Trait Stability as a Noncontingent Truth

Numerous studies have yielded data consistent with the hypothesis that the `Big Five' personality traits are highly stable in adulthood. For McCrae and Costa, such findings suggest a need to significantly revise our understanding of adult personality development: stability, rather than change, appears to be the rule. The central purpose of the present essay is to demonstrate that McCrae and Costa's strong claims in favor of personality stability are not contingent upon any set of empirical observations. Rather, they necessarily follow from the acceptance of two related pre-empirical assumptions: (a) personality traits are transcontextual; and (b) revelations of the `true' personality structure must be reliable. If these propositions are accepted without qualification, then evidence inconsistent with the stability thesis can simply be attributed to the `inadequate' conceptualization or measurement of traits. Thus, McCrae and Costa's arguments in favor of personality stability are insensitive to falsification. Implications for researchers interested in the study of life-span personality development are discussed.