Image: Exclusive to iStockphoto
In Brief
- Studies of personality development often focus on traits such as extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to new experiences. In most people, these traits change more during young adulthood than any other period of life, including adolescence. Openness typically increases during a person’s 20s and goes into a gradual decline after that.
- This pattern of personality development seems to hold true across cultures. Although some see that as evidence that genes determine our personality, many researchers theorize that personality traits change during young adulthood because this is a time of life when people assume new roles: finding a partner, starting a family and beginning a career.
- Personality can continue to change somewhat in middle and old age, but openness to new experiences tends to decline gradually until about age 60. After that, some people become more open again, perhaps because their responsibilities for raising a family and earning a living have been lifted.
More In This Article
-
Sidebar
Learning By Surprise
-
Sidebar
The Big Five
“The shortest path to oneself leads around the world.” So wrote German philosopher Count Hermann Keyserling, who believed that travel was the best way to discover who you are.
That was how 22-year-old Christopher McCandless was thinking in the summer of 1990, when he decided to leave everything behind—including his family, friends and career plans. He gave his bank balance of $24,000 to the charity Oxfam International and hitchhiked around the country, ending up in Alaska. There he survived for about four months in the wilderness before dying of starvation in August 1992. His life became the subject of writer Jon Krakauer’s 1996 book Into the Wild, which inspired the 2007 film of the same name.
This article was originally published with the title Set in Our Ways.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentThe article presents correctly our brain’s drive to form habitual thoughts and actions as we mature and settle down. Unfortunately, the cultural dimension of this drive has not been sufficiently explored. Negative impacts of extreme habitual behaviour were not sufficiently explored either. I know quite a few obese people who eat out of boredom - a direct result of habitual behaviour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also like to point out that our habits are circumstantial and through circumstances related to number of other habits. Weight loss, for example, often means changing eating habits. But these eating habits can be related to many other habits - increasing the hurdles to weight loss wish.
While reading, I hoped that the article will go a bit further - how to revive our sense of newness? Allow me, therefore, to give a suggestion - habit breaking exercises. An exercise could be as simple as switching the hand that wears time piece. (Just watch yourself during the day.) Hopefully, the science will explore more closely the impacts habit breaking exercises may have.
Kind regards,
Nice article. I have always felt change was overrated. Yet intellectually I thrive on learning, and whenever possible apply what I learn in my profession. So, I am sort of a fuddy duddy who likes constancy and predictability in my life, but not in my intellect. Hmm. What does this signify given the observations in the article. Does the habit of being open to new ideas persist past the magical year thirty(I am 53)? Can I lose weight? Not much and not easily. Can I start eating more spinach? Yes. Is the point that the delusion of major change no longer is strong enough to sustain the behavior needed to make major change. Many small changes are needed and even those may not be perfect. Does not that sound a bit like wisdom? Is this article addressing the main source for the observation of reduced ability to change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am so impressed with the insightful content of this article. Thanks a lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am 27 now. First time I went big to explore the world is when I was 21. Back then I did not understand much about being open or any other 4 traits you talk about in the article. But I genuinely had a calling and it felt like I was presented with an opportunity to leave my third-world country and dive into educating myself by the Western standards so much as to explore diverse cultures too.
Now, I can definitely relate to the fact that painful experiences lead, sometimes (or maybe most of the time), to greater outcomes in our lives (as per Deborah Carr). Because in my life it was exactly the case that I screwed up big times and I had to "fix it" by making an immediate change. I truly think that people who are presented with such an opportunity to change towards good are fortunate and they must be appreciative of that. Now I know it may sound much less scientific than that in your article, but I am a true believer that such opportunities come to all of us on this planet (the scope does not matter). Unfortunately, many people are not open to such opportunities, and that is the first step and choice we make towards failure.
Additionally, I loved your "too much too fast" example at the end of the article on Page 3 i.e. with a non-smoker and a couch potato. Even though I am familiar with this principle a little, however honestly I never thought of a failure from this perspective. False hope syndrome is really a new concept for me. The only thing I felt missing was the point on the continuous action. Many people want to do something in their lives, and even more people know that change must occur. And so many people start, but most of them do not persist enough to succeed, which is why failure is the only option to live with.
While the article correctly depicts change as difficult to make (hence the lucrative market in self-help books, or more accurately "shelf-help" books which are purchased and never read), it fails to stress the most fundamental reason that people fail to make changes in their lives: competing commitments. I'm committed to losing weight, but at an underlying level I may be more committed to appearing jolly and cuddly so that I'll be loved. We all have thousands of these competing commitments, developed over a lifetime, as survival mechanisms - and even when we recognize them, like slippery little worms they wriggle away from our awareness. Taking these competing commitments on, one at a time, recognizing that they do not serve us, and replacing them with commitments that help us move our lives forward, is a daunting challenge... and most worthwhile. In this way it is possible to make large changes in one's life in a short period of time, regardless of our age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found what I call 'major life changes' to be rejuvenating, broadening, and instructive. Become a tree planter in Oregon, or a stone mason in Colorado, or a chef in New York City, or a jazz musician in Chicago, or a stage carpenter, or a manager of a clothing store-- or all of the above, sequentially, or camp out from a canoe on the Mississippi for six months. 'Major life change'-- is living more fully and satisfyingly. You will learn to better enjoy life wherever you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecently, a friend (in their sixties) was lamenting the decline of fraternal organizations (such as the American Legion and Masons) in America. He was dismayed at what he perceived as younger generations being much more self-centered and less connected with their communities than those of us who are older. Westerhoff may give us a clue as to why rising generations may actually be different from our own. Have we extended the self-centered years of youth through the malleable years of young adulthood? Could it be that delayed acceptance of adult responsibility coupled with anonymity of modern society have conspired to separate us socially from one another, and in doing so, bring failure to learn and practice the benefits and joys of fraternity? Westerhoff's article suggests to me that our life's circumstances in our twenties may be especially important in shaping the way we deal with life for decades afterward when we are ascending to positions of increased responsibility and influence. Being burdened early with "adult" responsibilities (marriage, children, military service and careers) while we were still adaptable may not have been such a bad thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislarry.vanhorn - Blah, blah blah! The same mindless idiocy has been around since before the Roman Empire. There are ancient writings about how the youth are self centered and less community centered. It is always self agrandizing by senile old farts that forgot how they themselves were and what their parents said about them. The current youth do more community service and charitable work than your generation of old coots ever did by nearly a power of ten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome fraternal organizations are declining but many are growing rapidly and have no trouble recruiting younger members. Most of the ones growing aren't "fraternal" any more because they recruit women too. Maybe if you and your friend weren't dinosaurs you would not sound so stupid. Just for the record I am over 40 and not "young" so knock that stupid stereo type out of your thoughts too.
As for painful experiences leading to growth - some few do but most do not. Need proof? Hit yourself in the head with a hammer really hard. It hurts! Did you "grow" or get "made stronger"? No, you suffered an injury.
Stupid generalizations are just that - STUPID!
martyweiss - Major life changes that we choose will by their nature produce better outcomes than those inflicted upon us by others or by circumstances we can't control. I've had several of both kinds. The ones I chose were good and the ones I didn't were bad. Congratulations on never having lost control of your life. You are very fortunate.
In no way does this article describe my life, which I've reframed and redefined a dozen times during my nearly 69 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKicked out of school at age 15, I worked at a half-dozen completely different occupations before becoming a gunner aboard an aircraft carrier. Impregnating an older, though attractive, woman with children, I found myself with a hardship discharge working brutal jobs in my 20s. Single a few years later, I fell in love with a younger woman who talked me into Johnson's MDTA jr. eng. program, which led to an entirely different life as a field engineer traveling the nation with several firms in newly emerged fields.
(I've hitchhiked across America a couple times with nary a penny in my pocket).
Skipping along here, after reverting back to menial work (lost drivers lic.) on both sides of florida (Atlantic and Gulf sides). As there are two many major life shifts to describe, I'll just say that after a few more years of field engineering and travel, I moved in with an Italian lover in California who helped me get started as a technical writer.
During many years (dozens of addresses) as a technical and advertising writer/editor I enjoyed many romances (one lasting a decade until death from lupus) with many marvelous women most decades younger than I.
Too much to tell: I now live in Las Vegas.
I really don't think that openness or the willingness to take risks has anything to do with age as much as it has to do with the level of commitment and sense of responsibility one has.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbucketofsquid: It certainly wasn't my intent to be a mindless idiot. (I take no shame in growing old. It is a privilege denied to many.) In my pursuit of brevity I clearly failed to make to make my point. You are quite right about each generation thinking the following ones are somehow less virtuous. (Yeah, I know. That's a gross stereotype too.) I know a lot of younger folks who are exemplary citizens. I work with a building full of them everyday. I know my history pretty well too. My thesis is that changes on the margins can be enough to tilt a society or culture in a new direction. I don't believe humans are fundamentally different today than when the Romans were rising and falling, but the world is different in profound ways. Thomas Friedman has written about the ability of a single angry person (or a handful) to be far more capable of changing the world today than ever before. (One man stuffs some explosives in his shoes and years later, millions of travelers are still shuffling sock-footed through airport security.) My grandfathers never attended high school, my father never attended college, I have a masters degree and my oldest daughter finished medical school at age thirty-four. That is a trend which I believe extends beyond my own family. Your assertion seems to be that nothing important changes from one generation to the next. For centuries you are essentially right. In many places on the planet that may still be the case. However, the average years of education in the United States for adults over twenty-five is at an all time high of twelve years and continuing to rise. We lead the world in that category. (An interesting sidelight is that women have surpassed men in university studies.) These are trends which may count for something more than simply degrees awarded. Even a slim margin of young people being influenced to behave differently can change the direction of a nation. No rule is universally true, especially those involving psychology, but they don't have to be in order to matter a great deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow true it is that once the age crosses 50 years the capacity to accept new ideas diminishes rapidly. But my experience is the even border on abhorrence and in the best of cases a total indifference. Take the case of editors of Scientific American. They must be senior persons wise and well informed. but suffer from the same syndrome. As a scientific journal it is easy to publish esoteric articles with no immediate implications for your quality of life. It is also easy to publish statistics based research results like this one and many others. It is also easy to talk of global warming , carbon emissions and dooms day awaiting mankind, because it improves readership. But surprisingly positive solutions which can solve the problems, but innovative, will not find favor merely because it is too simple and not too esoteric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Einstein said human stupidity is unlimited. We had a solution for solving transportation problem on our planet all these centuries since Newton's days. Just because Newton is history does not mean his laws don't hold good. Despite advances in quantum physics , space travel is still controlled by the gravitational forces of the planets.
The same gravitational force can be harnessed to transport ourselves at 360 kmph, move goods from any point to any point, have urban transport at 60 mph with access at less than 500m, thus practically making fossil fuel use zero. The mechanism to achieve this unbelievable benefit to mankind is fully described in the US patent Application 12184151 dt 07/31/2008, full specification of which was sent to the editors of Scientific American, for favor of review. Since the Gravity Power Towers described in the specification are such simple systems , less complicated than proven trebuchet in mechanical details. The Towers comprise of some heavy masses moving up and down providing through variable gear transmission and cable the motive force, giving out energy when accelerating and sustaining speed, and recovering back the same energy while stopping. but uses advanced microprocessor device with necessary intelligence built in to manage the timings of acceleration or deceleration by managing the variable gear ratios. The technologies used are all existing and not of serious research development nature.
This fundamental fourth force which is still an enigma for scientists not fitting with quantum theories, is a poor cousin of nano technology and dark matter. US can stop emitting 3.5b t of carbon emissions.(www.atrilab.com)
People do grow. I agree with the article that one should attempt a reasonable first step toward changes they desired. Ifa a couch potato wants to be a marathon runner, then he or she should aim a 100m run this morning, and another 100m tomorrow, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually that's what I'm doing now: usually I read a Scientific American article and only wondered how people can make comments. Today I pushed myself to write one. My God, am I glad I did!
My next inquiry is how can we teach our children, in the light of this article, to be a better person in their life?
Blatant remark, in the '<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=set-in-our-ways&sc=WR_20081223">Set in Our Ways: Why Change Is So Hard</a>', article in <a href="http://www.sciam.com/">scientific american mind</a>?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"<span style="font-style:italic;">Personality can continue to change somewhat in middle and old age, but openness to new experiences tends to decline gradually until about age 60. After that, some people become more open again, perhaps because their responsibilities for raising a family and earning a living have been lifted.</span>"
Killing dreams, shun new experiences? Why? Openness to new experiences decline until about 60. The age for retirement? Retirement from what?
Their squeezed out lives, being trapped in the cogs of western or westernized economies, pressured from any angle possible, sentenced to live their lives out, in the service of economic interests, which their sole purpose is to accumulate wealth that its bulk is siphoned in the pockets of a handful of individuals.
Leaving the equivalent of crumbs, as reward for their toil, a meager flow of wealth carefully administered so they can barely sustain vital functions for their survival and that of their families. Never a moment's peace.
Keeping them constantly on their toes, with sparse moments for rest through their whole working lives.
How can they ever be able to sustain the fervour of their youth?
No wonder the 22-year-old Christopher McCandless, chose death to a life, so ruthlessly drained of its force.
'Set in Our Ways', and the only thing offered is The shortest path to oneself leads around the world. , trivializing a trait responsible for the stagnant societies, the world over. As usually.
The whole article is a mock to the face of every individual, and they have the audacity to throw it in piles.
<a href="http://chaos-in-our-lives.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-personality-change-is-so-hard.html">Why personality change is so hard? Because monetizing societies squeeze every inch out of the lives of the individuals amidst them.</a>
Blatant remark, in the '<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=set-in-our-ways&sc=WR_20081223">Set in Our Ways: Why Change Is So Hard</a>', article in <a href="http://www.sciam.com/">scientific american mind</a>?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"<span style="font-style:italic;">Personality can continue to change somewhat in middle and old age, but openness to new experiences tends to decline gradually until about age 60. After that, some people become more open again, perhaps because their responsibilities for raising a family and earning a living have been lifted.</span>"
Killing dreams, shun new experiences? Why? Openness to new experiences decline until about 60. The age for retirement? Retirement from what?
Their squeezed out lives, being trapped in the cogs of western or westernized economies, pressured from any angle possible, sentenced to live their lives out, in the service of economic interests, which their sole purpose is to accumulate wealth that its bulk is siphoned in the pockets of a handful of individuals.
Leaving the equivalent of crumbs, as reward for their toil, a meager flow of wealth carefully administered so they can barely sustain vital functions for their survival and that of their families. Never a moment's peace.
Keeping them constantly on their toes, with sparse moments for rest through their whole working lives.
How can they ever be able to sustain the fervour of their youth?
No wonder the 22-year-old Christopher McCandless, chose death to a life, so ruthlessly drained of its force.
'Set in Our Ways', and the only thing offered is “The shortest path to oneself leads around the world.”, trivializing a trait responsible for the stagnant societies, the world over. As usually.
The whole article is a mock to the face of every individual, and they have the audacity to throw it in piles.
<a href="http://chaos-in-our-lives.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-personality-change-is-so-hard.html">Why personality change is so hard? Because monetizing societies squeeze every inch out of the lives of the individuals amidst them.</a>
Can we change the topic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we change the topic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find that when people want to change for reasons that are external such as losing weight to attract a mate, instead of losing weight to improve yourself, fail because they are not focused on their change but on changing someone else. I am in my 50s and move about every 4 years to a new job and this requires me to change constantly. I enjoy the changes and challenges. My brother, and his wife, never left their home town and would rather experience constant periods of unemployment than move to get a better lifestyle and job. We can change and we can cause our brains to re-wire but this takes work and knowledge - this is often too far out of our comfort zone to take on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoney, Money, Money. All this article so not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I had enough money for all the changes I want to make, and not have to waste time just working to get it, I would be able to go study something interesting, change my profession, and a lot more.
Most people go through life not having enough money, this is the only truth.
One interesting way to test this theory is to observe trends in the ability to listen to new music. This must certainly go hand-in-hand with openness. In 1 year of my life now, I am more open to new music than I was for 15 years of my life. Will the pattern continue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy parents I noticed were very open to music when they were younger, but now are set in their ways, listening to the same old classics they did when they were in their 20's....they always did complain to me about rock and roll.
I can only hope that in my age, I keep being as open to music as I am in my 20's.