The current research examines what types of change are perceived as allowable versus disallowable in the self while still maintaining a sense of personal continuity. We find that overall, improvements are seen as more allowable than worsening or unspecified change, although this difference varies in magnitude based on the centrality of the trait being considered. Additionally, valence interacts with expectations of change, such that the differential impact of positive versus negative change on self-continuity is largest when positive change is expected, but is attenuated when negative change is expected.

We investigated people’s assessments of their own personal change over time, comparing predicted, actual, and recalled change in personality, values, and performance. On average, participants underestimated the absolute magnitude of their personal change in both prediction and recall. However, people specifically neglected negative future change, resulting in overly optimistic predictions of improvement. In contrast, recall of positive and negative change was relatively more balanced, such that assessments of past improvement were better calibrated on average. Our findings provide insight into how people think about their own identity over time and address disparate theories in the literature regarding predictions of personal stability versus improvement.