European Journal of Personality

While socioeconomic status (SES) and personality have both been identified as relevant predictors of academic achievement, little is known about their possible interplay in predicting school performance. The present study used the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method to investigate latent interactions between familial SES and parent-rated Big Five in a sample of German high school students (N = 3,043). Personality ratings administered in grade 7 were used to predict changes in school performance 2 years later under control for previous performance. Openness and Conscientiousness positively predicted German as well as mathematics grades over and above fluid intelligence, parental SES and competence measures. Openness and Conscientiousness also showed positive interactions with SES in line with the Matthew effect hypothesis. Their association with school performance was partly mediated by students’ competences. This evidence might be particularly relevant for planning school support programs and interventions targeting background disadvantages as well as teacher training.

Understanding why students from wealthier families tend to receive better grades can be helped by considering students’ personality. This study used parental reports on their offspring’s personality as well as a measure of the socioeconomic status of the family to investigate whether they are relevant independently and if they have joint relevance for the grades that students receive in high school. Openness and Conscientiousness had both independent effects and also boosted the positive influence of familial socioeconomic status. Part of the association of Openness and Conscientiousness and school grades was based on students’ competences. More open and conscientious students might be rewarded more strongly for their competences and this could contribute to the benefit students with privileged socioeconomic status have in the classroom. These insights might be relevant for training new teachers and for the planning of support programs that aim at helping children from less privileged families.

The Dark Triad of personality (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) has been associated with low levels of general and intellectual humility. In the present research, we explore the unique relationships between Dark Triad traits and the public facing mechanism of intellectual humility: wrongness admission. We analyzed data from three different studies that investigated self-reported hypotheticals and current behavior using both cross-sectional reports and longitudinal daily diary methodologies. We found distinctive patterns across the Dark Triad traits and admitting wrongness. Those higher in Narcissism were more willing to engage in wrongness admission, whereas those higher in psychopathy were both less willing to engage in wrongness admission and did so less. Those high in Machiavellianism seemed particularly concerned with the reputational concerns.

People don't like to admit when they are wrong, especially not in public. This type of behavior is part of what is known as intellectual humility. We were interested in whether willingness to admit being wrong was at all related to specific types of people, especially those with what we call “dark personalities” (such as psychopaths and narcissists). People with dark personalities are usually not humble, but there has not been any research on whether they admit being wrong. We collected data from three different studies to explore this further. In these studies, we asked people generally how willing they are to admit being wrong, we gave them hypothetical situations and asked whether they thought they would admit to being wrong, and we asked them to record their behaviors every day for two weeks to look at daily reports of being wrong and/or admitting to it. Across all of these studies, we found some interesting and unique patterns based on the dark personality trait. People who were higher on a measure of narcissism reported being more willing to admit they were wrong, but didn't actually admit to being wrong more than anyone else. People who were higher on a measure of psychopathy reported being less willing to admit being wrong, and did so less. People who were higher on a measure of Machiavellianism, the third major dark personality trait, were most concerned about what would happen to their public reputation if they admitted to being wrong.

Big-5 personality traits are robustly associated with sleep. Most theorizing points to day-level bidirectional processes; however, few studies have examined associations between personality traits and sleep at the day-level. To do so, we combined ecological momentary data from four samples (total sample size: 1,212 participants with 9,536 days of assessments) to conduct dynamic structural equation models examining bidirectional associations between personality states and sleep characteristics. Results supported bidirectional associations between personality states and sleep, though sleep influencing daily personality expression may be the more dominant force than personality states influencing nightly sleep. State neuroticism and conscientiousness were most closely connected to sleep, while the sleep characteristics of subjective sleep quality and daytime tiredness predicted all daytime personality states. Altogether, these findings elucidate day-level associations between sleep and personality traits that have been theorized as key processes that underpin trait-level associations.

Personality traits have been routinely linked to sleep patterns. However, few studies have examined how day-to-day expressions of personality are related to nightly sleep. We combined data from four samples (total sample size: 1,212 participants with 9,536 days of assessments) to analyze how daily personality states and nightly sleep characteristics may reciprocally influence each other. Results supported reciprocal associations between personality states and sleep, though sleep influencing daily personality expression may be the more dominant force than personality states influencing nightly sleep. Neuroticism and conscientiousness were the personality states most closely connected to sleep, while the sleep characteristics of subjective sleep quality and daytime tiredness predicted all daytime personality states.

Previous research has found that most people want to change their big five personality traits. Moreover, these change goals predict actual growth in corresponding traits. However, one major concern that often arises in intensive longitudinal research is keeping measures as short as possible, to minimize survey length—and consequently reduce participant reactivity and fatigue. This paper describes the results of a 16-wave, intensive/weekly longitudinal study (N = 662) in which participants self-reported their traits and change goals using [1] the 60-item (C-)BFI2, [2] the 30-item (C-)BFI2S, [3] the 15-item (C-)BFI2XS, and [4] the 10-item (C-)TIPI. Results indicated that shorter measures of traits and change goals predicted cross-sectional, concurrent outcomes with relatively equal validity, as compared to longer measures. In contrast, longer measures of both traits and change goals were superior to shorter ones when examining longitudinal/predictive effects (e.g., test–retest reliability, growth models, or within-person correlations). Thus, this research elucidates that measure selection should depend on the goals and design of particular studies (e.g., cross-sectional research can likely use short measures without consequence, whereas longitudinal studies likely need longer measures to reliably detect effects).

This study used a relatively large sample (for psychological studies) and found that asking more questions (e.g., 6–12 questions per trait) about people's personalities (as opposed to fewer questions, e.g., 2–4 questions per trait) allowed researchers to identify complex time-based relationships between the variables. Thus, studies that ask only 2–4 questions about personality traits may not be able to detect complex, time-ordered phenomena. In contrast, studies that include 6–12 questions per trait may be able to illuminate more complex dynamics in traits.

Neuroticism is consistently linked to lower well-being, particularly through heightened negative affect. Yet the specific affective processes underlying this association remain unclear. Affective reactivity has been proposed as one candidate mechanism, but laboratory evidence using affect induction procedures has been mixed. We suggest this inconsistency may stem from the design of these procedures, which often minimize individual differences to maximize experimental effects. Such an approach may inadvertently obscure the role of neuroticism in shaping affective responses. Building on situational strength theory, we examined whether neuroticism relates to affective reactivity differently in strong versus weak situations. Strong situations, characterized by clear demands and expectations, tend to constrain affective responses and reduce variability across individuals. Weak situations, by contrast, provide less structure, leaving room for subjective interpretation and amplifying personality-linked differences. We tested this idea across six laboratory experiments (N = 1552). Results showed that neuroticism was unrelated to affective reactivity in strong situations but strongly associated with reactivity in weak situations. These findings highlight negative event appraisals as a central mechanism linking neuroticism to affective responses. More broadly, they underscore the importance of considering situational strength when studying affective reactivity—an area that may require approaches beyond standard affect induction procedures.

People differ in how strongly they react to stressful or negative events. One important trait is neuroticism, which describes how prone someone is to worrying, feeling tense, or experiencing negative emotions. Many lab studies have tried to test whether people higher in neuroticism react more strongly to negative events, but the results have been mixed. In this project, we asked whether the type of situation matters. Most lab studies use very “strong” situations, for example, upsetting images or texts that almost everyone finds clearly negative. These situations push people to respond in the same way, which can leave little room for personality differences to show up. We reasoned that neuroticism might matter more in “weak” situations, that is, in more ambiguous situations where it is not obvious how bad or threatening something is, and people must interpret the situation for themselves. Across five lab studies, we compared people’s emotional reactions to strong versus weak situations. Strong situations included typical affect induction procedures using negative pictures or texts. Weak situations included more ambiguous scenarios, such as being told there might be a problem with one’s questionnaire. We found that neuroticism barely predicted emotional reactions in strong situations but reliably predicted stronger negative reactions in weak, ambiguous situations. In a sixth study using everyday vignettes, people higher in neuroticism also tended to view situations more negatively. Together, these findings suggest that emotional reactivity related to neuroticism shows up most clearly when situations are unclear or open to interpretation, rather than in obviously negative, highly scripted lab tasks. Future research and interventions may therefore need to focus more on how people high in neuroticism interpret and respond to everyday, ambiguous situations.

Finding a job that fits is widely recognized as important for personal fulfillment and professional success. Despite the long history of person-environment fit research, surprisingly little is known about person-job fit in terms of basic personality traits. This study examined three basic tenets of fit theory regarding personality-job fit: Fit (1) is pleasurable, (2) regulated by individuals, and (3) changes over time. We hypothesized that personality-job fit would be associated with higher subjective well-being (RQ1), predict less occupational change (RQ2), and vary across the professional lifespan (RQ3). Fit was conceptualized as “broad congruence” between individuals’ Big Five trait levels and expert-rated trait demands of their occupations. We used nationally representative data from German jobholders (N = 18,712–30,883). Multilevel polynomial regression and response surface analysis showed no significant congruence effects but some interactions: More extraverted and open individuals felt better and were less likely to leave their jobs when these traits were strongly demanded by their work, though these outcomes were not optimized at exact personality-job fit. Additionally, personality-job fit improved over time, showing a linear increase across the lifespan. These findings emphasize studying fit theories in detail and considering individuals’ personalities, such as being communicative or original, in career choice.

Is it important to have a job that matches your personality? Our personality shapes how we think, feel, and behave in many parts of life, including work. The Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) describe these patterns. Finding a job that suits your personality is often thought to be important for being happy and making good career choices. For example, being outgoing may help a salesperson succeed but may be less useful for an archivist. In this study, we asked whether people whose personality match the demands of their job (personality-job fit) feel happier and stay in their jobs longer. We looked at data from more than 30,000 working adults in Germany and compared their personalities to what their jobs typically require. Our study improves on earlier research by using a large sample, many different occupations, and advanced analysis methods. Our results suggest that people who were more extraverted and open to experiences felt better and stayed longer in their jobs when their jobs also called for these traits. However, those whose personality perfectly aligned with their job were not necessarily the happiest or most likely to stay. We also found that the fit between a person’s personality and their job improved as they aged and advanced in their career. This suggests that fit is not fixed – people can adapt their personalities or choose roles that better suit them over time. Our research shows that a perfect match between personality and job is not necessarily the most beneficial. Still, based on our findings, considering personality traits - particularly extraversion and openness - when choosing a career or hiring people is important. Future research could look at how people shape their day-to-day work to fit who they are, for example, by choosing projects that let them be creative or arranging their schedule to match their energy levels.

Regulatory fit, which describes how people experience a sense of “rightness” when their motivational orientation matches their goal-pursuit strategies, has been studied in various domains of psychology. Recently, Achar and Lee (2022) found that regulatory fit might also play an important role in the moral domain. In particular, they report that regulatory fit intensifies people’s moral predisposition toward a range of behaviors and judgments across moral domains. We conducted three well-powered and preregistered close and conceptual replications (overall N = 3150) in which we aimed to replicate and extend this line of research using honesty as a prominent example of moral behavior. In neither of our studies we found support for the proposed interaction between moral predispositions (as assessed via Moral Disengagement and Honesty-Humility) and the experience of regulatory fit on dishonest behaviors and intentions. The findings could reflect either limited robustness of the regulatory fit effect or of the regulatory fit manipulation.

Regulatory fit theory suggests that when people feel a good match between their goals and how they go about achieving them, they’ll have a sense of doing things the right way. This idea has been explored in various psychological studies. Recently, researchers Achar and Lee looked into whether feeling this kind of match can affect how moral or immoral a person acts. They thought that if someone generally behaves morally and feels this “fit,” they might act even more morally. On the other hand, if someone tends to act immorally, this fit could make them act even worse. After conducting several studies, they found evidence supporting their idea. However, when we tried to check their findings with our own three large-scale studies, we didn’t find the same results. In our research, whether or not people felt this “fit” didn’t change their moral behavior. People who were inclined to act morally did so regardless of feeling a match between their goals and actions, and the same was true for those inclined to act immorally.

Do people’s work experiences (i.e., work conditions and outcomes) influence their self-esteem, and does people’s self-esteem influence their work experiences? In this preregistered research, data used by Kuster et al. (2013) were reanalyzed using new types of statistical models. Whereas the previous study used the traditional cross-lagged panel model, we used the random intercept cross-lagged panel model and the dynamic panel model, which allow for better control of unmeasured time-invariant confounders, enhancing the validity of causal conclusions. Data came from two longitudinal studies with five assessments over eight months (N = 663) and three assessments over two years (N = 600). Thirteen of the 36 cross-lagged paths tested were significant, and all significant effects were in the expected direction: Self-esteem predicted increases in positive outcomes (i.e., coworker justice) and decreases in negative outcomes (e.g., effort-reward imbalance). Positive work variables (e.g., job satisfaction) predicted increases in self-esteem, and negative work variables (e.g., time pressure) predicted decreases in self-esteem. The pattern of findings aligns with theoretical perspectives suggesting reciprocal effects between self-esteem and work experiences. Moderator analyses indicated that effects held across gender. The findings advance the understanding of dynamic self-esteem–work relations and inform interventions that could benefit employees and organizations.

This research tested whether self-esteem—how we value ourselves as a person—affects work experiences, and whether work experiences influence self-esteem. We reanalyzed data from two longitudinal studies, using statistical methods that provide better insights into cause-and-effect relations. Participants in one study were followed five times over eight months, and participants in the other were followed three times over two years. We examined how self-esteem is related to positive work experiences (e.g., feeling supported by colleagues) and negative work experiences (e.g., time pressure or unfair treatment). The findings showed that higher self-esteem led to positive work outcomes, such as improved coworker relationships, and reduced negative outcomes, like feeling underappreciated. Similarly, positive work experiences boosted self-esteem, while negative work experiences lowered it. Although only about one-third of these effects were statistically significant, the overall pattern supports the idea that self-esteem and work experiences influence each other over time. These insights could be used to design interventions that enhance the well-being of employees and the functioning of organizations.

Why some people engage in criminal and other forms of deviant behavior, whereas others do not, has long been a question of interest in the social and behavioral sciences. In this study, we examine the role of personality differences in accounting for different forms of deviance. Using data from a large and demographically diverse German sample (N = 2,364), we investigated associations between 74 personality traits and five self-reported indicators of deviant behavior. We analyzed these relations at both the zero-order and multivariate level using regularized regression models to identify which personality traits predict deviant behavior most strongly and uniquely so, that is, above and beyond other traits. Personality explained a substantial proportion of variance in all forms of deviance considered, and these associations were not attributable to methodological artifacts or confounding influences of age or gender. Supporting our pre-registered hypothesis, traits related to dispositional morality or short-term mindsets were particularly powerful predictors. Taken together, our findings provide the most comprehensive overview to date of personality-deviance associations, offer a parsimonious account of individual differences in self-reported deviance, derive concrete guidelines for trait selection in future research, and introduce a ShinyApp that can guide theorizing and study design.

Why do some people engage in crime and other forms of deviant behavior, whereas others do not? One possible explanation is differences in personality. In this study, we examined how 74 different personality traits relate to different forms of self-reported deviant behaviors, including crime, rule-breaking at work, vandalism, and violence. We analyzed data from over 2,300 adults in Germany who took part in a large research study. Using advanced statistical techniques, we identified which traits were most strongly and uniquely linked to deviant behaviors, even after accounting for other traits, age, and gender. Our results showed that personality plays a significant role: People who scored low on traits related to morality—such as honesty and concern for others—and those who tend to focus on short-term rewards rather than long-term consequences of their actions were more likely to engage in criminal or harmful acts. This study provides one of the most detailed examinations to date of how personality relates to deviance. We also offer guidance for researchers on which traits to focus on in future work and share a free online tool to support study design and theory development.

Although situations themselves are objective in nature, each individual could experience same situation differently. Within the current manuscript, in an ecological momentary study during which N = 502 participants provided responses seven times per day for seven consecutive days (k = 19 108 observations), we investigate the mutual relationship between momentary narcissism and situation perception in naturalistic setting. Results of the tested dynamic structural equation models revealed a considerable amount of bi-directional interplay in which momentary increases in narcissism were related to subsequent increases in how participants perceived situations. Furthermore, using the dynamic latent class analysis we explored how these situations are perceived during specific narcissism modes. We distinguished four types of narcissism modes: (1) non-narcissistic, (2) agentic, (3) neurotic, (4) antagonistic, and demonstrate how they differ in terms of situation perception. All narcissism modes were characterized of seeing situation as more deceptive when compared to non-narcissistic mode. We also found specific patterns of perceiving situations for each mode. These results, on the one hand support claims on the default nature of agentic, and on the other, neurotic narcissism and highlight the reactive nature of antagonistic narcissism.

People do not always feel equally confident, insecure, or defensive. These moment-to-moment shifts are especially important for understanding narcissism, which is usually seen as a stable personality trait but actually changes across situations in everyday life. In our study, over 500 people reported how they felt and how they saw their current situation seven times a day for a week. This allowed us to track narcissistic feelings in real time. We found that narcissism takes three momentary “modes”: Agentic, feeling confident, powerful, and positive; neurotic mode, feeling ignored, insecure, and negative, and antagonistic mode, feeling aggressive, defensive, and distrustful. Most of the time, people were in a non-narcissistic state. But when narcissistic modes appeared, they were closely tied to how people interpreted their situations. For example, in agentic mode, people saw situations as more positive while in neurotic mode as more negative. The antagonistic mode stood out: people in this state consistently viewed situations as more deceptive and hostile. Overall, our study shows that narcissism is not just a trait people “have” but a dynamic process shaped by how they interpret what is happening around them. Understanding these fluctuations may help explain why people with narcissistic tendencies sometimes react confidently, sometimes defensively, and sometimes aggressively.

Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness are the most notable personality predictors of subjective well-being (SWB) in phenotypic and behavior genetic studies. We aim to quasi-replicate and extend previous findings. Using data from the German twin family panel TwinLife, we analyzed Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction of 3,080 twin pairs from three birth cohorts (born 2003/04, 1997/98, and 1990–93). Prior research has repeatedly provided evidence that genetic variance in personality traits largely explained genetic variance in SWB. Our results replicated this pattern with no significant unique genetic variance in life satisfaction. However, we found significant age cohort differences (e.g., only in ages 17–23 did genetic variance in openness partly explain genetic variance in life satisfaction). Furthermore, we tested personality–SWB associations using polygenic scores (PGSs) for Big Five personality traits and SWB. PGSs were calculated for N = 5 , 355 genotyped twin family members from the TwinSNPs study (age range 8–77). PGSs showed genetic association patterns similar to the twin study results, with neuroticism as the most robust predictor (up to β = − . 360 ) and openness showing near-null associations. Despite low overall explanatory power, phenotype prediction mirrored this as well (e.g., neuroticism PGSs predicted life satisfaction with up to β = − . 100 ).

Genetic factors responsible for personality are likewise associated with subjective well-being. This is an extension of previous twin studies and molecular genetic studies to better understand if known association patterns replicate based on longitudinal data and across different age cohorts. Why was the study done? Personality, when measured in terms of the Big Five typology, has been associated with subjective well-being in previous studies. Neuroticism (or emotional stability), extraversion, and conscientiousness seem to show the strongest links to subjective well-being. Genetically informative studies repeatedly provided evidence that these links are based on genetic factors. Our aim was to see if these findings replicate based on a new and younger data set, to extend previous findings by using longitudinal information collected across six years, and to compare results across different birth cohorts. What did the researchers do? We analyzed Big Five personality traits and life satisfaction of 3,080 twin pairs from three birth cohorts (born 2003/04, 1997/98, and 1990–93) based on the German twin family panel TwinLife. Furthermore, we tested the associations between personality and subjective well-being using polygenic scores (PGSs). These were available for 5,355 twin family members from the TwinSNPs study (age range 8–77). What did the researchers find? Genetic factors underlying personality traits fully explained genetic differences in subjective well-being. There were some meaningful age cohort differences (e.g., only in ages 17–23 did genetic differences in openness partly explain genetic differences in life satisfaction). PGSs showed similar results, with neuroticism as the most robust predictor for subjective well-being, and openness being mostly unassociated. The links between personality traits and self-reports of life satisfaction also varied across the lifespan. What do the findings mean? Subjective well-being is strongly associated with personality. This holds when considering longitudinal, trait-level data. The associations are mostly based on genetic factors, and they can have different meanings across developmental phases and contexts over the lifespan. Molecular genetic results mirror overall patterns based on twin analyses.

Personality stability and change are not only attributable to net contributions of genetic and environmental factors but also to their interplay. Environmental factors can accelerate or decelerate age-related changes in the expressions of genetic factors (i.e., epigenetic aging), which might influence personality change. Conversely, personality differences could drive experiential differences that accelerate or decelerate epigenetic aging. This study explored the associations between epigenetic aging and Big Five personality traits considering (sources of) stable and change differences. We analyzed saliva-based DNA methylation data on chronological and biological clocks and self-reported personality data from 1,088 early adolescent to young adult twins from two timepoints 2.3 years apart. (Biometric) latent change analyses revealed significant mean-level acceleration in epigenetic aging over time and decreases in personality traits except neuroticism, with variance in intraindividual changes mainly driven by environment. Acceleration in epigenetic aging based on chronological clocks was associated with higher baseline agreeableness and conscientiousness and decreases in conscientiousness. Epigenetic aging based on biological clocks and conscientiousness were negatively related at baseline. The links involving stable personality differences were rather genetic and the change correlation primarily environmental. Findings are discussed considering epigenetic aging and personality differences in a system of interacting genetic and environmental factors.

Rationale. Differences in the extent to which individual personality trait levels remain the same or change over time result from genetic and environmental factors and their interplay. Environmental factors can induce changes in the expression of genes, known as epigenetic changes. As epigenetic changes might be related with age (i.e., epigenetic aging), they could also influence personality change over time. Conversely, personality differences could influence individual experiences that accelerate or decelerate epigenetic aging.

Design and Sample. Based on data from the German twin family panel TwinLife and the TwinLife Epigenetic Change Satellite (TECS) project, we explored patterns, sources, and links of epigenetic aging and Big Five personality trait differences. Information on epigenetic aging was derived from saliva-based DNA methylation and on personality traits from self-reports. Data from two timepoints around 2.3 years apart from 1,088 early adolescent to young adult twins were considered.

Analyses and Results. Longitudinal statistical model analyses revealed significant mean-level acceleration in epigenetic aging and decreases in all personality traits except neuroticism. Differences between individuals in their intraindividual change were mainly driven by environment. Acceleration in epigenetic aging over time was associated with higher baseline agreeableness and conscientiousness and with decreases in conscientiousness over time. At baseline, more accelerated epigenetic aging was related with lower conscientiousness. Links involving stable personality differences were primarily genetic. The link between changes in epigenetic aging and conscientiousness was almost completely environmental.

Discussion. Conscientiousness turned out to be the most robust personality correlate of epigenetic aging. We discuss the findings within a framework of gene-environment interplay underlying stable differences and change of epigenetic aging and personality traits.

Previous longitudinal studies on changes in narcissism mostly investigated change over long periods of time in samples consisting of young adults at the first wave. Thus, little is known about how narcissism changes in the short term and in adults of all ages. This study addresses these questions by tracking changes in narcissism over multiple assessments covering a period of approximately 2 years in a sample of adults aged 18 to 80 at the first wave (N = 3,599). Furthermore, we investigated whether narcissism predicted life events and life experiences from different domains and how changes in narcissism were related to these events and experiences. On average, participants decreased slightly on overall narcissism and three narcissism facets over 2 years. Narcissism predicted several life events and experiences, especially from the work (e.g., receiving a promotion) and relationship domains (e.g., breaking up with one’s partner). Several events were related to changes in narcissism; such as starting to date someone new and breaking up with one’s partner. Future confirmatory research testing these associations in a large sample with more frequent measurements is needed.

People high on narcissism tend to have an inflated sense of self-importance and believe they are superior to others. In addition, they often show a need for attention and admiration, and a lack of empathy. Previous studies looking at how narcissism changes mainly focused on long periods and changes in young adults. As a result, we know less about short-term changes in narcissism or how it changes in adults of different ages. This study examined these issues by tracking changes in narcissism over about 2 years in a sample of 3,599 adults aged 18 to 80. We also looked at whether narcissism predicted life events and experiences and how changes in narcissism were connected to these events and experiences. On average, participants showed a slight decrease in overall narcissism and its three facets over 2 years. Narcissism was linked to several life events and experiences, particularly in the domains of work (like getting a promotion) and relationships (such as breaking up with a partner). Some events were connected to changes in narcissism. For instance, starting a new relationship and breaking up with a partner were both linked to a smaller decrease in the leadership aspect of narcissism. Future studies should investigate these research questions with more frequent measurements of narcissism.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to improve the understanding of life satisfaction and domain satisfaction, by synthesizing the available longitudinal data. First, we meta-analyzed the stability of individual differences in these constructs, using multilevel mixed-effects models. Second, we meta-analyzed their concurrent associations, using multilevel random-effects models. Third, we tested for their prospective effects, using two types of models with different modeling assumptions (cross-lagged panel models, dynamic panel models). We included seven domain satisfactions (e.g., romantic relationships, health). Data came from 98 samples, including 252,647 participants. The results indicated high rank-order stability of life satisfaction and domain satisfaction and moderate to strong concurrent correlations between these constructs. Hence, the results support the notion that life satisfaction and domain satisfaction can be understood as trait-like characteristics and are substantially associated with each other. As regards their prospective effects, however, the two models suggested a different pattern of findings. More precisely, the findings indicated that controlling for stable-between differences in the dynamic panel models altered the overall pattern of prospective effects. This suggests that explanations other than reciprocal effects should be considered and examined in future research (e.g., genetics, dispositions) and highlights the crucial role of modeling decisions when analyzing cross-lagged effects.

To assess the quality of their life, people usually rate their satisfaction with their life overall (life satisfaction hereafter) and their satisfaction with specific life domains, such as their job and romantic relationships (domain satisfaction hereafter). Life satisfaction and domain satisfaction are related to each other. However, the research findings so far cannot provide clear information about the direction of these effects. This means we cannot say for sure whether life satisfaction affects domain satisfaction (i.e., top-down theory), whether domain satisfaction affects life satisfaction (i.e., bottom-up theory), or whether both directions apply. Therefore, the aim of this conclusive analysis was to improve the understanding of life satisfaction and domain satisfaction. To do so, we searched for all available data measuring life satisfaction and domain satisfaction (namely satisfaction with romantic relationships, health, job, finances, social life, family, and leisure) more than once. We found 98 samples with 252,647 participants and computed three types of analyses. First, we analyzed how stable life satisfaction and domain satisfaction are over time. Second, we examined the relations between life satisfaction and domain satisfaction at a given point in time. Third, we tested whether life satisfaction and domain satisfaction predicted changes in each other over time. In this last approach, we used two types of statistical models (called cross-lagged panel models and dynamic panel models). The results showed that life satisfaction and domain satisfaction are relatively stable constructs that are substantially associated with each other at a given point in time. However, as regards their effects over time, the two models suggested a different pattern of findings. This highlights the important role of modeling decisions when analyzing cross-lagged effects.

A Dual-Path Model of Aggression, grounded in the Social Information Processing Model, was developed to address the issue of cognitive mechanisms underlying within-person changes in adolescent aggression. To test the model, we examined longitudinal relationships between positive outcome expectancies for aggression, moral disengagement, and aggression in 712 middle-school students, assessed four times over a 1.5-year period. A Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) analysis indicated a bidirectional relationship between within-person changes in positive outcome expectancies and aggression across Time 1-Time 2 and Time 2-Time 3, while moral disengagement at Time 3 mediated the effect of positive outcome expectancies at Time 2 on aggression at Time 4. These results partly support the Dual-Path Model of Aggression and suggest that there is a bidirectional relationship between the database factors (which are proposed in the Social Information Processing Model and refer to the latent mental structures encompassing memory store and social schema) and aggression, and an indirect path from database factors (e.g., positive outcome expectancies) to aggression via cognitive variables of the social information processing step (e.g., moral disengagement) at the within-person level. These within-person effects contribute to the targeted interventions for aggressive cognitions and behaviors.

Grounded in the Social Information Processing theory, a Dual-Path Model of Aggression was developed, which posits both a bidirectional relationship between positive outcome expectancies and aggression, and an indirect pathway where positive outcome expectancies affect aggression through moral disengagement. To examine the model, we explored longitudinal relationships between positive outcome expectancies for aggression, moral disengagement, and aggression in 712 middle-school students, assessed four times over a 1.5-year period. An Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) analysis indicated a bidirectional relationship between within-person changes in positive outcome expectancies and aggression across Time 1-Time 2 and Time 2-Time 3, while moral disengagement at Time 3 mediated the effect of positive outcome expectancies at Time 2 on aggression at Time 4. These results partly support the Dual-Path Model of Aggression. Moreover, the within-person findings indicate that interventions targeting positive outcome expectancies are an effective means of reducing aggressive behavior.

Positive world beliefs (e.g., believing in a safe world) are associated with higher well-being and more social connections. While these associations have often been interpreted as causal, little is known about their origins. Here, we utilized a large (N ∼ 9000) Swedish twin sample to investigate the role of familial confounding (genetic influences and family environmental effects influencing both primals and social well-being) and test whether associations are in line with a causal effect. Indeed, positive world beliefs were associated with higher well-being, reduced loneliness, and less social isolation. When adjusting for familial confounding, associations were substantially attenuated, but remained significant—consistent with a causal association. Bivariate twin models strengthened this finding, indicating that genetic effects explain approximately half of the covariation. When also accounting for personality differences in addition to familial confounding, a small—yet significant—association remained. These findings highlight that familial influences and personality differences explain a substantial part of the observed associations between primals and social well-being, while also lending support for a small potentially causal effect—though the directionality of this effect remains unknown. We discuss the implications of these findings for primals research and positive psychology.

People who believe in a more positive world report higher well-being and more social connections. These relationships are often interpreted as causal, suggesting that more positive world beliefs lead to feeling better and having more close friends. Yet, our upbringing and our genetic predispositions could also play a role in these relationships—factors, which may influence both, how positive we see the world and how we report our social well-being. Here, we analyzed around 9000 Swedish twins to understand the nature of such relationships. Utilizing twins, we can test whether associations are due to pre-existing differences such as genetic effects or family environment, or whether they are rather in line with causality. We found people who have more positive world beliefs report higher well-being, less loneliness, and less social isolation. Once we controlled for genetic and family environmental effects, the strengths of these relationships diminished, with around half of the relationships being due to genetics. However, we found that twins with more positive world beliefs were still more socially connected and reported higher well-being compared to their identical co-twins, in line with a small causal effect. When we also considered existing personality differences, associations became even smaller, but remained significant. Together these findings suggest that genetic predispositions and personality traits, can explain a substantial part of the relationship between primals and social well-being, meaning that the same factors may largely influences both, how positive we experience the world and our social well-being. Simultaneously, the significant remaining associations after accounting for genetic and personality influences, suggest a potential causal effect between these two, though much smaller than previously reported. Notably, the present data do not allow any conclusions about the direction of causality, that is, whether our world beliefs impact our social well-being, or the other way around.

Research into behavioral individuality among youth has traditionally approached temperament and personality as distinct constructs, with limited attention to their empirical convergence. This study examines the combined structure of temperament and personality traits and their associations with internalizing and externalizing behaviors in middle (4–7 years) and late childhood (8–15 years). Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA), we analyzed parents’ ratings of 1065 children on temperament (Buss & Plomin; Rothbart) and personality (Five-Factor Model). Across both age groups and analytical methods, five to six core dimensions consistently emerged: Negative Emotionality, Disagreeableness, Imaginative Conscientiousness, Sensitivity, and Activity and Shyness. Notably, Activity and Shyness were distinct in middle childhood but converged into a single Active Sociability dimension in late childhood, reflecting developmental restructuring. Internalizing behaviors were most strongly and consistently predicted by higher scores of Negative Emotionality and higher scores of Shyness/lower scores of Active Sociability. Externalizing behaviors were primarily associated with higher scores of Disagreeableness and Negative Emotionality, and lower scores of Imaginative Conscientiousness. These findings highlight both the continuity and age-related reorganization in the structure of temperament and personality, supporting their conceptual overlap and relevance for understanding behavioral adjustment across childhood.

Temperament and personality are often seen as separate ways to describe children’s individual trait differences. However, research suggests they may have more in common than previously thought. This study explored how these traits are organized in children aged 4 to 15 years, and how they relate to emotional and behavioral difficulties. Parents of 1065 children completed multiple questionnaires about their child’s temperament and personality. Two types of statistical analyses were used to find underlying patterns in these traits. Across both age groups (4–7 and 8–15 years) and methods, five core traits consistently emerged: Negative Emotionality (how strongly children react emotionally), Disagreeableness (difficulty cooperating or following rules), Imaginative Conscientiousness (a mix of creativity and self-discipline), and Sensitivity (reactivity to sensory input). In younger children, Activity (energy levels) and Shyness (feeling nervous or holding back in social situations) sometimes appeared as separate traits. However, in older children, these emerged into a single trait that we labeled Active Sociability. These findings support existing theories on trait development in childhood. The study also showed that children who were more emotional and shy were more likely to experience internalizing behaviors, such as fear or depression, while traits like high disagreeableness, low conscientiousness, and experiencing strong emotions were linked to externalizing behaviors, such as aggression or rule breaking. Overall, temperament and personality traits appear to be closely connected, and play an important role in children’s emotional well-being.

The first experience of sexual intercourse can shape relationships, self-concept, and social status, making it a potentially important milestone for personality development. Yet, little is known about how personality traits relate to the timing of first intercourse or whether this experience is associated with subsequent personality changes. Using data from more than 5000 German adolescents (aged 14–19 years at baseline) followed for up to 10 years, we examined reciprocal associations between first intercourse and the Big Five personality traits. Extraverted youth were more than 80% more likely to have experienced intercourse at baseline and started about 7.5 months earlier than average, whereas agreeable and open youth experienced their first intercourse somewhat later. We also found some evidence for mean-level decreases in extraversion in the years following first intercourse, and distinct change patterns in openness depending on youth’s gender. The present findings highlight the predictive power of personality traits—and especially extraversion—for first intercourse and how this milestone can shape personality development. We discuss the results with regard to personality development and relationship theories, integrating sexual milestones into the study of life transitions and identity formation, while highlighting the dynamic interplay between individual traits and environmental influences.

First sex is a big step for many people, but we do not know much about how it connects to personality. We asked two questions: Do personality traits predict when someone has sex for the first time? And does first sex relate to later changes in personality? We used data from over 5000 German adolescents and emerging adults who were 14–19 years old at the start of the study and were followed for up to 10 years. We examined how the Big Five traits relate to when participants first reported having sex. Youth who were more extraverted were more than 80% more likely to have already had sex at the start of the study, and they had first sex about 7.5 months earlier than average. In contrast, individuals who were more agreeable or more open tended to have first sex a bit later. We also found small signs of change in the years after first sex. Extraversion tended to decrease slightly over time, and openness showed different patterns for girls and boys. Overall, the results indicate a two-way link: Personality (especially extraversion) predicts the timing of first sex, and first sex is accompanied by small changes in personality. Our findings suggest that first sex can both reflect who people are and go along with small changes in who they become over time.

Confinement is a major life event with far-reaching consequences for an individual, which may also influence personality change, but data on this topic are fragmented across disciplines. Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence on personality change in confined individuals. A systematic literature search covering publications up to March 2024 was conducted using EBSCOhost, PubMed, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed original articles examining personality changes associated with any form of confinement were included. They examined a wide range of personality traits, which we categorized within the Big Five. Thirteen observational studies focused on personality change during confinement irrespective of specific interventions. They most consistently reported increases in emotional stability and conscientiousness, while findings for agreeableness, extraversion, and openness were mixed or limited. Twenty-seven intervention studies examined change in the context of interventions in confinement. They mostly found increases in emotional stability and agreeableness, whereas openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness yielded mixed results or were rarely targeted, especially in forensic settings. Our findings suggest that confinement, especially when combined with targeted interventions, may potentially promote personality changes. However, highly heterogeneous designs, methods, and trait definitions, together with other limitations, reduced the interpretability and generalizability of the findings.

Why was this study done? Being in confinement, such as in prison or forensic psychiatry, is a life-changing experience. It may lead to changes in personality traits but the evidence on this is scarce and scattered across different fields. This study aimed to gather and summarize all the available research on personality changes observed in individuals during confinement.

What did the researchers do? The researchers looked at studies published between 1979 and 2024 using a standardized search term in scientific databases. They included studies that tracked personality changes in confined individuals over time to see if their personalities changed while they were confined.

What did the researchers find? They identified 40 studies that met the criteria for inclusion in their review. Of these, 13 focused on personality changes observed during confinement without targeted interventions. These studies most often found increases in traits related to emotional stability and conscientiousness from the beginning to the end of confinement, whereas results for agreeableness, extraversion, and openness were mixed or rare. The other 27 studies explored personality changes associated with specific interventions in confinement settings. The most common intervention-related changes were improvements in emotional stability and agreeableness. Openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness showed inconsistent results and were less often targeted, especially in forensic settings. The studies used very different methods, definitions, and participant groups, which made it hard to draw clear conclusions.

What do the findings mean? The findings indicate that certain patterns of personality changes are observed during confinement, especially when specific interventions (e.g., therapy programs) are involved. However, because of differences in how the studies were done and possible biases, more research is needed to better understand these patterns and what might contribute to them.

Perhaps surprisingly, personality science has not yet adequately addressed a very basic aspect of individuality: The extent to which an individual differs from others, a phenomenon we refer to as unusualness. In this work, we provide a framework for defining, measuring, and uncovering the elements of unusualness. First, we define unusualness as the extent to which an individual’s personality deviates from that of others in the population, either through rare expression of individual variables (unusual values) or through atypical co-occurrence of multiple variables (unusual combinations), and distinguish it from related concepts in personality research. Second, we introduce and compare various methods to measure unusualness in a simulation study and demonstrate how reliability and validity of unusualness measures can be established. Third, we propose methods to uncover the elements of unusualness (i.e., unusual values, unusual combinations) and validate these methods through simulation. Fourth, we illustrate our framework using three empirical datasets (combined N = 1,834) and multiple assessment methods, showing that unusualness can be reliably measured and offering first insights into its generalizability, nomological network, incremental validity, and possible explanatory factors. Finally, we outline conceptual, methodological, and empirical directions for future research on unusualness.

Who Stands Out? A New Framework to Define, Measure, and Understand Why Some People Deviate Significantly From Others in Their Personality—A Phenomenon We Refer to as Unusualness: Why was this study done? We all know people who stand out because of some unique characteristic of their personality or an unexpected combination of characteristics, but personality science hasn’t clearly defined or measured what makes someone “unusual.” This study introduces a new approach to understanding how and why people differ from others. We call this “unusualness” and explore both the individual variables that are rare and the unusual ways in which variables can appear together. This gives researchers a more complete picture of individuality. What did we do? We first defined unusualness and explained how it differs from other concepts in personality psychology. Then, we used simulations to test various ways to measure unusualness and evaluated how reliable and valid those measures are. We also developed tools to identify what exactly makes a person unusual—whether it’s rare scores on certain personality traits or unusual combinations of traits. Finally, we applied these methods to real-world data from over 1,500 people to demonstrate how they work in practice. What did we find? We identified a set of methods that are well-suited for measuring the overall degree of unusualness, and a different set of methods designed to uncover what specifically makes a person unusual. Our analysis of real data showed that unusualness can be measured reliably and with low uncertainty. We also found that unusualness shows some generalizability across assessment methods and may offer incremental value beyond existing personality measures. What does this mean for psychological research? This work opens up new ways to study individuality in psychology. By providing clear definitions and tools to measure unusualness, we give researchers a new way to explore how people differ, not just how much, but also in what ways. This could lead to new insights into personality, mental health, and social behavior.