When Does Neuroticism Develop? Personality Development From Childhood to Adulthood
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism does not begin on a single birthday. The best-supported developmental picture is gradual: early temperament provides precursors, Big Five-like personality differences become increasingly measurable through childhood, continuity with adult neuroticism strengthens across adolescence, and rank-order stability rises through early life before reaching a broad plateau in young adulthood. Even then, neuroticism can still change. Personality remains both stable and developmentally plastic across the life span.
In modern personality science, neuroticism is a continuous trait describing relatively enduring differences in the tendency to experience negative emotion, stress sensitivity, worry, self-consciousness, and related forms of emotional reactivity. It is one dimension of the Big Five, not a psychiatric diagnosis. For the core construct and its boundaries, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
The word “develop” can mean several different things. It can ask when emotional precursors first appear, when researchers can validly measure a Big Five neuroticism factor in children, when childhood differences begin to predict adult personality, when people become more stable relative to one another, or when average levels stop changing. Those questions have different answers. Treating them as one question creates the false idea that neuroticism has a single onset age.
The largest recent synthesis of longitudinal personality research found that rank-order stability increases markedly through early life and then shows little further increase after about age 25, while average emotional stability continues to increase across the life span. That means people become more consistent in their relative ordering, but the average level of the trait can still shift. See Bleidorn et al. (2022).
When Does Neuroticism Develop? The Short Answer
The shortest scientifically defensible answer is that neuroticism develops across childhood and adolescence from earlier temperamental tendencies, becomes more recognizably organized as a Big Five personality dimension with age, and gains greater rank-order stability by young adulthood. There is no universal age at which a child “gets” neuroticism and no age at which the trait becomes permanently fixed.
In infancy and the preschool years, researchers usually speak about temperament rather than adult Big Five neuroticism. Temperamental negative emotionality includes early differences in fear, frustration, distress, irritability, and recovery from negative emotion. These tendencies overlap developmentally with later neuroticism, but they are not identical measurements and should not be relabeled as adult personality in a toddler.
By school age, Big Five-like personality structure can be assessed more directly, although the quality of measurement depends on age, language, cognitive development, instrument, and whether the information comes from the child, a parent, a teacher, or another observer. As childhood progresses, the correspondence between youth personality and adult personality models becomes clearer.
Adolescence is a period of both continuity and reorganization. Relative differences between adolescents become increasingly stable, but studies do not show one universal mean-level pattern for neuroticism. Some samples show increases, some decreases or increasing emotional stability, and some little mean change. Sex, culture, age range, measurement model, facets, and informant can all affect the observed trajectory.
During young adulthood, people generally become more stable in their relative positions on personality traits. That does not mean that neuroticism freezes at 18, 21, or 25. It means that the probability of maintaining a similar relative position compared with peers becomes higher. Average levels can continue to change, and individuals can follow trajectories that differ substantially from the population mean.
What Neuroticism Is — and What It Is Not
Developmental claims are easiest to interpret when the construct is kept precise. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait. Emotional stability usually names the opposite pole of the same or a closely corresponding Big Five dimension: higher emotional stability generally means lower neuroticism. Some instruments reverse-score the dimension, so “increasing emotional stability” and “decreasing neuroticism” can describe the same directional pattern.
Negative Emotionality can refer to more than one construct. In the BFI-2, Negative Emotionality is the label for the Big Five domain that corresponds closely to neuroticism. In temperament research, negative emotionality is an early dispositional domain that can include fear, frustration, sadness, discomfort, and related reactivity. The constructs overlap, but their measures, age ranges, facet structures, and developmental meanings differ.
Negative affect is also distinct. It can describe a momentary or short-term state of unpleasant emotion, or a broader tendency depending on the measure. Feeling anxious today is a state. Trait anxiety is a relatively enduring tendency to experience anxiety. Neuroticism is broader than anxiety or trait anxiety and includes several forms of negative emotional sensitivity. Psychiatric symptoms can correlate with neuroticism, but symptoms and traits are not interchangeable.
This distinction matters in children and adolescents because temporary distress, school stress, family conflict, sleep disruption, puberty-related changes, an anxiety episode, or depressive symptoms can all affect how a young person answers personality questions at a particular assessment. A personality score describes a measured pattern under specified conditions; it does not diagnose a disorder or identify the cause of that pattern.
Infancy and Early Childhood: Temperament Comes First
Temperament research provides the earliest developmental bridge. A classic review by Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans described temperament as early-emerging differences in emotional, motivational, and attentional processes and connected those processes with later personality dimensions. Fear, frustration, anger, positive approach, and effortful control are examples of component tendencies that can participate in later personality development. See Rothbart et al. (2000).
The key developmental point is continuity without identity. An infant who reacts strongly to unfamiliar situations is not thereby displaying adult neuroticism. Early emotional reactivity is one component in a much larger developmental system that includes self-regulation, language, attachment relationships, learning, social feedback, cognitive development, and later environments. The meaning of the same behavior can also change with age.
A large genetically informative study of Norwegian children measured temperament repeatedly from ages 1.5 to 5 years and Big Five personality at age 8. Temperament and Big Five traits could be bridged at the level of broader latent structure, and both showed substantial genetic influence. The study supports developmental continuity between early temperament and later personality while also showing that the constructs are measured at different developmental stages. See Vollrath et al. (2024).
That genetic continuity does not mean that a child’s adult neuroticism can be read from infancy. Heritability is a population statistic, not an individual destiny. Genetic influences are distributed across many variants and operate within development. Early temperament can alter the environments children encounter, environments can shape regulation and learning, and the same temperamental tendency can have different outcomes in different contexts.
Longitudinal evidence also shows that recognizable Big Five structure becomes more reliable with age. In a Swedish cohort followed from about age 2 to 15, the internal reliability of neuroticism and several other Big Five factors increased over time, while personality scores also showed meaningful continuity. The study was small by modern standards, but it is useful historically because it followed the same children across a long developmental span. See Lamb et al. (2002).
Middle Childhood: Big Five Structure Becomes Easier to Measure
Middle childhood is not a switch from “temperament” to “personality.” It is a period in which broader personality structure becomes increasingly tractable with age-appropriate instruments. Children become better able to understand trait language, compare themselves across situations, reflect on recurring patterns, and complete self-report questionnaires. At the same time, parent and teacher reports can provide complementary information that does not always agree perfectly with self-report.
A 2025 systematic review identified 10 self-report questionnaires developed for or adapted to children and adolescents roughly ages 7–18 and found substantial variation in trait labels, facets, item formats, scale lengths, and psychometric evidence. Some instruments had limitations in reliability or validity. This is why a raw neuroticism score from one youth scale cannot be treated as equivalent to a score from another instrument or to an adult NEO, BFI, IPIP, or Eysenck measure. See Vicentini et al. (2025).
There is therefore no single psychometric age at which researchers can suddenly begin measuring neuroticism. The answer depends on the instrument and what level of construct is being claimed. A broad parent-rated personality factor may be detectable earlier than a reliable self-reported adult-style facet profile. Short child questionnaires can reduce cognitive burden, but brevity may trade off against reliability and facet coverage.
Recent meta-analytic evidence adds another important distinction: variability between children is not the same thing as average change. Across 362 longitudinal studies, Haehner and colleagues found that personality-trait variance was mostly stable across the life span, with one notable exception: neuroticism variance increased during late childhood and early adolescence, approximately ages 5–14. That means children became more spread out from one another on neuroticism during that period; it does not mean every child became more neurotic. See Haehner et al. (2026a).
For a focused treatment of youth measurement, developmental change, and interpretation, see Neuroticism in Childhood and Adolescence: Development, Measurement, and Change.
Adolescence: Continuity Strengthens, but the Mean Pattern Is Not Universal
Adolescence is often described as a personality “disruption” period, but the evidence is more nuanced than a single rise in neuroticism. Several kinds of change can occur at once. Rank-order stability can increase even while the average level changes. Facets can move in different directions. Individual adolescents can differ sharply from the mean. And sex differences may appear in some cohorts without generalizing to every population.
One of the most informative recent longitudinal studies followed 674 Mexican-origin youth, measuring Rothbart temperament from ages 10–16 and Big Five personality from ages 14–26. Conceptually similar traits showed continuity, and temperament began predicting age-26 personality by approximately ages 12–14. A joint Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism factor declined on average from late childhood into adulthood while maintaining rank-order continuity. See Ringwald et al. (2026).
That finding is evidence for a developmental bridge, not a universal age threshold. The sample came from one sociocultural population, and the study’s “12–14” result concerns when measured temperament began predicting later personality in that design. It does not mean neuroticism first appears at 12, nor does it imply that personality becomes fixed at 14.
Other longitudinal work illustrates why a universal adolescent curve is unsafe. In a five-wave Dutch study, mean Emotional Stability increased across adolescence while rank-order stability and profile similarity also increased. Because Emotional Stability is the opposite pole of neuroticism, this pattern corresponds to lower neuroticism on average in that sample. See Klimstra et al. (2009).
A more recent four-wave Norwegian cohort study following children from ages 10 to 16 found an increase in neuroticism for girls but not boys, with different patterns across lower-order facets. The result shows that developmental averages can depend on sex and facet structure rather than following one population-wide trajectory. See Steinsbekk et al. (2025).
Puberty is one obvious candidate explanation for adolescent change, but available evidence does not support a simple hormonal cause. A study of 2,640 young people ages 8–18 replicated an early-adolescent maturity dip and examined hormones and self-reported pubertal status. Associations were generally small, and pubertal development did not emerge as the primary explanation for the personality pattern. See Van den Akker et al. (2021).
The practical conclusion is that adolescence is a period of meaningful differentiation and increasing continuity, not a universal surge toward high neuroticism. Developmental interpretation should specify the age range, sample, instrument, informant, facet or domain, and whether the result concerns a mean, a correlation across time, a change variance, or a within-person trajectory.
Young Adulthood: Stability Becomes Stronger, but Personality Does Not Freeze
The strongest broad answer to the common question “When does personality stabilize?” comes from longitudinal meta-analysis. Bleidorn and colleagues synthesized rank-order stability from 189 samples with 178,503 participants and mean-level change from 276 samples with 242,542 participants. Rank-order stability increased through early life and reached a plateau in young adulthood, with little evidence of further increases after approximately age 25. See Bleidorn et al. (2022).
Rank-order stability means that people retain their relative positions compared with other people. If one person is higher in neuroticism than most peers at one point and remains relatively higher years later, rank order is stable even if both people’s absolute scores change. This is different from mean-level stability, which asks whether the average score of a population changes. It is also different from individual change, which asks whether a particular person’s trait level changes reliably.
A long Swedish longitudinal study of 137 participants assessed repeatedly from ages 2 to 29 found that neuroticism initially increased, leveled in later childhood and adolescence, and then decreased during early adulthood on average. Childhood scores nevertheless predicted adult scores, and individual trajectories varied substantially. The sample is modest, so the study is best read as a detailed developmental illustration rather than a universal age curve. See Wängqvist et al. (2015).
A 2026 meta-analysis of 229 longitudinal studies and 230,492 participants examined individual differences in personality change rather than only average trends. Individual differences in change were most pronounced in childhood, became smaller during young adulthood, and remained statistically meaningful across the entire life span. Neuroticism showed particularly pronounced individual differences in change. See Haehner et al. (2026b).
These findings rule out the popular idea that personality is “set” at 18, 21, 25, or 30. Young adulthood is a period in which relative positions become more stable, yet reliable change remains possible. The best phrase is increasing stability, not completion.
Adulthood: Neuroticism Can Continue to Change
Across adulthood, average neuroticism often declines while emotional stability increases. The 2022 longitudinal meta-analysis found emotional stability increasing consistently and more substantially across the life span than older syntheses had suggested. That is a population-average pattern. It does not predict that every adult will become less neurotic with age.
Cross-sectional research also finds substantial age differences, but cross-sectional age patterns compare different people of different ages at one time and cannot by themselves establish within-person development. A very large study of more than 1.2 million participants ages 10–65 found pronounced age differences across late childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, with lower-order facets often showing distinct patterns. Its value lies in mapping age differences, not proving individual change. See Soto et al. (2011).
Adults also encounter work, relationships, caregiving, illness, migration, loss, parenthood, education, economic change, and other experiences that can coincide with personality development. But life events do not have one fixed effect. The same event can have different consequences depending on timing, meaning, duration, prior personality, social context, and individual response.
For the reciprocal evidence on personality and experience, see Neuroticism and Life Events: How Personality and Experience Shape Each Other. For a broader lifespan map of average age patterns, see Neuroticism and Age: How the Trait Changes Across the Lifespan.
Five Different Questions Hidden Inside “When Does Neuroticism Develop?”
1. When do emotional precursors appear?
Temperamental differences in negative emotionality, fear, frustration, irritability, and regulation can be observed in infancy and early childhood. These are developmental precursors and related dispositions. They should not be treated as a completed adult neuroticism score.
2. When can Big Five neuroticism be measured?
Big Five-like personality can be assessed in childhood, but the validity of the inference depends on the age-appropriate instrument and reporter. Some studies identify useful broad factors in early and middle childhood, while systematic review evidence shows that youth questionnaires differ substantially in structure and psychometric quality. There is no one universally accepted minimum age for every Big Five instrument.
3. When does childhood personality begin to predict adult neuroticism?
Longitudinal evidence shows predictive continuity before adulthood. In the 2026 temperament-to-personality study, conceptually aligned temperament began predicting age-26 personality by roughly ages 12–14. Other longitudinal work finds childhood-to-adult continuity over longer spans. The strength of prediction rises with age, and no single study establishes a biological or psychological “crystallization date.”
4. When does neuroticism become relatively stable?
Rank-order stability generally increases from childhood through adolescence and young adulthood. The current best meta-analytic estimate suggests a broad plateau in young adulthood, with little evidence that rank-order stability continues increasing after about age 25. A plateau in rank order is not a claim that the person cannot change.
5. When does the average level stop changing?
There is no single stopping age. Mean levels continue to show developmental trends across adulthood, and emotional stability tends to increase on average. Individual trajectories remain heterogeneous. Mean-level personality development, rank-order stability, and individual change answer separate questions and should never be collapsed into one “stability age.”
What Shapes the Development of Neuroticism?
Development reflects interacting genetic, temperamental, regulatory, social, and experiential processes. No single factor owns the trait. The dedicated causes article examines this evidence in depth: What Causes Neuroticism? Genetics, Temperament, Environment, and Life Experience.
Genetic influences contribute to continuity, not destiny
Behavioral-genetic research shows that both genetic and environmental processes contribute to personality continuity. A meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal genetically informative studies, including 21,057 sibling pairs, found that personality stability is lower in childhood and rises into adulthood, with genetic and environmental sources of stability themselves changing across development. See Briley and Tucker-Drob (2014).
Heritability therefore cannot tell a person how much of their own neuroticism was “caused by genes.” It describes variation in a studied population under particular environmental conditions. It also does not imply immutability. Genetic associations, including modern polygenic findings, are probabilistic group-level evidence and do not constitute a biological diagnosis or precise individual prediction.
Temperament provides developmental ingredients
Early negative emotionality is one of the strongest conceptual bridges to later neuroticism. Effortful control and self-regulation also matter because development involves not only how strongly emotion is activated but how attention and behavior are organized around that emotion. Early emotional sensitivity can persist, soften, become context-specific, or be reorganized through learning and social development.
Environment is part of the developmental system
Family relationships, peer experiences, schooling, chronic stress, cultural norms, safety, socioeconomic conditions, and other environments can be associated with later personality. The direction of influence can be reciprocal: a child’s temperament affects how others respond, those responses become part of the child’s environment, and the child increasingly selects environments that fit or challenge existing tendencies.
Childhood adversity is associated with later neuroticism in many studies, but association does not establish a one-way individual cause. For a focused causal treatment, see Neuroticism and Childhood Adversity: Associations, Limits, and Causality.
Life events can coincide with change, but effects vary
Personality can change around major experiences, but average event effects are usually modest and heterogeneous. Neuroticism can also influence which events people encounter, how events are interpreted, and how long their effects persist. The developmental relationship is transactional rather than a simple sequence in which an event writes a permanent trait into the person.
Measurement Matters More in Children and Adolescents
Questions about developmental timing can only be as precise as the measurement. A child’s score is meaningful in relation to the instrument used, its age range, scoring method, reporter, reliability, validity evidence, and comparison sample. There is no universal “high neuroticism” raw score that can be carried from one questionnaire to another.
The NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI come from the Five-Factor Model tradition. The BFI-2 calls the corresponding broad domain Negative Emotionality and divides it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets. IPIP scales are open-access item pools with many implementations. Eysenck’s neuroticism measures come from a different theoretical architecture. Child and adolescent instruments may adapt wording, response options, facets, or reporter format. Scores from these systems are not automatically interchangeable.
A percentile is also conditional. It describes a position relative to a specific normative or comparison distribution. A 75th percentile on one instrument in one age group is not the same psychological quantity as a 75th percentile on another instrument or in another population. Raw scores, standardized scores, percentiles, and reverse-scored emotional-stability measures must be interpreted within their own scoring systems.
Developmental studies add another layer: repeated assessments must establish enough measurement comparability across ages to justify calling score differences “trait change.” If items mean something different to a 9-year-old and a 19-year-old, apparent change can partly reflect measurement rather than personality development. Good longitudinal research explicitly tests or models these issues.
Neuroticism, Anxiety, Negative Affect, and Mental Health During Development
Neuroticism is broader than anxiety. Anxiety is an emotional state and can also be measured as a symptom domain. Trait anxiety is a relatively enduring anxiety tendency. Negative affect is a broader emotional experience that may be measured as a state or tendency. Neuroticism is a personality dimension that captures a wider pattern of negative emotional susceptibility across time and situations.
Because these constructs overlap, children and adolescents with higher neuroticism may also report more anxiety, sadness, stress sensitivity, or internalizing symptoms on average. That overlap does not turn neuroticism into an anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, autism, a personality disorder, or any other diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis requires condition-specific criteria and assessment.
Symptoms can also influence trait measurement. A person completing a personality questionnaire during a period of acute distress may endorse more negative-emotionality items than they would during a more settled period. Researchers try to distinguish enduring trait variance from state-related fluctuations, measurement error, and psychiatric symptoms, but the separation is never accomplished by the label “personality test” alone.
For that reason, a developmental neuroticism score should be interpreted as a dimensional personality measurement rather than a screening result for mental illness. A screening score estimates risk or symptom burden within a particular tool; it is not the same thing as a Big Five trait score, and neither score by itself is a diagnosis.
What the Evidence Can and Cannot Say About Causality
A developmental timeline can tempt readers to infer causation from sequence: if temperament appears before adult neuroticism, temperament must cause it; if puberty happens during adolescent change, puberty must cause it; if adversity precedes a higher later score, adversity must be the cause. Developmental science requires a stronger standard. Earlier occurrence establishes temporal order, not sufficient causation.
Longitudinal studies are powerful because they observe the same people over time, but prediction from an earlier measurement can still reflect unmeasured common causes, measurement continuity, selection, or reciprocal influence. Cross-lagged and growth models can strengthen inference, but their conclusions remain dependent on assumptions and measurement quality.
Behavioral-genetic designs can separate sources of covariance under a model, but they do not identify a fixed genetic percentage inside an individual. Genome-wide associations identify statistical relationships between variants and traits, not a single biological pathway that determines personality. Brain and physiological correlations are likewise group-level findings unless a study provides much stronger causal evidence.
The puberty literature illustrates this rule well. Age, hormone concentrations, self-reported pubertal status, personality, social transition, and stress can all covary. Small associations do not justify the claim that puberty “creates neuroticism.” The current evidence supports many interacting influences and substantial individual variability.
How to Interpret Neuroticism Development in a Real Person
For an individual child, adolescent, or adult, the most useful question is usually not “At what age did this trait begin?” but “What pattern is present, how stable is it across settings and time, how was it measured, and does it create distress or impairment?” Personality science describes probabilistic patterns across people; it cannot reconstruct one person’s developmental history from a single score.
For children and adolescents, repeated observations across time and settings are often more informative than one questionnaire administration. A pattern that appears only during a stressful school term may reflect a state contribution. A pattern reported consistently by the young person and multiple observers across years provides different evidence. Even then, the conclusion is about a trait tendency, not a diagnosis or an inevitable future.
For adults looking backward, a current high neuroticism score cannot prove that childhood adversity, parenting, genetics, puberty, or any other single factor was the cause. Development is many-to-one: different histories can lead to similar adult trait levels. It is also one-to-many: similar childhood temperamental tendencies can lead to different adult outcomes.
If emotional distress, anxiety, depression, sleep problems, intrusive thoughts, trauma symptoms, or functional impairment are the actual concern, they deserve direct assessment rather than being reduced to a personality label. Neuroticism can provide context about enduring vulnerability and reactivity, but it should not substitute for symptom-specific or clinical evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions
At what age does neuroticism first appear?
There is no single onset age. Early temperamental precursors such as negative emotionality can be observed in infancy and early childhood. Big Five-like neuroticism becomes increasingly measurable in childhood, and continuity with adult personality strengthens across adolescence. Calling infancy or a particular birthday the “start” of neuroticism oversimplifies the evidence.
Are people born with neuroticism?
People are born with biological and temperamental differences that can contribute to later personality, but adult neuroticism is not fully formed at birth. Genetic influences, temperament, self-regulation, relationships, learning, environments, and life experiences interact across development.
Does puberty cause neuroticism to increase?
Not as a general rule. Some studies find higher neuroticism or a maturity dip in early adolescence, but results vary by sample and sex, and direct associations with pubertal hormones are generally small. Current evidence does not support puberty as the primary single cause of neuroticism development.
Does neuroticism peak in adolescence?
There is no established universal adolescent peak. Some cohorts show increases, some show little mean change, and others show increasing emotional stability. Facets and sex-specific trajectories can differ. A developmental claim should therefore name the sample, age range, measure, and type of change.
At what age does personality become stable?
Personality becomes progressively more rank-order stable from childhood through young adulthood. A major 2022 meta-analysis found little evidence of further increases in rank-order stability after about age 25. That does not mean personality becomes fixed at 25; mean levels and individual trajectories can still change later.
Can neuroticism change after age 25?
Yes. The age-25 finding concerns a plateau in rank-order stability, not an end to development. Average emotional stability continues to change across adulthood, and recent meta-analysis finds meaningful individual differences in trait change throughout the life span.
Does childhood anxiety mean someone will have high neuroticism as an adult?
No. Childhood anxiety and later neuroticism are related constructs, but one does not determine the other. Anxiety can be a transient state, a symptom, a trait-like tendency, or part of a disorder depending on the context and measure. Adult neuroticism is a broader personality dimension shaped by multiple developmental processes.
Can a high neuroticism score reveal what happened in childhood?
No. A high score cannot identify its own cause or reconstruct developmental history. Similar trait levels can emerge from different combinations of temperament, genetics, relationships, stress, learning, and life experience.
Is high neuroticism a psychiatric diagnosis?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait. High neuroticism can be associated statistically with greater vulnerability to several forms of distress, but a trait score is not a clinical diagnosis and does not establish that any disorder is present.
Related Articles
Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model — the core Big Five definition and boundaries of the trait.
What Causes Neuroticism? Genetics, Temperament, Environment, and Life Experience — the evidence on developmental and etiological influences.
Neuroticism in Childhood and Adolescence: Development, Measurement, and Change — a focused guide to youth personality measurement and developmental change.
Neuroticism and Age: How the Trait Changes Across the Lifespan — age-related patterns from youth through later adulthood.
Neuroticism and Life Events: How Personality and Experience Shape Each Other — reciprocal links between personality and major experiences.
References
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
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
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
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
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
Ringwald, W. R., Lawson, K. M., Kaurin, A., & Robins, R. W. (2026). Linking temperament and personality traits from late childhood to adulthood by examining continuity, stability, and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(5), 1047–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000576
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717
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
Van den Akker, A. L., Briley, D. A., Grotzinger, A. D., Tackett, J. L., Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2021). Adolescent Big Five personality and pubertal development: Pubertal hormone concentrations and self-reported pubertal status. Developmental Psychology, 57(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001135
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
Vollrath, M. E., Eilertsen, E. M., Torgersen, S., Gjerde, L. C., & Ystrom, E. (2024). Bridging temperament and the Big Five in children: A genetically informative study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(4), 660–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000500
Wängqvist, M., Lamb, M. E., Frisén, A., & Hwang, C. P. (2015). Child and adolescent predictors of personality in early adulthood. Child Development, 86(4), 1253–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12362