See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/227992901

Personality Development

Chapter · June 2007

DOI: 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0306 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

276 15,494

2 authors, including:

Rebecca L Shiner
Colgate University
64 PUBLICATIONS 8,960 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rebecca L Shiner on 20 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 6

Personality Development
AVSHALOM CASPI and REBECCA L. SHINER

THE DEVELOPING STRUCTURE PERSONALITY CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 335

OF PERSONALITY 302 Types of Continuity Observed in Longitudinal
Temperament and Personality: How Are They Similar? Research 335
How Are They Distinct? 302 Personality Coherence 338
Personality Structure across the Life Span 304 PERSONALITY AND THE LIFE COURSE: HOW
Personality Types 308 EARLY-EMERGING PERSONALITY
TEMPERAMENT AND PERSONALITY TRAITS: A DIFFERENCES SHAPE DEVELOPMENTAL
PROCESS-FOCUSED, DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAYS 339
TAXONOMY FROM CHILDHOOD TO Cultivating Relationships: How Personality Shapes
ADULTHOOD 310 Friendships, Intimate Relationships, and Parenting 339
Extraversion 311 Striving and Achieving: How Personality Shapes
Neuroticism 313 Performance in School and Work Settings 341
Conscientiousness 316 Health Promotion and Maintenance: How Personality
Agreeableness 320 Shapes Health Trajectories 342
Openness to Experience/ Intellect 323 Predicting All of Behavior All of the Time? 344
Directions for Future Developmental Research on PERSONALITY AND THE EMERGENCE OF
Personality Structure 325 PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 344
THE DEVELOPMENTAL ELABORATION OF New Directions in Research on Personality
PERSONALITY TRAITS 326 and Psychopathology 344
Learning Processes 326 Empirical Evidence for Specific Associations between
Environmental Elicitation 327 Personality Traits and Psychological Disorders 346
Environmental Construal 328 Processes Linking Personality Differences
Social and Temporal Comparisons 329 and Psychopathology 346
Environmental Selection 329 CONCLUSION 349
Environmental Manipulation 330 REFERENCES 350
THE ORIGINS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
IN PERSONALITY 330
Genetic and Environmental Inf luences on Personality
Development across the Life Span 330
Molecular Genetic Analysis of Personality 333

This chapter focuses on individual differences in per- salient personality differences between people? What
sonality, because differences among individuals are the gives rise to these differences? Do personality differ-
most remarkable feature of human nature. After all, in ences shape important life outcomes? How might per-
both genetic and cultural evolution, selection pressures sonality influence the emergence of psychopathology?
operate on differences among people. Not surprisingly, Answers to these questions are crucial for those who
individual differences pervade all aspects of life, and wish to describe, explain, and predict the nature of indi-
they demand scientific inquiry: What are the most vidual lives across time.

Work on this chapter was supported by grants from the National thank Terrie E. Moffitt, Brent W. Roberts, William G. Graziano,
Institute of Mental Health (MH-45070 and MH-49414), the Med- and Nancy Eisenberg for their helpful comments and ideas. This
ical Research Council, and the William T. Grant Foundation. We chapter reviews material available to us through July, 2004.

300
 Personality Development 301

The fifth edition of the Handbook of Child Psychology behavioral attributes as “samples of response classes,” a
was the first edition to include a chapter devoted to per- realist conception treats them as indicators or “signs of
sonality differences (Caspi, 1998; in editions prior to internal [psychological] structures” (Wiggins, 1973,
that, coverage of personality development had been scat- pp. 368–370). Whereas the dispositional, if-then con-
tered about in specialized chapters dealing, for example, ception of traits is agnostic with regard to explanation, a
with aggression or motivation). We were pleased to be realist conception attempts to postulate underlying
invited to contribute a new chapter, but we had to ask processes that lead traits to cause certain intentional
ourselves: Was a new chapter needed? Given the slow states (Tellegen, 1991):
progress of soft psychology (Meehl, 1978), it is hearten-
Personality is and does something. . . . It is what lies be-
ing to recognize that there have been significant ad-
hind specific acts and within the individual. The systems
vances in research on personality development over the that constitute personality are in every sense determining
past decade. In this chapter, we have tried to reflect these tendencies, and when aroused by suitable stimuli provoke
advances and to anticipate future directions as well. those adjustive and expressive acts by which personality
In reflecting on the past decade of research, we are comes to be known. (Allport, 1937, pp. 48–49)
struck that debates pitting the person versus the situa-
tion, nature versus nurture, and continuity versus According to the realist, neo-Allportian conception
change are increasingly being brought to a halt. These (Funder, 1991), traits are not observable entities but hy-
three tired debates have given way to a more nuanced pothetical constructs and, like all such constructs, their
understanding of personality development. usefulness needs to be demonstrated and refuted
At the heart of the person-situation debate was the through the procedures of construct validation. The pro-
ontological status of personality traits: Are traits real? cess of “construct validation is nothing more or less
It is possible to distinguish among descriptive, disposi- than hypothesis testing” in which a construct becomes
tional, and explanatory conceptions of traits (Zuroff, known by virtue of the interlocking system of laws in
1986). According to the first, descriptive-summary con- which it occurs (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988, p. 622), and
ception, traits are summary variables that describe ob- the task of empirical research is to keep tightening the
servable consistencies in a person’s past behavior. As nomological net (Meehl, 1986). In this sense, re-
demonstrated by criterion-oriented studies, a descrip- searchers need to embed traits in process theories that
tive-summary conception serves useful predictive pur- lead to new and testable hypotheses about social, psy-
poses. However, because this conception bypasses the chological, and biological phenomena throughout the life
explanatory work of psychology, it is unlikely, by itself, course. Trait explanations are not an end; rather, they
to yield theoretical insights about personality develop- are placeholders in an evolving search for fuller explana-
ment: “It contributes no more to the science of psychol- tions of action and motivated behavior (Fletcher, 1993;
ogy than rules for boiling an egg contribute to the Wakefield, 1989).
science of chemistry” (Loevinger, 1957, p. 641). Whereas the 1998 version of this chapter had to jus-
According to a second dispositional conception, traits tify its neo-Allportian focus on personality traits as
represent a tendency to behave in certain kinds of ways real, this is no longer necessary because of advances in
if in certain kinds of situations. Personality differences understanding the structure of personality. The first two
are here treated as “if-then” conditional propositions sections of this chapter review this new evidence in de-
(Mischel, 1990). Dominant individuals dominate when tail. We delineate a taxonomy of measurable individual
there are subjects for domination but not when they are differences in temperament and personality in child-
alone. Likewise, intelligent persons solve problems hood and introduce a process-focused analysis of per-
given the presence of problems: A person does not con- sonality traits that details what is known about their
stantly act smart. Dispositions differ from descriptive developmental antecedents and their psychological and
summaries in that they indicate nothing about the occur- biological underpinnings. A personality taxonomy
rence of behavior in the absence of eliciting stimuli serves at least three research purposes. First, it im-
(Wakefield, 1989; Zuroff, 1986). proves research communication; connecting multiple
According to a third realist conception, traits are ex- and different measures of personality to an established
planatory concepts. Whereas the descriptive and dispo- and validated personality structure helps to organize
sitional conceptions of traits outlined earlier regard and integrate diffuse research findings. Second, it helps
302 Personality Development

researchers to develop new measures of personality; lo- tions review new and accumulating evidence about con-
cating new measures in relation to what is already tinuities in personality development from childhood to
known eliminates redundancy and elucidates psycholog- adulthood and how personality differences influence
ical constructs. Third, it enables researchers to connect various life outcomes. Whereas the 1998 version of
personality measures to more elaborate nomological net- this chapter did not include much information about
works and thereby to interpret research and generate psychopathology, in this edition we devote the seventh
new hypotheses about individual differences in person- section to review how personality differences influ-
ality. As becomes evident, the personality taxonomy dis- ence the development of psychiatric disorders. We are
cussed in the second section organizes the remaining able to do this because the unproductive bifurcation of
sections of our review. personality and clinical psychology is drawing to an
A second, related debate has pitted nature versus end, and new, developmental research is highlighting
nurture. This is the longest-lived controversy in psychol- etiological and practical considerations linking normal
ogy, and there are signs that it too is dissipating. We personality variants and clinical syndromes.
begin the fourth section with an overview of research
showing a genetic contribution to personality. But
whereas the 1998 version of this chapter devoted a good THE DEVELOPING STRUCTURE
deal of space to elaborating the logic of behavioral ge- OF PERSONALITY
netic designs, in this edition we proceed directly to sum-
marizing and updating the empirical evidence and move In this first section, we address three issues that are
on to discuss the contributions of molecular genetics to central to the study of temperament and personality
psychological research. The use of molecular genetic across the life course: (1) How should we conceptualize
techniques is helping to replace the nature-nurture con- temperament and personality, and what is similar and
junction versus with the more appropriate conjunction distinctive about these two types of individual differ-
and. Psychological research is being revolutionized by ences? (2) How are temperament and personality differ-
direct measures of specific genotypes for individuals, ences structured from infancy through adulthood? and
and this will increasingly allow researchers to investi- (3) What do we know about personality types, and do
gate how nature and nurture work together to shape be- these types add something important to our understand-
havioral phenotypes. ing of personality development? It is important that we
A third debate has focused on continuity versus address these foundational issues from the outset before
change, which also subsumes the question of whether turning to questions of how individual differences de-
personality traits matter. Trait models are often cari- velop and affect the life course.
catured as static, nondevelopmental conceptions of
personality. This misapprehension arises because per-
sonality traits are thought to represent stable and en-
Temperament and Personality: How Are They
during psychological differences between persons;
Similar? How Are They Distinct?
therefore, they are static. Few personality researchers
subscribe to this conclusion. Rather, contemporary Humans display a wide range of individual differences
personality research has sought to formulate the ways during the life span—from birth to old age. Both child
in which personality differences, in transaction with psychologists and adult personality researchers study
environmental circumstances, organize behavior in dy- these individual differences, but historically the two
namic ways over time. Personality traits are thus orga- groups have done so in different research traditions:
nizational constructs; they influence how individuals Child psychologists have typically studied temperament
organize their behavior to meet environmental demands traits, whereas adult personality researchers have typi-
and new developmental challenges. As Allport (1937) cally studied personality traits.
noted, personality traits are “modi vivendi, ultimately The contemporary empirical study of early tempera-
deriving their significance from the role they play in ment was spurred largely by Thomas and Chess, who ini-
advancing adaptation within, and mastery of, the per- tiated the New York Longitudinal Study to examine the
sonal environment ” (p. 342). The fifth and sixth sec- significance of biologically based temperament traits in
 The Developing Structure of Personality 303

infancy and childhood (Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, infancy and early childhood is only partially heritable
& Korn, 1963). Thomas and Chess challenged the way and is influenced by environmental events (Emde & He-
that social development was studied at the time because witt, 2001), including both pre- and postnatal experi-
they emphasized that children are not merely the prod- ences. Occasionally, researchers claim that individual
ucts of their rearing environments; rather, infants come differences measured later in childhood are not tem-
into the world with biologically based behavioral tenden- perament because such traits have already been affected
cies. Like Thomas and Chess, most temperament re- by environmental experiences, implying that only indi-
searchers continue to focus on individual differences vidual differences at birth represent genetically influ-
that emerge early in life, include differences in emo- enced temperament. The behavioral genetic findings
tional processes, and have a presumed biological basis reviewed later in this chapter reveal the fallacy of such a
(Goldsmith et al., 1987). However, most contemporary claim: From infancy through adulthood, to varying de-
researchers also recognize that temperament is shaped grees and at varying times, genetic and environmental
by both hereditary and environmental influences and influences are at work shaping both temperament and
that temperament includes components of self-regulation personality traits. A fourth key similarity between tem-
and emotion (Rothbart & Derryberry, 2002). perament and personality traits is that many traits from
Personality is typically seen as including a wider both domains are characterized by specific habitual
range of individual differences in feeling, thinking, and positive and negative emotions (Rothbart, Ahadi, &
behaving than is temperament. Personality differences Evans, 2000; Watson, 2000). Although this point is
include personality traits such as Extraversion and Neu- widely accepted for the so-called temperament traits of
roticism, but they also encompass goals, coping styles, Extraversion and Neuroticism, there is evidence that
defensive styles, motives, attachment styles, life stories, other major traits involve the experience or expression
identities, and various other processes (McAdams, of emotions as well (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassi-
1995). Although much of the research on children’s in- nary, 2000; Trierweiler, Eid, & Lischetzke, 2002; Wat-
dividual differences has focused on traits labeled tem- son & Clark, 1992). A recent study demonstrated that
perament, a great deal of productive research has infants’ positive and negative emotional expressions pre-
already been done on childhood traits that could rightly dicted their standing on all of the Big Five personality
be considered personality. Developmentalists have in- traits at age 3 (Abe & Izard, 1999). Thus, emotional ex-
vestigated a vast array of children’s traits—aggression, perience and expression are associated with a wide vari-
delay of gratification, dominance, achievement striv- ety of traits across the life span.
ings, empathy, anxiousness, and the list goes on—but Many of the distinctions between temperament and
sometimes have not explicitly labeled these traits as- personality traits seem to be breaking down. There may
pects of children’s emerging personalities per se be some advantages to keeping a temperament perspec-
(Shiner, 1998). tive in view. Temperament traits tend to be defined as
Recent empirical work has demonstrated a number of more narrow, lower-level traits (Strelau, 2001), a useful
striking similarities between temperament traits and complement to the emphasis on higher-level traits in
personality traits. First, although temperament differ- adult personality research. The concept of temperament
ences between nonhuman animals have been recognized also reminds researchers to investigate the early expres-
at least as long as humans have bred animals, important sions, biological underpinnings, and basic processes un-
aspects of personality traits can be observed in nonhu- derlying traits. But temperament and personality
man animals as well (Gosling, 2001; Gosling & John, increasingly should be studied side by side. A useful ap-
1999). Observers can rate traits as accurately in nonhu- proach may be to consider the broadest possible range of
man animals as they can in humans (Gosling, Kwan, & individual differences at each point in development
John, 2003). Second, like temperament traits, nearly all rather than to exclude some individual differences from
self-reported and observed personality traits show mod- study on the presupposition that some traits are not as-
erate genetic influence (Bouchard, 2004; Bouchard & pects of temperament. Because temperament and per-
Loehlin, 2001). Third, like personality traits, tempera- sonality traits share so much in common, we discuss
ment traits are affected by experience: Behavioral ge- temperament and personality systems together through-
netic studies have established that temperament in out this review.
304 Personality Development

Personality Structure across the Life Span Krueger, & Watson, 2005). We now turn to a discussion
of the traits that can be observed (a) during infancy and
One of the most striking points of convergence between early childhood and ( b) during the preschool through
temperament and personality is their similar structure adult years.
across most periods of the life span; by structure, we
mean the reliable patterns of covariation of traits across Structure of Individual Differences in Infancy
individuals. We later describe research findings on the and Early Childhood
structure of individual differences in infants and tod-
dlers and the structure observed in young children, ado- Lower-Order Traits. During infancy and early
lescents, and adults. childhood, children display a limited range of traits.
The establishment of a personality structure for de- Much of the early research on temperament in these de-
scribing adult personality has been a complicated, con- velopmental periods was derived from Thomas and
tentious enterprise; work on the structure of young Chess’s nine-trait model (Thomas et al., 1963). Thomas
children’s individual differences is inherently even and Chess identified a number of traits that have proven
more complex. As children’s motor, cognitive, emo- to have great clinical significance, particularly chil-
tional, and language abilities develop, the range of traits dren’s tendencies toward the intense expression of anger
they can express similarly expands. For example, al- and frustration and toward fearful withdrawal from new
though infants may differ in temperament traits that are situations (Maziade et al., 1990). More recent research
likely to be related to later aggression, infants cannot ex- has uncovered some limitations of the original Thomas
hibit differences in aggression until they develop the and Chess model, however (for a summary, see Rothbart
motor and language skills necessary to direct aggressive & Derryberry, 2002, and Shiner & Caspi, 2003), and
actions toward others. Similar rapid growth occurs in other models are increasingly used in research instead.
children’s emotional development. Children develop Current models of temperament in infancy and early
rapidly from manifesting only a small number of emo- childhood derive in part from research on caregiver-re-
tions during early infancy—interest, contentment, and port questionnaires. A number of different caregiver
distress—to manifesting an expanded set of emotions— temperament questionnaires for young children have
including joy, sadness, anger, fear, empathy, pride, yielded very similar sets of lower-order traits. Some of
shame, and guilt—by age 3 (Eisenberg, 2000; Lewis, the relevant caregiver questionnaires include: the Infant
2000). Thus, the structure of individual differences is Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart, 1981); the Infant
likely to change over the course of childhood because of Characteristics Questionnaire (Bates, Freeland, &
children’s increasing capacities. Like many other as- Lounsbury, 1979); the Colorado Childhood Tempera-
pects of development, children’s individual differences ment Inventory (Rowe & Plomin, 1977); and the Toddler
are likely to become increasingly differentiated and Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (Goldsmith, 1996).
complex over development. Despite the challenges in Additional evidence for early childhood traits derives
mapping the structure of individual differences in in- from item-level factor analyses of the questionnaires de-
fancy and childhood, substantial progress has been made signed to measure Thomas and Chess’s original nine-
in this area. trait model: Although these factor analyses generate
As we illustrate in our description of temperament fewer than nine factors, they provide consistent support
and personality structure, individual differences are or- for a smaller set of traits measured across several ques-
ganized hierarchically across the life span. Covariation tionnaires (Martin, Wisenbaker, & Huttunen, 1994).
among specific behavioral descriptors (e.g., talkative or Structured laboratory tasks and home observational sys-
friendly) is explained by lower-order traits, and the co- tems also provide evidence that a number of traits can be
variation among these more narrow, lower-order traits observed and measured reliably in infants and toddlers.
(e.g., sociability or social potency) is explained by For example, the Laboratory Temperament Assessment
broad, higher-order traits (e.g., Extraversion). Individ- Battery assesses five traits in young children: (1) Plea-
ual differences exhibit such a hierarchical structure in sure/Joy, (2) Fearfulness, (3) Anger Proneness, (4) In-
infancy and early childhood (Putnam, Ellis, & Rothbart, terest / Persistence, and (5) Activity Level (Goldsmith &
2001), middle childhood and adolescence (Shiner & Rothbart, 1991). A home-observation coding system de-
Caspi, 2003), and adulthood (Digman, 1990; Markon, veloped by Bornstein and colleagues (Bornstein, Gaugh-
 The Developing Structure of Personality 305

ran, & Homel, 1986) permits assessment of Positive Af- naires (Martin et al., 1994); this trait taps children’s
fect, Negative Affect, Persistence, Motor Responsivity, sensitivity to various sensory experiences.
and Soothability. • Attention: Between the 4 and 8 month period, infants
Taken together, the caregiver-questionnaire studies, vary in their attentiveness to environmental stimuli
laboratory-based tasks, and observational models pro- (Rothbart, Chew, et al., 2001). Questionnaire mea-
vide the strongest support for the following lower-order sures of this trait tap infants’ duration of attention to
temperament traits in the infant and toddler years stimuli and their ability to notice environmental vari-
(Kochanska, Coy, Tjebkes, & Husarek, 1998; Lemery, ation. In toddlers, this trait also includes the ability
Goldsmith, Klinnert, & Mrazek, 1999; Martin et al., to sustain attention over time and persist at a task
1994; Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Rothbart & Mauro, 1990): (Martin et al., 1994).
• Activity level: Activity level is an important compo-
• Positive emotions/pleasure: This trait measures the nent of most temperament models; however, the mean-
child’s propensity toward the expression of positive ing of this trait is likely to change with development.
emotions, including smiling and laughter as well as Motor movement in infancy is associated with both
pleasure and excitement in social interaction. Obser- anger and positive emotions, whereas motor move-
vational and questionnaire measures for infants ment in the toddler years is linked in complex ways
demonstrate that the disposition toward positive with early markers of high Extraversion and low self-
emotions is distinct from the disposition toward neg- control (Eaton, 1994). When activity level is defined
ative emotions (Belsky, Hsieh, & Crnic, 1996; as positive activity, it is already highly correlated
Kochanska et al., 1998). with markers of Extraversion by the toddler years
• Fear/inhibition: This trait addresses the child’s ten- (Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg, & Hwang, 2002).
dency to withdraw and express fear in the face of • Soothability/adaptability: The evidence for this final
stressful or novel situations ( both social and nonso- trait is not as consistent as that for the preceding six
cial). This trait expresses itself in fearful, with- traits. Soothability, as measured by the Infant Behav-
drawn, and avoidant behavior in situations with ior Questionnaire (Rothbart, 1981), assesses chil-
strangers and unfamiliar, unpredictable objects dren’s capacity to be soothed when comforted by
(Kagan, 1998; Kochanska et al., 1998). caregivers. A similar trait indexing early regulation
• Irritability/anger/frustration: In early childhood, this of emotion emerges in factor analyses of question-
trait includes fussing, anger, and poor toleration of naires stemming from Thomas and Chess’s model.
frustration and limitations. This trait is an important This trait, labeled Adaptability, taps children’s ten-
component of Thomas and Chess’s difficult child dencies to exhibit mild emotional responses and to
type. Infants’ expressions of distress during the first adjust quickly and quietly to various potentially
3 months of life often do not predict later expressions stressful environmental events (Martin et al., 1994).
of distress (Barr & Gunnar, 2000). However, by Adaptability is moderately negatively related to mea-
around 4 months, infants’ tendencies toward fearful- sures of Irritability, and further work is needed to
ness and anger can be distinguished and show some determine if these two traits are truly distinct from
predictive validity for later temperament (Rothbart, one another.
Chew, & Gartstein, 2001). Further, fear and irritabil-
ity each appear to be influenced by unique genetic Higher-Order Traits. Most research on early tem-
and environmental sources, further demonstrating perament has focused on narrowly defined, lower-order
the distinct nature of these two traits (Goldsmith, traits. Rothbart and colleagues have more recently ex-
Lemery, Buss, & Campos, 1999). plored the structure of higher-order temperament traits
• Discomfort: Infants and toddlers differ in the extent in infancy and the toddler years by examining the factor
of their negative emotional reactions to irritating or structure of two newly expanded caregiver-report tem-
painful sensory stimulation (e.g., loud noises, cold perament questionnaires (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003;
touches, or sour tastes; Kochanska et al., 1998). A Putnam et al., 2001; Rothbart & Derryberry, 2002). In
similar trait termed Threshold is obtained in factor samples of American infants and toddlers, three factors
analyses of New York Longitudinal Study question- emerge. In infancy and the toddler years, a Surgency
306 Personality Development

factor taps children’s tendencies toward an eager, posi- (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae, Costa, & Busch,
tive approach to potentially pleasurable activities; vocal 1986); in other words, the Big Five traits emerge in mea-
reactivity (in infants) and sociability (in toddlers); ex- sures designed to assess other sets of traits. Second, re-
pression of positive emotions; enjoyment of high-inten- search stemming from the lexical tradition provides
sity activities; and high activity level. In infancy and the some support for the five-factor model. According to the
toddler years, a Negative Affectivity factor taps both lexical hypothesis, the most socially relevant and salient
children’s tendencies toward sadness, irritability and personality characteristics have become encoded in
frustration, and fear as well as their abilities to quiet everyday language. Accordingly, the personality terms
themselves after high arousal (reversed). The third fac- contained in the natural language may provide an exten-
tor differs in the two periods. In infancy the third factor sive, yet finite, set of attributes that people who share
measures soothability, cuddliness, ability to sustain that language have found important and useful in their
attention, and pleasure in low-intensity situations, interactions with each other. In most lexical studies, a
whereas in the toddler years this factor ( labeled Effort- set of adjectives is drawn from the dictionary to provide
ful Control) includes these traits and more sophisticated a representative sample of personality traits that are im-
self-regulatory abilities. The third factor appears to tap portant in the natural language. Factor analyses of ad-
young children’s emerging behavioral constraint and jectives drawn from dictionaries in countries, such as
regulation. As described in the next section, these three the United States, Germany, Poland, and Holland, have
higher-order traits are highly similar to three higher- resulted in five factors that are at least somewhat con-
order temperament and personality traits observed gruent across samples (Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg,
among older children and adults. 2000); the strongest support has been obtained from lex-
ical analyses of languages deriving from northern Euro-
Structure of Individual Differences from pean origins.
Childhood through Adulthood Several three-factor models of adult personality have
We begin by describing studies of personality structure also received some support: Eysenck’s (1991) three-fac-
among adults, and then turn to the study of personality tor system, Tellegen’s (1985) model of personality
structure in younger age groups. structure, and Cloninger’s model of temperament
(Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993). For example,
Personality Structure in Adulthood. One of the biologically oriented theorists have often pointed to-
great achievements in the study of adult personality over ward three higher-order domains that correspond with
the past 2 decades is greater clarity about the higher- postulated neural structures underlying personality: (1)
order structure of personality. Prior to this emerging An approach domain manifested in positive emotions,
consensus, debate raged about which traits are most (2) an avoidance domain manifested in negative emo-
valid and important. Researchers were prone to the “jin- tions, and (3) a constraint domain manifested as tenden-
gle-jangle” fallacy of studying the same trait under dif- cies to inhibit or express emotion and impulse.
ferent names ( jingle) or using the same name to describe Although there are important differences among
different traits ( jangle) (Block, 1996). Research on these three-factor models and the five-factor model,
adult personality has been energized by emerging con- they overlap to a considerable degree. Extraversion or
sensus about personality structure because researchers Positive Emotionality is common to all systems; it de-
can now focus their attention on a common set of traits. scribes the extent to which the person actively engages
The most widespread support has been obtained for a the world or avoids intense social experiences. Neuroti-
five-trait structure, dubbed the Big Five or the five-fac- cism or Negative Emotionality is also common to all sys-
tor model (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, tems; it describes the extent to which the person
1999); these traits include Extraversion, Neuroticism, experiences the world as distressing or threatening.
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness to Ex- Conscientiousness or Constraint describes the extent
perience/ Intellect. Support for this model derives from and strength of impulse control in task-focused do-
two main sources of evidence. First, a number of factor mains; whether the person is able to delay gratification
analyses of questionnaires designed to measure a broad in the service of more distant goals or is unable to modu-
range of individual differences yield the Big Five traits late impulsive expression. To these three dimensions, the
 The Developing Structure of Personality 307

five-factor model adds two more: (1) Agreeableness and dren and adolescents. As noted previously, Rothbart and
(2) Openness to Experience/ Intellect. Agreeableness de- colleagues have identified three higher-order tempera-
scribes a person’s interpersonal nature on a continuum ment traits in infants and toddlers—Surgency, Negative
from warmth and compassion to antagonism. Agreeable Affectivity, and Effortful Control. Rothbart and col-
persons are empathic, altruistic, helpful, and trusting, leagues have obtained evidence for the same three
whereas antagonistic persons are abrasive, ruthless, ma- higher-order traits in children ages 3 to 7 (Ahadi, Roth-
nipulative, and cynical. Openness to Experience (also bart, & Ye, 1993; Putnam et al., 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi,
called Intellect) describes the complexity, depth, and Hershey, & Fisher, 2001) and in young adolescents ages
quality of a person’s mental and experiential life. 10 to 15 (Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Putnam et al.,
2001). An additional fourth factor is obtained in early
Personality Structure in Childhood and Adoles- adolescence; this factor is labeled Af filiativeness and in-
cence. Consensus about the structure of adult person- cludes some components similar to the positive end of
ality traits has important implications for developmental the Agreeableness trait. Possibly, a similar Affiliative-
research: We now have greater clarity about the adult ness trait could be identified in younger children as well,
personality traits that childhood studies should be try- if such items were included in the relevant question-
ing to predict over time. Developmental researchers have naires. This temperament model yields traits highly
explored the possibility that childhood personality similar in content to several of the Big Five traits: Sur-
structure might map onto the structure observed in gency (Extraversion), Negative Affectivity (Neuroti-
adults, and there is now evidence (from the preschool cism), Effortful Control (Conscientiousness), and
years through adolescence) from a variety of sources Affiliativeness (Agreeableness).
that such is the case. First, factor analyses of question- Third, a variety of behavioral-task and observational
naires, adjective lists, and the California Child Q-Set measures provide support for traits similar to the Big
have often produced factors similar to the Big Five traits Five (Shiner & Caspi, 2003). We describe specific be-
in studies of children from approximately age 3 through havioral-task and observational measures of traits in our
late adolescence. A five-factor structure has been ob- detailed discussion of the content of the Big Five traits.
tained in parent reports (Barbaranelli, Caprara, Thus, data from personality and temperament ques-
Rabasca, & Pastorelli, 2003; Halverson et al., 2003; tionnaires, behavioral tasks, and observational measures
John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, converge on a Big Five trait structure in children and
1994; Lamb et al., 2002; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999, adolescents. To illustrate the meaning of the factors,
2002; van Lieshout & Haselager, 1993, 1994) and in Table 6.1 lists items defining the Big Five traits in three
teacher reports (Barbaranelli et al., 2003; Digman, types of child measures: (1) teacher reports using a list
1994; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Shmelyov, of trait descriptors (Digman & Shmelyov, 1996), (2)
1996; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, parent reports using the California Child Q-Sort (John
2001; Graziano & Ward, 1992; Mervielde, Buyst, & De et al., 1994; van Lieshout & Haselager, 1993, 1994), and
Fruyt, 1995; Resing, Bleichrodt, & Dekker, 1999; van (3) children’s self reports using a puppet interview
Lieshout & Haselager, 1993, 1994; Victor, 1994). Factor (Measelle et al., 2005).
analyses of self-report questionnaires have found evi- Some caveats must be noted regarding the appropri-
dence for five-factor structures in one study of children ateness of the five-factor model for describing the struc-
ages 9 and 10 (Barbaranelli et al., 2003) and in studies ture of children’s and adolescents’ individual
of adolescents (De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra, & Rol- differences. First, the traits are sometimes measured in
land, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 2004). There is also some a less internally consistent fashion in younger children,
evidence that many preadolescents, even as young as 5 especially preschool-age children (e.g., Lamb et al.,
years of age, can provide coherent, reliable self-reports 2002). Second, studies using the California Child Q-Set
of the Big Five traits (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & have provided evidence for additional traits such as irri-
Finch, 1997; Markey, Markey, Tinseley, & Ericksen, tability and dependency that are related to but distinct
2002; Measelle, John, Ablow, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005). from the Big Five traits (e.g., John et al., 1994); the pos-
Second, further support for several of the Big Five sibility of factors beyond the Big Five in children war-
traits derives from temperament research in older chil- rants further study. Third, the Big Five traits are
308 Personality Development

TABLE 6.1 Examples of Trait Descriptors, California Child Q-Sort Items, and Self-Report Puppet Interview Items for Five
Higher-Order Personality Traits in Children

Sample Items

Higher-Order
Personality Trait Trait Descriptorsa Child Q-Sort Items b Puppet Interview Itemsc

Extraversion Gregarious Emotionally expressive I’m not shy when I meet new people
Cheerful A talkative child It’s easy for me to make new friends
Energetic Fast-paced; moves and reacts to things quickly If kids are playing, I ask if I can play too
Withdrawn (rev.) Inhibited or constricted (rev.)
Neuroticism Afraid Fearful and anxious I’m sad a lot
Touchy Tends to go to pieces under stress; becomes I get nervous when my teacher calls on me
Tearful rattled and disorganized I don’t like myself
Steady (rev.) Appears to feel unworthy
Self-reliant, confident (rev.)
Conscientiousness Diligent Attentive and able to concentrate I think it’s important to do well in school
Planful Planful; thinks ahead I try my best in school
Careful Persistent in activities; does not give up easily When I can’t figure something out, I don’t
Focused Reflective; thinks and deliberates before give up
speaking or acting
Agreeableness Considerate Warm and kind toward others I don’t get mad at kids at school
Trusting Helpful and cooperative If someone is mean to me, I don’t hit them
Spiteful (rev.) Tends to give, lend, and share I don’t pick on other kids
Rude (rev.) Teases and picks on others (rev.)
Openness to experience Original Curious and exploring I learn things well
Perceptive Appears to have high intellectual capacity I have good ideas
Knowledgeable (whether expressed in achievement or not) I’m a smart kid
Curious Creative in perception, thought, work, or play
Has an active fantasy life

Note: Rev. = Item is scored in the reversed direction.

a
Items defining the factor in a study of 480 Russian children aged 8 to 10 whose teachers rated them. Source: From “ The Structure of Tem-
perament and Personality in Russian Children,” by J. M. Digman and A. G. Shmelyov, 1996, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
pp. 341–351.
b
Abbreviated California Child Q-sort items defining the factor in two independent studies: (1) a study of 720 Dutch boys and girls who were Q-
sorted by parents and teachers and (2) a study of 350 African American and Caucasian boys aged 12 to 13 enrolled in the Pittsburgh Youth Study
who were Q-sorted by their mothers. Source: From “Personality Development across the Life Course” (pp. 311–388), by A. Caspi, in Handbook
of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional and Personality Development, fifth edition, N. Eisenberg (Ed.), 1998, New York: Wiley.
c
Berkley Puppet Interview items defining the factor in a study of 95 children aged 5 to 7. Source: From “Can children provide coherent, sta-
ble, and valid self-reports on the Big Five dimensions?” by J. Measelle, O. P. John, J. Ablow, P. A. Cowan, and C. P. Cowan, 2005, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 90–106.

sometimes defined by somewhat different clusters of school years because children undergo such rapid devel-
items in children than in adults (van Lieshout & Hase- opmental changes during these periods.
lager, 1993, 1994). For example, in one study Extraver-
sion was defined by a much broader range of traits than Personality Types
the typical adult trait and included aspects of Agree-
ableness and Openness to Experience (Halverson et al., Thus far we have used the term personality structure to
2003). All of these findings highlight the need for con- refer to the pattern of covariation of traits across indi-
tinued study of potential developmental differences in viduals. Personality structure can also refer to the orga-
the nature of the Big Five traits. More work is particu- nization of traits in the individual. Most research on
larly needed in the preschool and early elementary personality development is variable-centered; it focuses
 The Developing Structure of Personality 309

on the relative standing of persons on dimensional vari- concentrate on tasks. Overcontrollers are without many
ables. However, the more appropriate unit of analysis interpersonal skills, shy, and inward looking. Undercon-
may be the person, not the variable. Person-centered re- trollers are impulsive, willful, and disagreeable and they
search focuses on the configuration of multiple person- show little concern for others. This convergence of three
ality variables in the person, on how different personality types across multiple studies is noteworthy
dimensional variables are organized in the person and as the studies differ in numerous ways, including age,
how this organization defines different types of persons. gender, ethnicity, geographic location in which the
Such a model of the person as a system of interacting study participants grew up, the source of personality in-
components is absent from most studies of personality, formation used to derive the types, and even the statisti-
although investigators have called for approaches in cal methods by which the types were derived.
which the person, not the variable, is the focus of analy- However, the convergence across studies is not per-
sis (e.g., Bergman & Cairns, 2000). fect, especially in adult samples (Asendorpf, Caspi, &
Just as the study of personality traits has been ham- Hofstee, 2002). More typological research needs to be
pered by the absence of a structural model, the study of done before anything close to a comprehensive, general-
personality types has been held back by the absence of izable personality typology can be said to exist. In this
empirically derived personality typologies. Typological regard, five issues should be kept in mind. First, atten-
models of personality need to be held to the same em- tion should continue to be given to the replicability of
pirical standards as dimensional models of personality: the types across different instruments of trait assess-
replicability, generalizability, and construct validity. ment, the judge or rater providing the personality data,
The history of empirical research on these problems is and the method of deriving the types. Second, more in-
relatively new, dating to Block’s (1971) Lives Through formation is needed about the generalizability of the
Time. Block had clinically trained judges complete in- types across sex, both in the structure of the types and
dependent Q-sorts of the study participants. In the Q- their developmental correlates. Third, attention must be
sort technique, a sorter describes an individual’s given to possible age differences in the personality
personality by sorting a set of cards containing person- types that are identified. Fourth, the search for replica-
ality attributes into piles ranging from attributes that ble subtypes must continue. Although the three types
are least characteristic to those that are most character- identified thus far are good candidates to become an in-
istic of the individual. This produces a person-centered tegral part of any generalizable person-centered typol-
description because the sorter explicitly compares each ogy, this does not mean that there are only three
attribute with other attributes in the same individual. personality types, just as the five factor model does not
The resemblance between two individuals is indexed by imply that there are only five personality dimensions. It
the correlation between their respective Q-sorts, which simply means that, at the broadest level of generaliza-
reflects the degree to which the attributes specified by tion, psychological theories must account for the devel-
the Q-sort are ordered the same way in the two individ- opment of these types. Fifth, attention needs to be given
uals. The method of inverse factor analysis can then be to the utility of types and their relative benefits, if any,
used to identify clusters of individuals with similar Q- over dimensional, trait models. Some researchers have
sort profiles. suggested, on empirical grounds, that knowledge of a
Over the past decade, several research teams have person’s type membership is useful only because it is a
built on Block’s approach and uncovered evidence point- convenient summary of his or her trait standing (Costa,
ing to the existence of three personality types in child- Herbst, McCrae, Samuels, & Ozer, 2002); the evidence
hood and adolescence (Asendorpf, Borkenau, for the incremental validity of type membership (over
Ostendorf, & van Aken, 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, dimensions) is sparse. Other researchers have suggested
1999; Dubas, Gerris, Janssens, & Vermulst, 2002; Hart, that fair tests of the incremental validity of types have
Atkins, & Fegley, 2003; Hart & Hare, 1997; Robins, not yet been carried out. Although types may not win, or
John, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996; Weir fare better, in a head-to-head comparison of the predic-
& Gjerde, 2002). The largest type of persons, labeled tive validity of personality types versus dimensions,
Resilients, is characterized by being adaptable to change, Robins and Tracy (2003) suggest that for developmental
self-confident, independent, verbally fluent, and able to researchers, “adopting a type approach is particularly
310 Personality Development

important because it is unlikely that environmental velopmental research. Further, adult personality re-
events and contexts ever influence a single trait in isola- search is increasingly international in scope (Church,
tion. Parents, teachers, and other socializing agents in- 2001), particularly the research deriving from the lexi-
teract with the whole child, not with one trait at a time” cal tradition. This international work has the potential
(p. 114). Still others have noted that, even if types do not to create a personality taxonomy that is more generaliz-
offer incremental validity, they offer intuitive appeal able and replicable (Saucier & Simonds, in press).
and clarity. The practical implications of person-cen- It is important to include lower-order traits in our pro-
tered research are easier than trait-based research to posed taxonomy. The Big Five are too broad to capture
communicate to policymakers and research consumers all the interesting variations in human personality, and
(Asendorpf, 2003; Hart et al., 2003). distinctions at the level of more specific traits are neces-
sary. The advantage of broad categories, such as those
TEMPERAMENT AND PERSONALITY described by the five-factor model, is their substantial
TRAITS: A PROCESS-FOCUSED, bandwidth; the disadvantage of broad categories is their
DEVELOPMENTAL TAXONOMY FROM low fidelity (John & Robins, 1993). Lower-order traits
CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD may provide better prediction of behavioral outcomes
than the higher-order traits (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001).
In this section, we elaborate a taxonomy of personality Further, behavioral genetic research suggests that per-
traits in children and adolescents. We draw on three sonality is “inherited as a large number of genetic di-
sources of data: (1) recent research on the structure of mensions that have relatively specific effects on
personality in children and adolescents, (2) developmen- personality phenotypes and a smaller number of genetic
tal research on single traits, and (3) international stud- dimensions that have broader effects” (Livesley, Jang, &
ies of adult personality structure. Each of these sources Vernon, 2003, p. 78). Thus, the lower-order traits are
of information is important for different reasons. First, shaped in part by genetic influences that have effects on
the factor-analytic questionnaire studies in youths gen- all of the components of the higher-order traits, but each
erate especially useful information about the structure lower-order trait is also influenced by unique genetic in-
of the higher-order traits. Second, developmental re- fluences. It will not be possible to understand the genetic
search provides a strong source of information about the (and possibly environmental) origins of personality fully
nature of the lower-order traits because these traits have without considering the lower-order traits.
been studied using a variety of methods, including natu- In this taxonomy, we integrate what is known about
ralistic observation and lab-based studies. Third, the re- diverse aspects of each trait. First, we present a descrip-
cent work on personality structure in adults is also tion of the Big Five traits and the lower-order traits
critically important to the study of individual differ- likely to be subsumed by them (see Table 6.2). There is
ences in children. The adult personality research helps no a priori reason to assume that each higher-order trait
to link higher-order traits with their lower-order compo- will include an equal number of lower-order traits; thus,
nents and highlights potentially valid and important the number of lower-order components varies for each of
lower-order traits that may have been overlooked in de- the higher-order traits. We also note some of the lower-

TABLE 6.2 A Proposed Taxonomy of Higher-Order and Lower-Order Personality Traits in Childhood and Adolescence

Openness to
Higher-Order Traits Extraversion (E) Neuroticism (N) Conscientiousness (C) Agreeableness (A) Experience (O)

Lower-order traits Sociability Fear Attention Prosocial tendencies Intellect

Energy/activity level Anxiety Self-control Antagonism Creativity
Sadness Achievement motivation Willfulness Curiosity
Orderliness
Low E + N N + low A C+A
Social inhibition Anger/irritability Responsibility
Alienation /mistrust
Note: The lower-order traits shown at the bottom of the table typically load on both of the higher-order traits shown.
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 311

order traits that have been identified in adults that have trait—social inhibition—is related to both Extraversion
not been studied in children but that may well emerge in and Neuroticism. Sociability (or gregariousness) is the
childhood or adolescence. Some of the lower-order traits most prototypical lower-order component of Extraver-
appear to load onto more than one higher-order trait in sion. It includes the preference for being with others
factor-analytic studies; we note instances where this oc- rather than alone (A. Buss & Plomin, 1984; D. Buss &
curs. We have presented earlier versions of this taxon- Plomin, 1975) and a variety of behaviors that suggest
omy elsewhere (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Shiner, vigorous, active ways of making connections with oth-
1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003) but have made revisions to ers: talkativeness, friendliness, vivaciousness, and ex-
it based on more recent research. Second, we review pressiveness (Peabody & De Raad, 2002).
what is known about the early temperamental an- Sociability can be distinguished conceptually and
tecedents of each trait; although there is much more to empirically from social inhibition, feelings of discom-
study, a great deal has already been learned about the fort and reluctance to act in novel situations. As noted
early childhood precursors of the personality traits seen previously, fear/inhibition is a trait readily identified in
in adults and children. Third, we survey theories and ev- infants and toddlers. Shyness appears to be one aspect of
idence about the processes underlying each trait. One of a broader inhibition trait in older children. Inhibition
the great benefits of a consensually agreed-upon taxon- consists of a number of related but distinct behaviors:
omy of traits is that it allows researchers to train their hesitance with new peers and adults, wariness in physi-
lenses on how personality traits express themselves in cally challenging and unfamiliar situations, difficulty
everyday life and on the fundamental processes underly- with separation from parents, and acute discomfort in
ing variations in these traits. We thus review some of the performance situations (Bishop, Spence, & McDonald,
most interesting current work on the psychological and 2003). This trait has been measured through a variety of
biological underpinnings of each Big Five trait. observed behaviors in toddlers, preschoolers, and older
children, such as a fearful response to novel situations
(e.g., a toy robot, a gorilla head mask, an adult dressed
Extraversion
as a clown) and reticent, withdrawn behavior with unfa-
Children vary in their tendencies to be vigorously, ac- miliar adults or children (Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus,
tively, and surgently engaged with the world around 1998; Pfeifer, Goldsmith, Davidson, & Rickman, 2002;
them. Extraverted children and adolescents are de- Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002). Sociability and so-
scribed in Big Five studies as sociable, expressive, high- cial inhibition represent distinct traits: Sociability is a
spirited, lively, socially potent, physically active, and pure marker of Extraversion, whereas social inhibition
energetic. In contrast, introverted youths are quiet, in- appears to be a more complex blend of low Extraversion
hibited, and lethargic. Observations of preschoolers re- and high fear or anxiety in the presence of novel situa-
veal a similar, coherent set of behaviors: high positive tions (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003b; Eisenberg, Fabes,
affect, energy and zestful engagement, and eager antici- & Murphy, 1995; Markon et al., 2005; Nigg, 2000).
pation of enjoyable events (Buckley, Klein, Durbin, Energy and activity level are aspects of Extraversion
Hayden, & Moerk, 2002). The Revised Class Play, a that are easily observed among children. Energetic en-
peer nomination measure for elementary school chil- gagement with pleasurable tasks is a component of Ex-
dren, also yields a factor resembling Extraversion traversion by around age 2 or 3 (Halverson et al., 2003;
(Morison & Masten, 1991); children high on this factor Lamb et al., 2002). Because people become less motori-
are described by peers as outgoing, sociable leaders who cally active with age, activity level may no longer be a
wield considerable social influence. Based on observa- separate lower-order component of Extraversion by
tional measures, extraverted children indeed are more adulthood and instead may be manifest in greater talka-
talkative, more dominant, and more involved and en- tiveness, enthusiasm, and energy (Eaton, 1994). As
gaged in interaction than their introverted peers noted previously, activity level can be observed as a re-
(Markey, Markey, & Tinsley, 2004). liable individual difference in infants and is sometimes
associated with negative emotions. Similarly, older chil-
Extraversion: Lower-Order Traits dren are also likely to exhibit individual differences in
Extraversion encompasses the lower-order traits of so- poorly regulated motor output (Goldberg, 2001), as evi-
ciability and energy/activity level. Another lower-order denced, for example, in the fidgeting and impulsive
312 Personality Development

motor movements associated with Attention- (Arcus, 2001; Park, Belsky, Putnam, & Crnic, 1997;
Deficit /Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; American Rubin et al., 2002). Finally, a 23-year longitudinal study
Psychiatric Association, 1994). Such poorly controlled, found that highly confident, friendly, and zealous 3-
impulsive activity is not typically focused on the pur- year-olds exhibited high Extraversion as adults, whereas
suit of productive ends as in high Extraversion and is socially reticent, fearful 3-year-olds exhibited low
more likely to be associated with low Conscientiousness scores on this trait in adulthood (Caspi, Harrington,
and low Agreeableness in children (Goldberg, 2001). et al., 2003).
The two types of motor activity need to be distin-
Extraversion: Underlying Processes
guished in childhood.
Another possible component of Extraversion is social Three main models have been advanced to explain the
dominance, the tendency to be assertive, to exert control basis of the Extraversion trait. Although each model em-
over others, and to capture and enjoy others’ attention. phasizes different aspects of the trait, the models are
Such tendencies are related to Extraversion in adults, clearly related and can be integrated. Moreover, all
but also may be associated with low Agreeableness three models of Extraversion help to make sense of the
(Markon et al., 2005). Because these traits are likely to findings regarding the associations between the emer-
be an important contributor to children’s emerging ca- gence of Extraversion and positive emotions, high en-
pacities for leadership, positive expressions of social ergy and activity, and active social behavior in the early
dominance are worthy of research attention in children. years of development.
First, Extraversion is often conceptualized as the
Extraversion: Early Childhood Antecedents predisposition to experience positive emotions (Telle-
A number of early individual differences predict aspects gen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1997). As noted, the expres-
of Extraversion later in childhood. First, questionnaire sion of positive emotions in infancy is predictive of later
and observational measures of positive emotions, such markers of Extraversion. These links between Extraver-
as smiling and laughter, predict childhood Extraversion sion and the experience of positive emotions are robust
(Fox, Henderson, Rubin, Calkins, & Schmidt, 2001; in adulthood as well; a meta-analysis obtained an aver-
Rothbart, Derryberry, & Hershey, 2000). In one study, age correlation of .37 between Extraversion and the con-
full-face positive emotions in the Strange Situation at current experience of positive affect (Lucas & Fujita,
18 months (a presumed marker of high-intensity positive 2000). Individuals vary in the extent to which they act
emotions) predicted Extraversion at 3.5 years (Abe & extraverted throughout the course of a day; at those
Izard, 1999). Other aspects of childhood Extraversion times when they act more extraverted, individuals expe-
are also predicted by infant measures of sociability rience greater positive emotions (Fleeson, Malanos, &
(Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003), positive activity level Achille, 2002). Extraverts also appear to be more moti-
(Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003; Korner et al., 1985), shorter vated and skilled at prolonging the experience of posi-
observed latency to grasp small objects (Rothbart, Der- tive emotions than introverts (Hemenover, 2003).
ryberry, et al., 2000), and lower observed fear (Roth- Why are Extraversion and positive affect linked so
bart, Derryberry, et al., 2000). Measures of higher consistently? One possibility is that more extraverted
infant frustration also predict later aspects of childhood individuals engage in activities that promote positive af-
Extraversion (Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., 2000); we fect, such as spending time with friends. Extraverted
return shortly to this interesting link between adults do engage in more social activity, which results in
anger/frustration and Extraversion. positive affect, but social activity alone does not ac-
Longitudinal research on social inhibition suggests count for the Extraversion-positive affect link (Watson,
that infant negative emotional reactivity to overstimula- Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992). An additional ex-
tion predicts later inhibition and that inhibition is some- planation is a temperamental view of Extraversion—that
what stable for a subset of children, particularly those there are endogenous links between Extraversion and
who are extreme on these traits (Kagan et al., 1998; positive affect. There is good evidence for this con-
Pfeifer et al., 2002). However, maternal behavior ap- tention: Extraversion is robustly associated with both
pears to moderate these relations, such that inhibited pleasant (e.g., happy, good) and activated (e.g., alert, ex-
children receiving intrusive, derisive, or overprotective cited) positive emotions in emotionally neutral condi-
parenting remain more consistently inhibited across tions (Lucas & Baird, 2004). Extraverts experience
time than inhibited children receiving other parenting more positive emotions than introverts even when alone.
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 313

Extraversion is also sometimes associated with in- sociated with Extraversion are simply correlates of the
creased activated ( but not pleasant) positive emotions in pursuit of social attention.
pleasant conditions (Lucas & Baird, 2004); thus, there is
some more limited evidence that extraverts show greater Neuroticism
positive emotional reactivity to positive events. Behav-
ior genetic research provides support for both a geneti- Just as children vary in their predisposition toward pos-
cally and an environmentally mediated link between itive emotions, they vary in their susceptibility to nega-
Extraversion and positive emotions: Sociability and the tive emotions and general distress. In the Big Five
positive affects covary because of shared genetic and studies, children and adolescents who are high on Neu-
nonshared environmental influences (Eid, Riemann, An- roticism are described as anxious, vulnerable, tense,
gleitner, & Borkenau, 2003). easily frightened, “ falling apart ” under stress, guilt-
Second and relatedly, Extraversion has been concep- prone, moody, low in frustration tolerance, and insecure
tualized as a biologically based behavioral activation, in relationships with others. Fewer descriptors define
approach, or appetitive system. The most influential the lower end of this dimension; these include traits
framework for understanding this approach system has such as stability, being “laid back,” adaptability in novel
been Gray’s (1987, 1990) model of the Behavioral Acti- situations, and the ability to “ bounce back ” after a bad
vation System (BAS). According to Gray, the BAS is a experience. As these descriptions of childhood Neuroti-
neurobiological system that responds to incentives for cism illustrate, the trait appears to include both the
appetitive behavior, including signals of reward, nonpun- child’s experience of negative emotions and the child’s
ishment, and escape from punishment. Individuals with effectiveness at self-regulating such negative emotions.
a stronger BAS should be highly attentive to such incen- Neurotic individuals tend to be self-critical, insecure,
tives: When this system is activated, individuals begin and sensitive to criticism and teasing. Neuroticism may
to approach or pursue goals. Measures of BAS function- actually be part of an underlying personality dimension
ing in children have recently been developed (Blair, that includes self-esteem, locus of control, and general-
2003; Colder & O’Connor, 2004). Biological evidence ized self-efficacy (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen,
for an approach system derives from Davidson and col- 2002). Neuroticism thus may be one key aspect of a
leagues’ work demonstrating that specialized neural more general tendency to view oneself and the world
substrates for behavioral approach exist in the left ante- through a negative lens (Erez & Judge, 2001). Neurotic
rior cerebral cortex (Davidson, Pizzagalli, Nitschke, & adults tend to be dissatisfied with major aspects of their
Kalin, 2003). Adults with greater BAS sensitivity do ap- lives, including their relationships, work, and health
pear to seek out experiences that produce higher levels (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004). Behavioral observations
of positive affect (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000) and de- confirm the questionnaire descriptions of children high
rive their sense of well-being from such positive emo- on this trait; childhood Neuroticism is associated with
tional experiences (Updegraff, Gable, & Taylor, 2004). behaviors such as making self-critical statements, ex-
This approach model of Extraversion helps to make pressing a sense of self-pity and guilt, acting irritated,
sense of the fact that Extraversion can sometimes be as- and showing signs of physical tension (Markey et al.,
sociated with experiences of anger and frustration in 2004). Higher Neuroticism may also be linked with a va-
both adults and children, in addition to its more typical riety of aversive interpersonal behaviors in childhood.
associations with positive affect (Carver, 2004; In an observational study of parent-child interaction,
Donzella, Gunnar, Krueger, & Alwin, 2000); anger may higher Neuroticism was correlated with keeping parents
be experienced to a greater degree among extraverted at a distance, seeming detached, speaking sarcastically,
individuals when they fear they may not or actually do and exhibiting low levels of upbeat, enthusiastic behav-
not obtain the rewards they pursue with such vigor. ior (Markey et al., 2004).
A third, potentially fruitful model of Extraversion is
Neuroticism: Lower-Order Traits
that it represents the tendency to attract, maintain, and
enjoy social attention (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). Neuroticism is likely to include a number of lower-order
According to this model, Extraversion serves an adap- traits, including fear, anxiety, and sadness. Two other
tive, evolutionary function by holding others’ attention lower-order traits appear to be related to both high Neu-
in ways that provide rewards; thus, this model posits that roticism and low Agreeableness: (1) anger/irritability
the reward-seeking tendencies and positive emotions as- and (2) alienation /mistrust.
314 Personality Development

Based on the extensive literature on negative emo- standing of how early Neuroticism develops could yield
tions deriving from research on psychopathology, it may crucial information for prevention programs. Such re-
be possible to break down the negative emotions in- search is important in light of evidence that children’s
cluded in Neuroticism into at least three distinct but re- average level of anxiety appears to have increased from
lated lower-order traits: (1) fear, (2) anxiety, and (3) the 1950s to the 1990s (Twenge, 2000).
sadness (Barlow, 2000; Chorpita, Albano, & Barlow, As we noted previously, individual differences in
1998; Muris, Schmidt, Merckelbach, & Schouten, anger and frustration relate to both the higher-order
2001). Fear represents negative affect and bodily symp- Neuroticism and Agreeableness traits. Anger/irritability
toms arising from exposure to an actual or an imagined taps outer-directed, hostile emotions such as anger, jeal-
object or situation. The definition of fearfulness in the ousy, frustration, and irritation (Halverson et al., 2003);
psychopathology literature is highly similar to the di- in children, such hostility is often evoked by limits set
mensions of fear/social inhibition described previously, by adults. In samples of American children and adults,
in that these individual differences all involve negative an anger/irritability trait is moderately correlated with
emotions arising from actual exposure to a feared situa- both high Neuroticism and low Agreeableness (Halver-
tion (e.g., a novel stimulus or exposure to unfamiliar son et al., 2003; Kochanska, Friesenborg, Lange, &
peers); future research will need to determine whether Martel, 2004; Markon et al., 2005). In a number of in-
fear and social inhibition should be seen as distinct ternational lexical studies, anger/irritability is more
traits. Anxiety taps tendencies toward nervous apprehen- clearly associated with low Agreeableness than with
sion, general distress, worry, and physical tension when high Neuroticism (Ashton et al., 2004).
there is no imminent threat. The symptom-based mea- In some studies with both adults and children,
sures of anxiety are highly comparable to the general anger/irritability has been viewed as part of an overar-
measures of Neuroticism used with children and adults. ching Negative Emotionality trait that includes both
Sadness includes behaviors associated with depression, Neuroticism and anger/irritability (Buckley et al., 2002;
including lowered mood, hopelessness, and dejection Lengua, 2002; Rothbart, Ahadi, et al., 2001; Tellegen,
arising from experiences of disappointment and loss. 1985). Questionnaire studies, lab tasks, and naturalistic
Sadness is included as a lower-order trait in some tem- observations have all demonstrated that children and
perament and personality models (e.g., Costa & Mc- adults who are prone to experiencing one type of nega-
Crae, 1992; Rothbart, Ahadi, et al., 2001) but it is tive emotion are prone to experiencing other types of
usually only a minor component of most Neuroticism negative emotions as well. It is important to separate
measures, which tend to emphasize anxiety. The dis- Neuroticism from anger/irritability for several reasons.
tinctive aspects of sadness thus may be obscured when As noted previously, it is possible to distinguish fear/in-
only the general Neuroticism trait is assessed (Moon, hibition from anger/irritability beginning in infancy.
Hollenbeck, Humphrey, & Maue, 2003). For example, These two types of negative emotions appear to require
relative to other aspects of Neuroticism, adult sadness is different regulatory strategies; for example, distraction
a more robust predictor of life satisfaction (Schimmack, works to reduce anger but not fear in infants (K. Buss &
Oishi, Furr, & Funder, 2004) and global self-esteem Goldsmith, 1998). Fear and anger have different and
(Watson, Suls, & Haig, 2002). sometimes opposite effects on cognitive processing
In general, much more work is needed to understand (e.g., fear promotes risk aversion, whereas anger pro-
the development of individual differences in fear, anxi- motes risk-seeking; Lerner & Keltner, 2000). The adap-
ety, and sadness, especially given their links with a tive profiles associated with each trait differ as well.
broad spectrum of psychiatric disorders (Watson, 2001). For example, whereas fearfulness appears to protect
A great deal of productive work has focused on fear/in- against childhood aggression (Raine, Reynolds, Ven-
hibition as a risk factor for the development of anxiety ables, Mednick, & Farrington, 1998), anger and irri-
disorders (Kagan & Snidman, 1999). The emergence of tability put children at risk for later aggression (Loeber
individual differences in anxiety and sadness will be & Hay, 1997).
equally important to study, especially given evidence A final lower-order trait, alienation/mistrust has
that most adolescents with anxiety disorders do not been identified in adults and, like anger/irritability, is
show inhibited temperament as younger children (Prior, related to high Neuroticism and low Agreeableness
Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000). A better under- (Kochanska et al., 2004; Markon et al., 2005; Martin,
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 315

Watson, & Wan, 2000). This trait taps an individual’s emerges as these children encounter the ill effects of
tendency to mistrust others and to feel mistreated (Tel- their behavior.
legen & Waller, 1992). Individual differences in inter-
Neuroticism: Underlying Processes
personal alienation and mistrust have been identified in
research on social information processing in youths Research with adults has helped to characterize the cog-
(Crick & Dodge, 1994) and in the attachment literature nitive style, daily experiences, and interpersonal func-
(Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, & Egeland, 1999). In adults, this tioning of individuals high on Neuroticism.
trait is highly linked with poor life adaptation and may Developmental researchers have also studied the links
emerge in part from repeated experiences of failure between attention and executive control and children’s
across development (Shiner, Masten, & Tellegen, 2002). experiences of negative emotions. In this section, we
Childhood Neuroticism may include other aspects that focus on the processes underlying the anxiety, fear, and
are worthy of consideration, including children’s tenden- sadness aspects of Neuroticism and discuss anger/irri-
cies toward dependence, low self-confidence, vulnerabil- tability in our discussion of Agreeableness.
ity in the face of stress and emotional instability. In cognition, adults high on trait anxiety show atten-
tional biases toward information relevant to their per-
Neuroticism: Early Childhood Antecedents sonal fears; such biases are consistent with a model of
A number of early childhood traits have been identified anxiety as helping to prepare individuals for potentially
as predictors of Neuroticism and its components. Emo- dangerous situations by rapidly focusing attention on
tional expression in the Strange Situation procedure at threatening material (Mineka, Rafaeli, & Yovel, 2003).
18 months predicts Neuroticism at 3.5 years (Abe & In contrast, tendencies toward depression are associated
Izard, 1999); specifically, high-intensity full-face nega- with biases toward remembering and ruminating over
tive emotions (sadness and anger) predict Neuroticism past negative experiences (Mineka et al., 2003). Adults
positively, and milder, more regulated positive emotions high on trait anxiety and adults high on depression are
(interest and joy) predict Neuroticism negatively (Abe biased toward assuming they will encounter unduly neg-
& Izard, 1999). Consistent with this finding, childhood ative experiences in the future. More generally, adult
fearfulness and sadness are predicted by infant mea- Neuroticism is associated with an emotionally negative
sures of high fear and low positive emotions (Rothbart, tone in individuals’ narratives about key experiences in
Derryberry, et al., 2000). Childhood sadness is addition- their lives (McAdams et al., 2004) and with greater
ally predicted by low infant frustration (Rothbart, Der- cognitive processing of unpleasant, negative informa-
ryberry, et al., 2000). In contrast, childhood tion (Gomez, Gomez, & Cooper, 2002). Thus, there is
anger/frustration is not predicted by infant fear but, in- good evidence that Neuroticism and its lower-order
stead, is predicted by infant high frustration, high activ- components are associated, at least in adulthood, with
ity level, and short latency to grasp small objects biases toward processing negative information, though
(Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., 2000). Childhood the biases may vary somewhat for different lower-order
anger/frustration is predicted by early markers of Extra- components.
version, consistent with the previously discussed claim Developmental research provides an interesting per-
that high Extraversion may generate high frustration spective on why Neuroticism may be linked with vari-
when goals are blocked. Thus, childhood fear and anger ous cognitive biases. Beginning in infancy and
appear to have relatively distinct and separate an- continuing throughout childhood, greater attentional
tecedents, whereas childhood sadness shares some com- control is associated with more effective regulation of
mon infant antecedents with both. negative emotionality (Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, &
Although fear and anger appear to be separate in Spinrad, 2004; Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004). Ini-
childhood, over time greater anger may come to predict tially, parents are an important source of assistance
higher anxiety and distress. For example, in one longitu- with such emotional regulation, but over time children
dinal study, preschool-age children who were irritable, develop more of their own capacities for self-
distractible, labile, and uncontrolled grew up to be more regulation. Neurotic individuals’ bias toward attending
Neurotic as adults (Caspi, Harrington, et al., 2003); it to negative information may arise in part from difficul-
may be the case that the greater adult anxiety experi- ties in executive functioning, particularly with atten-
enced by previously angry, undercontrolled children tion. The converse could also be true: Neuroticism may
316 Personality Development

bias individuals toward focusing on negative cues, children have recently been developed (Blair, 2003;
which could interfere with the allocation of attention Colder & O’Connor, 2004). As with Extraversion,
(MacCoon, Wallace, & Newman, 2004). Davidson and colleagues have shown that there are spe-
Just as Neuroticism is associated with negative cog- cialized neural substrates for behavioral withdrawal, in
nitive biases, it is also linked with more negative daily this case in the right anterior cerebral cortex (Davidson
experiences in adults. In lab-based studies, neurotic et al., 2003). In situations that present both incentives
adults report more negative emotional responses to a va- and threats, individuals may experience an approach-
riety of negative stimuli than less neurotic adults avoidance conflict. In such situations, the goal of avoid-
(Gross, Sutton, & Ketelaar, 1998). Experience-sampling ance is likely to win out over the goal of approach (Gray
studies have demonstrated that this negative emotional & McNaughton, 1996), perhaps because negative emo-
reactivity occurs in daily life as well: Neurotic adults tions have more widespread and lasting effects than pos-
have stronger negative emotional reactions to everyday itive emotions (Larsen & Prizmic, 2004). Although
problems, including both interpersonal conflicts and more Neurotic individuals may be motivated to avoid
stress at work and at home (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; and minimize aversive experiences, they do not appear
Gable et al., 2000; Suls, Martin, & David, 1998). Neu- to be successful at doing so. Rather, they tend to experi-
rotic individuals may find daily problems to be more ence more negative life events than less Neurotic indi-
stressful, in part, because they tend to use ineffective viduals (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993) and
coping responses, such as escape and avoidance, and experience higher levels of negative emotions in re-
high levels of interpersonal confrontation (O’Brien & sponse to such experiences (Gable et al., 2000). The
DeLongis, 1996). Finally, more neurotic individuals findings on the biological and psychological processes
tend to show some distinguishing patterns of interper- associated with Neuroticism should provide impetus to
sonal behavior, including more disagreeable and submis- study similar processes associated with the development
sive behavior and less agreeable and dominant behavior of Neuroticism in children.
(Cote & Moskowitz, 1998). Neurotic adults also show
more lability across situations in their interpersonal be- Conscientiousness
haviors (Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004), which may lead
others to form the impression that they are unpre- An overarching Conscientiousness trait taps children’s
dictable. The interpersonal behaviors associated with individual differences in self-control, in large part as
Neuroticism in adults are consistent with the previously control is used in service of completing tasks and striv-
described aversive interaction style observed in more ing to meet standards. In Big Five studies, highly Con-
neurotic children. In summary, the process-oriented scientious children and adolescents are described as
studies with adults have demonstrated that Neuroticism responsible, attentive, persistent, orderly and neat,
is associated with a variety of difficulties in emotional planful, possessing high standards, and thinking before
and behavioral regulation. acting. Children low on this trait are depicted as irre-
All of these findings regarding Neuroticism are con- sponsible, unreliable, careless, distractible, and quitting
sistent with the claim that individual differences in Neu- easily. The higher-order Conscientiousness trait is de-
roticism are associated with variation in a biologically fined by a remarkably similar set of descriptors in lexi-
based withdrawal, inhibition, or avoidance system. As cal studies with adults across a wide variety of
with Extraversion, one of the most important frame- languages and countries, thereby providing strong inter-
works for understanding this system has been a model national evidence for the nature of this trait in adult-
developed by Gray (1987, 1990). According to Gray, in- hood (Peabody & De Raad, 2002). Based on parental
dividuals differ in the sensitivity of a neurobiological descriptions of children from a number of countries,
Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), which serves to in- parents rarely describe their children by traits linked
hibit behavior in the face of potential punishment, non- with Conscientiousness at age 3 years but do use such
reward, and novelty. Thus, individuals with a strong BIS descriptors more often by age 6 years (Slotboom, Hav-
should be sensitive to signals of threats and should be ill, Pavlopoulos, & De Fruyt, 1998); parents may see
quick to withdraw or inhibit their behavior when they these descriptors of Conscientiousness as inappropriate
perceive such signals. Measures of BIS functioning in until their children are closer to school age. There is ev-
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 317

idence from at least one study that some of these more will be needed to clarify the similarities and differences
complex manifestations of self-control can be measured between the personality and temperament conceptions
with moderate reliability in children as young as ages 3 of this higher-order trait. In particular, as we elaborate
and 4 years (Halverson et al., 2003). The numerous Big in our discussion of Agreeableness, temperamental Ef-
Five questionnaire studies demonstrate that these more fortful Control may represent differences in control that
complex traits can certainly be measured in children by can be applied to tasks and achievement (as in the case
middle childhood. of Conscientiousness) and to social relationships (as in
Rothbart, Ahadi, and colleagues (2001) have identi- the case of Agreeableness). There is some evidence that
fied in children a similar temperament trait labeled Ef- childhood Effortful Control is linked with Agreeable-
fortful Control, which includes children’s capacities to ness (Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg, & Reiser, 2004).
plan behavior, inhibit inappropriate responses, focus and Questionnaire studies of the Big Five in adults indicate
shift attention, take pleasure in low intensity situations, that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness tend to co-
and perceive subtle external stimuli. In a series of stud- vary and coalesce to form a superordinate trait (Markon
ies, Kochanska and colleagues have developed a battery et al., 2005); it is certainly possible that a basic tendency
of tasks to measure children’s emerging Effortful Con- toward behavioral constraint versus disinhibition under-
trol (Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Kochanska, Murray, lies both of these traits.
& Coy, 1997; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000;
Conscientiousness: Lower-Order Traits
Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Keonig, & Vandegeest,
1996): All of the tasks require a child to exert self- Conscientiousness in children includes a number of
control by suppressing a dominant response in favor of lower-order components: attention, self-control, achieve-
carrying out a subdominant response. The tasks include ment motivation, orderliness, and responsibility. Atten-
delay of a pleasant behavior (e.g., waiting to unwrap a tion versus distractibility taps children’s capacity to
toy), slowing down fine or gross motor movements, sup- focus attention, regulate attention by shifting mental
pressing a response to one signal and producing a re- sets, and persist at tasks in the face of distractions. As
sponse to another (e.g., producing different responses to noted previously, individual differences in attention
red and green signs), whispering, and Stroop-like atten- emerge in infancy. Attention versus distractibility is a
tion tasks requiring the child to ignore prominent fea- lower-order component of Conscientiousness and Effort-
tures of a stimulus and to attend to other less salient ful Control in questionnaire measures for older children
features. Although children’s performance on the tasks (Halverson et al., 2003; Putnam et al., 2001). Although
is less internally consistent at 22 months, the tasks re- attention is an important trait in most childhood tem-
veal a more coherent set of behaviors by 33 months and perament models (Shiner, 1998), it is not prominent in
measure a highly coherent, stable trait by 45 months. adult personality models. Descriptors related to atten-
Thus, questionnaire and observational studies confirm tion may have been left out of adult personality question-
that children differ reliably in their manifest levels of naire studies because such terms are often seen as more
self-control. relevant to the domains of intellect and cognition than to
Although temperament and personality models both the domain of personality. Further, by adulthood individ-
include dimensions related to self-control, the content of ual differences in attention and executive control may
these traits differs somewhat. Temperament models tend underlie most of the components of Conscientiousness;
to emphasize attention and impulse control, which are we return to this point in our discussion of the processes
individual differences that can be identified in a rudi- underlying Conscientiousness.
mentary form in very young children. In contrast, per- Four other lower-order components of Conscientious-
sonality models include not only impulse control but ness have been identified in factor-analytic question-
also traits that children do not exhibit until they are naire studies with children and adults. Self-control taps
older, such as orderliness, dependability, and motivation tendencies to be planful, cautious, deliberate, and be-
to meet goals and complete work. There is some prelim- haviorally controlled (Peabody & De Raad, 2002;
inary evidence from one questionnaire study that Big Roberts, Bogg, Walton, Chernyshenko, & Stark, 2004;
Five Conscientiousness is highly related to Effortful Rothbart, Ahadi, et al., 2001). Achievement motivation
Control (Halverson et al., 2003) but much more work (also called work or industriousness) taps the tendency
318 Personality Development

to strive for high standards, to work hard and be produc- highly stable trait from 33 to 45 months (Kochanska &
tive, and to pursue goals over time in a determined, per- Knaack, 2003). Early IQ has also been found to predict
sistent manner (Halverson et al., 2003; Peabody & De persistence at tasks (Guerin et al., 2003) and Effortful
Raad, 2002; Roberts et al., 2004). Orderliness (or orga- Control (Kochanska & Knaack, 2003) later in childhood.
nization) reflects a propensity to be neat, clean, and or- Early differences in emotional reactivity also predict
ganized rather than sloppy, disorganized, and disorderly later self-control in several studies. Milder, more regu-
(Halverson et al., 2003; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002; lated positive emotions in the Strange Situation proce-
Roberts et al., 2004). These are all behaviors that in- dure at 18 months have been found to predict
volve the active structuring of a person’s tasks and envi- Conscientiousness at 3.5 years (Abe & Izard, 1999). In
ronment. Responsibility ranges from the tendency to be contrast, several early individual differences predict
reliable and dependable to the tendency to be irresponsi- lower levels of self-control in childhood: Earlier anger
ble and unreliable (Goldberg, 2001; Peabody & De and intense joy negatively predict preschool Effortful
Raad, 2002; Roberts et al., 2004); this subcomponent Control (Kochanska & Knaack, 2003), and shorter la-
appears to measure Conscientiousness manifested in re- tency to approach and grasp small objects in infancy
lation to other people and may be a blend of Conscien- negatively predicts attention and self-control in child-
tiousness and Agreeableness (Goldberg, 2001; Roberts hood (Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., 2000). These find-
et al., 2004). Achievement motivation, orderliness, and ings regarding the links between early emotional
responsibility are traits typically left out of tempera- reactivity and later self-control are provocative but dif-
ment models; these three lower-order traits seem likely ficult to interpret. It seems likely that infants and tod-
to be important for children’s development and warrant dlers with stronger approach tendencies (those with
more thorough study. intense positive emotions and a quick approach) and
Observations of delay of gratification have been used stronger anger may have more difficulty developing self-
in a number of studies to assess children’s self-control; control because they have stronger emotions to regulate;
the most well-known work on observed delay of gratifi- they must work against their eager or angry tendencies
cation is Mischel’s longitudinal research (Mischel & to exhibit self-control. However, it is also possible that
Ayduk, 2004). Delay of gratification is typically as- children’s early expressions of anger and high-intensity
sessed in these studies by placing children in a situation positive emotions may partly tap early difficulties with
in which they have to choose between an immediate but self-control, which could account for why these early
smaller prize and a delayed but larger prize. Although emotions predict later self-control. More work will be
children’s ability to delay in this paradigm is related to needed to clarify the transactions between the emotion-
their attentional capacities, this measure is probably not based traits and self-control across childhood.
a pure measure of self-control because children’s ap-
Conscientiousness: Underlying Processes
proach tendencies are also likely to influence their abil-
ities to delay (Eisenberg, Smith, et al., 2004). Conscientiousness indexes a child’s or adult’s active en-
gagement with various tasks; an individual high on this
Conscientiousness: Early Childhood Antecedents trait invests greater energy in completing work, uphold-
Childhood markers of self-control are predicted in con- ing commitments, and maintaining order (Ashton & Lee,
ceptually coherent ways by several early individual dif- 2001). Conscientiousness thus should tap a person’s ca-
ferences, and childhood self-control itself is remarkably pacity to exercise self-control in the service of effective
stable by the preschool years. Not surprisingly, the abil- task completion. The adaptive profile associated with
ity to focus attention in infancy predicts Effortful Con- Conscientiousness is consistent with such a view of the
trol later in childhood (Kochanska et al., 2000). trait. As we review later in this chapter, childhood Con-
Individual differences in persistence at tasks (similar to scientiousness predicts better academic achievement
the lower-order attention trait described previously) and improvement in academic achievement over time,
have been found to be highly stable from the toddler to and adult Conscientiousness is the best personality trait
preschool years and from middle childhood to adoles- predictor of work success (Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, &
cence (Guerin, Gottfried, Oliver, & Thomas, 2003). As Barrick, 1999). One reason that more conscientious
noted previously, observed Effortful Control itself is a adults may excel in school and work is that they tend to
moderately stable trait from 22 to 33 months and is a use planful problem solving as a way of handling stres-
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 319

sors in these domains of their life rather than trying to (Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman, 1997; Kochanska,
escape or avoid such problems (O’Brien & DeLongis, Coy, & Murray, 2001). Conscientiousness thus may re-
1996). Conscientious adults also tend to set higher goals flect children’s and adults’ adoption of society’s norms
for themselves, are more committed to meeting those for regulated behavior.
goals, and have greater confidence that they can meet Having considered the nature of Conscientiousness
those goals (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Judge & from a theoretical point of view, it is important to exam-
Ilies, 2002). The data on Conscientiousness make clear ine the more basic biological and psychological
that this trait is highly relevant to effectiveness in the processes that are likely to underlie individual differ-
areas of striving and achieving; however, it is important ences in this trait. Conscientiousness is not the same as
to recognize that Conscientiousness may be detrimental self-regulation because self-regulation is relevant to
to performance in certain contexts (see Tett & Burnett, other individual differences as well; however, research
2003, and Yeo & Neal, 2004, for reviews). An important on self-regulation may shed some light on Conscien-
area of future research will be examining in closer detail tiousness. Researchers studying the biological basis of
the ways that conscientious children and adults approach self-regulation have pointed to the importance of the
and accomplish their daily tasks and goals. prefrontal cortex for a variety of self-regulatory skills,
The importance of Conscientiousness is not restricted including working memory, emotional processing, plan-
to task-focused endeavors; rather, Conscientiousness is ning, novelty detection, resolving conflicting informa-
often associated with effective social functioning as tion, initiating action, and inhibiting inappropriate
well. For example, a study of observed interactions be- responses (Banfield, Wyland, Macrae, Munte, &
tween school-age children and their parents showed that Heatherton, 2004; Nigg, 2000). Posner, Rothbart, and
child Conscientiousness was (unsurprisingly) associated colleagues (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Rueda et al.,
with greater exhibited intelligence and ambition and 2004) consider many of these capacities to reflect indi-
(unexpectedly) with better social skills, warmth, and co- vidual differences in an overarching executive attention
operativeness (Markey et al., 2004). Childhood Consci- capacity, which they likewise link with the development
entiousness also often predicts concurrent and later peer of the frontal cortex, particularly the anterior cingulate
social competence and rule-abiding behavior (Lamb cortex. These researchers have examined the develop-
et al., 2002; Shiner, 2000; Shiner, Masten, & Roberts, ment of executive attention across childhood. Infants
2003) and better conflict resolution with peers (Jensen- show differences in alerting and orienting, which are
Campbell & Graziano, 2001). One straightforward rea- both manifestations of a more reactive attentional sys-
son that Conscientiousness may be linked with effective tem. However, by 9 and 18 months of age, infants also
social functioning is that self-regulation is clearly im- begin to show evidence of more voluntary control of at-
portant for maintaining social relationships in both tention. Children show marked growth in executive at-
childhood and adulthood (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & tention during the 3rd year of life, and this growth
Reiser, 2000; Vohs & Ciarocco, 2004). continues throughout childhood. Based on this model,
A second, deeper reason for these links between children’s manifest differences in Effortful Control are
Conscientiousness and social functioning may involve driven in large part by differences in executive atten-
the underlying nature of the Conscientiousness trait. tion. Some empirical evidence is beginning to substanti-
Based on socioanalytic theory, Hogan and Ones (1997) ate the link between executive attention and Effortful
have argued that individual differences in Conscien- Control (Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003).
tiousness reflect variations in the adoption of and com- The trait of Conscientiousness is typically seen as in-
pliance with the rules and expectations of the group, as volving more voluntary control of behavior, as implied
conveyed by various authority figures (e.g., parents and by the labels Ef fortful Control (Rothbart, Ahadi, et al.,
teachers in childhood; work supervisors in adulthood). 2001) and Will (Digman & Inouye, 1986). This type of
Indeed, in adulthood some aspects of Conscientious- executive control is separate from other types of rela-
ness are linked with greater valuing of conformity tively more involuntary tendencies toward inhibited be-
(Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Consistent havior (Eisenberg, Smith, et al., 2004; Nigg, 2000). As
with this model, Effortful Control in childhood is asso- we noted in our discussion of Extraversion and Neuroti-
ciated with toddlers’ and preschoolers’ “committed cism, children’s behavior may be inhibited because of
compliance” or internalization of parental rules low approach tendencies ( low Extraversion) or because
320 Personality Development

of high fear or anxiety ( high Neuroticism); these types dren interacting with their parents are consistent with
of more emotion-based inhibition can be distinguished questionnaire descriptions of such children (Markey
from the executive control associated with Conscien- et al., 2004): Children’s high Agreeableness is posi-
tiousness (Kindlon, Mezzacappa, & Earls, 1995; Nigg, tively associated with expressing agreement and
2000). Children’s emerging capacities for executive warmth, seeking agreement from parents, and seeming
control may serve, in part, to regulate the approach and to like parents and is negatively associated with compet-
avoidance systems in the service of adaptive behavior itiveness, condescending behavior, and criticalness. In
(Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner, 2004). Active, effortful con- short, Agreeableness is linked with a variety of behav-
trol in early childhood predicts better self-regulation of iors that are likely to foster congenial relationships with
anger and joy later in childhood (Kochanska et al., both peers and adults. Given the adaptive significance
2000), and, as noted previously, better attentional con- of this trait, it is not surprising that parents from many
trol is associated throughout childhood with better regu- countries spontaneously offer a large number of traits
lation of negative emotions. from this domain when they are asked to describe their
However, much of self-regulation is likely to occur at children (Havill, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998).
an automatic, nonvoluntary level. Research with adults
Agreeableness: Lower-Order Traits
suggests that self-regulation of cognition (even working
memory) is often automatic, and the same is proving to In our discussion of Neuroticism, we already noted two
be true for regulation of emotion and behavior (Fitzsi- lower-order traits that are linked with both Neuroticism
mons & Bargh, 2004). Nonvoluntary self-regulation is and Agreeableness: (1) anger/irritability and (2) alien-
important, in part, because the ability to exercise volun- ation /mistrust. A number of other lower-order traits ap-
tary control of cognition, emotion, and behavior appears pear to be aspects of Agreeableness in childhood:
to be limited. In a number of studies with adult samples, prosocial tendencies, antagonism, and willfulness.
voluntary self-control appears to operate as a strength Prosocial tendencies (also called helpfulness or nurtur-
that can be depleted temporarily with use rather than as ance) encompasses children’s individual differences in
an unlimited resource (Schmeichel & Baumeister, traits that demonstrate concern for other people rather
2004). In short, automatic nonvoluntary regulation may than interest only in themselves. Children differ in their
be necessary as a complement to the more effortful tendencies to be empathic, kind, and nurturant (Eisen-
forms of self-regulation, given that effortful regulation berg, Fabes, & Spinrad, Chapter 11, this Handbook, this
has limits. It will be important for developmental re- volume). Individual differences in prosocial behavior
search to explore the development of both automatic and are moderately stable during the preschool- and school-
more voluntary forms of self-regulation in childhood. age years (Eisenberg et al., 1987; Graziano & Eisen-
berg, 1997); there is some preliminary evidence that
prosocial behavior may be stable from childhood to
Agreeableness
early adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 1999) This aspect of
Agreeableness includes a variety of traits seen as very Agreeableness may possibly comprise two sets of traits,
important by developmental psychologists; yet, histori- one tapping warmth and affection and the other tapping
cally, these traits have been left out of temperament altruism and generosity (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999).
models. The high end of Agreeableness includes de- Antagonism ranges from the tendency to be peaceful
scriptors such as warm, considerate, empathic, gener- and gentle to the tendency to be aggressive, spiteful,
ous, gentle, protective of others, and kind. The low end quarrelsome, and rude (Halverson et al., 2003): Children
of Agreeableness includes tendencies toward being ag- who are high on this trait express hostility openly to-
gressive, rude, spiteful, stubborn, bossy, cynical, and ward others. The lower-order trait antagonism includes
manipulative. In studies with both children and adults, both physical aggression and relational aggression (e.g.,
Agreeableness also includes being willing to accommo- gossiping and social exclusion). There is some evidence
date others’ wishes rather than forcing one’s own de- from older children, adolescents, and adults that physi-
sires and intentions on others; for children this aspect of cal aggression and relational aggression tend to covary
the trait also involves how manageable the child is for in individuals (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose, Swen-
parents and teachers. Observations of Agreeable chil- son, & Waller, 2004; Tellegen & Waller, 1992), although
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 321

it is also important to separate the two types of aggres- cial concern and respect for others, whereas the other
sion for more fine-grained developmental analyses. trait involves irritable, aggressive, and hostile disregard
Willfulness refers to the extent to which an individual for others. Although prosocial and aggressive tendencies
attempts to assert his or her will over others through tend to covary negatively later in childhood, they also
domineering behavior (Halverson et al., 2003). Children co-occur in some youths (Haselager, Cillessen, van
and adults who are high on this trait are described as Lieshout, Riksen-Walraven, & Hartup, 2002) and, when
bossy, manipulative, overbearing, and defiant rather combined, may confer social benefits in some Machi-
than accommodating and flexible (Halverson et al., avellian children (Hawley, 2003). The two aspects of
2003; Peabody & De Raad, 2002). This trait captures Agreeableness are likely to have some overlapping ori-
some of the most central aspects of Thomas and Chess’s gins, but also some distinct origins (Krueger, Hicks, &
difficult child construct (Bates, 1989) and is also simi- McGue, 2001).
lar to a childhood trait labeled by Bates as “resistance to
Agreeableness: Early Childhood Antecedents
control” (Bates, Pettit, Dodge, & Ridge, 1998). Chil-
dren high on this trait are likely to pose significant man- Although Agreeableness has emerged robustly and con-
agement problems for parents and teachers. Willfulness sistently in questionnaire studies that tap a wide range
involves children’s tendencies to assert their wills over of children’s behaviors, the traits encompassed by this
others; however, it is important to recognize that actual superfactor are not included in most temperament ques-
dominance over others is determined by multiple traits, tionnaires. Perhaps these traits have been seen as less
including aspects of extraversion, as noted previously. basic than other temperament traits: Temperament re-
Specifically, observed dominance is linked with Extra- searchers may have considered prosocial and hostile
version, low Neuroticism, and greater physical aggres- tendencies as the developmental products of more basic,
sion in both humans and animals (Anderson, John, early-emerging temperaments. There is some support
Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Gosling & John, 1999; Hawley, for the idea that Agreeableness arises, in part, from
2003; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). early differences in positive and negative emotions and
Other potential aspects of Agreeableness may exist in from early self-regulation, which we discuss later. How-
children. Modesty versus conceitedness involves the ex- ever, it is also likely that there are unique genetic and
tent to which an individual is humble rather than arro- environmental contributors to Agreeableness as well.
gant, self-important, or boastful (Goldberg, 2001; Aspects of Agreeableness emerge fairly early them-
Peabody & De Raad, 2002; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). selves (e.g., aggression; Tremblay, 2002) and seem to
Integrity refers to the tendency to be honest, principled, develop alongside other temperament traits. Further,
sincere, and loyal versus deceptive and disloyal many nonhuman animals display Agreeableness-like
(Peabody & De Raad, 2002). Integrity appears to be traits, even though most of these same species do not
close in content to internalized conscience and the display behaviors indicating Conscientiousness (Gosling
moral self as these constructs have been studied by & John, 1999). Thus, it is likely that Agreeableness is
Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska, Gross, Lin, & not merely a product of other temperament traits. It
Nichols, 2002). would be useful for more longitudinal research to mea-
Although Agreeableness is a one-dimensional trait sure early individual differences that may be more
spanning prosocial traits at the high end and antisocial uniquely associated with later Agreeableness, such as
traits at the low end, it may actually turn out to be better early behaviors indicating affection, closeness to others,
thought of as at least two separate dimensions and soothability.
(Graziano, 1994; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Agree- Graziano and Eisenberg (1997) have argued that
ableness forms a single trait in some lexical studies of Agreeableness is likely to have its origins in the self-
adults (e.g., English and German), but it splits into two regulation of negative emotions. Recent studies have pro-
separate factors in a number of languages (Peabody & vided good evidence for this claim. Agreeableness itself
De Raad, 2002; Saucier, 2003). One of these factors is and several of its components are predicted negatively by
typically defined by prosocial tendencies, modesty, and early differences in high-intensity irritability and frus-
integrity, and the other factor is typically defined by an- tration and positively by early attention and self-control
tagonism and willfulness. Thus, one trait involves proso- (Abe & Izard, 1999; Eisenberg et al., 2000; Kochanska,
322 Personality Development

Murray, & Coy, 1997; Kochanska et al., 2000; Laursen, together, the data suggest that well-regulated early Ex-
Pulkkinen, & Adams, 2002; Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., traversion is likely to predict prosocial tendencies,
2000; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003). Good whereas unregulated early Extraversion is likely to pre-
attentional control may be particularly important for dict antisocial tendencies.
helping children to shift their focus from negative emo-
Agreeableness: Underlying Processes
tions to positive emotions when they are angry, frus-
trated, or aroused (Wilson, 2003). In contrast to the There are large psychological literatures associated
negative link between early irritability and later Agree- with the processes underlying the various components
ableness, early fearfulness may actually promote higher of Agreeableness (for reviews, see the chapters by
Agreeableness because fearfulness presages greater Dodge, Coie, & Lynam on aggression, Chapter 12;
compliance and a stronger moral self (Kochanska et al., Eisenberg et al., Chapter 11, this Handbook, this vol-
2002), higher empathy (Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., ume, on prosocial behavior): This developmental re-
2000), and lower aggression (Raine et al., 1998). How- search is highly relevant for understanding the nature of
ever, fear and anxiety may be negatively associated with Agreeableness in childhood. Rather than attempt to de-
prosocial behavior toward strangers (reviewed in Eisen- scribe these literatures, we focus here on research that
berg & Fabes, 1998). The picture that is emerging is that specifically examines the Big Five trait of Agreeable-
Disagreeableness develops most strongly among children ness in children and adults and describe potential under-
whose high irritability is not constrained by either good lying biological systems.
self-regulation or by the inhibiting power of fearfulness A number of researchers have argued that Agreeable-
(see Caspi, Harrington, et al., 2003, for converging longi- ness reflects individual differences in the motivation to
tudinal evidence). maintain harmonious relationships with others; from
Positive emotions and Extraversion appear to predict this point of view, Agreeableness taps differences in the
childhood Agreeableness in a complex pattern. Mild, willingness to forgo individual interests out of concern
regulated positive emotions presage later Agreeableness for others (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Graziano
(Abe & Izard, 1999). Similarly, positive emotionality & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997; Mac-
and sociability are concurrently associated with proso- Donald, 1995). A number of recent studies have provided
cial behavior and with empathy in children (reviewed in evidence that Agreeableness does reflect individual dif-
Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998, and Graziano & Eisenberg, ferences in the motivation to maintain harmonious rela-
1997) and with prosocial tendencies in adults (Krueger tionships. One rather straightforward piece of evidence
et al., 2001). Agreeableness itself is linked with higher is that, among college students, Agreeableness is moder-
jovial mood in adults (e.g., happy, cheerful, enthusiastic; ately correlated with prizing benevolence as a value,
Watson & Clark, 1992). Conversely, inhibited tempera- meaning concern for people one knows (Roccas et al.,
ment is linked with less expressed empathy (Young, Fox, 2002). Based on data from experience-sampling studies,
& Zahn-Waxler, 1999). Thus, regulated positive emo- high-Agreeable adults react differently to interpersonal
tions and sociability are likely precursors of later proso- situations than do low-Agreeable adults. Specifically,
cial tendencies, though more evidence is needed. In high-Agreeable adults are more distressed than low-
contrast, Extraversion positively predicts later aggres- Agreeable adults when they face interpersonal conflicts
sion and externalizing behavior problems (X. Chen (Suls et al., 1998) and report more negative affect when
et al., 2002; Shiner, 2000). High-intensity positive emo- they themselves behave in a quarrelsome manner (Cote
tions and shorter observed latency to grasp small ob- & Moskowitz, 1998). They also report more positive af-
jects in infancy likewise predict childhood aggression fect when they engage in warm, agreeable behavior than
(Rothbart, Derryberry, et al., 2000). Higher approach do low-Agreeable adults (Cote & Moskowitz, 1998).
tendencies may particularly lead to greater externaliz- When more Agreeable college students anticipate partic-
ing, antisocial behavior when self-regulation is poor ipating in a competitive situation, they expect the situa-
(Eisenberg, Spinrad, et al., 2004). As we described pre- tion to be less rewarding and more challenging than do
viously, children’s Extraversion may result in high levels less Agreeable students (Graziano et al., 1997). The data
of frustration and anger when goal seeking is thwarted; from these diverse studies support the idea that high-
in turn, this anger and frustration may lead children Agreeable individuals are concerned with maintaining
with poor self-regulation to behave aggressively. Taken harmonious relationships and are distressed by potential
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 323

and real interpersonal conflicts. This fundamental moti- warmth, and nurturance may arise from a biological
vation for peaceable, close relationships is reflected in system designed to promote parental investment in off-
the life stories told by Agreeable individuals; in life nar- spring and close family bonds. Some researchers (e.g.,
ratives provided by college students and adults, higher MacDonald, 1992, 1995) have argued that evolution
Agreeableness is associated with themes of love/friend- yielded a human biological system that typically en-
ship, caring for others, and unity (McAdams et al., sures that an intimate relationship and the care of close
2004). others is inherently rewarding and pleasurable and that
Does the motivation to maintain positive relation- the loss of such relationships is painful and distressing.
ships translate into distinct approaches to handling con- Such a system would confer adaptive benefits because it
flict among high-Agreeable children and adults? A would promote successful care of offspring through the
variety of studies yield an affirmative answer to this establishment of strong attachment relationships be-
question. First, low-Agreeable children, adolescents, tween infants and their caregivers. Some evolutionary
and adults are more likely than high-Agreeable individ- theorists have argued that the primary purpose of this
uals to endorse destructive tactics for handling conflict, evolved system was to promote parent-child attachment
such as manipulation, coercion, and power assertion, al- and that the system only secondarily began to serve the
though even low-Agreeable individuals acknowledge role of facilitating pair-bonding between reproductive
that better tactics could be used (D. Buss, 1992; partners (Diamond, 2004). In their tend-and-befriend
Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen- model, Taylor et al. (2000) have argued that a biological
Campbell, Gleason, Adams, & Malcolm, 2003; Jensen- affiliation system is likely to be especially important
Campbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996). Agreeableness is for understanding the ways that females respond to
also positively associated in children and adolescents stress and threat. According to this model, females may
with stronger endorsement of constructive conflict tac- be evolutionarily primed to respond to stress by “ tend-
tics, such as negotiation and compromise (Jensen-Camp- ing” (caring for others, particularly offspring) and “ be-
bell & Graziano, 2001; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2003). friending” (seeking and offering support). Research
Second, Agreeableness predicts more effective handling with animals has pointed to several potential biological
of actual conflicts. Teachers and parents describe high- substrates of this affectional system, including endoge-
Agreeable children as negotiating conflict better nous opioids and the neuropeptide oxytocin (Carter,
(Jensen-Campbell et al., 2003), whereas peers describe 1998; Taylor et al., 2000). Further, there is some prelim-
low-Agreeable adolescents as more aggressive (Gleason, inary evidence in humans that affectional bonds may
Jensen-Campbell, & Richardson, 2004). When children activate brain areas that support positive emotions and
are observed in conflict situations in the lab, low Agree- deactivate brain areas that are linked with aggression,
ableness is associated with higher levels of conflict and fear, and sadness (Diamond, 2004); this finding is con-
tension, as well as more destructive conflict tactics such sistent with the emotional profile associated with
as stand-offs, name-calling, and withdrawals (Jensen- Agreeableness.
Campbell et al., 2003). In similar lab-based situations
with college students, low Agreeableness is likewise Openness to Experience/ Intellect
predictive of greater conflict (Graziano et al., 1996). In-
terestingly, greater Agreeableness does not predict more Openness to Experience/ Intellect is perhaps the most
observed submissive behavior in children and adults debated and least understood of the Big Five traits, yet it
(Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Jensen-Campbell et al., includes a number of potentially important characteris-
2003); apparently, Agreeable people do not simply solve tics. This trait does not appear in temperament models,
their interpersonal problems by giving in to other peo- despite parents from a number of countries sponta-
ple. In short, more Agreeable youths and adults appear neously using words from this domain of individual dif-
to generate fewer conflicts for themselves and have a ferences to describe their children (Mervielde, De
greater capacity for handling the interpersonal conflicts Fruyt, & Jarmuz, 1998). In the Big Five studies, chil-
that do arise. dren who are high on this trait are described as eager
There is increasing research interest in understand- and quick to learn, clever, knowledgeable, perceptive,
ing the biological systems underlying individual differ- imaginative, curious, and original. In previous reviews
ences in Agreeableness. Differences in empathy, (Shiner, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003), we argued that the
324 Personality Development

evidence for the existence of this trait in children was positive emotions and active exploration are likely pre-
equivocal. More recently, the accumulating data provide cursors of both Openness and Extraversion. Openness
convincing evidence that this trait can be measured reli- and Extraversion tend to covary across the life span
ably by at least age 6 or 7 years. The childhood trait (Digman, 1997; Markon et al., 2005); the two traits may
does not appear to be as broad as some adult conceptual- stem from some of the same underlying early processes.
izations of the trait, however. For example, in Costa and Third, orienting sensitivity, which includes the ten-
McCrae’s (1992) influential version of Openness to Ex- dency to be sensitive to internal and external sensory
perience, the trait includes openness to ideas, fantasy, stimulation, is concurrently related to Openness in
aesthetics, actions, feelings, and values. In most child- adulthood (Rothbart, Ahadi, et al., 2000). Thus, the ex-
hood Big Five studies, the Openness trait focuses more tant data on the antecedents of Openness are limited but
narrowly on openness to ideas and actions and tends to suggest several potentially interesting early manifesta-
emphasize intellectual capacities and creativity. In tions of the trait.
some studies with children, when the trait is measured
Openness to Experience: Underlying Processes
with a broader range of items, it does not form an inter-
nally coherent trait (Lamb et al., 2002; Markey et al., McCrae and Costa (1997) suggested that Openness in-
2002). By high school, adolescents can reliably describe cludes two particularly important processes: Openness
themselves on most aspects of the broader Openness as a psychic structure and Openness as a motivation to
trait (McCrae & Costa, 2004; McCrae et al., 2002). pursue new, complex experiences. First, “open individu-
Thus, it is safe to say that some form of Openness als have access to more thoughts, feelings, and impulses
emerges as an individual difference by middle child- in awareness, and can maintain many of these simulta-
hood, but the trait is likely to undergo significant devel- neously” (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 838). Openness
opmental elaboration across the years from early is associated with numerous indicators of greater access
childhood through adolescence. to varied inner experiences in adults: more differenti-
The lower-order components of Openness in child- ated self-reports of emotions (Terracciano, McCrae,
hood are not yet clear, but intellect (Halverson et al., Hagemann, & Costa, 2003), reduced tendencies to
2003; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999, 2002) and curiosity screen out previously irrelevant stimuli (Peterson,
and creativity (Goldberg, 2001; Mervielde & DeFruyt, Smith, & Carson, 2002), greater dissociation and per-
1999, 2002) have received some support. In interna- ceptual aberration (McCrae & Costa, 1997), and
tional lexical studies with adults, Openness also appears heightened experiences of inspiration (Thrash & Elliot,
to include components of unconventionality (Ashton 2003). This greater access to inner experience may be a
et al., 2004). mixed blessing; for example, in one study of women un-
dergoing a major move, greater Openness predicted both
Openness to Experience: Early Childhood heightened self-esteem and increased depression
Antecedents (Kling, Ryff, Love, & Essex, 2003). More highly open
The developmental precursors of Openness are un- adults are more creative, at least in supportive circum-
known, but there is suggestive evidence from three lines stances (George & Zhou, 2001); it seems likely that a
of research. First, in one study, full-face positive emo- very important source of this creativity is access to a
tions in the Strange Situation at 18 months (a presumed complex world of inner ideas and emotions. Second,
marker of high-intensity positive emotions) predicted open individuals are motivated to seek out interesting
Openness at 3.5 years (Abe & Izard, 1999). Second, new experiences. This view of Openness is consistent
early signs of Openness may include curiosity and ex- with some of the markers of Openness in children, in-
ploration of new situations; these behaviors are markers cluding eagerness to learn new things ( both academic
of an Openness-like trait in a number of animal species and nonacademic).
(Gosling & John, 1999). Indirect evidence for this possi- Among adults, Openness expresses itself in a wide
bility comes from longitudinal studies showing that the variety of observable behaviors and attitudes. More
tendency to seek stimulation and to explore new envi- open adults tend to be more politically liberal, less au-
ronments actively in early childhood predicts later aca- thoritarian in their attitudes, and less traditional in their
demic achievement and IQ (Guerin et al., 2003; Raine, beliefs (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003;
Reynolds, Venables, & Mednick, 2002). High-intensity McCrae, 1996). They produce more structurally com-
 Temperament and Personality Traits: A Process-Focused, Developmental Taxonomy from Childhood to Adulthood 325

plex narratives about their lives (McAdams et al., 2004), sonality differences across the life course. First, much
have more distinctive offices and bedrooms (Gosling, more work is needed to specify lower-order traits. We
Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002), and possess more var- have highlighted some potential lower-order traits that
ied collections of books (Gosling et al., 2002). In con- warrant consideration in children and adults; other
trast, we know strikingly little about the behaviors lower-order traits undoubtedly exist as well.
associated with Openness in children. It will be impor- Second, the fields of child development and personal-
tant to look in the right contexts to find the behavioral ity psychology will continue to benefit from creative
signatures of Openness in children. Adult Openness is measurement of individual differences, beyond the sole
accurately observed in some contexts and not others; for use of questionnaires. A strength of the temperament
example, it is more accurately inferred from adults’ pan- field has been its use of multiple measures of tempera-
tomimes and conversations on hobbies than from their ment traits, including behavior observations and struc-
role playing of various social scenarios (Borkenau, tured laboratory tasks. Additional types of measures can
Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004). be explored. For example, implicit measures have been
used to assess anxiety and shyness in adults (Asendorpf,
Banse, & Mucke, 2002; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002);
Directions for Future Developmental Research
rather than directly inquiring about a person’s self-view
on Personality Structure
of personality, these instruments measure indirectly an
In this section, we have reviewed a proposed taxonomy individual’s automatic associations between trait de-
of individual differences in personality. A personality scriptors and the self. Physiological measures can be
taxonomy is an evolving classification system whose used to parse groups of individuals into more homoge-
purpose is to integrate and guide research. This also neous subtypes (Kagan, Snidman, McManis, Wood-
means that any such system must be open to empirical ward, & Hardway, 2002). Puppet interviews have been
refutation and requisite modification. There are histori- used to assess self-views of traits in children as young as
cal parallels between the use of structural models in age 5 years and could be used to measure a wide range of
personality psychology and the use of a standardized traits early in childhood (Arseneault, Kim-Cohen, Tay-
model for describing and diagnosing mental illness in lor, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2005; Measelle, Ablow, Cowan, &
psychiatry. Prior to the advent of the American Psychi- Cowen, 1998; Measelle et al., 2005).
atric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Third, more research is needed about the cross-cul-
Mental Disorders III (DSM-III), clinicians and re- tural generalizability of the taxonomic system reviewed
searchers did not have available explicit criteria to de- here for children and adolescents. Parents from the
fine the boundaries of diagnostic categories. Clinical United States, China, and several European countries
diagnoses were difficult to compare and cross-sample consider the Big Five traits to be important in describing
replications were hard to conduct. The development of their children (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, &
DSM-III was a big improvement because it provided a Havill, 1998). Cross-cultural studies of adult personal-
common language with which clinicians and researchers ity structure have been pursued vigorously over the past
could communicate about the disorders they were treat- decade (Church, 2001). There is some research on child-
ing or investigating. DSM-III had its share of problems, hood temperament and personality structure in coun-
and subsequent modifications (DSM-III-R, DSM-IV) tries outside the United States and Europe, such as
testify to the need for a flexible and evolving system that China, Japan, and Russia (Digman & Shmelyov, 1996;
can accommodate new empirical information, as do rec- Halverson et al., 2003; Rothbart, Ahadi, et al., 2001),
ommended modifications in anticipation of DSM-V but it will be important to explore the structure of child-
(Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002). We can similarly hope hood personality in other countries. Another crucial
that the use of a generally accepted trait taxonomy will task will be to determine when in the life course mean-
help to impose structure on unintegrated research find- level cross-cultural differences in personality emerge.
ings, reduce the likelihood that old traits will be rein- Fourth, it will be important to chart the development
vented under new labels, and advance the study of of sex differences in mean levels of personality traits.
personality development across the life course. Although there do not appear to be any sex differences
Toward these goals, we suggest four ways to build on in the structure of personality, there are some differ-
the current success of elucidating the structure of per- ences in the mean levels of personality traits (Feingold,
326 Personality Development

1994). A deeper understanding of the causes of such sex pear in nearly all sections of this chapter. The ubiqui-
differences will be important for explaining both per- tous presence of process-focused personality analysis in
sonality development and the development of psycho- this chapter is not an accident. As we noted in our chap-
pathology (Rutter, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003). ter introduction, personality research is increasingly
based on the recognition that traits are not merely se-
mantic labels but rather reflect organizing and motivat-
THE DEVELOPMENTAL ELABORATION OF ing biological and psychological processes (Derryberry,
PERSONALITY TRAITS Reed, & Pilkenton-Taylor, 2003; Tellegen, 1991). The
purpose of this section is to provide an organizing
The process of developmental elaboration refers to the framework for thinking about and studying the
mechanisms by which those temperament attributes processes by which personality traits develop and in-
that are part of each individual’s genetic heritage accu- creasingly shape behavior.
mulate response strength through their repeated rein-
forcement and become elaborated into cognitive and
affective representations that are quickly and fre-
Learning Processes
quently activated—into personality traits. This elabo-
ration may involve at least six processes (Table 6.3), Temperament differences may influence several learn-
which we now describe in the order of their hypothe- ing mechanisms that are involved in the elaboration pro-
sized emergence. For example, learning processes and cess, including positive and negative reinforcement,
environmental elicitation are hypothesized to influence punishment, discrimination learning, and extinction. In
the course of personality development in the first few the second section, we described current models posit-
months of life; environmental construal and social com- ing that Extraversion and Neuroticism reflect individual
parison processes can influence personality develop- differences in a BAS and BIS, respectively (Gray, 1987,
ment only following the emergence of necessary 1990). In essence, proponents of these models argue that
cognitive functions in early and middle childhood; and Extraversion and Neuroticism reflect differences in var-
environmental selection and manipulation generally re- ious learning mechanisms (i.e., Extraversion indexes
quire the emergence of self-regulatory functions in sensitivity to potential rewards and Neuroticism indexes
childhood and are likely to become particularly impor- sensitivity to potential threats). If these formulations of
tant as youths move into adolescence. Extraversion and Neuroticism are correct, the two traits
Before describing these six processes, we hasten to should correlate with different patterns of learning.
remind the reader that examples of these processes ap- There is some evidence for this in adults (Avila, 2001).

TABLE 6.3 Processes through Which Early Temperament / Personality Shapes the Development of Later Personality, Adaptation,
and Psychopathology

Process Definition Example

Learning processes Temperament shapes the child’s experience of Children high on Openness may find complex
classical and operant conditioning. and novel stimuli to be reinforcing.
Environmental elicitation Temperament shapes the response of adults and Children high on Extraversion may attract peers
peers to the child. to play with them.
Environmental construal Temperament shapes the ways that children Children low on Agreeableness may interpret
interpret the environment and their experiences. requests from adults as hostile impositions on
their freedom.
Social and temporal comparisons Temperament shapes the ways children evaluate Children high on Neuroticism may wrongly view
themselves relative to others and to themselves themselves as inadequate relative to their peers.
across time.
Environmental selection Temperament shapes children’s choices about Children high on Conscientiousness may pursue
their everyday environments. challenging activities.
Environmental manipulation Temperament shapes the ways that children alter, Children high on Extraversion may actively
modify, and manipulate their environments. persuade other children to choose them as
leaders of school groups.
 The Developmental Elaboration of Personality Traits 327

Differences in sensitivity to rewards and threats should life (Bell & Chapman, 1986). Research on evocative ef-
also predict biases in perception, memory, or attention fects of children’s temperament on parents is especially
(Canli, 2004). We previously reviewed some evidence well developed in relation to infants and young children
that this is indeed the case (e.g., anxiety predicts selec- with “difficult ” temperaments (i.e., children who are ir-
tive attention to threats). Other traits in addition to Ex- ritable, hostile, prone to cry, and hard to soothe). Many
traversion and Neuroticism should affect learning studies have documented that mothers of difficult in-
processes as well. For example, as we have reviewed, fants experience lower confidence, greater depression,
children differ strikingly in their persistence and atten- and lower self-efficacy than do mothers of more tem-
tion, two temperament traits that are likely to influence peramentally easy infants (Crockenberg & Leerkes,
learning. Agreeableness may be related to sensitivities 2003). Children’s intense irritability has rippling nega-
to anger- or frustration-inducing stimuli, whereas Open- tive effects on fathers and the family system more
ness may be associated with attraction to complex or broadly (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003), including
novel stimuli. All of these differences in learning detrimental immediate and short-term effects on moth-
processes should be amenable to investigation through ers’ work outcomes (Hyde, Else-Quest, Goldsmith, &
behavioral and neuroscience methods. Biesanz, 2004). Children’s negative emotions also pre-
More generally, different parental socialization dict differential negative treatment by parents; more
processes are likely to interact with childhood tempera- emotionally negative children evoke more negative
ment in the development of personality (for recent re- parental responses than less emotionally negative chil-
views, see Bates & McFadyen-Ketchum, 2000; dren in the same family (Jenkins, Rasbash, & O’Con-
Gallagher, 2002; Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). nor, 2003).
One example may serve to illustrate how children’s tem- The evidence for child effects on parents is the most
perament differences in learning interact with parental robust in relation to individual differences in negative
socialization. Kochanska (1997) demonstrated that emotions, but other temperament traits appear to predict
fearful children (i.e., those with greater sensitivity to parental responses as well (Crouter & Booth, 2003;
threats) show more positive conscience development Parke, 2004; Putnam et al., 2002). In addition, it is im-
when mothers use subtle, gentle, psychological disci- portant to recognize that the effects of children’s tem-
pline than when mothers use strongly power-assertive peraments extend beyond the family environment to
discipline. For such fearful children, their own internal other caregivers, teachers, and peers. For example, chil-
experiences of distress may facilitate the feeling of guilt dren who express more positive affect are liked by peers
when they do something wrong, which appears to pro- and are seen by teachers as friendly and cooperative,
mote greater compliance (Kochanska et al., 2002). In whereas children who express high levels of anger are
contrast, gentle maternal discipline does not predict disliked by peers and are viewed as unfriendly, aggres-
conscience development among fearless children, most sive, and uncooperative by teachers (reviewed in Denham
likely because gentle discipline does not create enough et al., 2001). Thus, children’s temperaments play an im-
discomfort; fearless children instead tend to develop portant role in shaping the interpersonal experiences
stronger internalization when they are securely attached they encounter in multiple settings. In turn, the responses
to their mothers and when their mothers are more re- that children evoke from others are likely to be internal-
sponsive to them. Identification of other family modera- ized as part of children’s emerging self-concepts.
tors of temperament outcomes should be a high priority Research has begun to uncover some of the micro-
for research on children’s individual differences. A bet- processes through which children’s temperament elicits
ter understanding of how temperament influences basic responses from others. Individual differences in tem-
learning processes should help researchers identify perament and personality traits are reliably expressed in
which moderators to examine. unique verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and other per-
sons in the immediate environment react to these behav-
iors and use this information to make inferences and
Environmental Elicitation
attributions (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Gifford, 1994).
Temperament differences also elicit different reactions Perhaps most striking is evidence linking individual dif-
from the environment and influence how other people ferences in adolescent personality and psychopathology
react to children, beginning in the first few months of to facial expressions of discrete emotions. For example,
328 Personality Development

Extraversion predicts facial expressions of social ap- ronment (Hartup & van Lieshout, 1995). Research about
proach, Agreeableness is negatively correlated with fa- the construal process stems from the cognitive tradition
cial expressions of anger, and Conscientiousness is in personality psychology, which emphasizes each per-
associated with reduced facial expressions of negative son’s subjective experience and unique perception of
emotion and with embarrassment (Eisenberg et al., the world. This research focuses on what people “do”
1989; Keltner, 1998; Keltner, Moffitt, & Stouthamer- mentally (Cervone & Mischel, 2002), demonstrating
Loeber, 1995). Such facial expressions of emotions help that social information processing—including attention,
to coordinate social interactions: These expressions encoding, retrieval, and interpretation—is a selective
convey information about the motivations and personal- process shaped by individual differences in tempera-
ity of the sender, evoke complementary or similar emo- ment and personality (Derryberry & Reed, 2003;
tions from others, and provide incentives for particular Matthews, Derryberry, & Siegle, 2000).
responses (e.g., positive emotions reinforce desired so- The role of cognitive factors in personality and
cial behaviors; Keltner, Ekman, Gonzaga, & Beer, psychopathology has been detailed by Crick and Dodge
2003). In addition to the facial expression of emotion, (1994), whose social information-processing model of
children’s other individuating characteristics (e.g., children’s social adjustment includes six steps: (1) to en-
vocal properties; Lin, Bugental, Turek, Martorell, & Ol- code information about the event, (2) to interpret the
ster, 2002) are likely to provoke particular interpersonal cues and arrive at some decision about their meaning
responses as well. and significance, (3) to clarify goals, (4) to search for
Temperament characteristics elicit not only behaviors possible responses to the situation, (5) to consider the
on the part of others but also expectations. Adults have consequences of each potential response and to select a
implicit theories about developmental trajectories that response from the generated alternatives, and (6) to
they associate with particular temperament attributes. carry out the selected response. Temperament and per-
As such, children’s temperament-based behaviors may sonality have the potential to shape social information
elicit expectancy-based reactions from adult caregivers processing at each of these steps.
(Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Sullivan-Logan, 1998). One of the most important reasons that temperament
Finally, it is important to recognize that children’s ef- is likely to influence cognitive processing is that tem-
fects on others are likely to be moderated by the charac- perament involves emotional processes that are known to
teristics of the interaction partner. Even among parents shape cognition (Derryberry & Reed, 2003). Lemerise
of emotionally negative children, there are some parents and Arsenio (2000) presented a reformulation of Crick
in some contexts who respond with heightened attention and Dodge’s social information-processing model that
and sensitivity (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003), which amplifies the crucial role of emotional processes. These
suggests the presence of important moderators of authors argue that children’s individual differences in
parental responses. Parents’ beliefs and attitudes mod- emotionality and emotion regulation affect processes at
erate how parents respond to children with particular each of the six stages of social information processing
temperaments (Bugental & Johnston, 2000). Parents’ (see also Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004). For example, chil-
own personalities and moods are likely to moderate dren’s differences in positive and negative emotions will
child effects as well, given the evidence discussed in the affect the cues they notice in the environment, the goals
sixth section that parental personality predicts parent- that are salient to them, and the types of potential re-
ing styles. Future research on moderators of child ef- sponses they generate. Children’s differences in self-
fects will help to spell out more clearly how regulation will help to determine the responses they
transactions between children’s temperaments and their select and their ability to enact those responses. Al-
contexts shape their developing personalities. though personality influences cognitive processes, cog-
nitive processes likewise influence ongoing emotional
experiences (Matthews et al., 2000); thus; there are bidi-
Environmental Construal
rectional effects between cognitive/perceptual and emo-
With the emergence of belief systems and expectations, tional processing (Derryberry & Reed, 2003).
temperament differences may also begin to influence Throughout our personality taxonomy section, we
how environmental experiences are construed, thus presented examples of how personality shapes social-
shaping each person’s effective experience of the envi- cognitive processing. Two other examples illustrate how
 The Developmental Elaboration of Personality Traits 329

such processes occur. As noted, Neuroticism in adults is paring and contrasting themselves to others (social com-
associated with a variety of cognitive biases. Recent re- parisons) as well as to themselves over time (temporal
search has demonstrated that higher Neuroticism is as- comparisons). The salience and relative importance of
sociated with specific detrimental ways of appraising social and temporal comparisons may change across the
and coping with difficult situations. Children who are life course (Suls & Mullen, 1982). Age-related changes
higher on negative emotionality (including both neuroti- in social cognition and social roles make it likely that
cism and irritability) are more likely to appraise nega- social comparisons may be especially influential from
tive life events as threatening and to use avoidant coping childhood to adolescence and into adulthood and that
as a way of dealing with these life events, which leads to temporal comparisons may become increasingly impor-
poorer adjustment (Lengua & Long, 2002). Similarly, tant during the adult years.
Neuroticism in adults predicts heightened distress and The microprocesses through which personality may
worry in response to experimentally induced stress in shape social and temporal comparisons also deserve at-
the lab; this link between Neuroticism and distress is, in tention. Temperament and personality may shape a range
part, mediated by threat appraisals and by emotion-fo- of relevant processes (Cassidy, Ziv, Mehta, & Feeney,
cused coping (Matthews et al., 2000). These studies 2003; Derryberry & Reed, 2003), including (a) the kinds
demonstrate that one of the reasons that Neuroticism is of feedback that people deliberately seek out about
so robustly associated with poor adjustment is because it themselves, ( b) attentional biases to comparison infor-
is linked with specific social-cognitive biases. mation, (c) standards used for comparison, and (d) emo-
Social-cognitive processes are also implicated in ag- tional responsivity to comparison information. Extant
gression. Children who are high in reactive aggression research offers some hints about the ways in which per-
(aggression aimed at retaliation against someone) are sonality differences may shape comparison processes.
those who show both high frustration /anger and a ten- For example, greater anxiety and sadness in children pre-
dency to assume hostile intentions on the part of others dict negative self-views, which predict poorer estimates
(Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). An of competence relative to actual competence over time
interesting, similar pattern predicts aggression and hos- (Pomerantz & Rudolph, 2003). Other research suggests
tility in adults. In one study (Meier & Robinson, 2004), that subsets of aggressive children have extremely high
adult participants were asked to categorize words as or extremely low views of their competence relative to
blameworthy (e.g., murder or adultery) or not (e.g., others (Brendgen, Vitaro, Turgeon, Poulin, & Wanner,
baldness or hurricane). Among participants low on 2004). More systematic research is needed regarding
Agreeableness, greater speed at categorizing words as these processes.
blameworthy predicted greater hostility and arguments
in daily life. Thus, for both children and adults, a Environmental Selection
heightened bias toward assuming and assigning blame
predicts greater hostility and aggression among some As self-regulatory competencies increase with age, indi-
individuals. viduals begin to make choices and display preferences
As these examples illustrate, although social-cogni- that may reinforce and sustain their characteristics.
tive and trait approaches to personality are often por- Children’s emerging personalities shape the environ-
trayed as antagonistic, they are perfectly complementary ments they select, whether consciously or unconsciously.
and mutually informative. Future work can aim to ex- Processes of environmental selection are likely to be-
plore further the ways that children’s early tempera- come increasingly important across the years from child-
ments influence the ways that children construe and hood to adulthood (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Even
make sense of their worlds. among very young children, temperament is likely to
shape the spheres children occupy in the environments
chosen for them by adults (e.g., inhibited toddlers may
Social and Temporal Comparisons
avoid interactions with other children in child care, or
With increased cognitive sophistication (e.g., role-tak- children high on intellect may choose more stimulating
ing skills), two social-psychological processes are hy- activities at home). As children move into middle child-
pothesized to influence self-evaluations and identity hood, they are given greater freedom to choose the envi-
development: Children learn about themselves by com- ronments in which they spend their time (Cole & Cole,
330 Personality Development

1996). During childhood and adolescence, youths’ per- Environmental Manipulation

sonalities may help determine the activities in which
Once the self-concept is firmly established, and with
they participate and the ways in which they choose to
the development of more sophisticated self-regulatory
spend their free time (McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 2001;
capacities, individuals also begin to alter, modify, and
Shanahan & Flaherty, 2001). Personality effects on chil-
manipulate the environments in which they find them-
dren’s peer relationships may be particularly important;
selves (D. Buss, 1987). These processes may become
particular traits appear to predict the peer groups chil-
particularly important as children become more skilled
dren join (Denham et al., 2001), children’s experiences
in regulating their own behavior and more insightful into
of peer rejection and acceptance (Hay, Payne, & Chad-
the causes of others’ behaviors. Like adults, children
wick, 2004), and the quality of children’s friendships
vary in the goals that they pursue in various circum-
(Pike & Atzaba-Poria, 2003). Children’s individual dif-
stances (Rose & Asher, 1999), and these goals are likely
ferences also predict the life events they experience; for
to influence the ways that children attempt to modify
example, children with externalizing behavior problems
their environments. The ways that individuals select and
experience a greater number of controllable negative life
shape their environments may be especially relevant for
events than children without these problems (Masten,
self-regulation. Individuals regulate their behavior in
Neeman, & Andenas, 1994).
the midst of an ongoing emotional experience. But indi-
In adulthood, individuals make personality-based
viduals also regulate their behavior and others’ behavior
choices regarding education, occupation, and intimate
proactively by anticipating potential situations and se-
relationships (reviewed in a later section); all of these
lecting how to handle those situations according to their
choices shape individuals’ everyday environments. In-
goals (Eisenberg, 2001; Gross, 1999).
deed, by adulthood the most striking personality differ-
We have described six processes through which an
ences between individuals are to be found not by
initial disposition is elaborated so that it increasingly
studying their responses to the same situation but by
organizes emotion, thought, and action. Research is now
studying how they choose and construct new situations
needed about each of these processes in relation to dif-
(Wachtel, 1973). A person’s selection and creation of
ferent temperament and personality traits.
environments is thus one of the most individualizing and
pervasive expressions of his or her personality.
The process of environmental selection may also ac-
count for the empirical observation that measures typi- THE ORIGINS OF INDIVIDUAL
cally used to study the environment are subject to DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY
substantial genetic influence (Plomin & Bergeman,
1991). A key issue for personality researchers is the ex- In this section, we review what is known about genetic
tent to which personality contributes to genetic influ- influences on personality variation between people, and
ences on measures of the environment. So far, genetic discuss how measured genes can be incorporated into re-
effects on the Big Five personality traits have been re- search on personality development.
ported to explain genetic influences on some life events
(Saudino, Pedersen, Lichtenstein, McClearn, & Plomin, Genetic and Environmental Inf luences on
1997), and personality traits account for about 30% of Personality Development across the Life Span
the genetic influence on divorce risk (Jockin, McGue, &
Lykken, 1996). The main implication from these results, To estimate the relative roles that genes and environ-
as discussed later, is that associations between environ- ments play in personality development, behavioral ge-
mental measures and personality cannot be assumed to neticists employ two basic research designs: (1) twin
be caused environmentally, and, in some instances, the studies and (2) adoption studies. The logic behind using
likely direction of effects is the other way around: Indi- the twin method to estimate heritable influences is
viduals differentially select and are differentially ex- straightforward, and it has three parts. First, a genetic
posed to environments (e.g., divorce or stressful life contribution to personality is indicated when the simi-
events) as a result of their genetically influenced per- larity of monozygotic (MZ) twins’ personalities is
sonality traits. greater than the similarity of dizygotic (DZ) twins’ per-
 The Origins of Individual Dif ferences in Personality 331

sonalities. This inference is based on the fact that MZ significant variance component called child-specific,
twins share all their genes, but DZ twins, like all sib- nonshared, or unique environmental variance, often la-
lings, share on average only half of their polymorphic beled “E.” It indexes environmental effects on personal-
genes. Quantitative model fitting usually labels this ity that can be detected because they have created
“A,” for additive genetic effects. To use this logic, re- differences between family members in the study. Phe-
searchers must test the critical assumption that all of notype measurement errors can produce such effects,
the greater similarity between MZ and DZ twins can too, because errors in measurement produce scores that
safely be ascribed to MZ twins’ greater genetic similar- look different for twins in a pair.
ity. This is called the “equal environments assumption.” The fundamental logic behind using the adoption
In other words, researchers must show that MZ twins method to estimate heritable influences is also straight-
have not been treated more alike than DZ twins in ways forward. The correlation between adoptee and biologi-
that are related to their personality outcomes. Research cal parent personality represents genetic transmission,
into this question suggests that MZ and DZ twins are not whereas the correlation between adoptee and adoptive
perfectly equal on some environmental experiences. parent personality represents social (i.e., environmen-
However, some part of the greater MZ than DZ twin tal) transmission. To use this logic researchers must test
similarity in treatment arises because MZ twins’ geneti- the critical assumptions that adoptees share no more
cally influenced similar behavior evokes similar treat- than random genes with their adoptive parents (i.e.,
ment. Evoked similar treatment does not violate the adoption was extrafamilial and the adoption agency did
assumption unless it further exacerbates MZ twin simi- not try to match the adoptive and birth family’s charac-
larity. Moreover, despite the fact that such inequality teristics), and adoptees share not more than random en-
may have inflated some heritability estimates by a small vironments with their biological parents (e.g., the
amount, it has not done so enough to invalidate the infer- quality of prenatal and orphanage care were uncorre-
ence that genes influence personality differences. lated with adoptees’ biological backgrounds). Like twin
Second, twin studies can show whether environmen- data, adoption data can be modeled to ascertain A, C,
tal experiences influence twin similarity over and above and E components of variance.
genetic influences. MZ twins’ genetic similarity is With data from large studies throughout the world
twice that of DZ twins, and therefore, if nothing more (Boomsma, Busjahn, & Peltonen, 2002), research has
than genes were influencing their personalities, MZ uncovered increasingly reliable and robust evidence that
twins’ personalities should be at least twice as similar as personality traits are substantially influenced by ge-
DZ twins’. If not, this indicates that something more netic factors. Bouchard and Loehlin (2001; Bouchard,
than genes has made the twins similar (i.e., environ- 2004) provide a comprehensive review of this research,
ments that the siblings share in common must have en- pointing to heritability estimates across the Big Five
hanced their similarity). In model fitting, this yields a factors in the range of .50 ± .10. There are some fluctua-
significant variance component called family wide, tions from study to study, but in general (a) all five su-
shared, or common environmental variance, often la- perfactors appear to be influenced by genetic factors to
beled “C.” It indexes environmental effects on personal- the same extent and ( b) genetic and environmental fac-
ity that can be detected because they have increased the tors also affect individual differences in men’s and
personality similarity between family members in the women’s personalities to the same extent.
study and because the family members shared the expe- Three clarifications and qualifications deserve spe-
rience for reasons completely apart from their genetic cial notice. First, twin studies using peer ratings of
similarity. personality, rather than self-report personality ques-
Third, twin studies also address the perennial ques- tionnaires, show genetic influences similar to those
tion of why family members differ from each other found in self-report studies (Reimann, Angleiter, &
(Plomin & Daniels, 1987), by using the following logic. Strelau, 1997). Moreover, multivariate genetic analy-
If MZ twins, despite sharing all their genes, are not per- ses indicate that the same genetic factors are largely in-
fectly identical in their personality, this indicates that volved in self-reports and peer ratings of personality,
nonshared experience unique to each family member has which provides strong evidence for the genetic validity
reduced their similarity. In model fitting, this yields a of self-report ratings. It does not appear to be the case
332 Personality Development

that heritability estimates derived from twin studies effects. Although adoption studies are far fewer and
are simply an artifact of self-report methodologies in much smaller than twin studies of personality, it is note-
which MZ and DZ twins are asked to rate themselves. worthy that they suggest less genetic influence than twin
Some studies using observational measures of behavior studies, and the lack of correspondence, at least in rela-
(e.g., empathy; Emde & Hewitt, 2001) yield lower her- tion to personality research, between the results of twin
itability estimates than have been found using ques- and adoption /family studies merits further scrutiny.
tionnaire measures. However, there are still too few Four novel findings in behavioral genetics research
such observational studies to know if this is a robust on personality merit mention. First, measures of person-
methodological difference. ality that incorporate multiple viewpoints or perspec-
A second, related methodological challenge has been tives (e.g., by consolidating information from multiple
levied at temperament and personality research with reporters or across multiple situations) yield larger esti-
children. Twin studies of younger age groups have relied mates of genetic influences (as well as smaller, but more
primarily on ratings by parents, which have yielded an reliable, estimates of nonshared environmental influ-
odd result: Correlations for identical (MZ) twins are ences) than measures based on a single viewpoint (e.g.,
high, and correlations for fraternal (DZ) twins are very Arseneault et al., 2003; Philips & Matheny, 1997;
low, sometimes even negative (Saudino & Cherny, Scourfield, van den Bree, Martin, & McGuffin, 2004).
2001). The suggestion is that parents may provide biased This finding has been uncovered in studies of young
ratings of their twins and that behavioral genetic studies children, adolescents, and adults. It has been suggested
that rely on parents for data may not yield valid esti- that “consensus trait measures,” which eliminate speci-
mates of genetic and environmental influences on per- ficities or idiosyncracies in different viewpoints about a
sonality functioning. However, the situation is rather person, could be used to better identify both specific
less alarming than often claimed. Parents sometimes genes and specific experiences that are correlated with
contrast their twins in ways that generate greater than personality (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001).
expected differences between MZ versus DZ twins, but Second, as noted earlier, behavioral genetic studies
this problem may be restricted to some traits (e.g., have been used to examine whether there is etiological
symptoms of hyperactivity, temperament ratings of ac- differentiation in the lower-order traits (or narrow
tivity level; Simonoff et al., 1998) and may be attenu- facets) that make up the broader personality superfac-
ated by different rating measures (Goldsmith, Buss, & tors such as the Big Five. The question is whether
Lemery, 1997). higher-order dimensions, or superfactors, represent the
Third, family and adoption studies of personality best level of analysis for research in genetics. Analyses
yield lower estimates of genetic influences than twin at the lower-order levels of the personality hierarchy
studies (Martin et al., 2000; Plomin, Corley, Caspi, offer additional, useful information about the origins of
Fulker, & DeFries, 1998). Specifically, parent-child and individual differences in personality. For example,
biological sibling correlations for personality traits aver- analyses at the lower-order trait level suggest that sib-
age about .1 to .2, with corresponding heritabilities of .3 lings resemble each other in their altruism and prosocial
that are considerably lower than the heritabilities of .5 behavior (facets of Agreeableness), in part, because of
obtained in twin studies. One possibility is that the dis- the rearing environments they share (Jang, McCrae, An-
crepant findings result from the fact that parent-off- gleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998, Sample 1; Krueger
spring and sibling-sibling correlations are derived from et al., 2001), but analyses of the Agreeableness super-
different-age pairs and thus (dis)similarity is con- factor (which includes many other facets) may conceal
founded by age and cohort differences. Another possibil- this shared environmental influence. Earlier we noted
ity is that nonadditive genetic effects play a larger role in that, for behavioral prediction, it is often a short-sighted
personality than suggested by MZ and DZ correlations. strategy to rely exclusively on measures of broad super-
Nonadditive genetic effects refer to effects of genes that factors. Likewise, such exclusive reliance may limit re-
interact to influence a trait, in contrast to additive ge- search into the etiology of personality differences.
netic effects in which genes “add up.” Nonadditive ef- Third, although it is often said disparagingly that be-
fects only contribute slightly to the resemblance of DZ havioral genetics is adevelopmental and static, recent
twins and other first-degree relatives, whereas MZ twins findings in three different areas of research demonstrate
are identical for all (additive and nonadditive) genetic that behavioral genetic methods are ideal for application
 The Origins of Individual Dif ferences in Personality 333

to questions about age-related changes in etiology, in re- may produce short-term changes in personality pheno-
lation to both normal and abnormal development. First, types but that genetic factors contribute to individual
research on cognitive development shows that the heri- set-points to which individuals will regress (Lykken &
tability of IQ increases from early childhood through Tellegen, 1996). Longitudinal data with multiple, re-
late adolescence (McGue, Bacon, & Lykken, 1993; peated measurements—over both short and long inter-
Plomin, Fulker, Corley, & DeFries, 1997). In this in- vals—are needed to fully test the predictions derived
stance, one can think of a heritability estimate as an from the model.
outcome variable. When it changes with age, this sug-
gests that the balance of genetic versus environmental Molecular Genetic Analysis of Personality
causal processes differs at successive developmental
stages. In the case of IQ, the findings suggest that the ef- One of the most exciting directions for genetic research
fect on IQ of environmental factors shared by siblings on personality involves the use of molecular genetic
dissipates with age, as each child increasingly seeks out techniques to identify some of the specific genes re-
environments that are correlated with his or her genetic sponsible for genetic influences on personality. Quanti-
endowments. Second, research on the development of tative genetic studies are widely seen as a necessary
drug dependence suggests that the causes of initiation preliminary to identifying heritable phenotypes that can
and of dependence are not identical so that the factors be usefully examined at the molecular genetic level
that lead adolescents to sample drugs are not necessarily (Martin, Boomsma, & Machin, 1997), and finding
the same factors that lead to drug dependence (Kendler genes for personality will revolutionize psychological
et al., 1999). Third, research in developmental psycho- research by providing direct measures of specific geno-
pathology suggests that the pattern of antisocial behav- types for individuals.
ior that begins early in life, is pervasive across settings, The search for genes for personality is difficult be-
and persists into adulthood is more likely to be influ- cause, unlike classical single-gene disorders in which a
enced by genetic factors than is the pattern of late- single gene is necessary and sufficient to produce the
onset, situational, transient delinquency (Taylor et al., disorder, there is no evidence for such major effects of
2000). In combination, these three sets of findings illus- genes for personality. For quantitative traits like per-
trate how quantitative genetic studies can play an impor- sonality, genetic influence is much more likely to in-
tant role in illuminating developmental processes. volve multiple genes of varying but small effect size,
Fourth, behavioral genetic methods are also being which greatly increases the difficulty of detecting such
used to address the processes of continuity and change genes. Genes for complex traits influenced by multiple
in personality development. The quantitative methods genes and multiple environmental factors are known as
that behavioral geneticists use to estimate genetic and quantitative trait loci (QTLs; Plomin & Crabbe, 2000).
environmental components of phenotypic variance at a The goal is not to find the gene for a personality trait but
given point in time can be extended to estimate genetic rather some of the many genes that make contributions
contributions to continuity and change across time by of varying effect sizes to the variance of the trait.
analyzing cross-twin correlations across different times. Researchers attempting to find QTLs for personality
Longitudinal personality data from twins show that have investigated allelic association using DNA markers
such MZ cross-twin correlations are consistently and that are in or near genes thought to be relevant to the
significantly larger than DZ cross-twin correlations, trait. Allelic association refers to a correlation between
providing evidence that a major source of personality alleles of a DNA marker and trait scores across unre-
continuity in individual differences is attributable to ge- lated individuals: Allelic association occurs when indi-
netic factors (McGue et al., 1993; Pedersen & Reynolds, viduals with a particular allele for the marker have
1998; Viken, Rose, Kaprio, & Koskenvuo, 1994). This higher scores on the trait. Genes thought to be relevant
does not mean that genes “ fix” personality but rather to a particular trait are often called candidate genes,
that genetic factors contribute to the preservation of in- which is something of a misnomer. For example, for car-
dividual differences over long stretches of the life span, diovascular disease, several cholesterol-related genes
at least from adolescence onwards. A possible interpre- were good candidate genes because it was known that
tation of these findings is the set-point model (Carey, cholesterol is involved in the process leading to heart
2003), which argues that environmental fluctuations disease. However, for personality, much less is known
334 Personality Development

about relevant physiological mechanisms, which means heritability coefficient indexes not only direct effects
that few specific genes can be suggested as candidates. of genes but also effects of interactions between genes
The phrase candidate gene has thus been corrupted to and environments (Rutter & Silberg, 2002). Gene-envi-
include any genes that might conceivably be related to ronment interactions (GxE) occur when the effect on a
personality. The problem with this loose use of this person of exposure to a particular environment is condi-
phrase is that any gene expressed in the brain could be tional upon their genotype (or conversely, when envi-
considered as a candidate gene, so the phrase loses its ronmental experiences moderate gene expression).
meaning (Plomin & Caspi, 1999). Because interactions are independent of main effects, it
A meta-analysis of studies reporting data on associa- is possible that even genome-wide scans of very large
tions between candidate genes and personality traits numbers of people whose personalities are carefully
concluded there were few replicable associations (Mu- measured will fail to detect genes whose effects are
nafo et al., 2003). Much of the initial excitement about conditional on environmental risk.
research on molecular genetics and personality has In various branches of medicine that deal with com-
given way to a more sober appreciation of the pitfalls in- plex multifactorial outcomes (e.g., cardiovascular dis-
volved in this kind of research (Benjamin, Ebstein, & ease), GxE are being discovered and replicated. In the
Belmaker, 2002). The situation is not much better in behavioral sciences, several studies also suggest the pos-
psychiatric genetics (Plomin & McGuffin, 2003). Sev- sibility that some complex traits, instead of resulting
eral explanations have been invoked to explain some of from many genes of small effect, result from relatively
the failures to find psychiatric genes that withstand fewer genes whose effects are conditional on exposure
replication over time, including but not limited to publi- to environmental risk. One study showed that a func-
cation bias, phenotypic heterogeneity, allelic hetero- tional polymorphism in the promoter region of the gene
geneity, weak prior probabilities of association, multiple encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme
testing, population stratification, and inadequate sam- monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) moderated the effect of
ple size (Cardon & Palmer, 2003; Colhoun, McKeigue, child maltreatment in the cycle of violence (Caspi et al.,
& Smith, 2003; Lohmueller, Pearce, Pike, Lander, & 2002). Specifically, maltreated children whose geno-
Hirschhorn, 2003; Merikangas & Risch, 2003; Sullivan, type conferred low levels of MAOA expression more
Eaves, Kendler, & Neale, 2001; van den Oord & Sulli- often developed conduct disorder than children whose
van, 2003). These same explanations may account for genotype conferred high levels of MAOA. A second
the slow pace of discovering, and replicating, genes for study showed that a functional polymorphism in the pro-
personality. It may be useful to step back and reflect on moter region of the serotonin transporter gene moder-
the surge of interest in the search for personality genes, ated the influence of stressful life events on depression
which was stimulated by psychiatrists for two reasons. (Caspi, Sugden, et al., 2003). Specifically, individuals
First, it was hoped that the use of quantitative personal- with one or two copies of the short allele exhibited more
ity traits (rather than categorical psychiatric diagnoses) depression following stressful life events than individu-
would offer greater statistical power and thus facilitate als homozygous for the long allele. Both studies re-
the identification of genetic effects of very small effect ceived initial, independent replication (Foley et al.,
size. So far, more power has not proven to be a panacea. 2004; Kaufman et al., 2004; Kendler, Kuhn, Vittum,
Second, personality traits were thought to represent en- Prescott, & Riley, 2005; but this is a fast-moving field,
dophenotypes for psychiatric disorders—variables that and readers are encouraged to monitor developments
are intermediate on a causal chain from genes to disor- that will have no doubt occurred since this writing).
der. There was hope that gene associations would be It is possible that bringing together measured geno-
found more successfully with endophenotypes than has types and measured environments to study personality
been the case with diagnosed disorders because the for- traits and psychiatric disorders more accurately reflects
mer are thought to have simpler genetic underpinnings the processes by which personality phenotypes develop
than disorders themselves. Whether personality traits than does the study of genetic main effects. However,
fulfill the criteria for endophenotypes is debatable such GxE research requires careful, deliberate, theory-
(Gottesman & Gould, 2003). guided hypothesis testing. Moffitt, Caspi, and Rutter
It is also likely that genes do not directly encode for (2005) have outlined several strategic steps for GxE
personality traits. In fact, it is now recognized that the tests in developmental psychopathology, which may be
 Personality Continuity and Change 335

extended to study personality phenotypes. Up to now, which the relative ordering of individuals on a given
developmental psychologists have played a limited role trait is maintained over time. Two contradictory predic-
in molecular genetics research. We suggest that they may tions have been proposed about the rank-order stability
contribute in two fundamental ways. First, they can help of personality traits. The classical trait perspective ar-
refine the measurement of psychological phenotypes for gues that personality traits in adulthood are biologically
inclusion in genetic research. Second, they can help to based temperaments that are not susceptible to the influ-
measure developmental contexts and correlated environ- ence of the environment and thus do not change over
mental risks that may interact with genetic factors to time (McCrae et al., 2000). From this essentialist per-
shape personality development. It may be that ignoring spective, we would expect the test-retest correlations to
nurture has handicapped the ability of the psychological be high, even early in life. In contrast, the radical con-
sciences to better understand nature, and developmental textual perspective emphasizes the importance of life
psychologists may be able to rectify the situation. changes and role transitions in personality development
and suggests that personality should be fluid and prone
to change and should yield low test-retest correlation co-
PERSONALITY CONTINUITY AND CHANGE efficients, especially during developmental periods
characterized by rapid physical, cognitive, and social
The assertion that an individual’s personality has changes (Lewis, 2001).
changed or remained the same over time is ambiguous. Existing longitudinal studies do not support either of
The boy who has daily temper tantrums when he is age 2 these positions. A meta-analysis of the rank-order sta-
but weekly tantrums when he is age 9 has increased his bility of personality (organized according to the five-
level of emotional control; he has changed in absolute factor model) revealed six major conclusions (Roberts &
terms. But if he ranks first in temper tantrums among DelVecchio, 2000):
his peers at both ages, he has not changed in relative
terms. Further ambiguity arises if the form of the be-
1. Test-retest correlations over time are moderate in
havior changes. If this boy emerges into adulthood as a
magnitude, even from childhood to early adulthood.
man who is irritable and moody, we may grant that the
2. Rank-order stability increases with age. Test-retest
phenotype has changed but claim that the underlying
correlations (unadjusted for measurement error) in-
personality has not. A third ambiguity arises when a
creased from .41 in childhood to .55 at age 30, and then
claim of continuity rests on observations not of an indi-
reached a plateau around .70 between ages 50 and 70.
vidual but of a sample of individuals. The continuity of
an attribute at the group level may be masking large but 3. Rank-order stability decreases as the time interval
mutually canceling changes at the individual level. between observations increases.
There are several meanings denoted by the term continu- 4. Rank-order stability does not vary markedly across
ity. The purpose of this section is to disentangle those the Big Five traits.
meanings. First, we review evidence about three types of 5. Rank-order stability does not vary markedly accord-
continuity and change observed in longitudinal re- ing to assessment method (i.e., self-reports, observer
search: differential, mean-level, and ipsative. Second, ratings, and projective tests).
we review the conceptual challenge of testing and docu- 6. Rank-order stability does not vary markedly by gender.
menting coherence in personality functioning across
time and in diverse circumstances. Several implications can be drawn from this meta-
analysis. First, the level of continuity in childhood and
Types of Continuity Observed in adolescence is much higher than originally expected
Longitudinal Research (Lewis, 2001), especially after age 3. Even more impres-
sive is the fact that the level of stability increases in a
Differential Continuity and Change relatively linear fashion through adolescence and young
Continuity and change are most often indexed by corre- adulthood. Young adulthood has been described as de-
lations between personality scores across two points in mographically dense, in that it involves more life-chang-
time (i.e., test-retest correlations). These differential, or ing roles and identity decisions than any other period in
rank-order stability correlations, reflect the degree to the life course (Arnett, 2000). Despite these dramatic
336 Personality Development

contextual changes, personality differences remain re- strate mean-level changes after adulthood is reached
markably consistent during this time period. Second, (Costa & McCrae, 1997). In contrast, proponents of a
personality continuity in adulthood peaks later than ex- life-span developmental perspective emphasize the im-
pected. According to one prominent perspective, per- portance of life changes and role transitions in personal-
sonality traits are essentially fixed and unchanging after ity development and suggest that mean-level changes do
age 30 (McCrae & Costa, 1994). However, the meta-an- occur and often at ages much later than young adulthood
alytic findings show that rank-order stability peaks (Helson, Kwan, John, & Jones, 2002).
some time after age 50, but at a level well below unity. A meta-analysis synthesized and organized (accord-
Thus, individual differences in personality traits con- ing to the five-factor model) data from 87 longitudinal
tinue to change throughout adulthood, but only modestly studies spanning the period from age 10 to 101 years
after age 50. Third, the magnitude of differential stabil- (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, in press). The pattern
ity of personality traits, although not as high as essen- of change in the first domain of the Big Five, Extraver-
tialists would claim, is still remarkably high. In this sion, was complex until this superfactor was divided into
regard, it is interesting to compare personality traits to constituent elements of social dominance (assertiveness,
two overlapping trait domains, which show even higher dominance) and social vitality (talkativeness, sociabil-
differential stability: (1) cognitive abilities and (2) in- ity). Traits associated with social dominance increased
terests. Measures of cognitive ability exhibit more lon- from adolescence through early middle age, whereas
gitudinal consistency than measures of personality traits associated with social vitality increased in adoles-
traits. It is unlikely that this difference is simply a func- cence and then showed decreases in young adulthood
tion of the differential reliability of the two kinds of and old age. Consistent with evidence from cross-sec-
measures because this difference holds up even when tional comparisons of different age groups (McCrae
the measures are corrected for unreliability. However, a et al., 2000), traits belonging to the domains of Agree-
related methodological consideration is that ability mea- ableness and Conscientiousness increased in young
sures show greater continuity because ability tests de- adulthood and middle age. Traits belonging to the do-
mand maximal performance, whereas personality main of Neuroticism decreased mostly in young adult-
questionnaires assess representative, typical perfor- hood. Finally, traits from the Openness to Experience
mance; the former test format may yield evidence of domain showed increases in adolescence and young
greater continuity (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). adulthood and a tendency to decrease in old age.
Measures of interests also exhibit more longitudinal In general, the longitudinal evidence documents that,
consistency than measures of personality traits, espe- at least from adolescence through adult life, most people
cially during the 20-year period from early adolescence become more psychologically mature. Two distinct defi-
through early adulthood (Low, Yoon, Roberts, & nitions of maturity prevail in developmental theories
Rounds, 2005). Interests may stabilize at an earlier age (Hogan & Roberts, 2004). The first, humanistic defini-
because, relative to personality traits, they are more tion equates maturity with self-actualization and per-
likely to involve motivational processes that lead indi- sonal growth and with the process of becoming less
viduals to select congruent and reinforcing experiences. defensive and rigid and more creative and open to feel-
ings. According to the longitudinal evidence (Roberts
Mean-Level Continuity and Change et al., in press), the data do not support this developmen-
Mean-level change refers to changes in the average trait tal progression; after young adulthood, people do not
level of a population. This type of change is thought to grow increasingly open to experience and toward old age
result from maturational processes shared by a popula- they actually exhibit declines on traits related to Open-
tion and is typically assessed by mean-level differences ness to Experience. The second, functional definition
in specific traits over time, which indicate whether the equates maturity with the capacity to become a produc-
sample as a whole is increasing or decreasing on a trait. tive and involved contributor to society, with the process
Contradictory perspectives—similar to those guiding of becoming more planful, deliberate, and decisive, but
predictions about differential stability—have also also more considerate and charitable (traits encom-
guided expectations about mean-level changes in per- passed by higher levels of Emotional Stability, Consci-
sonality traits. Proponents of the five-factor model of entiousness, and Agreeableness). According to the
personality argue that personality traits do not demon- longitudinal data, most people do appear to become
 Personality Continuity and Change 337

more functionally mature with age, and those who de- itly refers to continuity at the individual level. Ipsative
velop the cardinal traits of psychological maturity earli- continuity denotes continuity in the configuration of
est are more effective in their love, work, and health (as variables in an individual across time. Ipsative continu-
reviewed later). ity could also be called person-centered continuity. The
Three additional aspects of these longitudinal find- latter term derives from Block’s (1971) distinction be-
ings deserve note. First, there are no discernible sex dif- tween a variable-centered approach to personality,
ferences in patterns of mean-level continuity and change which is concerned with the relative standing of persons
across the Big Five. Apparently, men and women change across variables, and a person-centered approach, which
in the same ways over the life course, although mean- is concerned with the salience and configuration of
level differences between the sexes are maintained over variables in the person (see the first section). An ip-
time. This suggests that the causes of personality conti- sative approach to the study of development seeks to dis-
nuity and change across the life course are likely to be cover continuities in personality functioning across
the same for the sexes. Second, the majority of mean- development by identifying each person’s salient attri-
level personality change occurs in young adulthood not butes and their intraindividual organization.
in adolescence, as we might suspect given traditional Relatively little longitudinal research has been con-
theories of psychological development. This pattern of ducted from an ipsative point of view. An exception is
change is not simply a recent historical phenomenon be- Block’s (1971) Lives Through Time in which he em-
cause it was observed in different cohorts across the ployed the Q-sort technique of personality description
twentieth century. This finding suggests that the causes to analyze continuity and change. Continuity and
of normative personality change are likely to be identi- change were indexed by computing correlations across
fied by narrowing research attention to the study of the set of attributes—Q-correlations—between an indi-
young adulthood. Third, for select trait categories, vidual’s Q-sort profiles from different measurement oc-
change occurs well past young adulthood, demonstrat- casions; the higher the correlation, the more the
ing the continued plasticity of personality well beyond configuration of attributes in the individual remained
typical age markers of maturity. stable across time. Block’s analysis showed that aggre-
The evidence base about continuity and change still gate indices of continuity masked large individual dif-
has several important gaps. First, the best data about ferences in personality continuity. For example, the
personality continuity and change—and hence the most average Q-correlations between early and late adoles-
reliable conclusions—continue to be restricted to adult cence exceeded .70 and those between late adolescence
samples. Relatively few studies have used a comprehen- and adulthood exceeded .50, but the intraindividual Q-
sive set of personality variables to characterize young correlations ranged from moderately negative to the
children and to track continuities and changes in their maximum imposed by measurement error. Other studies
personalities over time. Second, most longitudinal stud- of personality continuity and change between childhood
ies continue to estimate continuity and change over only and adolescence report average Q-correlations ranging
two waves of assessment, despite the advent of new from .43 to .71, with considerable variability in the dis-
methodological approaches that are appropriate for an- tribution of these scores; intraindividual Q-correlations
swering more nuanced questions about both short- and ranged from −.44 to .92, indicating that from childhood
long-term temporal dynamics (Biesanz, West, & Kwok, to adolescence people vary widely in how much continu-
2003). Finally, and most important, the next generation ity or change they exhibited (Asendorpf & van Aken,
of studies should move beyond description and attempt 1991; Ozer & Gjerde, 1989).
to explain patterns of continuity and change (Mroczek & An interesting discovery is that there are meaningful
Spiro, 2003). individual differences in intraindividual continuity. In a
longitudinal American study, Block (1971) originally
Ipsative Continuity and Change reported that those persons whose personalities re-
Differential and mean-level continuities are indexed by mained stable from adolescence to adulthood (non-
statistics that characterize a sample of individuals. changers) were more intellectually, emotionally, and
However, continuity at the group level may not mirror socially successful as adolescents than the changers, and
continuity at the individual level. For this reason, some a measure of adjustment also showed them to be better
researchers examine ipsative continuity, which explic- adjusted. In European samples, Asendorpf and van
338 Personality Development

Aken (1991) also found that the most resilient children its psychological meaning as revealed in relationships to
showed the most continuity of personality patterns a variety of other measures” (Ozer, 1986, p. 52) across
across time. In a New Zealand sample, Roberts, Caspi, time and in different contexts. Accordingly, the investi-
and Moffitt (2001) reported that traits associated with gator who claims to have discovered coherence must
the domains of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and have a theory—no matter how rudimentary or implicit—
Emotional Stability were positively correlated with in- that specifies the basis on which the diverse behaviors
creased personality consistency: People who were inter- and attributes can be said to belong to the same equiva-
personally effective, planful, decisive, and considerate lence class. The theories behind claims of coherence
were less likely to change over time. Although there is often amount to appeals to the reader’s intuition. In the
no obvious explanation for this replicated finding, one personality taxonomy that we presented earlier in this
possibility is that Agreeable, Conscientious, and Emo- chapter, we described current theories about the
tionally Stable people are better equipped to deal with processes underlying the Big Five traits. As researchers
social-developmental challenges across the life course. develop richer and more comprehensive theories about
They have more personal capital in the form of in- the nature of particular individual differences, the task
creased resilience, which allows them to master more of making theory-based predictions about coherence
efficiently the life challenges that they face and to recu- should become easier. We now review three conceptual
perate more quickly from aversive and disappointing life approaches to the problem of studying personality co-
events that they encounter. In contrast, their more brittle herence across the life course. Each of these social-de-
counterparts may be more susceptible to the influence velopmental approaches provides a framework for
of their environment. The robust finding that some peo- understanding coherence by focusing on the distinctive
ple are more prone to change than others calls for re- ways in which individuals organize their behavior to
search that systematically tests for an explanation. meet new environmental demands and developmental
challenges.

An Organizational-Adaptational Perspective
Personality Coherence
An organizational-adaptational perspective focuses on
The kinds of continuity discussed so far refer to homo- tasks and milestones that are encountered during the
typic continuity—continuity of similar behaviors or course of development and on how these are met by dif-
phenotypic attributes over time. The concept of coher- ferent personalities (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995; Mas-
ence enlarges the definition of continuity to include het- ten et al., 1999; van Lieshout, 2000). According to this
erotypic continuity—continuity of an inferred attribute perspective, personality traits influence problem-solv-
presumed to underlie diverse phenotypic behaviors. Spe- ing modalities that individuals use when meeting new
cific behaviors in childhood may not predict phenotypi- developmental challenges at different points in the life
cally similar behavior later in adulthood but may still be course (e.g., developing competent peer relationships in
associated with behaviors that are conceptually consis- childhood, establishing appropriate cross-sex relation-
tent with the earlier behavior (Livson & Peskin, 1980). ships in adolescence, learning to parent in early adult-
Kagan (1969) noted that heterotypic continuities are hood, or providing for dependent parents in middle age).
most likely to be found from the earlier years of life, Some of these developmental tasks are universal,
when children go through numerous rapid changes. In whereas others are specific to a socicocultural context
contrast, homotypic continuities are more likely to be and historical period. A useful example of the organiza-
found after puberty, when psychological organization tional-adaptational perspective comes from Sroufe and
nears completion. colleagues’ work on the links between children’s early
With the coming of age of various longitudinal sam- attachment to mothers and the children’s adaptational
ples, examples of heterotypic continuities now abound in profiles during later developmental phases. This general
the psychological literature, as we see in the following approach enabled Sroufe and his colleagues to confer
section. But it is important to emphasize that coherence conceptual coherency on their findings that individuals
and heterotypic continuity refer to conceptual rather who were securely attached as infants later explored
than a literal continuity among behaviors: “ The notion their environments as toddlers (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe,
of coherence refers to a pattern of findings where a con- 1978), were less dependent on their teachers in the pre-
struct, measured by several different methods, retains school years (Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983), attained
 Personality and the Life Course: How Early-Emerging Personality Dif ferences Shape Developmental Pathways 339

higher sociometric status and displayed greater compe- course are expressed not only through the constancy of
tence in peer relations in late childhood (Urban, Carl- behavior across time and in diverse circumstances but
son, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1991), and appeared to also through the consistency over time in the ways that
establish appropriate cross-sex relationships in adoles- persons characteristically modify their changing con-
cence (Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993). texts as a function of their behavior. We now turn to re-
view evidence of such continuities across the life course.
A Sociological Perspective
Beyond childhood the search for coherence becomes PERSONALITY AND TH E LIFE COURSE:
more complicated, and it may be that a purely psycho- HOW EARLY-EMERGING PERSONALITY
logical approach is insufficient for the analysis of per- DIFFERENCES SHAPE
sonality continuity and change as the individual DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAYS
increasingly negotiates social roles defined by the cul-
ture (Settersten, 2003). Some researchers have found it Two events have served to make research on personality
useful to adopt a sociocultural perspective and to con- trait development more vibrant over the past 10 years.
ceive of the life course as a sequence of culturally de- First, developmental psychologists have begun to mea-
fined, age-graded roles (e.g., marriage, work, and sure personality traits rather than ignore them. Second,
parenting) that the individual enacts over time (Caspi, personality psychologists have become increasingly in-
1987; Helson, Mitchell, & Moane, 1984). In this fashion, terested in relating measures of personality traits to
the life course can be charted as a sequence of age- something besides other personality measures. The re-
linked social roles, and personality coherence can be ex- sult is robust evidence that early-emerging individual
plored by investigating consistencies in the ways differences in personality shape how individuals experi-
different persons select and perform different sociocul- ence, interpret, and respond to the developmental tasks
tural roles; for example, in whether they opt for conven- they face across the life course. In this section, we re-
tional or unconventional career paths or in whether they view longitudinal evidence about how personality traits
are “off-time” in relation to normative, age-graded tasks shape (a) the cultivation of social relationships, ( b) the
such as getting married. mastery of educational and work tasks, and (c) the pro-
An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective motion and maintenance of physical health. For each de-
velopmental task, we identify the most relevant
Bouchard (1995) correctly argued that a purely socio-
personality variables and outline the mechanisms by
cultural perspective on the life course “ignores the fact
which these personality traits are hypothesized to exert
that life-histories themselves are complex evolved adap-
their influence.
tations” (p. 91). An evolutionary perspective on the life
course complements the sociocultural perspective by
Cultivating Relationships: How Personality
exploring how personality variation is related to those
Shapes Friendships, Intimate Relationships,
adaptively important problems with which human be-
and Parenting
ings have had to repeatedly contend: It focuses research
on the genetically influenced strategies and tactics that One of the most important tasks faced by children and
individuals use for survival and reproduction. Evolu- adolescents is the establishment of friendships and ac-
tionary psychology thus focuses attention on the coher- ceptance among peers (Hartup & Stevens, 1999; Masten
ence of behavioral strategies that people use in, for & Coatsworth, 1998). Among children, all of the higher-
example, mate selection, mate retention, reproduction, order Big Five traits except Openness are important pre-
parental care, kin investment, status attainment, and dictors of social competence. Perhaps so many aspects
coalition building (D. Buss, 1999). Although these ideas of personality predict social competence because social
have not yet been tested in the context of long-term lon- functioning requires a wide array of skills, including
gitudinal studies, they show the promise of evolutionary emotional expression, emotional understanding, and
psychology for organizing longitudinal-developmental emotional and behavioral regulation (Rubin, Bukowski,
data on personality coherence. & Parker, Chapter 10, this Handbook, this volume).
These three approaches, or road maps for studying Agreeable and Extraverted children show better social
personality across the life course, share an important competence concurrently and across time and experi-
assumption: Continuities of personality across the life ence growth in perceived social support from early to
340 Personality Development

late adolescence (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003a; plications for the course of personality development be-
Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2004; Shiner, 2000; cause similarities between couple members create inter-
Shiner et al., 2003). Children high on Negative Emotion- personal experiences that reinforce initial tendencies
ality or low on aspects of Conscientiousness (e.g., atten- (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991; Caspi & Herbener,
tion and self-control) have a variety of social 1990). Second, personality differences influence peo-
difficulties concurrently and across time (Eisenberg ple’s exposure to relationship events. For example, peo-
et al., 2000); the interaction of high Negative Emotion- ple high in Neuroticism are more likely to be exposed to
ality and low self-regulation may be especially problem- daily conflicts in their relationships (Bolger & Zucker-
atic for social functioning (Eisenberg et al., 2000). man, 1995). Third, personality differences shape peo-
Personality continues to be an important predictor of ple’s reactions to the behavior of their partners. For
relationships in adulthood. Extraversion predicts posi- example, high-Disagreeable individuals may escalate
tive relationships (Shiner et al., 2002), whereas Neu- negative affect during conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan,
roticism and Disagreeableness are the strongest and Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Similarly, high-Agreeable
most consistent personality predictors of negative rela- people are better able to regulate emotions during inter-
tionship outcomes—including relationship dissatisfac- personal conflicts (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano,
tion, conflict, abuse, and, ultimately dissolution 2001). Cognitive processes also come online in creating
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Shiner et al., 2002). These trait-correlated experiences (Snyder & Stukas, 1999).
effects of Neuroticism and low Agreeableness have For example, highly neurotic individuals may overreact
been uncovered in long-term studies following samples to minor criticism from their partner, believe they are no
of children into adulthood and in shorter-term longitu- longer loved when their partner does not call, or assume
dinal studies of adults. The potential contribution of infidelity on the basis of mere flirtation. Fourth, person-
personality differences to shaping abusive relationships ality differences evoke behaviors from partners that
has been further underscored by longitudinal studies contribute to relationship quality. For example, people
that find associations between early developing aggres- high in Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be
sive traits in childhood and subsequent abusive behavior more likely to express four behaviors identified as detri-
in adult romantic relationships (Andrews, Foster, Ca- mental to relationships: criticism, contempt, defensive-
paldi, & Hops, 2000; Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, ness, and stonewalling (Gottman, 1994).
2004). One study that followed a large sample of adoles- Whereas a great deal of research has investigated the
cents across their multiple relationships in early adult- influence of personality on friendships and intimate re-
hood discovered that the influence of Neuroticism and lationships, fewer studies have considered the possibil-
low Agreeableness on relationship quality showed ity that parents’ personalities shape their parenting
cross-relationship generalization: It predicted the same styles and relationships with their children (Belsky &
abusive relationship experiences across relationships Barends, 2002). This is a curious omission. Although re-
with different partners (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, searchers interested in psychiatric disorders have docu-
2002). Increasingly, sophisticated studies that include mented that maternal psychopathology can compromise
dyads (not just individuals) and multiple methods (not effective parenting (Goodman & Gotlib, 2002), devel-
just self reports) demonstrate that the link between per- opmental researchers have been slower to recognize that
sonality traits and relationship processes is more than parental personality forms a critical part of children’s
simply an artifact of shared method variance in the as- developmental context (Goldsmith, Losaya, Bradshaw,
sessment of these two domains (Donnellan, Conger, & & Campos, 1994). Moreover, behavioral genetic studies
Bryant, 2004; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). suggest that some parenting behaviors may be heritable
An important research goal is to uncover the proximal (Spinath & O’Connor, 2003). This does not mean that
relationship-specific processes that mediate these per- there is a gene for parenting styles. Rather, it suggests
sonality effects on relationship outcomes (Reiss, Capo- that individual differences in parenting behaviors may
bianco, & Tsai, 2002). Personality traits affect be related to personality characteristics that are influ-
relationships by influencing and altering microinterac- enced by genetic factors.
tional processes. First, individuals select their interac- The handful of studies that have examined personal-
tional contexts by choosing partners who resemble them. ity ➝ parenting associations—using self-reports as well
The tendency to form unions with similar others has im- as observations of parenting—suggest that Extraversion
 Personality and the Life Course: How Early-Emerging Personality Dif ferences Shape Developmental Pathways 341

and Agreeableness are related to sensitive and respon- traits from the domain of Conscientiousness are the
sive parenting, whereas aspects of Neuroticism, such as most important noncognitive predictors of educational
anxiety and irritability, are related to less competent achievement and occupational attainment (Judge et al.,
parenting (e.g., Belsky, Crnic, & Woodsworth, 1995; 1999; Shiner, in press). In fact, childhood Conscien-
Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000; Kochanska, Clark, tiousness predicts improvements in academic achieve-
et al., 1997; Kochanska et al., 2004; Losoya, Callor, ment across time into adulthood (Shiner, 2000; Shiner
Rowe, & Goldsmith, 1997; Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, et al., 2003). Similarly, adult Conscientiousness predicts
2003; Prinzie et al., 2004). Much more work needs to be job performance across a wide variety of measures and
done: First, most of the research to date has focused on across nearly all types of jobs (Barrick, Mount, &
parents of very young children to the virtual exclusion of Judge, 2001). Conscientiousness encompasses many
adolescents. Second, most of the research has not tested traits that are necessary for completing work effec-
mediators (e.g., parental attributions) of personality ➝ tively: the capacities to sustain attention, to strive to-
parenting associations. Third, most of the research has ward high standards, and to inhibit impulsive behavior.
focused on the main effects of personality and has not In contrast, childhood Neuroticism predicts lower adult
addressed the conditions under which particular person- occupational attainment (Judge et al., 1999). Adult Neu-
ality attributes are more or less important in explaining roticism appears to have small negative effects on job
parenting behavior (e.g., Are personality main effects performance (Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan,
moderated by qualities of the martial relationship or by 2000) and is associated with lower academic attainment
the child’s temperament?). For example, there is some (Shiner et al., 2002).
evidence that difficult children are particularly likely to Links between the other Big Five traits and academic
be rejected by highly Conscientious mothers during and work achievement are less consistent and robust but
problem-solving tasks (Neitzel & Stright, 2004). Fourth, are still found. Openness to Experience/ Intellect pre-
to our knowledge, no study has examined personality ef- dicts academic achievement in samples of school-age
fects on parenting behavior in relation to multiple chil- children, adolescents, and college students (Farsides &
dren in the same family, and this is a design that has the Woodfield, 2003; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch
power to test the cross-situational generalizability of 1997; John et al., 1994), and child and adult Agreeable-
personality effects (across offspring) and to estimate ness sometimes do as well (Shiner, 2000; Shiner et al.,
the influence of parental personality on family life inde- 2002). Meta-analyses reveal that Extraversion, Agree-
pendently of other family-wide environmental effects. ableness, and Openness predict some more limited as-
The study of personality effects on social relation- pects of work performance in a subset of occupations
ships is exciting territory where hypotheses about per- (Barrick et al., 2001). Research with children, adoles-
sonality dynamics can be tested using multiple and cents, and adults demonstrates that many of the links
creative methodologies. These approaches need not be between personality traits (especially Conscientious-
confined to close relationships. Bugental (2000) pro- ness) and various indices of achievement remain signifi-
posed a taxonomy of social relationships that offers the cant after controlling for individual differences in
promise of helping to coordinate personality research by ability (Judge et al., 1999; Shiner, 2000; Shiner et al.,
focusing attention on how personality variables shape 2003), but sometimes the links disappear (Schmidt &
behaviors in five domains of social life: (1) attachment Hunter, 2004). The predictive associations between tem-
relations, (2) mating relations, (3) hierarchical power re- perament and personality traits and achievement are ap-
lations between persons of unequal status, (4) reciprocal parent early in life, at the time that children first enroll
relations among persons of equal status, and (5) coali- in school (Miech, Essex, & Goldsmith, 2001). The find-
tional-group relations. ing that personality effects on achievement emerge early
in life is important because school adjustment and aca-
demic performance have cumulative effects over time
Striving and Achieving: How Personality Shapes
(Entwisle & Alexander, 1993).
Performance in School and Work Settings
The personality processes involved may vary across
During the life course, individuals assume multiple per- different stages of development, and at least four candi-
formance tasks (e.g., pursuing an education, assuming a date processes deserve research scrutiny (see Schneider,
job, or managing and allocating resources). Personality Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). First, the personality
342 Personality Development

➝ achievement associations may reflect “attraction” ef- dence that this occurs in part via the processing of infor-
fects, or “active niche-picking,” whereby people ac- mation. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate
tively choose educational and work experiences whose the efficient processing of complex information and are
qualities are concordant with their own personalities. associated with creative problem solving (Ashby, Isen,
For example, people who are more conscientious prefer & Turken, 1999; Fredrickson, 2003). In addition to
conventional jobs such as accounting and farming (Got- these effects on task effectiveness, personality may di-
tfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993). People who are more rectly affect other aspects of work performance such as
extraverted prefer jobs that are described as social or en- interpersonal interactions (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).
terprising such as teaching or business management Personality traits may also directly influence perfor-
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Moreover, extraverted mance motivation (e.g., Conscientiousness consistently
individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles in predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy, whereas
multiple settings (Anderson et al., 2001). All of the Big Neuroticism predicts these positive motivations nega-
Five have substantial relations with better performance tively; Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Ilies, 2002).
when the personality predictor is appropriately aligned Personality traits not only affect performance in
with work criteria (Hogan & Holland, 2003). This indi- school and at work; they are also influenced by these ex-
cates that if people find jobs that fit with their disposi- periences. The “corresponsive principle” summarizes
tions they will experience greater levels of job the empirical observation that the most likely effect of
performance, which should lead to greater success, achievement-setting experiences on personality develop-
tenure, and satisfaction across the life course (Judge ment is to deepen the characteristics that lead people to
et al., 1999). those experiences in the first place (Roberts, Caspi, &
Second, personality ➝ achievement associations re- Moffitt, 2003). For example, if people assume leadership
flect “recruitment ” effects, whereby people are se- positions because they are socially dominant, they will
lected into achievement situations and are given become more socially dominant through their experi-
preferential treatment on the basis of their personality ence as leaders. Similarly, some individuals may per-
characteristics. These recruitment effects begin to ap- form less well in educational settings as a function of
pear early in development. For example, children’s their high irritability and aggressiveness. In turn, they
personalities influence their emerging relationships are at a heightened risk of becoming increasingly antag-
with teachers at a young age (Birch & Ladd, 1998). In onistic and alienated over time through their failure ex-
adulthood, job applicants who are more extraverted, periences (Shiner et al., 2002). The corresponsive
conscientious, and less neurotic are liked better by in- principle thus links two mutually supportive life-course
terviewers and are more often recommended for the dynamics: “social-selection,” wherein people select en-
job (Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000). vironments that are correlated with their personality
Third, some personality ➝ achievement associations traits, and “social-influence,” wherein environmental
emerge as consequences of “attrition” or “deselection experiences shape personality functioning. According to
pressures,” whereby people leave achievement settings longitudinal data, the traits that “select ” people into
(e.g., schools or jobs) that do not fit with their personal- specific experiences are the traits that are most “influ-
ity or are released from these settings because of their enced” in response to those experiences. Life experi-
trait-correlated behaviors (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). For ences do not impinge themselves on people in a random
example, longitudinal evidence from different countries fashion causing widespread personality transformations;
shows that children who exhibit a combination of high rather, the traits that people already possess are changed
irritability/antagonism and poor self-control are at (i.e., deepened and elaborated) by trait-correlated expe-
heightened risk of unemployment (Caspi, Wright, Mof- riences that they create in achievement settings.
fitt, & Silva, 1998; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen,
2003; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000). Health Promotion and Maintenance: How
Fourth, personality ➝ achievement associations Personality Shapes Health Trajectories
emerge as a result of direct, proximal effects of person-
ality on performance. Personality traits may promote The lifelong interplay between psyche and soma is
certain kinds of task effectiveness; there is some evi- nowhere more apparent than in research documenting
 Personality and the Life Course: How Early-Emerging Personality Dif ferences Shape Developmental Pathways 343

that personality traits contribute to the maintenance of tion, which are positively associated with health out-
physical integrity and health. Especially impressive are comes (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000). In
life-span studies documenting associations between per- contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness engage in
sonality traits related to Conscientiousness with a variety of health-risk behaviors such as smoking, un-
longevity (Friedman et al., 1995). Individuals high in healthy eating habits, lack of exercise, unprotected sex-
traits related to Disagreeableness (e.g., anger and hostil- ual intercourse, and dangerous driving habits (Bogg &
ity) appear to be at greatest risk of disease (e.g., cardio- Roberts, 2004). The association between Conscientious-
vascular illness; Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & ness-related traits and health-risk behaviors is espe-
Hallet, 1996). The evidence for the involvement of Neu- cially robust and appears to be stronger among
roticism in ill health is more mixed, with some research adolescents than adults, suggesting that this risky per-
pointing to links with increased risk of actual disease sonality trait merits greater research and public-health
and other studies documenting links with illness behav- attention. Future personality research could be usefully
ior only (Smith & Spiro, 2002). integrated with developmental research from a decision-
The study of health also serves to illustrate the utility theory perspective to better understand the decision-
of hierarchical structural models of personality in inte- making processes that may mediate the links between
grating and interpreting research findings. For example, traits from the Conscientiousness domain and health-
some of the inconsistency that has been observed in risk behaviors (Hampson, Andrews, Barckley, Lichten-
studies of hostility and cardiovascular disease may be stein, & Lee, 2000). Such research has the potential to
due to the fact that hostility is a facet or component of contribute to a psychology of public health.
both Neuroticism and Agreeableness (versus Antago- Third, personality differences may be related to re-
nism; Smith & Williams, 1992). Measures of hostility actions to illness. This includes a wide class of behav-
that reflect overt interpersonal expressions of anger are iors, including the possibility that personality
facets of Agreeableness that may be the lethal personal- differences affect the selection and execution of coping
ity risk factor for coronary heart disease, whereas mea- behaviors (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1993), modulate dis-
sures of hostility that tap irritation and self-focused tress reduction, and shape treatment adherence (Ken-
negativity are facets of Neuroticism and may be better ford et al., 2002).
predictors of health complaints rather than actual health The previous processes linking personality traits to
outcomes. A taxonomic model of personality can help physical health are not mutually exclusive. Moreover,
researchers to make conceptual and measurement re- different personality traits may affect physical health
finements in testing psychosomatic hypotheses. via different processes. For example, facets of Disagree-
Personality health associations may reflect at least ableness may be most directly linked to disease
three distinct processes (Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary, processes, facets of low Conscientiousness may be more
1999; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999). First, per- clearly implicated in health-damaging behaviors, and
sonality differences may be related to pathogenesis— facets of Neuroticism may contribute to ill-health by
mechanisms that promote disease. This has been shaping reactions to illness.
evaluated most directly in studies relating various facets The study of personality and health has historically
of Disagreeableness/ hostility to greater reactivity in re- been confined to adults. However, this may well change
sponse to stressful experiences (Smith & Gallo, 2001). as health psychologists turn their attention to earlier
However, part of the complexity of testing hypotheses periods in development to understand public-health
about the role of personality in the physiological puzzles. Consider research on social inequalities in
processes of a disease involves the need for greater clar- health, which has tended to focus on low socioeco-
ity about the disease processes involved and during which nomic status in adulthood as the main causal variable
disease phases personality effects may be implicated. and on adults’ stress experiences as the main mediating
Second, personality differences may be related to mechanism. However, mounting evidence from life-
physical-health outcomes because they are associated course research points to the contribution of early life
with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. experiences and to the cumulative impact of sustained
For example, individuals high in Extraversion may foster social disadvantages on adult health, compelling health
social relationships, social support, and social integra- psychologists to turn their attention to examine the role
344 Personality Development

that personality factors may play in mediating the asso- ences accumulate over a lifetime, a focus on a single
ciations between early social experiences and poor outcome variable measured at a single point in time may
health across the life course (Chen & Mathews, 2002; underestimate the contribution of personality to the
Gallo & Mathews, 2003). course of developmental trajectories. Abelson (1985)
makes this point in noting that differences between
baseball players are trivial if considered on the basis of a
Predicting All of Behavior All of the Time?
single at-bat but become meaningful over the course of a
Although personality traits have been shown to shape game, a season, and a career. These observations are not
developmental outcomes in multiple domains and in dif- intended to breed smug self-satisfaction. Rather, they
ferent age groups, a common refrain is that these predic- are meant to foster reasonable expectations and aspira-
tive associations only account for a fraction of the tions for research on personality development.
variance in outcomes of interest. This observation must
be balanced by four considerations. First, it seems nec-
PERSONALITY AND THE EMERGENCE
essary to periodically reissue the reminder that even
OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
small effect sizes are of theoretical and practical signif-
icance (McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000). By way of com-
Just as individual differences in personality shape
parison, epidemiological and clinical studies repeatedly
adaptation over time, childhood personality plays an
uncover associations whose effect sizes range between
important role in the development of psychopathology.
.1 and .3 (e.g., the association between decreased bone
One of the primary questions that has fueled scholarly
mineral density and risk of hip fracture or between the
and popular interest in temperament research is
nicotine patch and smoking abstinence), leading a recent
whether children with particular temperaments are at
expert panel to recommend rethinking conventional in-
greater risk of developing psychiatric problems. Much
terpretations of psychological research. Given adequate
of the early interest in temperament traits was gener-
attention to sampling considerations, researchers should
ated by Thomas and Chess’s suggestion that children’s
be pleased with associations around .2 to .3 (Meyer
early individual differences could help set off a chain
et al., 2001). Second, debates about the size of personal-
of transactions between the child and the environment
ity effects are based on the implicit assumption that
that could lead eventually to the development of clini-
every behavior is the product of a single trait. This is im-
cal disorders (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). In this
plausible, because each individual is characterized by a
section, we address links between temperament /per-
personal pattern of multiple traits working additively
sonality and psychopathology. First, we survey several
and interactively to influence behavior. This multiple-
new directions in research about the association be-
trait perspective has important implications for effect-
tween personality and psychopathology. Second, we
size estimates: Simulation studies demonstrate that it is
summarize what is known about the predictive correla-
unreasonable and statistically inconceivable in multiply
tions between childhood temperament /personality dif-
determined systems for any single trait to explain much
ferences and later psychopathology. Third, we present a
more than 10% of the variance (Ahadi & Diener, 1989).
conceptual model of possible associations between
Further research on the interactions of personality traits
temperament /personality and psychopathology and
may enhance our ability to predict particular outcomes
provide empirical examples.
(see, e.g., Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002, on the
prediction of work performance from the interaction of New Directions in Research on Personality
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness). Third, social be- and Psychopathology
havior is a product of multiple personalities acting in
concert and influencing one another (Asendorpf, 2002). The links between personality and psychopathology are
Consider the case of relationship outcomes. If personal- turning out to be complex, and recent research recog-
ity effects are additive across partners, the true impact nizes this complexity. Next we describe three new direc-
of a personality trait on a relationship should be re- tions and advances taken in this area of research.
garded as the summed effect of two personalities not a A first advance springs from evidence that clinical
single individual’s trait (Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, disorders often include subgroups of individuals char-
2001). Fourth, because the effects of personality differ- acterized by different temperament or personality
 Personality and the Emergence of Psychopathology 345

profiles. These subgroups may differ from each other they spring in part from similar causes, including shared
in at least four ways: They may (1) have developed the temperament /personality risk factors, whereas each dis-
disorder through different pathways, (2) have differ- order may also be related to other personality traits that
ent profiles of comorbidity and life adaptation, (3) are specific to that disorder (Lilienfeld, 2003; Weiss,
have different prognoses, and (4) respond differently Susser, & Catron, 1998). Specific models have been pro-
to different treatments. The presence of personality- posed to account for the comorbidity of internalizing and
based subgroups in some clinical disorders is consis- externalizing disorders. Watson and Clark (Clark & Wat-
tent with the principle of equifinality (i.e., children son, 1991; Watson et al., 1995) developed a tripartite
who are following widely different life paths may model to account for co-occurring internalizing disorders
eventually develop the same set of pathological symp- in adults. According to this model, depression and anxi-
toms). For example, the diagnosis of Anorexia Ner- ety tend to co-occur because both share high levels of
vosa appears to contain a subgroup defined by high Negative Affect (or Neuroticism); in addition, depression
levels of perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive fea- is specifically characterized by low Positive Affect (or
tures, and rigidity as well as excessive inhibition and Extraversion) and anxiety is specifically characterized
harm avoidance (Keel et al., 2004; see Westen & by physiological arousal. There is general support for this
Harnden-Fischer, 2001, for a similar subgroup): Rela- model in both children and adults (reviewed in Laurent &
tive to other individuals with Anorexia, this subgroup Ettelson, 2001; also Lonigan, Phillips, & Hooe, 2003),
appears to show poorer adaptive functioning and is but more recent research has added that social phobia is
likely to have a worse outcome. also specifically characterized by low Positive Affect
A second example comes from work on callous-un- (Brown, Chorpita, & Barlow, 1998). As for the external-
emotional traits in children with conduct disorder; cal- izing disorders, there is evidence that personality traits
lous-unemotional traits include lack of empathy, associated with low Conscientiousness (often called dis-
self-serving use of manipulation, restricted emotional inhibition) may underlie the co-occurrence of substance
expression, and impoverished conscience. Conduct-dis- dependence and antisocial behavior in adults; further,
ordered children with this constellation of traits show Conscientiousness appears to be linked with these
higher proactive (unprovoked) aggression, greater delin- disorders by virtue of shared genetic origins (Krueger
quency, and greater variety of conduct problems over et al., 2002).
time than conduct-disordered children without these A third prominent research question involves the ex-
traits (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003). tent to which normal-range personality traits can pro-
This subgroup is also characterized by different pat- vide adequate coverage of individual differences
terns of social-information processing; for example, relevant to psychopathology. In other words, can promi-
greater focus on positive aspects of aggression and nent trait models like the Big Five capture the relevant
lesser hostile attributional biases (Frick, Cornell, et al., variation in abnormal functioning? This question has
2003; Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). As these two been particularly important in relation to personality
examples demonstrate, personality research is helping disorders, where some research demonstrates that com-
to parse heterogeneous diagnostic groups into more ho- binations of the Big Five traits can capture the symp-
mogeneous subgroups, which may eventually help clini- toms of Borderline Personality Disorder (Trull,
cians in their treatment planning (Harkness & Widiger, Lynam, & Costa, 2003) and psychopathy
Lilienfeld, 1997). (Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefled, 2001), particu-
A second direction followed in this area of research is larly when combinations of lower-lower traits are used
the recognition that personality differences may help to (Reynolds & Clark, 2001). Further, a meta-analysis
explain patterns of comorbidity among disorders. Two of demonstrated that abnormal personality traits appear to
the most important patterns of comorbidity in both chil- share a hierarchical structure with normal-range per-
dren and adults involve the co-occurrence of depression sonality traits (Markon et al., 2005). However, normal-
and anxiety—the internalizing disorders—and the co-oc- range personality measures may need to be refined
currence of conduct problems and hyperactivity—the ex- somewhat to cover personality disorder variation more
ternalizing disorders. Several researchers have suggested completely. Some normal-range personality measures
that personality differences may account for patterns of may do better than others in tapping pathological per-
comorbidity: Certain disorders may co-occur because sonality functioning, and scales measuring some Big
346 Personality Development

Five traits (e.g., Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) against the development of externalizing symptoms.
include few negative descriptors at their extremes. Fu- Neuroticism also appears to be a risk factor for sub-
ture work will need to investigate whether current per- stance use problems. As we noted earlier, early
sonality measures could be strengthened by including anger and irritability predict externalizing problems
more extreme depictions of certain traits (Haigler & such as aggression and conduct problems; later in
Widiger, 2001). life, these traits may also lead to greater internaliz-
The personality traits relevant to some disorders are, ing symptoms.
quite possibly, not part of typical personality models. 3. Children’s self-control and attention promote the de-
Recent work on Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) velopment of rule-abiding behavior versus externaliz-
provides a good example. Among preschool-age chil- ing, antisocial behavior; in other words, children who
dren, obsessive-compulsive behaviors are highly herita- are low on Conscientiousness are at risk of develop-
ble, but their genetic origins are largely separate from ing externalizing behaviors. Low Conscientiousness
the genetic origins of other anxiety-related behaviors also predicts problems with later drug use.
(Eley et al., 2003); OCD may be less related to general 4. Low Agreeableness (as well as low prosocial tenden-
distress or Neuroticism than are many of the other anxi- cies and high antagonism) is associated with later
ety disorders. Instead, OCD may have more specific as- antisocial, externalizing behaviors, and boys who are
sociations with a particular psychological feature: a chronically physically aggressive are at a heightened
disturbance in the emotion-based system that typically risk of serious delinquency and violence. Children
enables individuals to feel that closure has been reached with difficult temperaments (which is most akin to
and safety has been secured (Szechtman & Woody, low Agreeableness) likewise develop greater exter-
2004). Although this deficit may be related to Big Five nalizing problems than children with less difficult
traits in some way, it also appears likely to capture an temperaments.
aspect of psychological functioning that is largely sepa-
5. There is no evidence that childhood Openness is pre-
rate from the Big Five. The search for other individual
dictive of psychopathology, although it should be
differences outside the Big Five is likely to be important
noted that Openness has been studied less often than
in future research linking personality and psychopathol-
the other childhood traits.
ogy, because such traits may interact with Big Five
Research on personality and psychopathology is in
traits to give rise to specific disorders.
need of significant improvement, as both design and
measurement limitations continue to compromise the
Empirical Evidence for Specific external and internal validity of many studies: Most
Associations between Personality Traits samples are small or unrepresentative, reports of per-
and Psychological Disorders sonality and psychopathology are often obtained from
the same source, and measures of temperament and
Numerous studies have examined associations between
symptoms often overlap in content. Future research
temperament and personality differences and psycho-
about personality and psychopathology can adopt the
pathology, both concurrently and longitudinally. Two
more general recommendations outlined by Kraemer and
reviews (Shiner, in press; Tackett & Krueger, 2005; see
colleagues about how to define and measure risk factors
also Rothbart & Bates, Chapter 3, this Handbook, this
for psychopathology (Jacobi, Hayward, de Zwaan, Krae-
volume) surveyed the research on the predictive rela-
mer, & Agras, 2004; Kraemer et al., 1997).
tions between childhood personality and disorders; the
conclusions were as follows:
Processes Linking Personality Differences
and Psychopathology
1. Extraversion appears to put children at risk of exter-
nalizing behaviors and aggression and protects Much of the current research on personality and psycho-
against internalizing symptoms. In contrast, behav- pathology simply documents correlations between
ioral inhibition predicts heightened risk for anxiety, temperament or personality traits and aspects of
depression, and general internalizing symptoms. psychopathology without articulating how the two do-
2. Neuroticism predicts later internalizing difficulties, mains may be connected. We present a conceptual model
whereas early fearfulness appears to protect children of possible associations between temperament /personal-
 Personality and the Emergence of Psychopathology 347

ity and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. these children may have temperament traits that lead to
In laying out this conceptual model, we draw on models difficulty learning to inhibit behavior when faced with
elaborated by others (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; potential rewards. Second, observational studies show
Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Widiger, Verheul, & van den that adopted children who are at genetic risk for anti-
Brink, 1999). As much as possible, we borrow their ter- social behavior receive more negative control and coer-
minology to describe the possible associations, to avoid cive parenting from their adoptive parents than do
unnecessarily introducing new labels. First, personality adopted children not at genetic risk (O’Connor, Deater-
may set in motion processes that cause the development Deckard, Fulker, Rutter, & Plomin, 1998). These find-
of psychopathology (vulnerability association). Second, ings point to environmental elicitation in which
psychopathology may represent the extreme end of a children’s genetically influenced temperaments evoke
continuously distributed personality trait or cluster of coercive parenting behaviors.
traits (spectrum association). Third, personality may Environmental construal may be seen in the way that
protect against the development of psychopathology in aggressive children misinterpret the intentions of oth-
the face of stress and adversity (resilience association). ers. For example, such children seek less information
Fourth, personality may influence the course and prog- about social situations and are more likely to assume
nosis of a disorder, even if the personality trait is not a hostile intent on the part of other persons (Dodge et al.,
cause of the disorder (maintenance association). Fifth, Chapter 12, this Handbook, this volume). Related to the
psychopathology may influence the course of personal- process of environmental construal are social compari-
ity development itself (scarring association). We now son processes in which temperament shapes the way
elaborate on these five types of association from a de- that individuals evaluate themselves in relation to oth-
velopmental perspective. ers. In some studies, externalizing children overesti-
mate their social competence relative to others
Vulnerability Association: Personality May Put (Hughes, Cavell, & Grossman, 1997; Patterson, Kuper-
Children at Risk for the Development of smidt, & Griesler, 1990).
Psychopathology Environmental selection may be seen in the ways by
According to this model, which has garnered the most which some children “select ” situations that can then re-
interest among researchers, personality traits set in mo- inforce particular behaviors. For example, children with
tion the processes that lead to psychopathology. How- poor self-control are more likely to form ties to delin-
ever, whereas there are numerous published reports of quent peers who, in turn, promote their antisocial be-
predictive associations between personality traits and havior (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 2001). Through
psychiatric disorders, less empirical attention has been environmental manipulation, an individual’s personality
given to causal processes. Previously, we outlined six alters and shapes the environment. For example, dis-
processes through which early temperament differences agreeable youth not only perceive more interpersonal
become elaborated into more broad personality disposi- conflict in their environment but also attempt to resolve
tions (see Table 6.3). These same six processes are conflict with destructive tactics (Jensen-Campbell &
likely to be the ones through which temperament differ- Graziano, 2001).
ences put children at risk for psychopathology as well.
Spectrum Association: Psychopathology May Be
Research on the development of conduct disorder
an Extreme Manifestation of Personality
serves to demonstrate how these six processes may op-
erate. Longitudinal research shows that conduct disorder Although psychiatric disorders are typically measured
and severe antisocial behavior are predicted by an early categorically, it is possible that some disorders are not
history of high negative emotionality, poor self-control, discrete conditions but represent extreme ends of con-
and high unmanageability (Sanson & Prior, 1999). How tinuously distributed personality dimensions or combi-
might these temperament differences contribute to the nations of dimensions (Sonuga-Barke, 1998; Widiger &
development of severe antisocial behavior over time? Clark, 2000). For example, some researchers have ar-
First, children with conduct disorder are especially gued that ADHD may be an extreme variant of an un-
sensitive to signals of reward (O’Brien & Frick, 1996) derlying temperament or personality trait rather than a
but are relatively insensitive to punishing stimuli (Lyt- discrete condition that is clearly separable from normal
ton, 1990). Learning processes may be at work here; functioning (Jensen et al., 1997). Children with ADHD
348 Personality Development

combined type and hyperactive-impulsive type may ders; Beauchaine, 2003) and addressing sources of co-
have a basic deficit in inhibiting a prepotent response morbidity (Ruscio & Ruscio, 2004). Such methods also
when faced with potential reinforcement for that re- are highly relevant to developmental research because
sponse (i.e., ADHD may represent the extreme low ends they can be used to identify children who are at risk for
of the traits of attention and inhibitory control; Barkley, disorders and can help pinpoint sensitive periods when
1997). ADHD thus appears to be particularly associ- discrete disorders may emerge (Beauchaine, 2003).
ated with markers of low Conscientiousness (Nigg Second, psychopharmacological studies can also be
et al., 2002). used to generate evidence about whether personality
An understudied area where spectrum relationships traits and psychiatric disorders exist on a continuum
are likely to be observed is childhood and adolescent (e.g., Ekselius & von Knorring, 1999). For example, the
personality disorders. Extensive research has linked di- antidepressant paroxetine has been shown to reduce neg-
mensional personality traits with categorical personal- ative affect levels in persons without a history of mental
ity disorders in adults: Some researchers have argued disorder (Knutson et al., 1998): Some treatments thought
that adult personality disorders should be conceptual- to be targeted at specific syndrome disorders may exert
ized as complex combinations of adaptive and maladap- their influence via broader personality variables.
tive personality traits rather than as categorically Third, methods in behavioral genetics research can be
distinct conditions (Costa & Widiger, 2002; Widiger used to address the question of whether the heritability
et al., 1999; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Little is of a disorder (e.g., ADHD) is the same or different from
known, however, about how child and adolescent person- that of individual differences in a trait (e.g., continu-
ality is related both to concurrent personality disorders ously distributed symptoms of hyperactivity and inat-
and to later-appearing personality disorders in adult- tention). For example, with regard to ADHD, genetic
hood, although some recent theoretical work has elabo- analyses suggest that DSM-III-R ADHD may be best
rated on potential links (Cohen & Crawford, in press; viewed as an extreme end of a dimension that varies ge-
Geiger & Crick, 2001; Kernberg, Weiner, & Barden- netically in the population (Levy, Hay, McStephen,
stein, 2000). Children’s early personalities are likely to Wood, & Waldman, 1997).
be important predictors of the processes through which
Resilience Association: Personality May Avert
personality functioning goes awry and becomes set into
the Development of Psychopathology in the
maladaptive, rigid patterns (Mervielde, De Clerq, De
Face of Stress
Fruyt, & van Leeuwen, 2005; Shiner, 2005).
Although we have presented vulnerability and spec- Although some personality traits may put children at
trum associations as if they are distinct, the line be- risk of psychopathology in adverse environments, other
tween the two is blurry. Most of the associations that traits may promote resilience in the face of adversity:
have been found between personality and psychopathol- Some personality traits may be protective factors under
ogy could be explained equally well by either the vulner- conditions that, on average, put children at risk for psy-
ability or the spectrum model. Some disorders may be chiatric disorders (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000;
better described as discrete entities, whereas others may Masten, 2001). For example, Werner and Smith (1992)
be better described as dimensional conditions. Further, studied a group of high-risk children who were exposed
some aspects of the same disorder may be discrete, to perinatal stress, poverty, and multiple family prob-
whereas other aspects may be dimensional (Pickles & lems. Children who showed positive, resilient adult out-
Angold, 2003). comes were described in infancy as very active: Males
Several research strategies can be harnessed to study were also described as easygoing, and females were also
the distinction between discrete disorders and spectrum described as affectionate.
associations. First, taxometric methods can be used to It seems obvious that attention must be given to the
distinguish whether differences between groups of indi- possibility that some personality factors protect against
viduals (e.g., depressed versus not depressed persons) psychopathology, whereas others predispose to it.
represent quantitative differences of degree or qualita- However, to the extent that protective and risk factors
tive differences in kind (Cole, 2004). Taxometric meth- operate dimensionally—at opposite ends of a contin-
ods are useful in addressing the issues that we raised in uum—there is little to be gained, either in theory or in
an earlier section (i.e., identifying subtypes in disor- practice, from focusing on the beneficial effects of, for
 Conclusion 349

example, low Neuroticism more than on the harmful ef- sonality traits may increase the risk of recurrence of
fects of high Neuroticism. But there is a great deal of psychiatric conditions (Teasdale & Barnard, 1993). Al-
value in testing two hypotheses: (1) that some person- though these types of associations have been studied in
ality factors provide protection in the presence of risk, adults (Widiger et al., 1999), they have received very
even though they have no effect in the absence of such little attention in research with children, despite their
risk and (2) that higher levels of a trait are necessary potential developmental significance.
for protection under adverse conditions than are neces-
Scarring Association: Psychopathology May Alter
sary for competent functioning in low-risk conditions.
Personality Functioning
Theoretically, the processes through which individual
differences in children’s temperament and personality The experience of significant psychopathology has the
traits promote resilience should be the same as those potential to alter children’s personalities in lasting
six processes described in reference to personality as a ways. Such a relationship is often referred to as a “scar-
vulnerability factor. ring” effect of psychopathology on personality (e.g.,
Much remains to be learned about the potential pro- Rohde, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1990). Personality
tective role of individual differences in children’s per- changes that are secondary to physical disorders are well
sonality traits. Researchers have called for increasing documented, but, at least in adulthood, there is little
focus on the processes underlying resilience (Luthar solid evidence of lasting changes to personality second-
et al., 2000; Masten, 1999), and personality research ary to psychopathology. For example, the possibility of
should be an important part of future work in this area. scar effects has been explored in several studies of adult
Behavior genetic research should also be used to address depression; the evidence thus far indicates that, al-
genetic and environmental sources of resilience. A re- though depression may have negative long-term effects
cent study demonstrated that, for example, children’s on other aspects of functioning, it does not appear to re-
outgoing temperament promoted resilience in the face of sult in personality change (Ormel, Oldehinkel, & Volle-
socioeconomic adversity (Kim-Cohen, Moffitt, Caspi, bergh, 2004; Zuroff, Mongrain, & Santor, 2004). The
& Taylor, 2004): This link between resilience and socia- situation may be very different earlier in life. Because
ble temperament was largely accounted for by genetic identity and a sense of self are under construction
factors but included environmental processes as well. throughout childhood and adolescence, children may be
particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of psycho-
Maintenance Association: Personality May pathology that emerges early in the life course. This hy-
Influence the Course and Prognosis of a Disorder pothesis has received practically no research attention
Most risk-factor research on personality has focused on and warrants further exploration.
the role of individual differences in causing (or averting)
the onset of disorder. In addition, individual differences
in personality may influence the manifestation, course, CONCLUSION
and prognosis of a disorder once it has started. In some
cases, such traits may have played a role in the onset of Throughout this chapter, we have summarized definitive
the disorder; in other cases, these traits may not be etio- findings, identified promising research leads and hy-
logically related to the disorder. Studies on depression potheses, and underscored existing methodological limi-
have examined the potential role of personality in main- tations. Our concluding comments are thus devoted to
taining a depressive episode. For example, in one study sketching the requirements for improved research.
of depressed adults, those with lower levels of the BAS Longitudinal research is the lifeblood of developmen-
after the onset of the depressive episode had worse out- tal psychology, but simply tracking people over time is
comes than those with more initially positive BAS func- not good enough. There is room for improvement on three
tioning (Kasch, Rottenberg, Arnow, & Gotlib, 2002). fronts. First, longitudinal research on personality can
Some personality traits appear to predict response to be improved through better trait measurement. The avail-
treatment. For example, research on tobacco dependence ability of a taxonomy of measurable individual differ-
shows that persons with high Neuroticism are more ences in temperament and personality is an indispensable
likely to relapse following participation in smoking ces- aid to developmental research. However, few off-the-shelf
sation treatments (Kenford et al., 2002). Still other per- measures assess the full range of higher- and lower-order
350 Personality Development

traits described in this chapter: The development of reli- pants are successively studied alongside their signifi-
able, valid, and comprehensive measures of child and cant others at different points in the life course. These
adolescent personality remains an important task. Until types of studies will include both global ratings of indi-
these become available, researchers need to consider sev- vidual differences and minute-to-minute assessments
eral issues when selecting methods and instruments for of social interactions to document how behavior
measuring temperament and personality: (a) Ideally, patterns are evoked and sustained. Second, just as re-
more than one method should be used to provide a more search in social cognition inspired deeper understand-
valid assessment of a particular trait; ( b) more than one ing of personality dynamics in the latter part of the
trait should be measured, even in studies focused on sin- twentieth century, the fusion of differential psychology
gle traits in isolation, because this provides critical infor- and neuroscience will lead the way to a fuller under-
mation about etiological specificity and discriminant standing of how personality traits are linked to pro-
validity; (c) researchers need to consider carefully cessing emotional stimuli.
whether a measure truly taps the trait of interest because Finally, research into personality development will
labels for measures (i.e., scale names on questionnaires) need to embrace genetics. Questions about the extent to
are often misleading; and (d) researchers should consider which genetic factors influence individual differences
not just what is included in a particular instrument, but in personality are increasingly less interesting, if only
also what is left out, because many measures do not tap because it is by now so well established that genetic fac-
the full range of individual differences observed in chil- tors do have a large influence. But this does not mean
dren. Second, longitudinal research can be improved by that behavioral genetics research has served its purpose
relying on theoretically informed data-collection sched- and worn out its welcome. To the contrary, discoveries
ules. Rather than dictated by convenience, longitudinal about the human genome open up new research possibil-
studies should make an effort to organize data collection ities in which measured genotypes will be used to study
around well-defined developmental tasks, whether these the origins of personality differences and the links be-
tasks are defined by evolutionary imperatives, sociologi- tween personality and psychopathology. To ignore ge-
cal realities, or maturational changes. The organization netics is not only irresponsible but also a missed
of data collection across periods of environmental- opportunity.
maturational changes offers an opportunity to test hy- These concluding observations are intended to stimu-
potheses about how individuals select and shape their en- late new research into personality development and also
vironments (processes of social selection) and how to promote discussion about the kind of multidiscipli-
environments influence individuals (processes of social nary (re)training that is increasingly required of new
causation). Third, longitudinal research can be improved students (and seasoned researchers), spanning psycho-
by integrating epidemiological concepts and methods into metric theory, epidemiology, neuroscience, and genet-
studies of personality development to test hypotheses ics. It is a daunting and exciting task.
about risk factors and causal processes.
Longitudinal research is not always developmental REFERENCES
research and, conversely, many developmental ques-
tions require different types of research designs. In Abe, J. A., & Izard, C. E. (1999). A longitudinal study of emotion ex-
particular, little is known about how early-emerging in- pression and personality relations in early development. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 566–577.
dividual differences become elaborated into the consis-
Abelson, R. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is
tent ways of behaving, thinking, and feeling that we a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.
call personality. Throughout this chapter, we listed Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal-
some ideas and working hypotheses about these ity, and interests. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
processes. These will need to be examined using tradi- Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect
sizes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398–406.
tional observational methods and, increasingly, the Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. M. (1993). Children’s tem-
tools of neuroscience as well. First, to the extent that perament in the U.S. and China: Similarities and differences. Eu-
the most important sources of influence on the ropean Journal of Personality, 7, 359–377.
processes of developmental elaboration are to be found Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.
New York: Holt.
in interpersonal settings, the ideal study of individual
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political atti-
development ought to be conceived of as a study of so- tudes over the life-span: The Bennington women after 50 years.
cial relationships, one in which longitudinal partici- Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
 References 351

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major di-
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. mensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 353.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central
attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attrac- feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitiv-
tiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245–252.
chology, 81, 116–132. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di
Andrews, J. A., Foster, S. L., Capaldi, D. M., & Hops, H. (2000). Adoles- Blas, L., et al. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-de-
cent and family predictors of physical aggression, communication, scriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in
and satisfaction in young adult couples: A prospective analysis. seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 195–208. 86, 356–366.
Arcus, D. (2001). Inhibited and uninhibited children: Biology in the Avila, C. (2001). Distinguishing BIS-mediated and BAS-mediated
social context. In T. D. Wachs & G. A. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Tem- disinhibition mechanisms: A comparison of disinhibition models
perament in context (pp. 43–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. of Gray (1981, 1987), and of Patterson and Newman (1993). Jour-
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 311–324.
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, Banfield, J. F., Wyland, C. L., Macrae, C. N., Munte, T. F., &
55, 469–480. Heatherton, T. F. (2004). The cognitive resolution of self-
Arseneault, L., Kim-Cohen, J., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of
(2005). Psychometric evaluation of 5- and 7-year-old children’s self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 62–83).
self-reports of conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy- New York: Guilford Press.
chology, 33, 537–550. Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003).
Arseneault, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Rijsdijk, F., Jaf- A questionnaire for measuring the big five in late childhood. Per-
fee, S., et al. (2003). Strong genetic effects on cross-situational sonality and Individual Dif ferences, 34, 645–664.
antisocial behavior among 5-year-old children according to moth- Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New
ers, teachers, examiner-observers, and twin’s self-reports. Jour- York: Guilford Press.
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 832–848. Barlow, D. (2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disor-
Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2004). Aggression and moral de- ders from the perspective of emotion theory. American Psycholo-
velopment: Integrating social information processing and moral gist, 55, 1247–1263.
domain models. Child Development, 75, 987–1002. Barr, R. G., & Gunnar, M. (2000). Colic: The “ transient responsiv-
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Personality effects on personal relationships ity” hypothesis. In B. Hopkins & J. A. Green (Eds.), Crying as a
over the life span. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitz- sign, a symptom, and a signal: Clinical, emotional and develop-
patrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 36–56). mental aspects of infant and toddler crying (pp. 41–66). New
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. York: Cambridge University Press.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and
validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we
Personality, 17, 327–346. know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection
Asendorpf, J. B., Banse, R., & Mucke, D. (2002). Double dissocia- and Assessment, 9, 9–30.
tion between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientious-
case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ness and performance of sales representatives: Tests of mediating
ogy, 83, 380–393. effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. A. G. Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A.
(2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirma- Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament
tion of three replicable personality prototypes for both children in childhood (pp. 3–26). New York: Wiley.
and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198. Bates, J. E., Freeland, C. A. B., & Lounsbury, M. L. (1979). Measure-
Asendorpf, J. B., Caspi, A., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (2002). The puzzle ment of infant difficultness. Child Development, 50, 715–722.
of personality types. European Journal of Personality, 16, S1–S5. Bates, J. E., & McFadyen-Ketchum, S. (2000). Temperament and par-
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1991). Correlates of the ent-child relations as interacting factors in children’s behavioral
temporal consistency of personality patterns in childhood. Jour- adjustment. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament
nal of Personality, 59, 689–703. and personality development across the life span (pp. 141–176).
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcon- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
trolled, and undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Inter-
Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type issue. Journal action of temperamental resistance to control and restrictive par-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815–832. enting in the development of externalizing behavior.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003a). Personality-rela- Developmental Psychology, 34, 982–995.
tionship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface person- Beauchaine, T. P. (2003). Taxometrics and developmental psycho-
ality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666. pathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 501–527.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003b). Validity of big five Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using ex-
personality judgments in childhood: A 9-year longitudinal study. perimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. De-
European Journal of Personality, 17, 1–17. velopmental Psychology, 22, 595–603.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. (1999). A neuropsychological Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M.
theory on positive affect and its inf luence on cognition. Psycho- Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 415–438). Mahwah,
logical Review, 106, 529–550. NJ: Erlbaum.
352 Personality Development

Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodsworth, S. (1995). Personality and par- Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and per-
enting: Exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily sonality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243–274.
hassles. Journal of Personality, 63, 905–929. Branje, S. J. T., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004).
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1996). Infant positive and negative Relations between big five personality characteristics and per-
emotionality: One dimension or two? Developmental Psychology, ceived support in adolescent families. Journal of Personality and
32, 289–298. Social Psychology, 86, 615–628.
Benjamin, J., Ebstein, R. P., & Belmaker, H. (Eds.). (2002). Molecu- Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Turgeon, L., Poulin, F., & Wanner, B.
lar genetics and the human personality. Washington, DC: Ameri- (2004). Is there a dark side of positive illusions? Overestimation
can Psychiatric Association. of social competence and subsequent adjustment in aggressive and
Bergman, L. R., & Cairns, R. B. (Eds.). (2000). Developmental sci- nonaggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
ence and the holistic approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 32, 305–320.
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Structural rela-
From social integration to health. Social Science and Medicine, tions among dimensions of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disor-
51, 843–857. ders and dimensions of negative affect, positive affect, and
autonomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 179–192.
Biesanz, J. C., West, S. G., & Kwok, O.-M. (2003). Personality
over time: Methodological approaches to the study of short-term Buckley, M. E., Klein, D. N., Durbin, E., Hayden, E. P., & Moerk,
and long-term development and change. Journal of Personality, K. C. (2002). Development and validation of a q-sort procedure to
71, 905–941. assess temperament and behavior in preschool-age children. Jour-
nal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 525–539.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behav-
iors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychol- Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of algorithms of social life: A do-
ogy, 34, 934–946. main-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.
Bishop, G., Spence, S. H., & McDonald, C. (2003). Can parents and Bugental, D. B., & Johnston, C. (2000). Parental and child cogni-
teachers provide a reliable and valid report of behavioral inhibi- tions in the context of the family. Annual Review of Psychology,
tion? Child Development, 74, 1899–1917. 51, 315–344.
Blair, C. (2003). Behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory on personal-
young children: Relations with self-regulation and adaptation to ity development. New York: Wiley.
preschool children attending Head Start. Developmental Psychobi- Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing
ology, 42, 301–311. personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft. Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal
Block, J. (1996). Some jangly remarks on Baumeister and Heather- of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214–1221.
ton. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 28–32. Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships. Journal of
Personality, 60, 477–499.
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health be-
haviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919. Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger regulation in
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of infancy: Effects on the temporal dynamics of affective expres-
everyday life: The role of Neuroticism in exposure and reactivity sion. Child Development, 69, 359–374.
to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355–386. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying per- youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
sonality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Canli, T. (2004). Functional brain mapping of extraversion and neu-
Psychology, 69, 890–902. roticism: Learning from individual processes in emotion process-
Boomsma, D., Busjahn, A., & Peltonen, L. (2002). Classical twin ing. Journal of Personality, 72, 1105–1132.
studies and beyond. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 872–882. Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and valida-
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes as manifes- tion of an early adolescent temperament measure. Journal of Early
tations and cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Per- Adolescence, 12, 154–173.
sonality, 63, 1–25. Cardon, L. R., & Palmer, L. J. (2003). Population stratification and
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. spurious allelic association. Lancet, 361, 598–604.
(2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelli- Carey, G. (2003). Human genetics for the social sciences. Thousand
gence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bornstein, M. H., Gaughran, J. M., & Homel, P. (1986). Infant tem- Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendoicrine perspectives on social attach-
perament: Theory, tradition, critique, and new assessments. In ments and love. Psychoneuroendicrinology, 23, 779–818.
C. E. Izard & P. B. Read (Eds.), Measuring emotions in infants and Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral
children (pp. 172–199). New York: Cambridge University Press. approach system. Emotion, 4, 3–22.
Bouchard, T. J. (1995). Longitudinal studies of personality and intel- Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of Personal-
ligence: A behavior genetic and evolutionary psychology perspec- ity and Social Psychology, 53, 1203–1213.
tive. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In
handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 81–106). New York: W. Damon (Editor-in-Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Hand-
Plenum Press. book of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality
Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic inf luence on human psychological development (5th ed., pp. 311–388). New York: Wiley.
traits: A survey. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R. F., &
13, 148–151. Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are
 References 353

linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Per- tionnaire assessment of the BAS and BIS. Journal of Abnormal
sonality, 71, 495–513. Child Psychology, 32, 435–451.
Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: As- Cole, D. A. (2004). Taxometrics in psychpathology research: An in-
sortive marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. troduction to some of the procedures and related methodological
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250–258. issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 3–9.
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1996). The development of children (3rd ed.).
et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in mal- New York: W. H. Freeman.
treated children. Science, 297, 851–854. Colhoun, H. M., McKeigue, P. M., & Smith, G. D. (2003). Problems
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. (2005). Personality development: of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet,
Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. 361, 865–872.
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Har- Contrada, R. J., Cather, C., & O’Leary, A. (1999). Personality and
rington, H., et al. (2003). Inf luence of life stress on depression: health: Dispositions and processes in disease susceptibility and
Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, adaptation to illness. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook
386–389. of personality (2nd ed., pp. 576–604). New York: Guilford Press.
Caspi, A., Wright, B. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Early Cook, K. W., Vance, C. A., & Spector, P. E. (2000). The relation of
failure in the job market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal
unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociologi- of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 867–885.
cal Review, 63, 424–451. Costa, P. T., Herbst, J. M., McCrae, R. R., Samuels, J., & Ozer, D. J.
Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Mehta, T. G., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Feedback (2002). The replicability and utility of three personality types.
seeking in children and adolescents: Associations with self- European Journal of Personality, 16, S73–S87.
perceptions, attachment representations, and depression. Child Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A 6-
Development, 74, 6121–6628. year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the
Cervone, D., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality science. In D. Cer- NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
vone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science chology, 54, 853–863.
(pp. 1–26). New York: Guilford Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality In-
Chen, E., & Mathews, K. (2002). Socioeconomic differences in chil- ventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
dren’s health: How and why do these relationships change with FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
age? Psychological Bulletin, 128, 295–329. Assessment Resources.
Chen, X., Liu, M., Rubin, K. H., Chen, G., Gao, X., & Li, D. (2002). Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal study of adult
Sociability and prosocial orientation as predictors of youth ad- personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Hand-
justment: A 7-year longitudinal study in a Chinese sample. Inter- book of personality psychology (pp. 269–292). San Diego, CA:
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 128–136. Academic Press.
Chorpita, B. F., Albano, A. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The struc- Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders and the
ture of negative emotions in a clinical sample of children and ado- five factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Amer-
lescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 74–85. ican Psychological Association.
Church, T. A. (Ed.). (2001). Culture and personality. Journal of Per- Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation be-
sonality, 69, 6. tween interpersonal behavior and affect: Prediction from neuroti-
Cillesson, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforce- cism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and
ment: Developmental changes in the association between aggres- Social Psychology, 75, 1032–1046.
sion and social status. Child Development, 75, 157–163. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mother’s personal- social information processing mechanisms in children’s social ad-
ity and its interaction with child temperament as predictors of justment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
parenting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Crockenberg, S., & Leerkes, E. (2003). Infant negative emotionality,
79, 274–285. caregiving, and family. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Chil-
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartate model of anxiety and dren’s inf luence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family
depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. relationships (pp. 57–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336. Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2003). Children’s inf luence on family
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, per- dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah,
sonality and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal NJ: Erlbaum.
Psychology, 103, 103–116. Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psy- young children’s agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control
chobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of and impulsivity. Social Development, 13, 193–212.
General Psychiatry, 39, 1242–1247. Davidson, R. J., Pizzagalli, E., Nitschke, J. B., & Kalin, N. H. (2003).
Cohen, P., & Crawford, T. (in press). Development issues: Personal- Parsing the subcomponents of emotion and disorders of emotion:
ity disorder in children and adolescents. In J. M. Oldham, A. E. Perspectives from affective neuroscience. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.
Skodol, & D. Bender (Eds.), American Psychiatric Publishing Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of af fective sciences
Textbook of Personality Disorders. Washington, DC: American (pp. 8–24). New York: Oxford University Press.
Psychiatric Publishing. De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J. (2000).
Colder, C. R., & O’Connor, R. M. (2004). Gray’s reinforcement sen- Assessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO PI-R. Assess-
sitivity model and child psychopathology: Laboratory and ques- ment, 7, 329–345.
354 Personality Development

Denham, S., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Hackney, R., Caswell, C., Di- Eid, M., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (2003). Socia-
ener, E., et al. (2001). Preschoolers at play: Co-socializers of bility and positive emotionality: Genetic and environmental con-
emotional and social competence. International Journal of Behav- tributions to the covariation between different facets of
ioral Development, 25, 290–301. extraversion. Journal of Personality, 71, 319–346.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2003). Information processing ap- Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
proaches to individual differences in emotional reactivity. In Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.
R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Hand- Eisenberg, N. (2001). The core and correlates of affective social com-
book of af fective sciences (pp. 681–697). New York: Oxford Uni- petence. Social Development, 10, 120–124.
versity Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W.
Derryberry, D., Reed, M. A., & Pilkenton-Taylor, C. (2003). Tem- Damon (Editor-in-Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
perament and coping: Advantages of an individual differences child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality devel-
perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 1049–1066. opment (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.
Diamond, L. M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions be- Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dis-
tween romantic love and sexual desire. Current Directions in Psy- positional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting
chological Science, 13, 116–119. quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five- Psychology, 78, 136–157.
factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy,
Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: Does the R. M., et al. (1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to
five-factor model embrace both domains. In C. F. Halverson, prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal of Personality
G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing struc- and Social Psychology, 57, 55–66.
ture of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1995). Relations of
(pp. 323–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
shyness and low sociability to regulation and emotionality. Jour-
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 505–517.
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1256.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumber-
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five land, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of
robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development,
Psychology, 50, 116–123. 70, 1360–1372.
Digman, J. M., & Shmelyov, A. G. (1996). The structure of tempera- Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., Pasternack, J., Lennon, R., Beller, R., & Mathy,
ment and personality in Russian children. Journal of Personality R. M. (1987). Prosocial development during middle childhood: A
and Social Psychology, 71, 341–351. longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 23, 712–718.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natu-
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004).
ral language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and inter-
Effortable control: Relations with emotional regulation, adjust-
pretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
ment and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D.
16, 49–170.
Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, applications (pp. 259–282). New York: Guilford Press.
G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland,
and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal
A., Shepard, S. A., et al. (2004). The relations of effortful control
of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37–51.
and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment. Child De-
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The big velopment, 75, 25–46.
five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality,
Ekselius, L., & von Knorring, L. (1999). Changes in personality
38, 481–504.
traits during treatment with sertaline or citalopram. British Jour-
Donzella, B., Gunnar, M. R., Krueger, W. K., & Alwin, J. (2000). nal of Psychiatry, 174, 444–448.
Cortisol and vagal tone responses to competitive challenge in
Eley, T. C., Bolton, D., O’Connor, T. G., Perrin, S., Smith, P., &
preschoolers: Associations with temperament. Developmental
Plomin, R. (2003). A twin study of anxiety-related behaviors in
Psychobiology, 37, 209–220.
preschool children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R. M., Janssens, J. M., & Vermulst, A. (2002).
44, 945–960.
Personality types in adolescents: Concurrent correlates, an-
tecedents, and type X parenting interactions. Journal of Adoles- Emde, R. N., & Hewitt, J. (Eds.). (2001). Infancy to early childhood:
cence, 25, 72–92. Genetic and environmental inf luences on developmental change.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Eaton, W. O. (1994). Temperament, development, and the five-factor
model: Lessons from activity level. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Entwistle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1993). Entry into school. An-
Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of nual Review of Sociology, 19, 401–423.
temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation
(pp. 173–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied
Egloff, B., & Schmuckle, S. C. (2002). Predictive validity of an Im- Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.
plicit Association Test for assessing anxiety. Journal of Personal- Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria
ity and Social Psychology, 83, 1441–1455. for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Dif ferences,
Ehrensaft, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive 12, 773–790.
relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and un-
participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnor- dergraduate success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and ap-
mal Psychology, 113, 258–270. plication. Personality and Individual Dif ferences, 34, 1225–1243.
 References 355

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta- Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. S. (2004).
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in adolescence. Ag-
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Automatic self-regulation. gressive Behavior, 30, 43–61.
In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self- Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Analyses of Digman’s child-personality data:
regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 151–170). New Derivation of big five factor scores from each of six samples.
York: Guilford Press. Journal of Personality, 69, 709–743.
Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An intrain- Goldsmith, H. H. (1996). Studying temperament via construction of
dividual process approach to the relationship between extraver- the toddler temperament behavior assessment questionnaire.
sion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as Child Development, 67, 218–235.
being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas,
83, 1409–1422. A., Chess, S., et al. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament?
Fletcher, G. J. O. (1993). The scientific credibility of common-sense Child Development, 67, 218–235.
psychology. In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan, & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, K. A., & Lemery, K. S. (1997). Toddler and
Fifty years of personality psychology (pp. 251–268). New York: childhood temperament: Expanded content, stronger genetic evi-
Plenum Press. dence, new evidence for the importance of environment. Develop-
Foley, D. L., Eaves, L. J., Wormley, B., Silberg, J. L., Maes, H. H., mental Psychology, 33, 891–905.
Kuhn, J., et al. (2004). Childhood adversity, monoamine oxidase Goldsmith, H. H., Lemery, K. S., Buss, A., & Campos, J. J. (1999).
A genotype, and risk for conduct disorder. Archives of General Genetic analyses of focal aspects of infant temperament. Develop-
Psychiatry, 61, 738–744. mental Psychology, 35, 972–985.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., & Schmidt, Goldsmith, H. H., Losoya, S. H., Bradshaw, D. L., & Campos, J. J.
L. A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibi- (1994). Genetics of personality: A twin study of the five-factor
tion and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral inf lu- model and parent-offspring analyses. In C. F. Halverson, G. A.
ences across the first 4 years of life. Child Development, 72, 1–21. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American temperament and personality from infancy to childhood
Scientist, 91, 330–335. (pp. 241–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. Goldsmith, H. H., & Rothbart, M. K. (1991). Contemporary instru-
(2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the ments for assessing early temperament by questionnaire and in
prediction of conduct problem severity. Journal of Abnormal the laboratory. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations
Child Psychology, 31, 457–470. in temperament: International perspectives on theory and mea-
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Bodin, S. D., Dane, H. E., Barry, C. T., & surement (pp. 249–272). New York: Plenum Press.
Loney, B. R. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and developmen- Gomez, R., Gomez, A., & Cooper, A. (2002). Neuroticism and extra-
tal problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity. Devel- version as predictors of negative and positive information pro-
opmental Psychology, 39, 246–260. cessing: Comparing Eysenck’s, Gray’s, and Newman’s theories.
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Schwartz, J. E., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., European Journal of Personality, 16, 333–350.
Martin, L. R., Wingard, D. L., et al. (1995). Psychosocial and be- Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (Eds.). (2002). Children of depressed
havioral predictors of longevity. American Psychologist, 50, 69–78. parents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Funder, D. C. (1991). Global straits: A neo-Allportian approach. Psy- Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about
chological Science, 2, 31–39. personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127,
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation 45–86.
and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in non-
Psychology, 78, 1135–1149. human animals: A cross-species review. Current Directions in
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence Psychological Science, 8, 69–75.
of parenting on adjustment? Developmental Review, 22, 623–643. Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A
Gallo, L. C., & Mathews, K. A. (2003). Understanding the associa- room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bed-
tion between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do rooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379–398.
negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129, Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S. Y., & John, O. P. (2003). A dog’s got per-
10–51. sonality: A cross-species comparative approach to personality
Garstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2003). Studying infant tempera- judgment in dogs and humans. Journal of Personality and Social
ment via the revised infant behavior questionnaire. Infant Behav- Psychology, 85, 1161–1169.
ior and Development, 26, 64–86. Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003). The endophenotype concept
Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2001). A developmental psychopathol- in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Jour-
ogy perspective on vulnerability to personality disorders. In R. E. nal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.
Ingram & J. M. Price (Eds.), Vulnerability to psychpathology Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Holland, J. L. (1993). Personality
(pp. 57–102). New York: Guilford Press. and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s six interest di-
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and mensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of
conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interac- Counseling Psychology, 40, 518–524.
tional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between
Gifford, R. (1994). A lens-mapping framework for understanding marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions in non- Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predict-
verbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ing marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions.
66, 398–412. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5–22.
356 Personality Development

Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). New Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Fegley, S. (2003). Personality and develop-
York: McGraw-Hill. ment in childhood: A person-centered approach. Monographs of
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cog- the Society for Research in Child Development, 68, 1–109.
nition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288. Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1997). Psychopathy: Assessment and as-
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (1996). The neuropsychology of anxi- sociation with criminal conduct. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, &
ety: Reprise. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Moti- J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 22–35).
vation: Vol. 43. Perspectives on anxiety, panic, and fear New York: Wiley.
(pp. 61–136). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1999). Friendships and adaptation
Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of agreeableness as a di- across the life span. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
mension of personality. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & 8, 76–79.
R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and Hartup, W. W., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1995). Personality develop-
personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339–354). Hillsdale, ment in social context. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 655–687.
NJ: Erlbaum. Haselager, G. J. T., Cillesson, A. H. N., van Lieshout, C. F. M., Rik-
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimen- sen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity
sion of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), among peer-rejected boys across middle childhood: Developmen-
Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, tal pathways of social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38,
CA: Academic Press. 446–456.
Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness Havill, V. L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaski, S. (1998). Agreeable-
mediates the link between personality and group performance. ness as a diachronic human trait. In C. S. Kohnstamm, C. F.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1394–1408. Halverson, I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descrip-
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). tions of child personality: Developmental antecendents of the big
Perceiving interpersonal conf lict and reacting to it: The case five (pp. 49–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of re-
70, 820–835. source control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. F. (1997). The Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309.
self as mediator between personality and adjustment. Journal of Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in child-
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 392–404. hood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 84–108.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Sullivan-Logan, G. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus
(1998). Temperament, activity, and expectations for later person- situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychologi-
ality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, cal Bulletin, 130, 574–600.
74, 1266–1277. Helson, R., Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., & Jones, C. (2002). The grow-
Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the big five in adoles- ing evidence of personality change in adulthood: Findings from
cence: Personality and adjustment during a developmental transi- research with personality inventories. Journal of Research in Per-
tion. Journal of Personality, 60, 425–439. sonality, 36, 287–306.
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion and emotion regulation. In L. A. Pervin Helson, R., Mitchell, V., & Moane, G. (1984). Personality and pat-
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and re- terns of adherence and nonadherence to the social clock. Journal
search (2nd ed., pp. 525–552). New York: Guilford Press. of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1079–1096.
Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between af- Hemenover, S. H. (2003). Individual differences in rate of affect
fect and personality: Support for the affect-level and affect-reac- change: Studies in affective chronometry. Journal of Personality
tivity views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, and Social Psychology, 85, 121–131.
279–288. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality
Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Thomas, C. W. and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.
(2003). Temperament: Infancy through adolescence. New York: Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.
Kluwer Press. Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at
Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Early temperament and attach- work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of per-
ment as predictors of the five factor model of personality. Attach- sonality psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
ment and Human Development, 5, 2–18. Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). A socioanalytic model of matu-
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of rity. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 207–217.
NEO-PI-R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339–358. Hogan, R., & Nicholson, R. A. (1988). The meaning of personality
Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., Deal, J., Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., test scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621–626.
Pavlopoulos, V., et al. (2003). Personality structure as derived from Hughes, J., Cavell, T., & Grossman, P. (1997). A positive view of
parental ratings of free descriptions of children: The inventory of self: Risk or protection for aggressive children? Development and
child individual differences. Journal of Personality, 71, 995–1026. Psychopathology, 9, 75–94.
Hampson, S. E., Andrews, J. A., Barckley, M., Lichtenstein, E., & Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job perfor-
Lee, M. E. (2000). Conscientiousness, perceived risk, and risk- mance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
reduction behaviors: A preliminary study. Health Psychology, 85, 869–879.
19, 247–252. Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., Goldsmith, H. H., & Biesanz, J. C.
Harkness, A. R., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1997). Individual differences (2004). Children’s temperament and behavior problems predict
science for treatment planning: Personality traits. Psychological their employed mothers’ work functioning. Child Development,
Assessment, 9, 349–360. 75, 580–594.
 References 357

Jacobi, C., Hayward, C., de Zwaan, M., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1998). Childhood deriva-
W. S. (2004). Coming to terms with risk factors for eating disor- tives of high and low reactivity in infancy. Child Development,
ders: Application of risk terminology and suggestions for a gen- 69, 1483–1493.
eral taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 19–65. Kagan, J., Snidman, N., McManis, M., Woodward, S., & Hardway, C.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, (2002). One measure, one meaning: Multiple measures, clearer
W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural meaning. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 463–475.
twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–1565. marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method and re-
Jenkins, J. M., Rasbash, J., & O’Connor, T. G. (2003). The role of the search. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
shared family context in differential parenting. Developmental Kasch, K. L., Rottenburg, J., Arnow, B. A., & Gotlib, I. H. (2002).
Psychology, 39, 99–113. Behavior activation and inhibition systems and the severity of de-
Jensen, P. S., Mrazek, D., Knapp, P. K., Steinberg, L., Pfeffer, C., pression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 589–597.
Schowalter, J., et al. (1997). Evolution and revolution in child psy- Kaufman, J., Yang, B.-Z., Douglas-Palumberi, H., Houshyar, S., Lip-
chiatry: ADHD as a disorder of adaptation. Journal of the Ameri- schitz, D., Krystal, J. H., et al. (2004). Social supports and sero-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1672–1679. tonin transporter gene moderate depression in maltreated
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
K. T. (2003). Interpersonal conf lict, Agreeableness, and person- 101, 17316–17321.
ality development. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085.
Keel, P. K., Fichter, M., Quadf lieg, N., Bulik, C. M., Baxter, M. G.,
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness Thornton, L., et al. (2004). Application of a latent class analysis
as a moderator of interpersonal conf lict. Journal of Personality, to empirically define eating disorder phenotypes. Archives of Gen-
69, 323–362. eral Psychiatry, 61, 192–200.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Per- Keltner, D. (1998). Facial expressions of emotion and personality. In
sonality and relationships as moderators of interpersonal conf lict C. Magai & S. H. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult
in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 148–164. development, and ageing (pp. 385–401). San Diego, CA: Aca-
Jockin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality and di- demic Press.
vorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Keltner, D., Ekman, P., Gonzaga, G. C., & Beer, J. (2003). Facial ex-
chology, 71, 288–299.
pression of emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer- Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of af fective sciences (pp. 415–432).
Loeber, M. (1994). The “little five”: Exploring the five-factor model New York: Oxford University Press.
of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.
Keltner, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1995). Facial
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Gordon Allport: Father and
expressions of emotion and psychopathology in adolescent males.
critic of the five-factor model. In K. H. Craik, R. T. Hogan, &
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 644–652.
R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of personality research
(pp. 215–236). New York: Plenum Press. Kendler, K. S., Kuhn, J. W., Vittum, J., Prescott, C. A., & Riley, B.
(2005). The interaction of stressful life events and a serotonin
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: His-
transporter polymorphism in the prediction of episodes of major
tory, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin
depression: A replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62,
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and re-
529–535.
search (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Po- Kendler, K. S., Neale, M. C., Sullivan, P., Corey, L. A., Gardner,
litical conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (1999). A population-based twin study in
Bulletin, 129, 339–375. women of smoking initiation and dependence. Psychological Med-
icine, 29, 299–308.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are mea-
sures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and general- Kenford, S. L., Smith, S. S., Wetter, D. W., Jorenby, D. E., Fiore,
ized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal M. C., & Baker, T. B. (2002). Predicting relapse back to smoking:
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710. Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 216–227.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999).
The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career Kernberg, P. F., Weiner, A. S., & Bardenstein, K. K. (2000). Personal-
success across the life-span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. ity disorders in children and adolescents. New York: Basic Books.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to perfor- Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Ge-
mance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied netic and environmental processes in young children’s resilience
Psychology, 87, 797–807. and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation. Child Develop-
Kagan, J. (1969). The three faces of continuity in human develop- ment, 75, 651–668.
ment. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and Kindlon, D., Mezzacappa, E., & Earls, F. (1995). Psychometric
research (pp. 983–1002). Chicago: Rand McNally. properties of impulsivity measures: Temporal stability, validity
Kagan, J. (1998). Biology and the child. In W. Damon (Editor-in- and factor structure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: 36, 645–661.
Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., Kling, K. C., Ryff, C. D., Love, G., & Essex, M. (2003). Exploring the
pp. 177–235). New York: Wiley. inf luence of personality on depressive symptoms and self-esteem
Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1999). Early childhood predictors of adult across a significant life transition. Journal of Personality and So-
anxiety disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1536–1541. cial Psychology, 85, 922–932.
358 Personality Development

Knutson, B., Wolkowitz, O. M., Cole, S. W., Chan, T., Morre, E. A., Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. A. (2002). A research agenda
Johnson, R. C., et al. (1998). Selective alteration of personality for DSM-V. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
and social behavior by serotonergic intervention. American Jour- Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang,
nal of Psychiatry, 155, 373–379. C. P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the big five
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their on-
with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Devel- togeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73, 1517–1524.
opmental Psychology, 33, 228–240. Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2004). Affect regulation. In R. F.
Kochanska, G., Clark, L., & Goldman, M. (1997). Implications of Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
mothers’ personality for parenting and their young children’s de- Research, theory, and applications (pp. 40–61). New York: Guil-
velopmental outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65, 389–420. ford Press.
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development Laurent, J., & Ettelson, R. (2001). An examination of the tripartate
of self-regulation in the first 4 years of life. Child Development, model of anxiety and depression and its application to youth.
72, 1091–1111. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 209–230.
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., Tjebkes, T. L., & Husarek, S. J. (1998). Laursen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The antecedents and
Individual differences in emotionality in infancy. Child Develop- correlates of agreeableness in adulthood. Developmental Psychol-
ment, 64, 375–390. ogy, 38, 591–603.
Kochanska, G., Friesenborg, A. E., Lange, L. A., & Martel, M. M. Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of
(2004). Parents’ personality and infants’ temperament as contrib- emotion processes and cognition in social information processing.
utors to their emerging relationship. Journal of Personality and Child Development, 71, 107–118.
Social Psychology, 86, 744–759. Lemery, K. S., Goldsmith, H. H., Klinnert, M. D., & Mrazek, D. A.
Kochanska, G., Gross, J. N., Lin, M.-H., & Nichols, K. E. (2002). Guilt (1999). Developmental models of infant and childhood tempera-
in young children: Development, determinants, and relations with ment. Developmental Psychology, 35, 189–204.
a broader system of standards. Child Development, 73, 461–482. Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-
Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personal- regulation to the understanding of children’s responses to multi-
ity characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates, and ple risk. Child Development, 73, 144–161.
consequences. Journal of Personality, 71, 1087–1112. Lengua, L. J., & Long, A. C. (2002). The role of emotionality and
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory con- self-regulation in the appraisal-coping process: Tests of direct
trol as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddler to and moderating effects. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-
early school age. Child Development, 68, 263–277. chology, 23, 471–493.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful con- Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model
trol in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and of emotion-specific inf luences on judgment and choice. Cognition
implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, and Emotion, 14, 473–193.
36, 220–232. Levy, F., Hay, D. A., McStephen, M., Wood, C., & Waldman, I.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & (1997). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A category or
Vandegeest, K. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and continuum? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-
its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, lescent Psychiatry, 36, 737–744.
490–507. Lewis, M. (2000). The emergence of human emotions. In M. Lewis &
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.,
(1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental pp. 265–280). New York: Guilford Press.
antecedents of the big five? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, M. (2001). Issues in the study of personality development.
Kokko, K., Bergman, L. R., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Child personal- Psychological Inquiry, 12, 67–83.
ity characteristics and selection into long-term unemployment in Lilienfeld, S. O. (2003). Comorbidity between and within childhood
Finnish and Swedish longitudinal studies. International Journal of externalizing and internalizing disorders: Ref lections and direc-
Behavioral Development, 27, 134–144. tions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 285–291.
Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2000). Aggression in childhood and long- Lin, E. K., Bugental, D. B., Turek, V., Martorell, G. A., & Olster,
term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and D. H. (2002). Children’s vocal properties as mobilizers of stress-
some protective factors. Developmental Psychology, 36, 463–472. related physiological responses in adults. Personality and Social
Korner, A. F., Hutchinson, C. A., Koperski, J., Kraemer, H. C., Psychology Bulletin, 28, 346–357.
Berkowitz, R. L., & Agras, W. S. (1985). Relation between neonatal Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. (2003). Genetic basis of
and later activity and temperament. Child Development, 52, 83–90. personality structure. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Hand-
Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., Kessler, R. C., Jensen, book of psychology: Personality and social psychology
P. S., & Kupfer, D. J. (1997). Coming to terms with the terms of (pp. 59–83). New York: Wiley.
risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 337–343. Livson, N., & Peskin, H. (1980). Perspectives on adolescence from
Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., & McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and anti- longitudinal research. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent
social behavior: Independent tendencies, unique personality cor- psychology (pp. 47–98). New York: Wiley.
relates, distinct etiologies. Psychological Science, 12, 397–402. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of ag-
Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S. R., Ianoco, W. G., gression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual
& McGue, M. (2002). Etiologic connections among substance de- Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410.
pendence, antisocial behavior and personality: Modeling the exter- Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological
nal spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 411–424. theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.
 References 359

Lohmueller, K. E., Pearce, C. L., Pike, M., Lander, E. S., & veloping structure of temperament and personality from infancy to
Hirschhorn, J. N. (2003). Meta-analysis of genetic association adulthood (pp. 157–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
studies supports a contribution of common variants to suscepti- Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: Ref lections on the
bility to common disease. Nature Genetics, 33, 177–182. past and outlook for the next generation of research. In M. D.
Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., & Hooe, E. S. (2003). Relations of Glantz & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Posi-
positive and negative affectivity to anxiety and depression in chil- tive life outcomes (pp. 281–296). New York: Kluwer Press.
dren: Evidence from a latent variable longitudinal study. Journal Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in devel-
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 464–481. opment. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Losoya, S. H., Callor, S., Rowe, D. C., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1977). Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1995). Competence, resilience,
Origins of familial similarity in parenting: A study of twins and and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Develop-
adoptive siblings. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1012–1023. mental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation
Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The (pp. 715–752). New York: Wiley.
stability on interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of
A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bul- competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons
letin, 131, 713–737. from research on successful children. American Psychologist,
Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2004). Extraversion and emotional reac- 53, 205–220.
tivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 473–485. Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N.,
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors inf luencing the relation be- & Ramirez, M. L. (1999). Competence in the context of adversity:
tween extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late
Social Psychology, 79, 1039–1056. adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143–169.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of re- Masten, A. S., Neeman, J., & Andenas, S. (1994). Life events and ad-
silience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. justment in adolescents: The significance of event independence,
Child Development, 71, 562. desirability, and chronicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
4, 71–97.
Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phe-
nomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186–189. Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adapta-
tion in the second year: The relationship between quality of at-
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder:
tachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556.
A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683–697.
Matthews, G., Derryberry, D., & Siegle, G. J. (2000). Personality and
MacCoon, D. G., Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004). Self-
emotion: Cognitive science perspectives. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.),
regulation: Context-appropriate balanced attention. In R. F.
Advances in personality psychology (pp. 199–237). Philadelphia:
Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Re-
Psychology Press.
search, theory, and applications (pp. 422–444). New York: Guil-
Maziade, M., Caron, C., Cote, R., Merette, C., Bernier, H., Laplante,
ford Press.
B., et al. (1990). Psychiatric status of adolescents who had ex-
MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An treme temperaments at age 7. American Journal of Psychiatry,
evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63, 753–773. 147, 1531–1536.
MacDonald, K. (1995). Evolution, the five-factor model, and levels of McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person?
personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 525–567. Journal of Personality, 63, 365–376.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion McAdams, D. P., Anyidoho, N. A., Brown, C., Huang, Y. T., Kaplan,
and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longi- B., & Machado, M. A. (2004). Traits and stories: Links between
tudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, dispositional and narrative features of personality. Journal of Per-
65, 525–567. sonality, 72, 761–784.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & Tinsley, B. J. (2004). Children’s be- McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical im-
havioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality. portance, and social policy for children. Child Development,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 423–432. 71, 173–180.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., Tinsley, B. J., & Ericksen, A. J. (2002). McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness.
A preliminary validation of preadolescents’ self-reports using the Psychological Bulletin, 120, 761–784.
five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personal- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (1994). The stability of personality:
ity, 36, 173–181. Observation and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the Science, 3, 173–175.
structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hi- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of
erarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, openness to experience. In J. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs
88, 139–157. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
Martin, M., Boomsma, D., & Machin, G. (1997). A twin-pronged at- (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic.
tack on complex traits. Nature Genetics, 17, 387–392. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of person-
Martin, R., Watson, D., & Wan, C. K. (2000). A three-factor model of ality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personal-
trait anger: Dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition. Jour- ity: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press.
nal of Personality, 68, 869–897. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the
Martin, R. P., Wisenbaker, J., & Huttunen, M. (1994). Review of fac- NEO five-factor inventory. Personality and Individual Dif fer-
tor analytic studies of temperament measures based on the ences, 36, 587–596.
Thomas-Chess structural model: Implications for the big five. In McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating com-
C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The de- prehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-set and
360 Personality Development

the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Metsapelto, R. L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and
ogy, 54, 430–446. parenting: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experi-
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebick- ence as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality,
ova, H., Avia, M. D., et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Tempera- 17, 59–78.
ment, personality, and life span development. Journal of Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L.,
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. Kubiszyn, T. W., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psycho-
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, logical assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American
C. J., De Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality trait development Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross- Miech, R., Essex, M. J., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2001). Self-regulation
cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, as a mediator of the status-attainment process: Evidence from
83, 1456–1468. early childhood. Sociology of Education, 74, 102–120.
McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality stability Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001).
and change in early childhood: A behavioral genetic analysis. De- Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality
velopmental Psychology, 32, 604–613. dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psy-
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (2001). Free-time ac- chopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.
tivities in middle childhood: Links with adjustment in early ado- Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L., & Hallet,
lescence. Child Development, 72, 1764–1778. A. J. (1996). A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and
Measelle, J., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowen, C. P. (1998). physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322–348.
Assessing young children’s views of their academic, social, and Mineka, S., Rafaeli, E., & Yovel, I. (2003). Cognitive biases in emo-
emotional lives: An evaluation of the self-perception scales tional disorders: Information processing and social-cognitive per-
of the Berkeley puppet interview. Child Development, 69, spectives. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith
1556–1576. (Eds.), Handbook of af fective sciences (pp. 976–1009). New York:
Measelle, J., John, O. P., Ablow, J., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. Oxford University Press.
(2005). Can children provide coherent, stable, and valid self- Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised. In
reports on the big five dimensions? Journal of Personality and So- L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality (pp. 111–134). New
cial Psychology, 89, 90–106. York: Guilford Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-effective
Sir Roland, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834. R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
Meehl, P. E. (1986). What social scientists don’t understand. In D. W. theory, and applications (pp. 99–129). New York: Guilford Press.
Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Rutter, M. (2005). Strategy for investi-
(pp. 315–338). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. gating interactions between measured genes and measured envi-
Meier, G. H., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Does quick to blame mean ronments. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 473–481.
quick to anger? The role of agreeableness in dissociating blame and Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis
anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 856–867. of partner abuse with implications for abuse prevention. Crimi-
Merikangas, K., & Risch, N. (2003). Will the genomics revolution rev- nology and Public Policy, 1, 401–432.
olutionize psychiatry? American Journal of Psychiatry, 160,
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., & Maue, B. (2003).
625–635.
The tripartite model of neuroticism and the suppression of de-
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the pression and anxiety within an escalation of commitment
big five as a model for teachers’ ratings of individual differences dilemma. Journal of Personality, 71, 345–368.
among children aged 4 to 12 years. Personality and Individual
Morison, P., & Masten, A. S. (1991). Peer reputation in middle child-
Dif ferences, 18, 525–534.
hood as a predictor of adaptation in adolescence: A 7-year follow-
Mervielde, I., De Clerq, B., De Fruyt, F., & van Leeuwen, K. (2005). up. Child Development, 62, 991–1007.
Temperament, personality and developmental psychopathology as
Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse and spin: Dy-
childhood antecedents of personality disorders. Journal of Person-
namic additions to the personality lexicon. Journal of Personality
ality Disorders, 19, 171–201.
and Social Psychology, 86, 880–893.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchi-
cal Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change
I. L. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psy- in personality traits: Findings from the Normative Aging Study.
chology in Europe: Proceedings of the eighth European conference Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Science, 58B, 153–165.
on personality psychology (pp. 107–127). Tilburg, The Nether- Munafo, M. R., Clark, T. G., Moore, L. R., Payne, E., Walton, R., &
lands: Tilburg University Press. Flint, J. (2003). Genetic polymorphisms and personality in
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Molecular
the hierarchical personality inventory for children. In B. De Raad Psychiatry, 8, 471–484.
& M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 129–142). Ash- Muris, P., Schmidt, H., Merckelbach, H., & Schouten, E. (2001). The
land, OH: Hogrefe & Huber. structure of negative emotions in adolescents. Journal of Abnor-
Mervielde, I., De Fruyt, F., & Jarmuz, S. (1998). Linking openness mal Child Psychology, 29, 331–337.
and intellect in childhood and adulthood. In C. S. Kohnstamm, Neitzel, C., & Stright, A. D. (2004). Parenting behaviors during child
C. F. Halverson, I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental de- problem solving: The roles of child temperament, mother educa-
scriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the tion and personality, and the problem-solving context. Interna-
big five? (pp. 105–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 166–179.
 References 361

Nigg, J. T. (2000). Inhibition /disinhibition in developmental behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychol- 129–138.
ogy and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, Pickles, A., & Angold, A. (2003). Natural categories or fundamental di-
126, 220–246. mensions: On carving nature at the joints and the rearticulation of
Nigg, J. T., John, O. P., Blaskey, L. G., Huang-Pollock, C. L., Willcutt, psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 529–551.
E. G., Hinshaw, S. P., et al. (2002). Big five dimensions and ADHD Pike, A., & Atzaba-Poria, N. (2003). Do sibling and friend relation-
symptoms: Links between personality traits and clinical symp- ships share the same temperamental origins? Journal of Child
toms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 451–469. Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 598–611.
O’Brien, B. S., & Frick, P. J. (1996). Reward dominance: Associa- Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic
tions with anxiety, conduct problems, and psychopathy in chil- inf luences on “environmental” measures. Behavioral and Brain
dren. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 223–240. Sciences, 14, 373–386.
O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of Plomin, R., & Caspi, A. (1999). Behavioral genetics and personality.
problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality the-
the big five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813. ory and research (pp. 251–276). New York: Guilford Press.
O’Connor, T. G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D. W., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R., Corley, R., Caspi, A., Fulker, D. W., & DeFries, J. C.
Plomin, R. (1998). Genotype-environment correlations in late (1998). Adoption results for self-reported personality: Evidence
childhood and early adolescence: Antisocial behavioral problems of non-additive genetic effects? Journal of Personality and Social
in coercive parenting. Developmental Psychology, 34, 970–981. Psychology, 75, 211–218.
Ormel, J., Oldehinkel, A. J., & Vollebergh, W. (2004). Vulnerability Plomin, R., & Crabbe, J. (2000). DNA. Psychological Bulletin,
before, during, and after a major depressive episode: A three- 126, 806–828.
wave population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry, Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same
61, 990–996. family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sci-
Ozer, D. J. (1986). Consistency in personality: A methodological ences, 10, 1–16.
framework. New York: Springer. Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., Corley, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1997). Na-
Ozer, D. J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1989). Patterns of personality consis- ture, nurture, and cognitive development from 1 to 16 years: A
tency and change from childhood through adolescence. Journal of parent-offspring study. Psychological Science, 8, 442–447.
Personality, 57, 483–507. Plomin, R., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Psychopathology in the postge-
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E., & Frick, P. J. (2003). Callous/unemo- nomic era. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 205–228.
tional traits and social-cognitive processes in adjucated youths. Pomerantz, E. M., & Rudolph, K. D. (2003). What ensues from emo-
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychi- tional distress? Implications for competence estimation. Child
atry, 42, 364–371. Development, 74, 329–345.
Park, S. Y., Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1997). Infant emo- Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of
tionality, parenting, and 3-year inhibition: Exploring stability and self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427–441.
lawful discontinuity in a male sample. Developmental Psychology,
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquiere, P.,
33, 218–227.
& Colpin, H. (2004). Parent and child personality characteristics
Parke, R. D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of as predictors of negative discipline and externalizing behavioral
Psychology, 55, 365–399. problems in children. European Journal of Personality, 18, 73–102.
Patterson, C., Kupersmidt, J., & Griesler, P. (1990). Children’s per- Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-
ceptions of self and of relationships with others as a function of inhibited temperament in childhood lead to anxiety problems in
sociometric status. Child Development, 61, 1335–1349. adolescence? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets lescent Psychiatry, 39, 461–468.
and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure
Psychology, 81, 524–539. of temperament from infancy through adolescence. In A. Eliasz &
Peabody, D., & De Raad, B. (2002). The substantive nature of A. Angleneiter (Eds.), Advances in research on temperament
psycholexical personality factors: A comparison across languages. (pp. 165–182). Miami, FL: Pabst Science.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 983–997. Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child tem-
Pederson, N. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (1998). Stability and change in perament and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of par-
adult personality: Genetic and environmental components. Euro- enting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 255–277).
pean Journal of Personality, 12, 365–386. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adoles- Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2002).
cent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible Stimulation seeking and intelligence: A prospective longitudinal
functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142–163. study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 674.
Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., Mednick, S. A., & Farring-
extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: Repli- ton, D. P. (1998). Fearlessness, stimulation-seeking, and large
cation and commentary. Personality and Individual Dif ferences, body size at age 3 years as early predispositions to childhood ag-
33, 1137–1147. gression at age 11 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55,
Pfeifer, M., Goldsmith, H. H., Davidson, R. J., & Rickman, M. 745–751.
(2002). Continuity and change in inhibited and uninhibited chil- Reimann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and envi-
dren. Child Development, 73, 1474–1485. ronmental inf luences on personality: A study of twins reared to-
Phillips, K., & Matheny, A. P. J. (1997). Evidence for genetic inf lu- gether using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of
ence on both cross-situation and situation-specific components of Personality, 65, 449–476.
362 Personality Development

Reiss, H. T., Capobianco, A., & Tsai, F.-T. (2002). Finding the person psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
in personal relationships. Journal of Personality, 70, 813–850. (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.
Resing, W. C. M., Bleichrodt, N., & Dekker, P. H. (1999). Measuring Rothbart, M. K., Chew, K. H., & Garstein, M. A. (2001). Assessment
personality traits in the classroom. European Journal of Personal- of temperament in early development. In L. T. Singer & P. S. Ze-
ity, 13, 493–509. skind (Eds.), Biobehavioral assessment of the infant
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of per- (pp. 190–208). New York: Guilford Press.
sonality disorder from domains and facets of the five-factor Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (2002). Temperament in children.
model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222. In C. von Hofsten & L. Backman (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of
Roberts, B. W., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., & the millennium: Vol. 2. Social, developmental, and clinical per-
Stark, S. E. (2004). A lexical investigation of the lower-order spectives (pp. 17–35). New York: Taylor & Francis.
structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, K. L. (2000). Stability
38, 164–178. of temperament in childhood: Laboratory infant assessment to
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are al- parent report at 7 years. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese (Eds.),
right: Growth and stability in personality development from ado- Temperament and personality across the life span (pp. 85–119).
lescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Psychology, 81, 582–583. Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Temperament
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experiences and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Per- Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications
sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593. (pp. 357–370). New York: Guilford Press.
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consis- Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003).
tency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative Developing mechanisms of temperamental effortful control. Jour-
review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 25–30. nal of Personality, 71, 1113–1143.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (in press). Patterns in Rothbart, M. K., & Mauro, J. A. (1990). Questionnaire approaches to
mean-level change in personality traits across the life-course: A the study of infant temperament. In J. W. Fagen & J. Colombo
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. (Eds.), Individual dif ferences in infancy: Reliability, stability, and
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It’s not just who prediction (pp. 411–429). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship ex-
Rowe, D. E., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood.
periences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality,
Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 150–156.
70, 925–964.
Rozanski, A., Blumenthal, J. A., & Kaplan, J. (1999). Impact of psy-
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-
chological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease
Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled
and implications for therapy. Circulation, 99, 2217.
boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 157–171. Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003).
Predicting preschoolers’ externalizing behaviors from toddler
Robins, R. W., & Tracy, J. L. (2003). Setting an agenda for a person-
temperament, conf lict, and maternal negativity. Developmental
centered approach to personality development. Monographs of
Psychology, 39, 164–176.
the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(Serial No.
272), 110–122. Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big social-behavioral consequences of toddlers’ inhibited tempera-
five personality factors and personal values. Personality and So- ment and parenting behaviors. Child Development, 73, 483–495.
cial Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801. Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Seeley, J. R. (1990). Are people control and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs
changed by the experience of having an episode of depression? A (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and appli-
further test of the scar hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychol- cations (pp. 283–300). New York: Guilford Press.
ogy, 99, 264–271. Rusico, J., & Rusico, A. M. (2004). Clarifying boundary issues in
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and strategies in psychopathology: The role of taxometrics in a comprehensive
response to conf licts within a friendship. Developmental Psychol- program of structural research. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy, 35, 69–79. ogy, 22, 24–38.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and rela- Rutter, M., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Using sex differences
tional aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental dif- in psychopathology to study causal mechanisms: Unifying issues
ferences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental and research strategies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
Psychology, 40, 378–387. try, 44, 1092–1115.
Rothbart, M. K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Rutter, M., & Silberg, J. (2002). Gene-environment interplay in rela-
Child Development, 52, 569–578. tion to emotional and behavioral disturbance. Annual Review of
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament Psychology, 53, 463–490.
and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Sanson, A., & Prior, M. (1999). Temperament and behavioral precur-
Social Psychology, 78, 122–135. sors to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. In
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). In- H. C. Quay & A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive
vestigation of temperament at 3 to 7 years: The children’s behav- behavior disorders (pp. 397–417). New York: Kluwer Aca-
ior questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. demic/ Plenum Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon Saucier, G. (2003). An alternative multi-language structure for per-
(Editor-in-Chief ) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child sonality attributes. European Journal of Personality, 17, 179–205.
 References 363

Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-lan- Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood per-
guage studies of lexical personality factors. In S. E. Hampson sonality foreshadows adult personality and life outcomes 2
(Ed.), Advances in personality psychology (pp. 1–36). Philadel- decades later. Journal of Personality, 71, 1145–1170.
phia: Taylor & Francis. Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2002). A developmental
Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical components of the perspective on personality in emerging adulthood: Childhood an-
big five personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal tecedents and concurrent adaptation. Journal of Personality and
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 613–627. Social Psychology, 83, 1165–1177.
Saucier, G., & Simonds, J. (in press). The structure of personality Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Hervas, A., Silberg, J. L., Rutter, M., &
and temperament. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Hand- Eaves, L. (1998). Genetic inf luences on childhood hyperactivity:
book of personality development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Contrast effects imply parental rating bias, not sibling inter-
Saudino, K. J., & Cherney, S. C. (2001). Parental ratings of tempera- action. Psychological Medicine, 4, 825–834.
ment in twins. In R. N. Emde & J. Hewitt (Eds.), Infancy to early Slotboom, A.-M., Havill, V. L., Pavlopoulos, V., & De Fruyt, F.
childhood: Genetic and environmental inf luences on developmental (1998). Developmental changes in personality descriptions of
change (pp. 73–88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. children: A cross-national comparison of parental descriptions of
Saudino, K. J., Pederson, N. L., Lichtenstein, P., McClearn, G. E., children. In G. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson, I. Mervielde, &
& Plomin, R. (1997). Can personality explain genetic inf lu- V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child personality: De-
ences on life events? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- velopmental antecedents of the big five? (pp. 127–153). Mahwah,
ogy, 72, 196–206. NJ: Erlbaum.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own envi- Smith, T. W., & Gallo, L. (2001). Personality traits as risk factors for
ronments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Devel- physical illness. In A. Baum, T. Revenson, & J. Singer (Eds.),
opment, 54, 424–435. Handbook of health psychology (pp. 139–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive baum.
thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. Smith, T. W., & Spiro, A. (2002). Personality, health, and aging: Pro-
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Per- legomenon for the next generation. Journal of Research in Person-
sonality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis. Personality ality, 36, 363–394.
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062–1075. Smith, T. W., & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and health: Ad-
Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory vantages and limitations of the five-factor model. Journal of Per-
strength. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of sonality, 60, 395–423.
self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 84–98). Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The inter-
New York: Guilford Press. play of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social
Schmidt, L. A., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.
world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (1998). Categorical models of childhood disor-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173. der: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Child Psy-
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Person- chology and Psychiatry, 39, 115–133.
ality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality
Spinath, F. M., & O’Connor, T. G. (2003). A behavioral genetic study
hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 4.
of the overlap between personality and parenting. Journal of Per-
Scourfield, J., van den Bree, M., Martin, N., & McGuffin, P. (2004). sonality, 71, 785–808.
Conduct problems in children and adolescents. Archives of Gen-
Sroufe, L. A., Bennet, C., Englund, M., Urban, S., & Shulman, S.
eral Psychiatry, 61, 489–496.
(1993). The significance of gender boundaries in preadolescence:
Settersten, R. A. (2003). Age structuring and the rhythm of the life
Contemporary correlates and antecedents of boundary violation
course. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of
and maintenance. Child Development, 64, 455–466.
the life course (pp. 81–102). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E. A., Levy, A. K., & Egeland, B. (1999). Im-
Shanahan, M. J., & Flaherty, B. P. (2001). Dynamic patterns of time
plications of attachment theory for developmental psychopathol-
use in adolescence. Child Development, 72, 385–401.
ogy. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 1–13.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities
in middle childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bul- Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E. A., & Shulman, S. (1993). Individuals in
letin, 124, 308–332. relationships: Development from infancy through adolescence. In
D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widaman
Shiner, R. L. (2000). Linking childhood personality with adapta-
(Eds.), Studying lives through time (pp. 315–342). Washington,
tion: Evidence for continuity and change across time into late
DC: American Psychological Association.
adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
310–325. Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N., & Pancake, V. (1983). Attachment and dependency
in developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615–1627.
Shiner, R. L. (2005). A developmental perspective on personality dis-
orders: Lessons from research on normal personality development Strelau, J. (2001). The concept and status of trait in research on tem-
in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Personality Disorders, perament. European Journal of Personality, 15, 311–325.
19, 202–210. Sullivan, P. F., Eaves, L. J., Kendler, K. S., & Neale, M. C. (2001).
Shiner, R. L. (in press). Temperament and personality and childhood. Genetic case-control association studies in neuropsychiatry.
In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 1015–1024.
development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, D. P. (1998). Person-environment fit
Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in child- and its limits: Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and emotional reac-
hood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and conse- tivity to interpersonal conf lict. Personality and Social Psychology
quences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2–32. Bulletin, 24, 88–98.
364 Personality Development

Suls, J., & Mullen, B. (1982). From the cradle to the grave: Compar- Updegraff, J. A., Gable, S. L., & Taylor, S. E. (2004). What makes ex-
ison and self-evaluation across the life span. In J. Suls (Ed.), periences satisfying? The interaction of approach-avoidance mo-
Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 97–125). Hillsdale, tivations and emotions in well-being. Journal of Personality and
NJ: Erlbaum. Social Psychology, 86, 496–504.
Szechtman, H., & Woody, E. (2004). Obsessive-compulsive disorder Urban, J., Carlson, E., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1991). Patterns
as a disturbance of security motivation. Psychological Bulletin, of individual adaptation across childhood. Development and
111, 111–127. Psychopathology, 3, 445–460.
Tackett, J. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2005). Interpreting personality as a van den Oord, E. J. C. G., & Sullivan, P. F. (2003). False discoveries
vulnerability for psychopathology: A developmental approach to and models for gene discovery. Trends in Genetics, 19, 537–542.
the personality-psychopathology relationship. In B. L. Hankin & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (2000). Lifespan personality development:
J. R. Z. Abela (Eds.), Development of psychopathology: A vulnera- Self-organizing goal-oriented agents and developmental outcome.
bility-stress perspective (pp. 199–214). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 276–288.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lews, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1993). The big five per-
R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to sonality factors in the Nijmegen California Child Q-Set (NCCQ).
stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-f light. Psycho- Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen.
logical Review, 107, 411–429.
van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1994). The big five per-
Teasdale, J. D., & Barnard, P. J. (1993). Af fect, cognition, and change: sonality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adoles-
Re-modeling depressive thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. cents. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structure of mood and personality and their rel- (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality
evance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In from infancy to adulthood (pp. 293–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disor- Victor, J. B. (1994). The five-factor model applied to individual dif-
ders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ferences in school behavior. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm,
Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament
and assessment. In W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking and personality from infancy to childhood (pp. 355–370). Hills-
clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(pp. 10–35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Viken, R. J., Rose, R. J., Kaprio, J., & Koskenvuo, M. (1994). A de-
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1992). Exploring personality through velopmental genetic analysis of adult personality: Extraversion
test construction: Development of the Multi-Dimensional Person- and neuroticism from 18 to 59 years of age. Journal of Personality
ality Questionnaire (MPQ). Unpublished manuscript. and Social Psychology, 66, 730.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Hagemann, D., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Vohs, K. D., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2004). Interpersonal functioning re-
Individual difference variables, affective differentiation, and the quires self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
structures of affect. Journal of Personality, 71, 669–703. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based inter- (pp. 392–407). New York: Guilford Press.
actionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychol- Wachtel, P. L. (1973). Psychodynamics, behavior therapy, and the im-
ogy, 88, 500–517. placable experimenter: An inquiry into the consistency of person-
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. (1968). Temperament and behav- ality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 324–334.
ior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press. Wakefield, J. C. (1989). Levels of explanation in personality theory.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H., Hertzig, M., & Korn, S. (1963). Be- In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality: Recent trends and
havioral individuality in early childhood. New York: New York emerging directions (pp. 333–346). New York: Springer.
University Press. Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological con- Watson, D. (2001). Neuroticism. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes
struct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 871–889. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sci-
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). ences (pp. 10609–10612). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: Gen-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656–669. eral and specific factors of emotional experience and their rela-
Tremblay, R. E. (2002). The origins of youth violence. In C. von Hof- tion to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441–476.
sten & L. Backman (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millen- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emo-
nium: Vol. 2. Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives tional core. In J. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook
(pp. 77–88). New York: Taylor & Francis. of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Aca-
Trierweiler, L. I., Eid, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2002). The structure of demic Press.
emotional expressivity: Each emotion counts. Journal of Personal- Watson, D., Clark, L., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Af-
ity and Social Psychology, 82, 1023–1040. fect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Border- Social Psychology, 63, 1011–1025.
line personality disorder from the perspective of general personal- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss,
ity functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 193–202. M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a tripartate model:
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anx- Pt. 2. Exploring the symptom structure of anxiety and depression
iety and neuroticism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
ogy, 79, 1007–1021. chology, 104, 15–25.
 References 365

Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of per- book of personality: Theory and research (pp. 347–366). New
sonality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate York: Guilford Press.
relationships. Journal of Personality, 68, 413–449. Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of per-
Watson, D., Suls, J., & Haig, J. (2002). Global self-esteem in relation sonality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
to structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Per- Wilson, B. J. (2003). The role of attentional processes in children’s
sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 185–197. prosocial behavior with peers: Attention shifting and emotion.
Weir, R. C., & Gjerde, P. F. (2002). Preschool personality prototypes: Development and Psychopathology, 15, 313–329.
Internal coherence, cross-study replicability, and developmental Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. A., & Mount, M. K. (2002).
outcomes in adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on
letin, 28, 1229–1241. job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164–169.
Weiss, B., Susser, K., & Catron, T. (1998). Common and specific fea- Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (2001). The
tures of childhood psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psy- effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: A life-
chology, 107, 118–127. course model of interdependence. Criminology, 39, 321–351.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, prac-
risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- tice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and
versity Press. goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.
Westen, D., & Harnden-Fischer, J. (2001). Personality profiles in eat- Young, S. K., Fox, N. A., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1999). The relations be-
ing disorders: Rethinking the distinction between Axis I and Axis tween temperament and empathy in 2-year-olds. Developmental
II. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 547–562. Psychology, 35, 1189–1197.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classifi- Zuroff, D. C. (1986). Was Gordon Allport a trait theorist? Journal of
cation of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946–963. Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 993–1000.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004). Conceptualizing
models of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, and measuring personality vulnerability to depression: Comment
19, 110–130. on Coyne and Whiffen, 1995. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
Widiger, T. A., Verheul, R., & van den Brink, W. (1999). Personality 489–511.
and psychopathology. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Hand-

View publication stats