274 III. DEvELOPMENT
of his personality. Like Carol, to the extent 
that these triggering situations and their as -
sociated expectations would be met over a 
long period of time, then one would assume 
personality change would result.
It should be noted that time has been 
proposed as a key moderator of personal -
ity change (Roberts & Hill, 2017; Roberts, 
Hill, & Davis, 2017). This is in stark con -
trast to the perspective that discrete events 
are the cause of personality change. From a 
neo- socioanalytic perspective, true person -
ality change is more likely to result not from 
the discrete event but from the long-term 
experiences that result from the event. The 
transition to parenting or college per se is 
not the cause of change, but rather the situa -
tions and expectations that are experienced 
for weeks, months, and years afterward. 
And, more importantly, it is the subjective 
experience that is key. Newborn children 
vary widely in their temperament and can 
bring just as wide a variance in parenting 
experiences. Parenting a colicky baby will 
make most new parents keenly distressed for 
long periods of time, while parenting a mel -
low baby who is a good sleeper might lead 
parents to feel quite efficacious about the 
experience. As articulated in our discussions 
of how to change conscientiousness (Rob -
erts, Hill, et al., 2017), time brings extra 
opportunities to be exposed to demands 
for change—  a higher dose of the “interven -
tion”—and it brings increased opportunity 
for reflection (an element of the TESSERA 
model) in which one can look back on the 
changes that have occurred and consolidate 
them in psychological terms.
Of course, people are not unwitting vic -
tims of their environments and their experi -
ences. One of the key person–  environment 
transactions that counters being subjected 
to the whims of a changing environment 
is manipulation . Once in an environment 
that may not fit especially well with one’s 
personality, people do have a choice to try 
and change their environment rather than 
change themselves. For example, in a lon -
gitudinal study in which personality and 
perceptions of the environment were tracked 
over time, the latter changed more than the 
former (Harms et al., 2006). We took this 
finding to indicate that people are capable of 
either changing their environment literally or symbolically, even when the environment 
is structurally static (e.g., the same school 
over time). It is also likely that the process of 
evocation—  in which one’s personality cre -
ates reactions from others that are consistent 
with that personality—  would help mold the 
environment to better fit with existing per -
sonality structure rather than motivate per -
sonality change.
In the case of Carol and Tom, we can en -
vision how both could manipulate their un -
expected experiences to fit more closely with 
their past identities. In the case of Carol, 
maybe she coordinates with her mother to 
care for her child on a regular basis so that 
she can take online college courses to contin -
ue her education and prepare to enter college 
at some future date. In Tom’s case, maybe 
he takes advantage of the party atmosphere 
on his college’s campus to move his experi -
ence closer to his past easygoing lifestyle. 
Both of these choices may have unintended 
consequences in the future (especially for 
Tom, who risks getting kicked off the team 
if he indulges too much). Nonetheless, in the 
short run, manipulating one’s environment 
to better conform to preexisting personality 
features diminishes the demands for person -
ality change and helps maintain consistent 
levels of personality over time.
The last type of person–  environment 
transaction relevant to patterns of continu -
ity and change over time is attrition,  or leav -
ing the relevant environment. Let’s assume 
that after a year or two, Carol has started 
working part-time at a coffee shop to help 
support herself. In part because she is so 
conscientious, her employer grooms her for 
a management position and makes it clear 
that she would be ideal for that in the future. 
While the idea of moving up and being in 
charge is appealing to Carol, she decides in -
stead to leave the job and pursue her college 
degree. Leaving these types of environments 
and experiences could have consequences 
for her personality change. For example, we 
know that students who transition to the 
labor market sooner show earlier increases 
in conscientiousness compared to students 
who remain in school (Golle et al., 2019; 
Lüdtke et al., 2011). By leaving her job and 
reentering school, Carol may be forestalling 
changes that might have been initiated and 
maintained by remaining in the labor mar -