Personality changes during adolescence: the role of gender and pubertal development

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 179–188

Personality changes during adolescence: the role ofgender and pubertal development

Josepa Canals a,*, Andreu Vigil-Colet a, Eliseo Chico a,Carles Martı-Henneberg b,z

a Department of Psychology, Facultat de C.C. E. E. i Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Crtra. Valls s/n,

43007 Tarragona, Spainb Pediatric Unit, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain

Received 19 December 2003; received in revised form 19 February 2004; accepted 13 December 2004

Available online 2 March 2005

Abstract

This study assessed how personality dimensions evolve during adolescence and how they are affected by

gender and pubertal development. To this end, we used the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and

Tanner�s stages to measure personality and pubertal development, respectively, of 578 schoolchildren of 10

and 11 years old over a period of five years. The results indicated that personality was not stable in the agerange analyzed and that these changes were independent of pubertal stages. Moreover, gender had signif-

icant effects on psychoticism and antisocial behaviour, and an interactive effect with age on neuroticism,

which may be related to the increase in certain pathologies.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pubertal development; Gender; Personality

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.012

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Canals).z Deceased.

mailto:[email protected]

180 J. Canals et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 179–188

1. Introduction

Behavioral differences between the sexes begin at a very early age (Canals, Fernandez-Ballart, &Esparo, 2003). As Nugent and Brazelton pointed out (2000), the infant has well-establishedbehavioral endowments at birth. These individual differences have a genetic basis but also containenvironmental influences, including both pre- and postnatal experiences. Early temperamentaltraits contribute to the future development of personality. Children�s maturation makes it possiblefor new behaviors to develop and be expressed, which may result in an evolution of the person-ality structure over development (Shiner, Tellegen, & Masten, 2001). However, many questionsarise about the evolution of personality: is personality steady across the life span?; at which devel-opmental stage do changes begin?; do personality changes affect boys and girls in the same wayand at the same age?

There is a considerable amount of research that attempts to determine both when and whysome of the traits of personality evolve. Several longitudinal studies examine the stability of per-sonality in certain periods of life and explore the biological and social factors which can influencechanges in personality (Kitamura & Fujihara, 2003; Maiden, Peterson, Caya, & Hayslip, 2003;Roy, 2002). However, few of these studies are based on Eysenck�s model (three-factor system)or evaluate the age of childhood or adolescence. Most of the research has been conducted withthe five-factor model, which adds Agreableness and Openness to experience to the other threedimensions (Extraversion or Positive Emotionality, Neuroticism or Negative Emotionality, andConscientiousness or Constraint). Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg, and Hwang (2002) followed102 children between 2.3 and 15.2 years of age and found that over time children became lessextraverted, more agreeable and more conscientious according to the California Child Q-Set.Neuroticism and openness to experience increased at the beginning of adolescence, althoughopenness then decreased. Likewise, McCrae et al. (2002) found, using the Revised NEO Person-ality Inventory, that openness to experience increased in both boys and girls during adolescence,but neuroticism appeared to increase in girls and extraversion, agreeableness and conscientious-ness were stable. Bratko (2002) administered the EPQ to 262 young adults at two measurementpoints and showed that neuroticism significantly decreased, while extraversion scores decreasedslightly and there were no changes in psychoticism. Other research in adulthood found that neu-roticism declined in women but did not change in men (Srivastasa, Jonh, Gosling, & Potter, 2003).All these data indicate that although personality traits can undergo changes in several periods oflife, the adolescent years can be a vulnerable period of change. Psychopathology also increases inthis period and important epidemiological changes emerge between genders. From this patholog-ical perspective, puberty has been considered to be a critical period for the onset of many disor-ders (Graber, Lewinsohn, Seeley, & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Laitinen-Krispijn, Van der Ende,Hazebroek-Kampschreur, & Verhulst, 1999). The relevance of puberty may be explained by hor-monal changes or by the impact that hormonal maturation can have on adolescents� relationshipswith their parents and peers and on their own self-perception. However, although there is evidenceto suggest that personality is a predictor of psychological problems, no studies have investigatedhow puberty affects the development of personality in adolescence. We have only found the workof Markey, Markey, and Tinsley (2003) that investigated whether girls� pubertal developmentmoderated any of the relations between their personality traits and their participation in riskybehaviors.

J. Canals et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 179–188 181

There is a certain consensus on the nature of gender differences on personality in terms of Ey-senck�s personality dimensions. The most usual pattern shows that males have higher scores onpsychoticism and lower scores on neuroticism than females, and that the results for extraversionare inconsistent (Barrett & Eysenck, 1984; Forrest, Lewis, & Shevlin, 2000; Martin & Kirkcaldy,1998). Similar results have been found in children and adolescents using the J-EPQ (Eysenck &Haapasalo, 1989; Hanin, Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1991; Maltby & Talley, 1998; McKenzie,1988; Shevlin, Bailey, & Adamson, 2002). The stability of this pattern seems to indicate that thereis an underlying biological basis although authors such as Shevlin et al. (2002) have shown thatgender differences in neuroticism and psychoticism may be due to socially learned behavior. Fur-thermore, Francis (1993) suggested that neuroticism has a sex-based component which means thatfemales tend to score higher than males and that the gender differences found for this dimensionare more related to the measure used than to true gender differences in neuroticism. Nevertheless,Heaven and Shochet (1995) found that females� scores on sex-free measures of neuroticism arehigher than males� scores. Moreover, sex differences in neuroticism seem to be related to a differ-ential development of boys and girls. In this respect, Sybil Eysenck (1965) (cf. Francis, 1993)found that neuroticism increased in girls depending on their age but not in boys. A similar resultwas reported by McCrae et al. (2002) who found a gender by age interaction due to the fact thatneuroticism increases in girls but not in boys between 12 and 18 years old.

Taking into account what has been discussed above, the present study has two main objectives:first, to investigate the evolution of personality traits in adolescence and any possible gender-asso-ciated differences; and, second, to analyze the influence of pubertal development on this evolution.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The participants came from all the children of 10 (girls) and 11 (boys) years of age (n = 665)born in the first 6 months of the year in Reus (Catalonia, Spain), an urban area of 96,000 inhab-itants with above-average socioeconomic status. The boys were one year older than the girls sothat their biological development was more equal. Eighty-six children were outside the normaleducational system or the parents did not give consent to take part. Thus, 578 schoolchildren(girls, n = 244; boys, n = 334) were recruited at baseline and were annually called in the monthof their birthday to be assessed. Of the initial sample 163 girls and 176 boys were followed untilthe age of 14 and 15, respectively. The personality dimensions of the missing subjects were notsignificantly different from those of the remaining group, but the drop-out rate was significantlygreater among the males than among the females.

2.2. Instruments

The Spanish version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Junior (EPQ-J, Eysenck & Ey-senck, 1984) was administered as a personality inventory annually for 5 years. Like Eysenck�smodel, it has, three dimensions of personality: neuroticism or emotional instability (N), extraver-sion (E), and psychoticism (P). Several items from these dimensions produced the antisocial


behavior scale (AB). In the Spanish version of the EPQ-J, sincerity (S) was used as a reverse of thelie scale.

Pubertal development was measured by Tanner�s stages (Tanner, 1962). This assessment isbased on the clinical evaluation of secondary sexual characteristics and correlates well with bonematurity and hormone levels. Five stages were described: 1 (pre-pubescent), 2, 3, 4 (progressivepubertal development) and 5 (finished puberty). We have defined the pubertal timing variableby comparing the pubertal development between peers. Thus, according to stage 3, we have de-fined three pubertal times: (a) early, when both girls and boys arrived at this stage of maturationat the age of 10 or 11 (n = 101) and 11 or 12 (n = 85), respectively; (b) late, when at the age of 13(girls) and 14 (boys) the subjects were at most in Tanner�s stage 2 (girls = 35, boys = 69), and (c)on time (girls = 108, boys = 180) when the subjects were neither early nor late maturers.

2.3. Procedure

The sample was selected from the municipal census and included both public and privateschools. Both the schools and the parents gave their consent. This study is part of a larger projecton depression and other psychopathologies during adolescence (Canals, Domenech, Fernandez-Ballart, & Martı-Henneberg, 1995, 2002). Every year, the children were asked by the school tocome, during school time, to the University where they took the tests in small groups. The puber-tal stage of every adolescent was individually assessed by a pediatrician.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for personality variables and pubertal status across ageand gender. In general, scores on personality dimensions tend to increase with age, with the excep-

Table 1

EPQ-J descriptive statistics by age and gender

Age Gender N E P S AB Pubertal status

Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.

10 Girls 10.2 4.3 17.2 3.9 28 2.3 6.2 4.1 16.8 4.6 1.65 0.9

11 Girls 9.5 4.2 17.9 4.1 2 2.2 7.3 4 16.4 3.9 2.38 1.1

Boys 10.1 4 18.4 3.5 2.9 2.4 7.8 4.3 17.9 4.2 1.4 0.6

All 9.9 4.1 18.2 3.8 2.6 2.3 7.7 4.2 17.4 4.1 1.82 0.96

12 Girls 8.2 4.4 18.8 3.9 2.3 2.4 8.3 4.8 16.9 3.9 3.27 1.2

Boys 9.1 4.3 19.1 3.8 3.2 3 8.6 4.5 17.8 4.3 1.9 0.85

All 8.8 4.4 19 3.8 2.8 2.9 8.5 4.6 17.5 4.2 2.48 1.2

13 Girls 8.7 4.6 19.4 3.3 2.3 2.3 9.4 5 17.5 3.9 3.6 1.1

Boys 8.4 4.3 19.6 3 3.3 2.7 9.8 4.6 18.2 4.1 2.5 0.94

All 8.5 4.4 19.5 3.1 2.9 2.6 9.6 4.8 17.9 4.1 2.95 1.1

14 Girls 9.1 4.7 19.4 3.8 2.3 2.6 10.6 4.9 17.8 3.7 4.1 0.92

Boys 7.9 4.5 19.6 3.1 3.8 2.8 11.2 4.6 18.3 4.2 3.2 1.1

All 8.4 4.6 19.5 3.4 3.3 2.8 11 4.7 18.1 4 3.55 1.1

15 Boys 6.6 4 20.1 3 3.1 2.6 11.9 4.2 17.7 4.4 4.11 0.98


tion of neuroticism. The greatest gender differences were related to psychoticism and antisocialbehavior. As expected pubertal status increased with age (F = 446.51, p < 0.01) and showed thatgirls developed earlier than boys (F = 398.75, p < 0.01).

To assess age and gender effects on personality dimensions, we analyzed a mixed factorial de-sign, using age as a within-subjects factor and gender as a between-subjects factor. This analysiswas applied to the 11–14 year-old range, because at age 10 we only have data for girls and at age15 only for boys. In a second step, we performed two repeated measures analyses; one for boys inthe age range 11–15 and another for girls in the age range 10–14. All the within-subjects effectswere assessed using the multivariate analysis of variance approach to avoid the classical assump-tions of univariate repeated measures designs.

Table 2 shows the results (F values) of the three analyses mentioned above. The age effect wassignificant for all personality dimensions in all age ranges. Moreover, polynomial contrastsshowed that this effect was linear for all personality dimensions with the exception of neuroticismin girls, which showed a quadratic relationship. Age mainly seemed to affect personality dimen-sions by linearly increasing subjects� scores in E, P, S and AB and decreasing their scores inneuroticism.

The effects of gender were only significant for the P and AB scales, and boys had higher scoresthan girls on both. Finally, age and gender showed a significant interaction on neuroticism. AsFig. 1 shows, boys� scores on neuroticism decrease with age while girls� scores decrease until theyare 12 and then increase.

Finally, Table 3 shows the Spearman rank correlation coefficients between pubertal status andpersonality dimensions at all ages. As can be seen, only P and AB dimensions showed significantrelationships with pubertal status. P seems to be inversely related to pubertal status between 11

Table 2

Age and gender effects (F values) on EPQ-J personality dimensions

Variable Age Effect

Gender Age by gender

All (11–14 years old) N 12.979 0.006 6.422

E 17.585 1.181 0.293

P 4.859 27.998 2.034

S 78.741 1.203 0.204

AB 4.500 8.180 1.181

Girls (10–14 years old) N 7.81

E 14.18

P 5.55

S 25.36

AB 5.05

Boys (11–15 years old) N 14.54

E 6.63

P 4.79

S 62.67

AB 0.95

N: Neuroticism, E: Extraversion, P: Psychoticism, S: Sincerity, AB: Antisocial behavior.

p < 0.01.

6

8

10

12

10 11 12 13 14 15Age

Neuroticism

Girls

Boys

Fig. 1. Neuroticism for boys and girls across age levels.

Table 3

Spearman rank correlations between pubertal status and personality measures for different ages

Age N E P S AB

All

11 �0.07 0.04 �0.18 �0.08 �0.11

12 �0.04 0.02 �0.14 �0.07 �0.09

13 �0.06 0.04 �0.15 �0.06 �0.08

14 0.00 �0.03 �0.15 �0.06 �0.10

Girls

10 0.06 �0.03 �0.08 �0.03 �0.05

11 .068 .029 .041 .017 .002

12 .044 .004 .108 .109 �.068

13 .099 .030 .095 .056 .111

14 .021 .092 .021 �.053 .021

Boys

11 .101 .088 .109 .063 .106

12 .038 .056 �.040 �.029 �.009

13 �.057 .051 �.070 �.038 �.004

14 .071 .108 .112 .044 �.182

15 0.05 �0.7 0.10 0.16 0.05

N: Neuroticism, E: Extraversion, P: Psychoticism, S: Sincerity, AB: Antisocial behavior.

p < 0.01, p < 0.05.


and 14 years old, while AB shows an inverse relationship at 11 and 14. Nevertheless, this relation-ship was not found when girls and boys were analyzed separately. This may indicate that the rela-tionship between pubertal status and P and AB dimensions may be a statistical artifact. It may bedue to the fact that, for each age level, girls show an earlier pubertal development than boys, andboys have higher scores in the P and AB dimensions. Both factors generate a spurious inverse rela-tionship between these variables that disappears when both groups are analyzed separately.


When pubertal timing was used instead of pubertal stage, we found no significant relationshipbetween this variable and personality dimensions.

4. Discussion

The present study is the first to assess the effect of pubertal maturation on personality dimen-sions in early adolescence. Adolescence is a period of both big and quick changes, which is whychildren were assessed annually for a long time. Likewise, most studies that have related pubertaldevelopment and psychological problems did not use a medical examination to assess pubertalstage but self-reports based on Tanner-stage drawings (Graber et al., 1997; Hayward et al.,1997; Martin et al., 2002). Recently, Dorn, Susman, and Ponirakis (2003) showed that physicalexaminations found a more significant relationship between pubertal timing, and adjustmentand behaviour problems than self-reports or parent reports.

Results have shown that in the period studied the dimensions of personality were not stable.Age had a significant effect on all personality dimensions, increasing extraversion, psychoticism,sincerity and antisocial behaviour and reducing neuroticism. Although some of these effects havebeen reported previously, the neuroticism decrease, for instance (e.g. Bratko, 2002; Srivastasaet al., 2003), other authors have not found the same pattern of results (Lamb et al., 2002; McCraeet al., 2002). Nevertheless, most of these studies have been conducted with samples that includeages other than adolescence and using the NEO-revised questionnaire (Big Five traits) insteadof the EPQ (three-factor system).

As far as gender is concerned, boys obtained higher scores than girls on psychoticism and anti-social behavior. These results are along the same lines as previous ones, which also often found ahigher level of neuroticism for girls (Corulla, 1990; Eysenck, 1976; Forrest et al., 2000; Francis,1992, 1993; Martin & Kirkcaldy, 1998). Moreover, in our study the effect of gender on neuroti-cism shows a significant interaction with age. In this respect, boys showed an inverse relationshipbetween age and neuroticism, while the pattern for girls was different: although their neuroticismscores decreased between 10 and 12 years old, subsequently they increased. Girls� neuroticismscores began to increase from 13 years old, and were then higher than boys� scores. This effecthas been reported by several authors (Barrett & Eysenck, 1984; McCrae et al., 2002). The ageof 13 also seems to be critical for the increase in depressive disorders in girls, which some haveattempted to explain in terms of biological and psychosocial factors (Angold & Rutter, 1992; Ca-nals et al., 1995). These disorders have been related to high levels of neuroticism and low self-es-teem, which may support a relationship between the increase in neuroticism and the increase indepressive disorders (Bagby, Joffe, Parker, Kalemba, & Harkness, 1995; Del Barrio, Moreno-Ros-set, Lopez-Martinez, & Olmedo, 1997).

The results obtained for gender effects seem to indicate that neuroticism and psychoticism arethe dimensions that most clearly differentiate men and women, and that these differences begin atan early age.

We found no effect of pubertal development on personality dimensions. Not only did we useTanner stages to assess these effects but also a second measure, pubertal timing, which gave usan indicator of how the moment of pubertal onset affected personality dimensions. Despite thislack of significant results, such authors as Martin et al. (2002) have found significant relationships


between pubertal development and personality. Martin et al. (2002) examined the relationship be-tween drug use, level of sensation seeking and pubertal development. These authors found thatsensation seeking was positively associated with pubertal development in male and female adoles-cents. This may indicate a relationship between certain personality dimensions and pubertal matu-ration that our data do not support. The relation between pubertal development and personalitymay not have been direct and some variables may have interacted with social factors and influ-enced psychological problems. Likewise, Felson and Haynie (2002) found strong positive relation-ships between pubertal development and violence, but they found no evidence that they were dueto the effects of puberty on risk-taking. They found evidence that pubertal development interactswith social factors and that mature boys were more strongly influenced by delinquent friends.

This study suggests that personality during the period of adolescence analysed is not stable andthat personality differences associated to gender are present in this period. Furthermore, dimen-sions such as neuroticism interact with gender and age.

Further research is needed in order to determine which factors are responsible for the lack ofstability of personality dimensions throughout adolescence. The results seem to indicate thatpubertal status is not related to these changes and that other biological or social factors linkedto development may be responsible.

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Techno-logy (SEC2001-3821-C05-C02) with the collaboration of the European Fund for the Developmentof Regions and from the ‘‘Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias’’ (FIS 01/1364), Spanish Ministryof Health and Consumption.

References

Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). The effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a large clinical sample.

Development and Psychopathology, 4, 5–28.

Bagby, R. M., Joffe, R. T., Parker, J., Kalemba, V., & Harkness, K. L. (1995). Major depression and the five-factor

model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 224–234.

Barrett, P., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1984). The assessment of personality factors across 25 countries. Personality and

Individual Differences, 5, 615–632.

Bratko, D. (2002). Personality continuity and change from adolescence to young adulthood: Longitudinal study.

Drustvena Istrazivanja, 11, 623–640.

Canals, J., Domenech, E., Fernandez-Ballart, J., & Martı-Henneberg, C. (1995). A longitudinal study of depression in

an urban Spanish pubertal population. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 4, 102–111.

Canals, J., Domenech, E., Fernandez-Ballart, J., & Martı-Henneberg, C. (2002). Predictors of depression at eighteen: A

7-year follow-up study in a Spanish sample. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11, 226–233.

Canals, J., Fernandez-Ballart, J., & Esparo, G. (2003). Evolution of neonatal behavior assessment scale scores in the

first month of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 227–237.

Corulla, W. J. (1990). A revised version of the psychoticism scale for children. Personality and Individual Differences, 10,

65–76.

Del Barrio, V., Moreno-Rosset, C., Lopez-Martinez, R., & Olmedo, M. (1997). Anxiety, depression and personality

structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 327–335.


Dorn, L. D., Susman, E. J., & Ponirakis, A. (2003). Pubertal timing and adolescent adjustment and behavior:

Conclusions vary by rater. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 157–167.

Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sex and personality. London: Open Books Publishing Ltd.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1984). EPQ-Cuestionario de personalidad para ninos (EPQ-J) y adultos (EPQ-A).

Madrid: TEA.

Eysenck, S. B. G. (1965). Manual of the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press.

Eysenck, S. B. G., & Haapasalo, J. (1989). Cross-cultural comparisons of personality: Finland and England. Personality

and Individual Differences, 10, 121–125.

Felson, R. B., & Haynie, D. L. (2002). Pubertal development, social factors, and delinquency among adolescent boys.

Criminology, 40, 967–988.

Forrest, S., Lewis, C. A., & Shevlin, M. (2000). Examining the factor structure and differential functioning of

the Eysenck personality questionnaire revised––abbreviated. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 579–

588.

Francis, L. (1992). Is psychoticism really a dimension of personality fundamental to religiosity? Personality and


Francis, L. J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian neuroticism scales: A question of sex differences Personality and


Graber, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Is psychopathology associated with the

timing of pubertal development? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36,

1768–1776.

Hanin, Y., Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1991). A cross-cultural study of personality: Russia and

England. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 265–271.

Hayward, C., Killen, J. D., Wilson, D. M., Hammer, L. D., Litt, I. F., Kraemer, H. C., et al. (1997). Psychiatric risk

associated with early puberty in adolescent girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 36, 255–262.

Heaven, P. C. L., & Shochet, I. M. (1995). Dimensions of neuroticism: Relationships with gender and personality traits.

Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 33–37.

Kitamura, T., & Fujihara, S. (2003). Understanding personality traits from early life experiences. Psychiatry and

Clinical Neurosciences, 57, 323–331.

Laitinen-Krispijn, S., Van der Ende, J., Hazebroek-Kampschreur, A. A. J. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1999). Pubertal

maturation and the development of behavioural and emotional problems in early adolescence. Acta Psychiatrica

Scandinavica, 99, 16–25.

Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation

of the big five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73,

1517–1524.

Maiden, R. J., Peterson, S. A., Caya, M., & Hayslip, B. (2003). Personality changes in the old-old: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Adult Development, 10, 31–39.

Maltby, J., & Talley, M. (1998). The psychometric properties of an abbreviated form of the revised Junior Eysenck

Personality Questionnaire (JEPQR-A) among 12–15-year-old U.S. young persons. Personality and Individual

Differences, 24, 891–893.

Markey, C. N., Markey, P. M., & Tinsley, B. J. (2003). Personality, puberty, and preadolescent girls� risky behaviors:

Examining the predictive value of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,

405–419.

Martin, T., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1998). Gender differences on the EPQ-r and attitudes to work. Personality and Individual

Differences, 1, 1–5.

Martin, C. A., Kelly, T. H., Rayens, M. K., Brogli, B. R., Brenzel, A., Smith, W. J., et al. (2002). Sensation seeking,

puberty, and nicotine, alcohol, and marijuana use in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1495–1502.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De-Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality trait

development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83, 1456–1468.


McKenzie, J. (1988). An item-factor analysis of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (E.P.Q.): Will the real

personality factors stand up. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 801–810.

Nugent, J. K., & Brazelton, T. B. (2000). Preventive infant mental health: Uses of the Brazelton scale. In J. O. Osofsky

& H. E. Fitgerald (Eds.). WAIMH handbook of infant mental health (Vol. 2, pp. 159–202). New York: Wiley.

Roy, A. (2002). Childhood trauma and neuroticism as an adult: Possible implication for the development of the

common psychiatric disorders and suicidal behaviour. Psychological Medicine, 32, 1471–1474.

Shevlin, M., Bailey, F., & Adamson, G. (2002). Examining the factor structure and sources of differential functioning of

the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised––Abbreviated. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 479–487.

Shiner, R. L., Tellegen, A., & Masten, A. S. (2001). Exploring personality across childhood into adulthood: Can one

describe and predict a moving target? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 96–100.

Srivastasa, S., Jonh, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle

adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053.

Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth at adolescence: With a general consideration of the effects of hereditary and environmental

factors upon growth and maturation from birth to maturity. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Documents

Personality changes during adolescence: the role of gender and pubertal development