European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers.

28: 231–243 (2014)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.1952

Core and Surface Characteristics for the Description and Theory of Personality
Differences and Development

CHRISTIAN KANDLER1*, JULIA ZIMMERMANN2 and DAN P. MCADAMS3

1
Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Germany
2
Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany
3
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, USA

Abstract: Individual differences in personality are often described on the basis of a small set of dimensional core
characteristics that are commonly defined as largely consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions across time
and situations. Some theoretical approaches even consider them to provide the biologically founded basis for individual
differences in so-called surface characteristics such as self-related evaluations, social attitudes, values, goals or interests,
which are commonly hypothesized to be less stable or more environmentally malleable than core characteristics. We
examine these hypotheses by reviewing findings about potential core and surface characteristics on the basis of four
criteria: (i) level of stability in individual differences; (ii) level of heritability; (iii) direction of causation; and (iv)
shared genetic variance. The results from our review call into serious question the labelling of some sets of
constructs as either core or surface characteristics of personality. Although certain dimensions—often labelled as
basic traits (e.g. extraversion)—are systematically linked to more specific characteristics (e.g. social attitudes and
interests), the so-called basic traits do not appear to provide an essential basis (i.e. the more stable and genetically
anchored source) for these characteristics. We argue for more integrative models of personality in adulthood.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Key words: Big Five; traits; self-related schemata; attitudes; values; motives; interests

INTRODUCTION becomes more complex from childhood to adulthood (Caspi,

The progress in understanding personality development and
underlying processes without a coherent model and accurate
measures of personality is just as unavailing as studying
kinetic energy and speed without mass or writing the biogra-
phy of a stranger. Although there is no general definition,
‘personality’ is most commonly defined as the sum of all
characteristics that reflect relatively enduring patterns of
emotion, cognition, motivation and behaviour in which
one individual differs from others within a certain
reference population (e.g. age group or culture). Thus, a
coherent model of personality must contain all characteristics
(or dimensions of characteristics) that are essential to describe
individual differences in complex psychological functioning
(i.e. feeling, thinking, striving and behaving).1
Scientific theories of human development tend to agree
with people’s lay conceptions in suggesting that personality
*Correspondence to: Christian Kandler, Department of Psychology, Bielefeld
University, Universitätsstr. 25, D-33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
E-mail: christian.kandler@unibielefeld.de
1
Although some conceptual approaches to personality include physical fea-
tures (e.g. attractiveness) and ability-related characteristics (e.g. intelligence)
as components of personality (e.g. Guilford, 1959), most perspectives on
personality explicitly disentangle personality characteristics from cognitive
abilities and from non-psychological appearance of persons (Fleeson,
2012; McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Whereas cognitive
abilities are conceptualized as the descriptive of (or dispositions to) maxi-
mum cognitive performance, narrow-sense personality characteristics repre-
sent the descriptive of (or dispositions to) typical feeling, thinking, striving
and behaving. Our review is conceptually focused on the latter perspective.
Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Infants may be characterized in
terms of a few behaviour-stylistic and emotion-regulatory
characteristics called temperament features (e.g. high versus
low activity or emotionality). With development, personality
may come to encompass a broader and more complex arrange-
ment of psychological constructs (McAdams & Olson, 2010;
Shiner & De Young, 2013). How should psychological
scientists characterize this complexity of adult personality?
The most common way to describe individual differences
in adult personality is to posit a limited set of core characteris-
tics, from which a broader array of variations in psychological
functioning (i.e. surface characteristics) is ultimately derived.
According to this general view, core characteristics—often
labelled as core traits (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003)—are
assumed to develop early, to be strongly contoured by genetic
differences among individuals and to display strong cross-
situational consistency and temporal stability. By contrast,
what are referred to as surface characteristics (Asendorpf &
van Aken, 2003) are generally viewed to be more amenable
to social and cultural shaping, more contextualized and partic-
ularized, and less stable over time than core characteristics
(Asendorpf & Denissen, 2006). Some theories additionally
proposed that surface characteristics—often labelled as
characteristic adaptations—develop after core characteristics
have already been established (McAdams & Olson, 2010) or
as by-products of the interaction of core characteristics with
environmental experiences (McCrae, 2009). In adulthood, then,

Received 10 June 2013

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology Revised 10 February 2014, Accepted 10 February 2014
232 C. Kandler et al.
personality may consist of a small set of core characteristics,
such as those subsumed within the Big Five taxonomy of traits
(John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008), and a derivative set of more
specific characteristics that may have developed out of the core
characteristics. Typical examples of such surface characteristics
(or characteristic adaptations) are attitudes, values, beliefs,
goals, interests and the self-concept (McCrae & Costa, 2008).
In this article, we call into serious question the common
labelling of some sets of constructs as either core or surface
characteristics of personality. We question whether the concept
and operationalization of the Big Five traits (or similar trait
taxonomies) are sufficiently broad enough to capture the core
of personality in full and thus to justify the field’s emphasis
on a small set of trait dimensions (to the exclusion of motives,
values, interests, etc.) in studies of personality differences and
development in adulthood (e.g. Roberts, Wood, & Caspi,
2008). For that purpose, we review the empirical evidence for
the differentiation between core and surface characteristics of
personality using four criteria: (i) level of stability in individual
differences; (ii) degree of genetic influences on individual
differences (i.e. heritability); (3) direction of causation; and
(4) the extent to which genetic variance in core characteristics
accounts for genetic variance in surface characteristics. We
review several longitudinal and genetically informative studies
on potential core characteristics (in particular the Big Five
traits) and a select set of potential surface characteristics (e.g.
self-esteem, social attitudes, interests and major life goals).
CORE AND SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS OF
PERSONALITY
Given our broad personality definition, personality characteris-
tics describe individual differences in thoughts, feelings,
strivings and behaviours that are relatively consistent across
situations and over time. This allows a differentiation between
more or less stable characteristics that is often described with
the concepts traits, states and person × situation interactions
(Epstein, 1979, 1980; Steyer, Schmitt, & Eid, 1999). Within
this terminology, traits describe consistencies (or more consis-
tent characteristics) over time and across situations. States
reflect mutable patterns (or less consistent characteristics) over
time and across situations, such as moods or agitations.
Person × situation interactions represent consistencies over
time but not across situations, such as context-dependent habits
or role-dependent behaviour patterns. Traits, states and
person × situation interactions may serve as units of analysis
for personality research and description in terms of the broad
definition of personality (Allport, 1937; Mischel, 1968).2
2
Note that the term ‘trait’ has been used and conceptualized ambiguously in
the long history of personality research. Whereas some researchers have
called almost all personality characteristics of a person, the individual posi-
tions on dimensions of individual differences in personality, or trait dimen-
sions per se ‘traits’ (e.g. Allport, 1966; Cattell, 1945), other researchers
have identified the concept ‘trait’ as disputable consistency in personality
over time and across situations (Mischel, 1968). The similar ambiguity can
be found for the term ‘states’. Whereas states are most commonly seen as
rather unstable characteristics compared with traits (Fleeson, 2012), they
have also been defined as variance component that include stable trait com-
ponents as well as variance due to person × situation interactions and occa-
sion-specific influences (Steyer et al., 1999).
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Conceptions of core characteristics
Because traits are commonly defined as individual consisten-
cies in feelings, thoughts and actions across situations and
over time (Allport, 1966), they may serve as the basic units
of analysis for the description of core personality characteris-
tics. Although different personality models disagree about
the number of traits (or trait dimensions) that is essential to
characterize the core of personality, they agree in the idea
that a finite number of basic traits (often labelled as constitu-
tional traits, core dimensions, or basic tendencies) show a
genetic basis and are observable early in life (Cattell, 1965;
Eysenck, 1970; McCrae et al., 2000).
Whereas research on child development usually focuses
on temperament features (i.e. stylistic and regulatory
consistencies of emotions and behaviour that describe how
individuals act and react to the people and situations in their
environment) that are observable in the first years of life (e.g.
activity level, emotionality, shyness or effortful control),
researchers investigating the personality of adults usually
focus on conceptually broader and more cognitively elaborated
trait constructs (such as extraversion versus introversion or
anxiety level). Although adult personality traits may
encompass a broader range of psychological features, the fun-
damental concepts of child temperament and adult personality
traits appear to be more alike than different (Caspi et al., 2005;
McCrae et al., 2000). Indeed, existing models of temperament
and personality traits point to some of the very same character-
istics to describe individual differences (e.g. emotional reactivity
and emotional lability). The progress in integrating them has
been facilitated by the recognition that temperament and
personality trait concepts from several models can be
organized hierarchically in a common integrative frame-
work (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005) and that they
are useful in describing individual differences and development
in both childhood and adulthood (Kandler, Riemann, &
Angleitner, 2013; Shiner & Caspi, 2003).
The Big Five taxonomy is the most influential conceptual
model that captures personality traits along five dimensions
(Digman, 1990; John et al., 2008). Although the five dimen-
sions have been labelled in many ways, a common characteri-
zation employs the following labels: (1) neuroticism versus
emotional stability; (2) extraversion versus introversion; (3)
openness to experiences; (4) agreeableness; and (5) conscien-
tiousness. The Big Five trait taxonomy appears to capture the
trait landscape as portrayed in many different languages, soci-
eties and cultures (McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005). It is useful to in-
tegrate various systems and major inventories of personality
description in terms of temperament and personality traits in
a common framework (John et al., 2008). Each of the five traits
hierarchically subsumes a set of more specific traits (DeYoung,
Guilty, & Petersen, 2007). This hierarchical model is called
five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992). Individual
differences in the Big Five traits are substantially consistent
over time and across situations, and they are largely due to
genetic influences (Borkenau, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner,
2006; Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997; Terracciano, Costa,
& McCrae, 2006). Moreover, the hierarchical structure of the
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

FFM appears to have a solid genetic basis (Jang, McCrae,
Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; Yamagata et al.,
2006). The Big Five and related facet traits are able to predict
several specific behaviours, such as tobacco consumption or
the willingness to share money (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001),
and important life outcomes, such as occupational and familial
outcomes or even mortality (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, &
Goldberg, 2007). Therefore, the Big Five traits are typically
conceptualized as core characteristics of personality—the
essential basis of individual differences in people’s patterns
of thoughts, emotions and actions (McAdams & Pals, 2006;
McCrae & Costa, 2008).
Conceptions of surface characteristics
Alternative conceptualizations of personality go beyond the
FFM trait concepts and focus on specific cognitive, motiva-
tional and affective features of psychological individuality,
such as attitudes, values, motives, goals or positive and
negative affect (e.g. Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Deci & Ryan,
2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Murray, 1938; Rotter, 1982).
These constructs are specifically related to the self (e.g. self-
esteem and subjective well-being) or the person’s environment
(e.g. social attitudes and interests). They are usually not
conceptualized as ‘traits’ (for an exception, see Cattell, 1945,
1965), because they are considered to be less immune to envi-
ronmental influences and more subject to change. They are of-
ten subsumed as surface characteristics of personality
(Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). Moreover, whereas core
characteristics may be rooted in early temperament features,
surface characteristics are usually conceived as first emerging
during childhood or adolescence and continuing to evolve
thereafter (McAdams & Pals, 2006). Over the life
course, they may develop as by-products of the interac-
tion of core characteristics with environmental experiences
(McCrae, 2009). They may change to reflect normative and
idiosyncratic shifts in the social ecology of daily life
(Hutteman et al., 2014; McAdams & Olson, 2010).
For purposes of the current paper, we focus on a selective
set of potential surface characteristics. These constructs can
be assigned to three more or less linked domains: (i) self-
related schemata; (ii) attitudes, values and beliefs; and
(iii) personal strivings.3
Self-related schemata
Self-related schemata capture people’s self-related feelings,
self-judgments and evaluations of their own lives. These
characteristics include subjective well-being (SWB: people’s
judgments and feelings about the quality of their lives),
self-esteem (SE: people’s evaluation of their own worth)
and locus of control (LOC: individuals’ beliefs that their
life is under their own control versus controlled by
environmental circumstances).
3
We do not exclude the potential contribution of other concepts to the
description of personality differences, such as cognitive styles, drives, ergs,
instincts, personal projects, personal constructs, sentiments, to mention just
a few. Because of space, our review is limited to FFM traits as potential core
of personality and a selective set of potential surface characteristics.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 233
Self-related schemata are commonly conceived as out-
comes or adaptations of the Big Five traits. For example, a
recent meta-analysis has revealed that the Big Five personality
traits, in particular neuroticism, extraversion and conscien-
tiousness, account for 39% to 63% of the variance in SWB
and in several of its facets (e.g. life satisfaction, happiness,
positive and negative affect; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008).
Similar patterns and levels of correlation were identified
with respect to SE and LOC (Judge, Erez, Bono, &
Thoresen, 2002; Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, &
Gosling, 2001). These correlation results (Figure 1) have
often been interpreted as evidence that self-related schemata
reflect outcomes of basic personality traits (Headey, 2010).
However, the sources of the links and the direction of
causation—whether traits lead to the formation of schemata
or vice versa—have rarely been studied.
Attitudes, values and beliefs
Although self-related schemata include attitudes towards the self
or own life, the concept ‘attitude’ is typically conceived as
personal evaluations of a specific outward issue (e.g. ideology),
object (e.g. protecting the environment) or other persons (e.g. a
xenophobic orientation towards foreigners). The term ‘value’
has come to be used to describe evaluations of the worth of
more abstract entities (e.g. a standard or a principle), whereas
a ‘belief’ refers to a mental state that involves acceptance, con-
fidence and trust in something offered as true or real (e.g. God)
without rigorous proof (Saucier, 2013). Attitudes, values
and beliefs share in common that they involve either positive
or negative evaluations of environments that provide some
guidance for behaviour. Social and personality psycholo-
gists have focused a great deal of research attention on
socio-political attitudes and religious beliefs irrespective of a
specific chosen religion and associated established traditions
(i.e. religiousness).
Social attitudes and values are often captured in two
dimensions (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009; Duckitt &
Sibley, 2010; Schwartz, 1994) labelled as progression versus
conservation or right-wing authoritarianism (RWA: a
tendency to resist social and economic change and advocate
strong conservatism) and self/group transcendence versus
enhancement or social dominance orientation (SDO: a
tendency to believe that one’s ingroup is superior to others
and accept social inequality). Research has documented the
associations between these two dimensions and the personality
traits of openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness
(Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; see Figure 1). More specifically,
RWA has been shown to be negatively associated with open-
ness and modestly positively correlated with conscientious-
ness, whereas SDO shows negative associations with both
openness and agreeableness. Generally, however, the Big Five
traits and related facet-level traits account for less than half of
the variance in the socio-political attitudes captured in RWA
and SDO.
Similarly, agreeableness and conscientiousness show
rather low but systematic links to religiousness (Saroglou,
2010). Even though the links to the Big Five personality
traits tend to be modest at best (Figure 1), RWA, SDO and
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per
234 C. Kandler et al.

religiousness have often been described as outcomes or adap-
tations of FFM personality traits (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010;
Saroglou, 2010).
Personal strivings
People’s strivings are represented in their motives, goals and
interests. Whereas people’s goals reflect their aspirations
regarding how they want to live and what they want to
accomplish in life, their interests represent their willful engage-
ment in activities related to a particular object of experiences.
Major life goals and basic motives speak to those most valued
ends towards which individuals strive in life and from which
individuals derive personal meaning (e.g. achievement, affilia-
tion and power; McClelland, 1985). They may guide people’s
behaviour across long periods (see Hennecke et al., 2014). Yet,
goals and interests are commonly viewed to be mere mani-
festations of FFM personality traits as expressed in
vocational, leisure and familial contexts (Holland, 1997;
McCrae & Costa, 2008).
Research has shown that the Big Five personality traits
tend to be associated with the importance of major life goals,
such as agency and communion goals (Bleidorn et al., 2010;
Roberts, O’Donnell, & Robins, 2004), and with the mentioning
of specific personal goals related to education, the
respondent’s own family, friends, property, travel and self
(Salmela-Aro et al., 2012). Meta-analyses have also shown
consistent links between Big Five traits and general interest
domains, such as realistic, intellectual, artistic, social,
enterprising and conventional interests (Barrick, Mount, &
Gupta, 2003; Larson, Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002).
However, correlations between measures of FFM traits and
goals/interests are often lower than r = .50 (Figure 1). Thus,
FFM personality traits account for less than one third of in-
dividual differences in variables related to personal striv-
ings. Even though those findings question the simple
consideration of major life goals and interests as surface char-
acteristics of personality, the mere level of interrelation be-
tween variables does not provide sufficient evidence to either
decide upon their allocation to different levels of personality
characteristics or their mutual determination.
FOUR CRITERIA OF THE DIFFERENTIATION
BETWEEN CORE AND SURFACE
CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONALITY
Core characteristics are usually considered to be rather stable
and strongly genetically or biologically determined, whereas
surface characteristics are commonly conceptualized to be
less stable and more amenable to contextual, situational or
cultural variation (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). From this
continuous differentiation (see also Conley, 1984) directly
follows that estimates of rank-order stability (i.e. the degree
to which relative differences among individuals are stable
across time) and heritability (i.e. the degree to which relative
differences among individuals are due to genetic factors)

Figure 1. This figure represents an overview of meta-analytic results on the associations between core characteristics of personality in terms of the Big Five
personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and potential surface characteristics in terms of self-related
schemata, social attitudes, values and beliefs, as well as major life goals and interests. Links in boldface reflect average correlations r > .50, non-bold solid links
reflect average correlations between r = .50 and r = .20 and dotted links represent significant average correlations r < .20.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

should be larger for core characteristics compared with
surface characteristics (Figure 2a and 2b). In this review,
we treat the Big Five (or FFM) traits as potential core
characteristics (in the following mentioned as basic traits)
and SWB, SE, LOC, RWA, SDO, religiousness, agency
goals, communion goals, and the six interest domains
realistic, artistic, investigative, social, enterprising and
conventional interests as potential surface characteristics.
In their five-factor theory, McCrae and Costa (2008) go
beyond this rather descriptive dimensional differentiation.
They treat the FFM traits as biologically based core of
personality and as biologically anchored dispositions of more
specific surface characteristics that develop as characteristic
adaptations reflecting products of interactions between FFM
traits and environmental experiences (McCrae, 2009).
Following this rather categorical differentiation, the
developmental direction of causation should run from core
to surface characteristics, rather than vice versa. Moreover,
core characteristics should account for whatever genetic
variance exists in surface characteristics (Figure 2c and 2d).
Are individual differences in basic traits more stable than
in potential surface characteristics?
Basic traits
Longitudinal studies have provided impressive evidence for
high rank-order stability of the Big Five traits. For example,
in a meta-analysis by Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) test–
retest correlations over time intervals of about 7 years were
estimated to increase from about r = .30 in childhood to
r = .70 in the adult years, reaching a high plateau between
the ages 40 and 70 years. This is true for several FFM traits
(i.e. both domains and facets) that have remarkable stability
coefficients (over r = .70) in adulthood (Terracciano et al.,
2006). In old age, however, rank-order continuity appears
to decrease again (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Specht, Egloff,
& Schmukle, 2011). Irrespective of the age group studied,
Figure 2. This figure illustrates the four criteria to differentiate between
core (C) and surface characteristics (S): (a) stability versus changeability/ran-
domness of individual ranks; (b) heritability versus environmentality; (c) the
direction of causation should run from core to surface characteristics (solid
path from C to S), rather than vice versa (dotted path from S to C); and (d)
core characteristics should account for whatever genetic variance exists in
surface characteristics (i.e. genetic factors, G, that influence core characteris-
tics should explain the genetic variance in surface characteristics).
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 235
stability coefficients decline with increasing measurement
intervals until they approach a positive nonzero asymptote
(Conley, 1984; Fraley & Roberts, 2005).
Self-related schemata
On the basis of a large representative panel study, Fujita and
Diener (2005) reported comparable levels of rank-order
continuity for traits and life satisfaction (a facet of SWB)
over a 1-year period. However, their analyses also revealed
a more pronounced decline of stability coefficients for life
satisfaction compared with personality traits with increasing
intervals between measurement occasions. Similarly, meta-
analyses and longitudinal studies on representative samples
have revealed that levels of rank-order stability in adulthood
are lower for measures of SE (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, &
Robins, 2003) and LOC (Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle,
2013a) compared with Big Five personality traits (Lucas &
Donnellan, 2011; Specht et al., 2011), even though the slopes
of the stability of individual differences in SE and LOC
across the lifespan were quite comparable with those of
basic traits (i.e. reversely U-shaped; Kuster & Orth, 2013;
Specht et al., 2013a; Trzesniewski et al., 2003). Using
latent-state-trait modelling, Eid and Diener (2004) reported
slightly higher 4-week consistencies for measures of extra-
version (Con = .84 to Con = .93) and neuroticism (Con = .79
to Con = .89) compared with measures of SWB (Con = .73
to Con = .83) and SE (Con = .61 to Con = .84), given com-
parable reliabilities (about Rel = .90). Conley (1984)
showed that after controlling for unreliability of measures,
the 1-year stability of individual differences in personality
traits (r = .98) and self-related schemata (r = .94) was quite
comparable; however, for a 40-year interval, the rank-order
stability of personality traits (r = .45) was considerably
larger than for self-related schemata (r = .08). In summary,
the existing research evidence suggests that basic traits
may show slightly higher rank-order stability over time than
self-related schemata.
Attitudes, values and beliefs
Based on a large panel study, Alwin and Krosnick (1991)
found high 7-year rank-order stability of socio-political atti-
tudes in adulthood (on average, about r = .90; ranging
between r = .85 for ages 18 to 25 years and r > .94 for ages
34 to 41 years) after having corrected for measurement
errors. Another large longitudinal study on adults reported high
long-term stability of about r = .80 over intervals of 10 years
and r = .65 for a 37-year time span (Sears & Funk, 1999).
The stability coefficients appear to be larger than those for
the Big Five traits and largely independent of the age group
or panel cohort studied. However, studies that allow a direct
comparison between the stability of social attitudes and basic
traits are rare. For example, Perry and Sibley (2012) reported
9-month test–retest correlations for Big Five traits (r = .71 to
r = .87), RWA and SDO (r = .74 to r = .79) that were of
comparable size.
Similarly, individual differences in religiousness are
largely stable in adulthood (Koenig, McGue, & Iacono,
2008; McCullough, Enders, Brion, & Jain, 2005). Although
the long-term differential stability from adolescence to late
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per
236 C. Kandler et al.
adulthood for openness (r = .52) and conscientiousness
(r = .46) appeared to be higher compared with the stability
of religiousness (r = .31), the continuity coefficient for agree-
ableness (r = .20) was found to be lower in a longitudinal
study by Wink, Ciciolla, Dillon, and Tracy (2007). The few
existing longitudinal studies have thus not provided
consistent support for the argument that basic traits show
higher rank-order stability than attitudes and beliefs.
Personal strivings
A longitudinal study, in which basic traits of college students
and the importance of their goals could directly be compared,
found an average 4-year rank-order continuity for major life
goals (r = .56) that was quite similar to the average 4-year
test–retest correlation (r = .61) for the Big Five personality
traits (Roberts et al., 2004; Robins, Fraley, Roberts, &
Trzesniewski, 2001). Another 2-year longitudinal study on
the transition from school to college (Lüdtke, Trautwein, &
Husemann, 2009) found lower average test–retest correla-
tions for major life goal dimensions (r = .53) than for the
Big Five traits (r = .69). In both studies, the internal consis-
tency coefficients for trait and goal measures were quite
comparable. For mid-adult twins, Bleidorn et al. (2010) also
reported lower 5-year test–retest correlations for agency and
communion goals compared with the Big Five personality
traits. Thus, it appears that differential stability tends to be
lower for measures of major life goals than for measures of
basic traits.
When it comes to interests, however, the story is very
different: A meta-analysis on the stability of interests found
higher rank-order continuity coefficients for vocational
interests than for basic personality traits (Low, Yoon, Roberts,
& Rounds, 2005). In particular, realistic (i.e. hands-on) and
artistic (i.e. self-expressive) interests were more stable than
basic traits.
Summary
The rank-order continuity of basic traits has not been found
to be consistently larger than the differential stability of
potential surface characteristics of personality, although
findings differ as a function of which surface characteristics
are sampled. Whereas basic traits appear to show a slightly
higher rank-order continuity than self-related schemata and
major life goals, the stability of individual differences in social
attitudes and interests appears to be quite comparable
with (and occasionally even higher than) that of basic
trait measures. The findings, therefore, call into question
the thesis that basic traits are more stable than other
characteristics that are often treated as surface characteristics
of personality.
Are basic traits more heritable than potential surface
characteristics?
Basic traits
In their meta-analysis, Johnson, Vernon, and Feiler (2008)
reported that genetic effects account for about 50% (43% to
54%) of the variance (i.e. heritability) in primarily self-rated
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Big Five personality traits. They reported similar estimates of
heritability for trait concepts related to the Big Five frame-
work or FFM facet traits.4
Self-related schemata
Several studies have revealed heritability estimates for SWB
to be quite similar to the estimates for basic traits, ranging
between 38% and 50% (see Bartels & Boomsma, 2009, for a
review). For measures of SE and LOC, however, heritability
estimates have often ranged between 20% and 40% (e.g. Neiss,
Sedikides, & Stevensen, 2002; Pedersen, Gatz, Plomin,
Nesselroade, & McClaern, 1989). Thus, heritability appears
to be somewhat lower for self-related schemata compared with
Big Five traits.
Attitudes, values and beliefs
Behavioural genetic studies have consistently found moderate
to substantial genetic influences on individual differences in
RWA and related constructs (e.g. conservatism) with
heritability estimates of about 50% to 60% in adulthood
(Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005; Bouchard et al., 2003;
McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegan, & Keyes, 1999).
These estimates are comparable with those found for basic
traits. However, SDO or related constructs (e.g. acceptance
of inequality) appear to show a lower heritability (about
30% after correction for measurement error; Kandler,
Bleidorn, & Riemann, 2012). Heritability for religious-
ness also tends to be lower than those for FFM traits,
ranging between 0% and 40% depending on the age
group studied (see Kandler & Riemann, 2013, for a
review). In line with these findings, a recent study
(Renner et al., 2012) found larger heritability estimates
for intellectualistic, materialistic and conservative values
(37% to 46%) compared with communion and religious
values (36% to 37%).
Personal strivings
Genetically informative studies on specific personal goals
and the importance of major life goals have found that on
average about 30% of the variance is attributable to genetic
effects (Bleidorn et al., 2010; Salmela-Aro et al., 2012).
For interest domains, however, heritability estimates appear
to be slightly higher (30% to 60%) and reach the heritability
level of basic traits (Betsworth et al., 1994; Lykken,
Bouchard, McGue, & Tellegen, 1993). Moreover, self-
expressive interests (i.e. artistic-creative and cultural-
intellectual) tend to show even marginally higher heritability
(about 60%) than the Big Five personality traits (Kandler,
Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2011). Thus,
similar to the results obtained for rank-order continuity,
heritability estimates for operationalizations of goals tend
to be lower than those for basic traits while interests reach
comparable or even higher levels of heritability.
4
After correction for random error of measurement and rater biases, estimates
of heritability are often considerably larger (e.g. Riemann & Kandler, 2010).
However, because mostly all behavioural genetic studies on self-related sche-
mata, social attitudes, beliefs, goals and interests have relied on self-reports,
we used the heritability of 50% as a reference for FFM traits.
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Summary
Estimates of heritability appear to be larger for Big Five
personality traits than for most other characteristics, such as
self-related schemata. However, certain characteristics
labelled as surface characteristics show comparable or even
higher heritability (e.g. RWA, artistic and intellectual interests).
The findings, therefore, provide a mixed picture regarding the
extent to which heritability differs for basic traits and potential
surface characteristics.
Do basic traits cause potential surface characteristics?
Many authors suggest that self-related schemata, social
attitudes, beliefs or personal strivings constitute individual
expressions or specific developmental outcomes of the Big
Five traits (e.g. Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Headey, 2010;
Holland, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 2008; Saroglou, 2010). If
this viewpoint is correct, then longitudinal studies and
direction-of-causation analyses should show that basic traits
as potential core characteristics predict potential surface
characteristics rather than vice versa.
Basic traits and self-related schemata
Some studies have demonstrated that Big Five personality
traits are associated with subsequent changes in SWB
(e.g. Headey, 2006, 2010) and SE development in emerging
adulthood (Erol & Orth, 2011; Wagner, Lüdtke, Jonkmann, &
Trautwein, 2013). Other studies stressed the importance of life
satisfaction for the Big Five trait change (Specht, Egloff, &
Schmukle, 2013b) or provided support for reciprocal relations
between Big Five traits and SWB (Soto, 2014). Thus, the
direction of causation is not immediately clear.
Basic traits and attitudes, values and beliefs
Longitudinal studies have shown that the Big Five personality
traits predict several facets of religiousness and socio-political
attitudes in terms of RWA and SDO rather than the reverse
(Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2013; Wink
et al., 2007). However, other studies that have used
direction-of-causation modelling have not supported a
directionality from basic traits to socio-political attitudes
but rather point to an interdependence due to common (e.g.
genetic) influences (Kandler, Bell, Shikishima, Yamagata,
& Riemann, 2013; Verhulst, Eaves, & Hatemi, 2012).
Basic traits and personal strivings
Longitudinal studies on the reciprocal relation between Big
Five traits and major life goals have consistently shown that
personality traits predict the importance of goals rather than
vice versa, albeit in specific cases, a reversal prediction or
reciprocal relation has been found (Bleidorn et al., 2010;
Lüdtke et al., 2009). To the best of our knowledge, no study
has investigated the direction of causality between Big Five
personality traits and the six interest domains.
Summary
In general, longitudinal studies that have investigated the
direction of causation between FFM traits and potential surface
characteristics are rare. The lack of direction-of-causation
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 237
studies provides an incomplete and inconsistent picture with
respect to the third criterion of the differentiation between basic
traits and potential surface characteristics.
Does the genetic variance in basic traits account for the
genetic variance in potential surface characteristics?
The fourth criterion is similar to the third, in that it goes to
the issue of developmental origins and sequences for core
and surface characteristics. If surface characteristics are
mainly adaptations of biologically based traits (McAdams
& Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008), then genetic variance
in these basic traits would account for most, if not all, of the
genetic variance in surface characteristics.
Basic traits and self-related schemata
In fact, genetic effects on the variance in Big Five personality
traits (in particular neuroticism, extraversion and conscien-
tiousness) can account for the entire genetic variance in
SWB (Hahn, Spinath, & Johnson, 2013; Weiss, Bates, &
Luciano, 2008). To our knowledge, no study has addressed
the sources of the relationship between Big Five personality
traits and other aspects of self-related schemata (i.e. SE and
LOC). Given the similar correlation pattern of all self-related
schemata with personality traits (all showed links to neuroti-
cism, extraversion and conscientiousness; see Figure 1), the
high intercorrelation among SWB, SE and LOC (r > .50;
Judge et al., 2002), and the lower heritability for SE and
LOC, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the genetic
variance in SE and LOC may also be accounted for by
genetic variance in Big Five personality traits.
Basic traits and attitudes, values and beliefs
Studies reveal that FFM domain and facet traits cannot
mediate the entire genetic variance in socio-political attitudes
(Kandler et al., 2012) and religiousness (Kandler &
Riemann, 2013). Although most of the genetic variance over-
laps, about one third of the genetic variance in socio-political
orientations and religiousness could not be accounted for by
the genetic variance in FFM traits.
Basic traits and personal strivings
Similarly, Bleidorn et al. (2010) found that genetic variance
in FFM traits could account for only about 50% of the
genetic variance in agency goals and 70% of the genetic
variance in communion goals. More specific personal goals
related to education, family, property and the self (Salmela-
Aro et al., 2012) showed residual genetic variance, ranging
between 50% and 70%, that did not overlap with the genetic
variance in specific Big Five traits. The Big Five traits, in
particular openness, could explain on average only 35% of
the genetic variance in interest domains, ranging between
10% for realistic and 80% for enterprising interests (Kandler
et al., 2011).
Summary
Five-factor model personality traits appear to account for the
entire genetic variance in self-related schemata, such as
SWB. However, research on the genetic associations between
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per
238 C. Kandler et al.
FFM personality traits and potential surface characteristics
shows a different picture. Even though the phenotypic
links from FFM personality traits to social attitudes,
beliefs, goals and interests (shown in Figure 1) are
primarily due to genetic factors, a large component of
the genetic variance in these potential surface characteris-
tics cannot be explained by the genetic variance in FFM
personality traits. At the moment, however, the empirical
basis is rather small.
Conclusions
Our review provides little support for the traditional distinction
between basic traits as (more stable and more heritable) core
characteristics of personality and other characteristics as (less
stable and more environmental) surface manifestations at a
descriptive level. The same applies to the causal hypothesis
that more specific characteristics of personality (e.g. social
attitudes and interests) derive directly from basic traits. A
reasonable case can be made that self-related schemata, such
as SWB and SE, may qualify as surface characteristics and
manifestations of basic traits, such as neuroticism, extraversion
and conscientiousness. Self-related schemata appear to be less
stable and less heritable than basic traits, and the genetic
variance in measures of self-related schemata can be accounted
for by the genetic variance in Big Five personality traits.
When it comes to social attitudes and personal strivings,
the empirical findings do not support the hypothesis that
specific characteristics of human personality such as social
attitudes and interests are less stable and less heritable than
other conceptually broader characteristics such as the Big
Five personality traits. In addition, genetic variance in basic
traits cannot account for most of the genetic variance in
interests and goals. Finally, the inconsistent findings on the
directionality of influences may rather reflect a mutual
interrelation. This calls into serious question the idea that
certain characteristics—such as social attitudes, interests and
goals—are merely surface characteristics or environment-
dependent expressions of a small set of basic traits, such as
those subsumed in the five-factor theory.
IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH ON ADULT PERSONALITY
DIFFERENCES AND DEVELOPMENT
The findings require a reconsideration of the labelling of some
sets of constructs as either core or surface characteristics of
personality. Our review suggests several implications for an
integrative understanding of personality (and personality
development) in adulthood.
Conceptual issues
In terms of longitudinal stability, heritability and shared
genetic variance, it is not clear that traits such as extraversion
and agreeableness are any more ‘core’ than other characteris-
tics, such as interests and the kind of value patterns that go
into the making of RWA and other forms of socio-political
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
ideologies. Moreover, research does not provide strong
evidence to suggest that attitudes, values, interests and major
life goals develop as by-products of the interaction of basic
traits with environmental experiences. Rather than conceptu-
alizing personality as a strict hierarchy wherein characteristic
adaptations are built upon fundamental traits, it may make
more sense to view basic traits, attitudes, values, beliefs,
motives, goals and interests as ‘separate but equally
important’ features of psychological individuality and, thus,
as basic units for the description and theory of personality
differences in adulthood.
In line with many researchers, we defined ‘traits’ as
individual consistencies in feelings, thoughts and actions
over time and across situations. In addition, we identified
‘basic traits’, such as the FFM traits, as having a genetic basis
and thus as promising candidates of core personality
characteristics. However, against the background of our
review, it seems plausible to treat (at least) basic
dimensions of individual differences in attitudes, values and
beliefs (e.g. authoritarianism, conservatism, SDO or religious-
ness), major life goals or basic motives (e.g. agency or vertical
striving and communion or horizontal striving), and interests
(e.g. in people versus things or in data versus ideas) as funda-
mentally just ‘traits’ (Johnson, 1997). This idea calls to mind
Cattell’s (1965) differentiation between temperament traits
and dynamic traits. Whereas temperament traits determine
the stylistic and regulatory aspects of thinking, feeling and
behaving that help to describe how individuals react to the
people and situations in their environment, dynamic traits
represent the forces that define motivations and energize
behaviour. Dynamic traits may be better reflected by attitudes,
values, goals and interests.
The distinction between trait concepts, such as those
subsumed within the Big Five framework, and other constructs
such as attitudes, major life goals and interests may also be
maintained and profitably conceptualized in terms of develop-
mental sequences. A growing body of research supports the
general idea that the Big Five traits that characterize individual
differences in adulthood have their origins in early tempera-
ment (Shiner & De Young, 2013). Through a long and complex
series of gene × environment interactions, early-childhood
temperament dimensions such as positive affectivity and effortful
control may gradually develop into the more elaborated and
differentiated traits of extraversion and conscientiousness,
respectively. The developmental sequences for other charac-
teristics, however, may look very different. Whereas basic
needs or motives (e.g. love and care) are already observable
congenitally, individuals may begin to express consistent
interest patterns at preschool age. The emergence of
characteristic goals in personality likely awaits the con-
solidation of theory of mind (around age 4–5 years;
Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001) and the establishment
of a long-term perspective on one’s personal future (between
ages 5 and 8 years; Sameroff & Haith, 1996). Social attitudes,
such as those captured in RWA and SDO, may require a
sophisticated understanding of society and social issues,
which itself may not emerge until adolescence, when
individuals begin to conceive of the social and cultural world
in ideological terms (McAdams, 2013). Future longitudinal
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

studies on ‘the unfolding of human individual differences’
(Conley, 1984, p. 23) from childhood to adulthood are
needed to shed more light on the developmental sequences
of different characteristics of personality.
Although the conceptualization of what a trait is and what
it is not remains still a matter of debate, the present review
shows that ‘the core of personality’ differences in adulthood
appears to include more than Big Five personality traits and
related facets. McAdams and Olson (2010) argue that a full
accounting of human personality should consider the person
from the standpoints of social actor, motivated agent and
autobiographical author. The current paper focused on the
first two standpoints in that framework. Temperament and
personality traits, like those subsumed within the Big Five
framework, tend to focus on how a person operates as a
social actor—the extent to which the actor is seen (by the self
and others) as outgoing and friendly, for example, or anxious,
depressive and hostile. Traits are essential ingredients of an
actor’s reputation in a social group, but they do not typically
address directly what a person wants in life, what he or she
seeks to achieve or avoid as a motivated agent. Thus, personality
traits may describe the typical patterns of feeling, thinking
and behaving, but appear to be insufficient to capture the
‘core’ preferences and aspirations (Fleeson, 2012).
Many personality constructs subsumed under the
umbrella of surface characteristics or characteristic adapta-
tions are concerned, in one way or another, with motivation.
Values, attitudes and beliefs guide individuals as they
evaluate events, people and actions and thus direct people’s
choices about abstracted ideals or concrete objectives they
desire or hope to foster or advance. Interests speak to objects
and activities into which people invest their energy and time;
if a person has a strong interest in an activity, he or she is
strongly motivated to engage in the activity. Motives and
major life goals speak directly to desired end states that indi-
viduals are motivated to pursue. Therefore, many personality
characteristics such as these address the status of the person
as a motivated agent. To be an agent is to make choices,
set forth plans and pursue self-determined ends. Given that
people are both social actors and motivated agents, both
perspectives and related personality characteristics need to
be assessed and integrated in the study of personality
differences and development in adulthood.
Methodological issues
The lack of the empirical support for the labelling of FFM
traits as exclusive core characteristics of personality may also
result from methodological problems. Measures of FFM
traits do not provide a balanced sampling of cognition, affect,
motivation and behaviour (Wilt, Oehlberg, & Revelle, 2011;
Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). Moreover,
given that motivational constructs might constitute the ‘core’
of personality and even the ‘core of traits’, namely that the
motivation to pursue certain outcomes precedes the
emergence of individual differences in stylistic and regula-
tory aspects of emotion, cognition and behaviour that might
be picked up as ‘traits’ (Lehmann, Denissen, Allemand, &
Penke, 2013), the Big Five trait measures need more
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 239
motivational content (e.g. Denissen & Penke, 2008). From
this perspective, it may not be surprising that genetically
driven individual differences in measures of the Big Five
traits—given that they capture the core of personality—
cannot account for most of the genetic variance in goals
and interests. Consequently, new measures of personality
traits with items that reflect a more balanced set of
psychological functioning (i.e. feeling, thinking, striving
and behaving) may more accurately capture the multi-
functional nature of personality.
Second, most studies rely on self-reports to assess
personality characteristics. Self-assessments are potentially
more valid than other assessments (e.g. by trained observers
or well-informed peers), because people can directly
experience their own feelings, strivings and thoughts
‘whereas observers must infer from verbal reports and non-
verbal behavior’ (Johnson, 1997; p. 79). However, different
response biases may act to distort self-assessments of
different characteristics. For example, self-deception may
play a more important role in the case of the Big Five trait
measures that are usually bipolar, whereas acquiescence
may distort measures of goals and interests that are mostly
unipolar. Variance due to self-rater biases may be relatively
stable as well as genetically influenced (Kandler, et al.,
2010). Thus, the focus on self-reports alone does not help
to disentangle between more or less stable or more or less
heritable characteristics. It may be fruitful to combine the
external (observer) and internal (self) perspectives for a
broader look on personality (Vazire & Mehl, 2008).
Third, the primary focus on the higher-order dimensions
of the Big Five may leave out important correlations between
more specific personality facets on the one hand and
attitudes, values, goals or interests on the other. Jang et al.
(1998; see also Kandler, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner,
2010) have shown genetic influences specific for facet-level
traits beyond the genetic variance in the Big Five traits.
Moreover, the facet-level traits are often better predictors of
behaviour (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Since lower-level
trait measures include both the facet-specific and higher-level
(genetic) components (e.g. Big Five) of the hierarchical trait
structure, it may be fruitful to focus on more specific
personality facets for the study of personality differences
and development in adulthood (Caspi et al., 2005).
Fourth, future research that investigates the reliable
ordering of characteristics in terms of core and surface
characteristics needs to go beyond the rather descriptive
comparisons between variables with respect to the four
criteria. Future studies may use statistical models that
are able to disentangle stable and occasion-specific components
in ‘true scores’ as well as isolate random error in measures of
personality characteristics. The latent-state-trait model
provides a very sophisticated and alternative strategy to
differentiate between stable trait and instable occasion-specific
components in personality variables (Steyer et al., 1999). In
this model, the ‘trait’ is defined as stable component. Thus, this
model provides a more reliable test of our first criterion: The
larger the trait component, the more we can treat a variable as
a trait. Fraley and Roberts (2005) provided a similar model
containing both a stable ‘core’ variable affecting the stability
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per
240 C. Kandler et al.
of a personality characteristic and bidirectional transactions be-
tween personality and situational influences. This allows com-
parisons between two variables regarding their decline in
stability over time (a better test of criterion 1). Moreover, this
model can be easily extended to two or more personality
characteristics including cross-legged paths with larger effects
from more ‘core’ to more ‘surface’ variables than vice versa
(Asendorpf & Denissen, 2006). It provides a direct test of
criterion 3. Both models can be extended to genetically
informative models containing genetic and environmental
stable core and occasion-specific components as well as
genetic and environmental transactions between two or more
characteristics for a test of criterions 2 and 4.
Finally, our review detected a large lack of research in
particular in the case of the direction of causation and the
underlying genetic and environmental associations between
different characteristics of personality. More research is needed
to overcome the inconsistent results. Meta-analyses are certainly
very helpful to detect a reliable ordering of personality charac-
teristics with respect to the stability and heritability. More lon-
gitudinal research on the developmental sequence of and the
direction of causation between different characteristics will
help to find the essential characteristics that are sufficient
and necessary to describe the core of personality.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Whereas our review showed evidence that self-related schemata,
such as subjective well-being, self-esteem and locus of control,
may reflect less stable and more environmentally malleable
surface manifestations of basic traits subsumed within the
five-factor framework, an exclusive focus on (measures of) the
Big Five personality traits or similar trait aggregations cannot
provide a sufficiently complete picture of the core of adult
personality. Our review suggests that the Big Five trait dimen-
sions or how they are often operationalized do not reflect the
dispositional core of individual differences in people’s
social attitudes, values, interests or major life goals. They
may reflect the relatively stable and substantially heritable core
of individual differences in stylistic and regulatory patterns of
thoughts, feelings and actions but appear to be insufficient to
capture the just as stable and heritable core of individual
differences in motivational aspects of personality. The latter
may be better captured by more motivational operationalizations
of basic traits or basic motivational dimensions that better reflect
interests, motives, attitudes and values.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Ulrich Orth, Jule Specht, Marie
Hennecke, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political
orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science
Review, 99, 153–167.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.
Oxford: Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.
Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the
stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span.
American Journal of Sociology, 97, 169–195.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2006). Predictive validity of
personality types versus personality dimensions from early
childhood to adulthood: Implications for the distinction between
core and surface traits. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 486–513.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-
relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface
personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of
the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and
Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45–74.
Bartels, M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2009). Born to be happy: The
etiology of subjective well-being. Behavior Genetics, 39, 605–615.
Betsworth, D. G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H.
D., Hansen, J. C., Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1994). Genetic
and environmental influences on vocational interests assessed
using adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart
and together. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 263–278.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality.
European Journal of Personality, 8, 163–181.
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Hülsheger, U. R., Riemann, R.,
Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2010). Nature and nurture of
the interplay between personality traits and major life goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 366–379.
Borkenau, P., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2006).
Genetic and environmental influences on person × situation
profiles. Journal of Personality, 74, 1451–1479.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes,
M., & Krueger, R. (2003). Evidence for the construct validity and
heritability of the Wilson–Patterson conservatism scale: A reared-
apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 959–969.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality
development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 453–484.
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The principal trait clusters for describing
personality. Psychological Bulletin, 42, 129–161.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality.
Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Conley, J. J. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency: A review and
model of longitudinal findings on adult individual differences in
intelligence, personality, and self-opinion. Personality and
Individual Differences, 5, 11–25.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A
macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health.
Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.
Denissen, J. J. A., & Penke, L. (2008). Motivational individual
reaction norms underlying the five-factor model of personality:
First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285–1302.
DeYoung, C. G., Guilty, L. C., & Petersen, J. B. (2007). Between
facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-
factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice,
and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of
Personality, 78, 1861–1893.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-
being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social
Indicators Research, 65, 245–277.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most
of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.
Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for
psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790–806.
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development from age
14 to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101, 607–619.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality. London:
Methuen.
Fleeson, W. (2012). Perspectives on the person: Rapid growth and
opportunity for integration. In K. Deaux, & M. Snyder (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fraley, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A
dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual
differences in psychological constructs across the life course.
Psychological Review, 112, 60–74.
Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set-point: Stability and
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158–164.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hahn, E., Spinath, F. M., & Johnson, W. (2013). Beyond the heritability
of life satisfaction—The roles of personality and twin-specific
influences. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 757–767.
Headey, B. (2006). Subjective well-being: Revisions to dynamic
equilibrium theory using national panel data and panel regression
methods. Social Indicators Research, 79, 369–403.
Headey, B. (2010). The set point theory of well-being has serious
flaws: On the eve of a scientific revolution? Social Indicators
Research, 97, 7–21.
Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J. A., & Wood, D. (2014).
A three-part framework for self-regulated personality develop-
ment across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28,
289–299.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational personalities and work environments (3rd edn).
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hutteman, R., Hennecke, M., Orth, U., Rietz, A., & Specht, J.
(2014). Developmental Tasks as a framework to study personal-
ity development in adulthood and old age. European Journal of
Personality, 28, 267–279.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., &
Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a
cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1556–1565.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the
integrative big five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, &
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and
explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. London: Academic
Press.
Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., & Feiler, A. R. (2008). Behavioral
genetic studies of personality: An introduction and review of
the results of 50+ years of research. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews,
& D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality
theory and assessment: Volume 1 personality theories and
models (pp. 145–173). London: SAGE.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political
ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are
measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and
generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.
Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2013). Genetic and environmental
sources of individual religiousness: The roles of individual
personality traits and perceived environmental religiousness.
Behavior Genetics, 43, 297–313.
Kandler, C., Bell, E., Shikishima, C., Yamagata, S., & Riemann, R.
(2013). The genetic sources of core political attitudes and the role
of personality traits: A cross-cultural twin study. Behavior
Genetics, 43, 525.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 241
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right?
Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors,
cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath,
F. M. (2011). The genetic links between the Big Five personality
traits and general interest domains. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1633–1643.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Thiel, W.,
& Angleitner, A. (2010). Sources of cumulative continuity in per-
sonality: A longitudinal multiple-rater twin study. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 98, 995–1008.
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2013). Genetic and envi-
ronmental continuity and change of energetic and temporal aspects
of temperament in adulthood: A longitudinal twin study of self- and
peer reports. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1739–1753.
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2010).
Sources of variance in personality facets: A multiple-rater twin
study of self-peer, peer-peer, and self-self (dis-)agreement.
Journal of Personality, 78, 1565–1594.
Koenig, L. B., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2008). Stability and
change in religiousness during emerging adulthood. Develop-
mental Psychology, 44, 532–543.
Kuster, F., & Orth, U. (2013). The long-term stability of self-
esteem: Its time-dependent decay and nonzero asymptote.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 677–690.
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-
analyses of big six interests and Big Five personality factors.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217–239.
Lehmann, R., Denissen, J. J. A., Allemand, M., & Penke, L. (2013).
Age and gender differences in motivational manifestations of
the Big Five from age 16 to 60. Developmental Psychology,
49, 365–383.
Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The
stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle
adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713–737.
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development
across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample
from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101, 847–861.
Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Husemann, N. (2009). Goal and per-
sonality trait development in a transitional period: Assessing
change and stability in personality development. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 428–441.
Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A.
(1993). Heritability of interests: A twin study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 649–661.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the
structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative
hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 139–157.
McAdams, D. P. (2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and
author. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 272–295.
McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development:
Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 5.1–5.26.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental
principles for an integrative science of personality. American
Psychologist, 61, 204–217.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
McCourt, K., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegan, A., &
Keyes, M. (1999). Authoritarianism revisited: Genetic and
environmental influence examined in twins reared apart and
together. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 985–1014.
McCrae, R. R. (2009). The physics and chemistry of personality.
Theory & Psychology, 19, 670–687.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of
personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per
242 C. Kandler et al.
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.,
pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-
factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,
175–215.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,
Hrebrícková, M. , Avia, M. D., … & Smith, B. P. (2000).
Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span
development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 173–186.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality
Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of person-
ality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.
McCullough, M. E., Enders, C. K., Brion, S. L., & Jain, A. R.
(2005). The varieties of religious development in adulthood: A
longitudinal investigation of religion and rational choice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 78–89.
Mischel W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system
theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions,
dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 229–258.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Neiss, M. B., Sedikides, C., & Stevensen, J. (2002). Self-esteem: A
behavioral genetic perspective. European Journal of Personality,
16, 351–367.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and
facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.
Pedersen, N., Gatz, M., Plomin, R., Nesselroade, J. R., & McClaern,
G. E. (1989). Individual differences in locus of control during the
second half of the life span for identical and fraternal twins
reared apart and reared together. Journal of Gerontology, 44,
100–105.
Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Big-Five personality prospectively
predicts social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarian-
ism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 3–8.
Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002).
What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content
analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes
represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858.
Renner, W., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner,
A., Spinath, F. M., & Menschik-Bendele, J. (2012). Human
values: Genetic and environmental effects on five lexically
derived domains and their facets. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 89–93.
Riemann, R., & Kandler, C. (2010). Construct validation using
multitrait-multimethod-twin data: The case of a general factor
of personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 258–277.
Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and
environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared
together using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal
of Personality, 65, 449–475.
Roberts, B. W. & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consis-
tency of personality from childhood to old age: A quantitative
review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg,
L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity
of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability
for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives of
Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.
Roberts, B. W., O’Donnell, M., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Goal and
personality trait development in emerging adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 541–550.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of
personality traits in adulthood. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, &
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (3rd edn., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: Guilford.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Robins, R. W., Fraley, C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H.
(2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in adulthood.
Journal of Personality, 69, 617–640.
Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling,
S. D. (2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of
Research in Personality, 35, 463–482.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and application of social
learning theory: Selected papers. New York: Praeger.
Salmela-Aro, K., Read, S., Nurmi, J. E., Vuoksimaa, E., Siltala, M.,
Dick, D., … Rose, R. J. (2012). Personal goals and personality
traits among young adults: Genetic and environmental effects.
Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 248–257.
Sameroff, A. J., & Haith, H. M. (Eds.). (1996). The five to seven
year shift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic
traits: A five-factor model perspective. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 108–125.
Saucier, G. (2013). Isms dimensions: Toward a more comprehen-
sive and integrative model of belief-system components. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 921–939.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the struc-
ture and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues,
50, 19–45.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term
persistence of adults’ political predispositions. The Journal of
Politics, 61, 1–28.
Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in
childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and
consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
44, 2–32.
Shiner, R. L., & De Young, C. G. (2013). The structure of tempera-
ment and personality traits: A developmental perspective. In
P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology
(pp. 113–141). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A
meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2013). The dual process model of
ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global
recession. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 448–466.
Soto, C. J. (2014). Is happiness good for your personality? Concur-
rent and prospective relations of the Big Five with subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality, early view online version.
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12081
Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). 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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
862–882.
Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2013a). Everything under
control? The effects of age, gender, and education on trajectories
of perceived control in a nationally representative German
sample. Developmental Psychology, 49, 353–364.
Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2013b). Examining mech-
anisms of personality maturation: The impact of life satisfaction
on the development of the Big Five personality traits. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 181–189.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship
between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 138–161.
Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory
and research in personality and individual differences. European
Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408.
Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Person-
ality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 999–1009.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2003).
Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 205–220.
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you:
The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per

other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1202–1216.
Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation
not causation: The relationship between personality traits
and political ideologies. American Journal of Political Science,
56, 34–51.
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2013).
Cherish yourself: Longitudinal patterns and conditions of self-
esteem change in the transition to young adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 148–163.
Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a
personal(ity) thing: The genetic of personality and well-being in
a representative sample. Psychological Science, 19, 205–210.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
Core and surface personality characteristics 243
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of
theory of mind development: The truth about false belief. Child
Development, 72, 655–684.
Wilt, J., Oehlberg, K., & Revelle, W. (2011). Anxiety in personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 987–993.
Wink, P., Ciciolla, L., Dillon, M., & Tracy, A. (2007). Religious-
ness, spiritual seeking, and personality: Findings from a
longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 75, 1051–1070.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N.,
Yoshimura, K., … Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic structure
of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from
North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 987–998.
Eur. J. Pers. 28: 231–243 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/per