Content uploaded by Ulrich Orth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrich Orth on Jun 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Theory: State of the Art Review [Invited Paper]
Personality Trait Stability and Change
Wiebke Bleidorn1, Christopher J. Hopwood1, Mitja D. Back2,
Jaap J. A. Denissen3, Marie Hennecke4, Patrick L. Hill5, Markus Jokela6,
Christian Kandler7, Richard E. Lucas8, Maike Luhmann9, Ulrich Orth10 ,
Brent W. Roberts11 , Jenny Wagner12 , Cornelia Wrzus13 ,
Johannes Zimmermann14
[1] Department of Psychology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA. [2] Department of Psychology, University
of Münster, Münster, Germany. [3] Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
[4] Department of Psychology, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany. [5] Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. [6] Department of Psychology and Logopedics,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. [7] Department of Psychology, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
[8] Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. [9] Department of Psychology, Ruhr
University Bochum, Bochum, Germany. [10] Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
[11] Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA. [12] Department of Psychology, University of
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. [13] Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
[14] Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Personality Science, 2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009, https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Received: 2021-01-28 • Accepted: 2021-04-20 • Published (VoR): 2021-06-21
Handling Editor: John F. Rauthmann, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
Reviewing: Round 1 - David Funder; Anonymous #1. No open reviews are available
Corresponding Author: Wiebke Bleidorn, Department of Psychology, University of California Davis, One Shields
Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA. E-mail: wiebkebleidorn@gmail.com
Abstract
Personality traits continue to change throughout the lifespan. However, we still know little about
when, why, and how personality traits change. In this paper, we review the current state of
scientiic evidence regarding the nature, sources, and processes of personality trait stability and
change. We revisit past disputes over the relative importance of genetic and environmental
inluences, discuss studies on life events and personality trait development, and summarize theory
and research on personality change processes. In doing so, we derive general principles of
personality trait development, highlight limitations of past research, and present the broad outlines
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited.
for future research on personality trait development, with a particular emphasis on relevant
methodological issues and conceptual challenges.
Keywords
personality development, longitudinal, Big Five, lifespan, personality processes, traits
Relevance Statement
The power of personality traits in predicting consequential outcomes is well established.
The recognized importance of personality has raised questions about their malleability:
Given that traits predict important outcomes, can we shape or change them? Traditionally,
traits have been conceptualized as static entities that are dificult or even impossible to
change. For a long time, the view has led to a gridlock in research on personality change.
However, there now is robust evidence that personality traits are dynamic characteristics
that continue to change across the lifespan. Equipped with this evidence, we can now
begin to address questions about the stability and malleability of personality traits. In this
paper, we review research on the lifespan development of personality traits, highlight open
questions, and present the outlines for a novel framework for studying personality
development that aims to address the gaps identiied in the literature, with a particular
emphasis on relevant methodological complexities and conceptual challenges. In doing so,
we argue that progress in this ield will likely depend on more collaborative efforts of
researchers who join resources and expertise to study personality change in large-scale
longitudinal studies.
Key Insights
•Personality traits change in the direction of greater maturity.
•People differ in the rate, timing, and direction of personality trait change.
•Open questions remain about the speciic sources and processes underlying
personality trait change.
•Future directions include rigorous longitudinal studies of sources and processes
methods in diverse samples.
The power of personality traits in predicting consequential outcomes is well-established
(Roberts et al., 2007; Soto, 2021). People high in traits such as conscientiousness and emo
tional stability often fare better than those who score low in these traits across a wide
variety of life domains. However, researchers outside of personality psychology have
sometimes dismissed the importance of such indings because they often assumed that
personality traits are so stable that these associations provide very little practical insight
into how to improve people’s lives. If it is impossible to increase conscientiousness, what
good is it to know that having higher levels of conscientiousness would lead to better
outcomes?
Personality Development 2
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
A growing body of research now shows that the assumption that personality traits
cannot change is wrong. Personality traits continue to change throughout the lifespan
(Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Roberts et al., 2006), sometimes in response to environmen
tal changes (Bleidorn et al., 2018), including purposeful interventions (Roberts et al.,
2017). These indings provide a solid foundation on which researchers can develop their
understanding of the sources and processes underlying personality trait development.
However, we still know little about when, why, and how personality traits change. These
gaps can be traced back to both theoretical and methodological challenges associated
with the study of personality trait stability and change.
In this paper, we review the current state of evidence regarding the nature, sources,
and processes of stability and change in personality traits. In doing so, we aim to derive
general principles of trait development, highlight unanswered questions, and discuss
recommendations for future studies on personality trait development that aim to address
the gaps identiied in the literature, with a particular emphasis on methodological com
plexities and conceptual challenges. In doing so, we draw on ideas discussed in previous
papers by this group (Bleidorn et al., 2019; Bleidorn et al., 2020; Wagner et al., 2020) and
deine personality traits as relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, strivings,
and behaviors that distinguish individuals from each other (Allport, 1961). We organize
our review in reference to the Big Five – openness to experience, conscientiousness, ex
traversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism/emotional stability (John & Srivastava, 1999)
– which offer a useful structure to organize research on trait development while provid
ing a viable balance between conceptual breadth, descriptive idelity, and generalizability
across samples and measures (Costa et al., 2019). We note that there are traits that
cannot be easily placed in a Big Five structure (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2020) and, of course,
there is more to personality than traits. Recent handbooks on personality development
offer a more comprehensive perspective on the stability and change of other personality
constructs, such as life narratives, motives, and values (e.g., McAdams et al., 2018; Specht,
2017).
Why Should We Care About Personality Trait
Stability and Change?
Traditionally, the ield has emphasized the stable nature of traits (McCrae & Costa, 2008).
Part of this emphasis on stability can be traced back to claims that personality traits
are of little utility in predicting behavior which is better explained by stable situational
pressures. As a reaction to these claims, the ield of personality psychology focused large
efforts on showing that traits are stable and powerful predictors of a broad range of
important life outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Soto, 2021).
An unintended side effect of these efforts, however, was a relative neglect of research
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 3
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
on the more dynamic aspects of traits. This ultimately contributed to the common but
inaccurate belief that traits are static entities and, as such, practically unchangeable.
This belief is dificult to square with existing evidence. As we will describe below,
personality traits continue to change across the lifespan. Critically, recent research has
also demonstrated that people differ in their personality trajectories, and that such
differences are meaningfully related to change in various life domains. For example,
increases in conscientiousness and decreases in neuroticism have been associated with
improvements in mental health outcomes (Wright et al., 2015).
In sum, personality traits are suficiently broad and stable to predict a wide range of
important life outcomes, but also malleable enough to potentially serve as powerful yet
largely ignored targets for interventions (Bleidorn et al., 2019). The increased recognition
of personality traits as potential targets for interventions has spurred research on the
nature, sources, and processes of personality stability and change. With this evidence
at hand, we can now address important questions about the stability of and change in
personality traits.
What Do We Know About Personality Trait
Stability and Change?
There are different ways to frame and answer questions about personality trait devel
opment. Here, we focus on three speciic questions that are inherently connected to
different research designs and indices of change: How stable are personality traits? How
do traits develop across the lifespan? And, how do people differ in their personality
trajectories? Answers to each of these questions provide complementary but non-over
lapping information about personality stability and change.
How Stable are Personality Traits?
The stability of traits is often operationalized as rank-order stability and can be expressed
as test-retest correlation between two assessments, indicating the degree to which dif
ferences between people are stable over time. uestions about the rank-order stability
of traits are the heart of research on personality development as evidenced by multi
ple reviews and meta-analyses on this topic (e.g., Fraley & Roberts, 2005; Roberts &
DelVecchio, 2000). These works converge on three broad conclusions.
First, personality traits are moderately stable over time with rank-order stabilities
ranging between .4 to .6 over 10-year time lags, and decreasing rank-order stabilities
over longer time lags (Fraley & Roberts, 2005). Despite time-related decreases, recent
research supports the stability of traits even at very long intervals. For instance, Damian
et al. (2019) found the rank-order stabilities of self-reported personality traits to lie
around .2 across 30 or more years. A second inding to emerge from this literature is that
Personality Development 4
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
personality traits increase in rank-order stability over the course of young and middle
adulthood, and peak around age 60, suggesting that traits are most prone to change in
young and potentially also old adulthood (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011). Third, the levels of
rank-order stability never reach unity (even after controlling for rater speciicity and ran
dom measurement error; Kandler et al., 2010), suggesting lifelong plasticity of personality
traits. In other words, personality traits can and do change at any age throughout the
lifespan.
In summary, the literature on rank-order stability provides strong evidence that indi
vidual differences in personality traits are stable across many decades. Stability is highest
during middle adulthood and relatively lower during young adulthood and potentially
also old age. Notably, stability is only modest over longer intervals, leaving room for
personality trait change throughout the lifespan.
How Do Personality Traits Develop Across the Lifespan?
Evidence for the stability of traits provides an important but incomplete perspective on
personality development. A complementary question concerns the mean-level change of
traits in a population. Mean-level change can be expressed as standardized mean-level
difference across time or age groups and relects the degree to which trait levels decrease
or increase among all people in a population, on average.
A large body of research provided converging evidence that personality traits under
go substantial mean-level changes throughout the lifespan, particularly during young
adulthood (Roberts et al., 2006). Speciically, young adults tend to increase in trait levels
that relect greater psychological maturity such as emotional stability, conscientiousness,
and agreeableness. This pattern has been referred to as the maturity principle of person
ality development and found to generalize across cohorts, genders, and, to a certain
degree, also across samples from different cultures (Bleidorn et al., 2013; Bleidorn et al.,
2019).
Over the past decade, a burgeoning literature has focused on personality trait devel
opment in adolescence. Results from this body of work indicated a temporary dip in
socially relevant traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness during
adolescence (Denissen et al., 2013; Soto, 2016). This trend – often referred to as disrup
tion hypothesis – has been replicated in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies using
both self-reports and parents’ reports (Soto & Tackett, 2015).
In contrast to the budding literatures on personality trait development in adolescence
and young adulthood, considerably fewer studies have examined samples of middle-aged
and older adults. Although the period from middle age onwards is characterized by more
stability than earlier life stages, there is growing evidence that personality traits continue
to develop throughout these life stages (e.g., Kandler et al., 2015). Some – but not all – of
these studies suggest that the personality maturation trends that characterize young and
middle adulthood are reversed in late adulthood, as indicated by mean-level decreases
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 5
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
in emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness that appear to
occur during very old age (Graham et al., 2020; Mõttus et al., 2012).
How Much Do People Differ in Their Personality Trait
Development?
Not everyone changes in the same direction or to the same degree. uestions about indi
vidual differences in change focus on how individuals’ personality trajectories conform
to vs. deviate from the overall population trends of mean-level change. For instance,
although most people increase in levels of conscientiousness during the transition from
adolescence to early adulthood, some individuals remain stable or even report signiicant
decreases in this trait domain (Schwaba & Bleidorn, 2018). A reliable assessment of
individual differences in change is a necessary condition for studying the correlates and
causes of development.
Although meta-analytic evidence is lacking, there is robust evidence from large-scale
population-based studies for substantial individual differences in change throughout the
lifespan and across trait domains (Graham et al., 2020). As with rank-order and mean
level change, individual differences in personality trait change appear to be most pro
nounced during young adulthood (Schwaba & Bleidorn, 2018) providing further support
for theories that consider this life stage as a critical period for personality development
(Bleidorn et al., 2020).
Summary
The large and growing body of research on personality trait stability and change has
shown that a) traits generally increase in rank-order stability, b) trait levels can and do
change at any age throughout the lifespan, with c) young adulthood is a particularly
important time for personality trait change. There is further robust evidence that d)
the average person’s personality traits change in the direction of greater psychological
maturity across adulthood and that e) people differ in the rate, timing, and direction of
trait change. Taken together, these indings paint a clear picture of personality traits as
dynamic characteristics of persons that are both moderately stable and malleable across
the lifespan.
Lingering Questions About Personality Trait
Development
In contrast to the broad consensus regarding the nature of personality trait development,
we still know little about the sources that contribute to stability and change in personal
ity traits and even less about the process underlying such changes (Specht et al., 2014;
Wagner et al., 2020). In this section, we review theory and existing research on potential
Personality Development 6
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
sources of personality trait development, discuss process models of personality trait
change, and highlight limitations and open questions in these lines of research.
What Drives Personality Trait Stability and Change?
Historically, the ield has vacillated between positions that emphasized the importance of
either genetic or environmental inluences on personality trait stability and change. Dur
ing the past two decades, several longitudinal behavioral genetic studies have tested the
role of genetic and environmental inluences on individual differences in personality trait
stability and change (Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2014). The accumulated evidence converges
on the conclusion that both genetic and environmental inluences contribute to both
stability and change in personality traits. Yet, little is known about the speciic genetic
pathways or the speciic environmental sources that underlying stability and change in
personality traits (Wagner et al., 2020).
Large-scale genome-wide association studies have not led to the much-hoped for
breakthroughs in our understanding of the genetic foundations of personality trait devel
opment. Rather, this line of work highlighted that any effects of single gene variants are
extremely small and likely depend on other genetic effects as well as the environment
in which they are expressed. Similarly, the effects of environmental experiences (e.g.,
speciic life events) tend to be small and notoriously dificult to replicate (Bleidorn et al.,
2020).
A large body of research has focused on the potential effects of life events on person
ality trait change. Overall, this literature yielded mixed results with the most cohesive
indings emerging for two life events that typically occur in young adulthood (Bleidorn
et al., 2018). First, research consistently inds that the irst romantic relationship is rela
ted to increases in emotional stability and extraversion (Neyer & Lehnart, 2007; Wagner
et al., 2015). Second, the transition from school to college or work has been repeatedly
associated with increases in agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and decreases in
neuroticism (Bleidorn, 2012; Lüdtke et al., 2011). Evidence for the impact of other major
life events, such as marriage or retirement, is less consistent and even the literature on
major traumatic events provides no consistent evidence for effects on personality trait
change (Mangelsdorf et al., 2019). For example, many might consider the birth of the
irst child as a turning point or transformational experience with a potential to interrupt,
redirect, and change priorities and personalities of the parents. However, evidence for the
effects of parenthood on personality trait change is more mixed than one would expect
given the psychological importance of this life transition. Indeed, prospective studies that
compared new parents’ Big Five trajectories with those of relevant comparison groups
found little evidence for effects of parenthood on Big Five personality trait change
(Denissen et al., 2019; van Scheppingen et al., 2016).
The mixed evidence for main effects of life events on personality trait change may
partly relect methodological complexities that we will lay out in more detail below.
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 7
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
More importantly, however, we believe and have recently argued that the focus on main
effects of single, isolated life events on personality trait change is problematic. The
implicit assumption that life events would provoke the same trait changes in most people
– independent of their particular psychological background, environmental context, and
life circumstances – may be too simpliied, as it neglects important complexities in
the ways people’s life trajectories unfold in the context of environmental experiences
(Bleidorn et al., 2020). Many life events, such as marriage and divorce, are correlated and
tend to occur in predictable sequences. An isolated focus on individual life events is thus
dificult to achieve and possibly misleading (Luhmann et al., 2020). Moreover, the same
life events may elicit different responses in different people and at different timescales
depending on people’s contextual and psychological situation. Indeed, there is growing
evidence that the degree to which life events elicit changes in people’s personality traits
varies from person to person (Denissen et al., 2019).
In summary, there is overall agreement that both genetic and environmental factors
contribute to stability and change in personality traits. However, questions concerning
the inluence of speciic genes or environments remain largely unanswered. Theory and
research have yet to account for the complex ways in which persons and environments
interact to produce stable or changing patterns of thoughts, feelings, strivings, and
behavior. These interactions should be speciied in evidence-based integrative models of
genetic and environmental sources of personality trait development (Wagner et al., 2020).
How Do Personality Trait Changes Unfold?
Knowledge about the processes by which personality traits change is critical for an
understanding of personality trait development. Several theoretical frameworks have
begun to address this question, all of which deine personality processes as a series of
interconnected steps through which a person’s traits are either changed or stabilized
(e.g., Baumert et al., 2017; Geukes et al., 2018; Hennecke et al., 2014; Wrzus & Roberts,
2017). These accounts differ in their emphasis on different aspects of personality change
processes; however, they all rest on the distinction between latent personality traits
and their manifestations, often referred to as states. The expression of new or modiied
personality-relevant states, if suficiently repeated, is thought to condense into habits,
generalize across domains, and eventually lead to lasting trait changes (Bleidorn et al.,
2020). This kind of process can be explicit or implicit. For instance, many people desire
to be more conscientious (Hudson & Fraley, 2015), and some people may actually be able
to effectively change their momentary state levels of thoughts, feelings, strivings, and
behaviors that are relevant for conscientiousness. Over time, consistently modiied emo
tional, behavioral, motivational or cognitive states may turn into habits and generalize
to a broader range of situations. Such volitional changes in different personality state
modalities (i.e., thoughts, behaviors, strivings, and feelings) may reinforce each other in a
corresponsive fashion, which may eventually lead to lasting trait changes.
Personality Development 8
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Although research on personality processes is lourishing (e.g., Back, in press), this
work needs to be better connected with longitudinal research on personality trait de
velopment (Geukes et al., 2018; Wrzus & Roberts, 2017). One reason for the scarcity
of longitudinal research on personality change processes is that personality process
research is cost- and data-intensive. Rigorous process studies require frequent or even
continuous assessments of people’s thoughts, feelings, strivings, and behaviors over long
periods of time and/or in response to theoretically relevant triggering situations.
New Directions in Research on Personality Trait
Stability and Change
The ield has made important progress in describing personality trait stability and
change across the lifespan. However, several questions about the sources and processes
of personality trait development remain. New theoretical advances and collaborative
research efforts will be critical to move the ield forward towards a better understanding
of the mechanics of personality trait development. We envision a paradigmatic shift
towards more collaborative research with teams of investigators who join expertise,
skills, and resources in order to address the next generation of research questions about
personality trait development. As we will outline next, we see the most pressing ques
tions in four areas of research – time, samples, measures, and causality.
Time
At what time scale do personality trait changes unfold? What is the normative rate of
change across the lifespan? And how long does it take for trait changes to manifest in
response to life experiences? Answers to these and related questions are critical for a
better understanding of the process of personality trait development.
Ideally, the number, frequency, and timing of assessments in studies about personality
trait development should be closely matched to a well-speciied theory about the process
underlying development (Hopwood et al., in press). These parameters would, in turn,
constrain the types of analyses that can be conducted and the inferences that can be
drawn from the data (Luhmann et al., 2014). However, personality scientists often face
less than ideal conditions when working with existing longitudinal data or designing
new longitudinal studies. Indeed, it is common practice to analyze existing longitudinal
data that were not necessarily collected with research questions about personality trait
development in mind (e.g., Graham et al., 2020). Many longitudinal studies are designed
under the assumption that personality traits are highly stable and thus include relatively
few personality assessments that are often too widely spaced to allow researchers to
study personality change with the necessary temporal resolution (Bleidorn et al., 2020).
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 9
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Likewise, theories of personality trait development are often not suficiently devel
oped to make exact predictions about longitudinal processes. In the absence of strong
theories about the process of personality change, a better understanding of the rate and
timing of personality change can only be achieved through longitudinal studies that
include multiple assessments of personality, personality-relevant states (i.e., experiences
and behaviors in the moment), and outcomes at different frequencies. Given that we
know very little about when and how changes in traits unfold, longitudinal studies with
more frequent – or even continuous – assessments with suficiently short lags between
assessments are needed to learn more about the pace and timing of personality trait
change (Luhmann et al., 2014).
A high temporal resolution of assessments may be particularly important during
periods when trait change is anticipated, for example during major life transitions or in
the context of an intervention study (Bleidorn et al., 2020). A viable strategy to increase
the frequency of assessments during such periods is the inclusion of measurement burst
periods into longitudinal designs (Wrzus & Mehl, 2015). For example, researchers interes
ted in personality trait change in romantic relationships may time their assessments in
reference to theoretically relevant events, such as marriage or parenthood, or in response
to certain recurring experiences such as marital conlicts or daily hassles.
But what if such studies are not feasible? Alternatively, or in addition to collecting
new data, researchers can use analytic approaches to explicitly model the timing of
personality trait change. For example, continuous time models (Voelkle et al., 2012) show
some promise for testing how the direction and strength of within-person associations
between personality states and traits vary as a function of differing time intervals (e.g.,
over days, weeks, months, years, decades).
Samples
How generalizable are indings about personality trait development? The vast majority
of studies on personality trait development has utilized data collected in Western, edu
cated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al., 2010) countries in
Western Europe and North America, and may thus not generalize to other populations.
Very few studies have explored cultural differences in personality trait development (e.g.,
Bleidorn et al., 2013); and these studies have typically used cross-sectional designs to
examine age differences in trait scores. However, a systematic examination of cultural
differences in personality trait development has yet to be done. Such an analysis would
not only be a crucial test of the generalizability of existing indings but would also pro
vide important information about universal and culture-speciic mechanisms underlying
stability and change in personality traits.
A key challenge for such studies is the cross-cultural assessment of personality traits.
Traditionally, personality assessment methods were developed and standardized exclu
sively in WEIRD samples. In many cases, these methods are not optimal in non-WEIRD
Personality Development 10
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
settings because of different communication and privacy mores, familiarity with ques
tionnaires, and issues related to language (Thalmayer & Saucier, 2014). However, recent
research efforts have broken ground in assessing personality differences in non-WEIRD
countries (Thalmayer et al., 2020). So far, these works have relied on cross-sectional
designs. Longitudinal studies are needed to track personality trait changes in samples
from non-WEIRD cultures.
Measurement
Can we detect personality trait change in measures other than self-report? Self-report
measures dominate research on personality traits. A broader set of tools for assessing
personality differences and potential environmental inluences across various timescales
will be critical for moving the ield forward towards a more comprehensive understand
ing of the sources and processes of personality trait stability and change (Bleidorn et
al., 2020). We highlight three pressing issues that need to be addressed to advance the
measurement of personality trait development.
First, the over-reliance on self-report measures limits the conclusions that can be
drawn from existing research on personality stability and change (Back & Egloff, 2009).
In addition to the general limitations of monomethod research, there are several issues
that speciically compromise the assessment of personality trait change using self-report
questionnaires. Virtually all personality trait measures have been developed in cross-sec
tional data to capture the (presumably stable) structure of individual differences. We
know little about the suitability of these measures for capturing the structure of intra
individual changes, or to measure personality processes (Horstmann & Ziegler, 2020).
Moreover, to the degree that people systematically compare their behavior to those
of certain reference groups when processing self-report items (e.g., younger vs. older
people), researchers may over- or underestimate change in personality traits (Credé et
al., 2010). Longitudinal multi-trait multi-method studies are needed to address questions
about validity and generalizability of existing longitudinal self-report indings. In addi
tion to probing the convergent validity of measures of personality trait change, the
observation of discrepancies between different assessment methods may lead to new
insights regarding the sources and processes of personality trait change.
Second, the ield lacks instruments that are explicitly tailored to the assessment of
different personality state modalities (e.g., emotional, behavioral, motivational, cognitive)
over time (Wrzus & Mehl, 2015; Zimmermann et al., 2019). Existing research has mostly
relied on broad self-report state measures; however, little research exists that tracked
momentary behaviors or more implicit mental states over longer periods of time. Recent
technological advancements such as mobile sensing and ambulatory assessment offer
promising avenues for such high-resolution state measures and should be used to track
changes along self-reported state changes (Bleidorn et al., 2020).
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 11
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
A third issue is the lack of validated measures of environmental inluences and life
events. In addition to assessing the relatively objective occurrence of events, it will be
important to capture people’s subjective experience of events (Luhmann et al., 2020;
Rauthmann et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2020). Some factors – such as valence or predict
ability – have been studied in isolation, but a more comprehensive perspective on the
psychological ingredients of life events and their role in personality trait development is
needed. Individuals’ subjective perceptions of events may yield critical information for
understanding when and how life experiences affect personality traits. Measuring these
perceptions in longitudinal samples alongside more objective measures of life events will
provide important insights into potential sources of individual differences in personality
trait change.
Causality
What causes personality trait change? As with most areas in personality science, correla
tional studies dominate research on personality trait development. Correlational – and
particularly longitudinal – studies have led to important insights about the stability
of and change in personality traits across the lifespan. However, as any single study
design, correlational studies – even if longitudinal – are limited in their ability to
inform questions about the causes of personality trait change (Schwaba et al., 2021;
VanderWeele & Ding, 2017). To address questions about causality, correlational studies
should be complemented by research designs that can strengthen causal conclusions,
such as randomized interventions and studies of natural experiments.
Intervention Designs
Between-person randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and intervention designs are rou
tinely used in clinical psychology and medical sciences to examine whether a certain
outcome variable can be changed through a speciic treatment protocol. Although few
studies have tested the effects of clinical interventions on change in personality traits
directly, many studies have assessed change in personality traits as a secondary outcome.
A recent meta-analysis of this literature suggests that clinical interventions can lead to
lasting changes in personality traits, sometimes substantially and rather quickly (Roberts
et al., 2017). In contrast to the rich literature on clinical interventions, research on
non-clinical personality interventions has only recently taken root in personality science.
This line of work – although still in its infancy – has found promising effects of vari
ous intervention techniques, including goal setting, behavioral activation, coaching, and
smartphone-based interventions (Bleidorn et al., 2019).
For example, research on volitional personality change has highlighted the role of
change goals, people’s desires to change speciic personality traits (Hudson & Fraley,
2015; Hudson et al., 2020). Indeed, Hudson et al. (2020) found that change goals predict
change in all Big Five traits. Change goals alone, however, may be necessary but not
Personality Development 12
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
suficient for achieving change. Recent intervention studies indicate that effective change
in trait levels requires people to actively engage in tasks and challenges that pull their
behavior in the direction of the desired trait levels (Hudson et al., 2019; Stieger et al.,
2021). Notably, these and other personality intervention studies have typically followed
participants over relatively short-time periods, ranging from 10 weeks to maximal 6
months. It thus remains an open question whether the observed changes relect a
temporary accentuation of trait levels as a result of the intervention or indeed lasting
changes that remain stable over longer periods of time. Long-term follow ups are needed
to examine and validate intervention protocols designed to target different traits in
different populations across longer time periods.
Natural Experiments
Natural experiments allow researchers to examine the effects of exogeneous shocks
– deined as unexpected or unpredictable events that are outside of the participants’
and researcher’s control – on psychological variables while ruling out third-variable or
reverse causality explanations (Akee et al., 2018). Major collective events such as natural
disasters (e.g., Damian et al., 2021) create natural experiments because they meet the
aforementioned criteria and affect many people at once. For example, recent studies have
begun to examine the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on changes in personality traits
and well-being (e.g., Sutin et al., 2020). Exploiting the unforeseen nature of the pandemic,
such studies examine differences in personality levels before and after the outbreak of
the pandemic to establish the causal effects of this crisis on personality trait change.
In another recent study, Schwaba et al. (2021) examined the effects of childhood lead
exposure on adult personality differences in a natural experiment. Using data from over
1.5 million people, they found that US and European residents who grew up in areas
with higher levels of atmospheric lead had less adaptive personality proiles in adulthood
(lower conscientiousness, lower agreeableness, and higher neuroticism). Crucially, reduc
tions of leaded gasoline in the US following the 1970 Clean Air Act corresponded with
regional increases in psychologically healthy personality traits, suggesting that even
low-level lead exposure may adversely impact personality traits.
Conclusion
Over the past few decades, research on personality trait development has pushed the
ield towards a better understanding of traits as both moderately stable and malleable
constructs that can and do change across the lifespan and in response to certain expe
riences. Open questions remain about the speciic sources that drive changes in traits
and little is known about the processes underlying such changes. We believe and have
recently argued (Bleidorn et al., 2019, 2020) that progress in the ield of personality trait
development requires more rigorous research designs featuring assessments of multiple
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 13
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
potential sources of change related to the person, their genes, and their environments;
large, diverse, and representative samples; speciic theoretical models of processes that
underlie personality change; frequent, multi-method assessments; and embedded exper
imental or burst designs targeting speciic mechanisms. The success of such studies
will depend on collaborative efforts of researchers who join resources and expertise.
Funding for such studies and their ultimate impact will also be more likely to the degree
that personality psychologists are able to join forces and publicize the importance of
personality trait change to a broader audience. In establishing the Personality Change
Consortium (PCC) – a consortium for the study of personality change – we aim to
promote such efforts and contribute to transformative personality research that advances
theory and public welfare.
Funding: The authors have no funding to report.
Acknowledgments: The authors have no additional (i.e., non-inancial) support to report.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Author Contributions: Wiebke Bleidorn—Idea, conceptualization | Writing. Christopher J. Hopwood—Feedback,
revisions. Mitja D. Back—Feedback, revisions. Jaap J. A. Denissen—Feedback, revisions. Marie Hennecke—Feedback,
revisions. Patrick L. Hill—Feedback, revisions. Markus Jokela—Feedback, revisions. Christian Kandler—Feedback,
revisions. Richard E. Lucas—Feedback, revisions. Maike Luhmann—Feedback, revisions. Ulrich Orth—Feedback,
revisions. Brent W. Roberts—Feedback, revisions. Jenny Wagner—Feedback, revisions. Cornelia Wrzus—Feedback,
revisions. Johannes Zimmermann—Feedback, revisions.
Ethics Statement: No ethical issues and/or ethics approvals need to be disclosed.
Related Versions: No other previously published versions of this manuscript exist in part or in whole.
Author Note: The authors are members of the Personality Change Consortium (PCC).
References
Akee, R., Copeland, W., Costello, E. J., & Simeonova, E. (2018). How does household income affect
child personality traits and behaviors? The American Economic Review, 108(3), 775-827.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160133
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2020). Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure—And
why those objections fail. European Journal of Personality, 34(4), 492-510.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2242
Back, M. D. (in press). Social interaction processes and personality. The handbook of personality
dynamics and processes, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evm4n
Personality Development 14
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Back, M. D., & Egloff, B. (2009). Yes we can! A plea for direct behavioral observation in personality
research. European Journal of Personality, 23, 403-405.
Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G., Borkenau, P., Costantini, G.,
Denissen, J. J. A., Fleeson, W., Grafton, B., Jayawickreme, E., Kurzius, E., MacLeod, C., Miller, L.
C., Read, S. J., Roberts, B., Robinson, M. D., Wood, D., & Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating
personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of
Personality, 31(5), 503-528. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2115
Bleidorn, W. (2012). Hitting the road to adulthood: Short-term personality development during a
major life transition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1594-1608.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212456707
Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., Jokela, M.,
Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., &
Roberts, B. W. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. The American Psychologist,
74(9), 1056-1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000503
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Jokela, M., Kandler, C.,
Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Roberts, B. W., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., & Zimmermann, J.
(2020). Longitudinal Experience-Wide Association Studies (LEWAS) - A framework for
studying personality change. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 285-300.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2247
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait change. Journal
of Personality, 86(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12286
Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013).
Personality maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of Social Investment
Theory. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2530-2540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396
Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality
development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1303-1331.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037091
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annual
Review of Psychology, 70(1), 423-448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244
Credé, M., Bashshur, M., & Niehorster, S. (2010). Reference group effects in the measurement of
personality and attitudes. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 390-399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497393
Damian, R. I., Serrano, S., & Hill, P. L. (2021). Hurricane exposure and personality development.
Journal of Personality, 89(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12542
Damian, R. I., Spengler, M., Sutu, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2019). Sixteen going on sixty-six: A
longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 117(3), 674-695. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000210
Denissen, J. J. A., Luhmann, M., Chung, J. M., & Bleidorn, W. (2019). Transactions between life
events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 116(4), 612-633. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000196
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 15
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Denissen, J. J., van Aken, M. A., Penke, L., & Wood, D. (2013). Self‐regulation underlies
temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Development
Perspectives, 7(4), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12050
Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for conceptualizing
the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course.
Psychological Review, 112(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.60
Geukes, K., van Zalk, M., & Back, M. D. (2018). Understanding personality development: An
integrative state process model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(1), 43-51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416677847
Graham, E. K., Weston, S. J., Gerstorf, D., Yoneda, T. B., Booth, T., Beam, C. R., Petkus, A. J.,
Drewelies, J., Hall, A. N., Bastarache, E. D., Estabrook, R., Katz, M. J., Turiano, N. A.,
Lindenberger, U., Smith, J., Wagner, G. G., Pedersen, N. L., Allemand, M., Spiro, A. III, Deeg, D.
J. H., Johansson, B., Piccinin, A. M., Lipton, R. B., Schaie, K. W., Willis, S., Reynolds, C. A.,
Deary, I. J., Hofer, S. M., & Mroczek, D. K. (2020). Trajectories of Big Five personality traits: A
coordinated analysis of 16 longitudinal samples. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 301-321.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2259
Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., & Wood, D. (2014). A three-part framework for self-
regulated personality development across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(3),
289-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1945
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, Article
29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., & Wright, A. G. C. (in press). Connecting theory to methods in
longitudinal research. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w5huz
Horstmann, K., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Assessing personality states: What to consider when
constructing personality state measures. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1037-1059.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2266
Hudson, N. W., Briley, D. A., Chopik, W. J., & Derringer, J. (2019). You have to follow through:
Attaining behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 117(4), 839-857. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000221
Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to
change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490-507.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021
Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Chopik, W. J., & Briley, D. A. (2020). Change goals robustly predict
trait growth: A mega-analysis of a dozen intensive longitudinal studies examining volitional
change. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 11(6), 723-732.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619878423
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). Guilford.
Personality Development 16
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
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. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 995-1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019558
Kandler, C., Kornadt, A. E., Hagemeyer, B., & Neyer, F. J. (2015). Patterns and sources of personality
development in old age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 175-191.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000028
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal
analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101(4), 847-861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024298
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.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 620-637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023743
Luhmann, M., Fassbender, I., Alcock, M., & Haehner, P. (2020). A dimensional taxonomy of
perceived characteristics of major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology;
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000291
Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Specht, J., Kandler, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Studying changes in life
circumstances and personality: It’s about time. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 256-266.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1951
Mangelsdorf, J., Eid, M., & Luhmann, M. (2019). Does growth require suffering? A systematic
review and meta-analysis on genuine posttraumatic and postecstatic growth. Psychological
Bulletin, 145(3), 302-338. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000173
McAdams, D. P., Shiner, R. L., & Tackett, J. L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of personality development.
Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins
& L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 1-58). Guilford
Press.
Mõttus, R., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Personality traits in old age: Measurement and rank-
order stability and some mean-level change. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 243-249.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023690
Neyer, F. J., & Lehnart, J. (2007). Relationships matter in personality development: Evidence from
an 8-year longitudinal study across young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 75(3), 535-568.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a
better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29(3), 363-381.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 17
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
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. 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. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4),
313-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of
personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117-141.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality
traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin,
132(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Schwaba, T., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Individual differences in personality change across the adult
lifespan. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 450-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12327
Schwaba, T., Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Rentfow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D.
(2021). The impact of childhood lead exposure on adult personality: Evidence from the US, Europe,
and a large-scale natural experiment [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Soto, C. J. (2016). The Little Six personality dimensions from early childhood to early adulthood:
Mean-level age and gender differences in parents’ reports. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 409-422.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12168
Soto, C. J. (2021). Do links between personality and life outcomes generalize? Testing the
robustness of trait–outcome associations across gender, age, ethnicity, and analytic approaches.
Social Psychological & Personality Science, 12(1), 118-130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900572
Soto, C. J., & Tackett, J. L. (2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure,
development, and outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 358-362.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415589345
Specht, J. (Ed.). (2017). Personality development across the lifespan. Academic Press.
Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., Luhmann, M.,
Orth, U., Reitz, A., & Zimmermann, J. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A
comparison of theories and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 216-230.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1966
Stieger, M., Flückiger, C., Rüegger, D., Kowatsch, T., Roberts, B. W., & Allemand, M. (2021).
Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(8), Article
e2017548118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017548118
Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., Aschwanden, D., Lee, J. H., Sesker, A. A., Strickhouser, J. E., Stephan, Y., &
Terracciano, A. (2020). Change in ive-factor model personality traits during the acute phase of
Personality Development 18
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
the coronavirus pandemic. PLOS ONE, 15(8), Article e0237056.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237056
Thalmayer, A. G., & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire big six in 26 nations: Developing cross‐
culturally applicable big six, big ive and big two inventories. European Journal of Personality,
28(5), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1969
Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., Ole-Kotikash, L., & Payne, D. (2020). Personality structure in east and
west Africa: Lexical studies of personality in Maa and Supyire-Senufo. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology; Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000264
VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the
E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607
van Scheppingen, M. A., Jackson, J. J., Specht, J., Hutteman, R., Denissen, J. J. A., & Bleidorn, W.
(2016). Personality trait development during the transition to parenthood: A test of social
investment theory. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7(5), 452-462.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616630032
Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H. L., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2012). An SEM approach to continuous
time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia. Psychological Methods,
17(2), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027543
Wagner, J., Becker, M., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2015). The irst partnership experience and
personality development: A propensity score matching study in young adulthood. Social
Psychological & Personality Science, 6(4), 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614566092
Wagner, J., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C., & Kandler, C. (2020). Towards an integrative model
of sources of personality stability and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5),
438-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420924751
Wright, A. G. C., Hopwood, C. J., & Zanarini, M. C. (2015). Associations between changes in normal
personality traits and borderline personality disorder symptoms over 16 years. Personality
Disorders, 6(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000092
Wrzus, C., & Mehl, M. R. (2015). Lab and/or ield? Measuring personality processes and their social
consequences. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 250-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1986
Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The
TESSERA framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 253-277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316652279
Zimmermann, J., Woods, W. C., Ritter, S., Happel, M., Masuhr, O., Jaeger, U., Spitzer, C., & Wright,
A. G. C. (2019). Integrating structure and dynamics in personality assessment: First steps
toward the development and validation of a Personality Dynamics Diary. Psychological
Assessment, 31(4), 516-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000625
Bleidorn, Hopwood, Back et al. 19
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
Personality Science (PS) is an
oficial journal of the European
Association of Personality
Psychology (EAPP).
PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing
service by Leibniz Institute for
Psychology (ZPID), Germany.
Personality Development 20
Personality Science
2021, Vol. 2, Article e6009
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6009
