What is the main difference between the five factor model FFM and the Five Factor theory FFT )?

There is now a growing body of evidence showing that personality traits continue to develop after childhood, with remarkable levels of change occurring in young adulthood (Helson and Kwan, 2000, Roberts et al., 2003). Normative developmental changes, such as the tendency for people to become more agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable have been observed in multiple birth cohorts and nations, using both longitudinal and cross-sectional research designs (Helson et al., 2002, McCrae et al., 2000, McGue et al., 1993, Roberts et al., 2001, Roberts et al., 2002, Robins et al., 2001, Srivastava et al., 2003). More complex patterns of change are found within the traits of extraversion and openness to experience. Decreases in social vitality (sociability) and increases in social dominance characterize the changes evidenced within extraversion, while openness to experience (or Intellect in Goldberg’s, 1993 system) demonstrates a curvilinear relationship with age (Roberts & Walton, 2004).

The clear question that emerges from this consistent pattern of mean-level changes across the life course is why people demonstrate such pervasive normative developmental changes. According to Five Factor Theory (FFT; McCrae and Costa, 1999, McCrae et al., 2000), mean-level changes arise because of genetic predispositions to change in particular ways. More pointedly, traits are considered “endogenous dispositions that follow intrinsic paths of development essentially independent of environmental influences” (McCrae et al., 2000, p. 173). For example, in the case of culture, traits are conceived as causing culture rather than culture causing traits (McCrae, 2004). This position paints a very elegant picture of personality development as life experiences, random life events, and simple lessons learned from living life have no effect on our “basic” traits. Nor do shared experiences, such as the social climate of one’s generation, affect change in personality traits. Change, if it does occur, arises because human beings have a species-wide genetic predisposition to develop in certain directions. We are, within this perspective, hard wired to become more socially dominant, agreeable, conscientious, emotionally stable, and less open to experience with age.

But what if life experiences and life lessons do play a role in personality development (e.g., the plasticity principle, Roberts, 1997)? Given the widespread nature of the changes shown in personality traits, the challenge for this position is to explain why people across many different cultures appear to change in the same way. One possibility lies in the universal tasks of social living, such as finding a marital partner, starting a family, and establishing one’s career. As most cultures support if not promote these activities, they may be the catalysts for the widespread shared pattern of personality trait development found in adulthood (Helson et al., 2002).

In this paper, we will consider the evidence for both positions. First, we will evaluate the evidence for personality development being the result solely of genetics. We will then review experiential reasons for development and discuss the theoretical relevance of each position.

Is personality development solely a genetic phenomenon?

If the FFT perspective on personality development is correct, then we would expect several patterns to emerge in the studies tracking development across the life course. First, as McCrae et al. (2000) have pointed out, we would expect similar patterns of development to occur across different cultures and within cultures across time. Second, we would expect there to be little or no significant deviations on the individual level from the general trends of personality development. Specifically, if

Social investment principle

Before, we discuss the Social Investment position on why personality traits change in adulthood, we would like to clarify some of our assumptions about personality trait development in adulthood. Lest, we give the impression that personality change is ubiquitous, we are not arguing for a radical contextualist position on personality change in which all of the functioning variance of personality is determined by the environment (i.e., Lewis, 2001). Rather, as we have noted elsewhere, personality

Cited by (367)

Recommended articles (6)