How does your chosen organizational behavior model relate to the inputs, processes, and outputs?

For part 1, you will research one of the specific organizational behavior models identified in the course eTextbook and write an essay in which you explain that specific model. (BIG 5 PERSONALITY MODEL)

B)egin with an introduction that presents your thesis statement and conveys the overall purpose and function of organizational behavior models. Then, address the following questions about your chosen model:

How does your chosen organizational behavior model relate to the inputs, processes, and outputs?

Explain the three levels of analysis of the organizational behavior model you chose. Use examples to illustrate.

How does this model relate to the individual, group, or organizational level of analysis?

How does what you learned about the chosen model and theoretical framework aid you in gaining a better understanding of a situation you have experienced in your work environment?

Part 1 of this assignment must be a minimum of three pages in length. You are required to use a minimum of two peer-reviewed or academically reliable sources from the CSU Online Library to support Part 1 of your essay.

For part 2 of this, you will need to search the CSU Online Library or other academic databases for two peer-reviewed articles, research, or case studies that focus specifically on your chosen organizational behavior issue. You will continue your essay by examining how the two articles contribute to the research on your chosen organizational behavior and the behavior science disciplines.

In part 2 of your essay, you must:

Briefly identify and summarize each article’s premise and findings.

Discuss how this organizational behavior issue relates to and contributes to one or more of the four behavior science disciplines. Do the articles support or challenge previous research? Defend your assessment.

Explain what you would do about this particular issue as presented in the articles as a manager. While you may mention the legal aspects of a case presented in the articles, you are not to focus solely on the legal aspects. Your perspective should be from a behavioral science viewpoint as it relates to organizational behavior. Opinions should be informed and substantiated by the research surrounding the topic.

Do you agree with the author’s findings? What additional research may be needed?

Your combined parts 1 and 2 of the essay must be a minimum of 5, but no more than 6 pages in length. The title and reference pages do not count toward the page requirement.

Requirements: 5 pages

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 4. Explain the levels of analysis of organizational behavior models. 4.1 Analyze the inputs, processes, and outcomes of an organizational behavior model. 4.2 Explain the three levels of analysis of an organizational behavior model. Required Unit Resources Chapter 1: What Is Organizational Behavior?, pp. 26–31 Chapter 5: Personality and Values, pp. 145–150 Chapter 6: Perception and Individual Decision Making, p. 199 Chapter 12: Leadership, pp. 398–400 Chapter 18: Organizational Change and Stress Management, p. 631 In order to access the following resource, click the link below. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011, November). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2011-12684-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Unit Lesson Introduction As we elaborate on our understanding of organizational behavior, it can be helpful to explore several different models. These models enable us to look at a concept from a variety of different perspectives. There is no one-size-fits-all to explain organizational behavior. Instead, the behaviors exhibited are the result of interactions between multiple variables that are also influenced by the level of analysis. So, before we delve into the models themselves, one must understand the variables involved and the different levels of analyses that come together to form the models. Types of Variables There are three types of variables involved in creating an organizational model. These variables include inputs, processes, and outcomes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE Organizational Behavior Models

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Inputs are the basic building blocks that lead to processes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). These inputs may be inherent from the onset of a working relationship, or they may develop over time. For instance, an individual may have certain characteristics that are the result of genetics or upbringing. Similarly, groups of people may be assigned roles and responsibilities when teams are formed to work on a particular project. Likewise, an organization has likely evolved over the years to the extent that customs and norms become evident. All of these are examples of inputs that can influence processes. The inputs just described can influence some sort of action within the organization. These actions are known as processes (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Examples of processes include making decisions, communicating, negotiating, and exercising change practices. As a result of the processes utilized, we arrive at some sort of outcome. These outcomes may be what was anticipated, or they may be things that we analyze further to explain what happened (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In any event, the outcome is a result of the interactions between many of the variables already noted. Outcomes may include attitudes, stress, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, group functioning and cohesion, productivity, and organizational survival. Levels of Analysis Along with the types of variables revealed, we also need to understand the impact of the levels of analysis. The three levels of analysis focus on the individual, the group, and the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2019). At each level, much can be learned about the inputs, processes, and outcomes. Each level builds a foundation upon which the next continues to build. For instance, one must consider what each individual can bring to a group. It is the individual inputs, processes, and outputs that pave the way for the many influences on the group level of analysis. This group level also progresses through the inputs, processes, and outputs that influence what can be seen at the organizational level. A Basic Organizational Behavior Model In understanding the variables and the levels of analysis, one has already been introduced to one of the most basic models of organizational behavior. As noted earlier, the variables, processes, and outcomes at the individual level influence the model’s group dynamics. This then leads to the organizational level. What begins at the most basic level can have far-more reaching impacts (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Many researchers have created more elaborate models that can aid us in gaining a better understanding of the many influences on organizational behavior at each level (individual, group, and organization). InputsProcessesOutcomesVariables involved in creating an organizational model include inputs, processes, and outcomes.

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title The Big Five Personality Model The Big Five Personality Model focuses on five specific traits of an individual that help to characterize one’s personality. When assessing the traits in coordination with one another, the model can be used to assess what an individual may do or how that person may react in a variety of situations (Chiaburu et al., 2011). These five traits include conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In looking at these traits, one is addressing a number of different questions. How dependable and reliable is this individual? Is this person calm and confident or nervous and insecure? Is this person sociable and assertive? How sensitive or curious is this person? Is this person good-natured and cooperative? While the answers to these questions may not be cut and dry with yes or no answers, the assessments can lead to intriguing insights and reliable predictions of behavior. The Model of Creativity In looking at business scenarios, we often find ourselves being presented with challenges. When this happens, what are you going to do? Depending on your degree of creativity, you may look at lessons learned and what others have done in the past, or you may opt to think outside of the box and produce new and ingenious ideas. It is the level of creativity that may have a large influence on which path you choose. The model of creativity is another model that focuses on the individual. The three components that make up this model include creative behavior, predictors of creative behavior, and outcomes from creative behavior (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The model begins at the center with an understanding of what creative behavior entails. This is a four-step process that includes identifying the problem, gathering information, generating ideas, and evaluating one’s options. Our response to such a situation is dependent on our intelligence, personality, expertise, and ethics (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Each characteristic or trait is a predictor of our creative potential. With all this combined, we then tend to focus on the outcomes. Some are likely to be more creative than others. Nonetheless, innovation is key, especially to those stakeholders involved. If the outcome is useful and helpful to the stakeholders, then it is likely to be deemed a success. The Fiedler Model The Fiedler Model was developed by Fred Fiedler as the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership (Robbins & Judge, 2019). This model is based on group dynamics as opposed to that of an individual like the two previous models discussed. According to this theory, “effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader” (Robbins & Judge, 2019, p. 398). To make this determination, one must first complete the least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire. This questionnaire is going to enable one to identify as either being relationship-oriented or task-oriented based upon how that individual would describe one of his/her least favorable coworkers. If the coworker is described using favorable terms, then the person providing the description is likely to be relationship oriented (Robbins & Judge, 2019). On the contrary, if the coworker is described using unfavorable terms, then the person providing the description is likely to be task-oriented (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The situation is then evaluated based on three other dimensions: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. If a fit is found between the leader’s particular style and situation itself, then there may be leadership effectiveness. On the other hand, if there is no fit per se, then changes may need to be made to achieve the level of effectiveness desired. The Leader-Participation Model Have you heard people say that what you say is as important as how you say it? The Leadership-Participation Model is a bit like that. The Leader-Participation Model is another model that focuses on the group level influences of organizational behavior. The focus is on a leader’s behavior and the degree to which subordinates are permitted to participate in the decision-making process (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The model (Lacroix, n.d.)

MGT 7301, Organizational Behavior and Comparative Management 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title itself lays down the rules for when and how these types of interactions can occur. While some situations are more conducive to a leader making an executive decision and moving forward, other situations can benefit from the participatory style. Lewin’s Three-Step Model of the Change Process Kurt Lewin developed the three-step model of the change process that looks at the overall organization itself (Robbins & Judge, 2019). In order for a paradigm shift to occur, unfreezing must occur. This is the first step. According to Lewin, this can occur in one of three ways. There may be: (a) an increase in driving forces, (b) a decrease in restraining forces, or (c) some other combination of the two. Once this is done, the second step is where the change can occur. It is in this phase that movement from one way of doing things to another can occur. Once the momentum is in place, it should be sustained, if possible, until the desired effect is achieved. Upon getting to the desired state, then in the third and final step it is to be re-frozen in place whereby the restraining and driving forces are once again in balance with one another (Robbins & Judge, 2019). If additional changes are needed, then the process would be implemented once again. Conclusion Throughout this unit, we have focused on understanding the levels of analysis and a multitude of variables that are used to create models to help us better understand the dynamics of organizational behavior. There are no easy answers in all cases. It takes time, effort, and understanding to lead our teams where we need them to go. We are all unique, yet we bring a wealth of knowledge and experiences to our workplaces. The interactions with others and even the setup of the organization itself can influence the behaviors exhibited. Still, through understanding the many interactions, the models discussed can provide a new perspective on the predictors of behaviors that are going to aid us in making decisions on what is needed to get us to the desired outcome. References Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011, November). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2011-12684-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Larcoix, A. (n.d.). Personality traits, ID 19168435 [Photograph]. Dreamstime. https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-personality-traits-image19168435 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134729749 Suggested Unit Resources In order to access the following resource, click the link below. Mumford and Fried (2014) look at variables influencing several models used to predict behavior and yet introduce interesting insight/perspective which will leave you questioning the validity of said models. Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014, July). Give them what they want or give them what they need? Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 622–634. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=96645880&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyCodevelopment of Life Goals and the Big Five Personality Traits AcrossAdulthood and Old AgeLaura Buchinger, Theresa M. Entringer, David Richter, Gert G. Wagner, Denis Gerstorf, and Wiebke BleidornOnline First Publication, July 27, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477CITATIONBuchinger, L., Entringer, T. M., Richter, D., Wagner, G. G., Gerstorf, D., & Bleidorn, W. (2023, July 27). Codevelopment ofLife Goals and the Big Five Personality Traits Across Adulthood and Old Age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477

CodevelopmentofLifeGoalsandtheBigFivePersonalityTraitsAcrossAdulthoodandOldAgeLauraBuchinger1,2,TheresaM.Entringer1,DavidRichter2,3,GertG.Wagner1,4,5,DenisGerstorf6,andWiebkeBleidorn71Socio-EconomicPanel,GermanInstituteforEconomicResearch,Berlin,Germany2DepartmentofPsychology,FreieUniversitätBerlin3SHAREBERLINInstituteGmbH,Berlin,Germany4MaxPlanckInstituteforHumanDevelopment,Berlin,Germany5FederalInstituteforPopulationResearch,Wiesbaden,Germany6DepartmentofPsychology,Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin7DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofZurichSincethenewmillennium,researchinthefieldofpersonalitydevelopmenthasfocusedonthestabilityandchangeofbasicpersonalitytraits.Motivationalaspectsofpersonalityandtheirlongitudinalassociationwithbasictraitshavereceivedcomparablylittleattention.Inthispreregisteredstudy,weappliedbivariatelatentgrowthcurvemodeltoinvestigatedthecodevelopmentofninelifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits.Wetestedage,perceivedcontrol,gender,educationalbackground,andregionalsocializationaspotentialmoderatorsofcodevelopment.DatacamefromtheGermanSocio-EconomicPanelstudy(N=55,040,agerange:18–103years)andspanastudyperiodof13years.Duringthisperiod,theBigFivetraitsandlifegoalswereassessedfourtimes.Ourfindingssuggestthatdevelopmentinbroaderlifegoaldomains(e.g.,self-fulfillment)ismorestronglyconnectedtopersonalitydevelopmentacrossthelifespan,whereaschangesinspecificgoals(e.g.,havingchildren)aremorecloselytiedtotraitchangesduringyoungandmiddleadulthood.ThestrongestcodevelopmentwasfoundbetweenOpennessandagenticgoalswithafocusonpersonalgrowthfollowedbycodevelopmentbetweenAgreeablenessandcommunalgoals.DevelopmentalstageandeducationalbackgroundmoderatedthecodevelopmentofConscientiousnessandeconomicachievementaswellasfamily-relatedgoals.Contrarytothepreviousresearch,wefoundthatNeuroticismcodevelopedwithcommunallifegoals(i.e.,havingahappyrelationship/marriage).Ourfindingsreinforcetheoreticalframeworksthathighlighttheroleofchangingopportunities,constraints,anddevelopmentaltasksacrossadulthood.Keywords:lifegoals,BigFive,longitudinalstudy,lifespandevelopment,corresponsiveprincipleSupplementalmaterials:https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477.suppThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Editor’sNote.LauraA.Kingservedastheactioneditorforthisarticle.—RELLauraBuchingerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8052-4634TheresaM.Entringerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-7852DavidRichterhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-8652GertG.Wagnerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5985-4073DenisGerstorfhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2133-9498WiebkeBleidornhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3795-8143ThisstudywasfundedbytheGermanFederalMinistryofEducationandResearch(BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung,Grant:01UJ1911BY).Theresponsibilityforthecontentofthispublicationlieswiththeauthors.TheauthorsthankCarolineWehnerandMichaelD.Krämerfortheirhelpfulcommentsonearlierversionsofthisarticle.PleasenotethatthisstudywaspreregisteredviatheOpenScienceFramework(OSF,https://osf.io/j5ps2).ThewholeOSFprojectincludingfurthersupplementmaterialscanbeaccessedathttps://osf.io/a8bjz/.ThisstudyispartofLauraBuchingerdissertationduringwhichshewasapredoctoralfellowoftheInternationalMaxPlanckResearchSchoolontheLifeCourse(LIFE,https://www.imprs-life.mpg.de;participatinginstitutions:MaxPlanckInstituteforHumanDevelopment,FreieUniversitätBerlin,Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,UniversityofMichigan,UniversityofVirginia,UniversityofZurich).LauraBuchingerplayedaleadroleinconceptualization,datacuration,formalanalysis,methodology,visualization,writing–originaldraft,andwriting–reviewandediting.TheresaM.Entringerplayedasupportingroleinsupervisionandwriting–reviewandediting.DavidRichterplayedaleadroleinfundingacquisitionandsupervisionandasupportingroleinwriting–reviewandediting.GertG.Wagnerplayedasupportingroleinconceptualizationandwriting–reviewandediting.DenisGerstorfplayedasupportingroleinmethodologyandwriting–reviewandediting.WiebkeBleidornplayedasupportingroleinconceptualization,methodology,andwriting–reviewandediting.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoLauraBuchinger,Socio-EconomicPanel,GermanInstituteforEconomicResearch,Mohrenstraße58,10117Berlin,Germany.Email:[email protected]:PersonalityProcessesandIndividualDifferences©2023AmericanPsychologicalAssociationISSN:0022-3514https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp00004771

Personalitytraitsandlifegoalsaretwofundamentalbuildingblocksofpersonality(McAdams&Pals,2006).TheBigFivepersonalitytraits(Goldberg,1990),comprisingAgreeableness,Conscientiousness,Extraversion,Openness,andNeuroticism,arerelativelyenduringtendenciestoact,feel,andthink.Lifegoalsaremotivationalstrivingsthatguideindividuals’thoughts,feelings,andbehaviorsoveryearsordecades(Robertsetal.,2004).Theyarestronglyshapedbysocietalexpectationsorsocialscriptsandusuallyfollowanormativesequence(e.g.,careerentryandfamilyformationinearlyadulthood;e.g.,Heckhausenetal.,2019).Importantly,mostpersonalitypsychologistsagreethatpersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsarecloselyrelatedandcriticallyrelevanttofullycaptureanindividual’spersonality(Jayawickremeetal.,2019;Roberts&Wood,2006;Wagneretal.,2020).Yet,moreoftenthannot,traitsandlifegoalshavebeenstudiedindependentlyinseparatelinesofresearch(Austin&Vancouver,1996;Emmons,2003).Thisisalsotrueforresearchonpersonalitydevelopment.Over,thepasttwodecades,hundredsofstudieshaveexaminedage-gradedchangesintheBigFive(formeta-analyses,seeBleidornetal.,2022;Robertsetal.,2006).Thesestudiesfoundthat,onaverage,individualsbecomemoreagreeable,moreconscientious,andlessneurotic,particularlyduringyoungadulthood(Bleidorn,2015).Amostlyseparatelineofresearchhasexaminedlifespanchangesinlifegoals(e.g.,Ebneretal.,2006;Freund,2020;Heckhausenetal.,2010,2019;Nurmi,1992;Salmela-Aroetal.,2007).Thesestudiesindicatethatchangesinnormativelifegoals,thosethatarestronglytiedtosocietalexpectationsorsocialscripts,alignwithage-gradedchangesindevelopmentalopportunitiesandconstraints.Forinstance,parenthoodandcareergoalsareprioritizedduringearlyadulthoodwhenopportunitiesforgoalattainmentareplentiful,insteadofmiddleorlateadulthoodwhenbiologicalandsocietalconstraintsandreducedopportunitiesrenderattainmentdifficultorimpossible.However,considerablylessresearchstudiedtheinterplaybetweenchangesinlifegoalsandpersonalitytraits(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004).Thesestudies,whichoftenreliedonrelativelysmallandhomogenoussamplesintermsofageandeducationalbackground,providedmixedresults.Assuch,westillknowlittleaboutthecodevelopmentofthesetwobuildingblocksofpersonalityacrossthelifespan(Bleidornetal.,2010;Roberts&Robins,2000).Toaddressthisquestion,weanalyzedthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivepersonalitytraitsandninelifegoalsinalargeandheterogeneoussample(N=55,040)across13years.Insodoing,weaimedtoprovideamorecomprehensiveandprecisepictureofthenatureanddegreeofcodevelopmentbetweenpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals.TheoreticalPerspectivesontheCodevelopmentofPersonalityTraitsandLifeGoalsAlthoughpersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsareinterrelatedbuildingblocksofpersonality(e.g.,Roberts&Robins,2000;Wagneretal.,2020),theyarealsodistinct.Traitsrefertothedescriptivepartofpersonality.Lifegoalsrefertothemotivationalpart.Previousresearchfoundthatindividualdifferencesintraitsandlifegoalsareinfluencedbybothsharedanduniquegeneticandenvironmentalfactors(Bleidornetal.,2010),withbothbeingindependentpredictorsofimportantlifeoutcomes(e.g.,Bauer&McAdams,2010;Headey,2008).Together,traitsandlifegoalsofferafairlycomprehensivewindowintoaperson’sgeneralpatternsoffeelings,thoughts,andbehaviors,includingthedriversthatmotivatethem(e.g.,Little,1999;McAdams&Pals,2006).Thecloselinksbetweentraitsandlifegoalsraisequestionsabouttheirdevelopmentalassociations.Dochangesinlifegoalsgohandinhandwithchangesintraits?Severaltheoreticalperspectiveshighlighttheinterplaybetweenmotivationalconstructsandpersonalitytraitsbutmanyofthemassumedirectionalityregardingtheirrelationshiporacommoncauseofboth(e.g.,DeYoung,2015;Jayawickremeetal.,2019;McCabe&Fleeson,2012;Quirinetal.,2020;Wrzus&Roberts,2017).Thequestionwhytraitsandlifegoalscodevelop(althoughanextremelyinterestingone)wasnotthefocusofthisstudy,norcanitbeansweredwiththisstudydesign.Toexplainthecodevelopmentbetweentraitsandlifegoals,threeperspectivesareofparticularrelevance:theself-regulationperspective(e.g.,Denissenetal.,2013;Henneckeetal.,2014),theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personalityanddevelopment(Dweck,2017),andthecorrespon-siveprinciple(Roberts&Wood,2006).First,accordingtotheself-regulationperspective,trait-specificbehaviors,feelings,andthoughtsareperformedasstrategicmeanstoattaincertaindesirablegoals(Denissenetal.,2013;Henneckeetal.,2014).Forinstance,someonewhotriestotakeonmoreresponsibilityintheirjob,worksharder,andmorethoroughly(increasedConscientiousness),maydosotoadvancetheircareer.Empiricalsupportforthisperspectivecomesfromthefieldofvolitionalpersonalitydevelopmentwhichshowsthatpeoplecanpurposefullychangetheirpersonalitytraitsinadesireddirectiontoattaincertaingoals(e.g.,Hudsonetal.,2019,2020;Hudson&Fraley,2016;Mooreetal.,2021;Olaruetal.,2022;Stiegeretal.,2021).Second,similartotheself-regulationperspective,theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personality,anddevelopment(Dweck,2017)assumesafeedbackloopbetweengoalsandpersonalitytraits.Specifically,itpositsthatmentalrepresentationsofgoal-relevantbeliefs,emotions,andactiontendenciesmediatetheassociationbetweengoalsandpersonalitytraits.Thesementalrepresentationsarebasedonpriorexperiencesandareupdatedastheindividualmakesnewexperiences.Thisway,theyguidefuturegoalformationandfostercharacteristicbehavioral,cognitive,andemotionalpatterns—personalitytraits—whichguidegoalpursuit.Forinstance,avoidingconflict-pronecontexts,ignoringprovocations,andforgiv-ingeasily(Agreeableness)maybemotivatedbythegoaltohaveharmoniousrelationships.Ifsuchbehaviorsareaccompaniedbytheexperienceofmorepositiveinteractions,theindividualmayupdatetheirgoal-relevantbeliefs,emotions,andactiontendencies.Theymayconcludethatactivelyshapingtheenvironmentispossible(updatedcontrolbeliefs)andthatthechosenbehaviorswereeffectiveindoingso(updatedactiontendencies).Themoreoftentheindividualthenactsthisway(avoidsconflict,ignoresprovocations,etc.)toattaintheirdesiredgoal(tohaveharmoniousrelationships),themorehabitualthisbehaviormaybecome,potentiallytranslatingintochangesatthepersonalitytraitlevel(increasedAgreeableness).Third,thecorresponsiveprincipleemphasizestheinterconnec-tednessofselectionandsocializationprocesses.Itpredictsthatpeopletendtoprioritizelifegoalsthatmatchtheirpersonalitytraits.Onewayofinterpretingtheprincipleis,thatalsoincreasesinagivenpersonalitytraitpromptincreasesintheimportanceofmatchinglifegoals.Thepursuitoftheselifegoalsshouldthenreinforcethepersonalitytraitsthatledtothem(e.g.,Robertsetal.,2003;ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.2BUCHINGERETAL.

Roberts&Wood,2006).Forinstance,apersonwhoexperiencesincreasesinAgreeablenessmayalsoincreasetheircommunalstrivingsforharmoniousrelationshipsthat,ifachieved,mayleadtofurtherincreasesinAgreeableness.Similarly,increasesinConscientiousnessmaybelinkedtoanincreasedstrivingforcareersuccess,withthesestrivingsinturnfosteringfurtherincreasesinConscientiousness.Asindicatedbytheaforementionedexamples,therearetheoreticalreasonstoexpectdistinctivelinksbetweendifferenttraitandgoaldomains.Broadly,thesecanbeorganizedalongthedimensionsofagency(e.g.,competence,assertiveness,domi-nance)andcommunion(e.g.,warmth,relatedness,morality;seeBakan,1966).BoththeBigFiveandlifegoalscanbeorganizedintermsofthesetwocontentdimensions.ExtraversionandOpennesscontainagenticcontent,whereasAgreeablenesscontainscommunalcontent.Conscientiousnesscontainsbothagenticandcommunalcontent(Abeleetal.,2016;T.M.Entringer,Gebauer,&Paulhus,2022),whereasNeuroticismisconsideredapurelyevaluative,content-freedomain(Furr&Funder,1998;Gebaueretal.,2015).Lifegoalsconcerningstatus,careersuccess,economicachievement,hedonism,andpersonalgrowthcontainagenticcontent,whereaslifegoalsconcerningfamily,relationships,andaltruismcontaincommunalcontent(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Wehneretal.,2022).Somelifegoals(e.g.,societalinvolvementandowningahouse)containbothcommunalandagenticcontent(Headey,2008).Insummary,theself-regulationperspective,theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personality,anddevelopment,andthecorresponsiveprinciplepositclosedevelopmentalassociationsbetweenpersonal-itytraitsandlifegoals.Thetwocontentdimensionsofagencyandcommunionmayhelpusbetterunderstandwhichpersonalitytraitsshouldcodevelopwithwhichgoals.Specifically,itcanbeexpectedthatindividualswhoincreaseinagenticpersonalitytraitsaremorelikelytoalsoexperienceincreasesinagenticlifegoals,whileincreasesincommunaltraitsshouldgohandinhandwithincreasesincommunalgoals.LongitudinalResearchontheCodevelopmentofPersonalityTraitsandLifeGoalsSofar,onlyfourlongitudinalstudieshaveexaminedthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoals(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004).Thefirststudy(Robertsetal.,2004)reliedexclusivelyonstudentsfromtheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley(N=298)whoprovideddatainthefirstandlastweekoftheirfirstsemesterandattheendoftheirfirst,second,third,andfourthyearofcollege.TheBigFivewereassessedwiththeNEO-FiveFactorInventory(Costa&McCrae,1992).Lifegoalswereassessedintheformofnormativeimportanceratingsof26goalsthatformedsevenbroaddomains(Economic,Aesthetic,Social,Relationship,Political,Hedonistic,andReligious).Latentgrowthmodelswereusedtoinvestigatecodevelopment.Thesecondstudy(Lüdtkeetal.,2009)reliedontwowavesofdatafromalargersampleofstudentsinGermany(N=2,141),whowereintheirfinalyearofhighschoolatthefirstassessmentandwerecontactedagain2yearsaftergraduation.TheyalsousedtheNEO-FiveFactorInventorytoassesstheBigFive.Toassesslifegoals,theAspirationIndex(Deci&Ryan,1997;Klusmannetal.,2005)wasusedwhichcomprisesimportanceratingsof32lifegoalsthatassesseightgoaldomains(PersonalGrowth,Relationships,Community,Health,Wealth,Fame,Image,andHedonism).ToanalyzecodevelopmentbetweentheBigFivetraitsandlifegoals,thisstudyusedagenericreciprocaleffectsmodel.Thethirdstudy(Bleidornetal.,2010)reliedontwoassessmentswhichwere5.7yearsapartofN=329middle-aged(meanageatfirstassessmentwas38.7years)Germantwinpairs.ToassesstheBigFive,theRevisedNEOPersonalityInventory(Costa&McCrae,1992;Ostendorf&Angleitner,2004)wasused.LifegoalswereassessedwiththeGOALSquestionnaire(Pöhlmann&Brunstein,1997)whichcomprisessixsubscales(Power,Achievement,Variation,Altruism,Affiliation,andIntimacy)whichcanfurtherbeaggregatedintooneagencyandonecommunionscale.AmultivariateCholeskydecompositionmodelwasusedtoinvestigatethegeneticandenvironmentalsourcesofcodevelop-ment.Finally,inthemostrecentstudy,Athertonetal.(2021)usedthesamedataasRobertsetal.(2004)withoneadditionalwave,20yearsaftergraduation(N=251).LikeRobertsetal.(2004),theyusedlatentgrowthmodelingtoassesscodevelopment.Allfourstudiesfoundevidenceforcodevelopmentamongpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals.Specifically,thesestudiesfoundExtraversionandOpennesstocodevelopwithagenticlifegoalssuchasstrivingsforeconomicachievement,growth,orpower.Notably,changesineconomicachievementgoalsweremorestronglyrelatedtochangesinExtraversion(Robertsetal.,2004),whereasstrivingsforpersonalgrowthweremorestronglyrelatedtochangesinOpenness(Athertonetal.,2021;Lüdtkeetal.,2009).Changesincommunallifegoals,suchasstrivingsforintimacyorsocialrelationshipsgoals,wereassociatedwithchangesinAgreeableness.Furthermore,inlinewithextantresearchdemonstratingthatConscientiousnesscontainsbothagenticandcommunalcontent(T.M.Entringer,Gebauer,&Paulhus,2022),thesestudiesfoundchangesinthistraittobeassociatedwithchangesinbothagenticandcommunallifegoals(e.g.,economicachievementandrelationshipgoals;Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Robertsetal.,2004).Finally,inlinewithextantresearchidentifyingNeuroticismastheonlycontent-freedimensionofpersonality(Furr&Funder,1998),Bleidornetal.(2010)foundnoevidenceforthecodevelopmentofNeuroticismandanylifegoal.Theresultsoftheotherstudieswereinconsistent.Robertsetal.(2004)foundweak,negativecodevelopmentofNeuroticismandpoliticalgoas(r=−.20,p<.05)butthisfindingdidnotreplicateinAtherton’sstudywhichincludedthe20-yearfollow-upwave(r=.07[−.18;.45],p>.05).Instead,Athertonetal.(2021)foundpositivecodevelopmentbetweenNeuroticismandaestheticgoals(r=.32[.08,.56],p<.05)andNeuroticismandreligiousgoals(r=.23[.02,.45],p<.05).Lüdtkeetal.(2009)foundaweakprospectiveeffectofNeuroticismatthefirstassessmentoncommunitygoals2yearslater(β=.08,p<.01).1Regardingthestrengthofthecodevelopmentbetweenpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals,twostudies(Athertonetal.,2021;Robertsetal.,2004)foundthelargesteffectsizesforthecodevelopmentbetweenExtraversionandagenticlifegoals(.31≤zPE≤.55),followedbyAgreeablenessandcommunallifegoals(.21≤zPE≤.41),andsmallereffectsizesforthecodevelopmentbetweenOpennessandagenticlifegoals(.08≤zPE≤.19).Overall,however,therewasThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.1Robertsetal.(2004)andLüdtkeetal.(2009)didnotreportconfidenceintervalsfortheeffectestimates.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE3

substantialheterogeneityintheeffectsizesacrossstudies(e.g.,forthecodevelopmentofagenticgoalsrelatedtohedonismandOpenness.18≤zPE≤.70).Onereasonforthegreatheterogeneityineffectsizesacrossstudiesmightbethatexistingstudiesexaminedgoalsandtraitsinsmalltomoderatelysizedsamples(251≤N≤2,141,¯N=837)acrossdrasticallyvaryingtimeintervals(between6monthsand20years).Moreover,withanexceptionofBleidornetal.(2010),thesampleswereage-homogenousanddisproportionatelywell-educatedandwealthy(themedianannualsalaryinAtherton’sstudywasUS$97,000).Insummary,relevantlongitudinalresearchontraitsandlifegoalsisrareandnotwithoutlimitations.Existingstudiesreliedonsmallsamplesthatwereoftenrestrictedtoaspecificagerangeandeducationalbackground.Indeed,threeoffourstudiesonlyincludedindividualswithatleastasecondarylevelofeducationandnoneoftheexistingstudiesincludedolderadults.Thus,ourcurrentknowledgeaboutthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoalsislimitedtoyoungadulthoodandmidlifeandprimarilyappliestowell-educatedandwealthyindividuals.Conclusionsaboutthecodevelopmentofpersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsinlateadulthoodcannotbedrawn.Moreover,thesestudiestypicallyfocusedonbroadergoaldomainswhileresearchonmorespecificgoalcontenthasyettobedone.ThePresentStudyThepurposeofthepresentresearchwastoaddresstheaforementionedlimitationsbyexaminingthecodevelopmentallinksbetweentheBigFiveandninelifegoalsacrossmultipleassessmentwaves,coveringastudyperiodof13years,inalarge-scalelongitudinalsample(N=55,040,agerange:18–103years)thatisrepresentativeofthepopulationinGermany.Twooftheninelifegoalscanbeclassifiedasagenticwithafocusoneconomicachievement(i.e.,careersuccess,beingabletoaffordthings),twocanbeclassifiedasagenticwithafocusonpersonalgrowth(i.e.,self-fulfillment,seeingtheworld/travelextensively),andthreecanbeclassifiedascommunallifegoals(i.e.,beingthereforothers,havingchildren,havingahappyrelationship/marriage).Inaddition,twooftheninelifegoalscontaincontentfrombothdomains(i.e.,beingsocially/politicallyinvolvedandowningahouse2).Thisclassificationinformedtheformationofourhypothesesbutisnotreflectedattheanalyticlevel.Indoingso,weaimedtoextendtheliteratureinthreeimportantways.First,byexaminingtheassociationsbetweentheBigFiveandninespecificlifegoals,weaimedtoprovideamorenuancedperspectiveonthedevelopmentalassociationsbetweentraitsandlowerorderlifegoals.Consistentwiththeoryandpreviousresearch,wepredictedthat(Hypothesis1)changesinExtraversionandConscientiousnessarecorrelatedwithchangesinagenticlifegoalsrelatedtoeconomicachievement(i.e.,havingasuccessfulcareer,beingabletoaffordthings),andthat(Hypothesis2)changesinOpennessandExtraversionarecorrelatedwithchangesinagenticlifegoalsrelatedtopersonalgrowth(i.e.,self-fulfillment,seeingtheworld/traveling).Further,wepredictedthat(Hypothesis3)changesincommunalpersonalitytraits(i.e.,Agreeableness,Conscientiousness)arecorrelatedwithchangesincommunallifegoals(i.e.,havingahappyrelationship,havingchildren,beingthereforothers).Finally,basedonpreviousempiricalfindings,weexpectedthat(Hypothesis4)changesinExtraversionarelinkedtolifegoalswithmixedcontent(i.e.,beingsocially/politicallyinvolved).Giventhatnoknownstudyhasexaminedthelinksbetweentraitsandthegoaltoownahouse,wedidnotderivehypothesesforthisparticularlifegoal.Second,bycoveringtheentireadultlifespan,weaimedtoshedlightonthelinksbetweentraitsandlifegoalsatdifferentlifestages.Asoutlinedabove,mostpreviousstudiesfocusedonadolescenceandemergingadulthood(Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004).StudyingthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoalsduringthisdevelopmentalphaseisimportantbecauseduringthistimepersonalitytraitsandlifegoalsundergothelargestchanges(Arnett,2000;Bleidornetal.,2022).However,thereisevidencethatbothconstructscontinuetochangeduringmiddleandoldadulthood(e.g.,Bühleretal.,2019;Seifertetal.,2022).Here,weexaminedthemoderatingroleofageinthedevelopmentallinksbetweenlifegoalsandtraits.Giventhatbothchangesintraitsandlifegoalsappeartobemostpronouncedinyoungadulthood(e.g.,Bleidorn,2015;Salmela-Aroetal.,2007),wealsoexpectedthat(Hypothesis5)thecodevelopmentbetweentraitsandgoalswillbestrongerinyoungercomparedtomiddle-agedandolderadults.Third,thisstudyextendspreviousresearchbyexaminingthepotentialeffectsofperceivedcontrolonthecodevelopmentbetweentraitsandlifegoals.Individualswithhighperceivedcontrol(Folkman,1984;Spechtetal.,2013)believethattheirownbehavior,skills,orotherpersonalattributeshaveastrongimpactontheirlives.Participantslowinperceivedcontrolbelievethattheirlifelargelydependsonexternalfactorssuchaspowerfulothers,fate,orchance(Rotter,1966).Numerousstudieshaveshownthathighperceivedcontrolisassociatedwithstrongergoalstrivingandattainability(Lang&Heckhausen,2001;Sheldonetal.,2015;Skinneretal.,1990).Hence,wepredictedthatthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoalsisstrongerforpeoplewithhighperceivedcontrolascomparedtopeoplewithlowperceivedcontrol(Hypothesis6).Finally,weexploredtheeffectsofadditionaltheoreticallycriticalmoderatorvariables.Specifically,wetestedifgender,education,and,inparticular,culturalsocializationmoderatedcodevelopmentbetweentraitsandlifegoals.Priorresearchandtheoryhighlighttheroleofsocioculturalnormsforthedevelopmentofpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals(e.g.,Bleidornetal.,2013;Buchingeretal.,2022;T.M.Entringeretal.,2023;Markus&Kitayama,1991;Twengeetal.,2012).Inthiscontext,Germanyrepresentsaspecialcase.Forover40years,from1949to1990,thecountrywasdividedintotwostateswithfundamentallydifferenteconomicandpoliticalsystems:TheFederalRepublicofGermany(FRG)intheWestandtheGermanDemocraticRepublic(GDR)intheEast.TheFRG(orWestGermany)wasademocraticstatewithacapitalisteconomyandindividualisticvalues.TheGDRwasasoviet-ruled,socialistcountrywithaplannedeconomy,modeledaftertheSovietUnion.Duringthistimeofdivisionnotonlypoliticalideologiesandeconomicdecisions,butalsoworkattitudes,values,andlifestyleThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.2Headey(2008)factor-analyzedthelifegoalitemsfromtheSOEPandidentifiedthreedimensionsthathenamedsuccess,family,andaltruism.Theitem“owningahouse”loadedstronglyonthefamilydimensions,thesocial/politicalinvolvementitemloadedonthealtruismfactor.Hedroppedthe“owningahouse”itemonthegroundsoffacevalidity.Ourownreplicationwithadditionaldatashowedthatsocial/politicalinvolvementmainlyloadedonthesuccessdimensionbutalsoonthealtruismdimension.Sincepoliticalinvolvementhasalsobeenclassifiedaspredominantlyagenticinotherstudies(Trapnell&Paulhus,2012),weassumedthatithasbothagenticandcommunalcontent.4BUCHINGERETAL.

preferencesdiffereddramaticallybetweenthetwocountries(Freseetal.,1996;Pfau-Effinger&Smidt,2011).Severalstudiessuggestedthat,eventodayinmodern,postunificationGermany,thisculturaldivisionisstillpresent(Klüsener&Goldstein,2016;Rensmann,2019)andthatsocializationdifferencescontinuetoaffectpeople’slives(Scheling&Richter,2021).Hence,weexploredthepotentialeffectsofbeingsocializedinformerEastorWestGermanyforthecodevelopmentoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoals.Giventhelackofpreviousresearch,wederivednospecifichypothesesforthesemoderationeffects.MethodTransparencyandOpennessWeuseddatafromtheGermanSocio-EconomicPanelStudy(SOEP,2021Version36,EUEdition).EthicalpermissionwasgrantedbytheScientificAdvisoryBoardoftheGermanInstituteforEconomicResearch(DeutschesInstitutfürWirtschaftsforschung),Berlin,Germany.Allparticipantsprovidedinformedconsent.TheSOEPdataareavailabletoresearchinstitutesanduniversitiesforresearchandteachingpurposesfromtheSOEPResearchDataCentre(RDCSOEP).Informationabouteligibilityandtheapplicationprocesscanbefoundathttps://www.diw.de/en/diw_01.c.601584.en/data_access.html.Descriptiveanalyses,datapreparation,andvisualizationwasdoneinR,Version4.0.4(RCoreTeam,2020).Allmeasurementinvariancetestsand(multiplegroup)latentgrowthcurvemodels(LGMs)wereestimatedwithMplusVersion8(seeMuthén&Muthén,1998–2017).Thisstudy’shypothesesandanalysisstrategywerepreregistered(seehttps://osf.io/j5ps2).TheRcodefordatapreparationandvisualizationofthemodelresultsaswellastheMplusinputfilesareprovidedontheOpenScienceFramework-projectsite(https://osf.io/a8bjz/).ParticipantsTheSOEPwaslaunchedin1984andisanongoing,annual,large,anddiversemulticohortstudyofprivatehouseholdsinGermany.SeeGoebeletal.(2019)fordetailedinformationaboutsamplingstrategy,surveydesign,andassessmentprocedure.Overtime,theSOEPhasbeencontinuouslyrevisedandextended.Hence,manyconstructs,includingtheonesrelevantforthisstudy,wereintroducedtotheSOEPmanyyearsafterthelaunchofthestudyandareassessedatvaryingmeasurementintervals.Forourstudy,weuseddatafromthe2004,2005,2008,2009,2010,2012,2013,2015,2016,and2017waves.OurstudyincludedallSOEPparticipantswhocompletedatleastoneitemofour14focalconstructs(ninelifegoalsandthefiveBigFivetraits)overthecourseofthestudyperiod(i.e.,2004–2017)—adeviationfromourpreregistrationwhichwouldhaveonlyincludedparticipantswhoprovidedlifegoalandBigFivedataintwowaves.Thismoreliberalinclusionstrategy,combinedwithFullInformationMaximumLikelihood-estimatorissuperiortomoreconservativestrategies(Enders&Bandalos,2001)andhasbeenappliedinpreviousstudiesthatinvestigatedcodevelopmentinasimilardesign(e.g.,Hilletal.,2018).InLGM,itallowsamorepreciseestimationofthelevelsbyatthesametimenotchangingtheprecisionoftheslopeestimates.Althoughnotthemainfocusofourstudy,wesawthisasanadvantageespeciallycombinedwiththeincreasedsamplesize.3AtotalofN=55,040participantstookpartinatleastonewaveand52.81%ofparticipantswerewomen(codedwith0,menwerecodedwith1).Thenumberofrespondentsrangedfromn=39,880in2013ton=24,763in2005andmeanagerangedfromM=45.63(SD=17.58)in2013toM=50.02(SD=19.23)in2009.Onaverage,participantstookpartin3.91(SD=2.58)waves.SamplecharacteristicsareshowninSupplementalTablesS2andS3.Acorrelationmatrixofallmeasurementsisavailableathttps://osf.io/5rd9p.MeasuresWeincludedmeasuresofparticipants’lifegoals,BigFivetraits,perceivedcontrol,gender,education,andregionalsocialization.ComprehensiveinformationonallinstrumentsusedintheSOEPcanbefoundintheScaleManual(T.Entringer,Griese,etal.,2022).LifeGoalsParticipantswereaskedtoratetheimportanceofeachoftheninelifegoalsonascalefrom1(veryimportant)to4(notatallimportant).Theuseofnormativeimportanceratingsisinlinewithexistingresearch(Athertonetal.,2021;Wehneretal.,2022).Threeitemsassessedcommunalgoals(havingchildren,havingahappyrelationship/marriage,andbeingthereforothers),twoitemsassessedagenticgoalsrelatedtoeconomicachievement(beingsuccessfulinmycareerandbeingabletoaffordthingsformyself),twoitemsassessedagenticgoalsrelatedtoself-realization/personalgrowth(beingself-fulfilledandseeingtheworld/travelingextensively),andtwooftheassessedgoalscontainbothagenticandcommunalcontent(beingsocially/politicallyinvolvedandowningahouse).Priortotheanalysis,participants’importanceratingswerereversescored(sothathigherscoresreflectgreaterimportance)andthencenteredatthewave-specificperson-meanacrossallninelifegoals(ipsatized)torepresentprioritiesratherthanindividualdifferencesregardingtheuseoftheresponsescale.Thistechniquewasadoptedfromresearchonvalues(Schwartz,2012)andhasbeenusedinpriorresearchonlifegoals(Buchingeretal.,2022).Italsofollowstheoreticalrecommendationstorepresentgoalsinrelationtooneanother(Austin&Vancouver,1996).AlthoughthelifegoalitemswerefirstintroducedtotheSOEPin1990,weonlyincludedtheperiodduringwhichpersonalitytraitassessmentswerealsoavailable.Thisledtoaninclusionofthe2004,2008,2012,and2016waves.BigFiveTraitsWeincludedpersonalitytraitassessmentsfromfourwaves(2005,2009,2013,and2017).The15itemsoftheBigFiveInventory-SOEP(BFI-SOEP;Gerlitz&Schupp,2005)weretakenfromtheTen-ItemPersonalityInventory(Goslingetal.,2003)andtheBFI-25(Johnetal.,1991).Eachpersonalitydimensionwasrepresentedbythethreeitemswiththehighestfactorloadingsintheoriginalinventory.Exampleitemsare:“Iseemyselfassomeonewho”“isconsiderateandkindtoalmosteveryone”(Agreeableness),“isThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.3ThepreregisteredinclusionstrategyledtoafinalsamplesizeofN=24,924individuals.Asadditionalrobustnesscheck,wealsoranallmodelsofthemainanalysis(unmoderatedbivariateLGMs)withthissmallersample.TheresultslargelyconvergedandcanbefoundintheSupplementalTablesS10andFiguresS4–S7.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE5

original,comesupwithnewideas”(Openness),“tendstobelazy”(Conscientiousness,reverse-keyed),“istalkative”(Extraversion),“isrelaxed,handlesstresswell”(Neuroticism,reverse-keyed).Reliabilitycoefficientsweresatisfactorygiventheshortscalelength(ω=.56–.70,α=.51–.68).Inpreviousstudies,allSOEP-BFIscalesevidencedlongitudinalmeasurementinvariance(e.g.,Spechtetal.,2011).SeeSupplementalTablesS2–S4,fordetailedscalecharacteristicsandourownmeasurementinvari-ancetestsincludingtheadditionalwavessince2011.AgeToexamineagedifferencesinthecodevelopmentoflifegoalsandtraits,wesplitoursampleintofourgroups4basedonparticipants’ageatT1:emergingadulthood(≤25),youngadulthood(26–39),midlife(40–59),andlateadulthood(≥60).Theseagerangeswerechosensincetheyrepresentmeaningfuldevelopmentalstagesandleadtorelativelyequalsamplesizesineachgroup.TheagedistributionofthesamplebysurveywaveisillustratedintheSupplementalFigureS1.PerceivedControlPerceivedcontrolwasassessedin2005,2010,and2015.FollowingSpechtetal.(2013),weaggregatedsevenitemsoftheLocusofControlScale(Nolteetal.,1997)intoanoverallmeasureofperceivedcontrol.Exampleitemsare“Ihavelittlecontroloverthethingsthathappeninmylife”(reverse-keyed)and“Howmylifegoesdependsonme.”Thisoverallmeasureevidencedacceptablereliability(ω=.75−.77,α=.67–.70)andlongitudinalmeasurementinvariance(seeSupplementalTablesS1andS4).Scalemeanswereaveragedacrosswavestorepresenttrait-perceivedcontrol.Thisvariablewasthensplitatthemediantodichotomizeinto“high”versus“low”perceivedcontrol.EducationParticipants’highestInternationalStandardClassificationofEducationscorethroughoutthestudyperiodservedtocodeeducationalbackground.Scoresweresplitintothreecategories(low,middle,andhigh),with“low”representingbelowuppersecondarylevelofeducation,“middle”representinguppersecondarylevel,and“high”representingtertiarylevel.RegionalSocializationParticipants’locationin1989,beforeGermanreunification,wasusedtocoderegionalsocialization(Eastvs.West).StatisticalModelsToexaminethecodevelopment(i.e.,bivariatechange)betweenlifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits,weappliedmultiple-groupbivariateLGMwithmultipleindicatorsfortheBigFivetraitsandsingleindicatorsforlifegoals(seeFigure1).First,weranunivariateconfirmatoryfactoranalyses(CFA)totestforlongitudinalmeasurementinvarianceoftheBigFivetraitsacrossthefourassessments.Eachtraitwasindicatedbythreeitems.Factorvarianceswerefixedat1acrossalltimepointsandfactormeanswerefixedat0foridentification.Loadingsofallindividualindicatorswerefreelyestimatedbutconstrainedtobeequalacrosspointsofassessment.Theresidualsofthesameindicatorswereallowedtocorrelateacrosswaves,tocontrolforindicator-specificbiasduetovariancenotcapturedbythelatentvariable(Cole&Maxwell,2003).Wefollowedthesameproceduretoestablishlongitudinalinvarianceforperceivedcontrol.Second,weranmultiple-groupCFAstotestformeasurementinvarianceoftheBigFivetraitsacrossgroups(age,perceivedcontrol,gender,educationalbackground,regionalsocialization),givenstrictlongitudinalinvariance.Inthemultiple-groupmodels,wealsofixedthefirstloadingforidentificationbasedontheestimatesofthestrictlongitudinalinvariancemodels.Weevaluatedchangesincompara-tivefitindex(ΔCFI)andchangesinMcDonald’snoncentralityindex(ΔNFI)todecideifmeasurementinvariancewasgiven.Theseindiceshavebeenfoundtobemoreaccurateinlargesamplescomparedwiththetraditionalchi-squaredifferencetest(Cheung&Rensvold,2002;Meadeetal.,2008).Changeslessthanorequalto.01fortheCFIandlessthanorequalto.02fortheNFI,respectively,indicateadequatefit.Third,afterestablishing(partial)strictinvarianceacrosstimeandgroups,weranunivariatelinearLGMsfortheBigFivetraitsandtheninelifegoalsseparatelytoassess(relative)5mean-levelchangeinbothconstructs.Forthesakeofcompleteness,wealsocomputedtest–retestcorrelationstoassesstherank-orderstabilityoftheBigFivetraitsandlifegoals(bothfortherawandtheipsatizedmeasure).Finally,wethencombinedbothdevelopmentaltrendsintoonemodel,applyingthesamespecificationsasintheunivariategrowthmodelsandallowinginterceptsandslopesofbothconstructstocorrelate.Totestformoderatoreffects,wefitmultiple-groupLGMswithandwithoutcross-groupconstraintsontheslope–slopecorrelations.Ifliftingtheconstraintsledtoabettermodelfit,weassumedgroupdifferences.Modelcompar-isonswereassessedusingtheBayesianinformationcriterion(lowervaluesindicatebettermodelfitwhencomparingmultiplemodels)andχ2-differencetestsbasedonloglikelihoodvaluesandscalingcorrectionfactors(Muthén&Muthén,1998–2017).Forthesakeofcompleteness,wealsoranallmultiple-groupmodelswithoutcross-groupconstraintsonallassociationsbetweenthetrajectories.Wepreregisteredtwostrategiesfortheinclusionofthemoderatorsageandperceivedcontrolinourbivariategrowthmodels:Theaforementionedmultiple-groupLGMswithcategor-icalmoderatorsasgroupingvariablesandanalternativestrategywithlatentinteractiontermsbetweenthecontinuous(latent)moderatorvariablesandlatentlifegoalslopesregressedonthepersonalitytraitslope.Whileweconsiderthesecondoptiontobesuperior,thesetypesofmodelsoftenfailtoconverge.Thiswasalsothecaseinthepresentstudy,whichiswhyweproceededwiththefirstoption.ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.4Originally,ourmoderationanalysisapproachincludedalatentinteractiontermbetweenthecontinuousmoderator(ageatT1andperceivedcontrol)andthelatentlifegoalslope,whichisthenregressedonthepersonalitytraitslope.Thisstrategywouldhavenotrequiredcategorization;however,themodelsdidnotconverge.5Sincelifegoalscoreswerecenteredatthewave-specificpersonmeanacrossallgoals(ipsatized),theyrepresenttherelativeimportanceofagoalinrelationtoallothergoals.Hence,mean-levelchangecannotbeinterpretedasusual.Instead,mean-levelchangerepresentsanaveragechangeintheimportanceofagoalrelativetoallothergoals.6BUCHINGERETAL.

ResultsThissectionhasfiveparts.First,weprovideabriefsummaryofthemeasurementinvariancetestsandtherank-orderstabilities.Second,wereporttheunivariatechangeofbothconstructsacrossthestudyperiod(i.e.,resultsoftheunivariateLGMs).Third,webrieflyreporttheassociationsbetweenthelevelsoflifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits.Four,wereporttheunmoderatedcorrelatedchangeacrossthestudyperiod(i.e.,ungroupedbivariateLGMs).Finally,wedescribetheresultsofthemoderationanalyses(i.e.,multiple-groupbivariateLGMswithagegroup,perceivedcontrol,gender,educationalbackground,andregionalsocializationasgroupingvariables).Throughouttheresultssection,wediscussfindingsbasedonstatisticaltestswithp<.01butfocusoneffectsizeswhenpossible.Givenoursamplesize,itisverylikelythatevenminusculeeffectsreachsignificance.Therefore,findingswith.001<p<.01areinterpretedassuggestiveevidence.MeasurementInvarianceandRank-OrderStabilitiesModelcomparisonsofthemeasurementinvariancetestsacrosstime,agegroups,perceivedcontrolgroups(highvs.low),gender,educationalbackground(low,middle,andhigh),andregionalsocialization(eastvs.west)arereportedintheSupplementalTablesS4–S9andontheOSF(seeMcDonaldsNCI_comparisons.xlsxonhttps://osf.io/53gra).TheBigFivetraitsandperceivedcontrolshowedstrictlongitudinalinvariance.Agreeableness,Extraversion,andNeuroticismwerestrictlyinvariantacrossagegroups.ConscientiousnessandOpennessshowedpartialstrictinvariance.AllBigFivetraitswerestrictlyinvariantacrossperceivedcontrolandregionalsocializationgroups.Opennessshowedpartialstrictinvarianceacrossgenderandeducationalbackground.AllotherBigFivetraitswerestrictlyinvariantacrossgenderandeducationalbackground.Table1showsalltest–retestcorrelationsandmean-levelchangeeffectsizesoftheperceivedimportanceoftheninelifegoals(bothrawandipsatizedscores)andtheBigFivetraitsforadjacentsurveywavesandacrosstheentirestudyperiod.AlthoughtheinvestigatedninelifegoalsandthefiveBigFivetraitsbothshowedmoderaterank-orderstabilityacrossthe12-yearassessmentperiod,lifegoalswerelessstable.Test–retestcorrelationsfortherawlifegoalmeasuresbetweenfirstandlastassessmentrangedfrom.290(beingthereforothers)to.560(havingchildren).Test–retestcorrelationsoftheipsatizedmeasureswerecomparable,rangingfrom.318(beingthereforothers)to.554(havingchildren).Test–retestcorrelationsoftheBigFivetraitsrangedfrom.442(Conscientiousness)to.567(Extraversion).ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Figure1BivariateLatentGrowthCurveModeltoEstimateCodevelopmentofLifeGoalsandtheBigFiveTraitsNote.Thebivariatelatentgrowthcurvemodelusedtoestimatetheassociationsbetweenslopes(S)andintercepts(I)ofeachoneofthefiveBigFivetraitswitheachoneoftheninelifegoals.EachBigFivetraitwasmeasuredwiththreeindicatorsateachpointofassessment.Factorloadings,measurementintercepts,anderrorvariancesofthesameindicatorwereconstrainedacrossthefourtimepoints.Residualsofthesameindicatorwereallowedtocorrelateovertime.Eachlifegoalwasassessedwithasingleitem.Withineachconstructthefourpointsofassessmentwereequallyspaced;however,therewasa1-yeartimelagbetweenbothtimeseries.Lifegoalassessmentsstartedin2004,theBigFivetraitassessmentsin2005.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE7

ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Table1Test–RetestCorrelationsandStandardizedMean-LevelChangeEffectSizesConstructr(Cohen’sd)Year1toYear4r(Cohen’sd)Year4toYear8r(Cohen’sd)Year8toYear12r(Cohen’sd)Year1toYear8r(Cohen’sd)Year1toYear12r(Cohen’sd)Year4toYear12BigfivetraitsAgreeableness.522(−.14).551(.03).571(−.02).482(−.10).453(−.10).503(.03)Conscientiousness.542(−.10).561(.02).580(−.11).480(−.08).442(−.19).512(−.09)Extraversion.637(−.11).664(.04).690(.03).599(.06).567(.06).636(.03)Openness.595(−.15).622(.11).642(.02).553(.04).527(.04).591(.09)Neuroticism.590(−.10).614(−.04).640(−.02).544(−.13).507(−.13).575(−.03)Goals(raw)Havingchildren.647(.06).670(.03).703(.04).592(.03).560(.10).633(.05)Happyrelationship.494(−.06).513(−.07).561(−.06).382(−.12).396(−.13).475(−.09)Beingthereforothers.361(−.04).395(.05).415(−.02).361(.02).290(.08).343(.09)Successfulcareer.494(−.16).524(−.11).547(−.14).398(−.22).381(−.30).441(−.21)Affordthings.397(−.07).429(−.10).469(−.04).373(−.15).339(−.15).386(−.10)Owningahouse.622(−.11).673(−.04).683(−.03).546(−.13).528(−.13).624(−.03)Self-fulfillment.466(−.14).471(.00).481(−.11).375(−.11).384(−.18).425(−.08)Traveling.523(−.14).554(.02).599(−.01).481(−.10).440(−.10).514(.05)Social/politicalinvolvement.461(−.25).492(.26).528(.02).430(.01).396(.07).473(.30)Goals(ipsatized)Havingchildren.648(.18).662(−.02).694(.09).592(.14).554(.21).623(.06)Happyrelationship.452(.06).464(−.07).513(−.02).382(−.02).340(−.05).419(−.08)Beingthereforothers.381(.09).428(.05).448(.02).361(.14).318(.19).385(.10)Successfulcareer.464(−.06).481(−.12).490(−.12).398(−.16).325(−.26).387(−.23)Affordthings.406(.05).437(−.10).480(.01).367(−.05).358(−.07).392(−.09)Owningahouse.609(−.02).654(−.03).661(.01).546(−.06).509(−.07).600(−.03)Self-fulfillment.453(−.04).431(.01).435(−.08).375(−.02).392(−.11).387(−.09)Traveling.525(−.05).542(.03).577(.04).481(−.02).431(.03).492(.06)Social/politicalinvolvement.453(−.17).494(.27).528(.08).430(.09).384(.17).468(.33)Note.Valuesarenotcorrectedformeasurementerror.Weusedtherawscalescoresandipsatizedscoresforthelifegoalassessmentstocomputetest–retestcorrelationsandCohen’sdeffectsizes.8BUCHINGERETAL.

UnivariateChangeAllslopeparametersoftheseriesofunivariateLGMsarefoundinTable2.TheresultssuggestthatallinvestigatedlifegoalsandfouroftheBigFivetraitsexhibitedsignificantmean-levelchangesacrossthestudyperiod.Significantmean-levelincreaseswereobservedfortherelativeimportanceofhavingchildren,beingthereforothers,traveling,andbeingsociallyorpoliticallyinvolved.Therelativeimportanceofcareersuccess,ahappyrelationship/marriage,beingabletoaffordthings,self-fulfillment,andowningahousedecreasedonaverage.WefoundanincreasingtrendinOpenness(meanslope=0.009[0.008,0.011],p<.001)andExtraversion(meanslope=0.002[0.001,0.004],p=.001).ConscientiousnessandNeuroticismdecreased(meanslopeC=−0.012[−0.013,−0.010],p<.001;meanslopeN=−0.008[−0.009,−0.006],p<.001).Agreeablenessdidnotchangesignificantly.Ratesofchangevariedconsiderablydependingonparticipants’ageatT1.Forinstance,resultsofthemultiple-groupLGMsrevealed,thattheself-ratedimportanceofahappyrelationship/marriageincreasedfortheyoungestagegroupbutdecreasedfortheotherthree.Theimportanceoftravelingdidnotchangefortheyoungestagegroupbutincreasedforthetwomiddle-agedgroupsanddecreasedintheoldestagegroup.WithregardstochangesintheBigFivetraits,participantsintheyoungestagegroupbecamemoreagreeable(meanslope=0.009[0.005,0.012],p<.001)andconscientious(meanslope=0.018[0.015,0.022],p<.001)butshowednochangeinExtraversion,Openness,orNeuroticism.Therewerealsosmallbutsignificantinterindividualdifferencesinchange,bothregardingtheBigFivetraits(0.002≤slopevariance≤0.003)andallninelifegoals(0.0004≤slopevariance≤0.002).LevelAssociationsBetweenLifeGoalsandtheBigFiveThefocusofthisstudywasthepreregisteredhypothesesconcerningtheassociationsbetweenchangesintheimportanceoflifegoalsandchangesintheBigFivetraits(slope–slopecorrelations).However,toallowcomparisonswithprior,cross-sectionalworkinthisfield,wealsoreportthesignificantlevel-levelassociationsbetweenlifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits.Outof45level-levelassociations,34weresignificant(see,Table3andFigure2).AsshowninFigure2,perceivedimportanceofcareersuccesswaspositivelyassociatedwithConscientiousness,Extraversion,andOpenness,andnega-tivelyassociatedwithAgreeablenessandNeuroticism.BeingabletoaffordthingswasnegativelyassociatedwithallBigFivebutNeuroticism.Agenticgoalswithafocusonpersonalgrowth(self-fulfillmentandtravel/seetheworld)werepositivelyassociatedwithExtraversionandOpenness.Perceivedimportanceofself-fulfillmentwasalsonegativelyassociatedwithNeuroticismandperceivedimportanceoftravel/seeingtheworldwasnegativelyassociatedwithConscientiousness.Communalgoals(havingchildren,havingahappyrelationshipormarriage,andbeingthereforothers)werepositivelyassociatedwithAgreeablenessandNeuroticismandnegativelyassociatedwithOpenness.HigherperceivedimportancetohavechildrenandtohaveahappyrelationshipwerealsoassociatedwithhigherConscientiousness.PerceivedimportanceofowningahousewasnegativelyassociatedwithAgreeableness,Extraversion,andOpenness.Finally,perceivedimportanceofbeingsocially/politicallyinvolvedwaspositivelyThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Table2UnstandardizedSlopeEstimatesand95%ConfidenceIntervaloftheUnivariateLatentGrowthCurveModelsConstruct(samplesize)Unstandardizedmeanslopeestimate[95%CI]FullsampleEmergingadults(≤25)Youngadults(26–39)Middleaged(40–59)Olderadults(≥60)BigFive(47,243≤N≤47,270)Agreeableness0.001[0.000,0.003]0.009[0.005,0.012]0.003[0.000,0.006]−0.001[−0.004,0.001]−0.002[−0.006,0.001]Conscientiousness−0.012[−0.013,−0.010]0.018[0.015,0.022]−0.006[−0.008,−0.003]−0.018[−0.020,−0.016]−0.026[−0.029,−0.022]Extraversion0.002[0.001,0.004]0.000[−0.003,0.003]0.004[0.001,0.006]−0.001[−0.003,0.002]−0.003[−0.006,0.000]Openness0.009[0.008,0.011]0.002[−0.002,0.006]0.008[0.005,0.011]0.007[0.005,0.010]0.002[0.001,0.003]Neuroticism−0.008[−0.009,−0.006]0.004[0.001,0.008]−0.007[−0.010,−0.004]−0.011[−0.013,−0.008]−0.014[−0.017,−0.010]Lifegoals(45,746≤N≤46,763)Havingchildren0.010[0.010,0.011]0.033[0.031,0.036]0.013[0.012,0.015]0.001[0.001,0.001]0.011[0.009,0.013]Happyrelationship/marriage−0.006[−0.006,−0.005]0.007[0.005,0.009]−0.004[−0.005,−0.002]−0.007[−0.008,−0.005]−0.010[−0.012,−0.008]Beingthereforothers0.009[0.008,0.010]0.005[0.004,0.007]0.010[0.008,0.011]0.012[0.011,0.013]0.008[0.006,0.010]Careersuccess−0.011[−0.012,−0.010]−0.026[−0.027,−0.024]−0.015[−0.016,−0.013]−0.023[−0.024,−0.021]−0.010[−0.013,0.007]Affordthings−0.009[−0.010,−0.008]−0.017[−0.018,−0.015]−0.013[−0.015,−0.012]−0.006[−0.007,−0.005]−0.004[−0.006,−0.002]Owningahouse−0.006[−0.007,−0.005]0.004[0.001,0.007]−0.002[−0.004,0.000]−0.008[−0.009,−0.006]−0.008[−0.010,−0.006]Self-fulfillment−0.002[−0.003,−0.001]−0.017[−0.019,−0.015]−0.010[−0.011,−0.008]−0.002[−0.003,−0.001]−0.001[0.000,0.001]Travel/seetheworld0.002[0.001,0.003]0.000[−0.002,0.003]0.004[0.002,0.006]0.005[0.004,0.007]−0.008[−0.010,−0.006]Social/politicalinvolvement0.012[0.011,0.013]0.008[0.005,0.010]0.014[0.015,0.017]0.018[0.016,0.019]0.015[0.013,0.018]Note.FortheunivariateLGMsweincludedallindividualswhoansweredtherelevantlifegoalitem/provideddataregardingtherelevantBigFivetraitinatleastoneofthefourrelevantsurveywaves.CI=confidenceinterval;LGM=latentgrowthcurvemodel.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE9

ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Table3ModelEstimatedAssociationsBetweenLevelsandSlopesofLifeGoalsandPersonalityTraitsintheFullSampleAssociationrlevel,level[95%CI]prslope,slope[95%CI]prlevel,slope(trait,goal)[95%CI]prlevel,slope(goal,trait)[95%CI]pHavingchildrenAgreeableness.135[.111,.159]<.001.131[.029,.233].012−.027[−.073,.018].241−.087[−.144,−.031].002Conscientiousness.085[.061,.108]<.001.016[−.066,.097].702−.010[−.058,.038].681−.038[−.082,.007].094Extraversion−.033[−.054,−.012].002−.025[−.108,.058].562.017[−.025,.060].428.037[−.008,.082].110Openness−.197[−.220,−.175]<.001−.139[−.235,−.042].005.033[−.014,.079].173.072[.020,.125].007Neuroticism.088[.066,.110]<.001.053[−.036,.141].241−.050[−.095,−.005].028−.074[−.123,−.024].004HavingahappyrelationshipAgreeableness.054[.028,.080]<.001−.009[−.103,.084].844−.051[−.094,−.009].019.010[−.053,.074].753Conscientiousness.065[.037,.092]<.001.100[.018,.182].016−.081[−.127,−.036]<.001−.025[−.081,.030].371Extraversion−.092[−.117,−.068]<.001−.127[−.208,−.046].002.051[.011,.091].012.070[.014,.125].014Openness−.162[−.189,−.135]<.001−.205[−.300,−.110]<.001.112[.067,.158]<.001.087[.025,.149].006Neuroticism.111[.086,.137]<.001.163[.076,.251]<.001−.099[−.141,−.057]<.001−.097[−.157,−.037].001BeingthereforothersAgreeableness.284[.253,.314]<.001.300[.143,.457]<.001−.041[−.105,.022].201−.124[−.200,−.048].001Conscientiousness.001[−.027,.029].924−.068[−.176,.040].217.053[−.010,.116].102.041[−.015,.098].152Extraversion.018[−.009,.045].195−.006[−.118,.106].913.050[−.008,.108].089.019[−.041,.079].541Openness−.113[−.143,−.084]<.001−.086[−.212,.040].180.108[.043,.172].001.051[−.014,.117].124Neuroticism.082[.054,.109]<.001−.003[−.124,.118].962.033[−.027,.094].281−.009[−.072,.055].785CareersuccessAgreeableness−.065[−.089,−.04]<.001.029[−.057,.115].513.016[−.023,.055].432.010[−.048,.069].726Conscientiousness.093[.068,.117]<.001.145[.072,.218]<.001−.089[−.130,−.047]<.001.051[.001,.101].047Extraversion.069[.046,.091]<.001.096[.023,.168].009−.039[−.076,−.002].037−.023[−.073,.028].379Openness.191[.165,.217]<.001.049[−.032,.131].234−.106[−.147,−.065]<.001.000[−.057,.058].990Neuroticism−.113[−.137,−.089]<.001−.036[−.115,.043].368.057[.017,.097].005.053[−.002,.108].057AffordthingsAgreeableness−.168[−.197,−.140]<.001−.256[−.399,−.113]<.001.110[.048,.171]<.001.077[.008,.146].028Conscientiousness−.073[−.102,−.045]<.001−.051[−.157,.055].344.043[−.019,.106].176.032[−.023,.088].257Extraversion−.083[−.109,−.056]<.001−.168[−.279,−.058].003.036[−.020,.091].211.025[−.032,.083].389Openness−.234[−.262,−.206]<.001−.228[−.357,−.099].001.005[−.058,.068].887.091[.027,.155].005Neuroticism.044[.017,.071].002−.027[−.145,.090].649.056[−.004,.116].068.086[.024,.149].007OwnahouseAgreeableness−.072[−.093,−.051]<.001−.074[−.168,.020].121−.006[−.049,.036].766.015[−.037,.067].581Conscientiousness.025[.002,.047].029−.087[−.166,−.008].031.032[−.015,.079].180−.030[−.073,.014].184Extraversion−.116[−.137,−.096]<.001−.168[−.205,−.086]<.001.076[.034,.117]<.001.068[.021,.114].004Openness−.134[−.157,−.111]<.001−.092[−.184,.000].050.040[−.006,.086].088.007[−.044,.058].794Neuroticism.000[−.022,.022].993−.002[−.087,.083].965−.046[−.089,−.002].039−.020[−.068,.028].413Self-fulfillmentAgreeableness−.021[−.046,.004].099−.120[−.246,.006].063.020[−.036,.075].491.074[.011,.137].022Conscientiousness−.025[−.051,.001].057.010[−.095,.115].851−.020[−.080,.039].497.091[.038,.143].001Extraversion.145[.120,.170]<.001.170[.061,.278].002−.095[−.149,−.041].001−.081[−.135,−.026].004Openness.308[.282,.335]<.001.366[.231,.502]<.001−.129[−.189,−.069]<.001−.101[−.163,−.038].002Neuroticism−.089[−.115,−.063]<.001−.185[−.299,−.070].002.083[.027,.140].004.111[.052,.170]<.001(tablecontinues)10BUCHINGERETAL.

associatedwithOpennessandnegativelyassociatedwithAgreeableness,Conscientiousness,andNeuroticism.UnmoderatedCorrelatedChangeThebivariateLGMsprovidedevidenceforcodevelopmentbetweentheperceivedrelativeimportanceofseverallifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits(seeFigure3).Ineightoutofthe45investigatedgoal-traitcombinations,theslopesofthetwoconstructsweresignificantlyrelated.Foranothereightgoal-traitcombinations,wefoundsuggestiveevidence(.001<p<.01).Inlinewithourexpectations,changesintheimportanceofagenticlifegoalswithafocusoneconomicachievementwerepositivelyassociatedwithchangesinExtraversionandConscientiousness.Onaverage,participants’Conscientiousness(r=.145[.072,.218],p<.001)andExtraversion(r=.096[.023,.168],p=.009)changedinthesamedirectionastheirperceivedimportanceofasuccessfulcareer.Unexpectedly,participants’perceivedrelativeimportanceofbeingabletoaffordsomethingchangedintheoppositedirectionsasExtraversion(r=−.168,[−.279,−.058],p=.003)andAgreeableness(r=−.256,[−.399,−.113],p<.001).ChangesintherelativeimportanceofbeingabletoaffordsomethingandchangesinConscientiousnesswereunrelated.Asexpected,changesintheimportanceofagenticlifegoalswithafocusonpersonalgrowthwerepositivelyassociatedwithchangesinOpenness.Wefoundaweakpositiveassociationbetweenchangesinthesubjectiveimportanceofseeingtheworld/travelandOpenness(r=.220[.119,.321],p<.001)aswellasamoderatepositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofself-fulfillmentandchangesinOpenness(r=.366[.231,.502],p<.001).Outofallinvestigatedslope–slopeassociations,theonepertainingtoself-fulfillmentandOpennesswasthestrongest.Furthermore,wefoundsuggestiveevidenceforapositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofself-fulfillmentandchangesinExtraversion(r=.170[.061,.278],p=.002).Changesintheimportanceofself-fulfillmentwerealsonegativelyassociatedwithchangesinNeuroticism(r=−.185[−.299,−.070],p=.002).Asexpected,changesintheimportanceofcommunallifegoalswererelatedtochangesinAgreeableness.WefoundamoderatepositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofbeingthereforothersandchangesinAgreeableness(r=.300[.143,.457],p<.001).Thismeansthatparticipants’Agreeablenesschangedinthesamedirectionastheirperceivedrelativeimportanceofbeingthereforothers.TherewassuggestiveevidenceforaweakpositiveassociationbetweenchangesintherelativeimportanceofhavingchildrenandchangesinAgreeableness(r=.131[.029,.233],p=.012)aswellasforaweakpositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofahappyrelationship/marriageandchangesinConscientiousness(r=.100[.018,.182],p=.016).Againstourexpectations,changesintheimportanceofahappyrelationship/marriagewereunrelatedtochangesinAgreeableness.Unexpectedly,changesintherelativeimportanceofahappyrelationship/marriagewerepositivelyassociatedwithchangesinNeuroticism(r=.163[.076,.251],p<.001)andnegativelyassociatedwithchangesinOpenness(r=−.205[−.300,−.110],p<.001).Wealsofoundsuggestiveevidenceforanegativeassociationbetweentheimportanceofahappyrelationship/marriageandExtraversion(r=−.127[−.208,−.046],p=.002).InlinewithourThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Table3(continued)Associationrlevel,level[95%CI]prslope,slope[95%CI]prlevel,slope(trait,goal)[95%CI]prlevel,slope(goal,trait)[95%CI]pTravel/seetheworldAgreeableness−.027[−.050,−.004].022.002[−.099,.103].967−.034[−.080,.012].143.043[−.015,.100].145Conscientiousness−.089[−.113,−.065]<.001−.041[−.125,.043].338.021[−.028,.070].398.002[−.046,.050].941Extraversion.084[.062,.107]<.001.107[.020,.193].016−.049[−.093,−.005].028−.052[−.101,−.002].041Openness.177[.153,.201]<.001.220[.119,.321]<.001−.055[−.104,−.007].026−.115[−.172,−.059]<.001Neuroticism−.036[−.061,−.012].004−.008[−.100,.085].873.004[−.043,.050].877.016[−.037,.069].550Social/politicalinvolvementAgreeableness−.059[−.084,−.035]<.001−.021[−.156,.114].765.049[−.014,.111].127.008[−.054,.071].794Conscientiousness−.136[−.163,−.109]<.001−.126[−.243,−.009].034.088[.018,.158].014−.041[−.093,.010].116Extraversion.031[.006,.055].014.167[.047,.286].006−.068[−.128,−.008].026−.081[−.135,−.027].003Openness.169[.143,.196]<.001.152[.019,.285].025.018[−.048,.085].587−.075[−.136,−.015].015Neuroticism−.065[−.091,−.039]<.001−.001[−.127,.125].985.024[−.038,.087].447−.025[−.083,.034].405Note.CI=confidenceinterval.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE11

expectations,wefoundsuggestiveevidenceforapositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofsocial/politicalinvolvementandchangesinExtraversion(r=.167[.047,.286],p=.006).Inthisstudy,wefocusedonthepreregisteredhypothesesconcerningtheassociationsbetweenchangesintheimportanceoflifegoalsandchangesintheBigFivetraits(slope–slopecorrelations).However,itshouldbenotedthatthisisonlyonepieceofthepuzzle.Toobtainacomprehensiveunderstandingofthecodevelopmentalpatternsoflifegoalsandpersonalitytraits,bothchange(slopes)andlevelsneedtobeconsidered.Forinstance,ifanindividualperceiveswork-relatedgoalsasextremelyimportanttobeginwith,growthinConscientiousnessmaybemorepronouncedcomparedtosomeonewhoperceiveswork-relatedgoalsaslessimportant.Similarly,theperceivedimportanceofwork-relatedgoalsofahighlyconscientiousindividualmayincreaseatafasterratecomparedtoanindividuallowinConscientiousness.Intwooutof45investigatedgoal-traitcombinations,levelsofgoalimportanceweresignificantlyrelatedtochangeintheBigFivetraits.Foranother12goal-traitcombinations,wefoundsuggestiveevidenceforanassociationbetweenlevelsofgoalimportanceandchangeintheBigFivetraits.Intheotherdirection(correlationoftrait-levelwithgoal-slope),wefoundeightsignificantassociationsandsuggestiveevidenceforanotherfour(seeSupplementalFiguresS2andS3,foravisualizationoftheseresultssimilartoFigures2and3).Detailedinformationonlevel-slopecorrelationsalongwithotherrelevantmodel-estimatedassociationsisprovidedinTable3.ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Figure2ModelEstimatedLevel-LevelAssociationsofLifeGoalsandtheBigFiveTraits(FullSample)Note.Thisfiguresummarizesthelevel-levelassociationsofthe45bivariateLGMs.Onthey-axis:A=Agreeableness;C=Conscientiousness;E=Extraversion;O=Openness;N=Neuroticism.Significantcorrelations(p<.001)aredisplayedinblack.Darkgreyrepresentssuggestiveevidenceforalevel-levelcorrelation(.001<p<.01).Associationsinlightgreywerenotsignificant(p>.01).CI=confidenceinterval;LGM=latentgrowthcurvemodel.12BUCHINGERETAL.

However,weonlydiscussresultsconcerningtheslope–slopecorrelationsindetail.MultipleGroupModelsThroughoutthissection,again,wefocusonslope–slopeassociations.Significantχ2-differencetestsindicatethatchangesintherelativeimportanceofalifegoalrelatedifferentlytochangesinapersonalitytraitdependingonparticipantsagegroup,perceivedcontrol,gender,and/oreducationalbackground.Table4providesanoverviewofthemodelcomparisonsthatprovide(suggestive)evidenceformoderatoreffects.Itshouldbenotedthatgroupdifferencesmayalsoexistregardinglevel-levelandlevel-slopeassociations.Therefore,resultsofthemultiple-groupLGMsthatallowedallassociationsbetweenthetrajectoriestovarybetweengroupsareprovidedintheSupplementalFiguresS8–S9andTablesS11–S24.AgeTheseriesofmodelcomparisonsprovidedevidenceforamoderationeffectofageontheslope–slopecorrelationintenoutof45goal-traitcombinations(seeTable4).Forthese10models,moderationeffectsareillustratedinFigure4.DetailedinformationThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Figure3ModelEstimatedSlope–SlopeAssociationsofLifeGoalsandtheBigFiveTraits(FullSample)Note.Thisfiguresummarizestheslope–slopecorrelationparametersofthe45bivariateLGMs.Onthey-axis:A=Agreeableness;C=Conscientiousness;E=Extraversion;O=Openness;N=Neuroticism.Associationsinblackrepresentevidenceforcodevelopment(p<.001).Associationsindarkgreyrepresentsuggestiveevidenceforcodevelopment(.001<p<.01).Associationsinlightgreywerenotsignificant(p>.01).CI=confidenceinterval;LGM=latentgrowthcurvemodel.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE13

ontheage-specificcodevelopmentalpatternsisfoundinSupplementalTablesS11–S14.Broadlysummarized,wefoundthreepatterns:first,an(inverted)U-shapedpattern,withsimilarslope–slopeassociationsduringmidlifeandsimilarassociationsduringearlyandlateadulthood.Thisconcernedtheassociationsbetweenchangesintheimportanceofhavingchildren,careersuccess,andself-fulfillmentwithchangesinConscientiousnessaswellasbetweenchangesinseeingtheworld/travelandConscientiousnessandExtraversion(seeFigure4,PanelsA,C,E,FandG).ChangesintheimportanceofhavingchildrenandchangesinConscientiousnesswereweaklyassociatedinthetwomiddle-agedgroups(r26–39=−.198[−.369,−.026],p=.024;r40–59=−.161[−.313,−.009],p=.037)butnotintheyoungestandoldestagegroups.Thismeansthat,onaverage,middle-agedparticipants’perceivedimportanceofhavingchildrenchangedintheoppositedirectionastheirConscientiousness.Foryounger(≤25atT1)andolder(≥60atT1)participants,thiswasnotthecase.WefoundthesameU-shapedpatternfortheassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceoftravelingandchangesinConscientiousness(seeFigure4,PanelF).AninvertedU-shapedpatternemergedfortheassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofcareersuccessandchangesinConscientiousness.Inthemiddle-agedgroups,changesintheimportanceofcareersuccessweremoderatelyassociatedwithchangesinConscientiousness(r26–39=.339[.125,.553],p=.002;r40–59=.317[.186,.448],p<.001).Intheyoungestagegroup,theslopeswereonlyweaklyassociated(r=.154[−.081,.033],p=.165)andintheoldestagegrouptheywereunrelated(seeFigure4,PanelC).Thesecondpatternwascharacterizedbyaswitchinthedirectionoftheslope–slopeassociationsatsomepointduringmidlife.ThisconcernedtheassociationsbetweenchangesintheimportanceofbeingthereforothersandOpennessaswellasbetweenchangesinThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Table4ModelComparisonsThatProvide(Suggestive)EvidenceforModerationEffectsModerator/AssociationBICfreeBICconstrainedχ2diffdfpAgegroupHavingchildren—C1,113,3661,113,40052.873<.001Havingchildren—E1,190,8641,190,85816.273.001Happymarriage/relationship—O1,213,2771,213,27114.603.002Beingthereforothers—O1,201,2441,201,24623.893<.001Careersuccess—C1,097,1761,097,21053.413<.001Affordthings—C1,075,7181,075,70813.353.004Affordthings—N1,233,7241,233,71816.563<.001Ownahouse—O1,267,5021,267,49212.193.007Self-fulfillment—C1,089,2531,089,25018.473<.001Travel—C1,115,8851,115,88219.043<.001Travel—E1,193,3201,193,31921.103<.001Travel—O1,247,7161,247,70915.433.001Social/politicalinvolvement—C1,109,4411,109,44828.823<.001Social/politicalinvolvement—E1,187,2371,267,86725.863<.001Social/politicalinvolvement—O1,241,3731,241,36817.023<.001PerceivedcontrolBeingthereforothers—A954,827954,83211.031<.001Beingthereforothers—O1,010,2151,010,2178.821.003Affordthings—E965,168965,17412.461<.001Travel—A997,832997,83510.201.001SexHavingchildren—C1,050,8321,050,8348.911.003Happyrelationship/marriage—C1,015,9561,015,9587.771.005Beingthereforothers—O1,133,2721,133,27711.731<.001Owningahouse—C1,069,7711,069,7728.011.005Self-fulfillment—C1,027,1341,027,13710.271.001Travel—C1,050,4841,050,48912.161<.001Social/politicalinvolvement—N1,200,1511,200,15510.091.001EducationalbackgroundHavingchildren—C1,073,7691,073,77015.282<.001Havingchildren—O1,204,4831,204,48112.042.002Beingthereforothers—A1,095,3141,095,31313.352.001Beingthereforothers—E1,101,8011,101,7969.402.009Careersuccess—C1,061,8411,061,84114.452<.001Careersuccess—O1,192,9061,192,90312.412.002Travel—O1,203,1391,203,13410.132.006RegionalsocializationHavingchildren—C869,470869,4717.971.005Happymarriage/relationship—C842,189842,1896.911.009Affordthings—C835,651835,6527.631.006Note.A=Agreeableness;C=Conscientiousness;E=Extraversion;O=Openness;N=Neuroticism;BIC=Bayesianinformationcriterion.14BUCHINGERETAL.

theimportanceofbeingabletoaffordthingsandNeuroticism(seeFigure4,PanelsBandD).Inthetwoyoungeragegroups(≤25and26–39atT1),wefoundaweakpositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceofbeingabletoaffordthings.Inthetwooldergroups(40–59and≥60),wefoundaweakpositiveassociation.Last,wefoundnoconsistentresultsfortheassociationsbetweenchangesintheimportanceofbeingsocially/politicallyinvolvedandchangesinConscientiousness,Extraversion,andOpenness(seeFigure4,PanelsH,E,andJ).ChangesintheimportanceofthesegoalswereunrelatedtochangesinExtraversionandOpennessinthegroupofemergingadults(≤25atT1)andweaklyrelatedinthegroupofmiddle-agedadults(40–59atT1)butmoderatelyrelatedinthegroupsofyoung(26–39atT1)andolderadults(≥60).Generally,theslope–slopecorrelationestimatesintheyoungestagegroupcomparedtotheoldergroupswerelessprecise,indicatinggreaterwithin-groupvariation.Estimatesand95%confidenceintervalsoftheuncon-strainedslope–slopecorrelationsbyagegroupareillustratedinSupplementalFigureS8.PerceivedControlWefoundsignificantgroupdifferencesbetweenpeoplewithhighversuslowperceivedcontrolscores,asindicatedbytheimprovedmodelfitwhenfreeingtheslope–slopeassociations(seeTable4).ThisconcernedtheassociationsofbeingthereforothersandThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.Figure4ModelEstimatedSlope–SlopeCorrelationsfortheGoal-TraitCombinationsWhereχ2-DifferenceTestsIndicated(Suggestive)EvidenceforAgeGroupDifferencesNote.Illustratedareagegroupspecificslope–slopecorrelationparametersand95%confidenceintervals.A=Agreeableness;C=Conscientiousness;E=Extraversion;O=Openness;N=Neuroticism;CI=confidenceinterval.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE15

AgreeablenessaswellasbeingabletoaffordthingsandExtraversion.ChangesintheimportanceofbeingthereforotherscorrelatedmoderatelywithchangesinAgreeablenessinpartici-pantswithhighperceivedcontrol(r=.366[.141,.591],p=.001)butonlyweaklyinparticipantswithlowperceivedcontrol(r=.273[.066,.481],p=.010).ChangesintheimportanceofbeingabletoaffordthingsweremoderatelyassociatedwithchangesinExtraversioninthelowperceivedcontrolgroup(r=−.330[−.483,−.177],p<.001)butnotinthehighperceivedcontrolgroup(r=.040[−.133,.193],p=.605).TheresultsoftheunconstrainedmodelsareprovidedinSupplementalTablesS15–S16.GenderTheresultsofthemultigroupLGMsindicategendereffectsontheslope–slopeassociationofhavingahappymarriage/relationshipandConscientiousnessaswellasbeingthereforothersandOpenness.Inmen,butnotwomen,changesinConscientiousnesswereweaklyassociatedwithchangesintheimportanceofahappyrelationshipormarriage(rf=.047[−.060,.154],p=.389;rm=.187[.058,.315],p=.004).Inwomen,butnotmen,changesinOpennesswerenegativelyassociatedwithchangesintheimportanceofbeingthereforothers(rf=−.203[−.372,−.034],p=.018;rm=.041[−.145,.226],p=.666).SeeSupplementalTablesS17–S18fortheunconstrainedmodelresults.EducationChangesintheimportanceofbeingthereforotherswereweaklytomoderatelyassociatedwithchangesinAgreeablenessandExtraversion,butonlyforparticipantswithasecondarylevelofeducationorhigher.Ontheotherhand,changesintheimportanceofcareersuccesswereassociatedwithchangesinConscientiousnessinthebelowsecondarylevelofeducationgroupandthetertiarylevelgroup.Wefindaweaktomoderatepositiveassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceoftravel/seeingtheworldandchangesinOpennessinparticipantswithatleastasecondarylevelofeducation(rmedium=.205[.083,.328],p=.001;rhigh=.314[.096,.532],p=.005).Generally,theresultsoftheunconstrainedmodelsshowedweakerslope–slopeassociationsformostgoal-traitcombinationsinthegroupwithaloweducationalbackgroundcomparedtotheothertwogroups(seeSupplementalTablesS19–S21).RegionalSocializationAllowingtheslope–slopecorrelationstovarybetweenparticipantwithdifferentregionalsocializationdidnotimprovemodelfit(seeTable4andSupplementalTablesS22–S23).ThismeansthattheassociationbetweenchangesintheimportanceoflifegoalsandtheBigFivetraitsdoesnotdiffersignificantlybetweenparticipantssocializedintheformerGDRandparticipantssocializedinformerWestGermany.SuggestiveevidenceindicatedthatamongpeoplewhoweresocializedintheformerGDRchangesinConscientiousnesswerenegativelyassociatedwithperceivedimportanceofbeingabletoaffordthings(r=−.214[−.414,−.014],p=.036),whereasthiswasnotthecaseamongpeoplewhoweresocializedintheformerWest(r=.008[−.121,.137],p=.903).DiscussionDochangesinlifegoalsandtheBigFivetraitsgohandinhand,aspredictedbyself-regulationperspectives(Denissenetal.,2013;Henneckeetal.,2014),theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personalityanddevelopment(Dweck,2017),andthecorresponsiveprinciple(Roberts&Wood,2006)?Ourpreregisteredstudytestedthishypothesisusinglarge-scale,multicohortsurveydata.Acrossa13-yearperiod,wefoundstrongsupportforcodevelopmentofthesetwoimportantbuildingblocksofpersonality.Effectsizesweresmall-to-moderateand,thuscomparabletothosefoundinearlierstudies(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Robertsetal.,2004).Agenticlifegoalscodevelopedwithagentictraitsanddidsomorestronglythancommunallifegoalsandtraits.Specificlifegoals(e.g.,havingchildren)thatarecloselytiedtosocietalexpectationsandnormativesocialscripts,codevelopedlessstrongly,ifatall,comparedtobroader,lessscriptedlifegoalsthatentaildifferentthingsfordifferentpeople(e.g.,self-fulfillment).Developmentalstagemoderatedthestrengthofcodevelopment.Consistentwiththeoriesthatconceptualizeage-gradeddevelopmentaltasksasthescaffoldingfordevelopment(e.g.,Heckhausenetal.,2010,2019;Huttemanetal.,2014),wefoundstrongercodevelopmentinlifestagesduringwhichlifegoalsconvergewithnormativedevelop-mentaltasks(e.g.,careersuccessinyoungandmiddleadulthood).Exceptforafewisolatedeffects,perceivedcontrol,educationalbackground,gender,andregionalsocializationdidnotplayasignificantroleforcodevelopmentbetweenpersonalitytraitsandlifegoals.CodevelopmentofAgenticLifeGoalsandAgenticPersonalityTraitsSupportingtheself-regulationperspective,theunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personalityanddevelopment,thecorresponsiveprinciple,andconsistentwithpriorresearch(Athertonetal.,2021;Robertsetal.,2004),agenticlifegoalswithafocusoneconomicachievement,specificallycareersuccess,codevelopedwithConscientiousnessandExtraversion(Hypothesis1).Bothtraitsarepredictorsofoccupationalsuccess(Sutinetal.,2009)andhavebeenassociatedwithahigherprobabilitytolistcareergoalsinanopenquestionaboutimportantlifegoals(Reiszetal.,2013).Hence,peoplewhoperceivecareersuccessasincreasinglyimportantmayalsoexhibitmoreconscientiousandextravertedbehavior(e.g.,worklatehoursandattendnetworkingevents)inordertoachievetheirgoal.Conversely,individualswhoexperienceincreasesinConscientiousnessandExtraversionmayalsoperceivecareergoalsasincreasinglyimportant.ChangesintheimportanceofbeingabletoaffordthingswerenegativelyassociatedwithchangesinExtraversionandunrelatedtochangesinConscientiousness.Althoughthiswasunexpected,onepossibleexplanationcouldbetheparticularitemusedinourstudy(i.e.,beingabletoaffordthings),whichmayreflectsecurityratherthandominancestrivings.SecuritystrivingshavebeenfoundtobeassociatedwithlowerExtraversionandunrelatedtoConscientiousness(Roccasetal.,2002).PriorstudiesthatfoundpositiveassociationsbetweeneconomicachievementgoalsandthetraitsExtraversionandConscientiousnessuseditemsthatclearlyreflectdominancebyincludingwordslikeprestige,wealth,andstatus(Athertonetal.,2021;Robertsetal.,2004;Stolletal.,2020).BeingabletoaffordthingsmayThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.16BUCHINGERETAL.

alsobecomemoreimportantwhenpeoplearesavingforsomethingorhavetocuttheirspendingforotherreasons.Tocutexpenses,theymayrestricttheirsociallife.ThisreasoningissupportedbypriorresearchlinkinghigherpersonalsavingratestolowerExtraversion(Hirsh,2015).OurresultssuggestthatagenticlifegoalswithafocusonpersonalgrowthcodevelopwithExtraversionandOpenness(Hypothesis2),oncemore,supportingthethreetheoreticalperspectives,andpriorresearch(Athertonetal.,2021;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004;Salmela-Aroetal.,2012).Theassociationbetweenself-fulfillmentandOpennesswasthestrongestone,notonlyinourstudybutalsoinpastresearchthatreliedonstudentsamples(Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Salmela-Aroetal.,2012).Ourresultsshowthattheeffectcannotpurelybeattributedtothecharacteristicsofemergingadulthoodbutholdsinanage-diversesample.TogetherwithcareersuccessandConscientiousness,thecodevelopmentofpersonalgrowthgoalsandOpennessseemstobethemostrobustfindingacrossstudies.Unlikecareerandfamilygoals,notonlyarepersonalgrowthgoalsrelativelyfreefromsocietalexpectations,socialscripts,anddevelopmentaldeadlines,buttheyalsocanmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Theyreflectopportunitiesforself-explorationandrealizationofpersonalinterestsanddesires.PastresearchsuggeststhatthereislittlenormativechangeinExtraversionandOpennessacrossmostoftheadultlifespan(e.g.,Spechtetal.,2011)butjustasmuchindividualdifferenceinchange(Schwaba&Bleidorn,2018).Personalgrowthgoalsmayexplainsomeoftheseindividualdifferences.Thestrongcodevelopmentofnonnormative,unscriptedlifegoalsandtraitsmatchesthefindingsofpreviousstudiesthatfoundstrongerevidenceforthecorrespon-siveprincipleinlessscripted,nonnormativelifetransitions(Neyeretal.,2014).Intheabsenceofsocialscriptsthatguideindividualstowardtheattainmentofalifegoal,theroleofindividualdifferenceisenhanced.The(suggestive)evidenceforpositivecodevelopmentofOpennessandExtraversionwithpersonalgrowthgoals,andthenegativecodevelopmentofNeuroticismwithpersonalgrowthgoalsisalsoconsistentwiththeframeworkofself-determinationtheory(SDT;Ryan&Deci,2000).SDTdistinguishesbetweenintrinsiclifegoals,likeself-fulfillmentorpersonalgrowthandextrinsicgoalslikemoneyorstatus(e.g.,Sheldon&Kasser,2001b).Thepursuitofintrinsiclifegoalsisthoughttoenabletheindividualtoexperienceautonomyandactinlinewiththeirpersonalvalues.Importantly,intrinsicgoalsaretheorizedtobecentraltohealthypersonalitydevelopment(Niemiecetal.,2010).The“healthypersonality”hasbeendescribedbyhighOpenness,positiveemotions(highExtraversion),andlowNeuroticism(Bleidornetal.,2020),traitsthatwefoundtocodevelopwithpersonalgrowthgoals.Thus,ourfindingssupportSDTinthatlifegoalswhichcanbedescribedasintrinsic,codevelopwith“healthytraits.”CodevelopmentofCommunalLifeGoalsandCommunalPersonalityTraitsOfthethreecommunallifegoals,havingchildren,havingahappyrelationshipormarriage,andbeingthereforothers,onlybeingthereforotherscodevelopedwithAgreeableness.NoneofthecommunalgoalscodevelopedwithConscientiousness.Thus,Hypothesis3hasonlyweaksupport.However,theeffectsizeforcodevelopmentofbeingthereforothersandAgreeablenesswasthesecondlargestinourstudyafterself-fulfillmentandOpenness.Comparedtoothercommunallifegoals,beingthereforothersisarelativelybroadlifegoalandnottiedtoaspecificdevelopmentalphase,whichisreflectedinitsmean-levelstabilityacrossthelifespan(Buchingeretal.,2022).ThestrongercodevelopmentofrelativelyabstractlifegoalsandtheBigFivematchesthefindingsofpriorresearch.Forinstance,inamobilesensingstudyabstractbehavioraltendenciescorrelatedmorestronglywiththeBigFivethanmoreconcretebehaviors(seeStachletal.,2020,foramobilesensingexample).Moreover,thegoaltobethereforotherscanconcernalltypesofsocialties(e.g.,friends,coworkers,acquaintances,orrelatives),whereasahappyrelationshipormarriageonlyconcernstheromanticpartner.Importantly,patternsofbehavior,emotions,andcognitionthatarecharacteristicforAgreeablenessmaynotalwaysservethegoaltohaveahappyrelationship/marriage.Forinstance,priorresearchfoundthatAgreeablenesswasassociatedwithrelationshipsatisfactionregardingfriendsandrelatives,butnotregardingromanticpartners(e.g.,Tovetal.,2016).Inthisstudy,thepositiveassociationbetweenAgreeablenessandrelationshipsatisfactionwasmediatedbylessfrequentnegativeexchange.Maintainingharmonythroughdownregulatingtheexpressionofnegativeemotionsmaybeagoodstrategyinlooser,short-termrelationshipsbutmaybeproblematicincloserlong-termrelation-ships.Last,itisimportanttonotethatbehavior,emotions,andcognitionmayalsodevelopindependentlyfromlifegoals.Forinstance,Agreeablenessmaydeclineagaintowardtheendoflife(Schwaba&Bleidorn,2019)buthappyrelationshipsand,moregenerally,socialintegrationremainimportantorevenincreaseinimportance(e.g.,Carstensenetal.,2003).Althoughnoneofthepredictedassociationsconcerningtheimportanceofhavingahappyrelationshipormarriageweresupported,wefoundsomeunexpectedeffects.Contrarytothepreviousresearch(Athertonetal.,2021;Bleidornetal.,2010;Lüdtkeetal.,2009;Robertsetal.,2004),increasesintheimportanceofahappyrelationshipormarriagewereassociatedwithincreasesinNeuroticism.Itseemsplausible,thattheperceivedimportanceofahappyrelationshipormarriageincreaseswhenindividualsareunsatisfiedwiththeircurrentrelationship(status)and,thusmoreawareofthediscrepancybetweentheircurrentandtheirdesiredrelationship(status).Thisdiscrepancymaybefrustratingandstressful,translatingintoincreasesinNeuroticism.Conversely,theperceiveddiscrepancymayalsobeinducedbyincreasedNeuroticismwhichisanimportantpredictorofrelationshipdissatisfactionanddissolution(e.g.,Schaffhuseretal.,2014;Solomon&Jackson,2014).Inlinewiththepriorstudies(Schwabaetal.,2019;Spechtetal.,2011)thatfounddeclinesinOpennessafterromanticcommitment,wealsofoundanegativeassociationbetweenchangeintheperceivedimportanceofahappyrelationshipandchangeinOpenness.Whenindividualsenteranewrelationship,theyusuallyfocusontheirpartner,liketospendtimewiththem—andthusdonotfocusonexploringnewthings.Yet,itisalsopossiblethatincreasesinOpennessareassociatedwithdecreasesintheimportanceofahappyrelationship.Thisisconsistentwithpriorstudieswhichfoundthathigheractor/partnerOpennesspredictedrelationshipdissatis-factionanddissolutions(Solomon&Jackson,2014).PriorresearchalsofoundthatopenpeopletendtobelesscommittedinrelationshipscomparedtotheirmoreconventionalpeersanddelaycommitmentinThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE17

favorofromanticexploration(Bleidorn&Schwaba,2017;vanScheppingenetal.,2016).Thesefindingshaveoftenbeendiscussedinthecontextofastrongerneedforexplorationandunconventionalityexpressedbyopenpeoplewhichmaynotbemetinconventionalmonogamousrelationships.AppliedtoourfindingswhichsuggestthatanincreasingfocusonhappyrelationshipsisaccompaniedbyincreasingNeuroticismanddecreasingOpenness,itmaybethatpeoplecompromiseexplorationandunconventionality(decreasingOpenness)tosaveaproblematicrelationship(increasingNeuroticism).Similarly,itisalsopossiblethatpeoplewhovaluetheirrelationshipsmorearealsomoreafraidoflosingthem(increasingNeuroticism)andthereforefocusmoreonspendingtimewiththeirpartnerthandoingthingsoutsidetherelationship(decreasingOpenness).Itwouldbeinterestingforfutureresearchtoinvestigatethelongitudinalassociationsofperceivedimportanceofahappyromanticrelationship,actualrelationshipsatisfaction,Neuroticism,andOpenness.Furthermore,itwouldbeinterestingtostudytheseeffectsinmorediverseformsofrelationships.Especiallyamongyoungercohorts,relationshipformsthatallowmoreexplorationhavebecomemorecommonandsociallyacceptable(Haupertetal.,2017;Rubel&Burleigh,2020).Generally,theseunpredictedfindingsrequirereplicationbeforestrongconclusionscanbedrawn.Inthiscontext,itisalsoimportanttonotethatpreviousstudiesusedaggregatedmeasures.Forinstance,thescaletoassessrelationshipgoalsusedinthreeofthefourpreviouslongitudinalstudiesaggregates“havingahappyrelationship/marriage,”“havingharmoniousfamilyrelationships,”“havingchildren,”and“makingmyparentsproud.”Hence,aneffectontheitem-levelmaystillhavebeenpresentinthesestudies.Onaverage,therewasnocodevelopmentbetweenthegoaltohavechildrenandtheBigFive.Thisfindingfitswellintothelifeeventliterature,whichchallengestheideathatpersonalitymaturesthroughbecomingaparent(Asselmann&Specht,2021;Denissenetal.,2019;vanScheppingenetal.,2016)andwillbediscussedinthenextsection.Wealsofoundnoevidenceforthepredictedcodevelopmentbetweenbeingsocially/politicallyinvolvedandExtraversion(Hypothesis4).However,wedidfindthattheassociationsbetweenthesegoalsandtheBigFiveweresignificantlymoderatedbypeople’slifestage,asdiscussedinthenextsection.CodevelopmentofLifeGoalsandtheBigFiveAcrosstheLifeSpanBasedonpriorresearchthatshowedmorepronouncedchangesintheBigFiveandlifegoalsduringyoungadulthood(Bleidorn,2015;Salmela-Aroetal.,2007),wepredictedstrongercodeve-lopmentinyoungeragegroups(Hypothesis5).Ourresultssuggestedamorecomplexpattern.CodevelopmentoftheimportanceofcareersuccessandConscientiousnesswasstrongerduringtheactivecareerphase(26–59)thanduringthetraining(18–25)and(soon-to-be)retiredphases(<60).Asforcommunallifegoals,theimportanceofhavingchildrencodevelopedwithdecreasesinConscientiousnessonlyinagegroupsforwhomraisingyoungchildrenwasmorelikelytobe,ortobecome,partoftheirdailylives(26–59).Itisimportanttonotethat,althoughtheagegroupdifferencesregardingthestrengthofcodevelopmentoftheimportancetohavechildrenandConscientiousnessmatchedtheoreticalexpectationsforyoungadulthoodandmidlife,theirdirectiondidnot.BoththegoaltohavechildrenandConscientiousnesshavecommunalcontent(Abeleetal.,2016;T.M.Entringer,Gebauer,&Paulhus,2022)andarehenceexpectedtochangeinthesamedirectionbutinsteadtheychangedinoppositedirections.Onetheoreticalperspectivethatisoftendiscussedinthecontextofparenthood,isthesocialinvestmentprinciple(SIP;Roberts&Wood,2006).Itpredictsthatpersonalitymatures(i.e.,amongothers,increasesinConscientiousness)throughnormativeroletransitions.Althoughourstudydidnotinvestigatethetransitiontoparenthooddirectly,ourresultsareconsistentwithpriorresearchthattestedtheSIPinthecontextofparenthood(e.g.,Asselmann&Specht,2021;vanScheppingenetal.,2016).Thesestudiesalsofoundnosupportformaturationorevenreverseeffects.Stressfulroletransitionslikethetransitiontoparenthood,whichhaveoftenbeenassociatedwithnegativechangesinwell-being(forareview,seeNelsonetal.,2014)andwithlowinitialrolecompetence,poseashocktothegeneraldevelopmentaltrendtowardmaturation.Ithasbeensuggestedthatmaturationshouldonlybeexpectedifindividualsfeelcompetentinanewsocialrole(Roberts&Davis,2016).Inthislight,thenegativecodevelopmentofperceivedimportancetohavechildrenandConscientiousnessinyoungeradults(26–59)mayreflecttheprocessofhavingtogrowintotheparentrole,whereasthepositivecodevelopmentinolderadults(≥60)mayreflectthehighrolecompetenceindividualshaveacquiredas(grand)parents.Beingsocially/politicallyinvolvedandExtraversioncodeve-lopedmorestronglyinthe(soon-to-be)retiredphase(>60),whereresourcesarefreedandcanbeallocatedtotheattainmentofneworpreviouslypostponedgoals(e.g.,Freund,2020;Heckhausenetal.,2019).Thesefindingsconfirmtheoryandresearchthatemphasizethecloselinkagebetweentheimportanceoflifegoalsandage-gradeddevelopmentaltasks(e.g.,Heckhausenetal.,2001,2019).Establishingacareerandbuildingafamilybothreflectdevelopmentaltasksthatarebestachievedduringyoungandmiddleadulthood.Postretirement,trait-specificbehaviorsthatonceservedtheattainmentofcareersuccessmaynowservetomakeanimpactinone’scommunity.ThestrongercodevelopmentofExtraversionandsocial/politicalinvolvementinlateadulthoodmayalsoreflectchangesintimeperspective.Extraversionhasbeenshowntopredictpositiveaffectandpartiallymediatetherelationshipbetweengoalsandpositiveaffect(McCabe&Fleeson,2012).Socioemotionalselectivitytheory(Carstensenetal.,1999,2003)positsthatgoalswhichreliablyelicitpositiveemotionsandenablemeaningfulinterpersonalconnections(e.g.,social/politicalininvolvement)gainimportanceaswegrowolderandtimeperspectivebecomesincreasinglynarrow.Tosummarize,ourfindingssuggeststrongercodevelopmentwhenlifegoalsreflectage-normativedevelopmentaltasks.Thisisconsistentwiththeoriesofdevelopmentthathighlighttheroleofchangingtimeperspective(Carstensenetal.,1999,2003),andchangingopportunities,constraints,anddevelopmentaltasks(e.g.,Freund&Baltes,2002;Heckhausenetal.,2019;Huttemanetal.,2014)throughouttheadultlifespan.Opportunitiesforpersonalagencythatwereonceintheworkdomainmayshifttootherdomains.Ourfindingsmayalsoreflectage-relateddifferencesingenerativity,thetendencytocareforfuturegenerations,whichincreasesthroughmiddleandlateadulthood(McAdamsetal.,1993;Sheldon&Kasser,2001a).ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.18BUCHINGERETAL.

PerceivedControl,Sex,EducationalBackground,andRegionalSocializationWepredictedthatthecodevelopmentoflifegoalsandtraitsisstrongerforpeoplewithhighperceivedcontrolcomparedtopeoplewithlowperceivedcontrol(Hypothesis6).Effectsofsex,educationalbackground,andregionalsocializationwereinvesti-gatedinanexplorativefashion.Tosummarize,wefoundonlylittleevidenceformoderationeffects.First,codevelopmentwasnotstrongerinpeoplewithhighversuslowperceivedcontrol(Hypothesis6).AnexceptionconcernedthecodevelopmentofbeingthereforothersandAgreeableness,whichwasstrongerinindividualswithhighcomparedtolowperceivedcontrol.ThiseffectmaybedrivenbyindividualswhoexperiencedecreasesinAgreeablenessandtheirperceivedimportanceofbeingthereforothers.Someonewithhighperceivedcontrolmaycarelessaboutactinginasociallydesirableway.Replicationswithacontinuous,oratleastamoredetailed,assessmentofperceivedcontrolarerequiredtoconsolidatethesefindings.Second,sexmoderatedthecodevelopmentoftheperceivedimportanceofbeingthereforothersandOpenness.Inwomen,butnotmen,changeintheperceivedimportanceofbeingthereforotherswasnegativelyassociatedwithchangeinOpenness.Awomanwhoprioritizesbeingthereforothersstronglyconformsthetraditionalgendernorm.Thewell-documentednegativeassociationbetweentraditionalismandOpenness(e.g.,Fischer&Boer,2015;Parks-Leducetal.,2015;Vecchioneetal.,2019)maybeoneexplanationforthisfinding.SexalsomoderatedthecodevelopmentoftheperceivedimportanceoftravelingandConscientiousness.Inmen,butnotwomen,changeintheperceivedimportanceoftravelingwasnegativelyassociatedwithchangeinConscientiousness.Third,educationalbackgroundmoderatedthecodevelopmentofConscientiousnesswiththeperceivedimportanceofcareersuccessandhavingchildren.Thehigheranindividual’seducationalbackground,thestrongertheassociationbetweenincreasesintheperceivedimportanceofcareersuccessandincreasesinConscientiousness.Thisfindingmayreflectfeweropportunitiesforcareeradvancementsandpromotionprospectsforindividualswithalowereducationalbackground.WefoundthereversepatternforhavingchildrenandConscientiousness.Thismayreflectthehigherfinancialburdenandrestrictedaccesstosupport(e.g.,childcare)thathavingchildrenentailsforfamiliesfromlowereducationalbackgrounds,whichmayresultinstressand,thusdecreasedConscientiousness.Last,basedontheculturaldivisionthatisstillpresentinmodern,postunificationGermany(Klüsener&Goldstein,2016;Rensmann,2019),wespeculatedthatcodevelopmentoflifegoalsandtheBigFivetraitsdiffersbetweenEastandWestGermany.Ourresultsprovidednosupportforthisspeculation.Allinvestigatedmoderationeffectsrequirereplicationinordertoallowforsolidconclusions.LimitationsandFutureResearchDirectionsInclosing,wenotefourlimitationsofourstudy,althoughtheremaycertainlybemanymore.First,weoperationalizedtraitsastheBigFive,whichisthemostfrequentlyusedtraitmodelofpersonality.Bothbroader(e.g.,theBigTwo;Bakan,1966)andnarrowerConceptualizationsattheleveloffacetsorevennuances(e.g.,Mõttusetal.,2017)mayleadtomoreinsightsaboutlinkswithbroaderandnarrowergoaldomains,respectively.Second,oursampleincludedparticipantswhowereatleast18yearsold.Adolescenceisacriticalphaseforbothpersonalitytraitdevelopmentandtheformationoflifegoals(Arnett,2000;Bleidornetal.,2022).Althoughwefoundthestrongesteffectsinyoungandmiddleadulthood,futureresearchusingsamplesofadolescentsandchildrenisneededtocomplementthepictureoflifespanchangesinlifegoalsandpersonalitytraits.Third,therearelimitationstotheassessmentinstruments.Unlikepriorresearch,ourstudyusedsingle-itemmeasuresfortheassessmentoflifegoals.Thiswastoavoidaddingtotheheterogeneityofexistingmultiitemscales.Thusfar,thereisnoagreementregardingtheexactnumberandcompositionoflifegoalsdomainstobeincludedinmultiitemscales(foracriticalreview,seeKiendl&Hennecke,2022).Thelackofcoherentmeasuresmayalsorepresentageneralbarriertomoresystematicresearchontheroleoflifegoalsinpersonalitypsychologyandshouldbeaddressedinfuturestudies.Single-itemmeasurescanbeasstableandvalidasmultiitemscales(Allenetal.,2022;Mundetal.,2023).Moreover,wefollowrecommendationstopresentfindingsontheitemlevel,especiallyindevelopmentalresearch(Mõttus&Rozgonjuk,2021).Still,ourstudywaslimitedbythelistoflifegoalsavailableintheSOEP,whichcomparedtopriorstudies,isshort.Somewhatrelated,thetest–retestcorrelationsinourstudyweresmallcomparedtootherpriorstudies,whichmaybeduetothesingle-itemmeasureandsomeroughreliabilitiesoftheBigFivemeasure.Hence,itispossiblethatourstudyunderestimatesthetrue(co)developmentoftheBigFiveandlifegoals.Finally,therearelimitationstoouranalyticstrategy.Weonlyestimatedlinearchangeanddidnotincludemorecomplexformsofdevelopment.Moreover,wedidnotestimateage-gradeddevelop-mentbutdevelopmentacrossthestudyperiod.Ouranalyticstrategyrequiredthemoderatorvariablestobecategorical,whichentailedtheformationofrelativelybroad,yetdevelopmentallymeaningful,agegroupsandadichotomizationoftrait-perceivedcontrol.Thissolutionwaschosentobalancelossofinformationandparsimony.ConclusionThisstudyisalarge-scaleanalysisofthelifespancodevelop-mentoflifegoalsandtheBigFivetraits,twoimportantbuildingblocksofpersonality.Consolidatingpriorresearch,wefoundthatchangesinagenticlifegoalsandtraitsgohandinhand,withsomedoingsoacrosstheentireadultlifespan.Ourfindingsregardingcommunallifegoalsandtraitsweremoreambiguous—neitherinlinewiththecorresponsiveprinciple,northeunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personalityanddevelopment,northematurationprinciple.Generally,developmentinbroaderlifegoaldomainswasmorestronglyconnectedtopersonalitydevelopmentacrossthelifespan,whereaschangesinspecificgoalsweremorecloselytiedtotraitchangesduringthenormativephaseofdevelopment.ReferencesAbele,A.E.,Hauke,N.,Peters,K.,Louvet,E.,Szymkow,A.,&Duan,Y.(2016).Facetsofthefundamentalcontentdimensions:Agencywithcompetenceandassertiveness-communionwithwarmthandmorality.FrontiersinPsychology,7,Article1810.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE19

Allen,M.S.,Iliescu,D.,&Greiff,S.(2022).Singleitemmeasuresinpsychologicalscience:Acalltoaction.EuropeanJournalofPsychologicalAssessment,38(1),1–5.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699Arnett,J.J.(2000).Emergingadulthood.Atheoryofdevelopmentfromthelateteensthroughthetwenties.AmericanPsychologist,55(5),469–480.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469Asselmann,E.,&Specht,J.(2021).Testingthesocialinvestmentprinciplearoundchildbirth:Littleevidenceforpersonalitymaturationbeforeandafterbecomingaparent.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,35(1),85–102.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2269Atherton,O.E.,Grijalva,E.,Roberts,B.W.,&Robins,R.W.(2021).Stabilityandchangeinpersonalitytraitsandmajorlifegoalsfromcollegetomidlife.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,47(5),841–858.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220949362Austin,J.T.,&Vancouver,J.B.(1996).Goalconstructsinpsychology:Structure,process,andcontent.PsychologicalBulletin,120(3),338–375.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338Bakan,D.(1966).Thedualityofhumanexistence:IsolationandcommunioninWesternman.BeaconPress.Bauer,J.J.,&McAdams,D.P.(2010).Eudaimonicgrowth:Narrativegrowthgoalspredictincreasesinegodevelopmentandsubjectivewell-being3yearslater.DevelopmentalPsychology,46(4),761–772.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019654Bleidorn,W.(2015).Whataccountsforpersonalitymaturationinearlyadulthood?CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,24(3),245–252.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568662Bleidorn,W.,Hopwood,C.J.,Ackerman,R.A.,Witt,E.A.,Kandler,C.,Riemann,R.,Samuel,D.B.,&Donnellan,M.B.(2020).Thehealthypersonalityfromabasictraitperspective.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,118(6),1207–1225.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000231Bleidorn,W.,Kandler,C.,Hülsheger,U.R.,Riemann,R.,Angleitner,A.,&Spinath,F.M.(2010).Natureandnurtureoftheinterplaybetweenpersonalitytraitsandmajorlifegoals.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,99(2),366–379.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019982Bleidorn,W.,Klimstra,T.A.,Denissen,J.J.A.,Rentfrow,P.J.,Potter,J.,&Gosling,S.D.(2013).Personalitymaturationaroundtheworld:Across-culturalexaminationofsocial-investmenttheory.PsychologicalScience,24(12),2530–2540.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396Bleidorn,W.,&Schwaba,T.(2017).Personalitydevelopmentinemergingadulthood.InJ.Specht(Ed.),Personalitydevelopmentacrossthelifespan(pp.39–51).Elsevier.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00004-1Bleidorn,W.,Schwaba,T.,Zheng,A.,Hopwood,C.J.,Sosa,S.,Roberts,B.,&Briley,D.A.(2022).Personalitystabilityandchange:Ameta-analysisoflongitudinalstudies.PsyArXiv.https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eq5d6Buchinger,L.,&Entringer,T.M.(2023,June24).Co-developmentoflifegoalsandthebigfivepersonalitytraitacrossadulthoodandoldage.https://osf.io/a8bjzBuchinger,L.,Richter,D.,&Heckhausen,J.(2022).Thedevelopmentoflifegoalsacrosstheadultlifespan.TheJournalsofGerontology:SeriesB,77(5),905–915.https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab154Bühler,J.L.,Weidmann,R.,Nikitin,J.,&Grob,A.(2019).Acloserlookatlifegoalsacrossadulthood:Applyingadevelopmentalperspectivetocontent,dynamics,andoutcomesofgoalimportanceandgoalattainability.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,33(3),359–384.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2194Carstensen,L.L.,Fung,H.H.,&Charles,S.T.(2003).Socioemotionalselectivitytheoryandtheregulationofemotioninthesecondhalfoflife.MotivationandEmotion,27(2),103–123.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230Carstensen,L.L.,Isaacowitz,D.M.,&Charles,S.T.(1999).Takingtimeseriously.Atheoryofsocioemotionalselectivity.AmericanPsychologist,54(3),165–181.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165Cheung,G.W.,&Rensvold,R.B.(2002).Evaluatinggoodness-of-fitindexesfortestingmeasurementinvariance.StructuralEquationModeling,9(2),233–255.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5Cole,D.A.,&Maxwell,S.E.(2003).Testingmediationalmodelswithlongitudinaldata:Questionsandtipsintheuseofstructuralequationmodeling.JOurnalofAbnormalPsychology,112(4),558–577.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558Costa,P.T.,&McCrae,R.R.(1992).Normalpersonalityassessmentinclinicalpractice:TheNEOPersonalityInventory.PsychologicalAssessment,4(1),5–13.https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(1997).AspirationIndex:Scaledescription.DepartmentofClinicalandSocialScienceinPsychology,RochesterUniversity.https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/aspirations-index/Denissen,J.J.A.,Luhmann,M.,Chung,J.M.,&Bleidorn,W.(2019).Transactionsbetweenlifeeventsandpersonalitytraitsacrosstheadultlifespan.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,116(4),612–633.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000196Denissen,J.J.A.,vanAken,M.A.G.,Penke,L.,&Wood,D.(2013).Self-regulationunderliestemperamentandpersonality:Anintegrativedevelopmentalframework.ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,7(4),255–260.https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12050DeYoung,C.G.(2015).Cyberneticbigfivetheory.JournalofResearchinPersonality,56,33–58.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004Dweck,C.S.(2017).Fromneedstogoalsandrepresentations:Foundationsforaunifiedtheoryofmotivation,personality,anddevelopment.PsychologicalReview,124(6),689–719.https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082Ebner,N.C.,Freund,A.M.,&Baltes,P.B.(2006).Developmentalchangesinpersonalgoalorientationfromyoungtolateadulthood:Fromstrivingforgainstomaintenanceandpreventionoflosses.PsychologyandAging,21(4),664–678.https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.664Emmons,R.A.(2003).Personalgoals,lifemeaning,andvirtue:Wellspringsofapositivelife.InC.L.M.Keyes&J.Haidt(Eds.),Flourishing:Positivepsychologyandthelifewell-lived(pp.105–128).AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-005Enders,C.,&Bandalos,D.(2001).Therelativeperformanceoffullinformationmaximumlikelihoodestimationformissingdatainstructuralequationmodels.StructuralEquationModeling,8(3),430–457.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5Entringer,T.,Griese,F.,Zimmermann,S.,&Richter,D.(2022).SOEPscalesmanual.RetrievedMarch2,2023,fromhttps://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.862242.de/diw_ssp1217.pdfEntringer,T.M.,Gebauer,J.E.,&Kroeger,H.(2023).BigFivepersonalityandreligiosity:Bidirectionalcross-laggedeffectsandtheirmoderationbyculture.JournalofPersonality,91(3),736–752.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12770Entringer,T.M.,Gebauer,J.E.,&Paulhus,D.L.(2022).Extractingagencyandcommunionfromthebigfive:Afour-waycompetition.Assessment,29(6),1216–1235.https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211003978Fischer,R.,&Boer,D.(2015).Motivationalbasisofpersonalitytraits:Ameta-analysisofvalue-personalitycorrelations.JournalofPersonality,83(5),491–510.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12125Folkman,S.(1984).Personalcontrolandstressandcopingprocesses:Atheoreticalanalysis.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46(4),839–852.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.839Frese,M.,Kring,W.,Soose,A.,&Zempel,J.(1996).Personalinitiativeatwork:DifferencesbetweenEastandWestGermany.AcademyofManagementJournal,39(1),37–63.https://doi.org/10.2307/256630Freund,A.M.(2020).Thebucketlisteffect:Whyleisuregoalsareoftendeferreduntilretirement.AmericanPsychologist,75(4),499–510.https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000617Freund,A.M.,&Baltes,P.B.(2002).Life-managementstrategiesofselection,optimization,andcompensation:Measurementbyself-reportandconstructvalidity.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,82(4),642–662.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.642ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.20BUCHINGERETAL.

Furr,R.M.,&Funder,D.C.(1998).Amultimodalanalysisofpersonalnegativity.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74(6),1580–1591.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1580Gebauer,J.E.,Sedikides,C.,Wagner,J.,Bleidorn,W.,Rentfrow,P.J.,Potter,J.,&Gosling,S.D.(2015).Culturalnormfulfillment,interpersonalbelonging,orgettingahead?Alarge-scalecross-culturaltestofthreeperspectivesonthefunctionofself-esteem.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,109(3),526–548.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000052Gerlitz,J.-Y.,&Schupp,J.(2005).ZurErhebungderBig-Five-basiertenPersönlichkeitsmerkmaleimSOEP[OntheassessmentofBigFive-BasedPersonalityTraitsintheGSOEP].DIWResearchNotes.https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43490.de/rn4.pdfGoebel,J.,Grabka,M.M.,Liebig,S.,Kroh,M.,Richter,D.,Schröder,C.,&Schupp,J.(2019).TheGermansocio-economicpanel(SOEP).JahrbucherFurNationalokonomieundStatistik,239(2),345–360.https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2018-0022Goldberg,L.R.(1990).Analternative“descriptionofpersonality”:Thebig-fivefactorstructure.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,59(6),1216–1229.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216Gosling,S.D.,Rentfrow,P.J.,&Swann,W.B.,Jr.(2003).AverybriefmeasureoftheBig-Fivepersonalitydomains.JournalofResearchinPersonality,37(6),504–528.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1Haupert,M.L.,Moors,A.C.,Gesselman,A.N.,&Garcia,J.R.(2017).Estimatesandcorrelatesofengagementinconsensuallynon-monogamousrelationships.CurrentSexualHealthReports,9(3),155–165.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0121-6Headey,B.(2008).Lifegoalsmattertohappiness:Arevisionofset-pointtheory.SocialIndicatorsResearch,86(2),213–231.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9138-yHeckhausen,J.,Wrosch,C.,&Fleeson,W.(2001).Developmentalregulationbeforeandafteradevelopmentaldeadline:Thesamplecaseof“biologicalclock”forchildbearing.PsychologyandAging,16(3),400–413.https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.3.400Heckhausen,J.,Wrosch,C.,&Schulz,R.(2010).Amotivationaltheoryoflife-spandevelopment.PsychologicalReview,117(1),32–60.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017668Heckhausen,J.,Wrosch,C.,&Schulz,R.(2019).Agencyandmotivationinadulthoodandoldage.AnnualReviewofPsychology,70(1),191–217.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103043Hennecke,M.,Bleidorn,W.,Denissen,J.J.A.,&Wood,D.(2014).Athree–partframeworkforself–regulatedpersonalitydevelopmentacrossadulthood.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,28(3),289–299.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1945Hill,P.L.,Weston,S.J.,&Jackson,J.J.(2018).Theco-developmentofperceivedsupportandtheBigFiveinmiddleandolderadulthood.InternationalJournalofBehavioralDevelopment,42(1),26–33.https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417690262Hirsh,J.B.(2015).Extravertedpopulationshavelowersavingsrates.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,81,162–168.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.020Hudson,N.W.,Briley,D.A.,Chopik,W.J.,&Derringer,J.(2019).Youhavetofollowthrough:Attainingbehavioralchangegoalspredictsvolitionalpersonalitychange.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,117(4),839–857.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000221Hudson,N.W.,&Fraley,R.C.(2016).Changingforthebetter?Longitudinalassociationsbetweenvolitionalpersonalitychangeandpsychologicalwell-being.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,42(5),603–615.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637840Hudson,N.W.,Fraley,R.C.,Chopik,W.J.,&Briley,D.A.(2020).Changegoalsrobustlypredicttraitgrowth:Amega-analysisofadozenintensivelongitudinalstudiesexaminingvolitionalchange.SocialPsychological&PersonalityScience,11(6),723–732.https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619878423Hutteman,R.,Hennecke,M.,Orth,U.,Reitz,A.K.,&Specht,J.(2014).Developmentaltasksasaframeworktostudypersonalitydevelopmentinadulthoodandoldage.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,28(3),267–278.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1959Jayawickreme,E.,Zachry,C.E.,&Fleeson,W.(2019).WholeTraitTheory:Anintegrativeapproachtoexaminingpersonalitystructureandprocess.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,136,2–11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.045John,O.P.,Donahue,E.M.,&Kentle,R.L.(1991).BigFiveInventory(BFI).APAPsycTests.https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000Kiendl,K.,&Hennecke,M.(2022).Themeasurementofgoaldimensions:Acriticalreview.MotivationScience,8(3),215–229.https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000268Klüsener,S.,&Goldstein,J.R.(2016).Along-standingdemographicEast-WestdivideinGermany:Along-standingdemographicEast-Westdivide.PopulationSpaceandPlace,22(1),5–22.https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1870Klusmann,U.,Trautwein,U.,&Lüdtke,O.(2005).IntrinsischeundextrinsischeLebensziele[Intrinsicandextrinsiclifegoals].Diagnostica,51(1),40–51.https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.1.40Lang,F.R.,&Heckhausen,J.(2001).Perceivedcontroloverdevelopmentandsubjectivewell-being:Differentialbenefitsacrossadulthood.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,81(3),509–523.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.509Little,B.R.(1999).Personalityandmotivation:Personalactionandtheconativeevolution.InL.A.Pervin&O.P.John(Eds.),Handbookofpersonality:Theoryandresearch(pp.501–524).GuilfordPress.Lüdtke,O.,Trautwein,U.,&Husemann,N.(2009).Goalandpersonalitytraitdevelopmentinatransitionalperiod:Assessingchangeandstabilityinpersonalitydevelopment.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,35(4),428–441.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329215Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Implicationsforcognition,emotion,andmotivation.PsychologicalReview,98(2),224–253.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224McAdams,D.P.,&Pals,J.L.(2006).AnewBigFive:Fundamentalprinciplesforanintegrativescienceofpersonality.AmericanPsychologist,61(3),204–217.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204McAdams,D.P.,StAubin,E.D.,&Logan,R.L.(1993).Generativityamongyoung,midlife,andolderadults.PsychologyandAging,8(2),221–230.https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.221McCabe,K.O.,&Fleeson,W.(2012).Whatisextraversionfor?Integratingtraitandmotivationalperspectivesandidentifyingthepurposeofextraversion.PsychologicalScience,23(12),1498–1505.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612444904Meade,A.W.,Johnson,E.C.,&Braddy,P.W.(2008).Powerandsensitivityofalternativefitindicesintestsofmeasurementinvariance.JournalofAppliedPsychology,93(3),568–592.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568Moore,A.M.,Holding,A.C.,Buchardt,L.,&Koestner,R.(2021).Ontheefficacyofvolitionalpersonalitychangeinyoungadulthood:Convergentevidenceusingalongitudinalpersonalgoalparadigm.MotivationandEmotion,45(2),171–185.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09865-7Mõttus,R.,Kandler,C.,Bleidorn,W.,Riemann,R.,&McCrae,R.R.(2017).Personalitytraitsbelowfacets:Theconsensualvalidity,longitudinalstability,heritability,andutilityofpersonalitynuances.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,112(3),474–490.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000100Mõttus,R.,&Rozgonjuk,D.(2021).Developmentisinthedetails:AgedifferencesintheBigFivedomains,facets,andnuances.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,120(4),1035–1048.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000276Mund,M.,Maes,M.,Drewke,P.M.,Gutzeit,A.,Jaki,I.,&Qualter,P.(2023).Wouldthereallonelinesspleasestandup?ThevalidityofThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE21

lonelinessscoresandthereliabilityofsingle-itemscores.Assessment,30(4),1226–1248.https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221077227Muthén,L.K.,&Muthén,B.O.(1998–2017).Mplususer’sguide(8thed.).Nelson,S.K.,Kushlev,K.,&Lyubomirsky,S.(2014).Thepainsandpleasuresofparenting:When,why,andhowisparenthoodassociatedwithmoreorlesswell-being?PsychologicalBulletin,140(3),846–895.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035444Neyer,F.J.,Mund,M.,Zimmermann,J.,&Wrzus,C.(2014).Personality-relationshiptransactionsrevisited.JournalofPersonality,82(6),539–550.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12063Niemiec,C.P.,Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2010).Self-determinationtheoryandtherelationofautonomytoself-regulatoryprocessesandpersonalitydevelopment.InR.H.Hoyle(Ed.),Handbookofpersonalityandself-regulation(pp.169–191).Wiley-Blackwell.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318111.ch8Nolte,H.,Wilkesmann,U.,Tegethoff,H.G.,&Maetzel,J.(1997).KontrolleinstellungenzumLebenundzurZukunft.Auswertungeinesneuen,sozialpsychologischenItemblocksimSozioÖkonomischenPanel[Conferencesession].DiskussionspapiereAusDerFakultätFürSozialwissenschaftRuhr-UniversitätBochum.Nurmi,J.-E.(1992).Agedifferencesinadultlifegoals,concerns,andtheirtemporalextension:Alifecourseapproachtofuture-orientedmotivation.InternationalJournalofBehavioralDevelopment,15(4),487–508.https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549201500404Olaru,G.,Stieger,M.,Rüegger,D.,Kowatsch,T.,Flückiger,C.,Roberts,B.W.,&Allemand,M.(2022).Personalitychangethroughadigital-coachingintervention:Usingmeasurementinvariancetestingtodistin-guishbetweentraitdomain,facet,andnuancechange.EuropeanJournalofPersonality.Advanceonlinepublication.https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221145088Ostendorf,F.,&Angleitner,A.(2004).NEO-PersönlichkeitsinventarnachCostaundMcCrae:NEO-PI-R;Manual(RevidierteFassung)[NEO-PersonalityInventoryafterCostaandMcCrae:NEO-PI-R;Manual(RevisedEdition)].Hogrefe.https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/1878577Parks-Leduc,L.,Feldman,G.,&Bardi,A.(2015).Personalitytraitsandpersonalvalues:Ameta-analysis.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,19(1),3–29.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548Pfau-Effinger,B.,&Smidt,M.(2011).Differencesinwomen’semploymentpatternsandfamilypolicies:EasternandwesternGermany.CommunityWork&Family,14(2),217–232.https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.571401Pöhlmann,K.,&Brunstein,J.C.(1997).GOALS:EinFragebogenzurMessungvonLebenszielen[GOALS:Aquestionnaireforassessinglifegoals].Diagnostica,43,63–79.Quirin,M.,Robinson,M.D.,Rauthmann,J.F.,Kuhl,J.,Read,S.J.,Tops,M.,&DeYoung,C.G.(2020).Thedynamicsofpersonalityapproach(DPA):20Tenetsforuncoveringthecausalmechanismsofpersonality.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,34(6),947–968.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2295RCoreTeam.(2020).R:Alanguageandenvironmentforstatisticalcomputing.RFoundationforStatisticalComputing.https://www.r-project.org/Reisz,Z.,Boudreaux,M.J.,&Ozer,D.J.(2013).Personalitytraitsandthepredictionofpersonalgoals.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,55(6),699–704.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.023Rensmann,L.(2019).Dividedwestand.GermanPoliticsandSociety,37(3),32–54.https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2019.370304Roberts,B.W.,Caspi,A.,&Moffitt,T.E.(2003).Workexperiencesandpersonalitydevelopmentinyoungadulthood.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,84(3),582–593.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.582Roberts,B.W.,&Davis,J.P.(2016).Youngadulthoodisthecrucibleofpersonalitydevelopment.EmergingAdulthood,4(5),318–326.https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816653052Roberts,B.W.,O’Donnell,M.,&Robins,R.W.(2004).Goalandpersonalitytraitdevelopmentinemergingadulthood.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,87(4),541–550.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.541Roberts,B.W.,&Robins,R.W.(2000).Broaddispositions,broadaspirations:Theintersectionofpersonalitytraitsandmajorlifegoals.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,26(10),1284–1296.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262009Roberts,B.W.,Walton,K.E.,&Viechtbauer,W.(2006).Patternsofmean-levelchangeinpersonalitytraitsacrossthelifecourse:Ameta-analysisoflongitudinalstudies.PsychologicalBulletin,132(1),1–25.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1Roberts,B.W.,&Wood,D.(2006).Personalitydevelopmentinthecontextoftheneo-socioanalyticmodelofpersonality.InD.K.Mroczek&T.D.Little(Eds.),Handbookofpersonalitydevelopment(pp.11–39).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315805610.ch2Roccas,S.,Sagiv,L.,Schwartz,S.H.,&Knafo,A.(2002).Thebigfivepersonalityfactorsandpersonalvalues.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28(6),789–801.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008Rotter,J.B.(1966).Generalizedexpectanciesforinternalversusexternalcontrolofreinforcement.PsychologicalMonographs,80(1),1–28.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976Rubel,A.N.,&Burleigh,T.J.(2020).Countingpolyamoristswhocount:Prevalenceanddefinitionsofanunder-researchedformofconsensualnonmonogamy.Sexualities,23(1–2),3–27.https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718779781Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Self-determinationtheoryandthefacilitationofintrinsicmotivation,socialdevelopment,andwell-being.AmericanPsychologist,55(1),68–78.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68Salmela-Aro,K.,Aunola,K.,&Nurmi,J.-E.(2007).Personalgoalsduringemergingadulthood:A10-yearfollowup.JournalofAdolescentResearch,22(6),690–715.https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407303978Salmela-Aro,K.,Read,S.,Nurmi,J.-E.,Vuoksimaa,E.,Siltala,M.,Dick,D.M.,Pulkkinen,L.,Kaprio,J.,&Rose,R.J.(2012).Personalgoalsandpersonalitytraitsamongyoungadults:Geneticandenvironmentaleffects.JournalofResearchinPersonality,46(3),248–257.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.007Schaffhuser,K.,Wagner,J.,Lüdtke,O.,&Allemand,M.(2014).Dyadiclongitudinalinterplaybetweenpersonalityandrelationshipsatisfaction:Afocusonneuroticismandself-esteem.JournalofResearchinPersonality,53,124–133.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.007Scheling,L.,&Richter,D.(2021).GenerationY:Domillennialsneedapartnertobehappy?JournalofAdolescence,90(1),23–31.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.05.006Schwaba,T.,&Bleidorn,W.(2018).Individualdifferencesinpersonalitychangeacrosstheadultlifespan.JournalofPersonality,86(3),450–464.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12327Schwaba,T.,&Bleidorn,W.(2019).Personalitytraitdevelopmentacrossthetransitiontoretirement.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,116(4),651–665.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000179Schwaba,T.,Robins,R.W.,Grijalva,E.,&Bleidorn,W.(2019).DoesOpennesstoExperiencematterinloveandwork?Domain,facet,anddevelopmentalevidencefroma24-yearlongitudinalstudy.JournalofPersonality,87(5),1074–1092.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12458Schwartz,S.H.(2012).Anoverviewoftheschwartztheoryofbasicvalues.OnlineReadingsinPsychologyandCulture,2(1),1–20.https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116Seifert,I.S.,Rohrer,J.M.,Egloff,B.,&Schmukle,S.C.(2022).Thedevelopmentoftherank-orderstabilityoftheBigFiveacrossthelifespan.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,122(5),920–941.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000398ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.22BUCHINGERETAL.

Sheldon,K.M.,Jose,P.E.,Kashdan,T.B.,&Jarden,A.(2015).Personality,effectivegoal-striving,andenhancedwell-being:Comparing10candidatepersonalitystrengths.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,41(4),575–585.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215573211Sheldon,K.M.,&Kasser,T.(2001a).Gettingolder,gettingbetter?Personalstrivingsandpsychologicalmaturityacrossthelifespan.DevelopmentalPsychology,37(4),491–501.https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.491Sheldon,K.M.,&Kasser,T.(2001b).Goals,congruence,andpositivewell-being:Newempiricalsupportforhumanistictheories.JournalofHumanisticPsychology,41(1),30–50.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167801411004Skinner,E.A.,Wellborn,J.G.,&Connell,J.P.(1990).Whatittakestodowellinschoolandwhetheri’vegotit:Aprocessmodelofperceivedcontrolandchildren’sengagementandachievementinschool.JournalofEducationalPsychology,82(1),22–32.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22Socio-EconomicPanel(SOEP),dataforyears1984–2019.SOEP-Corev36,EUEdition.(2021).https://doi.org/10.5684/soep.core.v36euSolomon,B.C.,&Jackson,J.J.(2014).Whydopersonalitytraitspredictdivorce?Multiplepathwaysthroughsatisfaction.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,106(6),978–996.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036190Specht,J.,Egloff,B.,&Schmukle,S.C.(2011).Stabilityandchangeofpersonalityacrossthelifecourse:Theimpactofageandmajorlifeeventsonmean-levelandrank-orderstabilityoftheBigFive.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,101(4),862–882.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024950Specht,J.,Egloff,B.,&Schmukle,S.C.(2013).Everythingundercontrol?Theeffectsofage,gender,andeducationontrajectoriesofperceivedcontrolinanationallyrepresentativeGermansample.DevelopmentalPsychology,49(2),353–364.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028243Stachl,C.,Au,Q.,Schoedel,R.,Gosling,S.D.,Harari,G.M.,Buschek,D.,Völkel,S.T.,Schuwerk,T.,Oldemeier,M.,Ullmann,T.,Hussmann,H.,Bischl,B.,&Bühner,M.(2020).Predictingpersonalityfrompatternsofbehaviorcollectedwithsmartphones.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,117(30),17680–17687.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920484117Stieger,M.,Flückiger,C.,Rüegger,D.,Kowatsch,T.,Roberts,B.W.,&Allemand,M.(2021).Changingpersonalitytraitswiththehelpofadigitalpersonalitychangeintervention.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,118(8),Articlee2017548118.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017548118Stoll,G.,Einarsdo´ttir,S.,Song,Q.C.,Ondish,P.,Sun,J.J.,&Rounds,J.(2020).Therolesofpersonalitytraitsandvocationalinterestsinexplainingwhatpeoplewantoutoflife.JournalofResearchinPersonality,86,Article103939.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103939Sutin,A.R.,Costa,P.T.,Jr.,Miech,R.,&Eaton,W.W.(2009).Personalityandcareersuccess:Concurrentandlongitudinalrelations.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,23(2),71–84.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.704Tov,W.,Nai,Z.L.,&Lee,H.W.(2016).Extraversionandagreeableness:Divergentroutestodailysatisfactionwithsocialrelationships.JournalofPersonality,84(1),121–134.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12146Trapnell,P.D.,&Paulhus,D.L.(2012).Agenticandcommunalvalues:Theirscopeandmeasurement.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,94(1),39–52.https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627968Twenge,J.M.,Campbell,W.K.,&Freeman,E.C.(2012).Generationaldifferencesinyoungadults’lifegoals,concernforothers,andcivicorientation,1966–2009.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,102(5),1045–1062.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027408vanScheppingen,M.A.,Jackson,J.J.,Specht,J.,Hutteman,R.,Denissen,J.J.A.,&Bleidorn,W.(2016).Personalitytraitdevelopmentduringthetransitiontoparenthood:Atestofsocialinvestmenttheory.SocialPsychological&PersonalityScience,7(5),452–462.https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616630032Vecchione,M.,Alessandri,G.,Roccas,S.,&Caprara,G.V.(2019).Alookintotherelationshipbetweenpersonalitytraitsandbasicvalues:Alongitudinalinvestigation.JournalofPersonality,87(2),413–427.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12399Wagner,J.,Orth,U.,Bleidorn,W.,Hopwood,C.J.,&Kandler,C.(2020).Towardanintegrativemodelofsourcesofpersonalitystabilityandchange.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,29(5),438–444.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420924751Wehner,C.,vanScheppingen,M.A.,&Bleidorn,W.(2022).Stabilityandchangeinmajorlifegoalsduringthetransitiontoparenthood.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,36(1),61–71.https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207021996894Wrzus,C.,&Roberts,B.W.(2017).Processesofpersonalitydevelopmentinadulthood:TheTESSERAframework.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,21(3),253–277.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316652279ReceivedDecember27,2022RevisionreceivedMay17,2023AcceptedJune13,2023▪ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.CODEVELOPMENTOFLIFEGOALSANDTHEBIGFIVE23

RegisteredReportEuropeanJournalofPersonality2023,Vol.37(5)605–625©TheAuthor(s)2022Articlereuseguidelines:sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI:10.1177/08902070221111857journals.sagepub.com/home/ejopDotheBigFivepersonalitytraitsinteracttopredictlifeoutcomes?Systematicallytestingtheprevalence,nature,andeffectsizeoftrait-by-traitmoderationColinEVize1,BrinkleyMSharpe2,JoshuaDMiller2,DonaldRLynam3andChristopherJSoto4AbstractPersonalityresearchershavepositedmultiplewaysinwhichtherelationsbetweenpersonalitytraitsandlifeoutcomesmaybemoderatedbyothertraits,buttherearewell-knowndifficultiesinreliabledetectionofsuchtrait-by-traitinteractioneffects.Estimatingtheprevalenceandmagnitudebaseratesoftrait-by-traitinteractionswouldhelptoassesswhetheragivenstudyissuitedtodetectinteractioneffects.WeusedtheLifeOutcomesofPersonalityReplicationProjectdatasettoestimatetheprevalence,nature,andmagnitudeoftrait-by-traitinteractionsacross81self-reportedlifeoutcomes(n≥1350peroutcome).Outcomesamplesweredividedintotwohalvestoexaminethereplicabilityofobservedinteractioneffectsusingbothtraditionalandmachinelearningindices.Thestudywasadequatelypowered(1β≥.80)todetectthesmallestinteractioneffectsofinterest(interactionsaccountingforaΔR2ofapproximately.01)for78ofthe81(96%)outcomesineachofthepartitionedsamples.Resultsshowedthatonly40interactions(5.33%oftheoriginal750tests)showedevidenceofstrongreplicabilitythroughrobustnesschecks(i.e.,demographiccovariates,Tobitregression,andordinalregression).Interactionswerealsouniformlysmallinmagnitude.Futuredirectionsforresearchontrait-by-traitinteractionsarediscussed.KeywordsBigFive,moderatoreffects,statisticalinteraction,personality,replicationReceived8February2022;Revised8June2022;accepted11June2022IntroductionWeknowagooddealaboutpersonalityanditsimportanceforpsychologicalfunctioning.Forinstance,therearelargelycon-sensualtraitmodelsofpersonalitythatdescribefiveorsixcoredomains(e.g.,Digman,1997;Goldberg,1990;Lee&Ashton,2008).Many,butnotallthesedomainsarefoundacrossvariousculturesandgeographicregions(e.g.,DeRaadetal.,2010;c.f.Ashtonetal.,2004)andareunderlainbygeneticandenvi-ronmentalfactors(e.g.,Jangetal.,1996;Vukasovi´c&Bratko,2015).These“BigFiveorSix”personalitytraitmodelsmanifestmeaningfulrelationswithahostofoutcomesincludingphysical(e.g.,Luchettietal.,2014;Sutinetal.,2016)andpsychologicalwell-being(e.g.,DeNeve&Cooper,1998),mentalill-ness(e.g.,Kotovetal.,2017),longevity(e.g.,Terraccianoetal.,2008),aswellasoccupational(e.g.,Barrick&Mount,1991),andromanticfunctioning(e.g.,Malouffetal.,2010),tonameafew.Asresearchonpersonalityandlifeoutcomeshasad-vanced,ithasmovedbeyondsimpletestsofzero-ordercorrelationsbetweenpersonalitytraitsandothervariables(Chaplin,1991,2007).However,noworkhasestablishedthebaserateoftrait-by-traitmoderationeffectsdespitethesignificantamountofattentiontheyhavereceivedinthepersonalityliterature.Thegoalofthepresentprojectistoestablishthebaserateoftrait-by-traitinteractionstoprovidesomeinsightsintowhattypesofbasicinteractioneffectsmaybedetectableinpersonalityresearch.TestsofmoderationinpersonalityresearchGenerally,twotypesofmoderationtestshavebeenexaminedinpersonalityresearch.Inthefirst,interactionsbetweenatraitandanon-traitvariableareexamined;forexample,aresearchermightaskwhethertherelationbetweenatraitandanothervariablediffersasafunctionofgender,socioeconomicstatus,oran1DepartmentofPsychiatry,UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA,USA2UniversityofGeorgia,Athens,GA,USA3PurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,IN,USA4ColbyCollege,Waterville,ME,USACorrespondingauthor:ColinEVize,DepartmentofPsychiatry,UniversityofPittsburgh,4037SennottSquare,210S.BouquetSt.,Pittsburgh,PA15261,USA.Email:[email protected]

experimentalmanipulation(seeChaplin,2007foranoverview).Inthesecondtype,researcherstesttrait-by-traitinteractionstoseeiftheinteractionbetweenpersonalitytraitscanaccountforvarianceinavariablebeyondthataccountedforbymaineffects.Forexample,onecouldexaminewhethertheinteractionbe-tweenextraversionandconscientiousnessaccountsforbettersalesperformanceaboveandbeyondthesimpleadditiveeffectofbothtraits.Regardinginteractionsbetweentraitsandnon-traitvari-ables,somestudieshaveexploredthefrequencyandnatureoftheseinteractions.Intheirexplorationofinteractionsbetweenpersonalityandparentingvariables,O’ConnorandDvorak(2001)testedalargevarietyofpotentialinteractionsacrossdifferentvariablesrelatedtomaladaptivefunctioning.UsingaminimumΔR2of.03asacutoffformeaningfuleffects,theauthorsfound267significantinteractionsoutof9680testedinteractions(2.8%).1Morerecently,ShermanandPashler(2019)soughttoexhaustivelyexaminethebaseratesofpersonalitybysituationinteractioneffectsacrossfivelargebehavioraldatasets—conducting556,102interactiontests.Theauthorsfoundverylittleempiricalsupportforinteractioneffects.Specifically,manyofthesignificantin-teractionscouldbeexplainedbyTypeIerror(i.e.,falsepositives)andincaseswhereTypeIerrorwasunlikely,theadditionalvarianceaccountedforbythesesignificantin-teractionswassmall(averageΔR2=.02).Theseresultsaccordwithotherwork.Intheirreviewof30yearsofmanagementresearch,Aguinisandcolleauges(2005)foundthatthemedianeffectsizeforinteractiontermsacross261studieswasf2=.002,muchsmallerthanwhatmostre-searchersexpectwhentestinginteractions.Currently,noempiricalreviewsestimatingmedianeffectsizesorbaseratesfortrait-by-traitinteractionshavebeencompleted.However,thelackofempiricalreviewsisnotduetoofalackofinterestintheserelations—manytheoreticallyplausibletrait-by-traitinteractionshavebeeninvestigated.Oneareawheresuchinteractionshavebeenpositedandtestedisinrelationtointernalizingsymptoms,morespecificallydepression(e.g.,Dinovo&Vasey,2011).Intermsofdepression,severalresearchgroupshavehypothesizedtwo-andthree-wayinteractionsbetweenneuroticism,extraversion,andconscientiousness.Forinstance,Vaseyandcolleagues(2014)reportedevidenceofathree-wayinteractionbetweenpositiveemotionality(akintoextraversion),negativeemotionality(akintoneuroticism),andeffortfulcontrol(akintoconscientiousness)inrelationtoconcurrentlymeasureddepressivesymptomsinfouroffivesamples.Naragon-GaineyandSimms(2017)testedthesesameinteractionsusingameasureofthefive-factormodelofper-sonality(FFM)inalargepsychiatric/communitysample.Overall,thethree-wayinteractionaccountedforasmallbutstatisticallysignificantamountofvarianceinmajordepressivesymptoms(ΔR2=.012).Otherworkhasexaminedtrait-by-traitinteractionsinthecontextofvariousaspectsofangerandaggression.PeaseandLewis(2015)foundtherelationbetweenneuroticismandthecontrolofangerwasmoderatedbyconscien-tiousnesssuchthatindividualswhowerehighinneuroti-cismandlowinconscientiousnesshadgreaterdifficultywithangercontrol.Ofnote,however,21differenttwo-wayinteractionsweretestedandonlyonesignificantinteractionwasfound.2Similarly,Jensen-Campbellandcolleagues(2007)foundthattherelationbetweenagreeablenessandangerwasmoderatedbylevelsofconscientiousnesssuchthatagreeableindividualsreportedmoreangeratlowlevelsofconscientiousness.Odeandcolleagues(2008)foundaninteractionbetweenneuroticismandagreeablenessintheirrelationswithangeracrossthreesmallsamples(ns=51–64);therelationsbetweenneuroticismandangerweresignificantlystrongerwhenpairedwithlowagreeableness.Nonetheless,thesestudieswereunderpoweredforthesetestsofmoderation,andthusthereisuncertaintyinhowaccuratelytheestimatesreflectthetruemagnitudeofin-teractioneffects.Inpsychopathyresearch,therehasbeeninterestinconceptualizing(e.g.,Lilienfeldetal.,2019)andtestinginteractionsamongpsychopathicpersonalitydomainswiththenotionthat“classic”psychopathicpresentationslikethosedescribedbyCleckley(1941)arefoundwhentwoormoretraitsarebothpresent(e.g.,psychopathy=highinboldness,disinhibition,andmeanness).However,BenningandSmith(2019)notedthatsuchtestsofinteractionsamongpsychopathytraitshaveyieldedmostlynullresults(e.g.,Croweetal.,2021;Gatneretal.,2016;Vizeetal.,2016;Weissetal.,2019;c.f.Kastner&Sellbom,2012;Marcus&Norris,2014;Smithetal.,2013).Thisbriefreviewoftrait-by-traitinteractiontestsisnotexhaustive.Therearemanyareasnotmentionedherewheretrait-by-traitinteractiontestshavebeenpublished.How-ever,testsoftrait-by-traitinteractionsmustcontendwithissuesthathavebeenhighlightedformoderationanalysesmoregenerally.DifficultiessurroundingtestsofmoderationAvarietyofissuesmakemanymoderationeffectsdifficulttodetect.Theseissuesincludeunreliabilityoftheproductterm(Cohenetal.,2003),restrictedrangeofvaluesinpredictorvariables(McClelland&Judd,1993),andsmalleffectsizes(Aguinis,1995;Aguinis&Gottfredson,2010;Aguinis&Stone-Romero,1997;Chaplin,2007;Murphy&Russell,2017).Alltheseissuesnegativelyimpactstatisticalpower.Asaresult,testsofinteractionsrequiremanymoresubjectsthantestsofmaineffectstoachievethesamestatisticalpower.Forinstance,Gelman(2018)suggeststhatincertainresearchcontextsonemayneed16timesthesamplesizerequiredformaineffectstoestimateinterac-tions.McClellandandJudd(1993)notemanydifficultiesoftestinginteractionsinfieldstudies,goingsofarastowarnresearchersthatthe“oddsareagainstthem”indetectinginteractions.Importantly,theseissuescompoundwheninvestigatinghigher-orderinteractioneffects(e.g.,three-andfour-wayinteractions).Itisalsoworthnotingthatourknowledgeofinteractioneffectsisbasedalmostentirelyonthepublishedliterature.Significantinteractionsthathavebeenfoundandreportedmaybeunrepresentativeinthattheymayonlybeincludedinpublishedworkwhensignificantbuttrimmedfrommanuscriptswhennon-significant.Itispossiblethatre-searchersarefrequentlytestingforthepresenceofinter-actionsbetweentraitsbutnotincludingtheminpublishedworkduetoageneraldisinterestinanddisinclinationto-wardsnullfindingsinpsychology(e.g.,Ferguson&606EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Brannick,2012;Greenwald,1975).Theseissuesarepar-ticularlyconcerningforpersonalityresearch,giventhelargenumberofpotentialinteractionsthatcanbeexploredinanygivendataset.UsingtheRevisedNEOPersonalityInventory(NEOPI-R;Costa&McCrae,1992)asanex-ample,themeasurecontainsfivedomainscalesandthirtyfacetscales.Atthedomainlevel,atotalof26interactionscouldbeevaluated(10two-wayinteractions,10three-wayinteractions,5four-wayinteractions,and1five-wayin-teraction).Ifoneweretomovetothefacetlevel,thenumberofpossibletwo-wayinteractionsaloneis435whilethereare4060possiblethree-wayinteractionsonecouldex-amine.Thiscombinationofmethodologicalflexibilityandpublicationbiascangiverisetoaliteraturefullofinter-actioneffectsthatappearmorerobustthantheyare(Gelman&Loken,2013;Simmonsetal.,2011).Concernsabouttherobustnessofpsychologicaleffectshaveincreaseddramaticallyduetolowreplicationratesinlargescaleprojectsdesignedtoassessthereplicabilityofcertainresearchareasinpsychology(Kleinetal.,2018;OpenScienceCollaboration,2015).However,researchfocusedonthereplicabilityofpersonalityfindingshastendedtoshowamuchhigherrateofreplication(87%oftestedeffectsweresignificantintheexpecteddirection;Soto,2019).Nonetheless,thehighrateofreplicablefindingsinSoto(2019)pertainstomaineffectsofper-sonalitytraits.Duetothevariousstatisticaldifficultiesassociatedwithtestsofmoderation,itisunlikelythattherelativelyrobustfindingsfortraitmaineffectswillextendtotrait-by-traitinteractiveeffects.Infact,oftheeffectsex-aminedintheOpenScienceCollaboration’s(2015)re-producibilityproject,maineffectsshowedamuchhigherreplicationrate(47%)comparedtointeractioneffects,whereonly8outof37tests(22%)achievedasignificantreplicationresult.OverviewofthepresentresearchDespiteaninterestintrait-by-traitinteractionsintheper-sonalityliterature,theoverallfrequencyandreplicabilityoftrait-by-traitinteractionsremainlargelyuntested.Thus,thepresentresearchaimedtoestimatethebaserateoftrait-by-traitinteractions.Specifically,weuseddatafromalarge,nationallyrepresentativesampletotestinteractionsbe-tweentheBigFivepersonalitytraitsandabroadsetoflifeoutcomevariables.Thevalueofthecurrentpreregisteredapproachliesinthecombinationoftransparentreportingofallresults,datathatassessawidevarietyofpersonalityandbehavioralvariables,andtheabilitytopartitionthesampletoexaminereplicationwithhighpowertodetectinteractionswithineachpartition.Withthesecharacteristicscombined,thebaserateofstatisticalinteractionsthatarepresentinthedatacaninformpersonalityresearchers’expectationswhentestingtrait-by-traitinteractionsundersimilarresearchconditions.Thenationallyrepresentativesample,alongwithself-reportmeasuresofpersonalityandotherbehaviorsthatarerepresentativeoftypicalmeasuresusedinper-sonalityresearch,strengthensthegeneralizabilityoftheresults.Nonetheless,wenotethattherewillberesearchcontextstowhichourresultsmaynotgeneralizeandthustheestimatedbaserateoftrait-by-traitinteractionsshouldbethoughtfullyappliedtofutureresearch.Wehypothesizedthatthebaserateofmeaningfultrait-by-traitinteractions(i.e.,interactionsthatarestatisticallysignificantandnon-trivialinsize)wouldbecomparabletotherateexpectedbychance,similartowhathasbeenfoundinresearchonthefrequencyoftrait-by-situationinterac-tions(Sherman&Pashler,2019).MethodThepresentstudyusesdatafromtheLifeOutcomesofPersonalityReplicationproject(LOOPR;Soto,2019)whichtestedthereplicabilityoftrait-outcomeeffectspre-viouslyreportedinthepersonalityliterature.Themajorityofeffects(87%)werereplicatedintermsofsignificanceanddirection,buteffectsizeswere23%smalleronaveragethanthoseoriginallyreported.LOOPRdatahavealsobeenusedtotestthegeneralizabilityoftrait-outcomeeffectsacrossage,gender,ethnicity,andanalyticapproaches(Soto,2021;forfurtherdetails,seehttps://osf.io/7w9fu/).However,notrait-by-traitinteractionshavebeenexaminedwithinthesedatapriortothecurrentstudy.Thus,theauthorshadnopriorknowledgeofanyinteractioneffectswithinthesedata.SampleTheLOOPRdatasetincludesatotalof6126surveyre-sponsesfrom5347uniqueparticipantsrecruitedinfoursamplesusingtheQualtricsOnlineSampleservice.Thisincludedtwoage-representativeadultsamples(ns=1559and1512)andtwoyoungadult(ages18–25)samples(ns=1550and1505).QuotasamplingwasusedtoensurethateachadultsamplewouldcloselyrepresenttheUnitedStatespopulationintermsofage(11%ages18–24,18%ages25–34,17%ages35–44,19%ages45–54,17%ages55–64,18%ages65,andolder),gender(52%female,48%male),andrace/ethnicity(74%non-HispanicWhite/Caucasian,11%Black/AfricanAmerican,10%Hispanic/Latino,3%Asian/AsianAmerican,and2%AmericanIndian/NativeAmerican),aswellaseducationalattainmentandhouseholdincome.Eachyoungadultsamplewassimilarlyrepre-sentativeintermsofgenderandrace/ethnicity.Participantswereexcludedforincompleteresponding(<90%ofitemsanswered),uniformresponding(standarddeviationacrossallBigFiveInventory–2[BFI-2;Soto&John,2017]items<.50),completiontimeslessthanone-thirdofthemediancompletiontime(Survey1:25min.;Survey2:21min.),andinattention(determinedviacon-flictingresponsestodemographicitems).Newparticipantswererecruitedtoreplacethosewhowereexcluded.ProcedureParticipantsusedQualtricstocompleteademographicsurvey,theBFI-2,andasetoflifeoutcomemeasures.Twoseparatesurveyformswerecreated,eachcontaininghalfofthelifeoutcomemeasurestominimizeparticipantfatigue.Participantswereallowedtocompletebothsurveysbutwerenotallowedtoparticipateinboththeadultandyoungadultsamples.Foreachcompletedsurvey,participantsVizeetal.607

receivedcompensationofapproximately$3.00throughtheQualtricsOnlineSampleService.MeasuresTheBigFiveInventory.TheBigFivepersonalitytraitswereassessedusingtheBigFiveInventory–2(BFI-2;Soto&John,2017).TheBFI-2uses60relativelyshort,easytounderstanditemsthatareratedonafive-pointscalerangingfrom1(DisagreeStrongly)to5(AgreeStrongly).InthecombinedLOOPRsample,alphareliabilitieswere.79forAgreeableness,.81forOpen-Mindedness,.83forExtra-version,.86forConscientiousness,and.89forNegativeEmotionality.LifeOutcomes.BasedonOzerandBenet-Martinez’s(2006)reviewofthepersonality-outcomeliterature,theLOOPRprojectmeasuredabroadsetof48individual,interpersonal,social,andinstitutionallifeoutcomesthathavebeenlinkedwiththeBigFivetraits,withsomeoutcomesincludingmultiplesub-outcomes(Soto,2019).Thesemeasuresweredesignedtofollowthoseusedintheoriginalempiricalarticlessupportingatrait-outcomeassociationascloselyaspossible.Topreventparticipantfatigue,theLOOPRmeasureswerelimitedtoamaximumofapproximatelysixitemsperoutcome,andthefulloutcomebatterywasdividedintotwosurveyforms,with2330participantscompletingSurvey1,2238participantscompletingSurvey2,and779participantselectingtocompletebothsurveyforms.348items(bothdrawnfromexistingscalesandgeneratedadhoc)wereadministeredacrossthefullbattery.ThepresentstudyusedtheseoutcomemeasuresasmodifiedbySoto(2021)tomaximizethesizeandbreadthoftheoutcomeset.Mostnotably,sub-outcomesthatwereaggregatedintheoriginalLOOPRreplicationanalyses(Soto,2019)weretreatedasseparateoutcomevariablesinthepresentstudy(followingSoto,2021).Additionally,theLOOPRsurveysincludedsevenoutcomemeasuresthatwerenotincludedinOzerandBenet-Martinez’s(2006)summaryoftrait-outcomeassociationsandwerethereforeomittedfromSoto’s(2019)replicabilityanalyses.Thesemodificationsresultedinaninitialpoolof83outcomevariables,ofwhichtwo(immigrants’ethniccultureiden-tificationandmajoritycultureidentification)wereexcludedduetotheirrelativelysmallsamplesize(n=391,ascomparedwithn≥1350forallotheroutcomemeasures).Thus,81outcomevariableswereexaminedinthepresentstudy,thoughwefocusedonasubsetoftheseoutcomesforourprimaryanalyses.Basicinformationabouteachout-comemeasureispresentedinTable1.AnalyticPlanPreprocessing.PreprocessingoftheLOOPRdataisde-scribedinthepreregistrationprotocolforSoto(2021),availableathttps://osf.io/crwb6.MissingitemresponsesfortheBFI-2werereplacedwiththemedianresponseforeachitem,andtheBigFivetraitscaleswerethenscoredusingthemeasure’spublisheditemkey(Soto&John,2017).Foroutcomeitemswithanopen-endedresponseformat,im-possibleorimplausiblevalueswereidentifiedanddeletedbasedoninspectionofthefrequencydistributions.Aftertheseexclusions,valuesmorethanthreestandarddevia-tionsfromthemeanwererecodedtoequaltheclosestobservedvaluelessthanthreestandarddeviationsfromthemean.Alloutcomemeasureswerethenscoredfollowingtheprocedures(mostoftensimpleitemaggregation)pre-registeredbySoto(2021).RegisteredanalysesThestageoneregistrationforthecurrentregisteredreportisavailableathttps://osf.io/vjnzx.First,weexaminedzero-ordercorrelationsamonglifeoutcomemeasuresinthefullLOOPRdatasettoidentifyclustersofoutcomemeasuresthatmightbecombinedtoreducethenumberofredundantvariables.Specifically,weidentifiedpairsorsetsofout-comevariableswithabsolutecorrelations≥.70andag-gregatedthembyfirststandardizingandthenaveragingthecomponentoutcomes.Next,wesplittheavailableLOOPRdataforeachoutcomemeasureintotworandomhalves(partitionsAandB;ns=3063).Withineachpartition,weconductedahierarchicalregressionanalysistoexamineBFI-2scales’relationswitheachoutcomevariable.Per-sonalitydomainpredictorsweremean-centeredpriortoanalyses.AtStep1,weenteredmaineffectsforoneofthe10possiblepairsofBFI-2domainscores(e.g.,ExtraversionandAgreeableness)asindependentvariables.AtStep2,weaddedaninteractiontermforthedomainscores(e.g.,Extraversion×Agreeableness).Thus,foreachoutcomemeasure,20regressionmodelswereexamined(10maineffectsmodelsand10correspondingmaineffects+in-teractionmodels).TheeffectofinterestwasthechangeinR2fortheregressionmodelafteraddingtheinteractiontermatStep2.Inlinewithrecentrecommendationsondeter-miningeffectsizesforpoweranalyses,thesmallesteffectsizewewereinterestedindetectingwasΔR2=.01.Seethepoweranalysissectionbelowforfurtherdiscussionre-gardingthesmallesteffectsizeofinterest.Importantly,thereisnoagreedupon,singlemetricthatcandeterminewhatconstitutesasuccessfulorunsuccessfulreplicationofaneffect.Thus,weexaminedmultipleindicesofreplicationacrossthepartitionedsamples.Specifically,ifasignificantinteractioneffectwasdetectedinonepartition,wecomparedittotheeffectintheotherpartitionintermsofΔR2,statisticalsignificance,andsignoftheeffect(+or).Toconcludethattherewasareplicableinteractioneffect,thesignoftheeffectsneededtomatch,firstandforemost.Whentheadditionaltwocriteriawerealsomet,wetookthistobestrongevidencesupportingthepresenceofatrait-by-traitinteraction.Ifnocriteriaweremet,weconsideredthistobeevidenceagainstthepresenceofaninteractionandthatthesinglesignificanteffectwasafalsepositive.Incontextswheretheinteractioneffectswerethesamesignandsimilarinmagnitude(definedasΔR2valuesthatwere±.02fromoneanother),weexaminedwhetherthe95%confidenceintervalofthesignificanteffectcapturedtheeffectthatwasnotsignificant.Ifitdid,wetookthisasequivocalevidenceinsupportoftheinteraction.Incontextswheretheeffectswerethesamesign,bothsignificant,butnotofsimilarmagnitude,weconcludedthattherewasevidenceinsupportofaninteractionbuttherewas608EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Table1.ListofLifeOutcomesandMeasures.OutcomeMeasurenameNumberofitemsAlphareliabilitySamplesizeIndividualoutcomesSubjectivewell-beingLifesatisfactionsLSI-A6.543109PositiveaffectsABS5.683108NegativeaffectsABS5.693107HappinesssDTS1—3108ReligionandspiritualityCognitiveorientationtowardsspiritualitysESS6.813109ReligiousnesssESS6.873109Existential-phenomenologicaldimensionsESS6.673109ParanormalbeliefssESS6.733109Existentialwell-beingESS6.773109GratitudeGQ-66.803107ForgivenessHFS6.613109InspirationInspirationScale8.933028HumorAdhocitem1—3109IdentitystatusIdentityachievementEOM-EIS8.653109IdentitydiffusionnEOM-EIS8.653109IdentityforeclosureEOM-EIS8.873109IdentitymoratoriumnEOM-EIS8.763109Identityintegration/consolidationQ-EIS6.663109CopingActivecopingsWOC-R5.823017AvoidantcopingsWOC-R6.823017SeekingsupportnWOC-R5.823017ResilienceCRI6.853016RiskybehaviorActivitysGLTEQ3.602528UnhealthyeatingsMIRW1—2796ExcessivealcoholusesAdhocitem1—2944DrugusesAdhocitem1—2944TobaccousesAdhocitem1—2944RiskysexsAdhoccomposite3.511881RiskydrivingsAdhocscale3.773007ViolencesAdhocscale5.902991SuicidesAdhocitem1—3011HeartdiseaseLSH-CPQ1—3014SubstanceabuseAdhocitem1—3017AnxietyAdhocitem1—3015DepressionAdhocitem1—3014PersonalitydisordersMistrustsSNAP-24.413017ManipulativenesssSNAP-24.473017AggressionsSNAP-24.463017Self-harmsSNAP-24.703017EccentricperceptionsnSNAP-24.363017DependencysSNAP-24.413017ExhibitionismsSNAP-24.443017EntitlementsSNAP-24.493017DetachmentsSNAP-24.433017ImpulsivitysSNAP-24.483017ProprietysSNAP-24.493017WorkaholismsSNAP-24.163017InterpersonaloutcomesFamilysatisfactionMotheraffectionalsAdhocscale3.772425FatheraffectionalnAdhocscale3.722237(continued)Vizeetal.609

uncertaintyinsurroundingthemagnitudeoftheeffect.ThisinferentialprocedurewasusedforeachcombinationofanoutcomevariableandpairofBigFivetraits(i.e.,amaxi-mumof830analyses).Robustnesschecks.Pastworkhasnotbeenconsistentinincludingcommoncovariates(e.g.,ageandgender)inregressionmodelstestingfortrait-by-traitinteractions.Evenrareristheinclusionofappropriatecovariateproductterms(Yzerbytetal.,2004).Toensurethatcommonde-mographicfactorsdidnotaffectdetectedinteractioneffects(i.e.,interactioneffectsthatmeetourreplicationcriteriaoutlinedabove),weperformedadditionalanalyseswheregender,ethnicity,andagewereenteredascovariatesintheregressionmodel.Additionally,researchershaveemphasizedtheimpor-tanceofscaledependenceasitpertainstostatisticalin-teractions,whetherrelatedtofloor/ceilingeffectsorusingTable1.(continued)OutcomeMeasurenameNumberofitemsAlphareliabilitySamplesizeMotherfunctional-associationalsAdhocscale3.692425Fatherfunctional-associationalsAdhocscale3.772237Peers’acceptanceandfriendshipsBRF1—3108PeerstatusAdhocitem1—3109AttractivenessBRF1—3109DatingvarietyBRF1—2034RomanticsatisfactionSMU-RQ6.672158RomanticconflictAdhocscale6.832393RomanticabuseAdhocscale6.812394RomanticdissolutionAdhocitem1—1359SocialinstitutionaloutcomesOccupationalinterestsRealisticnVPI6.793017InvestigativeVPI6.763017ArtisticVPI6.793017SocialVPI6.723015EnterprisingVPI6.753016ConventionalnVPI6.743017OccupationalperformanceTurnoversAdhocitem1—1757StatuschangesAdhocitem1—1758SalarysAdhocitem1—1610OccupationalsatisfactionMSQ-SF6.801476OccupationalcommitmentTCM-ECS-R6.781477OccupationalinvolvementAdhocscale6.751872ExtrinsicsuccessHISP;Adhocitem2.541350IntrinsicsuccessAdhocscale6.811477JobattainmentHISP;DOT;Adhocitems5.711647FinancialsecurityAdhocscale3.801871LeadershipMLQ8.831476VolunteerismAdhocitems4.603013ConservatismC-Scale7.473109Right-wingauthoritarianismRWA6.753107AntisocialbehaviorAdhoccomposite6.583109CriminalbehaviorAdhocitems6.863109Note.s=Measurewastreatedasasub-outcomeintheLOOPRreplicabilityanalyses(Soto,2019).n=MeasurewasnotpreviouslyincludedintheLOOPRreplicabilityanalyses.ABS=AffectBalanceScale(Bradburn,1969).BRF=BehaviorReportForm(Paunonen,2003).C-Scale=ConservatismScale(Wilson&Patterson,1968).CRI=CopingResponsesInventory(Moos,1988).DIS-III-R=DiagnosticInterviewSchedule,VersionIII-R(Robinsetal.,1989).DOT=DictionaryofOccupationalTitlestotalcomplexityscore(UnitedStatesDepartmentofLabor,1991).DTS=Delighted-TerribleScale(Andrews&Withey,1965).EI-OPC=Elley-Irvingsocioeconomicindex(Elley&Irving,1985).ESS=ExpressionsofSpiritualityScale(MacDonald,2000).EOM-EIS=ExtendedObjectiveMeasureofEgoIdentityStatus(Bennion&Adams,1986).GLTEQ=GodinLeisure-TimeExerciseQuestionnaire(Godin&Shephard,1985).GQ-6=GratitudeQuestionnaire-6(McCulloughetal.,2002).HFS=HeartlandForgivenessScale(Thompsonetal.,2005).HISP=HollingsheadIndexofSocialPosition(Hollingshead,1975).LSH-CPQ=LondonSchoolofHygieneChestPainQuestionnaire(Roseetal.,1977).LSI-A=LifeSatisfactionIndexA(Neugartenetal.,1961).MAT=MaritalAdjustmentTest(Locke&Wallace,1959).MIRW=MetropolitanInsuranceReferenceWeights(Russelletal.,1984).MLQ=MultifactorLeadershipQuestionnaire-Form5x(Avolioetal.,1995).MSQ-SF=MinnesotaSatisfactionQuestionnaire-ShortForm(Weissetal.,1967).Q-EIS=QEgoIdentityStatustemplates(Mallory,1988).QMI=QualityofMarriageIndex(Norton,1983).RWA=Right-WingAuthoritarianism(Altemeyer,1998).SL-ASIA=Suinn-LewAsianSelfIdentityAcculturationscale(Suinnetal.,1992).SMU-RQ=SMURelationshipQuestionnaire(Assenheimer&Watson,1991).SNAP-2=ScheduleforNonadaptiveandAdaptivePersonality-2(Clarketal.,2014).TCM-ECS-R=TCMEmployeeCommitmentSurvey-Revised(Meyeretal.,1993).VPI=VocationalPreferenceInventory(Holland,1985).WOC-R=WaysofCoping-Revised(Folkman&Lazarus,1980);boldedmeasuresindicatethattheywillbeusedforourprimaryanalyseswhilenon-boldedmeasureswillbeexaminedinsupplementaryanalysesduetolowpowertodetectinteractioneffects.610EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

metricmodelsforordinaldata(Rohrer&Arslan,2021;Wagenmakersetal.,2012;Liddell&Kruschke,2018).Theseissuescaninducespuriousinteractionsthatvanishwhenalternativescalingormodelingapproachesareused.Toevaluatewhetherreplicableinteractionswereduetoscalingassumptions,interactionsthatmetourreplicationcriteriawerealsoexaminedusingordinalregressionmodelsthatexplicitlymodeledtheordinalnatureofouroutcomemeasures.Regardingfloor/ceilingeffects,weconcludedthatafloor/ceilingeffectwaspresentif85%ofresponsesfalloneitherpoleofthescale(i.e.,≥85%ofresponseswere1’sor5’sonafive-pointLikertscale).Ifafloor/ceilingeffectwasfoundtobepresentforanoutcomeshowingareplicableinteraction,theinteractionwasalsotestedusingTobitregressionmodels(McBee,2010)totestthero-bustnessoftheinteractioneffect(s).Forinteractionstestedwiththealternativeregressionmodels,weusedthesameinferentialcriteriaforreplicabilityasdescribedabove.Tofurtherchecktherobustnessofourresults,wealsoconductedanalysesusingamachinelearningframeworkthatfocusedonthepredictivebenefitofaddinginteractiontermstomaineffectsmodels.Specifically,foreachcom-binationofanoutcomemeasurewithapairoftraits,weappliedtheregressionequationsfromSteps1and2fromonepartitiontogeneratepredictedoutcomescoresintheotherpartition.Forexample,weusedtheStep1regressionequationfrompartitionAtogeneratepredictedscoresinpartitionBandthenusedtheStep2regressionequationfrompartitionAtogenerateasecondsetofpredictedscoresinpartitionB.WethencorrelatedbothsetsofpredictedscoreswiththeobservedscorestoseewhethertheStep2predictions(derivedfromananalysisincludingthetrait-by-traitinteractionterm)addedpredictivevaluebeyondtheStep1predictions(derivedwithoutincludingtheinterac-tionterm).Next,wecross-validatedtheresultbyreversingtherolesofthesamplepartitions(i.e.,usingpartitionBtoderivetheregressionequationsandpartitionAtotestthepredictions).Werepeatedthisprocedureforeachcombi-nationofanoutcomevariablewithapairoftraits.Fortheseanalyses,weconsideredatrait-by-traitinteractiontosuc-cessfullyreplicateiftheStep2predictionsnon-triviallyoutperformedtheStep1predictionsforbothsamplepar-titions.Todeterminenon-trivialimprovementinpredictiveaccuracyweconsideredCohen’sq≥.103tobeevidenceofimprovementinpredictiveaccuracy.Meanabsoluteerror(MAE)androotmeansquareerror(RMSE)valuesarealsoreported.PoweranalysisThoughtherearereadilyavailableandeasy-to-usesoftwareprogramsthatcanbeusedtoestimatepowerforhierarchicalregressionmodels(e.g.,G*Power;Erdfelderetal.,2009),simulation-basedpoweranalysesallowforgreaterflexibilityinmodelingthevariousfactorsthatcanaffectstatisticalpower.Toevaluateourabilitytodetecttrait-by-traitinteractions,weconductedsimulation-basedpoweranalysesinR(v.4.0.3;RCoreTeam,2021)usingRStudio(v1.3.1093;RStudioTeam,2020)andthe“InteractionPoweR”package(v.0.1.0.5;Baranger,2021).4Simulation-basedpoweranalysesareconductedbyre-peatedlygeneratingandevaluatingsamplesofdata.Be-causethedatageneratingmodelisknown,anychangetothemodelandthechange’ssubsequentimpactonanoutcomemeasureofinterestcanbeevaluatedempirically.Inthecontextofpoweranalyses,thistypicallyinvolvesgener-atingmanysamplesandevaluatingwhetherthetestofinterestwasstatisticallysignificantatp<.05ineachsample.Ifatrueeffectisspecifiedinthedatageneratingmodel,theproportionofsamplesinwhichasignificanteffectisobservedisthepowerestimate(i.e.,theprobabilityofcorrectlyrejectingthenullhypothesis).Forourpoweranalyses,theparametersofthedatageneratingmodelthatwerevariedwerethecorrelationsbetweenpersonalityscalesandoutcomemeasure,thein-teractioneffect,thedegreeofcorrelationbetweenthepersonalityscales,andtheinternalconsistencies(Cron-bach’sα)ofthepersonalityscalesandoutcomemeasures.Wealsovariedsamplesizeandexaminedtheeffectsofskewforspecificoutcomes.5Allvariableswerestandard-izedpriortoestimatingpower.Thecorrelationsamongthepersonalityscalesexaminedinourpoweranalyseswere.49,.28,and.52,asthesevaluesreflectedthevaryingdegreesofcorrelationamongtheBFI-2domainscalesintheLOOPRdata.Thecorrelationsbetweenper-sonalityscalesandoutcomemeasuresthatweevaluatedwere.43,.20,.20,and.43,whichreflectthevaryingdegreesofcorrelationsbetweenBFI-2domainsandout-comemeasuresobservedintheLOOPRdata.Weevaluatedproducttermcorrelationswiththeoutcomeof.05,.10,and.15.BecauseinternalconsistenciesoftheBFI-2domainswereknown,weusedthetwolowestdomainalphasinoursimulations,whichwere.79(Agreeableness)and.81(Openness).Threeinternalconsistencyvalues(.40,.60,and.80)werechosenforoutcomevariablesasthesereflectedtherangeofinternalconsistenciesacrosstheLOOPRoutcomescales.6NineteenLOOPRoutcomeswereassessedwithsingleitemsandinternalconsistencycouldnotbeestimated.However,pastworkhasshownthattest-retestreliabilityofself-reportedpersonalityitemsrangedfrom.63to.70dependingonthetimebetweenassessments(Mõttusetal.,2019),whichprovidesanempiricallyinformedes-timateofthereliabilityofthesingle-itemLOOPRout-comes.Importantly,reliabilityisabroadconceptthatcannotbereducedtoasinglestatistic,andindicesofre-liabilityarenotinterchangeable(McCraeetal.,2011).Inthecurrentcontext,bothinternalconsistencyandtest-retestreliabilityprovideusefulestimatesofmeasurementerrorpresentinthepersonalityscalesandoutcomevariables,allowingustoestimatethepowerofinteractioneffectsmoreaccurately.Last,weevaluatedpoweratthreesamplesizes:700,1000,and1500.ThesesamplesizeswererepresentativeofthepartitionedsamplesizesoftheLOOPRdataweplannedtouseforourprimaryanalyses.7OurabilitytodetectΔR2wasexaminedacrossallcombinationsoftheparameters(i.e.,acrossallcombinationsofdifferentcorrelation,maineffect,interactioneffect,reliability,andsamplesizevalues).Rcodetoreproduceourpoweranalysesisavailableathttps://osf.io/j4nrp/.Vizeetal.611

Ouranalysesrequiredspecifyingthesmallesteffectofinterest(Lakensetal.,2018).AninteractioneffectthatcorrespondedtoaΔR2valueof.01waschosenasthesmallesteffectofinterestfortwoprimaryreasons.First,thoughaΔR2of.01isverysmall,asmallgaininincrementalvariancemaystillbetheoreticallyinteresting.Forexample,McClellandandJudd(1993)showedthateventhoughtheinteractionbetweenriskfactorsandprotectivefactorsinpredictingadolescentproblemsbehaviorsonlyaccountedforanadditional1%ofvariabilityintheoutcomemeasure,theinteractioncoefficientwaspracticallyaslargeasitcouldbe(i.e.,atthehighestlevelofprotectivefactors,therelationbetweenriskfactorsandadolescentproblemswaseliminated).Second,intheiranalysisofmediansamplesizesinpersonalityandsocialpsychologyjournalsoveraperiodoffiveyears(2006–2010),FraleyandVazire(2014)foundthatthelargestmediansamplesizesinpersonality-focusedjournals(JournalofPersonalityandJournalofResearchinPersonality)were178and129,respectively.8TheLOOPRsamplesareapproximatelyfourtoeighttimesaslargeasthemediansamplesinthetwopersonalityjournals,soifwefailedtoreliablydetectsmallinteractioneffectsofΔR2=.01,thereisgoodreasontobelievemorecommonsamplesinpersonalityresearchareextremelyunlikelytoreliablydetecttheseeffects.Inturn,ourchoiceofaΔR2of.01asthesmallesteffectofinterestallowedustoprovideusefulinformationtoper-sonalityresearchersinterestedintrait-by-traitinteractions.IftherateofdetectedinteractionsdidnotexceedthatwhichwouldbeexpectedbasedonTypeIerror,thisprovidesevidencethatpersonalityresearchersshouldreconsiderthesearchfortrait-by-traitinteractionsunlesstherearecom-pellingreasonstoexpectdifferentresultsbasedonthespecifictraitsandoutcomemeasureunderinvestigation,ortheychoosetoinvestsignificantlymoreresourcesintoacquiringlargersamples.Ifwedidfindevidenceofrobusttrait-by-traitinteractions,ourresultscanelucidatetheconditionsthatincreasetheprobabilityofdetectingtheseeffects.Poweranalysisresults.TheresultsofourpoweranalysesarepresentedinTable2.Foreaseofinterpretation,Table2presentspowerestimatescollapsingacrossallvaluesofmaineffectsandcorrelationsbetweenpersonalityscales.9Table2.PowerAnalysisResults.SamplesizeDVαInteractioneffectsize(ρ)Avg.powerRangeAvg.ΔR2700.40.05.11.09–.14.007700.60.05.15.12–.20.007700.80.05.19.14–.25.007700.40.10.30.26–.35.008700.60.10.44.36–.55.008700.80.10.57.47–.72.009700.40.15.57.51–.67.010700.60.15.77.69–.86.011700.80.15.89.82–.97.0141000.40.05.14.12–.17.0051000.60.05.19.15–.24.0051000.80.05.25.20–.35.0051000.40.10.41.35–.47.0061000.60.10.57.50–.71.0061000.80.10.72.61–.87.0071000.40.15.73.67–.82.0081000.60.15.90.84–.97.0101000.80.15.97.93–1.00.0131500.40.05.18.15–.22.0031500.60.05.26.22–.33.0031500.80.05.35.27–.46.0031500.40.10.56.49–.64.0041500.60.10.75.67–.85.0051500.80.10.87.81–.96.0061500.40.15.88.84–.94.0071500.60.15.98.96–1.00.0091500.80.151.00.99–1.00.012Note:Interactioneffectsizesarepopulationcorrelationcoefficients;estimatesareaveragepowervaluesacrossdifferentcombinationsofmaineffectvaluesandcorrelationvalues;DVα=Cronbach’salphaofthedependentvariable;inallsimulations,theα0softhetwoindependentvariableswere.79and.81,thetwolowestvaluesamongtheBFI-2domainscales;Avg.ΔR2=averagechangeinR2duetotheinclusionoftheinteractionterminthelinearregressionmodel.612EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Theresultsshowthatonlyforinteractioneffectsofρ=.10and.15wereΔR2valuesofapproximately.01observed.Evenwithlargerinteractioneffects(ρ=.10and.15),powerestimatesvariedwidelydependingonsamplesizeandreliabilityoftheoutcomemeasure.Forsamplesizesof700,powertodetectaninteractioneffectofρ=.10rangedfrom.30to.57,andfrom.57to.89whenρ=.15.Whenexaminingsamplesizesof1000powerrangedfrom.41to.72whenρ=.10andrangedfrom.73to.97whenρ=.15.Last,atsamplesizesof1500powerrangedfrom.56–.87whenρ=.10,but.88to1.00whenρ=.15.Ultimately,thelargemajorityofLOOPRoutcomemea-sures(78outof81)allowedforadequatelypoweredtests(i.e.,power≥.80)despitethenotablevariabilityinpowerestimates.Lowpower(power<.80)wasobservedfortheriskysex,datingvariety,andworkaholismoutcomes.InterpretationofresultsOuranalyticapproachwasexplicitlyfocusedonas-sessingthebaserateoftrait-by-traitstatisticalinterac-tions.Questionssurroundingsubstantiveinterpretationsofinteractioneffects(forareview,seeRohrer&Arslan,2021),thoughimportant,arenottheprimaryfocus.Thus,ourapproachlimitedustodiscussinginteractionswithinthecontextofaspecificstatisticalquality–theirbaseratepres-encebeyondchance.Nonetheless,thisisanimportantfirststepprecedingothersubstantiveinferencesresearchersareinterestedinwhentestingfortrait-by-traitinteractions.ResultsModificationstoregisteredanalysesWhilewesoughttomaximizefidelitytoregisteredana-lyses,somecharacteristicsofthedatarequiredmodifi-cationtotheanalyticplan.OnesuchcharacteristicwasthepresenceoftwoBFI-2scoresforparticipantswhocom-pletedbothsurveyforms.ThiswashandledbytreatingallBFI-2scoresasindependentandrestrictingzero-ordercorrelationsamonglifeoutcomemeasurestothosead-ministeredinthesamesurveyform.Additionally,twoofourregisteredrobustnesschecks(i.e.,Tobitregressionandordinalregression)didnotaccountforthefactthatmanyofthelifeoutcomeswerecompositescoresratherthansingleitemsratedonanordinalscale.FloorandceilingeffectswerethereforeexaminedattheitemlevelandcompositeoutcomeswereselectedforTobitregressiontestingif50%ormoreoftheconstituentitemsshowedfloororceilingeffects(i.e.,≥85%ofresponsesoneitherpoleofascalewithmorethantworesponseoptions).Twooutcomesexhibitedfloor/ceilingeffectsusingthiscrite-rion.Tobitregressionanalyseswereconductedusing“vglm”fromtheVGAMpackage(v1.1-5;Yee,2015)andMcKelvey–Zavoinapseudo-R2s(“PseudoR2”fromDe-scTools;v0.99.42;Signorelletal.,2021).Consideringboththeconsiderablecomputerpoweritwouldtaketoruncumulativemodelsformultipleordinalitemsacrossallreplicableinteractionsandtheuniformlylowmagnitudeofobservedeffectsizes,ordinalregressionwasnotcom-pletedforoutcomesthatwerecompositesofmultipleLikertscaleitems.AnalyseswerecompletedusingR(Version4.2.0;RCoreTeam,2022)andRStudio(Version2022.02.2+485;RStudioTeam,2022).10OpendataandsyntaxareavailableontheOpenScienceFramework(OSF;https://osf.io/j4nrp/).BivariateanalysesZero-ordercorrelationsamonglifeoutcomemeasuresinSurvey1andSurvey2arepresentedinSupplementalTables1and2availableattheOSFprojectpage(https://osf.io/j4nrp/).Ofthe1518correlationsexamined,threeexceededr=.70(Survey1:CognitiveOrientationTowardSpiritualityandReligiousness[r=.78];Survey2:JobAttainmentandExtrinsicSuccess[r=.78],IntrinsicSuccessandOccupationalSatisfaction[r=.71]).Bothvariablesineachhighlycorrelatedpairwerestandardizedandthenaveragedtoformacompositescorewhichre-placedtheindividualvariablesinfurtheranalyses.MultivariateanalysesAtotalof750interactionsweretestedintheprimaryanalyses.Forthe12binaryvariables11amongthelifeoutcomes,logisticregressionwasemployedandAldrich-Nelsonpseudo-R2valueswerecalculatedusingthe“PseudoR2”functionfromtheDescToolspackage(v0.99.42;Signorell,etal.,2021).ObservedeffectsfortheinteractionswereuniformlysmallwithanaverageΔR2of.00(range=.00–.02;Figure1).For88.53%(n=664)oftests,therewasnoevidenceforareplicabletrait-by-traitinteractionbeyondthemaineffectsofthetwotraits.Strongevidenceforareplicableinteractioneffect(i.e.,samesign,bothsignificant,similarΔR2values)wasobservedfor59(7.87%)testedinteractions(seeTable3).Anadditional27(3.60%)trait-by-traitinteractionsmetourcriteriaforequivocalreplication(i.e.,similarinmagnitude;non-significanteffectfallswithin95%confidenceintervalofsignificanteffect).RobustnesschecksInteractioneffectswhichdemonstratedequivocalorstrongevidenceofreplication(n=86)weresubjecttoadditionalrobustnesschecks,includingTobitregression(foroutcomesdemonstratingfloororceilingeffects),ordinalregression(forlifeoutcomesmeasuredwithasingleitemonanordinalscale),linear(orlogistic)regressionwithdemographiccovariates,andmachinelearninganalyses.Tobitregression.Examinationofitem-leveldatarevealedfloororceilingeffectsfortwooutcomevariables:CriminalBehavior(≥85%ofresponsesatpolesforthreeofsixitems)andViolence(≥85%ofresponsesatpolesforallfiveitems).TwohierarchicalTobitregressionanalyseswereperformed,neitherofwhichdemonstratedevidenceofareplicableinteractioneffect.Ordinalregression.Ordinalregressionusing“brm”fromthebrmspackage(v2.16.3;Bürkner,P-C.,2017)wasattemptedforoneoutcome(measuredbyasingleLikert-typeitem):Vizeetal.613

Humor.Onehierarchicalordinalregressionanalysiswasperformed.Theinteraction(i.e.,N×O)demonstratedstrongevidenceforreplication.Demographiccovariates.Additionallinear(orlogistic)re-gressionanalyseswereconductedwhereage,binarygender(maleorfemale),andethnicity(i.e.,Non-HispanicWhitevs.anotherraceorethnicity)wereenteredasstep1co-variates.Atotalof62testsdemonstratedsomeevidenceofareplicableinteractioneffectwhencontrollingfordemo-graphicvariables.Ofthe59interactionswithstrongrep-licationevidence,42interactionswererobusttotheinclusionofdemographiccovariates.Machinelearningframework.Nointeractionsmetourin-terpretativethreshold(i.e.,q=.10)forimprovementinpredictiveaccuracybeyondthatachievedinmodelswithonlymaineffects.Overall,noreplicablechangeinpre-dictiveaccuracywasobservedwheninteractioneffectswereadded(meanq=.01;range12=.02–.07).AtStep1,themedianMAEwas.61(range=.08–22,665.65)andthemedianRMSEwas.75(range=.22–30,717.23).AtStep2,medianMAE=.61,(range=.08–22,629.65)andmedianRMSE=.75(range=.22–30,668.92).SummaryFigure1summarizestheresultsoftheprimaryanalysesandrobustnesschecks.Initialanalysessuggestedthat86ofthe750testedinteractions(11.47%)providedstrongorequivocalevidenceofreplication.However,only40in-teractions(5.33%oftheoriginal750)maintainedstrongreplicabilitythroughrobustnesschecks(i.e.,demographiccovariates,Tobitregression,andordinalregression).Finally,nointeractionsdemonstratedevidenceofnote-worthyimprovementtopredictiveaccuracyinmachinelearninganalyses.Itisworthnotingthat,ifwehadnotincludedanycovariates,modelassumptionchecks,testsofreplicability,orcorrectionforfamily-wiseerrorrate,therewereatotalof132significantinteractioneffectspresentinatleastonepartition.However,mostofthesesignificantinteractionseitherfailedtoreplicateacrossthetwosamplepartitionsorfailedotherrobustnesschecks.Takentogether,theseresultsindicatethatunderrigoroustestingcontexts,trait-by-traitinteractionsrarelyprovideinformationthatsubstantiallypredictslifeoutcomes,beyondtheinformationthatisalreadyprovidedbythetraits’maineffects.Im-portantly,evenwheninteractionswererobust,theaddi-tionalvarianceexplainedwasverysmall.TheaverageΔR2forthese40interactionswas.01;thelargestΔR2wasonly.02.DiscussionThepresentstudysoughttoestablishthebaserateofde-tectablepersonalitytrait-by-traitinteractionsacrossarangeofrelevantlifeoutcomes.Basedonourpreregisteredcri-teria,wefoundfewrobustinteractions(40outof750tests;5.33%).Furthermore,robustinteractioneffectswereallsmallinmagnitude(ΔR2∼.01orless).Usingamachinelearningapproach,theinclusionofinteractiontermsintheregressionmodelsdidnotincreaseout-of-samplepredictionacrossanyofthe750machinelearningmodelsthatwereexaminedbasedonpreregisteredinferentialcriteria.Overall,theresultsemphasizetheunlikelihoodofreliablydetectingtrait-by-traitinteractionsinpersonalityresearchandhaveimportantimplicationsforfutureresearchontrait-by-traitinteractions.Figure1.Summaryofanalyses.614EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Table3.InteractionEffectsDemonstratingStrongEvidenceforReplicabilityinPrimaryAnalyses.PartitionATraits(1×2)OutcomeΔR2InterceptTrait1Trait2InteractionN×EIdentityDiffusion0.00*3.34(3.29,3.38)0.11(0.06,0.16)0.24(0.30,0.17)0.06(0.00,0.12)N×EIdentityForeclosure0.01**2.70(2.64,2.76)0.16(0.23,0.08)0.01(0.10,0.08)0.14(0.06,0.21)N×EIdentityMoratorium0.01**3.29(3.24,3.34)0.23(0.18,0.29)0.05(0.03,0.12)0.10(0.04,0.16)N×EAntisocialBehavior0.01**0.04(0.00,0.08)0.19(0.14,0.24)0.10(0.04,0.16)0.08(0.03,0.14)N×EAggression0.00**1.31(1.30,1.33)0.12(0.10,0.13)0.03(0.01,0.05)0.03(0.01,0.04)N×ESelf-Harm0.00**1.25(1.23,1.26)0.17(0.15,0.19)0.03(0.05,0.01)0.03(0.05,0.01)N×EImpulsivity0.02***1.33(1.32,1.35)0.10(0.08,0.12)0.06(0.03,0.08)0.05(0.03,0.07)N×ERiskyDriving0.00*1.91(1.86,1.95)0.14(0.08,0.20)0.21(0.14,0.28)0.07(0.01,0.13)N×EViolence0.01**0.05(0.04,0.07)0.02(0.01,0.03)0.02(0.00,0.04)0.02(0.01,0.04)N×OForgiveness0.01***4.59(4.55,4.62)0.61(0.65,0.56)0.29(0.23,0.34)0.11(0.17,0.05)N×OHumor0.01**3.78(3.73,3.82)0.17(0.22,0.12)0.32(0.25,0.38)0.11(0.04,0.17)N×AIdentityMoratorium0.01***3.29(3.24,3.34)0.16(0.11,0.22)0.13(0.21,0.05)0.15(0.08,0.23)N×ASelf-Harm0.01***1.25(1.23,1.26)0.16(0.14,0.18)0.09(0.11,0.07)0.04(0.07,0.02)N×CIdentityDiffusion0.00*3.34(3.30,3.39)0.10(0.04,0.15)0.26(0.32,0.19)0.06(0.00,0.13)N×CIdentityForeclosure0.00**2.70(2.64,2.76)0.26(0.33,0.19)0.25(0.34,0.17)0.11(0.03,0.19)N×CIdentityMoratorium0.01**3.29(3.24,3.34)0.12(0.07,0.18)0.22(0.29,0.15)0.10(0.03,0.16)N×CSelf-Harm0.01***1.24(1.23,1.26)0.15(0.13,0.17)0.09(0.11,0.07)0.04(0.06,0.02)N×CRiskyDriving0.00*1.91(1.86,1.95)0.03(0.09,0.03)0.20(0.27,0.13)0.07(0.00,0.13)E×OForgiveness0.01***4.57(4.52,4.61)0.39(0.32,0.46)0.22(0.14,0.29)0.15(0.07,0.23)E×OInspiration0.00*5.03(4.97,5.10)0.61(0.52,0.70)0.57(0.47,0.66)0.13(0.24,0.01)E×OIdentityInt./Consol.0.01**6.13(6.07,6.20)0.63(0.54,0.73)0.31(0.21,0.42)0.19(0.08,0.30)E×OPositiveAffect0.00*1.65(1.64,1.67)0.15(0.13,0.17)0.05(0.03,0.07)0.03(0.05,0.00)E×OIdentityDiffusion0.01***3.35(3.31,3.39)0.18(0.25,0.12)0.27(0.34,0.20)0.14(0.22,0.06)E×OIdentityForeclosure0.00**2.69(2.64,2.75)0.33(0.25,0.41)0.64(0.72,0.55)0.14(0.24,0.05)E×OIdentityMoratorium0.01***3.30(3.25,3.35)0.05(0.12,0.02)0.08(0.15,0.00)0.19(0.27,0.11)E×CLifeSatisfaction0.00*0.38(0.36,0.39)0.10(0.09,0.12)0.07(0.05,0.09)0.02(0.00,0.04)E×COcc.Commitment0.01*4.37(4.27,4.47)0.47(0.32,0.62)0.23(0.09,0.38)0.22(0.03,0.41)E×CRiskyDriving0.01**1.91(1.87,1.96)0.26(0.19,0.32)0.28(0.34,0.22)0.12(0.19,0.04)O×AIdentityForeclosure0.01***2.62(2.57,2.68)0.47(0.55,0.38)0.09(0.18,0.00)0.28(0.16,0.40)O×AExistential-Phenom.0.01**2.87(2.83,2.91)0.28(0.22,0.34)0.02(0.04,0.08)0.14(0.06,0.22)O×ARomanticConflict0.01**1.71(1.68,1.74)0.04(0.10,0.01)0.10(0.16,0.05)0.11(0.04,0.18)O×ACriminalBehavior0.00*0.21(0.19,0.22)0.01(0.01,0.04)0.13(0.16,0.11)0.04(0.01,0.08)O×AExhibitionism0.01***1.28(1.26,1.29)0.07(0.04,0.09)0.04(0.06,0.02)0.06(0.03,0.09)O×ASocialOcc.Int.0.01***1.26(1.25,1.28)0.07(0.05,0.09)0.00(0.02,0.03)0.06(0.03,0.09)O×AEnt.Occ.Int.0.01***1.28(1.26,1.29)0.03(0.01,0.06)0.01(0.03,0.02)0.07(0.03,0.10)O×AOcc.Commitment0.01*4.37(4.26,4.47)0.16(0.00,0.31)0.46(0.30,0.63)0.28(0.05,0.52)O×CIdentityForeclosure0.01***2.64(2.58,2.69)0.49(0.57,0.41)0.00(0.07,0.08)0.20(0.10,0.29)O×CExistential-Phenom.0.01***2.87(2.83,2.91)0.30(0.24,0.36)0.04(0.09,0.01)0.14(0.06,0.21)O×CRWA0.01**4.56(4.47,4.64)0.74(0.87,0.62)0.55(0.44,0.67)0.23(0.08,0.38)O×CRomanticSatis.0.01*0.01(0.04,0.06)0.20(0.12,0.27)0.22(0.16,0.28)0.11(0.21,0.02)O×CRomanticConflict0.01***1.71(1.67,1.74)0.05(0.10,0.00)0.09(0.13,0.04)0.14(0.07,0.20)O×CRomanticAbuse0.01*1.13(1.11,1.14)0.04(0.06,0.02)0.05(0.07,0.03)0.03(0.01,0.06)O×CAntisocialBehavior0.01**0.01(0.04,0.03)0.09(0.15,0.04)0.32(0.37,0.27)0.11(0.05,0.18)O×CDependency0.01**1.26(1.25,1.27)0.05(0.06,0.03)0.12(0.14,0.10)0.04(0.02,0.06)O×CExhibitionism0.01***1.28(1.26,1.29)0.06(0.04,0.08)0.02(0.04,0.00)0.06(0.03,0.08)O×CSocialOcc.Int.0.01***1.26(1.25,1.28)0.08(0.06,0.10)0.02(0.04,0.01)0.05(0.03,0.08)O×CEnt.Occ.Int.0.01***1.28(1.26,1.29)0.04(0.01,0.06)0.00(0.02,0.02)0.06(0.03,0.09)O×CConven.Occ.Int.0.00*1.21(1.19,1.22)0.01(0.03,0.01)0.04(0.02,0.05)0.03(0.00,0.05)O×COcc.Commitment0.02***4.34(4.24,4.45)0.20(0.04,0.35)0.32(0.17,0.46)0.39(0.19,0.59)O×CLeadership0.01*3.48(3.42,3.53)0.35(0.26,0.44)0.12(0.04,0.20)0.13(0.02,0.24)O×CActiveCoping0.01**2.64(2.60,2.67)0.30(0.24,0.36)0.09(0.04,0.14)0.10(0.03,0.16)A×CNegativeAffect0.00**1.50(1.48,1.52)0.08(0.11,0.05)0.13(0.15,0.11)0.04(0.08,0.01)A×CIdentityForeclosure0.01***2.62(2.56,2.68)0.27(0.37,0.17)0.00(0.09,0.09)0.20(0.09,0.32)A×CRWA0.01***4.52(4.43,4.61)0.08(0.23,0.06)0.38(0.25,0.51)0.32(0.15,0.49)A×CAntisocialBehavior0.01***0.03(0.07,0.01)0.37(0.44,0.31)0.18(0.23,0.12)0.17(0.10,0.24)A×CManipulativeness0.02***1.24(1.23,1.25)0.14(0.16,0.12)0.10(0.12,0.08)0.07(0.05,0.10)(continued)Vizeetal.615

Table3.(continued)PartitionATraits(1×2)OutcomeΔR2InterceptTrait1Trait2InteractionA×CDependency0.00*1.26(1.24,1.27)0.01(0.03,0.01)0.12(0.14,0.10)0.03(0.00,0.05)A×CDetachment0.01**1.47(1.46,1.48)0.13(0.16,0.11)0.04(0.06,0.01)0.04(0.06,0.01)A×CConven.Occ.Int.0.00*1.20(1.19,1.22)0.00(0.03,0.02)0.03(0.01,0.06)0.03(0.00,0.06)PartitionBTraits(1×2)OutcomeΔR2InterceptTrait1Trait2InteractionN×EIdentityDiffusion0.01***3.37(3.32,3.41)0.12(0.06,0.17)0.21(0.27,0.14)0.11(0.06,0.17)N×EIdentityForeclosure0.01***2.75(2.69,2.81)0.11(0.18,0.04)0.00(0.09,0.08)0.15(0.07,0.22)N×EIdentityMoratorium0.01**3.32(3.27,3.37)0.20(0.14,0.26)0.03(0.05,0.10)0.10(0.04,0.17)N×EAntisocialBehavior0.01***0.02(0.02,0.06)0.19(0.14,0.24)0.15(0.09,0.21)0.10(0.05,0.15)N×EAggression0.01***1.32(1.31,1.34)0.12(0.10,0.13)0.06(0.04,0.08)0.04(0.02,0.06)N×ESelf-Harm0.01**1.23(1.21,1.24)0.17(0.15,0.19)0.02(0.04,0.00)0.03(0.05,0.01)N×EImpulsivity0.00*1.31(1.29,1.32)0.11(0.10,0.13)0.05(0.03,0.07)0.02(0.00,0.04)N×ERiskyDriving0.01***1.90(1.85,1.95)0.08(0.02,0.14)0.18(0.12,0.25)0.11(0.05,0.16)N×EViolence0.00*0.05(0.04,0.06)0.02(0.00,0.04)0.01(0.01,0.03)0.02(0.00,0.04)N×OForgiveness0.00*4.62(4.58,4.66)0.61(0.66,0.57)0.30(0.24,0.36)0.07(0.13,0.01)N×OHumor0.00**3.77(3.72,3.81)0.15(0.20,0.09)0.33(0.26,0.40)0.10(0.03,0.17)N×AIdentityMoratorium0.01***3.33(3.28,3.38)0.10(0.04,0.16)0.24(0.32,0.16)0.16(0.08,0.24)N×ASelf-Harm0.00*1.23(1.22,1.25)0.16(0.14,0.18)0.07(0.10,0.05)0.02(0.05,0.00)N×CIdentityDiffusion0.01***3.36(3.32,3.41)0.09(0.03,0.14)0.26(0.33,0.20)0.11(0.05,0.17)N×CIdentityForeclosure0.01***2.75(2.69,2.81)0.25(0.32,0.18)0.31(0.40,0.23)0.14(0.06,0.22)N×CIdentityMoratorium0.00*3.32(3.27,3.37)0.07(0.01,0.13)0.29(0.36,0.22)0.09(0.02,0.15)N×CSelf-Harm0.01***1.22(1.21,1.24)0.14(0.13,0.16)0.09(0.11,0.07)0.05(0.07,0.03)N×CRiskyDriving0.01***1.91(1.86,1.95)0.10(0.16,0.05)0.22(0.29,0.15)0.12(0.06,0.18)E×OForgiveness0.00**4.60(4.55,4.65)0.43(0.37,0.50)0.24(0.17,0.31)0.12(0.04,0.20)E×OInspiration0.01**5.12(5.05,5.18)0.63(0.54,0.72)0.53(0.43,0.64)0.19(0.30,0.08)E×OIdentityInt./Consol.0.01**6.10(6.03,6.16)0.56(0.46,0.65)0.42(0.32,0.52)0.18(0.07,0.30)E×OPositiveAffect0.01**1.66(1.65,1.68)0.14(0.12,0.16)0.03(0.01,0.06)0.04(0.07,0.02)E×OIdentityDiffusion0.01**3.35(3.31,3.40)0.20(0.26,0.14)0.20(0.27,0.13)0.12(0.20,0.04)E×OIdentityForeclosure0.01**2.74(2.68,2.79)0.28(0.21,0.36)0.60(0.69,0.51)0.17(0.27,0.07)E×OIdentityMoratorium0.02***3.34(3.29,3.38)0.05(0.12,0.03)0.09(0.16,0.01)0.24(0.33,0.15)E×CLifeSatisfaction0.01**0.37(0.36,0.38)0.11(0.09,0.13)0.04(0.03,0.06)0.04(0.02,0.06)E×COcc.Commitment0.01*4.29(4.18,4.39)0.23(0.07,0.39)0.37(0.21,0.52)0.22(0.03,0.40)E×CRiskyDriving0.01***1.90(1.85,1.95)0.26(0.19,0.32)0.26(0.33,0.20)0.15(0.23,0.07)O×AIdentityForeclosure0.00*2.68(2.63,2.74)0.44(0.52,0.35)0.06(0.15,0.03)0.15(0.04,0.27)O×AExistential-Phenom.0.01**2.84(2.80,2.88)0.29(0.23,0.35)0.06(0.12,0.01)0.14(0.05,0.22)O×ARomanticConflict0.00*1.71(1.68,1.75)0.08(0.13,0.03)0.14(0.20,0.09)0.09(0.01,0.16)O×ACriminalBehavior0.01**0.21(0.19,0.22)0.02(0.04,0.00)0.11(0.14,0.09)0.06(0.03,0.09)O×AExhibitionism0.01***1.30(1.28,1.31)0.06(0.03,0.08)0.04(0.07,0.02)0.06(0.03,0.09)O×ASocialOcc.Int.0.00*1.25(1.24,1.27)0.06(0.04,0.08)0.02(0.00,0.05)0.03(0.00,0.06)O×AEnt.Occ.Int.0.00*1.28(1.27,1.30)0.07(0.04,0.09)0.02(0.05,0.00)0.03(0.00,0.06)O×AOcc.Commitment0.01*4.30(4.19,4.40)0.09(0.08,0.26)0.55(0.38,0.71)0.25(0.03,0.46)O×CIdentityForeclosure0.01**2.68(2.62,2.73)0.44(0.52,0.35)0.06(0.14,0.02)0.18(0.07,0.29)O×CExistential-Phenom.0.00*2.85(2.81,2.89)0.31(0.25,0.37)0.11(0.16,0.05)0.07(0.00,0.14)O×CRWA0.01***4.46(4.38,4.54)0.98(1.11,0.86)0.61(0.50,0.72)0.30(0.14,0.46)O×CRomanticSatis.0.01*0.02(0.03,0.07)0.13(0.06,0.20)0.15(0.09,0.21)0.11(0.20,0.02)O×CRomanticConflict0.00*1.72(1.68,1.75)0.09(0.14,0.04)0.08(0.13,0.04)0.07(0.01,0.13)O×CRomanticAbuse0.01**1.12(1.11,1.14)0.03(0.05,0.01)0.06(0.08,0.04)0.04(0.02,0.07)O×CAntisocialBehavior0.01***0.03(0.07,0.01)0.09(0.14,0.03)0.30(0.35,0.25)0.15(0.07,0.22)O×CDependency0.01**1.25(1.24,1.27)0.05(0.07,0.03)0.12(0.13,0.10)0.04(0.01,0.06)O×CExhibitionism0.01**1.30(1.29,1.31)0.05(0.03,0.07)0.03(0.05,0.02)0.04(0.02,0.07)O×CSocialOcc.Int.0.00*1.25(1.24,1.27)0.07(0.05,0.09)0.01(0.03,0.01)0.03(0.00,0.05)O×CEnt.Occ.Int.0.00*1.29(1.27,1.30)0.06(0.04,0.08)0.00(0.02,0.02)0.03(0.00,0.06)O×CConven.Occ.Int.0.01**1.21(1.19,1.22)0.01(0.04,0.01)0.02(0.00,0.04)0.04(0.01,0.07)616EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Trait-by-traitinteractionsarerareandreliablysmallTheobservedbaserateofrobustinteractionsintheLOOPRsamplewaslow,suggestingthatresearchersshouldbepessimisticinthesearchfortrait-by-traitinteractionsusingmultipleregressionevenwhenpowertodetectsmalleffectsishigh.Inaddition,therobustinteractionswerenotalwaysalignedwithtypicalexpectations.Forexample,Agree-ablenessandConscientiousnesswerebothsignificantlynegativelyrelatedwithantisocialbehavior,asexpected.However,theirinteractionwaspositive,indicatingabufferingratherthanenhancingeffectforeithertrait,contrarytoexpectations(e.g.,Lilienfeldetal.,2019).Oftherobusttrait-by-traitinteractions,itappearsthattherewerefewthatwouldhavebeenpredictedapriori.Itisalsoworthnotingthatthis“buffering”patternmaystillreflectscalingissuesdespiteoureffortstocorrectforthem.Asanexample,consideragaintheinteractionbe-tweenAgreeablenessandConscientiousnessinaccountingforincrementalvarianceinantisocialbehavior.Bothdo-mainshavemoderatelystrongnegativerelationswiththeoutcome,whichmeansthatathighlevelsofeithertraitthereislittleroomtofurtherenhancetherelationtoantisocialbehavior.Thus,athighlevelsofeitherAgreeablenessorConscientiousness,therelationoftheothertraitwithan-tisocialbehaviorisweakened,givingrisetothebufferinginteractionpattern.Becauseourcriterionfordeterminingfloor/ceilingeffectswasconservative(i.e.,needing85%ofresponsestofallateitherpoleofascale),itispossiblethatsomeobservedinteractioneffectsarestillaproductofscalingartifacts.Inadditiontolowbaserates,Figure2showsthattrait-by-traitinteractionsconsistentlyaccountedforverysmallincrementsinvariancebeyondmaineffects.Regardingout-of-sampleprediction,nointeractioneffectsmarkedlyim-provedtheout-of-samplepredictiveaccuracyofthere-gressionmodels.Thoughtheremaybecontextswheresmallincrementsinout-of-samplepredictionmatter,itisnoteworthythatnointeractioncouldimprovethecorrelationbetweenpredictedandobservedscoresbyevenasmallmargin(i.e.,q=.10).Theseresultsareinlinewithpastempiricalandtheoreticalworkfocusedoninteractions,whichhaveuniformlyhighlightedthatinteractioneffectswillbesmallinmostresearchcontexts(Aguinisetal.,2005;Murphy&Russell,2017;McClelland&Judd,1993).Thisalsomeansmanypublishedtrait-by-traitinteractiontestshavebeenseverelyunderpowered.Aspreviouslynoted,FraleyandVazire(2014)foundthatfrom2006to2010themediansamplesizesinpersonalityresearchjournals(JournalofPersonalityandJournalofResearchinPer-sonality)were178and129,respectively.Basedonthepoweranalysesforthepresentstudy(Table2),evenwithasamplesizeof700andadequateinternalconsistencyvaluesforself-reportscales(α∼.80),averagepowertodetectrealisticinteractioneffects(ΔR2∼.01)wouldbe.57.Thissuggeststhatmanypublishedtrait-by-traitinteractionsaregrosslyinflatedestimatesandlikelyrepresentfalsepositives.Despitetheconsistentlysmalleffectsobservedfortrait-by-traitinteractions,somerecentworkhasencouragedresearcherstonotoverlooksmalleffects(Funder&Ozer,2019;G¨otzetal.,2022).G¨otzandcolleagues(2022)highlightthatsmalleffectsinpsychologicalsciencemaybeindispensable,andcanbethebasisforbuildingarobust,cumulativescience.Thesescholarsarguethateffectsizesshouldnotbeconsidered“small”basedonarbitrarycriteria(e.g.,effectsizebenchmarks).Thus,itisimportanttoqualifyourremarkthattrait-by-traitinteractionsaresmall—theeffectsaresmallbasedontherelativecom-parisontomaineffectsofpersonality,whicharetwotothreetimeslargerthantrait-by-traitinteractionsinaccountingforvarianceinrelevantlifeoutcomes(Soto,2019).Whethertrait-by-traitinteractionsareimportantdespitebeingsmallhasyettoreceiveempiricalsupport,toourknowledge.BothG¨otzandcolleagues(2022)andFunderandOzer(2019)arguethatotherwise“small”effectscanhavealargeimpactifasmalleffectaccumulatesovertimeandatscale—personalitytraiteffectsarecitedasexemplarsofPartitionBTraits(1×2)OutcomeΔR2InterceptTrait1Trait2InteractionO×COcc.Commitment0.01*4.30(4.20,4.40)0.14(0.03,0.30)0.43(0.28,0.58)0.22(0.04,0.41)O×CLeadership0.01**3.48(3.43,3.53)0.35(0.27,0.44)0.14(0.07,0.22)0.17(0.07,0.27)O×CActiveCoping0.00*2.62(2.58,2.65)0.24(0.18,0.30)0.13(0.08,0.18)0.09(0.02,0.16)A×CNegativeAffect0.01***1.50(1.49,1.52)0.06(0.09,0.04)0.13(0.15,0.11)0.06(0.09,0.03)A×CIdentityForeclosure0.00*2.67(2.61,2.73)0.16(0.26,0.06)0.10(0.18,0.01)0.14(0.03,0.25)A×CRWA0.01**4.42(4.33,4.52)0.09(0.25,0.07)0.43(0.30,0.57)0.30(0.13,0.48)A×CAntisocialBehavior0.01***0.04(0.08,0.00)0.36(0.42,0.29)0.16(0.21,0.10)0.13(0.06,0.20)A×CManipulativeness0.01***1.26(1.24,1.27)0.16(0.18,0.13)0.07(0.09,0.05)0.04(0.02,0.06)A×CDependency0.01**1.25(1.24,1.26)0.03(0.05,0.00)0.12(0.14,0.10)0.04(0.02,0.06)A×CDetachment0.00**1.46(1.45,1.48)0.17(0.19,0.14)0.02(0.04,0.00)0.04(0.07,0.01)A×CConven.Occ.Int.0.01**1.20(1.19,1.22)0.02(0.05,0.00)0.03(0.01,0.05)0.04(0.01,0.07)Note.Italicizedrowsrepresentinteractioneffectswhichwerenotrobusttotheinclusionofdemographicvariables,orwhichfailedtoreplicateusingTobitregression.Valuesinparenthesesare95%confidenceintervalsaroundtheestimates;Conven.Occ.Int.=ConventionalOccupationalInterests;Ent.Occ.Int.=EnterprisingOccupationalInterests;Existential-Phenom.=Existential-PhenomenologicalDimension;IdentityInt./Consol.=IdentityIntegration/Con-solidation;Occ.Commitment=OccupationalCommitment;RWA=Right-WingAuthoritarianism;RomanticSatis.=RomanticSatisfaction;SocialOcc.Int.=SocialOccupationalInterests.Vizeetal.617

suchcases.FunderandOzer(2019)provideoneexampleusingaconservativelyestimatedcorrelation(r=.05)be-tweenAgreeablenessandanindividuallysuccessfulsocialinteraction(i.e.,theindividualisviewedpositivelyaftertheinteraction).FunderandOzer(2019)highlightthatwhileAgreeablenessmaynotstronglypredictsuccessinagivensocialinteraction,ifapersonhas20socialinteractionsaday,thentheconsequencesfortheperson’spopularityinlessthanamonthwillbeimportantbecauseofthelong-runconsequenceofthissmalleffect.13Importantly,thelogicbehindhowsmalleffectscanbeimportantwhenaggregatedacrosstimeandsituationsdoesnotclearlyapplytotheeffectsobservedinthecurrentstudy—theobservedeffectsarealreadyaggregatedacrossmanysituationsinboththepersonalitymeasuresandoutcomes.Tojustifytheimportanceofasmalltrait-by-traitinter-actioneffect,itisimportanttoprovideevidencethatthesesmalleffectswillgeneralizetocontextswheretheycanhaveameaningfulinfluenceonbehaviorandlifeoutcomes(Anvarietal.,2022;Liecketal.,2021).Thoughitmaybeplausiblethatsmalltrait-by-traitinteractionspossessthisquality,itshouldbesupportedbyempiricalevidence.Additionally,thereislikelytobeawiderangeoffactorsthatmaydampenoramplifytheeffectofasmalltrait-by-traitinteraction.AsAnvariandcolleagues(2022)note,“Re-searcherswhowishtoarguethatanobservedeffectsizeisimportant,duetoageneralizedeffect,willneedtoexplicitlystatetherelevantamplifyingmechanismsthatwilloperateinthecontexttowhichtheyaregeneralizing.Moreover,theywillneedtoexplicitlystatewhythecounteractingmechanismsarelikelytonotapply,orwhytheampli-fyingmechanismswouldbestronger”(pg.3).Nore-searchhasprovidedevidencethattrait-by-traitinteractionsareimportantwhengeneralizedtobroadercontextsnorhasresearchelaboratedonrelevantampli-fyingordampeningmechanismsthatmightinfluencetheaccumulativeimpactoftheseinteractions.Thus,whileitmaybethattrait-by-traitinteractionsarepotentiallyimportant,itiscriticaltofirstestablishevidencethattrait-by-traitinteractionsfunctionthisway.Currently,thisevidenceislacking.Cantestsoftrait-by-traitinteractionsbejustified?Giventhelowbaseratesandsmalleffectsizesoftrait-by-traitinteractions,itisworthconsideringwhethertestingfortrait-by-traitinteractionsshouldbeavoidedaltogether,particularlyintheabsenceofastrongapriorijustificationtoconductthesetests.Putplainly,theevidencesuggeststhatabandoningthesetestswouldlikelybemorebeneficialthandetrimental.Attheveryleast,underpoweredtestsofin-teractionsshouldnotbeconductedorreportedgiventheirpropensitytointroduceTypeIerrorsintotheliterature(Blake&Gangestaad,2020Blake&Gangestad,2020).Becausetheseinteractioneffectsmustbequitelargetoemergeinthesamplesizestypicallyusedinpsychologicalresearch,observedinteractionsthatattainstatisticalsig-nificancearelikelytobeupwardlybiasedandthusgiveanappearanceofimportanceandreplicabilitythatisunwar-ranted.Inmanycases,focusingontheadditive,andmuchlarger,maineffectsmaybesufficient.Theabilitytopredictasinglepercentagepointincreaseinoutcomevariance,orsomefractionofthat,isunlikelytobeofvalueabsentacompellingreasonthataverysmallincrementinvarianceismeaningful.Thisisparticularlyimportantwhenconsider-ingtheresourcesrequired(e.g.,samplesizesinthethou-sands)todetectsmalltrait-by-traitinteractioneffects.Ifresearchersarestillinterestedinpursuingquestionssurroundingtrait-by-traitinteractions,thereareimportantstepstotaketoensurethatsuchresearchisinformative.First,researchersneedtoprovidesufficienttheoreticaljustificationforwhytheinteractionmattersandtheformtheinteractionwilltake(e.g.,enhancing,buffering,orantagonistic;Cohenetal.,2003).Additionally,RohrerandArslan(2021)high-lightthatitisrarethatresearchersprobethescaledependenceofdetectedinteractionsoralignthestatisticalandcausalfeaturesofinteractionswiththeirverbalhypothesesaboutinteractions.Thesearelongstandingissuesfortestsofin-teractions,andtherehastypicallybeenalackoftheoreticalsupportformanytestsofinteractions(Frazieretal.,2004;Murphy&Russell,2017).Second,aswithallfindingsinpsychology,significantinteractionswillbemorecompellingwhentheyarepreregistered(Allisteretal.,2021).Itisalsolikelythatresearchers’verbaltheoriesareconsistentwithsimpleadditiveeffectsandthereisnoneedtotestforaninteraction.Vizeandcolleagues(inpress)highlightsuchacasefortrait-by-traitinteractionsinpsychopathyre-search,notingthatifbothantagonistictraitsanddisinhibitorytraitsrelatetoantisocialbehaviorontheirown(Vizeetal.,2019),thentheirsimultaneouspresencewillleadtogreaterantisocialbehaviorthaneithertraitalonesolongastheireffectsarenotcompletelyoverlapping(i.e.,whenthetraitsaresohighlycorrelatedastobealmostisomorphic).Thatis,indi-vidualswhoarebothantagonisticanddisinhibitedwillbethemostantisocialofall,andthereisnoneedtoinvokeatrait-by-traitinteractiontoexplaintheconsistentlystrongrelationbe-tweenpsychopathyandantisocialbehavior.Ifresearchersarestillnotdissuadedfromtestingfortrait-by-traitinteractions,essentialmethodologicalstepsmustbetakentoensurethatsuchtestsareinformative.First,asrecommendedbyG¨otzandcolleagues(2022)intheirdiscussionofsmalleffectsinpsychology,preregistrationandregisteredreportscanbehelpfulaideswhentestingforFigure2.DistributionofmeanchangeinR2inprimaryanalyses.618EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

trait-by-traitinteractions.Althoughregisteredreportscanimprovetheoverallrigorofstudiesinterestedintrait-by-traitinteractions(Soderbergetal.,2021),bothpreregis-trationandregisteredreportsallowforgreatertransparencyintheresearchprocesswhichinturnallowsresearcherstoaccuratelyevaluatethestrengthofevidenceregardingtestsoftrait-by-traitinteractions(Lakens,2019).Thetypicallackoftransparencyaroundtestingdecisionsfortrait-by-traitinteractionsshouldbecauseforconcern,giventhatthereisincredibleflexibilityavailableintestingfortrait-by-traitinteractionsusingmodelsliketheFFM.Aspreviouslynoted,atotalof26interactionscanbeevaluatedatthedomainlevel(10two-wayinteractions,10three-wayin-teractions,fivefour-wayinteractions,andonefive-wayinteraction)whileatthefacetlevelthenumberofpossi-bletwo-wayinteractionsaloneis105amongthe15BFI-2facets,or435amongthe30NEOPI-Rfacets.Ifatheoryormodelproposesatrait-by-traitinter-actionthatisindependentoftheadditiveeffectsofmultiplepredictors,thereareresearchdesignfeaturesthatwillincreasetheinformativenessoftheinteractiontest.First,trait-by-traitinteractionsrequirecarefulpoweranalysesthatuserealisticparameterestimates.Ween-courageresearcherstoutilizesoftwarepackagesthatallowforgreaterflexibilityinmodelingthevariouspa-rametersthataffectpower(e.g.,“InteractionPoweR”;Baranger,2021;“Superpower”;Lakens&Caldwell,2021).Mostfeaturesofthe“InteractionPoweR”packagearealsoavailableinaneasy-to-useShinyapplication(https://mfinsaas.shinyapps.io/InteractionPoweR/;Finsaasetal.,2021)foruserslessfamiliarwithusingR.Typicalas-sumptionsinpopularpoweranalysissoftwareforinter-actions(e.g.,nomeasurementerrorinpredictorsoroutcomesinG*Power;Erdfelderetal.,2009)willleadtosystematicbiasinpoweranalyses.Alternatively,structuralequationmodelingapproacheswherelatentvariablesserveaspredictorsandoutcomescanavoidthedeleteriouseffectsofmeasurementerroronstatisticalpower(Lietal.,1998).One-sidedtestscanalsobeusedfortrait-by-traitinterac-tionswhenresearchershavehypothesesabouttheexpecteddirectionoftheinteractioneffect(Benning&Smith,2019),whichcanalsobenefitpower.Ultimately,thepresentre-sultsindicatethatmosttrait-by-traitinteractioneffectsizeswillbeverysmall,anditisunwisetousetypicalbench-marksforsmalleffectsforpoweranalyses(Correlletal.,2020).Toensuretheabilitytodetectsmalltrait-by-traitinteractioneffects,oneapproachmaybetopoolresourcesanddata,whichhasbeenusedtoconducthighlypoweredreplicationstudiesofvariouseffects(Ebersoleetal.,2016;Kleinetal.,2018).Last,thoughwehavefocusedmainlyondetectingthepresenceorabsenceofaninteraction,thereareinterpretivehurdlesafteraninteractioneffecthasbeenobserved(Rohrer&Arslan,2021).However,recentdevelopmentsinvisual-izinginteractionsmayhelp.McCabeandcolleagues(2018)highlighttheshortcomingsofthetypicalapproachestovi-sualizinginteractions(i.e.,simpleslopeandmarginaleffectplots),whichcanobscureissuesinthedatasuchasrangerestrictioninthepredictorormoderatorvariablesthatwouldotherwiseprovidevaluableinformationabouthowtoproperlyinterpretthedetectedinteraction.McCabeandcolleagues(2018)provideresourcestoappropriatelyvisu-alizethedataunderlyinginteractioneffectsusingthe“in-terActive”application(McCabe,2019),avaluabletoolinhelpingresearchersprovidesubstantiveinterpretationsofanobservedinteractioneffect.Otherrecentworkemphasizessimilarpointsregardingtheprobingofinteractions(Finsaas&Goldstein,2021)andprovidesopen-sourcetoolstoim-provetraditionalapproachestoprobinginteractioneffects.LimitationsandfuturedirectionsThepresentstudyhadsomenoteworthystrengths,in-cludingitslargesamplesize,broadrangeofoutcomevariables,andpreregisteredhypothesesandanalyses.However,italsohadimportantlimitations.Onesuchlimitationisthatthethoughtheoutcomesincludedinthepresentstudyweredesignedtoassessawiderangeofpersonality-relevantlifeoutcomes,thescaleofthedatacollectionprojectlimitedtheextentcertainoutcomescouldbecomprehensivelyassessed.Asaresult,someLOOPRoutcomeswereassessedwithsingleitems(e.g.,happiness,druguse,andsuicidality),whereastypicalapproachestoassessingthesebehaviorsandconstructsusebroader,multidimensionalapproaches(e.g.,suici-dalityasanoutcomeinvolvingsuicidalideation,feelingsofhopelessness,andnon-suicidalself-injury).Thisfeatureofthestudyshouldbeconsideredwhencon-sideringthegeneralizabilityoftheresultsfortrait-by-traitinteractions.Relatedly,ourmeasureoftheFFMwastheBFI-2.Aspastworkhashighlighted,differentFFMinstrumentsvaryintheemphasistheyplaceonspecificcontentwithintheFFMdomains(e.g.,Sleepetal.,2021).InthecaseoftheBFIinstruments(BFIandBFI-2),thesescalescontainlesscontentrelatedtostraightforwardnessandhumilitycom-paredtoothermeasuresoftheFFM(e.g.,theNEOPI-R)whichhasbeenshowntoimpacttherelationsBFIinstru-mentsshowwithrelevantoutcomes(Milleretal.,2011;Vizeetal.,2020).ThoughthereissubstantialsupportforthevalidityoftheBFI-2,thisfeatureofthestudyisim-portanttoconsiderregardingspecificoutcomeslikeanti-socialorcriminalbehavior.Therefore,futureresearchcantestwhetherthepresentfindingsgeneralizetootherbroadbandpersonalityinventories.Third,thecurrentprojectwasprimarilyfocusedonthebaserateobservationsoftrait-by-traitinteractions.Asaresult,wedidnotfocusoninterpretinginteractionsthatdidshowevidenceofrobustreplicability.ThoughwehighlightedtheformoftheseinteractionsinTable3,westoppedshortofelaboratingonorfurtherprobingtheseinteractioneffectsbecauseitwasoutsidethescopeofthepresentproject.Nonetheless,carefulinterpretationoftheseinteractionsmaybeusefultootherpersonalityresearcherseventhoughwedidnotpursueitourselves.Futureresearchmaywishtofurtherinvestigatethesesmallbutpotentiallyreplicableinteractions,whilealsokeepinginmindthegeneralcaveatsnotedabovere-gardingtrait-by-traitinteractions.Last,wefocusedonself-reported,cross-sectionalper-sonalitydataandsomeoutcomescanjustifiablybecon-sideredtraitmeasuresthemselves(e.g.,gratitudeandVizeetal.619

forgiveness).Thus,theresultsaremostinformativeforre-searchdesignsthatusesimilardataandresearchdesigns.Nonetheless,manyofthestatisticalandmethodologicalissuesraisedhereregardingcross-sectionaltestsoftrait-by-traitinteractionsarealsorelevanttootherresearchap-proaches(e.g.,testingforinteractionsinintensiverepeatedmeasurementdatausingmultilevelregressionmodels;Aguinisetal.,2005;Leoan&Heo,2010).ConclusionInsum,thepresentfindingsindicatethattrait-by-traitinteractionsoccuratalowbaserateandareconsistentlysmallrelativetotraitmaineffects.Asaresult,sub-stantialresourcesareneededtoreliablydetectinter-actioneffects.Becausethereislittleevidencetosuggestthattherelativelyrareandconsistentlysmalltrait-by-traitinteractionsaretheoreticallyorpracticallymean-ingfulitisprobablyworthavoidingthesetestsalto-gether.Manyoftheconcernshighlightedherealsoextendtoothertypesofmultiplicativeregressionterms(e.g.,non-lineartrait-by-traitinteractions).Echoingpastresearch,researchersmustthinkcarefullyaboutwhenandwhyitisworthtestingforatrait-by-traitinteraction.Untilpersonalityresearcherscanofferastrongrationaleforgatheringthenecessaryresourcestoreliablydetectandinterprettrait-by-traitinteractions(e.g.,samplesizesinthethousands),researcheffortsmaybebetterspentonothergoalsasweworktoad-vancepersonalityscience.DeclarationofconflictinginterestsTheauthor(s)declarednopotentialconflictsofinterestwithrespecttotheresearch,authorship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle.FundingTheauthor(s)disclosedreceiptofthefollowingfinancialsupportfortheresearch,authorship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle:ThisresearchwassupportedbyafacultyresearchgrantfromColbyCollegetoChristopherJ.Soto.ColinVizeisfundedthroughtheNationalInstituteofMentalHealthpostdoctoraltraininggrantT32MH018269.Theopinionsexpressedaresolelythoseoftheauthorsandnotthoseofthefundingsource.ORCIDiDsColinEVizehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3005-0688DonaldRLynamhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8306-498XNotes1.Thoughtheexactnumberoftestswasnotreported,thetotalof9680wastakenfromtheinformationpresentedinthepaper:12traitcombinations×10parentingvariables×4outcomevariables×2childgenders.2.PeaseandLewis(2015)alsotestedseventhree-wayinter-actionsbetweenagreeableness,neuroticism,andconscien-tiousness,ofwhichthreeweresignificant.3.Cohen’sqisaneffectsizemetricthatisthedifferencebetweentwoFisher’sz-transformedcorrelations.4.ThefollowingpackageswereemployedinadditiontobaseR:dplyr(v1.0.6;Wickhametal.,2021),MASS(v7.3-53.1;Venables&Ripley,2002),andparamtest(v0.1.0;Hughes,2017).5.Forthemajorityofouroutcomes,therewasnosignificantskewobserved(i.e.,skew≤1),while16outcomes(20%)showedskewvaluesabove1.6.65ofthe81outcomes(80%)haveinternalconsistencyvaluesof.60orgreater.7.68ofthe81outcomes(84%)willhavepartitionedsamplessizesofN=1000orgreater.8.Thesemediansamplesizeswerealsothetwohighestamongtheninesocial/personalityjournalsincludedintheiranalyses.9.Thefullsetofresults(i.e.,specificpowerestimatesacrossthevariouscombinationsofparametervalues)canbeexaminedusingtheRcodeavailableontheOSFpagefortheproject.10.InadditiontobaseRandpackagespreviouslycited,thefollowingRpackageswerealsoemployedinanalyses:broom(v0.7.9;Robinsonetal.,2021),caret(v.6.0-90;Kuhn,2021),jtools(v2.1.3,Long,2020),haven(v2.4.3;Wickham&Miller,2021),lattice(v0.20-45),Rcpp(v1.0.8.2;Eddelbuettel&Francois,2011),andtidyverse(v1.3.1;Wickhametal.,2019).11.Survey1:RomanticDissolution;Survey2:OccupationalTurnover,OccupationalStatusChange,UnhealthyEating,ExcessiveAlcoholUse,TobaccoUse,DrugUse,Suicide,HeartDisease,SubstanceAbuse,Anxiety,andDepression12.Foroneofthetwologisticmodels,novariancewasobservedamongthepredictedvaluesineitherdirection(i.e.,AfromBorBfromA)resultinginanundefinedcorrelationbetweenactualandpredictedvalue—thusnoqvaluecouldbecalculated.13.Wewouldnote,however,thatthislineofargumentisrarelymadetosupportaprioritestsofinteractionsandisanem-piricalquestioninitsownright.ReferencesAguinis,H.(1995).StatisticalPowerwithmoderatedmultiplere-gressioninmanagementresearch.JournalofManagement,21(6),1141–1158.https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90026-8Aguinis,H.,Beaty,J.C.,Boik,R.J.,&Pierce,C.A.(2005).Effectsizeandpowerinassessingmoderatingeffectsofcategoricalvariablesusingmultipleregression:A30-yearreview.JournalofAppliedPsychology,90(1),94–107.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94Aguinis,H.,&Gottfredson,R.K.(2010).Best-practicerecom-mendationsforestimatinginteractioneffectsusingmoder-atedmultipleregression.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,31(6),776–786.https://doi.org/10.1002/jobAguinis,H.,&Stone-Romero,E.F.(1997).Methodologicalar-tifactsinmoderatedmultipleregressionandtheireffectsonstatisticalpower.JournalofAppliedPsychology,82(1),192–205.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-901.82.1.192Allister,M.,Vickers-Jones,R.,Sewell,D.K.,&Ballard,T.(2021).Howdowechooseourgiants?Perceptionsofreplicabilityinpsychologicalscience.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinthePsychologicaSciences,4(2),1–21.https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211018199620EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Altemeyer,R.A.(1998).Theother“authoritarianpersonality.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsy-chology(30,pp.47–91).AcademicPress.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60382-2Andrews,F.M.,&Withey,S.(1965).Socialindicatorsofwell-being.PlenumAnvari,F.,Kievit,R.,Lakens,D.,Pennington,C.R.,Przybylski,A.K.,Tiokhin,L.,Wiernik,B.M.,&Orben,A.(2022).Notalleffectsareindispensable:Psychologicalsciencerequiresverifiablelinesofreasoningforwhetheraneffectmatters.PerspectiveonPsychologicalScience.https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g3vtrAshton,M.C.,Lee,K.,Perugini,M.,Szarota,P.,deVries,R.E.,DiBlas,L.,Boies,K.,&DeRaad,B.(2004).Asix-factorstructureofpersonality-descriptiveadjectives:Solutionsfrompsycholexicalstudiesinsevenlanguages.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,86(2),356–366.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356Assenheimer,J.S.,&Watson,D.(1991).Self-andpartner-ratingsoftraitaffect:Convergentanddiscriminantvalidityandcorrelationswithrelationshipsatisfaction[Unpublishedrawdata].SouthernMethodistUniversityAvolio,B.J.,Bass,B.M.,&Jung,D.I.(1995).Constructval-idationandnormsforthemultifactorleadershipquestion-naire(MLQ-Form5X).StateUniversityofNewYorkatBinghamton.Baranger,D.A.(2021).InteractionPoweR:PoweranalysisforinteractionsviasimulationinR(Version0.1.0.5).GitHub.[Rpackage]https://github.com/dbaranger/InteractionPoweRBarrick,M.R.,&Mount,M.K.(1991).Thebigfivepersonalitydimensionsandjobperformance:Ameta-analysis.PersonnelPsychology,44(1),1–26.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.xBenning,S.D.,&Smith,E.A.(2019).Forms,importance,andineffabilityoffactorinteractionstodefinepersonalitydis-orders.JournalofPersonalityDisorders,33(5),623–632.https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2019.33.5.623Bennion,L.D.,&Adams,G.R.(1986).Arevisionoftheextendedversionoftheobjectivemeasureofegoidentitystatus:Anidentityinstrumentforusewithlateadolescents.JournalofAdolescentResearch,1(2),183–197.https://doi.org/10.1177/074355488612005Blake,K.R.,&Gangestad,S.(2020).Onattenuatedinteractions,measurementerror,andstatisticalpower:Guidelinesforsocialandpersonalitypsychologists.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,46(12),1702–1711.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220913363Bradburn,N.M.(1969).Thestructureofpsychologicalwell-being.Aldine.Chaplin,W.F.(1991).Thenextgenerationofmoderatorresearchinpersonalitypsychology.JournalofPersonality,59(2),143–178.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00772.xChaplin,W.F.(2007).Moderatorandmediatormodelsinper-sonalityresearch:Abasicintroduction.InR.W.Robins,R.C.Fraley,&R.F.Krueger(Eds.),Handbookofresearchmethodsinpersonalitypsychology.GuilfordPressClark,L.A.,Simms,L.J.,Wu,K.D.,&Casillas,A.(2014).Schedulefornonadaptiveandadaptivepersonality(2ndEdition(SNAP-2):Manualforadministration,scoring,andinterpretation).UniversityofNotreDame.Cleckley,H.(1941).Themaskofsanity;anattempttoreinterprettheso-calledpsychopathicpersonality.Mosby.Cohen,J.,Cohen,P.,West,S.G.,&Aiken,L.S.(2003).Appliedmultipleregression/correlationanalysisforthebehavioralsciences(3rded.).Erlbaum.Correll,J.,Mellinger,C.,McClelland,G.H.,&Judd,C.M.(2020).AvoidCohen’s‘small’,‘medium’,and‘large’forpoweranalysis.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,24(3),200–207.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.009Costa,P.T.,&McCrae,R.R.(1992).Normalpersonalityas-sessmentinclinicalpractice:TheNEOPersonalityInventory.PsychologicalAssessment,4(1),5–13.https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5Crowe,M.L.,Weiss,B.M.,Sleep,C.E.,Harris,A.M.,Carter,N.T.,Lynam,D.R.,&Miller,J.D.(2021).FearlessDominance/Boldnessisnotstronglyrelatedtoexternalizingbehaviors:Anitemresponse-basedanalysis.Assessment,28(3),413–428.https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120907959DeNeve,K.M.,&Cooper,H.(1998).Thehappypersonality:Ameta-analysisof137personalitytraitsandsubjectivewell-being.PsychologicalBulletin,124(2),197–229.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197DeRaad,B.,Barelds,D.P.H.,Levert,E.,Ostendrof,F.,Mlaÿci´c,B.,Blas,L.D.,Hÿreb´õÿckov´a,M.,Szirm´ak,Z.,Szarota,P.,Peugini,M.,Church,A.T.,&Katigbak,M.S.(2010).Onlythreefactorsofpersonalitydescriptionarefullyreplicableacrosslanguages:Acomparisonof14traittaxonomies.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,98(1),160–173.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017184Digman,J.M.(1997).Higher-orderfactorsofthebigfive.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,73(6),1246–1256.https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1246Dinovo,S.A.,&Vasey,M.W.(2011).Reactiveandself-regulatorydimensionsoftemperament:Interactiverela-tionswithsymptomsofgeneraldistressandanhedonia.JournalofResearchinPersonality,45(5),430–444.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.002Ebersole,C.R.,Atherton,O.E.,Belanger,A.L.,Skulborstad,H.M.,Allen,J.M.,Banks,J.B.,Baranski,E.,Bernstein,M.J.,Bonfiglio,D.B.V.,Boucher,L.,Brown,E.R.,Budiman,N.I.,Cairo,A.H.,Capaldi,C.A.,Chartier,C.R.,Chung,J.M.,Cicero,D.C.,Coleman,J.A.,Conway,J.G.,&Nosek,B.A.(2016).ManyLabs3:Evaluatingparticipantpoolqualityacrosstheacademicsemesterviareplication.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,67,68–82.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012Eddelbuettel,D.,&Francois,R.(2011).Rcpp:SeamlessRandC++integration.JournalofStatisticalSoftware,40(8),1–18.https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i08Elley,W.B.,&Irving,J.C.(1985).TheElley-Irvingsocio-economicindex.NewZealandJournalofEducationalStudies,20(1),115–128Erdfelder,E.,Faul,F.,Buchner,A.,&Lang,A.G.(2009).Sta-tisticalpoweranalysesusingG*Power3.1:Testsforcorre-lationandregressionanalyses.BehaviorResearchMethods,41,1149–2116.https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149Ferguson,C.J.,&Brannick,M.T.(2012).Publicationbiasinpsychologicalscience:Prevalence,methodsforidentifyingandcontrolling,andimplicationsfortheuseofmeta-ana-lyses.PsychologicalMethods,17(1),120–128.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445Vizeetal.621

Finsaas,M.C.,&Goldstein,B.L.(2021).Dosimpleslopesfollow-uptestsleadusastray?Advancementsinthevisu-alizationandreportingofinteractions.PsychologicalMethods,26(1),38–60.https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000266Finsaas,M.C.,Baranger,D.A.A.,Goldsetin,B.L.,Vize,C.E.,Lynam,D.R.,&Olino,T.M.(2021).InteractionPoweRShinyApp:PowerAnalysisforInteractionsinLinearRe-gression.https://mfinsaas.shinyapps.io/InteractionPoweR/Folkman,S.,&Lazarus,R.S.(1980).Ananalysisofcopinginamiddle-agedcommunitysample.JournalofHealthandSocialBehavior,21(3),219–239.https://doi.org/10.2307/2136617Fraley,R.C.,&Vazire,S.(2014).TheN-Pactfactor:Evaluatingthequalityofempiricaljournalswithrespecttosamplesizeandstatisticalpower.PLoSONE,9(10),1–12.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109019Frazier,P.A.,Tix,A.P.,&Barron,K.E.(2004).Testingmod-eratorandmediatoreffectsincounselingpsychologyre-search.JournalofCounselingPsychology,51(1),115–134.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115Funder,D.C.,&Ozer,D.J.(2019).Evaluatingeffectsizeinpsychologicalresearch:Senseandnonsense.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience,2(2),156–168.https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202Gatner,D.T.,Douglas,K.S.,&Hart,S.D.(2016).Examiningtheincrementalandinteractiveeffectsofboldnesswithmeannessanddisinhibitionwithinthetriarchicmodelofpsychopathy.PersonalityDisorders:Theory,Research,andTreatment,7(3),259–268.https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000182Gelman,A.(2018,April20).Youneed16timesthesamplesizetoestimateaninteractionthantoestimateamaineffect.Sta-tisticalModeling,CausalInference,andSocialScience.Statmodeling.https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/03/15/need-16-times-sample-size-estimate-interaction-estimate-main-effect/Gelman,A.,&Loken,E.(2013).Thegardenofforkingpaths:Whymultiplecomparisonscanbeaproblem,evenwhenthereisno“fishingexpedition”or“p-hacking”andtheresearchhypothesiswaspositedaheadoftime.ColumbiaUniversity.[Unpublishedmanuscript]http://www.stat.columbia.edu/∼gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdfGodin,G.,&Shephard,R.J.(1985).Asimplemethodtoassessexercisebehaviorinthecommunity.CanadianJournalofAppliedSportSciences,10(1),141–146.Goldberg,L.R.(1990).Analternative“descriptionofpersonal-ity”:TheBig-Fivefactorstructure.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,59(6),1216–1229.https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216G¨otz,F.M.,Gosling,S.D.,&Rentfrow,P.J.(2022).Smalleffects:Theindispensablefoundationforacumulativepsychologicalscience.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,17(1),205–215.https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483Greenwald,A.G(1975).Consequencesofprejudiceagainstthenullhypothesis.PsychologicalBulletin,82(1),1–20.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157Holland,J.L(1985).Vocationalpreferenceinventory(VPI)professionalmanual.PsychologicalAssessmentResources.Hollingshead,A.B.(1975).Fourfactorindexofsocialstatus[Unpublishedmanuscript].YaleUniversityHughes,J.(2017).paramtest:Runafunctioniterativelywhilevaryingparameters(Version0.1.0)[Rpackage]Jang,K.L.,Livesley,W.J.,&Vemon,P.A.(1996).Heritabilityofthebigfivepersonalitydimensionsandtheirfacets:Atwinstudy.JournalofPersonality,64(3),577–592.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.xJensen-Campbell,L.A.,Knack,J.M.,Waldrip,A.M.,&Campbell,S.D.(2007).DoBigFivepersonalitytraitsassociatedwithself-controlinfluencetheregulationofangerandaggression.JournalofResearchinPerson-ality,41(2),403–424.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.001Kastner,R.M.,&Sellbom,M.(2012).Hypersexualityincollegestudents:Theroleofpsychopathy.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,53(5),644–649.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.005Klein,R.A.,Vianello,M.,Hasselman,F.,Adams,B.G.,Adams,R.B.Jr.,Alper,S.,Aveyard,M.,Axt,J.R.,Babalola,M.T.,Bahn´õk,S.,Bastra,R.,Berkics,M.,Bernstein,M.J.,Berry,D.R.,Bialobrzeska,O.,Binanan,E.D.,Bocian,K.,Brandt,M.J.,Busching,R.,&Nosek,B.A.(2018).ManyLabs2:Investigatingvariationinreplicabilityacrosssamplesandsettings.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsycholog-icalScience,1(4),443–449.https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225Kotov,R.,Waszczuk,M.A.,Krueger,R.F.,Forbes,M.K.,Watson,D.,Clark,L.A.,Achenbach,T.M.,Althoff,R.R.,Ivanova,M.Y.,Bagby,R.M.,Brown,T.A.,Carpenter,W.T.,Caspi,A.,Moffitt,T.E.,Eaton,N.R.,Forbush,K.T.,Goldberg,D.,Hasin,D.,Hyman,S.E.,&Zimmerman,M.(2017).Thehierarchicaltaxonomyofpsychopathology(HiTOP):Adimensionalalternativetotraditionalnosologies.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,126(4),454–477.https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258Kuhn,M.(2021).caret:Classificationandregressiontraining(Version6.0-90)[Rpackage].CRAN.https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caretLakens,D.(2019).Thevalueofpreregistrationforpsychologicalscience:Aconceptualanalysis.JapanesePsychologicalReview,62(3),221–230.https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbh4wLakens,D.,&Caldwell,A.R.(2021).Simulation-basedpoweranalysisforfactorialanalysisofvariancedesigns.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience,4(1),1–14.https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951503Lakens,D.,Scheel,A.M.,&Isager,P.M.(2018).Equivalencetestingforpsychologicalresearch:Atutorial.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience,1(2),259–269.https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963Lee,K.,&Ashton,M.C.(2008).TheHEXACOpersonalityfactorsintheindigenouspersonalitylexiconsofEnglishand11otherlanguages.JournalofPersonality,76(5),1001–1054.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512.xLeon,A.C.,&Heo,M.(2009).Samplesizesrequiredtodetectinteractionsbetweentwobinaryfixed-effectsinamixed-effectslinearregressionmodel.ComputationalStatisticsandDataAnalysis,53(3),603–608.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.06.010Li,F.,Harmer,P.,Duncan,T.E.,Duncan,S.C.,Acock,A.,&Boles,S.(1998).Approachestotestinginteractioneffectsusingstructuralequationmodelingmethodology.Multivar-iateBehavioralResearch,33(1),1–39.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3301_1622EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Liddell,T.M.,&Kruschke,J.K.(2018).Analyzingordinaldatawithmetricmodels:Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,79,328–348.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009Lieck,D.S.N.,Forscher,P.S.,Buchanan,E.M.,&Samuel,J.(2021).Thereareno‘small’or‘large’effects:AreplytoG¨otzetal.(2021).PsyArXivPreprint,1–13.Lilienfeld,S.O.,Watts,A.L.,Murphy,B.,Costello,T.H.,Bowes,S.M.,Smith,S.F.,Latzman,R.D.,Haslam,N.,&Tabb,K.(2019).Personalitydisordersasemergentinterpersonalsyndromes:Psychopathicpersonalityasacaseexample.JournalofPersonalityDisorders,33(5),577–622.https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2019.33.5.577Locke,H.,&Wallace,K.(1959).Shortmarital-adjustmentandpredictiontests:Theirreliabilityandvalidity.MarriageandFamilyLiving,21(3),251–255.https://doi.org/10.2307/348022Long,J.A.(2020).jtools:Analysisandpresentationofsocialscientificdata(Version2.1.0)[Rpackage].CRAN.https://cran.r-project.org/package=jtoolsLuchetti,M.,Barkley,J.M.,Stephan,Y.,Terracciano,A.,&Sutin,A.R.(2014).Five-factormodelpersonalitytraitsandin-flammatorymarkers:Newdataandameta-analysis.Psy-choneuroendocrinology,50,181–193.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.08.014MacDonald,D.A.(2000).Spirituality:Description,measurement,andrelationtothefivefactormodelofpersonality.JournalofPersonality,68(1),153–197.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00094Mallory,M.E.(1988).Q-sortdefinitionofegoidentitystatus.JournalofYouthandAdolescence,18(4),399–412.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139257Malouff,J.M.,Thorsteinsson,E.B.,Schutte,N.S.,Bhullar,N.,&Rooke,S.E.(2010).Thefive-factormodelofpersonalityandrelationshipsatisfactionofintimatepartners:Ameta-anal-ysis.JournalofResearchinPersonality,44(1),124–127.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004Marcus,D.K.,&Norris,A.L.(2014).Anewmeasureofattitudestowardsexuallypredatorytacticsanditsrelationtothetri-archicmodelofpsychopathy.JournalofPersonalityDis-orders,28(2),247–261.https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_118McBee,M.(2010).Modelingoutcomeswithfloororceilingef-fects:AnintroductiontotheTobitmodel.GiftedChildQuarterly,54(4),314–320.https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210379095McCabe,C.J.(2019).InterActiveapplication.McCabe,C.J.,Kim,D.S.,&King,K.M.(2018).Improvingpresentpracticesinthevisualdisplayofinteractions.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience,1(2),147–165.https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917746792McClelland,G.H.,&Judd,C.M.(1993).Statisticaldifficultiesofdetectinginteractionsandmoderatoreffects.PsychologicalBulletin,114(1),376–390.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376McCrae,R.R.,Kurtz,J.E.,Yamagata,S.,&Terracciano,A.(2011).Internalconsistency,retestreliability,andtheirim-plicationsforpersonalityscalevalidity.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,15(1),28–50.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253McCullough,M.E.,Emmons,R.A.,&Tsang,J.A.(2002).Thegratefuldisposition:Aconceptualandempiricaltopography.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,82(1),112–127.https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112Meyer,J.P.,Allen,N.J.,&Smith,C.A.(1993).Commitmenttoorganizationsandoccupations:Extensionandtestofathree-componentmodel.JournalofAppliedPsychology,78(4),538–551.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538Miller,J.D.,Gaughan,E.T.,Maples,J.,&Price,J.(2011).Acomparisonofagreeablenessscoresfromthebigfivein-ventoryandtheNEOPI-R:Consequencesforthestudyofnarcissismandpsychopathy.Assessment,18(3),335–339.https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411671Moos,R.H.(1988).Copingresponsesinventorymanual.StanfordUniversityandDepartmentofVeteransAffairsMedicalCenters.Mõttus,R.,Sinick,J.,Terracciano,A.,Hÿreb´õÿckov´a,M.,Kandler,C.,Ando,J.,Mortensen,E.L.,Colodro-Conde,L.,&Jang,K.L.(2019).Personalitycharacteristicsbelowfacets:Areplicationandmeta-analysisofcross-rateragreement,rank-orderstability,heritabilityandutilityofpersonalitynuances.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,117(4),35–50.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000202Murphy,K.R.,&Russell,C.J.(2017).Menditorendit:Re-directingthesearchforinteractionsintheorganizationalsciences.OrganizationalResearchMethods,20(4),549–573.https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115625322Naragon-Gainey,K.,&Simms,L.J.(2017).Three-wayin-teractionofneuroticism,extraversion,andconscien-tiousnessintheinternalizingdisorders:Evidenceofdisorderspecificityinapsychiatricsample.JournalofResearchinPersonality,70,16–26.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.05.003Neugarten,B.L.,Havighurst,R.J.,&Tobin,S.S.(1961).Themeasurementoflifesatisfaction.JournalofGerontology,16(2),134–143.https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/16.2.134Norton,R.(1983).Measuringmaritalquality:Acriticallookatthedependentvariable.JournalofMarriageandtheFamily,45(1),141–151.https://doi.org/10.2307/351302O’Connor,B.P.,&Dvorak,T.(2001).Conditionalassociationsbetweenparentalbehaviorandadolescentproblems:Asearchforpersonality–environmentinteractions.JournalofRe-searchinPersonality,35(1),1–26.https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2295Ode,S.,Robinson,M.D.,&Wilkowski,B.M.(2008).Canone’stemperbecooled?Aroleforagreeablenessinmoderatingneuroticism’sinfluenceonangerandaggression.JournalofResearchinPersonality,42(2),295–311.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.007OpenScienceCollaboration(2015).Estimatingthereproducibilityofpsychologicalscience.Science,349(6251),1037.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716Ozer,D.J.,&Benet-Mart´õnez,V.(2006).Personalityandthepredictionofconsequentialoutcomes.AnnualReviewofPsychology,57(2006),401–421.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127Paunonen,S.V.(2003).BigFivefactorsofpersonalityandreplicatedpredictionsofbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,84(2),411–424.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411Vizeetal.623

Pease,C.R.,&Lewis,G.J.(2015).Personalitylinkstoanger:Evidencefortraitinteractionanddifferentiationacrossex-pressionstyle.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,74,159–164.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.018RCoreTeam(2021).R:Alanguageandenvironmentforsta-tisticalcomputing(version4.0.5)[Programminglanguage].RFoundationforStatisticalComputing.https://www.R-project.org/RCoreTeam(2022).R:Alanguageandenvironmentforstatisticalcomputing(version4.2.0)[Programminglanguage].RFoun-dationforStatisticalComputing.https://www.R-project.org/Robins,L.N.,Helzer,J.E.,Cottier,L.,&Goldring,E.(1989).DiagnosticInterviewSchedule,versionIII-R[Unpublishedmanuscript].WashingtonUniversityRobinson,D.,Hayes,A.,&Couch,S.(2021).broom:Convertstatisticalobjectsintotidytibbles(Version0.7.9)[Rpack-age].CRAN.https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broomRohrer,J.M.,&Arslan,R.C.(2021).Preciseanswerstovaguequestions:Issueswithinteractions.AdvancesinMethodsandPracticesinPsychologicalScience,4(2),1–19.https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007368Rose,G.,McCartney,P.,&Reid,D.D.(1977).Self-administrationofaquestionnaireonchestpainandintermittentclaudication.BritishJournalofPreventativeandSocialMedicine,31(1),42–48.https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.31.1.42RStudioTeam(2020).RStudio:IntegrateddevelopmentforR(version1.4.1106)[Computersoftware].RStudio,PBC.http://www.rstudio.com/RStudioTeam(2022).RStudio:IntegrateddevelopmentforR(version2022.02.2+485)[Computersoftware].RStudio,PBC.http://www.rstudio.com/Russell,R.M.,McGandy,R.B.,&Jelliffe,D.(1984).Referenceweights:Practicalconsiderations.TheAmericanJournalofMedicine,76(5),767–769.https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(84)90983-5Sherman,R.,&Pashler,H.(2019).Powerfulmoderatorvariablesinbehavioralscience?Don’tbetonthem[Unpublishedmanu-script].PsyArXivPreprint.https://psyarxiv.com/c65wm/Signorell,A.,Aho,K.,Alfons,A.,Anderegg,N.,Aragon,T.,Arppe,A.,…&Borchers,H.W.(2019).DescTools:Toolsfordescriptivestatistics.Rpackageversion0.99.42.Sleep,C.E.,Lynam,D.R.,&Miller,J.D.(2021).AcomparisonofthevalidityofverybriefmeasuresoftheBigFive/Five-FactorModelofpersonality.Assessment,28(3),739–758.Simmons,J.P.,Nelson,L.D.,&Simonsohn,U.(2011).False-positivepsychology:Undisclosedflexibilityindatacollec-tionandanalysisallowspresentinganythingassignificant.PsychologicalScience,22(11),1359–1366.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632Smith,S.T.,Edens,J.F.,&McDermott,B.E.(2013).Fearlessdominanceandself-centeredimpulsivityinteracttopredictpredatoryaggressionamongforensicpsychiatricinpatients.InternationalJournalofForensicMentalHealth,12(1),33–41.https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2012.760186Soderberg,C.K.,Errington,T.M.,Schiavone,S.R.,Bottesini,J.,Thorn,F.S.,Vazire,S.,Esterling,K.M.,&Nosek,B.A.(2021).Initialevidenceofresearchqualityofregisteredreportscomparedwiththestandardpublishingmodel.NatureHumanBehaviour,5(8)990–997.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4Soto,C.J.(2019).Howreplicablearelinksbetweenpersonalitytraitsandconsequentiallifeoutcomes?Thelifeoutcomesofpersonalityreplicationproject.PsychologicalScience,30(5),711–727.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612Soto,C.J.(2021).Dolinksbetweenpersonalityandlifeout-comesgeneralize?Testingtherobustnessoftrait-outcomeassociationsacrossgender,age,ethnicity,andanalyticapproaches.SocialPsychologicalandPersonalityScience,12(1),118–130.https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900572Soto,C.J.,&John,O.P.(2017).ThenextBigFiveInventory(BFI-2):Developingandassessingahierarchicalmodelwith15facetstoenhancebandwidth,fidelity,andpredictivepower.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,113(1),117–143.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096Suinn,R.M.,Ahuna,C.,&Khoo,G.(1992).TheSuinn-LewAsianself-identityacculturationscale:Concurrentandfac-torialvalidation.EducationalandPsychologicalMeasure-ment,52(4),1041–1046.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004028Sutin,A.R.,Stephan,Y.,Luchetti,M.,Artese,A.,Oshio,A.,&Terracciano,A.(2016).Thefive-factormodelofpersonalityandphysicalinactivity:Ameta-analysisof16samples.JournalofResearchinPersonality,63,22–28.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.001Terracciano,A.,L¨ockenhoff,C.E.,Zonderman,A.B.,Ferrucci,L.,&Costa,P.T.(2008).Personalitypredictorsoflongevity:Activity,emotionalstability,andconscientiousness.Psy-chosomaticMedicine,70(6),621–627.https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31817b9371Thompson,L.Y.,Snyder,C.R.,Hoffman,L.,Michael,S.T.,Rasmussen,H.N.,Billings,L.S.,Heinze,L.,Neufeld,J.E.,Shorey,H.S.,Roberts,J.C.,&Roberts,D.E.(2005).Dispositionalforgivenessofself,others,andsituations.JournalofPersonality,73(2),313–359.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.xUnitedStatesDepartmentofLabor(1991).Dictionaryofoccu-pationalTitles(4threviseded.).UnitedStatesDepartmentofLabor.Vasey,M.W.,Harbaugh,C.N.,Fisher,L.B.,Heath,J.H.,Hayes,A.F.,&Bijttebier,P.(2014).Temperamentsynergiesinriskforandprotectionagainstdepressivesymptoms:Apro-spectivereplicationofathree-wayinteraction.JournalofResearchinPersonality,53,134–147.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.09.005Venables,W.N.,&Ripley,B.D.(2002).ModernappliedstatisticswithS(4thed.).Springer.Vize,C.E.,Baranger,D.A.A.,Finsaas,M.C.,Goldstein,B.L.,Olino,T.,&Lynam,D.R.(inpress).Moderationeffectsinpersonalitydisorderresearch.PersonalityDisorders:Theory,Research,andTreatment.Advanceonlinepublication.Vize,C.E.,Collison,K.L.,Miller,J.D.,&Lynam,D.R.(2019).UsingBayesianmethodstoupdateandexpandthemeta-analyticevidenceofthefive-factormodel’srelationtoantisocialbehavior.ClinicalPsychologyReview,67,61–77.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.001Vize,C.E.,Collison,K.L.,Miller,J.D.,&Lynam,D.R.(2020).The“core”ofthedarktriad:Atestofcompetinghypotheses.PersonalityDisorders:Theory,Research,andTreatment,11(2),91–99.https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000386624EuropeanJournalofPersonality37(5)

Vize,C.E.,Lynam,D.R.,Lamkin,J.,Miller,J.D.,&Pardini,D.(2016).Identifyingessentialfeaturesofjuvenilepsy-chopathyinthepredictionoflaterantisocialbehavior:Isthereanadditive,synergistic,orcurvilinearroleforfearlessdominance?ClinicalPsychologicalScience,4(3),572–590.https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702615622384Vukasovi´c,T.,&Bratko,D.(2015).Heritabilityofpersonality:Ameta-analysisofbehaviorgeneticstudies.PsychologicalBulletin,141(4),769–785.https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017Wagenmakers,E.J.,Krypotos,A.M.,Criss,A.H.,&Iverson,G.(2012).Ontheinterpretationofremovableinteractions:Asurveyofthefield33yearsafterloftus.MemoryandCognition,40(2012),145–160.https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0158-0Weiss,B.,Crowe,M.L.,Harris,A.M.,Carter,N.T.,Lynam,D.R.,Watts,A.L.,Lilienfeld,S.O.,Skeem,J.L.,&Miller,J.D.(2019).Examininghypothesizedinteractiveandcur-vilinearrelationsbetweenpsychopathictraitsandexternal-izingproblemsinanoffendersampleusingitemresponse-basedanalysis.JournalofAbnormalPsychology,128(7),689–699.https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000462Weiss,D.J.,Dawis,R.V.,England,G.W.,&Lofquist,L.H.(1967).ManualfortheMinnesotasatisfactionquestionnaire.UniversityofMinnesotaIndustrialRelationsCenter.Wickham,H.,Averick,M.,Bryan,J.,Chang,W.,McGowan,L.D.,François,R.,Grolemund,G.,Hayes,A.,Henry,L.,Hester,J.,Kuhn,M.,Pedersen,T.,Miller,E.,Bache,S.,Müller,K.,Ooms,J.,Robinson,D.,Seidel,D.,Spinu,V.,&Yutani,H.(2019).Welcometothetidyverse.JournalofOpenSourceSoftware,4(43),1686.https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686Wickham,H.,François,R.,Henry,L.,&Müller,K.(2021).Dplyr:Agrammarofdatamanipulation(Version1.0.6)[Rpack-age].CRAN.Wickham,H.,&Miller,E.(2021).haven:Importandexport‘SPSS’,‘Stata’and‘SAS’files(Version2.4.3)[Rpackage].CRAN.https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=havenWilson,G.D.,&Patterson,J.R.(1968).Anewmeasureofconservatism.BritishJournalofSocialandClinicalPsy-chology,8(1)264–269.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1968.tb00568.xYee,TW(2015).VectorGeneralizedLinearandAdditiveModels:WithanImplementationinR,Springer,NewYork,USA.Yzerbyt,V.Y.,Muller,D.,&Judd,C.M.(2004).Adjustingre-searchers’approachtoadjustment:Ontheuseofcovariateswhentestinginteractions.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,40(3),424–431.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.001Vizeetal.625

CopyrightofEuropeanJournalofPersonalityisthepropertyofSagePublicationsInc.anditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder’sexpresswrittenpermission.However,user

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.