Personality, average mood and mood variability

[La Sagna]

Here's the description of an interesting study that seems to indicate that the people with the least mood variability are stable introverts and neurotic extroverts have the most mood variability:

Personality, average mood and mood variability

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between personality and mood. Within the mood realm, it is possible to identify separate higher-order dimensions of positive affect and negative affect. In addition, individuals may differ in terms of both their mean mood level and their mood variability. These are theoretical reasons for predicting that all of these aspects of mood should be related to the higher-order personality dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism. The subjects in this study completed a mood questionnaire three times a day over a period of three weeks. Mean mood levels were best predicted by extraversion, but mean negative affect was also strongly related to neuroticism. Mood variability was related to extraversion and to neuroticism, with neurotic extraverts having the greatest mood variability and stable introverts having the smallest mood variability. The strength of the observed effects indicates that individual differences in mean mood and mood variability are determined in an important way by personality characteristics.

 

[say what]

Interesting...
I wonder though...how many true introverts are likely to signup and participate in a research study.

 

[La Sagna]

Interesting...
I wonder though...how many true introverts are likely to signup and participate in a research study.

I think most of these types of research are done with first year psychology undergrads. I had to participate in a certain number of research projects for marks in my Intro to Psychology class. Many of the projects were very specific as to the type of person they were looking for so you couldn't participate if you didn't fit the criteria. I don't think they would have trouble getting introverts, the only thing I wonder is maybe the type of person who is a student in psychology would not necessarily be representative of people at large.

 

[La Sagna]

I'm an introvert who scores low in neuroticism and I think I have much more stable moods than most people that I know. One of my best friends is an ESFJ and I'm sure she would score high in neuroticism. She can be exhausting with her mood swings. Sounds like it could be a reasonable conclusion to me.

 

[say what]

I think most of these types of research are done with first year psychology undergrads. I had to participate in a certain number of research projects for marks in my Intro to Psychology class. Many of the projects were very specific as to the type of person they were looking for so you couldn't participate if you didn't fit the criteria. I don't think they would have trouble getting introverts, the only thing I wonder is maybe the type of person who is a student in psychology would not necessarily be representative of people at large.

Do you have the title of the original article? I'll look it up through my library.

A lot of psych studies do use undergrad samples- which completely bias results. I feel this is particularly relevant in mood and personality research, as there is a 'type' of person who typically engages in research- so there's huge self-selection bias. I've be really interested in reading more about the study though!

 

[La Sagna]

Do you have the title of the original article? I'll look it up through my library.

A lot of psych studies do use undergrad samples- which completely bias results. I feel this is particularly relevant in mood and personality research, as there is a 'type' of person who typically engages in research- so there's huge self-selection bias. I've be really interested in reading more about the study though!

Here's a link. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989900627

I thought I might be able to get it through my school also but haven't looked it up yet.

 

[say what]

Administered a personality test battery that included the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale to 29 undergraduates. Ss also completed a mood questionnaire 3 times a day over a period of 3 wks. Average mood levels were best predicted by Extraversion, but average negative affect was also strongly related to Neuroticism, with neurotic extraverts having the greatest and stable introverts having the least mood variability. The strength of the observed effects indicates that individual differences in average mood and mood variability are determined by personality characteristics.

Hmm! interesting! This makes me want to look more into it!

 

[54192&#cmy]

Here's the description of an interesting study that seems to indicate that the people with the least mood variability are stable introverts and neurotic extroverts have the most mood variability:

I think it has a lot to do with how you were raised and by who. You learn these mood patterns at home as a child and at school. I equate my INFj ness to childhood trauma and even into my 20's. As an adult I see that I can change those feelings and moods now. Although I still get upset and angry. It's just a part of who I am. Anger is good it usually leads to action. If you can channel that anger into a good action I cannot see how it could be wrong if it makes things right. Interesting study...​

 

[La Sagna]

I think it has a lot to do with how you were raised and by who. You learn these mood patterns at home as a child and at school. I equate my INFj ness to childhood trauma and even into my 20's. As an adult I see that I can change those feelings and moods now. Although I still get upset and angry. It's just a part of who I am. Anger is good it usually leads to action. If you can channel that anger into a good action I cannot see how it could be wrong if it makes things right. Interesting study...​

Your post brought up some thoughts for me. I have heard others say that they think childhood trauma may have contributed to being an INFJ. I'm not dicounting that but it's not my personal experience. I had a pretty good childhood. I know that I was greatly influenced by experiences in my early adulthood but they were mostly in feelings of having messed up and having to make up for it. My parents no doubt influenced me but I am so different from both of them. I was raised with ESFJ and ESFP parents and my brothers are I think ESFJ and ExxP (not sure what this one is but he's very weird) so I am really the odd person in my family. I don't know where the INFJ came from. I feel that I was born INFJ. I consider myself to have a fairly stable mood but I do get very deeply hurt. Anger, on the other hand I can't really do. I have been told that's bad and that you need to have anger to accomplish things. I guess I have anger because I am definitely capable of changing things and challenging people when things are not working but I just don't have the 'anger' feeling that others seem to have (or only in short bursts that dissipae very quickly). I mostly just feel hurt and dissapointed when others would feel angry.

 

[54192&#cmy]

Your post brought up some thoughts for me. I have heard others say that they think childhood trauma may have contributed to being an INFJ. I'm not dicounting that but it's not my personal experience. I had a pretty good childhood. I know that I was greatly influenced by experiences in my early adulthood but they were mostly in feelings of having messed up and having to make up for it. My parents no doubt influenced me but I am so different from both of them. I was raised with ESFJ and ESFP parents and my brothers are I think ESFJ and ExxP (not sure what this one is but he's very weird) so I am really the odd person in my family. I don't know where the INFJ came from. I feel that I was born INFJ. I consider myself to have a fairly stable mood but I do get very deeply hurt. Anger, on the other hand I can't really do. I have been told that's bad and that you need to have anger to accomplish things. I guess I have anger because I am definitely capable of changing things and challenging people when things are not working but I just don't have the 'anger' feeling that others seem to have (or only in short bursts that dissipae very quickly). I mostly just feel hurt and dissapointed when others would feel angry.

My Dad is INFJ. His childhood was total crap with his parents. I may have been born this way. But I know the things I endured in my life are messed up. And that coupled with my INFJ ness caused me to really hate myself for a very long time. I still do at times. I judge myself harsher than anyone could. And the words of judgement go straight to my heart. Being rejected time and time again hurts. I may just be an extreme case. I don't like to fight. But I will argue if I think my point needs to be made. The depths of my shadow side are just plain scary. My anger was something that I always kept an eye on. Quite frankly I am afraid of it. I know if I go there I can't go back. I would not say it's bad to not get angry or upset. It just means that you have more control.
Being a male I think Testosterone has something to do with that. And a bit of genetics helps too. I have always been able to put myself in another s shoes. It's why I get into trouble. I tend to help the underdogs and get screwed time and again by them. This all ads up to being anti social. I am tired of sticking my neck out only to get it cut off. I hate being judged by those who know nothing about what they are talking about. I find that most of those people are just projecting their inadequacies onto me. But it still hurts to hear it.
I don't really forgive or forget. I will move on from the trauma and pain but I will not forget it. Sometimes I will just walk away in the middle of an argument. Because I know it's not worth my time to continue on with it. I know how I am and it's just better for me to leave. Once your on my list their is no getting off of it unless your very sincere. And only maybe 6 people in my life have really shown me that they were sorry for their actions and words towards me. The rest like to gloss over it. I may keep the peace for peace's sake, but I never forget. People use that to their advantage when I forgive. And then they do it again and again if I let them. So I only give out one or two chances and then I am done. It sounds harsh but it is how I am. I can be the coolest laid back helping person but if you cross me or screw me over it's on. And it's not going to be forgotten or forgiven your just out in the cold. People seem to think that I am their doormat. They are wrong about that though. I guess I am the best friend or worst enemy type now. I want to help anyone I can. I don't anymore because it usually ends up with me feeling used and abused.

It's really all my fault. I will let people use me until the point that I blow up and I send them down the road because of their selfishness. I can see everything they are doing I just let it happen and I hope that they will eventually see it. When I have had enough it's over. I know you need people in life to move forward with. Unfortunately for me I have met the wrong people time and time again. I wish sometimes that I could be happy like other people are. But I am not. Nor will I ever be. I am damaged goods. Damaged for good. I am glad to be who I am though. I would not want to be another type. I can do my own thing and be perfectly fine alone. Solitude really suits me. I do really enjoy others who think or are willing to talk about the things I like to talk about. When I am with those types of people I am very fun to be around. I enjoy getting to know people. I am just weary of them from my past experiences.

 

[muir]

One of the key things in my opinion is how mood manifests

INFJ's are possibly more likely to withdraw from negative people or situations unless they decide they must make a stand on something

Also much is made of INFJ anger but is anger born from emotion created in the moment and quickly dissipated more or less damaging than the simmering anger that some people feel?

One is a more naked anger whilst the other form of anger can be more insidious

One thing that always shocks me is how passively aggressively manipulative some people can be, over long periods of time; personally if i have a problem with someone i tell them to their face....no bullshit involved. If however you react to their machinations with anger they then point to that as a failing

INFJ's are often prone to feeling angry about injustices but they should always be mindful that some people will play to that

Walking away from toxic people and situations is a good option...hence the 'doorslam'

 

[Lark]

Interesting...
I wonder though...how many true introverts are likely to signup and participate in a research study.

I was once told I couldnt possibly be an extrovert because I was participating in online discussion and visiting forums instead of socialising in person and being occupied with social functions so you know.

 

[say what]

I was once told I couldnt possibly be an extrovert because I was participating in online discussion and visiting forums instead of socialising in person and being occupied with social functions so you know.

It's not black or white...but in general, how many introverts are going to signup and participate in a research study that likely involves over an hour of their time and social engagement?

Most research suffers from self-selection bias.

If you do physical activity research, you're likely to get those interested in physical activity- thus an over representation of a single group...or a homogeneous sample.

Doing nature research? Likely to get people who actually enjoy and go into nature.

It's not a given that you won't get some variability, but there's a greater likelihood that overall, your sample will be biased. We're not talking individual cases here, we're talking about the overall sample not representing the population.

 

[Lark]

It's not black or white...but in general, how many introverts are going to signup and participate in a research study that likely involves over an hour of their time and social engagement?

Most research suffers from self-selection bias.

If you do physical activity research, you're likely to get those interested in physical activity- thus an over representation of a single group...or a homogeneous sample.

Doing nature research? Likely to get people who actually enjoy and go into nature.

It's not a given that you won't get some variability, but there's a greater likelihood that overall, your sample will be biased. We're not talking individual cases here, we're talking about the overall sample not representing the population.

That's why any good study will acknowledge those limitations and delimitations at its outset and try to explain how its attempted to minimise the potential limitations, such as selection biases, or at the very least acknowledge them for the time being and make possible suggestions for future or further research (I never read a piece of research which didnt suggest further research was necessary, which sort of makes me cynical about researchers).

 

[say what]

That's why any good study will acknowledge those limitations and delimitations at its outset and try to explain how its attempted to minimise the potential limitations, such as selection biases, or at the very least acknowledge them for the time being and make possible suggestions for future or further research (I never read a piece of research which didnt suggest further research was necessary, which sort of makes me cynical about researchers).

My point was that personality and mood research is typically flawed- because it's extremely difficult to get a heterogeneous sample. (People with low mood need to be recruited specifically, as do certain types of personalities).

This study used undergrads, which is an already flawed sample (don't get me wrong, it's what I use for my research). Understanding these limitations as a reader, and their implications for the conclusions drawn from the research is important. It's why research around personality and mood should be scrutinized

 

[Lark]

My point was that personality and mood research is typically flawed- because it's extremely difficult to get a heterogeneous sample. (People with low mood need to be recruited specifically, as do certain types of personalities).

This study used undergrads, which is an already flawed sample (don't get me wrong, it's what I use for my research). Understanding these limitations as a reader, and their implications for the conclusions drawn from the research is important. It's why research around personality and mood should be scrutinized

And there's questions about control groups, double blind testing, correlation and causation.

And confirmation bias.

And about a dozen other things I can think of too.

I never was that interested in the fine tunning of research or statistics when I was at uni but I'm more interested now, years after the fact, when I've gotten into some good discussions about evidence based studies and conclusions. Its funny how that sort of thing happens. Then I remind myself that the majority arent even as interested as I was when I was pretty disinterested. So, you know.

 

[say what]

And there's questions about control groups, double blind testing, correlation and causation.

And confirmation bias.

And about a dozen other things I can think of too.

I never was that interested in the fine tunning of research or statistics when I was at uni but I'm more interested now, years after the fact, when I've gotten into some good discussions about evidence based studies and conclusions. Its funny how that sort of thing happens. Then I remind myself that the majority arent even as interested as I was when I was pretty disinterested. So, you know.

These things are still flawed if you have issues with sampling- they won't weed out the the impact of self-selection bias. Randomizing and probability sampling limits sampling bias- but it's extremely difficult and costly to do such sampling...that's why most psychology research uses convenience sampling.

control groups and double blind testing can help control for within sample variability, testing bias, and help infer causation. But they're all dependent on how you've gained your sample.

The thing about research is there's pros and cons with every step - sample, recruitment, measures, conditions, analysis, etc. It's being aware of their limitations and their impact on how you draw conclusions. Most of the time this knowledge isn't explained in an article for the public, and so the impact of the limitations aren't fully realized and people take the conclusions to be applicable. But they often aren't. That's not saying the research isn't valuable, it's just understanding that research is always flawed.

 

[say what]

If you're interested in learning more about research methods, let me know. I have lots of literature on it.