Otroversion: Fad or Fact?

In recent months, the word “otrovert” has begun circulating in popular media to describe people who do not fit neatly into the categories of introvert, extrovert, or ambivert. A defining feature is apparently resistance to belonging or to being emotionally synced with others in group/social identity terms. Some present the idea as liberating: otroverts are “free thinkers,” comfortable engaging socially without depending on group belonging for validation. And many identify with the characteristics described such as the sense of not belonging, seeking to express their individuality, feeling like an outsider. But, while the term has intuitive and cultural appeal, it is important for Business Psychologists to recognise where evidence ends and speculation begins.

The Popularity of a Topic is Not Evidence

First it should be noted that, whilst some media outlets are running with this emergent narrative, there is not yet any peer-reviewed psychology research. In the absence of any empirical studies, there is no standard measure or questionnaire for “otroversion.” Unsurprisingly in this context, definitions are already varying slightly depending on author. The term has been attributed to psychiatrist Rami Kaminski who has academic credentials in psychiatry but has not yet published peer-reviewed work on otroversion as a distinct construct, evaluating and eliminating other explanations for the traits observed.

Before we mistake the popular media for a scientific source, we should consider how other factors may be influencing what people describe as an “otrovert” experience, such as culture, upbringing, or identity (e.g., feeling different because of background, etc.). And we should seek to clarify the overlaps there may be of this description with other constructs (e.g., alienation, social anxiety, autonomy, antisocial personality traits, etc.), which could create the risk that symptoms or traits could be conflated.

What We Know: Dimensions of Personality

Before simply accepting the popularisation of this concept, it is worth reviewing the evidence. We arrived at an understanding of an introversion–extraversion dimension of personality from research published by Carl Jung in 1921, in his typological theory. It endured through studies which ultimately led to the widely accepted Big Five personality model. Milestones on that journey included: Allport & Odbert’s lexical hypothesis Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study (1936); refinement through factor analysis in Description and measurement of personality by Cattell (1946) and others; popularisation thanks to Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons, by Goldberg (1981); operationalisation by various Business Psychologists, like The NEO Personality Inventory manual by Costa & McCrae (1985). This long evidence-based pursuit ultimately delivered an understanding of five broad, relatively universal dimensions of personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

What We Know: Context Matters

Traits manifest differently across situations. Evidence for the impact of context on personality emerged from the person–situation debate which dates back to Mischel’s 1968 Personality and Assessment showing behaviour varies across contexts despite trait stability. Later research demonstrated that while traits predict broad patterns, situational factors and roles shape moment-to-moment expression, highlighting dynamic trait–context interactions (see Epstein, 1979; Fleeson, 2001). So we cannot assume the experience of introversion or extraversion are constant. Extraverts typically prefer and are energised by large groups, social stimulation, and interaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, research shows that social context quality matters, so extraverts can still feel lonely, disconnected, or isolated if they lack meaningful connection, feel excluded, or if the group is mismatched with their values (Lucas et al., 2008). And there’s nothing about introversion that rules out resilience or comfort with independence from group belonging (ascribed to otroverts). Introverts can be both resilient and independent, even if that doesn’t define all introverts. Introverts may feel drained by high-intensity interaction, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to a feeling of “not belonging”, also ascribed to otroverts.

What We Know: Neurodiversity and Adaptation

Practically, some experiences described as otroversion overlap with existing concepts such as autism masking, or camouflaging, ADHD-related independence, or the sense of alienation reported in neurodiverse populations (Hull et al., 2017). An otrovert has been described as someone who can appear sociable in groups, but feels they don’t really belong and prefer to conserve their deeper energy for one-to-one or meaningful conversations. Likewise, a person with well-masked autism may do something very similar, applying learned social behaviours (smiling, small talk, joining group activities) so they “blend in.” They may appear outgoing, but internally they often feel disconnected, drained, or “out of sync” with the group. These are not equivalent constructs, which demonstrates the risk of working with untested theories.

What We Know: Social Desirability Impacts Attribution

Social desirability shapes how people adopt labels. There is a strong evidence base showing that social desirability bias influences how people self-report in psychometrics, personality inventories, and workplace assessments. This effect could very plausibly explain why people might prefer to identify with flattering new labels like otrovert. Social desirability bias has long been studied in relation to self-concept and self-report personality inventories (Edwards, 1957). This was clarified by Paulhus (1991) who distinguished between impression management (deliberate self-presentation) and self-deceptive enhancement (unconscious positive bias), showing both can occur and bias self-report and distort personality measurement. Introverts who dislike being stereotyped as shy or withdrawn, and extraverts who dislike being seen as superficial or needy for attention, may find the “otrovert” identity appealing because it reframes difference as enlightened independence.

In this way, otroversion can function less as a scientific category and more as a socially desirable self-attribution. This latter argument is of particular interest when we factor in how significantly lives can be impacted by stigmas. At a time when many live online and compare themselves to apparent ideals which feel unattainable, adopting a socially acceptable description like otroversion may allow people to explain feelings of non-belonging, positioning themselves as enlightened outsiders rather than isolated or struggling. Others who are seeking to avoid the polarisation seen in so many societies may likewise be attracted to a description of their position that appears informed, rather than overwhelmed or avoidant. Those who are simply disillusioned with their social lives, online or offline, could also see this as an opportunity to reduce their experience of being ‘other’, because now they’re part of a group that are ‘other’. The suggested etymology of the word “otrovert” combines “otro” (Spanish for “other”) and “vert” (from Latin vertere “to turn”), analogous to “introvert” and “extrovert.” The idea is a person whose orientation is toward being other, i.e., not aligned with the usual social directions.

What We Know: Business Psychologists Need to Be Cautious

Whilst this topic is being explored, many may ask Business Psychologists for a perspective. Here are a few options available in response:
1. Note what’s emerging: Be transparent that otroversion has no peer-reviewed evidence base. It remains a cultural concept, not a validated personality type.
2. Clarify what’s established: Ground conversations in validated personality science and factor in contextual styles of behaviour or other potentially related influences.
3. Acknowledge curiosity: Recognise that the idea of otroversion may resonate with individuals. Engage openly in discussion to allow them to express what they are experiencing more specifically. Explore what that label represents for them, perhaps independence, non-belonging, or digital-age adaptation. This can open useful dialogue about workplace fit, wellbeing, and growth.

Conclusion

“Otroversion” may become a useful cultural shorthand for certain experiences of independence and non-belonging. At present, however, it lacks the research foundation to be considered a valid personality construct alongside introversion and extraversion. Business psychologists, recruiters, coaches and others can best serve clients by recognising its appeal while keeping discussions grounded in established frameworks and critical thinking. In other words, Business Psychologists might take an ‘otrovert’ stance in being open-minded yet cautious.

References

• Allport, G. W., and Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171.
• Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
• Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden Press.
• Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behaviour: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1097–1126.
• Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 141–165. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., and Mandy, W. (2017). The female autism phenotype and camouflaging: A narrative review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4(4), 306–317.
• Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychologische Typen [Psychological Types]. Zurich: Rascher Verlag. (English ed., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1923).
• Lucas, R. E., Le, K., and Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/positive affect relation: Sociability cannot account for extraverts’ greater happiness. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 385–414.
• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, pp. 17–59. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Tupes, E. C., and Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Technical Report, No. 61–97. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force. (Reprinted in Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–251, 1992).

About the Author

Clodagh O'Reilly is a Certified Principal Business Psychologist who specialised in creating and validating workplace assessments for over a decade, and enjoyed a varied international career in in-house and external consulting roles. She is recognised for applying strategic thinking and behavioural science to deliver results in challenging situations, with a track record of performance turnaround, practical innovation, and talent development.

She has  published several books for The ABP including, most recently, "Enhancing Performance at Work" available at www.amazon.co.uk/Enhancing-Performance-Work-Improvement-Organisations/dp/B0FD9D7Y99/