Fleeson · Journal of personality and social psychology 2002 · Experience sampling, diary study, and laboratory experiment · n=?

An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: is acting extraverted as "good" as being extraverted?

Cited 380 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Multi-study psychological research including observational experience sampling, diary tracking, and an experimental manipulation (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM).

PubMed 12500821 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors investigated whether within-person variations in extraversion correspond to variations in positive affect across three distinct studies. Study 1 used an experience sampling design where participants reported their extraversion and positive affect every 3 hours for 2 weeks. Study 2 used a diary methodology to evaluate weekly variations in positive affect relative to extraversion. Study 3 used an experimental design to manipulate extraverted behavior within a fixed situation.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. Across all studies, acting extraverted was positively associated with positive affect. In Study 1, participants were happier when acting extraverted than when acting introverted; Study 2 replicated this for weekly variations; and Study 3 replicated the relationship under experimental manipulation of extraversion.

Why it matters

This paper demonstrates that the link between extraversion and positive affect operates dynamically within individuals over short intervals, rather than being solely a fixed between-person trait difference. It implies that enacting extraverted behaviors may actively enhance short-term well-being.

Limits

The abstract does not provide sample sizes, participant demographics, statistical metrics, or effect sizes for any of the three studies. The specific nature of the experimental manipulation, comparator conditions, and potential demand characteristics or self-report biases are not described.

Cited by