Stability and change of personality traits, self-esteem, and well-being: Introducing the meta-analytic stability and change model of retest correlations.

Abstract

The stability of individual differences is a fundamental issue in personality psychology. Although accumulating evidence suggests that many psychological attributes are both stable and change over time, existing research rarely takes advantage of theoretical models that capture both stability and change. In this article, we present the Meta-Analytic Stability and Change model (MASC), a novel meta-analytic model for synthesizing data from longitudinal studies. MASC is based on trait-state models that can separate influences of stable and changing factors from unreliable variance (Kenny & Zautra, 1995). We used MASC to evaluate the extent to which personality traits, life satisfaction, affect, and self-esteem are influenced by these different factors. The results showed that the majority of reliable variance in personality traits is attributable to stable influences (83%). Changing factors had a greater influence on reliable variance in life satisfaction, self-esteem, and affect than in personality (42%-56% vs. 17%). In addition, changing influences on well-being were more stable than changing influences on personality traits, suggesting that different changing factors contribute to personality and well-being. Measures of affect were less reliable than measures of the other 3 constructs, reflecting influences of transient factors, such as mood on affective judgments. After accounting for differences in reliability, stability of affect did not differ from other well-being variables. Consistent with previous research, we found that stability of individual differences increases with age. (PsycINFO Database Record

Person-Situation Transactions across the Lifespan

“…These meta-analyses converge in providing a portrait of differential stability involving three conclusions. The first is that personality traits are consistent over appreciable intervals as retest coefficients are usually at least moderate in magnitude (a conclusion consistent with the conclusion of personality coherence noted above; see also Anusic & Schimmack, 2016). It seems as if only measures of IQ and cognitive ability have higher retest correlations than personality attributes (e.g., Conley, 1984;Olweus, 1979).…”

“…There are debates about how much measurement error is a factor in this attenuation (Ferguson, 2010), but meta-analytic correlations are still below unity, and correlations get weaker as the length of the retest interval increases (e.g., Fraley & Roberts, 2005;Anusic & Schimmack, 2016). The third and perhaps most interesting finding is that retest correlations get stronger with age but seem to reach a zenith between the ages of 50 and 70 and may even decline thereafter.…”

Clinical biopsychosocial physiotherapy assessment of patients with chronic pain: The first step in pain neuroscience education

“…Obviously, it is important to focus on the changeable biopsychosocial factors while also being aware of non-changeable aspects such as personality, neuroticism, and the degree of trait anxiety, which are known to be stable to some degree over time (Anusic and Schimmack, 2016;Pettersson et al, 2004;Prenoveau et al, 2011;Spinhoven et al, 2014).…”

Day-To-Day Affect is Surprisingly Stable

“…To this end, meta-analyses suggest test-retest stabilities in global cognitive well-being are approximately r =.60, .50, and .35 over two, five, and ten years, respectively—asymptotically approaching a lower-bound of .20–.35 (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016; Schimmack & Oishi, 2005). …”