Download doc Chapter 6 McAdams note

Chapter 6 – Continuity and Change in Traits: The Roles of Genes,
Environments, and Time
The Continuity of Traits
-
Attributing a trait to a person assumes a certain degree of continuity over time
o Although one can’t be clear how long-term that staying power might be
Despite momentary fluctuations, people’s traits tend to be stable
Trait terms in everyday use: assumes certain psychological features are more-or-less stable
“for a while”
Therefore, personality trait scales should show high test-retest reliability
Two Kinds of Continuity
Absolute vs. Differential
Absolute continuity
- “Constancy in the quantity or amount of an attribute over time” (Caspi)
- In absolute terms, e.g. “how much” social dominance a person has in 1972 and in 1982?
o If a group of people has the same score, we can say this group showed absolute
continuity on the trait of social dominance over a 10-year span
- The concept of absolute continuity is never applied to a single individual but is usually
understood in terms of group averages on a given trait
- You can compare the average score on a given trait with the average score obtained from the
same group of people 10 years later
- Absolute continuity is important when considering hypotheses and expectations about human
development
o E.g. in finding out whether there may be absolute continuity across a certain
developmental time period (e.g. from adolescents to adulthood)
Differential continuity
- “the consistency of individual differences within a sample of individuals over time, to the
retention of an individual’s relative placement in a group” (Caspi)
- How an individual is relative to his peers
- Differential continuity is always a matter of individuals’ relative standing to one another on a
given dimension
- How to have high level of differential continuity (a high correlation coefficient) for a certain
trait?
o People will need to continue to hold their relative positions on this trait over time
o Would require each person in the distribution to “stay the same” and score the same
as say,10 years ago
- Correlation coefficient:
o Calculated between the same individual’s score on the same trait at Time 1 versus
Time 2
o High correlation coefficient (r close to +1.0) = high differential continuity
- What does a high correlation coefficient tell us?
o It tells us that people tended to hold their relative positions on the given trait over the
10-year span
 Can make predictions
- What does a low correlation coefficient tell us?
o A low correlation coefficient would mean a certain trait is not showing differential
continuity (i.e. people’s relative positions on the given trait dimension change
unpredictably over time)
o Suggests that people change relative to one another over time on a given dimension
o Low differential continuity does NOT tell us in what direction people change
Absolute versus Differential continuity
- Absolute continuity and differential continuity are completely unrelated to each other
Absolute
Differential
Refers to the consistency of the average score Refers to the stability of individual
on a given trait over time
differences in scores
Differential Continuity
Low
Absolute Continuity
High
High
High Absolute continuity:
o Group average score on a
trait dimension
High differential continuity:
o The relative positions of
individuals on the dimension
of the trait did not change
much
-
Low
= The group average is stable over
time but the distribution of individual
differences is unstable (cannot predict
individual scores)
E.g.: “Warm feelings for my parents”
- High Absolute continuity:
o Group average 10 years
ago is highly similar to
the present group
average
- Low Differential continuity:
o The people who had
the warmest feelings
toward parents 10 years
ago were not the same
people who had the
warmest feelings
toward their parents in
the present
= The entire distribution of scores may shift E.g.: income 10 years ago vs. Current
in one direction or another, but individuals’ income
relative positions in the distribution might
- Low Absolute continuity:
not change much
o The entire distribution
E.g.: social anxiety
shifted markedly to the
- Low Absolute continuity:
higher end of the
o As a group, the social anxiety
income spectrum
average score decreased
- Low Differential continuity:
o Individuals did not hold
- High Differential continuity:
o The people who were the
onto their initial
most anxious 10 years ago
relative positions in the
tended to be the most anxious
distribution
at present, even though their
absolute scores went down
Differential Continuity in the Adult Years
Personality traits are fairly stable over the adult lifespan, showing substantial differential
continuity from early adulthood onward
-
-
-
-
-
Longitudinal prospective studies are used in personality research to examine differential
continuity in personality traits in the adult years
o Assessed by correlating trait scores at Time 1 with trait scores at Time 2
Longitudinal studies show remarkably high differential continuity in personality traits
over the adult lifespan (i.e. everyone kept the same rank order)
Conley (1985): 50-year long longitudinal study
o Self-reports and spouses reports
o Measurements taken: 1935-1938, 1954-1955 and 1980-1981
o Conley found that spouses ratings agreed with self-ratings on many personality
traits
o For differential continuity, both self-ratings and spouse ratings showed considerable
consistency over time
o Ratings of Extraversion and Neuroticism showed particularly strong longitudinal
consistency
 Self-ratings on a given trait at Time 1 predicted spouse-rating of a given trait
at Time 2
 Therefore, differential continuity in trait ratings was displayed when
examining:
 Self-ratings over time
 Spouse ratings over time
 The ability of one kind of rating to predict another kind of rating of
the same trait over time
Costa, McCrae and Arenberg- Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
o Time 1: Subjects ranged from 17-85 years old
o Correlations between Extraversion scores at Time 1 and Time 2 (separated by a 6- to
12- year period) = above r=+0.70, i.e. substantial differential continuity
o Also found high stability coefficients for ratings of Neuroticism
o i.e. Substantial differential continuity has been shown for all Big 5 traits across
intervals of time ranging from 3 to 30 years
o Stability coefficients found from Costa and McCrae’s Baltimore longitudinal study
NEO-PI Factor
Time Interval
r
Neuroticism
6 years
0.83
Extraversion
6 years
0.82
Openness to Experience
6 years
0.83
Agreeableness
3 years
0.63
Conscientiousness
3 years
0.79
Although r=+0.65 is not a perfect correlation, explain why it is so impressive
o Measurement errors= personality trait scales are not perfectly reliable measures
- If such scales were perfectly reliable, then the correlations over long periods
of time would be even higher
- Errors in the measures themselves  instability/ fluctuation in traits
o Test-retest reliabilities are typically around +0.85 or so
o Longitudinal consistency over many years
Such high correlation means “Hardened plaster”?
o NO!
o Personality traits are not set in stone by the time we reach our adult years
o Trait scores are not perfectly stable (even after accounting for measurement errors)
- People’s positions in the distribution can and do change from one assessment
to another
o Personality scores at Time 1 in adulthood are good but not perfect predictors of scores
on those same traits at Time 2
Time interval between testing influences the strength of differential continuity:
- The longer the time interval, the lower the differential continuity
- Schuerger at al., 1989: meta-analysis of personality longitudinal studies
o Focused on Extraversion and Neuroticism (anxiety)
o Findings:
i. Found test-retest correlations on traits declined as the time interval
increased
- 0.70 for short time interval and drop to 0.50for very long time intervals
ii. Found that Extraversion showed higher differential continuity than
Neuroticism (anxiety) and higher continuity than other traits too
Age of the participants influence differential continuity:
- Older people are more likely to show higher differential continuity than younger people
- Roberts and Delvecchio (2000)
o Findings:
- Stability coefficients were the lowest in studies of children’s traits (r=+0.41)
- Young adults: r=+0.55
- Adults between ages of 50 and 70: plateau r=+0.70
- Early in the lifespan, people do not hold onto their places in the distribution as firmly over
time
- Roberts and Devecchio (2000) raises the issue of personality traits in children
o Children seem to be developing in a rapid pace and in a more fluid manner than adults
o Most research on personality traits has focused on adults
o What is the relation between aspects of children’s personality and adult personality
traits?
o Temperament
[Summary]Factors that influence differential continuity:
1. Errors of trait measures
2. Time interval between testing
3. Age of the participants in the study
Childhood Precursors: From Temperament to Traits
- The same infant can be very different from how (s)he was from the very beginning
- There are inborn differences in personality among children (siblings born and raised in the
same family are very different)
- Definition of Temperament:
o “Temperament refers to the characteristic phenomena of an individual’s nature,
including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed
of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation
and intensity of mood, these being phenomena regarded as dependent on
constitutional make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin” – Caspi & Kagan
- Three different types of temperament patterns:
- Show consistently positive mood
- Low-to-moderate intensity of emotional reactions
Easy babies
- Regular sleeping and eating cycles
Difficult babies
Slow-to-warm-up
babies
-
-
Consistently negative moods
Intense emotional reactions
Irregular sleeping and eating cycles
A combination of the previous two forms
Relatively negative moods
Low intensity of emotional reactions
Tendency to withdraw from new events at first but then approach them
later
Rothbart’s (1986) 6 Temperament dimensions:
1.
Activity level
2.
Smiling and laughter
3.
Fearfulness
4.
Distress to limitations
5.
“Soothability”
6.
Vocal activity
What are the temperament dimensions that appear to have important implicatinos for personality
development?
Behavioural inhibition, Effortful control
Behavioural Inhibition
- Kagan (1989): Behavioral inhibition
o Extremely inhibited young children show great timidity for novel events and people
o Inhibited children: 15% of Caucasian children in the second year of life are
consistently shy and emotionally subdued in unfamiliar situations
o Uninhibited children: 15% that are consistently sociable and affectively spontaneous
with novel toys
o Physiological response:
- Inhibited children show more intense physiological responses as compared to
uninhibited children
 More dilated pupils (when confronted with mildly stressful social
situations)
 Higher heart rates (when confronted with mildly stressful social
situations)
 Higher levels of morning cortisol
o What was Kagan’s explanation for the differences between inhibited and uninhibited
children:
- Two separable genetic types that affect the thresholds of reactivity in the
brain’s limbic system manifested as behavioural differences
- Inhibited children have lower threshold of reactivity
  more easily aroused in social situations and respond by withdrawing
o Kagan’s physiological portrait of temperamental inhibition is reminiscent of
Eysenck’s account of introversion
- Behaviourally inhibited children are more likely to show neural activation of the right
frontal lobe while uninhibited children are more likely to show activation of the brain’s left
frontal lobe
- Inhibited: Right frontal lobe
- Uninhibited: Left frontal lobe
-
o Right frontal activity: associated with negative affectivity (fear and depression) and
the behavioural inhibition system
o Left frontal activity: associated with positive affectivity (joy and happiness) and the
behavioural approach system
Stability of inhibited children: will they grow into introverted and neurotic adults?
o By birth: 20 out of 100
o 2 years of age: 15 out of 100 (75%)
o Adolescence: 10 out of 100
o By Adulthood: 6 or 7 out of the original 20 will still remain extremely introverted
- Two-thirds will lose their excessive shyness by adulthood (maybe due to
environmental influences)
- However, Kagan thinks “shyness physiology” maintains for this two-thirds
of adults
Effortful Control
- Rothbart & Bates (1998): Effortful Contol
- “Child’s active and voluntary capacity to withhold a dominant response in order to enact a
subordinate response given situational demands”
- Strong capacity for effortful control  able to delay immediate gratification in order to focus
their attention on longer-term goals
- What do high levels of effortful control predict?
- Successful interpersonal functioning in childhood
- Better school grade
- Fewer behavioural problems
- Effortful control may be an important factor in moral development and the consolidation of
conscience
o Compliance and the ability to interact with others in a respectful and cooperative
manner
- Factors associated with the capacity for effortful control:
o Sex: Girls show better effortful controls than boys
o SES: Children from economically deprived families show lower levels of effortful
control than do children from more affluent families
o Age: Older children have less trouble controlling their impulses than do younger
children
- Considerable improvement: between 2 to 4 years old
- Stability of effortful control: individual differences in effortful control show moderately
high longitudinal consistency
o Li-Grinning (2007) Delayed gratification study:
- Tested African American and Latino children between the ages of 2 and 4 and
then again 16 months later
- Findings:
 Overall correlation of r=+0.40 between Time 1 and Time 2 scores
- Showed moderately high interindividual stability on effortful control over a
16-month period
- Big 5 of effortful control = Conscientiousness
Why is it difficult to study the relationship between early childhood temperament variables and
adult personality traits?
- The methods and conceptual systems used by researchers that study infant and child
temperament and adult personality are very different
o Temperament scales: rely on maternal reports and behavioural observations
o Personality traits scales: self-report rating
Taxonomies that are used to organize temperaments:
- Irritability
- Positive affect
- Activity level
- Rhythmicity
- Adaptability
- Sensory threshold
- Soothability
- Intensity of mood, etc.
Can the Big Five framework be used to classify dimensions of childhood functioning?
Some argued yes, some are skeptical
Caspi et al., 2003- The Dunedin Longitudinal Study
-
A landmark study for the relationship between childhood temperament and adult personality
1,000 subjects born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin
Tested at ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 26 years
At age 3, each child was in a 90-minute developmental testing session
o Psychologists rated the children on 22 behavioural characteristics
o The ratings were statistically grouped to produce five different temperament types:
- Appropriate levels of self-control when it was demanded of them
Well-adjusted
- Expressed adequate self-confidence
- Did not become unduly upset when confronting novel situations
children
- N=405
- Impulsive, restless, negativistic, and distractible
- Showed strong and volatile emotional reactions
Undercontrolled
- N= 106, 62% of whom were boys
- Turned out to be one of the most predictable groups at age 26
children
- Adult = High levels of Neuroticism and low levels of
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness
- Adjusted to the testing situation quickly and showed the
characteristics of friendliness, impulsivity and enthusiasm
Confident children
- N=281
- Socially reticent, fearful, easily upset by the examiner
- N=80, 60% of whom were girls
- Turned out to be one of the most predictable groups at age 26
- Adult = overcontrolled and non-assertive personality style
Inhibited children
o High scores on constraint and low scores on positive
emotionality
o Big 5: Low Extraversion, i.e. High introversion
- Timid and somewhat uncomfortable in the testing session
- But showed less shyness and caution than did the inhibited
children
Reserved children
- N=151
- Adult= Tended toward introversion and low Openness to
Experience
-
-
-
At age 26, self-reports and friends and acquaintances reports
o Caspi et al. administered self-report personality scales to all subjects
o Also collected trait ratings of the same individuals from their friends and
acquaintances
Results of Caspi’s Dunedin longitudinal study:
o Which groups of children were most predictable?
- The undercontrolled and inhibited types
o Over a 23-year span, the undercontrolled children grew up to score highest on trait
measures of negative emotionality
- They were easily upset, likely to overreact to minor events and reported
feeling mistreated, deceived and betrayed by others
- Described by others as antagonistic, unreliable, tense, and narrow-minded
o In terms of Big 5 dimensions, what does the undercontrolled pattern of childhood
temperament predicts?
- It predicts high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness
o What do the inhibited children grow up as?
- Overcontrolled and non-assertive personality style
o In terms of Big 5 dimensions, what does the inhibited pattern of childhood
temperament predicts?
- It predicts low level of Extraversion, i.e. introverted
o The three remaining temperament types did not show clear-cut personality profiles in
adulthood
Significance of the Dunedin’s longitudinal study:
o Certain predictable trajectories can indeed be documented
o There are also considerable amount of unpredictability and discontinuity over the long
haul
o Temperament is a rough template that is flexible and subjected to alteration by
environmental input for adult personality traits
“Developmental Elaboration” Capsi (1998)
- Developmental elaboration is the process through which personality is structuring around the
psychobiological core, this core is temperament
- Temperament dimensions gradually develop into more fully articulated personality traits
- Person × Environment Interaction:
o Developmental elaboration is a complex interplay though which inborn tendencies
shape and are shaped by environmental inputs over a long period of time
- Six mechanisms of developmental elaboration
o Table 6.2 on Pg. 217
- Inborn temperament differences influence:
- How children learn
- How they construe their environments
- How other people in the environment respond to them
- How they compare themselves to other children
- What kinds of environment they choose
- How they manipulate environments once they choose them
- Initial dispositions in infancy gradually gain strength and scope and become more cognitively
and socially elaborated over time
SIX MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENTAL ELABORATION: HOW TEMPERAMENT
DIMENSIONS DEVELOP INTO PERSONALITY TRAITS
Temperamental differences impact what children learn and how
Learning Process
they learn it, which contributes to the formation of personality
traits
Temperamental differences elicit different reactions from the
Environmental elicitation
environment, which may reinforce the initial differences
Temperamental differences influence how children understand
Environmental construal
and process information about their environments, shaping their
experiences of the environments
Temperamental differences impact how children compare
Social and temporal
themselves with others and with themselves over time, which
comparisons
shapes their developing self-concepts
Temperamental differences influence how children choose
Environmental selection
environments, which in turn influences the development of
personality traits. Children may choose environments that are
consistent with their temperaments to begin with, reinforcing
dispositions that are already present
Once children’s self-concepts are firmly established, they will
Environmental manipulation
alter, modify, or manipulate their environments to match,
confirm, or elaborate the temperamental dispositions they
already have
The Origins of Traits: Genes and Environments
-
-
-
-
University of Minnesota study of identical twins raised apart:
o Coincidences between MZA (monozygotic twins that were raised apart): May be
more than chance because of the sheer number and detail of similarities observed
o Hint that a person’s genetic makeup is a major factor in determining his or her
standing on personality trait dimensions
The Logic of Twin and Adoption Studies
McAdams: everyone’s personality traits are products of the interaction of our genes and our
environments
o Genes cannot have impact on behaviour if there is no environment within which the
person can act
o Environments can have no impact on behaviour If there are no genes out of which to
make the person in the first place
Sensible question: what are the relative contributions of genetic and environment in resulting
in the variability in people’s personalities in a group of individuals – why is it that people
differ
For height:
o 90% of variability in the group comes from genetic differences among people
o 10% is associated with environmental differences (nutritional levels and social class)
- The HQ for height is noncontroversial
- Height is determined by the working of many different genes, i.e. there is no
single gene that matches cleanly to height
Heritability Quotient
= “A HQ estimates the proportion of variability in a given characteristic that can be attributed to
genetic differences between people”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Differences or variability among a group of people, it does not apply to any particular
person
Depends dramatically on characteristics of the population to begin with
An HQ tells us how much of the observed variation is associated with genetic variation
among people in the group
Heritability refers not to an individual but to accounting for variance in groups
o Variance in groups is due to many factors within a group
Humans are highly similar to one another genetically
o Many human genes – about 90% are identical from one person to another
o In discussing heritability, we are focusing on exclusively on the 10% of the human
genome that vary
Methods through which scientists have sought to make heritability estimates for personality
traits:
o Twins and adopted children studies
Formula for the heritability quotient:
o Subtract the DZ correlation from the MZ correlation and then multiply by 2, i.e.
- HQ= 2×(rmz - rdz)
Adopted children studies:
o Researchers compare correlations between trait scores of: pairs of biological siblings
and pairs of non-biologically related siblings
Adoption studies:
o Locate the biologically related parents or siblings of adoptive children and administer
trait measures to them
o Any significant positive correlations between trait scores of adopted children and
biologically related relatives would have be due to genetic effects (since these
individuals did no share environments)
Behaviour genetics:
o The logic of twin and adoption studies undergirds research in the field of behaviour
genetics
o A scientific discipline with roots in psychology
o Explores the empirical evidence concerning the relative influences of genetic and
environmental factors in accounting for variability in human behaviour
Heritability Estimates of Traits
The research shows that virtually all personality traits that can be reliably measured are at
least moderately heritable
A twins study in Sweden obtained heritability estimates of slightly more than 50% for both
Extraversion and Neuroticism
o i.e. about half of the variation in trait scores can be attributed to genetic differences
between people
University of Minnesota obtained heritability estimates (greater than 40%) for the traits of
leadership, mastery, traditionalism, stress reaction, absorption, alienation, well-being,
avoidance of harm, and aggressiveness
Phlomin, Chipuer, and Loehlin (1990) review:
o On average, across diverse personality dimension, MZ correlations are about 0.50
and DZ correlations are about 0.30
o These twin correlations suggest that genetic influence on personality is significant and
substantial
o HQ = 40%
Table 6.3 on Pg. 223 Jang, Livesley & Vernon, (1996)
MZ Twins
.41
.55
.58
.41
.37
-
DZ Twins
.18
.23
.21
.26
.27
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Range for MZ twins: +.37 to +.58
Range for DZ twins: +.18 to +.27
Jang’s et al.’s conclusion: heritabilities for the Big 5 traits were mainly in the 40-50% range
- Strongest heritability in this study: Openness to Experience
Later studies showed the not only do the Big 5 dimensions show substantial heritability but
that many of the smaller traits or facets also appear to be substantially heritable
Two puzzling findings:
1.
MZ correlations are more than twice as high as DZ correlations
MZ twins vs. DZ twins: Difference was bigger than expected
 This violates the conventional wisdom that “because MZ twins share 100%
common genes and DZ twins share 50% common genes, MZ twins should be
no more than twice as similar to one another as DZ twins”
 This conventional wisdom follows the assumption that genetic
variance should be additive
 Identical twins seem to be even more similar to each other than expected
2.
Studies of adoption yield significantly lower heritability estimates
Biological vs. Adoption siblings: Difference was smaller than expected
 If heredity is a major factor in determining traits, then we would expect that
biological siblings (50% common genes) should be significantly more similar
to each other than adoptive siblings (0% common genes)
 A number of adoption studies showed surprisingly small differences between
correlations, yielding heritability estimates around 20%
 Biological siblings are less similar to each other than expected
Explanation for the puzzling findings: Nonadditive genetic variance
- Genes do not influence traits in a linear, additive way, but rather combine and interact in a
“configural “ pattern
- Configural pattern: all components are essential and the absence of, or a change in any one
(i.e., any gene) can produce qualitative or a large quantitative change in the result
- In this sense, 50% is not much more than 0%
- Therefore, biological siblings are not very much more similar to each other than are adoptive
siblings
- The nonadditive genetic variance explains why siblings are so different
Emergenesis and nonadditive genetic effects:
- Emergenesis = “an emergent property of a configuration of genes or perhaps a configuration
of more basic traits that are themselves genetic in origin”
- The behavioural tendency is an emergent property of the pattern
- McAdams’s poker analogy: The value of your poker hand is determined by its unique
configuration of cards. The cards came from two other hands that did not have this unique
configuration (with the exception of MZ twins, every person is dealt a unique hand)
- i.e. certain behavioural tendencies can be emergent properties that come from
particular configurations of genes
Shared Environment
- University of Minnesota’s study: Personality Similarity in MZ Twins Reared Apart and
Together
Trait
MZ Together
MZ Apart
.58
.48
Well-being
.65
.56
Social potency
.51
.35
Achievement
.57
.29
Social closeness
.52
.61
Stress Reaction
.55
.48
Alienation
.43
.46
Aggression
.41
.50
Control
.55
.49
Harm Avoidance
.50
.53
Traditionalism1
.49
.61
Absorption
-
-
Mean Correlation
.52
.49
These correlations are very similar to the twin correlations for the Big 5 Traits (Table 6.3, Pg.
223)
MZ twins reared apart are just about as similar to each other as MZ twins reared together
(0.52 vs. 0.49)
Except for social closeness (0.57 vs. 0.29) the evidence for the effects of common
environment is sparse
Expectable pattern = MZ twins reared together would be even more similar to each other but
research repeatedly showed that growing up in the same family has little impact on
personality traits
The common environments experienced by the MZ twins raised together almost worth
nothing but there are exceptions
What are the few exceptions to the rule that shared environment has little impact on personality
traits?
1. Social closeness
 Traits having to do with intimacy and love for others may show family
environment effects
 But the trait of loneliness show NO effect of shared family environment
2. Religiousness
 Shows shared environment effects among adolescents
3. Juvenile delinquency
 Shows considerable influence of family environment
 Adult criminality does NOT
4. Severe maltreatment
 Child abuse and extraordinary neglect appear to have deleterious effects on
psychological development, which show up clearly in personality traits
Another evidence that shared environment has no impact on personality traits: Adoption studies
- Adoptive children show virtually no predictable similarity on traits to the members of the
families who adopt them
Eaves, Eysenck, and Martin (1989)’s study showed
-
For Extraversion: The correlation between adopted children and their biological mother >>
the correlation between these adopted children with their adoptive mothers
 r with biological mothers = 0.21
 r with adoptive mother = 0
Half of the variance in personality traits can be attributed to genetics, what accounts for the
remaining half of the variation that cannot be accounted for by genetic and family effects?
- Errors in traits measure scales
- Unexplained variation
- Even the most reliable index of Extraversion does not give you exactly the same score
for the same person from one day to the next
- Test-retest reliabilities of good trait measures may be between +.80 and +.90
 Really good but never perfect
- It is likely that some of that unexplained variance in traits is simply a function of error
in the measures
- 10-20% of the variance in scores for trait measures in any given sample is simply due
to the inherent imperfections in the measurement devices used
- Non-shared environment effects
 Many researchers now believe that non-shared environment effects much account for
the rest of the variance in personality traits
Definitions:
Shared environment effects
Non-shared environment
effects
-
-
= Those environmental influences that operate to make family
members alike. These would include various kinds of conditions
and experiences that different members of a family might share
and then might work to increase similarity among family
members
= Those environment influences that operate to make family
members unalike.
Non-Shared Environment
Just because people grow up in the same family, it does not follow that they experience the
family in the same way
 There are many factors within family environments that vary significantly across
family members
 A good example is birth order
Birth order:
 A major part of the first-born’s nonshared environment may be the exalted status of
being the oldest and smartest
 The second-born may need to find a comfortable niche in the family system, making
for a very different experience of family life
Frank Sulloway (1996) – Birth Order: a Non-shared Environmental effect
- Took the evolutionary viewpoint
- Children compete for parental investment in any family setting
- Sulloway gave historical examples
 Darwin (a later-born) launched a scientific revolution that defied the authority of the
church and many accepted scientific canons of the day
 Later-born scientists were 9 times more likely to support evolutionary perspectives
than were first-borns
Oldest children
-
-
Likely to identify stronger with the parents
Adopt traditional viewpoints of authority writ
large
Conservative and resist innovation
 But if the innovation begins to bear
fruit, they will catch on and then strive
to attain dominant positions in the new
status quo
Should be more dominant (E) and
Conscientious
Later-born
-
-
Must define themselves over and against the
dominant first-borns so that they can carve out
a niche that will bring them parental resources
More likely to adopt a rebellious and contrarian
attitude toward authority
More open to innovation and change
Should be more Open to experience
Adler’s Psychoanalytic theory:
- First-borns should be relatively conservative and power-oriented
- Second-borns should be rebellious, competitive, and sceptical of authority
Empirical research on personality traits and birth order has not produced many clear-cut findings
- Reason: because they correlate birth order with trait measures in samples of unrelated
individuals
A well-designed and important study: Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen (1999)
- Examined individuals within the same families
- Confirmed Sulloway’s claim
- Findings:
 First-borns: scored higher on achievement and conscientiousness
 Younger siblings: showed higher levels of rebelliousness and agreeableness
Problems with these studies: Third-variable problem
- Possible confounds and things to consider:
 Sex
 Social class
 Ethnicity
 And many others (Sibship size, Family education and income, Age of parent, Spacing,
Culture, Immigrant status)
Rowe (1999) – Six Categories of non-shared family effects that have impacts on personality traits
1.
Injuries or damage sustained by the fetus before birth
Perinatal trauma
2.
E.g. physical injuries, winning the raffle prize at the state
Accidental events
fair
3.
Includes birth order and birth spacing
Family constellation
4.
Alliances of various sorts, competing and cooperating,
Sibling mutual interaction
adopting a wide range of social roles
5. Unequal parental treatment Each parent having their own “favourite”
6.
Influences outside the family
-
E.g. Teachers, peers
Non-shared environment research: ideas are many but good data are few
 There is not yet much research to support the claims directly
Dunn and Plomin (1990)
- Figure 6.2, Pg. 230*
Non-shared Environment
Error
Genetic
Shared Environment
-
= 35%*
= 20%
= 40% (should be updated to 50%)
= 5%
*This figure for non-shared environment comes from a process of elimination
 100% - 40% (genetic) – 20% (error) – 5% (shared environment) = 35%
 This 35% can be thought of as unexplained variance
- We do not know what those environments are or how they work
 The 35% must be attributable to nonshared environment effects because there is
nothing left to attribute it to!
How Genes Shape Environments
Thinking of genes and environment as two separated things is misleading since genes and
environments work together
- The collaboration between the two is not fully reciprocal
 Environment cannot alter genes but genes can shape environments
- Genes alter and shape people’s construes of their environments
- Genes shape what environments people will choose to experience
- Environments cannot alter genes although it can change behaviours
 Environments can alter brain development and functioning, but it cannot alter genes
Behaviour genetics studies: Environments themselves are heritable
- MZ reared together report their environments to be more highly similar than do DZ twins
reared together
- Caspi: “What appear to be stable and enduring features of the environment, may be a
reflection of stable, enduring, and partially heritable individual differences in personality
traits”
-
Heritability Increases with Age
Elkins, McGue, & Iacono (1997): Influence of Genetic differences on Perceptions of
environments Increase with Age
- Examined how MZ and DZ twins in two different age groups (11-year-old and 17-year-old)
described their family environments
- Findings:
 MZ twins were more similar than DZ twins in their reports
- This suggests adolescents’ perceptions of family environments are heritable
 The 17-year-olds showed significantly higher heritabilities on family dimensions
than did the 11-year-olds, especially in the realm of father-son relationship
- Explanation for findings:
 Their partially heritable personality tendencies take on more power in shaping their
perceptions of their environments as they grow older
 Older children have more responsibilities  genes have more control over the envir.
Plomin and Bergman (1991)
- Socialization environments measures are confounded with genetic variation
- Researchers typically measure the environment (what is “out there”) through the reports of
people who are experiencing them
- Researchers did not take into account how a person reports her environment is influenced by
her own genotype
Scarr and McCartney (1983)- Three ways that one’s genotype may shape the environments that
ultimately shape personality traits
- Evocative and passive influences are likely to predominate in childhood and early
adolescence, but the active influence will intensify as the person grows older
- People respond to a child according to his genotype
- E.g. Easy babies evoke better caregiving than somber and
Evocative Influence
irritable ones
- Biological parents provide an environment for the child that
is compatible with their own genotype
i.e. parental genotypes determine the children’s environment
Passive Influence
- E.g. Parents who are genetically inclined to read buy more
books for their children
- The direct selection of and search for environments that fit
one’s genotype
Active Influence
- Genotype drives niche choosing
- E.g. an athletic girl joining a softball team
- Active influence on environmental selection driven by genotypes explains why heritability
may increase with age
 E.g. heritability estimates for religiousness are higher among adults than they are
among adolescents
 Moving from adolescent to adulthood, genotypes begin to exert more influence and
shared environments begin to exert less influence
 Without parental control, adults fall back on the genotypic tendencies that were there
all along
-
Genes × Environment Interactions: New Findings From Neuroscience
Problem: we know that genes must exert substantial influence on traits development, but we
do not know which genes and how
No single genes is identified to be linked up directly with particular traits
Genetic influence on traits involves many different genes operating in complex and
contingent ways, over time, with development, and environmental input
Serotonin 5-HT Transporter Gene (5-HTTP)
- The 5-HTTP is a gene that is involved in producing the protein molecules that are responsible
for removing serotonin from the synaptic cleft between neurons
- Each person has two alleles of the serotonin 5-HTTP gene
- The SHORT alleles appear to be linked to less efficient reuptake of serotonin in the
synaptic cleft
- Having at least one short allele for 5-HTTP may be a risk factor for anxiety and depression
Lesch et al. (1996)’s finding:

-
People who carried one or two short alleles of this gene scored higher on
Neuroticism and lower on Agreeableness compared to people with two long copies
Implications of Lesch study: Less efficient reuptake of serotonin  traits as anxiety,
depressiveness and disagreeableness
 Lesch’s study could not be replicated by some
Caspi’s Longitudinal Study: Having at least one short allele of 5-HTTP leads to higher levels of
depression only when combined with negative environmental inputs
- Examined genetic patterns, life history and depressive symptoms
- Findings (33% vs. 17%):
 33% of those who carried at least one short allele of the 5-HTTP gene AND who
report at least 4 highly stressful life events showed symptoms of depression
compared to only 17% of subjects with comparable levels of life stress but who
carried two long alleles for this genes
- Neither having the short allele of the 5-HTTP gene nor experiencing high levels of
environmental stress predicted depression but the interaction of the two factors was a strong
predictor
- Life stress interacts with the short 5-HTTP to cause excessive activation of the amygdala 
depression and anxiety
Kaufman (2004)
- The expression of short allele of 5-HTTP gene is moderated by two environmental factors:
- The level of abuse experienced by children
- Level of stress experienced by their (abusing) parents
Fox, Hane and Pine (2007)
- Variants in the 5-HTTP gene combined with low social support in parents to predicted
behavioural inhibition in 7-year-old children
- Children showed consistent pattern of shy and inhibited behaviour only when:
- The children has a short copy of the 5-HTTP gene AND
- When their mothers experienced low levels of social support
 Demonstrated that neither the gene itself nor the environmental stressor alone
predicted the behavioural pattern
 Instead it was the interaction of the two that yielded significant effect (i.e. Stressed
parents with low social support × Children 5-HTTP gene)
- For many children, it take both a genetic vulnerability and a stressful environment to produce
excessive shyness and behavioural inhibition
Antisocial behaviour in adolescents:
- Scientific fact: behavioural patterns linked to antisocial behaviour in adolescents have
substantial genetic underpinning
- Environmental factors must have some effect since heritability for antisocial behaviour is less
than 100%
 Although difficult to identify environmental factors that explain the variance in
antisocial behaviour
Parental conflict and adolescent’s anti-social behaviour longitudinal study:
- 11-year-old twins were asked to report on:
 How often their parents criticized them

-
-
-
The extent to which their parents trusted them to make their own decisions, etc. (Pg.
234)
Then measured anti-social behaviours 3 years later
Findings:
 Genetic influences was strong, however differences still existed between twins
 In those twin pairs that have largest discrepancies in antisocial behaviour, parental
conflict at age 11 proved to be a strong predictor of the difference
 Among identical twin pairs who showed dramatic differences in antisocial behaviour
at age 14, those individuals who:
- Reported high levels parental conflict at 11 showed high levels of antisocial
behaviours at 14
- Reported low levels of parent conflict showed low levels of antisocial
behaviours at 14
Importance of finding:
 Certain genotypes combine with certain environments to produce individual
differences in antisocial behaviour for certain individuals
Note: the gene × environment effects identified showed up only for certain twin pairs
 Dispositional traits may develop in different ways for different people
The specific ways that genes combine with environments to produce a given trait may vary from one
person to another:
Aron and Aron (1997)
- Two main developmental varieties that lead to the end result of an introverted and anxious
adult:
- Behavioural inhibition and a lifelong, genetically mediated temperamental
tendency toward shyness and negative affectivity
- Negative childhood experience
- i.e. either born that way or made that way
Two different kinds of children: Dandelions and Orchids (Boyce & Ellis, 2005)
- Dandelions: grow into their predictable form regardless of the environmental contingencies
 Designed to follow their genetic endowment closely
 Regardless of context, dandelions manage to survive “in the middle” (not necessarily
the best or worst)
 Dandelions = children high low stress reactivity
- Orchids: extremely sensitive to environmental conditions
 Depending on context, orchids can turn out to show the best or the worst outcomes
 Orchids = children with high stress reactivity
Boyce & Ellis (2005)- Stress Reactivity
- Stress reactivity = the tendency to show a wide range of strong physiological responses,
such as great activation of the amygdale and greater secretion of cortisol, in response to threat
or challenge in the environment
 Stress reactivity is a biological sensitivity to context
- Higher stress reactivity is always bad? NO, not necessarily 
- High biological sensitivity to context “increases adaptive competence in highly stressful
environments by augmenting vigilance to threats and in highly protective environment by
increasing susceptibility to social resources and ambient support”
Change and Complexity
-
-
Differential continuity is very high across the adult years
Heritability of traits also supports a continuity view
Traits are “simple”: they convey clear, straightforward, and non-conditional behavioural
tendencies in people
 Although it does not predict any given behaviour in any given situation, we single out
one discrete personality dimension and examine its manifestations across a range of
situations
Traits are relatively stable over time and predict broad behavioural tendencies across
situations and over time
Three major points:
1. Despite the strong evidence for differential continuity, personality traits can be shown to
change over time
2. Traits are organized in different patterns, and different patterns change in different ways
over time
3. Those aspects of psychological individuality that appear most likely to change dramatically
over time may not be traits at all
Different Meanings of Change
Roberts, Caspi, and Moffitt (2001)- An 8-year Longitudinal Study
- Even when test-retest correlations on traits are relatively high for the sample, most people
show substantial change in at least one in five traits over that time frame
 i.e. Some people change in some traits more than other people do
Changing for the better: Personality Development
- Associated with notions such as “maturation”, “adaptation”, “self-actualization”, etc.
Gordon Allport: Personality development should ideally move in the direction of 5 criteria for
maturity:
1. Emotional security and the regulation of behaviour by social rules designed to reduce
interpersonal friction and obtain social rewards
2. The capacity for investing the self in significant life projects and endeavours rather than
being preoccupied with immediate needs
3. The capacity for compassionate and intimate relations with others
4. A realistic appraisal of self and others
5. The establishment of a personally derived philosophy of life
Staudinger and Kessler (in press)
- Defined personality maturity as:
 Deep and broad insights into the self and the world
 The ability to regulate emotions
 A concern for the well-being of others and the world
Studying lifespan personality change: Cross-sectional vs. Longitudinal studies
Compare data from individuals in two or more discrete age groups
- Different age groups sampled at the same time
Cross-sectional studies
- Do not study change and development directly (can be due to
cohort effect)
- Disadvantage: cohort effect
Longitudinal studies
-
-
-
Follow a single sample of individuals over time, comparing scores at
different age points
Cohort effect: refers to a finding in psychological research whose cause lies within the
particular historical cohort being studied
 Cross-sectional design is subjected to this effect and thus, one cannot really draw the
conclusion that any difference found is due to pure developmental change
 Different cohorts (since they were born in different years) experienced different
historical events and represent different historical generations
Trait Change in the Adult Years
Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies do NOT show dramatic shifts in personality over
the course of the adult lifespan
Gradual and systematic changes in all of the Big Five trait domains can be found
Overall, studies show that through early to middle adulthood:
 Decline: Extraversion, Neuroticism & Openness to experience
 Rise: Conscientiousness & Agreeableness
Late teens and early 20’s = the most important and most dynamic period personality
development
McCrae et al. (1999) – A cross-sectional study in Five Nations (German, Portuguese, Italian,
Croatian, and South Korean)
- Findings: Higher levels of E, N and O and lower levels of A and C among college-age adults
compared with middle-age adults
Srivastava, John, Gosling, & potter (2003)
- Scores on A and C increased through early and middle adulthood
- Scores on N for women but NOT for men decreased across the same span
Donnellan, Conger, and Burzette (2007) – Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
- Administered the MPQ
- Same group of subjects 10 years apart (age 17 and age 27)
- Findings:
 Significant increase in measures of achievement and constraint
 Significant decrease in aggression, alienation, and stress reaction
- What was one interesting finding in this study?
 Those individuals who at age 17 already showed high levels of social maturity
(Conscientiousness) and low scores on the factor of negative emotionality
(Neuroticism) tended not to change much over the following 10 years
 They reached a mature level earlier and this further change was not necessary
Longitudinal studies that paralleled cross-sectional findings:
Watson and Walker (1996)
Decline in N as subjects moved toward middle
adulthood
Mortimer, Finch, and Kumka (1982)
Decline in sociability (E) as subjects moved
toward middle adulthood
Jesser (1983)
Longitudinal increases in achievement (C)
McGue, Bacon, and Kykken (1993)
See below
McGue, Bacon and Kykken (1993)- A 10-year Longitudinal Twin study
- Average age of twins at the beginning ~ 20 years old
- Findings:
 Unexpected result: Did not find decrease in Extraversion over the 10-year period
 Did find decline in stress reaction (i.e. decline in N), absorption (i.e. O) and
aggression (i.e. increase in A)
 Found increase in achievement and control (i.e. C)
Helson and Klohnen (1998)
- Longitudinal study, traced from age 27 to 43
- Found decrease in N and increases in C and positive affect
What is the common finding of longitudinal studies of adult development?
The development toward greater levels of competence, autonomy, and responsibility with
increasing maturity in adulthood
- Two especially influential studies: The AT&T Study and the Mills College Longitudinal
Study
The AT&T Longitudinal Study
- Followed 266 male candidates over 20 years
- Started when the subjects were 20 years old and ended when they were 40 years old
- Measurements: put Ss through behavioural simulations, interviews, administered cognitive,
personality, attitudinal and biographical measures
- Major focus: to explore career and personal development among managers in corporate
America
- Findings:
 Interesting finding: There was a strong drop in measures of ambition over the 20-year
span (after 8 years in the company, they expressed more realistic views of their
career)
 Measures of autonomy: substantial increase
- Increase in autonomy came at the cost of interpersonal relationship 
 Decreased in measures of friendliness and empathy for others
Ravenna Helson - The Mills Longitudinal Study
- 140 women (Mills College) from college graduation to age 61
- Interesting cohort because of significant historical events, like Women movements
(American society think women should forgo careers to get married and have a family life)
- Also collect husband-reports
- Finding:
 From college graduation to age 43: Increased scores in responsibility, self-control,
and responsiveness to others
 From 40s into 50s: the women became increasingly less dependent and self-critical
and increasingly more confident and decisive
- Also found increases in intellectuality, logical analysis and tolerance for
ambiguity
- Over time, these women became increasingly more comfortable with their self-conceptions
and believe more strongly that their accomplishments reflected well their basic needs and
aspirations
Gutmann (1987) – Sex differences in developmental trajectories
- Early parental period:
 Women = more communal (nurturance)
 Men = more agentic (dominance and competence)
- Late parental period:
 Women: become increasingly agentic
 Men: become increasingly communal
Wink and Helson (1993)
- Provided support for Gutmann’s (1987) finding
- Compared Mills women and their husband in the early parental (age 27) and postparental
(age 52)
- Findings:
 Women scored lower on “competence” measures than their husbands at age 27
 But at age 52, they scored about the same
- This is the result of changing gender roles and historical events on personality traits
☼Brent Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006) – A meta-analysis of the personality trait
scores across the life course☼
- Meta-analysis of 92 longitudinal studies
- Spanned the years from age 10 to age 70
- General findings: Increase in C and A, decrease in N
- Findings: Figure 6.5 Pg. 243
 For Conscientiousness
- Increase steadily from age 20 to age 60
 Increase in Agreeableness is not smooth
- Average of A creep up very slowly until about age 50
- From age 50 to 60: sharp increase in Agreeableness
 For Emotional stability (reverse of N)
- Strong increase up to age 40, and then levels off
 For Extraversion:
- Social dominance: Strong increase from age 10 to 30
- Social vitality: Decrease after age 50
 For Openness to experience:
- Increases up to age 20
- Decreases after age 50
Neyer and Lehnart (2007)
- Shown that changes in personality traits over time tend to reflect changes in peer and family
relationship
- The transition to serious romantic relationship is associated with:
 Decrease in Neuroticism
 Increase in self-esteem and Conscientiousness
What did Mroczek and Spiro (2007) found to be a predictor for mortality for older men?
High average levels of Neuroticism as well as increases in Neuroticism over time tended to
predict higher levels of mortality for older men
- Steady increase in Neuroticism = no good for old men
- (need to consider average score and changes of those scores over time)
Summary:
- Longitudinal studies of adult personality development show change in mean levels of
personality traits, at least through late midlife
- Continued decrease in N through the late 70s
- As people move from early to middle adulthood: become more comfortable with themselves,
decrease self-criticism, negative affects, and N
- Positive affect appear to rise even when Extraversion scores tend drop gradually
- Adults: more responsible, self-confident, autonomous and Conscientious
 Increase in self-confident is especially apparent in well-educated women
- People tend to feel somewhat better about themselves as they grow older, at least into middle
age
Patterns of Traits over Time (Typological research)
Jack Block- Ego Control and Ego resilience
- Pioneered the California Q-sort and other measures to chart developmental patterns in adult
lives
- Advocated the use of expert observers (instead of traditional self-reports) who evaluate
overall patterns of traits in people’s lives
Q-sort
- 100 statements
- Advantage: each of the 100 items are grouped into one of the nine stacks with other items
that are relatively equally characteristic of the same individual
Why is the Q-sort so appealing?
 Enables researchers to examine patterns of personality traits within the person
 Comparing Q-sorts of the same individual over time allows the researcher to examine
the longitudinal coherence of these patterns
- How the Q-sort works:
 Measurements collected at several time points in life  one separate file for each
time point in life
 For each file, trained psychologists composed a Q-sort for each participant and
arrange the 100 personality descriptors into nine groups based on the information on
the person contained in the file
- Block identified clusters of individuals manifesting similar patterns of traits over time
- Each cluster represented a personality type, specified in terms of an individual’s displaying a
particular pattern of traits that evolve in particular fashion over time
 E.g. The “belated adjusters” personality type are males that show a pattern of
rebelliousness in adolescent but then develop in the direction of conscientiousness and
prosocial behaviour
Block’s Two Central Dimensions of Personality
1.
Ego Control
- The extent to which a person typically modified the expression of impulses
- A continuum: Undercontrolled  Overcontrolled
- Undercontrollers =
 Cannot inhibit desires and impulses
 Cannot delay gratification for longer-term rewards
 Become enthusiastic about many different things in their lives, but their
involvements are fleeting and frustrating
 Impromptu rather than planned
-
2.
 Distractible and exploratory
Overcontrollers =
 Especially conforming and restrained
 Their inhibitions sometimes keep them from spontaneous joy and creativity
Medium level of ego control is the best for mental health
Ego Resilience
- The capacity to modify one’s typical level of ego control – in either directions – to
adapt to the demands of a given situation
- The more the better
- People with high ego resilience: resourceful and flexible and able to adapt to a wide
range of life challenges
In Funder and Block’s (1989) study, what factors were found to be the best predictors for delay
gratification behaviours?
1. Ego control
2. Ego resiliency
3. Intelligence (IQ)
Norman Hann (1981)
- Analyzed longitudinal studies for developmental trends in six basic personality factors:
 Cognitively invested
- Verbally fluent, intellectual, philosophically inclined, achievement-oriented
 Emotionally under/overcontrolled
- Highly volatile and dramatic vs. Calma nd restricted
 Open/closed self
- Self-aware and insightful vs. Conventional and repressive
 Nurturant/hostile
- Warm and responsive vs. Cold and suspicious
 Under/overcontrolled heterosexual
- Uninhibited vs. Inhibited sexual expression
 Self-confident
- Findings:
 The Q-sort scores on these dimensions were stable for both men and women but more
stable for women
 Over time, both men and women become more cognitively invested, more open to
self, more nurturant, and more self-confident
 Sexual expressiveness peaked in late adolescence, drop to lower levels at age 30 and
then rise again to surprisingly strong levels when they reached their 40s
York and John – “The Four Faces of Eve”
- Women’s personality at midlife
- York and John argued personality types should be defined as prototypes rather than discrete
categories of traits
- They analyzed graduates of Mills College when the women were in their 40s
- Used “Inverse factor analysis”: Individuals, rather than variables, are intercorrelated across
a range of personality characteristics
- Person-centred rather than variable-centred
-
The “Four faces”
-
Strong ambition in life with interpersonal warmth and sensitivity
Highest levels of ego resiliency of all four types
Relatively low levels of ego control
Of all the types, most flexible and adaptive in expressing feelings, needs
and desires
i.e. Spontaneous and uninhibited in their expression of impulses but they
knew well when to hold themselves back and when to let go
Score high on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to experience
Traditional
-
High level of ego control
Score high on Conscientiousness and Agreebleness
Prone to feeling of guilt
Conflicted
-
Lowest level of ego resiliency
Highest levels of Neuroticism
Appear less satisfied with themselves than the other types
Anxious, hostile and aloof
Assured
-
The most emotionally stable
Narcissistic and interpersonally detached
Most confident, rational, productive, and sceptical
Relatively high levels of ego resiliency and Conscientiousness
Lowest levels of Neuroticism
Least likely to suffer from guilt and doubt
Least likely to engage in fantasy and introspection
Individuated
-
Personality typologies organize groups of trait dimensions into patterns that show both continuity
and change over time
- Provide a more holistic, person-centred understanding of human behaviour and experience
than is possible through the examination of single, independent traits
- Typological research provide support for both change and continuity of personality
-
-
-
What Else Might Change?
Individual differences in traits show remarkable longitudinal stability
 Stability due to:
- Heritabilities of traits
- The ways which genotypes contribute to the selection of environments that are
consistent with those genotypes themselves
Happiness Over the Adult Lifespan
Most people report that they are at lease moderately happy with their lives
Components of well-being (not a personality trait)
 Positive affect
 Negative affect
 Life satisfaction
Like traits, there is evidence for both continuity and change in well-being over the human
lifespan
-
-
Well-being can fluctuate from one moment from time to time but it fluctuates around a set
point
 Day-today changes in well-being parallel shifting in success and failures in our lives
 But each of us tends to return to our own set point eventually
Evidence for set point: despite fluctuations, individual differences in well-being show
considerable differential continuity over time
There are evidence that well-being may be inheritable
What factors would prevent a person from returning to the set point?
1. Divorce
2. Prolonged unemployment
Exert strong and long-term effects on well-being: these setbacks are so severe that they may alter a
person’s basic set point for happiness
- Macrosocial variables (e.g. race, sex, social have) have very little impact on overall wellbeing
- Income and education account for only 2% of the variance in well-being
- Other predictors of well-being: being married, have strong religious convictions show small
association
- Lykken and Tellegen: Happiness is mainly the luck of the draw (in your genes)
Do overall levels of happiness change over the lifespan?
- Mixed picture
Ingelhart (1990)
- Cross-sectional examination
- Compared ratings made by young, midlife, and elderly adults in 16 countries
- Findings:
 Some nations showed decrease in happiness among their oldest cohorts but some
showed increase, some showed a dip in happiness in midlife
Mroczek and Kolarz – age 25 to 74
- Finding:
 General pattern: positive affect tends to go up and negative affect tends to go down
across the age span they studied
 Sex differences:
- Men scored high on Extraversion reported high levels of positive affect at all
ages
- Score of negative affect goes down for men over lifespan but women did not
show age-related decrease
- Married men: mainly for married men that an inverse relation between age and
negative affect was found (i.e. old married man showed especially low levels
of negative affect)
Significant events in life that change people’s personality? NO! These beliefs are mistaken.
- Personality is very hard to change, takes a lot of effort and time
- Sure, people change, but not so much their traits
 Significant personality change may occur, but that change may not be captured in a
person’s trait scores since the very definition of trait includes the assumption of
longitudinal consistency
 Psychological individuality that change are not traits
- E.g. psychotherapists targets specific problems, not traits
Caspi and Moffitt (1993)
- If anything, major life changes sometimes accentuate or consolidate the trait tendencies that
people have to begin with
- Paradoxical effect: significant event affirm people of who they are and behaved in the first
place
What else might change?
- Definition not traits but the other 2 levels of personality
- Can change: Characteristic desires and wants, goals and motives, life plans and projects,
values and beliefs, coping strategies and defence mechanisms, pattern of interests,
developmental concerns, etc.
 These are features of a person’s unique adaptation to the world at any given point in
time
 But none of them is well expressed as a trait
 There are more to personality than traits