EXPLORING CHARACTERISTICS AND PREDICTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LACK OF DESIRE FOR VOLITIONAL PERSONALITY CHANGE By Lindsay S. Ackerman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology – Master of Arts 2025 ABSTRACT Personality research has recently seen an increasing interest in volitional personality change—whether people can change their personality by their own will if they desire to do so. However, there exists a paucity of research regarding those who do not want to change. Further, evidence suggests the way researchers measure volitional personality change seeking (e.g., asking about desires versus goals) is important in estimation of change endorsement. The current thesis examined these issues further. First, I took an exploratory approach to examine the distribution of change seeking and whether there are individuals who truly do not want to change on any trait. I found that there are indeed individuals who report no change seeking, and the frequency of endorsement for change seeking depends on whether participants are asked about change desires or goals, and at the general or trait level. Second, I investigated the reasons individuals do or do not seek change. Participants largely reported not seeking change due to contentment with themselves, whereas those who did seek change reported doing so given low self-esteem, happiness, and life satisfaction. Third, I tested whether certain characteristics were associated with lack of change seeking, finding an association with higher socially desirable trait levels, self-esteem, unconditional positive self-regard, life satisfaction, perceived change difficulty, and lower vulnerable narcissism and expected success. Fourth, to address shared method bias and integrate an additional measurement approach, I explored these same associations using informant reports of whether targets should and want to change, finding that informant reports made similar predictions as self-reports. This study provides novel insight into reasons individuals seek or do not seek personality change and attributes associated with (lack of) change seeking, and highlights the importance of question framing when asking about volitional personality change. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my academic mentor, Dr. Richard E. Lucas, for his valuable guidance and perspective on this project. Further, I thank Drs. William J. Chopik and Andrew Rakhshani for their assistance with data collection and coding in the pilot study. Finally, thank you to my thesis committee members (Drs. Richard E. Lucas, William J. Chopik, and M. Brent Donnellan) for their insight and support through this process. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 58 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 59 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 66 iv Introduction Personality psychologists have long been interested in personality change. Researchers have accumulated evidence over the decades that personality can indeed change throughout the lifespan (Bleidorn et al., 2022; Caspi et al., 2005) and they have investigated which factors (e.g., genes, maturity, life events) impact these changes (Bühler et al., 2023, Caspi et al., 2005). As knowledge of personality change has evolved, the field has become increasingly interested in volitional personality change—whether people can change their personality by their own will if they desire to do so. Researchers have begun to explore whether people want to change in this way, whether they can indeed change, on which traits and in which directions people seek change, and what methods are useful in helping people experience change (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Hudson & Roberts, 2014; Roberts et al., 2017; Rokeach, 1985; Stieger et al., 2021). However, research is scarce regarding those who do not seek change. In the present study, I explored this population further, investigating the frequency of lack of change-seeking endorsement, reasons individuals do not seek personality change, and (self- and informant- reported) attributes associated with not seeking change. A brief overview: Volitional personality change Do people want to change personality traits? Past research has proposed that many individuals believe self-characteristics can indeed change (Dweck, 2008). Work in personality change specifically has found that most people report trying to change some aspect of their personality (Baranski et al., 2021). For example, Robinson et al. (2015) found that no less than 56 – 72% of college students had a goal to increase in extraversion, conscientiousness, and/or openness, or to decrease in neuroticism. Similarly, Hudson and Roberts (2014), found that 87 – 97% of respondents desired to increase in different personality traits (e.g., 87% wanted to 1 increase in extraversion, 95% in conscientiousness, the remaining three traits fell in between). Notably, though the current literature is clear that a desire to change at least some aspect of personality is normative, it is less clear whether some people wish to remain unchanged on all parts of their personality. Past research has found that for any given trait there are individuals who express no goal to change (Hudson & Roberts, 2014), but it is unclear whether any of these individuals also expressed no goal to change on the other traits as well. Robinson et al. (2015) provides a bit more insight into this question, reporting that 4.8% of their sample reported no goal to change personality at all (across all five traits). Why might people want to change personality traits? Past theorists have proposed that those who do want to change personality may do so for extrinsic, external purposes, or intrinsic, self-directed purposes (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Hudson & Fraley, 2017). For example, people may seek change to attain a desired external outcome, such as an increase in conscientiousness to improve grades. Or, people may seek change for completely autonomous, intrinsic reasons, such as simply to attain a desired trait as an end in itself (Hennecke et al., 2014). Similarly, researchers conducting work on value change have proposed that individuals may seek change when engaging in egoless self-confrontation, whereby they may consider their values free of self-presentation concerns. If individuals are dissatisfied with this self-review, they then begin the process of change (Rokeach, 1985). Relatedly, Higgins (1987) theorized that negative emotions arise when individuals experience a discrepancy between their actual (attributes they believe they do have) and ideal (attributes they would like to possess) selves. Changing personality traits to better align the actual self with the ideal self may provide a means to reduce these negative feelings (see also Jackson & Wright, 2024). Notably, though past research 2 provides theoretical reasons individuals may want to change personality, no study to date has explicitly asked individuals why they do or do not seek change. How do people want to change personality? Regardless of the motivation, research has found that people generally want to increase in socially desirable traits that they believe they lack. For example, higher extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability are generally seen as socially desirable (Dunlop et al., 2012; Wortman & Wood, 2011). Numerous personality change studies have found that those who self-report lower levels of these traits tend to seek to increase in them (Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Hudson & Roberts, 2014; Miller et al., 2019; Miller, 2022). Notably though, those who are at the extreme high end of socially desirable traits may wish to change in the opposite direction (e.g., become less extraverted), given extreme trait levels can be seen as less desirable (Borkenau et al., 2009; Deng et al., 2021; Miller, 2022). Associations with seeking personality change. Research investigating the characteristics of those who seek personality change (beyond self-reported personality traits) is still nascent, though recent work has found that attributes such as lower levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, subjective happiness, and well-being are associated with seeking personality change (Baranski et al., 2021; Gander & Wagner, 2023; Hudson & Roberts, 2014, Quintus et al., 2017). Additionally, there has not been much research regarding how the perceived difficulty of the personality change process may impact personality change seeking. Past work in goal pursuit suggests perceived feasibility is a necessary factor in establishing a goal (Moskowitz & Grant, 2009). Indeed, recent theorists have proposed that individuals will indicate wanting to change personality to the extent they deem the change feasible and important (Hennecke et al., 2014). However, tests of this theoretical framework in personality change are scarce. Lücke et al. (2020) 3 found that perceived goal difficulty was not associated with self-reported trait change. Importantly though, it is not clear from this literature whether perceived goal difficulty predicts a desire or goal to change in the first place, as opposed to an actual experienced change. Relatedly, the literature is also scarce regarding the impact of entity orientation (e.g., believing people can or cannot change) on change seeking, though theories suggest that this is a mechanism underlying personality change seeking (Jackson & Wright, 2024). If entity orientation is important in determining whether individuals will seek personality change, those who have a fixed entity orientation (i.e., do not believe people can change) may expect less success in a personality change endeavor. Indeed, broad theories of self-efficacy support the idea that people will report personality change goals to the extent that they expect they will successfully reach their goals, despite their difficulty (Bandura, 2013; Huang, 2016). The utility of informant report measures. Additionally, personality psychology has accumulated a wealth of knowledge regarding others’ perceptions of a target’s personality. Informants offer information about a target’s personality above and beyond that of a self-report, providing a more wholistic picture of the target (Kolar et al., 1996; Vazire, 2010, Vazire & Carlson, 2011). Related to personality change seeking specifically, prior work has found that others’ assessments of target personality traits can predict how strong the target’s change goal is, particularly when the self and other reports agree that the target’s trait level is low (Quintus et al., 2017). However, though research exists on the predictive capacity of informant ratings of target personality traits, we do not know much about how others’ perceptions of the target (outside of their Big-Five personality traits) may be related to the target’s self-disclosed change seeking. Informant reports also allow for a multi-method assessment of variables. When employing multiple methods of measurement, researchers can better account for confounds introduced by a 4 single-method approach, thereby strengthening the study’s findings (Shadish et al, 2002). In employing both self- and informant-reports, researchers may not only benefit from the additional perspective, but also the additional method. Change desires versus change goals. Finally, evidence suggests that the way researchers measure volitional personality change is consequential (Baranski et al., 2025; Miller, 2022). For example, as noted earlier, Hudson and Roberts (2014) found 87 – 97% of respondents desired to change personality traits. Robinson et al. (2015) found that 56 – 72% expressed goals to change. In a recent pilot study conducted by the current author (further reported in the present study’s Supplemental Materials), 32% of participants reported they would change their personality. Thus, though studies tend to find that most people express personality change seeking, there is wide variation among estimates of change desire frequency. In the present study, I explored whether this variation may be attributed to subtle differences in question wording—namely, framing questions to ask about change desires versus change goals. Change desires and change goals have been largely interchangeable in the volitional personality change literature. However, these are not one and the same. Desires may be a necessary element for goal-directed behavior but are not necessarily equal to goals (Dignum et al., 2002; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). In fact, desires may be contrary to goals rather than align with them (Hofmann & Nordgren, 2015)—such as when one has a desire to sleep in but a goal to wake up early, or a desire to finish a pint of ice cream despite the goal to cut back on sugar. Further, prior literature has conceptualized goals as requiring both desirability and feasibility (Moskowitz & Grant, 2009). Consider one proposed definition for goals: “subjectively desirable [emphasis added] states of affairs that the individual intends to attain through action” (Kruglanski, 1996, p. 29). Thus, if a goal requires desire as a precursor, it cannot be the case that 5 a goal is a desire. Along these same lines, it may also be the case that one can have a desire that has not manifested into active goal-directed behavior, given goal pursuit requires more effort (Bayuk, 2015; Von Kriegstein, 2017). It is important to distinguish between goals and desires as there may be meaningful differences in outcomes associated with holding personality change desires versus personality change goals. The Present Study Aim 1: Change-seeking frequency. Though the literature surrounding volitional personality change is growing, there still exists a paucity of research concerning those who don’t want to change personality. As such, the first aim of the present work was to investigate further the distribution of personality change seeking, including whether individuals exist who report no change desire or goal on any trait. Though past work has shown seeking this change is common (e.g., Hudson & Roberts, 2014), it may not be ubiquitous. This is worth investigating further as there may be important differences between those who do and do not want to change their personality. It may be the case that very few people will not want to change on any aspect of their personality, yet some of these individuals will likely exist (e.g., Robinson et al., 2015). My analysis of this question was exploratory. Notably, I also assessed each study question from the perspective of change desires and change goals. As noted earlier, the current literature tends to use these terms interchangeably, but past work suggests the terms may have different implications (Dignum et al., 2002; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). For the first study aim, I hypothesized that participants would endorse change desires more than change goals, given the increased effort required to pursue a goal (H1). (Note all hypotheses are also outlined in Table 1.) Aim 2: Change/no change reasons. The second aim of this study was to explore reasons why those who express a lack of change seeking do so. I expected that participants 6 would endorse reasons for their lack of change seeking that followed from the previously outlined literature on those who do seek personality change. Specifically, I hypothesized that individuals may not want to change for the following reasons (H2a): 1. They are content with who they are. This contentment may manifest in multiple ways: a. Satisfying levels of socially desirable traits: As noted earlier, people generally want to change socially desirable traits that they lack (Hudson & Roberts, 2014). It follows then that people may not want to change if they do not perceive themselves to lack a given trait. Thus, I hypothesized that reporting higher levels of socially desirable traits (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability; Dunlop et al., 2012) would be associated with both a decreased desire and goal for personality change. b. Contentment with self: If people want to change to attain a desired outcome (Hennecke et al., 2014), the reverse may also be true—that people will not want to change if they have no desired outcome to pursue (i.e., they are content with their current state). Those who recognize that their traits deviate from the socially desirable level, or recognize any other personality imperfection, may not seek change because they are happy with who they are despite flaws. Still, others may express lack of change seeking because they are happy with themselves but give no indication of flaws, such as with narcissistic individuals. Indeed, narcissists view their current personality as desirable (Carlson, 2013; Hart et al., 2018), thus it stands to reason these individuals won’t seek change given contentment with the self. 7 2. Fear of changes in other life domains: Given that those who seek personality change may be less satisfied in life (Hudson & Roberts, 2014), it may follow that some individuals will be resistant to changing their personality for fear it would lead to other (undesirable) life changes and therefore disrupt current life satisfaction. 3. Change is too difficult: As suggested in prior literature (Hennecke et al., 2014; Jackson & Wright, 2024; Moskowitz & Grant, 2009), people may endorse change goals to the extent that they find the goal feasible; thus, it follows that some may not hold a desire, and even less so a goal, to change because they believe it may be possible but would be too difficult. 4. Change is not possible: Though recent research has suggested individuals may be successful in their attempts at volitional personality change (Roberts et al. 2017, Stieger et al., 2021), not everyone believes personality change is possible (Dweck, 2008). Thus, another reason some may indicate lack of change seeking is because they believe that personality change in general is not possible, and thus attempts to change would be futile. Entity orientation, or the extent to which one believes people can change, has been tested in prior work but not found to be related to change goals (Quintus et al., 2017). Thus, the current study serves as a conceptual replication of this extant work. Further, I also asked individuals who endorsed change seeking why they did so. I predicted (H2b) that those who did want to change would cite dissatisfaction with current trait levels and low life satisfaction (Hudson & Roberts, 2014), low self-esteem (Quintus et al., 2014), and low happiness (Baranski et al., 2021). Note that none of these predictions were novel—here, I only expected to support existing literature. Finally, I also considered change reasons (or lack 8 of change reasons) that extended beyond those hypothesized. I present in the Results the findings for both change reasons hypothesized a priori and reasons provided by participants that were not hypothesized originally (and clearly distinguish between these). Aim 3: Attributes associated with lack of change seeking. The third aim in the present study was to investigate the relationship between seeking change and other characteristics. The characteristics assessed logically followed from the hypothesized change/no change reasons presented earlier and from prior literature on individuals who do seek change. Specifically, I first hypothesized that lack of change desires would be associated with higher levels of socially desirable traits (Dunlop et al., 2012; H3a). Given individuals who perceive themselves to already be at optimal trait levels may not have reason or motivation to change, I also expected that the association between trait levels and change desires would be roughly the same magnitude as the association between trait levels and change goals (H3b). That is, individuals with higher levels of socially desirable traits would endorse less change desires and less change goals at comparable strengths. Second, I predicted that some individuals would not desire change because they are narcissistic, given past research suggesting narcissists view their current personality as desirable (Carlson, 2013; Hart et al., 2018). Indeed, those who exhibit narcissistic tendencies are more likely to inflate their agentic characteristics (e.g., extraversion) compared to informant reports (Grijalva & Zhang, 2016). Further, though narcissists may acknowledge their “darker” attributes to a level that agrees with others’ views of them, they tend to see these characteristics as beneficial (Carlson & Khafagy, 2018). Thus, I predicted that narcissism would be negatively associated with desires and goals to change (H4a). Notably, Baranski et al. (2021) found no association between narcissism and reported attempts to change personality. This finding seems 9 counterintuitive, and thus at the very least, is worth attempting to conceptually replicate in the present study. Additionally, similar to my expectation with trait levels, I hypothesized that those high in narcissism would endorse lack of change desires and lack of change goals at roughly the same strength (H4b). Third, given the expectation that those who do not seek change may be content with themselves, I also hypothesized (H5a) that lack of change seeking would be associated with increased unconditional positive self-regard—positive feelings of the self that are robust to change (Patterson & Joseph, 2013). Further, I expected that though increased unconditional positive self-regard would be associated with lower change desires and goals, I also hypothesized that this association would be stronger for goals (H5b). That is, it could be possible that these individuals could hold a passive desire to change, yet not feel it is necessary to actually pursue the goal (e.g., “it’d be nice to be more agreeable, but I’m really fine how I am, so I’m not going to spend the effort to actually pursue a goal of increased agreeableness”). Fourth, given self-esteem is characterized by a fondness or liking of the self (Brown et al., 2001) it is reasonable to expect that those who are higher in self-esteem will also endorse less change seeking (H6a). Indeed, Quintus et al. (2017) found that lower self-esteem was associated with stronger personality change goals. I expected to replicate this finding, while also differentiating the link between self-esteem and change desires versus goals—as with unconditional positive self-regard, I expected to find that higher self-esteem would be association with less change desires and goals, but this association would be stronger for goals (H6b). Fifth, Hudson & Roberts (2014) found that decreased life satisfaction was associated with endorsing change goals. Thus, I hypothesized that lack of change seeking would be associated 10 with increased life satisfaction (H7a). Further, as with the prior attributes, I expected to find this relationship was stronger for goals than desires (H7b). Sixth, given past work suggesting individuals will only pursue goals they find feasible (Hennecke et al., 2014; Jackson & Wright, 2024), I expected to find that as individuals perceived personality change to be more difficult, they would endorse less change seeking (H8a). Further, I expected that this association would be stronger for change goals than change desires (H8b), given goals require more effort and thus a higher likelihood of anticipated difficulty. Finally, past work also suggests that individuals may pursue change if they believe it is possible (e.g., incremental entity orientation versus fixed entity orientation). Those who don’t believe change is possible would be more likely to question their success of any attempt to change. Thus, I hypothesized that lack of change seeking would be associated with decreases in expected success of a change effort (H9a). Further, I expected to find that this association would be stronger for goals than desires (H9b). Aim 4: Comparing target self-reports and informant-reports. Finally, the fourth aim of this study was to investigate the association between informant reports of target change seeking and attributes with that of the target self-reports. Self-reports have many advantages, such as practicality, ease of use, and capturing the perspective of the self. However, self-reports also suffer from disadvantages, such as self-presentation and acquiescence biases (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). Including informant-report measures in analyses provided an additional perspective beyond the self-report and allowed for further corroboration of the self-report findings. Informant reports provide incremental value (comparing similar variables). Other- reported personality assessments can provide a window into a target’s personality that the target 11 otherwise cannot see and report (Vazire & Carlson, 2011). Thus, it may be the case that others can see areas that would benefit from change better than we can ourselves. This may be especially salient when the traits that require change are more socially-oriented (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness; see Quintus et al., 2017). Thus, it is possible that informants will endorse that targets should change their personality more than targets themselves will endorse change desires or goals, and that this effect will be strongest for socially-oriented traits. On the other hand, informants may tend to view those they like more positively, particularly when those informants are selected by the target (Leising et al., 2010). Thus, if informants view the target in a more favorable light, they may report that the target should change less than the target endorses wanting to change. Given the literature is not clear and either finding is possible, I approached this question in an exploratory manner. However, whether informants endorsed change for the target moreso than the targets themselves or not, I still expected to find that informant ratings of whether the target should change (H10) or wants to change (H11) would be positively associated with target self-reported change goals and desires. Notably, I predicted there would be an exception to this finding when targets were high in narcissism. In this case, I expected informants to indicate the target should change, though the target would indicate they did not want to (nor have a goal to) change. I predicted this finding for both informant-reported target narcissism (H12a) and target self- reported narcissism (H12b). (Though I made predictions about differing strength of association between attributes and desires/goals for self-reports, I approached this differentiation in an exploratory manner for informant-reports.) In addition to comparing informant-reported target change seeking with target self- reported change seeking, I also sought to use informant reports as an incremental source of 12 information by comparing informant-reported target attributes with target self-reports of the same. Specifically, I expected to find that informant-reported target trait levels (H13), narcissism (H14), unconditionality (H15), self-esteem (H16), and life satisfaction (H17) would be positively associated with target self-reports of the same. Informant reports predict self-reports (comparing differing variables). In addition to informant reports providing incremental value above and beyond self-reports of the same variables (above), researchers can also use informant reports to further substantiate findings from self-report measures (e.g., compare informant-self associations with self-self associations). Informant reports provide an additional type of construct measurement; thus, by substituting informant-reported data for self-reported data in analyses, I investigated whether I could find additional support for the relationships between change seeking and outcomes. Specifically, I predicted that informant ratings of target attributes would be associated with target self-reports of change desires/goals, just as I predicted with self-reported attributes (in Aim 3). As with self- reports, I expected to find that informant-reported target trait levels (H18), narcissism (H19), unconditional positive self-regard (H20), self-esteem (H21), and life satisfaction (H22) would be negatively associated with target change desires/goals. Again, I made no a priori predictions about differing strength of associations between target change desires/goals for informant reports. Similarly, I also tested whether target self-reported attributes were related to informant- reported target change desires (and whether the informant thinks the target should change). I expected to find that target self-reported trait levels would be negatively associated with the informant-reported assessment of whether the target should or wants to change (H23). For target self-reported narcissism, I expected to find a positive association with whether the informant 13 believed the target should change (H24a), though the negative association would remain with the informant’s report of whether the target wanted to change (H24b). I also predicted a negative association between informant-reported target should/want to change with target self-reported unconditional positive self-regard (H25), self-esteem (H26), and life satisfaction (H27). Informant reports predict informant reports. Finally, just as I predicted that target self- reports of change seeking would be associated with various attributes (Aim 3), I also tested whether informant reports of whether the target should change or wants to change would be associated with informant-reported target attributes in the same manner. Prior research suggests others may use their perception of the target’s personality trait levels to inform their opinion about other areas of the target’s life (Dobewall et al., 2013). Thus, informants may assume the target does not want to change, nor suggest they should change, if they perceive the target to be high in socially desirable trait levels (H28). For those targets who informants rated as high in narcissism, I expected to see a positive association with whether the informant believed the target should change (H29a), and a negative association with whether the target wants to change (H29b). Finally, I predicted that informant reports of whether the target should change or wants to change would be negatively associated with informant-reported target unconditional positive self-regard (H30), self-esteem (H31), and life satisfaction (H32). 14 Participants and Procedure Method This study was approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board before data collection (IRB # 10-717). To collect target data, I recruited undergraduate students from the participant research pool at Michigan State University in the Fall Semester 2024. All students completed a series of self-report questionnaires via Qualtrics in exchange for course credit. To collect informant data, participants were asked to provide the contact information (name, email) for up to four informants (this was optional for participants). These contacts received an email invitation to participate in the study. Informants were entered into a raffle to win a $100 Amazon.com gift card for their completion of the Qualtrics survey. Targets (N = 1,102, Mage = 19.3. SDage = 1.85, 18 – 38 years old) were largely female (71.42%; 24.05% male, 1.27% another identity), identified with the sex assigned to them at birth (92.74%), White (71.87%; 10.16% Asian, 7.53% African American, 0.64% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.27% Native American, 2.18% other race, 3.09% more than one race), and non- Hispanic (90.20%; 5.90% Hispanic). Participants represented an array of class years—43.28% freshmen, 24.14% sophomores, 16.97% juniors, 11.80% seniors, and 0.73% other (e.g., non- degree student). Informants (N = 610, Mage = 35.39, SDage = 16.87, 18 – 84 years old) were again largely female (65.41%; 12.70% male, 1.80% another identity), identified with the sex assigned to them at birth (87.05%), White (74.26%; 6.39% Asian, 5.08% African American, 0.49% Native American, 0.16% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 2.13% other race, 0.98% more than one race), and non-Hispanic (85.74%; 3.77% Hispanic). (Note percentages do not add up to 100% given participants who provided no response or selected “prefer not to say”.) 15 Target Measures Unless otherwise noted, all measures employed a 5-item response scale (1 = Disagree to 5 = Agree). Items were reverse-coded when necessary, such that higher scores on the measure indicated higher levels of the attribute. For both targets and informants, personality measures and personality change-seeking measures were presented first, but the order was counterbalanced across participants to test for potential order effects. After these measures, remaining measures were randomized. Personality Change Seeking, Difficulty/Success. For the present study, I created a measure of personality change that captures change desires and goals at both the general and trait levels, as well as asks about expected difficulty and success (again, at both the general and trait levels). I decided to include general and trait-level change questions given research suggesting that the way researchers ask about personality change may impact responses (Miller, 2022; Baranski et al., 2025). Further, asking questions about desires and goals allowed for a comparison of endorsement for these items and potentially differing associations with outcomes. Change desires/goals. The measure instructions included a description of desires and goals, then asked participants to indicate their agreement to statements about general change desires and general change goals—“I want to change my personality (that is, I have a desire to change)” and “I have a goal to change my personality (that is, I have an intention to attempt to change)”. Participants were then asked to respond to similar questions but at the trait level. The trait-level questions were adapted from the Big Five Trait-Change Goal Inventory (BF-TGI; Robinson et al., 2015). The BF-TGI lists adjective exemplars for each of the five personality traits, followed by one change goal question for each trait. In the present study, I adopted these 16 same adjective exemplars and asked one change desire question for each trait (e.g., “Please indicate whether you want to change in extraversion—characterized by being active, assertive, energetic, enthusiastic, outgoing, talkative”), and repeated each question for change goals. Participants responded to these questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Disagree, 5 = Agree) rather than the 3-point scale used in the original BF-TGI (“I have a goal to become less like this”, “I have no goal to change on this trait”, and “I have a goal to become more like this”). This change allowed for the necessary variance in responses to address the hypothesized questions and placed all questions in the measure (and across measures) on a similar scale. Change/no change reasons. If participants selected “Disagree” or “Somewhat disagree”, they were presented with a question asking why they did not have a desire/goal to change their personality. Similarly, if participants selected “Agree” or “Somewhat agree”, they were asked why they had a desire/goal to change. Participants were then presented with a list of potential change/lack of change reasons and asked to select all that apply. This list of reasons was generated from a pilot study where participants responded to open-ended questions asking for reasons why they would or would not want to change. These open-ended responses were coded by raters for themes that were used as the multiple-choice options for the present study. Further detail on this pilot study is provided in the Supplemental Materials. All materials and data for the pilot study are posted in OSF: https://osf.io/q8pfy/. Reasons for lack of change seeking included: being content with their current personality (even if not perfect), thinking current personality is ideal, moral objections to changing, others already approving of personality, personality getting them where they are today, personality making them unique, changing not allowing them to be their authentic/true self, respecting the life experiences that shaped personality, fear of change in other life domains, thinking change 17 would be too difficult, thinking change would be impossible. A text-entry “other” option was also included to capture any reasons not provided. Reasons for change seeking included: discontent with current personality/trait levels, to gain others’ approval, to be less worried about what others think, to better connect with others, to strive for self-improvement, to better life satisfaction, to improve happiness, to be more confident, to gain self-esteem, to become more optimistic, and to be funnier. Again, a text-entry “other” option was also included. Perceived difficulty of personality change. All respondents were asked how difficult it would be to pursue personality change in general and for each trait (e.g., “how difficult do you think it would be to change your personality?”). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Difficult to 5 = Easy. These items were reverse coded so higher values indicated more perceived difficulty. Expected success of personality change. All respondents were also asked how successful they expected a change effort to be in general and for each trait (e.g., “How likely do you think it is that you would be successful at an attempt to change your personality?”). They answered these items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Unlikely to 5 = Likely. Personality. Personality was assessed via the 60-item Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2; Soto & John, 2017b). The BFI-2 contains items such as, “I am someone who is outgoing, sociable” (extraversion), “I am someone who is compassionate, has a soft heart” (agreeableness), “I am someone who tends to be disorganized” (conscientiousness, reversed), “I am someone who is relaxed, handles stress well” (negative emotionality, reversed), and “I am someone who has few artistic interests” (openness, reversed). The BFI-2 is a widely used personality scale in psychology with strong reliability (Soto & John, 2017b). In the present study, alpha values were good (extraversion α = 0.83, agreeableness α = 0.76, conscientiousness α = 0.84, negative 18 emotionality α = 0.87, openness α = 0.82). Notably, in the present study, I coded negative emotionality as emotional stability; thus, a higher score indicated more emotional stability rather than more negative emotionality. This helped in interpreting results, as higher scores on all five traits would then indicate more socially desirable levels of the trait. Narcissism. Narcissism was assessed via two scales, first with the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire—Short (NARQ-S; Leckelt et al., 2017). The NARQ-S captures two dimensions of narcissism, admiration and rivalry. Admiration is characterized by agentic self-enhancement (e.g., “I deserve to be seen as a great personality”), and rivalry is characterized by antagonistic self-defense (“I want my rivals to fail”). This measure exhibits adequate reliability and validity (Leckelt et al., 2017); in the present study, internal consistency was indeed adequate (total α = 0.68, admiration α = 0.67, rivalry α = 0.63). Given past research with this scale found no effect of narcissism on personality change seeking (Baranski et al., 2021), I also measured narcissism via the 15-item Five Factor Narcissism Inventory Super-Short Form (FFNI-SSF; West et al., 2021) to assess whether effects may arise with a different measurement of narcissism. The FFNI-SSF captures grandiose narcissism (e.g., grandiosity, exploitativeness; “I do not waste my time hanging out with people who are beneath me”) and vulnerable narcissism (e.g., reactive anger, shame, entitlement; “I hate being criticized so much that I can’t control my temper when it happens”). This measure has been shown to achieve strong associations with alternative narcissism measures, as well as adequate predictive and internal consistency validity (West et al., 2021). In the present study, internal consistency was acceptable for total and grandiose narcissism (total α = 0.61, grandiose α = 0.67), though internal consistency for vulnerable narcissism was lacking (α = 0.56). The lower alpha value for vulnerable narcissism may be due to the smaller number of items in the subscale (four items 19 compared with eleven items for the grandiose subscale), which is not uncommon for abbreviated scales (Widaman et al., 2011). Unconditional Positive Self-Regard. Unconditional positive self-regard was measured using Patterson and Jospeh’s (2006) 12-item Unconditional Positive Self-Regard Scale (UPSR). Six items in this scale measure self-regard (analogous to global self-esteem; e.g., “I really value myself), and six items in this scale measure conditionality, or how contingent one’s positive self- regard is (e.g., “How I feel towards myself is not dependent on how others feel towards me”). The conditionality subscale is the primary reason for inclusion of this measure—in the present study, I coded this subscale to reflect unconditionality, whereby a higher scores indicates stability in positive self-regard. This measure has shown strong psychometric properties (Patterson & Joseph, 2006), and in the present study, internal consistency is good (total UPSR α = 0.86, positive self-regard subscale α = 0.93, unconditionality subscale α = 0.70). Self-Esteem. Global self-esteem was measured by the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). The RSES is the most commonly used measure of self-esteem in psychology (Donnellan et al., 2015). Example items from this scale include, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “At times I think I am no good at all”. Prior research supports the internal consistency and validity of this measure (Sinclair et al., 2010). In the present study, the RSES obtained excellent internal consistency (α = 0.87). Life Satisfaction. Life satisfaction was measured by the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). The SWLS is among the most widely used scales in psychology (Anvari et al., 2024) and has been shown to have strong internal consistency and validity (Diener et al., 1985). The SWLS includes items such as, “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. In the present study, internal consistency for this scale was good (α = 0.82). 20 Additional Measures. Though not included in any analyses for the current study, targets also assessed their relationship satisfaction and closeness with each informant and completed measures on self-efficacy, self-value, and satisfaction in various life domains. Informant Measures Target Personality Change Seeking. Informants completed items about their perspective on whether the target wants to change or should change their personality. For example, at the general level, informants assessed whether “[Target name] wants to change their personality (that is, they have a desire to change)” and “[Target name] should change their personality”. Similar to the target self-report change-seeking measure, informants responded to similar items at the trait level. Participants were presented with the same adjective exemplars for each trait as were targets, and asked one change desire question for each trait (e.g., “Please indicate whether [Target name] wants to change in extraversion—characterized by being active, assertive, energetic, enthusiastic, outgoing, talkative”). Trait-level questions were then repeated for the informant to assess whether targets should change on each trait. Target Personality. To ensure brevity of the informant survey, informants completed a brief version of the BFI-2 assessing the target’s personality (BFI-2-XS; Soto & John, 2017a). The BFI-2-XS achieves comparable reliability and validity to the BFI-2 when assessing Big Five domains. The instructions for this measure were altered for the present study to act as an informant- rather than self-report scale (e.g., “[Target name] is someone who… tends to be quiet”). Internal consistency for this informant-adapted scale was good across traits (extraversion α = 0.83, agreeableness α = 0.76, conscientiousness α = 0.84, negative emotionality α = 0.87, and openness α = 0.82). As with the target self-report of personality, I coded negative emotionality as 21 emotional stability so a higher score would indicate more emotional stability rather than more negative emotionality. Target Narcissism. Informants reported on target narcissism via the NARQ-S (Leckelt et al., 2017), adapted for informant report use (e.g., “[Target name] thinks they deserve to be seen as a great personality”). In the present study, internal consistency was good for both total narcissism and admiration, whereas rivalry was below an adequate threshold (total narcissism α = 0.70, admiration α = 0.71, rivalry α = 0.57). As noted with the lower alpha for self-reported vulnerability, the lower reliability for the rivalry dimension may be due to a small number of items (three) in the short form (Widaman et al., 2011). Though, the admiration dimension is also only represented by three items and achieves a good internal consistency. Given this, the lower reliability may be due to idiosyncrasies in the conversion of the measure to an informant report, or may simply reflect that the items are not as good for informant reporting. Target Unconditionality. Informants completed the unconditionality subscale items from the Unconditional Positive Self-Regard scale (Patterson & Joseph, 2006), adapted to fit an informant report (e.g., “Whether others are openly appreciative or openly critical of [target name], it does not really change how they feel about themselves”). To keep the informant survey brief, the positive self-regard subscale was not administered to informants as these items essentially capture self-esteem (already measured via the SISE). In the present study, the unconditionality subscale of the UPSR for informants achieved good internal consistency (α = 0.72). Target Self-Esteem. Again, in the interest of brevity, informants completed the Single- Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE)—this measure has shown strong convergent validity across groups and produces very similar correlations with outcomes as the RSES (Robins et al., 2001). 22 To adapt the item for informants, I reword the item in the current study to, “[Target name] has high self-esteem”. Life Satisfaction. Informant-reported target life satisfaction was measured by the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), adjusted for informant-report use. The SWLS has been shown to have strong internal consistency and validity (Diener et al., 1985) and includes items such as, “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. To adopt for informant use, I adjusted the language such as “[Target name] believes that… In most ways their life is close to ideal”. In the present study, internal consistency for this scale was good (α = 0.86). Additional Measures. Although not used in the present analyses, informant personality was assessed via the BFI-2-XS (Soto & John, 2017a). Informants also assessed their relationship satisfaction and closeness with the target. Analyses Data cleaning, descriptive statistics, and all analyses were conducted in base R (v4.4.1; R Core Team 2024) and through the dplyr (v1.1.4; Wickham et al., 2023), tidyr (v1.3.1; Wickham et al., 2024), tidyverse (v2.0.0; Wickham et al., 2019), readxl (v1.4.3; Wickham & Bryan, 2023), and psych (v2.4.6.26; Revelle, 2024) R packages. Correlations were run through lavaan (v0.6.18; Rosseel, 2012) when missing data were present (given the ability to implement full information maximum likelihood). Figures were created using gglot2 (v3.5.1; Wickham, 2016), scales (v1.3.0; Wickham et al., 2023), and stringr (v1.5.1; Wickham, 2023). All data and code are posted to the study’s OSF page: https://osf.io/b6sg2/. Data transformations. Summary scores were used in the form of scale (or subscale, in the case of multi-dimensional scales) averages and were calculated when participants provided at least 80% of data for any given measure (or subscale). For trait-level change-seeking data, the 23 summary score was the average change-seeking response across the five trait items. Creating a trait-level summary score in this way provided a better comparison with the general-level change-seeking items for certain analyses. Thus, analyses were conducted using the general-level change-seeking items, individual trait change-seeking items, and/or the trait-level change- seeking summary score (henceforth referred to as the trait summary score). Further, participants were considered to not be seeking personality change if they responded to the change-seeking items with 1 = Disagree or 2 = Somewhat disagree. Similarly, they were considered to be seeking personality change if they responded to the change-seeking items with 4 = Somewhat agree or 5 = Agree. Participants could have up to four informants; thus, when a participant had more than one informant, informant reports were averaged. Further, similar to target self-reports of personality change seeking, informants were considered to disagree that a target should change or wanted to change personality if they responded 1 = Disagree or 2 = Somewhat disagree. They were considered to agree that a target should or wanted to change if they responded 4 = Somewhat agree or 5 = Agree. Notably, many variables contained complete data, thus required no missingness treatment. However, for analyses that included variables that did contain missing data, I employed full information maximum likelihood estimation. Frequency of endorsement for change desires/goals. To investigate personality change desire/goal distribution and whether there would exist some individuals who lacked desire to change on any personality trait (Aim 1), I calculated frequencies and percentages of responses for the respective survey items. I made these comparisons across desires and goals, and at the general and the trait levels. Further, to test H1 (participants would endorse change desires more 24 strongly than change goals), I compared percentage endorsement, correlated personality change desire responses with personality change goal responses, and compared mean ratings via paired t-tests. Notably, measures meant to assess the same construct are often moderately correlated, such as around r = .60 (e.g., self-efficacy, Ackerman & Lucas, in prep; life satisfaction, Diener et al., 1985). Thus, for change desire/goal correlations, given these constructs should be related, I anticipated to detect moderate effects around r = .60. Distribution and reasons for change desires/goals. To investigate reasons individuals do and do not seek change (Aim 2; H2a and H2b), I again employed descriptive statistics, calculating frequencies and percentages of responses for the reasons provided. Attributes associated with personality change seeking. To determine whether the postulated attributes (e.g., trait levels, narcissism, unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, life satisfaction, perceived difficulty, expected success/entity orientation) were associated with desires and goals to change as expected (Aim 3; H3a – H9b), I ran correlations. To investigate differences in correlations between the various attributes and ratings of change desires compared to correlations between these attributes and change goals, I compared the correlation coefficients. To determine if any difference in coefficients was significant, I ran a Williams test on each pair (i.e., desire with attribute compared to goal with attribute) of significant correlations. The Williams test is appropriate to use when testing for significant differences between correlations that share a variable (Steiger, 1980). Informant reports. All remaining hypotheses included analyses comparing informant- reported variables to self-reported variables (or informant-reported variables with themselves; Aim 4). To investigate these associations, I ran correlational analyses. To explore how target narcissism impacted the relationship between informant-reported assessment of whether the 25 target should change and the target’s change desires/goals, I conducted multiple regression moderation analyses. Notably, I standardized data for the multiple regression analyses to avoid possible issues with multicollinearity (Aiken et al., 1991). Further, I determined whether informants reported targets should change less or more than targets themselves indicated a desire/goal to change via simple frequencies, percentages, and means. Inference criteria. To reduce the likelihood of Type 1 error (incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis), I considered findings significant at p < 0.01. I considered correlational effect sizes based on Funder & Ozer (2017), where r = .05 is a very small effect size, r = .10 a small effect, r = .2 a medium effect, r = .3 a large effect, and r = .40 or greater a very large effect. However, among measures that should be related, I expected larger correlations than suggested by Funder & Ozer. Rather, I considered r = .6 a moderate effect when comparing measures that should be related but meaningfully different, such as self- and informant- report of the same variable (see Zola et al., 2021 for an example of correlations between self- and informant- reported personality traits). Power. A priori power analyses conducted using the pwr package in R (v1.3.0; Champely, 2020) indicated that at α = 0.01 and power = 0.80, a minimum sample size of N = 287 would be required to detect a medium correlational effect (r = 0.20; Funder & Ozer, 2017). The target and informant samples well surpass this and thus the data are well-powered to detect correlational effects. For analyses comparing two correlations (e.g., Williams tests), I used the diffpwr.dep function from the diffcor package in R (v0.8.4; Blötner, 2024). At α = 0.01 and power = 0.8, and assuming change desires/goals correlated around r = .6 (closely related but potentially meaningfully different), change desires correlated with attributes around r = .4, and change goals correlated with attributes around r = .3 (slightly lower than change desires), the required sample 26 size would be 800. Even if correlations were much lower, such as r = .6 for change desires and change goals, r = .2 between change desires and attributes, and r = .1 between change goals and attributes, the required sample size to achieve adequate power would be 925. Given these tests were only conducted on the target sample, and that sample exceeds 1,000, the present study is sufficiently powered to detect these effects. For analyses involving paired t-tests, a priori power analyses indicated that at α = 0.01 and power = 0.80, a minimum sample size of N = 587 would be required to detect a small effect (d = 0.2; Cohen, 1988). T-tests were only conducted in the target sample, which well exceeds this lower limit sample size. Thus, the present study is sufficiently powered to detect these effects. For the multiple regressions, power analyses suggested a minimum sample size of N = 779 was required to detect a small effect size (f2 = 0.02; Cohen, 1988) when including three predictors in the model (e.g., two predictors and their interaction term). The sample size for these analyses in the present study is bound by the number of participants with informant data (N = 383), thus the data were not sufficiently powered to detect small effects. The results of these analyses should be interpreted with caution. 27 Results Descriptive statistics for all target self-report measures, including sample sizes, means, and standard deviations, are found in Table 2. As noted in the Methods, I counterbalanced the presentation of the personality and change-seeking measures in both the target and informant surveys. I found no evidence of order effects in either sample. These analyses are reported in the Supplemental Materials. Frequency of change desires and goals Seeking versus not seeking change. The first aim of the present study was to explore how often participants reported seeking versus not seeking to change their personality. I investigated this at both the general and trait levels, for both change desires and change goals. Figures 1 – 3 display the frequencies of change desire endorsement when asked at the general level (“I want to change my personality”), for each individual trait (“Please indicate whether you want to change in [insert trait]”), and when averaging across individual trait responses (e.g., the trait summary score). Figures 4 – 6 display the same but for change goals. As outlined in Table 3, when asked a general personality change desire question, 46.37% of participants reported not wanting to change, whereas 37.30% indicated a desire to change (the remaining responded neutrally). Thus, more participants reported a lack of change desire at the general level than a desire to change. This trend also held when asking about change goals (54.26% reported no goal to change, whereas 28.77% reported a goal to change). When considering individual traits, 28.31% (extraversion) to 38.48% (agreeableness) of participants reported no desire to change, whereas 39.2% (agreeableness) to 56.53% (extraversion) reported a desire to change (see Table 3 for a breakdown of percentage endorsement per trait). Further, when assessing trait change seeking as an average across traits 28 (e.g., the trait sum score) rather than per trait, the same pattern arose—fewer participants reported a lack of change desire (20.24%) than a change desire (34.75%). Thus, when asked at the trait level, the opposite occurred than when asked generally—more participants reported a desire to change at the trait level than not. This was also true when participants were asked about goals for extraversion and emotional stability (a higher percentage of individuals reported having a goal to change than not). However, this did not hold for goals to change in the other three traits (a higher percentage of participants report no change goal for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) or when averaging change goals across traits—in these cases, a higher percentage of participants reported having no goal to change. Further, similar to past studies (e.g., Robinson et al., 2015), very few participants reported not seeking change on any trait: 3.90% of participants reported no change desire across all five traits, and just 12.43% of participants reported no change goal across all five traits. Similarly, 89.56% of participants reported wanting to change on at least one trait and 76.32% of participants reported a goal to change on at least one trait. Desires versus goals. In the prior section, I outlined differences in change versus no change responses, with no particular emphasis on desires versus goals. However, throughout the presentation of results, I will also address differences between responses to change-desire questions versus change-goal questions explicitly. Consistent with my hypothesis (H1), a higher percentage of participants reported change desires compared to change goals (whether at the general or trait level), and a higher percentage of participants reported a lack of change goal compared to lack of change desire (whether general or trait level; see Table 3). Table 4 outlines the correlations between change desires and change goals at the general and trait levels. The correlation between general desires and goals was stronger than expected (r = .73), though it is 29 arguably not so strong that one can assume the two questions measure the same thing. The correlations between trait-level change desires and change goals was less strong (ravg = .58) and provided further support for the difference between desires and goals. Paired t-tests also provided support of significant and meaningful differences between responses to change desire and change goal questions (Table 5)—participants more strongly endorsed change desires compared to change goals. As further evidence that asking about desires versus goals impacts responses, participants were often inconsistent in their endorsement (e.g., indicating a desire to change but not a goal to change or vice versa). As shown in Table 6, nearly one-fifth (19.22%) of those who endorsed a change desire at the general level did not also endorse a change goal at the general level. Similar results arose when comparing individual traits—anywhere from 18.94% (emotional stability) to 23.61% (agreeableness) of participants who indicated a desire to change on a given trait reported no goal to change in that same trait. Interestingly, some respondents who indicted no change desire (either generally or at the trait level), did endorse a goal to change. These percentages are generally small, but the strongest effects are for emotional stability (14.16%) and extraversion (10.26%). Reasons associated with seeking or not seeking change The second aim of this study was to investigate reasons participants provided for not wanting (or having a goal) to change their personality, as well as reasons why they do hold these desires/goals. I hypothesized (H2a) that those who don’t seek change would cite reasons related to contentment with the self (i.e., content with traits, content with self despite flaws, content with self no acknowledgement of flaws), fear of change in other life domains, change being too difficult, and change being not possible. I also predicted that those who do want to change would 30 cite reasons of dissatisfaction with current trait levels, low life satisfaction, low self-esteem, and low happiness (H2b). Figure 7 displays the frequency of endorsement for reasons participants do not want to change personality when asked at the general level, for both desires and goals. Of the reasons hypothesized individuals would not want to change, being content with the current personality despite flaws was the most highly endorsed (81.80%), followed by being content with the self with no acknowledgement of flaws (40.70%), unwanted changes in other life domains (33.27%), change not possible (13.11%), and change too difficult (11.55%). Additional reasons not hypothesized were also highly endorsed, including not wanting to change given personality uniqueness (82%) and not wanting to change because their personality has brought them where they are today (72.99%). Reasons for lack of change goals were similar in frequency of endorsement. Being content with the self despite flaws was the most highly endorsed reason for lack of change goal (70.74%), followed by uniqueness (68.56%) and authenticity (64.88%). Figure 8 displays the frequency of endorsement for each reason provided for having a change desire/goal. Of the reasons I hypothesized that individuals would want to change, low self-esteem (74.70%) was the most highly endorsed, followed by low happiness (71.78%) and low life satisfaction (63.99%). Interestingly, dissatisfaction with current personality traits was among the lowest endorsed reason (20.44%). Beyond the hypothesized reasons, many participants also endorsed wanting to change to improve confidence (79.56%), to be less contingent on others (71.78%), and to self-improve (64.23%). Reasons for having change goals were comparable in frequency to change desires. Improving confidence was the most highly cited reason for holding a change goal (70.35%), followed by improving happiness (66.88%) and 31 seeking self-improvement (65.93%). See Table 7 for a full list of general change/no change reasons and their percentage endorsement. Though not a main objective of the present study, I also explored change reasons and lack thereof for each individual trait. These analyses are reported in the Supplemental Materials. Attributes associated with seeking or not seeking change The third aim of this study was to explore characteristics associated with seeking or not seeking change, as well as differences in these associations between change desires and change goals. First, I hypothesized that lack of change desires and goals would be associated with higher self-reported socially desirable trait levels (e.g., higher extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability; H3a), higher narcissism (H4a), higher unconditional positive self-regard (H5a), higher self-esteem (H6a), and higher life satisfaction (H7a), more perceived difficulty of change (H8a), and a fixed entity orientation (e.g., less expected success in changing; H9a). I also hypothesized that higher levels of socially desirable traits (H3b) and narcissism (H4b) would be associated with less change desires/goals at the same strength (e.g., that there would be no difference between the correlation between trait levels and change desires compared to the correlation between trait levels and change goals). However, unconditional positive self-regard (H5b), self-esteem (H6b), life satisfaction (H7b), perceived difficulty (H8b), and fixed entity orientation (H9b) would all have a stronger association with goals than desires. I conducted these analyses at the general and aggregated trait (e.g., trait sum score) levels. These correlations and their respective tests of significant difference (Williams tests) are provided in Table 8. See Table S8 in Supplemental Materials for all other correlations between target self- reported measured attributes. 32 Socially desirable trait levels. In support of H3a, at the general and trait levels (i.e., trait sum score), all four predicted traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability) were weakly to moderately negatively correlated with change seeking, whether change desire or goal. Thus, participants lower in these traits reported more general and trait-level desire/goal to change personality. The associations with openness were non-significant. Hypothesis 3b, that higher trait levels would be associated with less change desires/goals at the same strength (e.g., similar correlation for desires and traits compared to goals and traits), was partially supported. The difference between these correlations was non-significant for agreeableness (at the general and trait level) and for conscientiousness (at the general level). All other differences between trait level and goal/desire were indeed significant. (Notably, the test was not run for openness, given these correlations were non-significant to begin with.) Interestingly, the negative correlation between general change desires and the trait level (for all traits) was stronger than the negative correlation between general change goals and the trait level. Thus, both a lack of change desire and goal were associated with elevated trait levels, but this association was stronger for change desires. (This pattern also followed when assessing change seeking with the trait sum score for extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability). Notably, in support of prior work (e.g., Hudson & Roberts, 2014; Miller et al., 2019), I found that participants reported wanting to change on the traits that they perceived to lack. Even so, this relationship appeared to be non-linear for many traits. Given these analyses are not of primary interest in the present study, they are reported further in the Supplemental Materials. Narcissism. I hypothesized that increased narcissism would be related to decreased desire/goals to change (H4a). This hypothesis was partially supported. Past work has found no 33 relationship between narcissism and change seeking (Baranski et al., 2021), though the idea that narcissistic individuals would not seek change seems intuitive. Supporting this past work, I found no relationship between narcissism and desire/goal to change when measuring total narcissism with the NARQ-S. However, there was a small, yet significant, relationship between desires and goals to change at the aggregated trait level, as well as with goals to change at the general level (such that higher narcissism suggested an increased desire/goal to change) in the FFNI-SSF. Thus, whether narcissism is related to change desire may depend on the measure of narcissism used. Upon this finding, I wondered whether the lack of association between narcissism and change seeking would hold when analyzing specific dimensions of narcissism. (Notably, I made no a priori hypotheses about the relationship between these dimensions and change desires/goals, and these analyses were not pre-registered—these exploratory analyses were conducted after the initial narcissism analyses were run.) The NARQ-S captures dimensions of both admiration and rivalry. Admiration is characterized by assertive self-enhancement and rivalry is characterized by antagonistic self-protection (Back et al., 2013). Admiration was negatively related to both change desires and goals at the general level, and change desires at the trait level. Rivalry was not related to change seeking at the general level, but had a small, positive association with both change desires/goals at the trait level (aggregated). I also measured the grandiose (e.g., grandiosity, exploitativeness) and vulnerable (e.g., reactive anger, entitlement) dimensions of narcissism using the FFNI-SSF (West et al., 2021). The grandiose dimension was not related to general or trait-level (aggregated) change seeking, whereas vulnerable narcissism was moderately to strongly positively correlated with desires and 34 goals to change at both levels. Thus, being higher in vulnerable narcissism was related to seeking personality change for every method of measurement. I further hypothesized that similar to trait levels, narcissism would be negatively correlated with both change desires and goals at the same strength (H5b). This hypothesis was partially supported. Table 8 includes results of testing for significant differences between the desire versus goal correlations for the various narcissism measurements (for only those correlations that were significant originally). There was no significant difference between desire and goal correlations with narcissistic rivalry or admiration (per the NARQ-S) at the trait level; however, there was a significant difference between goal/desire correlations with admiration at the general level, whereby admiration was negatively correlated with both desires and goals to change, but the correlation with desire to change was stronger. Further, there was no significant difference between the desire/goal correlations with total narcissism per the FFNI-SSF at either the general or trait level. However, there was a significant difference for both general- and trait- level desire/goal correlations with vulnerable narcissism, such that the positive correlation was stronger for desires than goals. Unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. As hypothesized, higher unconditional positive self-regard (H5a), higher self-esteem (H6a), and higher life satisfaction (H7a), were all negatively correlated with both change goals and desires (such that less change seeking is associated with higher levels of the attribute), and these associations were moderate to strong (per Funder & Ozer, 2017). Notably, these findings support prior work for both self-esteem (Quintus et al., 2017) and life satisfaction (Baranski et al., 2025; Hudson & Roberts, 2014). I also predicted that unconditional positive self-regard (H5b), self-esteem (H6b), and life satisfaction (H7b), would all have a stronger association with goals than desires. These 35 hypotheses were not supported. In fact, I found the opposite—the attributes are more strongly negatively correlated with change desires than goals. These differences are also statistically significant for both unconditional positive self-regard and self-esteem, but there is no significant difference in the correlations between change desires/goals and life satisfaction. Change difficulty. I hypothesized that more perceived difficulty of change (H8a) would be associated with both less change desires and goals. This hypothesis was partially supported. When asked about personality change at the general level and difficulty in changing personality at the general level, the correlation between change desires/goals and difficulty is negative (i.e., the more change seeking, the less perceived difficulty; see Table 8). When asking about change desires/goals at the trait level, this association disappears. Further, I also asked about perceived difficulty to change each trait and aggregated this into an overall trait sum score reflecting perceived difficulty across traits. When considering this trait sum score, there was a significant and moderate negative correlation between perceived difficulty and general change goals, as well as moderate to strong negative correlations with trait-level desires and goals. Further, I predicted that the association between perceived difficulty and change seeking would be negative for both desires and goals, but this association would be stronger for goals (H8b). This hypothesis was supported when participants were asked about personality change desires/goals at the general level and perceived difficulty at either the general or trait level, as well as when asking both personality change desires/goals and perceived difficulty at the trait level (see Table 8). Entity orientation/expected success. Finally, I measured entity orientation (whether participants believe change is possible) through expected success at achieving personality change. I predicted that expected success would be positively associated with change desires and 36 goals; therefore, less expected success in changing (e.g., a fixed entity orientation) would be associated with less change desires and goals (H9a). This hypothesis was supported with moderate to strong effects, whether measuring change desires/goals or expected success at the general or trait levels. Further, I predicted the association with expected success would be stronger for change goals than desires (H9b). This hypothesis was also supported. Specifically, the difference between general change desire/goal correlations with either general success expectations or trait-level success expectations was significant, such that the association for goals was stronger. This also held when measuring both change desires/goals and expected success at the trait level, but there was no significant difference comparing correlations between change desires/goals at the trait level and expected success at the general level. Desire versus goal correlation magnitude differences. A persistent finding that the correlation between desires and attributes was stronger in magnitude than that between goals and attributes was surprising. Though I hypothesized no difference in magnitude for traits and narcissism, if there was any effect, I would have expected it to follow my prediction for the other attributes (unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, life satisfaction)—that the negative association would be stronger for goals. Given this unexpected finding, I explored further whether the difference between change desire and change goal endorsement was dependent on the level of the attribute. To test this, I ran a series of regressions with the attribute as the independent variable and the difference between change desires and goals (i.e., the difference score) as the dependent variable (these analyses were not pre-registered and I made no a priori predictions). I ran these analyses at both the general and trait levels for correlation pairs with this unexpected finding, and only for the variables for which the difference in correlation between change desires and goals was significant (those with a significant Williams test; see Table 8). I 37 found significant effects for extraversion, emotional stability, admiration (narcissism), unconditional positive self-regard (total), positive self-regard, unconditionality, and self-esteem, such that as these traits increased, the difference between general desires and general goals decreased (Table 9). Similarly, at the trait level, I found effects for extraversion, conscientiousness, unconditional positive self-regard (total) and unconditionality, such that as these traits increased, the difference between desires and goals (trait summary score) decreased. At the trait level, I found no effect for emotional stability, positive self-regard, and self-esteem. Taken together, this could mean that for certain attributes, higher levels are associated with less discrepancy between change desires and goals, rather than a larger discrepancy as originally expected. Associations with informant reports Descriptive statistics for the full informant report sample can be found in Table 10. In sum, the data included N = 610 informant reports and N = 383 targets with informant-reported data. Of these, 222 targets had one informant, 105 had two informants, 46 had three informants, and 10 had four informants. When a participant had more than one informant, the informant responses were averaged together. The descriptive statistics for the aggregated informants and their targets can be found in Table 11. Informant reports providing incremental value (comparing similar variables). In the first series of informant report analyses, I tested whether informant reports of one variable were associated with their self-reported counterparts (Table 12, light grey cells). Specifically, I predicted that informant-reported target change desires would positively correlate with target- reported change desires and goals (H10). This hypothesis was supported—I found a small yet significant association both at the general (r = .20 – .22) and trait levels (r = .19 – .24). Notably, 38 though informants did provide information on whether they thought the target wants to change personality, they did not provide information on whether the target has a goal to change. Thus, no comparison could be made between self- and informant-reported change goals. However, informants did report on whether targets should change personality, which positively correlated with both target-reported desires/goals to change at both the general (r = .14 – .17) and trait levels (r =.19), supporting H11. Further, at both the general and trait levels, informants reported targets should change at lower levels than targets reported a desire/goal to change. Figures 9 and 10 display the frequency of informant endorsement for whether targets should change. At both the general and the trait (sum score) levels, informants reported on the lower end of the scale (e.g., toward disagreeing that the target should change). However, this skew was much stronger at the general level than at the trait level. At the general level, roughly 80.42% of informants reported disagreeing or somewhat disagreeing that the target should change; at the trait level, this number dropped to 48.83%. I also predicted that the relationship between whether informants reported targets should change and target self-reported change desires/goals would be dependent on target narcissism (reported by the informant, H12a, or the target, H12b). Notably, to reduce the number of analyses, I restricted testing to include only narcissism scales/dimensions that had a significant correlation with target self-reported change desires/goals in the full target sample (see Table 8). Because no informant-reported narcissism measures were significantly correlated with target- reported change desires/goal (Table 12), only effects of self-reported narcissism were tested. Further, I only tested predictors and outcomes at the same level of analysis—for example, informant assessment of whether the target should change generally as the predictor and target- 39 reported general change desire/goal as the outcome. Ultimately, these hypotheses were not supported, thus these moderation analyses are provided in the Supplemental Materials (Table S9). No interaction effects were significant, meaning the association between informant reports of whether the target should change and target-reported change desires/goals did not depend on the target’s level of self-reported narcissism. Notably, as addressed in the Methods, the data were likely underpowered to detect any effect. A minimum sample size of N = 779 would have been required to detect a small effect size (f2 = 0.02). Importantly, if there was a medium effect (e.g., f2 = 0.075; Aiken & West, 2000), the required N would have only been 212, and the present study would have been sufficiently powered to detect this. Thus, if any effect truly exists, it is likely small, and the present study would not have been able to detect it. In Hypotheses 13-17, I tested whether informant-reported trait levels (H13), narcissism (H14), unconditional positive self-regard (H15), self-esteem (H16), and life satisfaction (H17) positively correlated with the self-reports of the same (Table 12, light grey cells). These hypotheses were largely supported. Across personality traits, informant-reported and self- reported trait correlations are moderate, considering these should be related but meaningfully different (r = .32 – .53). Correlations for narcissism were weak, though still positive (r = .11 – .16). Informant-reported target unconditionality was also weakly correlated with target-reported unconditionality (r = .17), and informant- and target-reported self-esteem (r = .31) and life satisfaction (r = .40) were moderately correlated. Informant reports predicting self-reports (comparing different variables). In addition to testing whether informant reports are associated with self-reports of comparable variables, researchers can also test whether self-informant correlations reflect self-self correlations as a way to further substantiate findings from self-reports alone. In the current 40 project, I tested whether informant-reported target attribute levels were associated with self- reported target change desires/goals (Table 12, mid-grey cells). As with the self-self analyses, I predicted that there would be a negative association, whereby the higher the informant-reported attribute, the less target-reported change endorsement (H18-H22). This hypothesis for informant- reported trait levels (H18) is partially supported. Though largely in the expected direction (i.e., negative correlations), not all are significant. When considering target-reported change desires/goals at the general level, the only significant association was a moderate negative correlation with emotional stability (the higher the informant-reported target emotional stability, the less change desire/goal). At the trait level, there was a moderate negative association for informant-reported target extraversion and emotional stability with target-reported change desires and goals, as well as a moderate negative association for informant-reported target conscientiousness and target change desires. There were no significant associations for informant-reported target agreeableness and openness. Notably, though I did not make any predictions about the difference between desire versus goal correlations, it is worth acknowledging that the magnitude of association was stronger for desires than goals (mirroring the same effect found in self-reports). Further, I predicted that informant-reported narcissism would be negatively correlated with target-reported desires/goals to change (H19). This hypothesis was not supported as no correlations were significant. The hypothesis that informant-reported unconditionality would be negatively associated with informant-reported change desire/goal was partially supported (H20). All effects are in the expected direction (negative), but only a moderate association with change desire at the trait level is significant. Additionally, regarding self-esteem (H21) and life satisfaction (H22), moderate to strong associations with target-reported change desires at both 41 the general and trait level were supported. The associations with target-reported goals were mixed—though all effects were negative, only the correlation between informant-reported target life satisfaction and target-reported general goals was significant. Informant-reported target self- esteem was significantly negatively correlated with target-reported change goals at the trait level. Again, the associations with change desires were slightly stronger in magnitude than the associations with change goals. Similar to the above analyses, I also tested how informant-reported target change desires, and whether informants report targets should change, are related to self-reported attributes (H23- H27; Table 12, dark grey cells). I expected to find a negative correlation where increased trait levels were associated with less informant-reported target change desires and less assessment that the target should change. The only exception is with target-reported narcissism—here, I expected to find a positive correlation with whether the informant thinks the target should change (e.g., more narcissism, more should change). First, regarding target-reported trait levels, this hypothesis (H23) was partially supported. Most effects were in the expected direction (negative), but not all were significant. Only target-reported emotional stability was significantly negatively correlated with informant-reported target change desires (at both the general and trait levels). Both target-reported agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively associated with the informant assessment of whether the target should change at the general and trait level, and target-reported extraversion was associated at the trait level. All significant associations were weak to moderate. No associations with openness were significant. Regarding narcissism, the only significant association was between informant reports that participants should change (trait sum score) and target-reported rivalry per the NARQ-S. This association was positive and therefore provided support for H24a (though no association was 42 found for should change at the general level, nor with other dimensions of narcissism). There was no association between informant-reported target change desires, whether at the general or trait levels, and target-reported narcissism per any scale/dimension. Thus, H24b was not supported. Further, neither informant-reported target change desires nor assessment that the target should change was significantly associated with self-reported unconditionality; therefore, H25 was unsupported. There was a significant moderate negative association between informant- reported target change desires and target-reported self-esteem at both the general and trait levels, though there was no association with whether informants thought targets should change. Thus, H26 is partially supported. Finally, target-reported life satisfaction was moderately and negatively associated with informant-reported target change desires and assessment that the target should change, at both the general and trait levels. Thus, H27 was supported. Informant reports predicting informant reports. Finally, the last hypotheses tested the association between informant-reported target change desires and assessment that the target should change with informant-reported target attributes. Similar to the predictions regarding target self-reported goals/desires to change and self-reported attributes, I expected that the informant ratings of whether the target should or wants to change would be negatively correlated with informant-reported attributes (with one exception—informant assessment of whether the target should change would be positively correlated with narcissism). All correlations for this set of hypotheses are reported in Table 13. This hypothesis for informant-reported target trait levels (H28) was supported. As expected, at both the general and trait levels, informant-reported change desire and whether targets should change was negatively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, 43 conscientiousness, and emotional stability. These correlations were moderate to strong, comparable to that of the self-self analyses. Informant-reported target openness was moderately correlated with the informant assessment of whether the target should change, but not significantly with informant-reported target change desires. Correlations with informant-reported target narcissism were significant for both the total narcissism score (per the NARQ-S) and the rivalry dimension of narcissism. For both, the correlation with the informant’s assessment of whether the target should change (at the general and trait level) was positive, supporting H29a. Unexpectedly though, the correlations with informant-reported change desire were also positive, and thus did not support H29b (which expected the correlation to be negative). These effects were moderate to strong, and there were no significant correlations with the admiration dimension. Finally, at both the general and the trait level, informant-reported target change desires and assessment of whether the target should change were negatively correlated with informant- reported unconditionality (H30), self-esteem (H31), and life satisfaction (H32) at moderate to strong levels. All correlations were significant except for the association between unconditionality and whether informants believed the target should change when asked at the general level. Thus, H30 through H32 were supported. 44 Discussion In the present study, I investigated the frequency of personality change endorsement, the reasons that individuals provide as to why they do or do not seek change, and the self- and informant-reported attributes that correlate with change seeking. Throughout, I also explored differences in question framing (e.g., change desires versus change goals) to test whether differences in outcome arose with differences in wording. In the following section, I will summarize these findings and discuss important implications. Change/no change reasons In the present study, I found that participants cited not wanting to (or having a goal to) change personality largely because they were content with their current selves, felt their personality was unique, believed change would compromise authenticity, and recognized that their personality brought them to where they are in life. These results largely mirrored those from the pilot study. Interestingly though, there was very little endorsement of change being too difficult or not possible in the pilot study (less than 1% each). A much higher percentage of participants cited these reasons in the current study (11.55 – 13.11%) than in the pilot study. Similarly, low self-esteem, low happiness, and low life satisfaction were among the most highly endorsed reasons participants did seek personality change in the current study; in the pilot, however, these were among the lowest reasons endorsed. This could be because the pilot study obtained open-ended responses from participants, whereas the current study provided a list of potential reasons. It may be that participants did not readily think of these reasons when asked to produce them, but when presented in a list, they were more likely to recognize the reasons as relevant and endorse them. However, an alternative explanation could be that a multiple-choice 45 list elicited demand effects and prompted participants to endorse reasons they otherwise would not have (Baranski et al., 2025). Additionally, among the most highly endorsed reasons participants provided for seeking change were to improve confidence, to care less about what others think, and to pursue self- improvement. However, I unexpectedly found that dissatisfaction with current trait levels was among the more infrequently endorsed reasons for change seeking (only 20.44% endorsed this reason). This was surprising given a vast body of prior literature that found that people generally seek change on socially desirable traits that they believe they lack (e.g., Baranski et al., 2025; Hudson & Roberts, 2014; Miller et al. 2019). It could be that self-reported trait levels do indeed negatively covary with change seeking on those same traits, but when participants consider their change desires or goals generally, they are not thinking in terms of the five traits. Thus, when given the option to endorse that they are unsatisfied with a trait level as the reason for change seeking, they do not perceive it as being relevant. Indeed, in the pilot study, there were much higher rates of endorsing dissatisfaction with current trait levels as a reason for seeking change; but in the pilot, these assessments were made by trained raters specifically looking for indications of dissatisfaction with traits. Frequency of change seeking I found that when asked about personality change generally, a lower percentage of participants endorsed change seeking than did those who expressed no change desire or goal. This contrasts with prior literature that has found consistently that most people report seeking personality change (e.g., Baranski et al., 2024; Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Hudson & Roberts, 2014; Miller et al., 2019; Miller, 2022; Robinson et al., 2015). Interestingly, when asked at the trait level, this pattern was reversed—at the trait level, participants largely endorsed seeking 46 change more than not (with exceptions for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness goals). Thus, it could be that the level of generality used when researchers ask questions about change seeking impacts change-seeking endorsement. Indeed, in the present study, 37.30% wanted to change when asked a general change question. When asked a trait-specific change question, this percentage increased to 39.20 – 56.56% across the five traits (and 89.56% indicated wanting to change in at least one trait). Robinson and colleagues (2015) asked change goal questions at the trait level and found 56 – 75% endorsed change seeking. Hudson and Roberts (2014) asked about change seeking at the facet level (the items in this measure asked about change on various facets of the five traits rather than explicitly about the five traits themselves) and found 87 – 97% endorsed change seeking. There appears to be an effect where change endorsement increases as the questions become more specific (e.g., general, trait, facet). Baranski and colleagues (2024) found a similar effect in their recent work, whereby more participants reported wanting to change personality when responding to scale-based questions rather than to open-ended questions. Similar to the discussion regarding change reasons above, it could be that this effect occurs because participants have trouble thinking of areas to change when asked open-ended items, but can recognize areas they’d like to improve when presented with more concrete exemplars. Still, this effect could also arise because of demand characteristics in trait- or facet-level questionnaires that prompt participants to endorse change seeking when they otherwise would not have (such as because they believe the researcher wants/needs them to endorse change, or they simply don’t feel they can report no change seeking repeatedly on multiple questionnaire items). 47 Desire versus goal differences I further explored measurement considerations in assessing change seeking through investigation of desires versus goals. Overall, I found that participants endorsed change desires more than change goals. For example, 37.30% reported a desire to change versus 28.77% who said they had a goal to change. Similarly, 46.37% endorsed a lack of change desire whereas 54.26% endorsed a lack of change goal. Thus, participants were more likely to report higher levels of change desires as compared to change goals, and lack of change goals over lack of change desires. (This trend held whether change-seeking questions were asked at the general or trait levels.) This is not surprising—and aligns with my hypothesis—given prior work that found differing rates of change endorsement. For example, as noted previously, Hudson and Roberts (2014) asked about change desires and found 87 – 97% wanted to change; Robinson and colleagues (2015) asked about change goals and found 56 – 72% reported a goal to change. Thus, prior work that asked about change goals found less endorsement for change seeking than work that asked about change desires. The results of the present study further corroborate this, though in the same sample. I proposed earlier that this may be because goals entail more effort than desires—goals require planning, action, and commitment (Gollwitzer et al., 2004; Kruglanski, 1996). Thus, it would make sense that individuals might be less willing to explicitly endorse a goal to change given the increased demand a goal would impose. (This idea is further supported by the negative association between change seeking and perceived change difficulty in the current study.) The differentiation between goals and desires is also made salient when comparing endorsement of each within participants; for example, some participants endorsed a change desire but no change goal (e.g., 19.22% at the general level). Perhaps surprisingly, some 48 endorsed no change desire, yet indicated a change goal (e.g., 5.09% at the general level)—most notably, these effects were strongest for emotional stability (14.16%) and extraversion (10.26%). Given the size of these percentages, these are likely not spurious effects arising from careless responders. Instead, these could be rare cases when individuals do not want to change, but have a goal to change nonetheless. Extraversion and emotional stability consistently rise to the top of the list of traits individuals most seek to change, whether in the current work or in prior research (e.g., Miller, 2022l Thielmann & de Vries, 2021). These traits are also linked to consequential life outcomes such as well-being, mental and physical health, and life satisfaction (Gale et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2016). Thus, those who hold no desire to change on these traits, but still hold a goal, may feel it is necessary to change on these traits to improve outcomes even though they do not want to have to change. Self-reported attributes and change seeking I also tested differences between change desires and change goals through correlations of each with various self-reported attributes (i.e., trait levels, narcissism, unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, life satisfaction, perceived change difficulty, and expected success/entity orientation). The difference between the attribute-desire correlations and the attribute-goal correlations were significant for most comparisons, further emphasizing the difference in asking about desires versus goals. However, in many cases, this difference was not in the hypothesized direction. Specifically, I expected to find that self-reported personality traits and narcissism would be related to change desires and goals at the same strength. However, extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and admiration (a dimension of narcissism) all had stronger negative correlations with desires to change than goals. Similarly, I expected that unconditional positive self-regard and self-esteem would have stronger negative associations 49 with goals than desires, but found the negative association was stronger for desires than goals. Upon further exploration, I found that as the level of the attributes increased, the difference between desires and goals to change decreased; that is, with higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, narcissistic admiration, unconditional positive self-regard, and self-esteem, desires and goals were more aligned. High levels of these characteristics are associated with confidence or self-efficacy (Ackerman & Lucas, in prep; Back et al., 2013; Stajkovic et al., 2018; Thoms et al., 1996), and thus these individuals may be less intimidated by the prospect of a goal and more likely do endorse one when they also endorsed a desire. (Though notably, endorsement was still low for both desires and goals at higher levels of these attributes). Beyond differences in associations with goals versus desires, I also compared whether these attributes were associated with change seeking. As predicted, nearly all attributes were negatively associated, such that higher levels of the attribute indicated less change seeking (except for expected success—I predicted and found a positive association, such that as expected success in changing increased, change seeking increased). Contrary to my prediction though, narcissism was largely unrelated to change seeking. This isn’t entirely unexpected, given prior work that found the same result (Baranski et al., 2021). However, because it seemed rather intuitive that those who are narcissistic would not want to change, I incorporated two different narcissism measures (NARQ-S and FFNI-SSF) and ran analyses with their subscales (reflecting different narcissism dimensions) as well to explore whether any effects arose with differing measures. Indeed, narcissistic admiration per the NARQ-S was negatively correlated with change desires and goals; narcissistic rivalry was positively associated with change desires and goals. Thus, it could be that prior findings of no effect of narcissism on change seeking was a result of combining the two dimensions into a total score. When considering the FFNI-SSF, total 50 narcissism had an overall positive association with change seeking; however, given there was no association between grandiose narcissism and change seeking, this total effect may be driven by the rather large, positive associations with change seeking and vulnerable narcissism (r = .22 – .31). It is curious that there was no effect of grandiose narcissism, given this is the prototypical presentation of narcissism (someone who is dominating, exploitative, has grandiose ideas of themselves), and indeed the type of narcissist I would have predicted to report lack of change seeking. Further, grandiosity is related to admiration (Miller et al., 2016); because there was a small negative effect of admiration, I would have expected grandiosity to also have an effect. Notably, the correlations between grandiosity and change seeking were negative, they were just not significant. Thus, these differing effects may reflect differences between admiration and grandiosity presentations, or they may reflect validity differences between the two scales. Finally, the strong associations between vulnerable narcissism and change seeking suggest vulnerable narcissists may be more likely to recognize and admit the need for change than grandiose narcissists. Vulnerable narcissism is characterized by feelings such as shame, envy, and insecurity, and by high neuroticism and low self-esteem (Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2018). Indeed, in the present study, low emotional stability (e.g., high neuroticism) and low self- esteem were associated with increased change seeking. Thus, vulnerable narcissists may be driven to seek change given low levels of these characteristics. (Notably, I would be remiss to not remind the reader of the low internal consistency rating, α = 0.56, for the vulnerable subscale of the FFNI-SSF. This low alpha value suggests the vulnerable subscale may have reliability issues, which could bias the results. However, given the magnitude of the associations with vulnerable narcissism, it is likely these associations would still hold even with a more reliable measure of vulnerable narcissism.) 51 Informant reported attributes and change seeking In addition to self-reports, I also tested study hypotheses with informant reports. First, there was a small, positive association between both informant-reported target change desires and assessment of whether the target should change with target-reported change seeking. Informant-reported target attributes also had moderate positive associations with target-reported attributes of the same (particularly for all Big Five traits, narcissistic rivalry, unconditionality, self-esteem, and life satisfaction). That informant- and self-reported variables that measure the same construct (e.g., target-reported change desires and informant-reported change desires) had positive associations provides support for the use of informant measures as an additional source of information beyond self-report. Further, various informant-reported target variables were associated with target-reported variables in the same direction and at comparable magnitudes as when only analyzing self- reported variables (that is, informant-self analyses were comparable to self-self analyses). This was especially salient for informant-reported emotional stability, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, which were all negatively associated with target-reported change seeking (just as with self-reports of the same); similarly, this was also apparent for informant-reported target change desires and their negative association with these same constructs—target self-reported emotional stability, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. It is interesting that this effect was most prominent for emotional stability out of all five traits. Informants reported that targets wanted to change more when targets reported low emotional stability; informants reported targets had low emotional stability when targets reported change seeking. Thus, though emotional stability is not typically seen as a socially facing trait (Quintus et al., 2017; Vazire, 2010), it appears informants can pick up on neurotic tendencies and make evaluations of others with this information. 52 However, it could also be that informants just assume targets want to change in emotional stability given this is true of most people—indeed, there was no significant association between informant reports of whether the target should change and emotional stability. That is, informants thought targets would want to change in emotional stability, but not necessarily that they should. In fact, the strongest trait relationships with informant assessment of whether targets should change were with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Informants thought targets should change when targets reported low levels of these traits. This aligns with the idea that other reports may be particularly attuned to assessing highly evaluative traits (Vazire, 2010). Finally, informant-informant analyses were largely comparable with self-self analyses, further supporting informant reports as a useful supplemental data source. These associations were mostly in the same direction and of the same magnitude as their self-report counterparts, with the exception of narcissism. As expected, informant-reported target narcissism positively correlated with whether informants believed target should change (e.g., if more narcissistic, target should change). However, informant-reported target narcissism also positively correlated with informant-reported target change desires (e.g., if more narcissistic, target has more desire to change). Notably, this effect occurred for only total narcissism and narcissistic rivalry—it did not occur for admiration—and the association was strongest for rivalry. Thus, given narcissistic rivalry is related to high neuroticism, anger, and defensiveness (Back et al., 2013), it may be that close others can perceive these characteristics and assume targets want to change them. Overall theoretical and measurement implications Considering the various hypotheses and analyses presented, it is useful to outline some of the key messages which arise from this work. There are multiple broad theoretical and methodological implications to consider: 53 Theoretical implications. Theorists have suggested that both perceived difficulty of change and entity orientation are necessary prerequisites to change (Hennecke et al., 2014; Wright & Jackson, 2024). Though the pilot study in the current work found little support for the importance of perceived change difficulty and entity orientation in personality change, the main study found multiple sources of support. First, a sizeable percentage (11.55 – 13.11%) of participants in the present study endorsed change difficulty or expected success in change (a proxy for entity orientation) as reasons for not seeking personality change. Second, perceived difficulty of change was negatively correlated with change seeking (such that the perception of increased difficulty corresponded with less change seeking) and expected success of change was positively correlated with change seeking. Overall, the present study lends support for prior theories which suggest that feasibility and possibility are preconditions of change. Prior researchers have also suggested that self-contentment (e.g., high levels of socially desirable trait, unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, narcissism) serves as a reason individuals would not seek personality change (e.g., Quintus et al., 2017; Wright & Jackson, 2024). Overall, the current study supports this past work, both through reasons participants endorsed for not seeking change and constructs correlated with lack of change seeking. Interestingly though, the present study suggests that the strength of the relationship between self-contentment constructs and change seeking may be dependent on whether participants are asked about change desires or change goals—associations with self-contentment are often stronger for change desires. Further, the current work suggests that the difference between change desires and goals may not be consistent across individuals; that is, there are individual differences in how similarly participants endorse desires compared to goals. These implications are important for future 54 researchers who wish to understand both the mean-level and individual-level attributes associated with personality change seeking. Methodological implications. Prior researchers have consistently found that personality change seeking is normative (Hudson & Fraley, 2015). I also find evidence to support this in the current work, but under certain conditions. Participants reported personality change seeking more than not when asked about personality change at the trait level, but when asked at the general level, this association was reversed (participants reported not seeking change more than seeking change). Thus, a major implication of the current work is that the level of endorsement for volitional personality change seeking may be dependent, at least in part, on the framing of the questions presented to participants. It is unclear in the present study why this effect arises. It may be that asking participants about general personality change is too broad and leaves participants more likely to endorse lack of change seeking because they can only think about what is top-of- mind. Trait-level questions, on the other hand, may allow participants to more accurately assess change seeking by providing potential areas for improvement that participants would have not thought of otherwise. However, it could also be that simply asking more questions produces a demand effect whereby participants feel they must endorse at least some change seeking. Further, as discussed earlier, the present work also found important differences regarding whether researchers ask about personality change desires versus personality change goals. Participants generally reported more change seeking when asked about desires to change than goals to change. This is important because common measures of volitional personality change are often framed as measures of change goals but ask about change desires, whereas other measures are framed as measures of change goals and ask about change goals. These measures often result in variation in change endorsement across studies. The present work suggests goals 55 and desires are not one in the same, thus future work will benefit from a clear distinction between the two. Distinguishing change desires from change goals may help reduce variability in change endorsement across studies, aid researchers in better understanding differences in associations with desires versus goals, and provide further insight into the change process (e.g., if desires precede goals). Limitations and future directions. The current study provides novel insight into volitional personality change seeking, reasons individuals want to (or do not want to) change, and attributes associated with change seeking. The study has many strengths, such as a relatively large sample size, multiple sources of data (self- and informant-reports), and useful variations on measurement (e.g., desires versus goals, different measures of narcissism). However, there are of course limitations to the present work, and notable important directions for future researchers to take in extending this work. First, though the target sample size was large (over 1,000), it came from an undergraduate research pool at a large university; thus, generalizability is restricted in the current sample. Further, the study would have been better powered with a larger informant sample—the informant sample size was lacking and restricted the types of analyses I could run (e.g., with a larger sample, one could conduct tests of moderation based on target-informant relationship closeness and satisfaction). In the interest of brevity, the informant sample received an abbreviated battery of measures, including only one measure of narcissism (informant-adjusted NARQ-S); however, it would have been advantageous to also include an informant version of the FFNI-SSF, given strong effects found with this measure in the target sample. Thus, future work would benefit from a larger informant sample, a sample which is more representative of the 56 general population (both target and informant), and additional informant measures (so far as it would not compromise informant participation). Additionally, the present study analyses were largely correlational. Future work could extend these preliminary findings by incorporating more sophisticated analyses, such as a longitudinal design to investigate causal effects between change seeking and attributes, or genetic designs that would allow researchers to explore whether there exists an underlying shared genetic component between change seeking and the various attributes reported here. Further, the current study just touched the surface on change-seeking response differences with measures that vary on level of generality. In future work, I plan to further investigate this phenomenon using an experimental approach. In this future study, I will confirm whether this effect exists and if it arises due to differences in level of generality or due to the number of items administered (this project is pre-registered on OSF: https://osf.io/k5myr/). 57 Conclusion Personality psychology has accumulated vast knowledge regarding volitional personality change in recent decades. Though researchers have explored whether people want to change personality, how they want to change, and if they can change, data are scarce regarding individuals who do not want to change. The present study contributes valuable insight to the extant literature on volitional personality change by investigating the prevalence of change seeking, reasons individuals provide for seeking or not seeking change, and self- and informant- reported attributes association with lack of change seeking. This study’s findings suggest that endorsement of personality change seeking may depend on the framing of the research questions; thus, researchers should be mindful of the potential effects of the measures used on participant responses and how this may impact findings. Further, many characteristics are related to lack of change seeking (e.g., high levels of socially desirable traits, unconditional positive self-regard, self-esteem, life satisfaction, perceived difficulty, low levels of expected success), though some effects most strongly arise when considering dimensions of the larger construct (i.e., narcissism). Finally, informant-reports largely mirrored self-reports, further supporting the use of informant- reported data as a supplement to self-report to mitigate shared method effects and provide insight beyond self-reports. 58 REFERENCES Ackerman, L.S., & Lucas, R.E. (in prep). What’s in a name? Exploring overlap among self-belief constructs. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. Anvari, F., Alsalti, T., Oehler, L., Hussey, I., Elson, M., & Arslan, R. C. (2024). A fragmented field: Construct and measure proliferation in psychology. [Preprint]. Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013. Bandura, A. (2013). The role of self-efficacy in goal-based motivation. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance (pp. 147–157). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Baranski, E., Gardiner, G., Lee, D., & Funder, D. C. (2021). Who in the world is trying to change their personality traits? Volitional personality change among college students in six continents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 1140. Baranski, E., Martinez, R. L., Liu, Z., & Hoff, K. (2025). Exploring the dynamics of volitional personality change: A psychoeducational intervention study with young adults transitioning to the workforce. Journal of Research in Personality, 114, 104549. Bayuk, J. (2015). Should I plan? Planning effects on perceived effort and motivation in goal pursuit. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(5), 344-352. Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 148(7-8), 588. Blötner C (2024). _diffcor: Fisher's z-Tests Concerning Differences Between Correlations_. R package version 0.8.4, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=diffcor. Borkenau, P., Zaltauskas, K., & Leising, D. (2009). More may be better but there may be too much: Optimal trait level and self‐enhancement bias. Journal of Personality, 77(3), 825- 858. Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A., & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self- evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 15(5), 615-631. Bühler, J. L., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Weber, E., Kretzschmar, A., Scheling, L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2023). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta- analysis. European Journal of Personality, 08902070231190219. 59 Carlson, E. N. (2013). Honestly arrogant or simply misunderstood? Narcissists' awareness of their narcissism. Self and Identity, 12(3), 259-277. Carlson, E. N., & Khafagy, R. (2018). What do narcissists know about themselves? Exploring the bright spots and blind spots of narcissists’ self-knowledge. Handbook of Trait Narcissism: Key Advances, Research Methods, and Controversies, 275-282. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484. Champely S (2020). _pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis_. R package version 1.3-0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Deng, Y., Chen, H., & Yao, X. (2021). Curvilinear effects of extraversion on socialization outcomes among Chinese college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 652834. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. Dignum, F. P. M., Kinny, D., & Sonenberg, L. (2002). From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(3-4), 407-430. Dobewall, H., Realo, A., Allik, J., Esko, T., & Metspalu, A. (2013). Self-other agreement in happiness and life-satisfaction: The role of personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 114, 479-492. Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2015). Measures of self-esteem. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131–157). Elsevier. Dunlop, P. D., Telford, A. D., & Morrison, D. L. (2012). Not too little, but not too much: The perceived desirability of responses to personality items. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 8-18. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391-394. Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168. 60 Gale, C. R., Booth, T., Mõttus, R., Kuh, D., & Deary, I. J. (2013). Neuroticism and extraversion in youth predict mental wellbeing and life satisfaction 40 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 687-697. Gander, F., & Wagner, L. (2023). Which positive personality traits do people want to change? European Journal of Personality, 08902070231211957. Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K., & Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the implementation of goals. In R. F. Bauermeister (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 211–228). Guilford Press. Grijalva, E., & Zhang, L. (2016). Narcissism and self-insight: A review and meta-analysis of narcissists’ self-enhancement tendencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 3-24. Hart, W., Tortoriello, G. K., & Richardson, K. (2018). Narcissists’ perceptions of narcissistic behavior. Handbook of Trait Narcissism: Key Advances, Research Methods, and Controversies, 283-290. Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J., & Wood, D. (2014). A three–part framework for self–regulated personality development across adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 289-299. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological review, 94(3), 319. Hofmann, W., & Nordgren, L. F. (Eds.). (2015). The Psychology of Desire. Guilford Publications. Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 119-137. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2017). Volitional personality change. In J. Specht, Personality Development across the Lifespan (pp. 555-571). Academic Press. Hudson, N. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2014). Goals to change personality traits: Concurrent links between personality traits, daily behavior, and goals to change oneself. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 68-83. Jackson, J. J., & Wright, A. J. (2024). The process and mechanisms of personality change. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(5), 305-318. 61 Kim, H., Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Tsutsui, Y. (2018). Extraversion and life satisfaction: A cross‐cultural examination of student and nationally representative samples. Journal of Personality, 86(4), 604-618. Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 311-337. Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action (pp. 599–618). New York: Guilford Press. Leckelt, M., Wetzel, E., Gerlach, T. M., Ackerman, R. A., Miller, J. D., Chopik, W. J., ... & Back, M. D. (2018). Validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire Short Scale (NARQ-S) in convenience and representative samples. Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 86. Lücke, A. J., Quintus, M., Egloff, B., & Wrzus, C. (2021). You can’t always get what you want: The role of change goal importance, goal feasibility and momentary experiences for volitional personality development. European Journal of Personality, 35(5), 690-709. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2016). Thinking structurally about narcissism: An examination of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 1-18. Miller, T. J., Baranski, E. N., Dunlop, W. L., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Striving for change: The prevalence and correlates of personality change goals. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 10-16. Miller, T. J. (2022). Assessing the desire to change personality across methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(4), 447-457. Moskowitz, G. B., & Grant, H. (Eds.). (2009). The Psychology of Goals. Guilford Press. Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776. Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 224- 239). Guilford Press. Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2006). Development of a self‐report measure of unconditional positive self‐regard. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 79(4), 557-570. 62 Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2013). Unconditional positive self-regard. In M.E. Bernard (Ed.), The Strength of Self-Acceptance: Theory, Practice and Research (pp. 93-106). New York, NY: Springer New York. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal‐directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98. Quintus, M., Egloff, B., & Wrzus, C. (2017). Predictors of volitional personality change in younger and older adults: Response surface analyses signify the complementary perspectives of the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 214-228. R Core Team (2024). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890. Revelle, W. (2024). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.4.6, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161. Robinson, O. C., Noftle, E. E., Guo, J., Asadi, S., & Zhang, X. (2015). Goals and plans for Big Five personality trait change in young adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 31- 43. Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing Change and Stability in Belief Systems and Personality Structures. Journal of Social Issues, 41(1). Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Construct validity and external validity. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, (pp. 64-102). Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 63 Sinclair, S. J., Blais, M. A., Gansler, D. A., Sandberg, E., Bistis, K., & LoCicero, A. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Overall and across demographic groups living within the United States. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 33(1), 56-80. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017a). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69-81. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017b). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117. Stajkovic, A. D., Bandura, A., Locke, E. A., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238-245. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87(2), 245. Stieger, M., Flückiger, C., Rüegger, D., Kowatsch, T., Roberts, B. W., & Allemand, M. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(8), e2017548118. Thielmann, I., & De Vries, R. E. (2021). Who wants to change and how? On the trait-specificity of personality change goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 1112. Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship between self‐efficacy for participating in self‐managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 349-362. Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281. Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 104-108. Von Kriegstein, H. (2017). Effort and achievement. Utilitas, 29(1), 27-51. West, M. P., Miller, J. D., Weiss, B., Spencer, C. C., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., & Lynam, D. R. (2021). Development and validation of the super-short form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI-SSF). Personality and Individual Differences, 177, 110825. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D. A., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., 64 Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., Takahashi, K., Vaughan, D., Wilke, C., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. Wickham H (2023). _stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations_. R package version 1.5.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr. Wickham H, Bryan J (2023). _readxl: Read Excel Files_. R package version 1.4.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl. Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2023). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.1.4, https://github.com/tidyverse/dplyr, https://dplyr.tidyverse.org Wickham H, Pedersen T, Seidel D (2023). _scales: Scale Functions for Visualization_. R package version 1.3.0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scales. Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2024). tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. R package version 1.3.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39– 61). American Psychological Association. Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 519-528. Zola, A., Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2021). The convergence of self and informant reports in a large online sample. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 25983. 65 APPENDIX Tables and Figures Table 1. Study hypotheses Aim Hyp. H1 1 2 H2a H2b People will report more change desires than goals People will not seek personality change due to contentment with the self, fear of change on other life domains, change difficulty, and impossibility of change People will seek personality change due to dissatisfaction with trait levels, low life satisfaction, low self-esteem, low happiness Association Negative Same Negative Same Negative Test Correlation Williams Test Correlation Williams Test Correlation Williams Test Goals stronger Correlation Williams Test Goals stronger Correlation Williams Test Goals stronger Correlation Williams Test Goals stronger Correlation Williams Test Goals stronger Negative Negative Negative Negative : 3 t e g r a T / t e g r a T s n o s i r a p m o C Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Life Satisfaction Life Satisfaction Aim Hyp. Variable 1 Trait levels H3a H3b Trait levels H4a Narcissism H4b Narcissism H5a UPSR H5b UPSR H6a H6b H7a H7b H8a Difficulty H8b Difficulty H9a H9b H10 H11 H12a H12b H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24a H24b H25 H26 H27 H28 s n H29a o s i H29b r a p H30 m H31 o C H32 Entity Orientation Entity Orientation IR Change Desire IR Should Change IR Should Change + IR Narc. IR Should Change + SR Narc. IR Trait levels IR Narcissism IR UPSR IR Self-Esteem IR Life Satisfaction IR Trait Levels IR Narcissism IR UPSR IR Self-Esteem IR Life Satisfaction IR Should/Desire IR Should Change IR Change Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should Change IR Change Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should/Desire IR Should/Desire t n a m r o f n I / t e g r a T s n o s i r a p m o C t n a m r o f n I : 4 : 4 Variable 2 Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal Change Desire/Goal SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Moderation SR Change Desire/Goal Moderation Correlation SR Trait Levels Correlation SR Narcissism Correlation SR UPSR Correlation SR Self-Esteem SR Life Satisfaction Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation SR Change Desire/Goal Correlation Correlation SR Trait Levels Correlation SR Narcissism Correlation SR Narcissism Correlation SR UPSR Correlation SR Self-Esteem Correlation SR Life Satisfaction Correlation IR Trait Levels Correlation IR Narcissism Correlation IR Narcissism Correlation IR UPSR Correlation IR Self-Esteem Correlation IR Life Satisfaction 66 Positive Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Table 2. Descriptive statistics for self-report target data 0.87 1.20 Trait Level N Mean SD General Level 1102 2.75 1102 2.45 1101 4.04 1098 2.85 N Mean SD Variable 1.16 1.20 1.19 1.08 1.17 0.74 1.27 Difficulty 1.32 Success 1102 3.28 1102 2.91 1102 3.17 1102 3.29 1102 3.15 1102 3.16 1102 2.92 1102 2.62 1102 2.85 1102 3.04 1102 2.79 1102 2.84 1101 3.61 1101 3.03 1101 3.16 1101 3.93 1101 3.14 1101 3.37 Success 1.38 Extraversion 1.32 Agreeableness 1.36 Conscientiousness 1.38 Emotional Stability 1.30 Openness 0.94 TSS Difficulty 1.33 Extraversion 1.32 Agreeableness 1.35 Conscientiousness 1.39 Emotional Stability 1.25 Openness 0.81 TSS Variable General Level Change Desire Change Goal Trait Level Change Desire Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness TSS Change Goal Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness TSS Measured Attributes Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Self-Esteem Narcissism (NARQ) Rivalry (NARQ) Admiration (NARQ) Narcissism (FFNI) Grandiose (FFNI) Vulnerable (FFNI) Positive Self-Regard Unconditionality Total UPSR Life Satisfaction Note. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short), FFNI = Five Factor Narcissism, Inventory (Super Short Form), UPSR = Unconditional Positive Self-Regard. TSS = trait-level summary score. 1097 3.31 1097 3.72 1097 3.47 1097 2.85 1097 3.59 1097 3.50 1097 2.62 1097 2.14 1097 3.11 1097 2.84 1097 2.76 1096 3.05 1097 3.70 1097 2.62 1097 3.16 1098 3.41 0.65 0.55 0.64 0.73 0.65 0.78 0.71 0.88 0.87 0.46 0.55 0.81 0.98 0.73 0.72 0.92 1100 3.33 1100 3.56 1100 3.51 1100 2.83 1100 3.41 1100 3.33 1.23 1.17 1.13 1.16 1.12 0.83 67 Table 3. Percentage endorsement for change goals/desires, general and trait General Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait (Sum Score) No Change (%) Yes Change (%) Want 46.37 28.31 38.48 32.40 31.40 30.40 20.24 Goal Want Goal 28.77 37.30 54.26 44.37 56.53 37.93 29.40 39.20 45.74 37.66 48.82 38.84 44.56 54.63 34.21 34.30 46.82 37.66 24.32 34.75 31.76 Table 4. Correlation matrix for change goals/desires, general and trait Desire Goal Gen E A C ES O TSS Gen E A C ES O TSS e r i s e D l a o G Gen Ext Agr Con ES Ope TSS Gen Ext Agr Con ES Ope TSS - .32 .26 .26 .21 .30 .44 .73 .23 .27 .26 .20 .20 .33 - .26 .26 .07 .36 .64 .26 .58 .15 .17 .06 .25 .35 - .46 .01 .38 .69 .26 .19 .59 .33 .09 .30 .43 - .02 .34 .68 .26 .17 .34 .62 .07 .25 .42 - .00 .38 .15 .02 .01 .04 .53 -.05 .16 - .67 .29 .25 .31 .26 .70 .59 .42 - .40 .40 .46 .47 .28 .43 .58 - .28 .34 .29 .23 .27 .40 - .39 .37 .21 .45 .70 - .54 .24 .48 .75 - .28 .46 .76 - .21 .56 - .74 - Note. Gen = General; Ext = Extraversion; Agr = Agreeableness; Con = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; Ope = Openness; TSS = trait-level sum score. Bolded values = p < .01. 68 Table 5. Paired t-tests comparing desire vs. goal means Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness 18.96 18.94 18.80 77.31 66.18 75.52 Ttests Desire/Goal Gen- eral Ext t df p CI LB CI UB d 10.33 9.62 1101 1101 <0.001 <0.001 0.24 0.29 0.36 0.43 0.31 0.3 Note. Results are unstandardized. Table 6. Cross-tabulation of responses (percentages) for change goals/desires, general and trait Change desire response Yes Change (%) No Change (%) e s n o p s e r l a o g e g n a h C e g n a h C s e Y General Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait (Sum Score) General e g n a h C o N Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait (Sum Score) 5.09 10.26 7.78 7.00 14.16 6.87 2.69 88.06 80.13 79.72 77.31 66.18 75.52 77.58 60.83 66.77 54.86 64.13 68.11 59.96 47.78 19.22 20.87 23.61 18.96 18.94 18.80 14.62 69 Table 7. Percentage endorsement of change/no change reasons, general No change Desire (N = 511) % N Goal (N = 598) N % Reason Yes change Desire (N = 411) N % Goal (N = 317) N % 84 20.44 68 21.45 97 23.60 53 16.72 295 71.78 196 61.83 258 62.77 169 53.31 264 64.23 209 65.93 263 63.99 212 66.88 295 71.78 218 68.77 327 79.56 223 70.35 307 74.70 202 63.72 197 47.93 142 44.79 Dissatisfied with current trait levels Seeking oth- ers’ approval Less contingent on others Connection with others Self- improvement Low life satisfaction Low happiness Low confidence Low self- esteem Low optimism Reason Content despite flaws Content (no ack. of flaws) Moral objection Others already approve Personality reason for current state 418 81.80 423 70.74 208 40.70 200 33.44 52 10.18 65 10.87 223 43.64 238 39.80 373 72.99 376 62.88 Authenticity 369 72.21 388 64.88 Uniqueness 419 82.00 410 68.56 362 70.84 361 60.37 170 33.27 178 29.77 11.55 121 20.23 Appreciation of past life experiences Unwanted changes in other domains Change too difficult Change not possible Other 59 67 10 13.11 1.96 74 10 12.37 To be funnier 1.67 Other 92 13 22.38 48 15.14 3.16 9 2.84 70 Table 8. Correlations between change desires/goals and related attributes General Trait Sum Score Desire Goal Desire Goal -.27 -.14 -.19 -.29 .01 -.06 .08 -.18 .07 -.07 .30 -.39 -.38 -.27 -.42 -.34 -.08 -.06 .31 .12 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Narcissism (NARQ) Rivalry (NARQ) Admiration (NARQ) Narcissism (FFNI) Grandiose (FFNI) Vulnerable (FFNI) UPSR Positive Regard (UPSR) Unconditionality (UPSR) Self-Esteem Life Satisfaction Difficulty (General) Difficulty (TSS) Success (General) Success (TSS) Note. TSS = Trait Summary Score. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short). FFNI = Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (Super Short Form). USPR = Unconditional Positive Self-Regard. Bolded values = p < 0.01. Williams tests not conducted when original correlations were non-significant. -.31 -.09 -.23 -.29 -.01 -.01 .08 -.11 .09 -.06 .31 -.28 -.24 -.22 -.34 -.26 .01 -.19 .20 .20 -.17 -.11 -.13 -.21 -.04 .03 .08 -.04 .12 .02 .22 -.16 -.16 -.10 -.25 -.20 -.05 -.27 .21 .29 -.17 -.12 -.16 -.21 .03 -.04 .04 -.10 .10 -.01 .23 -.28 -.27 -.18 -.33 -.29 -.17 -.15 .44 .23 Williams Test -5.04 0.65 -3.78 -3.00 NA NA -0.04 -2.34 -1.00 NA 3.21 -4.51 -3.12 -4.63 -3.23 -2.36 NA 3.26 -0.1 -3.41 Williams Test -4.99 -1.19 -1.56 -3.71 NA NA NA -3.64 -1.03 NA 2.99 -5.66 -5.15 -4.01 -4.38 -2.39 3.97 4.04 -6.39 -4.97 71 Table 9. Exploratory regressions predicting the difference in desire/goal endorsement given level of the attribute l a r e n e G Trait Extraversion Emotional Stability Admiration (NARQ) Total UPSR Pos. Self-Regard Unconditionality Self-Esteem Extraversion Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Total UPSR Pos. Self-Regard Unconditionality Self-Esteem t -4.49 -3.19 -3.38 -4.73 -4.31 -3.52 -3.42 -3.42 -2.63 -1.52 -3.11 -1.88 -3.61 -1.37 Note. Estimates are unstandardized. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short). USPR = Unconditional Positive Self-Regard. R2 Adj. R2 .02 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 .13 <0.01 .06 <0.01 .17 β -.20 -.13 -.11 -.19 -.13 -.14 -.13 -.13 -.10 -.05 -.11 -.05 -.12 -.04 SE .04 .04 .03 .04 .03 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .02 .03 .03 .02 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 t i a r T 72 Table 10. Descriptive statistics for informant reports (pre-aggregation) N Mean SD General Level Change Desire Should Change Trait Level Change Desire Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait Summary Score Should Change Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait Summary Score Target Attributes Extraversion (BFI-2) Agreeableness (BFI-2) Conscientiousness (BFI-2) Emotional Stability (BFI-2) Openness (BFI-2) Total Narcissism (NARQ) Rivalry (NARQ) Admiration (NARQ) Unconditionality (UPSR) Self-Esteem (RSES) Life Satisfaction (SWLS) 607 607 587 587 587 587 587 587 580 580 580 580 580 580 587 587 586 586 585 566 566 565 566 570 570 2.48 1.63 1.26 1.04 3.00 2.80 3.21 3.14 3.10 3.05 2.24 2.14 2.51 2.90 2.41 2.44 3.47 4.07 3.80 3.05 3.80 2.44 1.89 3.00 2.63 3.53 3.50 1.41 1.44 1.44 1.46 1.38 0.92 1.37 1.36 1.46 1.47 1.37 0.97 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.98 0.78 0.75 0.84 0.97 0.72 1.20 0.92 Note. Total informant N = 610. BFI-2 = Big Five Inventory-2, RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short), FFNI = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (Super Short Form), UPSR = Unconditional Positive Self-Regard, SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Survey. All measures were adapted to informant rather than self-reporting. 73 Table 11. Target and informant descriptives (only including targets with informant reports, informants averaged for each target) Targets Mean 2.80 2.53 NA Informants Mean 2.50 NA 1.66 382 0.98 N 382 SD 1.13 N 383 383 SD 1.28 1.36 NA NA NA NA NA NA 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 372 372 372 372 372 372 2.91 2.52 2.86 3.20 2.70 2.84 1.28 1.26 1.27 1.30 1.20 0.81 3.35 2.88 3.17 3.49 3.13 3.21 1.36 1.35 1.39 1.40 1.29 0.81 2.98 2.83 3.24 3.11 3.08 3.05 1.43 1.35 1.40 1.42 1.36 0.93 General Level Change Desire Change Goal Should Change Trait Level: Change Desire Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait Summary Score Trait Level: Change Goal Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait Summary Score Trait Level: Should Change Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Trait Summary Score Target Attributes Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Narcissism (NARQ) Rivalry (NARQ) Admiration (NARQ) Narcissism (FFNI) Grandiose (FFNI) Vulnerable (FFNI) Total UPSR Pos. Self-Regard Unconditionality Self-Esteem Life Satisfaction Note. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short), FFNI = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (Super Short Form). 3.50 4.05 3.79 3.07 3.77 2.45 1.87 3.03 NA NA NA NA NA 2.65 3.58 3.53 3.36 3.84 3.49 2.81 3.70 2.56 2.03 3.10 2.82 2.72 3.09 3.07 3.71 2.43 3.50 3.40 0.65 0.52 0.63 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.82 0.41 0.50 0.83 0.73 0.96 0.74 0.76 0.91 381 381 381 381 381 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 0.87 0.78 0.87 0.91 0.72 0.66 0.75 0.85 370 370 369 369 369 362 362 362 1.25 1.18 1.31 1.32 1.21 0.87 2.24 2.15 2.54 2.87 2.45 2.45 368 368 368 368 368 368 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.65 1.07 0.84 364 363 363 74 Table 12. Correlation matrix comparing informant-reported target should/want change and target attributes with target-reported desire/goal change and target self-reported attributes 1 2 3. Should (General) 4. Should (TSS) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Informant-Reported Variables on Target s e l b a i r a V d e t r o p e R - f l e S t e g r a T 1. Change Desire (General) 2. Change Desire (TSS) 3. Change Goal (General) 4. Change Goal (TSS) 5. Extraversion 6. Agreeableness 7. Conscientiousness 8. Emotional Stability 9. Openness 10. Total Narcissism (NARQ) 11. Rivalry (NARQ) .22 .19 .20 .14 .10 .19 .11 .24 -.06 -.12 -.11 -.08 -.09 -.09 -.15 -.18 .08 .02 .06 .08 .01 .04 12. Admiration (NARQ) -.03 -.02 13. Unconditionality (UPSR) -.08 -.06 14. Self-Esteem 15. Life Satisfaction 16. Total Narcissism (FFNI) 17. Grandiose (FFNI) 18. Vulnerable (FFNI) 19. Total UPSR -.15 -.14 -.18 -.18 .11 .07 .07 .03 -.04 .12 -.11 -.08 20. Pos Self-Regard (UPSR) -.10 -.08 .17 .11 .14 .04 -.08 -.13 -.17 -.05 .00 -.04 .05 -.12 -.07 -.08 -.19 .04 .01 .05 -.11 -.12 .14 .19 .13 .19 -.15 -.15 -.20 -.05 -.03 .07 .14 -.03 .02 -.10 -.17 .07 .04 .06 -.02 -.06 -.10 -.05 -.09 -.20 -.18 -.11 -.15 -.20 -.07 -.04 -.09 -.18 -.13 .00 -.08 -.15 .53 -.03 -.02 .06 .11 .13 .42 .13 .44 .00 .32 .21 .10 .07 .02 .02 .05 .02 .06 .13 .02 .00 -.03 .00 -.03 .17 .07 .07 .07 .03 .02 .25 -.24 -.26 -.14 -.04 -.11 .04 -.06 -.06 -.09 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.14 -.20 -.11 -.16 -.26 -.20 -.06 -.11 -.13 -.19 -.07 -.13 -.18 -.13 .05 .06 .07 .29 .25 .01 .12 .22 .17 .14 .16 .28 -.03 -.23 .34 -.05 -.09 -.01 -.11 -.05 -.12 -.03 -.09 -.01 -.05 -.12 -.14 -.10 -.07 -.01 -.15 .07 .04 .12 .22 .00 .02 .05 .06 .09 .18 .30 .27 .11 .11 .08 .04 .09 .16 -.02 -.03 -.06 -.01 -.12 .02 -.03 -.11 -.16 -.12 -.10 -.09 -.15 -.14 .00 -.10 .12 .16 -.08 -.05 .12 .12 .10 .13 .00 .02 .01 -.19 -.01 -.04 .27 .26 -.12 -.07 .02 .00 .14 .14 .04 -.10 -.13 .09 .02 .13 .09 .09 .05 .07 .13 -.03 .01 -.03 -.06 -.11 -.15 .00 .17 .20 .10 -.08 .05 .12 .11 .31 .20 .00 .12 .10 .07 .30 .40 -.10 -.03 -.09 -.23 -.19 -.13 .11 .11 .18 .15 .25 .30 .22 .28 -.06 .02 .02 .07 .16 .00 .26 .09 .12 .10 .19 .26 Note. Bolded values indicate p < 0.01. TSS = Trait Sum Score. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short), UPSR = Unconditional Positive Self-Regard, FFNI = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (Super Short Form). Light-grey cells correspond to H10-H17. Mid-grey cells correspond to H18-H22. Dark grey cells correspond to H23-H27. 75 Table 13. Intercorrelations between informant-reported variables 1 - 2 .41 - 5 -.15 -.16 -.17 -.32 - 6 -.21 -.18 -.41 -.43 .06 - 7 -.23 -.25 -.30 -.40 .10 .31 - 8 -.33 -.39 -.27 -.40 .15 .34 .33 - 3 .57 .27 - 4 .45 .50 .52 - 10 .14 .14 .22 .23 .12 -.39 -.18 -.25 -.08 9 -.04 -.02 -.16 -.20 .21 .29 .04 .00 - 1. Change Desire (General) 2. Change Desire (Trait) 3. Should Change (General) 4. Should Change (Trait) 5. Extraversion 6. Agreeableness 7. Conscientiousness 8. Emotional Stability 9. Openness 10. Total Narcissism (NARQ) 11. Rivalry (NARQ) 12. Admiration (NARQ) 13. Unconditionality (UPSR) 14. Self-Esteem 15. Life Satisfaction Note. Bolded values indicate p < 0.01. NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Short), FFNI = Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (Super Short Form). Grey cells correspond to H28-H32. .01 -.17 .17 -.01 -.16 .13 -.05 -.11 .02 .84 .34 - .31 .48 - .32 - .80 - - - 12 .03 .02 .07 .04 .25 -.10 -.04 -.10 .07 13 -.25 -.14 -.09 -.21 .10 .10 .13 .40 .02 14 -.26 -.25 -.24 -.32 .38 .19 .27 .50 .13 15 -.42 -.29 -.36 -.35 .25 .31 .29 .48 .09 11 .20 .21 .31 .36 -.07 -.57 -.27 -.33 -.23 76 Figure 1. Distribution of general change desires 77 Figure 2. Distribution of change desires by trait 78 Figure 3. Distribution of change desires across traits Figure 4. Distribution of general change goals 79 Figure 5. Distribution of change goals by trait 80 Figure 6. Distribution of change goals across traits Figure 7. Reasons for lack of personality change desire or goal, general level 81 Figure 8. Reasons for personality change desire or goal, general level 82 Figure 9. Informant reports (averaged) of whether target should change, general Figure 10. Informant reports (averaged) of whether target should change, trait (sum score) 83