How much do people's personalities change or remain stable from high school to retirement? To address these questions, we used a large U.S. sample ( = 1,795) that assessed people's personality traits in adolescence and 50 years later. We also used 2 independent samples, 1 cross-sectional and 1 short-term longitudinal ( = 3,934 and = 38, respectively), to validate the personality scales and estimate measurement error. This was the first study to test personality stability/change over a 50-year time span in which the same data source was tapped (i.e., self-report). This allowed us to use 4 different methods (rank-order stability, mean-level change, individual-level change, and profile stability) answering different developmental questions. We also systematically tested gender differences. We found that the average rank-order stability was .31 (corrected for measurement error) and .23 (uncorrected). The average mean-level change was half of a standard deviation across personality traits, and the pattern of change showed maturation. Individual-level change also supported maturation, with 20% to 60% of the people showing reliable change within each trait. We tested 3 aspects of personality profile stability, and found that overall personality profile stability was .37, distinctive profile stability was .17, and profile normativeness was .51 at baseline and .62 at the follow-up. Gender played little role in personality development across the life span. Our findings suggest that personality has a stable component across the life span, both at the trait level and at the profile level, and that personality is also malleable and people mature as they age. (PsycINFO Database Record

How much do people’s personalities change or remain stable from high-school to retirement? To address these questions, we used a large US sample (N = 1,795) that assessed people’s personality traits in adolescence and 50 years later. We also used two independent samples, one cross-sectional and one short-term longitudinal (N = 3,934 and N = 38, respectively), to validate the personality scales and estimate measurement error. This was the first study to test personality stability/change over a 50-year time span in which the same data source was tapped (i.e., self-report). This allowed us to use four different methods (rank-order stability, mean-level change, individual-level change, and profile stability) answering different developmental questions. We also systematically tested gender differences. We found that the average rank-order stability was .31 (corrected for measurement error) and .23 (uncorrected). The average mean-level change was half of a standard deviation across personality traits, and the pattern of change showed maturation. Individual-level change also supported maturation, with 20-60% of the people showing reliable change within each trait. We tested three aspects of personality profile stability, and found that overall personality profile stability was .37, distinctive profile stability was .17, and profile normativeness was .51 at baseline and .62 at the follow-up. Gender played little role in personality development across the lifespan. Our findings suggest that personality has a stable component across the lifespan, both at the trait level and at the profile level, and that personality is also malleable and people mature as they age.

Does deviancy or adjustment predict creativity? To address this question, we tested the association between personality profile normativeness (similarity between one's personality profile and the average profile-a proxy for the deviancy-adjustment continuum) and creativity across four different samples (total N = 348 768). We used a wide range of creativity measures, including self-reported, informant-reported, behavioural, and occupational creativity, as well as several essential statistical controls (i.e., demographics, socio-economic background, intelligence, and life satisfaction). Furthermore, we employed both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, including samples of college students and representative adult populations. We found that people who had more normative personality profiles were more creative. However, this association only held within modality (i.e. when both personality and creativity were either self-reported or informant-reported). We did not find robust associations between personality profile normativeness and laboratory-based behavioural measures of creativity, occupational creativity, or creative achievements. We discuss alternative explanations for the observed adjustment-creativity link, specifically, implicit theories of creativity and person perception biases (halo effects). Notably, the findings did not support the idea that deviancy breeds creativity, suggesting that the famed 'mad genius' hypothesis might not hold among the general population.

Across two preregistered studies, we addressed the following questions: (1) Does the Big Five personality trait openness to experience predict humor production ability above and beyond intelligence and demographics? (2) Which aspect of openness to experience (intellect vs. openness) predicts humor production ability? In Study 1 (N = 489), participants self-reported on demographics, socioeconomic status (SES), and personality, and were tested on intelligence and humor production. Structural equation modeling showed that openness to experience (β = .28, 95% CI [.14, .42]) predicted humor production ability above and beyond intelligence, demographics, SES, and other personality traits. Study 2 (N = 414) replicated and extended Study 1. Specifically, we found that openness to experience predicted humor production ability above and beyond the other predictors (β = .21, 95% CI [.03, .28]), and that, of the two aspects of openness to experience, openness (but not intellect) drove the association between personality and humor production ability.

Does deviancy or adjustment predict creativity? To address this question, we tested the association between personality profile normativeness (similarity between one’s personality profile and the average profile—a proxy for the deviancy-adjustment continuum) and creativity across four different samples (total N = 348,768). We used a wide range of creativity measures, including self-reported, informant-reported, behavioral, and occupational creativity, as well as several essential statistical controls (i.e., demographics, socio-economic background, intelligence, and life satisfaction). Furthermore, we employed both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, including samples of college students and representative adult populations. We found that people who had more normative personality profiles were more creative. However, this association only held within modality (i.e., when both personality and creativity were either self-reported or informant-reported). We did not find robust associations between personality profile normativeness and laboratory-based behavioral measures or creativity, occupational creativity, or creative achievements. We discuss alternative explanations for the observed adjustment-creativity link, specifically, implicit theories of creativity and person perception biases (halo effects). Notably, the findings did not support the idea that deviancy breeds creativity, suggesting that the famed “mad genius” hypothesis might not hold among the general population.