assignment

night nurse

articlepsy330.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >assignment

Short Review

Stability of Personality Traits in Adulthood

Mechanisms and Implications

Mathias Allemand1, Andrea E. Steiger1, and Patrick L. Hill2

1University of Zurich, Switzerland, 2Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

GeroPsych, 26 (1), 2013, 5–13

DOI 10.1024/1662-9647/a000080

Abstract. Stability represents a fundamental concept in developmental theory and research. In this article we give an overview of recent work on personality traits and their stability in adulthood. First, we define personality traits and stability. Second, we present empirical evidence supporting change and stability of personality traits across the adult years with respect to conceptually and statistically different forms of stability. Third, we describe mechanisms and processes that enable trait stability. Finally, we discuss implications of trait stability for theory, research, and application.

Keywords: personality, traits, stability, change, adulthood

Introduction

This article gives an overview of recent work on personal- ity trait stability in adulthood. Understanding personality traits and their stability is important for several reasons. First, research demonstrates the ability of personality traits to predict a variety of important life outcomes such as mor- tality, divorce, and occupational attainment (Roberts, Kun- cel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Therefore, under- standing stability may be essential in such areas as main- taining health and success in work and marriage. Second, because stability of behavior is an important manifestation of personality, identifying mechanisms of stability and con- ditions under which stability is most pronounced is an im- portant way to understand personality itself (Gallagher, Fleeson, & Hoyle, 2011). Third, understanding stability is important for the assessment of personality traits over time, as an adequate use of time intervals is needed to accurately capture systematic trait development. Fourth, interventions to change behavior are more effective when based on an accurate account of the stability of traits. Knowledge of the circumstances under which trait behaviors are more or less likely makes changing them easier.

The first part of this article refers to the definition of personality traits and stability. In the second part we briefly describe current research on trait stability in adulthood. In the third part, we discuss some mechanisms that might be responsible for trait stability and describe some conditions and processes related to the maintenance of stability. In the

last part of this article, we discuss potential implications of trait stability and then suggest some ideas for future re- search. Whereas most previous reviews tend to describe personality trait development with a focus on change (e.g., Allemand & Lehmann, 2012; Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; McAdams & Olson, 2010; Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008), this article places a greater emphasis on stability of traits and processes underlying stability. It also differs from previous reviews by using a slightly different categoriza- tion of stability. Finally, in clear contrast to other reviews, we suggest some specific ideas about intervening on per- sonality stability.

Definition of Personality Traits and Stability

Personality traits are defined as relatively enduring patterns of behavior, thought, and feeling that are relatively consis- tent across a wide variety of situations and contexts (Rob- erts, 2009). Traits describe the most basic and general di- mensions upon which individuals are typically perceived to differ. These individual differences are often organized within the conceptual framework of the Big Five (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008) or Five-Factor Model (McCrae & Costa, 2008) and include five broad traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Briefly, neuroticism, or conversely,

emotional stability, contrasts even-temperedness with the experience of anxiety, worry, anger, and depression. Extra- version refers to individual differences in the propensity to be sociable, active, assertive, and to experience positive affect. Openness to experience refers to individual differ- ences in the proneness to be original, complex, creative, and open to new ideas. Agreeableness refers to traits that reflect individual differences in the propensity to be altru- istic, trusting, modest, and warm. Finally, conscientious- ness reflects the propensity to be self-controlled, task- and goal-directed, planful, and rule following.

In general, personality traits are thought to be relatively stable over time, and thus they are not assumed to change at a rapid rate but rather reflect slow processes (Roberts & Jackson, 2008). Unlike traits, states reflect dynamic pro- cesses of personality that show temporary changes in re- sponse to internal aspects such as motives and goals and external situations such as stress in a given situation (Flee- son, 2001; Hooker & McAdams, 2003). States reflect the ways how individuals think, feel, or behave in a given sit- uation. They are transient and involve change and variabil- ity over short periods of time. In other words, a person with a high average level of emotional stability may still dem- onstrate a different behavior in a given situation such as on a day when he or she faces a difficult challenge. Typically though, an individual thinks, feels, or behaves consistent with that person’s average standing on the trait-level. We come back to the discussion of states later in this article when discussing mechanisms of stability. In sum, person- ality traits are conceptualized as enduring tendencies to be- have, think, and feel, whereas states reflect temporary changes in behavior, cognition, and emotions.

Stability is defined in several ways. For this article we focus on five conceptually and statistically different forms of stability (see Caspi, 1998; Caspi & Roberts, 2001 for other forms). First, mean-level stability implies that the av- erage level of a personality trait remain stable over time and/or across different ages. Second, differential or rank- order stability implies that individuals maintain their rela- tive standing on a trait dimension relative to others over time. Third, stability of the variance implies that individual differences in a trait dimension remain stable over time and/or across different ages, even though the mean levels and rank orders are unstable. Fourth, structural stability re- fers to the stability of the patterns of covariation among traits, or items on a personality scale. High structural sta- bility implies that the associations between the traits are stable over time and/or across different ages. Fifth, individ- ual differences in stability refer to the fact that although the average level of a personality trait remains stable over time, not every individual demonstrates the same amount of sta- bility. Some individuals may increase, whereas others de- crease over time. This perspective holds that personality stability is itself an individual-differences variable. In sum, there are several conceptually and statistically distinct ways of framing and answering questions about the stabil- ity of personality traits.

Stability of Personality Traits

Empirical evidence suggests that both change and stability describe personality trait development across adulthood depending partly on the form of stability one considers (Caspi & Roberts, 2001; Roberts et al., 2008). Empirical evidence for personality trait change in adulthood comes from findings with respect to mean-levels and individual differences in development (e.g., Allemand, Zimprich, & Hendriks, 2008; Donnellan & Lucas, 2008; Lehmann, De- nissen, Allemand, & Penke, in press; Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan, in press). For exam- ple, in a very large cross-sectional sample of Internet users aged 10 to 65 years (N = 1,267,218), Soto, John, Gosling, and Potter (2011) found positive trends for mean levels of agreeableness and the self-discipline facet of conscien- tiousness. Neuroticism showed negative age trends across early adulthood and middle age, while extraversion dem- onstrated a small negative association during emerging adulthood and a relatively flat trend from young adulthood through middle age. Analysis of openness to experience revealed a positive age trend in mean levels across emerg- ing adulthood that decelerates in middle age. A compre- hensive meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies dem- onstrates systematic age-related mean-level changes in per- sonality traits at various ages across adulthood (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). The big picture that evi- denced from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on stability of the Big Five indicates that individuals tend to become more agreeable and conscientious and less neurot- ic with age. Whereas extraversion is rather stable in adult- hood, openness to experience tends to increase in early adulthood and shows moderate decreases in older age. Compared to younger ages, less is known about personality development in old and very old age. Available findings, however, suggest that personality trait development contin- ues in old age (e.g., Allemand, Zimprich, & Martin, 2008; Mõttus, Johnson, & Deary, 2012). In general, personality changes are small in magnitude with respect to specific age periods. However, most of the Big Five traits demonstrated changes close to one SD across the lifespan, which is typ- ically considered as a large effect in psychology (Roberts et al., 2006).

These longitudinal trends even appear to have down- stream effects on more specific trait dimensions. One case example involves forgivingness, or the dispositional ten- dency to forgive others, tends to be highest among agree- able and emotionally stable individuals (e.g., Balliet, 2010; Mullet, Neto, & Rivière, 2005). Following the mean-level trends for agreeableness and emotional stability to increase in adulthood, multiple studies have reported a positive age trend for forgivingness during adulthood as well (see Alle- mand & Steiner, 2012; Hill, Allemand, & Heffernan, in press, for reviews). Indeed, research has provided evidence that the age effects for forgivingness can be partially ex- plained by the age trends in these two Big Five traits, even

6 M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality

though forgivingness is empirically separable from both higher-order traits (Steiner, Allemand, & McCullough, 2012).

Similarly, studies have begun to investigate how patterns of stability and change in the higher-order Big Five traits coincide with the patterns for the lower-order traits, or fac- ets, that comprise those domains. In general, this literature points to the tendency for facets to evidence similar levels of change to their respective Big Five traits, and yet this may not always be the case (Jackson et al., 2009; Soto & John, 2012; Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, & Costa, 2005). For instance, while conscientiousness as a whole tends to increase during adulthood, its facets differ with respect to the magnitude of this increase (e.g., impulse control shows a stronger age effect than industriousness, defined as a ten- dency toward being hard-working and diligent), and some facets even fail to demonstrate any mean-level change (e.g., orderliness) (Jackson et al., 2009).

Although empirical evidence supports the claim that personality continues to change in adulthood at the mean levels, there is also growing evidence for reliable individ- ual differences in personality development across the adult years (e.g., Mroczek & Spiro, 2003; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008; Specht, Egloff, & Schmuckle, 2011). This implies that some individuals change while others remain stable. These systematic deviations from the sample mean-levels suggest variability in the degree and direction of personal- ity trait change. In this context, individual differences in change reflect the plurality and diversity of life experiences individuals can encounter in adulthood such as getting mar- ried or getting fired from a job, retirement, or physical and cognitive decline in later adulthood. Specific life events might lead to different personality trajectories for individ- uals, which can help to explain the variability in develop- ment. For example, men who get remarried in middle adult- hood show a decline in neuroticism (Mroczek & Spiro, 2003). Other studies, however, reported only modest ef- fects of life events on the levels of personality traits in mid- life (Costa, Herbst, McCrae, & Siegler, 2000). In sum, al- though systematic mean-level changes were found, some individuals remain they same through the adult years.

Empirical evidence for personality trait stability in adulthood comes from findings with respect to differential stability, stability of variance, and structural stability (e.g., Ferguson, 2010; Mõttus et al., 2012; Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006; Zimprich, Allemand, & Lachman, 2012). A large body of literature demonstrates increasing levels of differential stability across the adult years in terms of main- taining rank-order stability (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). More specifically, estimates of mean population test-retest correlation coefficients showed that the overall trait stabil- ity increased 0.54 during the college years to 0.64 at age 30 and then reached a plateau around 0.74 between ages 50 and 70. Moreover, differential stability did not vary mark- edly across the Big Five traits, or across assessment method or sex.

With respect to stability of variance, empirical evidence

suggests that trait variances remain relatively stable over time and/or across different ages (e.g., Allemand, Zimp- rich, & Hendriks, 2008; McCrae, 1993). That is, individual differences in the traits seem consistent. Finally, cross-sec- tional and longitudinal research demonstrates relatively high levels of structural stability in traits over time and/or across different ages (e.g., Allemand, Zimprich, & Hert- zog, 2007; Mõttus et al., 2012; Zimprich et al., 2012). How- ever, it is not clear whether the factorial structure of traits remains stable in old age. There is preliminary evidence for structural change in the Big Five traits in old age (Alle- mand, Zimprich, & Martin, 2008). Investigations of struc- tural stability often include the testing of measurement equivalence (e.g., Allemand et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2009; Zimprich et al., 2012). This important issue in devel- opmental psychometrics touches the question of whether psychological constructs are comparable across different age groups or across measurement occasions. Frequently, in developmental studies it is implicitly assumed that the measurement process of constructs is similar across age and/or measurement occasions. However, there may be age differences in the conceptual frame of reference in inter- preting or reacting to a given item of a questionnaire or to stimulus material in experimental studies, thus altering the way the latent construct underlying the item or stimulus is measured. Therefore, the process of measurement equiva- lence establishes that the same construct is being measured in the same way on different occasions and/or different age groups. It is considered as a prerequisite for making mean- ingful inferences about stability of a construct over time and ages.

In sum, previous research demonstrates mean-level change in personality traits in adulthood and at the same time relatively high levels of stability with respect to rank- order, variance, and the structure. More important, signifi- cant individual differences in change and stability were found across the adult years, implying that not every indi- vidual develops like the normative trend. More research is needed on personality stability in old and very old age.

Mechanisms of Trait Stability

Adulthood is characterized by a multitude of life experi- ences and environmental influences that might have an im- pact on the stability of personality traits. Indeed, research demonstrates mean-level changes in traits as a result of spe- cific life experiences such as military service (Jackson, Thoemmes, Jonkmann, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2012), and the transition from high school to university and adult life (Bleidorn, in press; Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011). While major life events can change personality (Specht et al., 2011), these effects may be relatively modest in magnitude (Costa et al., 2000). Moreover, research found that perceiving stressful life events as turning points or lessons learned is related to changes in some personality

M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality 7

traits in midlife (Sutin, Costa, Wethington, & Eaton, 2010). There is also emerging evidence that personality traits can be experimentally manipulated and changed with direct or indirect interventions over relatively short periods of time (e.g., De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006). For example, a recent study demonstrates that cog- nitive training with the intent to change cognitive skills showed an increase in openness over time in a group of older adults (Jackson, Hill, Payne, Roberts, & Stine-Mor- row, 2012). However, as this study exemplifies, most of these interventions were not designed with the intent of manipulating personality traits, which as we note below should serve as an important direction for future research.

Given all these life changes that occur during adulthood, and their capability to influence personality, it is particu- larly noteworthy then that such high levels of trait stability characterize this developmental period. This naturally leads to the question of which causes and processes might be responsible for stability and its maintenance. The mech- anisms for trait stability can be organized into categories such as environmental factors, biological or person factors, and the complex interplay between individuals and their environments (see Caspi & Roberts, 2001; Roberts et al., 2008 for reviews). For example, although the degree to which certain genes are expressed may vary across adult- hood, the genotype itself is invariant and relatively un- changing and thus may contribute to trait stability over time. In addition, personality traits may show stability be- cause the environment remains stable, or more precisely, because individuals perceive their environment in consis- tent ways. Research suggests that trait stability typically results from both genetic and environmental factors (e.g., Bleidorn, Kandler, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2009; Kandler et al., 2010).

Several complicated interactions between individuals and situations may contribute to trait stability as well (Fra- ley & Roberts, 2005; Roberts et al., 2008). For example, the personality profile one presents may elicit particular responses from the social environment that can promote personality stability. Extraverted individuals may evoke more pleasant and supportive responses from their peers that contribute to more positive social interactions, which, in turn, reinforce the tendency to be sociable. In addition, personality traits shape how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to social situations. A consistent interpretation of situations over time may promote stability in personality traits. Moreover, it is assumed that individuals actively se- lect or create social roles and environments that are consis- tent with their personality or they change the environments to better fit with their personality. It should be noted that the mechanisms underlying personality stability might change themselves across adulthood. For example, active selection of environments appears to be linked to individ- uals’ control potential which changes across the lifespan (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Moreover, physi- cal and cognitive decline may limit older adults to select environments.

An interesting point of departure for studying processes that enable trait stability is based on the distinction between traits and states. As mentioned before, states typically dem- onstrate high levels of variability and temporary changes over short periods of time in response to internal and ex- ternal factors. States are thought to act as the intermediate between the environment, biological factors, and personal- ity traits. Roberts and Jackson (2008) proposed a model that account for the multiple pathways through which en- vironment and biological factors could shape personality traits and their stability over time (see also Fraley & Rob- erts, 2005). For example, the environment can influence whether and how traits are manifested in a given situation. In addition, individuals with certain personality profiles will select into specific environments, thus in turn also pre- dicting how traits are manifested. Both processes in tandem then can determine whether an individual exhibits greater or less trait stability, by virtue of presenting similar or dif- ferent personality states.

How individuals think, feel, and behave in a given situ- ation can be either consistent or inconsistent with their av- erage trait-level. Therefore, the consistency between traits and their state manifestations might reflect a specific mech- anism that supports trait stability. A recent study found em- pirical support for this idea with respect to rank-order sta- bility (Gallagher et al., 2011). Briefly, these researchers tested the hypothesis that behaviors that run counter from an individual’s average trait-level (contra-trait behaviors) demand more effort, or self-control, than habitual behav- iors (trait-typical behaviors). In other words, a highly neu- rotic person may find it more difficult to perform emotion- ally stable behaviors than neurotic behaviors. There are several reasons why contra-trait behaviors may be more effortful than trait-typical behavior (see Gallagher et al., 2011). First, contra-trait behaviors may cause psychologi- cal conflicts for the individual because they are not consis- tent with the habitual trait-related patterns of behavior. Sec- ond, habitual and well-learned behaviors demand less at- tention, less conscious cognition, and less effort than nonhabitual behaviors and they are shown more frequently than unfamiliar behaviors. Inhibiting trait-typical behav- iors and generating contra-trait behaviors thus require more self-control than simply behaving as usual. As a conse- quence, individuals will likely enact habitual behaviors, which in turn further promotes trait stability.

This line of reasoning is similar to Caspi and Moffitt’s (1993) accentuation hypothesis, which suggests that indi- vidual differences in personality exert their strongest influ- ence on responses when individuals are confronted with unpredictable situations. Given that behaving in ways that correspond to the average trait-level requires little mental energy, individuals choose behaviors that match their per- sonality traits (trait-typical behaviors) when uncertain about the given situation. In other words, when there are no pressures to behave differently or even information on how to do so, individuals should be most prone to exhibit habitual behaviors and routines. Individuals may also show

8 M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality

habitual behaviors when they encounter new situations be- cause familiar responses may be incompatible with the sit- uation, thus producing stress, which then becomes associ- ated with the new stimulus. These processes stabilize traits over time.

In sum, there are several mechanisms related to environ- mental and biological or person factors and individual by environment interactions that may explain the high levels of stability of personality traits in adulthood. These mech- anisms may explain stability with respect to different forms.

Implications of Trait Stability

Trait stability in adulthood has several implications for the- ory, research, and application. We focus on five implica- tions. One important implication from a functional perspec- tive is that trait stability may serve different functions. On the one hand, stability functions to benefit the individual. For example, being stable provides a sense of sameness and continuity, which is central to having a sense of identity (Erikson, 1959). In other words, to view oneself as a stable person across different contexts and situations, and to see one’s environment as relatively controllable and with sim- ilar expectations satisfies the need for orientation and con- trol. Having some routine and control may help individuals to avoid stress or negative states and to gain pleasure. On the other hand, stability also functions to benefit not only the individual but also his or her social environment in the sense that it structures and reduces the complexity of social interactions or interactions between individuals and situa- tions. As such, it increases the predictability and continuity of behaviors so that individuals can better anticipate each other’s actions. By contrast, a lack of stability increases the unpredictability of behavior. For this reason, personality instability often is an indicator of personality disorders.

The second implication refers to the fact that although personality is relatively stable across the adult years, not every individual show the same level of stability, as indi- vidual differences in stability do exist. This suggests that different individuals follow different paths of development in adulthood. Helson and Srivastava (2001) identified four different paths for adult development based on the standing on two variables: environmental mastery and personal growth. Environmental mastery refers to the ability to con- trol and manage one’s environment, and one’s efficacy in choosing environments that suit one’s goals and needs; in- dividuals high on personal growth though place emphasis on continued development across the lifespan, which oc- curs by virtue of seeking new experiences (Ryff, 1989). According to Helson and Srivastava (2001), adults may emphasize environmental mastery (“conservers”), personal growth (“seekers”), both (“achievers”), or neither (“deplet- ed”). Pertaining to the current discussion, it is possible that personality trait change is more adaptive for those adults

who seek out new experiences because this allows them to better adapt to new opportunities and situations. By con- trast, for other individuals stability seems likely better so that they perceive greater consistency and control.

Future research may examine whether some personality profiles or some specific personality patterns promote higher levels of stability compared to others. For example, individuals with higher levels of cognitive and behavioral rigidity or inflexibility and close-mindedness might be less willing and able to adjust to new situations and thus prefer low levels of stimulation and novelty and the preservation of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Schultz & Searleman, 2002). In contrast, motivational factors such as willingness to change may play an important role as well. For example, individuals with higher levels of active and intentional in- volvement in changing and developing their person (or growth initiative, Robitschek, 1998) may be more open for changing their personality.

The third implication refers to mechanisms of trait sta- bility. Several efforts have been made to identify mecha- nisms of trait stability and conditions that enable or main- tain stability and this knowledge will help in advancing theory. In this article, we made the claim that a focus on state manifestations of traits is an interesting avenue for research on trait stability, because states are more suscep- tible and malleable than traits. As mentioned before, a trait is a predisposition to act in the same way in a wide range of situations. However, individuals may differ in how they think, feel, and behave in similar situations. In other words, some individuals may take different actions at different times in effectively the same situations, while other indi- viduals have a restricted behavioral repertoire and thus show the same trait-typical behaviors in similar situations. As such, behavior variability reflects an individual differ- ence variable that can vary over time and/or across differ- ent ages (e.g., Fleeson, 2001; Noftle & Fleeson, 2010).

Future research may investigate whether high versus low intraindividual variability in behavior, thought, and feeling enable trait stability and/or facilitate developmental change. For example, high levels of variability may help individuals to adapt to new situations and challenges with flexibility and thus support trait change, whereas low vari- ation may corroborate stability. Some support for this idea comes from the cognitive aging literature. A recent study demonstrates that intraindividual variability in performing cognitive tasks predicted the amount of changes in cogni- tive ability three years later in a group of older adults (Bie- lak, Hultsch, Strauss, MacDonald, & Hunter, 2010). Such attempts are in line with a broader goal of developing a unifying theoretical personality framework that account for traits, states, and their interplay over time and ages.

The fourth implication is to explicitly consider different forms of stability in the assessment of personality, as some forms are more related to stability of personality traits in adulthood, whereas others suggest that although traits are relatively stable, they change and are responsive to life ex- periences and interventions. Moreover, as previous work is

M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality 9

largely based on self-reports, it is important to use multiple methods for studying personality stability such as self- and observer-reports and to examine their convergence over time and/or across different age groups (e.g., Jackson et al., 2009; McCrae et al., 2004). It is possible that self- and ob- server-reports lead to differential results such that individ- uals perceive themselves as highly consistent across situa- tions and over time, whereas observer-reports suggest change or vice versa. For example, self-ratings of young adult newlywed couples demonstrated significant increases in conscientiousness and agreeableness and a decline in neuroticism over two years (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006). By contrast, spouse ratings yielded a different pat- tern with decreases in all Big Five except for neuroticism over time. At the same time rank-order stability was con- sistently high and did not differ across self- and spouse-rat- ings. Such results support the notion that personality devel- opment is typically multidirectional.

There is also a need for objective, behavioral assess- ments of traits over time and/or across different ages. For example, it would be interesting to assess individual differ- ences in predictable and unpredictable situations in order to examine individual differences in the stability of trait- typical behavior. Future research is needed both to connect behaviors and state manifestations to traits, as well as to make sure the same behaviors mean the same thing across the lifespan in the sense that they are measurement equiv- alent. Both points would be needed before looking into per- sonality stability from a behavioral perspective.

Fifth, from an applied perspective, trait stability has clear implications for personality interventions in several ways. Knowledge about trait stability and their mecha- nisms and conditions will help researchers develop tools that facilitate individuals in their developmental decisions, in age-graded transitions and social roles in adulthood, at turning points, major life events, or in matters of self-de- velopment. In addition, the typically high levels of stability underscore how difficult it will be to enact personality trait change. However, it also speaks to the promise of these interventions (e.g., De Fruyt et al., 2006; Jackson, Hill et al., 2012). If personality is stable, then any real changes that result from an intervention will likely have long-term effects. Therefore, studies of stability point both to the rel- ative difficulty and reward of personality interventions.

Though researchers have discussed the importance of intervening to affect personality change, the topic of stabil- ity interventions has received little attention, despite the potential benefits of promoting trait stability. For example, research suggests that individuals are able to perceive trait change and that those perceptions of change show some correspondence with actual change (Robins, Noftle, Trzes- niewski, & Roberts, 2005). But perceptions of trait change with respect to the individual or his or her environment can be stressful for some individuals. The same can be true for the experience of massive undesired environmental chang- es. For example, a major reorganization in a business re- flects such an environmental change. Processes of reorga-

nization are often accompanied by reductions in staff and resources, new training programs, new organizational functions, and enlargement of scope of functions. Such fun- damental organizational changes may produce feelings of insecurity and fears about the future and stress for some individuals, while it may enable changes especially for those individuals, who were unsatisfied with their current job or function. Long-term experiences of environmental changes and lack of control may affect some individuals, resulting in limitations of activity and participation. Inter- vening to promote stability may prove most adaptive dur- ing times of large-scale life changes, such as a massive reorganization at work or other difficult life experiences that may lead to losing control, orientation, and autonomy. In a similar vein, old age reflects an exemplar period in the lifespan that is associated with increased loss in control and autonomy as well as physical and cognitive decline. Pro- moting stability during these periods of change can be ben- eficial, because it helps individuals to retain a consistent and coherent picture of themselves despite of external (and internal) changes.

Such an intervention would focus on the stabilization of personality by means of inducing maintenance processes. An initial point of such interventions would be to describe causes and consequences of instability (or change) in the individual and to develop active exercises to stabilize per- sonality. For example, individuals may need to be taught how their personality repertoire fits within the new envi- ronmental structure. That way, they do not feel the need to change, and they learn to retain their dispositions through tumultuous periods. Stability interventions may focus on influencing personality from the top-down by directly ad- dressing traits, or from the bottom-up by manipulating state manifestations. In either case, their usefulness is necessar- ily dependent on the context, in that stability may or may not be a desired outcome in a given situation. Moreover, such interventions may influence multiple forms of stabil- ity at once. We know that the idea of intervening on the stability of personality is rather provocative in the light of current discussions emphasizing the changeability and plasticity of personality across the entire lifespan into old age (e.g., Allemand & Lehmann, 2012; Caspi et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2008; McAdams & Olson, 2010). In our view, such interventions would advance our knowledge about trait stability.

Conclusion

The study of personality traits and their stability is an im- portant issue in personality and developmental science. First, personality traits are enduring characteristics that de- scribe individual differences in behavioral, cognitive, and emotional patterns. Several conceptually and statistically distinct forms define stability. Second, current research on trait stability in adulthood suggests both change and stabil-

10 M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality

ity depending partly on the forms of stability one considers. However, research on personality stability in old and very old age is clearly underrepresented in the literature. Third, different environmental, biological and person factors and their interactions might be responsible for the high levels of stability of personality traits in adulthood. One important approach to further investigate mechanisms of stability is to focus on the state manifestations of personality traits, and thus the stabilizing process mechanisms. Finally, high levels of personality trait stability have several implications for theory, research, and application. In particular, we sug- gest that promoting stability may prove adaptive when helping individuals dealing with changes in their lives.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) grant no. CRSI11_130432/1.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that no conflicts of interest exist.

References

Allemand, M., & Lehmann, R. (2012). Personality development and aging. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of hu- man behavior (pp. 74–81). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Allemand, M., & Steiner, M. (2012). Situation-specific forgive- ness and dispositional forgiveness: A lifespan development perspective. In E. Kahls & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice psychology and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 361–375). New York: Springer.

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2008). Age differences in five personality domains across the lifespan. De- velopmental Psychology, 44, 758–770.

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hertzog, C. (2007). Cross-sec- tional age differences and longitudinal age changes in person- ality in middle adulthood and old age. Journal of Personality, 75, 323–358.

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Martin, M. (2008). Long-term correlated changes in personality traits in old age. Psychology and Aging, 23, 545–557.

Balliet, D. (2010). Conscientiousness and forgivingness: A meta- analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 259–263.

Bielak, A. A., Hultsch, D. F., Strauss, E., MacDonald, S. W., & Hunter, M. A. (2010). Intraindividual variability is related to cognitive change in older adults: Evidence for within-person coupling. Psychology and Aging, 25, 575–586.

Bleidorn, W. (in press). Hitting the road to adulthood: Short-term personality development during a major life transition. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spi- nath, F. (2009). Patterns and sources of adult personality de-

velopment: Growth curve analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 142–155.

Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psy- chology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality develop- ment (5th ed., pp. 311–388). New York: Wiley.

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psy- chological Inquiry, 4, 247–271.

Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 49–66.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality de- velopment: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psycholo- gy, 56, 453–484.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C. (2000). Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic motivation, and responses to life events. Assessment, 7, 365–378.

De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K. G., Bagby, R. M., Rolland, J. P., & Rouillon, F. (2006). Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment, 18, 71–80.

Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: Evidence from two national sam- ples. Psychology and Aging, 23, 558–566.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: In- ternational Universities Press.

Ferguson, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of normal and disordered personality across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 98, 659–667.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1021.

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, 60–74.

Gallagher, P., Fleeson, W., & Hoyle, R. H. (2011). A self-regula- tory mechanism for personality trait stability: Contra-trait ef- fort. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 335–342.

Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of lifespan development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60.

Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). Three paths of adult devel- opment: Conservers, seekers, and achievers. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 995–1010.

Hill, P. L., Allemand, M., & Heffernan, M. E. (in press). Placing dispositional forgiveness within theories of adult personality development. European Psychologist.

Hooker, K., & McAdams, D. P. (2003). Personality reconsidered: A new agenda for aging research. The Journals of Gerontolo- gy, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B, 296–304.

Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K., Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lo- di-Smith, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2009). Not all conscientious- ness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 446–459.

Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W., & Stine-

M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality 11

Morrow, E. A. L. (2012). Can an old dog learn (and want to experience) new tricks? Cognitive training increases openness to experiences in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27, 286–292.

Jackson, J. J., Thoemmes, F., Jonkmann, K., Lüdtke, O., & Traut- wein, U. (2012). Military training and personality trait devel- opment: Does the military make the man or does the man make the military? Psychological Science, 23, 270–277.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measure- ment, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and re- search (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford.

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, 995–1008.

Lehmann, R., Denissen, J. J. A., Allemand, M., & Penke, L. (in press). Age and gender differences in motivational manifesta- tions of the Big Five from age 16 to 60. Developmental Psy- chology.

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality develop- ment across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 101, 847–861.

Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to universi- ty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637.

McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517–542.

McCrae, R. R. (1993). Moderated analyses of longitudinal per- sonality stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo- gy, 65, 577–585.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (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. 159–181). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Hrebickova, M., Urbanek, T., Mar- tin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., . . . Senin, I. G. (2004). Age differences in personality traits across cultures: Self-report and observer perspectives. European Journal of Personality, 18, 143–157.

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, 243–249.

Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A., III. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: Findings from the normative aging study. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B, 153–165.

Mullet, E., Neto, F., & Rivière, S. (2005). Personality and its ef- fects on resentment, revenge, forgiveness and on self-forgive- ness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 159–182). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Noftle, E. E., & Fleeson, W. (2010). Age differences in big five behavior averages and variabilities across the adult lifespan: Moving beyond retrospective, global summary accounts of personality. Psychology and Aging, 25, 95–107.

Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality assessment

and personality development. Journal of Research in Person- ality, 43, 137–145.

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

Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 76, 1523–1544.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R. N., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. (2007). The power of personality: A comparative analysis of the predictive validity of personality traits, SES, and IQ. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. K. (2008). Personality trait stabil- ity and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35.

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 Bulle- tin, 132, 1–25.

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: Guilford.

Robins, R. W., Noftle, E. E., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Do people know how their personality has changed? Correlates of perceived and actual personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 73, 489–521.

Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 183–198.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.

Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128, 165–207.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of Big-Five do- mains and facets in adulthood: Mean-level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of Per- sonality, 80, 881–914.

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five do- mains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.

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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.

Steiner, M., Allemand, M., & McCullough, M. E. (2012). Do agreeableness and neuroticism explain age differences in the tendency to forgive others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 441–453.

Sutin, A. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Wethington, E., & Eaton, W. W. (2010). Turning points and lessons learned: Stressful life events and personality trait development across middle adult- hood. Psychology and Aging, 25, 524–533.

Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Person- ality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999–1009.

12 M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality

Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI- R Scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psy- chology and Aging, 20, 493–506.

Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self-ratings and spouse ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 91, 959–974.

Wortman, J., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (in press). Stability and change in the Big Five personality domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and Ag- ing.

Zimprich, D., Allemand, M., & Lachman, M. E. (2012). Factorial structure and age-related psychometrics of the MIDUS person- ality adjective items across the lifespan. Psychological Assess- ment, 24, 173–186.

Manuscript submitted: 3.9.2012 Manuscript accepted after revision: 30.11.2012

Mathias Allemand

University of Zurich Department of Psychology Binzmühlestrasse 14/24 8050 Zurich Switzerland m.allemand@psychologie.uzh.ch

M. Allemand et al.: Stability of Personality 13