Using data from 2 large and overlapping cohorts of Dutch adolescents, containing up to 7 waves of longitudinal data each (N = 2,230), the present study examined Big Five personality trait stability, change, and codevelopment in friendship and sibling dyads from age 12 to 22. Four findings stand out. First, the 1-year rank-order stability of personality traits was already substantial at age 12, increased strongly from early through middle adolescence, and remained rather stable during late adolescence and early adulthood. Second, we found linear mean-level increases in girls' conscientiousness, in both genders' agreeableness, and in boys' openness. We also found temporal dips (i.e., U-shaped mean-level change) in boys' conscientiousness and in girls' emotional stability and extraversion. We did not find a mean-level change in boys' emotional stability and extraversion, and we found an increase followed by a decrease in girls' openness. Third, adolescents showed substantial individual differences in the degree and direction of personality trait changes, especially with respect to conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability. Fourth, we found no evidence for personality trait convergence, for correlated change, or for time-lagged partner effects in dyadic friendship and sibling relationships. This lack of evidence for dyadic codevelopment suggests that adolescent friends and siblings tend to change independently from each other and that their shared experiences do not have uniform influences on their personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record

It is well established that trait neuroticism bears strong links with negative affect and interpersonal problems. The goal of this study was to examine the longitudinal associations between neuroticism and daily experiences of negative affect and interpersonal problems during the developmentally important period of adolescence. Dutch adolescents and their best friends (N ϭ 1,046) completed up to 6 yearly personality trait questionnaires and up to 15 between-year assessment bursts between the ages 13 and 18. During each assessment burst, participants reported on 5 consecutive days about their experiences of negative affect and interpersonal conflict with their mother and their best friend. We estimated a series of multilevel random-intercept cross-lagged panel models to differentiate covariance at the level of constant between-person differences from dynamic processes that occurred within persons. At the level of constant between-person differences, higher neuroticism was associated with more negative daily experiences. At the within-person level, yearly changes in neuroticism were bidirectionally and positively associated with yearly changes in daily negative affect. The most parsimonious, best fitting models did not contain a random intercept for daily conflict with friend and adolescents' contingency between daily experiences of conflict with mother and negative affect. Rank-order differences in these variables were positively associated with subsequent within-person changes in neuroticism. We discuss these results with regard to endogenous versus dynamic theories of personality development and the value of using a differentiated statistical approach.

In this paper, we present three retrospective observational studies that investigate the relation between data sharing and statistical reporting inconsistencies. Previous research found that reluctance to share data was related to a higher prevalence of statistical errors, often in the direction of statistical significance (Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011). We therefore hypothesized that journal policies about data sharing and data sharing itself would reduce these inconsistencies. In Study 1, we compared the prevalence of reporting inconsistencies in two similar journals on decision making with different data sharing policies. In Study 2, we compared reporting inconsistencies in psychology articles published in PLOS journals (with a data sharing policy) and Frontiers in Psychology (without a stipulated data sharing policy). In Study 3, we looked at papers published in the journal Psychological Science to check whether papers with or without an Open Practice Badge differed in the prevalence of reporting errors. Overall, we found no relationship between data sharing and reporting inconsistencies. We did find that journal policies on data sharing seem extremely effective in promoting data sharing. We argue that open data is essential in improving the quality of psychological science, and we discuss ways to detect and reduce reporting inconsistencies in the literature.

In this paper, we present three retrospective observational studies that investigate the relation between data sharing and statistical reporting inconsistencies. Previous research found that reluctance to share data was related to a higher prevalence of statistical errors, often in the direction of statistical significance (Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011). We therefore hypothesized that journal policies about data sharing and data sharing itself would reduce these inconsistencies. In Study 1, we compared the prevalence of reporting inconsistencies in two similar journals on decision making with different data sharing policies. In Study 2, we compared reporting inconsistencies in psychology articles published in PLOS journals (with a data sharing policy) and Frontiers in Psychology (without a stipulated data sharing policy). In Study 3, we looked at papers published in the journal Psychological Science to check whether papers with or without an Open Practice Badge differed in the prevalence of reporting errors. Overall, we found no relationship between data sharing and reporting inconsistencies. We did find that journal policies on data sharing are extremely effective in promoting data sharing. We argue that open data is essential in improving the quality of psychological science, and we discuss ways to detect and reduce reporting inconsistencies in the literature.

Using data from two large and overlapping cohorts of Dutch adolescents, containing up to seven waves of longitudinal data each (N = 2,230), the present study examined Big Five personality trait stability, change, and codevelopment in friendship and sibling dyads from age 12 to 22. Four findings stand out. First, the one-year rank-order stability of personality traits was already substantial at age 12, increased strongly from early through middle adolescence, and remained rather stable during late adolescence and early adulthood. Second, we found linear mean-level increases in girls’ conscientiousness, in both genders’ agreeableness, and in boys’ openness. We also found temporal dips (i.e., U-shaped mean-level change) in boys’ conscientiousness and in girls’ emotional stability and extraversion. We did not find a mean-level change in boys’ emotional stability and extraversion, and we found an increase followed by a decrease in girls’ openness. Third, adolescents showed substantial individual differences in the degree and direction of personality trait changes, especially with respect to conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability. Fourth, we found no evidence for personality trait convergence, for correlated change, or for time-lagged partner effects in dyadic friendship and sibling relationships. This lack of evidence for dyadic codevelopment suggests that adolescent friends and siblings tend to change independently from each other and that their shared experiences do not have uniform influences on their personality traits.