research on personality change in early adulthood suggests that

Development of Personality in Adulthood: A Behavioral Genetic Perspective

First Online: 18 March 2021

Cite this chapter

research on personality change in early adulthood suggests that

Lindsay Matteson 4 &
Matt McGue 4

Part of the book series: Advances in Behavior Genetics ((AIBG))

1053 Accesses

2 Citations

Developmental researchers study the psychological changes that occur across the life span, how these changes influence behavior, and the processes that drive these changes. The research interests of developmentalists vary across many domains, but at the heart of developmental research is the study of maturity; in no domain is this clearer than in personality research. In this chapter, we will focus first on describing the changes in personality that occur across the life span and then we will discuss possible causal mechanisms of change. Behavior genetic methodology is particularly suited for investigation of such causal mechanisms (Caspi et al. Personality development: stability and change. In: Annual review of psychology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, vol 56, pp 453–484, 2005), and researchers have recently begun to incorporate biometric modeling and large-scale genomics into their longitudinal studies. Consequently, this chapter is devoted to describing behavior genetic research on the development of personality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Development of Personality Throughout the Life Cycle

Interpreting Behavior Genetic Models: Seven Developmental Processes to Understand

Molecular Genetic Investigations of Personality: From Candidate Genes to Genome-wide Associations

Ahern, F. M., Johnson, R. C., Wilson, J. R., McClearn, G. E., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1982). Familial resemblances in personality. Behavior Genetics, 12 , 261–280.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2008). Age differences in five personality domains across the life span. [article]. Developmental Psychology, 44 (3), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.758

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Mongraphs, 47 ((#211), i-171.

Google Scholar

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood – a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. [article]. American Psychologist, 55 (5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.5.469

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? [article]. Child Development Perspectives, 1 (2), 68–73.

Article Google Scholar

Benjamin, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., … Belmaker, R. H. (1996). Dopamine D4 recptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12 , 78–80.

Bergen, S. E., Gardner, C. O., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Age-related changes in heritability of behavioral phenotypes over adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. [article]. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10 (3), 423–433.

Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2009). Patterns and sources of adult personality development: Growth curve analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015434

Blonigen, D. M., Carlson, M. D., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2008). Stability and change in personality traits from late adolescence to early adulthood: A longitudinal twin study. [article]. Journal of Personality, 76 (2), 229–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00485.x

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Borkenau, P., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2001). Genetic and environmental influences on observed personality: Evidence from the German observational study of adult twins. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (4), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.4.655

Bouchard, T. J. (1997). The genetics of personality. In K. Blum & E. P. Noble (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric genetics (pp. 273–296). Baco Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (1990). Genetic and rearing-environmental influences on adult personality: An analysis of adopted twins reared apart. [article]. Journal of Personality, 58 (1), 263–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00916.x

Bratko, D., & Butković, A. (2007). Stability of genetic and environmental effects from adolescence to young adulthood: Results of Croatian longitudinal twin study of personality. [article]. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10 (1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.10.1.151

Bratko, D., Butković, A., Vukasovi, T., Keresteš, G., & Brković, I. (2012). Personality resemblance between parents and offspring: Study of five factors across four samples and questionnaires. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23 , 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9695-9

Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis. [article]. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (5), 1303–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037091

Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2017). Comparing the developmental genetics of cognition and personality over the life span. [article]. Journal of Personality, 85 (1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12186

Calboli, F. C. F., Tozzi, F., Galwey, N. W., Antoniades, A., Mooser, V., Preisig, M., … Balding, D. J. (2010). A genome-wide association study of neuroticism in a population-based sample. [article]. PLoS One, 5 (7), e11504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011504

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., … Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297 (5582), 851–854.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. In Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 56, pp. 453–484). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I., Harrington, H. L., … Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301 , 386–389.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 , 476–506.

Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Thibodeau, E. L. (2012). The effects of child maltreatment on early signs of antisocial behavior: Genetic moderation by tryptophan hydroxylase, serotonin transporter, and monoamine oxidase a genes. Development and Psychopathology, 24 (3), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579412000442

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). Neurogenetic adaptive mecahnisms in alcoholism. Science, 236 , 410–416.

Costa, P. T., & 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.

Culverhouse, R. C., Saccone, N. L., Horton, A. C., Ma, Y., & Anstey, K. J. (2018). Collaborative meta-analysis finds no evidence of a strong interaction beyween stress and 5-httlpr genotype contributing to the development of depression. Molecular Psychiatry, 23 (1), 133–142.

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzette, R. G. (2007). Personality development from late adolescence to young adulthood: Differential stability, normative maturity, and evidence for the maturity-stability hypothesis. [article]. Journal of Personality, 75 (2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00438.x

Duncan, L. E., & Keller, M. C. (2011). A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168 (10), 1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020191

Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., … Belmaker, R. H. (1996). Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12 , 78–80.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxomic paradigm. [review]. Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (8), 773–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-z

Felson, J. (2014). What can we learn from twin studies? A comprehensive evaluation of the equal environments assumption. [article]. Social Science Research, 43 , 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.004

Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., Horwood, L. J., Miller, A., & Kennedy, M. A. (2012). Moderating role of the MAOA genotype in antisocial behaviour. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200 (2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.093328

Finkel, D., & McGue, M. (1997). Sex differences and nonadditivity in heritability of the multidimensional personality questionnaire scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 , 929–938.

Frustaci, A., Pozzi, G., Gianfagna, F., Manzoli, L., & Boccia, S. (2008). Meta-analysis of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) Val66Met polymorphism in anxiety disorders and anxiety-related personality traits. [article]. Neuropsychobiology, 58 (3–4), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1159/000182892

Gillespie, N. A., Evans, D. E., Wright, M. M., & Martin, N. G. (2004). Genetic simplex modeling of Eysenck’s dimensions of personality in a sample of young Australian twins. [article]. Twin Research, 7 (6), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1375/1369052042663814

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.

Hahn, E., Spinath, F. M., Siedler, T., Wagner, G. G., Schupp, J., & Kandler, C. (2012). The complexity of personality: Advantages of a genetically sensitive multi-group design. [article]. Behavior Genetics, 42 (2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-011-9493-y

Heath, A. C., Neale, M. C., Kessler, R. C., Eaves, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1992). Evidence for genetic influences on personality from self-reports and informant ratings. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.85

Heiman, N., Stallings, M. C., Hofer, S. M., & Hewitt, J. K. (2003). Investigating age differences in the genetic and environmental structure of the tridimensional personality questionnaire in later adulthood. [article]. Behavior Genetics, 33 (2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022558002760

Hopwood, C. J., Donnellan, M. B., Blonigen, D. M., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., & Burt, S. A. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on personality trait stability and growth during the transition to adulthood: A three-wave longitudinal study. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (3), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022409

Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lodi-Smith, J., … Roberts, B. W. (2009). Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014156

Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. [article]. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59 (1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.59.1.12

Jelenkovic, A., Sund, R., Hur, Y. M., Yokoyama, Y., Hjelmborg, J. V. B., Moller, S., … Silventoinen, K. (2016). Genetic and environmental influences on height from infancy to early adulthood: An individual-based pooled analysis of 45 twin cohorts. [article]. Scientific Reports, 6 , 28496. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28496

Johnson, W., Krueger, R. F., Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2002). The personalities of twins: Just ordinary folks. [article]. Twin Research, 5 (2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1375/1369052022992

Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Krueger, R. F. (2005). Personality stability in late adulthood: A behavioral genetic analysis. [article]. Journal of Personality, 73 (2), 523–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00319.x

Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Life events as environmental states and genetic traits and the role of personality: A longitudinal twin study. Behavior Genetics, 42 (1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-011-9491-0

Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Thiel, W., & Angleitner, A. (2010). Sources of cumulative continuity in personality: A longitudinal multiple-rater twin study. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (6), 995–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019558

Keller, M. C., Coventry, W. L., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2005). Widespread evidence for non-additive genetic variation in Cloninger’s and Eysenck’s personality dimensions using a twin plus sibling design. [article]. Behavior Genetics, 35 (6), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-005-6041-7

Kendler, K. S., Jacobson, K. C., Gardner, C. O., Gillespie, N., Aggen, S. A., & Prescott, C. A. (2007). Creating a social world – a developmental twin study of peer-group deviance. [article]. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64 (8), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.8.958

Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Williams, B., Newcombe, R., Craig, I. W., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 11 (10), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001851

Kupper, N., Boomsma, D. I., de Geus, E. J. C., Denollet, J., & Willemsen, G. (2011). Nine-year stability of type D personality: Contributions of genes and environment. [article]. Psychosomatic Medicine, 73 (1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181fdce54

Lake, R. I. E., Eaves, L. J., Maes, H. H. M., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. [article]. Behavior Genetics, 30 (3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1001918408984

Langinvainio, H., Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M., & Lonnqvist, J. (1984). Finnish twins reared apart III: Personality factors. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 33 , 259–264.

Lesch, K. P., Bengel, D., Heils, A., Sabol, S. Z., Greenberg, B. D., Petri, S., … Murphy, D. L. (1996). Association of anxiety-related traits with a polymorphism in the serotonin transporter gene regulatory region. Science, 274 , 1527–1531.

Lo, M. T., Hinds, D. A., Tung, J. Y., Franz, C., Fan, C. C., Wang, Y. P., … Chen, C. H. (2017). Genome-wide analyses for personality traits identify six genomic loci and show correlations with psychiatric disorders. [article]. Nature Genetics, 49 (1), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3736

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Loehlin, J. C., & Martin, N. G. (2001). Age changes in personality traits and their heritabilities during the adult years: Evidence from Australian twin registry samples. [article]. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (7), 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00099-4

Loehlin, J. C., Willerman, L., & Horn, J. M. (1985). Personality resemblances in adoptive families when the children are late-adolescent or adult. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (2), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.2.376

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (4), 847–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024298

Manolio, T. A., Collins, F. S., Cox, N. J., Goldstein, D. B., Hindorff, L. A., Hunter, D. J., … Visscher, P. M. (2009). Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature, 461 (7265), 747–753. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08494

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. [review]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139

Martin, N. G., Goodwin, G., Fairburn, C., Wilson, R., Allison, D., Cardon, L. R., & Flint, J. (2000). A population-bsed study of personality in 34,000 sib-pairs. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 3 , 310–315.

McCartney, K., Harris, M. J., & Bernieri, F. (1990). Growing up and growing apart: A developmental meta-analysis of twin studies. [article]. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 226–237.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., … Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. [article; proceedings paper]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. [article; proceedings paper]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1456–1468. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1456

McGue, M. (2010). The end of behavioral genetics? [article]. Behavior Genetics, 40 (3), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-010-9354-0

McGue, M. (2013). The worlds they create: A study of activity similarity in adult twins. Unpublished manuscript.

McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality stability and change in early adulthood: A behavioral genetic analysis. [article]. Developmental Psychology, 29 (1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.96

McGue, M., & Christensen, K. (2013). Growing old but not growing apart: Twin similarity in the latter half of the lifespan. [article]. Behavior Genetics, 43 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-012-9559-5

McGue, M., Elkins, I., Walden, B., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Perceptions of the parent-adolescent relationship: A longitudinal investigation. [article]. Developmental Psychology, 41 (6), 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.974

Mottus, R., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Personality traits in old age: Measurement and rank-order stability and some mean-level change. [article]. Psychology and Aging, 27 (1), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023690

Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: Findings from the normative aging study. [article]. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58 (3), P153–P165.

Munafò, M. R., Brown, S. M., & Hariri, A. R. (2008). Serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) genotype and amygdala activation: A meta-analysis. [article]. Biological Psychiatry, 63 (9), 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.08.016

Munafò, M. R., Freimer, N. B., Ng, W., Ophoff, R., Veijola, J., Miettunen, J., … Flint, J. (2009). 5-HTTLPR genotype and anxiety-related personality traits: A meta-analysis and new data. [article]. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 150B (2), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30808

Munafò, M. R., Yalcin, B., Willis-Owen, S. A., & Flint, J. (2008). Association of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene and approach-related personality traits: Meta-analysis and new data. [article]. Biological Psychiatry, 63 (2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.006

Nagel, M., Jansen, P. R., Stringer, S., Watanabe, K., de Leeuw, C. A., Bryois, J., … Me Res, T. (2018). Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. [article]. Nature Genetics, 50 (7), 920. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0151-7

Nikulina, V., Widom, C. S., & Brzustowicz, L. M. (2012). Child abuse and neglect, MAOA, and mental health outcomes: A prospective examination. Biological Psychiatry, 71 (4), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.09.008

Okbay, A., Baselmans, B. M. L., De Neve, J. E., Turley, P., Nivard, M. G., Fontana, M. A., … LifeLines Cohort, S. (2016). Genetic variants associated with subjective Well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses. [article]. Nature Genetics, 48 (6), 624. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3552

van den Oord, E., Kuo, P. H., Hartmann, A. M., Webb, B. T., Moller, H. J., Hettema, J. M., … Rujescu, D. (2008). Genomewide association analysis followed by a replication study implicates a novel candidate gene for neuroticism. [article]. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65 (9), 1062–1071. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.9.1062

Pedersen, N. L., Plomin, R., McClearn, G. E., & Friberg, L. (1988). Neuroticism, extraversion, and related traits in adult twins reared apart and reared together. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 55 , 950–957.

Pedersen, N. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (1998). Stability and change in adult personality: Genetic and environmental components. [article]. European Journal of Personality, 12 (5), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(1998090)12:5<365::aid-per335>3.3.co;2-e

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on environmental measures. [article]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (3), 373–385.

Plomin, R., Corley, R., Caspi, A., Fulker, D. W., & DeFries, J. (1998). Adoption results for self-reported personality: Evidence for nonadditive genetic effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 , 211–218.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? [article]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10 (1), 1–16.

Plomin, R., Emde, R. N., Braungart, J. M., Campos, J., Corley, R., Fulker, D. W., … Defries, J. C. (1993). Genetic change and continuity from 14 to 20 months: The Macarthur longitudinal twin study. [article]. Child Development, 64 (5), 1354–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02957.x

Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., de Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. [article]. Nature Genetics, 47 (7), 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285

Read, S., Vogler, G. P., Pedersen, N. L., & Johansson, B. (2006). Stability and change in genetic and environmental components of personality in old age. [article]. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (8), 1637–1647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.004

Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. [article; proceedings paper]. Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00324.x

Risch, N., Herrell, R., Lehner, T., Liang, K. Y., Eaves, L., Hoh, J., … Merikangas, K. R. (2009). Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression a meta-analysis. [review]. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 301 (23), 2462–2471.

Roberts, B. W. (2018). A revised Sociogenomic model of personality traits. [article]. Journal of Personality, 86 (1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12323

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (4), 670–683. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.670

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. [review]. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality the comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. [review]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. [article]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. [review]. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of personality traits in adulthood. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: Gilford.

Sadeh, N., Javdani, S., & Verona, E. (2013). Analysis of monoaminergic genes, childhood abuse, and dimensions of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122 (1), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029866

Sanchez-Roige, S., Gray, J. C., MacKillop, J., Chen, C. H., & Palmer, A. A. (2018). The genetics of human personality. [review]. Genes Brain and Behavior, 17 (3), e12439. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12439

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype => environment effects. Child Development, 54 , 424–435.

PubMed Google Scholar

Shields, J. (1962). Monozygotic twins: Brought up apart and brought up together . London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Shifman, S., Bhomra, A., Smiley, S., Wray, N. R., James, M. R., Martin, N. G., … Flint, J. (2008). A whole genome association study of neuroticism using DNA pooling. [article]. Molecular Psychiatry, 13 (3), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4002048

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of big five domains and facets in adulthood: Mean-level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. [article]. Journal of Personality, 80 (4), 881–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00752.x

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717

Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the big five. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (4), 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950

Tellegen, A. (1985). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 , 1031–1039.

Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. [article; proceedings paper]. Psychology and Aging, 20 (3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.493

Terracciano, A., Sanna, S., Uda, M., Deiana, B., Usala, G., Busonero, F., … Costa, P. T. (2010). Genome-wide association scan for five major dimensions of personality. [article]. Molecular Psychiatry, 15 (6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.113

Torgersen, A. M., & Janson, H. (2002). Why do identical twins differ in personality: Shared environment reconsidered. Twin Research, 5 (1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1375/1369052022893

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings Technical Report . Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.

Book Google Scholar

Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 , 78–108.

Uher, R. (2013). The changing understanding of the genetic and environmental causes of mental illness. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 58 (2), 67–68.

Vaidya, J. G., Gray, E. K., Haig, J. R., Mroczek, D. K., & Watson, D. (2008). Differential stability and individual growth trajectories of big five and affective traits during young adulthood. [article]. Journal of Personality, 76 (2), 267–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00486.x

Verweij, K. J. H., Zietsch, B. P., Medland, S. E., Gordon, S. D., Benyamin, B., Nyholt, D. R., … Wray, N. R. (2010). A genome-wide association study of Cloninger’s temperament scales: Implications for the evolutionary genetics of personality. [article]. Biological Psychology, 85 (2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.07.018

Viken, R. J., Rose, R. J., Kaprio, J., & Koskenvuo, M. (1994). A developmental genetic analysis of adult personality: Extroversion and neuroticism from 18 to 59 years of age. [article]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (4), 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.722

Vukasovic, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. [article]. Psychological Bulletin, 141 (4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017

Wainschtein, P., Jain, D. P., Yengo, L., & Zheng, Z. (2019). Recovery of trait heritability from whole genome sequence data. BioRxiv preprint, retrieved 4 Nov 2019.

Wolf, H., Angleitner, A., Spinath, F. M., Riemann, R., & Strelau, J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on the EPQ-RS scales: A twin study using self- and peer reports. [article]. Personality and Individual Differences, 37 (3), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.028

Wray, N. R., Birley, A. J., Sullivan, P. F., Visscher, P. R. M., & Martin, N. G. (2007). Genetic and phenotypic stability of measures of neuroticism over 22 years. [article]. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10 (5), 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.10.5.695

Yang, J. A., Benyamin, B., McEvoy, B. P., Gordon, S., Henders, A. K., Nyholt, D. R., … Visscher, P. M. (2010). Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. [article]. Nature Genetics, 42 (7), 565–U131. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.608

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Lindsay Matteson & Matt McGue

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsay Matteson .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Kimberly J. Saudino

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Jody M. Ganiban

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Matteson, L., McGue, M. (2020). Development of Personality in Adulthood: A Behavioral Genetic Perspective. In: Saudino, K.J., Ganiban, J.M. (eds) Behavior Genetics of Temperament and Personality. Advances in Behavior Genetics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0933-0_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0933-0_2

Published : 18 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-0716-0931-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-0716-0933-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Affiliation.

1 Department of Psychology.
PMID: 35834197
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000365

Past research syntheses provided evidence that personality traits are both stable and changeable throughout the life span. However, early meta-analytic estimates were constrained by a relatively small universe of longitudinal studies, many of which tracked personality traits in small samples over moderate time periods using measures that were only loosely related to contemporary trait models such as the Big Five. Since then, hundreds of new studies have emerged allowing for more precise estimates of personality trait stability and change across the life span. Here, we updated and extended previous research syntheses on personality trait development by synthesizing novel longitudinal data on rank-order stability (total k = 189, total N = 178,503) and mean-level change (total k = 276, N = 242,542) from studies published after January 1, 2005. Consistent with earlier meta-analytic findings, the rank-order stability of personality traits increased significantly throughout early life before reaching a plateau in young adulthood. These increases in stability coincide with mean-level changes in the direction of greater maturity. In contrast to previous findings, we found little evidence for increasing rank-order stabilities after Age 25. Moreover, cumulative mean-level trait changes across the life span were slightly smaller than previously estimated. Emotional stability, however, increased consistently and more substantially across the life span than previously found. Moderator analyses indicated that narrow facet-level and maladaptive trait measures were less stable than broader domain and adaptive trait measures. Overall, the present findings draw a more precise picture of the life span development of personality traits and highlight important gaps in the personality development literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

American Psychological Association
Ovid Technologies, Inc.
MedlinePlus Health Information

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 18 June 2022

Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict life outcomes

Amanda J. Wright 1 &
Joshua J. Jackson 1

Scientific Reports volume 12 , Article number: 10286 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

16 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human behaviour

Debate has long surrounded whether temperament and personality are distinct sets of individual differences or are rather two sides of the same coin. To the extent that there are differences, it could indicate important developmental insights concerning the mechanisms responsible for linking traits with outcomes. One way to test this is to examine the joint and incremental predictive validity of temperament and personality in the same individuals across time. Using a longitudinal sample spanning 3 decades starting at infancy and followed up to 37 years old ( N = 7081), we ran a series of Bayesian generalized linear models with measures of childhood temperament and adult-based personality to predict outcomes in several life domains. Results indicated that while each set of individual differences were often related to the same outcomes, there were instances in which temperament provided incremental validity above adult personality, ranging from 2 to 10% additional variance explained. Personality in childhood explained the most variance for outcomes such as cognitive ability and educational attainment whereas personality performed best for outcomes such as health status, substance use, and most internalizing outcomes. These findings indicate childhood and adulthood assessments of personality are not redundant and that a lifespan approach is needed to understand fully understand life outcomes.

Disentangling the personality pathways to well-being

Parental personality and early life ecology: a prospective cohort study from preconception to postpartum

The process and mechanisms of personality change

Debate has historically surrounded whether childhood and adult personality are two sides of the same coin 1 , 2 , 3 , but despite the history of controversy, evidence indicates there is considerable overlap in childhood and adulthood personality traits 4 , 5 . If it were the case that adult personality is merely a later form of personality in childhood, one would reasonably expect an individual’s earlier temperament and later personality to predict similar life outcomes and/or show redundant predictive validity. However, if there are predictive differences, this would point to a number of developmental insights concerning the mechanisms responsible for linking individual differences with life outcomes.

While childhood temperament does predict later adult outcomes 6 , 7 , 8 , it is unclear whether child and adult assessments are redundant in the prediction of life outcomes as no study has directly examined this question. Using a large-scale representative sample over 30 years, we directly test the incremental predictive validity of childhood temperament above later adult-based personality to assess the uniqueness between the two types of age-graded individual differences.

Does it matter when we assess personality?

Given that personality is moderately consistent across the lifespan 9 , 10 , it is important to identify when personality is most important. Child and adult personality prediction of life outcomes can yield a number of patterns, each suggesting different mechanisms linking personality with life outcomes.

First, the “it doesn’t matter when” pattern describes that if one wanted to predict outcomes with personality, any assessment across the lifespan would suffice. If childhood and adult personality traits equivalently predict future life outcomes, this would suggest the mechanisms linking traits measured at distinct points of individuals’ lives operate similarly and, ultimately, yield equal predictions of future outcomes. In support of this perspective, both childhood and adulthood personality assessments predict similar outcomes 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 .

A second possible pattern of associations is “all that matters is where you end up.” Whereas the previous pattern emphasizes the redundancy of assessments, this perspective suggests the strongest associations for assessments of personality are those closest in time to the outcomes they are trying to predict. As with any developmental processes, time introduces noise into the system. The result of this introduction of noise is that it continually builds and accumulates. This error generating process is (partly) the reason why decades-long longitudinal associations are weaker and harder to come by than associations closer in time 12 . This perspective puts emphasis on adulthood, and subsequently neglects childhood, as being relevant to understanding adult life outcomes such as health, wealth, and well-being.

The third pattern is the “it’s where you start and finish.” In contrast to the above pattern, this third perspective is that of a lifespan approach. It emphasizes that it is necessary to understand who an individual is throughout their entire life to best understand their current and future development. With this approach in mind, it becomes readily apparent that childhood personality is a rich source of individual differences that are inextricably related to an individual’s status in life at any point in time.

Importantly, past studies provide a reasonable basis for expecting child and adult personality to uniquely predict outcomes. This notion is supported in part by the fact that although there is nonzero stability from childhood to adult personality, these associations tend to be modest 10 , thus allowing for within- and between-person change. Hill et al. 13 outlined three overlapping processes that serve as potential mechanisms by which childhood personality differentially predict future adult outcomes compared to adult-based personality measures.

First, the opportunities and snares hypothesis suggest that there are child-relevant events and situations directly associated with adult outcomes 13 . Personality at this time is important because one cannot make up for lost time if these opportunities are passed. Childhood personality plays an important role in developmental branching such that it predisposes them to take certain paths in life. Taking certain paths early in life restricts the ease of or ability to take other paths later in life, which emphasizes the widespread, downstream consequences of this early-life branching. For example, children who score higher in effortful control tend to do better and work harder in school 14 , 15 . These children are then more likely to obtain higher levels of education 16 , which itself predicts other future positive outcomes. In comparison, children who score lower on related traits are more likely to engage in substance use 17 , 18 , which itself predicts even more frequent substance use and other delinquent behaviors in adulthood 19 .

Second, the differential maturation hypothesis posits that the trajectories and rates of personality development and change experienced prior to adulthood can affect future outcomes 13 . At the core of this idea lies individual differences in rates of change during childhood. If people change at different rates, then having multiple assessments of a construct is important. Third, the differential pathways hypothesis describes those pathways that explain why personality affects future success may differ across the lifespan 13 . For example, it might be expected that the effects of personality on income are mostly driven by adult personality trait levels (e.g., working productively versus counterproductive work behaviors 20 , 21 ). However, the paths linking personality and financial success may begin much earlier in life such as through greater educational attainment.

Current study

In a longitudinal study of more than 7000 individuals assessed from birth to adulthood, we predicted outcomes in several life domains (e.g., health, relationships, career) using multi-method assessments of child and adult personality measured upwards of 30 years apart. We address two key questions, both from the lens of explaining variance in outcomes: (1) does temperament predict outcomes in adulthood and (2) does childhood temperament predict outcomes above and beyond adult-based personality? It should be noted that the terms “temperament” and “personality” are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature. For simplicity, we use the term “temperament” to refer to the assessment of individual differences in childhood. However, at its core, temperament reflects individual differences in children’s behavior and tendencies, which is consistent with the traditional definition of personality 5 . Thus, we ultimately consider this manuscript to be a test of the incremental predictive validity of childhood personality relative to adulthood personality.

Participants

Participants consisted of 7081 individuals from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979—Child and Young Adult (NLSY79-CYA) sample. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) is an ongoing longitudinal study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The NLSY79 began in 1979 and consisted of a (then) nationally representative sample of 12,686 men and women who were all 14 to 21 years of age 22 . As of 2018, the women of the NLSY79 were between the ages of 53 to 62 and there were 11,545 children born to the NLSY79 mothers. The NLSY79-CYA sample consists of the offspring of the original mothers of the NLSY79 sample.

Across all waves, ages ranged from infancy (0 years old) to 37 years ( M = 15.24, SD = 8.78). The average age in our sample at the final measurement occasion was 27.73 years old ( SD = 4.87, Min = 15, Max = 37). Among participants, 39.4% of the sample identified as white ( N = 2792), 36.2% as Black ( N = 2564), 23.4% as Hispanic/Latinx ( N = 1658), and 1.0% other ( N = 67). There were 3594 males (50.8%) and 3487 females (49.2%). The last wave of data in our study was collected in 2016.

Participants were included in the present study if they had measures of childhood temperament and adult-based personality. Since this is a large panel study, participants who complete one measure are expected to have data for other measures at the same timepoint (i.e., if participants had personality data, they also had outcome data). Thus, attrition analyses were conducted that compared individuals who only had temperament data versus those who were included in the present study (i.e., had temperament and adult-based personality data). Compared to individuals included in our study ( N = 7081), participants who only had temperament data ( n = 2039) scored lower on fearfulness ( t (1454) = 3.60, p < 0.001, d = − 0.12), higher on insecure attachment ( t (2567.1) = − 3.88, p < 0.001, d = 0.11), and lower on sociability ( t (2289.7) = 4.15, p < 0.001, d = − 0.12). Additionally, participants who only had temperament data, compared to those in our study, included a larger proportion of White participants (χ 2 (1) = 409.95, p < 0.001), a smaller proportion of Black participants (χ 2 (1) = 260.10, p < 0.001), a smaller proportion of Hispanic participants (χ 2 (1) = 26.88, p < 0.001), and had lower education levels ( t (581.16) = 5.64, p < 0.001, d = − 0.97).

Childhood temperament

Temperament was assessed in children ages 0 to 6 ( M = 3.76, SD = 2.01) using scales adapted from the Infant Behavior Questionnaire 23 , compliance scale 24 , and additional items selected by one of the creators of the compliance scale (Joseph Campos). Participants in our study provided data for the temperament traits of activity, fearfulness, positive affect, and predictability from ages 0–11 months and for compliance and insecure attachment from ages 12–83 months 25 . All were maternal report. Then, sociability was assessed across the years with three items answered by the interviewer. Average Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.69 or greater. The number of waves of data for any temperament dimension ranged from 1 to 4; 1096 participants had 1 wave, 1207 had 2 waves, 2917 had 3 waves, and 1861 had 4 waves. The temperament qualities had an average prediction interval of nearly 25 years with a max of over 30 years.

Personality

Personality was assessed using the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI 26 ) in adolescents and adults ( M age = 23.04, SD age = 4.93, Min age = 15, Max age = 35) up until 2014. This measure assesses the Big Five personality traits 26 , 27 . The number of waves for personality ranged from 1 to 4; 729 participants had 1 wave, 1941 had 2 waves, 3604 had 3 waves, and 807 had 4 waves.

Included outcomes in the health domain include self-report health status and body mass index (BMI). Health status was assessed with a single-item measure asking, “How would you describe your present health?” and treated as an ordinal variable. Response options were on a Likert scale consisting of 1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good), and 5 (excellent). The last available wave of data for these variables were used as the outcome for each participant. BMI was calculated from the height and weight variables for each participant, standardized, and treated as continuous.

Internalizing

Included outcomes included diagnoses of anxiety and depression; record of ever seeing a counselor for emotional, behavioral, or mental problems; and record of ever attempting suicide. The variables were coded such that 1 indicated a response of “yes” during any available waves for a single participant and 0 indicated a response “no” at every wave (i.e., dummy-coded).

Externalizing

Included outcomes were a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD ), reported number of substances used across all available waves for a participant, and ever going to jail. For substance use, items asking if the participant had ever used one of eight substances (alcohol, cigarettes, cocaine, hallucinogens, marijuana, downers, inhalants, stimulants) were used to create a variable for the number of substances the individual has done. The variables for an ADHD diagnosis and ever going to jail were dummy-coded.

Variables assessing cognitive performance consisted of a total score of a forwards and backwards digit span count, word recall, Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) math assessment, PIAT reading comprehension assessment, and PIAT reading recognition assessment 28 . Raw summary scores for each cognitive assessment were obtained directly from the NLSY Investigator database. Final cognition variables were standardized and treated as continuous.

Relationships and family

Outcomes in the relationship domain included relationship satisfaction at the last available wave for a participant, record of ever being married, ever being divorced, number of marriages, and ever having children. The variables for ever being married, divorced, or having children were dummy-coded. There were three possible variables for relationship satisfaction, each asking about satisfaction with a different type of relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend, partner, spouse). Since participants did not have data for more than one variable at a given wave (as they could not have a girlfriend/boyfriend AND a spouse, for example), these three items were combined to form a single relationship satisfaction variable and was treated as ordinal.

Education, career, and financial

Included variables were highest degree obtained by the participant, being employed at the wave following their last personality assessment, median annual salary, and record of ever being the recipient of government financial assistance (i.e., welfare). Highest degree obtained was treated as an ordinal variable and its value was determined by the highest value across all available waves for a participant. Being employed and ever receiving welfare were dummy-coded. Median annual salary was calculated across all available waves for a participant, standardized, and treated as continuous.

Civic engagement

Included variables were being religious and volunteering. The variables were dummy-coded.

Control variables

Variables that have been previously used in past studies and that were of theoretical and practical relevance were included to account for potentially influential differences surrounding birth and early childhood of the participants. These variables were age at the last wave of the outcome variable, gender (male = 0, female = 1), race, mother’s age at birth, whether or not the child was breastfed, number of weeks the mom was pregnant with the participant, child’s height and weight at birth, whether the mother reported any drinking or smoking during pregnancy, and mother’s highest education level.

Transparency and openness

Within this methods section, we report how we determined our final sample size through inclusion criteria, all measures used along with their psychometric properties, and we follow the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS 29 ). Data are freely accessible at https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator and code for all data cleaning and analyses is available at https://osf.io/kyrq7/ . The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Washington University in St. Louis deemed this project exempt from IRB approval because it involves accessing a publicly available dataset and thus does not meet federal definitions under the jurisdiction of an IRB (ID#: 202107190). The APA’s ethical standards for conducting research were followed throughout the duration of this study. Data were analyzed using R, version 4.0.3 30 and the package brms 31 . This study’s design and its analyses were not pre-registered.

Analysis plan

Bayesian generalized linear regressions were conducted for each outcome with (a) all temperament dimensions, (b) all personality traits, and (c) all temperament and personality entered simultaneously as predictors. All temperament and personality variables were standardized to aid in interpretation and model convergence. To calculate our primary parameter of interest—the incremental R 2 values—all models were first fit without covariates. Then, only for the purpose of obtaining individual trait estimates that may be of interest (i.e., calculating the incremental R 2 for the temperament models was no longer needed), models including covariates were fit. Priors were weakly regularizing and centered around 0. Binomial distributions were used for any dichotomous outcome variables; cumulative distributions were used for ordinal variables; Poisson distributions were used for count variables; and student’s t distributions were used for continuous variables. Parameter estimates (maximum a posterior probability (MAP) estimates) were extracted along with 95% credible intervals (CIs) and variance explained (R 2 ) values for each model. We used 95% CIs to determine whether the R 2 values were meaningful (i.e., the interval did not contain zero). Furthermore, for a traditional cut-off of α = 0.05, a power analysis indicated that we had 80% power to detect an odds ratio of 1.0693 per one standard deviation increase in a predictor variable 32 .

Childhood temperament predicting adult outcomes

Generally, childhood personality was a good predictor of future life outcomes, up to 30 years later (Table 1 ). For example, temperament was related to objective indicators such as BMI (5.76%), educational attainment (4.44%), and being incarcerated (2.25%) over 2 decades later. Temperament was not associated with every outcome, however, even for outcomes that personality traits predicted (e.g., annual salary (0.69%)). Educational attainment (4.44% vs 2.67%) and substance use (0.87% vs 4.71%), as two examples, demonstrate the difference in predictive validity for childhood and adulthood personality, respectively. Overall, despite being much closer in years between assessment and outcome, the explained variance from adult personality models was not that much greater than that of childhood temperament (Fig. 1 ).

R 2 distributions from the temperament-only and personality-only models for all outcomes. R 2 distributions for temperament- and personality-only models are presented above for all outcomes. R 2 values are presented as percentages. The R 2 for the temperament-only models is plotted in light gray. The R 2 for the adult-based personality-only models is plotted in dark gray. The 95% credible intervals, representing the R 2 values that were present in 95% of the posterior distributions, are outlined in each distribution.

Since the primary goal of this paper was to view the sole and incremental explanatory power of the temperament relative to personality (i.e., the model R 2 values), individual temperament estimates with the outcomes were of lesser interest. However, these estimates can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 – S7 from models without covariates; Supplementary Tables S8 a– S14 a from models with covariates; and Supplementary Table S15 for a comparison of estimates from models with and without covariates.

Independent associations of childhood and adulthood personality for life outcomes

Next, we sought to examine whether childhood temperament yielded incremental predictive validity of life outcomes over adult personality. For these models, all childhood temperament characteristics and all adult-based personality traits were entered as predictors simultaneously. To determine the incremental R 2 value for childhood temperament within the combined model for any given outcome, the R 2 from the adult-based personality-only model was subtracted from the total R 2 for the combined model for that outcome (Table 1 ; Supplementary Fig. 1). Individual estimates for each outcome from the personality-only models can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 – S7 (without covariates); Supplementary Tables S8 b– S14 b (with covariates); and Supplementary Table S15 for a comparison of estimates from models with and without covariates.

In general, temperament provided a number of incremental predictions above personality, despite personality being assessed closer in time, as temperament was, on average, assessed over 20 years prior to these outcomes (Table 1 ). Cognitive outcomes, a diagnosis of depression or ADHD, and highest degree obtained were amongst the most prominent outcomes in which temperament provided incremental variance above adult-based personality. Incremental variances explained for temperament ranged from just above 2% to above 10%—levels of association that are high for psychology, especially when considering the nearly 30-year timespan. For individual estimates for each outcome from the combined models, see Supplementary Tables S1 – S7 (without covariates) and Supplementary Tables S8 c– S14 c (with covariates).

Within this paper, we tested the predictive validity of childhood personality for life outcomes up to 30 years later. Two main findings emerged. First, temperament measured between ages 0–6 was able to predict a wide-ranging number of life outcomes. Second, temperament often provided incremental predictive validity above adult-based personality, suggesting that there is unique information in childhood assessments despite being assessed farther away in time. These findings establish the importance of both distal and proximal personality predictors of outcomes, supporting the need to understand who an individual is throughout the lifespan.

Predictive validity of temperament

For a set of traits that were measured between infancy and age six, the ability of temperament to predict outcomes in adulthood, decades later, was noteworthy. Consistent with past research 33 , 34 , our temperament assessments completed at an average age of 3.76 years lend support that personality can be measured early on in life and have predictive validity for important life outcomes decades later.

Our wide-ranging array of outcome variables further supports the broad and far-reaching predictive abilities of childhood temperament. Many past studies with childhood and adulthood personality often limited their investigations of prediction with temperament to psychopathology-related outcomes 35 while those that examined other outcomes typically remained in a single outcome domain (e.g., occupations 36 ). Thus, our study indeed found that early assessments of temperament are associated with a broad array of outcomes, up to decades later. Notable examples include BMI, cognitive ability, divorce, educational attainment, and civic engagement.

While not reported in the results but available in the supplementary materials, across all domains, the temperament trait of compliance emerged as the most frequent individual predictor, followed closely by sociability and predictability. Compliance is believed to represent a childhood precursor of agreeableness, but agreeableness-related traits are typically not included as a major dimension in popular temperament models but are included in childhood personality models inspired by the Big Five 33 . Part of this could be due to variation in methodology of assessing these temperament traits, as this agreeableness-related factor is the broadest and largest dimension that has emerged from parental descriptions of child temperament 37 but emerges less frequently through other assessment methods (e.g., self-report, laboratory tasks). Since this trait was in fact reported on by parents in our study, its prominence in predicting outcomes could reflect the parents’ concern with managing the child’s behavior and avoiding parent–child conflict, thus perhaps over-reporting on or emphasizing this quality in their child. Agreeableness as a personality trait is related to outcomes in various domains, including interpersonal, social, and health outcomes 11 , 38 , 39 , 40 so it is not entirely surprising this possible childhood precursor of agreeableness is related to a vast number of outcomes as well. Furthermore, one empirically derived personality taxonomy for children, the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC 41 ), found that compliance represented a blend of benevolence and, more interestingly, conscientiousness. Given conscientiousness’s many associations with beneficial outcomes 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , our findings of compliance being associated with the greatest number of outcomes is perhaps even more to be expected.

There are also reasons as to why the other two most frequent temperament predictors, predictability and sociability, emerged as often as they did. First, predictability, also sometimes called regularity, refers to the “predictability” of a child’s biological and behavioral patterns 45 , 46 . With age, the children’s daily schedules and personal habits also appear to be consistent with their earlier predictability levels. Highly regular children like setting schedules for accomplishing tasks and enjoy structure in their lives, whereas highly irregular children have more difficulty adapting to set routines and forming regular habits and mood patterns, which can precede behavioral problems later in life 47 , 48 , 49 . However, children exhibiting these irregular tendencies also can adjust better to unexpected changes in their routine and are more flexible in lifestyle changes. Predictability’s associations with setting schedules and routines as well as consistent mood patterns is reflective of both conscientiousness and neuroticism; two traits that are associated with numerous outcomes in many domains 39 , 50 .

Additionally, past research has suggested sociability be considered a lower-order quality of the broader dimension positive emotionality as opposed to constituting its own independent trait 37 . Positive emotionality and the qualities it is believed to subsume (e.g., sociability, shyness, dominance) are related to future scores on extraversion 5 , 51 . Extraversion is linked to positive outcomes in adulthood, particularly those related to social and well-being outcomes 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 . Greater well-being itself is positively related to beneficial outcomes in several life domains 39 , serving as one path by which childhood sociability is linked to outcomes in different domains.

Reasons for incremental predictive validity of temperament over personality

We found evidence for a lifespan perspective, such that it mattered “where you start and finish.” It is beneficial to measure individual differences more than a single time over the life course, with childhood being an important time period for understanding adult outcomes. Not only did temperament provide incremental validity, but it evidenced stronger initial predictions across a number of outcomes, despite the fact that the lag in time between assessment and outcome was decades longer for temperament than personality.

A few reasons may explain why childhood is important to understand adult outcomes. First, these results suggest there are childhood-specific processes, as outlined by Hill et al. 13 , that relate childhood individual differences to adult outcomes that are separate from adult processes (i.e., differential pathways). For example, personality measures better predicted substance use compared to temperament assessments. One potential reason why is that the processes that relate individual differences to those outcomes are more relevant for adults than children. Behaviors that influence substance use are better assessed with adult personality measures because they either have content that better assesses those process or because the processes are assessed closer in time to outcomes. This reasoning could similarly be why temperament better predicted an ADHD diagnosis, as diagnoses are often made around age six 56 .

Alternatively, the opportunities and snares hypothesis could offer another explanation. As Hill et al. 13 point out, childhood personality measures are important because of the sensitive period of childhood due to its time-limited nature. The development that occurs early in life can be consequential to future outcomes, especially if this development primarily occurs in a limited span of time and/or the paths one is then led down cannot be reversed. If temperament traits are an acceptable proxy of an infant or child’s functioning and healthy development, when cognitive abilities are also being largely formed and solidified (especially apparent when considering the long-term stability of IQ 57 ), then future personality traits would offer little, if any, predictive validity not already captured by temperament. This could explain why temperament assessments did a good job at predicting educational outcomes over and above personality because education is an important childhood experience that is cumulative in nature.

Limitations and conclusion

While our study was a powerful test of the incremental predictive validity of temperament compared to the Big Five personality traits using a representative sample assessed over 3 decades, there were a few limitations. First, we were limited by our measures. The temperament traits we could examine was restricted to what was included in the survey, and thus we could not include some regularly examined qualities such as effortful control or behavioral inhibition 58 , 59 . For adulthood personality, the most data were available for the TIPI, which is a relatively brief measure. However, when examining if the amount of variance explained by adult personality was similar when using a more comprehensive measure (i.e., the mini-IPIP 50 ), albeit with a smaller sample size, the values were very similar (Table S17 ; see also Table S18 for a comparison of the estimates with the TIPI versus mini-IPIP). This suggests that the TIPI captured an acceptable amount of variance to be explained in our outcomes by the Big Five traits. Ideally, to best test the question of if there is incremental validity of childhood personality compared to adulthood personality, comprehensive measures of both sets of traits are needed. Thus, our study should be considered a first step in examining this and future work is needed to confirm and expand upon the results. Second, different reporting methods were used (parent, self) which have been differently associated with life outcomes 42 , 60 . Third, an alternative explanation for the findings is content and/or structural differences between the two sets of individual differences 2 , 61 . It is hard to address whether these factors are driving the differences as it is difficult to take an adult taxonomy and apply it to children. Behavioral expression of personality differs across age which is one of the reasons why the Little Six 2 rather than the Big Five, for example, is found in childhood.

Using a large-scale longitudinal study across a 30-year time frame, we identified non-redundant predictions of life outcomes for temperament and personality. Temperament explained the most variance for outcomes such as cognitive ability and educational attainment whereas personality performed best for outcomes such as health status, substance use, and most internalizing outcomes. Our results highlight the benefit of a lifespan approach to understanding life outcomes, where adult-based outcomes are informed by child-based assessments.

Data availability

Data are drawn from the publicly available National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979—Child and Young Adult sample 22 which is freely accessible at https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator . The raw data used for the current study are available at the study’s OSF page ( https://osf.io/kyrq7/ ).

Goldsmith, H. H. et al. Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Dev. 58 , 505–592 (1987).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Soto, C. J. & John, O. P. Traits in transition: The structure of parent-reported personality traits from early childhood to early adulthood. J. Pers. 82 , 182–199 (2014).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Soto, C. J. & Tackett, J. L. Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 358–362 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Zentner, M. & Bates, J. E. Child temperament: An integrative review of concepts, research programs, and measures. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2 , 7–37 (2008).

Google Scholar

Caspi, A. & Shiner, R. L. Personality Development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (eds Eisenberg, N. et al. ) 300–365 (John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2006).

Tang, A. et al. Infant behavioral inhibition predicts personality and social outcomes three decades later. PNAS 117 , 9800–9807 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Caspi, A. & Shiner, R. Temperament and Personality. In Rutter’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (eds Rutter, M. et al. ) 182–198 (Wiley Blackwell, 2008).

Chapter Google Scholar

Asendorpf, J. B., Denissen, J. J. & Van Aken, M. A. Inhibited and aggressive preschool children at 23 years of age: Personality and social transitions into adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 44 , 997–1011 (2008).

Roberts, B. W. & DelVecchio, W. F. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 126 , 3–25 (2000).

Hampson, S. E. & Goldberg, L. R. A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 763–779 (2006).

Beck, E. D. & Jackson, J. J. A mega-analysis of personality prediction: Robustness and boundary conditions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 122 (3), 523 (2021).

Fraley, R. C. & Roberts, B. W. Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychol. Rev. 112 , 60–74 (2005).

Hill, P. L., Edmonds, G. W. & Jackson, J. J. Pathways linking childhood personality to later life outcomes. Child Dev. Perspect. 13 , 116–120 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kappe, R. & Van Der Flier, H. Predicting academic success in higher education: What’s more important than being smart?. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 27 , 605–619 (2012).

Véronneau, M. H., Hiatt Racer, K., Fosco, G. M. & Dishion, T. J. The contribution of adolescent effortful control to early adult educational attainment. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 , 730–743 (2014).

Spengler, M. et al. Student characteristics and behaviors at age 12 predict occupational success 40 years later over and above childhood IQ and parental socioeconomic status. Dev. Psychol. 51 , 1329–1340 (2015).

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M. & Dubanoski, J. P. Forty years on: teachers’ assessments of children’s personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. Health Psychol. 25 , 57–64 (2006).

Friedman, H. S. et al. Psychosocial and behavioral predictors of longevity: The aging and death of the “Termites”. Am. Psychol. 50 , 69–78 (1995).

D’Amico, E. J., Ellickson, P. L., Collins, R. L., Martino, S. & Klein, D. J. Processes linking adolescent problems to substance-use problems in late young adulthood. J. Stud. Alcohol 66 , 766–775 (2005).

Mount, M., Ilies, R. & Johnson, E. Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 59 , 591–622 (2006).

Salgado, J. F. The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 10 , 117–125 (2002).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Children of the NLSY79, 1979–2016 Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR) (The Ohio State University, 2021).

Rothbart, M. K. Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child Dev. 52 , 569–578 (1981).

Baker, P. C. & Mott, F. L. NLSY Child Handbook, 1989: A Guide and Resource Document for the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1986 Child Data (Center for Human Resource Research, 1989).

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Appendix B: Composition of the Temperament Scales (NLSY79 Child) . Appendix B: Composition of the Temperament Scales (NLSY79 Child) | National Longitudinal Surveys. Retrieved April 2, 2022, from https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79-children/other-documentation/codebook-supplement/appendix-b-composition

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37 , 504–528 (2003).

Goldberg, L. R. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 , 1216–1229 (1990).

Markwardt, F. C. Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (American Guidance Service, 1989).

Kazak, A. E. Editorial: Journal article reporting standards. Am. Psychol. 73 , 1–2 (2018).

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).

Bürkner, P. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80 , 1–28 (2017).

Hsieh, F. Y., Bloch, D. A. & Larsen, M. D. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat. Med. 17 , 1623–1634 (1998).

Rothbart, M. K. & Bates, J. E. Temperament. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (eds Eisenberg, N. et al. ) 99–166 (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2006).

Shiner, R. & Caspi, A. Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 44 , 2–32 (2003).

De Pauw, S. S. & Mervielde, I. Temperament, personality and developmental psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions underlying childhood traits. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 41 , 313–329 (2010).

Blatný, M., Millová, K., Jelínek, M. & Osecká, T. Personality predictors of successful development: Toddler temperament and adolescent personality traits predict well-being and career stability in middle adulthood. PLoS ONE 10 , e0126032 (2015).

Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F. & Van Leeuwen, K. Temperament, personality, and developmental psychopathology as childhood antecedents of personality disorders. J. Pers. Disord. 19 , 171–201 (2005).

Robins, R. W., Caspi, A. & Moffitt, T. E. It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. J. Pers. 70 , 925–964 (2002).

Ozer, D. J. & Benet-Martinez, V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57 , 401–421 (2006).

Jensen-Campbell, L. A. et al. Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. J. Res. Pers. 36 , 224–251 (2002).

Mervielde, I. & De Fruyt, F. Assessing Children’s Traits with the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In Big Five Assessment (eds de Raad, B. & Perugini, M.) 129–142 (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2002).

Jackson, J. J., Connolly, J. J., Garrison, S. M., Leveille, M. M. & Connolly, S. L. Your friends know how long you will live: A 75-year study of peer-rated personality traits. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 335–340 (2015).

Bogg, T. & Roberts, B. W. Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychol. Bull. 130 , 887–919 (2004).

Hill, P. L. & Jackson, J. J. The invest-and-accrue model of conscientiousness. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 20 , 141–154 (2016).

Olafsen, K. S. et al. Temperamental adaptability, persistence, and regularity: Parental ratings of Norwegian infants aged 6 to 12 months, with some implications for preventive practice. Infant Ment. Health J. 39 , 183–197 (2018).

Thomas, A. & Chess, S. Temperament and Development (Brunner/Mazel, 1977).

Lahey, B. B. et al. Temperament and parenting during the first year of life predict future child conduct problems. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 36 , 1139–1158 (2008).

Burleson, J. A. & Kaminer, Y. Does temperament moderate treatment response in adolescent substance use disorders?. Subst. Abuse 29 , 89–95 (2008).

Slobodskaya, H. R., Safronova, M. V. & Windle, M. Personality, temperament and adolescent adjustment in modern Russia. Personal. Individ. Differ. 39 , 167–178 (2005).

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M. & Lucas, R. E. The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 18 , 192–203 (2006).

Caspi, A. et al. Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. J. Pers. 71 , 495–514 (2003).

Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar

DeNeve, K. M. & Cooper, H. The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 124 , 197–229 (1998).

Soto, C. J. Is happiness good for your personality? Concurrent and prospective relations of the big five with subjective well-being. J. Pers. 83 , 45–55 (2015).

Specht, J., Egloff, B. & Schmukle, S. C. Examining mechanisms of personality maturation: The impact of life satisfaction on the development of the Big Five personality traits. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 4 , 181–189 (2013).

Paunonen, S. V. Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 , 411–424 (2003).

Visser, S. N. et al. Trends in the parent-report of health care provider-diagnosed and medicated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: United States, 2003–2011. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 53 , 34–46 (2014).

Deary, I. J. The stability of intelligence from childhood to old age. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23 , 239–245 (2014).

Evans, D. E. & Rothbart, M. K. Developing a model for adult temperament. J. Res. Pers. 41 , 868–888 (2007).

Putnam, S. P., Gartstein, M. A. & Rothbart, M. K. Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler temperament: The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behav. Dev. 29 , 386–401 (2006).

Wright, A. J. et al. Prospective self- and informant-personality associations with inflammation, health behaviors, and health indicators. Health Psychol. 41 , 121–133 (2022).

Tackett, J. L. et al. The hierarchical structure of childhood personality in five countries: Continuity from early childhood to early adolescence. J. Pers. 80 , 847–879 (2012).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

Amanda J. Wright & Joshua J. Jackson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.J.W. and J.J.J. wrote the main manuscript text. A.J.W. performed all statistical analyses, created all tables, and prepared all figures. Both authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda J. Wright .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wright, A.J., Jackson, J.J. Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict life outcomes. Sci Rep 12 , 10286 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14666-0

Download citation

Received : 23 February 2022

Accepted : 17 May 2022

Published : 18 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14666-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Validation of the arabic version of the 35-item temps-m in a community sample of adults.

Feten Fekih-Romdhane
Souheil Hallit

BMC Psychology (2023)

Elizabeth A. Spry
Craig A. Olsson
George C. Patton

Scientific Reports (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of Life Events and Mindset Affect Personality Trait Change

Jantje hinrika de vries.

1 Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Maik Spengler

2 Division HR Diagnostics AG, Stuttgart, Germany

Andreas Frintrup

Patrick mussel, associated data.

The datasets generated for this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: All data, further materials, and items are available via OSF at: https://osf.io/xc6d4/ .

Personality changes throughout the life course and change is often caused by environmental influences, such as critical life events. In the present study, we investigate personality trait development in emerging adulthood as a result of experiencing two major life events: graduating from school and moving away from home. Thereby, we examined the occurrence of the two life events per se and the subjective perception of the critical life event in terms of valence. In addition, we postulate a moderation effect of the construct of mindset, which emphasizes that beliefs over the malleability of global attributes can be seen as predictors of resilience to challenges. This suggests that mindset acts as a buffer for these two distinct events. In a large longitudinal sample of 1,243 people entering adulthood, we applied latent structural equation modeling to assess mean-level changes in the Big Five, the influence of life events per se , the subjective perception of life events, and a moderating role of mindset. In line with maturity processes, results showed significant mean-level changes in all Big Five traits. While no changes in the Big Five dimensions were noted when the mere occurrence of an event is assessed, results indicated a greater increase in extraversion and diminished increase in emotional stability when we accounted for the individual's (positive/negative) perception of the critical life event. In case of extraversion, this also holds true for the moderator mindset. Our findings contribute valuable insights into the relevance of subjective appraisals to life events and the importance of underlying processes to these events.

Introduction

People change as they age. Individuals experience not only physical but also psychological changes across the entire lifespan. However, the exact course of internal and external changes depends on various criteria. In recent years, researchers have expended considerable effort in studying how personality develops across the lifespan; this has, in turn, incited a controversy about the stability and variability of specific personality traits. Personality traits are considered to be relatively stable individual differences in affect, behavior, and/or cognition (Johnson, 1997 ). Whereas, the Big Five traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be rather stable and continuously increase across adulthood, levels of openness to experience appear to change in an inverted U-shape function, which increases between the ages of 18 and 22 and decreases between 60 and 70 (McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Specht et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, some studies have shown that trait change can be associated with particular life stages. For example, the findings of Roberts and Mroczek ( 2008 ) suggest that young adults tend to exhibit increases in traits that are indicative of greater social maturity. More specifically, in emerging adulthood, the average individual experiences an increase in emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Arnett, 2000 ; Roberts et al., 2006 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ), and self-esteem (Orth et al., 2018 ), while openness to experience seems to decrease in advancing age (Roberts et al., 2006 ). Taken together, this comprises evidence that personality develops throughout the lifespan and consequently, several theories have been introduced to explain when and why personality change occurs (e.g., Cattell, 1971 ; Baltes, 1987 ; Caspi and Moffitt, 1993 ; McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008 ).

Critical Life Events

Theory and research support the idea that personality can change as a result of intrinsic factors such as genetics and extrinsic factors such as the environment around us (Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). More specifically, there is ample evidence that personality is linked to certain external influences such as critical life events (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn et al., 2018 ). These can be defined as “transitions that mark the beginning or the end of a specific status” (Luhmann et al., 2012 ; p. 594) and include leaving the parental home or major changes in one's status such as employment or duty. These transitions often require adaptation processes involving new behavioral, cognitive, or emotional responses (Hopson and Adams, 1976 ; Luhmann et al., 2012 , 2014 ). Profound adaptations are assumed to have lasting effects, as “life events can modify, interrupt or redirect life trajectories by altering individuals' feelings, thoughts and behaviors” (Bleidorn et al., 2018 , p. 83). Building upon this assumption, many studies have sought to determine how certain Big Five traits change because of critical life events. For instance, increases in emotional stability were found to result from transitioning into one's first romantic relationship (Lehnart et al., 2010 ). Emotional stability might also increase in anticipation of gain-based events such as childbirth or paid employment, which, in turn, lead to increases in conscientiousness and openness to experience (Denissen et al., 2018 ).

In the present study, we focus on two critical life events that are highly relevant for emerging adults: moving away from home and graduating from school. Both events represent a personal development milestone for the transition into adulthood and are typically associated with great educational or occupational challenges (Arnett, 2000 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Few studies have highlighted these two events and how they influence life trajectories in emerging adulthood. Lüdtke et al. ( 2011 ) focused on the broader superordinate section of work-related life events and personality change and found that the transition from high school to college, university, or vocational training is associated with substantial normative increases in emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. With regard to graduation from school, Bleidorn ( 2012 ) found significant mean-level changes in certain Big Five traits over an observation period of 1 year. Specifically, senior students experienced increases in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness after graduation. In a later review by Bleidorn et al. ( 2018 ), the authors found that graduation constitutes an almost universal life event in Western societies and that related change in adult personality is likely to be observable, because young adulthood is a period in which personality traits have been shown to be most open to change (Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ).

There are fewer investigations into the personality effects of moving away from home. Pusch et al. ( 2018 ) compared age differences in emerging vs. young adults and found that, among other life events, leaving the parental home did not reveal significant age effects with respect to personality change. However, they found significant age-invariant effects for individuals who left their parental home recently, indicating positive changes in agreeableness. Jonkmann et al. ( 2014 ) investigated living arrangements after college with regard to personality differences and found that, for example, the choice of living arrangement (living with roommates vs. living alone) predicted the development of conscientiousness and—to a lesser extent—openness and agreeableness. Similarly, according to a study by Niehoff et al. ( 2017 ), living and studying abroad after college led to increases in extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Interestingly, Specht et al. ( 2011 ) found a significant sex effect on leaving the parental home and argued that only women become more emotionally stable when moving. Taken together, this evidence suggests that moving away from home is a major life event that has not yet been deeply investigated but represents a distinct developmental task that has the potential to shape individuals' personalities.

The Perception of Life Events

While these studies provide valuable information about the impact of critical life events, one important issue has been hitherto neglected. Many past studies have focused on life events per se , but comparatively little effort has been made to examine the subjective appraisal of such events and its effect on the processes underlying personality change (Roberts, 2009 ). Moreover, methodological approaches to life events are sometimes misleading, because the valence of experienced events is rated by either researchers or other people who cannot sufficiently reflect inter- and intra-individual experiences of events (Headey and Wearing, 1989 ; Kendler et al., 2003 ; Luhmann et al., 2020 ). However, there is ample evidence that people perceive the same event or situation very differently. For example, according to a comprehensive review of person-situation transactions by Rauthmann et al. ( 2015 ), situations can be characterized by their physical (e.g., location, activity, persons) and/or psychological (e.g., task-related, threatening, pleasant) properties. Rauthmann et al. ( 2015 ) further state that “situations only have consequences for people's thinking, feeling, desiring, and acting through the psychological processing they receive” (p. 372). Thus, people's individual experiences of psychological situations may deviate from how these situations are experienced by most other people (reality principle). This assumption aligns with the TESSERA framework conceived by Wrzus and Roberts ( 2017 ). According to the authors, events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations. These expectancies then determine which state occurs after the corresponding trigger by choosing a response from a variety of possible states (Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ). Conjointly, two people can perceive the same situation or event very differently, leading to diverse reactions and psychological meanings.

A first step toward this important distinction was proposed by Luhmann et al. ( 2020 ), who aimed to systematically examined the effects of life events on psychological outcomes. To do so, the authors proposed a dimensional taxonomy which that considers nine perceived characteristics of major life events. I this way, the study uniquely emphasizes the difference between assessing the mere occurrence of a critical life event and taking into account subjective appraisal. However, significantly more research is needed to fully explore how this causes lasting personality trait change.

In conclusion, two aspects of person-situation transactions should be highlighted. First, one situation can be interpreted very differently by two individuals. Expectations and individual goals—as well as variable expressions of personality traits—influence the extent to which a situation is perceived as meaningful and, therefore, determine how people approach it (Bleidorn, 2012 ; Denissen et al., 2013 , 2018 ). Second, this is also true for life events. Two people can reasonably experience the same major life event as completely differently. Therefore, we focus the present study on the valence of two distinct life events and use this characteristic as our central parameter. In particular, in emerging adulthood, individuals might perceive the behavioral expectations and demands associated with a life event as more pressing than others (Pusch et al., 2018 ). What remains less clear is how situational perceptions affect personality change after a major life event, but with respect to the current string of literature, it seems reductive to only ask if, but not how, critical life events are experienced.

The Moderating Role of Mindset

In the previous section, we examined how diverse critical life events can be perceived. Here, we extend our theoretical approach by focusing on the underlying processes that might account for the different perception and spotlight causes of individual personality trait changes. One construct that is highly relevant to the aforementioned regulatory mechanisms is the individual belief system mindset. According to Dweck ( 1999 ), an individual's mindset refers to the implicit belief about the malleability of personal attributes. Dweck ( 1999 ) distinguishes between growth and fixed mindsets. The growth mindset emphasizes the belief that attributes like intelligence and personality are changeable. Conversely, the fixed mindset refers to the belief that such attributes are immutable. According to Dweck ( 2012 ), the individual mindset is not static and can be changed throughout one's life. Actively changing one's mindset toward a growth mindset was found to decrease chronic adolescent aggression, enhance people's willpower, and redirect critical academic outcomes (Dweck, 2012 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ). Moreover, Blackwell et al. ( 2007 ) found that the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) predicted an upward trajectory in grades over 2 years of junior high school, while the belief that intelligence is fixed (entity theory) predicted a flat trajectory. Yet, according to a meta-analysis from Sisk et al. ( 2018 ), mindset interventions for academic achievement predominately benefitted students with low socioeconomic status or who are at-risk academically. Mindset has also been linked to business-related outcomes (e.g., Kray and Haselhuhn, 2007 ; Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). That is, individuals with a growth mindset tend to use “higher-order” cognitive strategies and adapt to stress more easily (Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). Likewise, mindset has been linked to health outcomes and even mental illness, with the assumption that a growth mindset buffers against psychological distress and depression (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003 ; Burnette and Finkel, 2012 ; Schroder et al., 2017 ). Therefore, a growth mindset can be considered a predictor of psychological resilience (Saeed et al., 2018 ).

With regard to changes in personality traits, the findings have been mixed. Hudson et al. ( 2020 ) investigated college students' beliefs by adapting a personality measure into a mindset measure and administering it within a longitudinal study. They found that the mere belief that personality is malleable (or not) did not affect trait changes. However, in her Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development, Dweck ( 2017 ) suggests that basic needs, mental representations (e.g., beliefs and emotions), and action tendencies (referred to as BEATs) contribute to personality development. Dweck further argues that mental representations shape motivation by informing goal selection and subsequently form personality traits by creating recurring experiences (Dweck, 2017 ). Thus, there might be more information about indicators such as the integration of mindset, motivation, and environmental influences necessary to understand how personality traits change according to belief systems.

In summary, there is evidence that a belief in the malleability of global attributes allows individuals to adapt to life circumstances in a goal-directed way and that individuals' mindsets determine responses to challenges (Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Building upon the existing literature around environmental influences on personality traits and the diverse effects of mindset, we argue that after experiencing a critical life event, individuals with a growth mindset will adapt to a new situation more easily and accordingly exhibit greater change in relating personality traits. In contrast, individuals with a fixed mindset might react in a more rigid way to unknown circumstances and thus don't experience the need adapt, resulting in no personality trait change.

The Present Study

This study aims to contribute to the literature around external and internal influences on personality development in emerging adulthood by analyzing changes in the Big Five, the influences of the occurrence of life events per se vs. their subjective perception, and the possible moderating effects of mindset in a longitudinal study with a large sample. Most prior studies have focused on personality development in adulthood (e.g., Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ; Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ; Damian et al., 2018 ; Denissen et al., 2018 ), but emerging adulthood is marked by tremendous changes; thus, we focus our analyses on this period. According to Arnett ( 2000 , 2007 ), emerging adulthood is considered a distinct stage between adolescence and full-fledged adulthood. This is seen as a critical life period because it is characterized by more transformation, exploration, and personality formation than any other life stage in adulthood (Arnett, 2000 ; Ziegler et al., 2015 ; Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ). With regard to beliefs systems, Yeager et al. ( 2019 ) argue that beliefs that affect how, for example, students make sense of ongoing challenges are most important and salient during high-stakes developmental turning points such as pubertal maturation. For this reason, it is particularly compelling to investigate environmental influences such as major life events that shape the trajectory of personality trait change in emerging adulthood.

To do so, we examined whether two major critical life events (graduating from school and moving away from home) affect personality development. We chose these two major life events because they are uniquely related to emerging adulthood and because existing research has found mixed results regarding their influence on personality trait change (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Specht et al., 2011 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Based on prior findings, we constructed three hypotheses. First, we expect that an increase in personality trait change will occur in individuals who graduate from school/move away from home but not in those who did not experience such events. Second, subjective perceptions of the two critical life events will influence personality trait changes in the Big Five. Third, we look at the underlying processes that influence personality and argue, that mindset will moderate the impact of the two stated life events/perception of life events on personality trait change.

Sample and Procedure

For this study, we created the German Personality Panel (GEPP) by collecting data from a large German sample in cooperation with a non-profit online survey provided by berufsprofiling.de . This organization assists emerging adults by providing job opportunities and post-graduation academic pathways. After completing the questionnaire, participants received feedback and vocational guidance. In 2016 and 2017, a total of 11,816 individuals between 13 and 30 years old ( M = 17.72 years; SD = 3.22, 50.71% female) took this survey. We used this first round of data-gathering as our longitudinal measurement occasion T1. If participants consented to be contacted again, we reached out via email in October 2018 to request their participation in a second survey. A total of 1,679 individuals between 14 and 26 years old ( M = 17.39, SD = 2.37, 64.82% female) agreed to participate and filled in a second online survey (second measurement occasion of GEPP, T2). The test battery at T2 took approximately 30–40 min, and we provided personalized feedback on personality development, as well as a monetary compensation, to all participants.

Because we were interested in emerging adults who were about to graduate from school?and thus found themselves in a critical time period?we excluded all participants older than 21 at T2. On the other hand, we included 14-year-old participants because they could have entered school in Germany at the age of five and thus graduated from secondary school and/or moved away from home by this age. At T2, 12% had not yet finished school, 32% held a secondary school certificate, and 57% held a university entrance diploma.

To further improve data quality, we obtained an indicator for careless responding by asking about self-reported diligence (“Did you work conscientiously on the test?”). Participants were informed that their answer had no impact on their compensation. At T2, 41 (3%) participants answered “No.” After excluding participants meeting this criterion, a sample of n = 1,243, aged 14–21 years ( M = 16.92, SD = 1.75, 67.23% women), remained for subsequent data analyses. All data and further materials are available via osf ( https://osf.io/xc6d4/?view_only=5b913c97553d48a290b75a3f725aca3d ).

Sample Attrition

Numerous email accounts were invalid at the second measurement point—for example, because students' personalized school email accounts were deleted following their graduation or because certain institutions used only a single email account to offer vocational counseling to college students ( N = 3,495). Those who did not participate at the second measurement point (dropouts) were slightly younger than those who participated (continuers) [ M (ageD) = 17.39; M (ageC) = 17.76; p ≤ 0.000, d = −0.12] and more women filled in the second questionnaire (dropouts = 50.9% women, continuers = 64.8% women; p ≤ 0.000, d = 0.31). Only modest selectivity effects (measured by Cohen's d ) in terms of mean differences in personality traits between dropouts and continuers were found at T1; thus, there was negligible systematic attrition (Specht et al., 2011 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Continuers had slightly higher scores in agreeableness ( d = 0.17), conscientiousness ( d = 0.19), and openness ( d = 0.16) than dropouts, but they almost identical in terms of extraversion ( d = −0.08) and emotional stability ( d = 0.01).

Personality

Personality traits were assessed on both measurement occasions using a short version of the Big Five personality inventory for the vocational context (TAKE5; S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH, 2005 ). The TAKE5 has been shown to be a highly reliable and valid personality measure (Mussel, 2012 ). In the short version of the test, each of the Big Five subscales (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) consists of three items and was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Example items for conscientiousness include (translated from German): “Nothing can stop me from completing an important task,” “People around me know me as a perfectionist,” and “My work is always carried out the highest quality standards.” Items were selected to cover the different aspects of each domain therefore internal consistencies provide no valuable indicator. Test-retest reliabilities for the TAKE5 between T1 and T2 were 0.69 for extraversion, 0.52 for openness to experience, 0.57 for conscientiousness, 0.58 for agreeableness, and 0.50 for emotional stability. Small to moderate reliability levels can be explained by the heterogeneity of the items and our attempt to capture rather broad personality constructs. Similar results have been reported for other brief personality scales (Donnellan et al., 2006 ; Rammstedt et al., 2016 ). All descriptive statistics and correlations can be found in Table 1 , and bivariate correlations of all items can be found at osf ( https://osf.io/xc6d4/?view_only=5b913c97553d48a290b75a3f725aca3d ).

Correlations and descriptive statistics among variables.



1 Extraversion T1	1,243	4.25	1.22
2 Agreeableness T1	1,243	4.49	1.24	0.05
3 Openness T1	1,243	4.19	0.94	0.26	0.11
4 Emo. Stability T1	1,243	4.18	1.09	0.15	0.39	0.07
5 Conscientiousness T1	1,243	4.53	1.15	0.10	0.10	0.22	0.19
6 Extraversion T2	1,243	4.39	1.29	0.68	0.05	0.20	0.12	0.05
7 Agreeableness T2	1,243	4.50	1.33	−0.03	0.57	0.05	0.23	0.05	0.02
8 Openness T2	1,243	4.47	0.95	0.23	0.06	0.51	0.08	0.10	0.29	0.09
9 Emo. Stability T2	1,243	4.25	1.29	0.12	0.28	0.00	0.50	0.10	0.19	0.39	0.10
10 Conscientiousness T2	1,243	4.78	1.12	0.08	0.06	0.10	0.11	0.57	0.10	0.06	0.14	0.12
11 Mindset	1,243	3.62	1.45	0.00	0.10	0.15	0.08	0.09	0.04	0.15	0.14	0.13	0.04
12 Life Event 1	1,030	5.48	1.43	0.05	0.03	0.02	0.12	0.07	0.03	0.06	0.03	0.17	0.04	0.06
13 Life Event 2	698	4.75	1.51	0.06	0.01	0.07	0.03	0.09	0.03	0.00	0.08	0.09	0.00	0.04	0.17

N = Sample size, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, Life Event 1 = Perception of graduating from school, Life Event 2 = Perception of moving away from home ,

Life Events

In the present study, we focus on two major life events that are highly characteristic of the critical period between the late teens and young adulthood (Arnett, 2000 ; Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn, 2012 ): moving away from home and graduating from school. At T2, after completing the personality questionnaire, participants rated their subjective perception of each of the two life events on a dimensional 7-point Likert scale (1 = very negatively , 7 = very positively ). Of the initial sample, 68.38% of the participants had graduated from school, 47.66% had moved away from home, and 46.96% had experienced both life events. Participants who had graduated from school were older ( M = 17.32 years, SD = 1.84, female = 68.80%) compared to those who had not yet finished school ( M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.09, female = 68.21%). Those who had moved away from home were approximately 1 year older ( M = 17.53, SD = 1.89, female = 69.30%) compared to those did not yet moved away ( M = 16.29, SD =1.69, female = 66.91%). To avoid potential confounding effects, we only asked about events that had happened within the past year (after the first measurement occasion). This allowed us to account for experiences that took place before T1.

In the second step, in order to obtain a fuller picture, participants also had the option of rating an additional significant life event from a list of 18 potential life events from various domains—such as love and health—based on the Munich Life Event List (MEL; Maier-Diewald et al., 1983 ). However, the number of individuals who experienced these other life events was too small to allow for further analyses.

Participants' mindset was measured with a questionnaire based on Dweck's Mindset Instrument (DMI). The 16-item DMI was developed and created by Dweck ( 1999 ) and is used examine how students view their own personality and intelligence. In the current study, only items concerning beliefs about the malleability of personality were used. The mindset inventory items were “Personality traits are something a person cannot change,” “You have a certain personality and you really can't do much to change it,” and “You can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic personality.” At T2, participants were presented a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45). Items were reversed such that higher levels indicated a growth mindset. This short inventory was found to be highly reliable ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45, ω = 0.81, 95% CI [0.70, 0.84]).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were carried out in four steps. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test for measurement invariance across time points T1 and T2. Second, we constructed latent difference score models for all Big Five scales to test for mean differences in personality traits. Third, we investigated the impact of the life events moving away from home and graduating from school, as well as the perception of these two events on changes in the Big Five. Fourth, we added mindset as a moderator to the model. All statistical analyses were carried out in R and R Studio 1.2.1335 (R Core Team, 2018 ).

Measurement invariance

To ensure that the same construct was being measured across time, we first tested for measurement invariance. For weak measurement invariance, we fixed the factor loadings for each indicator to be equal across measurement occasions and compared this model to the configural model, where no restrictions were applied. The same procedure was followed to assess strong measurement invariance, with the weak invariant model compared to a model with constrained intercepts to equality across time (e.g., the same intercept for Item 2 at T1 and Item 2 at T2) (Newsom, 2015 ). To evaluate the model fit, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were inspected. Good fit was considered to be indicated when CFI and TLI values were 0.90 or higher, RMSEA below 0.08, and SRMR values below 0.05 (Hu and Bentler, 1999 ; Marsh et al., 2005 ). The configural model showed good fit for all of the Big Five traits (All χ 2 [4 24], df = 5, CFI > [0.98 1.00], TLI > [0.94 1.00], RMSEA < [0.0 0.06], SRMR < [0.0 0.02]). Model fit for partial strong measurement invariance revealed similar fit (all χ 2 [9 50], df = 8, CFI > [0.96 1.00], TLI > [0.92 1.00], RMSEA < [0.01 0.07], SRMR < [0.01 0.03]) when freely estimating the intercept of the first manifest OCEAN item (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Little et al., 2007 ). All further analyses are based on this model and full results for fit indices are presented in Table S1 .

Latent Change Score Models

To test for changes in personality over time, we applied latent structural equation modeling analysis with the R package lavaan (version 0.5-23.1097; Rosseel, 2012 ). Required sample size for the specified latent change score model was estimated by the R-toolbox semTools (MacCallum et al., 2006 ; Jorgensen et al., 2018 ) for RMSEA = 0.05, df = 16, α = 0.05, and a statistical power of 90% to N = 672 individuals. Therefore, we consider our sample size to be sufficiently large.

As we were first interested in the rate of change, we built a multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model for each of the Big Five domains ( Figure 1 ). Each latent construct of interest (OCEAN) consisted of three observed measures (X1, X2, and X3) at two waves. Equality constraints were imposed on factor loadings and intercepts (Newsom, 2015 ). Moreover, the autoregressive path was set equal to 1. The means, intercepts, and covariances at the first occasion and for the difference score factor were freely estimated, and all measurement residuals were allowed to correlate among the sets of repeated measurements (McArdle et al., 2002 ). We accounted for missing data by applying robust maximum likelihood estimation. Finally, after specifying this basic model, the variables of interest—the occurrence of the life event, perception of the life event, and the moderator mindset—were added to the model.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-671421-g0001.jpg

Schematic model of the multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model. The latent construct of interest (each personality trait) was measured at two time points (T1 and T2), using three indicators each time (X1, X2, X3). The lower part of the model constitutes the assessment of measurement invariance. “Δ latent change” captures change from the Big Five trait from T1 to T2. Latent regressions from “Δ latent change” on Mod→ Δ reflect the influence of the covariate perception of life event or the moderator mindset on the development of the Big Five. Straight arrows depict loadings and regression coefficients, curved arrows co-variances.

Standardized mean differences were calculated as an average of all intra-individual increases and decreases in a given personality trait over time. As illustrated in Figure 2 , all latent mean scores for the Big Five increased from T1 to T2. Conscientiousness and openness to experience exhibited the largest mean-level changes from T1 to T2, whereas agreeableness ( d = 0.02) and emotional stability ( d = 0.07) remained nearly the same. To test for changes in personality, we employed a multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model. Separate models for each of the Big Five all fit the data well (all CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.93, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.04). Inspecting the intercepts of the change factors revealed that all Big Five scores changed between T1 and T2, with less increase among individuals with high compared to low levels at T1. The latent means for each personality dimension at each time point, along with their fit indices, are reported in Table 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-671421-g0002.jpg

Mean-level changes in Big Five dimensions over measurement occasions T1 and T2.

Big Five mean-level change from T1 to T2 with fit indices, n = 1,243.

	T1	T2		( )
Extraversion	4.25	4.39	0.11	23.56 (10)	0.99	0.90	0.03	[0.03–0.06]	0.03	0.73
Agreeableness	4.49	4.50	0.01	27.28 (10)	0.99	0.99	0.04	[0.01–0.05]	0.03	1.38
Openness	4.19	4.47	0.30	52.04 (10)	0.95	0.93	0.06	[0.04–0.07]	0.04	2.19
Emotional Stability	4.18	4.25	0.06	45.77 (10)	0.97	0.96	0.05	[0.02–0.05]	0.04	0.81
Conscientiousness	4.53	4.78	0.22	10.70 (10)	1.00	0.99	0.01	[0.00–0.03]	0.02	1.63

M T1, Mean at measurement occasion 1; M T2, Mean at measurement occasion 2; d, (mean at Time 2 – mean at Time 1)/baseline standard deviation; χ 2 , chi square difference statistic; df, degrees of freedom; p(chi2), significance of chi square difference statistic; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; μΔ, intercept of latent change score; p(μΔ), significance of latent change score;

Life Events and Perception of Life Events

To assess personality trait change resulting from experiencing a life event, we included a standardized dichotomized variable “experiencing the life event vs. not” into the model. Again, the model fit the data well for both critical life events (all CFI > 0.94, TLI > 0.92, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.04). However, comparing participants who had experienced one of the critical life events (moving away from home or graduating from school) to those who had not revealed that neither life event had a significant impact on changes in personality traits between T1 and T2 ( p >0.05).

To assess personality trait change resulting from perception of a life event, we included the standardized variable “perception of the life event” for each of the two events into the model and regressed the latent change score on the covariate. This time, results regarding the subjective perception of the life event graduating from school indicated a significant impact on personality change for emotional stability (χ 2 [16] = 94.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05, λ = 0.05, p [λ] < 0.05). Specifically, participants who had experienced graduating from school more negatively exhibited a diminished increase in emotional stability than compared to individuals who had experienced graduating from school more positively. We also found evidence that subjective perceptions are relevant for extraversion. A greater positive change in extraversion was observed when participants experienced graduating from school more positively than compared to negatively (χ 2 [16] = 23.90, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02, SRMR = 0.03, λ = 0.10, p [λ] = 0.05). Subjective perceptions moving away from home had no impact on trait changes in any of the Big Five traits. Descriptive statistics for the life events along with model fit indices can be found in Table S2 .

To test for a moderating role of mindset, an interaction term between mindset and each of the two critical life events was constructed. First, we built an interaction term between mindset and the dichotomous variable “experienced the life event” and regressed the latent change factor on the interaction term. Separate models for each of the Big Five all fit the data well (all CFI > 0.94, TLI > 0.92, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.05). As shown in Table S3 , no effects for the Big Five traits were significant for the distinction between experienced the life event vs. did not experience the life event ( p > 0.05). Second, for each of the two life events an interaction term between mindset and perception of the life event was built analogously. For extraversion, we found a significant influence of the moderator when assessing the perception of graduating from school (χ 2 [16] = 25.62, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.03, λ = −0.09, p [λ] = 0.05). Hence, a fixed mindset indicates less change in extraversion when experiencing the critical life event graduation from school. More specifically, regarding manifest means of extraversion, participants with a growth mindset experienced almost the same amount of increase in extraversion over time, regardless of their perception (positive or negative) of the critical life event. On the other hand, participants with a fixed mindset only show an increase in extraversion when they experienced the life event more positively (see Figure 3 ). No effects for the interaction between mindset and the critical life event moving away from home were significant.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-671421-g0003.jpg

Change in trait extraversion for people with a fixed vs. growth mindset with regard to the perception of life event graduation from school .

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of external sources such as life events and internal dispositions like the mindset on personality trait change. We assert that exploring whether the subjective experience of life events is associated with personality trait development constitutes an important future directions in various domains of personality research. Therefore, we took a closer look at the underlying processes, particularly as they relate to individual differences in situational perceptions and belief systems. We investigated how two critical life events (moving away from home and graduating from school) influence personality trait change, the role of subjective perceptions of these events, and how internal belief systems like mindset moderate the impact of life events on trait change.

Mean-Level Change

Since our sample was selected to be between 14 and 21 years of age, most of our participants were classified as emerging adults Arnett, 2000 , 2007 . A large body of research has consistently demonstrated that emerging adulthood is characterized by trait changes related to maturity processes (for an overview, see Roberts et al., 2006 ). Thus, emerging adults tend to experience increases in conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, and (to a lesser degree) agreeableness. This pattern is often called the “maturity principle” of personality development, and it has been found to hold true cross-culturally (Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ). Although the effects were small, we found evidence for mean-level changes in line with the maturity principle and functional personality trait development. Extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability significantly increased over the 1-year period. The largest changes were found for openness and conscientiousness. These changes are most likely to be explained by attempts to satisfy mature expectations and engage in role-congruent behavior. While increases in openness might be due to identity exploration, higher scores on conscientiousness could reflect investment in age-related roles. Individuals might, for instance, take increased responsibility for social or career-related tasks that require more mature functioning (Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ).

First, we analyzed whether the occurrence of a life event per se had an influence on personality trait change. In our study, neither of the critical life events?moving away from home or graduating from school?affected Big Five trait change over the two measurement occasions. One possible explanation is that the two chosen life events were not prominent enough to evoke far-reaching changes in personality traits (Magnus et al., 1993 ; Löckenhoff et al., 2009 ). In line with a study by Löckenhoff et al. ( 2009 ), more stressful, adverse events might have triggered more pronounced and predictable effects on personality traits. Moreover, the period between the late teens and early adulthood is characterized by a large number of stressful events and daily hassles (Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ). In a comprehensive review of emerging adulthood by Bleidorn and Schwaba ( 2017 ), graduates also experienced changes in other personality traits, such as openness and emotional stability, which suggests that many developmental tasks and major life transitions contribute to changes in Big Five trait domains. Furthermore, according to Luhmann et al. ( 2014 ) and Yeager et al. ( 2019 ), life events may not only independently influence the development of personality characteristics, they might also interact with one another. Researchers must address the interpretation of other challenges that adolescents experience. This notion is also supported in a study by Wagner et al. ( 2020 ), who introduced a model that integrates factors that are both personal (e.g., genetic expressions) and environmental (e.g., culture and society). The authors assert that the interactions and transactions of multiple sources are responsible for shaping individuals' personalities, and, in order to understand how they interact and develop over time, more integrated research is needed. Future studies should focus on a wider range of important life events and environmental influences during emerging adulthood and account for possible accumulating effects.

Second, and perhaps most remarkably, our findings revealed a different picture after we analyzed how the two critical life events were perceived. When participants experienced graduating from school negatively, a greater decrease in emotional stability was observed. Conversely, when the event was evaluated positively, a greater positive change in extraversion was reported. There are clear theoretical links between these two traits and the perception of life events in terms of emotional valence. While low emotional stability encompasses a disposition to experience negative emotions such as fear, shame, embarrassment, or sadness (especially in stressful situations), extraverted individuals are characterized by attributes such as cheerfulness, happiness, and serenity (Goldberg, 1990 ; Depue and Collins, 1999 ). In line with the notion of a bottom-up process of personality development (Roberts et al., 2005 ), experiencing a major life event as either positive or negative might lead to a prolonged experience of these emotions and, thus, ultimately to altered levels of the corresponding personality traits. These findings are in line with previous research on subjective well-being (SWB). In fact, variance in SWB can be explained by emotional stability and extraversion, indicating a robust negative relationship between low emotional stability and SWB and a positive relationship between extraversion and SWB (Costa and McCrae, 1980 ; Headey and Wearing, 1989 ). Moreover, Magnus et al. ( 1993 ) found selection effects for these traits, suggesting that high scorers in extraversion experience more subjectively positive events, and low scorers in emotional stability experience many (subjectively) negative events (see also Headey and Wearing, 1989 ).

In the present study, we found evidence of a moderating influence of mindset on the impact of the life event graduating from school for the trait extraversion. Our results indicate that people with a growth mindset show greater change in extraversion, almost regardless of whether they experienced the life event more negatively or more positively. On the other hand, the present results indicate that people with a fixed mindset show an increase in extraversion after experiencing a life event more positively, but almost no change in extraversion when experiencing graduating from school negatively.

Interestingly, we only found effects for extraversion. As previously mentioned, trait extraversion stands for behavioral attributes such as how outgoing and social a person is, and this is related to differences in perceived positive affect (Goldberg, 1990 ; Magnus et al., 1993 ; Roberts et al., 2005 ). The characteristics of extraversion can be linked to the assumption that people with a growth mindset show greater resilience (Schroder et al., 2017 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ), especially in the face of academic and social challenges (Yeager and Dweck, 2012 ). Thus, people who believe that their internal attributes are malleable confront challenges such as graduation by adapting and learning from them; our findings suggest that this results in an increase in extraversion. By contrast, people who believe that they cannot change their personality characteristics might attribute a negatively experienced graduation to external circumstances out of their control. Thus, they do not rise from a negative life event and experience no impetus to become more extraverted.

The above notwithstanding, more research is needed, as we found no evidence for the other Big Five personality traits. Further, the relationship between mindset and personality is complex to disentangle. We examined only two major life events in this first attempt. More attention is needed with respect to other life events and their interplay with internal belief systems and implicit theories to explore possible far-reaching effects on behavior.

In summary, the present study makes an important contribution to the literature on personality development in emerging adulthood with a special focus on external and internal influences and the assessment of critical life events. Our findings support the notion of a dimensional approach to life events, as introduced by Luhmann et al. ( 2020 ), in contrast to a typological approach. With regard to research on situational perception, it seems reductive to examine the occurrence of certain life events rather than their subjective perceptions. As previously mentioned, many studies emphasize that (1) events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations (TESSERA framework, Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ); (2) psychological situations and person-situation transactions deviate from one another (Rauthmann et al., 2015 ); and (3) regulatory mechanisms influence the variability in individual personality trait change (Denissen et al., 2013 ).

Again, further research is needed to explore the underlying processes behind critical life events and their impact on personality trait changes. In doing so, great care should be taken in selecting life events with a strong social and emotional component with respect to individual perceptions. Finally, there is also a need for more research into the selection of life events being assessed with regard to their interplay.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our research demonstrates the importance of examining the underlying processes behind personality changes that arise from external influences such as life events. One of the strengths of this study was our large sample, which comprised N = 1,679 German emerging adults and allowed us to use powerful statistical methods. One limitation was that we gathered data across a 1-year time interval with only two measurement occasions. As noted by Luhmann et al. ( 2014 ), the inclusion of more than two measurement points makes it easier to distinguish between sudden short- or long-term shifts and more gradual linear changes. With this in mind, it is possible that critical life events correlate with temporary disruptions of personality maturation; tracing the impact of a single life event on personality trait change might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. Moreover, two measurement occasions can only reveal the immediate effect of life events on personality traits and may, therefore, neglect long-term effects that become salient after more time has passed. Future studies should also incorporate more characteristics of life events. We concentrated our study on the valence of critical life events, but other features—such as impact, challenge, and predictability—could reveal a more comprehensive picture (Luhmann et al., 2020 ).

Another limitation of the present study is that all our data relied on self-report personality measures. Even though almost all research on personality change is based on self-report measures, the influence of (for example) self-concepts cannot be neglected. Self-reported data might thus depart from other types of data in terms of differential stability, for example (Wagner et al., 2020 ). Hence, changes in the Big Five domains might reflect subjective rather than observable changes in personality. At the same time, we believe that our approach of assessing personality traits and the perception of life events gives valuable insights into personality development, since we focused on how individuals consciously understand their experiences. Nevertheless, it would be informative to compare both approaches (observer and self-reported data) to examine how they complement one another (see also: Bleidorn et al., 2020 ).

Yet another important issue that must be mentioned are our attrition effects. As previously stated, the data for the first measurement occasion was gathered through a non-profit self-assessment test intended to help students explore post-graduation occupational opportunities. Hence, our sample might be prone to selection effects and confounding preexisting differences: only emerging adults who were concerned about their future might have taken the test in the first place. The self-selection to voluntarily participate in a research study might also explain the higher percentage of female participants. Moreover, some of the Big Five traits from T2 dropouts were correlated with T1 personality traits. Therefore, our results should be interpreted with caution; participants with low conscientiousness, for example, might have been more likely to drop out or have been excluded from our study due to the diligence check, and thus conscientiousness could have risen over the study period because the sample composition shifted between T1 and T2. Nevertheless, the noted differential attrition effects were rather small and reflect only modest selectivity (see also Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Specht et al., 2011 ).

Finally, we did not examine cultural differences. With our German sample, we only investigated patterns in a modern Western industrialized country. Hence, we did not control for different cultural and demographic backgrounds, and our results might thus not be applicable to a broader range of individuals.

The present research improves our understanding of personality trait development during the critical period of emerging adulthood and demonstrates the importance of examining the underlying processes behind personality changes that arise from external influences such as life events. We showed how two critical life events can shape and adjust life trajectories, which is a necessary step toward gaining a comprehensive picture of the underlying processes of personality trait change across the life course. In addition to changes in the operationalization of life event research, larger and more diverse samples over more measurement occasions are needed to further explore how individual perceptions and internal belief systems influence our personality during and after experiencing critical life events.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ethic commission of Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

JHDV and PM designed the study and formulated the hypotheses. MS and AF provided the testing platform and set up the test battery. JHDV, MS, and AF were responsible for recruiting the sample and administrating the panel. JHDV and PM conducted the data analysis. JHDV designed the figures and drafted the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This work was funded by a research grant to Professor Patrick Mussel by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany (Mu3045/6-1).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671421/full#supplementary-material

Arnett J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties . Am. Psychol . 55 , 469–480. 10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Arnett J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: what is it, and what is it good for? Child Dev. Perspect. 1 , 68–73. 10.1111/j.17508606.2007.00016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baltes P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life span develop-mental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline . Dev. Psychol. 23 , 611–626. [ Google Scholar ]
Biddle S. J. H., Wang J., Chatzisarantis N., Spray C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical activity in young people: entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability . J. Sports Sci. 21 , 973–989. 10.1080/02640410310001641377 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blackwell L. S., Trzesniewski K. H., Dweck C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention . Child Dev. 78 , 246–263. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bleidorn W. (2012). Hitting the road to adulthood: short-term personality development during a major life transition . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 , 1594–1608. 10.1177/0146167212456707 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bleidorn W. (2015). What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 245–252. 10.1177/0963721414568662 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bleidorn W., Hill P. L., Back M. D., Denissen J. J. A., Hennecke M., Hopwood C. J., et al.. (2020). Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020) . Am. Psychol . 75 , 731–732. 10.1037/amp0000676 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bleidorn W., Hopwood C. J., Lucas R. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait Change . J. Pers. 86 , 83–96. 10.1111/jopy.12286 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bleidorn W., Schwaba T. (2017). “Personality development in emerging adulthood,” in Personality Development Across The Lifespan , ed J. Specht (Elsevier Academic Press; ), 39–51. 10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00004-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burnette J. L., Finkel E. J. (2012). Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: an implicit theory intervention . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 721–725. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Caspi A., Moffitt T. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence . Psychol. Inq. 4 , 247–271. 10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cattell R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their Structure Growth and Action . Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
Cheung G. W., Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance . Struct. Equat. Model. Multidiscipl. J. 9 , 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007sem0902_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costa P. T., McCrae R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38 , 668–678. 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Damian R. I., Spengler M., Sutu A., Roberts B. W. (2018). Sixteen going on sixty- six: a longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 117 , 674–695. 10.1037/pspp0000210 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Denissen J. J. A., Luhmann M., Chung J. M., Bleidorn W. (2018). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 116 , 612–633. 10.1037/pspp0000196 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Denissen J. J. A., van Aken M. A., Penke L., Wood D. (2013). Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: an integrative developmental framework . Child Dev. Perspect. 7 , 255–260. 10.1111/cdep.12050 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Depue R. A., Collins P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion . Behav. Brain Sci. 22 , 491–569. 10.1017/S0140525X99002046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Donnellan M., Oswald F., Baird B., Lucas R. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality . Psychol. Assess. 18 , 192–203. 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dweck C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Dweck C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature : promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower . Am. Psychol. 67 , 614–622. 10.1037/a0029783 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dweck C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development . Psychol. Rev. 124 , 689–719. 10.1037/rev0000082 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychol. Rev. 95 , 256–273. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the Big-Five factor structure . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 , 1216–1229. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Headey B., Wearing A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: toward a dynamic equilibrium model . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57 , 731–739 [ Google Scholar ]
Heslin P., Vandewalle D. (2008). Managers' implicit assumptions about personnel . Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 219–223. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00578.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hopson B., Adams J. (1976). “Towards an understanding of transition: defining some boundaries of transition dynamics,” in Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Change , eds Adams J., Hayes J., Hopson B. (London: Martin Robertson; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
Hu L., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Struct. Equat. Model. 6 , 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hudson N. W., Fraley R. C., Briley D. A., Chopik W. J. (2020). Your personality does not care whether you believe it can change: beliefs about whether personality can change do not predict trait change among emerging adults . Euro. J. Pers. 35 , 340–357. 10.1002/per.2289 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Johnson J. (1997). “Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality,” in Handbook of Personality Psychology , eds Hogan R., Briggs S. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 73–93. 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50004-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jonkmann K., Thoemmes F., Lüdtke O., Trautwein U. (2014). Personality traits and living arrangements in young adulthood, selection and socialization . Dev. Psychol. 50 , 683–698. 10.1037/a0034239 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jorgensen T. D., Pornprasertmanit S., Schoemann A. M., Rosseel Y. (2018). semTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling. R Package Version 0.5-1 . Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
Kendler K. S., Gardner C. O., Prescott C. A. (2003). Personality and the experience of environmental adversity . Psychol. Med. 33 , 1193–1202. 10.1017/s0033291703008298 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kray L. J., Haselhuhn M. P. (2007). Implicit negotiation beliefs and performance: experimental and longitudinal evidence . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 , 49–64. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.49 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lehnart J., Neyer F. J., Eccles J. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: the case of partnering in young adulthood . J. Pers. 78 , 639–670. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Little T., Preacher K., Selig J. P., Card N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data . Int. J. Behav. Dev. 31 , 357–365. 10.1177/0165025407077757 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Löckenhoff C., Terracciano A., Patriciu N., Eaton W., Costa P. (2009). Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in five-factor model personality traits in an urban sample . J. Trauma. Stress 22 , 53–59. 10.1002/jts.20385 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 847–861. 10.1037/a0024298 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lüdtke O., Roberts B. W., Trautwein U., Nagy G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 620–637. 10.1037/a0023743 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luhmann M., Fassbender I., Alcock M., Haehner P. (2020). A dimensional taxonomyof perceived characteristics of major life events . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 10.1037/pspp0000291 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luhmann M., Hofmann W., Eid M., Lucas R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 592–615. 10.1037/a0025948 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luhmann M., Orth U., Specht J., Kandler C., Lucas R. E. (2014). Studying changes in life circumstances and personality: it's about time . Eur. J. Pers. 28 , 256–266. 10.1002/per.1951 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
MacCallum R. C., Browne M. W., Cai L. (2006). Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: power analysis and null hypotheses . Psychol. Methods 11 , 19–35. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.19 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Magnus K., Diener E., Fujita F., Pavot W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65 , 1046–1053. 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.1046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maier-Diewald W., Wittchen H.-U., Hecht H., Werner-Eilert K. (1983). Die Münchner Ereignisliste (MEL) - Anwendungsmanual . München: Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Klinische Psychologie und Epidemiologie. [ Google Scholar ]
Marsh H. W., Hau K.-T., Grayson D. (2005). “Goodness of fit in structural equation models,” in Multivariate Applications Book Series. Contemporary Psychometrics: A Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald , eds Maydeu-Olivares A., McArdle J. J. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 275–340. [ Google Scholar ]
McArdle J. J., Ferrer-Caja E., Hamagami F., Woodcock R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span . Dev. Psychol. 38 , 115–142. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (1999). “A Five-Factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , eds Pervin L. A., John O. P. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 139–153. [ Google Scholar ]
Mussel P. (2012). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance . J. Organ. Behav. 34 , 453–472. 10.1002/job.1809 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Newsom J. T. (2015). Multivariate Applications Series. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction . New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
Niehoff E., Petersdotter L., Freund P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five . Pers. Individ. Dif. 112 , 55–61. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Orth U., Erol R. Y., Luciano E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies . Psychol. Bull. 144 , 1045–1080. 10.1037/bul0000161 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pusch S., Mund M., Hagemeyer B., Finn C., Wrzus C. (2018). Personality development in emerging and young adulthood: a study of age differences . Eur. J. Pers. 33 , 245–263. 10.1002/per.2181 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org [ Google Scholar ]
Rammstedt B., Danner D., Martin S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: going beyond simple effects . J. Res. Pers. 62 , 39–44. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rauthmann J. F., Sherman R. A., Funder D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: towards a better understanding of psychological situations . Eur. J. Pers. 29 , 363–381. 10.1002/per.1994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W. (2009). Back to the future: personality and assessment and personality development . J. Res. Pers. 43 , 137–145. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W., DelVecchio W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies . Psychol. Bull. 126 , 3–25. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W., Jackson J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology . J. Pers. 76 , 1523–1544. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W., Mroczek D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 31–35. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W., Walton K. E., Viechtbauer W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta- analysis of longitudinal studies . Psychol. Bull. 132 , 1–25. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts B. W., Wood D., Smith J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development . J. Res. Pers. 39 , 166–184. 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosseel Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling . J. Stat. Softw. 48 , 1–36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH (2005). TakeFive . Unpublished test. [ Google Scholar ]
Saeed G., Oshio A., Taku K., Hirano M. (2018). Resilience and big five personality traits: a meta-analysis . Pers. Individ. Dif. 127 , 54–60. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schroder H. S., Yalch M. M., Dawood S., Callahan C. P., Donnellan M. B., Moser J. S. (2017). Growth mindset of anxiety buffers the link between stressful life events and psychological distress and coping strategies . Pers. Individ. Dif. 110 , 23–36. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sisk V. F., Burgoyne A. P., Sun J., Butler J. L., Macnamara B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses . Psychol. Sci. 29 , 549–571. 10.1177/0956797617739704 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Specht J., Egloff B., Schmukle S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: the impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 862–882. 10.1037/a0024950 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wagner J., Orth U., Bleidorn W., Hopwood C. J., Kandler C. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29 , 438–444. 10.1177/0963721420924751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wrzus C., Roberts B. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: the TESSERA framework . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21 , 253–277. 10.1177/1088868316652279 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yeager D., Dweck C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed . Educ. Psychol . 47 , 302–314. 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yeager D. S., Hanselman P., Walton G. M., Murray J. S., Crosnoe R., Muller C., et al.. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement . Nature 573 , 364–369. 10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ziegler M., Cengia A., Mussel P., Gerstorf D. (2015). Openness as a buffer against cognitive decline: the Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model applied to late adulthood . Psychol. Aging 30 , 573–588. 10.1037/a0039493 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Personality Trait Change in Adulthood

February 2008
Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(1):31-35
17(1):31-35

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Northwestern University

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Int J Environ Res Publ Health

Bettina Ewers
Cathrine Lawaetz Wimmelmann

Jae Seung Kim
Randall J Bateman
Alisha Daniels

Harshita Kumaran Dharam

Rebecca J. Jones

Kate Petrova
Michael D. Nevarez

Marc S. Schulz
BRIT J PSYCHOL

Christopher M. Napolitano
Angela L. Duckworth
James J. Gross
NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV R

David F. Reindel

Jessica Koenig

Brent W. Roberts
Avshalom Caspi

Lewis R. Goldberg
Robert R. McCrae

Ravenna Helson

J.D. Singer
John B. Willett

Donald H. Ford
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Can Personality Change?

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Almost by definition, personality traits are thought to be enduring psychological features. They mark someone as thinking and behaving in a characteristic way right now—and, probably, tomorrow and even a year from now. Indeed, research on personality development over time indicates that, at least in adulthood, individuals’ comparative ratings on traits such as extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are relatively stable.

At the same time, it’s clear that people’s personalities do gradually evolve over the lifespan, from childhood through older age, and potentially shift in conjunction with important life events, such as romantic partnerships. Individuals may even be able to change aspects of their personalities through their own volition.

While traits show stability over time, personality can indeed change—and psychologists continue to explore why, how, and when that happens.

Psychologists who have analyzed data on personalities taken decades apart in the lifespan find evidence for both stability and change. That is, people often resemble themselves over time rather than changing dramatically—and will likely remain more extroverted or neurotic than most if they start out that way. But there are also overall trends showing that people tend to rate higher or lower on certain traits with the passage of years.

In short, people seem to mature, or become more socially adapted, over time in ways that show up on personality tests. Personality data taken first in youth and again 50 years later showed increases in traits such as calmness (thought to be related to emotional stability) and social sensitivity (related to agreeableness). Other work has found evidence that narcissism decreases , on average, over time.

Children, studies suggest, may show increasingly more distinct trait profiles as they grow older. Research involving adolescents and young adults indicates fluctuations in personality over time: In the teen years, for instance, boys may become less conscientious and girls less emotionally stable, on average, with both gaining in those traits as they reach adulthood. Agreeableness also seems to increase.

They might. Some research has found an overall decline in agreeableness among newlywed husbands and wives . Husbands also exhibited lowered extroversion and greater conscientiousness, on average, and wives showed decreased openness and neuroticism. Past work has also connected first long-term relationships with decreases in aspects of neuroticism.

People can evolve over the course of experience-filled years for many different reasons. But what about the person who wants to become more conscientious or agreeable, or less neurotic or self-centered, and to do so ASAP? Recent research provides reason to be hopeful about the possibilities for intentional, self-directed personality change—though it likely requires more than just wishing to be a certain way.

It seems possible. Several of the Big Five traits, including extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, seem amenable to volitional change—via exercises like deliberately saying hello to someone new (for extroversion)—though consistency in these efforts appeared to be important. Neuroticism (or emotional stability) is also apparently changeable, whether through special courses or through a time-worn method of change: psychotherapy .

Some interventions used to enable people to change their personalities have unfolded on the scale of months. But recent research suggests that even a two-week, smartphone-based intervention may be enough to enhance a specific facet of personality like self-discipline—at least in the short-term.

Yes. While personality disorders are thought of as long-term patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior, there is evidence that over time, symptoms of a personality disorder can decrease—even if certain psychological and social impairments remain . In some cases, therapy may be helpful in improving functioning: For example, Dialectical Behavior Therapy is one approach commonly used to treat borderline personality disorder.

As we learn about how much and in what ways personalities develop over time, questions still abound about what, exactly, gives a person a particular set of traits to begin with. As with other psychological characteristics, personality traits are influenced by one’s genes as well as other factors—and not necessarily the ones we think.

Many theories have been offered over the centuries, and there are still differences of opinion. But contemporary scientific research indicates that some portion of personality differences are explained by people’s genes, a small proportion at most is linked to environmental influences shared within a family, like parenting, and much of the differences result from many other non-genetic developmental factors . Some theorists propose that social role changes influence personality in significant ways as a person grows up.

Estimates suggest the amount of difference between people (or variance) in personality ratings that can be attributed to genes—the heritability of personality—is less than half. A 2015 analysis gave an overall estimate of 40 percent, though it varied depending on the type of study. These figures are based on studies of twins and other approaches for exploring the contribution of genetic and non-genetic factors. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now used to explore the specific links between many small genetic differences and people’s traits.

Despite popular ideas and psychological theorizing about the effects of being a firstborn sibling, the “baby” of the family, or a middle child, recent studies show no evidence that birth order plays a substantial role in shaping personality. Research on only children has also found little to no difference between their personalities and those of others.

Is astrology backed by science, or is Mercury in Retrograde?

If you want to know what someone is like, observe where they go.

Very few writers have weighed in on the various instances in which being friendly isn’t particularly welcome—or might be downright rejected or frowned upon.

Personal Perspective: Whether to diagnose is a controversial topic. It masks three problems: people wishing to avoid criticism, therapist collusion, and therapists who shame.

Children of difficult parents are doubly likely to resemble their parents, due to both genes and environment. How do some people far exceed expectations?

Your personal brand is a critical part of your career management; it is the perception others have of you and it can impact your career trajectory in significant ways.

Think you can guess what somebody drives? You may be right.

In pars pro toto thinking, the part is taken for the whole. This type of thinking is a hallmark of severe personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder.

Discover how low conscientiousness can be an unexpected advantage, fueling creativity and innovation in top-performing teams. Cognitive diversity drives real success at work.

Why do parenting practices that worked well with one child not work for the other children? Individual differences and child temperament likely hold the answer.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Differential personality change earlier and later in the coronavirus pandemic in a longitudinal sample of adults in the United States

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Angelina R. Sutin,
Yannick Stephan,
Martina Luchetti,
Damaris Aschwanden,
Ji Hyun Lee,
Amanda A. Sesker,
Antonio Terracciano

Published: September 28, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542
Peer Review
Reader Comments

Five-factor model personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) are thought to be relatively impervious to environmental demands in adulthood. The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented opportunity to examine whether personality changed during a stressful global event. Surprisingly, two previous studies found that neuroticism decreased early in the pandemic, whereas there was less evidence for change in the other four traits during this period. The present research used longitudinal assessments of personality from the Understanding America Study (N = 7,109; 18,623 assessments) to examine personality changes relatively earlier (2020) and later (2021–2022) in the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels. Replicating the two previous studies, neuroticism declined very slightly in 2020 compared to pre-pandemic levels; there were no changes in the other four traits. When personality was measured in 2021–2022, however, there was no significant change in neuroticism compared to pre-pandemic levels, but there were significant small declines in extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The changes were about one-tenth of a standard deviation, which is equivalent to about one decade of normative personality change. These changes were moderated by age and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, but not race or education. Strikingly, younger adults showed disrupted maturity in that they increased in neuroticism and declined in agreeableness and conscientiousness. Current evidence suggests the slight decrease in neuroticism early in the pandemic was short-lived and detrimental changes in the other traits emerged over time. If these changes are enduring, this evidence suggests population-wide stressful events can slightly bend the trajectory of personality, especially in younger adults.

Citation: Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Luchetti M, Aschwanden D, Lee JH, Sesker AA, et al. (2022) Differential personality change earlier and later in the coronavirus pandemic in a longitudinal sample of adults in the United States. PLoS ONE 17(9): e0274542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542

Editor: Baogui Xin, Shandong University of Science and Technology, CHINA

Received: April 18, 2022; Accepted: August 28, 2022; Published: September 28, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Sutin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data used in the current analyses can be downloaded from: https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php?r=eNpLtDKyqi62MrFSKkhMT1WyLrYyNAeyS5NyMpP1UhJLEvUSU1Ly80ASQDWJKZkpIKaxlZKlhYmSdS1cMG0-Euo . Note that data are available but users must first register for a free account with UAS before the link will direct them to the dataset for download. The analytic scripts are in supplementary material .

Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AG053297 to ARS. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, there has been interest in tracking its effect on psychological outcomes [ 1 ]. This published work has focused understandably on factors related to mental health. Many studies, for example, examined how symptoms of depression and anxiety [ 2 ], loneliness [ 3 , 4 ], and social support [ 5 ] changed compared to before the pandemic. In addition to aspects of mental and social well-being, the pandemic may have had an impact on more general ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving (i.e., personality). The five-factor model (FFM) [ 6 ] of personality operationalizes trait psychological function along five broad dimensions: neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative emotions and vulnerability to stress), extraversion (the tendency to be talkative and outgoing), openness (the tendency to be creative and unconventional), agreeableness (the tendency to be trusting and straightforward), and conscientiousness (the tendency to be organized, disciplined, and responsible). These traits are relatively stable over time [ 7 ] but are theoretically thought to be responsive to environmental pressures [ 8 ], including stressful events. The coronavirus pandemic has offered the unique opportunity to examine how a global stressful event experienced by the whole population may change personality.

Previous research suggests that personal, but not collective, stressful events may be associated with personality change. Neuroticism, for example, has been found to increase after personal stressful [ 9 , 10 ] or traumatic [ 11 ] events. In contrast, collective stressful events, such as natural disasters, seem to be unrelated to personality change [ 12 , 13 ]. A study that examined personality change from before to after the 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, found no change in any of the five traits from before to after the disaster (there was a slight increase in neuroticism among participants directly affected by the quake; [ 12 ]). In addition, in a sample measured twice after exposure to Hurricane Harvey, there was no evidence of mean-level change in any of the five traits, even among participants with the most exposure [ 13 ]. This literature thus suggests that personality traits are not responsive to natural disasters.

In contrast to natural disasters, which tend to be limited in geographic area, the coronavirus pandemic has affected the entire globe and nearly every aspect of life. There is a developing literature on how the pandemic might be shaping personality change. Early in the pandemic, during the acute phase, we examined personality change in a sample of adults from across the United States (ages 18–90). We hypothesized that neuroticism would increase because of pandemic-related stressors and the accompanying fear and uncertainty would lead to more feelings of emotional instability [ 14 ]. Surprisingly, however, neuroticism declined slightly between January/February 2020 and March 2020. Although surprising, it is consistent with anecdotal evidence that anxiety (one core aspect of neuroticism) declined early in the pandemic among individuals who typically suffer from anxiety [ 15 ]. Further, a small sample from Germany found that neuroticism was slightly lower among university students during the first coronavirus lockdown compared to their neuroticism measured before the pandemic [ 16 ]. Although modest, this current evidence suggests that, at least early in the pandemic, during the acute phase, there was a decline in neuroticism.

There is less evidence for change in the other traits from pre- to during the pandemic. Although extraversion was hypothesized to decline because pandemic restrictions (e.g., lockdowns, social distancing, event cancellations) reduced the ability to be sociable, the evidence is mixed: Extraversion decreased slightly in a sample of university students in Germany [ 16 ], whereas it did not change in a nationwide sample of adults in the United States accounting for sociodemographic characteristics [ 14 ]. No change was found for Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness in the American sample [ 14 ], and these traits were not measured in the German sample [ 16 ].

These two studies provided important insights into the early effect of the pandemic on personality. The present research builds on these initial findings in four critical ways. First, we seek to replicate the finding that neuroticism declined early in the pandemic in a larger national sample of adults in the United States. Second, we address whether the other traits changed in this larger and more diverse sample than the previous samples. Third, with assessments of personality in both 2020 and in 2021–2022, we evaluate differential patterns of personality change across the acute (2020) and adaptation (2021–2022) phases of the pandemic. Finally, with a relatively diverse sample, we test whether personality change was moderated by age, gender, race, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, or education.

To put any potential change in personality in context, previous research has found that personality changes, on average, about one-tenth of a standard deviation per decade of adulthood [ 17 ]. Regarding direction, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness tend to decline from younger to older adulthood, and agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, although neuroticism and conscientiousness may change direction and increase and decrease, respectively, in older adulthood [ 17 ]. Although personality traits may change more in younger and older adulthood, compared to middle adulthood, we do not make specific predictions about age differences in personality change during the pandemic because the virus and the response to it has been unprecedented and its effects significant but different across age groups. Older adults, for example, faced a greater threat of severe disease and death, whereas younger adults faced more restriction on age-normative activities. If any differences are found, it would suggest a fruitful future direction to pursue to identify theoretical and empirical reasons for differential personality change by age. If changes are similar across age, it would suggest that personality is reactive to a global stressful event regardless of specific age-related stressors.

The purpose of this research is to examine personality change during the coronavirus pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels using longitudinal assessments of personality from the Understanding America Study (UAS) [ 18 ]. We construe these analyses as exploratory because this study will be the first study of change in personality measured relatively earlier (acute phase) and relatively later (adaptation phase) in the pandemic (pandemic assessments in 2020 and 2021–2022), and because previous findings were not consistent with theoretical expectations. We do expect, however, that neuroticism declined early in the pandemic because of the two previous studies. If this decline is apparent in the UAS sample, it will provide robust evidence that neuroticism was reactive to the pandemic. We do not expect change in the other four traits early in the pandemic based on our previous findings [ 14 ]. We do not make predictions about change in personality later in the pandemic or how change may differ by sociodemographic characteristics.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedure.

UAS is an internet panel study of participants across the United States administered by the University of Southern California [ 18 ]. Participants completed surveys through the device of their choice (desktop, laptop, mobile, etc.) and, when necessary, were provided with a device and internet access to participate. To date, the UAS has administered the same personality measure three times (UAS1, UAS121, UAS237). Personality in UAS1 was collected between May 2014-March 2018, personality in UAS121 was collected between January 2018-April 2020, and personality in UAS237 was collected between April 2020-February 2022 (see COVID section below for how assessments were categorized for analysis). All participants had personality measured at least once prior to the pandemic. Because of the sampling structure of UAS, participants reported on their personality again in either 2020 or 2021–2022, but did not report on their personality in both years. As such, for all participants there is one assessment of personality during the pandemic; all available personality data was used in the analyses. Documentation for each wave can be found at the UAS website: https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php under “Surveys” and UAS1, UAS121, and UAS237. Participants were included in the analytic sample if they had personality data reported during the pandemic and at least one personality assessment prior to the pandemic. Participants also needed to have sociodemographic information available. A total of 7,109 participants met these criteria, for a total of 18,623 assessments (Mean = 2.62 assessments/participant, SD = .48; range = 2–3; n = 4,495 at UAS1, n = 7,019 at UAS121, n = 7,109 at UAS 237). The current analyses were based on publicly-available, de-identified data and thus did not require approval from the local IRB. The primary data collection was overseen by the IRB at the University of Southern California and written informed consent was obtained from participants. Detailed information about the original data collection, ethical oversight, and consent process can be found in Laith and colleagues [ 18 ].

The analyses in this paper were not preregistered and are exploratory. The data used in the current analyses can be downloaded from: https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php?r=eNpLtDKyqi62MrFSKkhMT1WyLrYyNAeyS5NyMpP1UhJLEvUSU1Ly80ASQDWJKZkpIKaxlZKlhYmSdS1cMG0-Euo . Note that data are available but users must first register for a free account with UAS before the link will direct them to the dataset for download. The analytic scripts are in supplementary material.

Personality traits.

Personality was measured with the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI) [ 19 ] at each personality assessment. Participants rated items that measured neuroticism (e.g., can be moody; eight items), extraversion (e.g., is talkative; eight items), openness (e.g., has an active imagination; ten items), agreeableness (e.g., is generally trusting; nine items), and conscientiousness (e.g., is a reliable worker; nine items). Items were rated from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), reverse scored when necessary, and the sum taken in the direction of the domain label (e.g., higher scores on neuroticism indicated greater neuroticism). Although sum scores can sometimes be problematic for missing data, at each personality assessment, more than 99% of participants who completed the assessment had personality scores, which indicated that missing data were not a problem in this study. Scores on neuroticism and extraversion could range from 8 to 40, scores on openness could range from 10 to 50, and scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness could range from 9 to 45. The test-retest correlation between the first and last personality assessment was .72 for neuroticism, .78 for extraversion, .73 for openness, .65 for agreeableness, and .69 for conscientiousness, indicating relatively high rank-order stability, which is similar to test-retest correlations reported during non-pandemic times: .71 for neuroticism, .79 for extraversion, .79 for openness, .70 for agreeableness, and .70 for conscientiousness (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006) [ 20 ]. There were some differences between participants who reported on their personality in 2021–22 versus 2020. Specifically, participants who reported on their personality in 2021–2022 were younger at baseline ( d = .28, p < .01), had more years of education ( d = .12, p < .01), were less likely to be men (χ 2 = 10.51, p < .01) or Hispanic ethnicity (χ 2 = 307.99, p < .01), and more likely to be Asian (χ 2 = 111.25, p < .01) than participants who reported on their personality in 2020. After accounting for sociodemographic differences, participants who reported on their personality in 2021–2022 were lower on baseline neuroticism ( d = .08, p < .01) and baseline conscientiousness ( d = .10, p < .01) compared to participants who reported on their personality in 2020.

Sociodemographic covariates.

Sociodemographic factors were age in years at the first personality assessment, gender (0 = women, 1 = men), race (three dummy-coded variables that compared Black = 1, Asian = 1, and Otherwise-identified = 1 to white = 0), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (1 = Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 0 = not Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) and education, reported on a scale from 1 ( less than first grade ) to 16 ( doctorate degree ). These covariates were selected because of potential age, gender, and education differences in personality and the differential effect of the pandemic across sociodemographic groups.

A variable was created that indicated whether each personality assessment occurred before or during the coronavirus pandemic. We set March 1, 2020 as the start of the pandemic for this sample because widescale closures and cancellations started to occur in the United States in early March 2020. Because patterns of personality change might be different depending on phase of the pandemic, we categorized the COVID personality assessments into two time periods: personality assessments during 2020 (March 1, 2020-December 31, 2020; the acute phase) and personality assessments after 2020 (January 1, 2021-February 16, 2022; the adaptation phase).

Statistical approach

The trajectory of each personality trait was modeled on time. Time in years was calculated from the first personality assessment to each subsequent assessment. Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to estimate the trajectory of personality over time (which represents normative developmental/age-related change over time), with random effects for intercept and slope. Level 1 was repeated assessments of personality nested within-person. Socio-demographic variables were entered at level 2 to control for age, gender, race, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and education. Following previous studies on pandemic-induced change in subjective age [ 21 ] and well-being [ 22 ] compared to pre-pandemic levels, we specified a change component that was a time-varying dummy variable that compared all personality assessments prior to the pandemic (May 2014-February 2020; pre-pandemic personality) to the personality assessments during the pandemic (March 2020-February 2022; which reflect normative history-related change during the pandemic). Two dummy-coded variables were created. The first coded personality measured between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 during the acute phase of the pandemic as 1 and others as 0. The second coded personality measured between January 1, 2021 and February 16, 2022 as 1 and others as 0. All participants in the analytic sample had one or two personality assessments prior to the pandemic and one personality assessment in either 2020 or 2021–2022 (because of the structure of UAS, personality assessments were not from the same participants in both 2020 and 2021–2022). The dummy-coded variable indicated whether personality measured during the pandemic increased or decreased during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels.

We also tested whether personality change was moderated by sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, education) by including an interaction term between each dummy-coded COVID variable and the sociodemographic factor in separate regressions for each interaction. For age, we also ran the same MLM analysis separately for three age groups: younger adults (<30 years old), middle-aged adults (30–64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) because each age group had different challenges at different points in the pandemic. Due to the large number of tests and difficulty replicating interaction effects, the p-value was set to < .01 for the moderation analysis.

Descriptive statistics for study variables are in Table 1 . Table 2 reports results of the multilevel models that show personality change during the pandemic, accounting for the effect of time over the three assessments. Consistent with the previous studies on change in neuroticism early in the pandemic [ 14 , 16 ], neuroticism was lower (approximately one-tenth of a standard deviation) in 2020 compared to pre-pandemic levels. This decline, however, was not apparent in the next phase of the pandemic; neuroticism measured in 2021–2022 was not statistically different than neuroticism measured prior to the pandemic. Note that the time trend for neuroticism was positive, which indicated that neuroticism increased over time. The negative coefficient for COVID indicated a decrease in neuroticism during the pandemic, despite the time trend of increases over time. A different pattern emerged for the other four traits. For these traits, there was no difference in 2020 compared to their pre-pandemic levels. Extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, however, declined in 2021–2022 compared to their level pre-pandemic.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.t002

A different pattern of personality change was apparent when the sample was split into three age groups ( Table 3 ). The divergence by age was largest for neuroticism ( Fig 1 ). When was measured in 2020, older adults had the greatest decline in neuroticism. Middle-aged adults also declined in neuroticism, with an effect size about half that of older adults. Younger adults showed this initial decline, but it was not statistically significant. The bigger discrepancy across age groups occurred for personality measured in 2021–2022. In this case, middle-aged adults continued to decline in neuroticism at this later stage of the pandemic, as did older adults, albeit the decline was not statistically significant. In contrast, younger adults had a significant increase in neuroticism in 2021–2022 compared to prior to the pandemic. The pattern that emerged for the remaining traits was similar across the four traits, with declines for both younger and middle-aged adults in 2021–2022. There were two patterns particularly worth noting. First, the coefficients for agreeableness and conscientiousness were at least twice as large among younger than middle-aged adults, which indicated larger declines in this age group. Second, there was no significant change in these traits among older adults in either 2020 or 2021–2022: Extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness during the pandemic for participants over 65 were similar to pre-pandemic levels. The continuous interactions with age supported the overall pattern of age differences in personality change during the pandemic ( S1 Table ). Specifically, there was a negative interaction between COVID year and age on neuroticism for both 2020 and 2021–2022, which indicated the decline in neuroticism was larger at older ages in 2020 and the increase was larger at younger ages in 2021–2022, respectively. Likewise, the age interactions for agreeableness and conscientiousness indicated the decline in these two traits in 2021–2022 was stronger among relatively younger than relatively older participants. The interaction with age for 2020 for agreeableness was also significant.

Age differences in the effect of the pandemic on personality change in 2020 and in 2021–2022 for neuroticism (Panel A), extraversion (Panel B), openness (Panel C), agreeableness (Panel D), and conscientiousness (Panel E). Asterisks indicate significant personality changes from pre-pandemic levels.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.t003

Personality change during COVID was also moderated by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity ( S1 Table ). Hispanic/Latino participants did not experience the decline in neuroticism apparent among non-Hispanic/Latino participants. Hispanic/Latino participants also decreased more in agreeableness earlier in the pandemic than non-Hispanic/Latino participants. Both Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino participants declined in extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness in 2021–2022, but this decline was larger for Hispanic/Latino participants. There was less evidence for differences by the other sociodemographic groups ( S1 Table ).

Replicating previous work on personality change in the acute phase [ 14 , 16 ], the present research found a significant decrease in neuroticism in 2020 compared to neuroticism prior to the pandemic. There was no significant change in the other traits in 2020. There was, however, a different pattern of change when personality was measured in 2021–2022: The beneficial effect of the pandemic on neuroticism dissipated, whereas there was significant decline in the other four traits compared to before the pandemic. Importantly, significant age differences also emerged that indicated that the decline in neuroticism in 2020 was largest for older adults, whereas the decline in the other four traits in 2021 was apparent in middle-aged and particularly younger adults. The present research thus suggests differential acute and longer-term time of measurement effects of the pandemic on personality change.

At the sample level, change in personality from before to during the pandemic was approximately one-tenth of a standard deviation. Although modest in absolute terms, it can be put in the perspective of developmental changes that occur over adulthood. Normative personality change has been estimated to be approximately one-tenth a standard deviation per decade in adulthood [ 17 ]. Given our analyses accounted for these normative age-related changes, the change observed during the short time of the pandemic approximated the degree of change usually observed over a decade. In addition, the changes were much larger for some demographic groups, including the decline in neuroticism for older adults, the decline in conscientiousness for younger adults, and the decline in extraversion for Hispanic/Latino participants, which were about one-fifth of a standard deviation.

The present research adds to the replicated evidence that neuroticism declined early in the pandemic [ 14 , 16 ]. This decline is particularly surprising against the backdrop of other longitudinal research on mental health that found symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress increased during the first year of the pandemic [ 1 , 2 , 23 ]. These findings appear contradictory, particularly because symptoms of depression and anxiety are expressions of neuroticism [ 24 ]. Both changes, however, may occur simultaneously. It may be that, prior to the pandemic, individuals higher in neuroticism ascribed feelings of distress to this dispositional aspect of themselves. The fear and uncertainty caused by the pandemic, however, may have provided a reason for such feelings, leading to declines in perceptions of dispositional neuroticism. Further, prior to the pandemic, there were no behavioral suggestions to express or cope with neuroticism, but pandemic guidance (washing hands, social distancing, masking) gave people a preventive behavior to engage in against the external stressor. The messaging around taking care of one’s mental health may also have contributed to decreases in neuroticism, especially for older adults since so much of the messaging was around taking care of this age group. It is also possible that the greater social cohesion early in the pandemic brought a sense of belonging that lessened a general disposition toward distress and/or observing the distress in the world had individuals re-evaluate their own tendency towards fear and anxiety. Further, there may be social comparison processes that shape how individuals perceive themselves. That is, ratings of personality are based, in part, on comparisons to other people. Early in the pandemic, when there was a lot of reporting on fear and anxiety about the virus in the media and on social media, individuals may have viewed themselves as less fearful and anxious than those around them: Individuals may have viewed themselves as less neurotic because the social norms around neuroticism shifted. Three studies now document this decline in neuroticism early in the pandemic.

A completely different pattern of change emerged during the adaptation phase of the pandemic. Neuroticism did not continue to decline, but rather was not statistically different from prior to the pandemic, which suggests the beneficial decline in neuroticism due to the pandemic was temporary. In addition, the other four traits, which did not change in the acute phase, all declined significantly in 2021–2022 compared to before the pandemic. This pattern suggests that for extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, there was either a delayed effect that took longer to become apparent and/or different stressors and strains later in the pandemic contributed to these changes rather than the stressors and strains earlier in the pandemic. One possibility is that the social cohesion apparent early in the pandemic helped support stability of these traits. That is, in the acute phase, despite fear and uncertainty, the increase in social support [ 3 ] and sense of community [ 25 ] may have helped maintain personality. The decline in social support [ 26 ] and increase in social conflict on pandemic-related protective measures [ 27 ], may explain at least part of change observed in 2021–2022.

In our first paper on personality change very early in pandemic, we hypothesized a decrease in extraversion and conscientiousness because of restrictions on social gatherings and the loss of daily routines that often give structure to one’s life, respectively. We did not, however, find any support for these declines [ 14 ]. The present analyses suggest a delayed or longer-term effect on these traits. Early in the pandemic, there were anecdotal stories of long-lost connections being reestablished as old friends and acquaintances reached out to one another [ 28 , 29 ]. Such connections may have helped support extraversion in the acute phase of the pandemic. Over a year of restrictions on social gatherings–either mandated or self-imposed over safety concerns–may have culminated in feeling less temperamentally outgoing than prior to the pandemic. Likewise, it might have taken more time for the lack of structure and fewer immediate responsibilities to consolidate into declines in conscientiousness. It may also be the case that, prior to the pandemic, external structures that supported schedules and routines were perceived as the individual’s own level of conscientiousness. Without this stability and structure, it may be harder to be organized and follow through on responsibilities. The changes observed in 2021–2022 may be the accumulation of changes in daily life that took more time to culminate in trait decline.

There were also significant declines in openness and agreeableness. These declines may have been, in part, a response to the social upheaval in response to the pandemic that was sharper in 2021–2022. The continued uncertainty around the pandemic, particularly as it dragged into a second year [ 30 ], as well as the decline in mobility [ 31 ], may have led individuals to narrow their activities and worldviews. Likewise, there may have been a decrease in interest in art and artistic experiences because of less ability to engage in art due to closures of concert venues, museums, theaters, etc. The move to online communication and entertainment and reliance on social media may have decreased exposure to new ideas. Such changes may have contributed to declines in openness. There has been a decline in trust apparent for decades [ 17 , 32 ]. Although there was an increase in confidence in science and the medical community early in the pandemic, this increase was short-lived and the decline precipitous during the second year of the pandemic [ 33 ]. The decline in agreeableness observed later in the pandemic is consistent with this trend. It is notable that this decline is apparent controlling for the general time trend of declines in agreeableness. This decline might have been partly fueled by amplification of mis/disinformation that undermines trust and may also highlight benefits to not being straightforward.

Two sociodemographic factors were significant moderators of personality change during the pandemic: age and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Compared to middle-aged and older adults, the personality of younger adults seemed particularly sensitive to change. Personality tends to develop most and consolidate during young adulthood [ 34 ], with the pattern of development toward greater maturity in the form of declines in neuroticism and increases in agreeableness and conscientiousness [ 35 ]. Over a year into the pandemic, however, young adults show the opposite of this developmental trend. The personality of older adults, in contrast, is thought to be more impervious to change (at least until very old age or cognitive impairment [ 36 – 38 ]); and, indeed, four of the five traits were relatively impervious to change among older adults. There may also be other reasons for the age differences in personality change. We cannot, for example, distinguish between age and cohort because they are confounded in the current sample; it is possible that the differences are due to cohort rather than age. It is also possible that different age groups faced different challenges in the second year of the pandemic, such as instability in the job market and school-related stressors (e.g., continued school closures, quarantining of the self or one’s children after exposure). Such stressors may be more impactful for younger and middle-aged adults than older adults, who also may both be less likely to experience and have more resources to handle pandemic-related stressors that did occur.

Personality change during the pandemic was also moderated by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. In 2020, Hispanic/Latino participants did not decrease in neuroticism but did decrease in agreeableness earlier than non-Hispanic/Latino participants. This pattern could be due, in part, to the strain of the pandemic not equally distributed across the population. The financial cost of the pandemic was larger for Hispanic/Latino adults compared to their counterparts [ 39 ], and, at the same time, this population had higher rates of hospitalization and death due to COVID than non-Hispanic white adults [ 40 ]. Further, the decline in extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness in 2021–2022 was stronger for Hispanic/Latino participants than non-Hispanic/Latino participants. Perhaps these declines were because of processes that may have been apparent across the population were amplified by ongoing stressors of high-risk work situations and risk of COVID for themselves and their families. Surprisingly, although Black adults faced similar stressors, in this sample, Black participants did not show a similar pattern of personality change (i.e., the moderation analysis indicated no difference in change between Black and white participants).

The present research focused on personality change during the coronavirus pandemic. It is important to note other significant collective events in the United States during this time. The death of George Floyd, the subsequent social justice protests, the backlash to the protests, and the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol are significant events that occurred during this time that may also have shaped the observed changes. More research needs to tease apart whether/how different events may have shaped personality change.

Implications for models of personality

There are several theoretical accounts to explain personality development across the lifespan. Biologically-oriented models indicate personality in adulthood is relatively impervious to environmental pressures and changes that are not biologically-based should rebound [ 34 ]. Environmental models, in contrast, highlight life events in the trajectory of adult personality, although evidence on specific life events tends to be mixed and sometimes conflicting [ 8 ]. The neuroticism finding represents a significant time of measurement effect that replicated across three studies. We are not aware of similar population-wide effects that have replicated across independent studies. The findings suggest that a large scale, global event had an impact on personality at the population level. It appears that this decline was transitory; it is too early to determine whether the changes observed in 2021–2022 will endure or dissipate with time. It is also possible personal experiences and perceptions of collective events may be more impactful on personality than the event itself [ 41 ].

Personality traits go through most development in adolescence and early adulthood and tend to reach stability about age 30 [ 34 ]. At the other end of adulthood, personality tends to remain stable until cognitive impairment reduces stability [ 36 ]. It is notable, but perhaps not surprising, that most significant personality change during the pandemic occurred in younger adulthood, with most traits showing no change among older adults. It is further of note that middle-aged adults were more similar to younger adults than older adults (except for neuroticism). It is unclear whether this pattern is due to greater malleability of traits earlier than later in adulthood or whether the stressors and strains of the pandemic, which differed across age groups, led to more personality change.

These findings may have implications for long-term outcomes associated with personality. Individuals higher in conscientiousness, for example, tend to achieve more education [ 42 ] and income [ 43 ], develop fewer chronic diseases [ 44 ], are at lower risk of dementia [ 45 ], and ultimately live longer [ 46 ]. The decline in conscientiousness, particularly for younger adults, may have consequences for these outcomes, especially if the decline is not transitory. Higher neuroticism is associated with engagement in health-risk behaviors [ 47 , 48 ] and is a risk factor for poor mental health outcomes [ 24 ]. This increase may make some individuals more vulnerable to poor outcomes. It is especially worrying that the largest changes in these two traits were among younger adults, as the implications of these changes may ripple throughout their adult lives.

Although there should be some confidence in the decline in neuroticism, given that it has replicated, the other findings need to be interpreted with caution until replicated. It is of note that the lack of personality change in 2020 replicated our previous study on personality change in the acute phase of the pandemic (but Krautter and colleagues [ 16 ] found a decrease in extraversion during this time in a sample from Germany). Most importantly, the changes that occurred in 2021–2022 need to be replicated and put in the context of the sample. The sample was large and used a well-established measure of personality. The sample, however, was from the United States. No part of the world escaped the pandemic, but the course and response to the virus varied considerably across countries, and even within the same country. More research is needed to evaluate personality change during the pandemic in other cultural contexts and populations. In addition, although our sample was fairly diverse, the percentage of people of color was relatively low. The sample may have been underpowered to detect different patterns of personality change for people of color (the sample of Hispanic/Latino participants was larger and thus more powered to detect differences). This research documents personality traits over the first two years of the pandemic but the changes cannot be attributed solely to the pandemic. As discussed above, political and social upheaval co-experienced with the pandemic may have also contributed to the observed changes. We identified a time of measurement effect on change but were unable to distinguish the specific reasons for the changes. Pandemic-related policies and restrictions may be an additional contextual factor that is important for personality change. In the present research, participants were from around the United States who experienced very different state government responses to the pandemic (e.g., California versus Florida). Future research could address whether specific policy differences across states or countries have different impacts on change. Also, with few assessments of personality per participant, it was not possible to test for nonlinear changes over time. Future research would benefit from more assessments of personality to be able to test for such change. Further, there may be personality change related to infection with SARS-CoV-2, particularly for individuals with severe cases and/or long COVID. Recent evidence indicates significant changes in brain structure and cognitive function associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (Douaud et al., 2022) [ 49 ]. Personality change could be one outcome of such alterations in neurological structure. The present research could not address this possibility. Finally, it would be worthwhile to take a “nuance” approach [ 50 ] and analyze change in specific items of the BFI to determine whether changes were driven by specific components of each trait.

Despite these limitations, the present research offers new evidence for longitudinal change in personality across the pandemic. This research highlights the need to continue to assess longitudinal changes, as the pandemic may have cumulative effects that were not apparent in the first few months. This research also highlights the differential impact on personality change across demographic groups (e.g., young adults, Hispanic/Latino). Future research needs to continue to track trends in personality change to evaluate potential longer-term outcomes associated with this change, particularly for groups impacted the most.

Supporting information

S1 table. interaction terms between sociodemographic factors and the pandemic on personality change..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.s001

S2 Table. Syntax for reported analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274542.s002

Acknowledgments

The project described in this paper relies on data from survey(s) administered by the Understanding America Study (UAS), which is maintained by the Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) at the University of Southern California (USC). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of USC or UAS.

View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar
19. John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 1999. p. 102–38.
34. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality in adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2003.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Personality development in emerging adulthood—how the perception of life events and mindset affect personality trait change.

$\nJantje Hinrika De Vries$

1 Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
2 Division HR Diagnostics AG, Stuttgart, Germany

Introduction

People change as they age. Individuals experience not only physical but also psychological changes across the entire lifespan. However, the exact course of internal and external changes depends on various criteria. In recent years, researchers have expended considerable effort in studying how personality develops across the lifespan; this has, in turn, incited a controversy about the stability and variability of specific personality traits. Personality traits are considered to be relatively stable individual differences in affect, behavior, and/or cognition ( Johnson, 1997 ). Whereas, the Big Five traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be rather stable and continuously increase across adulthood, levels of openness to experience appear to change in an inverted U-shape function, which increases between the ages of 18 and 22 and decreases between 60 and 70 ( McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Specht et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, some studies have shown that trait change can be associated with particular life stages. For example, the findings of Roberts and Mroczek (2008) suggest that young adults tend to exhibit increases in traits that are indicative of greater social maturity. More specifically, in emerging adulthood, the average individual experiences an increase in emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness ( Arnett, 2000 ; Roberts et al., 2006 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ), and self-esteem ( Orth et al., 2018 ), while openness to experience seems to decrease in advancing age ( Roberts et al., 2006 ). Taken together, this comprises evidence that personality develops throughout the lifespan and consequently, several theories have been introduced to explain when and why personality change occurs (e.g., Cattell, 1971 ; Baltes, 1987 ; Caspi and Moffitt, 1993 ; McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008 ).

Critical Life Events

Theory and research support the idea that personality can change as a result of intrinsic factors such as genetics and extrinsic factors such as the environment around us ( Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). More specifically, there is ample evidence that personality is linked to certain external influences such as critical life events (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn et al., 2018 ). These can be defined as “transitions that mark the beginning or the end of a specific status” ( Luhmann et al., 2012 ; p. 594) and include leaving the parental home or major changes in one's status such as employment or duty. These transitions often require adaptation processes involving new behavioral, cognitive, or emotional responses ( Hopson and Adams, 1976 ; Luhmann et al., 2012 , 2014 ). Profound adaptations are assumed to have lasting effects, as “life events can modify, interrupt or redirect life trajectories by altering individuals' feelings, thoughts and behaviors” ( Bleidorn et al., 2018 , p. 83). Building upon this assumption, many studies have sought to determine how certain Big Five traits change because of critical life events. For instance, increases in emotional stability were found to result from transitioning into one's first romantic relationship ( Lehnart et al., 2010 ). Emotional stability might also increase in anticipation of gain-based events such as childbirth or paid employment, which, in turn, lead to increases in conscientiousness and openness to experience ( Denissen et al., 2018 ).

In the present study, we focus on two critical life events that are highly relevant for emerging adults: moving away from home and graduating from school. Both events represent a personal development milestone for the transition into adulthood and are typically associated with great educational or occupational challenges ( Arnett, 2000 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Few studies have highlighted these two events and how they influence life trajectories in emerging adulthood. Lüdtke et al. (2011 ) focused on the broader superordinate section of work-related life events and personality change and found that the transition from high school to college, university, or vocational training is associated with substantial normative increases in emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. With regard to graduation from school, Bleidorn (2012) found significant mean-level changes in certain Big Five traits over an observation period of 1 year. Specifically, senior students experienced increases in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness after graduation. In a later review by Bleidorn et al. (2018) , the authors found that graduation constitutes an almost universal life event in Western societies and that related change in adult personality is likely to be observable, because young adulthood is a period in which personality traits have been shown to be most open to change ( Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ).

There are fewer investigations into the personality effects of moving away from home. Pusch et al. (2018) compared age differences in emerging vs. young adults and found that, among other life events, leaving the parental home did not reveal significant age effects with respect to personality change. However, they found significant age-invariant effects for individuals who left their parental home recently, indicating positive changes in agreeableness. Jonkmann et al. (2014) investigated living arrangements after college with regard to personality differences and found that, for example, the choice of living arrangement (living with roommates vs. living alone) predicted the development of conscientiousness and—to a lesser extent—openness and agreeableness. Similarly, according to a study by Niehoff et al. (2017) , living and studying abroad after college led to increases in extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Interestingly, Specht et al. (2011) found a significant sex effect on leaving the parental home and argued that only women become more emotionally stable when moving. Taken together, this evidence suggests that moving away from home is a major life event that has not yet been deeply investigated but represents a distinct developmental task that has the potential to shape individuals' personalities.

The Perception of Life Events

While these studies provide valuable information about the impact of critical life events, one important issue has been hitherto neglected. Many past studies have focused on life events per se , but comparatively little effort has been made to examine the subjective appraisal of such events and its effect on the processes underlying personality change ( Roberts, 2009 ). Moreover, methodological approaches to life events are sometimes misleading, because the valence of experienced events is rated by either researchers or other people who cannot sufficiently reflect inter- and intra-individual experiences of events ( Headey and Wearing, 1989 ; Kendler et al., 2003 ; Luhmann et al., 2020 ). However, there is ample evidence that people perceive the same event or situation very differently. For example, according to a comprehensive review of person-situation transactions by Rauthmann et al. (2015) , situations can be characterized by their physical (e.g., location, activity, persons) and/or psychological (e.g., task-related, threatening, pleasant) properties. Rauthmann et al. (2015) further state that “situations only have consequences for people's thinking, feeling, desiring, and acting through the psychological processing they receive” (p. 372). Thus, people's individual experiences of psychological situations may deviate from how these situations are experienced by most other people (reality principle). This assumption aligns with the TESSERA framework conceived by Wrzus and Roberts (2017) . According to the authors, events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations. These expectancies then determine which state occurs after the corresponding trigger by choosing a response from a variety of possible states ( Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ). Conjointly, two people can perceive the same situation or event very differently, leading to diverse reactions and psychological meanings.

A first step toward this important distinction was proposed by Luhmann et al. (2020) , who aimed to systematically examined the effects of life events on psychological outcomes. To do so, the authors proposed a dimensional taxonomy which that considers nine perceived characteristics of major life events. I this way, the study uniquely emphasizes the difference between assessing the mere occurrence of a critical life event and taking into account subjective appraisal. However, significantly more research is needed to fully explore how this causes lasting personality trait change.

In conclusion, two aspects of person-situation transactions should be highlighted. First, one situation can be interpreted very differently by two individuals. Expectations and individual goals—as well as variable expressions of personality traits—influence the extent to which a situation is perceived as meaningful and, therefore, determine how people approach it ( Bleidorn, 2012 ; Denissen et al., 2013 , 2018 ). Second, this is also true for life events. Two people can reasonably experience the same major life event as completely differently. Therefore, we focus the present study on the valence of two distinct life events and use this characteristic as our central parameter. In particular, in emerging adulthood, individuals might perceive the behavioral expectations and demands associated with a life event as more pressing than others ( Pusch et al., 2018 ). What remains less clear is how situational perceptions affect personality change after a major life event, but with respect to the current string of literature, it seems reductive to only ask if, but not how, critical life events are experienced.

The Moderating Role of Mindset

In the previous section, we examined how diverse critical life events can be perceived. Here, we extend our theoretical approach by focusing on the underlying processes that might account for the different perception and spotlight causes of individual personality trait changes. One construct that is highly relevant to the aforementioned regulatory mechanisms is the individual belief system mindset. According to Dweck (1999) , an individual's mindset refers to the implicit belief about the malleability of personal attributes. Dweck (1999) distinguishes between growth and fixed mindsets. The growth mindset emphasizes the belief that attributes like intelligence and personality are changeable. Conversely, the fixed mindset refers to the belief that such attributes are immutable. According to Dweck (2012) , the individual mindset is not static and can be changed throughout one's life. Actively changing one's mindset toward a growth mindset was found to decrease chronic adolescent aggression, enhance people's willpower, and redirect critical academic outcomes ( Dweck, 2012 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ). Moreover, Blackwell et al. (2007) found that the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) predicted an upward trajectory in grades over 2 years of junior high school, while the belief that intelligence is fixed (entity theory) predicted a flat trajectory. Yet, according to a meta-analysis from Sisk et al. (2018) , mindset interventions for academic achievement predominately benefitted students with low socioeconomic status or who are at-risk academically. Mindset has also been linked to business-related outcomes (e.g., Kray and Haselhuhn, 2007 ; Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). That is, individuals with a growth mindset tend to use “higher-order” cognitive strategies and adapt to stress more easily ( Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). Likewise, mindset has been linked to health outcomes and even mental illness, with the assumption that a growth mindset buffers against psychological distress and depression (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003 ; Burnette and Finkel, 2012 ; Schroder et al., 2017 ). Therefore, a growth mindset can be considered a predictor of psychological resilience ( Saeed et al., 2018 ).

With regard to changes in personality traits, the findings have been mixed. Hudson et al. (2020) investigated college students' beliefs by adapting a personality measure into a mindset measure and administering it within a longitudinal study. They found that the mere belief that personality is malleable (or not) did not affect trait changes. However, in her Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development, Dweck (2017) suggests that basic needs, mental representations (e.g., beliefs and emotions), and action tendencies (referred to as BEATs) contribute to personality development. Dweck further argues that mental representations shape motivation by informing goal selection and subsequently form personality traits by creating recurring experiences ( Dweck, 2017 ). Thus, there might be more information about indicators such as the integration of mindset, motivation, and environmental influences necessary to understand how personality traits change according to belief systems.

In summary, there is evidence that a belief in the malleability of global attributes allows individuals to adapt to life circumstances in a goal-directed way and that individuals' mindsets determine responses to challenges ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Building upon the existing literature around environmental influences on personality traits and the diverse effects of mindset, we argue that after experiencing a critical life event, individuals with a growth mindset will adapt to a new situation more easily and accordingly exhibit greater change in relating personality traits. In contrast, individuals with a fixed mindset might react in a more rigid way to unknown circumstances and thus don't experience the need adapt, resulting in no personality trait change.

The Present Study

This study aims to contribute to the literature around external and internal influences on personality development in emerging adulthood by analyzing changes in the Big Five, the influences of the occurrence of life events per se vs. their subjective perception, and the possible moderating effects of mindset in a longitudinal study with a large sample. Most prior studies have focused on personality development in adulthood (e.g., Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ; Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ; Damian et al., 2018 ; Denissen et al., 2018 ), but emerging adulthood is marked by tremendous changes; thus, we focus our analyses on this period. According to Arnett (2000 , 2007) , emerging adulthood is considered a distinct stage between adolescence and full-fledged adulthood. This is seen as a critical life period because it is characterized by more transformation, exploration, and personality formation than any other life stage in adulthood ( Arnett, 2000 ; Ziegler et al., 2015 ; Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ). With regard to beliefs systems, Yeager et al. (2019) argue that beliefs that affect how, for example, students make sense of ongoing challenges are most important and salient during high-stakes developmental turning points such as pubertal maturation. For this reason, it is particularly compelling to investigate environmental influences such as major life events that shape the trajectory of personality trait change in emerging adulthood.

Sample and Procedure

Sample Attrition

Numerous email accounts were invalid at the second measurement point—for example, because students' personalized school email accounts were deleted following their graduation or because certain institutions used only a single email account to offer vocational counseling to college students ( N = 3,495). Those who did not participate at the second measurement point (dropouts) were slightly younger than those who participated (continuers) [ M (ageD) = 17.39; M (ageC) = 17.76; p ≤ 0.000, d = −0.12] and more women filled in the second questionnaire (dropouts = 50.9% women, continuers = 64.8% women; p ≤ 0.000, d = 0.31). Only modest selectivity effects (measured by Cohen's d ) in terms of mean differences in personality traits between dropouts and continuers were found at T1; thus, there was negligible systematic attrition ( Specht et al., 2011 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Continuers had slightly higher scores in agreeableness ( d = 0.17), conscientiousness ( d = 0.19), and openness ( d = 0.16) than dropouts, but they almost identical in terms of extraversion ( d = −0.08) and emotional stability ( d = 0.01).

Personality

Personality traits were assessed on both measurement occasions using a short version of the Big Five personality inventory for the vocational context (TAKE5; S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH, 2005 ). The TAKE5 has been shown to be a highly reliable and valid personality measure ( Mussel, 2012 ). In the short version of the test, each of the Big Five subscales (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) consists of three items and was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Example items for conscientiousness include (translated from German): “Nothing can stop me from completing an important task,” “People around me know me as a perfectionist,” and “My work is always carried out the highest quality standards.” Items were selected to cover the different aspects of each domain therefore internal consistencies provide no valuable indicator. Test-retest reliabilities for the TAKE5 between T1 and T2 were 0.69 for extraversion, 0.52 for openness to experience, 0.57 for conscientiousness, 0.58 for agreeableness, and 0.50 for emotional stability. Small to moderate reliability levels can be explained by the heterogeneity of the items and our attempt to capture rather broad personality constructs. Similar results have been reported for other brief personality scales ( Donnellan et al., 2006 ; Rammstedt et al., 2016 ). All descriptive statistics and correlations can be found in Table 1 , and bivariate correlations of all items can be found at osf ( https://osf.io/xc6d4/?view_only=5b913c97553d48a290b75a3f725aca3d ).

Table 1 . Correlations and descriptive statistics among variables.

Life Events

In the present study, we focus on two major life events that are highly characteristic of the critical period between the late teens and young adulthood ( Arnett, 2000 ; Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn, 2012 ): moving away from home and graduating from school. At T2, after completing the personality questionnaire, participants rated their subjective perception of each of the two life events on a dimensional 7-point Likert scale (1 = very negatively , 7 = very positively ). Of the initial sample, 68.38% of the participants had graduated from school, 47.66% had moved away from home, and 46.96% had experienced both life events. Participants who had graduated from school were older ( M = 17.32 years, SD = 1.84, female = 68.80%) compared to those who had not yet finished school ( M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.09, female = 68.21%). Those who had moved away from home were approximately 1 year older ( M = 17.53, SD = 1.89, female = 69.30%) compared to those did not yet moved away ( M = 16.29, SD =1.69, female = 66.91%). To avoid potential confounding effects, we only asked about events that had happened within the past year (after the first measurement occasion). This allowed us to account for experiences that took place before T1.

Participants' mindset was measured with a questionnaire based on Dweck's Mindset Instrument (DMI). The 16-item DMI was developed and created by Dweck (1999) and is used examine how students view their own personality and intelligence. In the current study, only items concerning beliefs about the malleability of personality were used. The mindset inventory items were “Personality traits are something a person cannot change,” “You have a certain personality and you really can't do much to change it,” and “You can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic personality.” At T2, participants were presented a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45). Items were reversed such that higher levels indicated a growth mindset. This short inventory was found to be highly reliable ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45, ω = 0.81, 95% CI [0.70, 0.84]).

Statistical Analyses

Measurement invariance

To ensure that the same construct was being measured across time, we first tested for measurement invariance. For weak measurement invariance, we fixed the factor loadings for each indicator to be equal across measurement occasions and compared this model to the configural model, where no restrictions were applied. The same procedure was followed to assess strong measurement invariance, with the weak invariant model compared to a model with constrained intercepts to equality across time (e.g., the same intercept for Item 2 at T1 and Item 2 at T2) ( Newsom, 2015 ). To evaluate the model fit, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were inspected. Good fit was considered to be indicated when CFI and TLI values were 0.90 or higher, RMSEA below 0.08, and SRMR values below 0.05 ( Hu and Bentler, 1999 ; Marsh et al., 2005 ). The configural model showed good fit for all of the Big Five traits (All χ 2 [4 24], df = 5, CFI > [0.98 1.00], TLI > [0.94 1.00], RMSEA < [0.0 0.06], SRMR < [0.0 0.02]). Model fit for partial strong measurement invariance revealed similar fit (all χ 2 [9 50], df = 8, CFI > [0.96 1.00], TLI > [0.92 1.00], RMSEA < [0.01 0.07], SRMR < [0.01 0.03]) when freely estimating the intercept of the first manifest OCEAN item ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Little et al., 2007 ). All further analyses are based on this model and full results for fit indices are presented in Table S1 .

Latent Change Score Models

To test for changes in personality over time, we applied latent structural equation modeling analysis with the R package lavaan (version 0.5-23.1097; Rosseel, 2012 ). Required sample size for the specified latent change score model was estimated by the R-toolbox semTools ( MacCallum et al., 2006 ; Jorgensen et al., 2018 ) for RMSEA = 0.05, df = 16, α = 0.05, and a statistical power of 90% to N = 672 individuals. Therefore, we consider our sample size to be sufficiently large.

As we were first interested in the rate of change, we built a multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model for each of the Big Five domains ( Figure 1 ). Each latent construct of interest (OCEAN) consisted of three observed measures (X1, X2, and X3) at two waves. Equality constraints were imposed on factor loadings and intercepts ( Newsom, 2015 ). Moreover, the autoregressive path was set equal to 1. The means, intercepts, and covariances at the first occasion and for the difference score factor were freely estimated, and all measurement residuals were allowed to correlate among the sets of repeated measurements ( McArdle et al., 2002 ). We accounted for missing data by applying robust maximum likelihood estimation. Finally, after specifying this basic model, the variables of interest—the occurrence of the life event, perception of the life event, and the moderator mindset—were added to the model.

Figure 1 . Schematic model of the multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model. The latent construct of interest (each personality trait) was measured at two time points (T1 and T2), using three indicators each time (X1, X2, X3). The lower part of the model constitutes the assessment of measurement invariance. “Δ latent change” captures change from the Big Five trait from T1 to T2. Latent regressions from “Δ latent change” on Mod→ Δ reflect the influence of the covariate perception of life event or the moderator mindset on the development of the Big Five. Straight arrows depict loadings and regression coefficients, curved arrows co-variances.

Figure 2 . Mean-level changes in Big Five dimensions over measurement occasions T1 and T2.

Table 2 . Big Five mean-level change from T1 to T2 with fit indices, n = 1,243.

Life Events and Perception of Life Events

Figure 3 . Change in trait extraversion for people with a fixed vs. growth mindset with regard to the perception of life event graduation from school .

Mean-Level Change

Since our sample was selected to be between 14 and 21 years of age, most of our participants were classified as emerging adults Arnett, 2000 , 2007 . A large body of research has consistently demonstrated that emerging adulthood is characterized by trait changes related to maturity processes (for an overview, see Roberts et al., 2006 ). Thus, emerging adults tend to experience increases in conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, and (to a lesser degree) agreeableness. This pattern is often called the “maturity principle” of personality development, and it has been found to hold true cross-culturally ( Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ). Although the effects were small, we found evidence for mean-level changes in line with the maturity principle and functional personality trait development. Extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability significantly increased over the 1-year period. The largest changes were found for openness and conscientiousness. These changes are most likely to be explained by attempts to satisfy mature expectations and engage in role-congruent behavior. While increases in openness might be due to identity exploration, higher scores on conscientiousness could reflect investment in age-related roles. Individuals might, for instance, take increased responsibility for social or career-related tasks that require more mature functioning ( Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ).

First, we analyzed whether the occurrence of a life event per se had an influence on personality trait change. In our study, neither of the critical life events?moving away from home or graduating from school?affected Big Five trait change over the two measurement occasions. One possible explanation is that the two chosen life events were not prominent enough to evoke far-reaching changes in personality traits ( Magnus et al., 1993 ; Löckenhoff et al., 2009 ). In line with a study by Löckenhoff et al. (2009 ), more stressful, adverse events might have triggered more pronounced and predictable effects on personality traits. Moreover, the period between the late teens and early adulthood is characterized by a large number of stressful events and daily hassles ( Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ). In a comprehensive review of emerging adulthood by Bleidorn and Schwaba (2017) , graduates also experienced changes in other personality traits, such as openness and emotional stability, which suggests that many developmental tasks and major life transitions contribute to changes in Big Five trait domains. Furthermore, according to Luhmann et al. (2014) and Yeager et al. (2019) , life events may not only independently influence the development of personality characteristics, they might also interact with one another. Researchers must address the interpretation of other challenges that adolescents experience. This notion is also supported in a study by Wagner et al. (2020) , who introduced a model that integrates factors that are both personal (e.g., genetic expressions) and environmental (e.g., culture and society). The authors assert that the interactions and transactions of multiple sources are responsible for shaping individuals' personalities, and, in order to understand how they interact and develop over time, more integrated research is needed. Future studies should focus on a wider range of important life events and environmental influences during emerging adulthood and account for possible accumulating effects.

Second, and perhaps most remarkably, our findings revealed a different picture after we analyzed how the two critical life events were perceived. When participants experienced graduating from school negatively, a greater decrease in emotional stability was observed. Conversely, when the event was evaluated positively, a greater positive change in extraversion was reported. There are clear theoretical links between these two traits and the perception of life events in terms of emotional valence. While low emotional stability encompasses a disposition to experience negative emotions such as fear, shame, embarrassment, or sadness (especially in stressful situations), extraverted individuals are characterized by attributes such as cheerfulness, happiness, and serenity ( Goldberg, 1990 ; Depue and Collins, 1999 ). In line with the notion of a bottom-up process of personality development ( Roberts et al., 2005 ), experiencing a major life event as either positive or negative might lead to a prolonged experience of these emotions and, thus, ultimately to altered levels of the corresponding personality traits. These findings are in line with previous research on subjective well-being (SWB). In fact, variance in SWB can be explained by emotional stability and extraversion, indicating a robust negative relationship between low emotional stability and SWB and a positive relationship between extraversion and SWB ( Costa and McCrae, 1980 ; Headey and Wearing, 1989 ). Moreover, Magnus et al. (1993) found selection effects for these traits, suggesting that high scorers in extraversion experience more subjectively positive events, and low scorers in emotional stability experience many (subjectively) negative events (see also Headey and Wearing, 1989 ).

Interestingly, we only found effects for extraversion. As previously mentioned, trait extraversion stands for behavioral attributes such as how outgoing and social a person is, and this is related to differences in perceived positive affect ( Goldberg, 1990 ; Magnus et al., 1993 ; Roberts et al., 2005 ). The characteristics of extraversion can be linked to the assumption that people with a growth mindset show greater resilience ( Schroder et al., 2017 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ), especially in the face of academic and social challenges ( Yeager and Dweck, 2012 ). Thus, people who believe that their internal attributes are malleable confront challenges such as graduation by adapting and learning from them; our findings suggest that this results in an increase in extraversion. By contrast, people who believe that they cannot change their personality characteristics might attribute a negatively experienced graduation to external circumstances out of their control. Thus, they do not rise from a negative life event and experience no impetus to become more extraverted.

In summary, the present study makes an important contribution to the literature on personality development in emerging adulthood with a special focus on external and internal influences and the assessment of critical life events. Our findings support the notion of a dimensional approach to life events, as introduced by Luhmann et al. (2020) , in contrast to a typological approach. With regard to research on situational perception, it seems reductive to examine the occurrence of certain life events rather than their subjective perceptions. As previously mentioned, many studies emphasize that (1) events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations (TESSERA framework, Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ); (2) psychological situations and person-situation transactions deviate from one another ( Rauthmann et al., 2015 ); and (3) regulatory mechanisms influence the variability in individual personality trait change ( Denissen et al., 2013 ).

Limitations and Future Directions

Our research demonstrates the importance of examining the underlying processes behind personality changes that arise from external influences such as life events. One of the strengths of this study was our large sample, which comprised N = 1,679 German emerging adults and allowed us to use powerful statistical methods. One limitation was that we gathered data across a 1-year time interval with only two measurement occasions. As noted by Luhmann et al. (2014) , the inclusion of more than two measurement points makes it easier to distinguish between sudden short- or long-term shifts and more gradual linear changes. With this in mind, it is possible that critical life events correlate with temporary disruptions of personality maturation; tracing the impact of a single life event on personality trait change might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. Moreover, two measurement occasions can only reveal the immediate effect of life events on personality traits and may, therefore, neglect long-term effects that become salient after more time has passed. Future studies should also incorporate more characteristics of life events. We concentrated our study on the valence of critical life events, but other features—such as impact, challenge, and predictability—could reveal a more comprehensive picture ( Luhmann et al., 2020 ).

Another limitation of the present study is that all our data relied on self-report personality measures. Even though almost all research on personality change is based on self-report measures, the influence of (for example) self-concepts cannot be neglected. Self-reported data might thus depart from other types of data in terms of differential stability, for example ( Wagner et al., 2020 ). Hence, changes in the Big Five domains might reflect subjective rather than observable changes in personality. At the same time, we believe that our approach of assessing personality traits and the perception of life events gives valuable insights into personality development, since we focused on how individuals consciously understand their experiences. Nevertheless, it would be informative to compare both approaches (observer and self-reported data) to examine how they complement one another (see also: Bleidorn et al., 2020 ).

Data Availability Statement

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

This work was funded by a research grant to Professor Patrick Mussel by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany (Mu3045/6-1).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671421/full#supplementary-material

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am. Psychol . 55, 469–480. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: what is it, and what is it good for? Child Dev. Perspect. 1, 68–73. doi: 10.1111/j.17508606.2007.00016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life span develop-mental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Dev. Psychol. 23, 611–626.

Google Scholar

Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, J., Chatzisarantis, N., and Spray, C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical activity in young people: entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability. J. Sports Sci. 21, 973–989. doi: 10.1080/02640410310001641377

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., and Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 78, 246–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

Bleidorn, W. (2012). Hitting the road to adulthood: short-term personality development during a major life transition. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 1594–1608. doi: 10.1177/0146167212456707

Bleidorn, W. (2015). What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 245–252. doi: 10.1177/0963721414568662

Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., et al. (2020). Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020). Am. Psychol . 75, 731–732. doi: 10.1037/amp0000676

Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., and Lucas, R. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait Change. J. Pers. 86, 83–96. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12286

Bleidorn, W., and Schwaba, T. (2017). “Personality development in emerging adulthood,” in Personality Development Across The Lifespan , ed J. Specht (Elsevier Academic Press), 39–51. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00004-1

Burnette, J. L., and Finkel, E. J. (2012). Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: an implicit theory intervention. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 721–725. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.020

Caspi, A., and Moffitt, T. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychol. Inq. 4, 247–271. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their Structure Growth and Action . Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equat. Model. Multidiscipl. J. 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007sem0902_5

Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38, 668–678. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668

Damian, R. I., Spengler, M., Sutu, A., and Roberts, B. W. (2018). Sixteen going on sixty- six: a longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 117, 674–695. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000210

Denissen, J. J. A., Luhmann, M., Chung, J. M., and Bleidorn, W. (2018). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 116, 612–633. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000196

Denissen, J. J. A., van Aken, M. A., Penke, L., and Wood, D. (2013). Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: an integrative developmental framework. Child Dev. Perspect. 7, 255–260. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12050

Depue, R. A., and Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 491–569. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99002046

Donnellan, M., Oswald, F., Baird, B., and Lucas, R. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 18, 192–203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature : promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. Am. Psychol. 67, 614–622. doi: 10.1037/a0029783

Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychol. Rev. 124, 689–719. doi: 10.1037/rev0000082

Dweck, C. S., and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol. Rev. 95, 256–273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the Big-Five factor structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

Headey, B., and Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: toward a dynamic equilibrium model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 731–739

Heslin, P., and Vandewalle, D. (2008). Managers' implicit assumptions about personnel. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 17, 219–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00578.x

Hopson, B., and Adams, J. (1976). “Towards an understanding of transition: defining some boundaries of transition dynamics,” in Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Change , eds J. Adams, J. Hayes, and B. Hopson (London: Martin Robertson), 3–25.

Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equat. Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Briley, D. A., and Chopik, W. J. (2020). Your personality does not care whether you believe it can change: beliefs about whether personality can change do not predict trait change among emerging adults. Euro. J. Pers. 35, 340–357. doi: 10.1002/per.2289

Johnson, J. (1997). “Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality,” in Handbook of Personality Psychology , eds R. Hogan and S. Briggs (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 73–93. doi: 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50004-4

Jonkmann, K., Thoemmes, F., Lüdtke, O., and Trautwein, U. (2014). Personality traits and living arrangements in young adulthood, selection and socialization. Dev. Psychol. 50, 683–698. doi: 10.1037/a0034239

Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., and Rosseel, Y. (2018). semTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling. R Package Version 0.5-1 . Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C. O., and Prescott, C. A. (2003). Personality and the experience of environmental adversity. Psychol. Med. 33, 1193–1202. doi: 10.1017/s0033291703008298

Kray, L. J., and Haselhuhn, M. P. (2007). Implicit negotiation beliefs and performance: experimental and longitudinal evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 49–64. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.49

Lehnart, J., Neyer, F. J., and Eccles, J. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: the case of partnering in young adulthood. J. Pers. 78, 639–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x

Little, T., Preacher, K., Selig, J. P., and Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 31, 357–365. doi: 10.1177/0165025407077757

Löckenhoff, C., Terracciano, A., Patriciu, N., Eaton, W., and Costa, P. (2009). Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in five-factor model personality traits in an urban sample. J. Trauma. Stress 22, 53–59. doi: 10.1002/jts.20385

Lucas, R. E., and Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 847–861. doi: 10.1037/a0024298

Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., and Nagy, G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 620–637. doi: 10.1037/a0023743

Luhmann, M., Fassbender, I., Alcock, M., and Haehner, P. (2020). A dimensional taxonomyof perceived characteristics of major life events. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . doi: 10.1037/pspp0000291

Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., and Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 592–615. doi: 10.1037/a0025948

Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Specht, J., Kandler, C., and Lucas, R. E. (2014). Studying changes in life circumstances and personality: it's about time. Eur. J. Pers. 28, 256–266. doi: 10.1002/per.1951

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., and Cai, L. (2006). Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychol. Methods 11, 19–35. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.19

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., and Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 1046–1053. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.1046

Maier-Diewald, W., Wittchen, H.-U., Hecht, H., and Werner-Eilert, K. (1983). Die Münchner Ereignisliste (MEL) - Anwendungsmanual . München: Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Klinische Psychologie und Epidemiologie.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., and Grayson, D. (2005). “Goodness of fit in structural equation models,” in Multivariate Applications Book Series. Contemporary Psychometrics: A Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald , eds A. Maydeu-Olivares and J. J. McArdle (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 275–340.

McArdle, J. J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., and Woodcock, R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Dev. Psychol. 38, 115–142. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115

McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. Jr. (1999). “A Five-Factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , eds L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 139–153.

Mussel, P. (2012). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 453–472. doi: 10.1002/job.1809

Newsom, J. T. (2015). Multivariate Applications Series. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction . New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Niehoff, E., Petersdotter, L., and Freund, P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five. Pers. Individ. Dif. 112, 55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043

Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., and Luciano, E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 144, 1045–1080. doi: 10.1037/bul0000161

Pusch, S., Mund, M., Hagemeyer, B., Finn, C., and Wrzus, C. (2018). Personality development in emerging and young adulthood: a study of age differences. Eur. J. Pers. 33, 245–263. doi: 10.1002/per.2181

R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org

Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., and Martin, S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: going beyond simple effects. J. Res. Pers. 62, 39–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., and Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: towards a better understanding of psychological situations. Eur. J. Pers. 29, 363–381. doi: 10.1002/per.1994

Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: personality and assessment and personality development. J. Res. Pers. 43, 137–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015

Roberts, B. W., and DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 126, 3–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

Roberts, B. W., and Jackson, J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology. J. Pers. 76, 1523–1544. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x

Roberts, B. W., and Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 31–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., and Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta- analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 132, 1–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., and Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. J. Res. Pers. 39, 166–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH (2005). TakeFive . Unpublished test.

Saeed, G., Oshio, A., Taku, K., and Hirano, M. (2018). Resilience and big five personality traits: a meta-analysis. Pers. Individ. Dif. 127, 54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048

Schroder, H. S., Yalch, M. M., Dawood, S., Callahan, C. P., Donnellan, M. B., and Moser, J. S. (2017). Growth mindset of anxiety buffers the link between stressful life events and psychological distress and coping strategies. Pers. Individ. Dif. 110, 23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.016

Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., and Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychol. Sci. 29, 549–571. doi: 10.1177/0956797617739704

Specht, J., Egloff, B., and Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: the impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 862–882. doi: 10.1037/a0024950

Wagner, J., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., and Kandler, C. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29, 438–444. doi: 10.1177/0963721420924751

Wrzus, C., and Roberts, B. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: the TESSERA framework. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21, 253–277. doi: 10.1177/1088868316652279

Yeager, D., and Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educ. Psychol . 47, 302–314. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., et al. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature 573, 364–369. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y

Ziegler, M., Cengia, A., Mussel, P., and Gerstorf, D. (2015). Openness as a buffer against cognitive decline: the Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model applied to late adulthood. Psychol. Aging 30, 573–588. doi: 10.1037/a0039493

Keywords: personality development, life events, big five, mindset, emerging adulthood

Citation: De Vries JH, Spengler M, Frintrup A and Mussel P (2021) Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of Life Events and Mindset Affect Personality Trait Change. Front. Psychol. 12:671421. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671421

Received: 23 February 2021; Accepted: 11 May 2021; Published: 10 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 De Vries, Spengler, Frintrup and Mussel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jantje Hinrika De Vries, jantje.de.vries@fu-berlin.de

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

IMAGES

Social and Personality Development in Early Adulthood Chapter
(PDF) Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception
Chapter 14
PPT
PPT
PPT

VIDEO

Research first before supporting any personality
Will aging change one's personality? #fisforfamily #series #shorts
Unlocking the Allure: The Psychology Behind Younger Women's Attraction to Older Men"
How Childhood Shapes Our Future: From Trauma to Transformation
6 Successful Science Studies In Epigenetic Rejuvenation
Crisis of Adulthood: Young as Avoidant Revolutionaries

COMMENTS

Stability and Change in the Big Five Personality Traits: Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Mexican-Origin Adults
Decades of research have been dedicated to understanding how personality changes across the lifespan, and there seems to be a consensus that personality traits: (1) are both stable and changing, and (2) develop in socially-desirable ways over time (i.e., individuals increase on "positive" traits with age; McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts et al., 2006).
Life Events and Personality Change: A Systematic Review and Meta
Personality traits can be defined as broad patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011).Early empirical research on personality mainly focused on the structure, measurement, and consequences of traits (e.g., Digman, 1990).Stability and change in traits were less common topics, largely because traits were regarded as highly stable once people reach adulthood (McCrae ...
Personality change across the lifespan: Insights from a cross-cultural
To achieve this, we adopted a similar approach to the one used by Jokela and colleagues (2014) to create an equivalent unit of change when comparing panel studies of personality change. Because previous research on personality change suggests that it changes in a linear fashion over shorter (<10 years) intervals of time, we applied an ...
The growing evidence for personality change in adulthood: Findings from
The graphs suggest to us that change continues throughout adulthood and is sometimes largest in middle age or late life, but McCrae et al. (1999) emphasize that change is sharpest in young adulthood and slight in later periods of life. A point they emphasize is that because personality change with age is very similar across countries with ...
PDF Development of Personality in Early and Middle Adulthood: Set Like
A study of 132,515 adults found that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness increased, Neuroticism declined, and Openness showed mixed results across age groups. The results challenge the biological view of the five-factor theory, which predicts little or no change after early adulthood.
Personality Trait Change in Adulthood
First, most mean-level personality-trait change occurs between the ages of 20 and 40. This contradicts the widely held perspective that the most interesting years for studying personality development are either early or late in life. Rather, young adulthood appears to be the most important period.
Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like
The biological view of the Five-factor theory proposes the plaster hypothesis: All personality traits stop changing by age 30. In contrast, contextualist perspectives propose that changes should be more varied and should persist throughout adulthood. This study compared these perspectives in a large (N = 132,515) sample of adults aged 21-60 who ...
The process and mechanisms of personality change
Despite decades of research on personality change, there remain many open questions. ... The growing evidence for personality change in adulthood: findings from research with personality ...
What Accounts for Personality Maturation in Early Adulthood?
This article reviews the research on personality-trait development in early adulthood, a time of profound changes and social maturity. It compares two theoretical accounts: behavioral-genetic theory and social-investment theory, and discusses their implications and challenges.
Social expectations as a possible mechanism for adult personality
Social Investment Principle (SIP) suggests that social expectations drive personality changes in adulthood. ... Most existing research on personality development has been based on the Big ... These findings imply that high social expectations could be one of the sources guiding mean-level personality change in early adulthood. Similar findings ...
Development of Personality in Adulthood: A Behavioral Genetic
These findings support the transactional hypothesis of personality development (B. W. Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), which states that personality change occurs primarily through adaptation to new social roles; however, biological processes also play a role in personality change early in adulthood.
Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal
Past research syntheses provided evidence that personality traits are both stable and changeable throughout the life span. However, early meta-analytic estimates were constrained by a relatively small universe of longitudinal studies, many of which tracked personality traits in small samples over moderate time periods using measures that were only loosely related to contemporary trait models ...
Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict
Consistent with past research 33,34, our temperament assessments completed at an average age of 3.76 years lend support that personality can be measured early on in life and have predictive ...
Personality Trait Change in Adulthood
Recent longitudinal and cross-sectional aging research has shown that personality traits continue to change in adulthood. In this article, we review the evidence for mean-level change in personality traits, as well as for individual differences in change across the life span. In terms of mean-level change, people show increased self-confidence ...
Personality Trait Development in Adulthood
Personality traits refer to relatively enduring, automatic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that distinguish one person from another that are evoked in trait-relevant contexts. Contemporary research has shown that personality traits are both consistent over time and yet change systematically in adulthood.
Personality Development from Age 12 to 25 and its Links with Life
Although this theory mostly suggests that personality predicts life course changes, the FFT also proposes effects of life experiences on personality that occur on another layer of personality than the Big Five traits, namely at the level of characteristic adaptations. ... but results showed that change levelled off in early adulthood and was ...
Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of
Critical Life Events. Theory and research support the idea that personality can change as a result of intrinsic factors such as genetics and extrinsic factors such as the environment around us (Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017; Wagner et al., 2020).More specifically, there is ample evidence that personality is linked to certain external influences such as critical life events (e.g., Lüdtke et al ...
(PDF) Personality Trait Change in Adulthood
In terms of mean-level change, people show increased selfconfidence, warmth, self-control, and emotional stability with age. These changes predominate in young adulthood (age 20-40). Moreover ...
Personality Trait Change in Adulthood
This article reviews the evidence for mean-level change and individual differences in personality traits across the life span. It shows that personality traits continue to change in adulthood, especially in young adulthood, and that these changes are influenced by life experiences.
Can Personality Change?
Personality traits are relatively stable but not immutable. Learn how personality can change with age, life events, or intentional efforts, and what influences personality development.
Personality Development Across Adolescence and Young Adulthood: The
Therefore, the present study builds on the study by Borghuis et al. (2017) with four additional years of data, by examining personality development across a period of 14 years from early adolescence into young adulthood (i.e., from age 13 to 26), and by focusing on the role of transitions in personality development.
Differential personality change earlier and later in the coronavirus
Five-factor model personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) are thought to be relatively impervious to environmental demands in adulthood. The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented opportunity to examine whether personality changed during a stressful global event. Surprisingly, two previous studies found that neuroticism decreased early in ...
Frontiers
1 Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2 Division HR Diagnostics AG, Stuttgart, Germany; Personality changes throughout the life course and change is often caused by environmental influences, such as critical life events. In the present study, we investigate personality trait development in emerging adulthood as a result of ...

Development of Personality in Adulthood: A Behavioral Genetic Perspective

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Development of Personality Throughout the Life Cycle

Interpreting Behavior Genetic Models: Seven Developmental Processes to Understand

Molecular Genetic Investigations of Personality: From Candidate Genes to Genome-wide Associations

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict life outcomes

Similar content being viewed by others

Disentangling the personality pathways to well-being

Parental personality and early life ecology: a prospective cohort study from preconception to postpartum

The process and mechanisms of personality change

Does it matter when we assess personality?

Current study

Participants

Childhood temperament

Personality

Internalizing

Externalizing

Relationships and family

Education, career, and financial

Civic engagement

Control variables

Transparency and openness

Analysis plan

Childhood temperament predicting adult outcomes

Independent associations of childhood and adulthood personality for life outcomes

Predictive validity of temperament

Reasons for incremental predictive validity of temperament over personality

Limitations and conclusion

Data availability

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary Information

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Quick links

Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of Life Events and Mindset Affect Personality Trait Change

Maik Spengler

Andreas Frintrup

Introduction

Critical Life Events

The Perception of Life Events

The Moderating Role of Mindset

The Present Study

Sample and Procedure

Sample Attrition

Personality

Life Events

Statistical Analyses

Measurement invariance

Latent Change Score Models

Life Events and Perception of Life Events

Mean-Level Change

Limitations and Future Directions

Data Availability Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Supplementary Material

Personality Trait Change in Adulthood

Can Personality Change?