How Our Work Influences Who We Are: Testing a Theory of Vocational and Personality Development

over Fifty Years

Stephen A. Woods

Stephen A. Woods, University of Liverpool Management School, UK;

Grant W. Edmonds and Sarah E. Hampson

Sarah E. Hampson, Oregon Research Institute, USA;

Filip Lievens

Filip Lievens, Singapore Management University, Singapore;

Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Go to:

Abstract

This study examines the developmental influences of occupational environments on personality traits
from childhood to adulthood. We test aspects of a theory of vocational and personality development,
proposing that traits develop in response to work experience following
corresponsive and noncorresponsive mechanisms. We describe these pathways in the context of
situations of vocational gravitation and inhabitation. In a sample from the Hawaii personality and health
cohort (N = 596), we examined associations of childhood and adulthood personality traits, with
occupational environments profiled on the RIASEC model. Mediations tests confirmed that work
influenced personality development from childhood to adulthood for Openness/Intellect. We observed
multiple reactivity effects of occupation environments on adulthood traits that were not associated with
corresponding selection effects.

Keywords: Personality Development, Personality Trait Change, Vocational Development, Corresponsive

Mechanism, Big Five, Holland RIASEC, Person-Environment Fit, Trait Activation

Research on the role of personality traits at work has had an enormous impact on theory and practice in
the field of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Over the years, significant evidence has
accumulated for the effects of personality traits on, among other criteria, job performance, leadership
behavior, vocational interests and choices, job attitudes, and counterproductive behavior at work. The
progress of personality trait research in IWO psychology has been facilitated by the Big Five model of
personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and
Openness/Intellect), which has permitted research findings to accumulate around a common framework.
This research has typically treated the Big Five traits as stable predictor variables.

In recent years, however, research in the broader domain of personality psychology has demonstrated
that personality traits develop and change in predictable ways across the life course (Roberts, Robins,
Caspi & Trzesniewski, 2003; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Roberts & DelVecchio,
2000; Edmonds, Jackson, Fayard, & Roberts, 2008; Wille & DeFruyt, 2014; Woods, Wille, Wu, Lievens &
De Fruyt, 2019). In addition, there is a growing literature on the reciprocal relations between personality
traits and work (for reviews, see Woods et al., 2019 & Woods, Lievens, De Fruyt & Wille, 2013). However,
there remain important unanswered theoretical questions about the “how’s and why’s” behind
personality development due to work-related experiences. In particular, prior research and theory has
frequently explained personality development and change at work through the corresponsive
mechanism (Roberts, Caspi & Moffitt, 2003). In this mechanism, the reciprocal interplay of traits and
environments in the process of personality development rests on a key assumption that people select
into certain trait-consistent environments, and that those traits are subsequently developed, reinforced
and strengthened by experience of the environment. Yet, there are many developmental effects that are
noncorresponsive, which are not currently explained clearly by theory (Roberts & Nickel, in press).

In this paper, we argue that a more encompassing and comprehensive model is needed to explain how
vocational experiences exert influence on traits through people’s careers. To this end, we develop a
broader theoretical model concerning the pathways and mechanisms by which vocation-related
experiences influence personality development and change. Our key premise is that a more
comprehensive model of personality development and change should deal with normative personality
development, and change prompted by unique experiences of environments that could be a fit but
also misfit with a person’s traits, where traits may or may not have selected people into those
environments. This broader perspective of vocational and personality development builds on and
extends previous theories of vocational gravitation and attraction (e.g. Holland, 1997; Woods &
Hampson, 2010; Schneider, 1984), personality trait activation and development (e.g. Tett & Burnett,
2003; Woods, Lievens, De Fruyt & Wille, 2013; Roberts, Caspi & Moffitt et al., 2003), and work
adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984).

To test the proposed pathways and mechanisms of this model we rely on the Hawaii Personality and
Health Cohort. This unique dataset permits us to explore trait change over a longer period than in any
previous study, with early childhood personality traits measured at ages 6–12, and adulthood personality
traits measured around 50 years later.

Work and Personality Change: Processes and Mechanisms

Although in organizational research, traits have traditionally been viewed as stable, more recent
evidence has steadily accumulated that personality traits both affect and are affected by work
experiences (for a review, see Woods et al., 2013). The processes by which personality develops over
time can be separated into two types. The first type describes normative trait development, conceptually
exemplified by social investment theory (Roberts, Wood & Smith., 2005; Roberts, Wood & Caspi, 2008),
which posits that predictable patterns of personality development accompany aging as people engage in
social institutions such as education, the labor market, and marriage/long-term relationships. Social
investment might comprise actual investment of time and effort (e.g. in the work domain, attendance at
work) or psychological investments (e.g. investment and commitment in components of the work
domain, relevant to self-narratives and identity; Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). Both forms of investment
predict trait development. For example, psychological investments in family and work domains are
predictive of traits reflecting greater functional maturity (i.e. higher Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
and Emotional Stability; Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007; Woods et al., 2013).

Conversely, the second type of mechanism explaining personality development focuses on change that
occurs for individual persons as a result of their unique life experiences. For example, Ludtke, Roberts,
Trautwein, and Nagy (2011) examined the impact of life events on trait development reporting evidence
that traits of the Big Five predicted experiences of positive and negative life events in meaningful ways
and were correspondingly developed in response to those events. In the work arena, research into this
mechanism has focused on specific occupational experiences and their effects on personality traits. For
example, Wille et al. (2012) examined the impact of engaging in particular career roles (maker, expert,
presenter, guide, director, and inspirator) after graduation from college. While engagement in career
roles generally stimulated growth consistent with maturation effects, some career roles were predictive
of meaningful personality change that ran counter to typical trait maturation. Specifically, Wille, Beyers &
De Fruyt (2012) found that participation in roles of director and inspirator early on in the career
attenuated normative increases, and even promoted decreases, in Agreeableness, thereby contradicting
social investment theory logic.

Theorizing about how people develop in response to the unique experience of work has frequently
relied on the corresponsive principle. According to the corresponsive principle (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt,
2003), reciprocal influences of work on personality proceed through the mechanisms of selectivity and
corresponsive reactivity. That is, personality traits lead people to select themselves into particular work
environments (selectivity), which in turn reinforce, deepen, and strengthen those same (i.e.,
corresponding) traits (reactivity). A central assumption in the corresponsive mechanism is that
personality trait development happens in environments that fit with the traits that selected people in
those environments in the first place. So, for example, a person high on Openness/Intellect is naturally
curious and open to new ideas, and therefore selects a job environment that fits those traits (e.g.
research or creative work). By working in that environment, their Openness/Intellect is further deepened
and strengthened (i.e., they become even more open and intellectual). The traits that develop in
response to occupational experiences, according to this process, are the same ones that led the person
to enter the environment. So, environment selectivity and reactivity effects apply to corresponding
traits.

The corresponsive principle has been tested in a number of studies examining reciprocal effects of
personality and work experiences. Roberts, Caspi and Moffitt. (2003) found that of the 91 change
coefficients they examined, 83% represented corresponsive change. For example, traits related to
Agency at age 18 predicted occupational resource power (the extent to which people’s jobs afforded
them power over others) at age 26, which in turn increased Agency traits still further. Le et al.
(2014) explored the impact of various work conditions (Fit, Self-Determination, Ease, Material Benefits,
Safety/Quality, and Income) on change in personality traits. To test the corresponsive principle, they
examined whether associations between traits and conditions corresponded to changes in those traits
over an eleven-year period. They found that 20 out of 24 change findings (83%) conformed to the
corresponsive principle.

Recognizing the need to integrate this literature with vocational development literatures more
widely, Wille and De Fruyt (2014) examined personality change resulting from work through the lens of
the Big Five personality model and the Holland RIASEC model of occupational environments (Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional; Holland, 1997). In a sample of college graduates
tracked over a fifteen-year period, Wille and DeFruyt (2014) showed that experience of particular
Holland occupational environments was associated with changes in the Big Five. They proposed that the
Big Five would lead to selection into specific occupations, which would subsequently lead to
corresponsive reactivity effects. They also proposed that selection effects would influence correlated
change and prediction of RIASEC environment change from the Big Five.
Although their hypotheses were framed around the corresponsive principle, they found only one such
effect: lower Openness/Intellect was associated with more Conventional work environments, which in
turn was associated with accelerated normative decreases in Openness/Intellect over the 15 years.
However, they reported multiple other associations indicative of reactivity effects that occurred without
corresponding selection effects (e.g., participation in Realistic work environments was associated with
stronger increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and stronger decreases in Neuroticism). As a
key conclusion, they stated that aspects of the work environment appeared to influence personality trait
change irrespective of whether those same traits selected people into those environments initially. Such
effects might therefore be described as “noncorresponsive” personality development.

A Theory of Vocational and Personality Development

We propose that a more complete theory of personality development and work can be constructed by
examining trait change through the lens of person-environment fit. In organizational psychology, person-
environment fit may be conceptualized in a number of ways, to represent the compatibility of a person
with their vocation (PV fit), their job (PJ fit), their organization (PO fit), and their team or group of
coworkers (PG fit) (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Kristoff, 1996). Our focus on personality traits and
occupation environments in the present study relates most clearly to person-vocation fit. Accordingly,
we propose a theory of vocational and personality development (VPD; Figure 1) that explains personality
development through the course of working life in response to vocational experiences of fit and misfit.
We frame our theory around processes of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) and trait activation
(Tett & Burnett, 2003).

Figure 1.

A model of vocational and personality development (VPD theory).

The theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Dawis, 2005) has at its heart, the concept of a
state of correspondence between individual and environment characteristics, similar to the concept of
PE fit. The theory posits that correspondence results in more positive outcomes (e.g. Judge,
1994; Rounds, Dawis & Lofquist, 1987), and that it is achieved through a series of adjustments to both
individual and environment characteristics. One, termed activity, represents effort to change aspects of
the environment, most recently explicated in the literature on job crafting, which examines how
employees proactively craft their jobs to fit their individual needs (Wreszniewski & Dutton, 2001). The
second, termed reactivity, describes change in individuals acting on themselves in response to their
environment, by, for example, acquiring new skills (Dawis, 2005) or adjusting their values or interests
(Wille & De Fruyt, 2014). Change in the person by this theory therefore serves to strengthen
correspondence, and weaken discorrespondence (Dawis, 2005).

We integrate the theory of work adjustment with principles of trait activation (e.g. Trait Activation
Theory, TAT; Tett & Burnett, 2003). In these theories, the process of reciprocal activation and
development plays out such that traits are activated in response to particular situational cues. In short,
we propose that trait activation and the theory of work adjustment logically give rise to trait
development and change, directed towards greater person-environment fit. This development may
proceed through both corresponsive, and noncorresponsive pathways. Adopting these theoretical
mechanisms, we propose that development plays out under two vocational situations, which we
respectively term vocational gravitation and vocational inhabitation.

Vocational gravitation.

The corresponsive principle that is the dominant mechanism in prior theorizing and research in this
domain, deals with situations when traits lead to selection into an environment where there is good fit.
This process has also been termed vocational gravitation (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick,
1999; Woods & Hampson, 2010). According to Holland’s person-environment fit theory of occupational
choice (1997), people gravitate towards work environments that correspond to their vocational interests,
and make vocational choices based on their perceptions of the degree to which work environments
match their interests. Research has confirmed that Holland’s six RIASEC interest dimensions (Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and Conventional) predict current and prospective
occupational choices (Hansen & Campbell, 1985; Hansen & Dik, 2005; Donnay & Borgen, 1996). Much
research has also examined the associations of the Big Five with the RIASEC dimensions (e.g. see Larson,
Rottinghaus and Borgen, 2002; De Fruyt and Mervielde, 1999; Barrick, Mount & Gupta, 2003), and
demonstrated the prospective associations of traits on later life occupation choices in independent
cohort samples (Judge et al., 1999; Woods & Hampson, 2010). In this developmental pathway, traits
from an early age set people on a course by encouraging the formation of vocational interests, skills and
competencies (see Woods & Hampson, 2010; Woods et al., 2013), leading to trait-consistent vocational
choices and decisions. Experience of trait-consistent work environments reinforces and deepens
personality traits, represented in corresponsive personality development.

Vocational inhabitation.

A second condition by contrast, represents situations where a person is working in a particular

environment, but may not have gravitated to or selected that environment as a result of their
preferences or personality traits. Put simply they are present in an environment, even though
personality traits did not necessarily push them towards it. This situation might be termed vocational
inhabitation.
It is critical to acknowledge that working life experiences are seldom dependent on preference and
individual choice alone. External forces (e.g., socialization; socio-economic opportunity; uncontrollable
life events; organizational contexts) all exert impact on vocational choices and decisions. A person may
therefore find it necessary to work in an occupation that is not a natural fit to their traits. It would not be
accurate to say that they gravitated to their occupation because of their personality traits, only that they
are present in (or inhabit) that occupation.

Under such conditions of misfit, certain situations and job demands may require people to express
behavior that runs counter to their personality traits, motivated in part by the consequent attainment of
the benefits of work. We propose that for people in these circumstances, the demands of the work
situation inhibit the expression of trait-consistent behavior, prompting a need for development
(e.g. Simmering, Colquitt, Noe & Porter, 2003), and that people rather adjust (i.e. consistent with the
theory of work adjustment) their actions to reflect job-relevant behavior. Over time, repeated activation
of job-relevant behavior in place of trait-consistent behavior, and its consequent reinforcement and
strengthening, may result in long-term changes to personality traits serving to weaken person-
environment misfit (or discorrespondence). The role of behavior in personality development was
demonstrated by Hudson, Briley, Chopik and Derringer (2018), who found that interventions designed to
promote behavior change resulted in predictable trait change over time. Similar mechanisms have been
proposed in the context of health promoting behavior (Chapman, Hampson & Clarkin, 2014).

This part of our theoretical model serves to explain observation of noncorresponsive reactivity effects,
which may occur because aspects of the environment that were not necessarily salient for selecting a
person into an environment, become salient for trait development once a person inhabits it. In such
situations, although factors other than personality may determine vocational inhabitation, the
occuaptional environment (represented in its profile of RIASEC characteristics) may nevertheless be
rather consistent and prompt adjustment of specific traits for all persons within that occupation. This
process could theoretically proceed even if those persons a) were diverse in terms of their traits when
entering the occupation, and b) likely entered the occupation for a variety of different reasons, other
than gravitation. In sum, an occupation environment may prompt adjustment in a similar way for all
persons within it, even though the causes of vocational inhabitation may be different between persons 1.
This novel reasoning provides an explanation as to why noncorresponsive reactivity effects are
frequently reported in empirical studies (e.g. Wille & De Fruyt, 2014; Bleidorn et al., 2013).

The Present Study

In the present study, we examined whether reciprocal influences of personality and occupational
environment features proceeded in both corresponsive and noncorresponsive ways, testing our theory
with data from the Hawaii Personality and Health Cohort. The focus of our empirical tests was on the
impact of occupational environments examined through the lens of Holland’s RIASEC framework
(Holland, 1958; 1997), on personality trait development over a 50-year period. RIASEC characteristics of
occupational environments are an effective framework for examining the development pathways in our
model. There is evidence of gravitation or selection effects (Woods and Hampson, 2010), and precedent
for application in studies of the reciprocal effects of personality and work (Wille & De Fruyt, 2014).

Data collected from the Hawaii cohort at three time points are included in our analyses. These comprise
measurements of the Big Five in childhood (age 6–12; T1), and in adulthood (in 2013; T3 in the present
study). In between the two adulthood measurements of personality, the cohort reported their
occupations (around 2005; T2). Conceptually, this permits examination of the role of occupations in trait
development in the from childhood to adulthood. No study to date has permitted examination of the
trait development effects in response to work factors over such a substantive period of the lifespan.

On the basis of our VPD model, we argue that throughout the career span, personality development
plays out along the pathways of vocational gravitation and inhabitation. With respect to vocational
gravitation, we propose that personality traits promote gravitation to certain RIASEC characteristics, and
that those environments in turn also act as cues to activate and therefore develop and strengthen
personality traits. In sum, we propose that certain traits from childhood to adulthood are linked with
RIASEC environments through a corresponsive process, such that traits that select people into
occupational environments are strengthened and developed further by experience of those
environments. This proposition relies on observation of selection effects (correlations of childhood traits
with occupation environments). Empirically, this may be tested where selection effects are observed, by
examining whether the associations of trait measurements over time are explained in part by experience
of particular occupational environments. We hypothesize that:

• H1: Where childhood traits are correlated with RIASEC occupational environments,
environments mediate the relationship of personality traits measured in childhood and
adulthood.

With respect to vocational inhabitation, we propose that irrespective of whether selection effects are
observed from childhood traits to occupation environments, the experience of RIASEC characteristics of
occupations will serve to influence traits in adulthood in predictable ways. That is, we expect that
reactivity effects from occupation environment (measured at T2) to adulthood traits (measured at T3)
will be observed whether or not traits led people to gravitate to the occupation. Put differently, reactivity
represents the effects of environments on adulthood traits, after controlling for effects of childhood
traits. We focus our hypotheses on the key relationships between the Big Five and the RIASEC framework
(Openness/Intellect with Investigative and Artistic; Conscientiousness with Conventional; Agreeableness
with Social; Extraversion with Enterprising and Social). We hypothesize that:

• H2: Investigative and Artistic occupational environments will be associated with

Openness/Intellect in adulthood.

• H3: Conventional environments be associated with Conscientiousness in adulthood.

• H4: Social environments will be associated with Extraversion and Agreeableness in adulthood.

• H5: Enterprising environments will be associated with Extraversion in adulthood.

Go to:

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were members of the Hawaii Personality and Health cohort. This cohort comprises over
2,000 children from entire elementary school classrooms on the Hawaiian islands of Oahu and Kauai
who underwent a personality assessment conducted by their elementary school teachers over 40 years
ago. Since 1998, 2,017 (83%) of 2,418 original members of this cohort have been located and 1,387 (73%
of those located and still alive) have consented to participate in further studies (further details of
location and recruitment, see Hampson et al., 2001). As adults, participants have completed one or more
of six mailed questionnaires (Q1 –Q6) since 1999, and 830 participants have attended a half-day medical
and psychological examination at the research clinic in Hawaii at mean age 51 years. The present sample
was limited to the 597 who provided information about their current or most recent occupation(s) on
Q3. The sample reflected the gender ratio of the original childhood cohort with near equal numbers of
men (n = 293) and women (n = 298), and the ethnic diversity of the Hawaiian population (42% Japanese
Americans, 18% European Americans, 17% Native or part Native Hawaiians, 8% Filipino Americans, 6%
Chinese Americans, and 9% of other ethnicities). The present participants differed from the remainder of
the childhood cohort by being slightly more conscientious as children (t(2401) = 5.01, p < .05, d = .24),
and also more agreeable (t(2401) = 1.97, p < .05, d = .09), but differences on the other childhood Big Five
were not statistically significant.

Our analyses draw on data collected at three time points. T1 measurements comprise the trait
assessments at childhood, at which the average age of children was 10 years. T2 comprises the
occupations data collected at Q3, at which the average age of cohort survey respondents was 50 years.
T3 comprises the adulthood personality ratings collected on Q6, at which the average age of survey
respondents was 58 years.

Measures

Childhood personality traits.

The teacher assessments of childhood personality traits were conducted in 1965 or 1967 when
participants were in grades 1, 2, 5 or 6 and between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teachers rank-ordered
the students in their classrooms on each of 43–49 personality attributes, which included 39 common
variables, derived from attributes used by Cattell and Coan (1957), using a fixed nine-step quasi-normal
distribution. Definitions for each attribute were developed by focus groups of teachers (e.g.,
“Persevering: Keeps at his/her work until it is completed; sees a job through despite difficulties,
painstaking and thorough”). In one of the earliest demonstrations of the Big Five, Goldberg
(2001) demonstrated that these assessments yielded a five-factor structure. Childhood Big Five scores
were extracted as orthogonal factor scores using all available items. Alpha reliabilities for these factor
scores were obtained using the method described by Ten Berge and Hofstee (1999). The mean
reliabilities across subgroups (based on the particular combination of traits that were assessed) were as
follows: .75 (Extraversion), .62 (Agreeableness), .77 (Conscientiousness), .68 (Emotional Stability), and
.60 (Openness/Intellect) (Edmonds, Goldberg, Hampson, & Barckley, 2013). The validity of these
childhood measures as predictors of adult outcomes has been demonstrated in previous studies
(e.g., Edmonds et al., 2013; Hampson, Edmonds, Goldberg, Dubanoski, & Hiller, 2013; Hampson,
Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2006; Hampson, Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2007; Woods & Hampson,
2010).

Adult personality traits assessed by self-report.

Participants completed the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) in Q6, which began
in 2013. In each case, participants rated the self-descriptiveness of each item (1 = very inaccurate, 5
= very accurate). Alpha reliabilities for this measure for the Hawaii cohort in Q6 are as follows: .84 for
Extraversion, .78 for Agreeableness, .77 for Conscientiousness, .82 for Emotional Stability, and .82 for
Intellect/Openness/Intellect, (Edmonds et al., 2013). The raw scores were converted into factor scores
(mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1).

Current or previous occupation.

Beginning in 2005, participants were invited to complete Q3 which included a list of 26 occupation
categories with specific examples (e.g., Artist [painter, musician, interior designer]). Participants were
asked “If you are employed (or self-employed), how would you describe your job? If you are retired,
what did you do before you retired?”

Creating individual RIASEC profiles.

RIASEC profiles were derived by a two-step process. First, the occupations listed on Q3 were matched to
occupations on the O*NET database (O*NET Resource Center, 2003), which gives ratings on each of the
RIASEC dimensions for each occupation. Six scores, one for each RIASEC dimension, ranging from 1
= highly uncharacteristic of this job, to 7 = highly characteristic of this job are provided for each
occupation. The validity of the ratings has been established in previous studies (Eggerth, Bowles, Tunick,
& Andrew, 2005; Rounds, Smith, Hubert, Lewis, & Rivkin, 1999), and these ratings have been used in past
structural studies of Holland’s RIASEC model (Deng, Armstrong, & Rounds, 2007). These scores were
used to create RIASEC profiles for each of the occupations listed on Q3 (excluding the military for which
no RIASEC ratings are available). A more detailed description of this first step is provided by Woods and
Hampson (2010).

In the second step, the RIASEC ratings for occupations were used to construct RIASEC profiles for each
participant. For participants who checked only one occupation category (354), their RIASEC profile
corresponded to that occupation’s RIASEC ratings from O*NET records. Where participants checked two
or more occupation categories on the survey (156 checked two, and 77 checked three), their RIASEC
profile was constructed by averaging scores across each RIASEC dimension for each occupation they
selected. A list of the survey categories and corresponding RIASEC profiles is shown in Woods and
Hampson (2010). Descriptive statistics for these RIASEC ratings are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for RIASEC dimension profiles of jobs held by participants.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Realistic 4.03 1.47

2. Investigative 3.32 1.17 −.20*

3. Artistic 2.76 1.04 −.42* .54*

4. Social 3.95 1.51 −.71* .40* .67*

5. Enterprising 4.16 1.38 −.67* −.17* .02 .32*

6. Conventional 4.41 1.10 −.60* −.23* −.31* .05 .48*

Open in a separate window

N = 597;
*
p < 0.01

Go to:

Results

Corresponsive Development Effects: Vocational Gravitation

Selection (personality trait – vocation environment) and reactivity (vocation environment – personality
trait) effects were evaluated by estimating zero order correlations. We began by examining the
correlations between childhood Big Five traits and RIASEC dimensions at T2 (Table 2).

Table 2

Correlations Between Big Five Personality Dimensions Measured in Childhood and Adulthood with
RIASEC Coded Job Characteristics

R I A S E c

Childhood Personality

Extraversion .01 −.02 −.05 −.02 .02 .00

Agreeableness −.02 −.05 .04 .02 .05 .01

Conscientiousness −.22 .10 .11 .17 .10 .17

Neuroticism .02 −.04 .02 .03 .02 −.05

Openness/Intellect −.05 .12 .12 .07 .04 −.08

Adulthood Personality

Extraversion −.07 −.07 −.04 −.03 .01 .02 .11 .10 .08 .08 −.03 −.02

Agreeableness −.11 −.11 −.05 −.04 .13 .12 .11 .11 −.01 −.00 .03 .03

Conscientiousness −.05 −.03 .02 .01 .02 .02 .07 .06 .06 .05 .−00 −.02

Neuroticism .06 .06 −.05 −.06 −.09 −.09 −.12 −.12 −.01 −.00 −.05 −.04

Openness/Intellect −.06 −.05 .20 .18 .20 .18 .08 .05 .09 .09 −.15 −.13

Open in a separate window

Note. n = 591 for Childhood; n = 449 for Adulthood.

R = Realistic, I = Investigative, A = Artistic, S = Social, E = Enterprising, C = Conventional, BFI = Big Five
Inventory.

Effect sizes in bold are significant at the p < .05 level. Effects in italics are betas controlling for the effects
of respective childhood Big Five traits.

We found significant selection effects for childhood Openness/Intellect and Conscientiousness.

Childhood Openness/Intellect was associated with Investigative (r = .12, p < .05) and Artistic (r = .12, p <
.05) work environments in adulthood, and negatively with Conventional work environments (r = −.08, p <
.05). Childhood Conscientiousness was associated with all RIASEC dimensions in adulthood.

We next tested for corresponsive effects associated with these selection effects for Openness/Intellect
and Conscientiousness (hypotheses 1). Mediation effects were tested by estimating the indirect effect of
the child trait on the adult trait through the RIASEC dimension. As the sampling distribution of the
indirect path is typically non-normal, we used a bootstrapped resampling method in PROCESS (Hayes,
2013) to estimate the indirect paths and also bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals on these paths. So,
we created path models where each RIASEC dimension operated as a mediator of the association
between the personality trait in childhood and the same trait in adulthood and estimated the indirect
effect of the child trait on the adult trait. This model is depicted in Figure 2, with the corresponsive
mechanism confirmed through observation of indirect effects through paths A and B. Openness/Intellect
demonstrated corresponsive effects via two RIASEC dimensions. For jobs characterized as Investigative,
we found that the association between childhood Openness/Intellect and the same trait in adulthood
was mediated by Investigative job characteristics (β = .02, 95% CI [.00, .03]). We found a similar
mediation effect for Artistic jobs, such that Artistic job characteristics meditated the association between
childhood and adult Openness/Intellect (β = .01, 95% CI [.00, .03]). We found no further mediation
effects. Therefore, we found support for hypothesis 1 in respect of Openness/Intellect in our data.

Figure 2.

Path model illustrating a test of mediation to test corresponsive effects for personality via RIASEC job
characteristics.
Selectivity Effect = Path A; Reactivity Effect = Path B, controlling for Path C; Corresponsive Effect = Indirect
effect through Paths A and B.

Noncorresponsive Development Effects: Vocational Inhabitation

Hypotheses 2 to 5 predicted that vocational environments would be associated with adulthood traits
(i.e. reactivity effects would be observed) irrespective of whether selection effects of childhood traits
were observed. On the basis of the absence of selection effects, correlations of RIASEC environment
scores with adulthood personality traits may be assumed to represent unique explained variance in traits
in later life beyond that explained by childhood personality. That is, the effects represent generalized
change or growth in personality occurring regardless of initial elevation on respective traits in the
analyses. However, for completeness, we tested these effects in two ways. Firstly, through the
computation of correlations between RIASEC and adulthood traits (i.e. path B in figure 2). Secondly,
through regression in which the respective childhood trait was entered alongside the RIASEC dimension
as a control (i.e. in figure 2, path B controlling for path C). The betas from these tests are also shown
in Table 2. This analytic approach to examining change over time has been used in other domains of
applied psychology (see. e.g. Dierdorff, Surface & Brown, 2010; Shiner, Masten, & Roberts 2003; Woods,
Patterson, Koczwara & Sofat, 2016).

Hypothesis 2 (Artistic and Investigative environments predicting Openness/Intellect) was confirmed

(although in respect of hypothesis 1, this finding was associated with a significant corresponsive
developmental effect). Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed. There was no correlation between Conventional
environments and adulthood Conscientiousness. Hypothesis 4 was confirmed. Social vocation
environments were associated with higher Extraversion (r = .11, p < .05) and Agreeableness (r = .11, p <
.05), and also lower Neuroticism (r = −.12, p < .05). Hypothesis 5 was not confirmed. Enterprising
environments were not associated with Extraversion in adulthood. Outside our hypotheses, we also
observed three other reactivity effects. Realistic vocational environments were associated with lower
Agreeableness (r = −.11, p < .05). Artistic vocational environments were also predictive of higher
Agreeableness (r = .13, p < .05). Conventional work environments were negatively associated with adult
levels of Openness/Intellect (r = −.15, p <.05).

Go to:

Discussion

In this study, we developed a theoretical model of vocational and personality development, which
proposed mechanisms to explain the interplay of personality traits and work. We tested aspects of this
theory in the context of Holland RIASEC model of vocational environments, examining the prospective
relations of childhood and adulthood personality, and occupational environments in ways consistent
with our model.

Development Effects for Personality and Occupational Environments: Vocational Gravitation and
Inhabitation

Our VPD model proposes that a person’s occupational environment is a function of their traits and
external factors, which exert their effects to a greater or lesser extent for different people. The process
by which personality traits lead to entry into occupational environments (selection) is referred to as
vocational gravitation: Traits influence the development of preferences, skills, and competencies for
particular kinds of work, which lead them to gravitate to specific occupational environments (Woods &
Hampson, 2010). Our VPD model proposes that environments exert reactivity effects on personality
traits reflecting processes of trait activation (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), and work
adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), directed towards greater person-environment fit. With respect to
trait activation, personality traits are activated in response to work environment cues, and through
repeated activation, reinforced, deepened, and developed.

However, our VPD model represents further advances in research on personality change by interpreting
these observed selection and reactivity effects specifically in situations of both person-
environment fit and misfit. Following previous theorizing in this area (e.g., Roberts et al, 2003; Woods et
al., 2013, Woods et al., 2019) we proposed that under conditions of trait-occupation fit, trait selection
and reactivity effects are linked through a corresponsive mechanism; that is, the same traits that select
people into environments are developed in response to those environments. This explanation holds
especially for interpreting reactivity effects resulting from vocational gravitation.

To test for these developmental pathways (hypothesis 1), we examined the mediation effects of
occupational environments on relationships between repeated measures of the Big Five. Our analyses
also confirmed this corresponsive process for Openness/Intellect with Investigative and Artistic in
childhood. Children higher on Openness/Intellect (i.e. more curious and imaginative) were more likely to
work in highly Investigative and Artistic environments, and experience of those environments was
correspondingly associated with higher adulthood Openness/Intellect.

However, we did not observe corresponsive effects for any other of the Big Five dimensions for which
selection effects were observed. This finding is informative for understanding the corresponsive
mechanism. In our VPD model, we include the process of adjustment directed in a way that serves to
strengthen PE fit. This mechanism requires activation of traits, and it is possible that persistent activation
of traits does not necessarily follow from selection effects. This possibility, combined with our theoretical
explanations, might help to refine understanding of the corresponsive process to more clearly guide
prediction of corresponsive development.

Our VPD model also recognizes that people may inhabit occupations for reasons other than gravitation
(we term this situation vocational inhabitation) and that in such circumstances, the theory of work
adjustment proposes that if adjustments cannot be made to the environment, people can develop to
better fit the environment. Where occupational environments activate a personality trait, the expression
of which would run counter to the requirements of the situation, trait behavior is inhibited and replaced
with situationally consistent behavior. Repeated expression of this behavior at work over time, we
propose, leads to personality development consistent with the direction of the new behavior. For
example, if a person low on Extraversion works in an occupation that requires interpersonal contact with
others (e.g. a Social vocations), we propose that performance of the job requirements over many years
would serve to increase Extraversion.

Testing this in our data involved observing the reactivity effects of occupational environments on
adulthood traits that did not correspond to selection effects from childhood traits to occupational
environments. In addition to the observed effects of Openness/Intellect, our analyses also confirmed
hypothesis 4 (that Social environments would predict higher Extraversion and Agreeableness in
adulthood). Whilst hypotheses 3 and 5 were not confirmed, we also observed three significant
correlations of environments and traits. Of these, the negative effects of Realistic with Agreeableness
and Conventional with Openness/Intellect are conceptually sensible. Realistic environments are
associated more strongly with working with things rather than people (Prediger, 1982) and a negative
association with Agreeableness is consistent with this definition. Conventional environments are
associated with working with concrete rather than abstract concepts (Woods & Hampson, 2010) and in
this context, a negative association with Openness/Intellect is also rationally reasonable.

In summary, the meaningful pattern of observed correlations in our data, notwithstanding that some of
our hypotheses were not confirmed, offer some support nevertheless for our propositions. In these data,
experience of vocational environments did indeed exert reactivity effects that were not associated with
selection effects. Moreover, these associations did appear to show environments predicting salient
personality traits (following trait activation theory) and in directions that indicate adjustment to greater
fit to environment demands (following the theory of work adjustment).

Theoretical Implications

Collectively, the findings were informative for our theoretical model. For Investigative, and Artistic
environments, and focusing on the development pathways from childhood to adulthood, we can reason
that there are dual personality development processes playing out. The corresponsive mechanism
appears to explain personality development effects for Openness/Intellect in our data. We observed
indirect pathways from childhood to adulthood Openness/Intellect, indicating that these environments
do explain in part the stability of Openness/Intellect through working life. Where people select into
environments through the process of vocational gravitation, and thus fit the environment well,
corresponsive trait development is observed in our data.

However, we also observe personality development under conditions of misfit, as proposed in our theory
(e.g., noncorresponsive reactivity). This finding supports our proposition that vocational inhabitation
arising for reasons other than gravitation, may nevertheless be accompanied by trait development,
explainable through theories of trait activation and work adjustment. An additional notable observation
in this respect, underlining the importance of work experience for personality development, is that
occupational environment characteristics (i.e., the RIASEC dimensions) were approximately equivalent
predictors of adulthood Openness/Intellect compared to childhood Openness/Intellect. For some of the
reactivity effects observed, occupations were a stronger predictor of adulthood traits than were
childhood traits. In the case of Agreeableness for example, a better estimate of trait level in mid-life
could be obtained by looking at people’s employment experience rather than their childhood traits.

With respect to previous theorizing, our findings are consistent with the propositions of emergent
theorizing in the area of personality development at work. For example, the Demands-Affordances
TrAnsactional (DATA) Model (Woods, Wille, Wu, Lievens & De Fruyt, 2019) proposes that development at
work is toward greater PE fit at multiple levels (fit to job, vocation, group and organization. Our findings
are especially relevant to the vocational level. The DATA model describes a transactional process
triggered by the activation of traits in response to work demands, and then motivated by the attainment
of work rewards, operated to achieve fit between traits and demands through processes of adjustment.
Our findings provide new evidence of this theorized process playing out across working life as people’s
traits adjust to the demands of vocations (e.g. the association of investigative and artistic environments
with adulthood Openness/Intellect, or experience of social environments with higher Extraversion in
adulthood).
Similarly in the TESSERA (Triggering Situations, Expectation, State/State Expressions, ReActions) model,
(Wrzus & Roberts, 2017) trait change is proposed to as a consequence of accumulated micro-
transactions with the work environment. This provides further explanation of how day-to-day
interactions with the work environment, experienced across many years in our sample, lead to the
development of traits. Our findings and our vocational and personality development theoretical
propositions add to this emerging consensus on the central processes of work-related sources of
personality development, growth and change in adulthood.

Future Directions

The Hawaii data provide a valuable look at developmental transactions between developing personality
traits over the life course and work experiences. This allowed us to test hypotheses supporting the VPD
model. Under the perspective that personality traits are fixed predictors, the developmental effects we
have described would be completely overlooked. We have demonstrated both corresponsive and
noncorresponsive effects and addressed questions about the conditions under which each type of
developmental transaction is likely to occur (i.e. person-environment fit and misfit).

The presence of corresponsive and noncorresponsive effects suggests that the selection of work
environments is important with respect to long term personality development, something that those
entering the workforce may be unlikely to consider. As such, our work has bearing on how individuals
might approach important career decisions and suggests that more longitudinal research focusing on this
question is needed. Just as the personality trait as predictor model provides valuable insights in the role
of personality traits as predictors of work satisfaction and job performance, the VPD model provides a
framework for considering these questions developmentally over time. We propose three main
directions for future research.

First, the role of vocational interests in the pathway from traits to occupations could be tested directly.
The RIASEC framework has been instrumental in understanding of longitudinal relations of personality
and occupational environments (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Woods & Hampson, 2010). However, the role of
interests alongside traits and RIASEC occupation characteristics could further elaborate the processes of
vocational and personality development. For example, do interests affect the extent to which people
change in response to their work experiences, and do they likewise develop overtime? Future research
could address this question and serve as an important replication of our findings.

Second, it is possible that job satisfaction is linked to the processes of personality development across
working life (see Woods et al., 2013). For example, where development occurs to address personality-
environment misfit, it is logical to expect that changes satisfaction accompany the development.
Changes in satisfaction might therefore be considered markers of effective work adjustment,
contributing to long term development and change. The role of these criterion variables in personality
development over time is critical to establish in theory.

Third, future studies could examine the processes of vocational and personality development over
different developmental periods of life. Our study has examined such processes over a long span of
working life. However, this does not necessarily imply that trait development occurs only over a long
period of time. It could be interesting for example to examine relationships between vocational
characteristics and traits as people enter an occupation for the first time, and in the first few years as
they specialize (e.g. Woods, Patterson, Kocwara & Wille, 2016). This would also enable some intriguing
follow up questions from our study to be tested. For example, does trait elevation on certain dimensions
upon entering an occupation influence the trajectory of development. High Agreeableness might
promote conformity to fit the environment, or high Openness/Intellect might lead people to be more
flexible in their adjustment. Moreover, a more direct appraisal of personal circumstances could be
included to better understand the extent to which people have options for job or occupation change.
Volitional engagement with the occupational environment (versus engagement that is necessitated
through limited alternatives) could also be influential in trait development trajectories.

Applied Implications

Alongside the research and theoretical implications, our study also has applied implications for
practitioners who use personality assessment for a variety of purposes in organizations. For example, in
the case of vocational guidance, practitioners typically assess interests and personality traits in order to
facilitate matching people to careers or occupations, implicitly treating the individual differences side as
fixed, and the occupational side as variable. Our findings suggest that this approach may need to be
modified slightly such that vocational advisers consider not only occupations that fit individual
preferences, but also the ways in which clients could approach personal development for a career for
occupations that they would like to do, but which may be inconsistent in some way with their traits.

No discussion of the applications of personality trait assessment in organizations would be complete

without considering personnel selection. In this respect, again our findings combine with the increasing
evidence of personality development and change during working life to open up new lines of discussion
about the practice of personality assessment for selection. For example, when assessing the fit of a
person’s traits and competencies to job requirements it is often the case that there are gaps between
the individual and ideal profile. Greater understanding of how and when traits might be developed
through interventions and work experiences could help practitioners to properly weight the importance
of these gaps and training need areas and recommend appropriate development activities. Our findings
add substantially to the emergent evidence base that would justify such an approach.

Limitations and Strengths

One methodological limitation of our study concerns the endorsement of multiple jobs by some
participants. This may have led to regression to the mean for RIASEC profiles of those participants
resulting from averaging of the RIASEC scores of multiple jobs. Our sample is also based on a multi-
ethnic cohort in Hawaii, and although Holland’s model has been researched in the Hawaii context
previously (Oliver & Waehler, 2005), it will be important to replicate these findings in other cultures and
samples to add confidence regarding the generalizability of our results.

Conceptually, we acknowledge that our dataset does not include vocational interest data, which means
that the role of interest development in the mechanisms linking personality in childhood and adulthood,
and occupational choice could not be tested. More broadly, we acknowledge that our focus on the
RIASEC model is just one way to conceptualize job characteristics that might influence trait development,
and so there remain important unexamined factors beyond our study.

We also acknowledge that our propositions of the role of PE fit are based upon the conceptual fit of the
RIASEC environments with the Big Five rather than on a direct measure of subjective perceptions of fit.
The inclusion of a measure of perceived fit in future extensions or replications would bolster our
theoretical propositions still further.

In measurement terms, it would have been ideal to have used similar measures for personality in
childhood and adulthood. All longitudinal data sets spanning long intervals necessarily depend on the
measurement tools of the day. While using similar instruments in childhood and 40 years later in
adulthood has merits in terms of face validity, no study to date has demonstrated strict levels of
measurement invariance in personality over such a long interval spanning childhood and adulthood. This
limitation remains a challenge for future work using more recently developed measurement
instruments.

Notwithstanding these limitations, our study has notable strengths. First, we are unaware of any other
dataset that would permit examination of personality developmental processes across all of the Big Five
in the context of vocational and occupational variables over such a long period of time, and indeed from
early childhood. The Hawaii personality and health cohort dataset is unique in this respect. Secondly,
although we above highlight that there are factors unmeasured in our study that may influence
personality development, our presentation of VPD model provides a clear framework for future studies
to build on our findings to establish a full understanding of vocational factors that do and do not impact
on trait development over time.

Concluding Remarks

In this study, we examined the role of occupational environments in the developmental trajectories of
traits from childhood to adulthood. We observed that gravitation to occupations did, in the case of
Openness/Intellect, result in corresponsive development effects. However, we also observed multiple
reactivity effects that did not correspond to selection effects based on childhood traits. The pathways of
vocational lives are complex and unique and our observations underline the importance of work in how
traits develop and change through people’s lives. For whatever reasons people inhabit vocations and
occupational environments, the experiences that are accumulated within them may determine the
trajectory of trait development. Our vocations may not always reflect who we were in the past, but may
still influence who we are in the future.

Go to:

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grant R01AG020048 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes
of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
official views of the National Institute of Aging or the National Institutes of Health.

Go to:

Footnotes

Data from the Hawaii Personality Health and Cohort represent sensitive individual information collected
as part of an ongoing longitudinal study. Portions of the data have been archived through NACDA and
are available to researchers under a restricted use agreement. To protect participant confidentiality and
anonymity, some sensitive data are not made publicly available. Enquiries should be directed to the
second author at the Oregon Research Institute.
This study was not pre-registered in an institutional registry.
1
For example this may reflect a situation where personality is not the main driver of gravitation to
occupations; whilst for some individuals occupation choice might reflect traits, for others it may rather
be external factors. The net effect is that no gravitation effect would be observed at the group-level.

Go to:

References

1. Barrick MR, Mount MK, & Gupta R (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the five-
factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45–
74. [Google Scholar]

2. Bleidorn W, Klimstra TA, Denissen JJ, Rentfrow PJ, Potter J, & Gosling SD (2013). Personality
maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination of social-investment
theory. Psychological science,24(12), 2530. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Cattell RB, & Coan RW (1957). Child personality structure as revealed in teachers’ behavior
ratings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 315–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Chapman BP, Hampson S, & Clarkin J (2014). Personality-Informed Interventions for Healthy
Aging: Conclusions from a National Institute on Aging Work Group. Developmental
Psychology, 50(5), 1426–1441. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Dawis RV, & Lofquist LH (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]

6. Dawis RV (2005) The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Brown SD & Lent RW (2005)
Eds. Career Development and Counselling: Putting theor and Research to Work (pp3–23).
Hoboken NJ; Wiley. [Google Scholar]

7. De Fruyt F, & Mervielde I (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment
status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701–727. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1999.tb00177.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Deng C-P, Armstrong PI, & Rounds J (2007). The fit of Holland’s RIASEC model to U.S.
occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,71, 1–22. [Google Scholar]

9. Dierdorff E, Surface E, & Brown K (2010). Frame-of-Reference Training Effectiveness: Effects of

Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy on Affective, Cognitive, Skill-Based, and Transfer
Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1181–1191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Donnay DAC, & Borgen FH (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong Interest
Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275–291. [Google Scholar]

11. Edmonds GW, Goldberg LR, Hampson SE, & Barckley M (2013). Personality stability from
childhood to midlife: Relating teachers’ assessments in elementary school to observer-and self-
ratings 40 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 505–513. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Edmonds GW, Jackson JJ, Fayard JV, & Roberts BW (2008). Is character fate, or is there hope to
change my personality yet? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 399–413. [Google
Scholar]

13. Eggerth DE, Bowles SM, Tunick RH, & Andrew ME (2005). Convergent validity of O* NET Holland
code classifications. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(2), 150–168. [Google Scholar]

14. Goldberg LR (2001). Analyses of Digman’s Child-Personality Data: Derivation of Big-Five Factor
Scores From Each of Six Samples. Journal of Personality, 69(5), 709–744. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

15. Hampson SE, Dubanoski JP, Hamada W, Marsella AJ, Matsukawa J, Suarez E, & Goldberg LR
(2001). Where are they now? Locating former elementary-school students after nearly 40 years
for a longitudinal study of personality and health. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(3), 375–
387. [Google Scholar]

16. Hampson SE, Edmonds GW, Goldberg LR, Dubanoski JP, & Hillier TA (2013). Childhood
conscientiousness relates to objectively measured adult physical health four decades
later. Health Psychology, 32(8), 925–928. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Hampson SE, Goldberg LR, Vogt TM, & Dubanoski JP (2006). Forty years on: teachers’
assessments of children’s personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes
at midlife. Health psychology,25(1), 57–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Hampson SE, Goldberg LR, Vogt TM, & Dubanoski JP (2007). Mechanisms by which childhood
personality traits influence adult health status: educational attainment and healthy
behaviors. Health psychology,26(1), 121–125. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Hansen JC, & Campbell DC (1985). Manual for the Strong Interest Inventory (4th ed.). Palto Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]

20. Hansen JC, & Dik BJ (2005). Evidence of 12-year predictive and concurrent validity for SII
Occupational Scale scores. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 365–378. [Google Scholar]

21. Hayes AF (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]

22. Holland JL (1958). A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 42, 336–342. [Google Scholar]

23. Holland JL (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. [Google Scholar]

24. Hudson NW, Briley DA, Chopik WJ, & Derringer J (2018). You have to follow through: Attaining
behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. John OP, & Srivastava S (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102–
138. [Google Scholar]
26. Judge TA (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for
satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32–54. [Google
Scholar]

27. Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, & Barrick MR (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general
mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Kristof AL (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology,49 (1), 1–49. [Google Scholar]

29. Larson LM, Rottinghaus PJ, & Borgen FH (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five
personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217–239. [Google Scholar]

30. Lauver KJ, & Kristof-Brown A (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–
job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454–470. [Google Scholar]

31. Le K, Donnellan MB, & Conger R (2014). Personality development at work: Workplace conditions,
personality changes, and the corresponsive principle. Journal of personality, 82(1), 44–56. [PMC
free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Lodi-Smith J, & Roberts BW (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the
relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and
volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 68–86. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

33. Lüdtke O, Roberts BW, Trautwein U, & Nagy G (2011). A random walk down university avenue:
Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637. doi: 10.1037/a0023743. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Oliver KE, & Waehler CA (2005). Investigating the Validity of Holland’s (1959, 1997) RIASEC
Typology Among Native Hawaiians. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 448. [Google
Scholar]

35. Roberts BW, & DelVecchio WF (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from
childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
3–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Roberts BW, Caspi A, & Moffitt TE (2003). Work experiences and personality development in
young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.84.3.582. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Roberts BW, & Nickel LB (2017). A critical evaluation of the Neo-Socioanalytic Model of
personality. In Specht J (Ed.) Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 157–177).
Academic Press. [Google Scholar]

38. Roberts BW, Robins RW, Caspi A, & Trzesniewski KH (2003). Personality trait development in
adulthood. In Mortimer J & Shanahan M (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. New York: Plenum
Press. [Google Scholar]
39. Roberts BW, Walton KE, & 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. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Roberts BW, Wood D, & Smith JL (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment
perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 166–184.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Roberts BW, Wood D, & Caspi A (2008). The development of personality traits in
adulthood. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3, 375–398. [Google Scholar]

42. Rounds JB, Dawis R, & Lofquist LH (1987). Measurement of person-environment fit and
prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31(3), 297–318. [Google Scholar]

43. Rounds J, Smith T, Hubert L, Lewis P, & Rivkin D (1999). Development of occupational interest
profiles for O* NET. National Center for O* NET Development, Raleigh, NC. [Google Scholar]

44. Shiner RL, Masten AS, & Roberts JM (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows adult personality
and life outcomes two decades later. Journal of personality, 71(6), 1145–1170.
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Simmering MJ, Colquitt JA, Noe RA, & Porter CO (2003). Conscientiousness, autonomy fit, and
development: a longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 954. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

46. Ten Berge JM, & Hofstee WK (1999). Coefficients alpha and reliabilities of unrotated and rotated
components. Psychometrika, 64(1), 83–90. [Google Scholar]

47. Tett RP, & Burnett DD (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500.
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Wille B, Beyers W, & De Fruyt F (2012). A transactional approach to person-environment fit:
Reciprocal relations between personality development and career role growth across young to
middle adulthood. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81 (3), 307–321. [Google Scholar]

49. Wille B, & De Fruyt F (2014). Vocations as a source of identity: Reciprocal relations between Big
Five personality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(2), 262. Doi: 10.1037/a0034917. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Woods SA, & Hampson SE (2010). Predicting adult occupational environments from gender and
childhood personality traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1045–1057. doi:
10.1037/a0020600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Woods SA, Patterson FC, Koczwara A, & Sofat JA (2016). The value of being a conscientious
learner. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28, 424–434. [Google Scholar]
52. Woods SA, 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(S1), S7–S25. [Google Scholar]

53. Woods SA, Wille B, Wu CH, Lievens F, & De Fruyt F (2019). The influence of work on personality
trait development: The demands-affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) model, an integrative review,
and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 258–271. [Google Scholar]

54. Wrzus C, & Roberts BW (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The
TESSERA framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 253–277.
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]