essay about the importance of personality traits

How to Masterfully Describe Your Personality in an Essay: A Step-by-Step Guide 2023

Introduction

Step 1: self-reflection and introspection, step 2: identifying core values and beliefs, step 3: gathering evidence and examples.

• Step 4: Show, don't tell

Step 5: Structuring your essay effectively

Step 6: balancing self-awareness and humility, step 7: seeking feedback and editing.

Describing your personality in an essay is not simply an exercise in self-expression; it is a transformative process that allows you to artfully communicate and convey the intricate nuances of your character to the reader. By delving into the depths of your self-awareness, personal growth, and the values that serve as the compass guiding your actions and decisions, you embark on a journey of self-discovery and introspection. In this comprehensive step-by-step guide , we will navigate the intricacies of crafting a compelling personality description in your essay, providing you with the necessary tools to masterfully articulate your unique qualities, experiences, and perspectives.

At its core, the act of describing your personality in an essay is an opportunity to authentically showcase who you are. It is a platform to illuminate the multifaceted nature of your being, unveiling the layers that make you distinct and individual. Through self-reflection and introspection , you delve into the recesses of your soul, gaining a deeper understanding of your own personality traits and characteristics. This process of self-exploration allows you to unearth the strengths that define you and the weaknesses that provide opportunities for growth.

Identifying your core values and beliefs is another essential step in effectively describing your personality. By exploring your fundamental principles and ideals, you gain insight into the motivations behind your actions and the driving force behind your decisions . These values serve as the undercurrent that weaves together the fabric of your personality, giving coherence and purpose to your thoughts and behaviors. Understanding how your personality traits align with your core values enables you to articulate a more comprehensive and authentic depiction of yourself.

To breathe life into your personality description, it is crucial to gather evidence and examples that showcase your traits in action. Recall specific instances where your personality has manifested itself, and examine the behaviors, thoughts, and emotions that were present. By drawing on these concrete examples, you provide tangible proof of your personality claims, allowing the reader to envision your character in vivid detail.

However, it is not enough to simply tell the reader about your personality traits; you must show them through vivid and descriptive language. By employing sensory details and evocative storytelling, you paint a vibrant picture that engages the reader’s imagination. It is through this artful depiction that your personality comes to life on the page, leaving a lasting impression.

Crafting an effective structure for your essay is also paramount to conveying your personality in a coherent and engaging manner. A well-structured essay captivates the reader from the outset with an engaging introduction that sets the tone and grabs their attention. Organizing your essay around key personality traits or themes creates a logical progression of ideas, enabling a seamless flow from one aspect of your personality to the next. This careful structuring enhances the readability and impact of your essay, allowing the reader to follow your journey of self-expression with ease.

In describing your personality, it is essential to strike a delicate balance between self-awareness and humility. While it is important to acknowledge your strengths and accomplishments, it is equally crucial to avoid sounding arrogant. Honesty about your weaknesse s and areas for growth demonstrates humility and a willingness to learn from experiences, fostering personal growth and development.

Also, seeking feedback and diligently editing your essay play a vital role in refining your personality description. Sharing your work with trusted individuals allows for constructive criticism, providing valuable insights into how effectively your personality is being portrayed. By carefully incorporating this feedback and paying attention to grammar, punctuation, and clarity, you can ensure that your essay is polished and ready to make a lasting impression . Below are the step by step guide on how to masterfully describe your personality in an essay

Before diving into writing, take the time to deeply understand your own personality traits and characteristics. Reflect on your strengths and weaknesses , considering how they have influenced your actions and interactions with others. Additionally, contemplate significant life experiences that have shaped your personality, providing valuable insights into who you are today.

Your core values and beliefs are the guiding principles that define your character. Explore what truly matters to you and the ideals that drive your decisions . By connecting your personality traits to these fundamental values, you create a more comprehensive understanding of yourself, providing a solid foundation for your essay.

To effectively describe your personality, draw upon specific instances where your traits were on display. Recall experiences that highlight your behavior, thoughts, and emotions. By utilizing concrete examples, you lend credibility to your claims about your personality, allowing the reader to envision your character in action.

Step 4: Show, don’t tell

Avoid falling into the trap of generic and vague descriptions. Instead, use vivid language and sensory details to bring your personality to life. Engage the reader’s imagination by painting a clear picture through storytelling. Let them experience your traits firsthand, making your essay more engaging and memorable.

Crafting a well-structured essay is crucial for conveying your personality in a coherent and engaging manner. Begin with an attention-grabbing introduction that captivates the reader’s interest. Organize your essay around key personality traits or themes, ensuring a logical progression of ideas. Maintain a smooth flow between paragraphs, enhancing the overall readability of your essay.

While it’s essential to highlight your strengths, be careful not to come across as arrogant. Emphasize your accomplishments and positive attributes without boasting. Simultaneously, be honest about your weaknesses and areas for growth , demonstrating humility and a willingness to learn from experiences. This balance showcases maturity and self-awareness.

Sharing your essay with trusted individuals can provide valuable perspectives and constructive criticism. Seek feedback from mentors, teachers, or friends who can offer insights into your essay’s strengths and areas that need improvement. Revise and refine your essay based on this feedback, paying close attention to grammar, punctuation, and clarity.

Incorporating these steps and techniques will allow you to masterfully describe your personality in an essay, capturing the essence of who you are in a compelling and authentic manner. Whether you are writing personality essays, an essay about personalities, or an essay on personality, the introduction of your personality essay should create a strong impression. It serves as a gateway for the reader to delve into your unique characteristics and perspectives. By effectively integrating these steps and maintaining a balanced approach, you can create a personality essay introduction that sets the stage for a captivating exploration of your individuality. So, how would you describe yourself? Use these guidelines and examples to express your personality with confidence and authenticity in your essay.

Mastering the art of describing your personality in an essay allows you to authentically express yourself and connect with readers on a deeper level. By embracing self-reflection and emphasizing personal growth, you create a c ompelling narrative that showcases your unique qualities. So, embark on this journey of self-expression and let your personality shine through your writing. Embrace authenticity, as it is through effective self-expression that personal growth and understanding can flourish.

If you’re looking for professional essay writing and editing services, GradeSmiths is here to help. With a team of experienced writers and editors, GradeSmiths offers reliable and high-quality assistance to students in need of essay support. Whether you need help with essay writing, editing, proofreading, or refining your content, GradeSmiths can provide the expertise you require. Their dedicated team is committed to delivering well-crafted essays that meet academic standards and showcase your unique ideas and voice. With GradeSmiths, you can trust that your essay will receive the attention and care it deserves.

• RESEARCH PAPER FOR SALE
• RESEARCH PAPER WRITER
• RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICES
• SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY HELP
• SPEECH HELP
• STATISTICS HOMEWORK HELP
• TERM PAPER WRITING HELP
• THESIS EDITING SERVICES
• THESIS PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICE
• TRIGONOMETRY HOMEWORK HELP
• ADMISSION ESSAY WRITING HELP
• BIOLOGY PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• BOOK REPORT WRITING HELP
• BUY BOOK REVIEW
• BUY COURSEWORKS
• BUY DISCUSSION POST
• BUY TERM PAPER
• CAPSTONE PROJECT WRITING SERVICE
• COURSEWORK WRITING SERVICE
• CRITIQUE MY ESSAY
• CUSTOM RESEARCH PAPER
• CUSTOMER CONDUCT
• DISSERTATION EDITING SERVICE
• DISSERTATION WRITERS
• DO MY DISSERTATION FOR ME
• DO MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
• EDIT MY PAPER
• English Research Paper Writing Service
• ENGLISH RESEARCH PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• ESSAY WRITING HELP
• ESSAYS FOR SALE
• GRADUATE PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• LAW ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• MARKETING ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• NON-PLAGIARIZED ESSAYS
• NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP
• PAY FOR COURSEWORK
• PAY FOR ESSAYS
• PAY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
• PAY FOR PAPERS
• PAY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
• PERSONAL STATEMENT EDITING SERVICE
• PERSONAL STATEMENT WRITER
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING HELP
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• PHD THESIS WRITING SERVICE
• PROOFREAD MY PAPER
• PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• THESIS STATEMENT HELP
• WRITE MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ME
• WRITE MY CASE STUDY
• WRITE MY DISCUSSION BOARD POST
• WRITE MY LAB REPORT

Theories of Personality: Hans Eysenck, Gordon Allport & Raymond Cattell

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Personality tests date back to the 18th century, when phrenology, measuring bumps on the skull, and physiognomy, analyzing a person’s outer appearance, were used to assess personality (Goldstein & Hershen, 2000).
• Beginning in the late 19th century, Sir Francis Galton, a British polymath (an expert in many fields) estimated the number of adjectives in the English dictionary that described personality. Louis Leon Thurstone eventually refined the list to 60 words, and through analyzing roughly 1,300 participants, the list was reduced again to seven common factors (Goldberg, 1993).
• Similarly, British-American psychologist Raymond Cattell developed a Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, a 185 multiple-choice self-report questionnaire used to measure personality in both clinical and non-clinical settings.
• In the 1980s, after an almost four-decade-long hiatus, Lewis Goldberg and colleagues (1980) revived Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal’s (1961) exploration of five major personality traits : openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (commonly abbreviated as the acronym OCEAN).
• This new model significantly contributed to the wide acceptance and increased popularity the five-factor model received.

What is this thing we call personality? Consider the following definitions, what do they have in common?

“Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristics behavior and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 28). “The characteristics or blend of characteristics that make a person unique” (Weinberg & Gould, 1999).

Both definitions emphasize the uniqueness of the individual and consequently adopt an idiographic view.

The idiographic view assumes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. It tends to use case studies for information gathering.

The nomothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone.

This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis, etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits.

We must also consider the influence and interaction of nature (biology, genetics, etc.) and nurture (the environment, upbringing) with respect to personality development.

Trait theories of personality imply that personality is biologically based, whereas state theories, such as Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory , emphasize the role of nurture and environmental influence.

Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic theory of personality assumes there is an interaction between nature (innate instincts) and nurture (parental influences).

Trait Approach to Personality

This approach assumes behavior is determined by relatively stable traits, the fundamental units of one’s personality.

Traits predispose one to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. This means that traits should remain consistent across situations and over time, but may vary between individuals.

It is presumed that individuals differ in their traits due to genetic differences.

These theories are sometimes referred to as psychometric theories, because of their emphasis on measuring personality by using psychometric tests. Trait scores are continuous (quantitative) variables. A person is given a numeric score to indicate how much of a trait they possess.

Eysenck’s Personality Theory

Eysenck (1952, 1967, 1982) proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment.

During the 1940s, Eysenck was working at the Maudsley psychiatric hospital in London. His job was to make an initial assessment of each patient before their mental disorder was diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

Through this position, he compiled a battery of questions about behavior, which he later applied to 700 soldiers who were being treated for neurotic disorders at the hospital (Eysenck (1947).

He found that the soldiers” answers seemed to link naturally with one another, suggesting that there were a number of different personality traits which were being revealed by the soldier’s answers. He called these first-order personality traits.

He used a technique called factor analysis. This technique reduces behavior to a number of factors which can be grouped together under separate headings, called dimensions.

Eysenck (1947) found that their behavior could be represented by two dimensions: Introversion / Extroversion (E); Neuroticism / Stability (N). Eysenck called these second-order personality traits.

Each aspect of personality (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism) can be traced back to a different biological cause. Personality is dependent on the balance between the excitation and inhibition process of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) .

Extraversion/Introversion

• Extraverts are sociable and crave excitement and change, and thus can become bored easily. They tend to be carefree, optimistic, and impulsive.
• They are more likely to take risks and be thrill seekers. Eysenck argues that this is because they inherit an under aroused nervous system and so seek stimulation to restore the level of optimum stimulation.
• Introverts lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation.
• Introverts are reserved, plan their actions and control their emotions. They tend to be serious, reliable, and pessimistic.

Neuroticism/Stability

A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system . A stable person’s nervous system will generally be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level headed.

Someone high in neuroticism on the other hand will be much more unstable, and prone to overreacting to stimuli and may be quick to worry, anger or fear.

They are overly emotional and find it difficult to calm down once upset. Neurotic individuals have an ANS that responds quickly to stress.

Psychoticism/normality

Eysenck (1966) later added a third trait (dimension) called psychoticism, characterized by lacking of empathy, being cruel, being a loner, aggressive and troublesome.

This has been related to high levels of testosterone. The higher the testosterone, the higher the level of psychoticism, with low levels related to more normal balanced behavior.

He was especially interested in the characteristics of people whom he considered to have achieved their potential as individuals.

According to Eysenck, the two dimensions of neuroticism (stable vs. unstable) and introversion-extroversion combine to form a variety of personality characteristics.

Critical Evaluation

Twin studies can be used to see if personality is genetic. However, the findings are conflicting and non-conclusive.

Shields (1976) found that monozygotic (identical) twins were significantly more alike on the Introvert – Extrovert (E) and Psychoticism (P) dimensions than dizygotic (non-identical) twins.

Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn (1988) found that only 50% of the variations of scores on personality dimensions are due to inherited traits. This suggests that social factors are also important.

One good element of Eysenck’s theory is that it takes into account both nature and nurture. Eysenck’s theory argues strongly that biological predispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialization during childhood in order to create our personality.

This interactionist approach may, therefore, be much more valid than either a biological or environmental theory alone.

It also links nicely with the diathesis-stress model of behavior which argues for a biological predisposition combined with an environmental trigger for a particular behavior.

Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)

Cattell’s 16PF Trait Theory

Raymond Cattell (1965) disagreed with Eysenck’s view that personality can be understood by looking at only two or three dimensions of behavior.

Instead, he argued that it was necessary to look at a much larger number of traits in order to get a complete picture of someone’s personality.

Whereas Eysenck based his theory based on the responses of hospitalized servicemen, Cattell collected data from a range of people through three different sources of data.

• L-data – this is life record data such as school grades, absence from work, etc.
• Q-data – this was a questionnaire designed to rate an individual’s personality (known as the 16PF).
• T-data – this is data from objective tests designed to “tap” into a personality construct.

Cattell analyzed the T-data and Q-data using a mathematical technique called factor analysis to look at which types of behavior tended to be grouped together in the same people. He identified 16 personality traits (factors) common to all people.

Cattell made a distinction between source and surface traits. Surface traits are very obvious and can be easily identified by other people, whereas source traits are less visible to other people and appear to underlie several different aspects of behavior.

Cattell regarded source traits are more important in describing personality than surface traits.

Cattell produced a personality test similar to the EPI that measured each of the sixteen traits. The 16PF (16 Personality Factors Test) has 160 questions in total, ten questions relating to each personality factor.

Allport’s Trait Theory

Gordon Allport’s theory of personality emphasizes the uniqueness of the individual and the internal cognitive and motivational processes that influence behavior. For example, intelligence, temperament, habits, skills, attitudes, and traits.

Allport (1937) believes that personality is biologically determined at birth, and shaped by a person’s environmental experience.

He categorized traits into three levels: cardinal traits (dominant traits shaping a person’s entire life), central traits (characteristics influencing behavior in various situations), and secondary traits (specific traits that have minimal impact).

Allport emphasized the importance of studying individuals holistically and understanding the complexity of human personality beyond mere trait labels.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality . New York: Harper and Row (pp. 228).

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation . New York: H. Holt and. Company.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality . Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality .

Eysenck, H. J. (1966). Personality and experimental psychology. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society .

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality (Vol. 689) . Transaction publishers.

Eysenck, H. J. (1982). Personality, genetics, and behavior : Selected papers.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle . SE, 18: 1-64.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id . SE, 19: 1-66.

Goldberg, L. R. (1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. In Invited paper, convention of the western psychological association, honolulu, hawaii .

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26.

Goldstein, G., & Hersen, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment. Elsevier.

Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. (1956). Attitudes Toward Desegregation. Scientific American , 195:35-39.

Loehlin, J. C., Willerman, L., & Horn, J. M. (1988). Human behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology , 39(1), 101-133.

Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality: Theory and research . John Wiley & Sons.

Shields, J. (1976). Heredity and environment. In A textbook of human psychology (pp. 145-160) . Springer Netherlands.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1999). Personality and sport. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 25-46.

Why Personality Matters in the Workplace

• Personality in the Workplace

Personality is at the center of how we interact with each other on a daily basis. It provides a framework for understanding why our lives look like our own, and not like our neighbors. Whether we’re choosing a job, a partner, or even a home, our personalities drive our choices and shape the paths that our lives take.

Health Implications of the Big Five

Psychologists tend to focus a lot of their work on the Big Five personality traits . These traits - extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism - are key to understanding the “true you.” They give a person insight into why they make decisions the way they do and how they manage time and expectations.

Understanding how the Big Five play a role in your life could be important to understanding future health issues. Recent research from the Duke University Medical Center suggests that being conscientiousness is a key factor in better health. Of those participants with low levels of conscientiousness, 45 percent went on to develop major health problems compared to 18 percent of those with high levels of conscientiousness. 1

Further research has also shown that people who have higher levels of openness and conscientiousness tend to be more protected against diseases. Additionally, participants with higher levels of openness showed decreased odds of high blood pressure (31 percent), heart conditions (29 percent) and stroke (17 percent), while those with higher levels of conscientiousness were 37 percent less likely to have a stroke. 2

These findings suggest that, yes, personality can have positive and negative implications on your health, which means that recognizing the Big Five traits that apply to you can be an important step for staying healthy. Conscientious people, for example, are more likely to engage in behaviors that may be unpleasant at the time, but have long-term rewards in the future—including behaviors key to optimal health, like exercise and healthy eating. If you’re not naturally conscientious, it may take a little more work to stick to healthy habits, but it’s still doable with practice.

Knowing Yourself Can Help You in the Workplace

Instead of ignoring personality factors, employers and employees should be embracing this information in the workplace.

Author David Little suggests that “When we construe ourselves or others as being a particular type of person, we have really set limits on our and their capacity to develop.” However, this is not a problem with personality testing per se, but how people use the results of these tests.

Little’s outlook suggests that being aware of an individual’s personality confines them within a rigid box that limits development and growth (even though, paradoxically, he also suggests that personality is fluid). But in fact, learning about personality allows us to find our strengths and weaknesses, making us more aware of how we interact with one another and how we care for ourselves.

Little’s idea of “restorative niches” is a perfect example of this. In order to understand when, as an introvert, we need time away from a group at work or when, as an extravert, it is time to get up and “make the rounds” at the office, we need to first know that we are either introverted or extraverted. Without understanding what traits drive us, we cannot understand how to manage being out of our comfort zones.

Understanding why you react the way you do to different situations and stressors will help you develop the social, professional and life skills you need to thrive in the workplace.

Employers, Know Your Employees

Communication and flexibility are important aspects of being a leader, and understanding the personalities of your employees can help you improve both. Knowing how your employees are likely to adapt in different situations will allow you to put them in positions where they are primed to succeed.

Not only will your team be more successful, but you will have a better grasp on when employees are reaching out of their comfort zones, which can help you determine what projects they care about. For example, if a typically introverted employee becomes more extraverted on a certain project, it may be a clue that she cares about the project enough to step outside of her comfort zone. This can start an important conversation about her priorities and preferences, and allow you to draw out her best work in the future.

Understanding our personality, our co-workers’ personalities and our employees’ personalities is an indispensable part of being a good manager, a good teammate, and just the best human being possible. Awareness of personality helps us reduce stressors in our environments, cultivate healthier working relationships and develop healthier lifestyles.

References:

1. Israel, S., et al. (2014). Translating Personality Psychology to Help Personalize Preventive Medicine for Young Adult Patients. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology , 106, 3, 484-498. 

2. Weston, S., et al. (2014). Personality Traits Predict the Onset of Disease. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Molly Owens Molly Owens is the founder and CEO of Truity. She is a graduate of UC Berkeley and holds a master's degree in counseling psychology. She began working with personality assessments in 2006, and in 2012 founded Truity with the goal of making robust, scientifically validated assessments more accessible and user-friendly. Molly is an ENTP and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where she enjoys elaborate cooking projects, murder mysteries, and exploring with her husband and son.

• Communication & Conflict

• Emotional Intelligence

• Self-Development and Wellbeing

• Myers Briggs

• Finding Your Career Path

• Load more related articles

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Reasons to Learn More About Your Personality Type

Benefits of personality tests.

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Peopleimages / Getty Images

• Limitations

Personality tests are abundant online. Social media platforms like Pinterest and Facebook offer a variety of quizzes purporting to detect our personality traits , unveiling the "real" us.

While they sometimes reveal nuggets of truth that shed light on different aspects of personality , most personality quizzes are just for fun. In addition, there are plenty of legitimate psychological assessments available both online and through mental health professionals that can help us better understand our personality and the personality of others.

Overview of Personality Tests

There are a few different personality tests one can take. The  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is considered the gold standard. This test was designed to assess a person's psychological preferences, including how they see and interact with the world, as well as how they make decisions.

A mother-daughter team developed the MBTI test based on the personality theories of psychoanalyst Carl Jung .

Since then, the MBTI has become the most popular personality test worldwide. Frequently used by psychologists, career counselors, and employers, this personality assessment is often touted as a quick means to learn more about what people are good at and whether they will succeed in certain roles.

Can identifying one's personality type using the MBTI and other personality assessments really help? They may. Here's an overview of the many benefits of personality tests.

Better Understand Others

After taking a personality test and seeing our results, we can gain a better understanding of all the different perceptions and reactions that others might have to the same situation. This is important because we all have different ways of seeing and interacting with the world.

No personality type is "better" than any other—just different. Each perspective brings something new and interesting to the table. 

People often fall into the trap of mistakenly believing that most others share the same views, opinions, attitudes, and traits that they do, a phenomenon known as the false-consensus effect . So, getting a glimpse of some of the traits that other people possess can be an eye-opener for many. 

By better knowing each other's personality traits, we can also better respond to the needs of our loved ones and build stronger partnerships. Understanding some of our core personality traits as well as those of the people we are close to is also helpful in relationships.

For example, one person might be an extrovert but their spouse is more of an introvert. By understanding their spouse's personality, they can better spot the signs that their partner is getting exhausted and needs to take a break from socializing.

Identify Our Likes and Dislikes

Maybe we've always hated talking on the phone but never really understood why. Or perhaps we've always needed a little extra time to think about a problem before making a decision .

By using personality tests like the MBTI, we can learn more about where we lie on the extroversion/introversion and thinking/feeling continuum. This helps us better understand why we prefer certain things and dislike others.

This can come in handy when trying to make important decisions that might have an impact on the course of our lives, such as choosing a college major . Selecting a major and profession that is well-aligned with our personal preferences can help us feel happier and more satisfied, along with having a positive impact on our professional achievements.

Know Which Situations Are Ideal for Us

Learning more about our personality type can also help us discover new ways to approach challenges. If we discover that we tend to be high on introversion, we might take care in the future to give ourselves plenty of time to become comfortable in a situation before we introduce ourselves to a new coworker, for example.

Knowing what might work best for our personality type can give us new ideas on how to solve problems , deal with stress, cope with conflict, and manage our work habits.

Recognize Our Strengths and Weaknesses

Knowing what we are good at can be important in a wide variety of situations, whether we are picking a college major or thinking about running for a seat on our local school board.

For example, if we know that we are an ISTJ (introverted, sensing, thinking, and judging) on the MBTI, we might recognize that certain aspects of our personality might qualify as strengths in some situations and weaknesses in others. While our strong organizational skills and detail-oriented personality can be a major strength in our work, it can sometimes trip us up in situations where we need to let other people take the reins.

Remember Personality Tests Have Limitations

Although there are many benefits of personality tests, including understanding our personality and that of others, knowing our "type" isn't everything. Even the most serious psychological assessments are never the end-all when it comes to evaluating who we are, what we can accomplish, how we might perform in certain situations, and who we might become in the future. 

Here are some reasons why we might not want to take the results of online personality quizzes too seriously.

• Knowing our type may not reveal everything. For instance, it won't tell us if we will love a particular career or succeed at our job. Taking a personality quiz or assessment might give us a better idea of which areas appeal to us, but there is a big difference between being interested in a particular field and enjoying the actual work. A personality inventory might indicate that we would make a great accountant, but we might find the work boring and unfulfilling. 
• Clinging to ideas about who we are can keep us from trying new things. For example, an extrovert might reject things that are typically billed as solitary or quiet activities. This can lead to missing out on experiences that they might learn from or truly enjoy. They might even miss out on meeting interesting people because they don't seem to share the same traits or interests. That's why it's important to not get too hung up on labeling different aspects of our personality or dismissing things that seem like they would not be a good fit for someone with our "type."
• Placing too much emphasis on our type can hinder our relationships. Clinging hard and fast to ideas about what our personality type is can make it easy to reject people who don't seem to have the same "type" as us. This is a mistake because even though many of these people might have different ideas and approaches to life, we can still learn a great deal from them.

Excluding certain people from our lives can lead to a restricted social circle that only seems to reinforce the ideas we already hold. It might even put a damper on our love life if we refuse to give people a chance because they don't like the same things or act the same way as us. 

Personality tests, including real psychological assessments and the just-for-fun quizzes available online, can be thought-provoking, insightful, and even fun. The key is to not get too hung up on our results.

While researchers have found that various aspects of our personalities are surprisingly stable over time, our lives are not static. We grow and change as we learn new things and have new experiences, and our personalities can change too .

Azucar D, Marengo D, Settanni M. Predicting the Big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis . Personal Individ Diff . 2018;124:150-159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.018

Johnson J. 5 alternatives to the Myers-Briggs personality test . U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Myers & Briggs Foundation. Our legacy .

University of Nebraska Omaha. MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment) .

American Psychological Association. False-consensus effect .

Ahmed KA, Sharif N, Ahmad N. Factors influencing students' career choices: Empirical evidence from business students . J Southeast Asian Res . 2017;718849:1-15. doi:10.5171/2017.718849

Hampson SE, Goldberg LR. Personality stability and change over time . In: Wiley Encyclop Personal Indiv Diff Models Theor . 2020. doi:10.1002/9781118970843.ch53

Harris MA, Brett CE, Johnson W, Deary IJ. Personality stability from age 14 to age 77 years . Psychol Aging . 2016;31(8):862-874. doi:10.1037/pag0000133

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics

What personal traits are considered important to the entrepreneur? Find the answer here! This entrepreneurial personality essay focuses on the importance of characteristics necessary for a successful business career.

Introduction

• Personal Traits

Reference List

An entrepreneur is an individual who sets up and administers a business for the main purpose of making profit. In the present world, entrepreneurship is paramount in fueling the growth of the economy and providing employment opportunities.

Anyone can become an entrepreneur but not everyone is suited for successful entrepreneurship. Most successful entrepreneurs share certain personality traits that give them a comparative advantage over their competition. This essay explores the personality traits required to be a successful entrepreneur.

Personal Traits Important to the Entrepreneur

Determination is one of the personality traits that an entrepreneur should possess in order to increase their chances of being successful. Determination is a very intense longing to achieve success. The trait requires a lot of persistence and the ability to recover in case of a period of downturn.

It is not easy to attain success within a short time. Therefore, an entrepreneur should exercise a lot of patience and should not easily give up when things go wrong .

Dedication is another important personality trait of a successful entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs should dedicate themselves towards the accomplishment of their objectives and visions. Having focus and being dedicated enables an entrepreneur to be more successful in his or her business ventures.

Starting a business requires hard work and a lot of effort. Regardless of numerous difficulties, an entrepreneur should be dedicated to all tasks by working towards a positive outcome and to be willing to ask for assistance once in a while.

Self confidence, being another personality trait enables an entrepreneur to be assertive in achieving their own interests in a way that is socially recognized. Self confidence usually results from thorough planning which decreases uncertainty rates and risk levels.

Self confidence should be sufficient enough in order to successfully achieve planned profits. When an entrepreneur is skilled and knowledgeable, self confidence comes naturally. The confidence also gives them the ability to listen to the opinions of other people without feeling intimidated .

Creativity and innovation are very important traits that an entrepreneur should possess. Being innovative enables an entrepreneur to develop fresh and improved products to be able to survive in the competitive world of business.

This trait also encourages the entrepreneur to constantly learn, question and think outside the box in order to be in line with the ever changing technology. With fresh and improved products and services, an entrepreneur is more likely to be successful in the world of business.

Interpersonal reactivity is essential in entrepreneurial life because it enables an entrepreneur to put himself or herself in the position of another person.

The entrepreneur who possesses this trait has the ability to approach other business people and develop a relationship that is intended to be beneficial.

Research says that sufficient levels of interpersonal reactivity enables an entrepreneur to produce products that are client oriented hence success in the business is more likely .

All business ventures have their fair share of upturns and downturns. Success does not come immediately to an entrepreneur instead it takes a lot of time. Every entrepreneur possesses the above personality traits but in different degrees. Every skill and trait can be achieved through practice and learning.

Therefore, any entrepreneur can achieve the above traits after some time. The entrepreneur can also hire a person who has the admirable strengths to take care of his or her business to better and greater heights.

Action Coach . (n.d). 12 Essential Characteristics of an Entrepreneur . Web.

Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. (2007). Is Entrepreneurial Success Predictable? An Ex-Ante Analysis of the Character-Based Approach . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/entrepreneur-personality/

"Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/entrepreneur-personality/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/entrepreneur-personality/.

1. IvyPanda . "Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/entrepreneur-personality/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Entrepreneurial Personality Essay: Traits & Characteristics." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/entrepreneur-personality/.

• Emotional Reactivity and Tips to Mitigate Its Effects
• Sleep and Sensory Reactivity in the School-Aged Children
• Cross-Reactivity of Ige Antibodies
• Critical review of use of observation as a research method
• Adult Attachment and Interpersonal Problems
• The Definition of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Behavior
• Leadership Concept: Meaning and Style
• Independent Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, and Social Entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurial Personality and Decision to Start a Business
• Entrepreneurial Education for University Students
• Expectancy Theory and Organization Management
• Performance Appraisal System Adoption
• Production Strategies: Taylordism v. Fordism
• Organizational Politics and Power
• Motivational Theories and Motivation at Work

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of Life Events and Mindset Affect Personality Trait Change

Jantje hinrika de vries.

1 Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Maik Spengler

2 Division HR Diagnostics AG, Stuttgart, Germany

Andreas Frintrup

Patrick mussel, associated data.

The datasets generated for this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: All data, further materials, and items are available via OSF at: https://osf.io/xc6d4/ .

Personality changes throughout the life course and change is often caused by environmental influences, such as critical life events. In the present study, we investigate personality trait development in emerging adulthood as a result of experiencing two major life events: graduating from school and moving away from home. Thereby, we examined the occurrence of the two life events per se and the subjective perception of the critical life event in terms of valence. In addition, we postulate a moderation effect of the construct of mindset, which emphasizes that beliefs over the malleability of global attributes can be seen as predictors of resilience to challenges. This suggests that mindset acts as a buffer for these two distinct events. In a large longitudinal sample of 1,243 people entering adulthood, we applied latent structural equation modeling to assess mean-level changes in the Big Five, the influence of life events per se , the subjective perception of life events, and a moderating role of mindset. In line with maturity processes, results showed significant mean-level changes in all Big Five traits. While no changes in the Big Five dimensions were noted when the mere occurrence of an event is assessed, results indicated a greater increase in extraversion and diminished increase in emotional stability when we accounted for the individual's (positive/negative) perception of the critical life event. In case of extraversion, this also holds true for the moderator mindset. Our findings contribute valuable insights into the relevance of subjective appraisals to life events and the importance of underlying processes to these events.

Introduction

People change as they age. Individuals experience not only physical but also psychological changes across the entire lifespan. However, the exact course of internal and external changes depends on various criteria. In recent years, researchers have expended considerable effort in studying how personality develops across the lifespan; this has, in turn, incited a controversy about the stability and variability of specific personality traits. Personality traits are considered to be relatively stable individual differences in affect, behavior, and/or cognition (Johnson, 1997 ). Whereas, the Big Five traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be rather stable and continuously increase across adulthood, levels of openness to experience appear to change in an inverted U-shape function, which increases between the ages of 18 and 22 and decreases between 60 and 70 (McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Specht et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, some studies have shown that trait change can be associated with particular life stages. For example, the findings of Roberts and Mroczek ( 2008 ) suggest that young adults tend to exhibit increases in traits that are indicative of greater social maturity. More specifically, in emerging adulthood, the average individual experiences an increase in emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Arnett, 2000 ; Roberts et al., 2006 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ), and self-esteem (Orth et al., 2018 ), while openness to experience seems to decrease in advancing age (Roberts et al., 2006 ). Taken together, this comprises evidence that personality develops throughout the lifespan and consequently, several theories have been introduced to explain when and why personality change occurs (e.g., Cattell, 1971 ; Baltes, 1987 ; Caspi and Moffitt, 1993 ; McCrae and Costa, 1999 ; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008 ).

Critical Life Events

Theory and research support the idea that personality can change as a result of intrinsic factors such as genetics and extrinsic factors such as the environment around us (Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). More specifically, there is ample evidence that personality is linked to certain external influences such as critical life events (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn et al., 2018 ). These can be defined as “transitions that mark the beginning or the end of a specific status” (Luhmann et al., 2012 ; p. 594) and include leaving the parental home or major changes in one's status such as employment or duty. These transitions often require adaptation processes involving new behavioral, cognitive, or emotional responses (Hopson and Adams, 1976 ; Luhmann et al., 2012 , 2014 ). Profound adaptations are assumed to have lasting effects, as “life events can modify, interrupt or redirect life trajectories by altering individuals' feelings, thoughts and behaviors” (Bleidorn et al., 2018 , p. 83). Building upon this assumption, many studies have sought to determine how certain Big Five traits change because of critical life events. For instance, increases in emotional stability were found to result from transitioning into one's first romantic relationship (Lehnart et al., 2010 ). Emotional stability might also increase in anticipation of gain-based events such as childbirth or paid employment, which, in turn, lead to increases in conscientiousness and openness to experience (Denissen et al., 2018 ).

In the present study, we focus on two critical life events that are highly relevant for emerging adults: moving away from home and graduating from school. Both events represent a personal development milestone for the transition into adulthood and are typically associated with great educational or occupational challenges (Arnett, 2000 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Few studies have highlighted these two events and how they influence life trajectories in emerging adulthood. Lüdtke et al. ( 2011 ) focused on the broader superordinate section of work-related life events and personality change and found that the transition from high school to college, university, or vocational training is associated with substantial normative increases in emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. With regard to graduation from school, Bleidorn ( 2012 ) found significant mean-level changes in certain Big Five traits over an observation period of 1 year. Specifically, senior students experienced increases in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness after graduation. In a later review by Bleidorn et al. ( 2018 ), the authors found that graduation constitutes an almost universal life event in Western societies and that related change in adult personality is likely to be observable, because young adulthood is a period in which personality traits have been shown to be most open to change (Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ).

There are fewer investigations into the personality effects of moving away from home. Pusch et al. ( 2018 ) compared age differences in emerging vs. young adults and found that, among other life events, leaving the parental home did not reveal significant age effects with respect to personality change. However, they found significant age-invariant effects for individuals who left their parental home recently, indicating positive changes in agreeableness. Jonkmann et al. ( 2014 ) investigated living arrangements after college with regard to personality differences and found that, for example, the choice of living arrangement (living with roommates vs. living alone) predicted the development of conscientiousness and—to a lesser extent—openness and agreeableness. Similarly, according to a study by Niehoff et al. ( 2017 ), living and studying abroad after college led to increases in extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Interestingly, Specht et al. ( 2011 ) found a significant sex effect on leaving the parental home and argued that only women become more emotionally stable when moving. Taken together, this evidence suggests that moving away from home is a major life event that has not yet been deeply investigated but represents a distinct developmental task that has the potential to shape individuals' personalities.

The Perception of Life Events

While these studies provide valuable information about the impact of critical life events, one important issue has been hitherto neglected. Many past studies have focused on life events per se , but comparatively little effort has been made to examine the subjective appraisal of such events and its effect on the processes underlying personality change (Roberts, 2009 ). Moreover, methodological approaches to life events are sometimes misleading, because the valence of experienced events is rated by either researchers or other people who cannot sufficiently reflect inter- and intra-individual experiences of events (Headey and Wearing, 1989 ; Kendler et al., 2003 ; Luhmann et al., 2020 ). However, there is ample evidence that people perceive the same event or situation very differently. For example, according to a comprehensive review of person-situation transactions by Rauthmann et al. ( 2015 ), situations can be characterized by their physical (e.g., location, activity, persons) and/or psychological (e.g., task-related, threatening, pleasant) properties. Rauthmann et al. ( 2015 ) further state that “situations only have consequences for people's thinking, feeling, desiring, and acting through the psychological processing they receive” (p. 372). Thus, people's individual experiences of psychological situations may deviate from how these situations are experienced by most other people (reality principle). This assumption aligns with the TESSERA framework conceived by Wrzus and Roberts ( 2017 ). According to the authors, events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations. These expectancies then determine which state occurs after the corresponding trigger by choosing a response from a variety of possible states (Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ). Conjointly, two people can perceive the same situation or event very differently, leading to diverse reactions and psychological meanings.

A first step toward this important distinction was proposed by Luhmann et al. ( 2020 ), who aimed to systematically examined the effects of life events on psychological outcomes. To do so, the authors proposed a dimensional taxonomy which that considers nine perceived characteristics of major life events. I this way, the study uniquely emphasizes the difference between assessing the mere occurrence of a critical life event and taking into account subjective appraisal. However, significantly more research is needed to fully explore how this causes lasting personality trait change.

In conclusion, two aspects of person-situation transactions should be highlighted. First, one situation can be interpreted very differently by two individuals. Expectations and individual goals—as well as variable expressions of personality traits—influence the extent to which a situation is perceived as meaningful and, therefore, determine how people approach it (Bleidorn, 2012 ; Denissen et al., 2013 , 2018 ). Second, this is also true for life events. Two people can reasonably experience the same major life event as completely differently. Therefore, we focus the present study on the valence of two distinct life events and use this characteristic as our central parameter. In particular, in emerging adulthood, individuals might perceive the behavioral expectations and demands associated with a life event as more pressing than others (Pusch et al., 2018 ). What remains less clear is how situational perceptions affect personality change after a major life event, but with respect to the current string of literature, it seems reductive to only ask if, but not how, critical life events are experienced.

The Moderating Role of Mindset

In the previous section, we examined how diverse critical life events can be perceived. Here, we extend our theoretical approach by focusing on the underlying processes that might account for the different perception and spotlight causes of individual personality trait changes. One construct that is highly relevant to the aforementioned regulatory mechanisms is the individual belief system mindset. According to Dweck ( 1999 ), an individual's mindset refers to the implicit belief about the malleability of personal attributes. Dweck ( 1999 ) distinguishes between growth and fixed mindsets. The growth mindset emphasizes the belief that attributes like intelligence and personality are changeable. Conversely, the fixed mindset refers to the belief that such attributes are immutable. According to Dweck ( 2012 ), the individual mindset is not static and can be changed throughout one's life. Actively changing one's mindset toward a growth mindset was found to decrease chronic adolescent aggression, enhance people's willpower, and redirect critical academic outcomes (Dweck, 2012 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ). Moreover, Blackwell et al. ( 2007 ) found that the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) predicted an upward trajectory in grades over 2 years of junior high school, while the belief that intelligence is fixed (entity theory) predicted a flat trajectory. Yet, according to a meta-analysis from Sisk et al. ( 2018 ), mindset interventions for academic achievement predominately benefitted students with low socioeconomic status or who are at-risk academically. Mindset has also been linked to business-related outcomes (e.g., Kray and Haselhuhn, 2007 ; Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). That is, individuals with a growth mindset tend to use “higher-order” cognitive strategies and adapt to stress more easily (Heslin and Vandewalle, 2008 ). Likewise, mindset has been linked to health outcomes and even mental illness, with the assumption that a growth mindset buffers against psychological distress and depression (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003 ; Burnette and Finkel, 2012 ; Schroder et al., 2017 ). Therefore, a growth mindset can be considered a predictor of psychological resilience (Saeed et al., 2018 ).

With regard to changes in personality traits, the findings have been mixed. Hudson et al. ( 2020 ) investigated college students' beliefs by adapting a personality measure into a mindset measure and administering it within a longitudinal study. They found that the mere belief that personality is malleable (or not) did not affect trait changes. However, in her Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development, Dweck ( 2017 ) suggests that basic needs, mental representations (e.g., beliefs and emotions), and action tendencies (referred to as BEATs) contribute to personality development. Dweck further argues that mental representations shape motivation by informing goal selection and subsequently form personality traits by creating recurring experiences (Dweck, 2017 ). Thus, there might be more information about indicators such as the integration of mindset, motivation, and environmental influences necessary to understand how personality traits change according to belief systems.

In summary, there is evidence that a belief in the malleability of global attributes allows individuals to adapt to life circumstances in a goal-directed way and that individuals' mindsets determine responses to challenges (Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Building upon the existing literature around environmental influences on personality traits and the diverse effects of mindset, we argue that after experiencing a critical life event, individuals with a growth mindset will adapt to a new situation more easily and accordingly exhibit greater change in relating personality traits. In contrast, individuals with a fixed mindset might react in a more rigid way to unknown circumstances and thus don't experience the need adapt, resulting in no personality trait change.

The Present Study

This study aims to contribute to the literature around external and internal influences on personality development in emerging adulthood by analyzing changes in the Big Five, the influences of the occurrence of life events per se vs. their subjective perception, and the possible moderating effects of mindset in a longitudinal study with a large sample. Most prior studies have focused on personality development in adulthood (e.g., Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Lucas and Donnellan, 2011 ; Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ; Damian et al., 2018 ; Denissen et al., 2018 ), but emerging adulthood is marked by tremendous changes; thus, we focus our analyses on this period. According to Arnett ( 2000 , 2007 ), emerging adulthood is considered a distinct stage between adolescence and full-fledged adulthood. This is seen as a critical life period because it is characterized by more transformation, exploration, and personality formation than any other life stage in adulthood (Arnett, 2000 ; Ziegler et al., 2015 ; Bleidorn and Schwaba, 2017 ). With regard to beliefs systems, Yeager et al. ( 2019 ) argue that beliefs that affect how, for example, students make sense of ongoing challenges are most important and salient during high-stakes developmental turning points such as pubertal maturation. For this reason, it is particularly compelling to investigate environmental influences such as major life events that shape the trajectory of personality trait change in emerging adulthood.

To do so, we examined whether two major critical life events (graduating from school and moving away from home) affect personality development. We chose these two major life events because they are uniquely related to emerging adulthood and because existing research has found mixed results regarding their influence on personality trait change (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Specht et al., 2011 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Based on prior findings, we constructed three hypotheses. First, we expect that an increase in personality trait change will occur in individuals who graduate from school/move away from home but not in those who did not experience such events. Second, subjective perceptions of the two critical life events will influence personality trait changes in the Big Five. Third, we look at the underlying processes that influence personality and argue, that mindset will moderate the impact of the two stated life events/perception of life events on personality trait change.

Sample and Procedure

For this study, we created the German Personality Panel (GEPP) by collecting data from a large German sample in cooperation with a non-profit online survey provided by berufsprofiling.de . This organization assists emerging adults by providing job opportunities and post-graduation academic pathways. After completing the questionnaire, participants received feedback and vocational guidance. In 2016 and 2017, a total of 11,816 individuals between 13 and 30 years old ( M = 17.72 years; SD = 3.22, 50.71% female) took this survey. We used this first round of data-gathering as our longitudinal measurement occasion T1. If participants consented to be contacted again, we reached out via email in October 2018 to request their participation in a second survey. A total of 1,679 individuals between 14 and 26 years old ( M = 17.39, SD = 2.37, 64.82% female) agreed to participate and filled in a second online survey (second measurement occasion of GEPP, T2). The test battery at T2 took approximately 30–40 min, and we provided personalized feedback on personality development, as well as a monetary compensation, to all participants.

Because we were interested in emerging adults who were about to graduate from school?and thus found themselves in a critical time period?we excluded all participants older than 21 at T2. On the other hand, we included 14-year-old participants because they could have entered school in Germany at the age of five and thus graduated from secondary school and/or moved away from home by this age. At T2, 12% had not yet finished school, 32% held a secondary school certificate, and 57% held a university entrance diploma.

To further improve data quality, we obtained an indicator for careless responding by asking about self-reported diligence (“Did you work conscientiously on the test?”). Participants were informed that their answer had no impact on their compensation. At T2, 41 (3%) participants answered “No.” After excluding participants meeting this criterion, a sample of n = 1,243, aged 14–21 years ( M = 16.92, SD = 1.75, 67.23% women), remained for subsequent data analyses. All data and further materials are available via osf ( https://osf.io/xc6d4/?view_only=5b913c97553d48a290b75a3f725aca3d ).

Sample Attrition

Numerous email accounts were invalid at the second measurement point—for example, because students' personalized school email accounts were deleted following their graduation or because certain institutions used only a single email account to offer vocational counseling to college students ( N = 3,495). Those who did not participate at the second measurement point (dropouts) were slightly younger than those who participated (continuers) [ M (ageD) = 17.39; M (ageC) = 17.76; p ≤ 0.000, d = −0.12] and more women filled in the second questionnaire (dropouts = 50.9% women, continuers = 64.8% women; p ≤ 0.000, d = 0.31). Only modest selectivity effects (measured by Cohen's d ) in terms of mean differences in personality traits between dropouts and continuers were found at T1; thus, there was negligible systematic attrition (Specht et al., 2011 ; Pusch et al., 2018 ). Continuers had slightly higher scores in agreeableness ( d = 0.17), conscientiousness ( d = 0.19), and openness ( d = 0.16) than dropouts, but they almost identical in terms of extraversion ( d = −0.08) and emotional stability ( d = 0.01).

Personality

Personality traits were assessed on both measurement occasions using a short version of the Big Five personality inventory for the vocational context (TAKE5; S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH, 2005 ). The TAKE5 has been shown to be a highly reliable and valid personality measure (Mussel, 2012 ). In the short version of the test, each of the Big Five subscales (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) consists of three items and was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Example items for conscientiousness include (translated from German): “Nothing can stop me from completing an important task,” “People around me know me as a perfectionist,” and “My work is always carried out the highest quality standards.” Items were selected to cover the different aspects of each domain therefore internal consistencies provide no valuable indicator. Test-retest reliabilities for the TAKE5 between T1 and T2 were 0.69 for extraversion, 0.52 for openness to experience, 0.57 for conscientiousness, 0.58 for agreeableness, and 0.50 for emotional stability. Small to moderate reliability levels can be explained by the heterogeneity of the items and our attempt to capture rather broad personality constructs. Similar results have been reported for other brief personality scales (Donnellan et al., 2006 ; Rammstedt et al., 2016 ). All descriptive statistics and correlations can be found in Table 1 , and bivariate correlations of all items can be found at osf ( https://osf.io/xc6d4/?view_only=5b913c97553d48a290b75a3f725aca3d ).

Correlations and descriptive statistics among variables.

N = Sample size, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, Life Event 1 = Perception of graduating from school, Life Event 2 = Perception of moving away from home ,

Life Events

In the present study, we focus on two major life events that are highly characteristic of the critical period between the late teens and young adulthood (Arnett, 2000 ; Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Bleidorn, 2012 ): moving away from home and graduating from school. At T2, after completing the personality questionnaire, participants rated their subjective perception of each of the two life events on a dimensional 7-point Likert scale (1 = very negatively , 7 = very positively ). Of the initial sample, 68.38% of the participants had graduated from school, 47.66% had moved away from home, and 46.96% had experienced both life events. Participants who had graduated from school were older ( M = 17.32 years, SD = 1.84, female = 68.80%) compared to those who had not yet finished school ( M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.09, female = 68.21%). Those who had moved away from home were approximately 1 year older ( M = 17.53, SD = 1.89, female = 69.30%) compared to those did not yet moved away ( M = 16.29, SD =1.69, female = 66.91%). To avoid potential confounding effects, we only asked about events that had happened within the past year (after the first measurement occasion). This allowed us to account for experiences that took place before T1.

In the second step, in order to obtain a fuller picture, participants also had the option of rating an additional significant life event from a list of 18 potential life events from various domains—such as love and health—based on the Munich Life Event List (MEL; Maier-Diewald et al., 1983 ). However, the number of individuals who experienced these other life events was too small to allow for further analyses.

Participants' mindset was measured with a questionnaire based on Dweck's Mindset Instrument (DMI). The 16-item DMI was developed and created by Dweck ( 1999 ) and is used examine how students view their own personality and intelligence. In the current study, only items concerning beliefs about the malleability of personality were used. The mindset inventory items were “Personality traits are something a person cannot change,” “You have a certain personality and you really can't do much to change it,” and “You can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic personality.” At T2, participants were presented a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45). Items were reversed such that higher levels indicated a growth mindset. This short inventory was found to be highly reliable ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.45, ω = 0.81, 95% CI [0.70, 0.84]).

Statistical Analyses

Analyses were carried out in four steps. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test for measurement invariance across time points T1 and T2. Second, we constructed latent difference score models for all Big Five scales to test for mean differences in personality traits. Third, we investigated the impact of the life events moving away from home and graduating from school, as well as the perception of these two events on changes in the Big Five. Fourth, we added mindset as a moderator to the model. All statistical analyses were carried out in R and R Studio 1.2.1335 (R Core Team, 2018 ).

Measurement invariance

To ensure that the same construct was being measured across time, we first tested for measurement invariance. For weak measurement invariance, we fixed the factor loadings for each indicator to be equal across measurement occasions and compared this model to the configural model, where no restrictions were applied. The same procedure was followed to assess strong measurement invariance, with the weak invariant model compared to a model with constrained intercepts to equality across time (e.g., the same intercept for Item 2 at T1 and Item 2 at T2) (Newsom, 2015 ). To evaluate the model fit, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were inspected. Good fit was considered to be indicated when CFI and TLI values were 0.90 or higher, RMSEA below 0.08, and SRMR values below 0.05 (Hu and Bentler, 1999 ; Marsh et al., 2005 ). The configural model showed good fit for all of the Big Five traits (All χ 2 [4 24], df = 5, CFI > [0.98 1.00], TLI > [0.94 1.00], RMSEA < [0.0 0.06], SRMR < [0.0 0.02]). Model fit for partial strong measurement invariance revealed similar fit (all χ 2 [9 50], df = 8, CFI > [0.96 1.00], TLI > [0.92 1.00], RMSEA < [0.01 0.07], SRMR < [0.01 0.03]) when freely estimating the intercept of the first manifest OCEAN item (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Little et al., 2007 ). All further analyses are based on this model and full results for fit indices are presented in Table S1 .

Latent Change Score Models

To test for changes in personality over time, we applied latent structural equation modeling analysis with the R package lavaan (version 0.5-23.1097; Rosseel, 2012 ). Required sample size for the specified latent change score model was estimated by the R-toolbox semTools (MacCallum et al., 2006 ; Jorgensen et al., 2018 ) for RMSEA = 0.05, df = 16, α = 0.05, and a statistical power of 90% to N = 672 individuals. Therefore, we consider our sample size to be sufficiently large.

As we were first interested in the rate of change, we built a multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model for each of the Big Five domains ( Figure 1 ). Each latent construct of interest (OCEAN) consisted of three observed measures (X1, X2, and X3) at two waves. Equality constraints were imposed on factor loadings and intercepts (Newsom, 2015 ). Moreover, the autoregressive path was set equal to 1. The means, intercepts, and covariances at the first occasion and for the difference score factor were freely estimated, and all measurement residuals were allowed to correlate among the sets of repeated measurements (McArdle et al., 2002 ). We accounted for missing data by applying robust maximum likelihood estimation. Finally, after specifying this basic model, the variables of interest—the occurrence of the life event, perception of the life event, and the moderator mindset—were added to the model.

Schematic model of the multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model. The latent construct of interest (each personality trait) was measured at two time points (T1 and T2), using three indicators each time (X1, X2, X3). The lower part of the model constitutes the assessment of measurement invariance. “Δ latent change” captures change from the Big Five trait from T1 to T2. Latent regressions from “Δ latent change” on Mod→ Δ reflect the influence of the covariate perception of life event or the moderator mindset on the development of the Big Five. Straight arrows depict loadings and regression coefficients, curved arrows co-variances.

Standardized mean differences were calculated as an average of all intra-individual increases and decreases in a given personality trait over time. As illustrated in Figure 2 , all latent mean scores for the Big Five increased from T1 to T2. Conscientiousness and openness to experience exhibited the largest mean-level changes from T1 to T2, whereas agreeableness ( d = 0.02) and emotional stability ( d = 0.07) remained nearly the same. To test for changes in personality, we employed a multiple-indicator univariate latent change score model. Separate models for each of the Big Five all fit the data well (all CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.93, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.04). Inspecting the intercepts of the change factors revealed that all Big Five scores changed between T1 and T2, with less increase among individuals with high compared to low levels at T1. The latent means for each personality dimension at each time point, along with their fit indices, are reported in Table 2 .

Mean-level changes in Big Five dimensions over measurement occasions T1 and T2.

Big Five mean-level change from T1 to T2 with fit indices, n = 1,243.

M T1, Mean at measurement occasion 1; M T2, Mean at measurement occasion 2; d, (mean at Time 2 – mean at Time 1)/baseline standard deviation; χ 2 , chi square difference statistic; df, degrees of freedom; p(chi2), significance of chi square difference statistic; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; μΔ, intercept of latent change score; p(μΔ), significance of latent change score;

Life Events and Perception of Life Events

To assess personality trait change resulting from experiencing a life event, we included a standardized dichotomized variable “experiencing the life event vs. not” into the model. Again, the model fit the data well for both critical life events (all CFI > 0.94, TLI > 0.92, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.04). However, comparing participants who had experienced one of the critical life events (moving away from home or graduating from school) to those who had not revealed that neither life event had a significant impact on changes in personality traits between T1 and T2 ( p >0.05).

To assess personality trait change resulting from perception of a life event, we included the standardized variable “perception of the life event” for each of the two events into the model and regressed the latent change score on the covariate. This time, results regarding the subjective perception of the life event graduating from school indicated a significant impact on personality change for emotional stability (χ 2 [16] = 94.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05, λ = 0.05, p [λ] < 0.05). Specifically, participants who had experienced graduating from school more negatively exhibited a diminished increase in emotional stability than compared to individuals who had experienced graduating from school more positively. We also found evidence that subjective perceptions are relevant for extraversion. A greater positive change in extraversion was observed when participants experienced graduating from school more positively than compared to negatively (χ 2 [16] = 23.90, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02, SRMR = 0.03, λ = 0.10, p [λ] = 0.05). Subjective perceptions moving away from home had no impact on trait changes in any of the Big Five traits. Descriptive statistics for the life events along with model fit indices can be found in Table S2 .

To test for a moderating role of mindset, an interaction term between mindset and each of the two critical life events was constructed. First, we built an interaction term between mindset and the dichotomous variable “experienced the life event” and regressed the latent change factor on the interaction term. Separate models for each of the Big Five all fit the data well (all CFI > 0.94, TLI > 0.92, RMSEA < 0.05, SRMR < 0.05). As shown in Table S3 , no effects for the Big Five traits were significant for the distinction between experienced the life event vs. did not experience the life event ( p > 0.05). Second, for each of the two life events an interaction term between mindset and perception of the life event was built analogously. For extraversion, we found a significant influence of the moderator when assessing the perception of graduating from school (χ 2 [16] = 25.62, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.03, λ = −0.09, p [λ] = 0.05). Hence, a fixed mindset indicates less change in extraversion when experiencing the critical life event graduation from school. More specifically, regarding manifest means of extraversion, participants with a growth mindset experienced almost the same amount of increase in extraversion over time, regardless of their perception (positive or negative) of the critical life event. On the other hand, participants with a fixed mindset only show an increase in extraversion when they experienced the life event more positively (see Figure 3 ). No effects for the interaction between mindset and the critical life event moving away from home were significant.

Change in trait extraversion for people with a fixed vs. growth mindset with regard to the perception of life event graduation from school .

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of external sources such as life events and internal dispositions like the mindset on personality trait change. We assert that exploring whether the subjective experience of life events is associated with personality trait development constitutes an important future directions in various domains of personality research. Therefore, we took a closer look at the underlying processes, particularly as they relate to individual differences in situational perceptions and belief systems. We investigated how two critical life events (moving away from home and graduating from school) influence personality trait change, the role of subjective perceptions of these events, and how internal belief systems like mindset moderate the impact of life events on trait change.

Mean-Level Change

Since our sample was selected to be between 14 and 21 years of age, most of our participants were classified as emerging adults Arnett, 2000 , 2007 . A large body of research has consistently demonstrated that emerging adulthood is characterized by trait changes related to maturity processes (for an overview, see Roberts et al., 2006 ). Thus, emerging adults tend to experience increases in conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, and (to a lesser degree) agreeableness. This pattern is often called the “maturity principle” of personality development, and it has been found to hold true cross-culturally (Roberts and Jackson, 2008 ; Bleidorn, 2015 ). Although the effects were small, we found evidence for mean-level changes in line with the maturity principle and functional personality trait development. Extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability significantly increased over the 1-year period. The largest changes were found for openness and conscientiousness. These changes are most likely to be explained by attempts to satisfy mature expectations and engage in role-congruent behavior. While increases in openness might be due to identity exploration, higher scores on conscientiousness could reflect investment in age-related roles. Individuals might, for instance, take increased responsibility for social or career-related tasks that require more mature functioning (Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ).

First, we analyzed whether the occurrence of a life event per se had an influence on personality trait change. In our study, neither of the critical life events?moving away from home or graduating from school?affected Big Five trait change over the two measurement occasions. One possible explanation is that the two chosen life events were not prominent enough to evoke far-reaching changes in personality traits (Magnus et al., 1993 ; Löckenhoff et al., 2009 ). In line with a study by Löckenhoff et al. ( 2009 ), more stressful, adverse events might have triggered more pronounced and predictable effects on personality traits. Moreover, the period between the late teens and early adulthood is characterized by a large number of stressful events and daily hassles (Arnett, 2000 , 2007 ). In a comprehensive review of emerging adulthood by Bleidorn and Schwaba ( 2017 ), graduates also experienced changes in other personality traits, such as openness and emotional stability, which suggests that many developmental tasks and major life transitions contribute to changes in Big Five trait domains. Furthermore, according to Luhmann et al. ( 2014 ) and Yeager et al. ( 2019 ), life events may not only independently influence the development of personality characteristics, they might also interact with one another. Researchers must address the interpretation of other challenges that adolescents experience. This notion is also supported in a study by Wagner et al. ( 2020 ), who introduced a model that integrates factors that are both personal (e.g., genetic expressions) and environmental (e.g., culture and society). The authors assert that the interactions and transactions of multiple sources are responsible for shaping individuals' personalities, and, in order to understand how they interact and develop over time, more integrated research is needed. Future studies should focus on a wider range of important life events and environmental influences during emerging adulthood and account for possible accumulating effects.

Second, and perhaps most remarkably, our findings revealed a different picture after we analyzed how the two critical life events were perceived. When participants experienced graduating from school negatively, a greater decrease in emotional stability was observed. Conversely, when the event was evaluated positively, a greater positive change in extraversion was reported. There are clear theoretical links between these two traits and the perception of life events in terms of emotional valence. While low emotional stability encompasses a disposition to experience negative emotions such as fear, shame, embarrassment, or sadness (especially in stressful situations), extraverted individuals are characterized by attributes such as cheerfulness, happiness, and serenity (Goldberg, 1990 ; Depue and Collins, 1999 ). In line with the notion of a bottom-up process of personality development (Roberts et al., 2005 ), experiencing a major life event as either positive or negative might lead to a prolonged experience of these emotions and, thus, ultimately to altered levels of the corresponding personality traits. These findings are in line with previous research on subjective well-being (SWB). In fact, variance in SWB can be explained by emotional stability and extraversion, indicating a robust negative relationship between low emotional stability and SWB and a positive relationship between extraversion and SWB (Costa and McCrae, 1980 ; Headey and Wearing, 1989 ). Moreover, Magnus et al. ( 1993 ) found selection effects for these traits, suggesting that high scorers in extraversion experience more subjectively positive events, and low scorers in emotional stability experience many (subjectively) negative events (see also Headey and Wearing, 1989 ).

In the present study, we found evidence of a moderating influence of mindset on the impact of the life event graduating from school for the trait extraversion. Our results indicate that people with a growth mindset show greater change in extraversion, almost regardless of whether they experienced the life event more negatively or more positively. On the other hand, the present results indicate that people with a fixed mindset show an increase in extraversion after experiencing a life event more positively, but almost no change in extraversion when experiencing graduating from school negatively.

Interestingly, we only found effects for extraversion. As previously mentioned, trait extraversion stands for behavioral attributes such as how outgoing and social a person is, and this is related to differences in perceived positive affect (Goldberg, 1990 ; Magnus et al., 1993 ; Roberts et al., 2005 ). The characteristics of extraversion can be linked to the assumption that people with a growth mindset show greater resilience (Schroder et al., 2017 ; Yeager et al., 2019 ), especially in the face of academic and social challenges (Yeager and Dweck, 2012 ). Thus, people who believe that their internal attributes are malleable confront challenges such as graduation by adapting and learning from them; our findings suggest that this results in an increase in extraversion. By contrast, people who believe that they cannot change their personality characteristics might attribute a negatively experienced graduation to external circumstances out of their control. Thus, they do not rise from a negative life event and experience no impetus to become more extraverted.

The above notwithstanding, more research is needed, as we found no evidence for the other Big Five personality traits. Further, the relationship between mindset and personality is complex to disentangle. We examined only two major life events in this first attempt. More attention is needed with respect to other life events and their interplay with internal belief systems and implicit theories to explore possible far-reaching effects on behavior.

In summary, the present study makes an important contribution to the literature on personality development in emerging adulthood with a special focus on external and internal influences and the assessment of critical life events. Our findings support the notion of a dimensional approach to life events, as introduced by Luhmann et al. ( 2020 ), in contrast to a typological approach. With regard to research on situational perception, it seems reductive to examine the occurrence of certain life events rather than their subjective perceptions. As previously mentioned, many studies emphasize that (1) events and single situations can trigger expectancies about how to act and adjust in similar situations (TESSERA framework, Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ); (2) psychological situations and person-situation transactions deviate from one another (Rauthmann et al., 2015 ); and (3) regulatory mechanisms influence the variability in individual personality trait change (Denissen et al., 2013 ).

Again, further research is needed to explore the underlying processes behind critical life events and their impact on personality trait changes. In doing so, great care should be taken in selecting life events with a strong social and emotional component with respect to individual perceptions. Finally, there is also a need for more research into the selection of life events being assessed with regard to their interplay.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our research demonstrates the importance of examining the underlying processes behind personality changes that arise from external influences such as life events. One of the strengths of this study was our large sample, which comprised N = 1,679 German emerging adults and allowed us to use powerful statistical methods. One limitation was that we gathered data across a 1-year time interval with only two measurement occasions. As noted by Luhmann et al. ( 2014 ), the inclusion of more than two measurement points makes it easier to distinguish between sudden short- or long-term shifts and more gradual linear changes. With this in mind, it is possible that critical life events correlate with temporary disruptions of personality maturation; tracing the impact of a single life event on personality trait change might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. Moreover, two measurement occasions can only reveal the immediate effect of life events on personality traits and may, therefore, neglect long-term effects that become salient after more time has passed. Future studies should also incorporate more characteristics of life events. We concentrated our study on the valence of critical life events, but other features—such as impact, challenge, and predictability—could reveal a more comprehensive picture (Luhmann et al., 2020 ).

Another limitation of the present study is that all our data relied on self-report personality measures. Even though almost all research on personality change is based on self-report measures, the influence of (for example) self-concepts cannot be neglected. Self-reported data might thus depart from other types of data in terms of differential stability, for example (Wagner et al., 2020 ). Hence, changes in the Big Five domains might reflect subjective rather than observable changes in personality. At the same time, we believe that our approach of assessing personality traits and the perception of life events gives valuable insights into personality development, since we focused on how individuals consciously understand their experiences. Nevertheless, it would be informative to compare both approaches (observer and self-reported data) to examine how they complement one another (see also: Bleidorn et al., 2020 ).

Yet another important issue that must be mentioned are our attrition effects. As previously stated, the data for the first measurement occasion was gathered through a non-profit self-assessment test intended to help students explore post-graduation occupational opportunities. Hence, our sample might be prone to selection effects and confounding preexisting differences: only emerging adults who were concerned about their future might have taken the test in the first place. The self-selection to voluntarily participate in a research study might also explain the higher percentage of female participants. Moreover, some of the Big Five traits from T2 dropouts were correlated with T1 personality traits. Therefore, our results should be interpreted with caution; participants with low conscientiousness, for example, might have been more likely to drop out or have been excluded from our study due to the diligence check, and thus conscientiousness could have risen over the study period because the sample composition shifted between T1 and T2. Nevertheless, the noted differential attrition effects were rather small and reflect only modest selectivity (see also Lüdtke et al., 2011 ; Specht et al., 2011 ).

Finally, we did not examine cultural differences. With our German sample, we only investigated patterns in a modern Western industrialized country. Hence, we did not control for different cultural and demographic backgrounds, and our results might thus not be applicable to a broader range of individuals.

The present research improves our understanding of personality trait development during the critical period of emerging adulthood and demonstrates the importance of examining the underlying processes behind personality changes that arise from external influences such as life events. We showed how two critical life events can shape and adjust life trajectories, which is a necessary step toward gaining a comprehensive picture of the underlying processes of personality trait change across the life course. In addition to changes in the operationalization of life event research, larger and more diverse samples over more measurement occasions are needed to further explore how individual perceptions and internal belief systems influence our personality during and after experiencing critical life events.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ethic commission of Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

JHDV and PM designed the study and formulated the hypotheses. MS and AF provided the testing platform and set up the test battery. JHDV, MS, and AF were responsible for recruiting the sample and administrating the panel. JHDV and PM conducted the data analysis. JHDV designed the figures and drafted the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This work was funded by a research grant to Professor Patrick Mussel by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany (Mu3045/6-1).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671421/full#supplementary-material

• Arnett J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties . Am. Psychol . 55 , 469–480. 10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnett J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: what is it, and what is it good for? Child Dev. Perspect. 1 , 68–73. 10.1111/j.17508606.2007.00016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baltes P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life span develop-mental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline . Dev. Psychol. 23 , 611–626. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biddle S. J. H., Wang J., Chatzisarantis N., Spray C. M. (2003). Motivation for physical activity in young people: entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability . J. Sports Sci. 21 , 973–989. 10.1080/02640410310001641377 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackwell L. S., Trzesniewski K. H., Dweck C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention . Child Dev. 78 , 246–263. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W. (2012). Hitting the road to adulthood: short-term personality development during a major life transition . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 , 1594–1608. 10.1177/0146167212456707 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W. (2015). What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 245–252. 10.1177/0963721414568662 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Hill P. L., Back M. D., Denissen J. J. A., Hennecke M., Hopwood C. J., et al.. (2020). Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020) . Am. Psychol . 75 , 731–732. 10.1037/amp0000676 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Hopwood C. J., Lucas R. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait Change . J. Pers. 86 , 83–96. 10.1111/jopy.12286 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Schwaba T. (2017). “Personality development in emerging adulthood,” in Personality Development Across The Lifespan , ed J. Specht (Elsevier Academic Press; ), 39–51. 10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00004-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette J. L., Finkel E. J. (2012). Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: an implicit theory intervention . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 721–725. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A., Moffitt T. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence . Psychol. Inq. 4 , 247–271. 10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cattell R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their Structure Growth and Action . Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung G. W., Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance . Struct. Equat. Model. Multidiscipl. J. 9 , 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007sem0902_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., McCrae R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38 , 668–678. 10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damian R. I., Spengler M., Sutu A., Roberts B. W. (2018). Sixteen going on sixty- six: a longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 117 , 674–695. 10.1037/pspp0000210 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denissen J. J. A., Luhmann M., Chung J. M., Bleidorn W. (2018). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 116 , 612–633. 10.1037/pspp0000196 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denissen J. J. A., van Aken M. A., Penke L., Wood D. (2013). Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: an integrative developmental framework . Child Dev. Perspect. 7 , 255–260. 10.1111/cdep.12050 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Depue R. A., Collins P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion . Behav. Brain Sci. 22 , 491–569. 10.1017/S0140525X99002046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnellan M., Oswald F., Baird B., Lucas R. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality . Psychol. Assess. 18 , 192–203. 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature : promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower . Am. Psychol. 67 , 614–622. 10.1037/a0029783 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development . Psychol. Rev. 124 , 689–719. 10.1037/rev0000082 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychol. Rev. 95 , 256–273. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the Big-Five factor structure . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 , 1216–1229. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Headey B., Wearing A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: toward a dynamic equilibrium model . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57 , 731–739 [ Google Scholar ]
• Heslin P., Vandewalle D. (2008). Managers' implicit assumptions about personnel . Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 219–223. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00578.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopson B., Adams J. (1976). “Towards an understanding of transition: defining some boundaries of transition dynamics,” in Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Change , eds Adams J., Hayes J., Hopson B. (London: Martin Robertson; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Struct. Equat. Model. 6 , 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson N. W., Fraley R. C., Briley D. A., Chopik W. J. (2020). Your personality does not care whether you believe it can change: beliefs about whether personality can change do not predict trait change among emerging adults . Euro. J. Pers. 35 , 340–357. 10.1002/per.2289 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson J. (1997). “Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality,” in Handbook of Personality Psychology , eds Hogan R., Briggs S. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 73–93. 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50004-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonkmann K., Thoemmes F., Lüdtke O., Trautwein U. (2014). Personality traits and living arrangements in young adulthood, selection and socialization . Dev. Psychol. 50 , 683–698. 10.1037/a0034239 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jorgensen T. D., Pornprasertmanit S., Schoemann A. M., Rosseel Y. (2018). semTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling. R Package Version 0.5-1 . Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
• Kendler K. S., Gardner C. O., Prescott C. A. (2003). Personality and the experience of environmental adversity . Psychol. Med. 33 , 1193–1202. 10.1017/s0033291703008298 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kray L. J., Haselhuhn M. P. (2007). Implicit negotiation beliefs and performance: experimental and longitudinal evidence . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 , 49–64. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.49 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lehnart J., Neyer F. J., Eccles J. (2010). Long-term effects of social investment: the case of partnering in young adulthood . J. Pers. 78 , 639–670. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little T., Preacher K., Selig J. P., Card N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data . Int. J. Behav. Dev. 31 , 357–365. 10.1177/0165025407077757 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Löckenhoff C., Terracciano A., Patriciu N., Eaton W., Costa P. (2009). Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in five-factor model personality traits in an urban sample . J. Trauma. Stress 22 , 53–59. 10.1002/jts.20385 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 847–861. 10.1037/a0024298 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüdtke O., Roberts B. W., Trautwein U., Nagy G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 620–637. 10.1037/a0023743 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann M., Fassbender I., Alcock M., Haehner P. (2020). A dimensional taxonomyof perceived characteristics of major life events . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 10.1037/pspp0000291 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann M., Hofmann W., Eid M., Lucas R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 592–615. 10.1037/a0025948 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann M., Orth U., Specht J., Kandler C., Lucas R. E. (2014). Studying changes in life circumstances and personality: it's about time . Eur. J. Pers. 28 , 256–266. 10.1002/per.1951 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacCallum R. C., Browne M. W., Cai L. (2006). Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: power analysis and null hypotheses . Psychol. Methods 11 , 19–35. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.19 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnus K., Diener E., Fujita F., Pavot W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65 , 1046–1053. 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.1046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier-Diewald W., Wittchen H.-U., Hecht H., Werner-Eilert K. (1983). Die Münchner Ereignisliste (MEL) - Anwendungsmanual . München: Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Klinische Psychologie und Epidemiologie. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh H. W., Hau K.-T., Grayson D. (2005). “Goodness of fit in structural equation models,” in Multivariate Applications Book Series. Contemporary Psychometrics: A Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald , eds Maydeu-Olivares A., McArdle J. J. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 275–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• McArdle J. J., Ferrer-Caja E., Hamagami F., Woodcock R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span . Dev. Psychol. 38 , 115–142. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (1999). “A Five-Factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , eds Pervin L. A., John O. P. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 139–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mussel P. (2012). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance . J. Organ. Behav. 34 , 453–472. 10.1002/job.1809 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newsom J. T. (2015). Multivariate Applications Series. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction . New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niehoff E., Petersdotter L., Freund P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the Big Five . Pers. Individ. Dif. 112 , 55–61. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orth U., Erol R. Y., Luciano E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies . Psychol. Bull. 144 , 1045–1080. 10.1037/bul0000161 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pusch S., Mund M., Hagemeyer B., Finn C., Wrzus C. (2018). Personality development in emerging and young adulthood: a study of age differences . Eur. J. Pers. 33 , 245–263. 10.1002/per.2181 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org [ Google Scholar ]
• Rammstedt B., Danner D., Martin S. (2016). The association between personality and cognitive ability: going beyond simple effects . J. Res. Pers. 62 , 39–44. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauthmann J. F., Sherman R. A., Funder D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: towards a better understanding of psychological situations . Eur. J. Pers. 29 , 363–381. 10.1002/per.1994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W. (2009). Back to the future: personality and assessment and personality development . J. Res. Pers. 43 , 137–145. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 . Psychol. Bull. 126 , 3–25. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Jackson J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology . J. Pers. 76 , 1523–1544. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Mroczek D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 31–35. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 . Psychol. Bull. 132 , 1–25. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Wood D., Smith J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development . J. Res. Pers. 39 , 166–184. 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosseel Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling . J. Stat. Softw. 48 , 1–36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• S&F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH (2005). TakeFive . Unpublished test. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saeed G., Oshio A., Taku K., Hirano M. (2018). Resilience and big five personality traits: a meta-analysis . Pers. Individ. Dif. 127 , 54–60. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schroder H. S., Yalch M. M., Dawood S., Callahan C. P., Donnellan M. B., Moser J. S. (2017). Growth mindset of anxiety buffers the link between stressful life events and psychological distress and coping strategies . Pers. Individ. Dif. 110 , 23–36. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sisk V. F., Burgoyne A. P., Sun J., Butler J. L., Macnamara B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses . Psychol. Sci. 29 , 549–571. 10.1177/0956797617739704 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Specht J., Egloff B., Schmukle S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: the impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 862–882. 10.1037/a0024950 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner J., Orth U., Bleidorn W., Hopwood C. J., Kandler C. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29 , 438–444. 10.1177/0963721420924751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzus C., Roberts B. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: the TESSERA framework . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21 , 253–277. 10.1177/1088868316652279 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager D., Dweck C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed . Educ. Psychol . 47 , 302–314. 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager D. S., Hanselman P., Walton G. M., Murray J. S., Crosnoe R., Muller C., et al.. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement . Nature 573 , 364–369. 10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler M., Cengia A., Mussel P., Gerstorf D. (2015). Openness as a buffer against cognitive decline: the Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model applied to late adulthood . Psychol. Aging 30 , 573–588. 10.1037/a0039493 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]