 2. History, Measurement, and Conceptual Elaboration of the Big‑Five Trait Taxonomy  67
sites and social networking sites (Nave et al., 
2018; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006).
This brief review of Big Five research on 
person–  environment interactions illustrates 
that the nomological network emerging for 
each of the Big Five domains now includes 
an ever-  broadening range of life outcome 
variables. These findings have been sum -
marized in greater detail in several reviews 
(e.g., Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Hogan 
& Ones, 1997; McCrae, 1996; Ozer & 
Benet-  Martinez, 2006; Watson & Clark, 
1997). In interpreting these findings, how -
ever, it is important to realize that although 
individual differences in personality traits 
are relatively stable over time (e.g., Roberts 
& DelVecchio, 2000), they are not fixed or 
“set in plaster” (e.g., Srivastava, John, Gos -
ling, & Potter, 2003). Many people have the 
capacity to change their patterns of behav -
ior, thought, and feeling, for example, as a 
result of therapy or intervention programs 
(see Jackson, Beck, & Mike, Chapter 38, 
this volume). Thus, the links between the 
Big Five and the life outcomes reviewed ear -
lier are neither fixed nor inevitable for the 
individual. Instead, they point to critical 
domains of behavior and emotion that the 
individual may target for personal develop -
ment and change. In the health domain, for 
example, people can improve how conscien -
tiously they adhere to a diet, exercise regi -
men, or medical treatment plan (Friedman 
et al., 1994), thus greatly influencing their 
ultimate health outcomes and longevity.
The Big Five and  Personality  Development
Historically, personality psychology has 
concerned itself with a range of develop -
mental issues that are relevant to the Big 
Five—the antecedents of adult personality 
traits, how traits develop, the time lines for 
the emergence and peak expression of traits, 
their stability or change throughout the lifes -
pan, and the effects of traits on other aspects 
of personal development. Some critics have 
suggested that Big Five researchers have not 
paid enough attention to issues of personal -
ity development in childhood and adoles -
cence (Pervin, 1994). In the past, this criti -
cism had some merit: Although the Big Five 
taxonomy has influenced research on adult 
development and aging (e.g., Helson, Kwan, 
John, & Jones, 2002; McCrae & Costa, 2003; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 
2006; see also Roberts & Nickel, Chapter 
11, this volume), there has been less research 
on personality structure in childhood. De -
velopmental and temperament psychologists 
have studied a number of important traits 
(e.g., sociability, fearful distress, shyness, 
impulsivity) but many studies examine one 
trait at a time, in isolation from the others, 
and the available research has not been inte -
grated in a coherent taxonomic framework 
(but see Soto & John, 2014, for an effort 
to link the developing structure of youth 
personality to several a priori  structural 
models). Until this work is done, however, 
research on personality development across 
the lifespan is likely to remain fragmented 
(Halverson, Kohnstamm, & Martin, 1994).
The adult personality taxonomy defined 
by the Big Five can offer some promising 
leads. In our view, the Big Five should be 
examined in developmental research for two 
reasons (John et al., 1994). Theoretically, it 
may be necessary to examine the develop -
mental origins of the Big Five: Given that 
the Big Five emerge as basic dimensions of 
personality in adulthood, researchers need 
to explain how they develop. Practically, the 
Big Five has proven useful as a framework 
for organizing findings on adult personality 
in areas as diverse as behavioral genetics and 
industrial psychology. Thus, extension of 
the Big Five into childhood and adolescence 
would facilitate comparisons across develop -
mental periods.
Work on these issues is well underway 
(see Shiner, Chapter 12, this volume; also 
De Fruyt & Karevold, Chapter 13, this vol -
ume), and researchers are drawing on ex -
isting models of infant and child tempera -
ment to make connections to the Big Five 
dimensions in adulthood (for reviews, see 
Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Hal  verson 
et al., 1994; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Some 
research suggests that the Big Five may 
provide a good approximation of personal -
ity structure in childhood and adolescence 
(Digman, 1989; Graziano & Ward, 1992). 
Extending Digman’s (1989) earlier work on 
Hawaiian children, Digman and Shmelyov 
(1996) examined both temperament dimen -
sions and personality dimensions in a sam -
ple of Russian children. Based on analyses 
of teachers’ ratings, they concluded that the 
Big Five offers a useful model for describing 