Parent and Child Personality Characteristics As Predictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing Problem... - Prinzie Et Al (2004)

European Journal of Personality Eur. J. Pers.
18: 73102 (2004)

Published online 20 December 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.501
Parent and Child Personality Characteristics as Predictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing Problem Behaviour in Children
P. PRINZIE*, P. ONGHENA, W. HELLINCKX, ` RE and H. COLPIN H. GRIETENS, P. GHESQUIE
Department of Educational Sciences, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium
Abstract Negative discipline has been linked to childhood externalizing behaviour. However, relatively little attention has been given to the potential effect of individual personality characteristics of children and parents. Using the Five Factor Model, we examined the extent to which parents and childrens personality characteristics were related to parenting and childrens externalizing behaviour in a proportional stratied general population sample ( N 599) of elementary-school-aged children. Based on Pattersons macromodel of parenting, an initial model was built, hypothesizing that the impact of parents and childs personality dimensions on externalizing problems was fully mediated by negative discipline. Results supported a modied model that added direct pathways between parent and child personality characteristics and externalizing problem behaviour. For the mother data, as well as for the father data, childrens Extraversion and Imagination were positively related to childrens externalizing problem behaviours. Childrens Benevolence and Conscientiousness and parents Emotional Stability were negatively related to externalizing problem behaviours. For the mother data, maternal Agreeableness was positively related to externalizing problem behaviours too. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION In the last two decades, ecological, developmental, and behavioural genetic perspectives have led to an increased appreciation of the complexity of personenvironment interactions (Hill, 2002). Contemporary research on parenting and child development is predominantly based on ecological models that take into consideration variables from biological, psychological, physical and socio-cultural levels (Belsky, 1984, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Lerner, Rothbaum, Boulos, &
*Correspondence to: P. Prinzie, Department of Educational Sciences, Vesaliusstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Peter.Prinzie@ped.kuleuven.ac.be
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 12 December 2002 Accepted 16 June 2003
74
P. Prinzie et al.
Castellino, 2002). Although parent and child characteristics have a place in these models (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986), the exact nature of that inuence is a challenging question that continues to stimulate controversy (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Maccoby, 1992). In his process model of parenting, Belsky (1984, 1997) explicitly put forward that parents as well as childrens personality characteristics must inuence parenting and childrens developmental outcomes. While there is an extensive literature on how parenting inuences childrens behaviour (e.g. Maccoby, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), surprisingly few empirical investigations have explored which parent characteristics (for a review, see Belsky & Barends, 2002) or child characteristics (see e.g. Bates, Pettit, Dodge, & Ridge, 1998; Colder, Lochman, & Wells, 1997; Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, & West, 2000) are primarily involved and to what extent these characteristics inuence parenting or child development. Most of these studies focused on specic personality characteristics of the parent (Bosquet & Egeland, 2000) or the child (Bates et al., 1998; Colder et al., 1997), on parental psychopathology (Goodman & Gotlib, 1999; Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998) and addressed the parenting of mothers (Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman, 1997) ignoring the possible impact of fathers personality characteristics. Finally, few studies have concurrently assessed child and parent personality characteristics, parenting and childrens conduct problems, which made it impossible to separate direct and mediated relations between personality characteristics and childrens problem behaviour. To our knowledge, studies reporting different effects of both childrens and parents personality characteristics measured by instruments consistent with the comprehensive Big Five Model (Goldberg, 1990) in nonclinical samples are lacking. Parental as well as childrens characteristics may have a direct effect on childrens externalizing behaviour problems or may be mediated by the parenting practices (Hill, 2002). This study integrated simultaneously parenting and personality effects of children and parents. The direct and indirect effects of both parental and child personality dimensions on externalizing problem behaviour in children were investigated. Personality characteristics of both parent and child were studied because, in the naturenurture debate, behaviour genetic studies provide increasing evidence for the complex interplay between parent and child effects (Lytton, 1990; Miles & Carey, 1997; Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000; Rutter, 1997, 2002).
RELATION BETWEEN PARENTING PRACTICES AND CHILDHOOD EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOUR Recent literature offers ample evidence that there is a substantial relation between dysfunctional parenting practices and the development of conduct problems in children (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995; Kiesner, Dishion, & Poulin, 2001; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Patterson & Fisher, 2002; Shaw & Bell, 1993). According to these studies, negative (i.e. harsh, authoritarian) discipline by parents is correlated with behaviour problems in children (Baumrind, 1993; Patterson, 2002; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). According to Patterson (2002), disrupted parenting practices are the proximal mechanism for the production of antisocial behaviour. From a social learning perspective, Patterson and his colleagues built two parallel theories at very different but interrelated levels (Patterson, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992; Snyder, 1995).
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour
75
A micromodel, based on extensive observation data of moment-by-moment parent child interactions, is used to elucidate in detail how parents and children change each others behaviour over time (Eddy, Leve, & Fagot, 2001; Patterson, 1982; Patterson et al., 1992). In his coercion theory, Patterson (1982, 2002) describes a multistep family process called coercion training that occurs frequently in families of aggressive boys and that consists of escape-conditioning contingencies. The rst step is an aversive intrusion of the parent. Typically, the intrusions are minor ones. For example, a mother simply scolds a child for not doing his homework. The second step involves a counterattack by the child, through arguing, yelling, whining, shouting, or complaining about the parents directive. The third step, the parents response to the childs coercive attempt, is crucial. When the parent does not enforce the directive, the child is rewarded for his coercive behaviour. The danger of this step lies in the behavioural trap inherent in negative reinforcement. The trap is that coercion is functional in the short run but leads to maladaptive long-term outcomes. In the short run, a coercive response effectively terminates conict. In the long run, the likelihood of coercive behaviour in subsequent conicts is increased. At the fourth step, the child terminates the counterattack, and the parent is reinforced for her or his backing off. In this way, both parent and child reinforce each other in the use of coercive tactics. These reinforcements increase the probability that the coercive exchange will be repeated in future interactions. Not only will the exchange be repeated; as the interaction chains increase in length and hostility, it may also escalate (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson, 1982, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992). In the long term, the coercive training the young child receives at home results in massive social skills and academic decits. The second level consists of a multimethod- and multiagent-dened macromodel that explains in very general terms how parenting practices control the contingent parentchild interactions (Patterson, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992; Snyder, 1995). A strong association was found between harsh, capricious, and inconsistent parental discipline, parental monitoring, and child antisocial behaviour (Patterson, 1986). According to this model, the impact of contextual variables such as social disadvantage (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994), divorce (Forgatch, Patterson, & Skinner, 1988), parental stress (Conger, Patterson, & Ge, 1995), parental depression (Bank, Forgatch, Patterson, & Fetrow, 1993), parental antisocial behaviour (Patterson & Dishion, 1988), and childrens characteristics on child adjustment is mediated by the impact on parenting practices (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Reid & Patterson, 1989). However, in contrast to the contextual variables, the impact of parental and child personality characteristics has not yet been empirically studied.
RELATION BETWEEN PARENT PERSONALITY, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, PARENTING, AND CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES In the past decades, most of the empirical studies on the relationship between parental personality characteristics and parenting or childrens developmental outcomes lacked a systematic approach to the measurement of personality and were restricted to parental psychopathology (Belsky & Barends, 2002). Among all other dysfunctions, depression has received the overwhelming majority of attention (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Field, 1995; Hops, Sherman, & Biglan, 1990; Zahn-Waxler, 1995; Zahn-Waxler, Duggal, & Gruber, 2002). The assessment of personality characteristics has often focused on neuroticism, a personality dimension that connotes vulnerability to anxiety, worry, and poor coping with
76
P. Prinzie et al.
stress. Numerous investigations document the unresponsive, intrusive, and even hostile ways in which depressed mothers often behave toward infants and young children (for a review, see Downey & James, 1990). According to Pattersons macromodel the impact of parental depression on child adjustment is mediated through its disrupting impact on family-management practices (Patterson et al., 1992). Parental depression produces negative outcomes for child adjustment only if the social interchanges between parent and child becomes interrupted (Conger et al., 1995). Parental depression undermines parents practice of discipline and supervision, increasing the probability that youngsters will become progressively out of control and delinquent. In studying families of children at high risk for juvenile delinquency, Patterson and Dishion (1988) have directed special attention to the antisocial personality trait among parents. Parent antisocial behaviour was dened by the Psychopathic-deviate (Pd) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), records of moving trafc violations, licence suspensions, and convictions for violations of the law. Patterson and his colleagues (e.g. Patterson & Dishion, 1988) found that explosiveness by grandparents was related to antisocial behaviour in parents, and the effect of antisocial parental patterns on child antisocial behaviour was also mediated by poor parental discipline practices. Parental hostile interchanges with children predicted child antisocial development. However, Brook, Zheng, Whiteman and Brook (2001) found that maternal rearing served as a mediator for parental aggression but parental aggression has also a direct effect on toddler aggression. Another possibility, and a more comprehensive approach, to investigate the impact of parent personality characteristics on parenting or childrens outcomes is offered by the Big Five. Personality research has been given a new impetus and direction over the past decade by a near consensus on the main factors that provide the structure within which the myriad of more specic personality traits can be arrayed (Caspi, 1998). The Big Five personality factors have traditionally been numbered and labelled as follows: (I) Extraversion (or Surgency, Positive Affectivity), (II) Agreeableness (versus Antagonism), (III) Conscientiousness (or Constraint Dependability), (IV) Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism or Negative Affectivity), and (V) Openness to Experience (or Intellect, Culture) (see Caspi, 1998; Goldberg, 1990). The Big Five has been proven useful as a framework for organizing ndings on individual differences in adulthood. In addition, the Big Five factors were found in clinical person descriptions (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). Moreover, empirical research revealed strong and fairly consistent associations between the Big Five personality factors and psychopathology in adults (Cloninger, 1999; Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Watson & Clark, 1994; Widiger & Trull, 1992). From the perspective of the Big Five, personality disorders represent congurations of basic dimensions of personality. Widiger and Costa (2002) have identied over 50 published studies that have shown relations between the Big Five and personality disorder symptoms. Few studies however have investigated possible relations between the ve factor dimensions and parenting behaviours or childrens adjustment behaviour in nonclinical samples. As Belsky and Barend (2002, p. 434) pointed out, the power of the Big Five to capture much of the variation in adult personality has not been sufciently appreciated. With regard to the relation between parent personality traits and parenting, Belsky, Crnic, and Woodworth (1995) investigated relations between Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness and observed parenting. Using the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985), they found that, for mothers and fathers, Neuroticism was consistently associated with less sensitive, less affective, and less stimulating parenting. Extraversion
77
and Agreeableness were linked to more adaptive parenting. Losoya, Callor, Rowe, and Goldsmith (1997) also found that parents with high scores on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness were more engaged in positive supporting parenting such as displaying positive affection and encouraging independence. Conscientiousness on the other hand was negatively related to negative, controlling parenting. Using the model of Watson, Clark, and Harkness (1994), Kochanska et al. (1997) investigated the impact of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness on parenting and childrens developmental outcomes. The results indicated that mothers high in negative emotionality and disagreeableness showed more negative affect. Their children were more deant and angry. These mothers also reported more power-assertive and less nurturing parenting, as well as less secure attachment, more behavioural problems, and lower internalization rules in their children. With regard to clinical samples, Nigg and Hinshaw (1998) reported that, compared with non-ADHD boys, boys with ADHD and comorbid antisocial diagnosis had fathers with lower Agreeableness, higher Neuroticism, and a greater likelihood of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Higher rates of observable overt antisocial behaviours in boys were associated primarily with maternal characteristics such as higher Neuroticism, lower Conscientiousness, and the presence of Major Depression. In contrast, higher rates of observable covert antisocial behaviours were associated solely with fathers characteristics, such as substance abuse/dependency and higher Openness. Maternal neuroticism has also been linked to child delinquency (Borduin, Henggeler, & Pruitt, 1985) and more generally to externalizing behaviours in children (Bates, Bayles, Bennet, Ridge, & Brown, 1991). Further, Openness was found to be strongly related to Sensation Seeking (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994). Sensation Seeking, in turn, signicantly predicted antisocial behaviour (Frick, Juper, Silverthorn, & Cotter, 1995; Zuckerman, 1991).
RELATION BETWEEN CHILD PERSONALITY AND CHILDHOOD EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOUR Studies that have investigated the impact of childrens characteristics on parenting or behaviour problems in childhood have predominantly focused on specic temperament characteristics (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Classically, temperament has been viewed as a substrate for personality development, consisting of simple, basic styles that emerge early and that are closely tied to later personality dimensions (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Hartup & van Lieshout, 1995). Research has linked certain temperamental characteristics, which have been shown to be heritable (Plomin et al., 1993), with externalizing problems in children (Sanson & Prior, 1999) and adolescents (Romero, Luengo, & Sobral, 2001) (for a review, see Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Temperamental measures of difcultness appear to predict both externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems (Guerin, Gottfried, & Thomas, 1997). Difcultness includes negative emotional expression, impulsivity, low frustration tolerance, restlessness, low fearfulness, and distractibility. However, the integration of the various results is hampered by denitional differences accompanied by assessment differences. Moreover, there is no general consensus on the number and nature of temperamental dimensions and the dimensions do not consistently emerge from factor analytic studies (see e.g. Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999). With regard to personality traits in children, considerable progress has been made over the past decade toward the development of a more generally accepted taxonomy (Caspi,
78
P. Prinzie et al.
1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). The Big Five factors also have been extended to ratings of nonclinical children and adolescents (Digman, 1994; Halverson, Kohnstamm, & Martin, 1994; Robins, John, & Caspi, 1994; van Lieshout & Haselager, 1994), related to early temperament (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Rothbart & Bates, 1998) and to spontaneous person descriptions by parents of their children (De Fruyt, Van Hiel, & Buyst, 1998). An advantage of the Big Five is that it serves as a framework to conduct systematic research and that it provides an integration of the diversity of individual personality measures (McCrae & Costa, 1996). In addition, given the use of the Big Five for exploring adult personality, extension of the Big Five into childhood and adolescence can facilitate comparisons across developmental periods. A very comprehensive personality inventory today, assessing individual differences in children, is the HiPIC (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999). The HiPIC as a personality scale is based on an extensive analysis of free parental descriptions (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998). Recently, De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra and Rolland (2000) showed thatfor a self-report version of the HiPIC administered to a sample of adolescents (1217, mean age 13.6)a joint principal component analysis of HiPIC and NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) facets clearly demonstrated the close relationship between the 18 HiPIC facets and the adult FFM as operationalized by the NEO-PI-R. Hence the HiPIC evolved from a variant of the lexical approach but its facets load the corresponding factors of the adult Five Factor Model, at least for adolescents. Only a few studies have investigated the relationships between the ve factor dimensions and adjustment behaviour. John, Caspi, Robins, Moftt, and StouthamerLoeber (1994) suggested that the personality traits in young adolescents are differentially implicated in the expression of psychopathology, providing evidence for the discriminative power of the Big Five. Externalizing problem behaviour was more prevalent among boys who were extraverted, not agreeable, and not conscientious. Krueger, Caspi, Moftt, Silva and Mcgee (1996) have linked externalizing behaviour to lower scores on Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. These ndings are consistent with the three replicable personality types that emerged in some studies with regular samples (Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, & van Aken, 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Block & Block, 1980; Caspi, 1998; De Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen 2002; van Lieshout, 2000). These personality types vary in their exible and resourceful adjustment and control of impulses and they consistently show characteristic proles on the Big-Five personality factors. The rst category, or personality type, is labelled resilients, and described individuals who were assertive and self-condent, not anxious, and not immature. The other two types differ in their impulse control. The second personality type is labelled overcontrollers, and describes individuals who were shy, dependent, noncompetitive, and nonaggressive. The vulnerable overcontrollers tend to internalizing problems and score particularly low on Extraversion and Emotional Stability. The third type is labelled undercontrollers. Undercontrollers tend to be more impulsive, stubborn, not obedient, restless, and distractible. The antisocial undercontrollers, the great majority of them being boys, tend to be disagreeable, antagonistic, and hostile; they score high on Extraversion, but particularly low on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Robins, John, Caspi, Moftt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996). The personality subtypes reveal slightly different personality proles, but very distinctive adjustment patterns that seem highly similar across middle childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Recently, De Fruyt et al. (2002) showed that, using the HiPIC in a sample aged 715 and a longitudinal sample aged 513, three types resembling resilients, overcontrollers, and undercontrollers could be
79
recovered. In both samples HiPIC Benevolence and Conscientiousness consistently marked one of the three clusters.
AIM OF THIS STUDY In the current study, the direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality characteristics on parenting practices and childrens externalizing problem behaviour were examined in a proportional stratied sample of 599 nonclinical elementary school-aged children. The focus was on negative discipline: coercive parental discipline, overreactivity, and laxness, which are consistently associated with aggressive or externalizing behaviour (Patterson, 1982, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992; OLeary, Slep, & Reid, 1999). We expected that, according to the macromodel of Patterson (Patterson et al., 1992; Reid & Patterson, 1989), the impact of parent and child personality characteristics was mediated partly through their impact on dysfunctional parenting practices, but, in addition, we expected that the personality characteristics of the parent also contributed directly to childrens externalizing behaviour above and beyond the indirect effects (see e.g. Brook et al., 2001). Further, we hypothesized that specic child personality characteristics also have a direct effect on externalizing behaviour problems beyond the parenting effects. Based on past research (John et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1996; Robins et al., 1996), we expected that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness contributed directly. Finally, we investigated whether the direct and indirect effects were the same for the mother and the father data. This study sought to extend previous research on the aetiology of childrens behavioural problems by (i) examining the role of parents personality characteristics, childrens personality characteristics, and dysfunctional parenting behaviours in predicting child outcomes; (ii) assessing all Big Five dimensions of the parents as well as of the children, (iii) including fathers, in addition to mothers, to examine their potentially unique contributions to childrens adjustment; (iv) using a large proportional stratied sample of school-aged children. METHOD Participants A proportional stratied sample of elementary-school-aged children attending regular schools was randomly selected (i.e. the names of the children who have had their birthday before 31 March were arranged alphabetically; the second and the last child but one were selected). Strata were constructed according to geographical location (province), sex, and age. Out of 800 invited families, 599 families (92.5 per cent two-parent families) with an elementary-school-aged child participated. Target children in these families ranged in age from 5 to 11 years (M 7 years 10 months, SD 1.16). There were 304 boys (M 7 years 10 months, range 5 years 9 months10 years 10 months, SD 1.16) and 295 girls (M 7 years 10 months, range 5 years10 years 5 months, SD 1.16). From 555 families, both parents provided data. From 39 children only the mother and from ve children only the father agreed to complete the questionnaires. All parents had Belgian nationality. The mean age of the mothers was 36 years 11 months (range 27 years 1 month52 years, SD 3.64) and of the fathers 39 years (range 27 years 11 months61 years 10 months,
80
P. Prinzie et al.
SD 4.26). The number of children living at home ranged from one to seven (mean 2.4). Percentages of mothers (M) and fathers (F) with various educational levels: elementary school, M 0.9; F 3.0; secondary education, M 41.1, F 43.3; non-university higher education, M 45.2, F 34.4; university, M 12.8, F 19.2. Due to missing values the data of 580 mothers and 531 fathers were retained. Instruments and measures Overreactive and lax parenting Participants rated the Dutch translation of the Parenting Scale (Arnold, OLeary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993). The parenting scale was originally developed as a self-report questionnaire to identify parents discipline style when handling misbehaviour, even if discipline actions do not occur frequently. Based on factor analytic ndings, three subscales were developed. The Laxness factor assesses permissive discipline and the ways that parents are inconsistent or give positive reinforcers for misbehaviour. The Overreactivity factor relates to parenting behaviours of irritability, anger, meanness, and frustration and is associated with an authoritarian style of discipline. The Verbosity factor relates to nagging, lecturing, giving many warnings, and a general reliance on talking despite its ineffectiveness and potential for reinforcement by providing additional attention for the childs misbehaviour. The scale consisted of 30 items presenting discipline encounters (e.g. When my child misbehaves . . . ) followed by two options that act as opposite anchor points for a seven-point scale where 7 indicates a high probability of making the discipline mistake and 1 indicates a high probability of using an effective, alternative discipline strategy (e.g. I speak to my child calmly versus I raise my voice or yell). The scales factor structure has been found to be consistent with past research and theory. The Overreactivity and Laxness factors have adequate testretest reliability, distinguish clinical from nonclinical samples, and have been validated against behavioural observations of parenting (Arnold et al., 1993; Locke & Prinz, 2002). An exploratory factor analysis of the translated version revealed two interpretable factors corresponding with the Overreactivity and the Laxness factor identied in previous studies of the ` re, & Hellinckx, manuscript submitted for parenting scale1 (Prinzie, Onghena, Ghesquie publication). With the oblique rotation promax, the two factors correlated 0.38. The Laxness factor includes 11 items related to permissive discipline. These items describe ways in which parents give in, allow rules to go un-enforced, or provide positive consequences for misbehaviour (e.g. item 16 When my child does something I dont like . . . I do something about it every time it happens versus I often let it go; item 8 Im the kind of parent that . . . set limits on what my child is allowed to do versus lets my child do whatever he/she wants). The Overreactivity factor contains nine items and measures the tendency exhibited by parents to respond with anger, frustration, meanness, and irritation, impatiently and aversively to problematic behaviour of their children (e.g. item 25 When my child misbehaves . . . I rarely use bad language or curse versus I almost always use bad language; item 10 When my child misbehaves . . . I speak to my child calmly versus I raise my voice or yell). Cronbachs alphas for the mother data (N 580) were 0.78 for the new Overreactivity scale and 0.81 for the new Laxness scale. For the father data (N 531) Cronbachs alpha were 0.77 for the new Overreactivity scale
1 As in the studies of Harvey, Danforth, Ulaszek, and Eberhardt (2001), Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski and Ary (1999), and Reitman et al. (2001), a conrmatory factor analysis did not replicate the three factors found by Arnold et al. (1993).
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
81
and 0.84 for the new Laxness scale. Mother and father Overreactivity and Laxness scores were correlated, r 0.28, p < 0.001 and r 0.23, p < 0.001, respectively. Coercive parenting rcief Opvoedingsgedrag Further, both parents rated the Leuvens Instrument voor Coe (LICO; Leuvens Instrument of Coercive Parenting Behaviour; Hellinckx et al., 2000). This new self-report questionnaire assesses coercion as described by Patterson et al. (1992). When parents are inconsistent and capitulate to the child, Patterson (1976) hypothesized that they enter a reinforcement trap, where short-term gains (e.g. peace and quiet) are obtained at the cost of strengthening the childs difcult behaviour. This instrument is novel in that it is based on the outcome of entire conict sequences rather than on immediate reactions to particular individual behaviours. The LICO contains ten situations in which the child is confronted with an aversive intrusion of the parents (e.g. such as telling a child playing to clean up toys, to go to bed, to take a bath). For each situation, parents completed at maximum six items, i.e. three sequences of actions of the child (e.g. when you ask your child to go to bed, how will your child usually act?) and reactions of the parent (e.g. given that your child acts like that . . . how do you usually react?). The answer categories of the child behaviour range on a continuum from 1 (obey) to 4 (get angry, hit). Parent behaviours range from 1 (give in) to 5 (punish severely). If the child complies during the rst or second sequence, parents go on with the next situation. If on the other hand the parents capitulate to the child, a coercion score is calculated taking the duration of the conict (i.e. the longer the child resists the request, the higher the coercion score) and the intensity of the aversive child behaviour (i.e. the more aversively the child reacts, the higher the coercion score) into account. The total score for coercion is derived by adding the coercion scores of the ten situations. Cronbachs alphas for the LICO were 0.88 and 0.91 in the mother and father data, respectively. Mother and father coercion scores were correlated, 0.35; p < 0.001. In the mother data as well as in the father data, the coercion score correlated r 0.19, p < 0.001 with the Overreactivity score and r 0.26, p < 0.001 and r 0.22, p < 0.001 with the Laxness score in the mother and father data, respectively. Child personality To measure personality characteristics of their child both parents completed the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC, Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999). Based on an extensive analysis of free parental descriptions (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998), the HiPIC is a very comprehensive personality inventory, to assess individual differences in children. The HiPIC is designed to describe individual differences among children aged 612 years. This instrument includes 144 items, hierarchically organized under ve higher order domains. The items in this questionnaire are all brief statements referring to overt behaviour that is observable for peers, parents, or others. All items are formulated in the third person singular, avoid negations, do not include trait adjectives and refer to overt behaviour. Parents completed childrens behaviour on a ve-point scale, anchored as follows: (1) Almost not characteristic, (2) Little characteristic, (3) More or less characteristic, (4) Characteristic, and (5) Very characteristic. Findings concerning structural replicability, convergent and discrimant validities, temporal stability, and construct validity have recently been reported by Mervielde and De Fruyt (2002). The following domain scales were distinguished with number of items and Cronbachs alphas for the mothers and fathers, respectively, between parentheses.
82
P. Prinzie et al.
(i) ExtraversionIntroversion (32 items; 0.91, 0.91). This scale contrasts emotional, social and verbal expressiveness with shyness, inhibition, self-isolation, withdrawal, and nonassertiveness. (ii) Benevolence (40 items; 0.93, 0.92). This scale covers the broad area of prosocial versus antisocial interactions. The scale contrasts a warm, empathic consideration of other peoples needs, emotions, and interests, and open, trustful, interpersonal orientations, with dominance, irritation, and antisocial exploitation of others. To distinguish the broader content from the adult Agreeableness factor, this factor was labelled as Benevolence. (iii) Conscientiousness (32 items; 0.92, 0.93). This scale refers to conscientiousness in worklike situations. The scale combines a concentrated, planful, reliable, and competent high achievement orientation in work situations with high levels of involvement and perseverance. (iv) Emotional Stability (16 items; 0.88, 0.86). In this scale, self-reliance, emotional balance, and being easy-going are opposed to being fearful, anxious, and emotionally disorganized under stress, and having low self-esteem. (v) Imagination (24 items; 0.92, 0.92). The items of this scale emphasizes openness to new ideas and experiences in terms of creativity, fantasy, curiosity, imagination, humour, and resourcefulness in initiating activities. The correlation between mother and father scores ranged from 0.65, p < 0.001 for Extraversion to 0.75, p < 0.001 for Conscientiousness. Parent personality Parents described their own personality using the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI, Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation; Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999, 2002). The FFPI was developed within the psycholexical paradigm and is based on the Abridged Big 5 Circumplex Model (Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992). The FFPI comprises 100 brief non-dispositional sentence items assessing ve broad dimensions of individual differences in behaviour. The scales are labelled Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy. Besides scores for the Big Five dimensions, the FFPI enables the computation of an additional 40 bipolar facet scores, derived as blends of the Big Five. Parents completed the items on a ve-point scale, anchored as follows: (1) Not at all applicable, (2) Little applicable, (3) Moderately applicable, (4) Largely applicable, (5) Entirely applicable. In the normal population, the FFPI scale and factor scores show high internal consistencies, substantial stabilities, and good construct validity (Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation; Hendriks et al., 1999, 2002, in press). Factor weights, established in a large (N 2494) Dutch normative sample (Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation), were used to produce uncorrelated factor scores. The FFPI is available in 17 languages. The following domain scales were distinguished with Cronbachs alphas for the mothers and fathers, respectively, between parentheses. (i) ExtraversionIntroversion (0.90, 0.91). This scale describes the extent to which the person actively engages the world or avoids intense social experiences. (ii) Agreeableness (0.89, 0.89). This scale covers the broad area of prosocial versus antisocial interactions. Agreeable persons are empathic, altruistic, helpful, and trusting, whereas antagonistic persons are abrasive, ruthless, manipulative, and irritable. (iii) Conscientiousness (0.89, 0.89). This scale concerned conscientiousness in work situations. The scale combines a concentrated, planful, reliable, and competent high achievement orientation in work situations with high levels of involvement and perseverance. (iv) Emotional Stability (0.90, 0.88). This scale describes the extent to which the person experiences the world as distressing or threatening. (v) Autonomy (0.85, 0.87). Short for Intellectual Autonomy, where emphasis is on the capability to take independent decisions, not be inuenced by social pressures to conform, and maintain an
83
independent opinion on topics (Perugini & Ercolani, 1998). Recently, De Fruyt, McCrae, Szirmak, and Nagy (manuscript submitted for publication) found that the Autonomy factor is not equivalent to the NEO-PI-R Openness factor. Facet analyses indicated that Autonomy is related to determined self-control and independent decision-making. Openness to Experience corresponds to the lexical Intellect factor, but it is broader, including unconventionality and behavioural exibility (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Externalizing behaviour problems Parents were asked to complete the Dutch translation of the CBCL (Achenbach, 1991; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1996), which is a global measure of a range of problem behaviours in children and adolescents. This widely used instrument has two parts, one part measuring childrens competencies and a second part consisting of 120 items describing a broad range of problems. Only the ndings from the latter part of the CBCL were used for the purpose of this study. Each item on the CBCL is completed as 0 (not true), 1 (sometimes true), or 2 (often true). The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) is an extensively validated instrument that has adequate reliability and rube , & Achenbach, validity for describing child behaviour (Achenbach, 1991; Vignoe, Be 2000). The externalizing scale (comprising delinquent behaviour and aggressive behaviour items) was used in the analyses of this study. The aggression subscale is made up of 19 items, including overt aggressive behaviours such as arguing a lot, destroying ones own and others belongings, being disobedient at home and at school, ghting with other children, attacking others, and threatening others. The delinquency subscale is made up of 13 items including more covert behaviours such as lying, cheating, being truant, having no guilt, stealing at home and elsewhere.2 The externalizing scale is traditionally used in raw score form by summing the score across all items (Achenbach, 1991). Cronbachs alpha for mothers was 0.89, for fathers 0.86. Of the 580 children in the mother data, 471 were in the normal range, 43 in the borderline range, and 66 in the clinical range. Of the 531 children in the father data, 456 were rated in the normal range, 29 in the borderline range and 46 in the clinical range. The correlation between the mother and father scores was signicant (r 0.68; p < 0.001). Statistical methods First, we examined the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each variable separately. Second, we examined the bivariate relationships among the parenting, the personality, and the problem behaviour measures. Finally, we used path analysis to examine simultaneously direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality characteristics on negative discipline and externalizing problem behaviour. We opted for path analysis and not for a latent variable model approach because we had only two indicators (mother and father ratings) for the major latent constructs. Bollen (1989), among others, suggests that three indicators are a minimum, and others point out that four indicators per latent variable are necessary to avoid a just-identied model. We used reskog & So rbom, 2002a) for testing the proposed model on our data and LISREL 8.52 (Jo to disentangle direct and indirect effects of parent personality characteristics in the
2 Out of the 13 items, two items (item 101, truancy, and item 105, alcohol and drugs) had a prevalence of zero per cent in the mother as well as in the father ratings. In addition, six items had prevalence less than two per cent in the mother ratings as well as in the father ratings (i.e. item 67, runs away, 0.8 per cent, 0.2 per cent; item 72, re setting, 0.3 per cent, 0.5 per cent; item 81, stealing at home, 1.7 per cent, 0.9 per cent; item 82, stealing outside the home, 0.8 per cent, 0.5 per cent; item 106, vandalism, 1.8 per cent, 0.2 per cent).
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
84
P. Prinzie et al.
established model of childrens externalizing behaviour. These analyses were based on asymptotic covariance matrices (estimated moments were covariances), which were reskog & So rbom, 2002b). The t of the estimated via the PRELIS 2.52 program (Jo models was examined by looking at the 2-test, the goodness-of-t index (GFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A GFI near to unity and an RMSEA smaller than 0.05 were taken as indications of a satisfactory t (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). RMSEA values up to 0.08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population. The expected cross validation index (ECVI) was used to choose among alternative models. The ECVI of the chosen model should be smaller than the values for the alternatives reskog & So rbom, 1996). The parameters of chi squared (2), Akaikes information (Jo criterion (AIC), comparative t index (CFI), goodness-of-t index (GFI), root mean square residual (RMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and expected cross validation index (ECVI) were used to test and compare the t of the models. Aikaikes information criterion is used in model comparisons; the smaller its value, the better the model. No exact norm values for the model AIC are available. Weighted least squares were used to estimate the model parameters. According to Pattersons assumptions (Patterson, 2002), in an initial basic model all the child and mother personality characteristics were mediated by the parenting variables. Our hypothesized model also contained, in addition to the indirect effects, direct effects of parents and childs personality characteristics. As outlined by Holmbeck (1997), we examined whether the second model provided a signicant improvement in t over the rst model. Improvement in t is assessed with a signicance test on the basis of the difference between the two-model chi-squares. To address possible problems with post hoc model tting, we employed a cross-validation strategy whereby the nal model derived from the mother data was tested on the father data. This invariance testing strategy gives an indication of the stability of the model. As Bollen (1989) has indicated, this excessively rigid test of cross-validation is appropriate when a multigroup focus is directed more toward the equality of structuralrather than measurementparameters.
RESULTS Descriptive statistics and relations among the study variables Univariate descriptive statistics revealed in the mother and father data that the coercion variable was signicantly skewed (2.83, 3.82) and had a kurtosis of 9.87 and 21.53, respectively. To reduce non-normality, a square root transformation was performed (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). After transformation of the coercion variable, absolute values of skewness ranged in both samples from 0.01 to 1.67 and absolute values of kurtosis ranged from 0.02 to 4.21. The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between the variables are reported in Table 1. Childrens and parents scores on the Big Five were moderately correlated. This is in accordance with the results of Jang, Livesley, and Vernon (1996), who estimated a broad genetic inuence on the ve personality dimensions measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). With respect to the parent personalityparenting linkage, Table 1 shows that mothers with low scores on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy scored higher on Overreactivity and Laxness. A signicant negative correlation was found between Emotional Stability and Coercion. Fathers with low scores on Agreeableness and
Table 1.
5
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 7.87 116.92 139.50 108.46 55.69 0.02 0.10* 0.10* 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.36*** 0.08 0.00 0.19*** 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.11** 0.37*** 0.04 0.21*** 92.58 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.16 2.14 1.74 7.39 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09y 0.05 0.01 0.15*** 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.28*** 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.09* 0.12** 0.22*** 0.09* 0.09* 0.07 0.06 0.30*** 0.20*** 0.11** 0.22*** 0.12** 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.36*** 0.19*** 0.16*** 0.17*** 0.04 0.12** 0.39*** 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.11** 0.20*** 0.13** 0.12** 0.01 0.04 0.22*** 0.63*** 0.08 0.30*** 0.14** 0.16*** 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.12** 0.15*** 0.05 0.09* 0.01 0.11** 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.10* 0.06 0.09* 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04
Pearson correlations, mean scores, and standard deviations for the mother data (N 580) and the father data (N 531)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mm SDm Mf SDf
Measure
0.01 0.47*** 0.28*** 0.21*** 0.31*** 0.12** 0.07 0.04 0.11** 0.11** 0.03 0.12** 0.15*** 0.05 0.05 0.34*** 0.17*** 0.11* 0.24*** 0.11** 0.16*** 0.12** 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.15*** 0.25*** 0.57*** 0.17*** 0.50*** 0.34***
0.01 0.07
0.09* 0.06
0.12** 0.07
0.07 0.03
0.01 0.13**
0.05 0.02
0.04 0.04
0.13** 0.04
0.00 0.02
0.19*** 0.10*
1.16 16.10 19.82 18.65 10.00 13.43 1.03 0.99 0.97 0.99 1.02 0.88 0.64 1.75 6.67
7.87
1.16 116.45 15.12 137.45 18.54 107.30 18.06 56.60 9.06 91.54 12.72 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 3.15 2.20 1.79 6.58 1.06 0.99 0.97 0.96 1.05 0.86 0.69 1.79 6.18
1. Sexa 2. Age 0.01 Childs personality 3. Extraversion 0.02 4. Benevolence 0.12** 5. Conscientiousness 0.11** 6. Em. Stability 0.04
0.09* 0.07 0.04 0.06
0.12** 0.10* 0.09 0.37*** 0.43*** 0.27***
0.14** 0.38*** 0.19***

0.23*** 0.00 0.06
7. Imagination Parents personality 8. Extraversion 9. Agreeableness 10. Conscientiousness 11. Em. Stability
0.01
0.14**
0.44*** 0.12**
0.48***
0.03 0.03 0.09* 0.04
0.05 0.38*** 0.13** 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.05
0.16*** 0.34*** 0.18*** 0.23***
0.11** 0.19*** 0.04 0.05 0.33*** 0.05 0.17*** 0.36***
0.04
0.01
0.23*** 0.02
0.21***
12. Autonomy Parenting 13. Overreactivity 14. Laxness 15. Coercion Problem behaviors 16. Externalizing
0.12** 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03
0.06 0.42*** 0.25*** 0.17*** 0.15*** 0.00 0.10* 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.17*** 0.20*** 0.09* 0.01 0.26*** 0.07 0.12** 0.02 0.06
0.19*** 0.11**
0.07
0.67*** 0.34*** 0.16***
Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 85
Intercorrelations for the mother data (n 580) are presented below the diagonal, and intercorrelations for fathers (n 531) are presented above the diagonal. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. a Sex is coded as follows: boys 1, girls 2. Mm mean in the mother data, Mf mean in the father data, SDm standard deviation in the mother data, SDf standard deviation in the father data. Means and standard deviations of the transformed coercion variable are reported.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
86
P. Prinzie et al.
Conscientiousness scored signicantly higher on Overreactivity. With respect to the child personalityparenting linkage, Overreactivity and Coercion occurred much more in families with a child who scored low on Benevolence. Further, a signicant negative relation was found between the parenting variables Overreactivity and Laxness and the child personality characteristics Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Imagination. With respect to the personality characteristics and externalizing behaviour problems linkage, lower levels of parental Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability and of childrens Benevolence, Conscientiousness, and to a lesser degree Emotional Stability were in the mother data related to higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. In the father data, lower levels of parental Extraversion and Agreeableness and higher levels of Autonomy were associated with higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. Lower levels of childrens Benevolence, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability were related to higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. For mothers and for fathers, moderate but signicant correlations were found between the parenting variables. These correlations suggest that the variables were correlated but not redundant. Results of hypothesis tests using path analyses First, model 1, in which, according to Pattersons assumption (Patterson, 2002; Reid & Patterson, 1989) parental and child personality characteristics were mediated by the parenting variables, was tested on the mother data. Goodness-of-t statistics (see Table 2, model 1) indicated a fairly good t between the initial model and the mother sample data. The GFI was 1.00, the RMSEA was 0.074. Although the overall tests indicated a fairly good t, some of the relations between the variables had nonsignicant t values, indicating reskog & So rbom, 1993). The that a more parsimonious model could be found (Jo paths from mothers Extraversion ( 0.03, t 0.86), Conscientiousness ( 0.01, t 0.35), and Agreeableness ( 0.06, t 1.38) and from childrens Extraversion ( 0.02, t 0.34), Emotional Stability ( 0.04, t 1.03), and Imagination ( 0.04, t 0.93) to Overreactivity had nonsignicant t-values. The paths from mothers Extraversion ( 0.01, t 0.20), Conscientiousness ( 0.00, t 0.04), Emotional Stability ( 0.04, t 0.97), and Autonomy ( 0.03, t 0.82) and from childrens Conscientiousness ( 0.02, t 0.35), Emotional Stability ( 0.06, t 0.33), and Imagination ( 0.05, t 1.29) to Coercion also had nonsignicant tvalues. To Laxness, the paths from mothers Extraversion ( 0.07, t 0.46), Agreeableness ( 0.02, t 0.30), Conscientiousness ( 0.03, t 0.89), and Emotional Stability ( 0.04, t 0.92) and from childrens Extraversion ( 0.07, t 1.55), Conscientiousness ( 0.06, t 1.44), and Imagination ( 0.03, t 0.57) were insignicant. In a trimming process (Kline, 1998), nonsignicant paths were removed from the model, one at a time, beginning with the path with the smallest t value (model 2, Figure 1). The chi-square difference with 20 degrees of freedom was nonsignicant, 2 20 16:23, p 0.70. This model explained 43 per cent of the variance in the externalizing behaviour measure. In model 3, we investigated the direct effects of childrens and mothers personality characteristics. The paths from mothers Extraversion ( 0.03, t 0.94), Conscientiousness ( 0.04, t 1.20), and Autonomy ( 0.02, t 0.58) and from childrens Emotional Stability ( 0.03, t 0.80) to Externalizing had a nonsignicant t-value and were removed from the model. The paths from childrens Extraversion to Coercion ( 0.04, t 0.99) and from childrens Emotional Stability to Laxness ( 0.08,
Table 2. Model t indices and nested model comparisons in mother and father data df 28 48 38 44 48 88 109 105 0.291 0.012 0.258 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.012 0.025 0.012 0.422 0.430 0.408 0.00 0.00 0.286 0.288 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.989 0.989 0.999 1.00 0.820 0.074 0.056 0.014 0.014 0.081 0.585 0.543 0.421 0.410 0.707 16.448 16.182 2.764 2.827 15.506 1.346 1.605 1.312 p GFI CFI RMSEA ECVI RMR AIC 331.91 308.13 238.42 232.73 400.91 462.81 471.31 447.99 R2 externalizing 0.41 0.43 0.52 0.52 0.43 0.47 0.49/0.48
Path analysis
2
Mother data Model 1 (mediating model) Model 2 (without nonsignicant paths) Model 3 (direct personality effects) Model 4 (without nonsignicant paths) Model 5 (only direct effects) Mother and father data Model 6 (simultaneous estimation) Model 7 (equality constraints) Model 8 (nal model)
115.91 132.13 42.42 48.73 224.91
94.81 145.31 113.99
87
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
88 P. Prinzie et al.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
Figure 1. Model 2: parent and child personality characteristics on externalizing problems fully mediated by negative discipline: indirect effects of childrens and mothers personality characteristics on childrens externalizing problem behaviours. c Extra, Extraversion child; c Bene, Benevolence child; c Cons, Conscientiousness child; c Emo S, Emotional Stability child; c Imag, Imagination child; p Extra, Extraversion parent; p Agre, Agreeableness parent; p Cons, Conscientiousness parent; p Emo S, Emotional Stability parent; p Auto, Autonomy parent; COE, Coercion; LAX, Laxness; OVR, Overreactivity; EXT, Externalizing. Values represent standardized path coefcients ().
89
t 1.79) also became insignicant and were removed from the model. Goodness-of-t statistics of the nal model (model 4) indicated a very good t between the model and the mother sample data, 2(44, N 580) 48.73, p 0.29. The GFI was 1.00 and the RMSEA was 0.014. The chi-square difference with model 2 was signicant, 2 4 83:04, p < 0.001. This model explained 52 per cent of the variance in the externalizing behaviour measure and 34, 14, and 12 per cent of the variance in the Overreactivity, Laxness, and Coercion measures, respectively. The nal model and the results of the path analysis are shown in Figure 2. As expected, above and beyond the parenting variables, childrens and parents personality characteristics contributed uniquely to the prediction of externalizing behaviour problems. A strong negative effect was found for childrens Benevolence ( 0.60, t 11,13) and Conscientiousness ( 0.14, t 4,16) and for mothers Emotional Stability ( 0.07, t 2.31); a positive direct effect was found for childrens Extraversion ( 0.10, t 3.24) and Imagination ( 0.09, t 2.58) and for mothers Agreeableness ( 0.18, t 4,49).3 Further, a negative effect of age was found, indicating that externalizing behaviour problems were less pronounced for older children. The signicant effect of gender indicated that boys had more externalizing problem behaviours than girls. The direct and indirect effects of the personality characteristics of the non-trimmed (model 3) and trimmed models (model 4) are presented in Table 3. In a next step, we tested a model that contained only direct effects of parent and child personality characteristics (i.e. parenting variables mediated no effects). Goodness-of-t statistics of this model (model 5) indicated a poorer t between the model and the mother sample data, 2(48, N 580) 224.91, p 0.00. The GFI was 1.00 and the RMSEA was 0.081. The chi-square difference with model 4 was signicant, 2 4 176:18, p < 0.001. To investigate the stability of this nal model, we used the father data as validation sample and tested whether the nal model could be replicated across this sample. First, a multigroup baseline model was established against which subsequent models that include equality constraints were compared. In model 6, model specications describing the nal model for the mother data were similarly specied for the father data. The goodness-of-t statistics reect the simultaneous estimation of the nal model for both the mother and the father data (Table 2). The GFI value of 1.00 and the CFI value of 0.999 indicate an adequate t to the data representing both mothers and fathers. This model was used as the yardstick against which to determine the tenability of the imposed equality constraints. In model 7, equality constraints were placed on the structural paths across the mother and the father data. Results from the estimation of this highly restrictive multigroup model yielded a 2 value of 145.31 with 109 degrees of freedom. To assess the tenability of these equality constraints, this model was compared with model 6 in which no constraints were imposed. Accordingly, this comparison yielded a 2 21 of 50.5, which is statistically signicant (p 0.0003). In a next step, to pinpoint the non-invariant parameters, we inspected modication indices of the parameters for which equality constraints were imposed. The equality constraints from the paths from parents Agreeableness to externalizing behaviour problems and from Autonomy to Overreactivity and Laxness were released. Further, in the model for the fathers, a path from Sex to Overreactivity was added. The goodness-of-t
3 As mentioned in the statistical method section, WLS was used because of non-normality. To control the possible effect of the estimation method ML and robust ML were also applied. Different estimation methods did not result in substantive differences of the estimations, the standard errors, and the overall t of the model. The t of model 4 with ML was 2(44, N 580) 46.98, p 0.35. The GFI was 0.99 and the RMSEA was 0.011. The Satorra Bentler scaled 2 of model 4 (estimated with robust ML) was 2(44, N 580) 44.18, p 0.46. The 2 corrected for non-normality was 49.29, p 0.27. The GFI was 0.99 and the RMSEA was 0.003.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
90 P. Prinzie et al.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
Figure 2. Model 4: modied model with direct pathways between parent and child personality characteristics and externalizing problem behaviour: indirect and direct effects of childrens and mothers personality characteristics on childrens externalizing problem behaviours. c Extra, Extraversion child; c Bene, Benevolence child; c Cons, Conscientiousness child; c Emo S, Emotional Stability child; c Imag, Imagination child; p Extra, Extraversion parent; p Agre, Agreeableness parent; p Cons, Conscientiousness parent; p Emo S, Emotional Stability parent; p Auto, Autonomy parent; COE, Coercion; LAX, Laxness; OVR, Overreactivity; EXT, Externalizing. Values represent standardized path coefcients ().
Table 3. Standardized total, direct, and indirect effects ( coefcients) of mothers personality characteristics on externalizing problem behaviours in the nal non-trimmed model (model 3) and the nal trimmed model (model 4) Final non-trimmed model (model 3) Indirect effects 0.092** 0.111** 0.004 0.061** 0.003 0.011 0.092** 0.176*** 0.072* 0.009 0.021** 0.010 0.118*** 0.081** 0.079* 0.042*** 0.103** 0.596*** 0.144*** 0.087** 0.113*** 0.057** 0.010 Total effects Direct effects Indirect effects Final trimmed model (model 4) Total effects 0.087** 0.113*** 0.103** 0.653*** 0.144*** 0.010 0.092** 0.185*** 0.093** 0.010 0.118*** 0.039 0.079*
Direct effects
0.092** 0.111** 0.104** 0.652*** 0.121** 0.019 0.084* 0.032 0.187*** 0.040 0.087** 0.010 0.124*** 0.035 0.077*
0.100** 0.591*** 0.124** 0.030 0.084* 0.009 0.023** 0.013 0.044***
1. Age 2. Sex Child personality traits 3. Extraversion 4. Benevolence 5. Conscientiousness 6. Emotional Stability 7. Imagination Parent personality traits 8. Extraversion 9. Agreeableness 10. Conscientiousness 11. Emotional Stability 12. Autonomy Parenting 8. Overreactivity 9. Laxness 10. Coercion
0.032 0.177*** 0.040 0.064* 0.023
0.124*** 0.078* 0.077*
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
91
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
92
P. Prinzie et al.
statistics of this model (model 8) indicated a very acceptable t. A comparison with model 6 yielded a 2 17 of 19.18, which is not statistically signicant (p 0.32). The signicant path from Sex to Overreactivity indicated that in the father data overreactive interactions occurred more with boys compared to girls.
DISCUSSION Parent and child personality traits have a place in most ecological models of parenting or child development but their impact has seldom been empirically studied. This investigation contributes to research on parents and childrens personality, parenting and child development. This study overcomes several limitations of past research. First, it is one of the rst studies describing parent as well as child personality characteristics in terms of the comprehensive Big Five. Second, data were collected from a proportional stratied sample of non-clinical elementary school-aged children rather than from a clinical sample. Third, fathers as well as mothers rated the questionnaires. This creates the possibility of comparing the links between personality, parenting, and childrens problem behaviour for mothers and fathers. As hypothesized, parent and child personality traits are associated in meaningful ways with parenting behaviours and with childrens externalizing problem behaviours. On the one hand, our results support Pattersons macromodel, but on the other hand they also suggest a modication of his macromodel. Consistent with Pattersons assumption (Patterson, 2002; Patterson & Dishion, 1988), in both the mother and the father data, most of the relationships between personality traits and externalizing problem behaviours are mediated by dysfunctional parenting practices, but contrary to Pattersons hypothesis, the inuence of parent and child personality characteristics on child externalizing problem behaviour is not exclusively mediated by parenting practices. Above and beyond the mediating effects, personality traits are also directly linked to externalizing problem behaviours in young children. Direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality traits In accordance with Pattersons assumption, parent and child personality traits contributed indirectly to childrens problem behaviour. Childrens Benevolence was negatively associated with Laxness, Overreactivity, and Coercion. Childrens Emotional Stability was positively related to Overreactivity. With respect to parents personality traits, Agreeableness was positively associated with Coercion; Emotional Stability and Autonomy were negatively associated with Overreactivity; and Autonomy was also negatively related to Laxness. Some of these results are in accordance with other empirical research. Kochanska et al. (1997) found that mothers with low scores on emotional stability expressed more negative affect in interactions with their children. Because they are prone to becoming tense and distressed, they are more likely to resort to power assertion. Research has abundantly documented that maternal anger, sadness, and other negative affect expressed in interactions with children predicted childrens behavioural problems and poor internalization of parental rules (Belsky et al., 1995). In addition, mothers high negative emotionality, linked to excessive self-focus, may impair responsive parenting (Dix, 1991) and thus undermine childrens secure attachment, which has been linked to the early experience of sensitive, responsive, affectively positive, and supportive
93
care (Ainsworth, 1979). Childrens personality dimension Benevolence was strongly and negatively related to the parenting variables. A possible explanation is that children who are agreeable and empathic, submissive, good-humoured, and cheerful may also be better able to obey their parents, which may result in a positive, favourable rearing climate. Irritable and dominant children on the other hand may have more difculty regulating their own emotions and behaviours on their own. This may in turn lead to more coercive or overreactive interactions with others. In addition, highly impulsive children may provoke more negative interactions with parents, teachers, peers, and their environment, which in the long run can lead to low self-esteem and depression (Patterson et al., 1992). These results are also in accordance with Grays (1982, 1987, 1991) model of brain functioning containing three psychophysiological processes, namely an anxiety or Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), an approach or Behavioral Activation System (BAS), and the FightFlight system (Newman, 1997). A child with a high score on Benevolence punished for performing an inadmissible act may be more likely to inhibit future performance of the act because memory of the aversive consequence overrides the immediate reward of performing the act. For children with low scores on Benevolence, potential punishment is less likely to inhibit their response propensity. Psychophysiological processes also involve childrens approach and avoidance tendencies, including the childs tendency to choose risky or dangerous situations. These situations may evoke coercive and overreactive parenting. Over time, difculties in learning from punishment in combination with inept parenting may promote overreactive interchanges between parent and child, and subsequently externalizing behaviour. In addition, as hypothesized but in contrast to Pattersons macromodel, parent and child personality traits also contributed directly to childrens behaviour problems. Signicant negative effects were found for childrens Benevolence and Conscientiousness and for parents Emotional Stability. Childrens Extraversion and Imagination and parents Agreeableness were positively related to externalizing behaviour problems. The effects of childrens personality characteristics are in accordance with the ndings of John et al. (1994) and Robins et al. (1996). Direct effects of parenting behaviours In accordance with Pattersons coercion theory (Kiesner et al. 2001; Patterson, 1982, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992), dysfunctional parenting behaviours were related to childrens externalizing problem behaviours in the mother data as well as in the father data. High scores on Coercion and Overreactivity predicted higher levels of externalizing behaviour problems. In addition, higher scores on Laxness predicted high scores on Overreactivity and Coercion, but lower levels of externalizing problem behaviour. A possible explanation for the positive association is that lax and permissive parents at rst tolerate difcult behaviour but explode when the child does not quit his behaviour. A possible explanation for the negative association is that permissive or tolerant parents do not perceive some child behaviour as problematic. The cross-sectional design makes it impossible to explore the mechanisms by which such parenting may cause externalizing problem behaviour in children, but one can speculate about several direct and indirect learning mechanisms. Patterson (1982; Patterson et al., 1992) claims that overreactive and coercive parenting behaviour might lead to inconsistent behavioural contingencies, an unpredictable and volatile environment, and a decreased sense of control. This in turn might increase the likelihood of externalizing problem behaviours. As described in his coercion theory
94
P. Prinzie et al.
(Patterson et al., 1992), the negative reinforcement of externalizing behaviour may increase the frequency and intensity of this problem behaviour. Gardner (1989) also found that mothers of conduct problem children were eight times more likely to back off in the face of childrens opposition than parents of nonclinical controls. Another, more direct explanation is offered by Bandura (e.g. Bandura, 1973), who showed that children readily imitate the aggressive behaviour of adults. Much overreactive parenting behaviour, such as overt expression of anger, verbal and psychical aggression, or arguing, has direct parallels among the externalizing CBCL items. The signicant interrelations between the parenting variables indicate that inept parenting is a multifactorial concept. The consistent gender difference in externalizing scores is in accordance with other empirical studies (Dunn, 2001; Loeber & Hay, 1994; Moftt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). The emergence of boys higher rates of externalizing behaviour seems to occur during the latter part of the preschool period. Although several investigators have reported the absence of sex differences in externalizing behaviour problems from ages 1 to 3 (Achenbach, 1993; Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982; Rose, Rose & Feldman, 1989), this pattern seems to change beginning at ages 4 and 5 (Lahey, Waldman, McBurnett, 1999; Rose et al., 1989). These differences become more striking during the school-age period and persist into childhood (Kazdin, 1987). This relation between gender and aggression has been used as a support for the biological basis of antisocial behaviour. The strongest candidate for the explanation of gender differences in rates of externalizing behaviour is testosterone (Hill, 2002). Testosterone may have an impact through relatively lasting effects on brain structure or through hormonal activation of existing structure. Keenan and Shaw (1997) suggest two other possible explanations for the emergence of sex differences beginning at ages 4 and 5. The rst explanation concerns differential socialization practices of parents. As a result of being reinforced for sexstereotyped behaviour, girls problems may be directed more in the direction of internalizing problem behaviours. For boys parents are more likely to use physical punishment, whereas for girls more inductive techniques and reasoning are preferred (Block, 1978). In the same way, mothers stimulate girls to have more apprehension for others and to behave prosocially (Ross, Tesla, Kenyon, & Lollis, 1990). Dodge and Frame (1982) have documented that decits in these perspective-taking skills are linked to antisocial behaviour among school-age children. A second explanation is that girls faster development during early childhood may partially account for the differences on aggression. Fast language development and better self-regulation skills may result in parents nding girls easier to manage, promoting a more positive parentchild relationship and thus having fewer behaviour problems (Sanson, Prior, Smart, & Oberklaid, 1993). The results of this study t ecological models that conceptualize the development of the individual as the product of the interplay between biological and social processes (Hill, 2002; Sameroff, 2000). In contemporary research, it is widely recognized that the dual focus on within-child characteristics and features of the family context imply transactional processes and implicate environmental and genetic inuences, and geneenvironment interactions. This is no longer a debate about nature and nurture (Rutter, 1997), but one about the complex mechanisms that link genetic predispositions with specic child rearing. This means that the infant is not a passive recipient of reinforcers but an active agent, and throughout development there are mutual inuences between children and parents (Lytton, 1990). There is abundant evidence that a persons characteristics shape others peoples reactions to them. Childrens behaviours can evoke negative behaviours in parents (evocative personenvironment interactions) (see e.g. Anderson, Lytton, &
95
Romney, 1986) or may lead to the selection of some environments at the expense of others (proactive personenvironment interactions) (Caspi & Moftt, 1995). Therefore associations between childrens externalizing behaviour problems and parenting characteristics cannot be assumed to mirror unidirectional inuences of parents on children. Each of these interactions can work to the advantage of the individual as well as to the increase of difculties. The latter is probable if externalizing behaviours evoke or select negative reactions. It is likely that such reactions in turn amplify the deviance. Finally, associations between parental characteristics and child behaviours may also be accounted for by inuences of the same genetic factors on both parents and children (passive genotypeenvironment correlations) (Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000; Rutter, 2002). For example, overreactive or coercive parenting may be associated with externalizing behaviour problems because both are associated with the same inherited aggressive characteristics in parents and children. With respect to antisocial behaviour there is increasing support for the importance of genotypeenvironment interactions, whereby the effects of adverse genetic inuences are reduced or eliminated under favourable environmental conditions (Rutter, 1997, 2002). These environmental factors may operate at the level of gene expression, or interact with inherited psychological characteristics (Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, this study revealed that parent and child personality characteristics as well as negative discipline could be viewed as risk factors. However, a substantial amount of the variance of externalizing behaviour problems remained unexplained. Other unmeasured parenting behaviours or the broader context in which the behaviour occurs may also have an important inuence. In the present study, the focus was on negative discipline. Other research is necessary to test the effects of positive parenting (gentle, calm, reasoning, negotiating) (Belsky, 1984; Macccoby, 1992), parental mood (Belsky et al., 1995), or social support (Belsky, 1984) on childrens behaviour. A second limitation due to the sample size is the sole reliance on questionnaire measures. This increases the likelihood of method bias or confound among the measures. Self-reports of parenting were found to correlate only modestly with observer and child reports (Patterson et al., 1992). Therefore, a multimethod measurement strategy (by the inclusion of observational measures) may more accurately assess parenting and childrens individual differences and hence further strengthen the results. A third limitation lies in the cross-sectional design of this study. Parenting practices, personality characteristics, and externalizing behaviour were assessed concurrently. This precluded inferences about directionality. Future longitudinal research is necessary to compare changes over time in parenting practices and childhood behaviours. Finally, taking into account the complexity of the statistical models and the sample size, no interactions of personality characteristics and parenting behaviours were explored. Clark, Kochanska, and Ready (2000) found signicant interactions between mothers personality and child emotionality in the prediction of parenting behaviours. Prinzie et al. (2003) reported that that children with low scores on Benevolence who were exposed to overreactive discipline practices exhibited higher levels of externalizing behaviour. Children characterized by low scores on Conscientiousness who were exposed to coercive
96
P. Prinzie et al.
parenting behaviour showed elevated levels of externalizing behaviour. Further investigation is needed to examine whether the impact of parent personality characteristics is moderated by child characteristics.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 prole. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1993). Taxonomy and comorbidity of conduct problems: Evidence from empirically-based approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 5164. Ainsworth, M. (1979). Infantmother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 933937. Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers interactions with normal and conduct disordered boys: Who affects whom? Developmental Psychology, 22, 604609. Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1994). Temperament and the big ve factors of personality. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 6990). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Arnold, D. S., OLeary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting and discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137144. Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Conrmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169198. Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815832. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New York: Holt. Bank, L., Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. S., & Fetrow, R. A. (1993). Parenting practices of single mothers: Mediators of negative contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 371384. Bates, J. E., Bayles, K., Bennet, D. S., Ridge, B., & Brown, M. M. (1991). Origins of externalizing behavior problems at eight years of age. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 93120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of temperamental resistance to control and restrictive parenting in the development of externalising behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 34, 982995. Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scarr. Child Development, 64, 12991317. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 8396. Belsky, J. (1997). Determinants and consequences of parenting: Illustrative ndings and basic principles. In W. Hellinckx, M. Colton, & M. Williams (Eds.), International perpectives on family support (pp. 121). Aldershot: Arena, Ashgate. Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 415438). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodworth, S. (1995). Personality and parenting: Exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 63, 905929. Block, J. H. (1978). Another look at sex differentiation in the socialization behavior of mothers and fathers. In J. Sherman, & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), The psychology of women: Future directions of research (pp. 2987). New York: Psychological Dimensions. Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resilience in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations (Vol. 13, pp. 39101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Pruitt, J. A. (1985). The relationships between juvenile delinquency and personality dimensions of family members. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 563565.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
97
Bosquet, M., & Egeland, B. (2000). Predicting parenting behaviors from antisocial practices content scale scores of the MMPI-2 administered during pregnancy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 146162. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 11, 723742. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 9931028). New York: Wiley. Brook, J. S., Zheng, L., Whiteman, M., & Brook, D. W. (2001). Aggression in toddlers: Associations with parenting and marital relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 228241. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 132162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 311388). New York: Wiley. Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behaviour: From description to understanding in the study of antisocial behaviour. In D. Cichetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 2, pp. 472511). New York: Wiley. Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000) Mothers personality and its interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 274285. Cloninger, C. R. (Ed.). (1999). Personality and psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of childrens fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251263. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting. The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218232. Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541561. Conger, R. D., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. (1995). It takes two to replicate: A mediational model for the impact of parents stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66, 8097. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000). Assessing adolescents personality with the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7, 329345. De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of personality type classication across samples and ve-factor measures. European Journal of Personality, 16, S57S72. De Fruyt, F., Van Hiel, A., & Buyst, V. (1998). Parental personality descriptions of boys and girls. In G. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson Jr., I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? (pp. 155167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: Does the ve-factor model embrace both domains? In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 323338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421471). New York: Wiley.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
98
P. Prinzie et al.
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). The timing and severity of antisocial behavior: Three hypotheses within an ecological framework. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 205217). New York: Wiley. Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 325. Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. M. (1982). Social cognitive biases and decits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620635. Downey D., & Coyne, J. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 5076. Dunn, J. (2001). The development of childrens conict and prosocial behaviour: Lessons from research on social understanding and gender. In J. Hill, & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 4966). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eddy, J. M., Leve, L. D., & Fagot, B. I. (2001). Coercive family processes: A replication and extension of Pattersons coercion model. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 1425. Field, T. M. (1995). Psychologically depressed parents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Applied and practical parenting (pp. 85107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & Skinner, M. L. (1988). A mediational model for the effect of divorce on antisocial behavior in boys. In E. M. Hetherington, & J. D. Aresteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and step-parenting on children (pp. 135154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Frick, P. J., Juper, K., Silverthorn, P., & Cotter, M. (1995). Antisocial behavior, somatization, and sensation-seeking behavior in mothers of clinic-referred children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 805812. Gardner, F. E. M. (1989). Inconsistent parenting: Is there evidence for a link with childrens conduct problems? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 223233. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative Description of Personality: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229. Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: A developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychological Review, 106, 458490. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau, & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 105128). New York: Plenum. Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., & Thomas, C. W. (1997). Difcult temperament and behaviour problems: A longitudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 21, 7190. Halverson, C. F., Jr., Kohnstamm, G. A., & Martin, R. P. (1994). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartup, W. W., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1995). Personality development in social context. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 655687. Harvey, E., Danforth, J. S., Ulaszek, W. R., & Eberhardt, T. L. (2001). Validity of the parenting scale for parents of children with attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 731743. ` re, P., Colpin, H., Grietens, H., & Hellinckx, E. Hellinckx, W., Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Ghesquie rcief Opvoedingsgedrag (LICO). Leuven: Katholieke (2000). Het Leuvens Instrument voor Coe Universiteit Leuven Section Orthopedagogics. Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307325. Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (2002). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Assessing the Big Five by means of brief and concrete statements. In B. De Raad, & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big ve assessment (pp. 79108). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. Hendriks, A. A. J., Perugini, M., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Johnson, J. A., De Fruyt, F., Herbickova, M., Murakami, T., Bratko, D., Conner, M., Nagy, J., Kreitler, S., Rodriguez- Fornells, A., von Guericke, O., & Ruisel, I. (in press). The FFPI across cultures. European Journal of Personality.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
99
Hill, J. (2002). Biological, psychological and social processes in the conduct disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 133164. Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146163. Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599610. Hops, H., Sherman, L., & Biglan, A. (1990). Maternal depression, marital discord, and childrens behavior: A developmental perspective. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction (pp. 185208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. V. (1999). The value of the Parenting Scale for measuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 127142. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the big ve personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577591. John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moftt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The little ve: Exploring the nomological network of the ve-factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160178. reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command Jo language. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International. reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 users reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientic Jo Software International. reskog, K., & So rbom, D. (2002a). LISREL 8.52. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International. Jo reskog, K., & So rbom, D. (2002b). PRELIS 2.52. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International. Jo Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of aggression in toddlers: A study of low income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 5377. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1997). Developmental inuences on young girls behavioral and emotional problems. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95113. Kiesner, J., Dishion, T. J., & Poulin, F. (2001). A reinforcement model of conduct problems in children and adolescents: Advances in theory and intervention. In J. Hill, & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 264291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. Kochanska, G., Clark, L. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1997). Implications of mothers personality for their parenting and their young childrens development outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65, 387420. Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I. & Havill, V. (Eds.). (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., Silva, P. A., & Mcgee, R. (1996). Personality traits are differentially linked to psychopathology: A multi-trait/multi-diagnosis study of an adolescent birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 299312. Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). Annotation: The development of antisocial behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 669682. Lengua, L. J., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (2000). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and temperament in predicting problems of children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232244. Lerner, R. M., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Developmental systems perspective on parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 315344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Locke, L. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 895929. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 6898. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. H. (1994). Developmental approaches to aggression and conduct problems. In M. Rutter, & D. H. Hay (Eds.), Development through life: A handbook for clinicians (pp. 488 515). Oxford: Blackwell.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
100
P. Prinzie et al.
Losoya, S. H., Callor, S., Rowe, D. C., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1997). The origins of familial similarity in parenting: A study of twins and adoptive siblings. Developmental Psychology, 33, 10121024. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the Five-Factor Model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401412. Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683697. Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 10061017. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parentchild interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1101). New York: Wiley. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the ve-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 5187). New York: Guilford. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269 290). Orlando, FL: Academic. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-set and the ve-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430446. Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol 7, pp. 107127). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing childrens traits with the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. De Raad, & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 129146). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. Miles, D. R., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture of human aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 207217. Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: University Press. Newman, J. P. (1997). Conceptual models of the nervous system: Implications for antisocial behavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 324335). New York: Wiley. Nigg, J. T., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1998). Parent personality traits and psychopathology associated with antisocial behaviors in childhood attention decit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 145159. OLeary, S. G., Slep, A. M. S., & Reid, M. J. (1999). A longitudinal study of mothers overreactive discipline and toddlers externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 331341. Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. E. Mash, L. A. E. Hamerlynck, & L. C. E. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modication and families (pp. 267316). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432444. Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early developmental of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Developmental theories and models for intervention (pp. 2544). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). Multilevel family process models: Traits, interactions, and relationships. In R. Hinde, & S. J. Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual inuences (pp. 283310). Oxford: Clarendon. Patterson, G. R., & Fisher, P. A. (2002). Recent developments in our understanding of parenting: Bidirectional effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Practical and applied parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 5988). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
101
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1998). Validity of the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI): An investigation in Italy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14, 234248. Plomin, R., Emde, R., Braungart, J., Campos, J., Corley, R., Fulker, D., Kagan, J., Reznick, J., Robinson, J., Zahn-Waxler, C., & DeFries, J. (1993). Genetic change and continuity from fourteen to twenty months: The MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development, 64, 13541376. ` re, P., & Colpin, H. (2003). The Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquie additive and interactive effects of parenting and childrens personality on externalising behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 17, 95117. Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of antisocial behavior patterns in childhood and adolescence. European Journal of Personality, 3, 107119. Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2000). The interplay of genetic inuences and social processes in developmental theory: Specic mechanisms are coming into view. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 357374. Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., Hupp, S. D. A., Rhode, P. C., Murphy, M. A., & OCallaghan, P. M. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Parenting Scale in a Head Start Population. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 514524. Richman, M., Stevenson, J., & Graham, P. J. (1982) Pre-school to school: A behavioural study. London: Academic. Robins, R. W., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personality in early adolescence: The Big Five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson Jr, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 267291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157171. Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., & Sobral, J. (2001). Personality and antisocial behaviour: Study of temperamental dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 329348. Rose, S. L., Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. (1989). Stability of behavior problems in very young children. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 519. Ross, H., Tesla, C., Kenyon, B., & Lollis, S. (1990). Maternal intervention in toddler peer conict: The socialization of principles of justice. Developmental Psychology, 26, 9941003. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122135. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Social, emotional and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 105176). New York: Wiley. Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalising behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 5574. Rutter, M. L. (1997). Naturenurture integration: The example of antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 52, 390398. Rutter, M. (2002). Nature, nurture and development: From evangelism through science toward police and practice. Child Development, 73, 121. Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 297312. Sanson, A., & Prior, M. (1999). Temperament and behavioural precursors to oppositional deant disorder and conduct disorder. In H. C. Quay, & A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive behaviour disorders (pp. 397417). New York: Kluwer. Sanson, A., Prior, M., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Gender differences in aggression in childhood: Implications for a peaceful world. Australian Psychologist, 28, 8592. Shaw, D. S., & Bell, R. Q. (1993). Developmental theories of parental contributors to antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 493518. Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 232. Snyder, J. J. (1995). Coercion: A two-level theory of antisocial behavior. In W. T. ODonohue (Ed.), Theories of behavior therapy: Exploring behavior change (pp. 313348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)
102
P. Prinzie et al.
Van Lieshout, C. F. M. (2000). Life-span personality development: Self-organising goal-oriented agents and developmental outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 276288. Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. T. J. (1994). The Big Five personality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adolescents. In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 157172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de CBCL/4-18. Rotterdam: Kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie, Sophia. rube , R. L., & Achenbach, T. M. (2000). Bibliography of published studies using the Vignoe, D., Be Child Behavior Checklist and related materials: (1999 ed.). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (Eds.). (1994). Personality and psychopathology [Special issue]. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1). Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 1831. Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Five factor model personality disorder research. In P. T. Costa, & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 5987). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: An application of the FiveFactor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 363393. Zahn-Waxler, C. (1995). Parental depression and distress: Implications for development in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (introduction to special section). Developmental Psychology, 31, 347348. Zahn-Waxler, C., Duggal, S., & Gruber, R. (2002). Parental psychopathology. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 295327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and Child Personality Characteristics As Predictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing Problem... - Prinzie Et Al (2004)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Parent and Child Personality Characteristics As Predictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing Problem... - Prinzie Et Al (2004)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European Journal of Personality Eur. J. Pers.

18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 12 December 2002 Accepted 16 June 2003

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

0.09* 0.07 0.04 0.06

0.12** 0.10* 0.09 0.37*** 0.43*** 0.27***

0.14** 0.38*** 0.19***

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.03 0.03 0.09* 0.04

0.05 0.38*** 0.13** 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.05

0.16*** 0.34*** 0.18*** 0.23***

0.11** 0.19*** 0.04 0.05 0.33*** 0.05 0.17*** 0.36***

0.12** 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03

0.67*** 0.34*** 0.16***

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 85

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

115.91 132.13 42.42 48.73 224.91

94.81 145.31 113.99

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.100** 0.591*** 0.124** 0.030 0.084* 0.009 0.023** 0.013 0.044***

0.032 0.177*** 0.040 0.064* 0.023

0.124*** 0.078* 0.077*

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73102 (2004)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0.12** 0.10* 0.09 0.37* 0.43* 0.27***

0.14 0.38* 0.19***

0.05 0.38* 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.05

0.16* 0.34* 0.18* 0.23*

0.11 0.19* 0.04 0.05 0.33* 0.05 0.17* 0.36***

0.67* 0.34* 0.16***

0.100 0.591* 0.124** 0.030 0.084* 0.009 0.023 0.013 0.044*

p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.