Personality dynamics

Abstract

Traditionally, personality psychology has been understood as the study of stability in people’s dispositions. However, a different strand of personality research has highlighted the importance of acknowledging and explaining the meaningful intraindividual variation in human thoughts, feelings, and behavior across different contexts and time. The goal of this paper is to review this strand, highlight current research, and outline key questions for future research. We summarize historical perspectives on the dynamic processes underlying the emergence of personality within and across individuals (e.g. the pioneering theorizing of Allport; the person-situation debate), recent theoretical and empirical advances in incorporating dynamic processes into the definition and assessment of personality (e.g., the study of personality states; dynamic approaches to personality including Cognitive Affective Personality System [CAPS], Whole Trait Theory, the Knowledge-and-Appraisal Personality Architecture [KAPA] framework, and Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation [NIPS]), and new directions in current research (e.g. idiographic approaches; understanding variability in narrative identity). We end with suggestions for future research.

Modeling dynamic personality theories in a continuous‐time framework: An illustration

“…Average tendencies in behavior and long-term consequences can be well predicted with personality traits (Epstein, 1979(Epstein, , 1983Soto, 2019), and momentary instantiations of behavior can be well predicted with situational factors (e.g., Fleeson, 2001;Horstmann et al, 2021b;Mischel & Shoda, 1995;Roemer et al, 2020;Sherman et al, 2015;Tett & Guterman, 2000;Tett et al, 2021). This evidence has led to a "synthetic resolution" (Fleeson & Noftle, 2009) of the person-situation debate (for an overview, see Jayawickreme et al, 2021). Theories of personality must contain stable (trait) and variable (state) aspects of personality.…”

“…These characteristic patterns of behavior are described as if…then patterns; if in situation A, then behavior B. According to CAPS, personality represents interindividual differences in these specific if…then ‐patterns (Jayawickreme et al, 2021). This theory therefore highlights the importance of situational appraisal and affect as an antecedent of momentary behavior.…”

Do people agree on how they and others are acting? Examining the degree of target–observer and observer–observer agreement about current behavior as it changes across situations.

“…Second, determining the level of agreement about behavior and changes in behavior is vital to dynamic theories of personalities (e.g., Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Fournier et al, 2022; Jayawickreme, Fleeson, et al, 2021; Jayawickreme, Blackie, et al, 2021; Quintus et al, 2021; Rauthmann et al, 2015; Tett & Guterman, 2000; Wrzus et al, 2021). For such approaches to be viably tested, both self- and observer reports of momentary behavior and changes in those reports must be valid.…”

“…Because states are not concrete, rely on subjective judgments, and are reported by the actors themselves, there is reasonable doubt that they accurately represent actual behavior. Given the critical importance of ESM for the testing of current theories of personality dynamics (Horstmann & Ziegler, 2020; Jayawickreme, Fleeson, et al, 2021), it is important to provide evidence that individuals can accurately report their ongoing behavior.…”

The concert of personality: Explaining personality functioning and coherence by personality systems interactions

“…Rather, it needs to be complemented with an approach that defines elements of personality other than trait factors and analyzes how these elements relate to each other. (e.g., DeYoung, 2015; Fajkowska, 2015; Kuhl, 2000a; Read et al, 2017; Tops et al, 2021; see Kuper et al, 2021; Jayawickreme, Fleeson et al, 2021, for overviews). PSI theory is a specific DPA theory that seeks the “cement” of personality in a nomothetic causal network of interacting personality systems.…”