Personality Trait Change in Adulthood

Brent W. Roberts

Daniel Mroczek

FULL DISCLOSURE

Review

• Focus– Average change over a sample or population– Individual differences in the rate of change

Cross-sectional Studies

• Reviews Srivastava et al. (2003)– Large internet-based study (N = 132,515)– Results

• Size and direction of differences consistent with previous findings, but interpreted as change

• Roberts and Mroczek’s claim that “60-year-old participants scored higher than 40-year old participants on most dimensions…” (no basis for this claim!)

Longitudinal Studies

• Reviews 2006 Roberts et al. paper– 92 longitudinal studies covering ages 10-101– Found significant change in 75% of traits in

middle (40-60) and old (60+) age– Figures (Figure 2 from meta-analysis)

• Standardized measure of mean differences• How much of a standard deviation

– Costa and McCrae (2006) noted that these are the same modest changes they had been reporting for some time

Individual Differences in Change

• Two levels of change– Mean levels of change– Individual differences in change

• Do some individuals change faster?• Do some individuals change in a different

direction?

• Multiple ways to assess– RCI– Growth models

Individual Differences in Change

• Used to illuminate why people change or what change is related to– People who experience satisfying careers

show greater declines in N and increases in C– Long-term increases in N are related to

mortality (Mroczek & Spiro, 2007)– Increases in Ho are related to mortality

(Siegler et al., 2003)

Personality Plasticity After Age 30

Antonio Terracciano

Paul T. Costa, Jr.

Robert R. McCrae

Main Study Question

• Longitudinal data suggest that– Personality is relatively stable– Stability is greater in adulthood than in prior

years

• When, if at all, does rank order stability plateau?

Differential Predictions

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.70

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.80

0.82

Costa & McCrae Roberts et al. Ardelt

30-50

50-65

65+

Methods

• Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging– Large sample for part of a multidisciplinary

study– Recurring assessment

• Measures– GZTS– NEO and NEO-PI-R– California Adult Q-Set

Rank Order Stability Results

• Across domains– NEO: rank order stability did not differ

between age groups– GZTS: rank order stability did not differ

between age groups

• At scale level– Extraversion domain showed more stability in

50-65 than > 65 group– Not replicated in similar GZTS scales

Personality Trait Development From Age 12 to Age 18: Longitudinal,

Cross-Sectional, and Cross-Cultural Analyses

Robert R. McCrae and others

Purpose

• To assess mean-level personality change in adolescence

• Also…– Compare longitudinal results to cross-

sectional data from the U.S.– Examine factor invariance– Rank-order stability

Methods

• Participants– 521 boys and 249 girls– Scored above 97th percentile in academic

ability– 230 students were assessed four years later

• Instrument– NEO-FFI– Short version of the NEO-PI-R

Factor Invariance

• Compared structure of first and second ratings– CFA simple structure model

• CFI suggested poor fit• RMSEA suggested good fit• Constraining factor loadings to be identical across

intervals caused decreases in fit, but no change in CFI or RMSEA

– Procrustes rotation• Coefficients for N, E, and C greater than .90• Coefficients for O and A greater than .85

Retest Reliabilities

• Considerably lower than in older samples– Boys

• Range: .31 for A to .49 for C• Median: .39

– Girls• Range: .30 for N to .63 for C• Median: .34

Mean Level Differences

• MANOVA– DVs: Five NEO-FFI domain T-scores– IVs: Gender, Time – Interaction: Gender × Time

• Results– No main effects of Time for N, E, or A– O increased and C decreased– Gender × Time effect on N

Differences for boys

Differences for girls