Towards an Integrative Model of Sources of Personality Stability and Change

Abstract

There is now compelling evidence that people’s typical patterns of thinking, feeling, striving, and behaving are both consistent and malleable. Therefore, researchers have begun to examine the distinct sources of personality stability and change. In this article, we discuss traditional classifications of sources, review key findings, and highlight limitations and open questions in research on personality stability and change. We conclude by describing an integrative model and by outlining important directions for future research.

The joint power of personality and motivation dynamics for occupational success: Bridging two largely separated fields

“…Such findings expand recent findings on the changeability of traits in general (e.g. Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2018; Schwaba & Bleidorn, 2017; Wagner et al., 2020) to reflect a broader perspective that illustrates the long-term stability and change of expectancy beliefs as well. The transitional phase from early to middle adulthood appears to be highly sensitive to changes in both constructs, with change patterns that roughly resemble maturation in “core” personality traits such as emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008) as well as expectancy beliefs such as intellectual self-concept and occupational self-efficacy, both of which became more positive across time.…”

“…It has been argued that the successful accomplishment of developmental tasks and social roles may provide the content for this desire and thus help to fulfill the first condition in the framework (Huttemann et al., 2014). This is in line with the best-established evidence to date, which highlights the functions of social role investment and developmental task fulfillment as key sources for trait changes (for an overview, see Wagner et al., 2020). In the occupational context, the desire to become more successful, earn more money, or be a better leader could trigger trait changes toward becoming more diligent, assertive, or careful.…”

“…Although the framework of self-regulated personality development has not yet been empirically tested, research over the last two decades has been able to support some of the components described above and may be able to help integrate others: Research has robustly illustrated that substantial personality trait change can be observed, particularly in the phase from early to middle adulthood, with people becoming increasingly more mature (Roberts et al., 2006; Wagner et al., 2020). In accordance with the assumed mechanisms, taking on new occupational roles and investing effort in these roles has been found to be related to lasting personality trait change (Denissen et al., 2014; Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007; Roberts et al., 2003).…”

A Latent State‐Trait analysis of global self‐esteem: A reconsideration of its state‐like component in an organizational setting

“…For example, it is likely that state GSE may be more amenable to change and thus, may ultimately represents a good target for short‐term organizational interventions. Intervening on state self‐esteem requires tackling the complexity of the person × environment (P‐E) relationship (Wagner et al, in press). Changes in self‐esteem often happens as a consequence of changes in life circumstances (Alessandri et al., 2016; Bleidorn & Schwaba, 2018), increases in individuals' competencies (Caprara et al., 2013), and experiences of social inclusion (Harris & Orth, in press; see Steyer et al., 2015 for a full perspective on how addressing sources of changes in states).…”

“…Changes in self‐esteem often happens as a consequence of changes in life circumstances (Alessandri et al., 2016; Bleidorn & Schwaba, 2018), increases in individuals' competencies (Caprara et al., 2013), and experiences of social inclusion (Harris & Orth, in press; see Steyer et al., 2015 for a full perspective on how addressing sources of changes in states). Thus, such an intervention should be focused on any of the two poles of the P‐E relationship (Wagner et al, in press), namely (a) the person , for example by offering training to develop individuals' work‐related competencies, and (b) the environment , for example by changing the individual's organizational role or unit. The point of these interventions would be that of increasing the amount of personal resources that the individual would be able to invest in his/her work.…”