Philippe Verduyn and colleagues have shown us that even the way we interact with technology can have surprisingly deep effects on our feelings. It turns out that just passively scrolling through social media, like endlessly looking at friends' perfect vacation photos without really engaging, can actually chip away at our emotional well-being. This suggests that our habits, even the seemingly mindless ones, are constantly shaping who we are and how we feel. It makes you wonder how much of our 'true self' is actually set in stone.
Are Our Personalities Actually Fixed Like Rock?
For decades, the common wisdom has been that personality is something pretty stable - a core set of traits that define you from your early twenties right through to your nineties. We tend to think of ourselves as having a fixed operating system, a set of default settings that rarely change. But the research, particularly the kind that follows people over many years, is starting to paint a much more flexible picture. It suggests that while we have underlying tendencies, we are far more adaptable than we give ourselves credit for.
When scientists look at personality over long periods, they aren't just taking a snapshot; they are tracking the whole movie. This is where longitudinal studies come in - studies that follow the same group of people for years. These studies are crucial because they allow researchers to separate what is truly stable from what is just temporary fluctuation. One of the statistical tools used to analyze this is called random effects modeling. Simply put, this modeling helps researchers account for the fact that some people are naturally more consistent than others, while still allowing them to see how much of the change over time is due to external factors or internal shifts.
Consider the work by Andrew Bell and . When they used random effects modeling on time-series cross-sectional data, they were essentially trying to untangle the signal from the noise of human behavior over time. These methods are sophisticated ways of looking at patterns in data collected repeatedly from different individuals. The ability to model these 'fixed effects' versus 'random effects' is key because it helps researchers determine if a change in behavior is a permanent shift in personality or just a temporary reaction to a specific life event. The fact that these advanced statistical techniques are necessary highlights just how complex and non-linear human development really is.
It's not just personality, either. Our behaviors in specific environments can reveal more about us than we think. Normile (2018) (preliminary) conducted research suggesting that even something as mundane as where you choose to sit in a Starbucks - your behavioral choices in a public setting - can offer surprisingly rich data points about your underlying tendencies. This suggests that personality isn't just something we think we are; it's something we do, and those actions leave traceable patterns.
The concept of change is also being explored in relation to our intellectual pursuits. Keloharju, Knüpfer, and Müller (2022) looked at the mental health impact of pursuing advanced degrees, specifically PhD studies. Their findings indicated that while the process is stressful, the negative impact on mental health might be less severe than people assume, suggesting that the process of intense, long-term focus - a form of intense behavioral commitment - is manageable and perhaps even formative, rather than purely damaging. This speaks to the resilience of the human mind when faced with sustained, difficult goals.
Furthermore, our digital lives are showing us that our habits are powerful predictors of our well-being. The research by Philippe Verduyn, David Seungjae Lee, and demonstrated that the way we use platforms like Facebook matters immensely. They found that passive consumption - just scrolling and absorbing content without contributing - was linked to poorer affective well-being. This isn't a fixed trait; it's a behavioral pattern that, when repeated, has measurable consequences, suggesting that our immediate actions can steer our emotional field.
Even our relationships are subject to behavioral refinement. Rick (2025) (preliminary) suggests that the amount of knowledge we feel we should have about a partner's finances might actually be an overestimation. This implies that our expectations about how much we need to know about others - a form of relational self-definition - are often too rigid, and perhaps less fixed than we assume.
What Other Areas Show Flexibility?
The evidence isn't limited to social media or relationships. Our engagement with the broader world, including the digital infrastructure itself, shows signs of fluidity. Fordyce (2025) (preliminary) discusses the concept of the 'splinternet,' which points to the idea that the internet isn't a single, unified space but a collection of fragmented, sometimes incompatible parts. This fragmentation shows that the 'whole' digital experience - our assumed environment - is constantly being redefined by external forces, much like our own personalities can be redefined by experience.
This overall body of work suggests a shift in perspective: instead of viewing personality as a fixed statue, we should view it more like a highly adaptable, complex machine that is constantly being tuned by our environment, our habits, and our choices. The science is moving away from 'who you are' to 'what you are doing, and why.'
Practical Application: Engineering Self-Change
Understanding that personality is malleable moves the discussion from mere academic observation to actionable self-improvement. If traits like conscientiousness or emotional regulation can be influenced by consistent effort, how can an individual build a targeted "personality muscle"? The key lies in structured, repetitive behavioral interventions that force the brain to build new neural pathways associated with desired behaviors. This isn't about simply thinking differently; it's about doing differently until the doing becomes the default.
A highly effective protocol, drawing inspiration from behavioral activation principles, involves targeted exposure and structured self-monitoring. For someone aiming to increase their perceived level of 'openness to experience' - perhaps by becoming more adventurous or intellectually curious - a protocol could look like this:
- Goal Setting (Initial Phase): Identify one specific, measurable behavioral manifestation of the desired trait (e.g., instead of "be more open," the goal is "initiate conversation with a stranger in a novel setting at least twice a week").
- Exposure Frequency: Aim for 3-5 targeted exposures per week.
- Duration: Each exposure should last a minimum of 30 minutes to allow for meaningful interaction or engagement.
- The Core Protocol (The 'Doing'): Before each exposure, the individual must pre-plan the action and anticipate potential discomfort (e.g., fear of rejection). During the activity, they must actively employ a 'mindfulness check-in' every 15 minutes, asking: "What is the immediate, non-judgmental observation of my current feeling, and what is the smallest possible action I can take right now to move toward my goal?"
- Post-Activity Reflection (Crucial Step): Immediately after the exposure, spend 15 minutes journaling. Do not just list what happened. Analyze the gap between the desired action and the actual action. For example: "I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but I actually remained silent because I feared sounding foolish. Next time, I will commit to asking one follow-up question, regardless of how awkward it feels."
Consistency over intensity is paramount. A commitment of 30 minutes, three times a week, for at least eight weeks, focusing intensely on the gap between intention and action, is more potent than a single weekend marathon of forced behavior. This structured repetition builds the neural scaffolding for the new behavioral default.
What Remains Uncertain
While the evidence strongly supports personality plasticity, it is crucial to temper enthusiasm with scientific realism. The current understanding, while strong, operates within several significant limitations. Firstly, the influence of genetics remains a powerful, and often underestimated, moderator. Longitudinal studies can track change, but they cannot fully disentangle the baseline genetic predisposition from the learned behavioral modification. We are observing potential for change, not a guarantee of it.
Secondly, the "dose" of intervention is highly variable. What constitutes a sufficient intervention period or frequency differs vastly between individuals based on their initial baseline, motivation levels, and underlying psychological comorbidities. A standardized protocol, while helpful for illustration, risks oversimplification. Furthermore, the mechanisms of change - whether it is purely neuroplasticity, cognitive restructuring, or social reinforcement - are not fully mapped out. We lack definitive biomarkers to measure the depth of personality change versus mere behavioral mimicry.
Future research must focus on developing personalized, adaptive interventions. Instead of broad guidelines, we need predictive models that can assess an individual's optimal intervention schedule, combining genetic risk profiles with real-time behavioral data. More work is needed to differentiate between temporary coping mechanisms adopted during therapy and genuine, enduring shifts in core self-concept. Until then, the process remains highly demanding, requiring immense self-awareness and sustained commitment from the individual.
Core claims are supported by peer-reviewed research. Some practical applications extend beyond direct findings.
References
- Philippe Verduyn, David Seungjae Lee, . Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence.. Journal of Experimental Psychology General. DOI
- Andrew Bell, . Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data. Political Science Research and Methods. DOI
- . PhD Studies Hurt Mental Health, but Less than You Think. . DOI
- Normile D (2018). Your behavior in Starbucks may reveal more about you than you think. Science. DOI
- Rick S (2025). How much do you need to know about how your spouse spends money? Maybe less than you think. . DOI
- Fordyce R (2025). What is the 'splinternet'? Here's why the internet is less whole than you might think. . DOI
- Sauer-Zavala S (2025). Can you change your personality? Psychology research says yes, by tweaking what you think and do. . DOI
- (2011). The Tests are Less than Objective. Myths of Standardized Tests. DOI