Can personality change? Evidence from longitudinal and intervention studies gives a qualified, research-supported yes. Personality traits are relatively enduring tendencies in characteristic thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behavior, yet longitudinal observations show that their average levels and individual trajectories can shift across the lifespan. Randomized and other intervention studies also show that some people can change measured traits in desired directions. The key questions concern the type of change, its magnitude, the methods used to establish it, and whether it is maintained and observable beyond a questionnaire. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2017; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
The best evidence supports both continuity and malleability. People generally retain meaningful relative differences from one another, particularly across shorter intervals and in adulthood, while experiencing developmental shifts and sometimes substantial personal departures from group averages. Structured interventions can produce modest average changes, with evidence strongest for selected traits, adult study populations, and outcomes measured over months. Whether effects endure across years, transfer to many contexts, or improve meaningful life outcomes is a separate empirical question. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Haehner et al., 2026; Haehner et al., 2024.
What Does It Mean for Personality to Change?
A trait is a distribution of tendencies, not a fixed script
A personality trait summarizes recurring differences in how a person tends to respond across situations and time. A conscientious person may miss a deadline; a socially reserved person may speak confidently to close friends. Trait descriptions remain useful when they forecast a person's typical pattern across many occasions rather than prescribing an action at every moment. Personality states are the temporary experiences and behaviors occurring at a given time. Lasting trait change requires a shift in characteristic patterns, not merely a single unusual state. Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
For example, someone could become more comfortable speaking in groups during several meetings because the group is familiar. That observation documents context-specific behavior. Stronger evidence for broad personality change would include repeated assessments, sustained behaviors across multiple settings, and agreement between self-reports and observations. Conversely, a real and valuable change in one setting may remain narrower than a global trait change. The distinction protects both scientific inference and realistic expectations.
Mean-level, rank-order, and individual change answer different questions
Mean-level change describes how a group's average trait score shifts, for instance whether people in a cohort become more organized between ages 20 and 40. Rank-order stability concerns whether people retain their relative positions compared with others; a person can become more organized while remaining below the cohort average. Individual change refers to a particular person's trajectory, which can diverge from the group pattern. These three outcomes can coexist. Roberts et al., 2006; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
A cohort in which every participant improves equally might show rising mean levels but nearly unchanged rank ordering. Another cohort might show little average change because some people increase and others decrease. A mean alone therefore cannot establish how many individuals changed meaningfully. Researchers increasingly examine variability in developmental slopes, person-specific patterns, and measurement uncertainty before calling someone stable or changed. Haehner et al., 2026.
Behavioral change, self-concept change, and trait change
Self-perception, behavior, habits, and broad dispositions are related but distinct outcomes. People can learn a social skill without becoming uniformly extraverted, or reinterpret themselves as calmer following relief from persistent distress. Both may matter personally. Personality research asks whether characteristic patterns have shifted sufficiently, and with enough persistence, to justify describing a trait change. Self-report improvement alone provides one piece of evidence, especially when the person knows what an intervention intends to accomplish. Jackson and Wright, 2024.
How Scientists Measure Change Over Time
Longitudinal cohorts and repeated assessments
Longitudinal research follows the same people, measuring their traits at two or more time points. Multiple waves help distinguish nonlinear development, temporary fluctuation, and persistent trends. Stronger studies use suitable instruments repeatedly, track attrition, examine whether measures remain comparable across ages, and model uncertainty at the individual level. Studies relying on two distant observations can estimate net differences, but they reveal little about the path between them. Bleidorn et al., 2020.
Age comparisons made at a single point in time cannot by themselves establish developmental change because younger and older respondents belong to different birth cohorts. Longitudinal data reduce that problem, though they still face changes in social conditions, selective participation, panel conditioning, and measurement problems. Even a consistent observed association between an event and trait change does not prove the event caused the change.
Measurement invariance and reliable change
A scale's interpretation may vary with age, culture, language, or repeated exposure. A statement such as “I enjoy parties” might have different practical meanings for an adolescent, a parent with young children, and an older adult. Researchers must assess whether the psychological construct and item functioning remain sufficiently comparable across measurement occasions. Otherwise, apparent growth or decline can partly reflect changing interpretation rather than changing disposition. Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Individual assessment also requires attention to measurement error and regression to the mean. Someone selected because of an unusually high baseline score may score closer to average later even without an effective intervention. A clinically or personally meaningful change may differ from a statistically detectable mean shift. The correct interpretation depends on measurement quality, baseline characteristics, time lag, and the decision at stake.
Self-report, informant ratings, and observed behavior
Self-reports capture experience and self-concept efficiently, but they are affected by insight, demand characteristics, mood, and the wish to present oneself favorably. Reports from friends, partners, coworkers, or independent observers offer an important complementary perspective; however, each observer samples particular settings and may be influenced by expectations. Behavioral observations and ecological momentary assessment can reveal whether new patterns appear in everyday situations. Agreement across methods strengthens the interpretation of broad change, although no method is perfectly neutral. Stieger et al., 2021; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Evidence from Lifespan Longitudinal Research
The early evidence for normative developmental trends
A landmark meta-analysis of 92 samples found average increases in social dominance, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially between ages 20 and 40; other patterns differed by trait facet and developmental stage. This was evidence for population-level development, not a guarantee that every adult becomes calmer, more organized, or more socially confident. The study helped establish that meaningful trait development extends beyond childhood and adolescence. Roberts et al., 2006.
Later longitudinal synthesis broadened the evidence. Bleidorn and colleagues (2022) integrated an expanded research base on stability and change, showing that the extent and shape of both depend on age, time intervals, trait dimension, and how continuity is operationalized. The central result is a developmental system with both persistent individual differences and continuing movement. Rank-order correlations do not imply biological immutability, and shifts in average levels do not imply an absence of enduring dispositions. Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Childhood and adolescence: early organization and developmental plasticity
Temperament refers to early-emerging patterns of reactivity and regulation that provide developmental precursors for later personality, but childhood and adult measures need not have identical meanings. Rapid maturation of language, attention, executive control, identity, social roles, and context can substantially alter outward behavior. Reports from caregivers and teachers capture useful yet context-dependent views, while developmental transitions complicate direct score comparisons. A shy child becoming more willing to enter a classroom can reflect growing skill, a safer setting, changing temperament expression, or a broader developmental reorganization.
Because both psychological capacities and environments change quickly during childhood, stability estimates from adult personality questionnaires should not be transplanted into infancy. Developmental evidence supports studying emerging patterns over time while acknowledging that predictions for a particular child are probabilistic. Rothbart, 2007; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Young adulthood and social-role development
Entering work, establishing relationships, assuming caregiving responsibilities, and developing personal commitments often coincide with personality development. Some scholars interpret increasing conscientiousness and emotional stability as elements of broader maturation and adaptation to adult roles. Yet people select into roles partly on the basis of existing dispositions, and life transitions may shape personality differently depending on resources and circumstances. Developmental regularities are associations across populations; demonstrating that an occupation or relationship causes a trait shift demands stronger designs. Specht et al., 2011; Bleidorn et al., 2020.
Middle and older adulthood: continued but heterogeneous trajectories
Older adulthood should not be treated as a single stable plateau. Longitudinal studies report changing mean levels, individual differences, and variation among trait facets. Physical health, retirement, partnership changes, social opportunities, and historical conditions can affect opportunities to express dispositions and to sustain behavior. Changes in sensory function or participation patterns may also influence responses to questionnaire items. Roberts et al., 2006; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
A tendency toward higher rank-order stability in some adult periods is compatible with continued within-person movement. The interpretation must retain the time scale: modest shifts over a decade can matter even when a person's relative position is fairly consistent from one wave to the next.
A 2026 meta-analysis: people differ in how they change
Haehner and colleagues' 2026 meta-analysis assembled 229 longitudinal studies including 230,492 participants. It found meaningful differences in change trajectories across people for all investigated trait domains, with especially pronounced heterogeneity in childhood and significant differences throughout adulthood. The magnitude varied by trait, follow-up interval, and measurement level; neuroticism showed relatively greater variability than openness and agreeableness. This work directly challenges an overly rigid image of a common developmental path while documenting structured variation rather than arbitrary change. Haehner et al., 2026.
Importantly, the existence of heterogeneous slopes is not proof that a particular life event, practice, or biological factor explains them. A meta-analysis of longitudinal trajectories establishes the distribution of change; identifying causes requires designs that test alternative explanations.
Can Personality Change Through Psychotherapy and Other Interventions?
What the major intervention meta-analysis found
Roberts and colleagues reviewed 207 studies of personality-trait change during interventions, including experimental and pre–post designs, with a strong representation of clinical treatments. Across studies, changes in personality measures averaged roughly a third of a standard deviation over approximately 24 weeks (reported d = 0.37). Emotional stability was the trait domain most consistently showing intervention-associated change, followed by extraversion. Change was also observed in follow-up samples, although designs and follow-up periods varied substantially. Roberts et al., 2017.
That average cannot be read as the causal effect of a single standardized therapy. Some included studies had control groups and others did not; participants, interventions, measures, and symptoms differed widely. Improvements during treatment can reflect the treatment, natural recovery, contextual changes, and shifts in how people describe themselves. Randomization, credible controls, independent measurements, and sustained follow-up provide stronger grounds for causal statements.
Clinical treatment and general personality development
When treatment reduces anxiety or depression, a participant may experience fewer distressing emotions and report greater emotional stability. That improvement is important, but it raises a conceptual issue: some questionnaire items tap experiences closely related to symptoms. Researchers must ask how much change represents enduring dispositions, relief from an episode, altered circumstances, or changed self-evaluation. A symptom improvement does not require a personality diagnosis, and ordinary traits are not disorders. Roberts et al., 2017; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
The strongest justified conclusion is that psychological treatment can be accompanied by changes in broad personality measures, with several experimental studies supporting causal effects. Whether a particular treatment changes an enduring trait beyond its targeted symptoms must be evaluated separately. Clinical interventions are selected to address clinical needs, not to fulfill a supposed obligation to possess a preferred personality profile.
Intentional Personality Change: What Happens When People Try?
Goals alone are usually insufficient
Volitional personality change refers to intentional efforts to modify one's characteristic tendencies in directions a person endorses. It is tempting to equate desire with ability, but the evidence demands more. In two 16-week randomized longitudinal experiments, Hudson and Fraley (2015) investigated trait change goals and supporting interventions. Desired changes were associated with subsequent shifts in self-reported traits and trait-relevant daily behavior; an intervention encouraging specific implementation intentions was more useful than another intervention that did not work as intended. Hudson and Fraley, 2015.
A self-endorsed goal can guide attention and effort, yet without repeated behavior and supportive circumstances it may remain an aspiration. Intentions alone are an unreliable measure of achieved change. This distinction matters because respondents may sincerely wish to become more emotionally stable, conscientious, or socially engaged while encountering barriers unrelated to motivation.
Daily behavioral challenges and cumulative practice
Follow-up research connected progress on behaviorally specified challenges with desired trait development. Rather than assuming that an abstract aspiration such as “be more outgoing” directly alters disposition, these studies examine whether people repeatedly carry out related actions and how those actions relate to later assessments. These findings support a plausible behavioral pathway but do not establish that any one exercise will reliably transform personality across populations and contexts. Hudson et al., 2019.
Practice can create new skills, confidence, social feedback, and expectations. Sustaining change may require opportunities to express those patterns outside a study. Repetition without fit to a person's environment can fail, and behavior motivated by fear or coercion may have different consequences from personally meaningful change.
Digital personality-change interventions and randomized evidence
A randomized controlled trial reported by Stieger and colleagues (2021) enrolled 1,523 people to evaluate a three-month digital personality-change intervention in a nonclinical sample. Participants assigned to the intervention showed greater change in the intended direction than controls. Informant ratings also indicated changes, generally smaller than self-reported changes; both sources suggested persistence for three months after the intervention ended. This design offers stronger causal evidence for short-term, targeted change than simple pre–post reports. Stieger et al., 2021.
The trial does not establish universal effectiveness or indefinite persistence. Participants were volunteers, the intervention had particular components and duration, and the follow-up did not extend indefinitely. Digital contact, reflection, goal-setting, and exercises may each contribute to effects, but the trial alone does not isolate every active ingredient. Nor does effectiveness for nonclinical participants imply equivalence to evidence-based psychotherapy for people needing clinical care.
A systematic synthesis of intentional-change studies
A preregistered systematic review by Haehner, Wright, and Bleidorn (2024) identified 30 longitudinal studies with 7,719 participants. Having a change goal without a structured intervention showed only weak associations with subsequently achieving the desired change. Across a smaller subset of intervention studies, the pooled effect was d = 0.22 with a 95% confidence interval from 0.005 to 0.433; follow-up estimates from still fewer studies suggested effects sometimes persisted. The wide intervals, small evidence subsets, varying study designs, and limited duration require a measured interpretation. Haehner et al., 2024.
The 2024 synthesis helps place promising randomized trials in the context of a developing literature: structured attempts can shift trait reports on average, while simply wanting to change is much less predictive. The review also emphasizes that methods, targets, follow-up schedules, and comparison conditions differ. A positive pooled estimate is evidence for average intervention-related change under studied conditions, not a promise of individual success.
What a 2026 review adds to the intervention debate
A 2026 review of volitional personality development synthesizes theoretical models and emerging intervention findings while emphasizing active-control trials, multiple measurement methods, longer follow-ups, ethical safeguards, and targets beyond questionnaire scores. It proposes careful examination of behavioral flexibility and the capacities through which desired changes are enacted. As a review and research synthesis, it contributes conceptual organization and methodological priorities; it should not be mistaken for a new large randomized trial. Asselmann et al., 2026.
Mechanisms: Why Might Lasting Change Occur?
Situations, learning, and repeated state expression
One plausible account begins with repeated states. When people repeatedly practice a behavior, gain experience, and receive feedback, their characteristic distribution of behavior can gradually move. Opportunities for practice may depend on social relationships, institutions, and resources. This account is compatible with trait theory because a trait expresses regularities over time rather than an unchangeable internal command. Nevertheless, observing repeated behavior and a later trait score does not by itself establish mediation. Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Preconditions, triggers, reinforcers, and integrators
Jackson and Wright (2024) organize personality-change processes around preconditions, triggers, reinforcers, and integrators. Preconditions include capacities or circumstances that permit change; triggers initiate new patterns; reinforcers make those patterns more likely to recur; integrators help incorporate them into stable functioning or self-understanding. This model unifies several theoretical traditions and points to testable pathways. The authors also note that evidence for particular mechanisms is mixed or inconclusive, so the framework should be treated as an explanatory hypothesis rather than a proven universal sequence. Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Roles and reciprocal person–environment processes
Personality influences the environments people select, and environments shape behavioral opportunities, demands, and feedback. Someone inclined to seek leadership might enter roles that reward assertiveness; a later change in assertiveness could partly reflect role demands, preexisting selection, and their interaction. Similar feedback loops can occur in friendships, education, and work. Separating these pathways calls for repeated observations, within-person comparisons, natural experiments, and designs that measure selection before environmental exposure. Bleidorn et al., 2020; Specht et al., 2011.
Biological contributions and environmental plasticity
Genetic variation contributes to individual differences in dispositions and can contribute to stability, but heritability estimates describe variation in studied populations under particular circumstances. They neither dictate a person's future nor determine whether intervention is possible. Biology operates through developmental, social, and behavioral systems, while environmental experiences can differ widely even among biologically related people. A scientifically useful explanation of trait change does not assign every characteristic to one gene, neurotransmitter, or brain region. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
What Does Not Count as Evidence of a Lasting Change?
Temporary moods, major events, and role-specific performance
An acute mood shift, illness, new relationship, unusually stressful month, or single successful public presentation can strongly alter experience without demonstrating a lasting shift in general tendencies. Conversely, a persistent new pattern in one important relationship can have real significance even if it does not generalize across personality scales. Researchers should distinguish the practical outcome from a broader inference about personality architecture.
Regression to the mean and expectancy effects
People often seek change when they feel unusually distressed or dissatisfied. Some improvement may occur because the baseline was exceptional. Intervention participants who expect improvement may interpret ambiguous experiences more favorably or respond in ways consistent with their expectations. Comparisons with appropriate controls, repeated baselines, blinded observers when feasible, and preregistered endpoints help constrain these biases. Roberts et al., 2017; Haehner et al., 2024.
A short-term effect is not a lifetime outcome
A change sustained for three months after a program is meaningful evidence of maintenance over that interval. It remains distinct from evidence over five or twenty years. Habit consolidation, continuing environmental support, repeated exposure to stressors, and shifting goals may affect longer trajectories. Studies vary markedly in follow-up length, so the phrase “lasting change” should always be tied to a stated interval. Stieger et al., 2021; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Which Traits Change Most, and for Whom?
Emotional stability and distress-related traits
Across the 2017 intervention synthesis, emotional stability showed a particularly prominent pattern of change. This is compatible with reductions in persistent negative affect during clinical care, although the overlap between symptoms and trait measurement complicates interpretation. Generalizing from these results to every personality characteristic is unwarranted. Roberts et al., 2017.
Conscientiousness, sociability, and other dispositions
Study interventions have targeted behaviors related to conscientiousness and extraversion, among other domains. It is useful to consider facets and context instead of treating broad labels as indivisible qualities. A person may become more dependable with planned commitments without changing all aspects of orderliness; another might become more assertive in work meetings while remaining quiet in large unfamiliar gatherings. Research on targeted trait change supports the possibility of movement, while the breadth and persistence of changes require careful measurement. Hudson and Fraley, 2015; Stieger et al., 2021.
Individual trajectories vary
The same program can create different experiences and changes across participants. Baseline tendencies, goals, motivation, mental health, environmental support, access to resources, and the fit between exercises and everyday demands may influence engagement. These are plausible moderators, not an established formula for predicting a particular individual's response. Longitudinal meta-analytic evidence also confirms that heterogeneous change occurs independently of intervention studies. Haehner et al., 2026; Asselmann et al., 2026.
Personality Change and Life Events: Association Versus Causation
Work, relationships, and major transitions
Research has associated life events and transitions with changes in personality scores, but selection effects are substantial: traits can influence which life events people experience, how they interpret them, and what options are available. The beginning of employment, a partnership, or parenthood may accompany changes without serving as a universal cause. A convincing causal account needs attention to pre-event trajectories, comparison groups, measurement, and the timing of exposures. Specht et al., 2011; Bleidorn et al., 2020.
Stressful experiences and adversity
Adversity can alter emotional responses and patterns of engagement, but its consequences are heterogeneous and shaped by severity, duration, support, and the person's prior history. Describing a change in anxious feelings after stress is not equivalent to diagnosing a personality disorder. Likewise, improvement after support may reflect recovery in well-being rather than permanent reorganization of all personality dimensions. Claims about universal “post-traumatic personality transformation” exceed the designs of most available studies.
Culture, Context, and Generalizability
A result depends on who was studied
Many high-profile longitudinal and intervention projects have recruited participants in relatively affluent, educated, or digitally connected populations. A result derived from university volunteers or digitally engaged adults cannot automatically be applied to rural communities, children, older adults with substantial health limitations, or people experiencing economic instability. Languages, work arrangements, norms of sociability, and definitions of desirable change influence both interventions and measurements. Stieger et al., 2021; Haehner et al., 2024.
Culture affects opportunities and interpretation
Culture shapes the social value attached to different behaviors, the resources available for practicing them, and the language used to report personal tendencies. Becoming more assertive may improve functioning in one setting yet conflict with expectations or safety in another. Comparative research should examine construct equivalence rather than assuming an English-language trait description has identical social meaning everywhere.
Developmental and clinical findings are not interchangeable
Children's temperament, adult trait scores, psychiatric symptoms, and changes during psychotherapy belong to related but different measurement and intervention contexts. A child's gradual development of attentional control cannot be assumed to follow the same process as an adult's deliberate habit practice. Similarly, a psychiatric patient's relief from symptoms provides valuable clinical evidence without authorizing the conclusion that normal personality differences are medical problems.
Is Changing Personality the Same as Changing Identity?
Trait measures describe characteristic functioning at a certain level of abstraction. Personal identity also includes commitments, autobiographical memory, relationships, roles, values, and interpretations of one's history. A person can retain a recognizable continuity of self while developing new habits and modes of relating. Others may undergo a profound reorganization of identity while maintaining some temperamental tendencies. The empirical claim that trait scores change does not settle philosophical questions about personal identity, consciousness, or the nature of the self.
This distinction becomes especially important when personality change is marketed as a total reinvention of the person. Scientific instruments measure defined constructs and behaviors; they do not assess the entire meaning of a human life. People can seek better adaptation, relational functioning, or emotional balance without needing to regard their existing dispositions as defective.
Practical Implications of the Evidence
Choose observable goals and meaningful contexts
A research-informed approach to desired change begins by specifying the behavior and context that matter. “I want to participate more confidently in collaborative discussions” is easier to observe than “I want a completely different personality.” Specific routines, achievable challenges, environmental supports, and feedback can help establish whether an attempt produces the hoped-for practical outcome. This is a reasonable application of intervention findings, rather than a validated universal personal change protocol. Hudson et al., 2019; Haehner et al., 2024.
Track patterns over time and across perspectives
Repeated observations are more informative than a single assessment. People can monitor concrete behavior, reflect on whether changes are sustained, and consider feedback from trusted others without treating every comment as a diagnostic judgment. A measured change in a questionnaire can complement behavioral evidence, but the same questionnaire should be interpreted in context rather than assigned clinical meaning automatically. Stieger et al., 2021.
Respect autonomy and avoid coercive personality ideals
Personalities vary normally. Introversion, sensitivity, low sociability, or a preference for routine may be compatible with health and meaningful functioning. Employers, educational institutions, partners, and digital platforms can misuse change research if they convert population averages into demands that everyone become more outgoing or compliant. Ethically appropriate change goals should be voluntary, context-sensitive, and directed at well-being or personally meaningful functioning. Asselmann et al., 2026.
Seek appropriate clinical help for clinical concerns
When persistent distress or impaired functioning is the central issue, clinical evaluation and evidence-based care may be relevant. Personality-change studies cannot substitute for individualized assessment or treatment planning. The presence of a trait, a high questionnaire score, or a desire to change does not constitute a mental disorder. Counseling and psychotherapy are relevant to clinical needs and goals, while nonclinical trait programs should be judged separately on their safety and evidence.
Scientific Controversies and Remaining Questions
How much is real trait change rather than changed reporting?
Even randomized studies may rely heavily on self-report measures sensitive to knowledge of the intended target. Informants provide useful independent evidence but may notice only a narrow behavior range. Physiological or digital behavioral indicators are not automatic ground truth: validity must be demonstrated for the construct and setting. Strong conclusions require converging evidence, replicable methods, and measurement models that distinguish states, symptoms, and traits. Stieger et al., 2021; Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Are mechanisms established?
The general occurrence of change is better documented than a single causal pathway explaining it. Habit practice, changing environments, social feedback, biological processes, and self-concept may all play roles in different circumstances. Contemporary reviews acknowledge mixed or insufficient empirical evidence for the proposed mechanisms, including which ingredients are necessary and whether the same processes govern naturalistic and deliberate change. Jackson and Wright, 2024; Asselmann et al., 2026.
Do new trait scores improve real-world outcomes?
Personality traits correlate with many life outcomes, but a correlation between baseline trait and life success does not prove that artificially increasing the trait yields the same benefit. More rigorous research is needed to examine downstream changes in functioning, relationships, physical health, and well-being while monitoring adverse effects. An intervention can alter a scale score without necessarily changing the broader situation that created the original difficulty. Haehner et al., 2024.
How long can changes endure?
Published follow-ups support persistence over some months for selected intervention outcomes; long-term effects over many years remain less certain. Changes may depend on continued practice, opportunities, context, and the kinds of measurements used. Longitudinal studies over decades show natural personality movement, but they do not establish the long-term durability of a particular intervention. Stieger et al., 2021; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is personality fixed after age 30?
No. Adult trait rankings can become relatively stable, and group averages can still change. Modern longitudinal syntheses document continued development through adulthood, with substantial differences among individuals. Age 30 is not a scientifically justified universal cutoff for personality plasticity. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Haehner et al., 2026.
Can someone intentionally become more outgoing or conscientious?
Structured programs and behavior-focused experiments suggest that some people can move in a desired direction on measures associated with those traits. Effects depend on the intervention, participant, measurement, and observation window. Learning practical social or organizational skills can itself be worthwhile even when the evidence for broad, lasting trait transformation is uncertain. Hudson and Fraley, 2015; Stieger et al., 2021.
Can therapy change personality?
Intervention research, especially studies of clinical treatment, reports average changes in personality measures, prominently emotional stability. Some trials support a causal effect on measured traits, while symptom overlap and the diversity of clinical designs complicate conclusions about enduring personality change. Psychotherapy should be chosen in relation to clinical needs, not as a guaranteed personality-modification service. Roberts et al., 2017.
Can one major experience change a person's personality overnight?
Some experiences produce abrupt changes in feelings, behavior, or self-understanding. A conclusion about lasting personality change requires observing whether the new pattern persists and generalizes. Contemporary theory allows the possibility of abrupt shifts under some circumstances, but gradual and modest change is more typical in the scientific literature. Jackson and Wright, 2024.
Does genetic influence mean personality cannot change?
No. Genetic contributions to differences among people and potential responsiveness to developmental or environmental influences are compatible. Heritability estimates apply to variance in particular populations; they do not assign an immutable percentage to a single person's future. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
Does a questionnaire score prove that someone's personality has changed?
A score difference is evidence of a measured difference, subject to instrument reliability, item interpretation, temporary states, and regression to the mean. Longitudinal designs and other informants or behavioral records help determine whether it reflects a stable change in a broad disposition. Bleidorn et al., 2020.
Is becoming more emotionally stable always better?
A lower frequency or intensity of distress may improve functioning, but the value of a measured change depends on the person's goals, clinical context, and life circumstances. Trait scores are descriptive and probabilistic, and different settings reward different behaviors. The evidence does not justify treating an entire distribution of normal differences as a hierarchy of human worth.
Conclusion
Personality is developmentally continuous and open to change. Longitudinal research establishes shifts in trait averages and meaningful differences between individual trajectories across the lifespan. Experimental and intervention research shows that some deliberate changes can be induced, generally with modest effects and with the clearest evidence over months rather than decades. The strongest scientific account combines dispositions, repeated states, personal goals, environmental opportunities, and measurement discipline. A precise answer to whether personality can change therefore identifies what changed, for whom, under which conditions, and for how long. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Haehner et al., 2024; Haehner et al., 2026.
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — The scientific foundation for personality dispositions, temperament, biological and social development, and individual-differences research.
Personality Traits vs States: How the Big Five Changes Across Situations — How temporary states vary around relatively stable trait tendencies in the Big Five model.
Temperament and Neuroticism: Early Emotional Reactivity and Adult Personality — Developmental connections between early emotional reactivity and adult neuroticism.
Personality Disorders vs Personality Traits: Clinical Differences — A clinical distinction between normal personality variation and personality disorders.
References
Asselmann, E., et al. (2026). Volitional Personality Development: Theoretical Foundations, Empirical Advances, and Future Directions for Personality Change Interventions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20(5), e70147. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70147.
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Back, M. D., et al. (2020). Longitudinal Experience-Wide Association Studies—A Framework for Studying Personality Change. European Journal of Personality, 34, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2247.
Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., and Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148, 588–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365.
Briley, D. A., and Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152379/.
Fleeson, W., and Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole Trait Theory. Journal of Research in Personality. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009.
Haehner, P., Hopwood, C. J., Schellenberg, L., Schwaba, T., and Bleidorn, W. (2026). Individual differences in personality trait changes across the lifespan: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 152, 420–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000525.
Haehner, P., Wright, A. J., and Bleidorn, W. (2024). A systematic review of volitional personality change research. Communications Psychology, 2, 115. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00167-5.
Hudson, N. W., Briley, D. A., Chopik, W. J., and Derringer, J. (2019). You have to follow through: Attaining behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000221.
Hudson, N. W., and Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021.
Jackson, J. J., and Wright, A. J. (2024). The process and mechanisms of personality change. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00295-z.
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., and Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., and Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x.
Specht, J., Egloff, B., and Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950.
Stieger, M., Flückiger, C., Rüegger, D., Kowatsch, T., Roberts, B. W., and Allemand, M. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2017548118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017548118.