Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Advancements in the field of personality development Filip De Fruyt a, *, Karla Van Leeuwen b a b

Ghent University, Belgium KU Leuven e University of Leuven, Belgium

a b s t r a c t Keywords Adolescence Personality development Identity Person-centered approach FFM Psychopathology

A summary is provided what the fields of personality and developmental psychology had to offer each other the past decade, reflected in the eleven contributions enclosed in this special issue. Strengths and opportunities to further advance the field are identified, including the extension of general trait with maladaptive trait models, the use of alternative methods to assess personality, and the adoption of configural approaches to describe traits in individuals, beyond more traditional person-centered approaches. Ó 2014 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

This special issue grouped a set of eleven papers at the intersection of developmental and personality psychology that were presented during a well-attended conference of the European Association for Research in Adolescence (EARA) on Spetses Greece in September 2012. Although the beauty of the island, its beaches and the nice weather served as tough distractors, this meeting of developmentalists had a lot to offer for hard-nosed personality researchers as is evidenced in this thematic issue. The large number of papers is testimony of the current prominence of this research domain, whereas the variety of themes and methodologies illustrates what the developmental and personality disciplines have to offer to each other. In this discussion, a somewhat unorthodox SWOT-analysis is conducted, shortly focusing on a number of Strengths of this emerging field that are also reflected in this special issue. A discussion of Weaknesses will be largely skipped, because these were/should have been handled in the review process, but instead some core points will be reiterated and turned into Opportunities for future research. Threats are relatively minor, though need consideration, to streamline research toward essential questions and facilitate strong inference research. Strengths Reading through this special issue shows that there is good news from both the developmental and the personality field. Personality psychologists have spent considerable time and effort examining the structure of personality, finally agreeing that five major trait dimensions are necessary and sufficient to describe the core of personality differences. This Five-Factor Model (FFM) demonstrated to be useful from childhood to old age, was retrievable from self- and observer reports, turned out to be valid across cultures, and described the personalities of general population and specific clinical groups (De Clercq & De Fruyt, 2012). This evolution brought the long-awaited structure into a dispersed field and is also reflected in the number of studies in this special issue that adopted the FFM: in 8 out of 11 studies personality was operationalized with a measure based on the

* Corresponding author. Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. E-mail address: [email protected] (F. De Fruyt). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009 0140-1971/Ó 2014 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

2

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

FFM. A set of easily administrable operationalizations describing personality across the life course became available, such as the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999) and the NEO-PI-R/3 inventories (Costa & McCrae, 1992) for adolescents and adults. Finally, after years of intense debate questioning the stability of traits across time and their consistency across situations, trait psychologists developed more elaborate and nuanced views of trait stability and change and situational variability, including the notion of normative change patterns (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and trait-activation theory, a trait-situational perspective in which situational factors “trigger” latent trait tendencies (De Fruyt & De Clercq, 2014; Tett & Burnett, 2003). Developmentalists from their part brought a rich set of developmental theories to the debate with considerable attention for environmental factors and where personality traits were mainly considered as moderators of various developmental outcomes. For example, the relationships between family climate and parenting dimensions or styles on the one hand and psychopathology outcomes on the other hand were studied, with children’s personality traits as moderators (e.g. Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Braet, & Bosmans, 2004). Moreover, the notion of life stages prominent in developmental psychology aligned well with the study of normative personality change. From a more methodological perspective, developmentalists considerably advanced the personality field by introducing more appropriate methods of longitudinal data-analysis: growth modeling techniques enable to study nonlinear patterns of personality development, whereas mixture modeling allows for studying heterogeneity in patterns of change. Making use of growth mixture modeling, Luengo Kanacri et al. (in this issue, 2014) differentiated between three trajectories in prosocial behavior and detected associations with changes in personality traits. Castellani et al. (in this issue, 2014), identified three patterns of mother-adolescent hostile, aggressive conflict (low stable, medium increasing, and high decreasing). Lower levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability predicted maladaptive patterns of mothereadolescent conflict and higher depressive problems. These techniques helped charting individual change trajectories and raising questions on moderators and correlates of this change. Finally, and probably most important, the two fields further converged by an increased maturity to handle complex debates. Rather than discussing whether the glass is half full or half empty, a more balanced and integrative perspective is advocated nowadays acknowledging that both the person and the situation are important to understand significant outcomes, that there are stable in addition to more malleable aspects of development, and that people may follow very different developmental trajectories (Woods, Lievens, De Fruyt, & Wille, 2013). From weaknesses to opportunities The FFM and beyond While the FFM evolved to a frequently researched model, its comprehensive nature may have certain drawbacks. Using hierarchical and multifaceted trait models decreases the necessity of carefully analyzing the required level of abstraction at which one wants to assess personality, also called the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. Depending on the criteria to predict, assessments at the level of one (or more) higher-order domains or specific facets is warranted. For the purpose of investigating quality of life in children with a chronic disease, for example, a description at the level of the five personality domains is probably sufficient, whereas for understanding psychopathy in youth a more fine-grained assessment tapping into peculiar traits such as impulsiveness, callous-unemotional traits, and compliance is to be recommended (Decuyper, De Caluwé, De Clercq, & De Fruyt, in press). One can assess the entire FFM model and report and discuss the full correlation matrix. This is a common practice when investigating a topic for the first time. For example, Zupan ci c and Kav ci c (in this issue, 2014) showed that all of the broad five personality domains were differentially associated with aspects of individuation (support seeking, connectedness, intrusiveness, self-reliance, and fear of disappointing the parent) and that these associations differed for the relationship with mothers and fathers. However, to avoid that (personality) research gets a sort of fishing expedition image, it is also necessary to specify hypotheses linking specific traits to particular criteria. Moreover, although many studies assess traits at different levels of the FFM hierarchy, usually only the associations at the domain level are reported in academic journals, to keep the work organized and readable, while there is certainly more to do with the data at the lower-order measurement level. Finally, the FFM, although important, just represents the largest common denominator of personality differences, and there are traits that are relatively difficult to portray in this model that may be more at stake to examine specific research questions (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Rather than using FFM measures as easy-to-administer omnibus inventories, a more thoughtful use of trait measures is to be recommended. For example, Teppers Luyckx, Klimstra, and Goossens (in this issue, 2014) focused on peer-related loneliness as a ‘surface personality trait’, which reflects a less stable and more situation-specific way to adapt to roles and environments. They found that adolescents who used Facebook to compensate for inadequate social skills were already more likely to be lonely, and at higher risk for becoming even lonelier in their relationships with peers. The past years, general trait models such as the FFM were complemented with a number of maladaptive trait models describing the underlying structure of so-called aberrant, dysfunctional or disordered personality. For example, four- to fivedimensional models were proposed to assess pathological aspects of personality in children (e.g. Dimensional Personality Symptom Item pool: DIPSI; De Clercq, De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006) or adults (e.g. Personality Inventory for DSM-5: PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Although, such models are not necessarily qualitatively different from the FFM (De Fruyt, De Clercq, et al., 2013), with their constituting dimensions empirically linked to the FFM core set, they assess traits with a more clinical label and content. Tackett, Herzhoff, Reardon, De Clercq, and Sharp (in this issue, Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

3

2014) examined the associations in adolescence of two such maladaptive trait dimensions, Disagreeableness and Emotional Instability, with a range of externalizing behaviors including physical aggression, rule-breaking, and relational aggression. They found especially strong associations during developmental periods where these specific externalizing manifestations showed considerable prevalence. Their work suggests that research on youth personality disorder symptoms should be especially conducted during these sensitive and high prevalent periods. The maladaptive trait models are a useful expansion of the diagnostic toolbox of assessment psychologists, tapping into personality descriptive content blended with an evaluation of dysfunction. De Fruyt and De Clercq (2014) argued that such dimensional models may form a viable alternative in preadulthood to describe latent tendencies underlying fluctuating symptoms, avoiding using DSM-5 labels referring to multiple categorical diagnoses. At the same time, such blending of description and functioning imposes extra challenges for labeling such tendencies, trying to preserve the advantages of a dimensional description, and avoiding a too strong clinical or impaired connotation, especially when assessing children and adolescents. Alternative assessment methods Whereas personality assessment is mainly conducted via a description on a personality inventory, there are alternative ways including observations, the administration of specific tasks, and more recently also methods of implicit measurement. Implicit methods of measurement gained importance in the area of attitude assessment. For example Suter, Pihet, De Ridder, Zimmermann, and Stephan (in this issue, 2014) examined implicit attitudes and self-concepts via Implicit Association Tests (IATs), comparing their validity to understand psychopathic traits with explicit measures in community and offending adolescents. Although these implicit assessment methods are judged reliable and sound appealing, Suter et al.’s results show some unexpected findings. Offenders scored higher on psychopathic traits than a community sample, but had less favorable implicit attitudes to transgression, and further demonstrated to be implicitly particularly respectful and kind, contrary to their explicit descriptions as more aggressive and transgressive. Suter et al.’s findings are in line with other research calling into question what is really measured with IATs, and this concern can probably be extended toward implicit measures of personality. In a similar vein, assessments of personality via tasks do not align well with self- or observer descriptions of personality. In sum, these results show the necessity to conduct additional research on how these different personality assessment methods converge or complement each other to predict various criteria of interest. Personality development research should further not be limited to the study of traits and their course. McAdams’ (2013) call to investigate individual’s life story and narrative identity (i.e. the dynamic collection of life stories disclosing the self) was taken up in this special issue by Reese et al. (in this issue, 2014). They demonstrate that narrative identity (assessed with a life story interview in which critical events with turning, low and high points are described) and traits (measured with a selfreport questionnaire) are distinct personality aspects, but showed associations in middle and late adolescence, where narrative coherence was associated with neuroticism in middle, and with openness in middle and late adolescence. The study of narrative identity is an interesting hub toward theories of identity development and further provides new avenues for clinical assessment of for example adolescents with emerging borderline personality pathology. Variable versus person-centered approaches Developmental and personality psychologists have been collaborating already successfully for a considerable time at the cross-roads of the person-centered analysis of personality, starting from the work of the Blocks analyzing Q-sort ratings (Block & Block, 1980). Person-centered approaches have as a major advantage that they focus on the interplay of variables operating within individuals, and are hence directly useful for practitioners who have to deal with the problems of individuals, contrary to variable-oriented research which is about the patterning of variables across individuals. A relative consensus has been achieved on the replicability of three personality types, i.e. a resilient, an under-, and an overcontrolled prototype, when analyzing FFM ratings (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003), with mixed evidence for a fourth type, usually reflecting a profile with undesirable FFM ratings (De Fruyt, Mervielde, & Van Leeuwen, 2002). Yu, Branje, Keijsers, and Meeus (in this issue, 2014) examined the effect of love history on romantic relationship quality at age 21 and tested whether personality type assessed at 12 years moderated this association. They replicated the three prototypes using latent class analysis, and demonstrated a moderating effect for undercontrollers, with more romantic relationship experiences related to less commitment and exploration in current romantic relationships, whereas no such moderation was observed for the resilient and overcontrolled prototypes. Leikas and Salmela-Aro (in this issue, 2014) analyzed ratings on a 15-item FFM measure at ages 20 and 23 and found evidence for four types, resilients and overcontrollers, supplemented with what they call anti-resilients, i.e. the previously described fourth type with undesirable characteristics, and finally an average type, with scores around the mean. The clustering into resilients, average and anti-resilients is very much in line with other work in this area reflecting a sort of salsa-sauce patterning (going from mild, moderate to spicy) and ranking individuals in groups according to the desirability of their trait ratings (De Fruyt & De Clercq, 2014) or reflecting gradations of personality functioning (De Clercq, Rettew, Althoff, & De Bolle, 2012). Although these clustering or latent class groupings of individuals may come as a disappointment for those who expect a more fine-grained description of individuals, the strong data-driven nature of this kind of analyses largely prevents more specific personality prototypes to be replicable. Moreover, making sense of the resulting prototypes is critically dependent on the assessed variables, with studies often lacking enough additional descriptive variables to derive and adequately interpret Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

4

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

the resulting groups. Salihovic, Kerr, and Stattin (in this issue, 2014) used latent class analysis and identified five groups in a sample of 914 community youths, but had only two main variables, i.e. three interrelated psychopathic traits (affective, interpersonal, and behavioral) and one anxiety measure, to make sense of the resulting classes. They focused their paper on the two smallest out of these five groups, i.e. the groups with high levels of psychopathic traits, but with low (N ¼ 22) versus high anxiety scores (N ¼ 12). At the same time, their work also illustrates the need to carefully use clinical labels with strong impairment connotations to describe groups or individuals. Although they used a self-report measure designed to assess psychopathic traits in community samples, the resulting groups are described as community kids with “high levels of psychopathic traits”. Whereas Salihovic and colleagues at no time in their paper suggest that these children are (potential) psychopaths, and prevalence rates of full-blown psychopathy are smaller in the general population (Coid, Yang, Ullrich, Roberts, & Hare, 2009), uninformed readership may quickly make the wrong inferences judging from a journal abstract. In addition to different clustering procedures at the manifest or latent level, there are other ways to study configural approaches to personality including circumplex models, interactions among traits, trait compounds, meta-traits, and trait profiles (Shoss & Witt, 2013). Although these alternative configural approaches are not necessarily person-centered, they do shed light on how multiple variables may operate in individuals and how the result of these configurations may better explain or predict consequential outcomes. Additional challenges Besides the previously identified opportunities, there are additional challenges for the developmental personality field that have been relatively unexplored up until now. Reputation and identity Developmental psychology has a rich set of theories and a broad empirical knowledge on identity and identity development. Unfortunately, this field advanced rather independently from studies on personality trait development (but see Luyckx, Klimstra, Duriez, Schwartz, & Vanhalst, 2012), showing that relatively stable personality trait configurations emerge in childhood, followed by normative but also non-normative changes in adolescence to late adulthood. Hogan’s socio-analytic personality theory (Hogan & Shelton, 1998) distinguishes among identity, i.e. the personality picture that people have of themselves and that is only accessible by the person her/himself, versus reputation, i.e. the portray that others have from you, resulting from peer reports on the FFM. Hogan argues that we rely primarily on individuals’ reputation to make predictions on people’s future actions. Although socio-analytic theory received considerable attention in industrial and organizational psychology, there is a dearth of studies examining the importance of the distinct concepts of identity and reputation in socioanalytic terms applied to developing identities of adolescents. A first step in this direction is provided by De Fruyt and De Clercq (2014) in their trait-activation based model of developing personality pathology. Developmental and transition contexts Most studies on personality development do a good job in terms of assessing characteristics of the evolving individual across time. As a result, we know that there are normative trait development patterns, that not everybody follows the same trajectory, and that different traits are involved in multiple outcomes. The question at stake becomes then how to explain such normative change patterns and individual variability in these patterns? Often the transition contexts (e.g. from schoolto-work) themselves are used as mechanisms or moderators to explain such change and variability, without direct assessments of what is really implicated by these transitions. For example, Social Investment Theory explains the increase in conscientiousness’ scores in young adulthood referring to an amplified investment in taking up responsible roles in society, as a partner in a relationship, as a parent in a family or enrolling in job-roles. Bleidorn et al. (2013) found that age differences in neuroticism and conscientiousness, but not agreeableness, were more pronounced in cultures with supposedly earlier jobtransitions, but failed to find effects for investment in other responsible-roles such as earlier marriage and parenthood. Using a different set of cultural data, De Bolle et al. (submitted for publication) failed to confirm the claims made by the Social Investment Theory. Although Social Investment Theory is a theoretical framework with considerable potential and appeal, good operationalizations of its key constructs are missing. For example, considering the role of a future parent, it is unclear at what time and how parents actually demonstrate investment in their parenting-role when they are expecting their first child and how variability in taking-up such roles across a group of parents should be assessed? The bottom-line here is that we need to do a better job in terms of assessing environmental variables and transition contexts, and what these actually mean for people. Besides, context factors are not only important as moderators of development, but they also form the necessary context in which many trait-based phenomena emerge and need to be examined. Too often, personality psychologists study traits and their development in isolation. Van Zalk and Kerr (2012, also presented at the EARA conference, though not featured in this Special Issue), for example, studied psychopathic traits in an interpersonal context, hence acknowledging that psychopathic traits do not operate in a vacuum. An adequate understanding of the impact of an individual’s standing on psychopathic traits cannot be disconnected from his/her peers reacting on these trait manifestations. This kind of work has the potential to Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

5

considerably advance our knowledge on how traits affect social interactions and significant outcomes, but also on potential reciprocal effects of these reactions and outcomes on traits. Targeted change and development What has been studied mostly so far are long-time processes of naturally occurring personality changes in adolescence or adulthood or during transitions across these life stages (See Baay, Van Aken, De Ridder, & Van der Lippe, in this issue, 2014, examining the school-to-work transition). Although knowledge on such patterns is fundamental, we hardly know anything whether targeted personality change is attainable and how such transformation should be achieved. Given the importance of traits in both the differential susceptibility and the diathesis-stress models (Belsky & Pluess, 2009), it is key to know whether and how (maladaptive) trait levels and patterns can be changed. The Five-Factor Theory makes a distinction between basic tendencies (i.e., the FFM dimensions) and characteristic adaptations (e.g., interests, competencies, values, or psychopathological syndromes), with the latter assumed to be more malleable. This distinction, although crucial, is mainly a conceptual one, because at an operational level, basic tendencies are internal qualities of behavior, feelings and cognitions, and have to be inferred from characteristic adaptations. Through formal and informal learning processes, people may have acquired characteristic adaptations that are developed further away from their basic tendency levels, though their basic tendencies may become again apparent under conditions of stress or in the absence of external control mechanisms (De Fruyt, Wille, & Furnham, 2013). To really advance the field we need to know whether interventions could be targeted at changing the basic tendency level or whether it is more a matter of helping individuals to develop characteristic adaptations in line with their basic tendencies and/or help them to cope with situational triggers. It is clear that such research questions will require specific designs avoiding common method bias. Other dynamics of personality Finally, the papers enclosed in this special issue mainly dealt with between-subject differences, which is the core paradigm of personality research and differential psychology in general. Dynamic processes and patterns described in the literature so far are mainly situated over a longer time interval. Nowadays, however, there is increasing attention in trait psychology for within-individual variance (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009), across much shorter intervals. In addition to between-subject differences, researchers started to take into account within-individual situational or temporal trait variance, as an indicator of adaptation to demand characteristics or as predictors of significant outcomes. It is clear that these new avenues of research have several applications in the developmental domain and create a new window on the dynamics of personality. Threats Although threats are relatively minor in this area, it is noteworthy to discuss two points that may distract researchers from the agenda at stake. First, personality psychologists are used to describe personality differences in terms of trait models such as the FFM, whereas developmentalists traditionally refer to such differences as temperament. Although the personality and temperament literature developed rather independently, it is difficult if not impossible at an operational level, to distinguish a temperament from a personality item and vice versa. It is therefore argued to abandon this artificial distinction and merge these two fields under a common umbrella. Using a shared framework, we can examine how the temperament construct of effortful control (Rothbart & Bates, 1998) is different from the FFM conscientiousness factor and its facets (Tackett, Kushner, De Fruyt, & Mervielde, 2013) and how these are distinct from the more recently launched construct of grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007), referring to individual differences in committing to long-term-goals. Instead of independently working within these two historical traditions, we should take an integrative perspective on personality differences and agree upon a common language, model and operationalizations. Secondly, a challenging feature of research at the crossroad of two main psychological disciplines is the opportunity to set up strong inference research where alternative hypotheses from different research traditions are given consideration. Although the strong inference research model has major advantages, it can also contribute to heated debates and polarizing discussions, whereas the personality development reality often reflects complex mechanisms of an X and Y rather than an X or Y nature. The progress that has been made so far in this field and the research papers in this special issue are the result of an open and nuanced research debate by a large group of researchers in developmental and personality psychology. We hope that their work and the recommendations and opportunities identified in our discussion may lead to new research and a cumulative research database of replicated findings. To advance this process, journals like the European Journal of Personality or the Journal of Adolescence could take a leading role, by directly inviting groups of researchers from different backgrounds to replicate key findings reported in a target research paper, or to independently examine a core research question, with each other as reviewers, and with guarantees to publish the independent works. Such initiatives should considerably advance our field. Organizing conferences on an island is certainly a good idea, but our scientific disciplines will survive and gain impact by building bridges. The organizers of the conference in Spetses and the contributors of this special issue successfully contributed to achieving this goal. Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

6

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

References Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in adolescence: core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629e666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7104005. Baay, P. E., Van Aken, M. A. G., De Ridder, D. T. D., & Van der Lippe, T. (2014). The role of social capital in adolescents’ personality effects on school-to-work transitions. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885e908. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/a0017376. Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination of Social-Investment Theory. Psychological Science, 24, 2530e2540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980). The California Child Q-set. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Castellani, V., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Gerbina, M., Di Giunta, L., Ceravolo, R., et al. (2014). Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition to adulthood: associations with adolescent big five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Prevalence and correlates of psychopathic traits in the household population of Great Britain. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 65e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.01.002. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, F., Löckenhoff, C. E., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., et al. Are adult-role transitions key processes that drive personality maturation?: A cross-cultural investigation (submitted for publication). De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2012). A Five-Factor Model Framework for understanding childhood personality disorder antecedents. Journal of Personality, 80, 1533e1563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00778.x. De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., & Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure of maladaptive personality traits in childhood: a step toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639e657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.639. De Clercq, B., Rettew, D., Althoff, R. R., & De Bolle, M. (2012). Childhood personality types: vulnerability and adaptation over time. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 716e722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02512.x. Decuyper, M., De Caluwé, E., De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). Callous-unemotional traits in youth from a DSM-5 perspective. Journal of Personality Disorders. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_120 (in press). De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. (2014). Antecedents of personality disorder in childhood and adolescence: toward an integrative developmental model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 449e476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153634. De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., De Bolle, M., Wille, B., Markon, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a Five-Factor Framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment, 20, 295e307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113475808. De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European Journal of Personality, 16, S57eS72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.444. De Fruyt, F., Wille, B., & Furnham, A. (2013). Assessing aberrant personality in managerial coaching: measurement issues and prevalence rates across employment sectors. European Journal of Personality, 27, 555e564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1911. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087e1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087. Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097e1114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016786. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129e144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327043hup1102&3_2. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879e1890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711002674. Leikas, S. S., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Personality types during transition to young adulthood: how are they related to life situation and well-being? Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., Castellani, V., & Caprara, G. V. (2014). Trajectories of prosocial behavior from adolescence to early adulthood: associations with personality change. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Luyckx, K., Klimstra, T. A., Duriez, B., Schwartz, S. J., & Vanhalst, J. (2012). Identity processes and coping strategies in college students: short-term longitudinal dynamics and the role of personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1226e1239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9753-z. McAdams, D. (2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 272e295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691612464657. Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, Proceedings of the eight European Conference on Personality Psychology (pp. 107e127). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821e835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00117. Reese, E., Chen, Y., McAnnally, H. M., Myftari, E., Neha, T., Wang, Q., et al. (2014). Narratives and traits in personality development among New Zealand M aori, Chinese, and European adolescents. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1e25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed.), (Vol. 3); (pp. 105e176). New York: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0303. Salihovic, S., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2014). Under the surface of adolescent psychopathic traits: high-anxious and low-anxious subgroups in a community sample of youths. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Shoss, M. K., & Witt, L. A. (2013). Trait interactions and other configural approaches to personality. In N. D. Christiansen, & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 392e418). New York: Routledge. Suter, M., Pihet, S., De Ridder, J., Zimmermann, G., & Stephan, P. (2014). Implicit attitudes and self-concepts toward transgression and aggression: differences between community and offender adolescents, and associations with psychopathic traits. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Tackett, J. L., Herzhoff, K., Reardon, K. W., & De Clercq, B. (2014). The externalizing spectrum in youth: incorporating personality pathology. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Tackett, J. L., Kushner, S. C., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2013). Delineating personality traits in childhood and adolescence: associations across measures, temperament, and behavioral problems. Assessment, 20, 738e751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113509686. Teppers, E., Luyckx, K., Klimstra, T., & Goossens, L. (2014). Loneliness and Facebook motives in adolescence: a longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500e517. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500. Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: variable- and person-centered approaches. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1028e1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1028. Van Zalk, M., & Kerr, M. (2012). Psychopathic personality traits moderate peer influence. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference on the European Association for Research on Adolescence, Spetses, Greece.

Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009

F. De Fruyt, K. Van Leeuwen / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2014) 1e7

7

Woods, S. A., Lievens, F., De Fruyt, F., & Wille, B. (2013). Personality across working life: the longitudinal and reciprocal influences of personality on work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S7eS25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1863. Yu, R., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., & Meeus, W. (2014). How adolescent personality moderates the effect of love history on the young adulthood romantic relationship quality? Journal of Adolescence (in this issue). Zupan ci c, M., & Kav ci c, T. (2014). Student personality traits predicting individuation in relation to mothers and fathers. Journal of Adolescence (in this issue).

Please cite this article in press as: De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K., Advancements in the field of personality development, Journal of Adolescence (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.009