Published on: August 2026
RESOLVING THE LIFESPAN PERSONALITY TRAIT STABILITY–PLASTICITY PARADOX THROUGH THE LENS OF NāGāRJUNA’S MāDHYAMAKA PHILOSOPHY
Dr. Biswajit Satpathy
Department of Business Administration
Sambalpur University
Article Status
Available Documents
Abstract
The paper brings these empirical perspectives into dialogue with Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka philosophy, particularly Śūnyavāda, Pratītyasamutpāda, and Satya-dvaya. Rather than treating personality traits as intrinsically existing entities, the Mādhyamaka interpretation understands them as dependently co-arisen patterns that are empty of svabhāva, or independent and unchanging essence. The Big Five can therefore remain useful at the conventional level as prajñapti—functional conceptual designations—without being solidified as permanent psychological substances. High rank-order stability can be understood as continuity in the biological, social, environmental, and cognitive conditions that repeatedly reproduce similar behavioral patterns, while change occurs when those sustaining conditions change.
The paper further distinguishes this philosophical position from Western dynamic personality theories. Both reject rigid personality essentialism, but they differ in ontology, causality, epistemology, the interpretation of self, and ultimate purpose. Western dynamic approaches generally retain a real psychological system that changes over time, whereas Mādhyamaka uses dependent origination and emptiness to question the independent existence of the system itself. The resulting synthesis proposes that personality is best understood as a dynamic process stream conventionally measurable and practically useful, yet ultimately non-essential and open to transformation. In this interpretation, śūnyatā is not nihilism but the condition that makes development, adaptation, therapeutic change, and lifelong growth possible.
Keywords: Śūnyavāda (Emptiness); Pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent Origination); Satya-dvaya (Two Truths); Svabhāva (Intrinsic Essence); Prajñapti (Conventional Designation); Personality Stability; Personality Plasticity; Mādhyamaka; Lifespan Development.
How to Cite this Paper
Satpathy, B. (2026). Resolving the Lifespan Personality Trait Stability–Plasticity Paradox through the Lens of Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka Philosophy. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(8), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i8.215
Satpathy, Biswajit. "Resolving the Lifespan Personality Trait Stability–Plasticity Paradox through the Lens of Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka Philosophy." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 8, 2026, pp. 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i8.215.
Satpathy, Biswajit. "Resolving the Lifespan Personality Trait Stability–Plasticity Paradox through the Lens of Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka Philosophy." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 8 (2026): 1-9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i8.215.
References
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017185
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2018). Life events and personality trait change. Journal of Personality, 86(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12286
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31(3), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012294324713
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Theoretical and methodological implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.126
Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1266–1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1266
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853
Ethical Compliance & Review Process
- •All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
- •Review follows editorial policy.
- •Authors retain copyright.
- •Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
- •Published on: Aug 25 2026
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

