Taking Developmental Perspectives on Personality Traits Seriously

M. Brent DonnellanMichigan 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) - PEMNegative 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)

Women’s Negative

Emotionality

Women’s Relationship Adjustment

Men’s Relationship Adjustment

Men’s Negative

Emotionality

-.24

-.10

-.10

-.24

Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)

N = 1,805 couples. Source: Humbad, Donnellan, et al. (2010)

Why Should Anyone Care?Traits and Relationships I

Married Couples (Middle-Age Couples)

Women’s Neuroticism

Women’s Relationship Satisfaction

Men’s Relationship Satisfaction

Men’s Neuroticism

-.18

-.15

-.15

-.18

Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)

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

Why Should Anyone Care?Traits and Relationships II

National Sample from Australia

10

Variable β Meta-Analytic Result

ACT .23 .37

Conscientiousness .26 .19/.24

N= 347

Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)Why Should Anyone Care?

Conscientiousness in the Classroom(Corker, Oswald, & Donnellan, 2012)

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)

Predicting Total Points from Day 1 Reports

11

Big Five Trait (1991/92)

β Meta-Analytic Result

Agreeableness -.21 -.31

Conscientiousness -.17 -.23

N= 296

Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples)Why Should Anyone Care?

Adolescent Traits and Adult Counterproductive Work Behaviors - 18

Years Later (Le, Donnellan et al., R & R)

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)

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)

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

CON NEM PEM

Minnesota. Mean-Level Changes from 17 to 29 (N = 626 Twins; Hopwood, Donnellan, et al., 2011)

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Constraint NEM PEM-A PEM-C

17 to 24

24 to 29

17 to 29

Age Differences in Conscientiousness – United States (2006 GSS Data; Anusic, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012 )

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

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 PrincipleFocus on test-retest correlations

Australia (N ≈ 8,700 to 9,600) (Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan 2012)

Evidence for Corresponsive Principle

NEMin 1994

Relationship Quality in

2001(Couple)

NEMin 2003

-.21

-.25

Relationship Quality and Relative Changes in NEM from 1994 to 2003M from 1994 to 2003

.46

N = 323. Effect Also Holds if ONLY Partner Reports of Relationship Quality are Used in 2001 (β = -.14, p

< .05)

APEMin 1994

Self Determination

in 2001

APEMin 2003

.17

.26

Self-Determination and Relative Changes in Agentic PEM from 1994 to 2003 (Le, Donnellan, & Conger, in press)

N = 370.

.48

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.

Thanks• 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

Results from the Latent Variable STARTS ModelThanks!

M. Brent DonnellanMichigan State Universitydonnel59@msu.edu