Big Five Personality Traits in Adulthood and Aging

7 days ago

20 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy

The Big Five personality traits continue to develop throughout adulthood and into old age. Across large longitudinal studies, people tend to become more emotionally stable during much of adulthood; conscientiousness often rises earlier in adult life and may decline in later life; openness and extraversion frequently decrease with advancing age; and agreeableness follows a more variable course. These patterns describe averages across samples, not a universal schedule that every person follows. The most informative research examines the same people repeatedly, distinguishes different kinds of stability, and accounts for differences among cohorts and personality measures. A 2022 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and a coordinated analysis of 16 longitudinal samples provide especially important foundations.

This guide examines what research actually shows about Big Five personality development from the twenties through the oldest ages, how the five domains differ, why a relatively stable personality can still change, and how to interpret apparent age trends. It is a population-focused companion to our complete Big Five personality traits guide and domains, aspects, and facets explanation. The central question is how adult personality develops with age, including the scientific limits of the evidence.

What Does the Big Five Model Measure in Adults?

The Big Five is a descriptive framework for five broad, continuous dimensions of personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Researchers measure tendencies in characteristic thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. A position on one dimension does not make someone a fixed personality type; scores indicate degree, relative to the scale and comparison sample used. The Big Five model is an organizing framework, while NEO inventories, Big Five Inventory measures, and other questionnaires are specific instruments with different item sets and subordinate scales.

Age-related personality research often uses questionnaires completed by the same participants at multiple waves. Some studies also incorporate observer ratings, behavioral measures, or biological and social-context variables. Instrument choice matters: a NEO facet is defined within the NEO instrument family; the BFI-2 organizes its domains into three facets per domain; and a broader aspect model uses a different level of description. A general claim that all Big Five inventories contain the same facets would misrepresent the research. Our Big Five test guide explains what specific instruments measure and our scores and percentiles guide addresses norm-dependent interpretation.

The Short Answer: Does Personality Change as Adults Age?

Yes. Adulthood involves both continuity and development. Over a few years, adults commonly maintain much of their relative standing within a group: someone who is comparatively conscientious today is often comparatively conscientious several years later. At the same time, the average conscientiousness level in a sample can shift, and individuals can change at different rates or in different directions. These three propositions are compatible rather than contradictory. The 2022 updated meta-analysis found both substantial rank-order stability and mean-level change; a 2026 meta-analysis drawing on 229 longitudinal studies and 230,492 participants confirmed meaningful individual differences in change across the lifespan.

The magnitude and timing of change differ among traits, measures, cultures, cohorts, and age ranges. For that reason, statements such as “personality is set by 30,” “everyone grows more agreeable,” and “older people are less curious” are oversimplifications. They confuse a statistical tendency with an individual forecast, and sometimes confuse age differences between different generations with changes occurring within one person's life.

Three Different Meanings of Personality Stability

1. Rank-order stability: Do people keep their relative positions?

Rank-order stability asks whether individuals retain approximately the same relative position on a trait compared with other individuals. If two adults are assessed at 35 and again at 45, a positive correlation means that people who scored comparatively high at the first wave tend to score comparatively high at the next. It says little by itself about whether the whole group has risen or fallen. The landmark Roberts and DelVecchio meta-analysis of 152 longitudinal studies reported that rank-order consistency increased across early life and was particularly substantial during mature adulthood. Later evidence refined that age curve: the 2022 meta-analysis found limited support for continued increases in rank-order stability after approximately age 25, making precise age claims dependent on the study set and analytic method.

2. Mean-level change: Does the average score rise or fall?

Mean-level change concerns an average increase or decrease in a trait within a sample over time. All participants could become slightly more conscientious while retaining almost exactly the same ranking relative to one another. The 2006 longitudinal meta-analysis identified age-related average changes in conscientiousness, emotional stability, social dominance, social vitality, openness, and agreeableness; later research found that the full lifespan effect sizes and developmental timing were sometimes more modest than earlier estimates. No single curve adequately captures every domain or component.

3. Individual differences in change: Do people follow the same paths?

Two adults of the same age can follow different trajectories even when they begin with similar trait scores. One person's conscientiousness may rise after sustained new responsibilities; another's may remain stable; another's may decline in the context of changing health or daily demands. These are illustrations of possible trajectories, not established explanations for any specific individual. The 2026 longitudinal meta-analysis of individual differences found statistically meaningful variation in change for every broad trait, persisting across adulthood. Its estimates also showed that variation depends on the time between measurements, the level of trait detail, and measurement design.

A fourth question: Does the spread of scores change with age?

Researchers can also ask whether adults become more similar or more different from one another with age, a question about trait variance rather than average level or ranking. A separate 2026 meta-analysis of 362 longitudinal studies comprising 398,124 participants found that overall personality variance was remarkably stable across much of the lifespan, with some trait- and age-specific deviations, including lower extraversion variance across portions of middle and later adulthood. This does not imply that each individual is unchanged; distributional similarity can coexist with movement inside the distribution.

Big Five Development by Life Stage

Emerging and young adulthood: approximately the twenties and thirties

Young adulthood is a period in which work, education, intimate partnerships, independent living, and changing responsibilities often coincide with personality development. The classic longitudinal literature describes average growth in conscientiousness, assertiveness or social dominance, and emotional stability, particularly between about ages 20 and 40. This has sometimes been called a maturity-related pattern. The label is a description of correlated average directions, not a moral rating of an individual or a claim that everyone should change this way. Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006) documented the original pattern; Bleidorn and colleagues (2022) provided more recent pooled estimates and a more nuanced stability timetable.

Not all facets of extraversion follow a common line. Assertiveness and social energy can change differently. Nor does reaching a birthday activate a predictable personality shift. The New Zealand cohort-sequential study of 10,416 adults aged 19–74 found that conscientiousness rose in young adulthood and subsequently leveled, while extraversion declined; it also demonstrated that apparent openness and neuroticism age patterns partly reflected birth-cohort differences. The exact curves should therefore be interpreted in the context of the scale, sample, and statistical model.

Middle adulthood: relative continuity alongside gradual development

Middle adulthood is often characterized by relatively high rank-order stability, although modest shifts in average levels and meaningful changes for particular individuals remain possible. A person may remain comparably outgoing, organized, or curious relative to peers, while gradually changing how those characteristics are expressed. Daily routines can become more specialized, priorities may shift, and social contexts can change. Stability of relative ranking should never be read as proof that a person has stopped developing. A nationally representative German longitudinal analysis of 20,434 adults found robust differential stability and age-related patterns that depended on how older age was examined.

Developmental trends are trait-specific. Some measures suggest greater average agreeableness with age; others capture components such as empathy or politeness that move differently. Conscientiousness may remain relatively steady for decades after earlier increases. A central methodological point is that middle-aged samples include people born in different social and historical periods. Observed gaps between, for example, 40-year-olds and 60-year-olds cannot automatically be attributed to twenty years of biological aging.

Later adulthood: approximately the sixties, seventies, and beyond

Later-life development is especially heterogeneous. Retirement timing, physical functioning, changing social networks, caregiving, widowhood, economic resources, chronic illness, and cognitive aging can alter the situations in which traits are expressed. Such factors may correlate with personality scores without individually causing a measurable trait change. In the coordinated study of 16 longitudinal aging samples with more than 60,000 participants, average conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness declined over time in the linear models, agreeableness was comparatively stable, and some nonlinear analyses suggested later-life increases in neuroticism. The authors found heterogeneity related in part to age, country, and measurement instrument.

A decline in one domain's average score does not imply a global decline in functioning or a deterioration in character. Lower extraversion may reflect less frequent participation in stimulating social settings while close relationships remain meaningful. Lower openness scores may be partly shaped by the specific activities asked about, such as seeking novel experiences or engaging with cultural material. Late-life changes in health, mobility, or opportunity can affect item responses. Evidence from the Lothian Birth Cohorts found high rank-order stability even in older cohorts alongside some declining mean levels, underscoring that substantial continuity and age-related change coexist.

The oldest-old: ages 80 and older

The oldest-old are frequently underrepresented in personality research, particularly in studies with many repeated waves. Recruitment, mortality, cognitive limitations, sensory changes, and attrition can influence who remains in a study. Strong claims about personality after age 85 therefore require especially careful interpretation. Research following adults into their eighties and beyond has reported both continuity and some accelerated change, but samples, health status, and instruments differ. The Mõttus, Johnson, and Deary older-cohort study is a concrete illustration of why longitudinal comparisons and measurement equivalence matter at these ages.

How Each Big Five Trait Tends to Change With Age

Openness to experience

Openness broadly concerns curiosity, receptivity to ideas and experiences, imagination, and related tendencies, although its lower-level structure varies by instrument. Some classic findings suggest rising openness during adolescence or early adulthood followed by average declines later in life. The 2006 meta-analysis documented declines at older ages; the 16-sample coordinated longitudinal analysis found a similar broad trend in aging samples. Yet an older adult may remain more curious or intellectually engaged than most peers, and an age-related decrease in a scale score does not imply an inability to learn. Familiar routines, constraints on travel, and changing opportunities can influence the behaviors captured by particular questionnaire items.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness includes tendencies toward organization, dependability, self-discipline, and goal-directed behavior. Its mean level often increases in young adulthood as people acquire and practice stable responsibilities. In later adulthood, some longitudinal datasets show modest declines, while others show long plateaus before a late-life shift. The New Zealand cohort-sequential study found early adult growth followed by relative stability; the coordinated aging analysis found average declines in older samples. An individual who has fewer externally structured tasks after retirement may answer some work-oriented items differently without becoming irresponsible.

Extraversion

Extraversion includes sociability, positive engagement, energy, and assertive or dominant tendencies, which can show distinct developmental patterns. Research that separated social dominance from social vitality found different average trajectories: assertiveness often increased earlier in adulthood, while social energy and social activity showed reductions later. This distinction appears in the 2006 longitudinal meta-analysis. The 2020 coordinated analysis found overall extraversion declines across its adult aging samples. The practical meaning depends on which component is measured. Decreasing social activity could arise from opportunity, health, or preferences, and should not be equated automatically with loneliness or depression.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness broadly involves interpersonal cooperation, consideration, and concern for others. Its overall average pattern is less uniform than simplified age narratives suggest. The 2006 meta-analysis identified change particularly in old age, but other measures have yielded flat or differently directed trajectories. For example, Milojev and Sibley's study used an empathy-oriented measure and found an early adult decrease followed by relative stability, whereas other conceptualizations emphasize forms of interpersonal warmth that may increase. Researchers should therefore identify the actual scale and component before stating that people inevitably become kinder, more trusting, or more compliant with age.

Neuroticism and emotional stability

Neuroticism concerns habitual differences in negative emotionality and emotional reactivity. Emotional stability is often discussed in the opposite direction, although terminology and scoring conventions depend on the instrument. Many longitudinal analyses find greater average emotional stability through much of adulthood, and some studies report a late-life reversal or greater heterogeneity. The 2022 longitudinal meta-analysis found relatively consistent increases in emotional stability across the lifespan in pooled results; the 2020 coordinated study identified some evidence for late-life increases in neuroticism. Neither finding authorizes a diagnosis or a prediction that a particular older adult will experience anxiety, depression, or a psychiatric disorder.

The full developmental interpretation of this specific domain belongs to our published Neuroticism and Age: How the Trait Changes Across the Lifespan. That article addresses neuroticism-specific age trends, mechanisms, and limitations. This Big Five article keeps the focus on the comparison of all five domains in adulthood and aging.

Why Different Research Papers Sometimes Disagree

Cross-sectional age differences versus longitudinal aging

A cross-sectional study compares people of different ages at the same time; a longitudinal study measures the same people at multiple times. Imagine that 70-year-olds score lower on a particular openness scale than 30-year-olds. Those older adults were born in an earlier generation and may have had different educational, economic, cultural, and technological experiences. The observed difference could reflect aging, cohort history, selective survival, or several processes together. Following the same people reduces the simple age/cohort confusion but introduces its own challenges: attrition, repeated testing, and changing life circumstances.

Cohort-sequential designs combine multiple birth cohorts assessed across repeated waves and can help separate age effects from cohort patterns under explicit modeling assumptions. Milojev and Sibley (2017) demonstrated how estimated age patterns can change when cohort differences are incorporated. Allemand and colleagues' age-comparison research also illustrates why establishing measurement comparability is important before contrasting ages. Even sophisticated statistical models depend on assumptions about missing observations and historical trends.

Measurement invariance and whether the questionnaire means the same thing at different ages

A legitimate longitudinal comparison should test whether the instrument measures a comparable construct over time and across age groups. The meaning of “I enjoy parties,” “I make detailed plans,” or “I seek novelty” can vary with available opportunities, disability, social norms, and retirement. Researchers use measurement invariance analyses to investigate whether item-to-trait relationships and score scales are sufficiently comparable. The Seattle Longitudinal Study's NEO-PI-R facet analysis explicitly examined invariance across age and time before modeling facet change; Mõttus and colleagues did related work in older cohorts. Passing a comparability test strengthens interpretation for that instrument and sample, rather than establishing perfect equivalence for all Big Five tests worldwide.

The same domain can contain components with different age curves

Broad domains summarize many tendencies. Separate components can change in opposite directions, offset one another, or follow different timing. An apparent age effect on extraversion may chiefly reflect lower energy rather than lower assertiveness. An apparent decline in conscientiousness may be concentrated in one facet rather than every kind of organized behavior. Brandt and colleagues (2023) examined NEO-PI-R facets over 11 years in 1,667 adults and found substantial rank-order stability alongside notable differences among facets. It would be inaccurate to present the NEO inventory's facets as the single universal Big Five facet system.

Participant dropout, selective survival, and study duration

People who remain in a study over decades may differ systematically from those who leave it or die. Mobility, education, disability, cognitive function, and willingness to complete questionnaires can influence the observed sample. A three-year study and a 30-year study may also capture quite different magnitudes of change. The 2000 rank-order review showed the importance of assessment intervals, and the 2026 individual-change meta-analysis found larger observed variation across longer study intervals. Missing-data modeling helps, but it cannot guarantee that all unobserved trajectories are recovered.

Culture, language, and historical context

Big Five research has accumulated evidence from multiple societies and languages, but age trends are shaped by the populations and instruments studied. Different cultural expectations about retirement, family obligations, autonomy, and self-description may affect both trait expression and questionnaire responses. Evidence for the broad model in many contexts does not mean that every lexical study reproduces identical five-factor structures or that every culture shares one developmental timetable. The 2020 coordinated cross-sample analysis explicitly found country-related heterogeneity. A finding obtained in a particular country should be reported with its geographic and sampling context.

Does Growing Older Automatically Make People More Mature?

Researchers sometimes describe increases in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability as a “maturity principle.” In personality-development scholarship, maturity denotes the direction of certain average trait changes that are socially functional in many adult roles. It is a theoretical interpretation of group-level patterns, not an age-ranked measure of human worth. An outgoing older adult is not less mature than an introverted peer, and a person who becomes less compliant is not necessarily developing poorly. The term should not substitute for analysis of which trait or facet actually changed.

The timing also varies. Much of the classic maturity-related change has been observed in early adulthood, and the 2022 meta-analysis adjusted older expectations about how strongly rank-order stability continues to rise past young adulthood. Older age combines experience and competence with new demands, changing roles, and some health-related constraints. The developmental pattern is multidirectional rather than a story of inevitable improvement or inevitable decline.

Why Can Personality Change in Adult Life?

Roles, repeated behaviors, and environments

Adult development unfolds in contexts: employment, long-term relationships, caregiving, civic participation, retirement, and everyday habits. Social-investment accounts propose that investing in enduring adult roles may relate to the development of traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability. Yet a longitudinal correlation between a role transition and a score change does not prove the event alone caused the change. People select environments partly based on their existing traits, and social events vary in meaning and timing.

A 2024 preregistered meta-analysis of life events and personality change synthesized 44 studies, 89 samples, and 121,187 participants. It identified some specific but generally small and inconsistent event-related changes, with differences among work and relationship transitions. A single marriage, job change, bereavement, or retirement should therefore never be treated as a reliable personality-reset mechanism. The full general evidence for life-event effects belongs to the cluster's dedicated life-events article when that page becomes available.

Health, functional opportunities, and later-life behavior

Age-related changes in physical health, sensory abilities, cognitive functioning, and social opportunity can influence both daily behavior and questionnaire scores. For example, reduced travel or fewer social outings can change the outward expression of extraversion or openness. This is a plausible measurement and contextual consideration rather than proof that a medical condition produces a particular personality trajectory. Health-related associations also run in several directions and can be affected by socioeconomic circumstances and prior behavior. A systematic review and meta-analysis of Big Five traits and allostatic load found small trait–biomarker associations in adults; that evidence does not diagnose health problems from personality scores.

Deliberate change and psychological interventions

Adults can work on repeated patterns of behavior at many ages, and some structured interventions have been associated with changes in personality measures. A systematic review of 207 intervention studies identified measurable changes, especially in emotional stability and extraversion, across several designs. Such studies vary in populations, interventions, follow-up, and whether the changes reflect lasting underlying trait modification, symptom improvement, or reporting shifts. Evidence about clinical treatment should not be transferred directly to a healthy older person's attempt to change every trait. The present page concerns naturalistic development in adulthood; intentional personality change merits its own specialized discussion.

How Personality Can Be Stable While Daily Behavior Varies

A trait is a relatively enduring tendency across time and situations; a state is a person's behavior or experience in a particular situation or moment. A usually reserved older adult may be highly animated at a family celebration. An organized person can have a disordered week during illness. These fluctuations do not, by themselves, show that the enduring trait has changed. Conversely, repeated, sustained shifts in a person's patterns across varied settings may be consistent with meaningful trait development if a suitable instrument detects them across an adequate interval.

Longitudinal questionnaire scores are therefore summaries of tendencies, not records of every moment. Research comparing self-reported trait differences with sampled daily behaviors has found that behavior can vary considerably within the same person across settings and days. Facets, contexts, and the time scale of observation all matter. Trait–state questions have their own owner in the Big Five knowledge graph; this adulthood article concentrates on age patterns rather than redefining general trait theory.

How to Interpret Big Five Scores at Age 25, 45, 65, or 85

A person's raw questionnaire score cannot be labeled “high for age” or “low for age” without examining the relevant instrument, scoring rules, reference group, and measurement precision. Percentiles compare a score with a defined normative sample. Age-specific norms may give a different percentile from all-adult norms, and the chosen comparison answers a different question. A change from one percentile to another may reflect genuine development, noise, changing norms, or all three. There is no universal Big Five threshold at which an adult switches from one personality type to another.

For an informative personal comparison, use the same appropriately validated instrument at both time points, inspect the time interval, and consider whether the testing conditions and life circumstances are comparable. Compare domain and, when supported, validated facet scores, since a broad score may hide opposing component trends. A single unusually stressful week can influence how someone responds. Neither age nor a questionnaire score alone determines individual health, cognitive ability, relationship quality, or suitability for work. See the Big Five test and interpretation guide and Big Five scores and percentiles for instrument-specific score interpretation.

Practical Implications for Adults, Families, and Professionals

For adults reflecting on their own development

Use the research as a vocabulary for observing patterns rather than a demand to match average age curves. A useful reflection asks which behaviors have become easier or harder across several years, which environments support them, and whether the change is present across settings. Patterns in interests, conscientious routines, social engagement, cooperation, and emotional responsiveness can all change at different rates. A person's earlier score does not prescribe their later identity.

For family members and caregivers

Notice contextual shifts before interpreting every behavioral difference as a fundamental personality change. Reduced sociability after an illness, for example, can coexist with an enduring preference for connection. A sudden, marked change in behavior or functioning calls for individualized evaluation of possible medical, psychiatric, situational, and environmental explanations rather than assigning a Big Five label. The Big Five describes personality dimensions; it is not a screening instrument for dementia, depression, or other clinical disorders.

For researchers and practitioners

Specify the age distribution, sampling frame, instrument, subscales, time interval, attrition, cohort structure, and whether the claim concerns mean-level, rank-order, variance, or individual trajectories. Distinguish descriptive estimates from causal interpretations. Report uncertainty around average slopes rather than treating small effects as universal laws. Examine measurement invariance where possible and avoid substituting the NEO, BFI-2, or other inventories for one another without documented comparability. A group's change estimate offers no deterministic forecast for one person.

What the Scientific Evidence Establishes—and What Remains Open

The strongest conclusion is that personality shows substantial continuity across adulthood alongside gradual, measurable development. Bleidorn and colleagues' 2022 meta-analysis, Graham and colleagues' coordinated aging analysis, and Haehner and colleagues' 2026 meta-analysis establish this broad pattern through complementary methods. They also establish substantial variation by person, trait, age, study interval, and measurement design. The 2026 variance review adds a separate finding: population-level score dispersion is generally stable, even when individuals move.

Open scientific questions include which repeated experiences contribute causally to enduring change; how different facets develop across underrepresented cultural settings; what happens at very advanced ages; how much trajectories are distorted by selective dropout; and how to compare assessment instruments across decades of societal change. The empirical status of a claim should match its research design. A prospective association strengthens temporal ordering but does not by itself prove causation; a controlled intervention can support a narrower causal inference within its tested population and conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does personality change after age 30?

Yes. Big Five scores can change after 30, in middle adulthood, and in later life. The pace of average development may be modest, and relative rankings are often stable, but adult personality is not fixed on a particular birthday. Longitudinal meta-analyses show both consistency and change over decades. See the updated lifespan evidence.

At what age does personality become stable?

There is no single age at which all five traits become permanently stable. Rank-order stability generally strengthens in early life and remains substantial through mature adulthood. Updated evidence suggests that the increase may plateau much earlier than classic estimates implied. Mean levels and individual trajectories can keep changing even when relative ranking is stable. Compare the 2000 review with the 2022 update.

Do people become more conscientious as they get older?

Conscientiousness often rises on average during young adulthood, but later decades show varying patterns, including plateaus and declines in some older samples. The answer depends on age range, measurement, and sample. A person may become more organized, less organized, or remain similar. The New Zealand longitudinal analysis and the coordinated aging study illustrate those differences.

Do older adults become less open-minded or curious?

Some studies report lower average openness scores in older samples, particularly on certain measures. That result does not establish that an individual loses curiosity, capacity to learn, or willingness to reconsider beliefs. Broad scores mix different components, and observable activity depends on opportunity and circumstance. Research shows age trends, not age-based personality categories.

Does introversion increase with age?

Mean extraversion may decline in adult aging samples, especially components related to social energy and activity. That is not proof that everyone becomes an introvert. Extraversion is a continuous dimension, and changes in social roles, energy, mobility, and priorities may affect how it is expressed. Classic facet-sensitive findings demonstrate why this distinction matters.

Do people become more agreeable or emotionally stable as they age?

Emotional stability often increases during much of adulthood on average, whereas agreeableness patterns depend more on how the construct is measured and which ages are studied. Some later-life research suggests renewed heterogeneity in emotional stability. These are statistical trends rather than individual guarantees, diagnoses, or judgments of character. The 2022 meta-analysis provides a broad comparison.

Can a major life event permanently change personality?

Longitudinal research links some events to small average shifts in personality measures, but the associations vary greatly across events and people, and selection effects complicate causal claims. Repeated behavior, changing demands, and individual context may be relevant over time. A 2024 life-event meta-analysis supports small and inconsistent average effects rather than automatic permanent transformation.

Are Big Five test results different for older adults?

They can be. Age-specific norms, cohort composition, measurement invariance, sensory or cognitive demands, the questionnaire's wording, and ordinary measurement error influence interpretation. Scores must be understood in the context of the same validated instrument and the appropriate normative population. There are no universal high/low cutoffs across all Big Five measures.

Does a Big Five score predict dementia or mental illness in later life?

No individual can be diagnosed or reliably classified from a Big Five score alone. Some observational studies identify group-level associations between traits and later cognitive outcomes; for example, a longitudinal study with meta-analysis of cognitive decline reported associations involving several traits. Such findings do not establish causation or support using a personality questionnaire as a diagnostic test. Clinical concerns require assessment with appropriate validated methods and professional evaluation.

Are Big Five aging patterns the same in every culture?

There is meaningful cross-cultural evidence for Big Five constructs, but adult developmental patterns and measured effects vary with sample, language, questionnaire, socioeconomic context, and generation. A study's result should be attributed to its participants and measures. The coordinated 16-sample study found between-study heterogeneity, which is a strong reason to avoid universalized age curves.

References

Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2008). Age differences in five personality domains across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.758

Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7–8), 588–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365

Brandt, N. D., Drewelies, J., Willis, S. L., Schaie, K. W., Ram, N., Gerstorf, D., & Wagner, J. (2023). Beyond Big Five trait domains: Stability and change in personality facets across midlife and old age. Journal of Personality, 91(5), 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12791

Bühler, J. L., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Weber, E., Kretzschmar, A., Scheling, L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2024). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 38(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219

Graham, E. K., et al. (2020). Trajectories of Big Five personality traits: A coordinated analysis of 16 longitudinal samples. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2259

Haehner, P., Buecker, S., Altorfer, M. J., Bocklet, V. V., & Bleidorn, W. (2026). Does the variance of personality traits change across the lifespan? A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 152(5–6), 544–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000523

Haehner, P., Hopwood, C. J., Schellenberg, L., Schwaba, T., & Bleidorn, W. (2026). Individual differences in personality trait changes across the lifespan: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 152(4), 420–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000525

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024298

Luchetti, M., Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., & Sutin, A. R. (2016). Personality and cognitive decline in older adults: Data from a longitudinal sample and meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 71(4), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu184

Milojev, P., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Normative personality trait development in adulthood: A 6-year cohort-sequential growth model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000121

Mõttus, R., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Personality traits in old age: Measurement and rank-order stability and some mean-level change. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023690

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. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088

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. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

Schwaba, T., & Bleidorn, W. (2018). Individual differences in personality change across the adult life span. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12327

Specht, J. (2017). Personality development in adulthood and old age. In Personality Development Across the Lifespan (pp. 53–67). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00005-3

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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950

Yoneda, T., Lozinski, T., Turiano, N., Booth, T., Graham, E. K., Mroczek, D., & Muniz Terrera, G. (2023). The Big Five personality traits and allostatic load in middle to older adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 148, 105145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105145

Psychological Encyclopedia