4.5 Review

Personality development from early childhood through adolescence

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110596

关键词

Personality development; Childhood; Adolescence; Gender differences; Mean-level age differences

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [19-013-00034]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [16-18-00003]
  3. Russian Science Foundation [16-18-00003] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on personality development has been on the rise in recent years, primarily utilizing self-report questionnaires and parent/teacher ratings; The Big Five traits show the most evidence of age changes in personality, with less known about age differences in lower-order traits and lacking evidence on higher-order traits development.
Recent years have seen a great increase in research on personality development; however, most research has employed self-report questionnaires and concerned individuals older than 10 years. Whereas individual differences in younger children have traditionally been studied as temperament, studies have begun to explore personality development in the first ten years of life using parent and teacher ratings. The Big Five traits of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness have accumulated the most evidence on age changes in personality; relatively less is known about age differences in lower-order traits, and evidence on the development of the higher-order traits is lacking. In this article, I briefly describe the hierarchical structure of child and adolescent personality, summarise research on developmental trends in mean levels of personality traits across the first ten years of life and in adolescence and address gender differences in the development of traits. I conclude by highlighting some directions for future research. The scope of the present review is limited to normal personality traits in childhood and adolescence measured by widely used instruments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据