Openness to experience is stable following adversity: A case-control longitudinal investigation

Abstract

Although many people retrospectively report feeling more open-minded after experiencing highly stressful events, relevant longitudinal studies are scarce and have yielded contradictory findings. The present study used a 12-month longitudinal case-control design to test whether growth in openness (assessed every 4 months using multiple methods) occurs following major stressors, and whether changes relate to clinical symptoms of depression and/or posttraumatic stress. To do so, we compared participants (a) with a recent major stressor and with low symptoms ( n = 66), (b) without a recent major stressor and with low symptoms ( n = 76), and (c) with a recent major stressor and with significant symptoms ( n = 76). Overall, growth curve models showed that group membership was not associated with changes in openness over 12 months for most outcomes. Other variables (e.g., education) predicted changes in openness. This study provides robust evidence that openness to experience is mostly stable following major stressors.

Do stressful life events impact long-term well-being? Annual change in well-being following different life events compared to matched controls

“…Our findings align with prior research that showed stability in a variety of outcomes following an event (Milojev et al, 2014;Chopik et al, 2021Chopik et al, , 2022Blackie and McLean, 2022;Fassbender et al, 2022;Forgeard et al, 2022;Jayawickreme et al, 2022;Reitz et al, 2022) and thus provide further evidence that stability in well-being is the more typical response to major life events (e.g., Infurna et al, 2022;Laceulle et al, 2022;Serrano et al, 2022). Furthermore, in line with growing longitudinal evidence, our results fail to detect evidence for possible post-traumatic growth following major life stressors, insofar as such growth might relate to a broad range of different aspects of well-being (Davis et al, 2021;Rakhshani and Furr, 2021;Dorfman et al, 2022;Infurna et al, 2022).…”

“…The importance of assessing longitudinal (positive) change following major life events is evident in studies that have tracked outcomes across time. Such studies show remarkable stability pre- and post-event across a range of outcomes, including empathy, life satisfaction, religiosity, and personality ( Milojev et al, 2014 ; Chopik et al, 2021 , 2022 ; Blackie and McLean, 2022 ; Dorfman et al, 2022 ; Fassbender et al, 2022 ; Forgeard et al, 2022 ; Jayawickreme et al, 2022 ; Reitz et al, 2022 ). Thus, stability or declines in functioning appear to be the more typical response to adversity, with growth or positive change being much less prevalent than suggested by prior cross-sectional research ( Frazier et al, 2009 ; Davis et al, 2021 ; Rakhshani and Furr, 2021 ; Gander and Wagner, 2022 ; Infurna et al, 2022 ; Laceulle et al, 2022 ; Serrano et al, 2022 ).…”

“…However, two primary shortcomings in current longitudinal research limit conclusions about growth or resilience. First, most studies focus on the impact of one specific adverse event or non-specific cumulative adversity scores on one specific outcome, such as personality or religiosity (e.g., Milojev et al, 2014 ; Davis et al, 2021 ; Forgeard et al, 2022 ). But, events vary in their characteristics and can thus impact various outcomes in different ways based on the distinct challenges and joys of the event ( Infurna et al, 2022 ), and thus a comprehensive understanding requires assessing multiple events with differing characteristics as well as several outcomes that cover multiple well-being domains ( Infurna and Jayawickreme, 2019 ).…”

“…The current research also overcomes another critical methodological limitation. Many of the conclusions made about the impact of life events on well-being over time are based solely on people who experienced the event ( Mangelsdorf et al, 2019 ; van Scheppingen and Leopold, 2020 ; Forgeard et al, 2022 ), which means that changes in well-being that naturally occur may be mistakenly attributed to the event ( van Scheppingen and Leopold, 2020 ). Accordingly, matched control groups who did not experience the targeted event but are demographically similar to those that experienced the targeted event are required to assess whether any observed changes occurred due to experiencing an event rather than other factors or normal maturation processes ( Mangelsdorf et al, 2019 ).…”

What does a personality science approach to post-traumatic growth reveal?

“…Yet, the common theme across these papers is there was little longitudinal evidence for personality growth on average. Forgeard et al (2022) found that, on average across individuals, openness to experience remained stable over 12 months after recent and major life stressors when assessing multiple indicators for openness in a longitudinal case–control design, which compared individuals who had experienced a major stressor and (high or low) distress symptoms to control individuals with low distress and no major life stressor in the 2 years prior to the study. Blackie and McLean (2022) found little evidence to support average personality growth in the traits of empathy, humility, and compassion after individuals repeatedly narrated their interpersonal transgressions against their romantic partner over the course of 12 months.…”