RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

Academic Year: 2012/2013

Title: The relationship between Happiness, Impulsivity and Sociability.

Author: Ronan Hegarty

Supervisor: Dr Maarten Milders

‘I, Ronan Hegarty, confirm that this B.Sc. Research Project is my

own and is

expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of

other authors

in any form (e.g., ideas, equations, figures, text, tables, programs)

are properly

1

School of Life Sciences

BSc in Applied Psychology

acknowledged at the point of their use. A full list of references cited

is included.

The Relationship between

Happiness, Impulsivity and

Sociability.

By Ronan Hegarty (Supervised by Maarten Milders)

Word Count- 7,354

2

CONTENTS

Contents

List of Tables and Figures

1. Abstract……………………………………………………………………….

5

2. Introduction..............................................................................6

3. Methods..................................................................................17

3.1 Participants.......................................................................17

3.2 Measures..........................................................................17

3.3 Procedure....................................................................................................19

3.4 Plan of Analysis..........................................................................................19

3

4. Results....................................................................................20

5. Discussion..............................................................................24

6. Conclusion..............................................................................32

7. References.............................................................................34

8. Appendices.............................................................................43

List of Tables

Description page number

1. Correlations between Happiness, Impulsivity and

Extraversion 20

2. Collinerarity Statictics; Tolerance and VIF 21

3. Variance in Happiness impacted by Extraversion and

Impulsivity 22

4. Correlation Coefficients: Impact on Happiness 23

List of Figures

4

1. Correlation scatter plot with line of best fit between happiness

and extraversion.

21

2. P-Plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent variable: Happiness) 22

1. Abstract

There is a wealth of studies which have shown extraversion to be

positively correlated with happiness. Argyle (1987) and Vallereux

(2005), for example, clearly found in their research that extraverts

with strong social ties reported greater levels of happiness

compared to introverts. Although this correlation is widely accepted

in psychology the nature behind it is not yet fully understood. In an

attempt to better understand why extraversion is positively

correlated with happiness this study broke extraversion down into

5

key components to discover which of these were making a greater

contribution to the relationship between extraversion and

happiness.

After reviewing previous research, some of which was conducted by

Eysenck (1980), Revelle and Rocklin (1981), Godoy et al (2007) and

Becchetti (2007), two key components of extraversion were selected

to analyse which were impulsivity and sociability. The study utilised

online questionnaires to gather the data. The results showed

extraversion had a strong positive correlation with happiness as

hypothesized. Only a negative trend was observed between

impulsivity and happiness which was surprising as it was believed

impulsivity would have had a more significant effect on happiness

scores. This research concludes that sociability has a much greater

contribution to happiness than impulsivity. More research should be

carried out to explore this issue further and see if these results are

replicated.

2. Introduction

6

This study aims to investigate whether happiness is correlated with impulsivity and

sociability. The reason why this research is beneficial to society is because although

much independent research has been carried out on happiness, impulsivity and

sociability there have been few studies linking these personality traits directly

together. The relationship between extraversion and happiness has been heavily

tested. However, breaking down extraversion into key components such as sociability

and impulsivity and examining their relationship to happiness is an under researched

area of psychology that arguably needs to be addressed. This research will hope to

yield important insights into how impulsivity and sociability are linked to happiness.

Theoretical Background

It is important to note that this study accepts the theory that extraversion has a strong

correlation with happiness. This is because prior studies have consistently found

evidence of a strong relationship between extraversion and happiness. For example

Argyle (1987) reported that young individuals, who are happy, have stronger

relationships in their social networking and family relationships, than unhappy people.

Likewise Vallereux (2005) reported that young individuals who are more extraverted

are more headed for positive life events and well-being. Additional research carried

out by Costa and McCrae found evidence of a positive relationship between

extraversion and happiness. A study conducted by Watson and Clark (1997)

discovered that feelings of sociability were correlated with admissions of happiness.

All of these studies and many more clearly show that there is a significant relationship

between happiness and extraversion, which, that after much research, has been proven

to be valid and reliable.

7

This relationship is not fully understood, however some theories to explain the

relationship between happiness and extraversion have emerged in an attempt to

explain this links. Lucas and Diener (2001) ,argued that extraverts may be more

sensitive to rewarding social situations than introverts and this is manifested as greater

feelings of happiness perceived by extraverts. Gray (1972) also came to this

conclusion, he stated that the reason the correlation between extraversion and

happiness exists is because extraverts magnify rewards, and introverts magnify

punishment. This has been disputed by Ballenger (1983). What is not in dispute is that

extroverts possess greater social skills than introverts. Thorne (1987) is one of many

studies that have found that extraverts emitted more positive non-verbal signals than

introverts. Additionally, Pavot, Diener and Fujita (1990) suggested that extraverts and

introverts both enjoy social situations; however extraverts select more social

situations resulting in greater happiness. Vallereux (2005) tested both these

hypotheses with a repeated measure of happiness on multiple reconstructed episodes.

The results clearly showed support for the situation seeking hypothesis with no

significant support for reward sensitivity. It seems clear that extraversion is a driving

force that needs to be investigated to better understand why social situations are

making extroverts happier than introverts.

A crucial piece of theoretical background to the current study, is the theory that

extraversion is made up of various psychological components. Eysneck was one of the

first to try to describe the core features of extraversion and developed scales to assess

personality. These include the Maudsley Personality Questionnaire, MPQ, (Eysenck,

1959), the Eysenck Personality Inventory, EPI, (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968), the

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, EPQ, (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), and the

Eysenck Personality Profiler, EPP, (Eysenck & Wilson, 1991). Eysenck came to the

8

conclusion that extraversion consists of various psychological traits such as being

sociable, impulsive, excitable, optimistic, active, responsive, lively, carefree, having

leadership qualities and being changeable. Guilford (1975) put particular emphasis on

sociability and impulsiveness as key dimensions of extraversion.

Eysenck’s theories have been supported in studies carried out by Campbell (2004), in

an experiment testing introversion and extraversion in a library setting. Eysenck’s

theory on extraversion has also been biologically supported by brain scans showing

that extraverts require more mental stimulation than introverts and this is possibly

why they seek out more new experiences. Rocklin and Revelle (1981) have confirmed

Eysenck’s methodology as reliable and valid and it is important to note that Eysenck

has taken a great deal of time, effort and made modifications to his theory which has

made it widely accepted and very reliable.

It is important to note that extraversion is not the only personality trait correlated with

happiness. Past research indicates that there is a relationship between other

personality traits and happiness, DeNeve and Cooper (1998) performed a meta-

analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well being. They reported that

repressive-defensiveness, emotional stability, locus of control, hardiness, positive

affectivity, self-esteem and leisure are strongly correlated to happiness. In addition

Furnham and Cheng (1997) found personality traits such as stability and

conscientiousness to be significantly related to happiness. All these studies combined

arguably show that happiness is correlated with various personality traits.

9

Previous Research

Happiness is a broad term and there are numerous definitions. Tatarkiewicz (1976)

defines happiness as a sense of overall satisfaction with one’s whole life. Other

definitions of happiness characterize it as a crucial motivator for humans and a

positive internal experience (Lu et al., 2001). Perhaps one of more complete

definitions of happiness is the one by Argyle (1987) who reported happiness to be a

multidimensional entity consisting of emotional and cognitive parts.

There has been much research on what causes happiness and there is even a relatively

new area of psychology known as positive psychology devoted to this area. Positive

psychology is concerned with variables which promote well-being, such as social

relations (Campbell, et al., 1976; Kraut & Johnston, 1979) and marriage (Diener,

Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000; Stutzer & Frey 2006). The primary reason why we

experience feelings of happiness in the first place according to Gray (1972) is because

happiness is is an amplified biological signal to encourage behaviours that are

beneficial to the organism. This has been supported by McPhillamy and Lewinsohn

(1976) who reported the most common activities that increased happiness in general

were ,eating ,sex, exercise, success and socialising. These behaviours are important

for evolutionary success and are thus encouraged by the brain viva the emotion of joy.

In their paper ‘the psychological causes of happiness’ Argyle and Martin (1991)

highlight the issue of measuring happiness. When people are asked what they

perceive as happiness they often give two kinds of answer. They tend to either

describe it as being in a state of joy or as a state of satisfaction. It is key to note

this ,because the first is an emotion and the second is cognition, the result of

reflection. Based on this information Argyle and Martin (1991) suggested that

10

happiness may have three partly independent components. The first is the frequency

and degree of positive affect, or joy. The second is the average level of satisfaction

over a period and the third is the absence of negative feelings, such as depression.

Life satisfaction, the cognitive component of well-being, may involve comparing

one’s own life to other’s (Argyle & Martin, 1991). This theory argues that people

compare what they have with what others have and base their satisfaction on this

comparison. Based on this theory, there would not be absolute elements necessary to

make one happy, but rather satisfaction would depend on appraising what one has as

being better than what someone else has. Another theory on well-being suggests it is

not one’s comparison to others that determines happiness, but their comparison to

their ideal (Argyle & Martin, 1991). A person compares what they have to what they

would like to have in an ideal world. Both theories however have limited

applicability (e.g., they would not be applicable to feeling pain).

One particular personality trait and its relation to happiness that this paper will be

focusing on is impulsivity. Impulsivity has had many definitions due to it being a

multidimensional construct involved in various personality traits. These are arguably

the most relevant definitions due to the fact that they have been supported by

empirical experiments which will also be discussed below. Matthys et al (1998) define

Impulsivity as ‘the perseverance of a response that is punished or unrewarded’.

Ainslie’s (1975) definition varies somewhat, he defines impulsivity as ‘preference for

a small immediate reward over a larger delayed reward’. Finally Dougherty et al

(1999) defines impulsivity as ‘A series of response disinhibition/attentional

paradigms, in which impulsivity is defined either as making responses that are

premature or as the inability to withhold a response’.

11

With regards to impulsivity it has been linked to being one of the main psychological

components of extraversion according to Eysenck (1980) who in his extraversion

scale added questions based on impulsivity to get a better sense of extraversion.

Revelle and Rocklin (1981) also came to the same conclusion in their paper.

Impulsivity has also been linked as a central component of uncontrolled stimulation

seeking and psychopathic behaviour (Zuckerman, 1994). Murray (1938) arguably

gives an overall encompassing definition of Impulsivity which is ‘A tendency to

respond quickly and without reflection and does not always consider the future

consequences of his conduct”.

Bachorowski and Newman (1985) revealed the nature of impulsivity in an experiment

involving change of response rates. Participants were instructed to regularly change

the speed in which to draw a figure. People with high impulsivity often had an

inability to change the speed of response when told to draw a figure as slowly as

possible. This study revealed that Murrays (1938) definition was too simplistic

because the findings suggest that impulsivity is an inability to inhibit responding

rather than just a fast rate of responding.

Analyses of the many separate scales of impulsivity by (Revelle (1995) indicate that it

is a multidimensional construct. This comes from an examination of the multivariate

structure of a pooled set of 378 items taken from the existing impulsivity scales and

measures. From this large set of items, 15 oblique first order factors and three broad

and correlated second order factors were identified. From the 12 first order factors of

self-report(impulsive, energetic, quick decision making, thrill seeking, avoiding

planning, impulsive purchases, unreflective, avoids complexity, distractible, restless,

12

impatient, and happy go lucky). Three second level factors of spontaneous, not

persistent, and carefree were formed.

Impulsivity has had a varied life in its identification. Rocklin and Revelle (1981) note

that impulsivity has been identified in various personality spaces. For example Costa

and McCrae (1992) considered it a facet of emotionality. Digman (1994) expanded on

this idea and came to the conclusion that impulsivity was a facet of non-

conscientiousness. Not only does impulsivity significantly affect personality and

behaviour, it also has been identified as a central feature in arousal based theories of

cognitive performance (Anderson &Revelle, 1994; Humphreys and Revelle, 1984).

Research in molecular biology by Schalling and Åsberg (1985) and Zuckerman

(1991) have found that impulsivity has a strong biological basis with specific genes

related to higher levels of impulsivity.

With regards to why extraverts seek out more social interaction in the first place, the

conclusion from Eysencks theory of Biological Basis of Personality (1967) is that

introverts are chronically more aroused than are extraverts. This, with the assumption

that there is an optimal level of stimulation, leads to the prediction that extraverted

behaviour represents a greater stimulus hunger on the part of the less aroused

extraverts. In a reanalysis of a previous result that had shown extraverts prefer to

study in noisier conditions than introverts, Campbell (1983) found that this effect was

due to impulsivity rather than to sociability. If Campbell’s (1983) conclusion is

correct then this essentially means that impulsivity is a driving force behind why

extraverts seek out more social interaction than introverts and is worth exploring in

more depth. Arguably, this is because impulsive people are more sensitive to cues for

rewards than to punishments. This then leads impulsive people to be more likely to

13

engage in behaviours that put them in highly arousing situations and thus increases

happiness.

Campbell’s (1983) evidence could be interpreted as impulsivity having a positive

effect on happiness but previous research has actually shown that people who score

very highly on impulsive scales tend to not be happy. This was shown in a study

discussing personality traits. Costa and McCrae (1980) reported fearfulness,

hostility, and impulsivity to be related to lower degrees of happiness while extravert

personality traits such as sociability and activity were related to higher degrees of

happiness. In extreme cases people who score high on impulsivity scores can be

mentally unstable i.e. people who score very highly are often in prison or a psychiatric

hospital. This is arguably because they do not consider consequences, resulting in

damaging behaviour. High Impulsivity scores have also been linked to attempted

suicide. Corruble (2005) et al found higher clinical impulsivity scores among patients

who had attempted suicide compared to those who had not.

However there is evidence to counter this claim. Dear (2010) in a study involving

prisoners set out to discover a correlation between dysfunctional impulsivity and suicidal

ideation. Data was collected from prisoners (half of whom had recently attempted

suicide). Results indicate that a direct association between impulsivity and suicidal ideation

is unlikely. It is important to note that the personality trait impulsivity is not always

necessarily negative and in general most people will not score excessively high to the point

where they are a danger to themselves and others. Mild impulsivity will inevitably lead

people to be less constrained by fears and other psychological barriers that may have

prevented them to trying new things, meet new people resulting in more excitement

and higher levels of happiness (Revelle 1995).

14

The final personality trait of key interest in this study is sociability. The reason why

we are interested in this personality trait is because previous literature strongly

supports the view that sociability is a major key to happiness. Campbell et al (1976)

studied what is important for life satisfaction and found that one of the most important

factors that predicated happiness was , sociability (i.e., family, marriage, and

friendships). Social relations’ role in well-being may be caused by the positive

activities associated with them such as eating, talking, and playing games. This

supports the theory that it is the social interaction with others that is linked to greater

well-being. Argyle’s (1988) explanation of why sociability is closely associated with

happiness is because it is a source of bonding and positive effect.

There are various studies that support Campbell et al (1976) findings. An example of

a positive effect gained from socialising would be smiling. In a study carried out by

Godoy et al (2007) results showed the more time a person spends in social leisure, the

more likely the person will smile. Genuine Smiling is generally regarded as the universal

symbol of happiness. Kraut and Johnston (1979) found that players at a bowling alley smiled

at each other a lot but not at the skittles. This suggests that smiling is a directed social signal

rather than just a pleasure response. The reason why smiling increases happiness, is because it

is a form of giving and receiving positive feedback from others (Laird 1984).

Another reason why sociability has been linked to greater well-being is because it is generally

regarded as being a major predictor of ones love life. Becchetti (2007) et al argue that

individual satisfaction (and also productivity in economic life)

depends so much on the success/failure of love relationships and on

the capacity of developing a good social life. Studies examining love

relationships and happiness have found that people with low

sociability find it hard to find partners and feel feelings of isolation

15

and rejection which can be damaging to one’s happiness and health

(Seligman 2002). This has been supported by Diener, et al., (2000) and

Dush & Amato (2005) who found that happiness is significantly higher for those who

are married than those are single. They also claim that this effect is similar in different

nations around the world. All of these studies, examining sociability suggest a higher

level of sociability will result in a higher level happiness. Not only can more social

interactions make a person happier in general, but also make it more likely that they

will find a romantic partner which will, in turn lead to even greater levels of happiness

In conclusion, it is clear that impulsivity and sociability are important dimensions of

extraversion and extraversion has been proven to be directly correlated to happiness.

Although there is substantial research on happiness, impulsivity and sociability

individually, it has very rarely been the primary focus of a study to correlate these

variables. It is also important to note that in relation to impulsivity many studies are

arguably done on the extreme end looking at patients who are mentally ill and

prisoners. Many of these participants may score high on impulsivity but are often

depressed due to other factors such as their environment. This study will help us

understand the relationship between happiness and these two key dimensions of

extraversion, to discover which dimension has a more prevalent effect on happiness.

Current Study

This study aims to investigate if happiness is correlated with impulsivity and

sociability. The reason this relationship is worth exploring is because there is a wealth

of evidence that suggests there is a correlation between extraversion and happiness.

Exploring this relationship in depth by breaking down key components of

extraversion will yield a greater insight into happiness and enhance knowledge about

16

this relationship. To date there is no conclusive reason why previous research has

often found a significant correlation between extraversion and happiness. This

research will attempt to provide some answers to this question and validate previous

research that has been conducted examining impulsivity and sociability.

Our hypothesis is that a higher sociability score will be positively correlated with a

high happiness score. This is arguably because the more sociable you are, the more

friends you will have, leading to more mental interaction/stimulation and self-

worth ,creating more feelings of being happy. People with a higher sociability score

will be more likely to be involved in a romantic relationship which also increases

happiness according to the evidence discussed above. We expect to yield similar

findings to past research which has consistently found a strong correlation between

sociability and happiness.

In relation to the personality trait, impulsivity, there have been many studies carried

out on mental health patients and prisoners, providing strong evidence that high levels

of impulsivity can be damaging to happiness and lead to suicide. On the other hand a

small amount of impulsivity allows one to try new things and not be constrained by

others resulting in greater levels of happiness Based on this research discussed in the

introduction our hypotheses is that high levels of impulsivity will be negatively

correlated to happiness. However it is important to note that there is a lack of research

with impulsivity being linked to happiness among mentally healthy people which

needs to be explored in more detail an area which this study is trying to address.

In summary, the question we are trying to address is which one of these two key

factors of extraversion (impulsivity and sociability) has a stronger influence over

happiness? We also hope to validate the claim that extraversion itself is correlated

17

with happiness. The results generated from this research will also to attempt to answer

an aspect of the very complex question which is “Why is there a significant

correlation often found between happiness and extraversion?”. Examining the key

component sociability and the often overlooked impulsivity will yield a fresh insight

into the relationship between happiness and extraversion.

3. Methods

3.1 Participants- All participants were selected from Scotland and live in

Edinburgh. A total of 45 participants took part, 39 participants were female and

6 were male. The vast majority of participants were primarily students aged 18-

22 with a mean age of 19. There were some slightly older participants taking

part in the study. All participants were educated since they were all Heriot Watt

University students. Participants came from varying socio-economic

backgrounds.

All participants gathered were Herriot Watt University psychology students. We

used the STREP system provided by the university to advertise our study online

so that people were aware of the study and filled out the questionnaire online

viva this system. Since this is a correlational study we collected as many

participants as possible.

3.2 Measures- This study used three measures. The first is the Oxford happiness

scale which was used to obtain a participants level of happiness. The Oxford

Happiness Inventory (Argyle, et all., 1989) is a 29 item multiple choice

instrument. For each question the participant is given 6 options to answer from

which range from strongly agree with this statement to strongly disagree. The

18

reason we utilized this scale to measure happiness was because it has been

confirmed to be an extremely valid and reliable measure of happiness. This is

due to the fact that it has been found to behave consistently cross-culturally to

compare students in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA (Francis, Brown,

Lester, & Philipchalk, 1998). Vallereux (2005) tested the oxford happiness scale

and came to the same conclusion as Argyle that it was valid and reliable

Likewise Liaghatdar et all (2008) found the scale to be highly reliable and were

able to replicate results found by Argyle and Vallereux.

The second measure the study employed was the Barratt impulsivity scale. This

scale is a 30 item-self report instrument designed to assess the personality

behavioural construct of impulsiveness. For each question there are 4 options to

answer the question ranging from rarely/never to almost/always. We decided to

use this scale because it is arguably the most commonly administered self-report

measure for the assessment of impulsiveness in research settings. During the

past decade, multiple translations of the BIS-11 have been published in Spanish,

German, French, Italian, Japanese and Korean. Stanford et all (2009) found the

scale to be a reliable and valid measurement. The scale is also supported by

neuroimaging studies carried out by Baca-García et al (2005) that found Barrat

impulsivity scale scores to correlate with prefrontal integrity and function, as

well as to central serotoninergic function.

The last measure we utilized was the Eysencks Extraversion Scale (1959) (EPI)

which measures extraversion as a reasonable mix of impulsivity and sociability

(Revelle 1981) . This scale contains 57 items where the answers to a statement

range from completely agree to completely disagree. We decided to measure

19

sociability with this scale because it also served the benefit of further analysing

impulsivity which would enrich the data. The reason why we did not use newer

models of the extraversion scale is because they do not have the same equal

balance of sociability and impulsivity according to Revelles (1981) comparison

of EPI and EPQ scales. This scale has also been shown to be highly efficient

and be reliable and valid according to Heffernan et all (2000). It has been

widely used in psychology especially in the first ten years after its publication.

The EPI scale was at one point the operational definition of Extraversion and

was the basis for a great deal of genetic, physiological, and cognitive research.

3.3 Procedure- Participants were asked to fill out 3 questionnaires which were the

Barrats impulsivity scale, the Oxford happiness scale and the Eysenck

extraversion scale. The Participants then proceeded to fill out these 3

questionnaires. Participants were told beforehand if any questions made them

feel uncomfortable to make this clear and if they wanted to stop at any time they

were allowed to do this. After the study was completed participants had the

opportunity to know the underlying nature of the study if they wished.

Participants who are interested and express this will be sent an email explaining

the purpose of the study. Our procedure was consistent with the ethical

standards set by the British Psychological Society.

3.4 Plan of Analysis- This is a quantitative study using correlational research.

Correlational research attempts to determine whether and to what degree a

relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables. However, it

never establishes a cause-effect relationship. The study aimed at exploring a

relationship between three variables. The study analyzed the correlation

20

between impulsivity and happiness and the correlation between sociability and

happiness. The test used to analyze the relationship between the three variables

was a standard multiple regression correlational test on an SPSS system. The

reason for this is because it had the capability to produce multiple correlations

necessary for the study and was the most appropriate test.

4. Results

To explore the relationship between the three variables a standard multiple regression

test was utilized. It is important to note that we are measuring sociability viva the

extraversion scale, this will be explained further in the discussion.

Table 1. Correlations between Happiness, Impulsivity and

Extraversion

Happiness Impulsivity ExtraversionHappiness Pearson Correlation 1 -.236 .591**

Sig.(1-tailed) .119 .000N 45 45 45

Impulsivity Pearson Correlation -.236 1 .236Sig.(1-tailed) .119 .118

N 45 45 45

Extraversion Pearson Correlation .591** .236 1Sig.(1-tailed) .000 .118

N 45 45 45

Correlations

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A strong positive correlation was observed between extraversion and happiness

(0.591) which was also significant p<0.000, as shown in Table 1 above. No

significant correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness. The strong

21

positive correlation between extraversion and happiness (0.591) which was also

significant p<0.000 is clearly demonstrated in scatter plot shown in Figure 1 below.

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

5 10 15 20 25 30

Happ

iness

Extraversion

Figure 1. Correlation scatter plot with line of best fit between Happiness and

Extraversion.

There are two values given in the collinerarity statistics, Tolerance and VIF.

Tolerance is an indicator of how much of the variability of the specified independent

variable is not explained by the other independent variables. If this value is very small

( less than .10) it indicates that the multiple correlation with the other variables is

high. This suggests a possibility of multicollinearity (tolerance value of less than .10,

or a VIF value of above ten).

Table 2. Collinerarity statistics: Tolerance and VIF

Model (Constant)

Tolerance VIF

Impulsivity .994 1.059Extraversion .994 1.059

22

Table 2 shows that the tolerance value for each independent variable is .944 which is

not less than 1. Therefore we have not violated the multicollinearity assumption. This

is also supported by the VIF value, which is 1.059, this is well below the cut-off of 10.

Figure 2. P-Plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Dependent variable:

Happiness).

A Normal Probability Plot of the regression standardized residual as shown in Figure

2 above suggests that there were no major deviations from normality. The straight

diagonal line from bottom left to top right show that there is no major outliers

corrupting the data.

Table 3. Variance in Happiness impacted by Extraversion and Impulsivity.

R Square Change

F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .591a .349 .334 .58771 .349 23.055 1 43 .0002 .706b .498 .474 .52216 .149 12.475 1 42 .001

Model Summary Change Statistics

Model R R SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion

23

b. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion, Impulsivity

In Table 3 above, the R square illustrates how much of the variance in the dependent

variable is explained by the model. The first row shows how much extraversion

explains the variance in happiness which is .349. This can be interpreted as 34.9%.

What is interesting is that although impulsivity by itself has been shown to not

correlate with happiness when added a as a predictor with extraversion impulsivity

increases the R squared significantly to 49.8%.

Table 4. Correlation Coefficients: Impact on Happiness

ModelStandardized Coeffi cients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.(Constant) 5.256 .743 7.078 .000Impulsivity -.018 .011 -.236 -1.590 .119

(Constant) 4.366 .567 7.702 .000Impulsivity -.030 .009 -.397 -3.532 .001

Extraversion .107 .018 .685 6.086 .000

Unstandardized Coeffi cients

1

2

Table 4 shows how each of the variables included in the model contributed to the

prediction of the dependent variable which is happiness. We are interested in

comparing the contribution of each independent variable therefore we will be

analyzing the beta values. Extraversion had a strong positive correlation coefficient

with a beta coefficient score of .685 which was also significant P<0.000. This score

indicates that in general a higher extraversion score will result in a higher happiness

score. Impulsivity had a negative correlation coefficient with a beta coefficient score

of-.397 and was also significant P<0.001. This score indicates that as the impulsivity

score rises then the happiness score decreases. These results are important because

they clearly show that extraversion had the strongest unique contribution to happiness

24

while showing that impulsivity also had a significant contribution to happiness when

entered with extraversion. . It is important to note however that this relationship only

occurs when extraversion has already been entered as predictor. This is because in

table 1 no significant correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness.

5. Discussion

The results partly supported our hypotheses. Our first hypothesis was that we

expected to observe a positive significant correlation between sociability and

happiness. A strong positive correlation was observed between sociability and

happiness (0.591) which supported our first hypothesis. Our second hypothesis was

that we expected impulsivity to have a significant negative correlation with happiness.

The results did not support this hypothesis. This was because only a negative trend

was observed between impulsivity and happiness (-2.36). The reason it is a minor

trend and not a significant correlation is because the P value was over 0.05. Since the

P value generated from this study was not significant we can assume that the negative

relationship between impulsivity and happiness may be due to chance. However the

Beta coefficients for impulsivity were negative which meant that higher impulsivity

was associated with lower happiness. But this relationship only occurred when

extraversion had already been entered as a predictor. There was nothing inherently

wrong with the design of the study. There were no outliers or major deviations from

normality and the multicollinearity assumption was not violated.

Theoretical Implications of findings

25

The primary implication of this study is that it has enhanced

knowledge particularly in the field of positive psychology. By taking

two key components of extraversion, sociability and impulsivity the

link between extraversion and happiness is now better understood.

Research by Campbell et al (1976) placing emphasis on sociability

as a main predicator of happiness has been verified. The study has

also validated Becchetti (2007) findings that developing a good social life

is crucial to all aspects of happiness. All of this evidence combined

clearly shows that sociability is a driving force of extraversion. This

insight is highly beneficial because now that sociability’s role in

happiness has become clearer, this opens up future research

possibilities as to why sociability is so essential to happiness. This

could be due a multitude of factors such as Seligman’s (2002)

explanation that low sociability will entail feelings of isolation and

rejection. It is important to note that sociability has been closely

regarded as a predictor of how successful ones personal

relationships are. Findings by Diener, et al., (2000), Dush & Amato (2005) and

Stutzer & (Frey 2006) provide further answers as to why sociability is so closely

linked with happiness. These studies come to the conclusion that people who have

more social interactions in general will be more likely to attract a romantic partner

and it is the consensus of these studies that being in a stable romantic relationship

significantly increases happiness. An idea for future research would be to explore this

aspect of sociability further to measure the extent personal relationships are playing

on sociability’s relationship with happiness.

26

Another major implication of this study is that it has raised new issues

regarding the role of impulsivity and its contribution to happiness. Campbell’s

(1983) research may show that impulsivity is a key factor in why extraverts seek out

more social interaction than introverts. However, it is not the reason why extraverts

are reporting greater levels of happiness. While a significant correlation was not

observed in this study between impulsivity and happiness when entered with

extraversion impulsivity did have a significant negative contribution to happiness

scores. These results partly support previous research by Costa and McCrea (1980)

that found impulsivity to be related to lower degrees of happiness while extravert

personality traits such as sociability and activity were related to higher degrees of

happiness. Likewise Corruble (2005) found clinical impulsivity to be detrimental to

one’s happiness and in serious cases to be linked with suicide. It is the conclusion of

this study that there is definitely a negative relationship between impulsivity and

happiness although it is likely to be a weaker relationship than previous literature

suggests. More research should be carried out among the normal population due to the

fact that there are limited studies analysing people with ordinary levels of impulsivity.

The vast majority of research on impulsivity is similar to Corruble’s (2005) work

which has focused on the extreme end of impulsivity which is not representative of

the population.

The reason why impulsivity seems to be negatively associated with happiness is likely

due to Murray’s (1938) explanation that an inability to inhibit responding could

seriously impact ones social life. High levels of impulsivity would make it difficult to

sustain meaningful relationships and socialise effectively .The results generated from

this study make sense since no participants in this study suffered from severe clinical

impulsivity. This is the most likely reason a high negative correlation between

27

impulsivity and happiness was not observed. One of the reasons why impulsivity’s

relationship with happiness was not significant as hypothesized could be due to the

fact that there were simply not enough participants. Maybe with more participants the

scores would have balanced out producing a significant correlation between

impulsivity and happiness.

Summary of theoretical implications

In summary this research has had many interesting theoretical implications. The first

is that it has validated sociability’s importance to happiness. It has also shown that

sociability is a key component of extraversion that is responsible for the high positive

correlation between extraversion and happiness. This is demonstrated when

impulsivity was correlated in isolation with happiness and was found to have no

significant relationship to happiness. Although it is important to note that impulsivity

had a small influence over the correlations observed between sociability and

happiness the results suggest it was contributing less to happiness scores than

sociability. This study is limited because it cannot provide a definitive reason to why

this is. Another major implication is that the study has also shown is that impulsivity’s

contribution to happiness is less than previous research suggests although more

research is needed to verify this. The reason for this is due to the fact that the majority

of studies that have analysed impulsivity’s effect on happiness have often looked at

people with very high impulsivity scores which is not representative of the population.

All of this information combined has enhanced knowledge regarding what personality

traits are key to promoting ones happiness.

Practical applications of findings

28

The insight gained from this study into the relationship happiness shares with

sociability and impulsivity is not just limited to theory. This study also offers practical

applications to assess common psychological approaches which aim to treat people

with depression and increase happiness. This may improve people’s lives in general

because the study offers fresh insight into how to improve psychological treatments.

This is an important contribution to the field of psychology.

Lewinsohn et al (1976) developed the first behavioural treatment of depression, in

which patients increased the number of both pleasant activities and positive

interactions with their social environment. Techniques such as goal-setting, self-

monitoring and self-reward were utilised to encourage social behaviours. Although

several promising trials were conducted this method of tackling depression was

largely replaced by the emergence of cognitive behaviour therapy in the 1980s. The

basic idea of cognitive therapy is to change negative thinking patters into positive

ones with the aim that this will in turn improve relationships and productivity.

Based on our findings, we believe that cognitive behaviour therapy should continue to

be utilised because it can help people overcome social avoidance strategies that are

typically employed by depressed people. This will promote sociability which will

increase happiness. Cognitive behaviour therapy has also been shown by Opdyke and

Rothbaum (1998) to be effective at helping people deal with impulse control

disorders. This is of particular relevance to our findings, which has shown impulsivity

to have a negative trend with happiness and sociability to have a strong correlation

with happiness. This being said it is important to note that cognitive behaviour

therapy does have flaws and should not be solely used to treat depression and help

people increase happiness. This was discovered by Jacobson et al (1996) who set up

29

an important study to assess the value of the components of cognitive therapy. After

randomizing 150 people with depression into three groups they found that the

cognitive component of therapy was contributing less to happiness than previously

thought.

It has been established by this study that a major contributor to happiness is the

sociability aspect of extraversion. Therefore it is suggested that happiness training

courses which place emphasis on sociability should be utilised more in psychology.

This includes methods such as assertiveness training and social skills training for

those who have difficulty with relationships, friendships and work etc (Argyle

1987).The findings which we have reported on the happiness of extraverts suggest

that developing traits common to extraverts such as positive non-verbal signals and

the ability to reach for similarity will greatly increase peoples experience of social

interaction which will lead to a more successful and happy life.

Based on the results from this study, arguably, the most effective way of treating

people with depression and increasing happiness is to combine cognitive behaviour

therapy, social skills training, and Lewinsohn et al (1976) behavioural approach. If

these methods of increasing happiness were used in conjunction with each other then

it would aid people in overcoming negative thinking patterns which often lead to

social avoidance strategies, successfully inhibit damaging behaviour and promote

social activity. All of these benefits combined would possibly significantly reduce

depression relapse rates and would be a more effective way of increasing happiness.

Problems and Future research Ideas

30

The first and most major methodological issue that may have confused the reader to

this point is the issue of utilizing a well-known Eysenck EPI extraversion scale

(1968) to measure sociability. This scale was justified initially because it was rare in

that it was an equal mix of sociability and impulsivity (Revelle 1981). The benefit was

that the scale served the dual purpose of examining impulsivity in more depth as well

as measuring sociability. The methodological problem of this however became

apparent when the results were analyzed viva SPSS. We could not get access to the

sub-scale for this questionnaire which prevented sociability and impulsivity to be

isolated separately. The r squared values and correlation coefficients showed that

when impulsivity was entered as a predictor with extraversion it was significantly

increasing the variance explained in happiness.This hindered us from effectively

analyzing sociability by itself since impulsivity was influencing the data.

This methodological problem was mostly overcome. Analyzing the Barrat

impulsivity scale (1995) results provided us with a reasonable estimate to what extent

impulsivity was contributing to extraversion. For example if a high significant

correlation was observed between impulsivity and happiness then we could conclude

that impulsivity was also having a significant contribution on the extraversion scale.

This would have in turn made it impossible to effectively assess sociability since

impulsivities relationship with happiness would be significantly altering the data.

After reviewing the relationship between impulsivity and happiness no significant

correlation was observed. Since not even a weak significant correlation was observed

we can assume that the strong positive correlation (0.591) generated by the Eysneck

EPI scale (1968) was largely due to sociability. This is because when impulsivity was

assessed in isolation viva the Barrat impulsivity scale it proved to have a very small

negative effect on happiness but this was not significant so only a small trend was

31

observed. It is likely therefore that while impulsivity influenced the extraversion score

to a small degree it was not seriously altering the data and may have only made the

correlation slightly weaker.

There were various methodological issues in this study that should be highlighted. Out

of the 45 participants 39 were female. The original intention of the study was to

explore the issue at hand, equally, between the sexes. Due to an imbalance in more

females opting to participate in this study over males, arguably the results are not

representative of the male population. Past research conducted by Yanna et al (2011)

examined the differences between the personalities of men and women and came to

the conclusion that men and women personalities are systematically different.

Extraversion scores were generally higher among females who also reported higher

sociability, positive emotions and lower impulsivity. Their findings were consistent

with previous research showing similar patterns in Big Five facets of Gregariousness

and Positive Emotions (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al.,2001). These studies show key

psychological differences between men and women and thus we cannot assume that

the results generated from this study can be applied to males. Although only

speculation at this point one of the reasons that our hypotheses regarding impulsivity

was wrong could be due to the vast majority of participants being female.

An idea for further research would be to replicate this study and primarily focus on

male participants and explore the difference, if any between the sexes. This could

significantly alter the findings that this study has found. For example male scores

could alter the data so that the relationship impulsivity shares with happiness and

extraversion is no longer a trend but a significant correlation. In summary the lack of

32

male participants in this study is a methodological weakness that could have

significantly altered the results and provided greater insight.

Another issue worth noting about the study was that it was purely a quantitative study

utilising questionnaires. This has the methodological strengths of being easy to

replicate making it reliable. The results are also clear and easy to generalize. However

there is a problem of validity since participants may have answered some questions

superficially or misinterpreted questions. An idea for future research could be to

incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods respectively enriching the data,

particularly in the area of validity.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion this study found that sociability had a significant positive correlation

with happiness. This supported our hypotheses and validated previous findings with

regards to higher levels of sociability being linked to higher levels of happiness. The

results were surprising with regards to the relationship impulsivity shares with

happiness. No significant correlation was observed in this study, only a minor

negative trend was found between impulsivity and happiness. This conflicted with

previous research that often found that impulsivity had a significant negative effect on

happiness. However when entered as a predictor with extraversion impulsivity did

influence the variance of happiness. It also weakened the positive correlation between

extraversion and happiness due to its negative beta coefficient value. This study was

of particular importance as it revealed that sociability had a significantly greater

contribution to ones happiness than impulsivity. This has enhanced knowledge with

regards to discovering what aspects of extraversion are contributing to the high

correlation scores with happiness. This being said this study is only a stepping stone

33

to understanding personality traits and their effect on happiness. More research needs

to be carried out in this area. For example it is still unclear why impulsivity did not

have more of an effect on happiness and this is worth exploring further. Finally it is

important to note that this study does have some methodological issues which can be

overcome with future research.

34

7. References

Ainslie G (1975): Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse

control. Psychol Bull; 82:463-496.

Anderson, K. J. (1994). Impulsivity, caffeine, and task difficulty: A within-subjects

test of the Yerkes-Dodson law. Personality & Individual Differences, 16, 813-829.

Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1994). Impulsivity and time of day: Is rate of change

in arousal a function of impulsivity? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67,

334-344.

Argyle, M. (1987) The Psychology of Happiness. London: Methuen.

Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (1991). The psychological causes of happiness. In F.

Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz, Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary

Perspective (pp.77-100). Toronto: Pergamon Press Canada Ltd.

Argyle,M (1988). Social cognition and social interaction, The psychologist:1,177-83.

Baca-García E, Salgado BR, Segal HD, Lorenzo CV, Acosta MN, Romero MA, et al

(2005). A pilot generic study of the continuum between compulsivity and impulsivity

in females: the serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism. Prog

Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2005;29(5):713-7.

Bachorowski, J. A., & Newman, J. P. (1985). Impulsivity in adults: Motor inhibition

and time interval estimation. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 133-136.

35

Ballenger, J.C (1983), Biochemical correlates of personality traits in normal: An

exploratory study. Personality and Individual differences, 6, 615-25.

Barratt ES, Patton JM, Stanford MS (1995). Factor Structure of the Barratt

Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774.

Becchetti, L Pelloni, A Rossetti, F. (2007). Sociability and Happiness. Available:

http://www.aiccon.it/file/convdoc/n_44.pdf. Last accessed 6th March 2012.

Brebner, J. (1998). Happiness and personality. Personality and Individual

Differences, 25, 279-296.

Brebner, J., Donaldson, J., Kirby, N., & Ward, L. (1995). Relationships between

happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 251-258.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The Quality of American

Life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Campbell, J & Hawley, C. (2004). Study Habits and Eysenck's theory of extraversion-

introversion.

Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0092656682900708. Last

accessed 6th March 2012.

Campbell, J. B. (1983). Differential relationships of extraversion, impulsivity, and

sociability to study habits. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 308-314.

Cheng, H. & Furnham, A. (2001). Attributional style and personality as predictors of

happiness and mental health. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 307-327.

Corruble, E Damy, E Guelf, J.D. (2005). Impulsivity: A relevant dimension regarding

suicide attempts. Available:

36

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016503279800130X. Last accessed

6th March 2012.

Costa, P. T. Jr., Terracciano, A., and McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in

personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

81, 322–331.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on

subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 38, 668-678.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality &

Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.

Cruise, S & Lewis C (2005). Internal Consistency Reliability And Temporal Stability

Of The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire Short-Form Test-Retest Data Over Two

Weeks.

Dear,G. (2010). Functional and Dysfunctional Impulsivity, Depression, and Suicidal

Ideation in a Prison Population. Available:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980009600850. Last accessed 6th

March 2012.

Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship

quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of

Happiness Studies.

37

Deneve, K &Copper H (1998) The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137

personality traits and subjective well being. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (1998),

pp.197-229.

Diener, E., Gohm, C.L., Suh, E.M., Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations

between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross

Cultural Psychology 31 (4), 419–436.

Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: does the five factor model

embrace both domains. In C. F. Halverson Jr., . A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin

(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to

adulthood. (pp.323-338). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dougherty DM, Moeller FG, Steinberg JL, Marsh DM, Hines SE, Bjork JM (1999):

Alcohol increases commission error rates for a continuous performance test. Alcohol

Clin Exp Res; 23:1342-1351.

Dush, C. M. K. & Amato P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and

quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5),

607-627.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A model for personality. New York: Springer Verlag.

Eysenck, H. J.(1959). The Maudsley Personality Inventory" as determinant of

neurotic tendency and extraversion. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte

Psychologie. 6 Apr-Jun 1959, 167-190.

38

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality

Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D.(1991). The Eysenck Personality Pro_ler. Australia:

Cymeon.

Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J.(1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire. London: Hougter & Soughton.

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.

116, 429–456.

Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., Lester, D., & Philipchalk, R. (1998). Happiness as stable

extraversion: A cross-cultural examination of the reliability and validity of the Oxford

happiness inventory among students in the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada.

Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 167–171.

Furnham, A. and H. Cheng: 1997, ‘Personality and happiness’, Psychological Reports

80, pp. 761–762.

Godoy, V Leonard,T Tanner,S McDade,T Vadez, V Boresch, J Fitpatrick, I Gerkey,

D Giovannini, P. (2007). The pay-offs to sociability:. Available:

http://www.tsimane.org/working%20papers/TAPS-WP-25.pdf. Last accessed 6th

March 2012.

Guilford, J.P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82,

802-814.

39

Gray, J. A(1972). The psychophysiological nature of introversion-extraversion: A

modification of Eysenck’s theory. In V.D. Neblitsyn and J.A. Gray (eds), Biological

basis of individual behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Heffernan, T Ling, J. (2000). The Impact of Eysenck’s Extraversion-Introversion

Personality Dimension on. Available: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/728/1/The

%20Impact%20of%20Eysenck%E2%80%99s%20Extraversion-Introversion

%20Personality%20Dimension%20on%20Prospective%20Memory.pdf. Last

accessed 11th March 2012.

Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact

scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual

Differences, 33, 1071-1082.

Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance:

A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information

processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153-184.

Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., et al (1996) A component analysis of

cognitive–behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 64, 295–304.

Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An

ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1539-

1553.

MacPhillamy, D. J., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1976).Manual for the Pleasant Events

Schedule. Eugene: University of Oregon.

40

Opdyke D, Rothbaum B (1998). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of Impulse Control

Disorders. In: Caballo VE, editor. International Handbook of Cognitive and

Behavioural Treatments for Psychological Disorders. England: Pergamon/Elsevier

Science Ltd; p. 417-39.

Laird, J. D. (1984). The real role of facial response in the experience of emotion: A

reply to Tourangeau and Ellsworth, and others. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 47, 909-917.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Biglan, A. & Zeiss, A. S. (1976) Behavioral treatment of

depression. In The Behavioral Management of Anxiety, Depression and Pain (ed. P.

O. Davidson), pp. 91–146. Brunner/Mazel.

Liaghatdar, J ,Jafari, E Abedi ,M Samiee, F. (2008). Reliability and Validity of the

Oxford Happiness. Available:

http://www.ucm.es/info/psi/docs/journal/v11_n1_2008/art310.pdf. Last accessed 13th

February 2012.

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social

situations: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 343–356.

Matthys W, van Goozen SH, de Vries H, Cohen-Kettenis PT, van Engeland H (1998):

The dominance of behavioural activation over behavioural inhibition in conduct

disordered boys with or without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Child

Psychol Psychiatry; 39:643-651.

Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study

of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.

41

Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality

and Individual Differences, 11, 1299-1306.

Rad, R. (2009). Happiness: A Literature Review of Cross Cultural Implications.

Available: http://www.selfknowledgebase.com/files/happinessliteraturereview.pdf.

Last accessed 13th February 2012.

Revelle, W. (1995). Extraversion and Impulsivity: The Lost Dimension?. Available:

http://www.personality-project.org/revelle/publications/impulsivitytext.pdf. Last

accessed 13th February 2012

Rocklin, T & Revelle W. (1981). A Measurement of Extraversion. British Journal Of

Social Psychology. 1 (1), 279-284.

http://129.105.171.49/revelle/publications/rr81.small.pdf

Schalling, D., & Åsberg, M. (1985). Biological and psychological correlates of

impulsiveness and monotony avoidance. In J. Strelau, F. H. Farley, & A. Gale (Eds.),

The biological bases of personality and behaviour, Vol. 1: Theories, measurement

techniques, and development. Washington, Dc, Us: Hemisphere Publishing

Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.

Seligman, M. (2002). Using New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potenital For

Lasting Fulfilment. New York: The Free Press. P185-208.

Stanford, M Manthais, C Dougherty, D, Lake, S Anderson, A Patton, J. (2009). Fifty

years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Available:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909001639. Last accessed

1st May 2012.

42

Steel, P. & Ones, D. S. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national level analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 767-781.

Stutzer, A. & Frey, B., S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy

people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 326-347.

Thorne, A (1987). A press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts

and extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology;53, 718-26.

Vallereux, S. (2005). The Relationship between Extraversion and Happiness: A Day

Reconstruction Study. Available:

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3032/Relationship

%20between%20Extraversion%20and%20Happiness.pdf?sequence=1. Last accessed

13th February 2012.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Hand-book of personality psychology (pp.

767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yanna J. Weisberg1 , Colin G. DeYoung and Jacob B. Hirsh. (2011). Gender

differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five . Frontiers in

Psychology. 2 (1), p9-10.

Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

43

8. Appendices

1. Oxford Happiness Scale questionnaire

Instructions:

Below are a number of statements about happiness. Would you please indicate how

much you agree or disagree with each by entering a number alongside it according to

the following code:

1=strongly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=slightly disagree;

4=slightly agree; 5=moderately agree; 6=strongly agree.

You will need to read the statements carefully because some are phrased positively

and others negatively.

Don’t take too long over individual questions; there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers

and no trick questions.

The first answer that comes into your head is probably the right one for you.

If you find some of the questions difficult, please give the answer that is true for you

in general or for most of the time.

1*. I don’t feel particularly pleased with the way I am. ___

2. I am intensely interested in other people. ___

3. I feel that life is very rewarding. ___

44

4. I have very warm feelings towards almost everyone. ___

5*. I rarely wake up feeling rested. ___

6*. I am not particularly optimistic about the future. ___

7. I find most things amusing. ___

8. I am always committed and involved. ___

9. Life is good. ___

10*. I do not think that the world is a good place. ___

11. I laugh a lot. ___

12. I am well satisfied about everything in my life. ___

13*. I don’t think I look attractive. ___

14*. There is a gap between what I would like to do and what I have done. ___

15. I am very happy. ___

16. I find beauty in some things. ___

17. I always have a cheerful effect on others. ___

18. I can fit in everything I want to. ___

19*. I feel that I am not especially in control of my life. ___

20. I feel able to take anything on. ___

21. I feel fully mentally alert. ___

22. I often experience joy and elation. ___

45

23*. I do not find it easy to make decisions ___

24*. I do not have a particular sense of meaning and purpose in my life. ___

25. I feel I have a great deal of energy. ___

26. I usually have a good influence on events. ___

27*. I do not have fun with other people. ___

28*. I don’t feel particularly healthy. ___

29*. I do not have particularly happy memories of the past. ___

2. Eysenck EPI Extraversion Scale

Instructions:

Here are some questions regarding the way you behave, feel and act. After each

question is a space for answering YES or NO.

Try to decide whether YES or NO represents your usual way of acting or feeling.

Then put a tick in the box under the column headed YES or NO. Work quickly, and

don’t spend too much time over any question, we want your first reaction, not a long

drawn-out thought process. The whole questionnaire shouldn’t take more than a few

minutes. Be sure not to omit any questions.

Start now, work quickly and remember to answer every question. There are no right

or wrong answers, and this isn’t a test of intelligence or ability, but simply a measure

of the way you behave.

1. Do you often long for excitement? YES NO

46

2. Do you often need understanding friends to cheer you up? YES NO

3. Are you usually carefree? YES NO

4. Do you find it very hard to take no for an answer? YES NO

5. Do you stop and think things over before doing anything? YES NO

6. If you say you will do something do you always keep your promise, no matter how inconvenient it might be to do so? YES NO

7. Do your moods go up and down? YES NO

8. Do you generally do and say things quickly without stopping to think? YES NO

9. Do you ever feel ‘just miserable’ for no good reason? YES NO

10. Would you do almost anything for a dare? YES NO

11. Do you suddenly feel shy when you want to talk to an YES NO attractive stranger?

12. Once in a while do you lose your temper and get angry? YES NO

13. Do you often do things on the spur of the moment YES NO

14. Do you often worry about things you should have done or said YES NO

15. Generally do you prefer reading to meeting people? YES NO

16. Are your feelings rather easily hurt? YES NO

17. Do you like going out a lot? YES NO

47

18. Do you occasionally have thoughts and ideas that you YES NO would not like other people to know about?

19. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and YES NO sometimes very sluggish?

20. Do you prefer to have few but special friends? YES NO

21. Do you daydream a lot? YES NO

22. When people shout at you do you shout back? YES NO

23. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? YES NO

24. Are all your habits good and desirable ones? YES NO

25. Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself a YES NO lot at a lively party?

26. Would you call yourself tense or ‘highly strung’? YES NO

27. Do other people think of you as being very lively? YES NO

28. After you have done something important, do you come YES NO away feeling you could have done better?

29. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? YES NO

30. Do you sometimes gossip? YES NO

31. Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep? YES NO

32. If there is something you want to know about, would you rather YES NO look it up in a book than talk to someone about it?

48

33. Do you get palpitations or thumping in your heart? YES NO

34. Do you like the kind of work that you need to pay close YES NO attention to?

35. Do you get attacks of shaking or trembling? YES NO

36. Would you always declare everything at customs, even if YES NO you knew you could never be found out?

37. Do you hate being with a crowd who play jokes on one another?YES NO

38. Are you an irritable person? YES NO

39. Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly? YES NO

40. Do you worry about awful things that might happen? YES NO

41. Are you slow and unhurried in the way you move? YES NO

42. Have you ever been late for an appointment or work? YES NO

43. Do you have many nightmares? YES NO

44. Do you like talking to people so much that you YES NO never miss a chance of talking to a stranger?

45. Are you troubled by aches and pains? YES NO

46. Would you be very unhappy if you could not see YES NO lots of people most of the time?

47. Would you call yourself a nervous person? YES NO

48. Of all the people you know, are there some whom YES NO you definitely do not like?

49

49. Would you say that you were fairly self-confident? YES NO

50. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or your work? YES NO

51. Do you find it hard to really enjoy yourself at a lively party? YES NO

52. Are you troubled by feelings of inferiority? YES NO

53. Can you easily get some life into a dull party? YES NO

54. Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing about? YES NO

55. Do you worry about your health? YES NO

56. Do you like playing pranks on others? YES NO

57. Do you suffer from sleeplessness? YES NO

3. Barrat Impulsivity Scale

Instructions:

People differ in the ways they act and think in different situations. This is a test to

measure some of the ways in which you act and think. Read each statement and put an

X on the appropriate circle on the right side of this page. Do not spend too much time

on any statement. Answer quickly and honestly.

Rarely/Never = 1 Occasionally = 2 Often = 3 Almost Always/Always = 4

1 I plan tasks carefully. 1 2 3 4

2 I do things without thinking. 1 2 3 4

3 I make-up my mind quickly. 1 2 3 4

4 I am happy-go-lucky. 1 2 3 4

50

5 I don’t “pay attention.” 1 2 3 4

6 I have “racing” thoughts. 1 2 3 4

7 I plan trips well ahead of time. 1 2 3 4

8 I am self controlled. 1 2 3 4

9 I concentrate easily. 1 2 3 4

10 I save regularly. 1 2 3 4

11 I “squirm” at plays or lectures 1 2 3 4

12 I am a careful thinker. 1 2 3 4

13 I plan for job security. 1 2 3 4

14 I say things without thinking 1 2 3 4

15 I like to think about complex problems 1 2 3 4

16 I change jobs. 1 2 3 4

17 I act “on impulse.” 1 2 3 4

18 I get easily bored when solving thought problems. 1 2 3 4.

19 I act on the spur of the moment. 1 2 3 4

20 I am a steady thinker. 1 2 3 4

21 I change residences. 1 2 3 4

22 I buy things on impulse. 1 2 3 4

23 I can only think about one thing at a time. 1 2 3 4

51

24 I change hobbies. 1 2 3 4

25 I spend or charge more than I earn. 1 2 3 4

26 I often have extraneous thoughts when thinking. 1 2 3 4

27 I am more interested in the present than the future. 1 2 3 4

28 I am restless at the theatre or lectures. 1 2 3 4

29 I like puzzles. 1 2 3 4

30 I am future oriented. 1 2 3 4

52