personality dynamics in adolescence
TRANSCRIPT
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 1
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence
Theo Klimstra*
Tilburg University, the Netherlands
Wim Beyers
Ghent University, Belgium
Elias Besevegis
University of Athens, Greece
* Corresponding author. Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University,
Postbus 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands. E-mail address:
Journal of Adolescence, 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.010
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 2
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence
If this special issue would have appeared about ten years earlier, many psychologists
would have read its title as a contradictio in terminis. Personality traits were supposed to be
stable dispositions, with changes mainly reflecting measurement error. Individual differences in
such traits were thought to be set in stone, at least after age 30 (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1994).
Well, no more! Two influential meta-analyses shook up the field of personality psychology, by
showing that traits should only be regarded relatively stable, but by no means perfectly stable,
entities that can change in all phases of the lifespan (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Roberts,
Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). Adolescence is among the phases in the lifespan in which the
most substantial changes in personality take place. As a result, research on adolescent personality
change has been on the rise in the last decade (Klimstra, 2013). Developmental trajectories of
key personality traits, such as temperamental traits and the well-known Big Five traits
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), and individual
differences in changes herein are extensively being examined. Perhaps even more importantly,
researchers studying adolescent personality development increasingly often follow in the
footsteps left by the pioneers of the study on (childhood) antecedents of Big Five traits (e.g.,
Kohnstamm, Mervielde, Besevegis, & Halverson, 1995). That is, antecedents, correlates, and
effects of such changes in personality traits on key constructs of adolescent research (e.g.,
psychopathology symptoms, identity formation processes) are increasingly often being studied.
It is not just that views regarding the stability of personality have changed; the concept of
personality is also broadening. Of key interest are still so-called core traits, such as the
aforementioned Big Five, but there is also a growing interest in pathological traits, such as
psychopathy. The increased interest in such traits is partly due the fact that there has been
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 3
growing empirical evidence that there is no qualitative breach between healthy and pathological
personality, as suggested in traditional categorical approaches. Although this is not a new trend
in psychological research, what is new is that dimensional approaches now slowly seem to
capture the attention of clinicians. As a result, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) now includes a
dimensional model for the diagnosis of personality disorders in Section III for constructs in need
of further study. Therefore, it is likely that dimensional approaches will be incorporated in future
editions of the DSM.
Thus, dimensional approaches are still gaining ground. Such dimensional views stress
that healthy individuals also possess pathological personality traits; they merely exhibit lower
levels on such traits (e.g., Widiger & Costa, 2012). Thus, it is, for example, now thought that we
are all more or less psychopathic, it is just that some of us are (a great lot) worse than others in
this respect. The increasing awareness of dimensional views of the linkages between healthy and
pathological personality has led to a rapidly increasing number of studies examining individual
differences in pathological personality traits (e.g., psychopathy) in the general population. This
trend is nicely reflected in the current special issue, as four papers focus, at least partly, on
pathological personality traits.
In the first of these papers, Castellani and colleagues examined how Big Five traits
predicted depressive problems and antisocial personality problems, and what the role of hostile
interactions with the mother was in this respect. They found both direct effects of the Big Five
and some indirect effects via hostile interactions with the mother, underscoring that personality
traits may affect adolescent adjustment through their effect on the mother-child relationship.
Second, Tackett and colleagues examined how externalizing symptoms were associated with
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 4
personality pathology symptoms in a sample drawn from the general population. Their results
suggest that externalizing symptoms seem to lay on the same continuum as specific aspects of
personality pathology. From a developmental perspective, it was particularly interesting that
linkages between personality pathology and externalizing behavior were age-specific, with
stronger associations between externalizing behavior and personality pathology at ages at which
specific externalizing behaviors were more prevalent. The third study in this special issue that
examined the pathological side of personality was conducted by Suter and colleagues. They
examined mental models regarding aggression and transgression and their associations with
psychopathic traits in incarcerated youth and a community sample of adolescents. Implicit
attitudes of incarcerated youth were no different from those displayed by community
adolescents. Suter and colleagues also obtained a particularly thought-provoking finding,
suggesting that implicit measures of aggression and transgression were negatively associated
with psychopathic traits, whereas explicit measures were positively associated with these traits.
Fourth, Salihovic and colleagues examined whether two theoretically proposed subgroups of
psychopathic adolescents could be distinguished in an adolescent community sample. They
found evidence for these hypothesized subgroups, by distinguishing between a highly anxious
and a low-anxious subgroup of adolescent psychopaths. These subgroups exhibited different
levels of aggression and ADHD-symptoms.
Besides the study of pathological traits, there is also a movement towards the inclusion of
a greater number of other constructs under the broader personality construct. Specifically,
contemporary models of personality no longer focus exclusively on broad characteristics such as
the Big Five. Asendorpf and van Aken (2003), for example, distinguish core characteristics from
surface characteristics in their model. A similar distinction is made in another model, with core
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 5
characteristics being referred to as basic tendencies and surface characteristic referred to as
characteristic adaptations (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Surface characteristics, or characteristic
adaptations, include affective evaluations of one’s life in general (e.g., self-esteem, life
satisfaction) or of specific aspects of life (e.g., perceived peer-acceptance). Several of these
surface characteristics have always been of great interest to researchers studying adolescent
development, but can now be considered parts of one’s broader personality. An example of a
construct which is now considered a surface characteristic of personality is adolescent loneliness.
From a developmental perspective, it is important to note that core characteristics are thought to
be less malleable by environment factors and hence more stable across time than surface
characteristics are. Furthermore, there is the interesting idea that surface characteristics can
become more stable after a certain age, and move on to become core characteristics.
In the current special issue, Teppers and colleagues explicitly referred to this core and
surface distinction. They examined longitudinal associations of the surface traits of peer- and
parent-related loneliness with motives for Facebook use. Using Facebook for making new
friends predicted decreases in peer-related loneliness, whereas using it for compensating for
one’s lacking social skills predicted increases in loneliness. Luengo Kanacri and colleagues
examined associations of core traits (i.e., the Big Five) with longitudinal trajectories of prosocial
behavior. They showed that core traits may be relatively stable dispositions, but are still
malleable. Specifically, developmental trajectories of prosocial behavior differentially predicted
changes in the Big Five traits Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness.
Core versus surface trait models already contain some developmental premises, but the
three-layered model of personality proposed by McAdams (McAdams & Olsen, 2010) has an
even more explicit developmental focus. In brief, this model proposes that an individual’s
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 6
behavior is predominantly guided by core traits (i.e., the basic layer of personality) in infancy
and early childhood. In late childhood, behavior is thought to also become affected by a second
layer constituted by goals and motives. From late adolescence onwards a third layer containing a
narrative identity (i.e., individual’s autobiographical accounts of what makes them the person
they currently are) is thought to emerge and affect behavior. All three layers are thought to
mutually affect one another. Thus, highly agreeable individuals could, for example, develop a
stronger orientation towards interpersonal goals (e.g., trying to establish new friendships) when
compared to less extraverted individuals, but being more oriented towards establishing
friendships may also enlarge initial differences in extraversion. Overall, the model is particularly
interesting for developmental psychologists, as it provides clear theoretical ideas on what should
change regarding one’s personality. In addition, the model can give rise to a great deal of new
research on how personality changes and particularly on how the different hypothesized layers of
personality affect one another.
Although not explicitly framed in terms of the three-layered model (McAdams & Olsen,
2010), the study of Zupančič and colleagues in this special issue could be perceived as an
example of how the core layer of personality, constituted by Big Five traits, may affect the layer
of personality containing one’s identity. That is, they examined how the individuation process,
which is crucial in establishing an identity, is associated with Big Five traits. They showed that
all Big Five traits were to some extent associated with individuation processes, but that all these
traits played a somewhat different role. Reese and colleagues explicitly embraced the three-
layered model of personality by studying Big Five traits, narrative identity, and the associations
between these two layers of personality as a function of age and cultural group. Some of their
key findings suggest that narrative identity and Big Five traits are more strongly associated with
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 7
one another in older adolescents than in younger adolescents, and that there is more age-related
change in narrative identity than in Big Five personality traits through adolescence.
One more important trend in research on personality development concerns the focus on
changes in personality around major life transitions. This is likely due to the emphasis that has
been placed on the importance of transitions in one of the key theoretical principles regarding
personality change: The Social Investment Principle (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). According
to this principle, the increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and decreases in
Neuroticism that are typically found in late adolescence and young adulthood, are likely due to
individuals taking up roles of adult social life (e.g., a first job, having children, taking up serious
romantic relationships).
In the current special issue, there are three studies that deal with the role of personality
around transitions. Baay and colleagues study the role of Big Five personality traits in the
transition from school to work, and examine the possible role of social capital (i.e., resources
acquired through social relationships) herein. They show that Big Five traits and social capital
act mostly independently in predicting job-search outcomes (e.g., employment status, number of
job offers). That is, there was little evidence for effects of Big Five traits being moderated or
mediated by effects of social capital, or effects of social capital being moderated or mediated by
effects of Big Five traits. Yu and colleagues examined whether previous romantic relationship
experiences affected how young adults perceived the quality of their current romantic
relationship, and whether these effects were moderated by personality types (i.e., profiles based
on the Big Five traits). They showed that in general, relationship history had no significant effect
on current perceived relationship quality. However, for undercontrollers (i.e., individuals
especially characterized by relatively low levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness)
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 8
relationship history did matter, as undercontrollers with more previous relationships committed
and explored their current relationship less. Leikas and colleagues also employed a typological
approach. They showed that adolescents with higher levels of well-being were more likely to be
classified in the most adaptive personality type (i.e., resilients, who are characterized by low
levels of Neuroticism and high levels on the other Big Five traits) when they reached young
adulthood. Anti-resilients, characterized by a personality that mirrored the profile of resilients,
were less likely to have reached normative life goals (i.e., finishing education, having a job) by
age 23. Overcontrollers, characterized by low extraversion and high neuroticism, had specific
problems with establishing romantic relationships.
This special issue contains a collection of papers that are based on presentations made at
the XIIIth biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence
(EARA). This conference was held on the island of Spetses, Greece, from August 29 to
September 1, 2012. It was attended by almost 400 participants from Europe and other countries
all over the world, who presented more than 450 papers. Presentations included 7 invited
lectures, 15 invited symposia, 31 symposia, 37 oral sessions, and 10 poster sessions. The content
of the conference papers had to do with well-known topics on adolescent development, such as
various forms of psychopathology (the most common topic), parent-adolescent relationships,
identity formation, autonomy, transition to adulthood, and research methodology, as well as
with developing areas of research, such as the role of political, social, and economic changes in
adolescents' development, immigrant youth and acculturation, coping behavior, moral
development, and loneliness.
Special mention is made of the topic of personality, which was represented by studies on
both broad constructs and correlates of personality. In other words, papers on personality dealt
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 9
with basic or core characteristics, such as the Big Five, and with surface characteristics, such as
psychosocial aspects of personality, loneliness, life satisfaction and well-being, coping behavior,
and peer relationships, and were omnipresent at this conference. Needless to say, personality
issues were - and always are - involved in such topics as identity formation, transitions, and
psychopathology.
From all this, it is evident that personality dynamics was indeed a major theme at this
conference, and it comprised the content of symposia, oral sessions, and posters. All presenters
of these contributions were invited to submit abstracts for this special section. From 28 submitted
abstracts, the guest editors selected a shortlist of 12 abstracts with great interrater reliability
(intraclass correlation = .88). Selection was based on a set of a criteria decided a priori, including
the abstract being based on the Spetses program (origin), the topic matching the theme of the
section, strong conceptualization of concepts and research questions, clear hypotheses, general
interest of the research (content), sample, measures and analyses, credibility and fitting in with
the research questions (method), promising results and clear tables of figures (results), and use of
English language. Authors of selected abstracts then prepared and submitted their papers, of
which 11 finally made it to this special section, after a thorough and blind review process.
Overall, the studies that comprise this special issue show that personality should be of
key interest to researchers studying adolescent development, given their strong associations with
phenomena representing the cornerstones of adolescent psychology. At the same time, the
growing interest of personality psychologists in concepts that were long almost exclusively
studied by developmental psychologists is nicely reflected in the developmental focus of the
several novel theoretical models of personality development that have been discussed in this
introduction. In the last decade, these trends already resulted in a growing number of studies on
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 10
personality from a developmental perspective in personality journals (e.g., Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, European Journal of Personality) and at personality conferences (e.g.,
European Conference of Personality). The program book of the 2012 conference of EARA at
Spetses indeed showed that these trends now also spread to the field of developmental
psychology. As editors, we are delighted to contribute to this trend by presenting this special
issue in Journal of Adolescence.
Acknowledgments
We thank most sincerely all participants who brought their interesting data and
experience to Spetses as indicated by the high level of presentations and symposia. Thanks are
also due to all sponsors of the conference, to the EARA Council, all our colleagues, friends and
families for their support at different stages of preparation and running of the meeting. We
deeply appreciate participants who prepared the papers in this special issue for publication.
We further would like to thank the following expert reviewers who contributed to this
special issue: Alithe van den Akker, Amaranta de Haan, Anneke Westerhuis, Barbara De Clercq,
Bart Klika, Bart Wille, Birk Hagemeyer, Brent Donnelan, Elias Besevegis, Evangelia P.
Galanaki, Filip De Fruyt, Franz Neyer, Jelle Sijtsema, Jennifer Connolly, Judith Smetana, Jule
Specht, Kate C. McLean, Koen Luyckx, Marcel van Aken, Marleen De Bolle, Patricia Bijttebier,
Peter Borkenau, Peter Prinzie, Tessa A.M. Lansu, Theo Klimstra, Violaine C. Veen, Wim
Beyers, and Will Dunlop.
Special thanks also go to Ann Hagel, Rachel Gibson, Zhao Wei, Hazel Morton, and
Matthieu Renaud who guided us fluently through the editorial process for this issue on behalf of
Elsevier. Finally, special thanks to Filip De Fruyt and Karla Van Leeuwen who wrote an
excellent general discussion for this special issue.
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 11
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in
adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71,
629-666. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7104005
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult
personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp.
21-40). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10143-002
Klimstra, T.A. (2013). Adolescent personality development and identity formation. Child
Development Perspectives, 7, 80-84. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12017
Kohnstamm, G. A., Mervielde, I, Besevegis, E., & Halverson, C. F., Jr. (1995). Tracing the big
five in parents’ free descriptions of their children. European Journal of Personality, 9,
283-304. doi: 10.1002/per.2410090405
Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of
the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and
volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 68–86. doi: 10.1177/
1088868306294590 McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over
the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517–542. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.
093008.100507
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin, & O. P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New
York: Guilford Press.
Personality Dynamics in Adolescence 12
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits
from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 3-25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1-25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure:
The five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 80, 1471-1506. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2012.00776.x