Cited by 228Personality Traits and PsychologyAging and Gerontology ResearchPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Cross‐Sectional Age Differences and Longitudinal Age Changes of Personality in Middle Adulthood and Old Age

Allemand, Mathias, Zimprich, Daniel, Hertzog, Christopher·2007·Journal of Personality

Abstract

The present study examines different aspects of personality continuity (or change) in middle adulthood and old age both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The sample comprised 445 middle-aged (42-46 years) and 420 older (60-64 years) participants, reassessed after a 4-year interval. Personality was measured using the NEO-FFI personality inventory. After having established strict factorial invariance, factor covariances were found to be equal for both age groups and at both testing occasions, indicating perfect structural continuity of personality. A number of age differences in personality emerged at both measurement occasions. Longitudinally, in both age groups, an average decline in Neuroticism was observed. Longitudinal stability coefficients were around .80 in middle-aged and old participants, implying high, but not perfect, differential continuity. With respect to continuity of divergence, statistically significant cross-sectional age differences were found for the variance of Openness at both measurement occasions. Eventually, concerning specific versus general continuity, a variety of medium effect-sized correlated changes in the Big Five personality domains across the 4-year period was established, implying that personality changes share a certain amount of commonality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00441.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 99 · Cited by 228

Authors
Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hertzog, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Allemand, Mathias
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-10
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
323-358
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W2059130674
Cited by
228
References
99
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
personality change, personality continuity, midlife, old age, Big Five personality traits, openness to experience, longitudinal stability, measurement invariance, NEO-FFI
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Aged, Aging, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Neurotic Disorders, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Reference Values, Self Concept, Self Disclosure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review