nature reviews psychology https://doi.org/10.

1038/s44159-024-00295-z

Review article Check for updates

The process and mechanisms

of personality change
Joshua J. Jackson 1
& Amanda J. Wright 2

Abstract Sections

Although personality is relatively stable across the lifespan, there is Introduction

also ample evidence that it is malleable. This potential for change Mechanisms of personality
is important because many individuals want to change aspects of change

their personality and because personality influences important life Processes that prevent change
outcomes. In this Review, we examine the mechanisms responsible Evidence for change
for intentional and naturally occurring changes in personality. We mechanisms

discuss four mechanisms — preconditions, triggers, reinforcers and Summary and future
directions
integrators — that are theorized to produce effective change, as well
as the forces that promote stability, thereby thwarting enduring
changes. Although these mechanisms are common across theories
of personality development, the empirical evidence is mixed and
inconclusive. Personality change is most likely to occur gradually over
long timescales but abrupt, transformative changes are possible when
change is deliberately attempted or as a result of biologically mediated
mechanisms. When change does occur, it is often modest in scale.
Ultimately, it is difficult to cultivate a completely different personality,
but small changes are possible.

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
1

Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

2
e-mail: j.jackson@wustl.edu

Nature Reviews Psychology

Review article
Introduction
Almost everyone wishes to modify their personality in some way1, per-
haps to be funnier, more outgoing or less anxious. The ability to change
one’s personality could also be exceptionally beneficial because per-
sonality is related to important life outcomes, such as life expectancy,
success at work, social interactions and wealth2,3.
Over the past three decades, longitudinal studies have demon-
strated that personality never completely solidifies despite being
relatively stable over long timescales, and is instead malleable across
the lifespan2–5. The ability to change personality, combined with its
long-term predictive validity, have prompted calls to focus research
efforts on what causes changes in personality and how to implement
interventions to change personality on purpose6. However, most work
to date has examined the effects of broad macroprocesses responsi-
ble for change (such as experiencing major life events7,8), rather than
testing specific mechanisms in intervention studies9.
In this Review, we examine the process of personality change and
underlying mechanisms. First, we review mechanisms proposed to
underlie personality change that are common among many theoretical
frameworks10–21. We take a broad view and include general change mech-
anisms (which we define as distinct components within the general
temporal process of personality change that guides and impacts indi-
vidual differences14) applicable to a wide range of constructs rather
than exclusively focusing on any one aspect of this process. Our focus
is primarily on environmental change mechanisms, but genetic and bio-
logical mechanisms are also capable of and potentially responsible for
change22. Next, we discuss mechanisms that promote stability, thereby
limiting potential change. We then review the empirical evidence for
these change processes from studies of life events and interventions,
and conclude with unanswered questions for future research.
The term ‘personality’ encompasses many individual differences
such as personality traits, values, life goals, interests, life satisfac-
tion and self-esteem23, each of which are relatively enduring over dec-
ades and influence state-level affect, behaviour, cognition and desires24.
We focus on personality traits but note when other individual differ-
ences evidence different processes. ‘Change’ refers to changes in the
latent personality construct that persist over a moderate timescale and
are evident across different situations. Personality is not changed if one
develops a novel habit or acts ‘out of character’ in an isolated instance15.
Change also cannot be due to external forces only; behaviour might
initially change for external reasons, but change must eventually exist
independently of any external factors.
Mechanisms of personality change
Mechanisms of personality change can target latent traits (for exam-
ple, conscientiousness) directly, specific ‘if–then’ habits that reoccur
and are contextualized within a particular setting (for example, using
a planner at the start of each week), or narrower affect, behaviour,
cognition and desire states that are time-specific or situation-specific
(for example, arriving late to a meeting)9,10,25. These three levels of per-
sonality abstraction10,26–28 (Fig. 1) are interrelated such that changes in
one level can have top-down or bottom-up effects on another level.
Direct changes to broad and complex latent traits occur relatively
infrequently and are difficult to elicit outside biologically mediated
pathways such as physical injury, cognitive decline or pharmacologi-
cal mechanisms15,29–34. For example, education about the importance
of certain characteristics (for example, the value of conscientious-
ness for a job) does not lead to prolonged change by itself because
corresponding changes in trait-relevant habits or states also need
Nature Reviews Psychology
to occur. Broad latent traits reflect a complex pattern of functioning
comprised of inherited factors, learned processes, self-perception and
self-evaluation, and environmental influences accrued over decades.
Owing to the difficulty in directly targeting latent traits for change,
most clinical models of intentional change instead focus on lower lev-
els of abstraction17,35,36. Thus, environmentally induced changes at the
latent trait level are thought to result from bottom-up processes origi-
nating from habits or state-level manifestations of affect, behaviour,
cognition and desires. By contrast, biological factors, such as psycho-
tropic substances (for example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibi-
tors), that bypass the other levels might directly impact personality
at the latent trait level32,37.
Habitual behaviours can be considered the building blocks of
broader personality traits. For example, a conscientious individual
is habitually reliable and organized. Whereas efforts to change broad
traits are rarely tested outside the clinical realm, habitual reactions to
stimuli are the target of many interventions25,36,38–41. The key to effective
habit change is that there must eventually be a shift from goal-directed
behaviour to automatic behaviour through repetition or conditional
learning processes17,35,42,43. That is, behaviour that once required a cue
or trigger should become automatic, effortless and an inherent part
of an individual44,45.
Modifications at the lowest level of analysis are often needed to
create conditional habits that could ultimately lead to broad change
in latent traits11,13,15. State-level manifestations of affect, behaviour,
cognition and desires are time-specific or situation-specific building
blocks by which habits and traits are modified. State manifestations
are variable46–48: people often behave ‘out of character’ (for example,
an introverted person might act extraverted on occasion46). Changes
in the latent trait arise from shifts in the typical behaviour one exhibits
(for example, an introvert having fewer daily instances of introverted
behaviour and instead spending more time acting extraverted). Given
that most people already have routine experiences of acting out of
character, it is probably easier to focus change efforts at the state level
as opposed to at the level of habits they do not yet have. Thus, we focus
on the mechanisms responsible for causing changes in lower-level
state manifestations that then result in broader changes to personality.
Numerous theories of personality development identify potential
mechanisms and processes responsible for change that vary in scope
and depth10–13,15,35,49 (Table 1). Although many hypothesized mechanisms
can contribute to change, few — if any — are able to change personality
alone. Thus, a multi-mechanism process is needed to fully account for
the process of personality change. Drawing on a large empirical and
theoretical literature10,13,14,16,18,20,50–57, we categorized each proposed
mechanism into one of four mechanism categories. We view these as
being necessary to engender change: preconditions, triggers, rein-
forcers and integrators. Together, these four mechanism categories
describe the general process of change across the different levels of
personality abstraction10,26–28 (Fig. 2).
Preconditions
Preconditions are circumstances or contexts that make it possible for
change to occur12. For instance, in the context of therapy, patients can
impact the therapeutic process by resisting treatment. Similarly, in their
daily lives people might — intentionally or not — close themselves off
such that the process of change cannot be completed or even begin.
For intentional personality change, people often need to have a desire
or motivation to change who they are either as an end goal itself or to
achieve other goals12. In other words, they must want to change state-level
Review article
Latent trait Trait-relevant habits
High
Trait level
Low
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1 2
Time (years)
Levels of a trait change at the Levels of a trait begin to shift
latent level once habits are through successful (and bouts of
routinized and their effects unsuccessful) repetition of new
integrated into one’s identity habits
Fig. 1 | Timescales of change. Changes at long, medium and short timescales
are associated with latent traits, trait-relevant habits and state-level
expression, respectively. However, each level of personality abstraction is not
necessarily restricted to this single timeframe. The pairing of the trait level
manifestations of affect, behaviour, cognition and desires. If someone
changes their state-level manifestations in a manner akin to just ‘going
through the motions’ or for external reasons instead of enacting changes
they desire and welcome, they are unlikely to experience broad and
lasting personality change as a result58. For example, someone working
in the service industry might act especially nice and warm in order to
receive a tip. However, changes in these state expressions will not result
in lasting, self-perceived changes to the broader trait of agreeableness
if they feel that smiling is merely part of the job and restricted to that
context, have no intrinsic desire to be nice or warm, and subsequently
fail to incorporate this behaviour into their self-concept.
The motivation for change is often not specifically to elicit broad
personality or behavioural change itself. Consequently, the desire for
change is so far removed from perceiving or purposefully enacting
trait-relevant, state-level behaviour change that a person might not be
aware they have a change goal. This type of unintended change prob-
ably accounts for most of the changes that occur across the lifespan4.
For example, instead of seeking to change their behaviour, a person
might want to ‘fit in’ in a new social role. Commitment to certain broad
social roles (such as establishing a career or becoming a parent) is a
primary promoter of change19,59–62. Committing to these roles indicates
an implicit desire to change behaviour because these roles are associ-
ated with different expectations of how to think, feel and behave59,62–64.
Thus, a person committing to a new role might not explicitly want to
change their personality, but at some level is open to changing some
aspects of themselves.
The desire or motivation to change is explicit when there are
intentional efforts to change or clear change goals. However, this
precondition of wanting to change some part of one’s personality
is not necessary for change to occur; change can occur due to cir-
cumstances outside one’s control. For example, change might occur
through biologically mediated processes such as dementia or trau-
matic brain injury29,34, or through environmental circumstances such
Nature Reviews Psychology
State-level expression
3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Time (weeks) Time (days)
Levels of a trait fluctuate based on
state-level expressions of relevant
affect, behaviour, cognition and
desires
with longer timeframes reflects the fact that it is trivial to change behaviour
for a few moments or even a few weeks of time, but this does not meet the
standard defining a change in the underlying trait that transcends context
and time.
as incarceration65. Thus, a circumstance in which changes cannot
be opposed by an individual might be a sufficient precondition for
change. These circumstances do not lead to desired or goal-directed
changes on behalf of the individual, but rather prohibit the stability and
maintenance of typical affect, behaviour, cognition and desire states.
Importantly, even if personality change is intentional or desired,
the potential changes in state-level manifestations of affect, behaviour,
cognition and desires must be doable12,66 for subsequent changes to
actually occur. Whether state-level changes are possible is, in part,
contingent upon an individual’s capacity to enact new affect, behav-
iour, cognition or desires and it might not be feasible for a person to
actively change these building blocks of who they are. For instance,
it might be too mentally taxing to act in an atypical fashion67 or a person
might lack knowledge of when to modify their behaviour to obtain an
appropriate response68, resulting in few or failed attempts to do so.
Notably, there is an important distinction between believing that one
can change and the practical feasibility of enacting these changes.
It might not be necessary for a person to believe they are capable of
change69–71; however, the corresponding affect, behaviour, cognition
and desire changes must be feasible. No one can change their affect,
behaviour, cognition and desires in all situations, so the ability to
effectively enact novel affect, behaviour, cognition and desires in the
correct situation is crucial.
Triggers
Triggers are experiences that result in state-level affect, behaviour,
cognition and desire changes13,17. Anything that elicits a state-level
expression can be thought of as a trigger, including external factors
such as situations or tasks and internal factors such as physiological
or stress responses54,56,57,72–74. The trigger’s corresponding state-level
manifestation is often not sufficient to constitute broad, lasting change
if the novel personality state occurs in isolation and is not repeated
over time. For instance, an introvert can on occasion act extraverted
Review article

Table 1 | Proposed mechanisms for changing personality

Category Component Example Refs.

Preconditions Motivation to change A person feels lonely and wishes they were more outgoing so that they could make 9,17,196
new friends

Belief that one can change Change is viewed as feasible 10,53,69,197

A goal that necessitates change A person wants to have more friends, therefore they must act in a more extraverted way 12,198–201

Feasibility of change A person’s life has enough flexibility to allow change; there are ample resources to 12,66,130,144
support change

Environmental disequilibrium A person moves away from their hometown for tertiary education and is prompted to 156,170,172
engage in new behaviours and adopt a new routine

Triggers Environment with expectations A new job comes with a set of standards and expectations for how one should behave 13,59,64,143

Modest (scaled) behavioural Purchasing and using a daily planner (modest change) versus dedicating several 12,41,202
change hours each week to a new exercise routine (drastic change)

Cued discrepancy between actual A person has a desired identity (for example, a good employee) and engages in 203–207
and ideal self relevant behaviours (for example, setting project reminders) when the discrepancy is
cued (for example, forgetting to do a project)

Biologically mediated processes Pre-programmed maturation; health or cognitive decline; hormonal processes; gene 15,16,20,21,29,
expression 101,208,209

Triggers and Social roles Psychological commitment to social roles (for example, a spouse) and expectations 19,59,60,64,
reinforcers to engage in role-typed behaviours (for example, warmth) 79,206,210

Situation selection A person who wants to be a better student selects into environments that provide 13,141,142,211
support for this change (for example, choosing to attend study hall)

Reinforcers Transfer or generalization A person changes trait-relevant behaviours in several aspects of their life as opposed 13,43,44,212
to in a single context

Self-regulation and reframing A person who finds it scary to meet new people shifts their perception of the 28,84,213
situation and views it as an opportunity to make friends instead of an opportunity to
be ignored, bullied or ostracized

Self-monitoring New behaviours are enacted until the desired end state is reached 12,13

Habit formation New affect, behaviours, cognitions and desires are integrated into one’s lifestyle 36,41,43,45,
through repetition 68,92,124

Adequate resources A person has the behavioural and/or cognitive capacity and the self-regulatory 9,67,130,
abilities necessary to maintain change 144,145

Sufficient support A person seeks out support from friends and family when facing difficulties enacting 10,130,144,214
change rather than giving up

Corresponding principle A person selects into environments that are consistent with their existing traits, 18,19,77,139,
reinforcing and deepening the expression of those traits 143,215

Societal norms A person moves to a new country where it is less usual to start conversations with 94–97
strangers, reinforcing a decreased tendency to exhibit extraverted behaviours
across time

Reinforcement The type of feedback received from others either encourages or discourages 13,125
continued engagement in the behaviour

Integrators Self-reflection Explicit perception and awareness of the trait-relevant changes in behaviour 113,125,216,217

Assimilation A person integrates behavioural changes into their identity 140,218–221

Internal attributions Behaviour change is recognized and attributed to personality change versus an 12,13,216
external factor

Feedback Other people react to an individual’s behaviour and provide information about the 125
behaviour’s utility, benefits and/or consequences

Reputation Other people discuss and come to conclusions about what a person’s personality is 222
like based on their behaviour

Reinforcement The information a person receives from others about their new behaviour reinforces 13,125
new changes to their self-concept

Implicit learning Repeated cognitive activation of two concepts that temporally coincide with 126,127
one another

Nature Reviews Psychology

 Review article
Latent trait
Duration and/or degree of persistence
• Motivations, desires, goals
• Feasibility of change
• Open to change
• Situation selection
• Situation-specific expectations
• Environmental affordances
State expression
Preconditions Triggers
and talk to strangers at a party (the trigger), but this single instance of
extraverted behaviour does not and will not make that person extra-
verted. However, repeated instances of the trigger are not necessary
in some situations, such as when a trigger is internal or driven by bio-
logical mechanisms (such as severe injury34,75 or dementia29,76), because
its effects independently perpetuate. Thus, trigger-induced changes
require that exposure to the trigger is maintained: either a persistent
trigger or repeated instances of a transient trigger.
Environmental cues or triggers that facilitate state-level change
include broad life events77,78, social roles20,79, developmental tasks80,
guided experiences (such as therapy81), specific situations (such as
educational settings82), emotion regulation strategies (such as rumina-
tion or suppression)83 and cognitive reframing of thought processes84.
Triggering experiences influence the objective situation around a
person as well as their psychological interpretation of the situation85,86.
Ideally there would be a simple one-to-one correspondence
between a trigger and a person’s subsequent state-level manifesta-
tion. For instance, the waiter in the previous example wants to continue
receiving tips (trigger), and therefore their physical and psychologi-
cal situations remain the same — they continue to perform their job
and have the goal to behave in a way that earns them tips. Thus, their
intentional affect, behaviour, cognition and desires continue to include
being friendly and kind (state-level manifestations) to achieve their
goal, which is activated by the trigger. However, situations can be inter-
preted idiosyncratically87,88 and there is little reason to believe that all
individuals respond to the same situations in a similar manner86. The
environmental pressures for certain behaviours will differ substantially
between a waiter whose goal is to make more money and a waiter who
is working primarily to spend time with their friends, for example.
Thus, many of the proposed mechanisms for personality change
focus not on explicit environmental cues but rather on broader ways
of thinking that are applicable across many situations11. In line with
this view, changing personality is not accomplished by leading people
into novel situations, but rather by having people change how they
view existing situations, their expectations for how others interpret
their actions, and their ability to carry out behaviours. Each type of
reframing can create cues that transcend the objective situation. For
instance, although a job does not itself necessarily lead to personality
change, modifications can be made to this situation that make it more
Nature Reviews Psychology
Fig. 2 | Process of change across levels of
personality abstraction. Preconditions (red)
create circumstances that are conducive to initiating
the process of change. Triggers (yellow) prompt
• Associative processes conditional state-level expressions of affect,
• Reflective processes
behaviour, cognition and desires. Reinforcers
(purple) ensure that state-level expressions continue
and persist over time. Integrators (blue) involve
Habits reflecting on newly formed behavioural repertoires
and the environmental or social reactions to
• Incorporation into routine these novel behaviours and making them a part of
• Repeated selection of
similar situations
self-concept. Change is not guaranteed to happen,
• Reinforcement or feedback because exogenous forces acting on any of the four
mechanisms could shift the change process.
Reinforcers Integrators Exogenous factors
likely to elicit change. For example, a person can change how they
view their job. Instead of simply considering their job a way to pass
time, which might encourage passive behaviour or ‘going through the
motions’, they could view it as a means of behaving in an industrious
and efficient manner. Thus, similar to what is often done in therapy,
successfully reframing a situation involves focusing on strategies for
selecting situations that yield the desired behaviour, by interpreting
and evaluating each situation in accordance with goals, or by modifying
perception of the situation89,90. Thus, triggering experiences range from
relatively straightforward behaviourism, whereby a trigger stimulus
induces a behaviour, to a more complex cue that triggers a person to
notice emotional responses they do not desire or actions that lead
to incongruent goals.
Reinforcers
Triggers change the expression of state-level affect, behaviour, cog-
nition and desires, but lasting change occurs only through repeated
state-level changes13,15,44,68. It is relatively easy to shift and modify behav-
iour in a single moment, whereas it is more difficult to establish an
automatic, habitual change in affect, behaviour, cognition and desires
that is sustained over time. Furthermore, triggers might be avoided
because they are unpleasant or effortful. Thus, external or internal
reinforcers are needed to ensure that exposure to triggers persists long
enough to produce the repeated changes in state-level manifestations
required for enduring bottom-up change17,35,41,43,91, such as through the
formation of habits12,36,43,45,92.
For example, a workplace might trigger industrious behaviours79,
and the guarantee of a paycheque might serve as a reinforcer that
results in continued exposure to or engagement with the same trig-
ger. In this example, the reinforcer might exert its effect through
person-centric responses to situations such as continued situation
selection (for example, choosing to continue to go to work in order
to get paid) or the positive affective response a person has once in
that situation (for example, satisfaction at knowing they are earning
money).
In addition to person-centric responses to situations, expecta-
tions for how to behave appropriately in a given situation, outcomes
that are contingent upon behaving in a certain manner, and overt
consequences for failing to act in accordance with expectations93–95
Review article
serve as reinforcers at the societal level93,94,96,97. These expectations,
contingencies and consequences serve as a guide for how to behave
(and how not to behave)19,97,98. For example, a new job is associated
with certain behaviours that are deemed appropriate (such as arriving
on time) as well as behaviours that are deemed inappropriate (such
as stealing office supplies)79,99,100. Behaving in line with these expecta-
tions has long-term implications for colleague relations and salary.
Thus, there are strong incentives to act in accordance with the expec-
tations and norms of the situation. These incentives are particularly
strong for many social roles, but — regardless of their domain — most
situations have expectations for standard behaviour (and punishments
for deviations from those expectations).
Within the context of intentional change, reinforcers are conscious
and key to having individuals continue to engage in what was once a
challenging task1,10,17,81. For example, identifying strengths and avail-
able resources enables people to reframe and overcome challenges in
maintaining changes in affect, behaviour, cognition and desires101. This
type of explicit reinforcement is often done directly (such as through
a therapist), but is also a key component of habit formation, in which
short-term goals scaffold the successful completion of long-term goals.
For example, acknowledging and celebrating small wins in developing
an exercise habit (such as a person’s new personal record) facilitates
the more long-term goal of establishing the habit41,43.
In addition to environmental and affective reinforcers, reinforc-
ers might be more biological. For example, long-term periods of high
inflammation might increase negative affectivity102. Smoking or the
immediate high stress caused by unexpectedly losing one’s job can trig-
ger increased inflammation103,104; the maintenance of such behaviours
or circumstances can likewise maintain this physiological response,
with both processes now serving as separate (albeit complementary)
reinforcers. Cognitive decline is another biological example. One
of the more common causes of cognitive decline is dementia105–107.
Although behavioural and lifestyle factors play some part in cognitive
decline76,105,108,109, the continued buildup and spread of malfunctioning
proteins such as beta-amyloid and tau in the brain107 serve as a dominant
reinforcer for subsequent changes to how a person with dementia
thinks, feels and behaves.
Integrators
The prolonged state-level changes brought on by reinforcers need to
be sustained over time. In habit formation, these reinforcers turn
trigger-induced behaviour into automatic behaviour. Changes in states
that lead to the adoption of habits might occur through reinforcers
(for example, an alarm reminder and the cost of gym membership
might lead to a habit of exercising). However, the transition from habits
to trait-level personality change requires an integration of any novel
affect, behaviour, cognition and desire into one’s identity and general
lifestyle in other life domains. That is, habits formed in one situation
need to be widely extended to other situations to constitute change
in latent personality. A steady exercise schedule is associated with
conscientiousness, but a newly implemented gym regimen does not
constitute personality change, because this habit and its trait-relevant
manifestations of affect, behaviour, cognition and desires are local
in scope.
Borrowing from the cognitive training literature, the difference
between habit formation and personality change is skill transfer from
one domain to another110. For example, transfer would be evident if
someone who became more organized after establishing an exercise
habit extended this skill to become also more organized at work, in
Nature Reviews Psychology
paying bills and in their social life. ‘Personality’ refers to a broad set
of skills that permeates many aspects of life, so changing personality
requires more than a single habit change in one domain111. Although
transfer from one situation to another is extremely difficult112, these
broad changes can be facilitated through reflective processes that
integrate changes in affect, behaviour, cognition and desires into
self-concept or identity18,113. Such reflective processes might take the
following form: “If I am organized enough to make going to the gym
a habit, then I am organized enough to make sure my office is clean.
Because I have an organized schedule and clean office, I consider myself
a conscientious person.” This type of integration is essential to engen-
dering long-term change, and is one of the main effective components
of many types of therapy114,115.
Reflective processes can be extended to other people. Reflection
at the individual level should lead to changes in self-reported personal-
ity. However, a person might not always be the most accurate judge of
the extent to which they changed and/or rely on the most appropriate
reference points to evaluate their personality116–119. Informants (such
as friends, family members or romantic partners) can also provide per-
sonality judgements to help to validate that measurable, observable or
meaningful changes occurred following a sustained period of reinforced
state-level expressions120–122. Correspondence between self-rated and
informant-rated changes in personality confirms that some changes
in a person’s personality have occurred25,50,117,119,123, and suggests that
the changes to that person’s personality were successfully integrated
by informants as well. That is, informants attributing new personality
characteristics to this person now ascribe what were once novel changes
in affect, behaviour, cognition and desires to who this person ‘is’. Thus,
although personality is an aspect of an individual, aspects of the change
process can occur for and be detected by other people.
Reflective processes are an explicit way to integrate changes in
affect, behaviour, cognition and desires into self-concept. Such integra-
tion can also occur implicitly through associative processes13,124, includ-
ing implicit learning, feedback and reinforcement in how someone
views themselves13,125–127. The lack of conscious awareness of associative
processes suggests that they are primarily involved in the integra-
tion of naturally occurring as opposed to intentional changes. The
effects of associative processes often take longer to materialize than
intentional integration efforts via reflective processes owing to the
incremental nature of associative processes13,124,128 and are contingent
upon environmental factors that promote them13,124,128,129.
For example, a teenager starting their first job might acquire new
habits and skills, such as: time management to balance work and school
obligations; impulse control to not spend money because they are now
more aware of the time and effort required to obtain it; and organiza-
tion abilities to keep track of when work tasks and school assignments
need to be completed. After several months of receiving better grades,
good performance reviews and praise from their parents, these exter-
nal indicators might eventually serve as cues that their behaviour has
changed, and that these behaviours have come to, in part, define who
they are across multiple domains. That is, rather than seeing themselves
as someone who ‘does good work’ and ‘controls their spending urges’,
these become implicit learned qualities of the self such that when a
new task is presented they feel capable of accomplishing it because
they ‘are a good worker’ and ‘have self-control’.
Reflective and associative processes are not mutually exclusive.
For example, it is possible that the teenager in the previous example
was always aware of their behavioural changes and their consequences.
However, these perceived changes might have been localized to the
Review article
work domain, such that they recognized that they were a skilled, organ-
ized worker, yet failed to see how these learned skills transferred to
other domains. In this case, the feedback and acknowledgement of
changes in other areas from external sources might be necessary for
learning that these qualities reflect more than just how they behave at
work. Thus, integration processes by both the person and the people
around them validate that changes have occurred.
Summary
The processes underlying personality change can be summed up as a
willingness to (take the time to) fake it until you make it (and believe
it, across multiple domains). If someone is open to or willing to
change (preconditions), encounters situations that lead to changes in
personality-relevant affect, behaviour, cognition and desires (triggers),
repeats and sustains these changes over time until they become autono-
mous (reinforcers), and incorporates them into their self-concept
(integrators) by employing the new skillset across domains and time,
then their personality has changed. Thus, personality change is pri-
marily a bottom-up process such that changes in states shift over time
within a context, become habitual and autonomous, and then extend
across different contexts and other state-level manifestations to lead
to changes in broader personality traits.
These steps apply to both naturally occurring and intentional
changes. Preconditions, triggers and reinforcers are more conscious
during intentional change than in naturally occurring change because
intentional change involves an acknowledgement of wanting to change
(preconditions), explicitly seeking out situations that elicit desired
behaviours (triggers), and self-directed efforts to maintain desired
behaviours (reinforcers)9,10,12. Similarly, during intentional change
integrators more probably operate through reflective processes than
associative processes because there is conscious awareness of the
change process, such as cognitive reappraisals that recognize and
attribute new behaviours to one’s identity (integrators)10,130. It is likely
that being aware of, and directly focused on, the different components
needed for personality change to occur accelerates the change process,
thereby making intentional change more efficacious than naturally
occurring change. Naturally occurring change is instead probably
driven by associative learning processes that foster change in a less
consistent and slower manner. In the absence of intentional or con-
scious efforts to change some aspect of oneself, external factors and
cues become a major part of the change process. Irrespective of the
motivation, intention or awareness of change, external sources can
trigger, reinforce, integrate and help to validate any changes that occur.
Processes that prevent change
Although most people want to change some aspect of their personality1,
not everyone has the right preconditions or triggers — nor maintains
exposure to triggers over long enough time periods — to do so. Simi-
larly, not every person can successfully integrate any changes into
their self-concept. Merely wanting to change is not enough. In general,
personality is a very consistent and stable system5,131,132, so it should be
no surprise that intervening in and changing personality is difficult12,133.
For instance, people tend not to show average changes in their levels of
dispositional traits or life satisfaction following major life events and,
if they do change, they often revert to their previous levels77,78,134–136.
This ‘bouncing back’ of levels of personality following life events is
often studied and found in data that spans one to a few years between
waves77,78,135,137 but has also been observed within mere months136.
Similarly, even those life events which lead to extreme changes in life
Nature Reviews Psychology
circumstances (such as becoming a new parent and job loss) do not
lead to major changes in personality traits on average77,138. To com-
plement the previous discussion on the mechanisms of change, here
we describe mechanisms that contribute to consistency and thereby
prevent change (Table 2).
First, acting out of character (or outside the standard range of
state-level manifestations of affect, behaviour, cognition and desires)
is an effortful process that can result in feeling inauthentic or ‘off’67. To
avoid taxing behaviours and/or aversive affective reactions, people cre-
ate experiences that are in line with their personality by self-selecting
into familiar experiences that are consistent with who they are19,139,140
or manipulating the environment to make it more in line with their
personality19,21. If people are not able to find or create a situation that
aligns with who they are, they might opt out of the situation entirely141.
Moreover, according to the notion of ‘like attracts like’, people are often
selected by others into experiences that fit well with their personality.
The individuals that select a person into environments that already
correspond and align with that person’s personality (for example, the
highly conscientious person is invited to join a study group) thereby
act as gatekeepers of personality change because they help that person
to maintain stability142. Collectively, these processes serve to reinforce
consistency and prohibit change from occurring.
For example, starting tertiary education comes with numerous
expectations for how to behave, often related to industrious behaviour.
However, a student can manipulate the environment by seeking out and
self-selecting into a party crowd rather than finding a hard-working
study group. If a party crowd is similar to the one the student identi-
fied with in high school, the crowd might likewise seek out the student
because they fit in well. The student might initially get invited to a study
group, but instead of studying they might change the atmosphere
by gossiping and not paying attention. After some pushback by the
study group, the student might opt out and find a situation that bet-
ter coincides with who they are. Thus, despite ample opportunities
for triggers that promote industrious behaviour, the processes of
selection, attraction, manipulation and attrition can all serve to keep
personality consistent by influencing the situations in which a person
finds themselves141,143. If a person continuously creates and finds them-
selves in the same types of situation, such continuity will reinforce the
stability of their current personality18.
Furthermore, a person might enter a situation with a certain goal
in mind but have a subsequent aversive reaction to the situation that
weakens (or even fully negates) its intended impact. In this instance,
situation selection serves to oppose change because of the person’s
reaction to the situation. For example, a person might decide to start
setting an early alarm to wake up and go to the gym before work. How-
ever, when the alarm goes off the person is immediately annoyed at
their past self for setting this alarm and trying to force a new routine.
Because their sleep was disrupted, the person is now tired and irritable
and is less productive at work and gets into small arguments with their
partner. The result of this sequence of events is that even though the
situation the person tried to select into was meant to have desirable,
positive consequences, their reaction to this situation had the opposite
effect: instead of catalysing a new routine that could lead to change, the
likelihood of entering that situation again was reduced and consistency
was reinforced.
Second, even if people shift their state-level manifestations of
affect, behaviour, cognition and desires, the shift might not last long
enough for change to occur. Behaving in a way that is inconsistent with
one’s disposition is effortful and depletes self-regulatory abilities,
Review article

Table 2 | Proposed mechanisms that reinforce personality stability

Category of Component Example Refs.

mechanism
opposed

Preconditions No desire for change
Change is not viewed as possible
Changes are not feasible
Triggers Consistent environment
Biological mechanisms
Misattributing the need for change
Insufficient environmental pressures
Reinforcers Inconsistent or short-term behavioural
change
Selecting into personality-congruent
environments
Inadequate internal resources
Lack of external support
Lack of transfer or generalization
Integrators External attributions
Lack of self-insight or self-awareness
Shift in reference group for
self-evaluation
Absence of environmental support
Most people view their current trait levels as relatively desirable; discount potential 223–227
outcomes that would follow any change; and want to avoid feelings of discomfort,
loss of sense of control and unexpected reactions from their environment
Believing that people inherently cannot change 10,12,53,69,197
A person might have a rigid lifestyle that offers no flexibility, or their desired changes 12,66
are too different from their current personality
A person has had the same job, friends, hobbies and partner for the past decade, and 18,59,206
none of these factors have changed
Stability in gene expression and phenotypic factors; genetic predispositions 20,21,209,215
A person might misattribute negative experiences or failures to external causes and 228–230
fail to recognize their own role
The external pressure that could elicit affective, behavioural or cognitive change is 17,77,148,149
either too similar to existing factors a person is exposed to or is too different for a
person to continue engaging with it
A person might try to set up a new exercise routine or diet plan, but then revert to 41,43,44
their old lifestyle after a couple of weeks
People seek out specific environments that will stabilize the traits that led them to 19,139–141
seek out those niches in the first place
Behaving in a way that is inconsistent with dispositions is effortful and depletes 9,67,144,145
self-regulatory abilities, causing people to gravitate back to their original dispositions
Someone might not have friends and/or family to support them or they might be in 9,144,214
an environment that does not allow for long-term changes in behaviour
Change is localized to a particular context (for example, a person might get better at 41,43,110,212
organizing their social plans but fail to be more organized at work)
A person might attribute change to external circumstances instead of themselves 228–230
(for example, “I haven’t become more organized, I just have to keep my desk clean so
I don’t get fired”)
People are usually not aware of how their personality traits have changed across time 117,231,232
After acquiring a new behavioural routine or being in a new environment, a person 116,118,163
shifts their reference group to be the people who also perform these behaviours,
thereby failing to see changes in themselves that were once evaluated against a
different population
A person might not regularly interact with people who can provide feedback on 124,126,222
or reward and/or punish new behaviour, thereby leading to a failure to form an
associative link between the new behaviours and self-concept

which can cause people to gravitate back to their original dispositions
and behavioural routines9,67,144,145. It is unclear how long state changes
need to last to engender trait change. Habit formation can take weeks
to months to occur depending on the habit146. Changes in personality
that occur as part of an intervention or therapy have been found to
occur over a period of weeks81,147, but naturally occurring personality
change is probably slower19.
Third, shifts in states must be calibrated to what is possible for
the person. People often regress back to their previous personality if
they are placed in situations that demand too much or have unspeci-
fied norms, rules or expectations for behaviour20,148,149. Too drastic a
change will lead to feelings of discomfort and subsequent avoidance
of the trigger, whereas too little change will not engage reinforcer
and integrator processes. What is needed are changes in behaviour
that build on what someone is currently capable of, such as what has
been termed a zone of proximal development150. This perpetuating,
combined use of a person’s existing skills and capabilities with goals
that are challenging yet attainable is a well known process in exposure
therapy, where progressively greater exposures are used to facilitate
greater change151.
Fourth, people might successfully develop habits and new char-
acteristic ways of behaving but fail to perceive these changes or to
attribute any perceived changes to the more abstract concept of who
they are. Thus, no change develops owing to a failure in effective reflec-
tive or associative processes. Unsuccessful self-perception can be a
barrier to measurable change but can potentially be compensated for
by external sources of validation.
In sum, just as there are mechanisms that foster personality
change, there are also processes that reinforce stability and/or pre-
vent change. People often prefer sameness; the drive to maintain a
familiar environment and stable sense of self, accompanied by every-
day obstacles that interfere with successful and sustained changes in
behaviour, places limitations on whether (and how much) change is
possible21,141,143,145,152.

Nature Reviews Psychology

Review article
Evidence for change mechanisms
The model of mechanisms responsible for personality change based
on preconditions, triggers, reinforcers and integrators shares many
commonalities with other theories of personality development18–21,64.
Here we review the evidence for each of the proposed mechanisms
drawn from studies of key external factors believed to engender lasting
change: life events and interventions.
Life events
Research has focused on life events as catalysts of change7,8,77,78,137,153.
Life events serve as a major source of all four change mechanisms,
especially triggers and reinforcers. For example, people starting a job
typically have a goal to perform well (either for personal satisfaction
or monetary gain), thereby satisfying many preconditions of change.
The job itself triggers novel experiences, such as completing new tasks.
People show up to their job day after day, ensuring adequate repetition
and reinforcement of these new behaviours, and people are motivated
to act in accordance with expectations to keep their job and be in good
standing with their colleagues and superiors. Finally, integration is
likely because people tend to do many different (albeit related) tasks
in their job, thereby developing generalizable skills, and they receive
feedback about their performance. Indeed, there is ample evidence
that occupations are associated with changes in personality, well-being
and self-esteem49,154,155.
Although many studies find associations between life events and
personality development78,139,156–158, many do not137,138,159,160 and causal,
directional effects are often not statistically significant161. For exam-
ple, starting a job is associated with increases in neuroticism in some
studies77,154,156 but not in others78,79,162. Associations between life events
and personality are larger and are observed more frequently for affec-
tive and self-traits (such as self-esteem and life satisfaction) than for
dispositional traits (such as the Big Five)8,77.
The limited evidence that the broad category of life events pro-
duces meaningful average changes in personality might be due to the
overreliance of self-reported traits rather than implicit measures or
informant reports that might detect additional aspects of personal-
ity that are not consciously accessible, were originally misjudged (for
example, use of inappropriate reference group163), or are not perceived
or noticed by the person themselves56,117,119,121–123. Alternatively, life
events could be too broad to serve as a meaningful proxy for change
mechanisms because it is not the broad event that matters but rather
the specific new affect, behaviour, cognition or desires that a given
person expresses in the context of the event, which can further vary
across people. Moreover, people interpret life events differently156,164,165.
Thus, life events might promote change mechanisms for some but not
all individuals166. Because interpretations of life events are varied, they
probably result in idiosyncratic change, as opposed to a meaningful
and quantifiable average change137,165,167,168.
‘Fish out of water’ experiences, such as when a person is incarcer-
ated65, moves to a new country169,170 or joins the military171, might be
better suited for testing change mechanisms because there is more
homogeneity in the day-to-day experiences, especially for military
and incarceration experiences. In these situations, a person’s entire
normative day-to-day experience shifts, and these experiences are
designed with explicit change goals in mind (for example, rehabili-
tation is the goal of incarceration, and ‘be all that you can be’ was
the recruiting slogan for the US army). Triggering situations are
constantly present and difficult to avoid, and there are major con-
sequences for not changing behaviour (reinforcement). People are
Nature Reviews Psychology
also explicitly directed to integrate novel components of personal-
ity into a broader trait within the incarceration rehabilitation pro-
cess and military training. However, despite the explicit existence
of all four mechanisms of change, there is still only modest evidence
that these experiences promote change and results are inconsistent
across studies65,169–172.
Interventions
Personality traits are often not the target of interventions, but many
interventions target related constructs such as life satisfaction. In
general, these interventions are efficacious, with modest effect sizes
(d = 0.20–0.40) that have meaningful impacts in that people report
notable changes in their well-being173,174. The most effective of these
well-being interventions focus on principles established via thera-
peutic techniques, such as cognitive reappraisal175 and mindfulness
interventions176. These interventions explicitly target reinforcers and
integration. Positive psychology interventions177, which aim to increase
positive affect, meaning in life and engagement, rather than to decrease
negative symptoms, vary in content and target mechanism and show
modest to limited effectiveness for improving life satisfaction (d = 0.20)
with evidence of small sample bias178.
Interventions that target self-control also show modest to lim-
ited effects (d = 0.15–0.25; ref. 179). The nature of these interventions
vary, but they generally repeat triggers180–182. Many of the less effective
self-control interventions and positive psychology interventions are
short and vague in terms of which mechanisms should be responsible
for lasting change.
Far fewer interventions for personality traits have been attempted.
The largest number of studies have looked at personality traits as a side
effect of interventions that target other constructs such as cognitive
ability147,180,183, psychopathology184–188 or delinquent behaviour189–191.
Even though these interventions attempt to directly influence the
four change mechanisms, the evidence for personality trait change as
a result of these interventions is mixed at best. Although some stud-
ies show that changing daily behaviours (such as openness-related
behaviours147) are associated with trait change, other studies find null
effects180. Similarly, successful studies tend to find that changes fade
over time, demonstrating the strength of processes that promote
consistency192.
The best evidence that personality traits can be modified comes
from studies that use psychotherapy methods. A meta-analysis
of 207 studies found that personality traits changed over the course of
therapy81. Changes were evident regardless of the therapy modality,
indicating that type of therapy is less important than the process
of attempting to change. Changes in personality were strongest for
neuroticism (d = 0.50), which is associated with disorders such as
anxiety and depression2,3. However, there were changes in all other
Big Five traits as well, suggesting that therapy has broad effects on
personality traits. Notably, these effects persisted up to one year
after therapy stopped, underscoring the potential for persistent,
long-term change81.
Interventions that specifically target integration mechanisms,
particularly via reflective processes, are effective193. These findings
have prompted development of self-directed personality interventions
where therapeutic concepts are implemented without a therapist. For
example, in a 15-week-long intervention individuals created if–then
plans (such as “if I feel stressed, then I will call my mom to talk about
it”) and set themselves behavioural challenges (such as “introduce
yourself to someone new”)193 that directly invoke triggering situations.
Review article

Table 3 | Application of personality change mechanisms to interventions

Category Role in personality change Example Implementation scenario

Preconditions Prerequisite states that facilitate the opportunity for
change, such as by creating an intention or desire to
change
Triggers Factors that underlie state-level changes in
construct-relevant affect, behaviour, cognition and
desires via behavioural activation and cue-conditioned
responses
Reinforcers Factors that create favourable internal and external
circumstances that enable a person to repeatedly
engage in and maintain state-level affect, behaviour,
cognition and desires
Integration The consolidation and automatization of previously
trigger-induced changes in narrow contexts into
enduring changes that transcend domains are
performed automatically, and are part of self-concept
Actuate discrepancy awareness by
explicitly considering the incongruity
between actual and desired personality
Target change in localized behaviours by
creating a set of if–then contingencies
that are applicable in specific
circumstances
Identify the strengths and resources
a person possesses that can alleviate
the burdensome and taxing nature of
continuously enacting novel affect,
behaviour, cognition and desires
Prompt self-reflection or explicit
awareness of the progress a person has
made and the period of time in which they
have upheld these changes
Have people write down what they hope
their personality looks like in five years and
contrast this with their current personality
If a person reports a bad day at work,
remind them of their intention to create
a to-do list when they get to work in the
morning
Remind people that their friends and
family can assist when they encounter
difficulties and help to hold them
accountable
After a bout of successful adherence to an
intervention plan, send a summary of how
reported behaviours have changed and
the progress made towards the goal

The results showed that those that desired to change their personality
changed more than those who desired no change (d = 0.2).
Another successful self-guided intervention involved a per-
sonalized app that delivered interventions based on psychotherapy
principles50. Researchers explicitly specified the mechanisms tar-
geted in the intervention, which correspond well with the four change
mechanisms described here10 (Table 3). In the three-month-long ran-
domized controlled trial participants interacted with a digital coach
within the app, which provided specific tools and techniques to help
and maintain modifications in affect, behaviours, cognitions and
desires. Both self-reports (d = 0.50) and observer reports (d = 0.35)
of personality indicated that those who underwent the intervention
changed more than the control group, with the changes lasting at least
three months after the intervention. Thus, drawing from empirically
supported change mechanisms and developing an individualized
intervention protocol that targeted each component fostered enduring
personality change9,10,50.
Summary
The findings described in this section have three broad takeaways.
First, life events are too broad to offer much insight into the mecha-
nisms that drive change. Life events probably engender change for
some people, some of the time, but differences in the ways that people
interpret, react and experience life events are probably so varied that
general conclusions cannot be made. Although people change across
the lifespan, the vast majority do not seek therapy or attempt to change
their personality; it is unclear what drives these changes4,137,159,160,167,194.
Second, interventions show promise in changing broad constructs,
such as life satisfaction and personality traits. The most effective inter-
ventions mirror psychotherapy. However, many interventions are inef-
fective, probably because they focus on simple models of change and
do not address multiple mechanisms necessary for change to occur.
Third, few interventions specify and rigorously test which mecha-
nisms are responsible for change. Instead, interventions are often
planned, tested and then left unmodified if successful. Thus, there is
a lack of iterative testing for the necessity and existence of boundary
conditions for individual intervention components. Although there are
exceptions9, this lack of rigorous testing makes it difficult to identify
the mechanisms underlying effective interventions.
Summary and future directions
In this Review, we outlined four categories of mechanisms necessary
for personality change — preconditions, triggers, reinforcers and
integrators — their role in fostering lasting change, and empirical evi-
dence validating their importance. We also described the processes
that promote stability and prevent enduring changes in personality.
Finally, we discussed two of the major external factors believed to cause
personality change — life events and interventions — and the mixed
evidence regarding their effectiveness in engendering lasting change.
Despite decades of research on personality change, there remain
many open questions. First, little is known about which specific mecha-
nisms are sufficient and/or necessary to lead to change. Although post
hoc examination across different types of intervention to find analo-
gous mechanisms is possible, it is difficult to identify commonalities
meaningfully. Future interventions should be rigorously and iteratively
developed to identify the necessary components. For example, when an
intervention is deemed successful the researcher should then change
different aspects to test which components are essential.
Future research should also identify whether change processes
are general or personalized, especially for naturally occurring changes.
One way to interpret current evidence is that many environments
engender change for some people, but many people do not change as
a consequence of any specific experience. It might be that some people
are more malleable or resilient than others, or that people are more
amenable to change at specific times in the lifespan. Better assessment
of environments is needed to understand how environments ‘get under
the skin’ to influence people195.
In summary, there is no standard set of steps for personality
change; instead, there are many potential pathways by which change
can occur. However, change is not easy because many processes work
to prevent change from occurring and change processes themselves
take time. Although interventions can accelerate the change process,
the experiences that lead to personality change probably differ in
effectiveness across people. Importantly, change, when it occurs, is
modest50,178,182. Other than in extenuating circumstances such as bio-
logically mediated change, a person is not able to become someone
completely different.
Published online: xx xx xxxx

Nature Reviews Psychology

Review article
References
1. Hudson, N. W. & Roberts, B. W. Goals to change personality traits: concurrent links
between personality traits, daily behavior, and goals to change oneself. J. Res. Personal.
53, 68–83 (2014).
2. Beck, E. D. & Jackson, J. J. A mega-analysis of personality prediction: robustness and
boundary conditions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122, 523–553 (2022).
3. Soto, C. J. How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life
outcomes? The life outcomes of personality replication project. Psychol. Sci. 30, 711–727
(2019).
4. Bleidorn, W. et al. Personality stability and change: a meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Psychol. Bull. 148, 588–619 (2022).
5. Wright, A. J. & Jackson, J. J. Are some people more consistent? Examining the stability
and underlying processes of personality profile consistency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 124,
1314–1337 (2023).
6. Bleidorn, W. et al. The policy relevance of personality traits. Am. Psychol. 74, 1056–1067
(2019).
This paper highlights the importance of intervening on personality traits.
7. Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J. & Lucas, R. E. Life events and personality trait change.
J. Pers. 86, 83–96 (2018).
8. Bühler, J. L. et al. Life events and personality change: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Eur. J. Personal. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219
(2023).
9. Allemand, M. & Flückiger, C. Personality change through digital-coaching interventions.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31, 41–48 (2022).
This paper provides an overview of a successful digital coaching intervention.
10. Allemand, M. & Flückiger, C. Changing personality traits: some considerations from
psychotherapy process–outcome research for intervention efforts on intentional
personality change. J. Psychother. Integr. 27, 476–494 (2017).
This broad theoretical overview on how to intervene to change personality borrows
from ideas developed in psychotherapy.
11. Geukes, K., Zalk, M. & Back, M. D. Understanding personality development: an integrative
state process model. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 42, 43–51 (2018).
This paper presents an innovative theoretical model on how personality develops.
12. Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A. & Wood, D. A three-part framework for
self-regulated personality development across adulthood. Eur. J. Personal. 28, 289–299
(2014).
This article presents a theoretical model of how personality develops through the lens
of self-regulation.
13. Wrzus, C. & Roberts, B. W. Processes of personality development in adulthood: the
TESSERA framework. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21, 253–277 (2017).
This article provides a detailed process view of the many potential intervening
processes that result in personality change.
14. Baumert, A. et al. Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality
development. Eur. J. Personal. 31, 503–528 (2017).
15. Roberts, B. W. & Jackson, J. J. Sociogenomic personality psychology. J. Pers. 76,
1523–1544 (2008).
16. Roberts, B. W. A revised sociogenomic model of personality traits. J. Pers. 86, 23–35
(2018).
17. Magidson, J. F., Roberts, B. W., Collado-Rodriguez, A. & Lejuez, C. W. Theory-driven
intervention for changing personality: expectancy value theory, behavioral activation,
and conscientiousness. Dev. Psychol. 50, 1442 (2014).
This article presents a therapy-informed theoretical account of the personality change
process.
18. Roberts, B. W. & Caspi, A. in Understanding Human Development (eds Staudinger, U. M. &
Lindenberger, U.) 183–214 (Springer, 2003).
This chapter reviews the types of process that result in change and consistency in
passive longitudinal studies.
19. Roberts, B. W. & Nickel, L. B. in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (eds John,
O. & Robins, R. W.) 259–283 (Guilford, 2021).
20. Specht, J. et al. What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical
perspectives and empirical evidence. Eur. J. Personal. 28, 216–230 (2014).
This article provides an overview of the predominant theoretical models of personality
development.
21. Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. How people make their own environments: a theory of
genotype → environment effects. Child. Dev. 54, 424–435 (1983).
22. Briley, D. A. & Tucker-Drob, E. M. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality
development: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1303–1331 (2014).
23. Roberts, B. W. & Yoon, H. J. Personality psychology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73, 489–516
(2022).
24. Wilt, J. & Revelle, W. Affect, behaviour, cognition and desire in the Big Five: an analysis of
item content and structure. Eur. J. Personal. 29, 478–497 (2015).
25. Stieger, M. et al. Becoming more conscientious or more open to experience? Effects of
a two‐week smartphone‐based intervention for personality change. Eur. J. Personal. 34,
345–366 (2020).
26. Rosenberg, E. L. Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2,
247–270 (1998).
27. Roberts, B. W. & Pomerantz, E. M. On traits, situations, and their integration: a
developmental perspective. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 402–416 (2004).
This article presents one of the most successful personality interventions.
Nature Reviews Psychology
28. Hooker, K. & McAdams, D. P. Personality reconsidered: a new agenda for aging research.
J. Gerontol. B 58, 296–304 (2003).
29. Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M. & Sutin, A. R. Cognitive impairment, dementia,
and personality stability among older adults. Assessment 25, 336–347 (2018).
30. Caselli, R. J. et al. Personality changes during the transition from cognitive health to mild
cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 66, 671–678 (2018).
31. Robins Wahlin, T.-B. & Byrne, G. J. Personality changes in Alzheimer’s disease: a
systematic review. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiat. 26, 1019–1029 (2011).
32. Tang, T. Z. et al. Personality change during depression treatment: a placebo-controlled
trial. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 66, 1322–1330 (2009).
33. Quilty, L. C., Meusel, L.-A. C. & Bagby, R. M. Neuroticism as a mediator of treatment
response to SSRIs in major depressive disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 111, 67–73 (2008).
34. Max, J. E. et al. Predictors of personality change due to traumatic brain injury in children
and adolescents in the first six months after injury. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat.
44, 434–442 (2005).
35. Chapman, B. P., Hampson, S. & Clarkin, J. Personality-informed interventions for healthy
aging: conclusions from a national institute on aging workgroup. Dev. Psychol. 50,
1426–1441 (2014).
36. Wood, W. & Rünger, D. Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 289–314 (2016).
37. Weiss, B., Miller, J. D., Carter, N. T. & Keith Campbell, W. Examining changes in personality
following shamanic ceremonial use of ayahuasca. Sci. Rep. 11, 6653 (2021).
38. Owens, M. et al. Habitual behavior as a mediator between food-related behavioral
activation and change in symptoms of depression in the MooDFOOD trial. Clin. Psychol.
Sci. 9, 649–665 (2021).
39. Martell, C. R., Addis, M. E. & Jacobson, N. S. Depression in Context: Strategies for Guided
Action (W W Norton & Co, 2001).
40. Watkins, E. R. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. A habit–goal framework of depressive rumination.
J. Abnorm. Psychol. 123, 24–34 (2014).
41. Lally, P. & Gardner, B. Promoting habit formation. Health Psychol. Rev. 7, 137–158 (2013).
42. Denissen, J. J. A., van Aken, M. A. G., Penke, L. & Wood, D. Self‐regulation underlies
temperament and personality: an integrative developmental framework. Child. Dev.
Perspect. 7, 255–260 (2013).
43. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W. & Wardle, J. How are habits formed:
modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 998–1009
(2010).
44. Danner, U. N., Aarts, H. & de Vries, N. K. Habit vs. intention in the prediction of future
behaviour: the role of frequency, context stability and mental accessibility of past
behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 245–265 (2008).
45. Wood, W. & Neal, D. T. A new look at habits and the habit–goal interface. Psychol. Rev.
114, 843–863 (2007).
46. Fleeson, W. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as
density distributions of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 1011–1027 (2001).
47. Eid, M. & Diener, E. Global judgments of subjective well-being: situational variability and
long-term stability. Soc. Indic. Res. 65, 245–277 (2004).
48. Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P. & Back, M. D. Trait personality
and state variability: predicting individual differences in within- and cross-context
fluctuations in affect, self-evaluations, and behavior in everyday life. J. Res. Personal. 69,
124–138 (2017).
49. Reitz, A. K. Self‐esteem development and life events: a review and integrative process
framework. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 16, 12709 (2022).
50. Stieger, M. et al. Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change
intervention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, (2021).
51. Hampson, S. E. Personality processes: mechanisms by which personality traits ‘get
outside the skin’. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 315–339 (2012).
52. Specht, J., Egloff, B. & Schmukle, S. C. Examining mechanisms of personality maturation:
the impact of life satisfaction on the development of the big five personality traits. Soc.
Psychol. Personal. Sci. 4, 181–189 (2013).
53. Hudson, N. W. Does successfully changing personality traits via intervention require
that participants be autonomously motivated to change? J. Res. Personal. 95, 104160
(2021).
54. Borghuis, J. et al. Longitudinal associations between trait neuroticism and negative daily
experiences in adolescence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118, 348–363 (2020).
55. van Zalk, M. H. W., Nestler, S., Geukes, K., Hutteman, R. & Back, M. D. The codevelopment
of extraversion and friendships: bonding and behavioral interaction mechanisms in
friendship networks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118, 1269–1290 (2020).
56. Quintus, M., Egloff, B. & Wrzus, C. Daily life processes predict long-term development
in explicit and implicit representations of Big Five traits: testing predictions from the
TESSERA (Triggering situations, Expectancies, States and State Expressions, and
ReActions) framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 1049–1073 (2021).
57. Wrzus, C., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G. & Riediger, M. Longitudinal coupling of momentary
stress reactivity and trait neuroticism: specificity of states, traits, and age period.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 691–706 (2021).
58. Hudson, N. W., Briley, D. A., Chopik, W. J. & Derringer, J. You have to follow through:
attaining behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 117, 839–857 (2019).
59. Roberts, B. W. & Wood, D. in Handbook of Personality Development (eds Mroczek, D. K. &
Little, T. D.) 11–39 (Pyschology Press, 2006).
60. Lehnart, J., Neyer, F. J. & Eccles, J. Long-term effects of social investment: the case of
partnering in young adulthood. J. Pers. 78, 639–670 (2010).
Review article
61. Helson, R., Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P. & Jones, C. The growing evidence for personality
change in adulthood: findings from research with personality inventories. J. Res.
Personal. 36, 287–306 (2002).
62. Caspi, A. & Roberts, B. W. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 2nd edn (eds
John, O. P. & Robins, R. W.) 300–326 (Guilford Press, 1999).
63. Sarbin, T. R. The dangerous individual: an outcome of social identity transformations. Br.
J. Criminol. 7, 285–295 (1967).
64. Roberts, B. W., Wood, D. & Smith, J. L. Evaluating five factor theory and social investment
perspectives on personality trait development. J. Res. Personal. 39, 166–184 (2005).
65. Bollich-Ziegler, K. L., Beck, E. D., Hill, P. L. & Jackson, J. J. Do correctional facilities correct
our youth?: effects of incarceration and court-ordered community service on personality
development. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 894–913 (2021).
66. Lücke, A. J., Quintus, M., Egloff, B. & Wrzus, C. You can’t always get what you want:
the role of change goal importance, goal feasibility and momentary experiences for
volitional personality development. Eur. J. Personal. 35, 690–709 (2021).
67. Gallagher, P., Fleeson, W. & Hoyle, R. A self-regulatory mechanism for personality trait
stability: contra-trait effort. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2, 333–342 (2011).
68. Verplanken, B. & Orbell, S. Attitudes, habits, and behavior change. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
73, 327–352 (2022).
69. Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Briley, D. A. & Chopik, W. J. Your personality does not care
whether you believe it can change: beliefs about whether personality can change do not
predict trait change among emerging adults. Eur. J. Personal. 35, 340–357 (2021).
70. Macnamara, B. N. & Burgoyne, A. P. Do growth mindset interventions impact students’
academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations
for best practices. Psychol. Bull. 149, 133–173 (2023).
71. Quoidbach, J., Gilbert, D. T. & Wilson, T. D. The end of history illusion. Science 339, 96–98
(2013).
72. Williams, P. G., Smith, T. W., Gunn, H. E. & Uchino, B. N. in The Handbook of Stress
Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health 231–245 (Springer, 2011).
73. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C. & Schilling, E. A. Effects of daily stress on negative
mood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 808–818 (1989).
74. Mroczek, D. K. & Almeida, D. M. The effect of daily stress, personality, and age on daily
negative affect. J. Pers. 72, 355–378 (2004).
75. Cattran, C. J., Oddy, M., Wood, R. L. & Moir, J. F. Post-injury personality in the prediction of
outcome following severe acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 25, 1035–1046 (2011).
76. James, B. D. & Bennett, D. A. Causes and patterns of dementia: an update in the era of
redefining Alzheimer’s disease. Annu. Rev. Public. Health 40, 65–84 (2019).
77. Denissen, J. J. A., Luhmann, M., Chung, J. M. & Bleidorn, W. Transactions between life
events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 612–633
(2019).
78. Specht, J., Egloff, B. & Schmukle, S. C. 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. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 862–882 (2011).
79. Hudson, N. W. & Roberts, B. W. Social investment in work reliably predicts change in
conscientiousness and agreeableness: a direct replication and extension of Hudson,
Roberts, and Lodi-Smith (2012). J. Res. Personal. 60, 12–23 (2016).
80. Hutteman, R., Hennecke, M., Orth, U., Reitz, A. K. & Specht, J. Developmental tasks as a
framework to study personality development in adulthood and old age. Eur. J. Personal.
28, 267–278 (2014).
81. Roberts, B. W. et al. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention.
Psychol. Bull. 143, 117–141 (2017).
82. West, P. & Sweeting, H. Fifteen, female and stressed: changing patterns of psychological
distress over time. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 44, 399–411 (2003).
83. Koval, P. et al. Emotion regulation in everyday life: mapping global self-reports to daily
processes. Emotion 23, 357–374 (2023).
84. Brockman, R., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P. & Kashdan, T. Emotion regulation strategies in daily
life: mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal and emotion suppression. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 46,
91–113 (2017).
85. Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A. & Funder, D. C. Principles of situation research: towards
a better understanding of psychological situations. Eur. J. Personal. 29, 363–381 (2015).
86. Kuper, N. et al. Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics
and personality states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 123, 1166–1198 (2022).
87. Mischel, W. Toward an integrative science of the person. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 1–22
(2004).
88. Beck, E. D. & Jackson, J. J. Personalized prediction of behaviors and experiences: an
idiographic person–situation test. Psychol. Sci. 33, 1767–1782 (2022).
89. Barlow, D. H. et al. The unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional
disorders compared with diagnosis-specific protocols for anxiety disorders: a
randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiat. 74, 875–884 (2017).
90. Sauer-Zavala, S. et al. Countering emotional behaviors in the treatment of borderline
personality disorder. Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 11, 328–338 (2020).
91. Aarts, H. & Dijksterhuis, A. Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed
behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 53–63 (2000).
92. Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Labrecque, J. S. & Lally, P. How do habits guide behavior? Perceived
and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 492–498 (2012).
93. Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8,
185–190 (2004).
94. Bicchieri, C. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms xvi, 260
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
Nature Reviews Psychology
95. Fehr, E. & Schurtenberger, I. Normative foundations of human cooperation. Nat. Hum.
Behav. 2, 458–468 (2018).
96. Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., Chiu, C. & Liu, Z. Normology: integrating insights about social
norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129, 1–13
(2015).
97. Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (1998).
98. Dempsey, R. C., McAlaney, J. & Bewick, B. M. A critical appraisal of the social norms
approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change.
Front. Psychol. 9, 2180 (2018).
99. Hoff, K. A., Einarsdóttir, S., Chu, C., Briley, D. A. & Rounds, J. Personality changes predict
early career outcomes: discovery and replication in 12-year longitudinal studies. Psychol.
Sci. 32, 64–79 (2021).
100. Sutin, A. R., Costa, P. T., Miech, R. & Eaton, W. W. Personality and career success:
concurrent and longitudinal relations. Eur. J. Personal. 23, 71–84 (2009).
101. Bleidorn, W. & Hopwood, C. J. A motivational framework of personality development in
late adulthood. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55, 101731 (2024).
This theoretical account of personality development focuses on motivational aspects
to explain normative ageing.
102. Raison, C. L., Capuron, L. & Miller, A. H. Cytokines sing the blues: inflammation and the
pathogenesis of depression. Trends Immunol. 27, 24–31 (2006).
103. Miller, G. E., Rohleder, N. & Cole, S. W. Chronic interpersonal stress predicts activation
of pro- and anti-inflammatory signaling pathways 6 months later. Psychosom. Med. 71,
57–62 (2009).
104. McEvoy, J. W. et al. Relationship of cigarette smoking with inflammation and subclinical
vascular disease. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 35, 1002–1010 (2015).
105. Deary, I. J. et al. Age-associated cognitive decline. Br. Med. Bull. 92, 135–152 (2009).
106. Salthouse, T. A. When does age-related cognitive decline begin? Neurobiol. Aging 30,
507–514 (2009).
107. Boyle, P. A. et al. Much of late life cognitive decline is not due to common
neurodegenerative pathologies. Ann. Neurol. 74, 478–489 (2013).
108. Balsis, S., Carpenter, B. D. & Storandt, M. Personality change precedes clinical diagnosis
of dementia of the Alzheimer type. J. Gerontol. B 60, P98–P101 (2005).
109. Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M., Albanese, E. & Sutin, A. R. Personality traits and
risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. J. Psychiat. Res. 89, 22–27 (2017).
110. Sala, G. et al. Near and far transfer in cognitive training: a second-order meta-analysis.
Collabra Psychol. 5, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9efqd (2019).
111. Olaru, G. et al. Personality change through a digital-coaching intervention: using
measurement invariance testing to distinguish between trait domain, facet, and nuance
change. Eur. J. Personal. 38, https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221145088 (2022).
112. Moreau, D. How malleable are cognitive abilities? A critical perspective on popular brief
interventions. Am. Psychol. 77, 409–423 (2022).
113. Boyd, E. M. & Fales, A. W. Reflective learning: key to learning from experience.
J. Humanist. Psychol. 23, 99–117 (1983).
114. Stedmon, J. & Dallos, R. Reflective Practice in Psychotherapy and Counselling
(McGraw-Hill Education, 2009).
115. Keefe, J. R. et al. Reflective functioning and its potential to moderate the efficacy of
manualized psychodynamic therapies versus other treatments for borderline personality
disorder. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 91, 50–56 (2023).
116. Lenhausen, M. R., Bleidorn, W. & Hopwood, C. J. Effects of reference group instructions
on big five trait scores. Assessment 31, https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231175850 (2023).
117. Oltmanns, J. R., Jackson, J. J. & Oltmanns, T. F. Personality change: longitudinal self–
other agreement and convergence with retrospective reports. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118,
1065–1079 (2020).
118. Credé, M., Bashshur, M. & Niehorster, S. Reference group effects in the measurement of
personality and attitudes. J. Pers. Assess. 92, 390–399 (2010).
119. Wrzus, C., Quintus, M. & Egloff, B. Age and context effects in personality development: a
multimethod perspective. Psychol. Aging 38, 1–16 (2023).
120. Jackson, J. J., Connolly, J. J., Garrison, S. M., Leveille, M. M. & Connolly, S. L. Your friends
know how long you will live: a 75-year study of peer-rated personality traits. Psychol. Sci.
26, 335–340 (2015).
121. Wright, A. J. et al. Prospective self- and informant-personality associations with
inflammation, health behaviors, and health indicators. Health Psychol. 41, 121–133 (2022).
122. Smith, T. W. et al. Associations of self-reports versus spouse ratings of negative
affectivity, dominance, and affiliation with coronary artery disease: where should we
look and who should we ask when studying personality and health? Health Psychol. 27,
676–684 (2008).
123. Lenhausen, M., van Scheppingen, M. A. & Bleidorn, W. Self–other agreement in
personality development in romantic couples. Eur. J. Personal. 35, 797–813 (2021).
124. Rothman, A. J., Sheeran, P. & Wood, W. Reflective and automatic processes in the
initiation and maintenance of dietary change. Ann. Behav. Med. 38, s4–s17 (2009).
125. Caspi, A. & Roberts, B. W. Personality development across the life course: the argument
for change and continuity. Psychol. Inq. 12, 49–66 (2001).
126. Seger, C. A. Implicit learning. Psychol. Bull. 115, 163–196 (1994).
127. Reber, P. J. The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: a review of
neuropsychological and neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia 51, 2026–2042
(2013).
128. Back, M. D. & Nestler, S. in Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Human Behavior
137–154 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2017).
Review article
129. Hofmann, W., Friese, M. & Roefs, A. Three ways to resist temptation: the independent
contributions of executive attention, inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the
impulse control of eating behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 431–435 (2009).
130. Gassmann, D. & Grawe, K. General change mechanisms: the relation between problem
activation and resource activation in successful and unsuccessful therapeutic
interactions. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 13, 1–11 (2006).
131. Anusic, I. & Schimmack, U. Stability and change of personality traits, self-esteem,
and well-being: introducing the meta-analytic stability and change model of retest
correlations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 766–781 (2016).
132. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr Intra-individual change in personality
stability and age. J. Res. Personal. 44, 31–37 (2010).
133. Jackson, J. J., Beck, E. D. & Mike, A. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research
4th edn, 793–805 (The Guilford Press, 2021).
This article provides an overview of interventions that attempt to change constructs
related to personality.
134. Headey, B. Life goals matter to happiness: a revision of set-point theory. Soc. Indic. Res.
86, 213–231 (2007).
135. Clark, A. E., Diener, E., Georgellis, Y. & Lucas, R. E. Lags and leads in life satisfaction: a test
of the baseline hypothesis. Econ. J. 118, F222–F243 (2008).
136. Schwaba, T. & Bleidorn, W. Personality trait development across the transition to
retirement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 651–665 (2019).
137. Wright, A. J. & Jackson, J. J. The associations between life events and person-centered
personality consistency. J. Pers. 92, 162–179 (2024).
138. Asselmann, E. & Specht, J. Testing the social investment principle around childbirth: little
evidence for personality maturation before and after becoming a parent. Eur. J. Personal.
35, 85–102 (2020).
139. Denissen, J. J. A., Ulferts, H., Lüdtke, O., Muck, P. M. & Gerstorf, D. Longitudinal
transactions between personality and occupational roles: a large and heterogeneous
study of job beginners, stayers, and changers. Dev. Psychol. 50, 1931–1942 (2014).
140. Roberts, B. W., Wood, D. & Caspi, A. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 3rd
edn, 375–398 (The Guilford Press, 2008).
141. Roberts, B. W. Personality development and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav.
27, 1–40 (2006).
142. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S. & Fleenor, J. Personality and organizations: a test of
the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 462–470 (1998).
143. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W. & Shiner, R. L. Personality development: stability and change.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56, 453–484 (2005).
144. Mühlig-Versen, A., Bowen, C. E. & Staudinger, U. M. Personality plasticity in later
adulthood: contextual and personal resources are needed to increase openness to new
experiences. Psychol. Aging 27, 855–866 (2012).
145. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D. & Tice, D. M. The strength model of self-control. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 16, 351–355 (2007).
146. Buyalskaya, A. et al. What can machine learning teach us about habit formation?
Evidence from exercise and hygiene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2216115120
(2023).
147. Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W. & Stine-Morrow, E. A. Can an old dog
learn (and want to experience) new tricks? Cognitive training increases openness to
experience in older adults. Psychol. Aging 27, 286–292 (2012).
148. Beck, E. D. & Jackson, J. J. Idiographic personality coherence: a quasi experimental
longitudinal ESM study. Eur. J. Personal. 36, 391–412 (2022).
149. Caspi, A. & Moffitt, T. E. When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of
personality coherence. Psychol. Inq. 4, 247–271 (1993).
150. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard
Univ. Press, 1978).
151. Foa, E. B. & McLean, C. P. The efficacy of exposure therapy for anxiety-related disorders
and its underlying mechanisms: the case of OCD and PTSD. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 12,
1–28 (2016).
152. Swann Jr, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J. & Guinn, J. S. in Handbook of Self and Identity, 367–383
(The Guilford Press, 2003).
153. Headey, B. & Wearing, A. Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: toward a
dynamic equilibrium model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 731–739 (1989).
154. Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A. & Moffitt, T. E. Work experiences and personality development in
young adulthood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 582–593 (2003).
155. Scollon, C. N. & Diener, E. Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over
time. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 1152–1165 (2006).
156. Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U. & Nagy, G. A random walk down university
avenue: life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university
life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 620–637 (2011).
157. Asselmann, E. & Specht, J. Till death do us part: transactions between losing one’s
spouse and the Big Five personality traits. J. Pers. 88, 659–675 (2020).
158. Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., Daly, M. & Sedikides, C. Personality change following
unemployment. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 991–1011 (2015).
159. van Scheppingen, M. A. et al. Personality trait development during the transition to
parenthood. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7, 452–462 (2016).
160. Gnambs, T. & Stiglbauer, B. No personality change following unemployment: a registered
replication of Boyce, Wood, Daly, and Sedikides (2015). J. Res. Personal. 81, 195–206
(2019).
161. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. Self-esteem and extrinsic career
success: test of a dynamic model. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 57, 204–224 (2008).
Nature Reviews Psychology
162. Asselmann, E. & Specht, J. Personality maturation and personality relaxation: differences
of the Big Five personality traits in the years around the beginning and ending of working
life. J. Pers. 89, 1126–1142 (2021).
163. Lenhausen, M. R., Hopwood, C. J. & Bleidorn, W. Nature and impact of reference group
effects in personality assessment data. J. Pers. Assess. 105, 581–589 (2023).
164. Vaidya, J. G., Gray, E. K., Haig, J. R., Mroczek, D. K. & Watson, D. Differential stability and
individual growth trajectories of big five and affective traits during young adulthood.
J. Pers. 76, 267–304 (2008).
165. Haehner, P. et al. Perception of major life events and personality trait change. Eur. J.
Personal. 37, 524–542 (2022).
166. Beck, E. D. & Jackson, J. J. Detecting idiographic personality change. J. Pers. Assess. 104,
467–483 (2022).
167. Jackson, J. J. & Beck, E. D. Personality development beyond the mean: do life events
shape personality variability, structure, and ipsative continuity? J. Gerontol. B 76, 20–30
(2021).
168. Haehner, P., Pfeifer, L. S., Fassbender, I. & Luhmann, M. Are changes in the perception of
major life events associated with changes in subjective well-being? J. Res. Personal. 102,
104321 (2023).
169. Goodwin, R., Polek, E. & Bardi, A. The temporal reciprocity of values and beliefs:
a longitudinal study within a major life transition. Eur. J. Personal. 26, 360–370 (2012).
170. Zimmermann, J. & Neyer, F. J. Do we become a different person when hitting the road?
Personality development of sojourners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 515–530 (2013).
171. Jackson, J. J., Thoemmes, F., Jonkmann, K., Lüdtke, O. & Trautwein, U. Military training and
personality trait development: does the military make the man, or does the man make
the military? Psychol. Sci. 23, 270–277 (2012).
172. Nissen, A. T., Bleidorn, W., Ericson, S. & Hopwood, C. J. Selection and socialization effects
of studying abroad. J. Pers. 90, 1021–1038 (2022).
173. van Agteren, J. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological
interventions to improve mental wellbeing. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 631–652 (2021).
174. Weiss, L. A., Westerhof, G. J. & Bohlmeijer, E. T. Can we increase psychological
well-being? The effects of interventions on psychological well-being: a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 11, e0158092 (2016).
175. Jensen, S. E. et al. Cognitive–behavioral stress management and psychological
well-being in HIV+ racial/ethnic-minority women with human papillomavirus. Health
Psychol. 32, 227–230 (2013).
176. Howells, A., Ivtzan, I. & Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. Putting the ‘app’ in happiness: a randomised
controlled trial of a smartphone-based mindfulness intervention to enhance wellbeing.
J. Happiness Stud. 17, 163–185 (2016).
177. Dwyer, R. J. & Dunn, E. W. Wealth redistribution promotes happiness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 119, 2211123119 (2022).
178. White, C. A., Uttl, B. & Holder, M. D. Meta-analyses of positive psychology interventions:
the effects are much smaller than previously reported. PLoS ONE 14, 0216588 (2019).
179. Friese, M., Frankenbach, J., Job, V. & Loschelder, D. D. Does self-control training improve
self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1077–1099
(2017).
180. Sander, J., Schmiedek, F., Brose, A., Wagner, G. G. & Specht, J. Long-term effects of an
extensive cognitive training on personality development. J. Pers. 85, 454–463 (2017).
181. Hyun, M.-S., Chung, H.-I. C., De Gagne, J. C. & Kang, H. S. The effects of
cognitive-behavioral therapy on depression, anger, and self-control for Korean soldiers.
J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv. 52, 22–28 (2014).
182. Stieger, M., Allemand, M. & Lachman, M. E. Effects of a digital self-control intervention
to increase physical activity in middle-aged adults. J. Health Psychol. 28, 984–996
(2023).
183. Cerino, E. S., Hooker, K., Goodrich, E. & Dodge, H. H. Personality moderates intervention
effects on cognitive function: a 6-week conversation-based intervention. Gerontologist
60, 958–967 (2020).
184. LeBouthillier, D. M. & Asmundson, G. J. G. The efficacy of aerobic exercise and resistance
training as transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety-related disorders and constructs: a
randomized controlled trial. J. Anxiety Disord. 52, 43–52 (2017).
185. Barrett, E. L., Newton, N. C., Teesson, M., Slade, T. & Conrod, P. J. Adapting the
personality‐targeted preventure program to prevent substance use and associated
harms among high‐risk Australian adolescents. Early Interv. Psychiat. 9, 308–315
(2015).
186. Fishbein, J. N., Haslbeck, J. & Arch, J. J. Network intervention analysis of anxiety-related
outcomes and processes of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for anxious
cancer survivors. Behav. Res. Ther. 162, (2023).
187. Bateman, A. & Fonagy, P. A randomized controlled trial of a mentalization-based
intervention (MBT-FACTS) for families of people with borderline personality disorder.
Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 10, 70–79 (2019).
188. Sauer-Zavala, S., Wilner, J. G. & Barlow, D. H. Addressing neuroticism in psychological
treatment. Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 8, 191–198 (2017).
189. McMurran, M., Charlesworth, P., Duggan, C. & McCarthy, L. Controlling angry aggression:
a pilot group intervention with personality disordered offenders. Behav. Cogn.
Psychother. 29, 473–483 (2001).
190. Wells-Parker, E., Dill, P., Williams, M. & Stoduto, G. Are depressed drinking/driving
offenders more receptive to brief intervention? Addict. Behav. 31, 339–350 (2006).
191. Fisher, B. M. The mediating role of self-concept and personality dimensions on factors
influencing the rehabilitative treatment of violent male youthful offenders. (ProQuest
Information & Learning, 2002).
Review article
192. Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R. & Yeager, D. S. Persistence and
fade-out of educational-intervention effects: mechanisms and potential solutions.
Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 21, 55–97 (2020).
193. Hudson, N. W. & Fraley, R. C. Volitional personality trait change: can people choose to
change their personality traits? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 490–507 (2015).
194. Allemand, M. & Martin, M. On correlated change in personality. Eur. Psychol. 21, 237–253
(2016).
195. Luhmann, M., Fassbender, I., Alcock, M. & Haehner, P. A dimensional taxonomy of
perceived characteristics of major life events. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 633–668
(2021).
196. Boyatzis, R. E. & Akrivou, K. The ideal self as the driver of intentional change. J. Manag.
Dev. 25, 624–642 (2006).
197. Dweck, C. S. Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 391–394 (2008).
198. Baumeister, R. F. in Can Personality Change? (eds Heatherton, T. F. & Weinberger, J. L.)
281–297 (American Psychological Association, 1994).
199. Hudson, N. W. & Fraley, R. C. in Personality Development Across the Lifespan (ed. Specht,
J.) 555–571 (Academic Press, 2017).
200. Roberts, B. W., O’Donnell, M. & Robins, R. W. Goal and personality trait development in
emerging adulthood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 541–550 (2004).
201. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C. & Duncan, L. E. Traits and motives:
toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychol. Rev. 105,
230–250 (1998).
202. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44, 1–26 (1991).
203. Burke, P. J. Identity change. Soc. Psychol. Q. 69, 81–96 (2006).
204. Funder, D. C. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (eds John, O. P., Robins, R. W.
& Pervin, L. A.) 568–580 (The Guilford Press, 2008).
205. Kandler, C. & Zapko-Willmes, A. in Personality Development Across the Lifespan (ed.
Specht, J.) 101–115 (Academic Press, 2017).
206. Lodi-Smith, J. & Roberts, B. W. Social investment and personality: a meta-analysis of the
relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 68–86 (2007).
207. McAdams, D. P. & Pals, J. L. A new big five: fundamental principles for an integrative
science of personality. Am. Psychol. 61, 204–217 (2006).
208. Kandler, C. Nature and nurture in personality development: the case of neuroticism and
extraversion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 290–296 (2012).
209. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research
(eds John, O. P. et al.) 150–181 (The Guilford Press, 2008).
210. Bleidorn, W. et al. Personality maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination
of social-investment theory. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2530–2540 (2013).
211. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. & Ray, S. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification
and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 105–123 (2003).
212. Kazdin, A. E. Behavior Modification in Applied Settings 7th edn (Waveland Press, 2012).
213. King, L. A. The hard road to the good life: the happy, mature person. J. Humanist Psychol.
41, 51–72 (2001).
214. Ozbay, F. et al. Social support and resilience to stress. Psychiat. Edgmont 4, 35–40
(2007).
215. Kandler, C. et al. Sources of cumulative continuity in personality: a longitudinal
multiple-rater twin study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 995–1008 (2010).
216. Bem, D. J. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 6 (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 1–62
(Academic Press, 1972).
217. Staudinger, U. M. Life reflection: a social–cognitive analysis of life review. Rev. Gen.
Psychol. 5, 148–160 (2001).
Nature Reviews Psychology
218. Appenzeller, Z. Dialectical behavior therapy and schema therapy for borderline
personality disorder: mechanisms of change and assimilative integration. PhD thesis
(ProQuest Information & Learning, 2022).
219. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and
implicit self-concept of personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 533–548 (2009).
220. Brandtstädter, J. Personal self-regulation of development: cross-sequential analyses of
development-related control beliefs and emotions. Dev. Psychol. 25, 96–108 (1989).
221. Krampen, G. Toward an action‐theoretical model of personality. Eur. J. Personal. 2, 39–55
(1988).
222. Hogan, R. & Roberts, B. W. A socioanalytic model of maturity. J. Career Assess. 12,
207–217 (2004).
223. Arkowitz, H. Toward an integrative perspective on resistance to change. J. Clin. Psychol.
58, 219–227 (2002).
224. Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B. & Achille, N. M. An intraindividual process approach to the
relationship between extraversion and positive affect: is acting extraverted as ‘good’ as
being extraverted? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1409–1422 (2002).
225. Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A. & Giesler, R. B. Why people self-verify. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 62, 392–401 (1992).
226. Wood, D. & Wortman, J. Trait means and desirabilities as artifactual and real sources of
differential stability of personality traits. J. Personality 80, 665–701 (2012).
227. Zelenski, J. M. et al. Personality and affective forecasting: trait introverts underpredict the
hedonic benefits of acting extraverted. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 1092–1108 (2013).
228. Bradley, G. W. Self-serving biases in the attribution process: a reexamination of the fact or
fiction question. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 56–71 (1978).
229. Levenson, H. Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In
Research with the Locus of Control Construct (ed. Lefcourt, H. M.) (Academic Press, 1981).
230. Miller, D. T. Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
34, 901–906 (1976).
231. Gunty, A. L. et al. Moderators of the relation between perceived and actual posttraumatic
growth. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 3, 61–66 (2011).
232. Robins, R. W., Noftle, E. E., Trzesniewski, K. H. & Roberts, B. W. Do people know how their
personality has changed? Correlates of perceived and actual personality change in
young adulthood. J. Pers. 73, 489–522 (2005).
Author contributions
The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Jaap Denissen, Ted Schwaba and
Cornelia Wrzus for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this
article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
© Springer Nature America, Inc. 2024