suggest
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 1

that th e e val u ations w ere based on th e b e haviors t h at p articipa nts obser v ed the t argets
performi ng. Since trait and stat e ex tra v e r sion h a v e fa ctors in common, indi v iduals shou l d
be able to ev a luate a stranger ’s state extraversion better than cha nce .
Th e b e ha vio r s associated with individ u als’ r atings o f a stra n ger’s trait extr aversion
have b een e xamin e d in s e v eral stu dies (see B eer & W atson, 2 00 8; B orken a u & Liebl e r,
19 92; Car ne y, Colvin & H a ll, 20 07; Ca rrete, 2 0 0 7 ; Funder & Sn e e d, 1 99 3; H arriga n, Ku e s,
Steff e n & Ro senthal, 1 98 7; M at ar, 2 0 10; Vartari a n et al., 20 12 ) . Lippa (1998) videotap ed
participants while they c o mpleted th ree speaking tasks. Th ereaf ter, one gr o up o f video
coders rated the participants on extraversion and o t her person a lity traits, w hile another
group of c oders rated th e partic ipants on the degree to which t h e ir beh avi o r demonstrat e d
several expressive styles and ge stural tendencies. In both men and women, t he extravers ion
ratings mad e by video coders was pos itively associated with the participa nt s’ ar m g estur e
exp a nsive n e ss and fr equ e ncy, fac ial expressivene s s , and smiling . Similarly, Borkenau and
Liebler (1992) found th at observers' rating s of extraversion us ing video recordings of
targets walking a short distance a nd r eading a brie f script wer e positively as s ociated wit h a
target's smiling, fr equenc y of a r m g est u res, and sel f‐touchin g (e.g., face, hair , upper body).
T o d a te, the research on strang ers ’ ju d gme n ts o f e x trav ersion and o n the b ehavi o rs
related to extraversio n h a s specificall y focused on trait extra version. It is currently
unknow n w h ether t h e b e havi ors ex p r essed by i ndividuals with hig h stat e extraversion are
the sa me as t h ose e x press e d by individuals with hi gh trait e xtr av ersion. In thi s study, we
are me asuring th e beh a v i ors that h av e previ o usly b ee n associ ate d with trai t extr a v e rsion to
see which, if any, o f t h ese beha viors are associated with judgm ents of sta te ex tra v e r sion. I n
other words, what behavior should one display if the goal is to be perceived as extraverted?

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 2

Extraversion and Affect Ratings
M cNiel and F l eeson ( 2 006) fou nd that state extr ave r sion predic ted positive affect
ratings by s e l f and a neut ral obser v er. Th ere w a s n o e ffect o f st ate extr av ersion
manipul a tion on negative affect ratings. These f indings were th e same for highly
extraverted and highly introvert ed i ndividuals, indicating that a st a te e xtr a version
manipul a tio n alters t h e p e rceived s ta te e x traversion and positi v e a ffect o f int roverts a n d
extraverts t o the s a m e de g ree.
A lthough m a ny studies su pport a stro n g r e lations hip betw een t r ait e x trav e r sion and
positive affect, there se e m s to b e no relation betw een trait e x tr aversion a nd ne g ati v e af f e ct
(Larsen & K e telaar, 19 89; Telle ge n, 1 9 85; Watso n & Clark, 1 99 1; W atson & Tellegen, 1985)
and e x traver ts are l ess susceptible to n egativ e affe ct than are i ntroverts (R usting & L arsen,
19 97). Just a s extr aversio n can be m e a s ured as a tr ait or st a te l evel variabl e, so too c a n
positive a nd n egativ e affe ct be ev aluat e d on the tr ait and st at e l e vel. Although trait positi ve
and n e gativ e af f ect are in depend ent fr om one an o t h er (Schmu k le, Eglo f f & B u rns, 20 02;
Watson, Clar k & C arey, 1 9 8 8 ; W a tson & Clark, 19 9 7 ), state posi t ive and n e gative affect as
measur ed b y the P o sitive a nd Ne g ati v e Affect Sch edule (PANAS) a re w eakly negatively
associated (S c hmukle, Egl o ff & Bur ns, 20 02). Since the a f fect s cale created by McNiel and
Fleeson (2 0 0 6 ) and used i n the cu rrent study utilized terms fro m PANAS, measurements of
positive a nd ne g a tive a f f e ct a re lik ely t o be n e gativ e ly correl at e d .
Behavioral Correlates of Trait Extraversion
M any studies have examined the verb al and non ve rbal behaviors tha t a re a ssocia te d
with trait extraversion. Verbal beh a vi ors that a re related t o t rait extr a version are talk time
(Funde r & Sne e d , 19 93 ) a nd pausin g (Riggio & Fri e dman, 19 85 ). Nonverb a l behaviors th at
are associate d with trait e x trav ersion i n clude ey e bl ink rat e (B er enb a um & W illiams, 19 9 4 ) ,
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 3

smiling and facial express iveness (B or kenau & Liebler, 1992), se l f ‐ touching (Ne ff , Wa ng ,
Abbott & Wa l ker, 20 10), and ar m gest ure fr equ e nc y a n d e x pans ive ness ( L ip pa, 19 98).
Verbal behaviors. Man y trait extraversion invent or ies include talkati venes s and fluidity of
commu nicati on as facto rs of e x trav ersion. Studies h ave found t h at extraver s ion is positi v ely
related to tal kativeness ( F under & Sne e d , 19 93 ) and neg a tive ly related to pauses (Mair e sse
& Wa lke r , 200 7 ; R igg io & Frie dm an, 19 85 ).
Nonverbal behaviors. Biological theories of extraver sion emphasize individual diffe rences
in underlying central ner v ous sy stem (CNS) physiology. Depue an d Collins ( 1999) fou nd
that dop ami n ergic activit y is re lated to individual variation i n t r ait extraver sion, such th at
extraverts e xhibited gr e at er dopamine r gic activit y t han did int roverts. Spontaneous
eye b link rat e (EBR) is re l ated to dopa miner g ic acti v ity in the C N S in bot h h u mans and o ther
animals; when dopamine agonists were administere d to rhesus mac aques, t heir EBR
increased (Karson, 1983; Taylor et al., 19 99). Thus, EBR is an in dicator of th e lev el o f
dopamine activity in the brain. Ber e n b au m and W i lliams (1 99 4) f ound th a t extr averts
exhibit e d greater ey eblin k rate and th at this rel a ti onship is m o d erated b y gender, such t hat
extraverted wome n h a d t h e great e st e yeblink rate o f all gro u ps. Although some studies
found no r e lationship between eye bli n k rat e and e xtraversion (s ee Col z ato, S lagter, v a n den
Wildenberg, Homm el, 20 08), thos e st udies me asu r ed EBR whil e par ticipant s looked at a
fixation poin t or a bla n k s u rface ; in th e study by B erenb a u m a n d Williams, participants
looked at images or video record ings of people during recording.
S ociability and communi cation ar e factors of tr a it extraversio n included in many
invent ories. A large p art of soc i a l communicati on i s nonverb a l and th erefore trans m itted by
the movement and positi oning of th e torso, limbs, hands, and fa ce durin g a conversati on .
Extraverts s mile more ( B orkenau & Liebler, 1992, Naumann, Vazir e, Re n tfr o w & Goslin g,
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 4

20 09) a nd s how m o re f acial expr essiven e ss (Bork enau & L iebl er, 19 92) tha n do intro ve rts.
However, extraverts engage in less self‐tou ching than do introv erts (Argyle , 198 8; Nef f,
Wang, Abb o t t & Walk e r, 2 01 0).
Arm gestures can tell an observe r a lo t ab out a per s on's level of trait extraversion, as
extraverts m ake mor e ar m gestures t h an do intro v erts (Argyle , 1 98 8; Bork e nau & Liebl e r,
19 92; Lippa, 19 98; Nef f, W ang, Abb ot t & Walk er, 2 0 1 0 ). E xtrav e r ts also ma ke m ore
exp a nsive ar m gestures t han do i ntroverts (Lippa, 1998; Neff, W ang, A bb ot t & Walk er,
20 10; Riggio & Fried m an, 19 83).
Although the use of all ar m gest ures c an co n ve y cu es to a p e rs on’s trait extr aversion,
it is possible to gle an m ore in fo rmatio n about a p e rson’s stat e extraversion from specific
directional arm gestures. There ar e tw o commonl y studied direct ional arm gestures th a t
have b een linked to appr oach a nd a voidant tendencies: toward‐ b ody a rm g esture s a nd
away‐ f rom‐ b o dy ar m g est u res. Tow ar d gestures, which are in ward‐ directed and bring the
palms closer to the body, have b een correlated with approach te ndency ; an d away gestu res,
which are ou tward‐directed and p ush the pal m s a w ay f rom th e bod y, have been correlated
with av o idan t tende n cy ( Cacioppo, Pr iester & B er ntson, 1 99 3; C e nterb a r & Clore, 2006;
Forster, 2003; Forster & Strack, 19 9 8 ) . Although t rait e xtrav e r sion and app r oach tendency
are rel a ted, ( Elliot & T hra s h, 200 2) it i s unknow n whether st at e e x traversio n and appro a ch
tendency ar e related. The r efore the in clusion of th e se directio n a l ar m gestu r es in this st u dy
is explorator y , but if approach t enden c y is relat ed t o state e x tr aversion, t hen we w ould
expect to s e e toward a rm gestures increase followi ng a state ex traversion m anipulati on.
Since trait extraversion is not r elated t o avoidant tendency, w e ex pe ct tha t sta te
extraversion will not b e r e lated t o aw a y gestur es. However bec a use of the li n k between
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 5

avoidant t en dency and n e gative a ffect, we expect that negative affect ratin gs will be rel a t ed
to aw a y arm gestures.
The Present Study
T he current s tudy sought to rep licate McNiel and Fleeson’s (20 06) f indin g t hat
instructed state extr a version in creases positive affect. Our ma in goal w a s to use th e
extraversion induction p a radigm d eve l oped by Mc Niel and F lee s on to d e ter m ine wheth e r
beha viors associated wit h trait extr av ersion woul d also b e rel a ted to stat e extraversion.
This is th e fi rst study to i nves tigate the behavioral correlate s of state extr a version. Since
man y o bserv a ble beh a vio r s (e.g., smiling, talki ng, and arm gest ures) are ass o ciated with
observers ’ r atings of a stranger ’s tr a it extr a v e rsion, we chos e to investigate whether these
trait extraversion‐linked behavio rs are also associated with ob servers’ r atings of a
stranger ’s st a te extr a version.
Hypotheses. We e x pect t hat p a irs in w hich one p articipant r e c eives an i nst ruction to act
extraverted will behave i n the followi ng w ays:
1. The instructed participants will rate themselves higher i n stat e e x traversi on th an
the u n instru cted participants, both wi thin‐dyads a nd in co mpa r i son to a co n trol
group.
2. Uninstructed participants will also rate their instructed partn ers hig he r i n sta te
extra v ersion than the y wi ll rate th e ir o wn state e xtr a version.
3. The instructed participants will rate themselves higher i n pos i tive affect th an th e
uninstructed participants , both withi n ‐dyads and i n comp ariso n to a control group.
4. Uninstructed participants will also rate their instructed partn ers higher in positive
affect th a n t h ey r ate thei r own positi ve a ffect.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 6

5. The instructed participants will rate themselves l o wer in negat ive affect t h a n th e
uninstructed participants , both withi n ‐dyads and i n comp ariso n to a control group.
This compar i son is exploratory.
6. Uninstructed participants will also rate their instructed partn ers lower in negative
affect th a n t h ey r ate thei r own n e gati ve a ffect. T hi s compariso n is exploratory.
7. We e xpect t h e b e haviors t h at pre vious research suggests people use to ev a luate trait
extraversion in stran g ers will be used by instruct e d participants more than by
uninstructed participants , and will be correlated w i th particip ants’ rati ngs of their
discussion partner’s stat e e x traversio n . Previous research h as not show n a
significant di ffer e nce in the beh aviors used to eval u ate trait ext r aversion by self a nd
observer, so t he rati n gs b y self and p a r tner ar e e xp ected to sh o w the s am e
relationship s with extraversion‐ linked behaviors. The following rela t ionshi ps are
expect ed:
a. Instructed participants will ta lk mor e and will pause less than uninstructed
participants. State e x trav ersion ratings will be positively cor rel a ted with
talking time and negativel y correlated with pausing.
b. Instructed participants will smil e more and will display more f aci a l
expressiveness than will uninstru cted participants . State extr a version
ratings will positively correlate with smiling and facial express iveness.
c. Instructed participants will have a h igher ey eblin k rate tha n w ill
uninstructed participants . State extr a version ratings will be p osi t ively
correlated w i th eye bl ink ra te .
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 7

d. Instructed participants will enga ge i n m o re sel f‐t o uching b eh av ior than w ill
uninstructed participants . State extr a version ratings will posi tively correlate
with self‐touching.
e. Instructed participants will exhi bit more t otal a r m gestures, m ore exp a ns ive
arm gestur e s , more t owa r d arm gestu r es, and f e w e r aw ay a rm g est ures t han
will uninstructed participants. S tate extraversion ratings will positively
correlate wit h the total number o f ar m gestures, as well as th e
exp a nsiveness of arm g es tures. State extraversion r a ting will b e positiv e ly
correlated w i th toward arm gestur es and negatively correlated w ith aw ay
arm gestur e s .
F inally, introverted and extrav erted d y ads will be compared in o rder to se e if trait‐
ba se d diff e r ence s em e r g e . T his is la rg ely ex plora tory, a s Mc Nie l and Fle e son (20 06) did n ot
group or co m pare by tra i t. However, possibly, introverts ma y d i splay fewer extraversion
traits under i nstruction, resulti ng i n an inter action of trait and study role. Also of interes t is
whether introverts will s how different behavioral correlates wi th ratin gs o f state
extraversion .
Method
Participants
P articipants were 90 und e rgradu ate s t udents recr u ited fro m t h e Psychol ogy
Depart ment ’s subject po o l at th e Univ ersity o f Sou t hern C alifor nia. They we re a ged 18 to 26
(M = 19. 78, SD = 1.4 0). P articipants c h ose to recei ve $1 0 i n cas h or rese arc h participati on
credit for their psychology cours e. T w e lve p a rticipants chose t o earn cash an d 78 ch ose t o
earn r esearc h credit.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 8

Participant selection. To deter mine e ligibility, in di viduals completed th e Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire‐Brief V ersi on (E PQ‐BV) . Their extr ave rsion scor e had to be i n
either the higher 40% or lower 40 % of scores for their gender. The score cut‐offs used to
determine el igibility w e re calcu lated based on a ll responses to the Fall, 2011 version of the
“Prescreenin g Questio n n a ire” ad m ini s tered each s emest e r b y t he Depa rtme nt o f Psyc holog y
at USC. This prescreener contains sur vey and ques tionnair e item s for target ed recruitment
to multiple s t udies.
Although m a ny studies h ave used a median‐split of extraversion scores to separate
participants into low and high e xtr a version groups (see Fischer , Wik & Fredrikson, 1997;
McNiel, Low m an & F lees on, 2 01 0; R a mmsa y er, 1 9 98), we chos e to s elect o n ly those
participants with extreme scores . The extr em e sco r es selection met h od h as been used i n
man y studie s of extr av ersion (see Bec ker & Matt eson, 1 96 1; C h a v anon, W ac ker, Leu e &
Ste m m l e r , 20 07 ; Cowle s & Davis, 1 988 ; Ha rvey & Hirschm a nn, 1 9 8 0; K o e le ga, 19 92; Sm i th,
Wilson & D a vidson, 1984; Thorne, 1 9 87; Wack e r, Chav a no n & Stemm l e r, 2006). Excluding
ambiverts , or those i ndivi d uals whose s co res were within the middle 20% of scores for their
gender ensu r ed that p a rt icipants with very similar scores (and who would be expected to
beha ve simil arly to on e a nother) w er e not placed in different g roups. Since we wanted to
identify diffe rences in the extr av ersion‐linked b eh aviors e xhi b i t ed by introv erts and
extraverts, using extreme scores to s e lect participants ensured that th e two trait groups
were co m po sed of i ntro v e rts and extr averts, rather than ambiver ts.
Research Design
T he two pri mary indepe n dent v ar iab l es were tr ai t extr av ersion (introvert and
extravert) a nd role (inst r ucted and uninstructed state extr a ver sion). Participants wer e
separated in to the two tr a it gr o ups b a sed on th eir extra v ersion score on the EPQ‐BV.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 1 9

Participants who scored in the h igh e r 40% ( m a les = 4 1 a nd f e m a l es = 4 2 or higher) w ere
placed in th e extr av ert gr oup an d thos e who scored in the lower 40% (m a le s and fem a le s =
37 or lower) were plac e d in the introv e rt gro up.
T he pairs were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group.
Within the e xperim ent a l group, on e m em ber of e ach pair w as r and omly as s igned to the
instructed condition and the othe r member to the uninstructed c ondition. Pairs in th e
control group were both in the u ninst r ucted condition. A co n tro l group ens u red an
objective tes t for t he effect of i nstructed extraversion on rat i n gs and b eha v i o r.
Randomiz ati on was acco mplished usi ng a n um ber ge nerat o r.
C ompariso n s between i n s tructed and uninstructed conditions wer e per f or med
within‐subjects, between instruc ted and uninstructed partners; and also b et ween‐ g roup s,
betwe e n th e instructed participants i n the e xperi m ent a l grou p a nd th e mean of t he tw o
participants in the control grou p p a irs. The depend e nt m e a sure s (described below) w ere
ratings of extraversion and affe ct, an d a n u mb er o f verb al a n d nonverbal extraversion ‐
linked behaviors.
M cNiel and Fleeson (2006) called for further research on how l ong an instr u ction to
act e x tra v ert e d af fects an i ndividual’s beha vior, wh ich we h av e attempted to address with
the design o f this study. This second ta s k was a first step at meas uring this, si mply to see i f
differe nces i n task 1 w ou ld persist into task 2.
Measures
T he discussion t a sks, stat e e xtra versio n ratin g scal e a nd a ffe ct r ating scale w e re
used by McN i el and F lees on (2 0 06). Howe ve r, the y did not use a formal trait extr a version
measur e, so we used th e EPQ‐BV i n or der to select participants (Sato, 2 00 5).
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 0

Discussion tasks. Partici pants wer e a sked to re ad t wo vi g nett e s and th e n a g ree on
how to rank‐ order ten items des cribed in each vi gnette. After r eading the fi r st vign e tte,
participants ranked th e necessity to survival of ten items salv aged f rom a p l ane cr ash (s ee
Appendix A). In the s e con d vign e tte, p a rticipants were asked t o rank the q u ality of 1 0
suggestions t o impro v e p a rking av ailability on campus (see Appe ndix B). These discussion
topics were counterbalanced acro ss groups to control any or der effects o f the tw o
discussion topics.
Extraversion score from the EPQ ‐BV. Th e EPQ ‐ BV is a brie f version of t he E ysenck
Personality Questionn aire that cont ai ns 24 qu esti ons; 12 ques ti ons assess extraversion and
12 assess n e uroticism (S ato, 2 00 5) . P a rticipants r ated e ach of the ite m s o n a fi v e p o int s c ale
(1 = Not a t all; 5 = E xtr e m e ly). An extraversion sco re was th e sum of t he ext ra version items.
Missing resp onses wer e r e pl aced usin g a m ea n sco r e.
State extraversion rating. St a te e xtra version w a s measur ed us i ng a 20‐ite m ,
Assessment of State Extraversio n scal e (McNiel & Fleeson, 2 0 0 6 ; se e App en dix C).
Participants r ated 2 0 adjectives t o de scribe their o wn b eha v io r and th a t o f t heir discussion
partner i n th e precedin g d iscussion task using a s e v en p oint sc ale ( 1 = Not a t all; 7 = V e r y
well). A total state extraversi on score was calcu lated from the m e a n of t he ra ting s . Since
m a ny p eople de f ine e x trav e rsion diff ere ntly , a sking the pa rtici pants to rate specific
beha vioral q ualities e nsu r ed tha t t h e extraversion ratin gs wer e all based o n the sam e
beha vioral f a c tors. State e x trav ersion was calculated by taking the m e a n of t he r a ting s f or
the ter m s energetic, sociable, enthusiastic , adventurous, lethargic, shy , and passive (the las t
three it ems were re v ers e ‐scored).
P articipants completed two vers ions of this meas u re that wer e identical, except th at
the written i n structions for on e version indicated that partici pants should answer th e
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 1

questions wi t h regard to their ow n be havior (St ate Extr av ersion Self Rating) and th e oth e r
version i n dicated th at th e parti cipants should answ e r the qu est ions with regard to their
partner's behavior (State Extr av ersion Partner Rating). All par ticipants rated their own
state extr ave r sion be fore t hey r a ted th eir partn e r’s state extr aversion. Higher scores
reflected hi gher sta te extraversion.
Affect Rating. Positive and negati ve affect w e re measur e d us ing a ten‐item Af fect
Rating scale ( McNiel & Fl eeson, 2 0 0 6 ; see Appendi x D). P articip ants rat ed te n adjectiv e s to
describe the e moti ons th e y and th eir partner had experi enced du ring the preceding
discussion task using a s e v en‐poin t sc a le ( 1 = Very slightly or n ot at all; 7 = A lot). Th e m ean
of th e ra t ings for f ive o f t he words re p resented th e Positiv e A ffect Self Ratin g score ( o r
Positive Affect Partner R a ting s core) and the mean of the ratin gs for the ot h er fi v e w o rds
represents t he Ne g ati v e Affect S el f R a ting score ( or Negativ e A ffect Partner Rating scor e ).
The Positive Affect Rati ng score was th e m ea n o f th e ratin gs f o r the ter m s interested, excited,
strong , alert , and active . The Ne gati ve A ffect Sel f R atin g score wa s the me an of the ra t ings
for th e ter m s upset, hostile , irritable , nervous , and jittery . All par t icipants rated their own
affect b efore rating their p artn er’s affect. Hig her s c ores refl ect e d high er po s itive or n e g ative
af fect.
Coding Verbal and Nonverbal Behaviors
Participants were video‐ and au dio‐recorded during the study and a t ea m o f t rained
coders watc h ed these vi d eos and sco r ed participa nts on the va ri ables described below. The
principal investigator trai n ed e ach cod e r and provided them wit h written i n structions
which described the prot ocols fo r cod i ng each va riable. I also kept in c ontac t with all cod e rs
and cont acte d them at l e ast once a w e ek to issue r e minders ab ou t coding protocols and
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 2

address thei r questions. Two cod e rs scored participants on each v ariabl e and th e m e a n of
the pairs of scores were u sed in the a n a lyses.
After a discussion task began, c o ders started scoring a partic ular variable th e
moment that the first par t icipan t start e d talking. C oding for a ll variables stopped the
moment that the discussion t a sk was i nterrupted; for a given di scussion, this was either the
audible beep ing of t he ti m er, the sou n d of the do o r openi n g, o r on e or bot h participant s
physically p ushing t he m s elves up o r away fro m t h e ta ble. T hi s e nsured that all variabl e s for
participants in the same pair we re recorded during the same ela psed tim e.
Verbal behaviors. Coders recorded for how long eac h p a rticipant talked and the
duration of each participant’s p a uses i n the conver sation, to t he ne a rest seco n d. The ver b a l
behaviors w e re calcul a ted from that data.
Talk time. Talk time was c alculated by div iding the total ti me t h at each p a rticipant
talked during each discussion ta sk by the t o tal dur a tion of the t ask.
Pauses per utterance. F or e ach p a rticipant, the tot al duration of all pauses wi t hin
interrupted utteranc es w as divided by the tot a l length of those utterances (including
pausing and talking time) . Thus, speaking contin uo usly without pausing would yield a score
of z ero and greater t h an z ero re flects p ausing.
Behaviors of facial movement and expression. Video cod e rs count ed the numb e r
of ti m es that participants did d iscrete facial behaviors (i.e., smili ng, eyeblink rate, touching)
and indicated on a rating scale e ach p a rticipant’s f a cial e xpre ss iveness during each
discussion task.
Smiling. The c oders count e d the nu mb er of tim e s t h at a partici pant smil ed ( with or
without showing t eeth) during a discussion task.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 3

Facial expressiveness. After watching a discussion task entirely, v ideo coders r a ted
the e x pressi ven e ss of a participant’s face thro ugh o ut th e discu ssion task on a scal e fr om one
to ten. O n e i n dicated th a t a p articipa nt m ade no facial e xpress ions a nd 1 0 i n dicated th a t a
participant made ani mated faci al expressions during the task.
Eyeblink rate change from baseline. E ye blink ra te wa s c a lcu lated for the 60 second
baselin e rec ording th a t t ook plac e at the b e gi nnin g o f th e stud y, as well as during each of
the two discussion tasks. Coders counted the number of ti mes th at a partici pant b linked
their e y es du r ing a task a nd then divi ded that su m by the t o tal task time to obtain the
eye b link rat e. Ey e blink rate ch a ng e f r om ba s elin e was calculate d by subtracting a
participant’s baseline eyeblink rate from their eyeblink rate m easured in each task. Thus,
positive scor e s refl ected an inc r e ase and negative scores a decre a s e in the f re quency of
blinking.
Touching. C oders counted the number of ti mes th at a participant touched t hei r own
head, face, neck, or chest with their hands during each discuss ion t a sk. Whe n a touch las ted
longer than 5 seco nds, the coder s noted the dura ti on o f th e to u ch, to the ne a rest seco n d.
The oper atio nal definitio n of a singl e touch is a to uch that la sts five or fewer seconds. The
touch durati ons for all t o uches in exc ess of five seconds were each divided by five, and
rounded to t he n earest in t eger. Th ese values w ere added to th e numb er o f t o uches that
lasted less than five seconds to obt ain the tot a l number of tou c h es. Thus, sc ores refl e ct t he
total n u mb er of touch e s u p to five seco n ds in durati on, and t hi s method capt u red both br i ef
a nd ex tended touche s .
Gestural behaviors. C od ers count e d t h e n u mb er o f di screte gestures mad e by each
participant (i.e., toward, away, and t o tal ar m gestu r es) and i n dicated on a rating scale each
participant’s gestur e exp a nsiven ess d u ring each discussion tas k.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 4

Toward arm gestures. For this variable, the coders c ounted t he n umb e r o f full
gestures (a c i rcular or back‐and‐ forth motio n ) made by a p a rti c ipant, during which the
palm w as fac ing upw a rd or toward the bod y.
Away arm gestures. Coder s counted t h e nu m b e r o f t imes th a t a participant made a
full gesture (a circular or back‐ and‐for t h moti on) d uring which the pa l m was f a cing
downward or away fr o m the body.
Total arm gestures. This v a riable is the sum of t he n umb e r o f to w ard and aw ay a rm
gestures m ade by a p arti cipa nt during a discussion task.
Gesture expansiveness. Aft er watchin g a discussion task all th e way thr o ugh , video
coders rated the expansiveness of a p articipant’s gestures thro ughout the tas k by circling a
numb er f ro m 1 to 1 0 o n a rati n g sc ale. One r epre sented g estu res in which arms re m ai n e d
close to the body, while 10 indica ted that a partici pant’s arm gestures wer e broad, with
ha nds ex tende d f rom the body .
Procedure
U pon arriv a l at th e sessio n , participan ts were se at ed in two s ide‐by‐side chairs on
one side of a t able, facin g a sta tio n ar y video camer a . Th e exp e riment er g av e them each an
information sheet and reminded th em that partic ipation i n vol v ed workin g toget her to
complete tw o discussion tasks, while b ein g vide o ‐ and a u dio‐ r e corded. Par t icipants were
asked to not reveal an y p e rsonally identifyin g i nfo r mation whil e the camera was recording,
in order to p r otect their anonymi ty. The experi menter in f ormed the p a rticipants th a t th ey
would be all owed 10 minutes to d iscuss each task, during whic h time she w ould be outsi d e
the roo m . Sh e told th e m t h at th e y sh o u ld try to ke ep workin g o n th e t ask t h e whol e tim e ,
but th at i f th ey finished early, they co u ld open t h e door to th e hallway and notify her.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 5

O nce partici p ants wer e r e ady t o b egi n , the exp e riment er set t h e vide o camera to
record. Participants held up a s heet of paper with an anonymous participant code writt e n
on it t o th e c a mer a . Then t he e xperi m enter asked t h e participan ts to sit qui e tly for 60
seconds while looki n g an ywhere a round the room, but not at each other, in o rder to b e co me
accustomed to the roo m and to th e video camera. This task all o w ed us to r ecord a basel i ne
measur em en t of participants’ e ye blink rates at rest, to which w e comp ared t he e ye blink
rates measur ed during the tasks. T he r esearcher s tood in t h e r o om and dir ected her
attenti on aw ay from the participants for th e durat ion o f th e b a seline record i ng.
T he researcher then gave each p a rticipant a sheet of written i nst r uctions for t he
first discussi on task and asked t h e m t o read the sh eet a nd th e n write a brie f sum ma ry o f the
instructions on th e b a ck of th e p a ge. The text des cribed the di scussion tas k. Participants in
the contr o l and uninstruc t ed partn ers in the e xperi m ent a l grou p receiv e d identical
instruction s heets. Participants in the i nstructed gr oup recei ved an instruction sheet that
contain e d th ese standard instruc tions, as well as th e e xperi m en tal manipulation, which was
an additional instruction at th e b otto m to act “ bol d , spontaneo us, assertive, and t alkati v e ” in
the following discussion (see Appe nd ix C). This instruction is identical to the one used by
McNiel and F leeson ( 2 006) and sin c e t he instructio n e xplicitly describes the extraverted
conversati on style th a t is e xpect e d, (ra ther th a n si mply instru c t ing th e p a rticipant to “ac t
extraverted” ) it is unlik e ly tha t dif f er ences in s ta te ex traver sion ratin g ar e th e result o f
demand characteristics. The particip ants returned the instruc t i on sheet to the experi m enter
and wer e th e n given th e first di scussi on task on a shared sheet of paper. The experi m enter
told the p articipants that they had 10 minutes to c omplete the task, then st a rted a tim er,
and le ft th e r oom, closin g t he door b eh ind her.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 6

O nce the pai r completed t he first t ask or a fter th e y had discu ssed the task for 10
minutes, th e y were gi v en both versio ns of e a ch o f the Sta t e Ext raversion Rating and Affect
Rating scales to co m plete independen t l y, which the exp erim ent e r collected upon
completion. Then the res e archer g ave each participant a sheet o f p a per wit h a t yped set of
instructions for th e seco n d discussion task, neith e r of which c on tained any in s truction on
how to act. L i ke b efor e, t he participa nts were inst r ucted to write a brie f summ ary of t he
instructions on th e b a ck of th e sheet. The experimenter c ollect ed the sh eet s from the
participants, gave them the seco nd discussion prompt o n a share d sheet of paper, started
the tim e r, a n d then l e ft t h e roo m. Aft e r the 10‐ min u te discussi on, the r esear c her turned o ff
the vide o camera, and th en g ave the participants the same ser i e s of Stat e Extraversion
Rating and A ffect Ratin g s c ales, with in s tructions to complet e th e scales with regard to th e
participants’ behavior dur ing the second discussion.
O nce bot h p articipants c o mplete d th e Stat e Extr aversion and Af f e ct Rati n g scales,
the researcher collect ed t hem and ga v e e ach p a rticipant a she e t contai ning d emo g raphic
information questions. After part icipa n ts complet e d the last me asure, the e xperiment e r
explai ned to t he pair the t r ue p urpose of the study, described the research d esign, and
explai ned th at th e use o f decept ion w a s nec e ssary in order t o c ollect unbias e d data.
Results
Data were collected from a tota l o f 90 participants ( 45 p a irs). However the data
from two p ai rs in the inst ructed group were exclud e d fro m a nal y sis because the participant
give n th e state e x traversi on inst ruction reported during debrie fing that they had not s een
this instruction. Th e remaining 86 participants had the followi ng b rea kdo wn by gro u p : 2 4
introverts ( 12 pairs) and 26 extr av erts (13 pairs) i n the e xper i m ent a l grou p, and 18
introverts ( 9 pairs) a nd 1 8 e x tr averts (9 pairs) i n t h e contr o l gr o up.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 7

Data Analysis
T he analyses reported here were all c onducted on the data coll ected fro m t he first
discussion task. This stud y was d esi g n e d such th a t analysis o f data c ollected during the first
task would allow for conclusions r egar ding th e e ffe c t of a n ins truction to act extraverted by
comparin g t h e b e havior o f th e in structed group t o that of th e c ontrol gro u p. The purpo se of
the seco nd discussion tas k was to see whether t h e effects o f th e manipulatio n were
maintained over ti me. As no si gn ific ant differenc e s were det ec t ed in th e b e haviors exhi bited
by p articipa nts in th e ins tructed and control gro u ps during th e first t ask, n o a n alyses were
conducted o n the second discussion task.
Effect of role, rater, and trait on extraversion and affect ratings. A 2 (Ro le:
instructed vs . uninstructe d) x 2 (Rat e r : Self vs. Part ner) x 2 (Tr a it: introvert vs. extr avert )
repeated measures ANOV A was conducted to det ermine what i n flue n ce rol e, rater, a n d trait
extraversion had o n th e s t ate extr av ersion and affe ct ratings t hat instructed participants
and their uninstructed partners compl e ted for themselves and th eir partner s . This analysis
only includes ratings c o mpleted by p articipants i n the e xperi m e nt al grou p , since the
participants in the contro l group w e re not assign ed roles.
State extraversion ratings. Th e ANOVA detected a m ain effect o f role on state
extraversion ratin g F (1 , 23 ) = 4 . 57 , p = .04, η
p
2
= .1 7 . Overall, par ticipants in t he instructe d
group w e re r ated as havi ng displ ay ed high e r stat e extraversion (M = 5.1 9, SD = .70) than
those in the uninstructed group (M = 4 .9 6 , SD = .8 8 ). No m a in e ffect w a s de tected for rat er
F (1, 23) = .06, p = .82 or for trait extr aversion F (1, 23) = .52, p = .48. T he 2‐ a n d 3‐wa y
interactions were not significant (largest F = 2.71 and smallest p = .11).
Positive affect ratings. T h e re w as no main e ffect o f role F( 1, 2 3 ) = 3 .58, p = . 07, rat er
F (1, 23) = .11, p = . 75 , or tra it F( 1, 2 3) = .5 5 , p = .47 on p o sitive a ffec t r a ting. There was an
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 8

interaction of r ole and r a t e r F( 1, 2 3) = 5 .06, p = . 03 , η
p
2
= .18 (se e Figure 1 ). P aired‐sampl e s
t‐tests for simple effects revea led th at uninstructed participa nt s gave t he mselves low e r
ratings of po s itive affect (M = 4 .1 5, SD = 1.1 6) c om pared to t he r atings t hey gav e th e ir
instructed partners (M = 4 .55, SD = 1.04); t( 24) = ‐ 3.84, p = .0 0 1 . Th e re mai n ing simple
effects co mparisons were not si g nific a nt. All other 2‐ and 3‐w a y interactions were not
significant (l argest F = 3.65 and smallest p = . 07).

Figure 1: The role variable indicates whether the individual being evaluated was in
the instructed or uninstructed role. The rater variable indicates whether the
individual completing the rating was in the instructed or uninstructed role. The
furthest left bar represents the rating completed by the instructed participant
evaluating the positive affect of the instructed participant. The second bar represents
the rating completed by the uninstructed participant evaluating the positive affect of
the instructed participant.

Negative affect ratings. T h e re w as no main e ffect o f role F( 1, 2 3 ) = .0 8 , p = .7 8 , rater
F( 1, 23) = . 0 1 , p = . 94 or tra it F( 1, 2 3) = .34, p = . 56 on ne ga tive a ff e c t r a ting. There was an
effect of the interaction of rol e and rater on neg a tive af fect rating F( 1, 23) = 4 .99, p = . 04 , η
p
2

= .18, a s illus t rated in Figure 2 . All othe r 2 ‐ a nd 3 ‐wa y inte r act i ons were no t signific ant
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Instructed Uninstructed
Positive Affect Rating
Role
Figure 1. Interaction Effect of Role and
Rater on Positive Affect Rating
Instructed
Uninstructed
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 2 9

(largest F = 1 .8 0 a nd sma llest p = . 19 ). Paired‐sa mples t‐tests for simple effects und erlying
the int e racti on did not h ave en ou gh power to tes t for means bet we en g ro ups. Howeve r a
comparison between means su g gests that instruct e d participants rated themse lves higher
in neg a tive af f ect (M = 1.46 , SD = .78) t han t h ey rat ed their u nin s tructed part ner (M = 1.34,
SD = . 50 ); t(24 ) =1 .66 , p = .11.

Figure 2: The role variable indicates whether the individual being evaluated was in
the instructed or uninstructed role. The rater variable indicates whether the
individual completing the rating was in the instructed or uninstructed role. The
furthest left bar represents the rating completed by the instructed participant
evaluating the negative affect of the instructed participant. The second bar
represents the rating completed by the uninstructed participant evaluating the
negative affect of the instructed participant.

Effect of manipulation on extraversion and affect ratings. A 2 (Gr oup:
instructed, control) x 2 (Trait: introvert vs. extr a vert) univ ari a te ANOVA was conduct e d to
determin e w h ether t h e e x trav ersion i n struction h a d an e ffect on how parti cipants rat e d
their own extraversion and affec t. T he r a ting s f or pa r ticipa nts who w e r e in the i nstructed
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Instructed Uninstructed
Negative Affect Rating
Role
Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Role and
Rater on Negative Affect Rating
Instructed
Uninstructed
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 0

group w e re compared t o the r atin gs o f participant s in the cont r ol group. All comparisons
took plac e w ithin trait, so intr ov erts w ere co mpare d to oth e r i nt roverts and extraverts w ere
compared to other extraverts. Th er e was no signi ficant effect o f role on positive or negative
af fect r ating.
Extraversion rating. There was a m ain effect o f rol e for extravers ion rati ngs. The
instructed gr o up (M = 5.23 , SD = .80) w as rated h i g her i n sta te extraversion than was the
control group (M = 4.7 0, SD = . 62 ); F( 1, 41) = 5.5 8, p = . 02 , η
p
2
= .12.
Effect of role and trait on extraversion ‐linked behaviors. A 2 (Role: Instructed
vs. Uninstructed) x 2 ( T rait: Intr overt vs. Extr avert ) repe a ted measures ANOVA was
conducted to determi ne what infl uence role, and trait extraver s ion had on extraversion ‐
linked behaviors. This analysis included only the p a irs in the experimental group, since the
participants in the contro l group w e re not assign ed roles. Ther e were no si gnific ant
differences found o f th e producti on o f the following beh aviors by i nstructed participant s
and th eir uni n structed partners: pause per u tteran c e, talk ti me , facial expr e ssiveness,
smiling, touc h ing, aw a y arm gest ures, total arm ges t ures. Howeve r , the ma in e f f e c t of tra it
on smilin g approached si g nific a nce
Smiling . There was no main effect of role on smili ng beh avior F( 1, 23) = 2 . 01, p = .17,
but th e main effect of trai t on s m iling approached significance F( 1, 23) = 3 . 97, p = .06, η
p
2
=
.15. Th e int e r action effec t of role a nd t rait on smili n g w a s n o t si gnific ant F( 1, 2 3 ) = . 12 , p =
.73.
Eyeblink rate change from baseline . ANOVA re ve ale d that th ere was an int eraction
effect of rol e and trait on EB R change in the first task F( 1, 23) = 13.1 7 , p < . 0 1 , η
p
2
= .36 (s ee
Figure 3). Paired‐samples t‐test s for simple effects showed tha t among introverts, the
instructed participants (M = ‐.1 5, SD = .12) h ad a l arger EBR d e crease tha n did the
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 1

uninstructed participants (M = ‐.00 4 , SD = .16) ; t(11 ) = ‐2 .25 , p < .05. H owever, among
extraverts, t h e instructe d participant s (M = ‐.00 1 , SD = .1 4 ) h a d a sm a ller d e crease from
baseline than the uninstr ucted participants (M = ‐. 11, SD = . 17); t( 12) = 3 .5 3 , p = .00 4. T h e
results of an independ ent‐samples t‐test indicated that instruc ted introverts (M = ‐.1 5, SD =
.12) decre ased mor e th an instructed extraverts (M = ‐.0 01, SD = .1 4 ); t( 2 3 ) = ‐ 2 .74, p = . 01,
whereas t h e r e was no si gnificant diffe r ence b etwe en u ninstruc te d introvert s and
extraverts; t( 23) = 1 .5 7, p = .13.

Toward arm gestures . Neither role F( 1 , 23) = 1 .82, p = .19, nor t rait F( 1, 2 3) = .43, p =
.52 h a d a m a in e ffect on t o ward‐body arm gestur e s , but ther e wa s an int eraction effect of
role and trait on toward gestures F( 1, 23) = 1 1.04, p < .01, η
p
2
= . 32 (se e Fi g u r e 4). The
results of a paired‐sampl e s t‐te sts showed that instructed extr averts (M = 2 .9 2 , SD =
2.33)us ed f e w er toward arm gestur es than did uninstructed extra ve rts (M = 6 .08 , SD =
4.14); t( 12) = ‐3.0 6 , p = .01. T here wa s no significa n t differenc e in th e n u mb er of toward
‐0.2
‐0.15
‐0.1
‐0.05
0
Instructed Uninstructed
Eyeblink Rate Change
Role
Figure 3. Interaction Effect of Role and
Trait on Eyeblink Rate Change from
Baseline
Introvert
Extraver t
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 2

arm gestur es used by ins tructed and uninstructed introverts; t( 11) = 1 .5 6, p = .15. An
independent‐samples t‐test indic ated that uninstructed introver ts (M = 3.1 7, SD = 2 .5 6)
used few er t oward ar m gestures th a n did uninstructed extr a v e rts (M = 6 .08, SD = 4.14);
t(23) = ‐2.0 9 , p = .04 8. T h e re w as no signific ant difference in th e num ber of t oward ar m
gestures used by instructed introverts and extr a verts; t(2 3 ) = 1 . 53, p = . 14.

Gesture expansiveness. Th e re w as no main e ffect o f role F( 1, 2 3 ) = .7 0 , p = .4 1 or tr ait
F( 1, 23) = . 2 3 , p = . 63 on a n obse r ve r's ra ting o f participants' gesture expans i veness. A n
ANOVA revealed that there was an i nt eraction effect of r ole and trait o n gest ure
exp a nsiveness rating F( 1, 23) = 7.4 2, p = .0 1 , η
p
2
= . 24 (s ee Figu re 5). P aired ‐ samples t‐te sts
revealed that instructed extraverts (M = 3 .7 7, SD = 2.05) w ere rated low e r in gesture
e x pa nsiv eness tha n w e r e un instructed extraverts (M = 5 .4 2, SD = 2.1 6); t( 12) = ‐ 4.04, p =
.002 Th ere was no signi f i cant dif fere nce in the ge s ture e xpans i veness r a tings given to
instructed and uninstruc ted introvert s ; t(1 1 ) = 1.0 2 , p = .33. The results o f an independent‐
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructed Uninstructed
Number of Toward Arm Gestures
Role
Figure 4. Interaction Effect of Role and
Trait on Toward Arm Gestures
Introvert
Extraver t
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 3

samples t‐test indicate that the re w as no significan t differ e nce in gesture expansiveness
ratings betw een instruct e d introverts and extr a verts, t( 23) = 1 .19, p = .25 ; a n d no si gnifi c ant
difference in gestur e exp ansiveness r a tings betw een u n instruc t ed introvert s and extraverts,
t(23) = ‐1.8 6 , p = .08.

Effect of manipulation on extraversion ‐linked behaviors. A 2 (Gr oup: i nstructed,
control) x 2 ( Trait: introv e rt vs. e xtr a vert) u n ivari a te A NOVA was conduct e d to det ermine
whether rol e had a significant m ain effect on extraversion‐linked be hav iors. T he beha v i or
exhibit e d by instructed participants w as comp a r e d to th e b eh avi or exhibited by
participants in the control grou p. All c o mparisons w ere within trait, so introverts were
compared t o other i n troverts and extr a verts w e re compared to other extraverts. The res ults
from all u n iv ariate ANOVAs show th at there were no significa n t mai n e ffect s of rol e o n a n y
extraversion‐linked behaviors; lar gest F = . 73 a nd s m a lle st p = . 40.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Instructed Uninstructed
Gesture Expansiveness Rating
Role
Figure 5. Interaction Effect of Role and
Trait on Gesture Expansiveness Rating
Introvert
Extraver t
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 4

Correlations of extraversion ‐linked behaviors with extraversion and affect
ratings. A series of bivariate corr e lati ons were co nducted on t he extra vers ion‐linked
beha viors di splayed b y i nstructed pa rticipants an d the stat e e x trav ersion and a f f e ct ra t ings
of th e instructed participants b y instr u cted and un i nstructed p articipants. Since we wer e
interested in how th e o b s e rvatio n o f c ertain b eh av iors influe n c ed an individ u al’s p ercept ion
of a stranger’s personality, the r atin gs complet ed b y participa nt s were sep ar ated b y
whether t h e ratings are o f their own b ehavi o r and affect, or o f t heir partn er’s beh avior a n d
affect. The r e sults of all of these correl a tions are i n Table 1 . Thir teen of the c o rrelations
were signific a nt and are r eported b e lo w.
Correlations of state extraversion ratings with extraversion ‐linked behaviors. Among
introverts, facial expr e ssivene ss rating was positively correla t e d with State Extraversion
Self Rati n g score, r (10) = . 78, p < . 01 a n d EBR ch an ge f ro m b a se line was n e g atively
correlated w i th State Extr a ve rsion Par t ner Rating score, r (10) = ‐ .58, p < .05 . Among
extraverts, gesture exp a n s ivene ss r a ting w as positively correl a ted with Stat e Extraversi on
Self Rati n g score, r (11) = . 55, p < . 05 a n d talk ti m e over t ask w a s positively c orrelated wi th
State Extr av ersion P artner Rating score, r (11) = .5 6 , p < . 05 .
Correlations of positive affect with extraversion ‐linked behaviors. Amo ng intr o verts,
facial expr e ssiveness r a ting w as posit ively correl a ted with Pos itive Af fect Sel f Rating score,
r (10) = .7 4 , p < .0 1 , a n d E B R chan ge fr o m base line was negatively correlated with Positive
Affect P artne r Rating scor e, r (10) = ‐.6 6, p < .0 5 . A m on g extr av erts, touchin g was ne g ati v ely
correlated w i th Positive Affe ct P artne r Rating scor e, r (11) = ‐.5 5, p < . 05.
Correlations of negative affect with extraversion ‐linked behaviors. A mon g in t roverts,
touching wa s positively c o rrelated wi th Negativ e Affect Sel f R a ting scores, r (10) = .6 2 , p <
.05. Am o n g e xtrav e rts, Ne g ativ e Affect Self Rating score was ne gatively correlated with
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 5

toward gestures, r (11) = ‐ .58, p < .05; total arm ges tures, r (11) = ‐.70, p < .0 5 ; and gestur e
e x pa nsiveness, r (11) = ‐. 57, p < .05. A mon g e xtr a v e rts, Negati v e A ffect Part n er Rati n g score
was negatively correlated with aw a y arm gestures, r (11) = ‐.76 p < .05 a nd p ositively
correlated w i th total arm gestures, r (1 1) = .58, p < . 01.

Ta ble 1
Correlations of extraversion ‐linked behaviors with extraversion and affect ratings, in the instructed condition

T rait introver tsTrait extraver t s
Rating by Sel f Rating by Partner R ating by Sel f Rating by Partner
Behaviors E PA N A E PA NA E P A NA E P A N A
Verbal
T a lk T ime .13 .11 .35 ‐ .31 ‐ .35 . 46 .30 . 02 ‐.14 . 56* .29 ‐ .42
Pause ‐.25 ‐.19 ‐.35 ‐.14 ‐.20 ‐. 08 ‐.04 .19 . 43 ‐ .17 ‐ .40 ‐ .43
Facial
Smile .47 .48 ‐.26 .11 . 39 ‐.03 .33 . 38 ‐.01 .16 . 14 ‐.06
Expressiv e n e ss .78** .74** .17 . 12 .37 . 18 .22 . 20 .30 .34 . 37 ‐.31
Eye b link
Change
‐.11 .24 .17 ‐ .58* ‐.66* .20 ‐ .42 ‐ .27 .08 ‐.01 ‐.24 ‐.12
Touch .30 .32 .62* ‐.06 .13 . 14 .12 . 29 ‐.31 ‐.21 ‐.55* ‐.02
Gestural
Toward . 17 . 24 . 35 ‐.25 ‐.01 .08 . 39 .22 ‐ .58* .46 . 47 ‐.07
Away . 54 . 56 . 29 .11 . 35 ‐.05 .08 ‐ .18 ‐.51 ‐.13 .21 ‐ .76*
Tot a l .45 .50 .41 ‐ .09 . 21 .02 . 26 ‐.04 ‐.70** . 13 .41 . 58**
Ex pansiveness .05 .2 6 .51 ‐ .17 ‐ .08 ‐ .10 . 55* .31 ‐ .57* .29 . 29 .09
Note . E = State Ex traversion, PA = Po sitive Affect, NA = N e gative Aff ect. *p < . 05. * *p < . 0
36
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 7

Discussion
T he purpose of this study was to inv e s t igat e how m a nipulat e d s t a te extr a version is
perceived by a stranger in a dyad ic co n versatio n, a nd wheth er v erbal and n onver bal
beha viors th at h ave b een com monly r e lated t o trai t extr a v e rsion in pr eviou s studies are
also found in manipulat e d state extr aversion.
In pairs matched for s e x and relati ve level o f e x traversion or introversion,
participants engaged in two, 10‐ minute video recorded discuss i o ns. Instruc t ed participants
were rated by all r a ters higher i n stat e e xtra versio n tha n th e i r uninstructed partners and
compared to the control group pa rticipants. These findings are consistent w ith those
reported b y McNiel and F leeson ( 2 0 0 6 ) and i ndicat e tha t whe n pe ople are i nstructed to use
an e xtr a vert ed conv ersat i on style, th e ir beh avior c h an ges such that th e y an d others rat e
their stat e e x traversion as high er than individuals who did not r eceive that i n struction.
I n addition, McNiel and F l eeson ( 2 0 0 6 ) reported th at a stat e e xtraversion
manipul a tion increased participa nts’ ratin gs o f th eir own posit ive affect compared to an
introversion manipul atio n—a difference in ratin g s that also oc c urred in neutral obs ervers.
This fi n ding w as partially suppo rted b y the presen t study in th at uni nstructed participants
rated their instructed partner’s positi v e affect higher than th ei r own. However, instruct ed
partners did not rat e th e m selves t o b e highe r in p ositive affec t than their p artner nor w ere
they high e r t h an t he co n t r ol group. Si nce th e co mparison o f p os itive affect ratin gs o f
partners in McNiel and F leeson ’s study was between an individua l who had received an
ex traversion m anipula tion and a n other who h a d re ceived an intro version manipulati on,
that rati n g c o mparison w as likel y a greater cont rast than the c omp a rison between p o sitive
af fect r atings in th e prese n t study.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 8

N o previo us s tudies hav e invest igated t he e ffects o f manipulat ed state extr a version
on n e gativ e a ffect. As sta t e positiv e a nd ne g ati v e affect a re w ea kly neg a tive ly correlated to
each other when assessed using it e m s from PANAS ( as the y wer e i n t h e pr esent study), w e
hypothesized that instructed ext r a version may lo wer negative af fect. If s o, t he instructe d
participants would rate themselv es a nd would be rated b y th e ir partners as exhibiting
lower ne gative a ffect t h a n their p artn er and comp a red to parti c ipants in t h e control gro u p.
These hyp o t h eses wer e n o t supported . Unexpect edly, participants rated t he ir own n egat ive
af fect hi g her than t hey rat e d th eir partner’s negative affect. Th e negative affect rating scal e
has b een sho wn to ev alua te a nxi e ty ( C ooper & McC onville, 1 9 8 9 ) , so it is pos s ible that
participants f elt elev ated a nxi e ty during th e study, but t hat i nternal anxi ety may not have
bee n visible e xt ernally, s o all p a rticipants rat ed th e ir own ne gative affect hi gher t han th eir
partner’s negative affect.
T his study aimed to e x tend previous studies of m a n i pulated sta te extraversion by
examini n g w h ich extrav e r sion‐linked b ehaviors w ould be displaye d by participants who
received the state extr a version manipulation. Just as extravert s ma y n o t eac h display all of
the behavior s associated with th e tr ai t, an instruct ion to act ext r averted m a y elicit a change
in a limited n umb e r o f b ehavi o rs. Although we e x amin ed a nu m ber of trait extr aversion‐
linked behaviors, none differed si gnific antly betw een the instr ucted and uninstructed
conditions, whether examined wit hin partners or between in struc ted participants and the
control group.
S ever al possible re asons f or th e se nonsignific ant findings ar e apparent. Firs t, power
was well below the gene r a lly reco m m e nded lev el o f .8 0 in m an y o f th e co mparisons due to
relatively small sample sizes. In structed participants may have e ach differ ed in which
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 3 9

extraversion ‐linked beh a viors th e y di s played, and thus, few dis played e ach beha vior th a t
we e xa min e d. As evidenc e tha t partici p ants v aried in which b eh a viors th ey d isplayed, there
were three extraversion‐l i nked b eha v i o rs that w e r e displayed d i fferently by introverts and
extraverts in the i n structed and unins tructed cond itions: Unins tructed extraverts used
more t owar d arm gestur es and m ade more e xp ans i ve a rm g est u res t han did instructed
extraverts. U n instructed e xtrave rts also showed a greater decr e ase in EBR than did
instructed extraverts. Conversel y, i nstructed introverts experi enced a greater decreas e in
EBR than did uninstructed introverts.
Instructed introverts and uninstructed extr a verts exhibited d ecreased EBR during
the discussion task compared to t he o ther conditio ns. This decr ease was g re ater a m ong
instructed in t roverts. Th e se results in d icate tha t a mon g intr o v erts, receivin g an instruct i on
to use an ext r averted c o nversati on sty le resulted in a g re ater decrease in EBR from
baseline. However, among extrave rts, r eceivin g a n extraversion instruction r e sulted in a
smaller decr ease in EBR than not r ecei ving an e x traversion i n st ruction. So it seems th at t he
EBR change amo ng intro verts did not support our hypothesis, but th e EBR c hange am o n g
extra v erts di d support ou r hypot hesis. Our hypothesis that a state ex traversion
manipul a tio n would resu l t in a n incre ase in EBR w as b ased on pr evious findings that tr a it
extraverts t e n d to h av e hi gher E BR th a n trait i n troverts (Beren b a um & Willia m s, 19 94), s o
perhaps there is a positive corre lati on betw een state extravers i on and EBR amo n g
extraverts and a negative correla ti on betw een sta te extraversio n and EBR amo n g intro v erts.
This is th e fi rst study to l ook f or a lin k betw een st a te e xtr a v ersion and EBR, so further
research int o the neurop hysiolog ical c hanges th a t accomp an y cha nges in state extr av ersion
in introverts and extraver ts wou ld hel p to clarify these findin gs.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 0

U ninstructed extraverts used mo r e t oward ar m gestures a nd m ade mor e expansive
arm gestures than did instructed extr a verts. This finding is no t consistent w ith what we
expected, based on studies which found that extraverts tend to use more to w ard arm
gestures ( Ca cioppo, Priester & B erntson, 1 99 3; C e n terbar & Cl o r e, 2 00 6; F orster, 20 03 ;
Forster & Str a ck, 1998; N e umann & St rack, 2000) and more expans ive gestures (Lippa,
19 98; Nef f, W ang, Abb ot t & Walk er, 2 0 1 0 ; Ri ggio & Friedm an, 19 8 3) t han do introv e rts. It is
possible that instructed p a rticip ants i nterpreted t he stat e e xt r a version manipulation
instruction t o mean th at they sh ould change th e c ontent o f wh a t th e y s a y t o be “bold,
spontan eous , assertive, a nd talkati ve, ” rather t h an that they s hould display gestural
behaviors in a n extr avert e d style. I f in structed part i cipants d id focus on chan ging the
content of w hat th ey s aid, a trade‐ o ff m ay ha v e oc curred in th a t they were more r estrai ned
with the ir a rm g e s ture s. T ra it e xtr a version, which occurs natur ally, may allow for a more
broad displa y o f v erbal a n d gestur al b ehavi o rs tha t one e xhibit s under an instruction to “ be”
extraverted.
I n order to examine whic h extra version‐linked behaviors w ere a ssociated with
ratings of state extra version and affect, correlations were c al culated between the instruc ted
participants’ behaviors and the r a tings by both the instructed and uninstructed
participants. Introverts w ho dis played high f a cial e xpressiven e s s during th e task rat ed th e ir
own stat e extraversion and posit ive affect higher than did intr overts with low facial
expressiv e n e ss. This is c onsistent wit h previo us r esearch on t h e relations hip betw een trait
extraversion and f aci a l e x pressiveness (Borken au & Liebl er, 19 9 2). Possibly, introverts
regard facial expressi v e n e ss as a cue for high e r sta t e e x tra v er sion and positive affect.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 1

Alternativ ely , height e ned feelin gs o f st ate extr av ersion and po sit i ve affect may m a ni fest in
greater facial expressiveness.
T here was a l s o a p o sitive r elat ionship between i n troverts’ fre qu ency of touc hing
their face, head, neck , and chest and their ratin g s o f their ow n n e gative a ffect. This is also
consistent w ith the hypothesis t hat people hi g h in negative aff ect tend to touch themsel v es
more ( Ek man & Fri e sen, 1 9 74). It is possible that introverts wh o notic ed the ir own hi g h
frequ e ncy of touches int erpreted that as a cue f or h igher ne gat i v e af fect, b u t altern ativ ely,
the to uches could hav e b een a su b con s cious conse q uence o f hi g he r negati ve affect.
A n in verse r e lationship was fo un d between uninstructed introve rts’ ratin gs o f th eir
instructed partner’s stat e e xtra version and positive affect and t heir partn er’s EBR. This
suggests that introverts’ percept ions o f state extr aversion and positive affect in anoth e r
person ar e r e lated to a d ecrease in EBR from base line, and diff ers fr om t he findin g s m a de by
Berenb au m and William s (19 94), th at extr a version is positively related to EBR. This is the
first known s t udy to examine th e rel ati onship b e tw een EBR and p erceived state
extraversion and a ffect as a f unctio n o f bein g a n int r overt ver sus an extr a vert. These trait
groups m ay r egard EBR as cuein g differen t lev e ls o f extr aversi o n and affect. In addition, the
previous res earch co n ducted compa ri ng tr a it e xtra version and EB R has measured EBR
while partici p ants look at imag es or video clips, but not w hile i nteractin g w ith an other
person (Ber e nbau m & Williams, 1 99 4; C olzato, Sl agter, van den W ildenberg, Hommel,
20 08). M o re r esearch n ee ds to be con ducted to in v e stigat e th e l ink b e twee n extraversion
and EBR whi l e individual s are i n terac t ing with oth er people.
Amon g e xtr a verts, exp an sive g es tures were positively related t o ratin g s o f t heir own
state extr aversion. Previous stud ies ha ve rep orted t hat e xtra ve rt s mak e more exp a nsive
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 2

gestures t ha n do intro ve rts (Lippa, 1 9 9 8 ; Ne ff, W ang, A bb ott & Walker, 2 0 10; Riggio &
Frie dm an, 19 83 ). T his wa s the f i rst st udy to sh o w that th e degr ee of e xp ansi ve g esturin g
may serv e as a cu e f or g re ater s tate ext raversion, h owever, onl y for extr averts. Again, fut ure
studies woul d be n eeded t o identi fy w hether e xtr a verts consci ously used gesture
exp a nsive n e ss as a c ue f o r the ir displayed extraver s ion.
U ninstructed extraverts rated t heir i nstructed partners high e r on st ate ext r aversion
the more t he y talk ed during th e t a sk. Funder a nd S need ( 19 93 ) p reviously found that trait
extraversion was correlated with tim e spent talki n g during a dy adic conversation. The
present findings su g gest t hat e xtravert s (but not int r overts) m ay find t a lkativ eness to b e a n
important cue for extraversion.
E xtraverts in the uninstructed conditio n also r ated t heir inst ruct ed partn ers higher
on positiv e a ffect the mor e tha t th e y t o uched th eir head, n e ck, a nd chest. This findin g is
contrary to other studies, which ha d f ound s upport f or a l ink b et ween self‐to uching a nd
negative affect (Ekman & Friesen , 1974), and is i n c onsistent wit h the findin g in this study
that instruct e d introverts rated th e ir o wn ne g ative affect hi g h e r the m ore that the y enga ge d
in self‐to uching b eh avior. H owev er, this particular finding may be consistent with studies
that rep orte d a link b etw een self‐touc hing b eh avio r and positiv e e v alu a tion s made by
observers (H arrigan, Kues, Steff en, Ro senthal, 1 98 7; M at ar, 2 0 10). C a rrete ( 20 07) m ad e a
distinction that functional, dis crete self‐touching actions (su c h as scratchi ng th e f ac e) w ere
not seen as n egative, but t hat co ntinuo us, nonfuncti onal sel f ‐t ouching w e re s een as
indicating anxiety. Th us, t he motivation beh ind self‐touching b ehavior is open to
interpretati on, and th at i ntrove rts may have been more pr one to interpret t ouches a s cu es
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 3

of n eg a tive af f e ct; while ex tra v e r ts m ay have bee n m ore like ly t o interpret s elf‐touchin g a s a
cue o f positi v e affect.
I nstructed extraverts rat ed the ir o wn ne g ati v e affect high e r th e fewer t oward and
the fewer tot a l ar m gestures tha t they mad e durin g th e task. I n addition, uninstructed
extra v erts r a t ed their i nstructed partn e rs high e r o n ne g ative a ffect th e mor e tot al ar m
gestures a nd few er aw a y arm gestur e s that th ey m ade. Th e se f i n d ings wer e une x pected.
The ab unda nce o f studie s providing s upport to t h e positiv e co r r elations b e t ween trait
extraversion and t otal as well as direc tional arm gestures (Arg yle, 1 98 8; B o r kenau &
Liebler, 1 9 9 2 ; C a cioppo, Priester & B erntson, 1 99 3; C ent e rbar & Clore, 2006; Forster, 2003;
Forster & Str a ck, 19 98 ; Li ppa, 19 98 ; N e ff, W an g, Ab b ott & W a lke r, 201 0; Neu man n & Str a c k,
20 00) l ed us to hypo t hesi ze th a t st ate extra v ersion would be po sitively corr e lated with arm
gestures a s well. The inc lusion o f n egative a f fect i n this stud y was largely e x plorator y and
we did not e xpect it to be relat ed t o arm gesture production. I t i s possible th at, like sel f‐
touching, the perceived motivatio n u n derlying arm gestur es m a y infl uenc e t he percepti o n
of affect. The correlations ident ified in this study seem to su ggest that introverts and
extraverts m ay p erceive t h e u n de rlying motivation of directiona l and total arm gestures
differently, l e ading them to infe r or report differen t affect f rom each other.
R econciling personality with beh a vior is an inher ently challen ging task. Much of an
individual’s personality is base d on internal proc e sses that ar e not visibl e to an obser ver. By
contrast, displayed behaviors ar e highly visible ac t ions, some of which are m ani f est a tio n s of
personality, and som e o f which are a r e action to t h e e n viron m e n t. State extr a version
changes fr o m situati on t o situati on, but while th at change in s t a te will be n oticeabl e to t he
person experiencing the state cha n g e s , they m ay n ot nec essarily be noticeable to obser v ers.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 4

In addition, since factors other than personality influenc e beh avior (such as cogniti on an d
attitudes), not every change in personality is accompanied by a c om plementa ry c ha ng e in
behavior.
T he data suggest th at p ar ticipa nts in t he instructed condition e xperienc ed a chan g e
as a result o f the st a te e xt raversion m a nipulati on t h at w as vis ib le to both p a r ticipants in t he
pair. That change resulted in in structed participants being r a t ed higher in state extr a version
than uninstr ucted partici p ants i n the experimental group and c o ntrol group . Uninstructed
participants also rated their in structed partners higher in pos itive affect tha n they rat ed
themselv es. However, th e change underlying the rating differenc es does not seem to be
represented by a ny of the beh a vi ors included in this study. We ha d ex pe cted tha t state
extraversion was a n aspe ct of tr ait ext r aversion, so it logic al ly followed that behaviors that
have b een co rrelated to trait e xt ravers ion would al so be correl ated with stat e e x traversio n .
Another pos s ibility is that the variabil ity of state extraversi on i s not expres s ed by
behavioral chan g es; it m ay b e ex pr essed in affect changes. A fa ctor analysis of state
extra v ersion and p ositive affect rev eal e d that ite ms fro m a positive affect scale loaded
exactly onto a factor with items from a state extraversion scal e , indicating t h at th e se tw o
constructs a re the sam e concep t (Co o p er & McC on ville, 19 89). If this is the c ase, then
perhaps it is positive‐affect‐li nked be h aviors th a t are rel a ted t o changes in state
extraversion, rather th a n trait extraversion‐linked behaviors. These b e h a vio r s may b e
found i n the linguistic content of a person’s utt e rances, or it may be more s pecific facial
expressions than w e re exa mined in this study.
Limitations
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 5

T he state ext raversion manipu lation did not specifically instr uct participants to
alter th eir be havior b ut t o “be” a set of four q ualitie s associ ated w ith e x trav e r sion. This
instruction was chosen i n order to be consistent with the pr evi ous studies of instructed
state extr ave r sion. Howe v er, it m ay h ave m a de th e desired ch a ng e am bigu ous to
participants in the instructed condition.
I n addition, all participants wer e uni v ersity students betw een t he a ges of 1 8 a n d 2 6 ,
so the c onclu sions bas ed on th e fi ndin gs in t h is stu dy are not generalizable to a wider
population. It would be very usef ul t o conduct mor e rese a rch o n a larger a n d more diver se
pool o f parti c ipants. For i n stance, th e group of p ar ticipants i ncl uded in this study was more
extraverted t h an t he a v e rage pop ul ati on, so so me of th e p a rtici pants placed in th e introvert
group w o uld norm a lly h a v e bee n class ified as a mbi v erts. It is i mportant t o examin e th e
effect o f st at e e x tra v ersio n m anipula t ion o n indivi d uals who sc ore lower on trait
extraversion .
Contributions
T he results o f this study support McNi e l and Flees o n’s finding s that a state
extraversion manipulatio n admi ni ster ed preceding a discussion t ask results in a change in
state extr ave r sion as p erceived b y t h e person who received th e instruction as well as their
discussion partner. The partner a lso perceived that the instruc ted individual exhibited
higher p ositive affect than they did. This design i m proved up o n McN eil an d Fleeson ’s b y
including a true control group, a s they suggested. Further, by instructing on ly one member
of th e p air to beh av e a cer t ain w a y, th e ratin gs o f th e partici pant s were n ot exaggerat ed b y
contrasting r o les (acting extrav erted and acti ng i n t roverted).
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 6

Our findings also suggest that introverts and extraverts may pay att e ntio n t o
different behavioral cues when ju d g in g a stran g er ’s and th e ir o wn state extr a version and
positive a nd ne g a tive a f f e ct. I n troverts seem to att end to cues re l ated to or n ear th e face
(e.g. facial e xpressiveness , EBR, self‐to uching), whil e e xtra ve rts tended to att e nd to gestu r al
cues (e.g. dir ectional and total arm ges t ures, and ge sture e x pa ns iveness) w h e n evalu a tin g
state extr ave r sion and af f e ct.
Future directions
A s discussed earlier, th e s t ate extr av ersion m a nipul a tion pr ov id es a d escription o f
an extr a vert ed conversat i on style, but is not sp e cifi c abo u t wh ether the changes are to be
physical, emotional, or verbal. In orde r to le arn mo re ab o ut t h e behavioral changes th a t
accompany state extr av ersion changes, more r e search should b e d on e o n m anipulati n g
state extr ave r sion by adm inisteri ng i nstructions th a t ar e speci fic to certain behavioral
changes. Thi s approach w ould requi re a series o f exp erim ents bu t w o uld go furth er to
identify which specific displays increase perceptions of extr av ersion and af fect c ha ng es.
T his study fo cused only o n ver bal and nonverbal b e havi ors rela ted to tr a it
extraversion . There ar e s e ver a l linguistic beha v ior s and v aria b les related to speech content
that are rel at ed to tr ait extrav ersion, s uch as t ag qu e stions a nd positive valence words (Gill
& Oberlande r , 200 2; Nussbaum, 2 0 0 2 ; Pe nne bak e r & Kin g , 1 9 99). H ow eve r , very little i s
known ab ou t the aspects of speec h content that ar e influenc e d b y stat e extr aversion. I t i s
possible that ratin gs o f st ate extr av ersion a n d a f f e c t are bas e d o n speech con t ent, so
constructing a lin guistic profil e o f st a te e xtra versi on wo uld b e an i mportan t tool for
researchers.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 7

Another interesting topic for fu tur e research is whether state extraversion is
conta g ious. The findin gs f rom this stu dy and t hat o f McNiel and Fle e s on (20 06 ) support t he
claim th a t st ate extr av ersion can b e m anipulat ed e xperim ent a lly , but it woul d be valu abl e to
learn h o w st ate extr av ersion is m anip ulated in ev e r yday situ a ti ons. Since p e ople int eract
with on e a no ther fr e que n tly and i n differen t circu mstances, it would be us e ful to learn
whether extr avert e d peo p le can influ ence a n inter l ocutor to exh ibit gr e ater state
extraversion, simply by interacting. Analysis of correlations o f a b e ha vior p erform ed b y two
participants in a pair in the ex peri me ntal resulted in so m e ver y stron g corr e lations ( e.g.,
smiling, r = .97; tow ard a r m gesture, r = .8 0 ), whic h suggests th at participa n t s ma y h a ve
been mi m ick i ng each oth e r on som e of the extraversion‐linked be haviors. If a person
mimics an extraverted person's b e haviors, will the mimicker see m extr averted to an
observer as well, or does intrinsic an d mimicked beha vior a p p ea r different to an obser v er?
Further, will behaviors displays mi m icked throu g h conversati on persist into future
conversations? This study was no t desi gned t o det e ct mimicry o f extraversion behaviors,
but it w ould be valuable for fut ure stu d ies to e valu ate t he "c o nt agio usness" of extr aversi on
and e x traver sion‐linked b ehavi o rs.

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 8

References

Arg y le , M. (19 88 ). Bodily com m u ni cati on. New Yor k: Taylor & F r a ncis.
Becker, W. C., & Matteson, H. H. (1961) . GSR conditioning, an xi et y, and extr a version. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 427‐430.
Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2008). Personality judgment at zero acq uaint a nce: A gree me nt,
assumed similarity, and i m plicit simplicity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90 (3), 250‐
26 0.
Berenbaum, H., & Williams, M. (19 94). Ex traversion, hemispatial bias, a nd e y e blink r a tes.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17 (6), 849‐852.
Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. ( 2000). Personality, no nverb a l b e havior, and interaction quality
in fem ale dy ads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 , 27 8‐29 2.
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. , (199 2). Trait inferences: Sources o f v alidity at zer o acq u aint an ce.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (4), 645‐657.
Bouchard, J., T homas, J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolu tion, and person a l i ty. Behavior
Genetics, 31 ( 3 ), 24 3 ‐2 73.
Cacioppo, J. T ., Priester, J. R ., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rud im e n tary d eter minants o f
attitudes. I I: A rm fl e xio n a nd e xte n sio n ha v e differential e ffe cts on attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1), 5‐17.
Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. ( 20 07). A thi n slic e perspective on the accuracy of first
impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 , 10 54‐ 10 72.
Carrete, I. A. (2007). P e rcepti ons o f fu nctional and nonfunctio nal self‐touching. California
State Univer sity, Fullerton. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 79.
Centerbar, D. B., & Clore, G. L ., (200 6). Do a pproac h ‐avoida n ce actions create attitudes?
Psychological Science, 17 (1), 22‐ 29.
Chavanon, M.‐L., Wacker, J., Leue , A., & Stemmler, G. (2007). E vi dence for a d o pami nergic
link betw een working memory and agentic extraversion: An analys is of load ‐related
changes in E EG alph a 1 a ctivity. Biological Psychology, 74 , 46‐59.
Colzato, L. S., Slagter, H. A., van den Wil d enbe rg, W. P. M., & Hom mel, B. (2 00 8). Closing
one ’s e yes to reality : E v idence f or a do p amin ergic basis o f psy c h oticism fro m spont an eo us
eye blink r a t e s. Personality and Individual Differences, 46 , 3 77‐ 38 0.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 4 9

Cooper, C. & McConville, C. (1989). The factorial eq uivale nce o f state an xiety —ne gati ve
affect and st a te extr a version—positive affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 10 (8),
91 9‐92 0.
Costa, P. T ., Jr., & McCrae, R. R . (1992). Normal personality a sses s ment in clinical practice:
The NEO per s onality i nventory. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 5‐13.
Cowles, M., & Davis, C., (1988). Rel a ti onships bet ween trait m e asures i n groups chosen for
their extreme scores on the Eys enck p ersonality in v entor y . Personality and Individual
Differences, 9 (2), 313‐319.
Deckersbach, T ., Miller, K. K., Klibanski, A., Fischman, A., Do ugherty, D. D., Blais, M. A.,
Herzog, D. B., & Rauch, S. L. (20 06). R e gional cerebral brain m etabolism correlates of
neuroticism and extraver sion. Depression and Anxiety, 23 , 1 33‐ 13 8.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F., ( 199 9). N e urobiolo gy o f th e str ucture of personality: Dopamine,
facilitation of incentive mo tivation, and extraversi on. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 , 49 1‐
56 9.
Depue, R. A., Luciana, M., Arbi si, P., Collins P., & Leon, A. ( 1 994 ). Dopamine and the structure
of p ersonalit y : Rel a tion o f ago n ist‐induced dopamine activity to positive emotionalit y .
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (3), 485‐498.
Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung‐Herrera, B . G., Nadler, K. , & Bradshaw, K.
(2009). Testi n g th e l a tent factor structure and cons truct valid ity of the Ten‐It e m P e rson ality
Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47 , 900‐ 90 5.
Eisenb erger, N. I., Lieb erman, M . D., & Satpute, A. B. (2005). Personality from a controll ed
processing perspective: An fMRI study of neuroticism, extravers ion, and s elf‐ consciousness.
Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience , 5 (2), 169‐181.
Ekm a n, P., & Friesen, W. V. (197 4). No nverb a l b e havior and psyc hopatholo g y. In R. J.
Friedma n a n d M. M. K atz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and
research , Washington, D .C., 203‐ 23 2.
Elliot, A. J., & T hrash , T . M. (2002). Appr oach‐avoidance motiv at ion in perso nality: Appr oach
and avoidan c e te mperaments a nd g oals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (5),
80 4‐81 8.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (200 5). Fr om ide al to real: A lon g itudinal study of the role of
implicit lead e rship theori es on leader –mem ber exchanges and emp loyee ou tcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90 , 65 9–6 76.
Eysenck, H. J. (1963). Bi olog ical B asis o f P e rsonalit y . Nature, 199 , 103 1‐1 0 3 4 .
Eysenck, H. J. (19 67). The biological basis of personality . Springfield: Thomas.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 0

Eysenck, H. J. , & Eyse nck, M . W. (19 85) . Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New Y ork: Ple num.
Fischer, H., Wik, G., & Fredriks on, M. (1997). Extr aversion, ne uroticism an d brain funct i on: A
PET study of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23 (2), 345‐352.
Fleeson, W. (2001). T o wards a st ructure‐ and proc e ss‐integrated view o f p er sonality: Tr a i ts
as density distributions o f stat es. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 , 10 11 ‐
10 27.
Fleeson, W. ( 2 007). Situ at ion‐based co ntingencies underlying t r ait‐content mani fest atio n in
behavior. Journal of Personality, 75 , 82 5‐86 1.
Forster, J. (2003). Th e in fluence of ap p roac h and avoida nce mot or actions o n fo od int ak e.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 , 3 39‐ 35 0.
Forster, J., & Strack, F. (1998) . Motor actions in retr ieval of val enced information: II.
Boundary co n ditions for motor co n gr uence effects . Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86 , 14 23 ‐
14 26.
Funder, D. C. , & Colvin, C. R. ( 1988). Fr iends and str a ngers: Acqua intance s hip, a g r ee me nt,
and the accuracy of pe rsonality jud g ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55 (1), 149‐158.
Funder, D. C. & Sne e d, C. D. (19 93). B e havi oral manifestations of personality: An ec o logical
approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (3), 479‐
49 0.
Gill, A. J. & Oberlander, J. ( 20 02, Au g u s t). Takin g c are o f th e linguistic features of
Extraversion . In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society,
pp. 363‐ 36 8. Fair f a x , VA.
Gray, J. A. (1970). T h e psychoph ysiol o gical basis of intr o versi on‐extraversion. Behavioral
Research and Therapy, 8 , 24 9‐2 66.
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and i m pulsivity: A co mme ntar y. Journal of
Research in Personality, 21 , 493‐ 50 9.
Harrigan, J. A., Kues, J. R., St effen J. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1 987). S e lf‐touchin g and impr essions
of o thers. Personality and Social Bulletin, 13 , 49 7‐4 12.
Hartmann, P. (2006). Th e five‐ f ac tor model: Psychometric, biolo gical and practical
perspectives . Nordic Psychology, 58 (2 ), 150‐ 17 0.
Harvey, F., & Hirschmann, R. (198 0). The in fluenc e of e xtr a vers i on and n e ur oticism on h eart
rate respo ns es to av ersiv e visu a l stim uli. Personality and Individual Differences, 1 , 97 ‐100 .
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 1

Heller, D., Komar, J., & L e e , W. B. (200 7 ) . The dyna mics of per s onality states, goals, and well‐
bein g. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 , 898‐ 91 0.
Heller, D., Watson, D., Komar, J., Min, J., & Perunovic, W. Q. E. (2 0 0 7 ). Cont extualized
personality: Traditional and new assessment proc edures. Journal of Personality, 75 , 1 229 ‐
12 54.
Hogan, R., Johnson, J., and Briggs, S. ( Eds.), (199 7) . Handbook of Personality Psychology. S an
Diego, CA: A cademic Pre ss.
Karson, C. N. ( 19 83). Spo n t ane o us e ye‐ b link rat es a nd dopami n er gic systems. Brain, 106 ,
64 3‐65 3.
Koele g a, H. S . (199 2). E x t r aversion an d vigilanc e p erform ance : 30 years of i nconsistenci e s.
Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 239‐ 25 8.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. ( 1989). Personality and susceptib ility to p ositive and negative
emoti onal states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (1 ), 1 32 ‐140 .
Lippa, R. (1998). T he nonverbal di splay and judgment of ex trave rsion, masculinity,
femi ninity, and gender di a gn osti city: A lens model analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 32 (1), 80‐ 10 7.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (200 0). Cr oss‐cultural evidence for the
fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 45 2–
46 8.
Mairesse, F., & Walker, M. (20 07). PER S ONAGE: Personality gener ation f o r dialogu e . In
Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,
Prague, 8.
Matar, S. (2010). Meaning attache d to ha nd movem e nts: Ge sture s and sel f ‐t ouching.
California State University, Fullerton. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses , 61.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T ., Jr . (19 91). Adding lie be und a rb eit: The full five‐factor model
and well‐being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 , 2 27‐2 32.
McCrae, P. T . , Jr., & Costa, R. R. (198 5). Compariso n o f EPI an d ps ychoticism s cales with
measur es o f the fi ve‐ f act o r model of p ersonality. Personality and Individual Differences,
6 (5 ), 5 87 ‐597 .
McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. (200 6). The causal e ffect s of extr aversion on posit ive affect an d
neuroticism on n e gative affect: M anip ulating stat e extra v ersion and st a te n e u roticism in
and experi mental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 529‐ 55 0.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 2

McNiel, J. M., Lowman, J. C., & Fleeson, W . (201 0). The e f f e ct o f s tate extr a version on fo u r
types of affect. European Journal of Personality, 24 , 18‐ 35.
Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rent frow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. ( 2009). Personality j udgments
based on physica l appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (1 2 ), 16 61 ‐
16 71.
Neff, M., Wang, Y., A bbott R., & Walker, M. (2010). Evaluating t h e e f fect o f gesture and
language on personality percepti on i n con versati onal agents. (Vol. 47 38 ). Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. (pp. 203‐217). Berli n/Heidelber g : Springer.
Nussbaum, E . M. (20 02). How introv erts versus extraverts app roa ch small‐group
argumentative discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (3), 183‐197.
Pennebaker, J.W. & King, L.A. (1 999). Linguistic Styles: Langua ge Use as an I ndividual
Difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1 29 6‐13 12.
Radmacher, S. A., & Martin, D. J. (2001). Id entifying signific a nt p redictors of student
evalu a tions o f faculty thr o ugh hierarc h ical regr e ssion a n alysis. The Journal of Psychology,
135 (3), 259‐268.
Rammsayer, T . H. (1998). Ex t ravers ion and dopamine: Individual differenc e s in respons e to
changes in dopami n ergic activity a s a possible biol ogical b asis o f extr aversi on. European
Psychologist, 3 (1) 37‐50.
Riggio, R., & Friedman, H. (1986) . Imp r ession formation: The r o le of e x press i ve b eh avior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 421‐427.
Rusting, C. L. , & Larsen, R. J. (1 99 7). E x traversion, n eurotici sm, and susceptibility to positive
and n e gativ e affect : A t est of two th e or etical m odel s. Personality and Individual Differences,
22 (5), 607‐612.
Sato, T. ( 20 0 5 ). Th e E yse n ck Person a l i ty Questio n n aire Bri ef Ve rsion: Factor Structure and
Reliability. The Journal of Psychology , 13 9(6), 54 5–55 2.
Schmukle, S. C., Egloff , B., & Burns, L. R. (200 2). The relatio nship betw een po s itive and
negative affect in the Posi t ive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36 , 463‐ 47 5.
Smith, B. D., Wilson, R. J., & Da vidson, R . (198 4). El ectroderm al activity and extraversion:
Caf f ein e , pre p aratory signal a nd stim u lus intensit y e f f e cts. Personality and Individual
Differences, 5 (1), 59‐ 65.
Stelmack, R. M., & Stalikas, A. ( 199 1). Galen and th e hu mour t h eory o f temp eram ent.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (3), 255‐263.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 3

Tardif f, M. D. (20 09). Personality stability over the lifespan. Ke an University. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses , 49.
T a ylor, J. R., Elsworth, J. D., Lawrence, M. S., Sladek, J. R., Jr., Ro th, R. H., & Redmond, D. E., Jr.
(19 99). Spo n t ane o us blin k rates c orre late with do pamin e le v el s in the caud a te n ucleus o f
MPTP‐tr e ated monk eys. Experimental Neurology, 158 (1), 214–20.
Telle gen A. ( 19 85). Struc t ures of m o o d and perso n a lity a nd th e ir relevance to assessing
anxi ety, with an e mphasis on s e lf‐repo r t. In A. H. Tuma and J. Mason (Eds.), Anxiety and the
Anxiety Disorders , (pp. 681‐70 6). Hillsdale, N.J.: La wrence E rlb aum Associa t es.
Thorn e , A. (1 9 8 7 ). Th e pr e ss of p erso nality: A stu d y of conver s ations b etw een introv e r t s
and extraver ts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 ( 4 ), 71 8 ‐7 26.
Vaidya, J. G., Gray, E. K., Haig , J., & Watson, D. (2002). On t he temporal stability of
personality: Evidence for differe ntial s t ability and the role o f life exp erienc es. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6 ), 1 469 ‐1 484 .
Vartarian, O., Stewart, K., Mand el, D. R. , Pavlovic, N., McLell and, L., & Taylor, P. J. (2012).
Personality assessment and behavi or al prediction at first impr e ssion. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52 , 25 0‐2 54.
Wacker, J., C havanon, M.‐L., & St emml er, G. (2006). In vestigati n g th e dopa m i n ergic basis of
extraversion in hu mans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91 (1), 171‐187.
Watson, D. ( 1 9 89). Stra n g ers' r atin gs o f th e five ro b ust person ality factors: Evidence o f a
surprising conver gence with self‐report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1),
12 0‐12 8.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (19 91) . Self‐ versus peer‐ r atings of specific emotional traits:
Evidence o f conver gent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 9 27‐ 94 0.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (19 97) . Me asureme n t an d misme a sur eme nt of mood: recurrent
and e m er gen t issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68 , 2 67– 29 6.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985) . Toward a consensual structur e o f mood. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 219‐235.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Carey, G . (1988). Positive and negati ve affectivity and their relati o n
to a nxi e ty a n d depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 , 34 6–35 3.
Wilt, J., Noftle, E. E., Fleeson, W., & Spa in, J. S. (2012). T h e dynamic role of personality states
in m ediatin g the r elation s hip betwe e n e xtrav e rsion and positi ve a ff e c t. Journal of
Personality, 80 (5), 12 05‐ 12 36.
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 4

Wilt, J. and R evelle, W. ( 2 0 0 9 ). E xtrav e rsion. In M. L ear y a nd R. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of
Individual Differences in Social Behavior . (pp. 27‐45 ), New York : G uilford Pre ss.
Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S., & Whelan, D. C. (2012). Would introverts b e bet t er off i f th ey
acted m o re li k e e x tra v ert s ? E xplo ring emoti onal an d cognitive c onsequ e nces of
counterdispositional behavior. Emotion, 12 (2), 290‐303.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality . New York: Cambridg e U n iversity Pr e ss.

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 5

Appendix A: Plane Crash Discussion Task

Winter Survival

Y ou h a v e jus t crash‐lande d in the woo ds of North e rn Min nesot a . I t is 1 1: 32 a .m . in
mid‐Janu ary. Th e sm a ll plane in which you were tr avelin g h a s b e en complet ely destroy e d
except for th e fr a m e . Th e pilot and copilot have been killed. N eit her yo u n or t he oth er
passenger ar e injured.
T he crash ca m e suddenl y be fore the pilot had ti m e to radio for help or in f or m
any one of yo ur position. B ecause the p ilot was try ing t o a void a storm yo u know th e plane
was considerably off cou rse. The pilo t an nounc ed shortly befor e the crash t hat y o u w e re
eight y mil es northwest o f a s m all tow n .
Y ou are in a wilderness area mad e up of thick woods broke n by many l akes and
rivers. The last weather r eport indicated that t he t emper a ture would reach ‐25 degrees in
the daytime and ‐40 de g r e e s a t nig ht. Y ou a re d re sse d in w inter clothing appropriate for
city wear – suits, pantsuits, street shoe s , and ov ercoats.
W hile escapi n g from the p lane y our group salvaged the 10 it ems listed bel o w. Your
group’s task i s to work t o geth er to ran k these ite m s according t o their i mpo r tance for
survival. Place the nu mb er “1” b y th e most imp ort a nt it e m, th e numb er “2” b y th e seco n d ‐
most imp ort a nt it e m, and so on t hrough number “ 10,” the least i mportant it e m. Everyon e
should work toget h er to d o the r anki n g s, so everyo ne’s r ankin g s should be t he sa m e.

_____ Ball of s teel wool
_____ Cigarette lighter (without fluid)
_____ Loaded .45‐caliber p i stol
_____ Newspaper (one per person)
_____ Knife
_____ 30 feet of rop e
_____ Family‐size chocol ate bar (one p er person)
_____ Flashlight with batteries
_____ Extr a shirt and p a nts for each survivor
_____ Can of shortening

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 6

Appendix B: Parking Discussion Task
Campus Parking

Y ou h a v e jus t arrived t o c ampus after your w eekly trip to the gr ocery store, and it
has just start ed to po ur. Y o u ar e hopi n g to be a ble t o park clo s e to yo ur dor m so as n o t t o
get you a n d t h e groceries wet. U nfortu nately, as us u al you c ann ot find a p a r k ing spot near
your dorm. You end up p a rking far off‐ campus.
Y ou l ook for ward to th e Student Gove rnme nt m ee ting you w ill a t tend that evening
concernin g t he lack of parking o n USC ’ s campus. You anticipate bein g able t o e x plain to
others the pr o s and cons of diff erent options that The P a rking Man a gement is considering i n
order to i mp rove th e p ar king situ a tio n on ca mpus .
B elow you w ill see the 10 differ e nt op t ions b eing p resented at t he m eeti ng. Your
group’s task i s to work t o geth er to ran k these ite m s according to how g ood a solution e ach
option wo ul d be. Place t h e n u mb er “ 1” by the b e st option, th e n umb e r “2” by th e seco n d‐
best optio n, and so on t h rough nu mber “10,” th e worst option. E veryone s hould work
toget h er to d o the ranki n g s, so e v ery o ne’s r ankin g s should be t he same.

_____ USC will build a p a r k ing deck near Parkside Residential C ollege.

_____ Only students who earn d ean' s l i st status eac h semester w ill be able to park a c a r on
campus.

_____ USC will hold a silent auctio n in order to deter m ine who r e ceives p arki ng dec als. Only
those stude n ts who pledged the m ost money w o ul d get a dec a l, an d th e pled ged mon e y
would go to parking lot maintenance.

_____ Faculty will be restri c ted to p arking i n a lot off‐campus .

_____ USC will start a lottery sys tem in which peopl e will line up and permits will be offer ed
on a first‐come, first‐ser v e basis.

_____ On‐campus students can p ark onl y in the lot closest to th eir Residence Hall.

_____ Only Greek stud e nts can p a rk on campus. All other student s will have to park off‐
campus.

_____ USC will no l onger allow fres hmen to bring vehicles to ca mpus.

_____ USC will start a lottery s y st em in whic h two‐thirds of th e students will randomly be
grant e d per m its to p ark.

_____ USC will pave over the intr am ur al fi e ld, where intramur al sports are currently played,
in order to build a parking lot.

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 7

Appendix C: State Extraversion Rating Scale

Participant Code _________________________ ___

Adjective Ratings

Next t o e a ch a djective, pl ease write th e nu m b e r th at indicat es how well the adjective
describes the way you acted during the discussion ab out s urvival equipment.

De scribe s the way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
you acted du r ing
The discussion: N ot at Somewhat V ery
all well

_____ 1. Ener getic
_____ 2. C o o p erative
_____ 3. C a l m
_____ 4. Int e lligent
_____ 5. S o ciable
_____ 6. Insecure
_____ 7. Leth argic
_____ 8. Opti mistic
_____ 9. Demanding
_____ 10. Vul nerabl e
_____ 11. Shy
_____ 12. Ki n d
_____ 13. Agr eeable
_____ 14. Oversensitive
_____ 15. Enthusiastic
_____ 16. Stable
_____ 17. Adventurous
_____ 18. Considerate
_____ 19. Seri o us
_____ 20. Passive
PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 8

Appendix D: Affect Rating Scale

Participant Code _________________________ ___

Emotion Ratings

This scale co n sists of a n u m ber of wor ds that describe differe n t feelin gs and emoti ons.
Indicate to w hat e xt ent you felt this way during the discussion about s urvival equipment.

De scribe s the way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
you felt during
the discussion: V ery slightly M oderat ely A lot
or not at all

_____ 1. Int e rested
_____ 2. Exci ted
_____ 3. Ups e t
_____ 4. Stro ng
_____ 5. Host ile
_____ 6. Irritable
_____ 7. Aler t
_____ 8. N e rvous
_____ 9. Jittery
_____ 10. Acti v e

PERCEP TIO N OF STATE EXTRA V ERS I ON 5 9

Appendix E: Instruction Sheet

Participant Code _________________________ ___

Instructions for Part One Discussion

You will st art this e xperi m ent by discussing a topi c with an oth er participant. You will need
to com e t o a gree me nt in rank‐orderin g a list o f e q uipment. T h e topic will be described to
you on a sep a rate sheet o f pap e r.

You will h a v e 1 0 minut e s to discuss th is topic. You must co m e t o an a g r ee me nt a s a pa ir.

During this d i scussion, we would like you t o act in a particul a r way. Ple ase t r y your best to
act in t his w a y.

Specifically, we would like you to be bold, spontaneous, assert i v e, a nd talk a tive. Durin g t he
entire discus s ion, please try to act in those w a ys.

This m ay or may not b e t h e wa y you normally act – that is OK. J ust please tr y to act in th o se
ways as muc h as possible during t he entire discussion. You may not a ct e xa ctly tha t way the
whole tim e , j u st try to be as close as possible.

PLEASE RETURN THIS SHEET TO THE RESEARCHER

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate which verbal and nonverbal behaviors people used to evaluate a stranger’s state extraversion. Participants who were matched in pairs by sex and similar levels of extraversion engaged in two, 10-minute videotaped discussions. In half of the pairs, preceding the first discussion, one participant received a written instruction to use an extraverted conversation style (instructed condition), while their partner and both participants in the control group pairs received no instruction on how to act (uninstructed condition). In pairs composed of one instructed participant and one uninstructed participant, both partners rated the instructed participant higher on state extraversion and positive affect than the uninstructed participant. Although no significant differences were found on extraversion-linked behaviors for the instructed and control participants during the discussion task, instructed and uninstructed partners exhibited different behaviors depending on whether they were introverts or extraverts. Uninstructed extraverts used more toward arm gestures and made more expansive arm gestures than did instructed extraverts. Uninstructed extraverts also showed a greater decrease in eyeblink rate (EBR) than did instructed extraverts, while instructed introverts experienced a greater decrease in EBR than did uninstructed introverts. In addition, Introverts attended to facial behaviors and extraverts attended to arm gestures when evaluating state extraversion and positive and negative affect exhibited by themselves and their partners.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Psychophysiological reactivity to stress, psychopathic traits, and developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior: a prospective, longitudinal study

PDF

Goals and weight: the interplay of goal perceptions in weight management

PDF

Classically conditioned responses to food cues among obese and normal weight individuals: conditioning as an explanatory mechanism for excessive eating

PDF

Effects of nicotine abstinence on orienting, executive function, arousal and vigilance

PDF

Psychophysiological assessment of cognitive and affective responses for prediction of performance in arousal inducing virtual environments

PDF

Using acceptance and commitment training to enhance the effectiveness of behavioral skills training

PDF

Taking the temperature of the Columbia Card Task

PDF

Assessing the psychological correlates of belief strength: contributing factors and role in behavior

PDF

The acute relationship between affective states and physiological stress response, and the moderating role of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

PDF

Selectivity for visual speech in posterior temporal cortex

PDF

Neural and behavioral correlates of fear processing in first-time fathers

PDF

The acute impact of glucose and sucralose on food decisions and brain responses to visual food cues

PDF

Social norms intervention to promote help-seeking with depressed Asian and European Americans: A pilot study

PDF

Sources of stability and change in the trajectory of openness to experience across the lifespan

PDF

Effects of mint, menthol, and tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes on appeal and sensory effects, tobacco withdrawal…

PDF

Heart, brain, and breath: studies on the neuromodulation of interoceptive systems

Asset Metadata

Creator Klum, Mallory Kathleen (author)

Core Title Perception of experimentally manipulated state extraversion and extraversion-linked behaviors

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychological Sciences

Publication Date 11/27/2012

Defense Date 10/25/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag behavior,eyeblink rate,facial expression,gestures,manipulated state extraversion,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,state extraversion

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Renken, Ann E. (committee chair), Dawson, Michael Edward (committee member), Farver, Jo Ann M. (committee member), John, Richard S. (committee member)

Creator Email malloryklum@gmail.com,mklum@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-120409

Unique identifier UC11292245

Identifier usctheses-c3-120409 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KlumMallor-1354.pdf

Dmrecord 120409

Document Type Thesis

Rights Klum, Mallory Kathleen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA