Cross‐Sectional Age Differences and Longitudinal Age Changes of Personality in Middle Adulthood and Old Age
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Individual differences in neuroticism are relatively stable throughout adulthood and old age, though some individual differences in change exist.
“individual differences in this trait complex are relatively stable throughout adulthood and old age, although recent literature suggests that there are some individual differences in change in psychological distress”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Allemand, Zimprich, & Hertzog, 2007
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