Neuroticism in Childhood and Adolescence: Development, Measurement, and Change
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism can be meaningfully studied in childhood and adolescence, but youth personality is still developing. In modern personality science, neuroticism is a continuous dimension describing relatively enduring differences in the tendency to experience negative emotions, perceive threat or frustration, and react strongly to stress. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis, and a child or teenager should not be labeled as having a disorder because of a personality score. For the general Big Five construct, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
The developmental picture is more complicated than the familiar idea that personality is either fixed or endlessly changeable. Children and adolescents already show organized personality differences, yet the structure, reliability, rank-order stability, mean level, and behavioral expression of those differences continue to develop. A large 2022 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found that rank-order stability increases through early life before reaching a plateau in young adulthood, while mean levels also change with age; a 2026 meta-analysis further showed substantial individual differences in personality change, with those differences especially pronounced in childhood. Bleidorn et al. (2022) and Haehner et al. (2026) provide the strongest recent quantitative summaries.
Measurement matters just as much as development. A score from the Big Five Questionnaire for Children, an adolescent NEO inventory, a parent-rated child personality inventory, or a general Big Five questionnaire is not a universal unit of neuroticism. Age, wording, reporter, language, scoring method, reference sample, and the exact construct label all affect interpretation. A 2025 systematic review identified multiple self-report Big Five questionnaires developed or adapted for young people and emphasized that their psychometric support is uneven and instrument-specific. Vicentini, Raccanello, and Burro (2025).
The Short Answer
Yes, children and adolescents can show measurable individual differences that correspond to neuroticism or closely related negative-emotionality dimensions. Research supports meaningful continuity between childhood temperament, youth personality, and later personality, but these constructs are not interchangeable. The younger the child, the more important developmental appropriateness and informant choice become.
Neuroticism during childhood and adolescence is neither a diagnosis nor a fixed forecast. It can show substantial stability while also changing. Stability can refer to whether young people keep roughly the same relative ordering compared with peers; change can refer to shifts in the average level of a group, genuine change within one person, or temporary fluctuations caused by current stress, mood, context, or measurement noise. These are different statistical questions and should never be collapsed into a single claim that neuroticism either “stays the same” or “changes.”
The best current evidence therefore supports a developmental interpretation: youth neuroticism is a real personality dimension, measured imperfectly and differently across instruments, influenced by both genetic and environmental processes, and capable of both continuity and change.
What Neuroticism Means in a Child or Adolescent
At the Big Five level, neuroticism describes a broad tendency toward negative emotionality. Depending on the measure, this can include tendencies toward worry, fearfulness, sadness, irritability, emotional volatility, self-consciousness, sensitivity to criticism, and feeling overwhelmed under stress. Specific facet content varies by model. The fact that one instrument calls the domain Neuroticism while another calls a closely corresponding domain Negative Emotionality or scores the opposite pole as Emotional Stability does not make the numerical scores interchangeable. For the domain-versus-facet distinction, see Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability.
A trait describes typical tendencies across time and situations. It does not mean that a young person experiences the same emotion continuously. A teenager can score relatively high on neuroticism and still have many calm days, enjoy friendships, perform well at school, and cope effectively in many settings. Likewise, a low trait score does not mean that the person cannot develop acute anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, or another mental-health problem.
Neuroticism is not the same as negative affect
Negative affect is usually a state or short-term pattern of unpleasant emotional experience. Neuroticism is a broader dispositional tendency that predicts, among other things, how often and how intensely negative affect tends to occur. The two are related, but measuring how distressed someone feels this week is not the same as estimating a personality trait. Longitudinal adolescent research has shown that stable between-person differences in neuroticism are associated with daily negative affect and that changes in the two can also move together over time. Borghuis et al. (2020).
Neuroticism is not the same as anxiety or trait anxiety
Anxiety is an emotional state; an anxiety disorder is a clinical condition defined by disorder-specific criteria; trait anxiety is a dispositional construct centered on anxiety proneness. Neuroticism is broader and can include anxious, depressive, angry, self-conscious, and stress-vulnerable tendencies depending on the model. These constructs overlap, sometimes strongly, but a neuroticism measure cannot by itself determine whether a child has an anxiety disorder.
Neuroticism is not the same as psychiatric symptoms
Personality questionnaires and symptom measures answer different questions. Symptoms ask about distress, impairment, or disorder-relevant experiences over a specified period; personality measures ask about characteristic patterns. In a longitudinal study of adolescent girls, Big Five domains and many personality facets were more stable over three years than internalizing symptoms, illustrating that trait and symptom variance are not the same thing. Goldstein et al. (2022).
Can the Big Five Be Measured in Children?
Yes, but measurement becomes more developmentally demanding at younger ages. Research has found recognizable Big Five-like personality organization in childhood, while also showing that the clarity and reliability of some dimensions can strengthen with age. In a longitudinal Swedish study following children from about age 2 to 15, the reliability of several Big Five factors, including neuroticism, increased across development. Lamb et al. (2002).
The strongest interpretation is not that toddlers possess an adult personality inventory hidden inside them. Development changes language, self-knowledge, social roles, emotion regulation, and the behaviors through which dispositions are expressed. A child who is temperamentally prone to distress may later express that disposition through worry, self-consciousness, rumination, interpersonal sensitivity, or other patterns that become easier to measure as cognitive and social capacities mature. Developmental psychologists call this kind of continuity across changing behavioral expression heterotypic continuity.
Reviews of child and adolescent personality emphasize that broad traits can be assessed meaningfully, while also recommending age-appropriate measures, multiple informants when useful, and ongoing construct validation. Shiner, Soto, and De Fruyt (2021) and Soto and Tackett (2015).
How Neuroticism Is Measured in Childhood and Adolescence
There is no single “child neuroticism test.” Researchers use several families of instruments. Some were created specifically for children, some are adaptations of adult Big Five measures, some rely on parent or teacher reports, and some use adolescent self-report. The correct interpretation therefore starts with the instrument. For the broader measurement framework, see How Is Neuroticism Measured? Big Five Scales, Questionnaires, and Informant Reports and Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results.
Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C)
The Big Five Questionnaire for Children was designed for late childhood and has been studied using child self-report as well as parent and teacher ratings. Its original validation work used a 65-item questionnaire and recovered five broad factors in elementary and junior-high-school samples. Self-, parent-, and teacher ratings showed moderate convergence rather than perfect agreement, which is exactly what one would expect when different observers see a child in different contexts. Barbaranelli et al. (2003).
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC)
The HiPIC is an age-specific Five-Factor Model instrument developed for describing child personality, traditionally through other-report ratings. It is useful precisely because child personality assessment should not automatically import adult wording and adult life situations. Short forms have also been developed, but a score from a HiPIC form remains a score from that instrument and should be interpreted with its own evidence, language version, informant, and norms.
Inventory of Child Individual Differences (ICID)
The Inventory of Child Individual Differences grew out of parental descriptions of children across multiple countries. Its development used tens of thousands of naturally generated child descriptors and produced a set of midlevel scales that can be organized into broad personality dimensions. Halverson et al. (2003). The ICID and its short forms are especially relevant when a study is explicitly designed around childhood personality rather than assuming adult item content.
NEO measures in adolescents
Adult-origin Five-Factor Model inventories have also been used with adolescents. Research on the NEO PI-R in 12- to 17-year-olds found that the adult factor structure was broadly replicable and that domain and facet reliability could be acceptable, while also identifying some item-comprehension difficulties. De Fruyt et al. (2000). Later youth-oriented adaptations, including the NEO-PI-3, were designed in part to improve readability. These results support adolescent assessment under appropriate conditions; they do not justify treating all adult versions, all ages, or all languages as interchangeable.
BFI and BFI-2 family measures
Big Five Inventory measures are common in developmental research, including longitudinal studies of adolescents. The BFI-2 labels the corresponding domain Negative Emotionality rather than Neuroticism and organizes it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets. A study that uses a BFI or BFI-2 family measure should report the exact version and scoring convention. It should not translate a youth's result into a NEO, IPIP, Eysenck, BFQ-C, HiPIC, or ICID score without formal linking evidence.
A 2025 systematic review changes the measurement conversation
The most useful recent overview is the 2025 systematic review of self-report Big Five questionnaires for children and adolescents. The review identified 10 questionnaire families developed or adapted for youth roughly ages 7 to 18, including the BFQ-C, adolescent NEO measures, and other age-specific instruments. It also found that psychometric evidence varies and that some instruments have limited validation or reliability evidence for particular scales or facets. Vicentini et al. (2025).
That finding has a practical consequence: asking whether a child has “high neuroticism” without naming the instrument is an incomplete question. A raw score of 30, a percentile of 80, a standardized T score, and a domain mean on a 1–5 response scale describe different metrics. Even the same percentile can refer to different norm groups. Age, sex/gender composition, country, language, sampling frame, and scoring procedure can all affect the comparison distribution.
Self-Report, Parent Report, and Teacher Report Can Disagree
Disagreement between reporters is not automatically evidence that someone is wrong. Parents observe a child across long periods and private settings. Teachers see behavior in a structured peer environment and can compare the child with many age-mates. Adolescents have direct access to private thoughts, worry, shame, and internal emotional experience that may not be visible to adults.
Reporter differences become especially important for neuroticism because much of the construct concerns internal experience. At the same time, self-reports in younger children can be constrained by reading ability, abstract self-reflection, response style, and limited comparison standards. Developmental assessment therefore treats informant choice as part of the measurement model, not as a clerical detail.
Research illustrates the problem. In a large study spanning ages 2 to 19 using the ICID-S, age patterns for neuroticism differed depending on whether ratings came from parents or youths, and the two perspectives did not fully agree about sex/gender differences in developmental trends. Slobodskaya and Kornienko (2021).
What Does a High Neuroticism Score Mean in a Child or Teen?
It means only that the young person scored relatively high on the neuroticism or corresponding negative-emotionality dimension as operationalized by that specific instrument. It does not mean “emotionally unhealthy,” “mentally ill,” “neurotic” in the historical clinical sense, destined to develop a disorder, or permanently fixed at that level.
A careful interpretation asks: Which instrument and version was used? Who completed it? What age range was it validated for? Was the score raw, standardized, or norm-referenced? Which comparison group was used? Was the measure designed for research, screening, educational use, or clinical personality assessment? How reliable is the domain at this age? Did current distress or a recent stressful event plausibly influence responses?
The same caution applies to low scores. Lower neuroticism usually corresponds to greater emotional stability on the measured continuum. It does not guarantee resilience, absence of symptoms, or superior functioning. Personality dimensions are descriptive coordinates, not clinical grades.
How Stable Is Neuroticism During Childhood and Adolescence?
The answer depends on what kind of stability is being discussed. Personality research distinguishes at least four questions: rank-order stability, mean-level change, individual change, and state fluctuation.
Rank-order stability
Rank-order stability asks whether individuals preserve their relative standing compared with peers. A group can change in its average neuroticism while still preserving much of its internal ordering. The 2022 longitudinal meta-analysis found that rank-order stability of personality increases substantially through early life and reaches a plateau in young adulthood. Bleidorn et al. (2022).
Adolescent studies show the same general pattern. In a five-wave Dutch study, rank-order stability and profile similarity increased from early to late adolescence. Klimstra et al. (2009). A separate trait-state-occasion study found that a substantial share of adolescent Big Five variance was attributable to stable trait components while a meaningful share remained time-varying. Wu (2021).
Mean-level change
Mean-level change asks whether the average score in a population shifts with age. This is where simple claims such as “neuroticism rises in adolescence” become unreliable. Some studies find increases, some find decreases in emotional instability, and patterns can differ by age span, sex, reporter, culture, instrument, and facet.
For example, Klimstra and colleagues found an average increase in Emotional Stability across adolescence in their Dutch cohorts, which corresponds to a decrease in neuroticism when the scale is scored at the stability pole. By contrast, a 2025 four-wave representative Norwegian cohort followed from ages 10 to 16 found that neuroticism increased from age 12 onward among girls while remaining more stable among boys after an earlier decline. Steinsbekk, Wichstrøm, and von Soest (2025). These findings are not contradictory once population, age, sex, measure, and scoring direction are kept visible.
Individual change
Individual change asks whether a particular person's trait level changes relative to their own previous level. Group averages can conceal very different trajectories. The 2026 meta-analysis of 229 longitudinal studies found significant individual differences in change for every major trait, with neuroticism showing especially pronounced variability and childhood showing the greatest individual variation in change. Haehner et al. (2026).
State fluctuation and measurement noise
A one-time questionnaire score also contains temporary influences and measurement error. Sleep loss, acute stress, conflict, illness, current symptoms, a recent loss, response style, misunderstanding of items, or a different testing context can move a score without representing durable trait change. Repeated measurement, when appropriate, is much better suited to distinguishing enduring change from a temporary shift.
Does Neuroticism Increase During Adolescence?
There is no single universal adolescent trajectory. The most defensible conclusion is that adolescence can be a period of meaningful personality reorganization, and average neuroticism trajectories differ across samples and subgroups. Recent high-quality research supports developmental complexity rather than one global curve.
The 2025 Norwegian study is particularly informative because it used four waves from ages 10, 12, 14, and 16 in a representative birth cohort and examined facets as well as domains. Neuroticism increased among girls from age 12 to 16, driven especially by the anxiety facet, while boys showed a decline from 10 to 12 followed by relative stability. Steinsbekk et al. (2025).
Other datasets show different mean-level patterns. The large cross-sectional parent- and youth-report study by Slobodskaya and Kornienko found increasing parent-rated neuroticism across childhood but decreasing parent-rated neuroticism in adolescence, while reporter perspectives diverged on some age and gender trends. Slobodskaya and Kornienko (2021). A single developmental slogan therefore cannot substitute for instrument- and population-specific evidence.
Temperament and Neuroticism Are Related but Not Identical
Temperament research begins earlier in development and often focuses on biologically rooted differences in emotional reactivity, activity, attention, inhibition, and self-regulation. Personality research typically describes broader, more cognitively and socially elaborated patterns. The literatures overlap substantially, especially for early negative emotionality, fearfulness, and irritability, but their measures and theoretical traditions are not identical.
A useful developmental model treats temperament as one source of continuity into later personality rather than as a one-to-one childhood version of adult neuroticism. Developmental reviews describe temperament and personality as connected frameworks with meaningful overlap rather than identical constructs. Soto and Tackett (2015).
Genes, Environment, and Development
Neuroticism is neither purely inherited nor simply caused by upbringing. Behavioral-genetic research shows that personality differences are partly heritable, while environmental influences also matter. A meta-analysis of personality heritability estimated an average heritability around 40% across the included studies, with estimates varying by design. Vukasović and Bratko (2015). Heritability is a population statistic for variation under particular environmental conditions; it is not the percentage of one person's trait that is “genetic.”
Longitudinal behavioral-genetic evidence is especially important for development. A meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal behavior-genetic studies involving more than 21,000 sibling pairs found that both genetic and environmental influences on personality become more stable with age, and that increasing phenotypic stability across development was substantially related to increasing continuity in environmental influences. Briley and Tucker-Drob (2014).
A longitudinal twin study focused specifically on neuroticism from adolescence into adulthood likewise found enduring genetic and environmental contributions to stability. Nivard et al. (2015). These designs help partition covariance at the group level. They do not identify a single neuroticism gene, prove that a particular experience caused one teenager's score, or allow a biologically deterministic prediction.
What about brain correlates and stress biology?
Neuroscience studies can identify statistical associations between neuroticism and brain structure, connectivity, or physiological stress responses, but those associations do not turn the trait into a neurological diagnosis. For example, one adolescent study linked longitudinal neuroticism measures with aspects of physiological stress reactivity, while different stress systems did not all show the same pattern. Evans et al. (2016). Brain and biomarker findings should be interpreted as group-level correlational evidence unless a design directly supports stronger causal inference.
Stress and Experience Can Be Transactional
Development is not a one-way pipeline in which experiences shape personality while personality passively receives them. Personality can influence which situations young people enter, how they interpret events, and how others respond to them; experiences can in turn influence later personality. This is often described as selection and socialization.
A three-year adolescent study found evidence for both directions depending on the type of stress: neuroticism predicted some forms of later stress exposure, while some chronic and dependent stressful experiences predicted later neuroticism. Metts et al. (2021). These reciprocal associations make simple causal statements such as “stress causes neuroticism” or “neuroticism causes stress” inadequate.
Childhood adversity is an especially sensitive example. Longitudinal research can find associations between adversity and later personality change, but adversity exposure, family context, preexisting temperament, genetic factors, stress generation, measurement, and later environments can be entangled. The developmental evidence supports careful probabilistic language, not the claim that a particular childhood event produces a fixed personality trait.
Neuroticism and Everyday Adolescent Experience
Neuroticism is visible statistically in everyday experience because it is associated with how often negative emotion occurs and how strongly people react to stress. In a study of 1,046 Dutch adolescents followed from ages 13 to 18 with yearly personality assessments and repeated five-day diary bursts, higher stable neuroticism was associated with more negative daily experiences. Within-person changes in neuroticism and daily negative affect were also linked over time. Borghuis et al. (2020).
This does not mean that every difficult day is an expression of personality. The same adolescent can move above or below their own usual level of negative affect depending on context. Daily-state variation and trait neuroticism operate at different time scales, and developmental research becomes more informative when it separates them.
Neuroticism and Mental Health in Young People
Higher neuroticism is associated with greater risk for many forms of psychological distress and psychopathology at the population level. Major reviews describe neuroticism as a broad, non-specific risk marker rather than a diagnosis or disorder-specific cause. Lahey (2009) and Ormel et al. (2013).
The distinction matters clinically. A personality risk factor is not the same as a psychiatric symptom, a screening result, a diagnosis, or a causal mechanism. A child can be high in neuroticism without meeting criteria for any disorder. A child can also have an anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, or another condition without a particular neuroticism score being diagnostically decisive.
Overlap can also inflate associations. Neuroticism questionnaires may include items about worry, sadness, tension, or emotional volatility that resemble symptoms measured by mental-health scales. Reviews of the neuroticism–psychopathology relationship therefore consider vulnerability, shared causes, construct overlap, state effects, and possible scar effects rather than assuming one simple causal pathway. Ormel et al. (2013).
Can a Child or Teenager's Neuroticism Change?
Yes. The scientific evidence supports both continuity and change. The strongest lifespan meta-analyses show that personality becomes more rank-order stable as people move from childhood toward adulthood, but stability is never the same as immutability. Bleidorn et al. (2022).
Change can occur at several levels. A population can shift in its average neuroticism. One adolescent can change more than another. The same young person can show temporary state fluctuations around a longer-term tendency. A measured score can also change because the instrument, informant, language, or norm group changed. These possibilities must be separated before calling a score difference “personality change.”
The 2026 meta-analysis is especially important because it quantified individual differences in change across 229 longitudinal studies and found those differences to be largest in childhood. Haehner et al. (2026). That finding makes deterministic labeling of children particularly inappropriate: early personality differences can matter without constituting a fixed destiny.
How to Interpret Change Across Repeated Tests
If a young person completes a personality measure more than once, the first question is whether the same instrument, version, scoring direction, reporter, administration conditions, and norming method were used. Changing any of those can create apparent change that is partly methodological.
The second question is whether the observed difference is larger than expected measurement error. A two-point raw-score shift may be trivial on one scale and meaningful on another. Reliable change requires information about scale reliability and, ideally, a formal standard error or longitudinal model.
The third question is whether the change is persistent. A score collected during exams, a family crisis, illness, sleep deprivation, acute bullying, or a depressive episode may partly reflect current state. Repeated measurements across calmer and more typical periods can help distinguish a transient elevation from a sustained developmental shift.
Sex and Gender Differences Require Context
Some adolescent studies report higher or increasing neuroticism among girls relative to boys, especially from early to middle adolescence. But the size and timing of these differences vary across populations, reporters, instruments, and facets. The 2025 Norwegian cohort found a clear increase from age 12 to 16 among girls, driven particularly by anxiety, while boys followed a different trajectory. Steinsbekk et al. (2025).
Other developmental studies show different patterns, and parent versus youth reports can disagree. Slobodskaya and Kornienko (2021). These are group-level findings. They cannot determine one child's personality from sex or gender, and they do not establish a biological cause for observed mean differences.
What Parents, Teenagers, Educators, and Clinicians Should Take From a Score
Use a neuroticism score as information about a dimensional tendency, not as a label. The most useful questions concern patterns: Does the child tend to worry across many contexts? How easily do they recover after stress? Are reactions age-appropriate? Are there strengths alongside sensitivity, such as vigilance or careful preparation? Is distress persistent? Does it interfere with sleep, school, relationships, or daily functioning?
If the score came from an online personality quiz, first determine whether the instrument is identifiable and validated for the child's age and language. A polished percentile graphic does not establish psychometric quality. If the score came from a research or professional assessment, interpretation should use the manual or published validation evidence for that exact measure.
Mental-health evaluation becomes relevant because of symptoms, distress, safety concerns, or impairment—not because a Big Five trait score crosses an arbitrary personality threshold. Personality information can enrich an assessment, but it does not replace disorder-specific clinical evaluation.
Common Misinterpretations
“High neuroticism means a child has anxiety or depression.” No. Higher neuroticism is associated with internalizing symptoms and broader psychopathology risk at the group level, but a trait score is not a diagnosis.
“A high score at age 12 predicts adult personality exactly.” No. Youth personality shows continuity, but rank-order stability is still developing and individuals differ substantially in change.
“Neuroticism is inherited, so environment does not matter.” No. Heritability and environmental influence coexist. Longitudinal behavioral-genetic evidence indicates increasing continuity of both genetic and environmental contributions across development.
“Parents know the true score and teens are biased,” or the reverse. No single reporter has complete access to all relevant behavior and internal experience. Reporter discrepancies can be substantively informative.
“A percentile is universal.” No. A percentile only describes relative standing in a specified reference distribution for a specified scoring system.
“If neuroticism changes after therapy or a life event, the treatment or event caused the trait change.” Not necessarily. Causal interpretation requires appropriate design, repeated measurement, comparison conditions, and separation of trait change from symptom or state change.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can children have neuroticism?
Children can show stable individual differences in negative emotionality and related Big Five personality patterns. The structure and reliability of these traits become clearer with development, and age-appropriate measurement is essential.
At what age can neuroticism be measured?
There is no single minimum age for the construct. Very young children are usually assessed through temperament or informant-report frameworks; middle-childhood and adolescent research increasingly uses age-specific Big Five measures and, as reading and self-reflection develop, self-report. The instrument's validated age range matters more than a universal cutoff.
Does neuroticism increase during puberty?
Some studies find increases in neuroticism or decreases in emotional stability during parts of adolescence, especially in some female samples, while others find stability or different trajectories. Puberty and age are correlated with many biological and social changes, so an observed age trend is not proof that puberty itself caused the change.
Is a neurotic child mentally ill?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait. Mental disorders require disorder-specific symptoms, duration, distress or impairment, and clinical criteria; a personality score cannot establish a diagnosis.
What is the best neuroticism test for a child?
There is no universally best instrument. Selection depends on age, language, purpose, informant, available norms, required detail, licensing, and psychometric evidence. Youth-specific measures such as the BFQ-C, HiPIC, or ICID family may be appropriate in particular contexts, while adolescent studies also use carefully validated adaptations of broader Big Five instruments.
Can a teenager take an adult Big Five test?
Some adult-origin instruments have been validated in adolescents, but suitability depends on the exact version, reading level, age, language, and evidence. A test being understandable to a teenager does not automatically make adult norms appropriate.
Why do parent and teen ratings differ?
They observe different information. Parents see long-term behavior across home contexts; teenagers have direct access to private feelings and thoughts; teachers observe structured peer and academic contexts. Moderate disagreement can therefore be expected and can itself be informative.
Is childhood neuroticism stable into adulthood?
There is meaningful continuity, and rank-order stability generally increases with age, but childhood scores are not fixed forecasts. Longitudinal evidence shows both stability and substantial individual change.
Can stress make a teenager more neurotic?
Longitudinal studies support reciprocal associations between neuroticism and some types of life stress. Stress can predict later trait change in some analyses, while neuroticism can also predict later stress exposure. This is probabilistic group-level evidence, not proof that one event caused one person's personality.
Can neuroticism decrease as a teenager gets older?
Yes, for some individuals and in some samples. Average trajectories vary, and individual change is common. A decrease on repeated testing should still be interpreted with measurement error, state effects, and instrument consistency in mind.
Does high neuroticism predict an anxiety disorder?
Higher neuroticism is a broad statistical risk factor for internalizing problems, but prediction is probabilistic and non-specific. Many high-scoring young people will not develop an anxiety disorder, and diagnosis requires condition-specific assessment.
Should parents try to lower a child's neuroticism score?
A personality score is not a treatment target by itself. The practical focus should be on distress, coping, emotion regulation, supportive environments, functioning, and any specific clinical symptoms. Personality can change, but it is not a disease that needs to be cured.
Related Articles
Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability
References
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00051-X
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
Borghuis, J., Bleidorn, W., Sijtsma, K., Branje, S., Meeus, W. H. J., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). Longitudinal associations between trait neuroticism and negative daily experiences in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000233
Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1303–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037091
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000). Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110000700403
Evans, B. E., Stam, J., Huizink, A. C., Willemen, A. M., Westenberg, P. M., Branje, S., Meeus, W., Koot, H. M., & van Lier, P. A. C. (2016). Neuroticism and extraversion in relation to physiological stress reactivity during adolescence. Biological Psychology, 117, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.03.002
Goldstein, B. L., Mackin, D. M., Miao, J., Perlman, G., Watson, D., Ormel, J., Klein, D. N., & Kotov, R. (2022). Is personality stable and symptoms fleeting? A longitudinal comparison in adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 97, 104190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104190
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
Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., Deal, J., Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., Pavlopoulos, V., Besevegis, E., & Wen, L. (2003). Personality structure as derived from parental ratings of free descriptions of children: The Inventory of Child Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 995–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106005
Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 898–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014746
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the Big Five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73(5), 1517–1524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00487
Metts, A., Yarrington, J., Enders, C., Hammen, C., Mineka, S., Zinbarg, R., & Craske, M. G. (2021). Reciprocal effects of neuroticism and life stress in adolescence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.016
Nivard, M. G., Middeldorp, C. M., Dolan, C. V., & Boomsma, D. I. (2015). Genetic and environmental stability of neuroticism from adolescence to adulthood. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 18(6), 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2015.80
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003
Shiner, R. L., Soto, C. J., & De Fruyt, F. (2021). Personality assessment of children and adolescents. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 3, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-050620-114343
Slobodskaya, H. R., & Kornienko, O. S. (2021). Age and gender differences in personality traits from early childhood through adolescence. Journal of Personality, 89(5), 933–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12624
Soto, C. J., & Tackett, J. L. (2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415589345
Steinsbekk, S., Wichstrøm, L., & von Soest, T. (2025). Personality from age 10 to 16 years: A four-wave cohort study of development and sex differences in the Big Five and its facets. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251396595
Vicentini, G., Raccanello, D., & Burro, R. (2025). Self-report questionnaires to measure Big Five personality traits in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 66(5), 627–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13110
Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017
Wu, P.-C. (2021). Is personality stable in adolescence? Disentangling time-invariant and time-varying factors of personality in a trait-state-occasion model. International Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12723