Our personalities are generally thought to consist of five primary factors: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, with each of us ranking low to high for each.

Those who rank high in extroversion, known as extroverts, typically focus on their external world. They tend to be more optimistic, recharge by socialising and enjoy social interaction.

On the other end of the spectrum, introverts are more likely to be quiet, deep thinkers, who recharge by being alone and learn by observing (but aren’t necessarily shy).

But what if you’re neither an introvert or extrovert – or you’re a bit of both? Another category might fit better: ambiverts. They’re the middle of the spectrum and are also called “social introverts”.

What exactly is an ambivert?

The term ambivert emerged in 1923. While it was not initially embraced as part of the introvert-extrovert spectrum, more recent research suggests ambiverts are a distinct category.

Ambiverts exhibit traits of both extroverts and introverts, adapting their behaviour based on the situation. It may be that they socialise well but need solitude and rest to recharge, and they intuitively know when to do this.

Ambiverts seems to have the following characteristics:

• good communication skills, as a listener and speaker
• ability to be a peacemaker if conflict occurs
• leadership and negotiation skills, especially in teams
• compassion and understanding for others.

Some research suggests ambiverts make up a significant portion of the population, with about two-thirds of people falling into this category.

What makes someone an ambivert?

Personality is thought to be 50% inherited, with the remaining being influenced by environmental factors and individual experiences.

Emerging research has found physical locations of genes on chromosomes closely aligned with extroversion-introversion traits.

So, chances are, if you are a blend of the two styles as an ambivert, one of your parents may be too.

What do ambiverts tend to be good at?

One area of research focus in recent decades has been personality type and job satisfaction. One study examined 340 introverts, extroverts and ambiverts in sales careers.

It has always been thought extroverts were more successful with sales. However, the author found ambiverts were more influential and successful.

They may have a sales advantage because of their ability to read the situation and modify their behaviour if they notice a customer is not interested, as they’re able to reflect and adapt.

Ambiverts stress less than introverts

Generally, people lower in extroversion have higher stress levels. One study found introverts experience more stress than both ambiverts and extroverts.

It may be that highly sensitive or introverted individuals are more susceptible to worry and stress due to being more perfectionistic.

Ambiverts are adept at knowing when to be outgoing and when to be reflective, showcasing a high degree of situational awareness. This may contribute to their overall wellbeing because of how they handle stress.

What do ambiverts tend to struggle with?

Ambiverts may overextend themselves attempting to conform or fit in with many social settings. This is termed “overadaptation” and may force ambiverts to feel uncomfortable and strained, ultimately resulting in stress or burnout.

But personality traits aren’t fixed

Regardless of where you sit on the scale of introversion through to extroversion, the reality is it may not be fixed. Different situations may be more comfortable for introverts to be social, and extroverts may be content with quieter moments.

And there are also four other key personality traits – openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism – which we all possess in varying levels, and are expressed in different ways, alongside our levels of extroversion.

There is also evidence our personality traits can change throughout our life spans are indeed open to change.

Peta Stapleton, Associate Professor in Psychology, Bond University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Corporations have used feminist language to promote their products for decades. In the 1980s, companies co-opted messaging about female autonomy to encourage women’s consumption of unhealthy commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol.

Today, feminist narratives around empowerment and women’s rights are being co-opted to market interventions that are not backed by evidence across many areas of women’s health. This includes by commercial companies, industry, mass media and well-intentioned advocacy groups.

Some of these health technologies, tests and treatments are useful in certain situations and can be very beneficial to some women.

However, promoting them to a large group of asymptomatic healthy women that are unlikely to benefit, or without being transparent about the limitations, runs the risk of causing more harm than good. This includes inappropriate medicalisation, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

In our analysis published today in the BMJ, we examine this phenomenon in two current examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.

The AMH test

The AMH test is a blood test associated with the number of eggs in a woman’s ovaries and is sometimes referred to as the “egg timer” test.

Although often used in fertility treatment, the AMH test cannot reliably predict the likelihood of pregnancy, timing to pregnancy or specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists therefore strongly discourages testing for women not seeking fertility treatment.

Despite this, several fertility clinics and online companies market the AMH test to women not even trying to get pregnant. Some use feminist rhetoric promising empowerment, selling the test as a way to gain personalised insights into your fertility. For example, “you deserve to know your reproductive potential”, “be proactive about your fertility” and “knowing your numbers will empower you to make the best decisions when family planning”.

The use of feminist marketing makes these companies appear socially progressive and champions of female health. But they are selling a test that has no proven benefit outside of IVF and cannot inform women about their current or future fertility.

Our recent study found around 30% of women having an AMH test in Australia may be having it for these reasons.

Misleading women to believe that the test can reliably predict fertility can create a false sense of security about delaying pregnancy. It can also create unnecessary anxiety, pressure to freeze eggs, conceive earlier than desired, or start fertility treatment when it may not be needed.

While some companies mention the test’s limitations if you read on, they are glossed over and contradicted by the calls to be proactive and messages of empowerment.

Breast density notification

Breast density is one of several independent risk factors for breast cancer. It’s also harder to see cancer on a mammogram image of breasts with high amounts of dense tissue than breasts with a greater proportion of fatty tissue.

While estimates vary, approximately 25–50% of women in the breast screening population have dense breasts.

Stemming from valid concerns about the increased risk of cancer, advocacy efforts have used feminist language around women’s right to know such as “women need to know the truth” and “women can handle the truth” to argue for widespread breast density notification.

However, this simplistic messaging overlooks that this is a complex issue and that more data is still needed on whether the benefits of notifying and providing additional screening or tests to women with dense breasts outweigh the harms.

Additional tests (ultrasound or MRI) are now being recommended for women with dense breasts as they have the ability to detect more cancer. Yet, there is no or little mention of the lack of robust evidence showing that it prevents breast cancer deaths. These extra tests also have out-of-pocket costs and high rates of false-positive results.

Large international advocacy groups are also sponsored by companies that will financially benefit from women being notified.

While stronger patient autonomy is vital, campaigning for breast density notification without stating the limitations or unclear evidence of benefit may go against the empowerment being sought.

Ensuring feminism isn’t hijacked

Increased awareness and advocacy in women’s health are key to overcoming sex inequalities in health care.

But we need to ensure the goals of feminist health advocacy aren’t undermined through commercially driven use of feminist language pushing care that isn’t based on evidence. This includes more transparency about the risks and uncertainties of health technologies, tests and treatments and greater scrutiny of conflicts of interests.

Health professionals and governments must also ensure that easily understood, balanced information based on high quality scientific evidence is available. This will enable women to make more informed decisions about their health.

Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney and Tessa Copp, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.