Does identity continuity promote personality stability?

Accepted Manuscript Does identity continuity promote personality stability? Curtis S. Dunkel, Sammuel K. Worsley PII: DOI: Reference:

S0092-6566(16)30110-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.09.001 YJRPE 3600

To appear in:

Journal of Research in Personality

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

11 November 2015 24 July 2016 1 September 2016

Please cite this article as: Dunkel, C.S., Worsley, S.K., Does identity continuity promote personality stability?, Journal of Research in Personality (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.09.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

1

Running Head: IDENTITY CONTINUITY

Does identity continuity promote personality stability? Curtis S. Dunkela,b Sammuel K. Worsleya a

Western Illinois University

b

Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, Waggoner Hall, Macomb, IL 61455. E-mail:

[email protected].

Word Count: 2,293

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

2

Abstract The hypothesis that identity continuity predicts personality stability was tested. Identity continuity at age 14 and at ages 14 and 18 personality was measured by raters using the California Q-sort. Identity continuity did not predict the rank-order stability of traits between the two waves of measurement, with the exception of conscientiousness, the stability of which was inversely associated with identity continuity. However, identity continuity did exhibit a slight positive association with personality stability when personality was measured using a holistic ipsative approach. Additionally, identity continuity predicted a mean-level increase in agreeableness and a mean-level decrease in neuroticism. It is suggested that future research include alternative measures of identity continuity and multiple closely spaced assessments.

Keywords: Personality stability; identity continuity; role variation; longitudinal; ipsative.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

3

Does identity continuity formation promote personality stability? The stability of personality increases with age (e.g., Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). The increasing stability of personality across ontogeny is often attributed to biological maturation with the most change occurring early in life (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). This explanation fits well with the increase in stability from adolescence to adulthood as biological change slows with the transition out of puberty. However, other possible stabilizing forces besides biology are not constant from adolescence to young adulthood and thus cannot be ruled out as additional factors in the increase in personality continuity during that developmental period. Caspi et al. (2005) refer to these other possible stabilizing forces as contextual. For example, reaching young adulthood has traditionally included the solidification of social roles (Arnett, 2000; Robins, Noftle, Trzesniewski, & Roberts, 2005; Roberts & Caspi, 2003; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) and the formation of an identity (Block, 1961; Erikson, 1968). The possible influence of identity formation on personality stability is captured in a lifespan developmental model proposed by Roberts and colleagues (e.g., Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Roberts & Caspi, 2003; Robins et al. 2005). They suggest that the solidification of an identity acts as a stabilizing force on personality. Indeed the sine qua non of identity itself is the subjective sense of stability called temporal-spatial continuity (Chandler, Lalonde, Sokol, & Hallett, 2003; Côté & Levine, 1988; Dunkel, 2005; Erikson, 1968; van Hoof, 1999) and this definition of identity as continuity was used by Block (1961) in the first attempt to operationalize Erikson’s (1968) psychosocial stage of identity versus role confusion. Using Block’s (1961) method, identity formation is measured by the degree to which individuals view themselves as possessing the same attributes across social roles. Those whose assessment of themselves showed little variance across social roles were deemed to have greater identity continuity and

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

4

found to exhibit better psychological adjustment. Thus following the ideas posited by Roberts et al. (2000, 2003), that identity acts as a stabilizing force on personality, the ability of identity continuity to predict personality stability was tested. Current Investigation: Review of Measurement Issues The current investigation uses Q-sort data from the Block and Block (2006a) 30-year longitudinal study to measure both identity continuity and personality stability. The Q-sort methodology (e.g., Block, 1978) involves arranging a set of items, called a Q-set, into separate columns based on the degree to which they are descriptive of a target. The Q-sort methodology as used by Block and Block (2006a) offers several advantages in both the measurement of identity continuity and personality stability. In Block’s (1961) original method for measuring identity continuity, participants rate adjectives (e.g., caring, humorous, spiteful), using a Likert-type scale, based on the degree to which they are viewed as being self-descriptive across a set of interactions with various others (e.g., with your mother, best friend, romantic partner). So a single item would be “To what extent are you caring while with your mother”. Having a similar rating for the item “caring” across interactions results in a higher level of continuity. The identity continuity score is determined by submitting the responses across interactions to a principal components analysis and extracting the first unrotated component. This method was used several times subsequent to Block’s (1961) original paper (e.g., Dunkel, Minor, & Babineau, 2010; Suh, 2002), but Baird, Le, and Lucas (2006) brought the validity of this method into question. What Baird et al. (2006) did was show that Block’s method conflated the continuity score with the variance of responses across adjectives. For example,

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

5

imagine that participants rate items using a five-point Likert-type scale. One participant may use the full range of possible responses (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). Another participant may restrict the range of his or her responses to the midpoint of the scale (only responding with 2, 3, or 4). This creates individual differences in interitem variability which contaminates the role variability score when the principal components method of computing continuity is used. This problem of interitem variability in the principal components method of computing identity continuity was addressed by Baird et al. (2006) through statistical controls. However, using the Q-sort method to measure identity continuity is a natural methodological control because the interitem variability is held constant making it the same for each participant (Ozer, 1993). Unlike with the use of Likert-type scales, the Q-sort method often imposes uniformity. In the current study, and described in greater detail in the Method section, each participant had to sort items into seven piles with each pile having two items. This means that there are no individual differences in interitem variability and thus individual differences in interitem variability cannot contaminate the identity continuity score. Thus, the Q-sort method addresses the problems of Likert-type scales to measure identity continuity uncovered by Baird et al. (2006). The California Q-sort (CAQ; Block, 1978) which includes a 100-item Q-set was used to measure personality. The CAQ as utilized by Block and Block (2006a) offers two clear advantages over more common self-report Likert-type measures of personality for testing the Roberts et al. (2000, 2003) hypothesis. First, the CAQ is flexible (Block, 1978) and can be used to capture individual traits (e.g., McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986), but can also supply the overall composition of an individual’s personality (Block, 1978) allowing for a broader assessment of personality stability. Trait scores allow for a test of rank-order stability, the degree to which

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

6

individual differences within the test group remain across test periods (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) and mean-level change, the degree to which the absolute value of the trait changes across test periods. The use of the entire Q-sort arrangement produces a holistic measure of personality and allows for a test of ipsative stability defined as the degree to which an individual’s personality configuration remains similar across test periods. Second, Block and Block (2006a) had a set of trained raters Q-sort the personality of each participant. The use of raters is important because it deals with the potential problem of shared method variance in contrast to, for example, the use of self-report scales for measuring both identity continuity and personality. This is not to say that the Q-sort method does not also have disadvantages. While multiple traits can be measured using a single sort, traits measured this way may not be independent. If an item in a Q-set is moved from one pile to another (e.g., is judged to be more descriptive of an individual) a different Q-set item will have to be moved in order to make room in the pile. It is important to keep this issue in mind when testing and discussing the rank-order stability of multiple traits measured from a single sort (Ozer, 1993). Method Participants. The Block and Block (2006) study was a 30-year longitudinal study with participants originally being recruited from two preschools in Berkeley, California. Data collection began in 1968 when the participants were in preschool with periodic waves of data collection until the participants were in their early 30’s. For the present study, data from ages 14 and 18 were analyzed. Data from these waves were used because identity continuity was measured at age 14 and personality at ages 14 and 18. Data on identity consistency was available

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

7

from 100 participants. Of the 100 participants, 52 were female. The ethnic composition of the sample included 68 Whites, 25 Blacks, 5 Asian, and 2 designated as “Other”. Identity continuity. To measure identity continuity, what Block and Block (2006b) refer to as role variability, participants Q-sorted (see previous description) 14 cards into seven piles (two cards per pile) indicating the degree to which the adjective printed on each card described them when interacting with a particular person. There were seven Q-sorts for seven different interactions. The interaction partners included (1) mother; (2) father; (3) someone in peer group from the opposite sex who is liked; (4) someone in peer group from opposite sex who is disliked; (5) best friend of the same sex and age; (6) a policeman; (7) a four-year-old child. The adjectives printed on the cards were: (1) relaxed, at ease, comfortable; (2) warm, affectionate, loving; (3) independent, on your own, autonomous; (4) cooperative; (5) assertive, forceful, dynamic; (6) unsure of self, indecisive, uncertain; (7) distractible, having wandering thoughts, difficulty concentrating; (8) humorous; (9) insincere, not meaning what you say and do; (10) unselfish, generous; (11) trusting; (12) worrying (worried); (13) suggestible, being easily influenced by the ideas or behaviors of others; (14) protective, shielding. The manner in which an identity continuity score was derived from the Q-sort was described in the Introduction. Personality and personality stability. At age 14 four trained raters independently Qsorted each participant’s personality using the CAQ and this was repeated by six different trained raters when the participants were 18 years of age. Kremen and Block (1998) supplied information concerning the reliability of the ratings, estimating that the item consistency was .65 for age 14 and .59 for age 18. For each age, the Big Five personality trait scores of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism were calculated using the scoring protocol from McCrae et al. (1986). McCrae et al. (1986) examined the factor structure

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

8

of the CAQ and the validity of the factors in comparison to other measures of the Big Five. In Table 2 they list the CAQ item loadings for each of the Big Five. To calculate the Big Five scores using the CAQ ratings, positively loaded items were added and negatively loaded items were subtracted from a total for each of the Big Five traits. The Continuous Parameter Estimation Model (CPEM; Gorsuch, 2005; Woodley, Figueredo, Brown, & Ross, 2013) was used to test the hypothesis that identity continuity predicts rank-order stability at the trait level. CPEM allows for the strength of the correlation between two variables to be measured across the range of values of a third variable. For the purpose of the current investigation the strength of the relationship between the trait score at age 14 (e.g., agreeableness) and the corresponding trait score at age 18 (e.g., agreeableness) was measured across the range of identity continuity scores. If identity continuity leads to rank-order stability, the correlation of identity continuity with stability should be positive and the strength of the relationship should increase as identity continuity scores increase. To conduct the analysis the Big Five scores at ages 14 and 18 were standardized, each standardized trait score at age 14 was multiplied by the corresponding standardized trait score at age 18, and the resulting product was correlated with identity continuity. An alternative procedure, that may be more familiar to readers, was also conducted to test the influence of identity continuity in personality stability. We used hierarchal regression to test the possibility that identity continuity moderates the association between the traits at age 14 and at age 18. Five regressions were conducted, separately predicting each of the Big Five traits at age 18. For each regression identity continuity and the age 14 trait score was entered in Step 1 and the product of those to variables entered in Step 2.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

9

To examine the ipsative stability of the holistic measure of personality a value for stability in personality was obtained by transposing each participant’s Q-sort from a row to a column in a spread sheet. This created two columns, one for personality at age 14 and one for personality at age 18. The correlation coefficient between the two columns indicates the stability of personality across the two measurement waves. The ability of identity continuity to predict personality stability was tested by correlating identity continuity with the value of the correlation coefficient that resulted from correlation between the Q-sort at age 14 and the Q-sort at age 18. To examine the differences in mean-level change the methods of Robins et al. (2005) were followed. Age 18 traits scores were regressed on the corresponding trait scores at age 14 and the standardized residuals were saved. This method holds the initial age 14 values constant across participants. Next the identity continuity scores were correlated with the saved residuals. Positive correlations mean that identity continuity is associated with an increase in the trait value whereas negative correlations mean that identity continuity is associated with a decrease in the trait value. Results and Discussion Correlations amongst identity continuity and the trait variables can be seen in Table 1. Identity continuity showed little association with openness and extraversion at each age, was positively correlated with conscientiousness and agreeableness at each age, and negatively correlated with neuroticism at each age. Also as seen in Table 1, there was substantial stability in the CAQ Big Five trait ratings across the two measurement waves with an average correlation for the rating at age 14 and the rating for the corresponding trait at age 18 of r = .62.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 10

CPEM resulted in the following correlations between identity continuity and the product of the standardized values for the specific trait as measured at ages 14 and 18: openness, r(98) = -.04, p > .10; conscientiousness, r(98) = -.29, p < .01; extraversion, r(98) = .13, p > .10; agreeableness, r(98) = -.06, p > .10; neuroticism, r(98) = .10, p > .10. Thus, for each trait the hypothesis was not supported and in the case of conscientiousness the direction of the correlation was in the opposite direction and was statistically significant. This means that identity continuity at age 14 predicts greater change in conscientiousness from age 14 to age 18. Given the finding is contrary to the prediction it is difficult to interpret, but perhaps there is a methodological reason such as the lack of independence of trait scores or perhaps a stronger sense of identity continuity at age 14 allows for greater identity continuity exploration or commitment in later adolescence which also manifests as fluctuating conscientiousness. The alternative regression method for testing the possibility that identity continuity moderates the trait scores at the two ages yielded similar, but not identical, results. None of the interaction terms (identity continuity × trait score at age 14) predicting trait scores at age 18 were significant. Contrary to the CPEM results, these null findings included the test for conscientiousness (β = -.14, ∆R2 = .02, p = .07). The tests of mean-level change produced the following results: Correlating the identity continuity score with the saved standardized residuals resulted in the following for each trait: openness (r = .06, p > .10); conscientiousness (r = .04, p > .10); extraversion (r = .14, p > .10), agreeableness (r = .22, p < .05), neuroticism (r = -.23, p < .05). Thus identity continuity at age 14 was predictive of an increase in agreeableness from ages 14 to 18 and a decrease in neuroticism from ages 14 to 18. The average correlation for the complete CAQ sort (i.e., holistic measure of personality) between ages 14 and 18 was r = .58 (SD = .26). The correlation between identity continuity and

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 11

stability of the holistic measure of personality was significantly positive, r(98) = .24, p < .05. Thus while the results of the trait level tests of rank-order stability did not support the hypothesis, the holistic measure of ipsative stability was in-line with the prediction that identity continuity formation has a positive effect on personality stability. Additionally, as pointed out by a reviewer, the power is limited to the detection of medium-sized effects. There is inadequate power to detect small effects. Conclusions and limitations Following the hypothesis from Roberts et al. (2000, 2003) it was predicted that identity continuity would be predictive of personality stability. The hypothesis was not supported when trait level rank-order stability was examined. In fact, the one significant finding showed that as identity continuity scores increase the rank-order stability for the trait of conscientiousness decreased. However, when a more holistic measure of personality was examined the test of ipsative stability yielded a result consistent with the hypothesis. Why does identity consistency predict ipsative stability, but not trait level stability? One possibility is methodological. Although others have used the Q-sort trait scores to examine rank-order stability (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) trait scores using Q-sort are not independent of each other meaning that the change in one trait will most likely, by default, produce a change in another trait (Ozer, 1993). This means that the examination of stability of isolated traits can be problematic and that the test of the hypothesis that identity continuity formation leads to trait stability may be better tested using variable-centered Likert-scaled measures. Another possibility is that identity continuity acts to set behavioral boundaries and the boundaries are such that shifts in personality may occur, but within the wide berth as measured

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 12

by holistic measures of personality. More molecular level traits, which are nested within personality in toto may be less likely to be impacted by identity continuity. The tests of mean-level change showed that identity continuity at age 14 was predictive of an increase in agreeableness and decrease in neuroticism through age 18. Thus, identity continuity may assist early adolescents to navigate the middle adolescent years resulting in a more positive developmental trajectory; at least through age 18. That is identity continuity may play a role in what Caspi et al. (2005) refer to as the maturity principle with increases in agreeableness and conscientiousness and a decrease in neuroticism occurring through adolescence and into adulthood. These findings are also consistent with Eriksonian (1968) lifespan theory in which the positive resolution of one psychosocial task sets the stage for continued ego growth and the positive resolution of subsequent stages. The holistic Q-sort measure of personality is very well suited for testing ipsative stability. Given the results of the current investigation with regards to ipsative stability it may be fruitful to conduct further research. For example, it may be worthwhile to examine the prediction that identity continuity formation aids personality stability using the identity continuity styles (Berzonsky, 1989) to measure identity continuity as suggested by Roberts and Caspi (2003), the traditional identity continuity status model (Marcia, 1966), or even including several measures from various conceptualizations of identity continuity (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Luyckx, Meca, & Ritchie, 2013). This is especially important, as pointed out by a reviewer, because the association between identity continuity and personality that was found could be viewed as an association between two measures of ipsative stability; one across roles and one across time. The drawback of the Q-sort method with regards to the measurement of rank-order stability is another reason to test the identity continuity-personality stability relationship with other measures. Likert-type or

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 13

at least independent measures of traits may be better suited for the test of rank-order stability. To ease the burden on resources and also to gain a better understanding of the interplay between identity continuity and personality stability, we suggest measuring both identity continuity and personality repeatedly over a short interval of time. In short, the results provide some support for the hypothesis that identity continuity is associated with personality stability; at least ipsative stability, and mean-level change indicating maturation. This, of course, does not mean identity continuity is the cause of said stability or maturation as, for example, biological development may fully mediate the identity continuitypersonality relationship. The results for rank-order stability are less clear as they vary by method of analysis and are possibly influenced by the use of the Q-sort. But the overall trend was that identity continuity was not positively associated with rank order stability. It is best to view the study as an initial foray into the question of the role of identity continuity in personality stability and change. There is a strong prescription for future research to vary the methodology in order ascertain parameters of the relationship. Acknowledgements This project was made possible by the Henry A. Murray Research Archive which is housed by the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. The data employed in this study derive from a 30-year longitudinal study begun with 128 three-year-old girls and boys, planned and conducted by Jack and Jeanne H. Block, involving a sequence of nine independent assessments based on personality and cognitive Life, Observational, Test, and Self-report (LOTS) measures.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 14

References Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual and personality variability: reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 512-527. Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity continuity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4(3), 268-282. Block, J. (1961). Ego identity continuity, role variability, and adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 392-397. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006a). Venturing a 30-year longitudinal study. American Psychologist, 61, 315-237. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006b). Block and Block Longitudinal Study, 1969 – 1999. Murray Research Archive [Distributor]. V1 [Version]. Retrieved from: http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/mra/faces/study/StudyPage.xhtml?globalId=hdl:1902.1/ NGQCIPIDUK&studyListingIndex=2_e3e414a92b8ffc99ae5ad3c701fb Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., Shiner, R. (2005). Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 15

Chandler, M. J., Lalonde, C. E., Sokol, B. W., & Hallett, D. (2003). Personal persistence, identity continuity development, and suicide: a study of native and non-native North American adolescents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity continuity status paradigm. Developmental Review, 8, 147-184. Dunkel, C. S. (2005). The relation between self-continuity and measures of identity continuity. Identity continuity, 5(1), 21-34. Dunkel, C. S., Minor, L., & Babineau, M. (2010). The continued assessment of self-continuity and identity continuity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 171, 251-261. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. NY: Norton. Gorsuch, R. L. (2005). Continuous parameter estimation model: expanding the standard statistical paradigm. Journal of the Science Faculty of Chiang Mai University, 32, 11-21. Kremen, A. M., & Block, J. (1998). The roots of ego-control in young adulthood: Links with parenting in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 10621075. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validaton of ego-identity continuity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Ozer, D. J. (1993). The Q-sort method and the study of personality development. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Ross, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 147-168). Washington, DC: APA. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality from

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 16

childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. Robins, R.W., Noftle, E. E., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Do people know how their personality has changed: Correlates of perceived and actual personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 73, 489-521. Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity continuity, consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378-1391. Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Luyckx, K., Meca, A., & Ritchie, R. A. (2013). Identity continuity in emerging adulthood: Reviewing the field and looking forward. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 96-113. van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity continuity status field re-reviewed: an update of unresolved and neglected issues with a view on some alternative approaches. Developmental Review, 19, 497-556. Woodley, M. A., Figueredo, A. J., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Four successful tests of the Cognitive Differentiation-Integration Effort hypothesis. Intelligence, 41, 832-842.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY

17

Table 1 Correlations amongst Identity and the Big Five Personality Traits at Ages 14 and 18 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Identity

O14

O18

C14

C18

E14

E18

A14

A18

N14

N18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Identity

---

2. Openness age 14

.04

---

3. Openness age 18

.07

.56*** ---

4. Conscientiousness age 14

.29**

.11

.14

---

5. Conscientiousness age 18

.25*

.06

.08

.72*** ---

6. Extraversion age 14

.04

.20*

.08

.29**

7. Extraversion age 18

.12

.12

.17

.43*** .32**

.62*** ---

8. Agreeableness age 14

.25*

-.26** -.14

.48*** .28**

.34*** .43*** ---

9. Agreeableness age 18

.35***

-.13

-.15

.41*** .50*** .17

10. Neuroticism age 14

-.26**

-.20*

-.01

-.67*** -.41*** -.74*** -.63*** -.50*** -.34*** ---

11. Neuroticism age 18

-.34**

-.09

-.09

-.66*** -.71*** -.25*

.06

---

.47*** .60*** ---

-.70*** -.42** -.60*** .62*** ---

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. O14 = Openness at age 14; 018 = Openness at age 18; C14 = Conscientiousness at age 14; C18 = Conscientiousness at age 18; E14 = Extraversion at age 14; E18 = Extraversion at age 18; A14 = Agreeableness at age 14; A18 = Agreeableness at age 18; N14 = Neuroticism at age 14; N18 = Neuroticism at age 18.

IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND PERSONALITY STABILITY 18 Highlights



The hypothesis that identity predicts personality stability was tested.



Identity did not predict personality stability at the trait level.



Identity predicted an increase in agreeableness.



Identity predicted a decrease in neuroticism.



Identity did predict stability using an ipsative measure of holistic personality.