Core and Surface Characteristics for the Description and Theory of Personality Differences and Development

Abstract

Individual differences in personality are often described on the basis of a small set of dimensional core characteristics that are commonly defined as largely consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions across time and situations. Some theoretical approaches even consider them to provide the biologically founded basis for individual differences in so‐called surface characteristics such as self‐related evaluations, social attitudes, values, goals or interests, which are commonly hypothesized to be less stable or more environmentally malleable than core characteristics. We examine these hypotheses by reviewing findings about potential core and surface characteristics on the basis of four criteria: (i) level of stability in individual differences; (ii) level of heritability; (iii) direction of causation; and (iv) shared genetic variance. The results from our review call into serious question the labelling of some sets of constructs as either core or surface characteristics of personality. Although certain dimensions—often labelled as basic traits (e.g. extraversion)—are systematically linked to more specific characteristics (e.g. social attitudes and interests), the so‐called basic traits do not appear to provide an essential basis (i.e. the more stable and genetically anchored source) for these characteristics. We argue for more integrative models of personality in adulthood. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Job crafting towards strengths and interests: The effects of a job crafting intervention on person–job fit and the role of age.

“…Dawis (1991) defines interests as "specific activities and objects through which to attain values and meet JOB CRAFTING TOWARDS STRENGTHS AND INTERESTS 6 needs" (p. 883). Similarly, Kandler, Zimmermann, and McAdams (2014) refer to interests as objects and activities into which people are motivated to invest their energy and time. In line with these definitions, we conceptualize interests as essential features of one's identity that serve to define the person (Holland, 1997;McCrae & Costa, 2008), including motives, needs, and values.…”

Self‐esteem Is Mostly Stable Across Young Adulthood: Evidence from Latent STARTS Models

“…By contrast, surface characteristics (e.g., self‐esteem) are more open to social and contextual information, thus evidencing less stability across time. Even though the often‐used clear differentiation between trait and state characteristics may not hold that easily (Kandler et al, ), there is some indication that self‐related constructs are actually less stable and more contextually amenable. In this sense, experimental and daily diary studies have used self‐esteem as an indicator of momentary self‐evaluation (Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, & van Aken, ; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, ).…”

Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of self-esteem

“…Big Five traits and self-esteem have been conceptualized as core and surface characteristics and it has been argued that core characteristics develop prior to and are associated with surface characteristics. Moreover, surface characteristics might be more strongly connected to the social context (Kandler, Zimmermann, & McAdams, 2014). Further, according to the New Big Five model postulated by McAdams and Pals (2006) dispositional traits (e.g., Big Five traits), characteristic adaptations (e.g., self-esteem), and the social ecology of everyday life (e.g., romantic relationships) are connected reciprocally where dispositional traits are bi-directionally linked to characteristic adaptations and everyday life and characteristic adaptations are most strongly linked to daily behavior.…”