This study examined the relationship between extraversion and two types of aggression: extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness. 49 participants completed a survey measuring extraversion, extrapunitiveness, and intropunitiveness. The researchers hypothesized a positive correlation between extraversion and extrapunitiveness, and a negative correlation between extraversion and intropunitiveness. However, the results found no significant correlations. Limitations included a small sample size and use of self-report measures. Further research with larger samples is needed to better understand the relationships between these variables.

1. TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
#1 The Relation Between Extraversion and the Expression of Aggression
Earledreka White and Amanda Cavazos
Faculty Advisor: Alex Milam, Ph.D.
University of Houston - Clear Lake
Introduction
Hypotheses
Method
• Participants (n = 39 female, n = 10 male) completed a
brief, self-report survey, which included information
regarding different feelings that may have experienced
throughout their lifetime concerning extraversion and
punitive behaviors, the Big Five Factor Model and
Personality Deviance Scale.
• Participants were recruited from graduate Psychology
courses at a medium size university in Southeast Texas.
• The survey given to participants consisted of 46 items.
Extraversion was assessed by Goldberg’s Big Five Factor
(or the Five Factor Model; 1995) broad-bandwidth scale.
• Participants were asked to self-report on a 4 point
Likert scale ranging from ‘1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3=
Often, and 4 = Nearly Always’ –which included 10
statements reflecting extraverted behavior.
• Extrapunitiveness was assessed by Foulds and Bedford
(1978a) using their Personality Deviance Scale.
• Participants were asked to indicate the frequency (1
= Never to 4 = Nearly Always) of 12 statements
reflecting extrapunitive behavior.
• Intropunitiveness was assessed by Foulds and Bedford
(1978a) again using the Personality Deviance Scale.
• Participants were asked to indicate the frequency (1
= Never to 4 = Nearly Always) of 12 statements
reflecting intropunitive behavior.
Results
Correlation Matrix
Table 1. Correlations of the Factor I subscale of the Big-Five Factor
Model and primary scales of the Personality Deviance Scale.
Scatter Plots
Discussion
References
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Perugini, M. (1994). Individual
differences in the study of human aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20(4), 291-
303. doi:10.1002/10982337(1994)20:4<291::AID-AB2480200403>3.0.CO;2-B.
Deary, Bedford, & Fowkes (1995). The personality deviance scales: Their development,
associations, factor structure and restructuring. Great Britain: Personality
Individual Differences,19, 3, 275-291.
Foulds, G. A., & Bedford, A. (1978a). Euphoria, elation, and impunitiveness. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 32, 606-609.
Frost, B. (1981). On the relationship between extraversion and aggression. Psychological
Reports, 49(3),1009-1010.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe, 7, 7–
28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Murthy, V. N. (1973). Hostility and nature of suicidal attempts. Journal of Community
Psychology, 1, 436-438.
• Originally thought to be a simple, one-dimensional
behavior, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Perugini
(1994) discovered that aggression was a multi-
dimensional, complex construct.
• Frost (1981) found significant correlations between
extraversion and two dimensions of aggression
expression, known as intropunitiveness and
extrapunitiveness. However, Frost only found a negative
correlation between extraversion and intropunitiveness.,
but he found no correlation between extraversion and
extrapunitiveness.
• Extrapunitiveness is and ego defense in which a
person directs blame and hostility towards others or
externally (e.g. projecting resentment, anger, and
cynicism into their environment.)
• Intropunitiveness is an ego defense in which a
person directs blame and hostility at the self for fear
of blaming others (e.g. self doubting, and self
criticizing.)
• Murthy (1973) studied both extrapunitive and
intropunitive subjects who had attempted suicide. She
found that those who were intropunitive were at high
risk and were intentionally trying to end their own lives
(internal hostility), while those who were extrapunitive
were at low risk and merely did as a cry for help (external
hostility).
• Hypothesis I which stated a significant positive
correlation would be found between extraversion and
extrapunitiveness was not supported. A Pearson
correlation was calculated examining the relationship
between extraversion and extrapunitiveness.
• No significance was found ( r = -.25, p > .05).
• Hypothesis II which stated a significant negative
correlation would be found between extraversion and
intropunitiveness was not supported. A Pearson
correlation was calculated examining the relationship
between extraversion and intropunitiveness.
• No significance was found ( r = .24, p >.05).
• Hypothesis I: A significant positive correlation between
extraversion and extrapunitiveness.
• Hypothesis II: A significant negative correlation between
extraversion and intropunitiveness.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Extraversion 2.66 .65 1
2 Extrapunitiveness 2.23 .41 -.25 1
3 Intropunitiveness 2.88 .37 .24 -.36* 1
4 Dominance 2.36 .22 -.36* .21 -.28 1
Graph 1. Scatterplot depicting no significance found between
extraversion and extrapunitiveness.
Future Research
*p < .05, N = 49
Graph 2. Scatterplot depicting no significance found between
extraversion and intropunitiveness.
• Previous studies have identified significant correlations
between extraversion and punitive behaviors.
• Our study failed to find significance between
extraversion and the expression of aggression- as it
relates to extrapunitiveness/ intropunitiveness.
• However significance was found between dominance
and extraversion, and between intropunitiveness and
extrapunitiveness.
• A significant negative correlation between
extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness was found,
(r= -.36, p < .05). This indicates that the distinction
between extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness may
not be as clear as it has previously been defined.
• A significant negative correlation between extraversion
and dominance was found, (r= -.36, p < .05). This
finding is interesting because it is counterintuitive.
• Limitations of the study included:
1. A low sample size of 49 participants; we believe
significance might have been found had our sample
size been larger.
1. Self report style surveys were used; social
desirability bias may have affected results.
2. 4 point -likert scale was used, which may have
affected results.
• Ultimately our results could not be generalized to
different populations due to these limitations.
• A relationship between extraversion and dominance
was found. The negative correlation suggests that the
more extraverted an individual is the less dominant
they are; this appears to be counterintuitive to common
beliefs about extraverted individuals. Further study on
this topic would prove to be rewarding in order to
better understand the relationship between these
variables.
• Also, it would be interesting to conduct this study with
a different target population. For example, examining
aggression amongst at -risk youths or possibly at a
correctional facility, where aggression is more
prevalent.
• Furthermore, the relationship between
extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness should be
reexamined. The differences found between the two
contrary variables may not be as profound as previously
thought.