Personality Resilience Following a Natural Disaster

Abstract

We examine changes in the Big Six personality markers (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience, and Honesty–Humility) before and after the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes in a longitudinal study of New Zealand residents (N = 3,914). Results show remarkable stability in personality, save for one exception: Those who were affected by the earthquakes evidenced a slight decrease in Emotional Stability over the 2-year test–retest period relative to those unaffected by the earthquakes. These findings indicate that most aspects of personality are resilient following a major natural disaster. The slight decrease in Emotional Stability, however, points to a possible increase in vulnerability to depression and anxiety for those affected by the earthquakes. Our study provides important insights into a central question about stability and change in personality following major life events.

Keywords

personality change Big Six disaster earthquake

The question of systematic personality change has captured considerable research interest over the years (Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008). Indeed, the scope and nature of personality change has been the subject of many reviews and meta-analyses (Ardelt, 2000; Ferguson, 2010; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Roberts, Walton, & Veichtbauer, 2006), as well as numerous empirical examinations (e.g., Anusic, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012; Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2011; Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012). This literature indicates that, while personality—typically examined from the framework of the Big Five or the Big Six (i.e., the HEXACO model—Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O); Ashton & Lee, 2007, 2009)—is remarkably stable across time, notable changes do occur over the life course (Anusic et al., 2012; Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Milojev, Osborne, Greaves, Barlow, & Sibley, 2013; Roberts et al., 2006; Specht et al., 2011; Wortman et al., 2012). A critical question arising from this research is under what conditions does change occur? Relatedly, to what extent is personality change due to developmental processes/maturation (McCrae et al., 2000) versus environmental pressures such as changing social roles and/or experiencing major life events (e.g., Löckenhoff et al., 2009; Roberts, Wood, & Smith, 2005)?

A common finding across the literature is that the effects of major life events on change in personality vary with respect to the types of events and personality dimensions in question. Specifically, research shows that domain-specific changes in personality correspond with various major life events including increases in Conscientiousness upon getting one’s first job (Specht et al., 2011), as well as increases in Neuroticism following self-reported experiences of adverse life events (Löckenhoff et al., 2009). In other words, though personality is typically stable across time, major life events can substantively alter people’s personality.

We present a novel contribution to the personality literature by examining changes in personality before and after experiencing a major natural disaster among a national sample. For obvious reasons, such investigations are rare. Indeed, extant studies of personality change versus resilience among the survivors of natural disasters often entail small-scale clinical investigations or rely on relatively small convenience samples (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991; Phifer, 1990). As such, our ability to assess stability and change in personality within a national sample following a natural disaster offers an important contribution to the literature.

We report analyses from a unique longitudinal data set comprising a national sample of New Zealand adults (N = 3,914). Critically, our sample includes a group of participants who were affected by a large-scale natural disaster that occurred in the middle of a 2-year test–retest period. Specifically, we assess changes in the Big Six (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability/Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Honesty–Humility) among people who were affected by the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes and use those unaffected by the earthquakes as baseline of comparison.

The Christchurch Earthquake and the Present Study

The city of Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region of New Zealand were shook by an M _w 6.3 earthquake on February 22, 2011. Tragically, 185 people were killed—some of whom remain unidentified (Source: New Zealand Police, website accessed: http://www.police.govt.nz/major-events/previous-major-events/christchurch-earthquake/list-deceased; Accessed December 11, 2013). In addition to the lives lost, a number of multistory buildings collapsed and much of the city’s power, water, and phone lines were destroyed. Indeed, the New Zealand Treasury indicates that about a third of the buildings in Christchurch were damaged beyond repair, resulting in an estimated rebuild cost of 20 billion New Zealand dollars (NZD; Source: New Zealand Treasury, website accessed: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/historic-earthquakes/page-13; http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/speech/07.htm; Retrieved December 11, 2013). In total, over 300,000 people were affected by the earthquake (Source: International Disaster Database, website accessed: http://www.emdat.be/result-country-profile; Retrieved December 11, 2013). Moreover, the 22 February event came on the heels of an earlier—and stronger (M _w 7.1), albeit nonfatal—earthquake that produced thousands of aftershocks that continue to shake the Canterbury region. In short, the 2010/2011 earthquakes placed an immensely stressful toll on the Christchurch community.

The current study is uniquely positioned to assess the effects of this disaster on people’s personality. Specifically, the data analyzed here are part of a larger national probability panel study—the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS)—that began in 2009 and reinterviewed participants at the end of 2011. As such, participants completed measures of personality (namely, the Mini-IPIP6; Sibley et al., 2011) both before and after the Christchurch earthquakes. This provides us with the rare opportunity to examine stability and change in personality following exposure to a major life event. Specifically, we assess the interaction between time and participants’ self-report of being affected by the earthquakes on their personality. Because self-report data can be problematic, we replicate our analyses with an objective measure of exposure to the earthquakes (i.e., whether participants lived in the Canterbury region before the earthquakes¹).

In accordance with the literature discussed previously, we expected that, to the extent that any changes in personality occur over a 2-year period, they will be small in magnitude. Given that exposure to adverse life events is associated with increases in Neuroticism (e.g., Löckenhoff et al., 2009) coupled with the conceptualization of Emotional Stability/Neuroticism as one’s responsiveness to (and resilience in the face of) situational stressors (DeYoung, 2010), we expected a slight decrease in Emotional Stability among those affected by the earthquakes. No other changes in personality were expected to occur across our two time points.

Method

Participants and Sampling Procedure

This report is based on data from 3,914 participants who completed both the 2009 (Time 1) and 2011 (Time 3) waves of the NZAVS.² The Time 1 NZAVS was completed by 6,518 participants randomly selected from the New Zealand Electoral Roll (response rate = 16.6%). Of these, 3,914 also participated at Time 3 (retention rate 60.0%). Variations in sample size reported subsequently are due to missing data.

The Time 1 and the retained longitudinal sample at Time 3 had a gender bias, with 2,414 (61.7%) women and 1,496 (38.3%) men responding to both time points. In contrast, 52% of adult New Zealand residents are women and 48% are men (Statistics New Zealand, 2006). The longitudinal sample was also more likely to include Europeans (n = 3,395, 86.7%) relative to 2006 census estimates (68.7%). In most other respects, the NZAVS was reasonably consistent with national population estimates. The mean age of participants in the retained sample was 50.31 in 2009 (SD = 15.045). Of the sample, 79.9% (n = 3,124) reported having been born in New Zealand, 44.3% (n = 1,733) identified as religious, 77.9% (n = 3,047) were parents, 72% (n = 2,814) were in a relationship, and 73% (n = 2,855) were employed. Of the retained sample, 20.9% reported no formal education (n = 816), 28.3% reported having some high school education (n = 1,106), 16% reported working toward a diploma or a certificate (n = 624), 24.4% reported an undergraduate degree (n = 955), and 10.5% reported a postgraduate degree (n = 409).³ Detailed information about the NZAVS sample statistics for each wave and comparisons with census data are available upon request or on-line (http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-research/research-groups/new-zealand-attitudes-and-values-study/nzavs-tech-docs.html).

Of the retained sample, 21.4% (n = 838) reported being personally affected by the 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes, whereas 77.6% (n = 3,034) indicated they were unaffected (1%, n = 38 did not respond to this question). As for the objective indicator of exposure to the earthquakes, 13.5% (n = 529) of the retained sample resided in the Canterbury region. Descriptive summaries for the retained sample are presented in Table 1. Additional descriptive summaries comparing Cantabrians with non-Cantabrians are available upon request. With the exception of ethnicity (i.e., 86% of the non-Cantabrians were European, whereas 93% of the Cantabrians were European), the two subsamples had remarkably similar demographic characteristics. Nevertheless, our analyses adjusted for demographic covariates.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for the Full Sample.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
1. Extraversion T1
2. Extraversion T2	.738*
3. Agreeableness T1	.215*	.165*
4. Agreeableness T2	.166*	.199*	.588*
5. Conscientiousness T1	.011	.018	.144*	.126*
6. Conscientiousness T2	.026	.075*	.113*	.213*	.682*
7. Emotional Stability T1	.096*	.070*	.035*	.027	.120*	.114*
8. Emotional Stability T2	.086*	.113*	.031	.086*	.133*	.183*	.627*
9. Openness T1	.245*	.193*	.221*	.158*	.016	−.009	.022	.007
10. Openness T2	.210*	.229*	.166*	.249*	−.017	.047*	.018	.019	.648*
11. Honesty–Humility T1	−.091*	−.082*	.157*	.152*	.091*	.082*	.199*	.154*	.022	.003
12. Honesty–Humility T2	−.096*	−.106*	.159*	.205*	.069*	.096*	.144*	.159*	.021	.041*	.705*
13. Gender	−.064*	−.058*	−.293*	−.296*	−.102*	−.095*	.136*	.103*	.012	.030	−.127*	−.133*
14. Age	−.081*	−.091*	−.003	−.022	.076*	.056*	.180*	.154*	−.163*	−.160*	.221*	.217*	.121*
15. Socioeconomic status	−.026	−.038*	−.037*	−.046*	−.054*	−.069*	−.060*	−.071*	−.009	−.038*	−.052*	−.057*	−.022	−.018
16. Ethnicity	.012	.013	.043*	.058*	−.024	−.027	.011	.025	.015	.054*	.138*	.142*	−.032*	.084*	−.175*
17. Immigration status	−.004	−.024	−.003	.000	−.026	−.041*	−.006	−.014	−.043*	−.048*	.010	−.002	−.036*	−.061*	.039*	.133*
18. Religiosity	.008	.023	.121*	.090*	.061*	.064*	.028	.031	−.051*	−.057*	.067*	.049*	−.066*	.196*	.020	−.123*	−.056*
19. Parent	.003	.034*	.001	−.007	.078*	.066*	.100*	.075*	−.119*	−.109*	.084*	.078*	.023	.419*	−.011	.019	−.012	.095*
20. Relationship	.001	.036*	−.046*	−.021	.055*	.063*	.032*	.034*	−.051*	−.031	.048*	.044*	.112*	.060*	−.174*	.050*	−.038*	−.040*	.297*
21. Employment	.070*	.069*	.001	.034*	−.019	.006	−.018	−.022	.102*	.115*	−.098*	−.098*	.030	−.399*	−.094*	−.020	.010	−.098*	−.130*	.085*
22. Education	.029	.023	.120*	.142*	.005	.024	−.001	−.001	.215*	.223*	.077*	.092*	−.093*	−.179*	−.174*	.069*	−.081*	.000	−.089*	.066*	.206*
Mean	4.00	3.91	5.30	5.28	5.16	5.09	4.62	4.62	4.75	4.72	5.21	5.17	.38	50.31	4.82	.87	.80	.45	.78	.73	.75	−.25
SD	1.16	1.12	.97	.93	1.05	1.00	1.10	1.13	1.11	1.09	1.30	1.25	.49	15.05	2.79	.34	.40	.50	.42	.45	.44	1.31

Note. SD = standard deviation. N = 3,914.The test–retest correlations over the 2-year period for the personality variables are highlighted in bold.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Questionnaire Measures

The Mini-IPIP6 (Sibley et al., 2011) is a 24-item personality measure containing the 20 items developed by Goldberg (1999) and included in Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas’s (2006) original Mini-IPIP. Four items were added to this scale to index Honesty–Humility. Two of these items were adapted from Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman’s (2004) Narcissism scale, whereas the remaining 2 items were adapted from Ashton and Lee’s (2009) HEXACO measure of Honesty–Humility. The items assessing Neuroticism were reverse coded for this study to capture levels of Emotional Stability. Items from each scale were averaged to reflect each of the six personality dimensions in the Big Six.

The Mini-IPIP6 was administered with the following instructions: “This part of the questionnaire measures your personality. Please circle the number that best represents how accurately each statement describes you.” Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very accurate). Extraversion items included “Am the life of the party”; “Don’t talk a lot” (reverse scored); “Keep in the background” (reverse scored); “Talk to a lot of different people at parties” (α_{Time 1} = .71, α_{Time 3} = .75). Agreeableness items included “Sympathize with others’ feelings”; “Am not interested in other people’s problems” (reverse scored); “Feel others’ emotions”; “Am not really interested in others” (reverse scored; α_{Time 1} = .66, α_{Time 3} = .69). Conscientiousness items included “Get chores done right away”; “Like order”; “Make a mess of things” (reverse scored); “Often forget to put things back in their proper place” (reverse scored; α_{Time 1} = .65, α_{Time 3} = .65). Emotional Stability items included “Am relaxed most of the time”; “Have frequent mood swings” (reverse scored); “Seldom feel blue”; “Get upset easily” (reverse scored; α_{Time 1} = .64, α_{Time 3} = .72). Openness to Experience items included “Have a vivid imagination”; “Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas” (reverse scored); “Do not have a good imagination” (reverse scored); “Am not interested in abstract ideas” (reverse scored; α_{Time 1} = .67, α_{Time 3} = .70). Honesty–Humility items included “Would like to be seen driving around in a very expensive car”; “Would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods”; “Feel entitled to more of everything”; “Deserve more things in life” (all reverse scored; α_{Time 1} = .78, α_{Time 3} = .77).

Participants were also asked whether they were “ … personally affected by the Christchurch earthquakes” (Yes/No). Finally, the questionnaire assessed relevant demographics including gender (0 = female, 1 = male), age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity (0 = minority group, 1 = majority group), immigration status (0 = born overseas, 1 = born in New Zealand), religiosity (0 = not religious, 1 = religious), parental status (0 = no children, 1 = at least one child), relationship status (0 = single, 1 = in relationship), employment (0 = unemployed, 1 = employed), and education (ordinal ranging from −2 none reported to 2 postgraduate study). Socioeconomic status was assessed using a measure of neighborhood deprivation of the participants residential area (NZDep2006; see Salmond, Crampton, & Atkinson, 2007), with scores ranging from 1 (most affluent) to 10 (most deprived).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all of the Big Six personality dimensions, as well as our demographic covariates, are presented in Table 1. As shown here, the rank order stability estimates for the 2-year period range from .58 and above. While these are somewhat lower than the stability estimates reported elsewhere, these estimates indicate that personality is highly stable over a 2-year period.⁴

To test our hypotheses, we conducted multiple mixed design repeated measures analyses of covariance assessing change in each of the Mini-IPIP6 subscale scores. In doing so, we controlled for the effects of our demographic covariates including gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, immigration status, religiosity, parental status, relationship status, employment, and education. Consistent with the view that personality is stable over time, these analyses revealed no significant main effects of time on changes in personality across the six personality dimensions (p > .05). Likewise, no significant main effects of being affected by the earthquakes (vs. not having been affected) were observed for mean personality levels when averaging across the two assessment periods (p > .05).

The hypothesized interaction between time and self-report of being affected by the earthquakes was, however, observed for Emotional Stability, F(1, 3,552) = 9.422, p = .002, η² _p = .003. Specifically, those who were affected by the earthquake showed a slight decrease in trait-level Emotional Stability from Time 1 (M = 4.596, standard error [SE] = .039) to Time 3 (M = 4.514, SE = .040; estimated 95% confidence intervals [CIs] for the mean difference = [−.027, .192]; d = .075). Conversely, those who were unaffected by the earthquake showed a slight increase in Emotional Stability from Time 1 (M = 4.611, SE = .020) to Time 3 (M = 4.648, SE = .021; estimated 95% CIs for the mean difference = [−.093, .019]; d = −.035). Although the former effect is small in magnitude, the decrease in Emotional Stability associated with being affected by the Christchurch earthquake demonstrates that environmental events can substantively alter domain-specific personality dimensions. Figure 1 highlights changes (or lack thereof) in the six personality variables under examination.

Figure 1.

Mean scores (with 95% confidence intervals) showing the small magnitudes of the interaction effects observed for the main analysis.

In order to replicate our analyses using an objective measure of participants’ exposure to the Christchurch earthquakes, we compared responses from people living in the Canterbury region in 2009 with those who were living in other regions of New Zealand. These analyses revealed results comparable to those reported previously. Specifically, there were no significant main effects of time on each of the six personality dimensions (p > .05). Likewise, living in the Canterbury region (vs. other regions of New Zealand) was unassociated with mean levels of personality averaging across the two assessment periods (p > .05). There was, however, the predicted interaction between time and participants’ residence on Emotional Stability, F(1, 3587) = 4.465, p = .035, η² _p = .001. Cantabrians experienced a mean-level decrease in Emotional Stability from 2009 (M = 4.624, SE = .049) to 2011 (M = 4.548, SE = .051; estimated 95% CIs for the mean difference = [−.063, .251]; d = .069), whereas those living in other areas of the country maintained comparable levels of Emotional Stability across time points (M = 4.608, SE = .019 and M = 4.632, SE = .020, for 2009 and 2011, respectively; estimated 95% CIs for the mean difference = [−.078, .030]; d = .022). Though the interaction between time and area of residence on Emotional Stability was slightly smaller than the interaction between time and self-reported measure of being affected by the earthquakes (η² _p = .001 vs. η² _p = .003, respectively), both of the predicted interactions were statistically significant.⁵

Exploratory Cross-Lag Models

We conducted additional exploratory analyses predicting Time 3 Emotional Stability from participants’ gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, immigration status, religiosity, parental status, relationship status, employment, and education after adjusting for Time 1 Emotional Stability. This model therefore tested the extent to which each demographic factor predicted unique variance in residualized change in Emotional Stability. As with our prior analyses, we tested two versions of this model, each of which included one of our two indicators of subjective or objective exposure to the earthquakes. As shown in Table 2, the only demographic factors with a significant effect (beyond that of being affected by the earthquake or living in the affected area) included the positive effect of age (β = .054 and β = .051 for the two models) and the negative effect of neighborhood deprivation (β = −.032 for both models). That is, age was associated with a slight increase in Emotional Stability over the 2 years, whereas living in more deprived neighborhoods was associated with a decrease in Emotional Stability.

Table 2.

Cross-Lagged Demographic Models Predicting Residual Change in Emotional Stability in 2011.

	B	SE	β	t
Subjective assessment of earthquake exposure
2009 Emotional stability	.640*	.014	.621	46.692
Affected by the earthquakes (0 = no, 1 = yes)	−.125*	.036	−.045	−3.501
Gender	.012	.031	.005	.383
Age	.004*	.001	.054	3.291
Socioeconomic status	−.013*	.005	−.032	−2.393
Ethnic group	.027	.046	.008	.595
Immigration status	−.011	.037	−.004	−.297
Religious status	.017	.030	.008	.565
Parental status	−.034	.041	−.012	−.811
Relationship	.016	.036	.006	.430
Employment	.020	.038	.008	.537
Education	.009	.012	.010	.750
Objective assessment of earthquake exposure
2009 Emotional stability	.640*	.014	.621	46.916
Resided in Canterbury region 2009 (0 = no, 1 = yes)	−.093	.043	−.028	−2.175
Gender	.010	.031	.004	0.334
Age	.004*	.001	.051	3.120
Socioeconomic status	−.013*	.005	−.032	−2.343
Ethnic group	.034	.046	.010	0.754
Immigration status	−.013	.037	−.004	−0.338
Religious status	.019	.030	.008	0.631
Parental status	−.034	.041	−.013	−0.834
Relationship	.020	.036	.008	0.543
Employment	.021	.038	.008	0.559
Education	.009	.012	.010	0.734

*p < .05.

We also explored the possible effects participants’ initial levels of personality had on Emotional Stability at Time 3, after controlling for Emotional Stability at Time 1 and earthquake exposure. The separate regression models using our two indicators of earthquake exposure are presented in Table 3. Both models show that initial levels of Extraversion (β = .039 for the subjective assessment and β = .037 for the objective assessment), Conscientiousness (β = .058 for both models), and Honesty–Humility (β = .028 for the subjective assessment, and β = .028 for the objective assessment) were associated with increases in Emotional Stability after the earthquakes. These findings indicate that these three personality dimensions may constitute a protective personality profile that is resilient due to natural disasters. These analyses are, however, exploratory and beyond the scope of the present article. As such, future research should aim to replicate these findings before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Table 3.

Cross-Lagged Personality Models Predicting Residual Change in Emotional Stability in 2011.

	B	SE	β	t
Subjective assessment of earthquake exposure
2009 Emotional Stability	.631*	.013	.612	47.100
Affected by the Earthquakes (0 = no, 1 = yes)	−.129*	.035	−.047	−3.729
2009 Extraversion	.038*	.013	.039	2.881
2009 Agreeableness	−.008	.016	−.007	−.517
2009 Conscientiousness	.062*	.014	.058	4.517
2009 Openness to Experience	−.015	.013	−.015	−1.155
2009 Honesty–Humility	.025*	.012	.028	2.153
Objective assessment of earthquake exposure
2009 Emotional Stability	.630*	.013	.611	47.160
Resided in Canterbury region 2009 (0 = no, 1 = yes)	−.098*	.041	−.030	−2.356
2009 Extraversion	.036*	.013	.037	2.747
2009 Agreeableness	−.006	.016	−.005	−.364
2009 Conscientiousness	.063*	.014	.058	4.578
2009 Openness to Experience	−.017	.013	−.017	−1.287
2009 Honesty–Humility	.027*	.011	.031	2.385

*p < .05.

Discussion

The earthquakes that shook Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region in late 2010 and early 2011 left a mark of devastation in the area and affected the whole country. The disaster and it’s aftermath had an undeniable effect on Cantabrians, and indeed affected people from all across New Zealand in different ways. Indeed, previous research has shown that the earthquakes produced an increase in people’s tendency to identify as religious (Sibley & Bulbulia, 2012), while also suggesting that baseline levels of Emotional Stability provided a protective barrier against mental health decrements among the survivors (Osborne & Sibley, 2013). The current study adds to this literature by examining the fundamental effect that such a large-scale natural disaster has on survivors’ personalities. This is an important investigation that provides critical insight into the impetus behind personality change (Löckenhoff et al., 2009; McCrae et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2005).

Our findings indicate that personality is (by and large) unaffected by exposure to catastrophic events such as the Christchurch earthquakes. Indeed, the only change found over the 2-year test–retest period was a slight decrease in Emotional Stability among those affected (vs. unaffected) by the disaster. It is important to note that the estimated effect sizes were very small, which demonstrates that personality is remarkably stable—even among those affected by the earthquakes. In fact, the test–retest correlations for all of the personality dimensions were .58 or higher. These findings indicate reasonably high levels of stability, though they are slightly lower than previous reports that use advanced modeling techniques (e.g., Milojev et al., 2013). The somewhat lower stability estimates generated here are likely due to measurement error, as we used manifest personality variables (see Ferguson, 2010) derived from a short-form scale.

To the extent that personality changed, it was localized to the specific dimension most relevant to the given event, namely, Emotional Stability/Neuroticism (i.e., the personality dimension associated with stress and reactivity to threat). This finding is in line with previous research showing domain-specific effects of major life events on mean-level personality change including increased levels of Neuroticism in response to aversive life events (e.g., Löckenhoff et al., 2009). Our findings thus contribute to a long-standing discussion about the malleability of personality associated with maturation, environmental and social influences, and transactional processes (e.g., Roberts et al., 2006).

Future Directions and Limitations

The time interval between assessment periods in this investigation allowed us to examine change in personality before and after the earthquakes. Nevertheless, we were unable to investigate the potential long-term consequences of the earthquakes on mean levels of personality. For instance, previous research has indicated that individual difference variables such as life satisfaction can show dynamic change patterns whereby, after an initial change, they return to baseline levels after several years (e.g., Lucas, 2007). Furthermore, recent analyses by Ogle, Rubin, and Siegler (2013) indicate that Neuroticism does not exhibit meaningful longitudinal change in association with trauma exposure. In considering such evidence, the most relevant discrepancy between our study and prior research is the much longer test–retest period used by these researchers—about 8 years—compared to our 2-year test–retest period (Ogle, Rubin, & Siegler, 2013). It might, therefore, be the case that the changes we observed in Emotional Stability represent a temporary reactive effect. Specifically, longitudinal follow-ups might find that, after the salience of the earthquakes has decreased, mean levels of Emotional Stability among survivors return may to their baseline levels. Similarly, the personality dimensions that exhibited no change may show delayed effects of the earthquakes in the following years. Differential development trajectories of personality might also be exhibited between those affected and those unaffected by the earthquakes. Such investigations are crucial for our understanding of personality. Thus, our study points to the need for longitudinal follow-ups that allow for the estimation of long-term development trajectories.

A related consideration arising from our findings regards the issues of personality styles associated with vulnerability to anxiety and depression—particularly (a) dependency and self-criticism and (b) sociotropy and autonomy (Beck, 1983; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Zuroff, Mongrian, & Santor, 2004). These personality variables are associated with the Big Five personality dimensions, particularly Neuroticism/Emotional Stability (Zuroff, 1994). Therefore, our finding that being affected by the earthquakes was associated with a decrease in Emotional Stability suggests that survivors may be at an increased risk of developing a personality-based vulnerability to depression. On a positive note, our exploratory analyses indicated that Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Honesty–Humility protected participants from decreases in Emotional Stability following exposure to a natural disaster. These possibilities further highlight the need to pursue longitudinal follow-ups that investigate the developmental trajectories of Emotional Stability, as they relate to the mental health of survivors (e.g., Osborne & Sibley, 2013).

Concluding Comments

This report makes an important contribution to the study of personality processes and change, as well as providing useful information about possible long-term changes in the well-being of Cantabrians (and survivors of other natural disasters). We hope that our findings will provide a message to the survivors of the devastating Christchurch earthquakes. The message is this: Many aspects of people’s core personality—at least those aspects that personality psychologists use to describe people—remained unchanged in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. While the devastation and turmoil caused by the earthquakes undoubtedly affected many aspects of people’s lives and many other aspects of their psychology (such as stress and anxiety, and also likely for many, potential concerns about the time frame for decisions provided by the Earthquake commission), people’s core personality remained largely unchanged. Indeed, our data indicate that the broadest and most central aspects of people’s personality remained—and we hope will continue to remain—resilient among those affected by the Christchurch earthquakes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant (ID: 0077).

Notes

References

Anusic

Lucas

R. E.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2012). Cross-sectional age differences in personality: Evidence from nationally representative samples from Switzerland and the United States. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 116–120.

Ardelt

(2000). Still stable after all these years? Personality stability theory revisited. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 392–405.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.

Beck

A. T.

(1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In Clayton

P. J.

Barrett

J. E.

(Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York, NY: Raven Press.

Blatt

S. J.

Zuroff

D. C.

(1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes for depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 527–562.

Campbell

W. K.

Bonacci

J. K.

Shelton

Exline

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2010). Toward a theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 26–33.

Donnellan

M. B.

Oswald

F. L.

Baird

B. M.

Lucas

R. E.

(2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.

10.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2010). A meta-analysis of normal and disordered personality across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 659–667.

11.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde

Deary

De Fruyt

Ostendorf

(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

12.

Löckenhoff

C. R.

Terraciano

Bienvenu

Patriciu

N. S.

Nestadt

McCrae

Eaton

W. W.

Costa

P. T.

Jr . (2009). Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in five-factor model personality traits in an urban sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 53–59.

13.

Lucas

R. E.

(2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75–79.

14.

Lucas

R. E.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861.

15.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr Ostendorf

Angleitner

Høebíčková

Avia

M. D.

… Smith

P. B.

(2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.

16.

Milojev

Osborne

Greaves

L. M.

Barlow

F. K.

Sibley

C. G.

(2013). The mini-IPIP6: Tiny yet highly stable markers of big six personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 936–944.

17.

Mischel

Shoda

(1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.

18.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

19.

Nolen-Hoeksema

Morrow

(1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 115–121.

20.

Ogle

M. C.

Rubin

D. C.

Siegler

I. C.

(2013). Changes in neuroticism following trauma exposure. Journal of Personality, 82, 93–102.

21.

Osborne

Sibley

C. G.

(2013). After the disaster: Using the Big Five to predict changes in mental health among survivors of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Disaster Prevention and Management, 22, 456–466.

22.

Phifer

J. F.

(1990). Psychological distress and somatic symptoms after natural disaster: Differential vulnerability among older adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 412–420.

23.

Roberts

B. W.

DelVecchio

W. F.

(2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.

24.

Roberts

B. W.

Wood

Caspi

(2008). The development of personality traits in adulthood. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 375–398). New York, NY: Guilford.

25.

Roberts

B. W.

Wood

Smith

J. L.

(2005). Evaluating Five factor Theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 166–184.

26.

Roberts

B. W.

Walton

K. E.

Viechtbauer

(2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.

27.

Salmond

Crampton

Atkinson

(2007). NZDep2006 index of deprivation. Wellington, New Zealand: University of Otago (Department of Public Health). Retrieved from http://www.wnmeds.ac.nz/academic/dph/research/socialindicators.html

28.

Sibley

C. G.

Bulbulia

(2012). Faith after an earthquake: A longitudinal study of religion and perceived health before and after the 2011 Christchurch New Zealand earthquake. PLoS One, 7, e4948.

29.

Sibley

C. G.

Luyten

Purnomo

Moberly

Wootton

L. W.

Hammond

M. D.

… Robertson

(2011). The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 142–159.

30.

Specht

Egloff

Scmukle

S. C.

(2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events in mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.

31.

Statistics New Zealand (2006). 2006 Census QuickStats about national highlights. Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats.aspx

32.

Wortman

Lucas

R. E.

Donnellan

M. B.

(2012). Stability and change in the Big Five personality domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and Aging, 27, 867–874.

33.

Zuroff

D. C.

(1994). Depressive personality styles and the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 253–265.

34.

Zuroff

D. C.

Mongrian

Santor

D. A.

(2004). Conceptualizing and measuring personality vulnerability to depression: Comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 489–511.