In this review, we evaluate four topics in the study of personality development where discernible progress has been made since 1995 (the last time the area of personality development was reviewed in this series). We (a) evaluate research about the structure of personality in childhood and in adulthood, with special attention to possible developmental changes in the lower-order components of broad traits; (b) summarize new directions in behavioral genetic studies of personality; (c) synthesize evidence from longitudinal studies to pinpoint where and when in the life course personality change is most likely to occur; and (d) document which personality traits influence social relationships, status attainment, and health, and the mechanisms by which these personality effects come about. In each of these four areas, we note gaps and identify priorities for further research.

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field (Pervin & John, 1999). However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or usefulone would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of these domains (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005;Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a Address correspondence to Brent W. Roberts, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820; broberts@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu. HHS Public Access Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of "third" variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality traits over and above other factors.The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirica...

Child psychologists and psychiatrists are interested in assessing children's personalities. This interest is fueled by the practical desire to identify differences between children that have predictive utility, and by recognition that future advances in developmental theory, especially in relation to gene-environment interplay, can only be as good as the measures on which they rely. The aim of this article is to facilitate these practical and theoretical advances. First, we delineate a taxonomy of measurable individual differences in temperament and personality in childhood, and point the reader to proven and/or promising measuring instruments. Second, we describe the processes through which early temperament differences may become elaborated into adult personality structure and lifelong adaptation, and identify gaps in the empirical research that need to be filled. Third, we explore the various connections between temperament/ personality traits and psychopathology, and direct attention to promising questions and strategies.

No abstract

The now‐classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of research on the fundamentals of temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.

Developmental researchers have neglected the study of personality traits in middle childhood, thus leaving unanswered many questions about childhood personality structure. This article presents a developmental framework for understanding personality in middle childhood and critically reviews 5 models of temperament and personality structure in this age range: the models of A. Thomas and S. Chess, A. H. Buss and R. Plomin, M. K. Rothbart, J. Block and J. H. Block, and the Big Five. A number of robust personality dimensions common to these models and the broader developmental and adult personality literatures are then discussed: sociability, social inhibition, dominance, negative emotionality, aggressiveness, prosocial disposition, persistence/attention, mastery motivation, inhibitory control, and activity level. These dimensions represent a preliminary taxonomy of personality traits for exploring questions of individual development in childhood.

In this chapter, we offer a developmental perspective on temperament and personality traits from early childhood through adulthood. First, we address the relationship between temperament and personality and the methods used to ascertain the structure of traits in these two research traditions. We argue that the temperament and personality traditions provide different ways of describing the same basic traits. Second, we describe the current status of the most prominent temperament models and the Big Five personality trait model. Third, we articulate a structural model that integrates contemporary findings on temperament and personality traits from early childhood through adulthood. Fourth, we discuss current research on the psychological and biological processes that underlie individual differences in the Big Five traits in childhood and adulthood. This is an exciting time in the study of personality development, in part because of the marked progress in uncovering the basic structure of traits across the lifespan.

Four personality traits--Mastery Motivation, Academic Conscientiousness, Surgent Engagement, and Agreeableness--were measured in a community sample of 205 children (ages 8-12), who were followed up 10 years later. Childhood personality was examined in relation to concurrent and longitudinal adaptation in 3 domains--academic achievement, rule-abiding versus antisocial conduct, and peer social competence. The childhood personality traits evidenced robust, conceptually coherent relationships with adaptation, both concurrently and across time. Childhood personality added to the prediction of later adaptation, beyond childhood IQ and earlier adaptation in the same domain. Few sex differences were obtained in the relationships between childhood personality and adaptation. The present results document both continuity and discontinuity in the links between childhood personality and adaptation across childhood into late adolescence.