to think out and try out new ways of living, should in the long run be
better able to differentiate assigned roles from inner needs and values.There is a bit of empirical support for this hypothesis in a study of orga -
nizational behavior conducted by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and
Rosenthal (1964). They employed the California Psychological Inven -
tory (CPI) to measure a trait called flexibility–rigidity , a close cousin of
Openness. Said Kahn et al., “The strong identification with his superi -
ors and with the official goals of the organization, together with the
heavy emphasis on authority relations, leads the rigid person to a rathercomplete internalization of his roles. His role tends to become his iden -
tity . While the flexible person may be in the course of the work day a
manager, friend, personal confidant, sports fan, and explorer, the rigidperson is manager ” (p. 294; emphasis in the original). What becomes of
such a person when he retires? Is he now retired , content to be nothing
more productive? Or does he face a crisis in the loss of an identity inwhich he was too heavily invested? Is the departure of children from thehome more stressful for the closed woman who has always regardedherself as nothing but mother? Surely these transitions must have dif-ferent impacts on open and closed people.
Theorists have often noted the importance of fantasy in the acquisi-
tion of new roles. Imagining oneself as a U.S. senator, making speechesand debating foreign policy , may be important as a first step in runningfor election—even to a much lesser office. The housewife’s ability to seeherself with an independent career probably smoothes the way for herwhen she begins looking for a job or returns to school. A certain flexi -
bility in the self-concept as well as a degree of Openness would thus ap -
pear to contribute to change (Whitbourne, 1986b).
The same considerations may apply to relationships as to roles. We
know that closed persons espouse traditional family ideologies (Costa& McCrae, 1978); they may also be the kinds of people who preserve asingle style of relating to significant others throughout their lives. Forthem, perhaps, Father and Mother remain the only real adults, to beloved or feared but never recognized as people with their own limita -
tions. For them, perhaps, wives remain homemakers and husbands
breadwinners, and woe to a spouse who fails to live up to these expecta -
tions or tries to exceed them! For them, perhaps, children never grow
up and are always to be advised or scolded or praised according to howwell they live up to parental standards.
Roger Gould’s work on adult development is concerned with the230 PERSONALITY IN ADULTHOOD