Taking Developmental Perspectives on
Personality Traits Seriously
M. Brent Donnellan
Michigan State University
donnel59@msu.edu
Central Arguments
1) Traits predict consequential outcomes. Traits matter.
2) Traits change over the life span. Traits develop.
3) Life experiences may impact trait development.
Thus…
A developmental perspective requires long-term studies
with repeated measures of both traits and outcomes.
Outline
• Basic Definitions
• Evidence for why traits matter
• Developmental findings for traits
• Future Directions
What are personality traits?
Relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors that make people different from one
another.
The Big Five Domains
I.
Extraversion (Talkative, Energetic,
Outgoing)
II.
Agreeableness (Helpful, Trusting,
Cooperative)
III.
Conscientiousness (Reliable,
Hardworking)
IV.
Neuroticism/Emotional Stability (Anxious,
Tense, Moody)
V.
Openness to experience (Curious, Values
artistic experiences)
Tellegen’s “Big Three” Dimensions
(Tellegen & Waller, 2008; Clark & Watson, 2008)
Positive Emotionality: Readily experience positive
emotions (Enthusiasm, Social Warmth, Zest) - PEM
Negative Emotionality: Readily experience negative
emotions (Distress, Anger, Hostility) – NEM
Constraint: Self-Control and the endorsement of
Social Norms - CON
Why Should Anyone Care about Traits?
Traits statistically predict important life
outcomes (e.g., Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006;
Roberts et al., 2007)
Allport wrote that personality was “what lies
behind specific acts” and thus served as
“determining tendencies” (e.g., Allport, 1937, p.
48-49)
TraitsEmotionality
and Relationships
I Marital
Negative
and
Why Should
Anyone
Care?Couples)
Married
Couples
(Middle-Age
Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)
Women’s
Negative
Emotionality
Women’s
Relationship
Adjustment
-.24
-.10
-.10
Men’s
Negative
Emotionality
-.24
Men’s
Relationship
Adjustment
N = 1,805 couples. Source: Humbad, Donnellan, et al. (2010)
Traits Emotionality
and Relationships
II Marital
Negative
and
Why
ShouldSample
Anyone
Care?
National
from
Australia
Adjustment (N = 1,805
Couples)
Women’s
Neuroticism
Women’s
Relationship
Satisfaction
-.18
-.15
-.15
Men’s
Neuroticism
-.18
Men’s
Relationship
Satisfaction
N = 2,639 Couples
Source: Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas (2010)
Similar results in a sample from the United Kingdom. Similar results for Life
Satisfaction in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom
Conscientiousness
in the Classroom
Negative
Emotionality
and Marital
(Corker,
Oswald,
& Donnellan,
Why
Should
Anyone
Care?2012)
Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)
Predicting Total Points from Day 1 Reports
Variable
β
Meta-Analytic Result
ACT
.23
.37
Conscientiousness
.26
.19/.24
N= 347
Note: Statistical effects of Conscientiousness were largely mediated by Study Strategies
(e.g., Tenacity and Organization) and Exam-Specific Effort.
Meta-Analytic Result for ACT based on Study 2 in Sackett et al. (2009; k = 17, N ≈ 17,000)
Meta-Analytic Result for C from Table 1 in Poropat (2009; k = 138, N ≈ 71,000)
10
Adolescent
Traits
and Adult Counterproductive
Negative
Emotionality
and Marital
Behaviors
- 18 Years
Later
Why Work
Should
Anyone
Care?
Adjustment
(N =et1,805
Couples)
(Le, Donnellan
al., R & R)
Big Five Trait (1991/92)
β
Meta-Analytic Result
Agreeableness
-.21
-.31
Conscientiousness
-.17
-.23
N= 296
CWBs assessed in 2007 and 2010 using Bennett and Robinson (2000) Measure.
Effects hold controlling for adolescent academic achievement, gender, and current job satisfaction.
Meta-analytic result for Antisocial Behavior from Table 1 in Jones et al. (2011; k = 29 & 30 for A & C,
respectively; Ns ≈ 10,000)
11
Developmental Findings Related to Traits
Illustrations of the Maturity Principle
Maturity Principle:
Focus on Mean-Levels
Iowa: Mean-Level Change from 18 to 27 - Expressed in
Standardized Units (Donnellan et al., 2007)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
CON
NEM
PEM
Minnesota. Mean-Level Changes from 17 to 29 (N = 626
Twins; Hopwood, Donnellan, et al., 2011)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
17 to 24
-0.2
24 to 29
-0.4
17 to 29
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Constraint
NEM
PEM-A
PEM-C
Age Differences in Conscientiousness – United States
(2006 GSS Data; Anusic, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012 )
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
18-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Quadratic Term Significant in Regression-Based Analyses. No Evidence of
Moderation by Gender. Total N ≈1,500. Average Group n = 188.
Illustrations of the Cumulative Continuity
Principle
Focus on test-retest correlations
Australia (N ≈ 8,700 to 9,600)
(Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan 2012)
Evidence for Corresponsive Principle
Relationship Quality and Relative Changes in
NEM from 1994 to 2003
M from 1994 to 2003
NEM
in 1994
-.21
Relationship
Quality in
2001(Couple)
-.25
.46
NEM
in 2003
N = 323. Effect Also Holds if ONLY Partner Reports of
Relationship Quality are Used in 2001 (β = -.14, p < .05)
Self-Determination and Relative Changes in Agentic PEM
from 1994 to 2003 (Le, Donnellan, & Conger, in press)
APEM
in 1994
.17
Self
Determination
in 2001
.26
.48
APEM
in 2003
N = 370.
Summary Points
On average, individuals report becoming more
conscientious and less prone to negative emotions
during the transition to adulthood.
Rank-order consistency increases across the life
span. It might decline at the end of life but more
data are needed to test for this possibility.
Traits are associated with future life conditions and
contexts. These experiences and psychological
contexts may further contribute to trait development.
Future Directions
(see Donnellan, Hill, & Roberts, in press)
Need more repeated-measures studies covering
developmentally significant spans of time. Applications of
methods useful for isolating trait/state variance in
assessments. Greater use of growth models to isolate
individual differences in change.
More studies of older participants to evaluate questions
about differential stability at the end of life.
Better integration of “adult” trait research with child
temperament research. Theories about the nature of specific
traits are valuable. Challenges with items and informants,
however.
Test interventions designed to change traits.
Results from the Latent Variable STARTS
Thanks
Thanks!
Model
•
NIA: 1 R01 AG040715-01 (Lucas & Donnellan).
•
NICHD: 1-R01-HD064687-01 (Conger, Donnellan, & Stallings)
•
Current/Former Students – Robert Ackerman, Ivana Anusic, Katherine
Corker, Portia Dyrenforth, Mikhila Humbad, Kimdy Le, Kim McAdams,
Edward Witt, and Jessica Wortman
•
Alex Burt & MTFS Crew
•
Rand D. Conger
•
Chris Hopwood
•
Debby Kashy
•
David A. Kenny
•
Richard E. Lucas
•
Fred Oswald
•
Brent W. Roberts
•
Richard W. Robins
•
Kali H. Trzesniewski
M. Brent Donnellan
Michigan State University
donnel59@msu.edu