Evidence Hub

Correction to "Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial" by Jacques-Hamilton et al. (2019)

Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2026

147 participants

Abstract

Reports an error in "Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial" by Rowan Jacques-Hamilton, Jessie Sun and Luke D. Smillie (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2019[Sep], Vol 148[9], 1538-1556; see record 2018-58861-001). In the article (https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000516), it was originally reported that momentary authenticity was measured with three items (found in the ESM questionnaire section). However, one of these items was omitted, and only the remaining two were used for the statistical analyses. The omitted item was "In the past hour, how much were you putting on an act?" Furthermore, the within-person omega reliability value for momentary authenticity reported in Table 1 is incorrect. The correct value is 0.62. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-58861-001.) Evidence suggests that extraverted (i.e., bold, agentic) behavior increases positive affect (PA), and could be targeted in wellbeing interventions. However, this evidence is either causally ambiguous or has questionable ecological validity, and the potential costs of sustained extraverted behavior have received minimal attention. To address these limitations, we conducted a randomized controlled trial examining the wellbeing benefits and costs of an extraverted behavior intervention conducted in everyday life. Participants (n = 147) were randomly assigned to an "act-extraverted" intervention or a "sham" (active control) intervention for 1…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 147 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free