Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Eects of personality, rearing styles and social values


on adolescents socialisation process
Luis F. Garca
a

a,*

, Anton Aluja a, Victoria del Barrio

Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Lleida, Complex de la Caparrella,


s/n, 25192 Lleida, Catalonia, Spain
b
National University of Educational Distance, Spain

Received 31 May 2005; received in revised form 19 December 2005; accepted 16 January 2006
Available online 10 March 2006

Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the relationships of the socialisation process with the Big-Five personality traits, empathy, parent-rearing styles and social values. The main aim was to detect which variables
predict better socialisation outcomes. A socialisation battery for adolescents (BAS-3), the Big-Five Questionnaire (BFQ), Bryants Index of Empathy (IECA), the Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran-My
memories of upbringing (EMBU) and a Social Values Inventory (SVI) were applied to 832 Spanish adolescents. Also, 134 parent couples agreed to ll out the version of the socialisation battery for adolescents
parents (BAS-2). Results show that personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social values were
related to socialisation reported by children. Patterns of relationships showed that dierent variables
account for dierent socialisation outcomes. However, when these variables were related to the socialisation outcomes reported by parents, relationships were considerably lower. The implications of the present
study are discussed.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Socialisation; Big-Five; Parent-rearing styles; EMBU; Empathy; Social values

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 973 70 23 26; fax: +34 973 70 23 05.
E-mail address: lfgarcia@pip.udl.es (L.F. Garca).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.006

1672

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1. Introduction
The term socialisation refers both to a social end product and to the changes that occur by way
of social interactions. In this way, socialisation can be seen as a set of processes for functioning
within the dierent types of social life situations. These processes have to do with the maintenance
of proximity under conditions of potential threat in social situations, establishing ones place in
power-ranked hierarchies, and establishing ways of negotiating shared cost and benets in work
and play (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998). Following this view, the construct of socialisation would
be focused on social behaviour of children and adolescents, especially on the inter-peer social relationships (Harris, 1995).
Thanks to the inuence of advances in behaviour genetics, there is an increasing recognition of
the role of individual dierences in a wide variety of socialisation processes (Rowe, 1994). It is
usually considered that well-socialized subjects are dened by traits of conformity, sociability,
empathy, and emotional warmth, whereas poorly socialized subjects present traits of tough-mindedness, aloofness, a lack of sociability, emotional coldness, as well as an inability to respond to
social cues with appropriate behaviour and emotion.
Eysenck (1997) has a well-researched biosocial theory of personality that includes the role of
temperament in the development of social adaptation. Eysencks theory has received some support, especially the link between Psychoticism and inadequate socialisation (Kemp & Center,
2000) or maladaptive behaviours and lack of responsibility (Kardum & Hudek-Knezevic,
1996). Psychoticism is considered a trait of disinhibition, lack of empathy, cruelty and resistance
to societal rules and conventions of behaviour (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). In school contexts, better socialized students tend to score lower on Psychoticism (Aluja, Balleste, & Torrubia, 1999;
Aluja & Torrubia, 1998).
Nowadays, the Five Factor model is considered as the dominant paradigm in personality research (Matthews & Deary, 1998). Following this model, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are the basic dimensions of personality.
Agreeableness is strongly implicated in the prediction of pro-social and aggressive behaviours.
High agreeableness is associated with pro-social behaviour whereas low agreeableness is linked
to aggressive behaviour (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Also, high scores on Conscientiousness
inhibit aggressive behaviours in adolescent populations (John, Caspi, Robins, Mott, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994) and are related to higher academic achievement (Mervielde, Buyst, &
De Fruyt, 1995). Note that both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness correlate negatively with
Eysencks dimension of Psychoticism (Aluja, Garca, & Garca, 2004).
In relation to personality dispositions, empathy could also play an important role in the socialisation process, especially in emotional actions towards others. Empathy can be understood as
the vicarious aective responses with an emphasis on the congruent answer to the emotional state
of others (Eisenberg, 2000). Empathy is considered an eective control of aggression in childhood
and adolescence (Bandura, 1999; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994), as well as an important predictor of pro-social behaviour, and the development of moral reasoning during childhood
(Eisenberg, Miller, Shell, McNalley, & Shea, 1991).
Regarding parents rearing styles, Smith, Pope, Sanders, Allred, and OKeee (1988) found
relationships between parents beliefs and the process of socialisation in a student sample. Hostile
subjects described their families as conictive and less united. In this sense, the family environ-

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1673

ment could account for dierences in hostility (Woodall & Mathews, 1993). A parental style dened by punishments and excessive control could help to develop a pattern of hostility and a lack
of socialisation in children (Houston & Vavak, 1991). These results related parent-rearing styles
with childrens socialisation processes and behaviour in adulthood.
A long tradition has focused on developing a comprehensive taxonomy of values to ascertain
which values exit, to categorize them, and to investigate their dimensionality (Schwartz, 1992). Values are commonly characterized as relatively stable individual preferences that reect socialisation
(Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), and they usually correlate with personality traits. For instance, Agreeableness correlated positively with Benevolence and Tradition values, Openness with Self-Direction
and Universalism values, Extraversion with Achievement and Stimulation values, and Conscientiousness with Achievement and Conformity values (Aluja & Garca, 2004; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Ariel, 2002). Adolescent subjects who show socialized behaviours in the classroom tend
to value responsibility, security, benevolence, respect, order, and concern for others (Rim, 1984).
Both research and educational experience have demonstrated that: (a) Personality dispositions,
parent-rearing styles and social values could inuence the outcomes of the socialisation process,
and (b) more socialized students usually show good study habits, higher responsibility and peergroup integration (Aluja & Blanch, 2004). Given the relevance of the personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social values as antecedents to socialisation (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985;
Gough, 1960), it is notorious that no study has considered these kinds of variables altogether.
The main aim of the present study was to detect which variables predict better socialisation
outcomes.
Revising previous literature, a series of hypotheses can be made: (a) since Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness are negatively related with Disinhibition and Antisocial Behaviour, high scores
on these scales will predict good socialisation outcomes, (b) subjects with a poor socialisation will
report a parent-style dened by high rejection and low Emotional Warmth, (c) adolescents who
value Security and Benevolence will present a better socialisation.

2. Method
2.1. Subjects
The sample was composed of 408 boys (mean age = 14.4 years; SD = 0.96; range: 1217), and
424 girls (mean age = 14.4; SD = 0.88; range: 1218) from the general population. Subjects attended Spanish educational system courses equivalent to eighth of secondary, and rst, second
and third grade of high school courses. Also, 134 parent couples of these students agreed to participate. The mean ages for fathers and mothers were 45.20, and 42.44, respectively (SD: 5.60, and
4.89). No separated or divorced parents participated in the study.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Battery of Socialisation (BAS)
This instrument measures dimensions of social behaviour in children and adolescents, especially
those dimensions focusing on inter-peer social relationships (Silva, Martorell, & Clemente, 1986).

1674

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

There is a 75-item self-report version for children (BAS-3; with a YESNO answer format), and a
114-item version for parents (BAS-2; items are answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale [1: Never;
4: Always]). Note that items are the same in both versions with the only dierence of being written
in rst (BAS-3) or third person (BAS-2). Only equivalent scales for both versions were analysed
(item examples in brackets): (a) Consideration towards others: A factor of social sensitivity implying concern for others, particularly those who have problems and are rejected or ignored (Normally I help others when they are in trouble), (b) Self-Control in social relationships: A clearly
bipolar factor dealing, at one end, with observance of social norms and rules which facilitate coexistence in mutual respect and, at the other end, with the chief dimensions of social adjustment/
maladjustment (Im impulsive. I have no patience at all), (c) Withdrawal: Both passive and active
separation from others (Normally Im alone), (d) Social Anxiety and Shyness: Detection of dierent manifestations of anxiety (fear, nervousness) along with reactions of shyness (didence, bashfulness) in social relationships (I cry easily), and (e) Leadership: Ascendance, popularity, initiative,
self-condence and helping spirit (I like to organize new activities). Alpha reliability coecients
were 0.82, 0.78, 0.78, 0.73, 0.81 in the Spanish adolescent population (BAS-3; Silva et al.,
1986), and 0.82, 0.86, 0.83, 0.82, and 0.83 in the Spanish adult population (BAS-2; Silva & Martorell, 1983) for Consideration, Self-Control, Withdrawal, Anxiety, and Leadership, respectively.
Silva et al. (1986) reported that Self-Control loaded highly on a Psychoticism and Antisocial
behaviour factor, Leadership and Withdrawal on Extraversion, and Anxiety and Withdrawal
on Neuroticism.

2.2.2. BFQ
The Spanish version of the Big-Five Questionnaire (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993) is a 132-item questionnaire which comprises ve domain scales, 10 facet scales and a
Lie scale. The domain scales are: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Openness. In this study, no use of the facets and the Lie scale was made. The respondent
has a 5-choice answer format that ranges from complete disagreement (1 = very false for me) to
complete agreement (5 = very true for me). The alpha reliability coecients in the original Italian
version (and correlations with the respective scale of the NEO-PI) were 0.86 (0.71), 0.77 (0.66),
0.84 (0.63), 0.83 ( 0.80), and 0.77 (0.65) for Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability and Openness, respectively (Caprara et al., 1993).

2.2.3. IECA
Bryants Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (Bryant, 1982) is a 22-item questionnaire, with a +2 to 2 response format. Response choices were visually aided by two circles of
increasing size on either the yes, like me or the no, not like me sides of the paper. All children
understood the procedure, as indicated by their responses to trial items such as I like ice cream
and I dont like soap in my eyes. In the original study, Bryant (1982) reported Cronbachs alpha
and testretest (in brackets) reliability coecients of 0.54 (0.74), 0.68 (0.81), and 0.79 (0.83) for the
rst, fourth, and seventh grader samples, respectively. The IECA was adapted with a population
of Spanish children by del Barrio, Aluja, and Garca (2004) and obtained acceptable structural
validity and alpha consistency.

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1675

2.2.4. EMBU
The Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran-My memories of upbringing (Perris, Jacobsson,
Lindstrom, Von Knorring, & Perris, 1980) Spanish 64-item version (Castro, Toro, Van der Ende,
Arrindell, & Puig, 1990) was administered. Items are answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1:
Never; 4: Always). Good reliability coecients were reported for the Spanish version. Specically,
coecients were 0.89, and 0.90 for Rejection (25 items), 0.89, and 0.89 for Emotional Warmth (18
items), 0.77, and 0.73 for Overprotection (16 items), and 0.55, and 0.45 for Favouring subject (5
items), for fathers and mothers respectively. In order to improve the reliability of the four scales,
scores for fathers and mothers will be combined in further analyses. More information about the
Spanish psychometric properties of EMBU can be gathered in a recently published study (Aluja,
del Barrio, & Garca, 2006).
2.2.5. SVI
The Social Values Inventory is a list of 30 nouns from a dictionary of the Spanish language that
makes reference to dierent types of individual and collective human values constructed with rational criteria (Aluja, del Barrio, & Garca, 2005). Each subject assesses the level of real importance of each value in his/her life on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important; 5 = very
important). The SVI measures three factors in a Spanish adolescent population (the three values
with largest loadings are in brackets): Security (Tenure, Security, Respect), Social Power (Fame,
Elegance, Money), and Benevolence (Honesty, Integrity, Constancy). This questionnaire has
shown good psychometric properties and factor structure in Spanish adolescents (Aluja et al.,
2005) and adult populations (Aluja & Garca, 2004).
2.3. Procedure
Prior to the administration of the protocol, parents associations and academic authorities were
contacted in order to get their written permission. Condentiality of data was guaranteed. The
questionnaire was applied in the classroom in the presence of a trained psychologist. All adolescents contacted in their respective classrooms agreed to participate. Subjects were allowed to ask
the psychologist questions before, during and after the administration of the questionnaire. No
relevant incidents during the application of the protocol were reported by the trained psychologists. Furthermore, parents were requested by ordinary mail and telephone to participate in the
study. Around 30% of the couples agreed to participate. Protocols were delivered in a closed envelope to the family homes of those who agreed to participate. The need to answer them separately
was emphasized. Protocols were picked up from the family home. Only properly lled out protocols were analysed (n = 134).

3. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the BAS scales (for children, fathers, and mothers),
and the BFQ, IECA, EMBU and SVI for children. Data are shown separately for boys and girls.
First of all, alpha reliability coecients in the present sample were acceptable, although somewhat
low for the Big-Five personality domains. Regarding sex dierences, girls got higher scores on

1676

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

Table 1
Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation), alpha, and t-test by gender
Scale

Boys

Girls

Alpha

p<

SD

SD

Consideration (Children)
Self-Control (Children)
Withdrawal (Children)
Anxiety (Children)
Leadership (Children)

11.39
8.65
1.76
3.09
6.13

2.51
2.97
2.40
2.53
2.61

12.76
8.96
1.24
4.44
6.34

1.60
2.80
1.74
2.82
2.47

.64
.73
.76
.76
.71

9.48
1.53
3.60
7.27
1.22

Consideration (Fathers)
Self-Control (Fathers)
Withdrawal (Fathers)
Anxiety (Fathers)
Leadership (Fathers)

25.32
35.82
7.99
9.18
33.58

6.99
7.85
8.44
5.49
9.19

26.33
35.75
5.14
8.99
33.26

6.33
9.12
6.24
4.52
9.44

.86
.89
.90
.81
.89

.91
.05
2.30
.23
.20

Consideration (Mothers)
Self-Control (Mothers)
Withdrawal (Mothers)
Anxiety (Mothers)
Leadership (Mothers)

24.45
34.87
6.98
9.19
33.80

6.80
8.58
7.46
5.32
9.42

26.79
36.13
4.82
9.01
34.38

5.82
8.50
5.10
4.65
8.86

.87
.90
.90
.82
.90

2.40
.96
2.18
.22
.40

Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness

77.95
76.89
76.55
70.95
76.45

8.81
8.72
9.36
9.32
8.87

77.63
81.91
78.71
66.43
78.58

9.11
7.83
9.67
10.33
9.10

.65
.65
.71
.73
.65

.50
8.72
3.26
6.61
3.41

Empathy

68.26

9.7

80.15

10.29

.73

17.03

Rejection
Emotional Warmth
Overprotection
Favouring Subject

36.17
48.03
32.86
7.99

7.87
8.59
5.47
2.29

36.76
49.21
33.32
7.66

8.53
9.25
6.26
2.25

Benevolence
Social Power
Security

29.50
21.20
25.81

4.18
5.42
4.60

31.18
18.26
26.87

3.41
4.59
4.15

a
a
a
a

.83
.75
.71

***

***
***

***
***
***
***
***

.96
1.81
1.06
1.95
6.36
8.44
3.48

***
***
***

p < .05.
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
a
Reliability coecients were .89, .90, .73, and .53 for fathers, and .85, .89, .73, and .49 for mothers, for Rejection,
Emotional Warmth, Overprotection, and Favouring Subject, respectively.
**

Consideration, and Anxiety, and lower on Withdrawal. The latter dierence was replicated in the
fathers and mothers versions. Girls scored higher on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness and Empathy. They also valued more Benevolence and Security. On
the contrary, boys valued more Social Power. No sex dierences were found on the EMBU scales.
In order to predict the socialisation traits after the personality, parents rearing styles and social
values variables, a multiple regression analysis (stepwise method) was conducted on each BAS

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1677

Table 2
Multiple regression analyses (R2, standardized beta regression coecients, t value and signicance) of the BAS-3 scales
by gender
Boys
Beta
Consideration
R2: 0.32
Emotional Warmth
Agreeableness
Benevolence
Empathy
Conscientiousness

.239
.231
.190
.124
.104

Girls
t

Sig.

4.441
4.226
3.560
2.257
2.029

.000
.000
.000
.025
.043

Beta

Sig.

R2: 0.14
Agreeableness
Empathy
Benevolence

.279
.126
.115

5.080
2.328
2.213

.000
.021
.028

.339
.216
.201
.174
.162

7.091
4.255
4.199
3.413
3.057

.000
.000
.000
.001
.002

Self-Control
R2: 0.29
Emotional Stability
Rejection
Conscientiousness
Benevolence
Social Power

.277
.217
.195
.174
.141

5.434
4.072
3.778
3.323
2.725

.000
.000
.000
.001
.007

R2: 0.34
Emotional Stability
Conscientiousness
Rejection
Extraversion
Openness

Withdrawal
R2: 0.26
Emotional Warmth
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Benevolence
Empathy

.269
.266
.167
.136
.129

4.777
4.652
3.124
2.435
2.239

.000
.000
.002
.016
.026

R2: 0.21
Extraversion
Rejection
Agreeableness
Social Power
Empathy

.265
.199
.193
.156
.138

5.148
3.968
3.478
3.011
2.589

.000
.000
.001
.003
.010

R2: 0.31
Extraversion
Emotional Stability
Conscientiousness
Benevolence
Agreeableness
Favouring Subject
Empathy
Security

.458
.189
.187
.186
.163
.102
.105
.107

8.861
3.982
3.740
3.595
3.148
2.157
2.100
2.020

.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.032
.036
.044

R2: 0.26
Extraversion
Agreeableness

.469
.117

9.599
2.394

.000
.017

Anxiety
R2: 0.23
Extraversion
Emotional Stability
Social Power
Overprotection

Leadership
R2: 0.26
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
Favouring Subject
Social Power
Agreeableness

.367
.230
.168
.128

.285
.188
.151
.138
.137

6.859
4.355
3.175
2.381

4.778
3.431
2.916
2.607
2.378

.000
.000
.002
.018

.000
.001
.004
.010
.018

scale. Table 2 shows the R2 and the standardized beta coecients for boys and girls separately.
Agreeableness, Empathy, and Benevolence were related to Consideration for both sexes, while

1678

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

Emotional Warmth also played a signicant role for boys. Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness
and Rejection were important predictors for Self-Control for both sexes, with an R2 of around
0.30. With regard to Withdrawal, variables entered into the equation were dierent for boys
and girls, whereas Emotional Warmth and Agreeableness presented the largest beta coecients
for boys; Extraversion and Rejection were the most relevant variables for girls. Extraversion
and Emotional Stability were the best predictors in both sexes for Anxiety, although considerably
more variables were related to anxiety for girls. For Leadership, Extraversion was the best predictor for both sexes, the R2 being similar.
Table 3 shows the R2 and the standardized beta coecients for boys and girls, taking the BAS-2
scales as dependent variables. Data are shown separately for fathers and mothers. Independent
variables accounted for more than 10% of the variance for Consideration and Self-Control for
fathers, and Withdrawal for mothers only. Overprotection, Openness, and Emotional Stability
were related to Consideration for fathers. Extraversion and Benevolence explained 15% of SelfControl for fathers, and Conscientiousness and Emotional Warmth accounted for 13% of Withdrawal for mothers. Finally, note that no correlation between the equivalent BAS scale across
children and parents versions was higher than 0.30, and most of them were non-signicant for
both fathers and mothers. However, correlations between parents were 0.48, 0.54, 0.61, 0.52,
and 0.50, for Consideration, Self-Control, Withdrawal, Anxiety, and Leadership, respectively.

Table 3
Multiple regression analyses (R2, standardized beta regression coecients, t value and signicance) of the BAS-2 scales
for fathers and mothers
Fathers
Beta

Mothers
t

Sig.

Consideration
R2: 0.16
Overprotection
Openness
Emotional Stability

.365
.293
.259

3.373
2.743
2.543

.001
.007
.013

Self-Control
R2: 0.15
Extraversion
Benevolence

.300
.270

3.032
2.727

.003
.008

Withdrawal
R2: 0.05
Emotional Warmth

.221

2.128

.36

Anxiety
R2: 0.05
Benevolence

.215

2.064

.042

Leadership
R2:
No variable entered into the equation

Beta

Sig.

R2:
No variable entered into the equation

R2: 0.10
Rejection
Favouring Subject

.235
.198

2.515
2.119

.013
.036

R2: 0.13
Conscientiousness
Emotional Warmth

.236
.228

2.457
2.378

.016
.019

R2:
No variable entered into the equation
R2: 0.09
Emotional Warmth

.299

3.149

.002

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1679

4. Discussion
This study aimed to test which variables are more involved in the socialisation process. First of
all, results show that socialisation scales, personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social
values have good psychometric properties in the Spanish adolescent population. Sex dierences
replicate previous ndings. Girls score higher on scales referring to concern for others (Consideration, Agreeableness, Empathy, and Benevolence) (Costa & McCrae, 1992, 1999), adherence to
societal rules (Conscientiousness and Security) (Aluja & Blanch, 2004), and lack of emotional control (Anxiety, and Emotional Stability) (Costa & McCrae, 1992, 1999). Boys are more prone to be
separated from others (Withdrawal), and to value prestige, fame, ostentation, and money (Social
Power) (Aluja et al., 1999).
Personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social values are able to explain more than
20% of the variance in all cases, except for Consideration for girls. Thus, previous evidence about
the relationship between socialisation and these variables is replicated in the present study. However, the importance of such variables is strongly related to the socialisation scale analysed. Consideration is especially related to Agreeableness, Empathy, and Benevolence. Also, a warm
parent-rearing style could help to develop social sensitivity for boys. Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness correlated with Self-Control, and a rejecting rearing style could be a handicap to
develop a successful control of impulses and to observe social rules. For Withdrawal, the results
were somewhat dierent for boys and girls. Emotional Warmth and Conscientiousness for boys,
and Rejection and Extraversion are related to this scale. Agreeableness and empathy, however,
were also related to this scale for both sexes. Note that empathy is positively related to Withdrawal. A possible explanation is that more empathic adolescents are more sensitive to the actions
of others, and to the possibility of being disturbed. Moving away from others could be an eective
strategy in some cases. For Anxiety, Extraversion and Emotional Stability were the best predictors in both sexes. These results tie in with Grays theory of personality. Gray (1987) postulated
that Anxiety is a combination of Extraversion and Emotional Stability. In this sense, introvertedneurotics have more risk of suering from anxiety problems or disorders (Costa & Widiger, 2002).
For Leadership, Extraversion is the best predictor for both sexes. Since Extraversion is dened by
a need for social stimulation, activity and assertiveness (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), a high score
on this trait facilitates the acquisition of a leadership role. Also, the presence of Agreeableness in
both sexes implies that a warm and concerned for others personality prole also helps to be a leader. For boys, a competitive style with a need for achievement (high scores on Conscientiousness
and Social Power) is also involved in developing a leadership role.
This pattern of results for adolescents was not replicated in the parents socialisation scales. In
fact, only three scales reached an R2 higher than 0.1. Moreover, these relevant variables are different from the analyses conducted on the BAS-3 scales. It seems that socialisation outcomes, personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social values reported by the children have nothing
to do with parents reports about their childrens socialisation. Although scores of the same informant normally correlate higher than cross-informant scores, this pattern of absence of relationships contrasts with the signicant agreement between children and parents for the Big-Five
(Garca, Aluja, Garca, & Colom, submitted for publication; Markey, Markey, Tinsley, & Ericksen, 2002; Parker & Stumpf, 1998). One possible explanation for this pattern of results is the different number of subjects in both samples (n = 832 vs n = 134), so correlations reached statistical

1680

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

signicance more easily in the case of the adolescent sample. However, this explanation is not very
plausible since, with a sample size of 134, a correlation only needs to be larger than .15 to be
signicant.
To sum up, personality dispositions, parent-rearing styles and social values are related to socialisation reported by children, but not by parents. Although personality dispositions play the
main role, parent-rearing styles have great importance in some cases. Social values are also involved, but their relevance is lower than personality dispositions and parent-rearing styles. As expected, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were somewhat related to all socialisation
outcomes. Emotional Stability and Extraversion were also relevant, being the best predictors in
some cases. Emotional Warmth and Rejection were involved in some outcomes, especially for
Consideration, Self-Control, and Withdrawal. The hypothesis regarding social values was partially supported since Benevolence values, but not Security, are related to good socialisation outcomes. Future research should focus on the reasons for such relationships. Finally, the present
ndings suggest that the results reported by dierent observers assessing the socialisation process
should be appraised with caution.

References
Aluja, A., Balleste, J., & Torrubia, R. (1999). Self-reported personality and school achievement as predictors of
teachers perceptions of their students. Personality and Individual Dierences, 27(4), 743753.
Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2004). Socialized personality, scholastic aptitudes, study habits, and academic achievement:
exploring the link. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 157165.
Aluja, A., del Barrio, V., & Garca, L. F. (2005). Relationships between adolescents memory of parental rearing styles,
social values and socialization behavior traits. Personality and Individual Dierences, 39, 903912.
Aluja, A., del Barrio, M., & Garca, L. F. (2006). Comparison of several shortened versions of the EMBU: exploratory
and conrmatory factor analyses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 2331.
Aluja, A., & Garca, L. F. (2004). Relationships between Big Five personality factors and values. Social Behaviour and
Personality, 32, 619626.
Aluja, A., Garca, O., & Garca, L. F. (2004). Replicability of the three, four and ve Zuckermans personality superfactors: exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis of the EPQ-RS, ZKPQ and NEO-PI-R. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 36, 10931108.
Aluja, A., & Torrubia, R. (1998). Viewing of mass media violence, perception of violence, personality and academic
achievement. Personality and Individual Dierences, 5, 973989.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
193209.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 163181.
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413425.
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization process. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Social, emotional
and personality development. Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 389462). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The Big Five Questionnaire: a new model
questionnaire to assess the Five Factor model. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15, 281288.
Castro, J., Toro, J., Van der Ende, J., Arrindell, W. A., & Puig, J. (1990). Perceived parental rearing styles in Spanish
adolescents, children and parents: the new forms of the EMBU. In C. N. Stefanis, C. R. Solsatos, & A. D. Ravavilas
(Eds.). Psychatry: A word perspective (Vol. 4). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

1681

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1999). Inventario de Personalidad NEO Revisado (NEO PI-R) e Inventario NEO
Reducido de Cinco Factores (NEO FFI). Manual Profesional [Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual]. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & Garca, L. F. (2004). Bryants Empathy Inventory for children and adolescents:
psychometric properties in Spanish language. Psychological Reports, 95, 257262.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665697.
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C. (1991). Prosocial development in adolescence: a
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 849857.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and the biosocial model of anti-social and criminal behavior. In A. Raine,
P. Brennan, D. Farrington, & S. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 2137). New York: Plenum Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual dierences. New York: Plenum Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Garca, L. F., Aluja, A., Garca, O., & Colom, R. (submitted for publication). Do parents know their children? Do
children know their parents? A study about agreement on personality within families.
Gough, H. G. (1960). Theory and measurement of socialisation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 2340.
Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: a dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795). San Diego: Academic Press.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the childs environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological
Review, 102, 458489.
Houston, B. K., & Vavak, C. R. (1991). Cynical hostility: developmental factors, psychological correlates, and health
behaviours. Health Psychology, 10, 917.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Mott, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The Little Five: exploring the
nomological network of the Five-Factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160178.
Kardum, I., & Hudek-Knezevic, J. (1996). The relationship between Eysencks personality traits, coping styles, and
moods. Personality and Individual Dierences, 19, 230249.
Kemp, D., & Center, D. (2000). Troubled children grown-up: antisocial behavior in young adult criminals. Education
and Treatment of Children, 23, 223238.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., Tinsley, B. J., & Ericksen, A. J. (2002). A preliminary validation of preadolescents selfreports using the Five-Factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 173181.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big-Five as a model for teachers ratings of
individual dierences among children aged 412 years. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18, 525534.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A validation of the Five-Factor model of personality in academically talented
youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Dierences, 25, 10051025.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., Von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for
assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265274.
Rim, Y. (1984). Importance of values according to personality, intelligence and sex. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 5, 245246.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Ariel, K. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789801.
Rowe, D. (1994). The limits of family eects. New York: Guildford Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 165). New York: Academic
Press.
Silva, F., & Martorell, C. (1983). BAS-1 y BAS-2. Batera de Socializacion (para Profesores y Padres) [BAS-1 and BAS2. Battery of socialisation (for teachers and parents)]. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Silva, F., Martorell, C., & Clemente, A. (1986). Socialization and personality: study through questionnaires in a
preadult Spanish population. Personality and Individual Dierences, 7, 355372.

1682

L.F. Garca et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 40 (2006) 16711682

Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., Allred, H. D., & OKeee, J. (1988). Cynical hostility at home and work:
psychosocial vulnerability across domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 525548.
Tremblay, R., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from
preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 732739.
Woodall, K. L., & Mathews, K. A. (1993). Changes and stability of hostile characteristics: results from a 4-year
longitudinal study of children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 491499.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen