Faculteit Psychologie en
Pedagogische Wetenschappen
Parenting and personality as predictors of child and adolescent
internalizing and externalizing problem behavior
Karla Van Leeuwen
Promotor: Prof. Dr. L. Verhofstadt-Denève
Copromotor: Prof. Dr. I. Mervielde
Proefschrift ingediend tot het behalen van de academische graad
van Doctor in de Psychologische Wetenschappen
2004
Dankwoord
DANKWOORD
Dit proefschrift is het resultaat van de inbreng van veel mensen. Mijn oprechte
dank gaat dan ook uit naar iedereen die mij begeleid en gesteund heeft tijdens de
periode dat ik aan het proefschrift heb gewerkt.
Mijn promotor, Prof. Dr. Verhofstadt-Denève, en copromotor, Prof. Dr.
Mervielde wil ik danken voor de mogelijkheid die ze mij boden om te werken rond
een boeiend onderwerp dat twee onderzoeksgebieden binnen ‘onze’ vakgroep
verenigt, de ontwikkelingspsychologie en de persoonlijkheidspsychologie. Leni, ik
ben jou in het bijzonder erkentelijk voor alle logistieke steun, de kansen die ik kreeg
tot bijscholing, deelname aan congressen, en het flexibel organiseren van mijn
werkzaamheden. Ivan, ik wil jou van harte danken voor de uitnodigingen tot
deelname aan congressen, intensive course en expertmeeting, voor de aanbreng van
nuttige literatuur en nieuwe ideeën, voor het nauwgezet nalezen van teksten, en niet in
het minst voor de motiverende feedback.
Daarnaast heb ik de zinvolle inhoudelijke suggesties op prijs gesteld afkomstig
van de leden van de doctoraatsbegeleidingscommissie enerzijds, met name Prof. Dr.
R. Claes, Prof. Dr. W. De Corte, en Prof. Dr. P. Van Oost, en van de anonieme
reviewers van de aangeboden manuscripten anderzijds. Ook Dr. Ad Vermulst wil ik
vermelden, met dank voor de leerrijke samenwerking!
Een gedeelte van de dataverzameling voor de studies in dit proefschrift
gebeurde in het kader van twee beleidsgerichte onderzoeken, financieel ondersteund
door de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Deze mogelijkheid kreeg ik dankzij de promotoren
en copromotoren van de projecten, met name Prof. Dr. Caroline Braet, Prof. Dr. Leni
Verhofstadt-Denève en Prof. Dr. Ivan Mervielde. Heel graag wens ik ook alle
projectmedewerkers, Guy Bosmans, Wim De Mey, Jan De Weerdt, Thierry
Meerschaert, Els Merlevede, Ellen Moens en Anja Van Impe, te danken voor de hulp
bij de dataverzameling en de aangename samenwerking.
Het verzamelen van data kon enkel doordat honderden gezinnen bereid waren
om onbekende mensen in hun leven toe te laten en de tijd wilden nemen om
vragenlijsten in te vullen. Omdat ik dat niet als vanzelfsprekend beschouw, dank ik
Dankwoord
van harte alle ouders en kinderen die aan het onderzoek meewerkten. Een pluim ook
voor de (job)studenten die de gezinnen thuis hebben bevraagd en die gegevens hebben
ingebracht in een databestand.
Verder wil ik alle collega’s van de Vakgroep Ontwikkelings-,
Persoonlijkheids- en Sociale Psychologie bedanken, waartoe ik ook hen reken die
ondertussen een andere werkplek hebben gevonden. Ik zal jullie morele steun en jullie
prettige aanwezigheid tijdens informele gelegenheden niet licht vergeten. Speciale
dank gaat uit naar Prof. Dr. De Fruyt, Filip, voor de interesse in mijn onderzoek, de
vele ondersteunende suggesties en de ontspannende loopsessies. Barbara, onze fijne
samenwerking, de grappige momenten, babbels, en de steun bij moeilijke momenten
betekenen veel voor mij!
Ook mijn medestudenten van de opleiding Kwantitatieve Analyse in de
Sociale Wetenschappen aan de KUB, An Jacobs in het bijzonder, ben ik erkentelijk
voor het samen succesvol doorkomen van een lastig jaar.
Tenslotte zijn er nog familie en vrienden, die naast het werk voor de nodige
momenten van ontspanning zorgden. In het bijzonder wil ik mijn ouders vermelden
die steeds voor een warme opvoedingsomgeving hebben gezorgd, eerst voor hun
eigen kinderen, en nu ook voor hun kleinkinderen. Dank, ook aan mijn schoonouders,
omdat jullie altijd klaar staan voor mij en mijn gezin.
Björn, jou wil ik danken voor het scheppen van een prettige en rustige
thuisbasis, voor de tijd en ruimte die je me geeft voor werk en werkuitstappen, en niet
in het minst voor jouw fantastische manier van omgaan met onze dochtertjes. En ten
slotte wil ik Elena en Emmely zeggen dat hun vele lieve woordjes, tekeningen, leuke
verhalen, knuffels en zoentjes me heel blij maken. Dank voor alle fijne momenten,
jullie zorgden ervoor dat ik mezelf niet verloor in dit proefschrift!
Contents I
CONTENTS
Introduction 1 Method 3 Participants 3 Measures 6 Procedure 9 Statistical considerations 10 Overview of chapters 11 Chapter 1 11 Chapter 2 12 Chapter 3 13 Chapter 4 14 Chapter 5 15 References 17 Figures 22 Chapter 1: The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale: some psychometric properties 25 Abstract 25 Introduction 26 Study 1 29 Method 29 Participants 29 Materials 30 Procedure 31 Results 32 Study 2 35 Method 35 Participants 35 Materials 35 Procedure 35 Results 36 General discussion 38 References 44 Tables 50 Appendix 54 Chapter 2: A longitudinal study of the utility of the resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality types as predictors of children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior 57 Abstract 57 Introduction 58 Study 1 64 Method 64 Participants 64 Procedure 64
II Contents
Measures 65 Results 66 Conclusion 68 Study 2 69 Method 69 Participants 69 Procedure 69 Measures 69 Results 70 General discussion 72 References 76 Tables 80 Chapter 3: Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: a variable- and a centered approach 85 Abstract 85 Introduction 86 Study 1 94 Method 94 Participants 94 Measures 95 Procedure 97 Statistical analyses 98 Results 101 Discussion 105 Study 2 106 Method 106 Participants 106 Measures 106 Procedure 106 Results 107 Discussion 109 General Discussion 111 References 119 Tables 127 Figures 133 Chapter 4: Child personality and parental behavior as interacting predictors of child internalizing and externalizing behavior in clinically referred and non- referred children 135 Abstract 135 Introduction 136 Method 144 Participants 144 Measures 145 Procedure 147 Statistical analyses 147 Results 149 General discussion 155 References 163
Contents III
Tables 171 Figures 173 Chapter 5: Parent personality, child personality and parenting as predictors of child internalizing and externalizing behavior 179 Abstract 179 Introduction 180 Method 187 Participants 187 Measures 188 Procedure 191 Statistical analyses 191 Results 192 General discussion 198 References 204 Tables 212 Figures 215 General conclusions 219 The relative contribution of child personality, parent personality and parenting to child problem behavior 219 Clinical implications 224 Limitations and suggestions for further research 226 Final conclusion 229 References 230 Samenvatting 233 Hoofdstuk 1 234 Hoofdstuk 2 236 Hoofdstuk 3 238 Hoofdstuk 4 239 Hoofdstuk 5 241 Algemeen besluit 243 Klinische implicaties 246 Referenties 248
Introduction 1
INTRODUCTION
This doctoral dissertation focuses on the question why some children and adolescents
show problem behavior whereas others do not. It is examined to what extent this can be
explained by individual differences, i.e. child personality and parent personality, and
environmental influences, i.e. child-rearing behavior. This will enable us to find some
tentative answers on the following leading questions: does parental behavior only matter for
some kinds of children and not for others; do some child personality characteristics serve as a
protective or a risk factor in rather inadequate rearing environments; is it possible to identify
certain ‘types’ of children who are more or less vulnerable showing problem behavior in the
presence of certain parental behavior; do different forms of parental behavior elicit different
outcomes; do personality characteristics and parent behaviors differentially affect emotional
or behavioral problems in children; are child personality and parenting in the same way
related to problem behavior across referred and non-referred children; how is parent
personality related to aspects of parenting, child personality and child outcome behavior?
The majority of the participants in our studies are parents and children from the
general population. We concentrate on two developmental stages in the life course: childhood
and adolescence.
The principal outcome variable is the child’s (mal)adaptive behavior. Because the
samples predominantly consist of non-referred children, we utilize an empirically based,
dimensional approach, to assess behavioral and emotional problems, i.e. the Achenbach
System of Empirically Based Assessment (1991; 1995a; 1995b), instead of a categorical
taxonomy of psychopathology such as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders). More in particular we center our attention on the two broadband syndromes
internalizing and externalizing behavior, referring to emotional and behavioral problems
respectively.
The major predictors in our research are based on measures comprising items that
describe the normal or adaptive range of individual characteristics and parenting. It is
assumed that scoring at the extremes of these measures reflects maladaptive features. The
predictor variables are measures with a sound theoretical base. The social interactional theory
of Patterson and colleagues from the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) serves as a
framework for the parenting variables. Patterson’s micro or ‘coercion’ theory states that
2 Introduction
maladaptive child behavior is the result of a series of social interactional processes, involving
the contingent use of aversive behavior combined with ineffective parent management
techniques, such as inconsistent punishment and reinforcement. The macro-level model (see
Figure 1) hypothesizes that parenting practices mediate the relationships between child
adjustment and family background contexts (Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002). Specific
family management practices such as monitoring, discipline (also referred to as ‘limit
setting’), positive reinforcement, problem solving and parental involvement, are considered
as crucial (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid and Dishion, 1992). In our study the
personality variables are based on the Five Factor Model (FFM) of Personality. This robust
reference-model of personality can be used to represent personality not only in adults but also
in children and adolescents (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde & Havil, 1998; Shiner &
Caspi, 2003).
The field of developmental psycho(patho)logy, assumes that child developmental
outcomes can only be predicted by considering multiple determinants. From an ecological or
contextual perspective, the child is nested within a complex network of interconnected
systems (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995; Sameroff,
2000). These models suggest concurrent effects of the determinants, fostering the need for
exploratory research investigating interactions between predictor variables (Hinshaw, 2002).
In a heuristic model (see Figure 2) graphing the determinants of parenting and child
developmental outcomes, Belsky (1984), posits that three domains determine the quality of
parenting: (a) characteristics of the parent, (b) characteristics of the child, and (c) contextual
sources of stress and support, such as the marital relationship, the social network and work
experiences. Parent personality is considered as the most important determinant of parenting.
The nodes in the model are linked by specific pathways. Our dissertation is related to this
ecological perspective in the sense that it includes multiple determinants of child outcome
behavior, such as parent personality, child personality and parenting. In addition, we test
some of the assumptions of Belsky’s model.
According to Sameroff (1975) child behavior can be explained by three models. A
first model is the ‘main effects model’, explaining outcomes by either constitutional or
environmental factors. Several results of studies examining the main effects of child
individual differences and parenting will be discussed as part of the introduction of some of
the chapters. The second model, the ‘interactional effects model’, explains child behavior by
the statistical interaction of constitutional and environmental factors. Interactional effects are
suggested by Thomas and Chess’ goodness-of-fit-theory’ (1977), postulating that
Introduction 3
maladaptive child behavior is the result of a mismatch between a difficult child temperament
and parenting practices. In theory, temperament does not lead to behavioral problems by
itself, it has only an effect in conjunction with particular environments (Bates, Pettit, Dodge
& Ridge, 1998). Finally, the ‘transactional effects model’ examines developmental outcomes
in the recurrent reciprocal interchanges over time between the environment (parents and
others) and the child. Patterson’s ‘coercive cycles’ model (1982), is an example of the
transactional effects model, postulating bidirectional influences between children and parents
(Lytton, 1990). A child’s aggressive antisocial behavior is followed by aversive reactions by
the parent, which in turn escalates the child’s negative behavior. The focus of this dissertation
can be linked to the interactional effects model: in two chapters we investigate child
personality by parenting interactions to explain child behavior.
Method
Participants
The dissertation utilizes data from two samples consisting of non-referred children
and their parents, and one sample including referred children and their mothers. Sample 1
was measured at two assessment occasions separated by a 3-year interval1. Table 1 indicates
the use of the samples across the various chapters.
Table 1
Use of samples across various chapters
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5
Sample 1 (T1)
Sample 2
Sample 1 (T1)
Sample 1 (T2)
Sample 1 (T1)
Sample 1 (T2)
Sample 1 (T1)
Referred sample
Sample 1 (T1)
Sample 2
T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2 (3 year follow-up data )
1 The Sample 1 data at Time 1 were collected as part of a research project funded by the Flemish Community
(bel96/32), entitled “Deficits in parenting skills as an indicator of behavior problems with children and youth.
Development of a screening instrument for the Flemish community”, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. L.
Verhofstadt-Denève and Prof. Dr. I. Mervielde. Sample 1 follow-up data were collected as part of a research
project entitled 'Research on the effectiveness of an ecological intervention for children with conduct disorder'
funded by the Flemish Community (PBO99A/48-50/75), under the supervision of Prof. Dr. C. Braet and Prof.
Dr. L. Verhofstadt-Denève.
4 Introduction
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the non-referred samples. All children have
the Belgian nationality, and the parents are able to read and understand the Dutch language.
We examined if Sample 1 is representative with respect to family characteristics,
parents’ educational level and parents’ employment by comparing this sample with a
representative general community sample of Van den Bergh (1997), who investigated the
quality of life in school-aged children. The family composition was somewhat different, χ²(2)
= 11.95, p < .01, because of more single-parent families in Sample 1. The educational level
differed for mothers, χ²(5) = 12.37, p < .05, and fathers, χ²(5) = 25.46, p < .05, but not as a
consequence of an overrepresentation of the higher educational levels. There was a difference
in employment status for mothers χ²(2) = 9.75, p < .01, but not for fathers χ²(2) = 1.16, p >
.05. Although small differences between the two samples are present, it can be concluded that
the subjects of Sample 1 represent all the broad socio-economic strata. In particular the
sample characteristics do not corroborate the often-suggested concern that only middle- or
higher-class families voluntarily participate in research studies.
Second, we compared the characteristics of Sample 1 (Time 1) and Sample 2, because
these two samples are both used in chapters 1 and 5. The samples differed with respect to
family composition, χ²(2) = 27.62, p < .001, due to the absence of single-parent families in
Sample 2. There was also a difference in educational level of mothers, χ²(5) = 36.96, p <
.001, and fathers χ²(5) = 23.55, p < .001, due to an overrepresentation of the higher
educational level in Sample 2. The sampling method for Sample 2, i.e. students selected
families they knew well, presumably increased the chances for inclusion of middle- or
higher-class families. There were no differences between Sample 1 and 2 as regards the
employment status of mothers, χ²(2) = 1.24, p > .05, and fathers, χ²(2) = 3.34, p > .05.
Finally, we compared the characteristics of the two assessment occasions of Sample
1, because not all the subjects questioned at Time 1 continued participation at Time 2. Chi-
square statistics showed no significant differences for family characteristics, χ²(2) = 2.91, p >
.05, social indices for mothers, χ²(5) = 2.24, p > .05, and fathers, χ²(5) = 1.42, p > .05, and
employment status for mothers χ²(2) = 2.36, p > .05, and fathers χ²(2) = 0.24, p > .05. The
ratio boys/girls, χ²(1) = .07, p > .05, and mothers/fathers, χ²(1) = .03, p > .05 remained the
same over the two assessment moments. Hence, it can be concluded that dropouts did not
form a particular subgroup of the sample and that potential statistical differences between the
two assessment moments are not the consequence of socio-demographic differences.
Introduction 5
Table 2
Sample characteristics National
Sample Sample 1 Sample 1
3 year F.U. Sample 2
Time of data collection 1994-1995 1998-1999 2001-2002 2000 Selection of subjects via schools schools students Response rate of parents (%) 58 40 85 / N families 1789 600 512 175 n mothers n fathers N parents
1005 235 1240
596 535 1131
501 443 944
175 175 350
n male target children n female target children N children
871 918 1789
281 319 600
244 268 512
155 195 350
Children’s age range Mean age (SD)
6-12 9.2
7-15 11.0 (1.8)
10-18 13.9 (1.8)
7-14 10.6 (1.8)
Family characteristics (%) - original family - newly composed family - single-parent family
84.4 11.3 4.3
82.0 9.8 8.2
79.4 9.2 11.4
91.4 8.0 0.6
Mother’s age range Mean age (SD)
24-52 36.0
20-68 38.6 (4.7)
30-62 41.8 (4.5)
29-53 39.2 (4.0)
Father’s age range Mean age (SD)
22-66 39.0
26-63 40.6 (5.0)
33-66 43.7 (4.9)
26-60 41.1 (4.6)
Mother’s educational level (*) (%) 1. Elementary school 2. Secondary school : level 1 3. Secondary school : level 2 4. Secondary school : level 3 5. Higher education 6. University degree
13.4 18.1 16.2 12.9 31.3 8.1
12.9 17.6 21.8 9.1 29.7 8.7
12.8 14.9 21.1 10.7 31.6 8.9
4.0 9.1 16.0 10.3 51.4 9.1
Father’s educational level (*) (%) 1. Elementary school 2. Secondary school : level 1 3. Secondary school : level 2 4. Secondary school : level 3 5. Higher education 6. University degree
12.7 20.0 18.3 10.2 23.6 15.2
7.9 16.3 25.1 8.1 29.4 13.3
6.2 16.4 24.6 9.3 29.7 13.8
2.3 8.6 19.4 9.1 38.9 21.7
Mother’s employment status (%) - housewife - not employed - employed
17.3 9.6 73.1
19.3 5.5 75.2
16.1 6.6 77.3
16.0 4.6 79.4
Father’s employment status (%) - housefather - not employed - employed
0.4 5.2 94.4
0.6 4.1 95.3
0.9 4.1 95.0
0.0 1.7 98.3
Note: (*) The educational level refers to the highest level of education expressed in a hierarchical classification (elementary
school = elementary school level, lower vocational schooling and special education; secondary school level 1 = lower
secondary technical and higher vocational schooling ; secondary school level 2 = higher secondary technical and lower
general schooling; secondary school level 3 = higher general schooling)
6 Introduction
Measures
Table 2 summarizes the measures and informants used to assess the variables in the
dissertation. The collection of independent data from mothers, fathers and children was
supported by two motives: (a) the importance of consulting multiple sources of information
in order to increase the reliability of the information; (b) avoiding the phenomenon of
‘mother blaming’. Given that mothers are supposed to be more involved with primary child-
care, they are an easy target to blame when something goes wrong with their children
(Gerlsma & Emmelkamp, 1994). On the other hand, the role of the father has often been
neglected in research, or regarded as secondary (Perris, 1994).
Table 3
Overview of variables, measures and informants
Variable Measure Informant Child Psychopathology Child Behavior Checklist Mother
Father Youth Self Report (*) Child Child Personality Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children Mother
Father Questionnaire Big Five (*) Child Parent Personality NEO-PI-R Mother
Father Parental behavior Ghent Parental Behavior Scale Mother
Father Child about mother Child about father
Parenting stress Parenting Stress Index Mother Father
Note: (*) Only measured in sample 1, Time 2
Child problem behavior - Parent ratings. The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL) (Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996) is a screening instrument for behavioral and
emotional problems in children. Parents rate the frequency of 113 problematic behaviors by
means of a 3-point-Likert scale. Two broadband syndromes can be derived: Internalizing,
with items referring to somatic complaints, social withdrawal, and anxiety/depression, and
Externalizing, including items related to aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency. There is
evidence for good internal consistency of the scales, acceptable test-retest-reliability, and
cross-cultural construct validity (Dedrick, Greenbaum, Friedman, Wetherington & Knoff,
1997; De Groot, Koot & Verhulst, 1994; Verhulst et al., 1996). In this dissertation only the
broadband scales Internalizing and Externalizing behavior are examined as outcome
Introduction 7
measures. Some CBCL scales are not included: Social problems, Attention problems and
Thought problems.
Child problem behavior - Child ratings. Sample 1 children and adolescents were
administered at time 2 the Dutch version of the Youth Self Report (YSR; Verhulst, Van der
Ende & Koot, 1997), a parallel measure of the CBCL. This provided self-reports on
internalizing and externalizing problem behavior.
Parental behavior - Parent ratings. The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS; Van
Leeuwen, 1999; 2000) consists of items expressing parental behavior. Parents rate the
frequency of each behavior towards one target child on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
‘never’ to ‘always’. The items are assigned to nine scales: Positive parenting, Monitoring,
Rules, Discipline, Inconsistent discipline, Harsh punishment, Ignoring, Material rewarding
and Autonomy. The studies in this dissertation focus on two second-order dimensions of the
GPBS, i.e. ‘support or positive parenting’ and ‘negative control’. This is convenient because
(a) it reduces the number of scales by combining them into more parsimonious constructs,
and (b) it constitutes more reliable measures.
Because the evaluation of the psychometric properties of the GPBS is part of this
dissertation, a detailed description of the development and the characteristics of this measure
is given in chapter 1.
Parental behavior - Child ratings. The child version of the GPBS comprises the same
items as the parent version and allows children/adolescents to rate the parental behavior of
their mother and/or father.
Child personality - Parent ratings. The child’s Five Factor personality was assessed
with the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt,
1999). Eighteen facets are hierarchically organized under the five domains, with (a)
Extraversion comprising the facets Shyness, Optimism, Expressiveness and Energy, (b)
Benevolence including Egocentrism, Irritability, Compliance, Dominance and Altruism, (c)
Conscientiousness consisting of Achievement motivation, Concentration, Perseverance and
Orderliness, (d) Emotional Stability based on Anxiety and Self-confidence, and (e)
Imagination containing Creativity, Curiosity and Intellect. The parents rate the items on a 5-
8 Introduction
point Likert scale. There is evidence for a highly replicable factor structure across samples of
children and adolescents (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002).
Child personality - Child ratings. Sample 1 children and adolescents completed at
Time 2 a Dutch shortened version of Goldberg’s (1992) hundred adjectives, entitled the
Questionnaire Big Five (QBF). The QBF assesses the Big Five personality domains, with
ratings on 7-point Likert scales for 30 adjectives, 6 per domain (Gerris, Houtmans,
Kwaaitaal-Roosen, de Schipper, Vermulst & Janssens, 1998). Previous research has
demonstrated that self-ratings on this adjective set provide a valid adolescent Big Five
personality profile (Dubas, Gerris, Janssens & Vermulst, 2002; Scholte, van Aken & van
Lieshout, 1997).
Parent personality - Parent ratings. To assess parent personality, the Dutch version of
Costa and McCrae’s NEO PI-R (Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 1996) was used. This
questionnaire assesses the FFM domains Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism,
Extraversion and Openness. Domain scores are obtained by aggregating six domain facets,
and each facet is measured with eight items. Agreeableness is based on the facets Trust,
Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty and Tender-Mindedness.
Conscientiousness comprises the facets Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement
Striving, Self-Discipline and Deliberation. The facets Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression,
Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness and Vulnerability create the Neuroticism domain.
Extraversion includes the facets Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity,
Excitement-Seeking and Positive Emotions. Openness is built on the facets Fantasy,
Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas and Values. The Dutch NEO PI-R has satisfactory
psychometric characteristics (Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 1996).
Parenting Stress - Parent ratings. The Dutch, experimental version of the Parenting
Stress Index (PSI) assesses stress in the pedagogical situation (‘Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress
Index’ (NOSI); de Brock, Vermulst, Gerris & Abidin, 1992). The development of this scale is
based on the assumption that stress is a multidimensional construct. Experience of stress in
child rearing can be evoked by characteristics of the parents, characteristics of the child or
contextual/demographical situations.
Parents rate 123 items by means of a 6-point-Likert scale. The ‘Parent domain’ refers
to stress evoked by characteristics of the parent, and includes seven scales: (a) feelings of
Introduction 9
incompetence in parenting, (b) role-restriction, (c) child-parent attachment problems, (d)
parental depression, (e) health problems, (f) social isolation, and (g) dissatisfaction with the
marital relationship. The ‘Child domain’ refers to feelings of stress as a consequence of
certain characteristics of a target child, comprising (a) low adaptability, (b) mood swings, (c)
distractibility/hyperactivity, (d) demandingness, (e) low positive reinforcement, (f) and low
acceptation of the child. A higher score on a scale indicates more feelings of stress. The
psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the PSI are acceptable to good (de Brock et
al.,1992).
Procedure
Sample 1. Subjects in Sample 1 were recruited in 1998-1999 and again questioned 3
years later. Families were selected via stratified random sampling of elementary and
secondary schools. An atlas outlining the socio-economic situation of the provinces in
Belgium (Mérenne, Van Der Haegen & Van Hecke, 1991), indicated that East- and West-
Flanders could be considered as representative Flemish provinces. For elementary schools the
sample was stratified by province, (East and West Flanders), region (rural or urban), school
type (public/private/catholic schools) and grade (third, fourth, fifth and sixth year of
elementary school). For secondary schools, sampling was based on province (East and West
Flanders), type of curriculum (vocational, technical and general education) and grade (first
and second year of secondary school). Schools were randomly selected (with a procedure in
SPSS) and asked for their cooperation with the study. About 80% of the primary schools and
60% of the secondary schools gave the researchers permission to contact parents via the
children. A letter addressed to the parents informed them about the goal and the procedure of
the research project. The response rate of parents with children in primary schools was 41%,
and 39% for parents with children in secondary schools. In most cases, there was no specific
reason why subjects did not want to participate in the study, 16% of the parents mentioned
lack of time. Family research has shown that in particular practical considerations, like time
and organisation, are the major reasons for not participating in studies, rather than
characteristics of the family that can bias the results (Spoth, Reyes, Redmond & Shin, 1999).
At Time two, about 85% of the families continued collaboration. At each assessment
period, a trained psychology student visited participating families at home. Students received
oral and written instructions, in order to standardize the data collection as much as possible.
Mother, father and child each completed independently the questionnaires. Visits lasted 90 to
180 minutes. Children who participated in the study received a small present for their
10 Introduction
cooperation (a box of colour pencils at Time 1, and a free film ticket at Time 2). Parents
received written feedback after the first measurement time.
Sample 2. The data of Sample 2 were collected in 2000. Students taking courses in
Developmental Psychology at Ghent University were instructed to solicit the cooperation of a
family of their choice for a study of 'Parental behavior in Flanders'. In order to standardize
the visits as much as possible, the research-assistants and students received oral and written
instructions. Both the parents (if they lived together) independently completed the
questionnaires at home, in the presence of the student.
Sample of referred children. Children of the referred sample were recruited from
various mental health services. Third year students were instructed to enlist clinically referred
children with emotional or behavioral problems as part of an assignment for the advanced
course on Personality Psychology at the Ghent University. The therapist or counselor and the
parents of the children gave informed consent. Mothers completed the CBCL, the HiPIC and
the GPBS. Exclusion criteria were the presence of a physical disability or a condition of
chronic disease.
Statistical considerations
It should be noted that the term ‘predictor’ in our study is used in a statistical sense. It
is common practice to use this terminology in the context of multiple regression analysis
even when the data are cross-sectional. We use ‘prediction’ and ‘effect’ to describe
associations between independent and dependent (or outcome) variables in both cross-
sectional and longitudinal data sets. However, we recognize that a cross-sectional study does
not permit conclusions about the causal nature of associations, because it does not comply
with one of the necessary conditions for causality i.e. measures of the independent variable
precedes in time assessment of the dependent variable.
We further use the statistical terms ‘moderated’ and ‘mediated’ effect. A moderated
or interaction effect (see Figure 3A) implies that the value of an outcome variable depends
jointly upon the value of two or more predictor variables; with moderated effects we specify
the conditions under which a relationship is weakened or strengthened. A moderator interacts
with another predictor variable while having an impact on a dependent variable. A mediated
effect (see Figure 3B) is found when an independent variable influences the mediatior which
in turn influences the outcome variable. Four conditions must be met for a variable to be a
Introduction 11
mediator (a) the predictor must be significantly associated with the mediator, (b) the predictor
must be significantly associated with the dependent measure, (c) the mediator must be
significantly associated with the dependent variable, and (d) the impact of the predictor on
the dependent measure is less, after controlling for the mediator Two types of statistical
strategies to detect moderated and mediated effects are commonly used: multiple regression
and structural equation modelling (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997).
Overview of chapters
This doctoral dissertation consists of five chapters2. The following section describes
the goals of the different studies and their additional value compared to previous research.
The studies reported in chapters 1 and 2 provide the foundation for the subsequent research
reported in chapters 3, 4 and 5.
Chapter 1
In this dissertation, parental behavior is considered as one of the major factors related
to child problem behavior. The first chapter (Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, in press) describes
the development and refinement of a new instrument to measure parental behavior, the Ghent
Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS). Although it would have been more convenient to rely on an
existing instrument assessing child rearing, we nevertheless deemed the development of this
new measure as essential. An important motive was our interest in an instrument based on a
theoretical and/or empirical framework. One of the shortcomings in studies of parental
rearing is the inconsistency in definitions of parenting variables, compromising comparisons
between studies and generalizations over studies. A related problem is that of the type of
parental behaviors that should be included in research studies: every now and then the choice
of variables seems arbitrary and tends to produce bias (Perris, 1994).
The social interactional theory of Patterson and colleagues from the Oregon Social
Learning Center (OSLC) emerged as a reasonable candidate for a basic theory. The OSLC
conducted extensive research on both social and psychological processes related to child
(mal)adaptive development and family functioning, as well as on the utility of clinical
interventions. However, the available parenting measures are often only partially compatible
2 The chapters are manuscripts, some of them in press or submitted for publication.
12 Introduction
with Patterson’s theory. In addition, there are hardly any Dutch instruments assessing parental
behavior (cf. Langemijer, Pijnenburg & Veerman, 1997).
A pilot version of the GPBS was developed in 1998 and was evaluated in Van
Leeuwen (1999). A refined version of the GPBS is examined in the first chapter, by means of
two studies. The first study evaluates (a) the factorial validity, (b) the internal consistency, (c)
the degree of agreement between ratings of parents and children, (d) and the construct
validity, by relating the GPBS to various criterion variables. The second study examines
whether the findings of study 1 are replicable in an independent sample. Although this is
considered as a crucial step in the refinement of assessment instruments, it is often neglected
(Smith & McCarthy, 1995). A thorough evaluation of the GPBS is required, given the use of
this measure in the studies described in chapters 3, 4 and 5.
Chapter 2
A second major variable to explain child outcome behavior in this dissertation is child
personality. Two alternative perspectives can be adopted to describe child individual
characteristics: the variable- and the person-centered approach. The variable-centered
approach studies replicable broad categories of variables such as the dimensions of the Five-
Factor Model (FFM) of personality. This type of research focuses on the correlational
structure of the variables across persons within a particular population. The person-centered
approach identifies ‘types’, i.e. clusters of individuals with similar personality patterns or
typical configurations of variables within the person. The main advantage of the personality
type-approach is the classification of subjects with a given profile of scores on multiple
personality variables, instead of considering only one variable at a time.
This study (Van Leeuwen, De Fruyt & Mervielde, in press) joins a renewed interest in
the person-centered approach in personality (cf. Asendorpf, Caspi & Hofstee, 2002), and
evaluates the use of three personality prototypes based on the FFM of personality: resilient,
overcontrolled and undercontrolled.
Our research extends in several ways previous empirical studies documenting the
type-approach, because (a) it brings into play different informants, i.e. parental ratings and
adolescent self-ratings of personality, (b) includes two different FFM measures, i.e. the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children and the Questionnaire Big Five, and (c)
examines two different age groups, i.e. 7-15 and 10-18. The longitudinal design with follow-
up data over a three-year interval further enables the investigation of type continuity and type
membership stability.
Introduction 13
In the chapter we describe the results of two studies. In the first study the replicability
of the types is examined. We use a standard statistical procedure to derive the types,
consisting of a particular sequence of cluster analyses outlined by Asendorpf, Borkenau,
Ostendorf & van Aken (2001). It is evaluated whether the clusters can be replicated across
different measures and informants, and over time. In the second study, the external validity of
the types is examined by relating the types to child and adolescent internalizing and
externalizing problem behavior. Furthermore, the incremental validity of the person-centered
approach is evaluated by comparing the relative utility of types and traits in predicting
adolescent problem behavior.
The outcomes of this chapter are important because the distinction between the
variable-centered and person-centered approach is also a major hallmark of the next chapter.
Chapter 3
Previous research extensively corroborated evidence for the main effects of child
individual characteristics and parental behavior on child behavioral outcomes. However,
main effect studies can lead to spurious correlations with problem behavior, and therefore it
is interesting to investigate interaction effects of parenting and individual characteristics on
child problem behavior. The third chapter (Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Braet & Bosmans,
submitted) demonstrates the contribution of personality-environment interactions to the
development of child problem behavior. It has several strengths. First, previous studies have
predominantly focused on child temperament as part of the interaction with parenting,
whereas our research includes a broadband FFM measure of child personality. In addition,
the present study is the first to examine the interaction between child personality and
parenting from both a variable- and a person-centered approach. Second, previous studies
investigating parenting by child characteristics interactions are often restricted to assessment
of inadequate child parenting practices, such as restrictive control, psychological control or
coerciveness. However, it is equally valuable to consider parental behavior that may enhance
child adjustment or that may protect the developing child against emotional and behavioral
problems. Therefore, the present study includes positive parenting, a more effective
component of parenting, in addition to a negative control dimension. Third, we investigate
both internalizing and externalizing behavior as the outcome variables, whereas past research
has focused predominantly on externalizing behavior. Fourth, we make use of both a cross-
sectional and a longitudinal design.
14 Introduction
The chapter reports two studies. In the first study the interactions are investigated adopting a
variable-centered approach for the assessment of child personality, based on the Five Factor
Model, and parenting. Parenting and personality as well as their cross-products are entered as
(continuous) quantitative variables predicting child and adolescent problem behavior. Several
precautions are taken in order to guarantee sufficient power to detect interaction effects in the
hierarchical multiple regression analyses: the use of a large population sample, reliable
measures, and checks for cross-rater (parents and children) and cross-time (3-year time
interval) stability of the interaction effects. We also investigated whether the interaction
effects assessed at Time one predicted Time two problem behavior.
In the second study parenting by personality interactions are examined from a person-
centered perspective. A classic ANOVA design is used to look for interaction effects between
the three personality types (overcontrollers, undercontrollers and resilients) and discrete
categories of parents with high and low levels of positive parenting and negative parental
control. It is investigated if a priori defined types and type by parenting interactions predict
maladaptive child behavior and hence if types are a viable alternative for the variable-
centered approach in developmental and clinical research.
Chapter 4
The fourth chapter (Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, De Clercq & De Fruyt, submitted)
extends the research of the previous chapter by including both a large community sample and
a sample with children referred to an ambulant or residential clinical setting. This study is
innovative in several ways. First, in both samples the same measures are administered to
investigate parenting by child personality interaction effects on child problem behavior. It is
investigated whether there are mean-level effects of child personality and parenting on child
problem behavior in both the referred and non-referred sample. Second, including referred
and non-referred children allows a more sensitive test of moderator effects because a broader
spectrum of values for the predictor and outcome variables is available. Third, it is explored
whether the moderator effects can be generalized across the non-referred and the referred
group. The last research goal is of pivotal importance to inform clinical psychologists and
psychiatrists debating whether differences between normal and abnormal behavior should be
conceived as either qualitative or quantitative. Current research on personality disorders is
based on a continuity or spectrum model, postulating that differences between normal and
abnormal or clinical samples are constrained to quantitative or mean level differences on the
relevant domains of functioning (Costa & Widiger, 2002; Widiger & Clark, 2000). We
Introduction 15
extend this line of thinking in our research by proposing that, regardless of mean-level
differences, similar relationships between parenting, child personality and problem behavior
should be present in referred and non-referred samples of children. To our knowledge this is
the first study that examines this hypothesis.
Chapter 5
The goal of the study reported in the final chapter is to investigate the concurrent
effects of parenting, child personality and parent personality on child internalizing and
externalizing behavior. Although contextual or ecological models usually recognize that
parent personality is one of the nodes in the model determining child (mal)adaptive outcome,
few studies have addressed the combined effects of parent personality, child personality and
parenting. This study investigates two alternative models, by means of path analyses. The
models are extensions of Belsky’s model (1984). The first model includes direct paths from
each parent personality domain and each child personality domain to either Internalizing or
Externalizing behavior. In addition, this model includes indirect paths from the parent and
child personality domains to child problem behavior, via the parenting variables negative
control and positive parenting. Hence, this model contains both the direct effects of child and
parent personality on child externalizing and internalizing behavior and the indirect effects of
child and parent personality through parenting. The second (alternative) model includes
direct paths from the parent personality and parenting to child problem behavior and indirect
paths from the same variables via child personality. The major difference between both
models is that in the first model parenting is assumed to be the major mediator between
parent personality and problem behavior and child personality is conceived as influencing
parenting. In the second model child personality is the important mediator and hence
parenting is postulated to affect problem behavior directly but also indirectly by its effect on
child personality. Hence in the first model child personality is conceived as an antecedent or
cause of parenting whether in the second model the relationship is reversed, postulating a link
from parenting to child personality.
One of the major strengths of this study is the use of the FFM to measure both parent
and child personality, in order to increase the comparability of personality measurement for
parents and children. The models are tested separately for mother and father self-ratings of
personality and parenting. Child externalizing and internalizing behavior are independently
included as the outcome variables. Finally, the models are cross-validated in an independent
sample.
16 Introduction
Conclusion
With this dissertation we intend to contribute to the understanding of normal and
deviant child behavior by studying correlates of (mal)adaptive behavior. By improving the
understanding of the factors enhancing or diminishing the prevalence of child
psychopathology, we can gain insight in normal and abnormal developmental processes. In
addition, we can gather information to optimize prevention or intervention, one of the major
goals of developmental psychopathology (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984).
Introduction 17
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991
Profile. Burlington, VT : University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1995a). Empirically based assessment and taxonomy:
applications to clinical research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 261-274.
Achenbach, T. M. (1995b). Developmental issues in assessment, taxonomy, and
diagnosis of child and adolescent psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology. Vol 1: Theory and methods (pp. 57-80). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. (2001). Carving
personality description at its joints: confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes
for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169-198.
Asendorpf, J. B., Caspi, A., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (Eds.) (2002). The puzzle of
personality types. [Special issue]. European Journal of Personality, 16.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator – mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 725-739.
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
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 34, 982-995.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting. Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (pp. 255-277). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521-530.
Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent
constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds) (2002). Personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association,
493 pp.
18 Introduction
De Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R. (1992).
NOSI: Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress Index. [NPSI: Nijmegen Parental Stress Index] Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Dedrick, R. F., Greenbaum, P. E., Friedman, R. M., Wetherington, C. M., & Knoff,
H. M. (1997). Testing the structure of the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 using confirmatory
factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 306-313.
De Groot, A., Koot, H. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1994). Cross-cultural generalizability
of the Child Behavior Checklist cross-informant syndromes. Psychological Assessment, 6,
225-230.
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. 421-471). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R. M., Janssens, J. R. M., & Vermulst, A. A. (2002).
Personality Types of Adolescents: Concurrent Correlates, Antecedents, and Type X Parenting
Interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 79-92.
Gerlsma, C., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (1994). How larger are gender differences in
perceived parental rearing styles?: a meta-analytic review. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell a M.
Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 55-74). Chisester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G., de Schipper, J. C.,
Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents, Adolescents and Young Adults in
Dutch Families: a longitudinal study. Nijmegen: Institute of Family Studies.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Process, mechanism, and explanation related to externalizing
behavior in developmental psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30,
431-446.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten:
NEO PI R en NEO-FFI. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
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, 599-610.
Introduction 19
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998). Parental
descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? Mahway, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Langemeijer, K., Pijnenburg, H., & Veerman, J. W. (1997). Standaardisatie van de
gezinsdiagnostiek. Een inventarisatie van Nederlandstalige gezinsdiagnostische
instrumenten. [Family Assessment. Inventory of Dutch Family Assessment Instruments.]
Nijmegen: Stichting de Waarden, afdeling Onderzoek en Ontwikkeling.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: a reinterpretation.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-697.
Mérenne, B., Van Der Haegen, H. & Van Hecke, E. (1991). België ruimtelijk
doorgelicht. Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe. (pp. 107-127). Tilburg University Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the Hierarchical
Personality Inventory for Children. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment
(pp. 129-146). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene: OR Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial Boys. A social
interactional approach. Volume 4. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
Perris, C. (1994). Linking the experience of dysfunctional parental rearing with
manifest psychopathology: a theoretical framework. In C. Perris, W.A. Arrindell a M.
Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 3-32). Chisester: John Wiley & Sons.
Reid, J. B, Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. J. (Eds.) (2002). Antisocial behavior in
children and adolescents. A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Sameroff, A. J. (1975). Early influences on development: Fact or fancy? Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 21, 263-294.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development
and Psychopathology, 12, 297-312.
Scholte, R. H. J., van Aken, M. A. G., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1997). Adolescent
personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer
acceptance and peer rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.
20 Introduction
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence:
measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
44, 2-32.
Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the
refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 300-308.
Spoth, R., Reyes, M., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1999). Assessing a public health
approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and
log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 619-630.
Sroufe, L. A., Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology.
Child Development, 55, 17-29.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Van den Bergh, B. (1997). Kindertijd. Kinderen en ouders over de leefsituatie van
kinderen op lagereschoolleeftijd in Vlaanderen. [Childhood. Children and parents about the
quality of life of elementary school-aged children]. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
Van Leeuwen, K. (1999). Het meten van opvoeding met de Schaal voor Ouderlijk
Gedrag. [Measurement of parenting with the Parental Behavior Scale]. Diagnostiek-Wijzer, 3,
151-170.
Van Leeuwen, K. (2000). Handleiding Meetinstrumenten bij “Deficieten in
opvoedingsvaardigheden van ouders als indicatoren voor probleemgedrag bij jongeren. Een
screeningsstudie voor Vlaanderen (Impulsprogramma Humane Wetenschappen Vlaamse
Gemeenschap, Beleidsgericht onderzoek bel96/32)”. Universiteit Gent, Vakgroep
Ontwikkelings- en Persoonlijkheidspsychologie.
Van Leeuwen, K., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (in press). A longitudinal study of the
utility of the resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality types as predictors of
children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior. International Journal of Behavioral
Development.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (submitted). Child
personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: a variable- and a
person-centered approach.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B. J., & De Fruyt, F. (submitted).
Child personality and parental behavior as interacting predictors of child internalizing and
externalizing behavior in clinically referred and non-referred children.
Introduction 21
Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. A. (in press). The Ghent Parental Behavior
Scale: some psychometric properties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J. & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997). Handleiding voor de Youth
Self-Report (YSR). [Manual for the Youth Self-Report (YSR)]. Rotterdam: Afdeling Kinder-
en Jeugdpsychiatrie, Academisch Ziekenhuis /Erasmus Universiteit.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification of
psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946-963.
22 Introduction
Family Environment - discipline
- monitoring - parent involvement - positive reinforcement - problem solving
CONTEXTS - relationship
Settings
- neighbourhood Child Characteristics
- home - ADHD
- school - Social Information Processing
- temperament ANTISOCIAL - maturation BEHAVIOR Features - affective adjustment
- stigmatization - academic skills
- victimization - bonding
- economic resources
- social support
- behavioral norms Peer environment - deviancy training - network density - relationship
tentative linkages established linkages
Figure 1
Factors influencing the development and maintenance of antisocial behavior
(Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995, p. 456)
Introduction 23
Marital relations
Social Network
Developmental history
Parent personality
Parenting Child characteristics
Work Child developement
Figure 2
A process model of the determinants of parenting (Belsky, 1984, p. 84)
24 Introduction
A.
Independent
variable
Dependent
variable
Moderator
B.
Independent
variable
Dependent
variable
Mediator
Figure 3
Models of moderated and mediated effects
The top panel shows a moderated effect, while the bottom panel graphs a mediated effect
Assessment of Parental Behavior 25
CHAPTER 1
THE GHENT PARENTAL BEHAVIOR SCALE: SOME
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Abstract
The theoretical basis of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS) originates from social-
learning theories. Parents rate the frequency of their behavior towards a target child between
8 and 14 years old and children rate the behavior of their parents.
Confirmatory factor analyses provide evidence for a solid factor structure in different
samples. Nine scales are distinguished: Positive parenting, Monitoring, Rules, Discipline,
Inconsistent discipline, Harsh punishment, Ignoring, Material rewarding and Autonomy. It is
also feasible to distinguish two second-order factors: support and negative control. The
internal consistency is acceptable to good. Correlations between ratings of parents and
children are positive and significant. We also find evidence for the assumption that positive
parenting is negatively associated with problem behavior and stress in parenting, and in
addition, that inadequate parenting is positively related to problem behavior and stress in
parenting.
26 Chapter 1
Introduction
Several studies demonstrate that parenting is a factor contributing to the development
of problem behavior in children and adolescents. Although it is acknowledged that parenting
can be a risk as well as a protective factor, most studies emphasize its influence on
externalizing behavior or antisocial and delinquent behavior (Chamberlain, 1994; Farrington,
1995; Loeber, 1990; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Patterson, 1982; Patterson,
Debarysche & Ramsey, 1989; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992; Patterson & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1984). This interesting field of research still offers many challenges, not in the least
because other current research questions the influence of parents on their children's behavior
and refers to heredity and peers as alternative sources of influence (Collins, Maccoby,
Steinberg, Hetherington & Bornstein, 2000). However, to tackle some of these assertions we
need adequate instruments assessing well-defined constructs and components of parenting.
Assessment of parenting is also important for prevention and intervention programs aiming to
reduce difficult, and in the end delinquent behavior, by enhancing parenting skills. The
assessment of parenting then serves (a) as a diagnostic tool, comparing parenting in a particular
family with 'typical' parenting in a representative group of families, and (b) as a tool for the
evaluation of intervention and prevention programs with parental training as a component.
In this article, we describe the development of the Ghent Parental Behavior
Questionnaire (GPBS), an instrument to measure parental behavior. This instrument is based
on the social interactional theory of Patterson and colleagues from the Oregon Social
Learning Center (OSLC). They developed the ‘coercion theory’ in order to explain children’s
aggressive behavior. The central idea is that maladaptive behavior of children is the result of
a developmental series of social interactional processes, characterized by the contingent use
of aversive behavior combined with ineffective parent management techniques, such as
inconsistent punishment and reinforcement. On a macro-level the model also includes the
impact of contextual factors on child outcomes, such as neighbourhood, socio-economic
status (SES), divorce and parental depression. In this model, it is hypothesized that parenting
practices mediate the relationships between child adjustment and family background contexts
(Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002). The OSLC staff emphasizes the importance of specific
family management practices such as monitoring, discipline (also referred to as ‘limit
setting’), positive reinforcement, problem solving and parental involvement (Capaldi &
Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992). Similar constructs are also prominent in
(longitudinal) studies of delinquency. Limited monitoring or lack of supervision, harsh
Assessment of Parental Behavior 27
discipline, rejection and little parental involvement are clear risk factors for later delinquency
(Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates & Pettit, 1998; Farrington, 1995; Loeber 1990).
It should be noted that observable parental behavior is distinctive from ‘parenting
styles’ of child rearing. The latter can be regarded as the general context, the climate in which
the more specific parenting practices are expressed (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). In this
respect, the typology of Maccoby and Martin (1983) distinguishes authoritarian,
authoritative, permissive and indifferent parenting based on two dimensions, i.e.
‘demandingness’ and ‘responsiveness’.
Parenting has been studied in various ways (Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; Langemijer,
Pijnenburg & Veerman, 1997). Interviews provide useful information about patterns of family
interaction (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen & Greenberg, 1997), but they are time-consuming
and therefore more useful in a clinical intake, gathering information on parent-child
relationships in different contexts. Direct observation of parental behavior is definitely
valuable, because it facilitates individualized feedback and family tailored practice (Richman
et al., 1994). Observational studies show larger effect sizes for environmental influences on
social development, compared to parental reports (Collins et al., 2000). At the OSLC, the
emphasis is on sequential, micro-level analyses of observations of parent-child interactions in
their natural environment (Snyder & Stoolmiller, 2002). However, when time and money are
restricted, this is a rather inefficient method of data gathering. Another disadvantage of an
observational approach is that it demands intensive training of observers and a well-designed
rating system. Self-rating questionnaires have the advantage of being easy and inexpensive to
administer. However, a literature review of (self-rating) questionnaires leads to the
conclusion that the available measures suffer from several shortcomings. First, it is commonly
assumed that measures developed to quantify parental attitudes, behavioral intentions, beliefs,
self-perceptions or values are indicators of real parental behavior. However, according to some
authors these questionnaires show low reliability and questionable validity (Holden &
Edwards,1989). Some questionnaires are designed to test parents' knowledge of adequate
parental behavior, such as reinforcement techniques likely to enhance appropriate child
behavior and compliance (Frankel, 1993). It could be argued that this method of ‘testing’ may
be threatening to parents and therefore not advisable. Second, we are interested in the
assessment of each of the five parenting constructs specified by Patterson et al. (1992):
monitoring, discipline, positive reinforcement, problem solving and parental involvement.
Some questionnaires include one or more of these components of parental behavior, but none
includes all five (cf. Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff & Acker, 1993; Frick, 1991; Jacob, Moser,
28 Chapter 1
Windle, Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2000; Metzler, Biglan, Ary & Fuzhong, 1998;
Schaefer, 1965; Frick, 1991). Third, several studies do not report important psychometric
properties of parenting scales, such as their factorial validity (cf. Shelton, Frick & Wootton,
1996; Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988). Finally, some questionnaires assess parental self-ratings,
whereas others elicit child or adolescent perspectives on parenting (cf. Jacob et al., 2000;
Metzler et al., 1998; Schaefer, 1965). Measures that provide judgments of both parents and
children, are scarce.
To overcome the shortcomings of the existent instruments and the fact that there are
hardly any Dutch instruments assessing parental behavior (cf. Langemijer et al., 1997), a new
questionnaire was designed: the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS). The GPBS aimes at
measuring five parental skills, proposed by Patterson et al. (1992): (a) Parental involvement,
i.e. showing interest in the child, (b) Monitoring, i.e. supervision, (c) Discipline, i.e. setting
rules, punishing unwanted behavior, (d) Positive reinforcement, i.e. rewarding adaptive
behavior, and (e) Problem solving, i.e. identifying and solving problems. Each of these skills
is operationalized by measures of general behavior (for instance: I punish my child when
he/she does not obey a rule), sometimes supplemented with recognizable examples (for
instance: ... when he/she comes home late without a valid reason). General behavior instead
of situation specific behavior was chosen in order to guarantee that items would be applicable
to most parents. Parents rate the frequency of each behavior towards one target child aged 8-
15 on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. To avoid ambiguity items are
formulated in the first-person format (Holden & Edwards, 1989).
In a pilot study, a first version of the GPBS was evaluated3 in a sample of 258 non-
referred families, with 120 boys and 138 girls between 7 and 14 years old. Principal factor
analyses (PFA) with oblique rotation led to the conclusion that the factors did not completely
correspond with the hypothesized constructs. The content of the discipline (i.e. limit setting)
construct appeared to be multidimensional, including punishment after unwanted behavior
either in an effective or in an ineffective way (harsh punishment, inconsistent punishment)
and clarification of rules. In addition, the constructs problem-solving and positive
involvement and items referring to social rewarding were closely related. However, there was
structural evidence for monitoring and material rewarding. From these findings it was
concluded that a new version of the GPBS was required.
3 Results of this study are reported in detail in Van Leeuwen (1999).
Assessment of Parental Behavior 29
This article presents some psychometric properties of a refined version of the GPBS:
(a) the factor structure, determined by exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor
analysis and multi-group analysis based on LISREL; (b) the internal consistency of the
identified scales; (c) agreement between ratings of parents and children, and (d) the construct
validity, assessed by relating the GPBS to two criterion variables: the experience of stress in
parenting and problem behavior in children. Two studies are reported: (a) a study examining
the dimensional structure and other psychometric properties of the refined GPBS, and (b) a
confirmatory study in which the psychometric findings of the first study are tested.
Study 1
Overview
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a refined version of the GPBS, by
examining the factorial structure of the refined instrument and the internal consistency of the
constructs. Correlations between ratings of parents and children were calculated in order to
get some indication of interrater agreement. We also related the GPBS to two criterion
variables: the experience of stress in parenting and problem behavior in children. From the
literature (Belsky, 1984; Campbell, 1994), it can be expected that stress in parenting and
parental behavior will be associated. We hypothesize that parental stress is associated with
less provision of structure and autonomy (Grolnick, Weiss, McKenzie & Wrightman, 1996),
with less involvement in child rearing (Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons & Whitbeck, 1992)
and with more frequent use of punishment (Dielman, Barton & Cattell, 1977). We predict a
positive correlation between externalizing problem behavior and Harsh punishment, Ignoring
and Inconsistent discipline (Campbell, 1994; Campbell, Moore, Marakovitz & Newby, 1996;
Frick et al. 1992; Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary 1999; Jacob et al., 2000; Loeber, 1990;
Metzler et al. 1998; Patterson et al., 1992; Stormshak et al., 1997). Moreover, we expect a
negative correlation between problem behavior and Autonomy, Positive involvement,
Monitoring, Rules and Problem solving.
Method
Participants
Subject of this study was a non-referred random sample of 600 Flemish families and
one of their children between 7 and 15 years old (mean age = 11.0 years, SD = 1.8). The
sample included 596 mothers (mean age = 38.6 years, SD = 4.7), 535 fathers (mean age =
30 Chapter 1
40.6 years, SD = 5.0), 281 sons and 319 daughters. There were 82% original families, 9.8%
newly composed families and 8.2% single parent families. The sample was well balanced
regarding social-economic status of the families (Van Leeuwen, 2000).
Materials
Refinement of the GPBS. The results of the pilot study (Van Leeuwen, 1999) showed
that it was not possible to retrieve the five Patterson constructs from the initial set of items.
Four of the five original constructs were retained: parental involvement, monitoring, positive
reinforcement and problem-solving. Because the factor analyses indicated that the discipline
construct was multidimensional, it was differentiated into setting rules, punishment of
unwanted behavior, inconsistent discipline, harsh punishment, and ignoring. These scales are
all related to social interaction theory. The scale 'Ignoring' refers to neglecting unwanted
behavior of the child. It is akin to permissive discipline, allowing rules to go unenforced
(Arnold et al., 1993). Adding this scale completed the list of (dysfunctional) discipline
practices that were distinguished in the first version of the GPBS. Further differentiation
required developing new items, to reliably assess the content domains that could be
distinguished in the pilot study. Sources of inspiration for the new items were assessment
instruments from Frick (1991) and Schaeffer (1965). Apart from the nine scales based on
social learning theory, the scale 'Autonomy' was added, based on research at the University of
Nijmegen (Gerris et al., 1992, 1998; Vermulst, De Brock & Gerris, 2002). The concept of
autonomy is interesting from a developmental point of view. It is related to the notion of
'demandingness' (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), referring to behavior that taps parental
responsibility for the child’s compliance with certain rules and norms.
The revised questionnaire consists of 55 items: 25 new items and 30 items of the
experimental version, based on the retention criteria (a) primary loadings >.35, or (b) cross
loadings <.30. They are assigned to ten scales with at least five items per scale: Positive
involvement (making time for the child, showing interest; six items), Monitoring (supervision
of the activities of the child; seven items), Rules (teaching the child appropriate behavior;
seven items), Discipline (punishment of the child when it misbehaves; five items),
Inconsistent discipline (punishment in an inconsistent way; five items), Harsh punishment
(corporal punishment and verbal blaming; five items), Ignoring (neglecting unwanted
behavior; five items), Positive reinforcement (rewarding good behavior of the child; five
items), Problem solving (solving problems together with the child; five items), and
Autonomy (stimulating autonomous behavior of the child; five items). The format of the
Assessment of Parental Behavior 31
GPBS was retained because it was positively evaluated in the pilot study. An adapted version
allows children to rate the behavior of their mother and father. The content of the items in the
child version is the same, however the items are formulated in the third person singular ("my
mother..." and "my father..."). One item of the parent version was omitted in the child version
(see Appendix, rul6), because it was too difficult to understand for children.
Instruments used for evaluation of the construct validity of the GPBS
The Dutch version of the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) is used to measure stress in the
pedagogical situation (De Brock, Vermulst, Gerris & Abidin, 1992). Parents rate 123 items
by means of a 6-point Likert scale. The ‘Parent domain’ refers to stress evoked by
characteristics of the parent, for instance feelings of incompetence in parenting, depression,
role-restriction, low attachment, lack of health, social isolation, and low satisfaction with the
marital relationship. The ‘Child domain’ refers to feelings of stress as a consequence of
certain characteristics of a target child, for instance low adaptability, mood swings,
distractibility/hyperactivity, demandingness, low positive reinforcement, and low acceptance
of the child. A higher score on a scale indicates more feelings of stress. The psychometric
properties of the Dutch version of the PSI are acceptable to good (De Brock et al., 1992).
The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot,
1996) is a screening instrument for behavioral and emotional problems in children. Parents
rate the frequency of problematic behaviors on a 3-point Likert scale. Two broadband
syndromes can be derived: Internalizing, grouping items referring to somatic complaints,
social withdrawal, and anxiety/depression, and Externalizing, including items related to
aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency. There is ample evidence for good internal
consistency of the scales, acceptable test-retest-reliability, and cross-cultural construct
validity (Dedrick et al., 1997; Groot, Koot & Verhulst, 1994; Verhulst, Van der Ende &
Koot, 1996).
Procedure
Families were contacted via randomly selected schools in East- and West-Flanders.
Children from the third to the sixth year in elementary school and the first and second year in
secondary school were given a letter addressed to the parents, containing information about
the study and the procedure and requesting parents’ co-operation. This procedure led to a
sample of 600 Flemish families, with parents and children between 7 and 15 years old. The
response rate of the parents was 40%. Families were visited at home, and family members
32 Chapter 1
independently filled out the questionnaires in the presence of trained research-assistants or
students. In order to standardize the visits as much as possible, the research-assistants and
students received oral and written instructions. Both the parents (if they lived together) and
the target child, independently completed the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale. Items of the
GPBS were presented in a quasi random order, alternating items belonging to different scales.
Both parents filled out the Parenting Stress Index (De Brock et al., 1992) and the Child
Behavior Checklist (Verhulst et al., 1996).
Results
Factor Structure
Initially we used LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) to verify if the ten-factor
model was acceptable for each of the four groups (mothers, fathers, children about mothers
and children about fathers). The ten factors could not be confirmed. To explore the factor
structure further, we followed the strategy of Gerbing and Hamilton (1996), using exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) to avoid numerous analyses with LISREL. The final evaluation of the
factor models was done with LISREL. The purpose of this final evaluation is to have the
disposal of factor loadings and fit measures to compare with the results of the confirmatory
factor analyses in the second study.
The EFA's revealed that the scales Monitoring, Rules, Discipline, Inconsistent discipline,
Harsh punishment, Ignoring and Autonomy were retrievable. However, items referring to
problem solving, positive reinforcement (two social rewarding items) and to positive
involvement formed one factor. This new factor was labelled 'positive parenting'. The three
remaining items of positive reinforcement were labelled 'material rewarding'. One of the
items of inconsistent discipline showed a low loading on this factor but a high loading on the
discipline factor. This can be explained by the item content, i.e. complete lack of discipline,
and hence indicating the opposite of the other discipline items (see item dis6 in Appendix).
Because the same findings emerged in each of the four groups, we restarted factor analysis
with nine factors. The aim was to reach a simple factor structure: items with high loadings on
the target factor (> .40 in at least three of the four groups) and low cross-loadings on the
others (< .20 in at least three of the four groups). As a consequence some items had to be
removed, resulting in a nine-factor solution with 45 items for parents and 44 items for
children (item rul6 was not measured in the child version). The final results evaluated with
LISREL are reported in Table 1. The factor loadings were substantial and mostly above .40.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 33
On a total of 178 primary factor loadings there were only three loadings lower than .40: two
were traced in the monitoring factor, the third in the discipline factor.
Table 1 also shows the fit measures for the factor models. The use of chi-square in large
samples is not adequate because "excessive test power (due to large N) may prompt the
rejection of acceptable models" (Hayduk, 1996, p. 197). Therefore, we decided to use two
measures recommended by several authors: (a) The root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Byrne, 1998), and (b) The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of Bentler (Marsh, Balla &
McDonald, 1996). RMSEA is utilized for assessing approximate fit (preferably with values
less than or equal .05, but values between .05 and .08 are indicative of fair fit (Kaplan, 2000,
p.113-114). CFI is a comparative fit index, values above .95 are preferred (Kaplan, 2000, p.
107), but should not be lower than .90 (Kline, 1998, p. 131). The RMSEA-values were lower
than .05 and CFI-values were all above .95 except for mothers (.92), indicating an acceptable
fit for all models. As already mentioned these results must be considered with care because
this LISREL evaluation is the endpoint of a series of explorative factor analyses and only
aimed to have a possibility to compare these results with the results of the second study.
The factor correlations (see Table 2) showed three groups of interrelated factors: (a) Positive
parenting, Monitoring, Rules and Autonomy (b) Discipline, Harsh punishment and Ignoring
and (c) Inconsistent discipline and Rewarding. Additional exploratory factor analyses to
explore the dimensional structure of the nine scales showed that a three-factor solution is not
tenable due to unacceptably low loadings on the third factor (for the scales Inconsistent
discipline and Rewarding). A two-factor solution is more appropriate if three scales are
removed: Monitoring, Inconsistent discipline and Rewarding. The first factor (labelled as
‘support’) contains the scales Positive parenting, Rules and Autonomy, the second factor
(label: ‘negative control’) the scales Discipline, Ignoring and Harsh punishment. The
explained variances were 35% (mothers), 40% (fathers), 51% (children about mothers) and
47% (children about fathers). This result is in line with the view that parenting behavior can
be subsumed into two broad dimensions warmth/support and control (Gallagher, 2002;
Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The two dimensions have almost zero correlations. The EFA
results were evaluated with LISREL to check whether they could be replicated in study 2.
The Chi-square values for the four groups ranged from 30.2 to 39.8 with df=8; the RMSEA
values between .09 and .11 and the CFI-values between .89 and .96. The completely
standardized factor loadings ranged mostly between 5. and .8. The fit of the models could be
improved by introducing one or two factor cross loadings. This resulted in small cross-factor
loadings that do not compromise the theoretical bases of the two-dimensional structure of the
34 Chapter 1
six scales. Cronbach’s alphas for the support dimension (with 21 items) varied between .86
and .90 and for the negative control dimension (14 items) between .80 and .87.
Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alphas are reported in Table 1. Four scales show reliabilities of (mostly)
.80 or higher: Positive parenting, Rules, Discipline and Harsh punishment. The scales
Material rewarding and Ignoring have acceptable reliabilities of mostly .70 or higher.
Monitoring, Inconsistent discipline and Autonomy are less reliable but also have fewer items.
Agreement between Ratings of Parents and Children
Pearson correlations were computed between parental self-rating scores and
children’s ratings of maternal and paternal behavior. Correlations were positive and
significant for Positive parenting, with r = .22 (p < .001) and r = .30 (p < .001) for ratings of
maternal and paternal behavior respectively, for Monitoring with r = .19 (p < .001) and r =
.23 (p < .001), for Setting rules, with r = .12 (p < .01) and r = .19 (p < .001), for Discipline,
with r = .33 (p < .001) and r = .32 (p < .001), for Inconsistent discipline, with r = .17 (p <
.001) and r = .14 (p < .001), for Harsh punishment with r = .36 (p < .001) and r = .32 (p <
.001), for Ignoring with r = .19 (p < .001) and r = .12 (p < .01), for Material rewarding with r
= .32 (p < .001) and r = .28 (p < .001) and for Autonomy with r = .23 (p < .001) and r = .20
(p < .001).
Validity : Correlations with Criterion Variables
Ghent Parental Behavior Scale - Parenting Stress Index. The results largely
confirmed our hypotheses. Table 3 shows meaningful negative correlations. Increasing stress
in the Parent and Child domain is related to decreasing Positive parenting, Rules and
Autonomy and to increasing Inconsistent Discipline, Harsh punishing, Ignoring and
Discipline.
Ghent Parental Behavior Scale - Child Behavior Checklist. Table 3 shows several
significant correlations between parenting and problem behavior especially for Externalizing
behavior. The correlations of Internalizing behavior with the parenting scales are very low.
Increasing Internalizing behavior is related to less Positive parenting, Rules and Autonomy
(only for fathers) and to increasing Inconsistent punishing (mothers), Harsh punishing
(mothers) and Ignoring. Externalizing behavior is linked to less Positive parenting and Rules
and to more Discipline, Inconsistent discipline, Harsh punishment and Ignoring. Although
Assessment of Parental Behavior 35
these results confirmed our expectations, the expected negative correlation between problem
behavior and Monitoring, was not found.
Study 2
Overview
This study evaluates whether the findings of study 1 can be replicated in a new
independent sample. Although this is considered as a crucial step in the refinement of
assessment instruments, it is often neglected (Smith & McCarthy, 1995). To verify whether
the factorial model of study 1 could be replicated in study 2, we used multi-group analysis
(Byrne, 1998; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996; Marsh, 1994). We further examined the internal
consistency of the constructs, correlations between ratings of parents and children and
correlations between scales of the GPBS, the PSI and the CBCL.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 175 mothers (mean age = 39.2 years, SD = 4.0), 175 fathers
(mean age = 41.1 years, SD = 4.6) of 175 families and two of their children between 7 and 14
years old (mean age = 10.6 years, SD = 1.8). The sample included 155 male target children
and 195 female target children. There were 91.4% original families, 8% newly composed
families and 0.6% single-parent families.
Materials
The same materials were used as in study 1: the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale, the
Dutch version of the Parenting Stress Index (De Brock et al., 1992) and the Achenbach Child
Behavior Checklist (Verhulst et al., 1996).
Procedure
Students selected 175 families as part of an assignment in (Clinical) Developmental
Psychology at the Ghent University. They were allowed to choose a family they knew well.
Data were collected from mothers and fathers and from two children in the family. Both
parents (if they lived together) independently completed the questionnaires at home, in the
presence of a student.
36 Chapter 1
Results
Factor Structure
The solution of study 1 was the target for confirmatory factor analyses with LISREL
8.52 within each of the four groups. For the model it was hypothesized that: (a) the 45 (44)
items should form nine prescribed factors; (b) each item should have a substantial nonzero
loading on the target factor and zero loadings on the non-target factors; (c) the factors were
free to correlate; (d) the unique variances of the items were uncorrelated. The results of the
factor analyses (completely standardized solution) are given in Table 1. The factor loadings
were substantial and mostly above .40 with some exceptions: eight loadings were between
.30 and .40 (three from positive parenting, four for the monitoring factor and one for the rules
factor). The values of RMSEA are around .05 and the CFI’s were all above .92, indicating
that the CFA-models show an acceptable fit.
Factorial Invariance
To test the stability of the factor model of study 1 a multi-group analysis was
conducted (Byrne, 1998; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996; Marsh, 1994). Because this analysis
requires independent samples, we can only test whether the factorial structure is invariant for
mothers of study 1 and 2, for fathers, children about mothers and children about fathers. The
first step created a baseline model with no equality constraints between parameter estimates
of study 1 and study 2 (i.e., the non-invariant model). The chi-square value and df of this non-
invariant model are equal to the sum of the chi-square values and df's of the two independent
groups. The second step was to constrain the factor loadings (lambda's) to be equal in both
groups (Λ invariant). The third step was to set both factor loadings and correlations between
factors (phi coefficients) equal in both groups (ΛΦ invariant) and in the fourth step factor
loadings, factor correlations and unique variances (theta-delta's) were set equal in both groups
(ΛΦΘδ invariant). The goodness-of-fit results are given in Table 4. The RMSEA values were
(with one exception) lower than .05 for all steps in each group. The values of CFI were all
above .90. In the last three columns, the changes in chi-square, df and the p-values are
reported, showing significant changes in several steps. For example, the change in chi-square
and df for mothers from a non-invariant model to a model with factor loadings constrained to
be equal in both samples was 87.1 with df = 45. This is a significant change and would lead
to rejection of the hypothesis that the factor loadings are invariant. For each of the four
models we tested the difference of the factor loadings between study 1 and study 2 by means
Assessment of Parental Behavior 37
of chi-square difference tests. We found 4 significant differences for fathers, 5 for mothers, 0
for children about mothers and 3 for children about fathers. In fact we performed 45 + 45 +
44 + 44 (= 178) post hoc tests with 12 significant results (8 at the .05 level, 3 at the .01 level
and 1 at the .001 level). The items constituting the 12 significant results are mostly not
consistent across models. Because we did 178 post hoc tests, one may expect 9 loadings to be
significant (at a significance level of 5%) by chance. Techniques like MANOVA solve this
problem with correction procedures like Newman-Keuls, Scheffé or Bonferroni, implicating a
lowering of the significance level. In our case it is likely that all 12 significant results are in
fact not significant when corrected for capitalization on chance, and hence we better ignore
the significant chi-square results. This is in line with the conclusion by Marsh (1994) that
tests of statistical significance of the difference between two nested models have essentially
the same strengths and weaknesses as the chi-square test applied to any model. An apparently
more appropriate question is whether the lack of invariance is sufficiently small to justify the
conclusion that the parameter estimates are reasonably invariant across groups (Marsh, 1994).
The goodness-of-fit measures (RMSEA and CFI) showed hardly any differences between the
non-invariant models and the constrained models. Hence the conclusion is that the factor
loadings, factor correlations as well as unique variances are reasonably invariant between
study 1 and study 2 for each of the four groups.
The factor correlations (see Table 2) showed the same three groups of interrelated
factors: (a) Positive parenting, Monitoring, Rules and Autonomy (b) Discipline, Harsh
punishment and Ignoring and (c) Inconsistent discipline and Rewarding. We tested the two-
dimensional structure of the six scales as mentioned in study 1. Again the same factor
structure could be replicated. The completely standardized factor loadings varied between .5
and .8. Positive parenting, Rules and Autonomy loaded on the support factor and Discipline,
Ignoring and Harsh punishment on the negative control factor. Chi-square values for the four
groups ranged from 30.5 to 61.0 with df = 8, RMSEA varied between .09 and .13 and CFI
between .90 and .92. Cronbach's alpha for the support dimension (with 21 items) varied
between .85 and .89 and for the negative control dimension (14 items) between .83 and .84.
Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alphas are mostly above .80 for Positive parenting, Setting rules,
Discipline and Harsh punishment. Ignoring and Material rewarding have alpha's around .70.
In accordance with study 1, Monitoring, Inconsistent discipline and Autonomy have the
lowest reliabilities.
38 Chapter 1
Agreement between Ratings of Parents and Children
As in study 1, Pearson correlations were positive and significant for Positive
parenting, with r = .23 (p < .001) and r = .28 (p < .001) for ratings of maternal and paternal
behavior respectively, for Monitoring with r = .13 (p < .05) and r = .22 (p < .001), for
Setting rules, with r = .14 (p < .01) and r = .27 (p < .001), for Discipline, with r = .46 (p <
.001) and r = .37 (p < .001), for Inconsistent discipline, with r = .16 (p < .001) and r = .17 (p
< .001), for Harsh punishment with r = .25 (p < .001) and r = .28 (p < .001), for Ignoring with
r = .22 (p < .001) and r = .20 (p < .01), for Material rewarding with r = .26 (p < .001) and r =
.29 (p < .001) and for Autonomy with r = .23 (p < .001) and r = .22 (p < .001).
Validity: Correlations with Criterion Variables
Ghent Parental Behavior Scale - Parenting Stress Index. In study 2, comparable but
somewhat weaker relationships existed as in study 1 (see Table 3), between the positive
parenting skills and stress in parenting (r ranging from .02 to r = -.26). These results
confirmed the findings of study 1.
Ghent Parental Behavior Scale - Child Behavior Checklist. The correlations in study
2 (Table 2) were similar to those in study 1. However, the negative correlation between
Positive parenting and Externalizing behavior of the child was somewhat weaker (r = .12, p <
.05). For fathers no significant relationship was found (r = -.05, p > .05). In study 1, we also
found that higher Material Rewarding is correlated with higher problem behavior (between r
= .12, p < .05 and r = .22, p < .001). The correlations had the expected signs: adequate
parental behavior was negatively related with problem behavior, negative parental skills had
a negative relationship with problem behavior. The relationships for Autonomy and
Monitoring with problem behavior were neither clearly negative nor positive.
General discussion
The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale is a questionnaire, designed to assess parenting
constructs based on Social Learning Theory. This theoretical framework enables to carve
parenting into well-defined constructs referring to observable parental behavior. In this article
we tested (a) the factorial validity of the GPBS, (b) the internal consistency of the identified
scales, (c) agreement between ratings of parents and children, and (d) the construct validity.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 39
Regarding the factorial validity of the GPBS, an evaluation of an experimental
version (Van Leeuwen, 1999) led to the conclusion that the five Patterson constructs (Capaldi
& Patterson, 1989; Patterson et al., 1992) could not be replicated due to the fact that (a) the
content of the discipline (i.e. limit setting) construct appeared to be multidimensional, and (b)
problem-solving and positive involvement were closely related. Dishion, Li, Spracklen,
Brown and Haas (1999) also studied the convergent and discriminant validity of these five
parenting constructs. Their multitrait-multimethod analysis showed that the best-fitting model
allowed only four constructs (limit setting was eliminated) and three method factors (reports
from parents, children and trained observers) (Metzler, Biglan, Ary & Li, 1998).
Refinement of the constructs leading to the second version of the GPBS, enabled us to
find a solid factor structure with nine scales: Autonomy, Discipline, Positive parenting, Harsh
punishment, Monitoring, Rules, Ignoring unwanted behavior, Material rewarding, and
Inconsistent discipline. The nine components were largely replicable across different raters,
i.e. parents and children, and in independent samples by means of confirmatory factor
analyses. A second-order factor analysis detected a positive and a negative dimension in the
parent and child data. These dimensions are regularly mentioned in the literature about
parenting (Gallagher, 2002; Maccoby & Martin, 1983, Ten Haaf, Janssens & Gerris, 1994),
the first describing the affective nature of the parent-child relationship, indicated by showing
involvement and providing support. The second dimension refers to parental efforts to
influence the child’s behavior, such as setting and enforcing standards of behavior. We
labelled them ‘support’ (consisting of the scales positive parenting, rules and autonomy), and
‘negative control’ (consisting of the scales discipline, ignoring and harsh punishment).
The internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach's alphas, was moderate to good for
the majority of the nine scales. However, scales with a small number of items, for example
autonomy and inconsistent discipline, had lower alpha values. Initially, each scale consisted
of at least five items, but this number diminished because only items with substantial primary
factor loadings were retained. Alpha values for the two dimensions support and negative
control indicate good internal consistency.
Our study shows positive correlations between parent and child ratings for all the
scales. The correlations are rather low, but this is consistent with the research literature. For
example, Shelton et al. (1996) report significant parent-child correlations only for
Involvement, Positive parenting and Corporal punishment (ranging from .08 to .28), not for
Poor monitoring/supervision and Inconsistent discipline. Schwarz, Barton-Henry and
Pruzinsky (1985) concluded that adolescents are biased towards viewing their parents as
40 Chapter 1
more similar than they actually are, and that parents are biased towards presenting an overly
positive image of their child-rearing behavior. However, Sessa, Avenevolli, Steinberg and
Morris (2001) could not replicate this: their data ruled out the possibility that parental biases
in self-report are due to a desire to present one’s self too favourably. This implies the increase
of the number of raters, and aggregation of ratings across judges. Consequently, this can be
considered as an argument favoring the use of the child-version of the GPBS. However, this
is only possible when children have acquired the cognitive skills needed to fill out the
questionnaire.
Evidence was provided for the construct validity of the GPBS. The results confirmed
the hypothesized relationships between stress in parenting and the rate of less adequate
parental behavior. Campbell et al. (1996) showed a relationship between on the one hand
maternal reports of negative discipline and negative control and on the other hand family
stress. Irvine et al. (1999) report correlations between depressive feelings of parents and
ineffective parenting practices like coercive, permissive and inconsistent discipline.
Associations between positive parenting and problem behavior were negative, whereas the
more inadequate parenting practices (like harsh punishment or inconsistent discipline) and
externalizing problem behavior were positively related. These results are consistent with
other studies, showing positive correlations between externalizing behavior and punitive
discipline, spanking, physical aggression (Campbell et al., 1996; Jacob et al., 2000; Lengua,
Wolchik, Sandler & West, 2000; Stormshak, Bierman, McMahon, Lengua & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group, 2000) and permissive and inconsistent discipline
(Irvine et al., 1999). Negative correlations have been reported between externalizing behavior
problems and (a) positive affect or warmth and involvement (Jacob et al., 2000; Stormshak et
al., 2000), (b) higher monitoring (Irvine et al., 1999; Jacob et al., 2000, (c) higher levels of
rule setting and (d) higher levels of positive reinforcement (Jacob et al., 2000). The lack of a
significant correlation between the Monitoring Scale and problem behavior in our study is
puzzling, and stands in contrast to findings from the literature (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber,
1986). However, Frick et al. (1992) also found a moderate association between parental
monitoring and conduct problems. We contend that our monitoring scale taps showing
interest in children for one set of parents, whereas for another set of parents it may reflect
controlling the child’s behavior ('supervision'). The positive correlations between the scales
Positive parenting and Monitoring support this explanation. Jacob et al. (2000) draw a similar
conclusion when discussing that their supervision scale loaded on the control dimension (as
expected) for parent reports, but loaded on the affect dimension for child reports. They
Assessment of Parental Behavior 41
contend that the manner in which parents show supervision, can either be seen as
authoritarian (more structuring and controlling) or authoritative (more communicative).
Another viable explanation is that a positive correlation between problem behavior and
monitoring will be found when monitoring reflects lack of supervision, for instance when
children are playing in the streets, without an adult keeping track of them.
Limitations and future directions
Our initial efforts at developing an instrument to assess parental behavior are
encouraging, but the GPBS should be considered as an instrument ‘in progress’ as more
research is needed. First, some modification of the item-pool is needed in a future version of
the GPBS. Scales with only three items should be supplemented in order to increase their
internal consistency. The Monitoring scale needs more items assessing the act of ‘controlling’
a child’s behavior, in order to prevent the relationship with Positive parenting. It would also
be interesting to add an item asking how frequently a child is left unattended. Second,
consistency between several raters (parents, children, and observers) of parental behavior
should be further examined. Third, more research is needed on the construct validity of the
GPBS, preferably with other assessment methods than questionnaires, such as observations of
real parent-child interactions. Fourth, so far, the application of the GPBS has been limited to
a Dutch speaking, Belgian target population. More cross-cultural research is necessary to
identify if the GPBS is valid across different cultures. Fifth, The GPBS instrument was
initially designed for research purposes, but it could also be used in clinical practice. Future
research is necessary to investigate the discriminative validity of the GPBS for parents with
or without child-rearing problems, especially when used as a diagnostic tool. Sixth, the
number of respondents in the second study is fairly low in comparison to the number of
parameters to be estimated. This can lead to less robust estimates. But because of the stability
of the factor structure in study 2 (in comparison to study 1) for each of the four groups we are
optimistic about the stability in future research. Finally, it would also be interesting to design
a version of the GPBS for parents of younger children. Younger children form an important
target group for prevention of antisocial behavior. Furthermore, Yoshikawa (1994) concludes
from his overview of effective prevention programs for serious problem behavior that
interventions have the best results when children are of preschool age.
A critical note must be added. Although a relationship is suggested between parental
behavior and antisocial behavior of children, it is not the purpose of the GPBS to promote
far-reaching conclusions about the contribution of parents to delinquent or other problem
42 Chapter 1
behavior of their children. We do not want to 'detect' parents in order to 'blame' them for bad
parenting. In the development of antisocial behavior, the ecological point of view has to be
respected (cf. Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986) with environmental and personal
characteristics in reciprocal interaction. This means that, for instance, personality, genetic
factors, socio-economic factors or stress variables also play an important role. If clinical or
social workers want to identify children at-risk for severe behavioral problems, a wide variety
of assessment measures must be included, a parenting measure being one of them.
It is also important to consider that high or low scores on a subscale do not necessarily
imply inadequate parenting (except for high harsh punishment). For instance, a low level of
monitoring can indicate too little control of the parent, but a high level of monitoring can be
experienced as suffocating for the child and is enhancing feelings of parental mistrust. For a
young adolescent, a high level of monitoring combined with little encouragement for
autonomous behavior, can be inadequate parenting. Therefore it is necessary not only to
consider individual parenting constructs, but also to look for certain patterns of parental
behavior (Vermulst et al., 2002). This also implies that the individuality of each family has to
be taken into account.
Advantages of the GPBS
With previous limitations and cautions in mind, we think that the GPBS is a
promising instrument for the assessment of parenting, with several advantages. First, the
questionnaire is built on social interactional learning theory, which provides a ‘practical’ way
to look at parenting. Items assess real parental behavior instead of the more unreliable
parental attitudes, behavioral intentions, beliefs, self-perceptions or values. The items are
specific enough to be used as part of the (longitudinal) evaluation of interventions such as
parent training. In this respect, we think that specific parenting constructs have an advantage
over 'dimensions' of parenting because they (a) allow more precise definitions, as they are
more uni- than multidimensional in nature, and (b) reflect behavior which is better adjustable.
Second, a parent version and a child version of the GPBS allow to examine parents’ as well
as children’s perceptions on parental behavior. To our knowledge, no other (Dutch)
questionnaires with this possibility are available. Another advantage is that the questionnaire
is easy to administer. And finally, the GPBS allows registering weaknesses as well as
strengths in parental behavior. Therapists, who want to involve parents in the treatment of
their children, can use this differentiated picture to motivate parental participation in therapy.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 43
The above-mentioned advantages are mainly applicable in a clinical context. For
research purposes, the use of the second-order dimensions ‘support’ and ‘negative control’
might be more adequate because (a) they reduce the number of scales by combining them
into more parsimonious constructs, and (b) they constitute more reliable measures for both
parent and child ratings of parenting.
44 Chapter 1
References
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting
Scale: A Measure of Dysfunctional Parenting in Discipline Situations. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 137-144.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and
SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Campbell, S. B. (1994). Behavior problems in preschool children: a review of recent
research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 113-149.
Campbell, S. B., Pierce, E. W., Moore, G., Marakovitz, S., & Newby, K. (1996).
Boys' externalizing problems at elementary school age: pathways from early behavior
problems, maternal control, and family stress. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 701-
719.
Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent
constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chamberlain, P. (1994). Family Connections. A social interactional approach.
Volume 5. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
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, 218-232.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B.
(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and influences on adjustment of early
adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Deater-Deckard, K ., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk
factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems : group and individual
differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 45
Dedrick, R. F., Greenbaum, P. E., Friedman, R. M., Wetherington, C. M., & Knoff, H.
M. (1997). Testing the structure of the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 using confirmatory
factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 306-313.
De Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R. (1992).
NOSI: Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress Index. [NPSI: Nijmegen Parental Stress Index] Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Dielman, T., Barton, K., & Cattell, R. (1977). Relationships among family attitudes
and child rearing practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 130, 105-112.
Dishion, T. J., Li, F., Spracklen, K. M., Brown, G., & Haas, E. (1999). The
measurement of parenting practices in research on adolescent problem behavior: A
multimethod and multitrait analysis. In R. S. Ashery (Ed.), Research meeting on drug abuse
prevention through family interventions, NIDA Research Monogram 177. (pp. 260-293).
Farrington, D. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behavior from
childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929-964.
Frankel, F. (1993). A brief test of parental behavioral skills. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 10, 29-34.
Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument.
University of Alabama.
Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. A. G., &
Hanson, K. (1992). Familial risk factors to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct
disorder: parental psychopathology and maternal parenting. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 60, 49-55.
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence of parenting
on adjustment. Developmental Review, 22, 623-643.
Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a
precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62-72.
Gerris, J. R. M., van Boxtel, D. A. A. M., Vermulst, A. A., Janssens, J. M. A. M., van
Zutphen, R. A. H., & Felling, A. J. A. (1992). Child-rearing and family in the Netherlands.
Nijmegen: Institute of Family Studies, University of Nijmegen.
Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G., Schipper, J. C.,
Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents, adolescents and young adults in
Dutch families: a longitudinal study. Nijmegen: Institute of Family Studies, University of
Nijmegen.
46 Chapter 1
Grolnick, W. S., Weiss, L., McKenzie, L., & Wrightman, J. (1996). Contextual,
cognitive, and adolescent factors associated with parenting in adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 1, 33-54.
Groot, A. de, Koot, H. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1994). Cross-cultural generalizability of
the Child Behavior Checklist cross-informant syndromes. Psychological Assessment, 6, 225-
230.
Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: a guide to methods and
measures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL: Issues, debates and strategies. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing:
instruments, issues and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.
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, 127-142.
Jacob, T., Moser, R. P., Windle, M., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2000). A
new measure of parenting practices involving preadolescent and adolescent-aged children.
Behavior Modification, 24, 611-634.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8. User's Reference Guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling. Foundations and Extensions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Langemeijer, K., Pijnenburg, H., & Veerman, J. W. (1997). Standaardisatie van de
gezinsdiagnostiek. Een inventarisatie van Nederlandstalige gezinsdiagnostische
instrumenten. [Family Assessment. Inventory of Dutch Family Assessment Instruments.]
Nijmegen: Stichting de Waarden, afdeling Onderzoek en Ontwikkeling.
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, 232-244.
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and
delinquency. Clinical Psychological Review, 10, 1-41.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 47
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (Eds.).
Crime & Justice: An annual review of research (vol. 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. IV.
Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a
multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-34.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1996). Goodness-of-Fit indixes in
confirmatory factor analysis: the Effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Ary, D. V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability and validity of
early adolescents' reports of parenting constructs. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 600-
619.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive Family Process. A social interactional approach.
Volume 3. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, G. R., Debarysche, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial Boys. A social
interactional approach. Volume 4. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family
management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.Reid, J.B.,
Reid, J. B, Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. J. (Eds.) (2002). Antisocial behavior in
children and adolescents. A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Richman, G. S., Hagopian, L. P., Harrison, K., Birk, D., Ormerod, A., Brierly-
Bowers, P., & Mann, L. (1994). Assessing parental response patterns in the treatment of
noncompliance in children. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 29-42.
Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Correspondence
among informants on parenting: preschool children, mothers and observers. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 53-68.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
Development, 36, 413-424.
48 Chapter 1
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children’s
report of parent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 76, 239-249.
Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing Child-rearing
Behaviors: a comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child and sibling on the CRPBI.
Child Development, 56, 462-479.
Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices
in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-
329.
Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the
refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 300-308.
Snyder, J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2002). Reinforcements and coercion mechanisms in the
development of antisocial behavior: The Family. In J.B. Reid, G.R. Patterson, & J. Snyder
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. A developmental analysis and model
for intervention (pp. 65-100). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., Lengua, L. L., & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 17-
29.
Stormshak, E. A., Speltz, M. L., Deklyen, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (1997). Observed
family interaction during clinical interviews: a comparison of families containing preschool
boys with and without disruptive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 345-
357.
Strayhorn, F. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1988). A parent practices scale and its relation
to parent and child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 27, 613-618.
Ten Haaf, P. G. J., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Child-rearing
measures: convergent and discriminant validity. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 10, 111-128.
Van Leeuwen, K. (1999). Het meten van opvoeding met de Schaal voor Ouderlijk
Gedrag. [Measurement of parenting with the Parental Behavior Scale]. Diagnostiek-Wijzer,
3, 151-170.
Van Leeuwen, K. (2000). Deficits in parenting skills as an indicator of behavior
problems with children and youth. Development of a screening instrument for the Flemish
community. Unpublished manuscript,Ghent University, Department of Psychology.
Assessment of Parental Behavior 49
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual for the CBCL/4-18]. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling Kinder-
en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Vermulst, A. A., de Brock, A. J. L. L., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2002). Nijmeegse
Opvoedingsvragenlijst (NOV). Handleiding. [The Nijmegen Child Rearing Questionnaire.
Manual]. Nijmegen: Institute of Family Studies, University of Nijmegen.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family
Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
28-54.
50 Chapter 1
Table 1
Primary Factor Loadings, Fit Indices and Cronbach's alpha's for Study 1 and Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 Factors + Items M F CM CF M F CM CF Positive parenting pos1 .53 .63 .58 .57 .61 .57 .50 .58
pos2 .72 .75 .72 .68 .70 .79 .64 .71 pos3 .56 .59 .58 .55 .49 .60 .51 .48 pos4 .72 .76 .71 .65 .62 .78 .62 .69 pos5 pos6
.57 .67 .59 .60 .53 .70 .55 .50
.43 .52 .49 .48 .35 .37 .57 .49 pos7 .49 .52 .53 .54 .42 .42 .50 .50 pos8 .68 .76 .62 .64 .65 .78 .64 .62 pos9 .49 .58 .58 .60 .46 .36 .64 .60 pos10 pos11
.58 .57 .63 .58 .42 .54 .54 .55
.59 .66 .64 .66 .56 .58 .58 .59 alpha .85 .87 .87 .86 .81 .86 .84 .85 Monitoring mon1 .71 .80 .51 .40 .72 .84 .57 .48 mon2 .83 .72 .71 .56 .91 .86 .72 .68 mon3 .34 .46 .62 .50 .38 .50 .49 .54 mon4 .33 .45 .43 .40 .34 .42 .38 .32 alpha .63 .72 .65 .52 .67 .74 .61 .56 Rules rul1 .49 .72 .81 .64 .67 .76 .76 .73 rul2 .53 .68 .78 .72 .52 .70 .75 .71 rul3
rul4 .61 .62 .68 .64 .56 .66 .60 .55
.68 .72 .80 .75 .80 .81 .72 .73 rul5 .62 .70 .69 .66 .54 .61 .68 .66 rul6
rul7 .65 .66 .56 .61 .55 .68 .35 .44
.62 .71 *) *) .70 .79 *) *) alpha .80 .85 .87 .83 .81 .88 .80 .80 Discipline dis1 .61 .70 .71 .71 .72 .75 .74 .70 dis2
dis3 .64 .60 .77 .70 .67 .72 .71 .74
.61 .68 .66 .66 .72 .67 .62 .61 dis4 .48 .57 .53 .48 .50 .63 .58 .51 dis5 .77 .80 .83 .83 .77 .84 .82 .78 dis6- .44 .47 .35 .47 .60 .42 .44 .44 alpha .76 .79 .81 .80 .82 .83 .81 .80 Inconsistent discipline inc1
inc2 .74 .69 .56 .59 .84 .75 .60 .64
.66 .59 .61 .45 .58 .62 .55 .54 inc3 .43 .43 .55 .52 .53 .53 .50 .55 alpha .64 .58 .60 .52 .68 .66 .56 .60
Harsh punishment har1 har2
.73 .78 .78 .76 .69 .73 .66 .71 .80 .81 .87 .83 .69 .81 .81 .87 har3
har4 .59 .57 .62 .53 .72 .58 .59 .67
.74 .73 .82 .75 .74 .75 .71 .78 alpha .81 .81 .85 .81 .80 .81 .78 .84 Ignoring ign1
ign2 .70 .63 .66 .54 .72 .69 .65 .48
.51 .46 .55 .51 .62 .52 .61 .60 ign3
ign4 .82 .85 .76 .66 .81 .82 .77 .60
.59 .50 .63 .53 .63 .62 .55 .64 alpha .75 .69 .75 .64 .78 .75 .74 .67 Material rewarding rew1
rew2 .68 .68 .80 .66 .82 .78 .72 .71
.57 .62 .60 .63 .50 .55 .56 .55 rew3 .75 .76 .82 .70 .79 .87 .79 .72 alpha .70 .72 .78 .70 .73 76 .72 69 Autonomy aut1
aut2 .57 .58 .69 .52 .70 .74 .54 .63
.80 .76 .82 .71 .78 .85 .75 .71 aut3 .40 .58 .54 .61 .50 .54 .51 .55 alpha .61 .65 .72 .65 .69 .74 .64 .66 Fit indices χ2 2119.8 1782.4 1923.2 1765.1 1725.5 1908.0 1472.2 1566.2 df 909 909 866 866 909 909 866 866 RMS AE
CFI .048 .043 .046 .044 .051 .055 .044 .047
.92 .96 .96 .96 .92 .93 .95 .94 Note. *) This item is not part of the child version; M=mothers; F = fathers; C = child
Table 2
Factor correlations for Study 1 (below diagonal) and Study 2 (above diagonal) POS MON RUL DIS INC HAR IGN REW AUT
M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF M F CM CF
POS .22 .49 .52 .36 .46 .47 .65 .68 -.08 .11 .12 .10 -.23 -.08 .17 .13 -.35 -.12 -.12 -.11 -.20 -.15 .01 .21 .05 .01 .31 .36 .51 .52 .52 .71
MON
.29 .44 .41 .55 .19 .52 .31 .54 .24 .21 .31 .36 -.03 .01 .36 .23 .11 .01 .11 .08 .10 .15 .39 .41 .02 .14 .40 .46 .23 .31 .31 .44
RUL .56 .69 .67 .68 .41 .50 .46 .58 .11 .27 .26 .34 -.14 .01 .26 .10 -.10 -.07 -.06 -.02 -.01 -.01 .12 .20 -.02 .05 .18 .27 .35 .42 .71 .72
DIS -.01 .08 .10 .04 .18 .22 .40 .40 .29 .27 .27 .36 .08 .11 .17 .12 .37 .40 .52 .56 .39 .49 .45 .47 .33 .42 .17 .17 .09 .08 .14 .15
INC -.22 -.02 .27 .20 -.10 .10 .18 .33 -.05 .07 .20 .32 .07 .08 .13 .24 .21 .05 .09 .08 .23 .28 .31 .29 .18 .46 .31 .30 -.25 -.10 .10 .23
HAR -.19 -.20 -.08 -.08 .00 -.07 .26 .23 .04 -.06 .05 .12 .44 .38 .65 .59 .11 .06 .08 .10 .41 .48 .53 .47 .27 .15 .10 .03 -.09 -.01 -.25 -.17
IGN -.13 -.02 .00 -.03 .10 .18 .35 .22 .01 .08 .11 .16 .32 .34 .61 .45 .27 .31 .19 .40 .35 .26 .53 .46 .38 .29 .24 .37 -.05 -.08 .12 .20
REW .12 .17 .43 .51 .10 .13 .28 .43 .02 .13 .24 .41 .23 .34 .13 .20 .33 .37 .30 .28 .12 .03 .04 .11 .21 .32 .16 .20 -.02 -.10 .16 .15
AUT .37 .61 .58 .60 .20 .18 .33 .44 .28 .55 .61 .70 -.07 .12 .14 .18 -.24 .05 .22 .36 -.05 -.07 -.10 -.05 -.05 -.03 .12 .11 -.05 .09 .24 .36
POS = Positive parenting; MON = Monitoring; RUL = Rules; DIS = Discipline; INC = Inconsistent discipline; HAR = Harsh punishment;
IGN = Ignoring; MRE = Material rewarding; AUT = Autonomy; M = mothers; F = fathers; CM = children about mothers; CF = children about fathers
Table 3
Pearson Correlations between PSI, CBCL, and GPBS (Study 1 and Study 2)
Measure POS MON RUL DIS INC HAR IGN MRE AUT Study 1
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
PSI
Parent domain -.35 a -.30 a -.02 .02 -.20 a -.22 a .13 b .05 .26 a .18 a .15 a .13 b .23 a .25 a .06 .04 -.14 a -.16 a
Child domain
-.34 a -.29 a -.01
.04
-.16 a -.17 a .19 a .16 a .24 a .14 b .23 a .19 a .31 a .27 a .09 c .02
-.09 c -.16 a
CBCLInternalizing -.17 a -.17 a -.01 .02 -.09 c -.10 c .07 .06 .13 a .08 .12 b .01 .12 b .15 a .05 .01 -.07 -.10 c
Externalizing -.28 a -.27 a -.03 .04 -.09 c -.10 c .23 a .25 a .24 a .12 b .26 a .21 a .21 a .22 a .08 c .06 -.03 -.10 c
Study 2
SI PParent domain -.26 a -.16 b .06 .00 -.16 b -.10 .13 c .18 a .31 a .22 a .18 a .17 b .36 a .30 a .15 b .27 a -.05 -.10Child domain
-.15 b -.14 c .09
.04
-.11 c .02
.23 a .18 a .27 a .22 a .20 a .18 a .29 a .30 a .25 a .19 a -.08
-.07 CBCL
Internalizing -.14 b -.09 -.06 -.06 -.12 c -.02 .13 c -.02 .16 b .17 b .15 b -.01 .22 a .09 .18 a .12 c -.07 -.04Externalizing -.12 c -.05 .05 -.01 -.05 -.01 .27 a .14 b .20 a .22 a .28 a .13 c .26 a .17 b .20 a .14 b -.04 .04
M = Mothers; F = Fathers; POS = Positive parenting; MON = Monitoring; RUL = Rules; DIS = Discipline; INC = Inconsistent discipline;
HAR = Harsh punishment; IGN = Ignoring; MRE = Material rewarding; AUT = Autonomy a p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05 (2-tailed)
Assessment of Parental Behavior 53
Table 4
Goodness of Fit of CFA's of Study 1 and 2 for Each Group
χ2 df RMSEA CFI χ2diff
df diff p
Mothers
noninvariant model 3845.3 1818 .050 .921
Λ invariant 3932.4 1863 .049 .919 87.1 45 <.001
ΛΦ invariant 3993.0 1899 .049 .918 60.6 36 <.01
ΛΦΘδ invariant 4358.3 1944 .051 .905 365.3 45 <.001
Fathers
noninvariant model 3690.5 1818 .048 .948
Λ invariant 3774.3 1863 .048 .948 83.8 45 <.001
ΛΦ invariant 3839.4 1899 .048 .947 65.1 36 <.01
ΛΦΘδ invariant 4031.9 1944 .048 .943 192.5 45 <.001
Children about mothers
noninvariant model 3395.3 1732 .045 .956
Λ invariant 3457.3 1776 .045 .955 62.0 44 <.05
ΛΦ invariant 3506.1 1812 .045 .955 48.8 36 ns
ΛΦΘδ invariant 3601.1 1856 .045 .954 95.0 44 <.001
Children about fathers
noninvariant model 3356.0 1732 .045 .951
Λ invariant 3416.8 1776 .045 .950 60.8 44 <.05
ΛΦ invariant 3479.3 1812 .045 .950 62.5 36 ns
ΛΦΘδ invariant 3517.3 1856 .044 .949 38.0 44 ns
54 Chapter 1
Appendix
Ghent Parental Behavior Scale - Parent version
(Translated from Dutch)
A : Instructions
On the following pages you will find some statements about handling your child. Read each statement
carefully. Indicate for each statement how frequent you use this way of handling your child. You can
choose from the following answer possibilities:
never rarely sometimes often always
Mark with a cross the answer category of your choice. You can choose only one answer for each
statement. For instance:
never rarely sometimes often always
I ask my child which books he/she likes to read
Keep in mind that your answer always is related to one and the same child.
It is possible that you think about some statements: 'I should like to do it different'. Nevertheless,
indicate how you act in reality. There are no good or wrong answers.
Please do not skip any items.
B : Items (normally presented in a quasi random order)
Positive parenting
pos1 I make time to listen to my child, when he/she wants to tell me something
pos2 When my child seems to have a problem, I discuss with him/her what is wrong
pos3 In the evening I talk with my child about the past and the coming day
pos4 When my child has a problem, we look together at different possible solutions
pos5 I ask my child about his/her hobbies and interests
pos6 I make excursions together with my child
pos7 I compliment my child when he/she spontaneously helps me out (for instance with laying the table)
pos8 When my child an I have a disagreement, we talk it over and we look together for a solution
pos9 I do activities together with my child, because I know that my child likes it (for instance playing a round game, shopping together)
pos10 I give my child a compliment, hug or a tap on the shoulder as a reward for good behavior
pos11 When I see my child after a day of school, I make it possible to spend some time with him/her
Monitoring
mon1 I keep track of the friends my child is seeing
mon2 I keep track of the neighbourhoods my child visits
mon3 When my child went out somewhere on his/her own, I inquire if he/she has actually been there
mn4 I ask my child how he/she spends his/her pocket money
Rules
rul1 I teach my child to be polite at school
rul2 I teach my child to obey rules
rul3 I teach my child to adapt to the habits in our family
rul4 I teach my child to adapt to rules at school or at work
Assessment of Parental Behavior 55
rul5 I teach my child to handle his/her things with respect
rul6 * I teach my child respect for the authorities
rul7 I teach my child that it is important to behave properly
Discipline
dis1 When my child doesn't obey a rule (for instance: he/she comes home late without a valid reason; he/she has not completed a chore),
then I punish him/her
dis2 I punish my child, when he/she makes a nuisance of him/herself (for instance because he/she nags, contradicts me, lies, argues).
dis3 When my child has done something wrong, I punish him/her by taking away something nice (for instance the child can't watch TV,
isn't allowed to go out, has to be home earlier, has to go to bed earlier)
dis4 When my child has been misbehaving, I give him/her a chore for punishment
dis5 When my child does something that I don't want him/her to do, I punish him/her
dis6 (-) It happens that I don't punish my child after he/she has done something that is not allowed
Inconsistent discipline
inc1 When my child doesn't obey a rule, it happens that I threaten with a punishment, but that in the end I don't carry it out anyway
inc2 When I have punished my child, it happens that I let my child out of the punishment early
inc3 Before I eventually give a punishment, I have told my child many times that I would punish his/her behavior
Harsh punishment
har1 I slap my child when he/she has done something wrong
har2 I spank my child when he/she is disobedient or naughty
har3 I shake my child when we have a fight
har4 I spank my child when he/she doesn't obey rules
Ignoring
ign1 When my child does something that is not allowed, I give him/her an angry look and pretend he/she is not there
ign2 When my child does something that is not allowed, I only talk to him/her again when he/she behaves better
ign3 When my child does something that is not allowed, I give him/her an angry look and I ignore him/her afterwards
ign4 When my child does something that is not allowed, I don't talk to him/her until he/she says sorry
Material rewarding
rew1 I give my child money or a small present when he/she has done something that I am happy about
rew2 When my child has done his/her best, I allow something extra (for instance staying up later)
rew3 I let my child buy something when he/she has done something well
Autonomy
aut1 I teach my child to solve his/her own problems
aut2 I teach my child to take his/her own decisions
aut3 I teach my child that he/she is responsible for his/her own behavior
* This item is not included in the child version
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 57 as predictors of problem behavior
CHAPTER 2
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE UTILITY OF THE
RESILIENT, OVERCONTROLLED AND UNDERCONTROLLED
PERSONALITY TYPES AS PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S AND
ADOLESCENTS’ PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
Abstract
This study addresses the utility of the Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled
personality prototypes for predicting children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior in
a longitudinal general population sample (N=491). Both parents and one child
participated in the study at two measurement occasions separated by a three-year
interval. The major objective was to examine whether the prototypes predict different
clinical patterns, as reflected by mean-level differences on the internalizing and the
externalizing dimensions of the CBCL and the YSR. Prototype membership was
derived from cluster analyzing parental ratings of personality and adolescent self-
rated personality. All three types could only be recovered from the adolescent self-
ratings of personality. Although the prototypes showed clear differential relationships
with measures of internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, hierarchical
multiple regression analyses showed that personality types do not predict adolescent
problem behavior beyond what is predicted by personality dimensions.
58 Chapter 2
Introduction
From observations in everyday life, it can be concluded that children and
adolescents show striking differences in their tendencies to behave, think, and feel.
Some children are sociable, others shy, some are easily distressed, others even-
tempered. For psychologists it is interesting to study these differences in personality,
especially because they may have predictive validity for child and adolescent
development (Shiner, 2003). In this respect, it is useful to consider different
perspectives for describing individual differences. Research on individual differences
can be conducted in two ways, i.e. variable-centered or person-centered. The variable-
centered approach focuses on differences on dimensions across subjects, with
variables as analytical units, such as the Big Five personality dimensions. The person-
centered approach studies ‘types’, referring to patterns of characteristics within
individuals. In other words, types group individuals with similar personality patterns.
Bergman and Magnusson, (1997) state that, although at a detailed level there is an
infinite variety of characteristics and states in a person, at a global level there are only
a small number of more frequently observed “typical patterns”. The profiles that
emerge from person-oriented studies are believed to contain extra information, above
the result of studying its parts separately (Bergman, 2001; Bergman & El-Khouri,
2001). Differentiating between a person-centered approach and a trait or variable
approach does not imply that these two perspectives are contradictory. Hofstee (2002)
and Mervielde and Asendorpf (2000) argue that they should be treated as
complementary.
Currently there is a renewed interest in the person-centered approach to
personality (cf. Asendorpf, Caspi & Hofstee, 2002), not because the variable-centered
approach has failed, but due to the recently emerging consensus about the variables
that should be included in a person-centered analysis (Mervielde & Asendorpf, 2000).
The present study corroborates to this line of research by (a) searching for replication
of three prototypes in children and adolescents, i.e. resilients, overcontrollers and
undercontrollers, (b) by investigating the external validity and utility of these
personality types as predictors of problem behavior in children and adolescents, and
(c) by examining the incremental validity of the type approach beyond what is gained
from the dimensional perspective.
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 59 as predictors of problem behavior
Replication of the personality types Resilients, Overcontrollers and Undercontrollers
The question whether individuals from the population can be assigned to three
prototypes, depends on (a) the trait dimensions that are used, (b) the method for
deriving empirical types, (c) the operationalization of the traits (e.g. self-ratings
versus ratings by observers), and (d) the population characteristics (culture, age)
(Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf & van Aken, 2001).
Regarding the trait dimensions used to derive types, it can be argued that a
different number of types will be found when the patterns are based on many or on a
few traits, or that different types will emerge from different sets of trait dimensions
(Asendorpf et al., 2001). In line with the current trend in personality research, the
types in the present study are based on the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality.
This model represents the personality traits that are most relevant to social adaptation
(Caspi, 1998) i.e. Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness. In various fields of research, this model has become
acknowledged as a robust reference-model of personality, substantially improving
communication among researchers (De Raad & Perugini, 2002). Moreover, the FFM
represents personality not only in adults but also in children and adolescents, and
hence facilitates comparisons across developmental periods (Shiner, 1998; Shiner &
Caspi, 2003). Finally, the FFM has proven to be clinically useful, showing meaningful
relationships with Internalizing and Externalizing problems (Caspi, 1998; John, Caspi,
Robins, Moffitt & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994) and with the DSM-IV axis II personality
disorders (Costa & Widiger, 2002; De Clercq & De Fruyt, 2003).
The three types can be described in terms of FFM scores as follows: (a)
resilients score average on the socially adjusted Big Five characteristics
Agreeableness, Extraversion, Openness to experience and Conscientiousness, and low
on Neuroticism, (b) overcontrollers have high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of
Extraversion, and finally (c) undercontrollers score below the mean on Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness. The type labels are based on Block and Block’s (1980)
dimensions Ego control, i.e. the tendency to control or express motivational and
emotional impulses, and Ego resilience, i.e. the possibility to respond flexibly rather
than rigidly to situational demands.
In order to derive types, two empirical methods have been used: Q-factor
analysis and cluster analysis. In the first method, a judge sorts trait descriptions for
each subject into a category distribution, according to how well they fit the subject’s
60 Chapter 2
personality. Subsequently, a Q-factor analysis (also called inverse factor analysis)
classifies the Q-sort profiles into similar patterns (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999).
Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt and Stouthamer-Loeber (1996) were the first to derive
the three prototypes in 13-year old boys using this method. The types were further
replicated in several heterogeneous samples of children (Asendorpf & van Aken,
1999; Hart, Hofmann, Edelstein & Keller, 1997; Van Lieshout, Haselager, Risken-
Walraven & van Aken, 1995).
The second method derives types from individual’s ratings on personality
variables. Profile patterns of individuals are grouped by cluster analysis into relatively
homogeneous clusters, with the mean profile of the cluster members serving as the
prototypical pattern describing the cluster (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). Evidence
for the three personality types in adults has been found by Schnabel, Asendorpf and
Ostendorf (2002), with NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI data in German samples, by Boehm,
Asendorpf and Avia (2002) in a Spanish student sample, and by Barbaranelli (2002)
in an Italian sample. Additional evidence has been found in Dutch and Flemish
samples of children and adolescents (Dubas, Gerris, Janssens & Vermulst, 2002; De
Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen 2002) based on parental ratings or adolescent self-
reports of personality.
However, not all studies were successful in replicating the types. Costa,
Herbst, McCrae, Samuels and Ozer (2002) could only replicate the types in three of
four large and diverse American adult samples and concluded that the types are not
robust. Boehm et al. (2002) did not find the three prototypes in a Spanish general
population sample. Moreover, De Fruyt et al. (2002) failed to replicate the clusters
across different FFM measures in one and the same sample. Barbaranelli (2002)
further questioned the number of types suggesting a fourth cluster, i.e. a ‘non-
desirable cluster’, in which the negative aspects of both over- and undercontrolled
types are combined.
The third issue that determines the replicability of the types concerns the
operationalization of the traits. Until now, researchers diverged in their assessment of
the FFM by using different instruments, such as the NEO-inventories developed by
Costa and McCrae (1992), the California Child Q-set (Block & Block, 1978), the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999)
and lists of adjectives (Goldberg, 1992; Ostendorpf, 1990). Several studies have
provided evidence for the consistency of the types when different assessment
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 61 as predictors of problem behavior
measures were used (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Asendorpf et al., 2001;
Barbaranelli, 2002; De Fruyt et al., 2002; Dubas et al., 2002; Hart et al., 1997; Robins
et al., 1996; Schnabel, et al., 2002; Van Lieshout et al., 1995).
A subject that has received little attention in studying types, is the effect of the
informant on the personality ratings. Until now, most studies that replicated types
used independent self- and other-ratings (parents, teachers, …). As Asendorpf et al.
(2001) indicate, there may be differences in the prototypes with regard to self- versus
other-ratings. For example, low conscientiousness may be more pronounced in other-
ratings of undercontrollers than in self-ratings, because low conscientiousness may be
more salient and may have more negative consequences for others than for the self.
Recently, Rammstedt, Riemann, Angleitner and Borkenau (in press) examined the
replicability of the types across informants (self-, peer, and behavioral ratings) in an
adult twin sample. Only for self-reports the three types were identified, whereas for
peer and other ratings, only the resilient type was consistently identified across raters.
This study clearly demonstrates that the replicability of types may depend on the type
of informant.
Finally, only a few studies have investigated the continuity and stability of the
three types from a longitudinal perspective. Continuity refers to the constancy of the
prototype pattern across different measurement times in a particular sample, not to the
stability of the individual’s membership of a type category. Stability refers to the
constancy of type membership from one time to another and is measured by
comparing type classification at different assessment periods. Subsequently,
classifications of subjects are cross-classified, using Cohen’s kappa as a measure of
stability. It should be noted that stability can be low, despite a high continuity
(Asendorpf et al., 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). There is some evidence for
short-term stability in adulthood (Asendorpf et al., 2001), indicating retest reliability
of the prototypes. For children, Asendorpf and van Aken (1999) found a high
continuity in types over a 5-year period, but a rather low stability, indicating that
many children changed from one type to another between ages 4 and 10. A
longitudinal twin study (De Fruyt et al., 2002) showed that the types were replicable
across a 3-year interval, i.e. providing evidence for continuity, but that prototype
membership was again rather unstable.
62 Chapter 2
Incremental Validity of Personality Types for the Prediction of Problem Behavior in
Children and Adolescents
External validity of the types has been investigated by relating types to
measures of social functioning or problem behavior. These studies are important
because they examine the utility of types as predictors of (mal)adaptive child and
adolescent development. Robins et al. (1996) described resilients as intelligent,
successful in school, unlikely to be delinquents and relatively free of
psychopathology, whereas overcontrollers were characterized as prone to
internalizing problems and undercontrollers as at risk for academic, behavioral and
emotional problems. Huey and Weisz (1997) found a positive association between
ego undercontrol and externalizing problems in children, and a negative association
with internalizing problems. Externalizers were characterized as impulsive extraverts
who were disagreeable but low in neuroticism, internalizers as overcontrolled
introverts who were agreeable and conscientious. Asendorpf et al. (2001) showed that
overcontrollers were more shy, less sociable, more lonely, had a lower self-esteem,
and fewer or less secure relationships with others; undercontrollers were judged as
less sociable (although more sociable than overcontrollers), more aggressive and as
experiencing more interpersonal conflicts.
Several arguments can be pointed out recommending the use of types in
research and clinical practice. First, types are conceptually convenient because they
summarize many traits in a single label (Costa et al., 2002), hence facilitating
communication in personality description (Asendorpf et al., 2001). They invite
researchers and professionals to think about the dynamic interplay of combinations of
variables, contrary to the traditional dimensional perspective considering only one
variable at a time. The person-oriented approach is further valuable for developmental
psychology. Adopting a theoretical rather than a methodological person-oriented
view, Bergman and Magnusson (1997), demonstrate this with an empirical example
regarding the evolution of children’s patterns of externalizing behavior. They show
that there is a strong tendency for problems to (a) not occur at all, or (b) for two or
more to occur together. Singular adjustment problems in childhood do not predict
adult problems. Developmental studies should be directed at detecting variables that
co-vary and at explaining developmental paths. Longitudinal trajectories permit to
assess continuity and discontinuity of individual differences over time. There is
evidence that type membership at age 3 predicts personality at age 19 (Caspi and
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 63 as predictors of problem behavior
Silva, 1995) and interpersonal functioning in adulthood (Newman, Caspi, Moffitt, &
Silva, 1997). Hart et al. (1997) showed that each of the personality types has a
coherent pattern of relationships with adolescent development. Children initially
assigned in a longitudinal study to the resilient, overcontrolled, or undercontrolled
types, developed along different developmental trajectories. Finally, types are also
useful in clinical psychology, both at the level of prevention and intervention. For
purposes of prevention, the types can be used to screen at-risk children in a non-
referred population. It is important to note that maladaptive types (i.e. overcontrollers
and undercontrollers) are derived from raw scores on FFM measures comprising
items that describe the normal range of child behavior instead of maladaptive
behavior. The preponderance of items referring to maladaptive behavior in problem
behavior measures, such as the CBCL, sometimes provokes resistance in subjects or
informants to accurately complete these measures.
The distinction between the type- and the variable approach implies a choice
between two alternatives: losing information on interindividual variation between
types (in the type-approach) or preserving information on personality structure (in the
variable-approach). Consequently, it is interesting to study how the type and variable
approach concurrently influence outcome variables, i.e. the issue of incremental
validity (Asendorpf, in press).
Costa et al. (2002) were the first to compare the predictive power of the
categorical types versus the continuous FFM variables with regard to psychosocial
functioning and clinical symptoms. They entered dummy-coded types and variables in
different steps of an hierarchical regression analysis and examined both the overall
predictive power, and the incremental R² of the types over the dimensions and vice
versa. Their study showed that types did predict the outcome variables, but they
contributed nothing above or beyond what was already predicted by the FFM
dimensions, whereas the FFM variables had significant incremental validity over the
types. However, Asendorpf (in press) notes that a cross-sectional head-to-head
comparison of types and dimensions is often unfair, mainly because dichotomized
predictor variables lose information in comparison with the continuous personality
variables. Therefore, he contrasted three kinds of predictions, i.e. by type, by
continuous dimensions and by dichotomizing the dimensions through a median split.
This fairer comparisons revealed that the type approach, applied in a longitudinal
64 Chapter 2
study, was as predictive as a continuous dimensional approach but was generally less
effective in cross-sectional studies.
The Present Research
The present research examines the consistency, stability, and external validity
of the three types. In addition, the incremental validity of types beyond FFM
dimensions for predicting adolescents’ problem behavior will be examined. In Study
1, the replicability of the three prototypes is evaluated, (a) based on the dimensions of
the FFM in line with the current research trend (Asendorpf, 2002); (b) using the same
method for deriving types as proposed by Asendorpf et al. (2001), i.e. through a
particular combination of cluster analyses; (c) across different measures and
informants, i.e. parental ratings and adolescent self-ratings of personality, and (d) over
time, i.e. using follow-up measures over a three-year interval. In Study 2, the external
validity of the types will be examined through their association with internalizing and
externalizing problem behavior, and personality ratings provided by a different
informant. Finally, the incremental validity of the person-centered approach for
predicting problem behavior is investigated relative to the variable-centered approach.
Study 1
Method
Participants and procedure
The present study uses data from a follow-up study4 investigating the
relationship among parenting, personality characteristics and children’s problem
behavior, at two assessment occasions separated by a 3-year interval. Subjects were
parents and one, non-referred child, recruited via randomly selected elementary and
secondary schools. For elementary schools we stratified the sample by province, (East
and West Flanders), region (rural or urban), school type (public/private/catholic
schools) and grade (third, fourth, fifth and sixth year of elementary school). For
secondary schools, subject sampling was based on province (East and West Flanders),
type of curriculum (vocational, technical and general education) and grade (first and
4 Type classification of the sample at the first measurement moment (N = 539), has been reported in De
Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen (2002)
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 65 as predictors of problem behavior
second year of secondary school). Permission to contact parents for this study was
granted by 80% of the elementary schools and 60% of the secondary schools. Schools
that refused were replaced by additional randomly selected schools. All parents were
informed about the objectives and procedures of the research project. The response
rate for parents with children in primary schools was 41%, and 39% for parents with
children in secondary schools. At Time 2, 82% of the families continued
collaboration; 12% refused and 6% could not be reached. This sampling method
resulted in a well- balanced sample regarding social-economic status, gender and age
(Van Leeuwen, 2000). At each assessment time, families were visited at home by a
trained psychology student who instructed the mother, father and child to
independently complete a series of questionnaires. Parents described the child’s
personality and problem behavior at both measurement moments and the children
provided self-ratings of their personality and problem behavior at Time 2. Only
subjects who participated at both Time 1 and Time 2 were included for the present
analyses, resulting in a sample of 491 families with 234 boys and 257 girls. The mean
age of the children was 10.9 years (SD = 1.8 years; range 7-15) at Time 1, and 13.9
years (SD = 1.8 years; range 10-18) at Time 2.
Measures
Parents rated their child’s personality on the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999) at both assessment
occasions. The HiPIC includes 144 items, assessing 18 facets hierarchically structured
under the Big Five personality domains Conscientiousness (including the facets
Achievement motivation, Concentration, Perseverance, Orderliness), Benevolence
(Egocentrism, Irritability, Compliance, Dominance and Altruism), Extraversion
(Shyness, Optimism, Expressiveness and Energy), Emotional stability (Anxiety and
Self-confidence) and Imagination (Creativity, Curiosity and Intellect). The
Benevolence domain is conceptually and empirically associated with Agreeableness
of the FFM, whereas Imagination is related to the Openness to experience domain of
the FFM (De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra, & Rolland, 2000). All HiPIC items were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
The robust factor structure and good internal consistency of the HiPIC have
been reported in previous studies with clinical and non-clinical samples (Mervielde &
De Fruyt, 2002). For the present analyses paternal and maternal ratings were
66 Chapter 2
averaged, because of their strong convergence for the 18 facet scales, with
correlations ranging from .51 to .77 (p < .001) and a median correlation of .60 at Time
1, and a range from .47 to .75 (p < .001) and a median correlation of .56 at Time 2.
Adolescents completed a Dutch shortened version of Goldberg’s (1992)
hundred adjectives, entitled the Questionnaire Big Five (QBF) at Time 2. The QBF
assesses the Big Five personality domains, with ratings on 7-point Likert scales for 30
adjectives, 6 per domain (Gerris et al., 1998). Previous research has demonstrated that
self-ratings on this adjective set provide a valid adolescent Big Five personality
profile (Scholte, van Aken & van Lieshout, 1997; Dubas et al., 2002).
Results
Structural validity and internal consistency of the personality measures
Research on replicable prototypes depends on the consistency at the level of
personality dimensions (Boehm et al., 2002), i.e. the different inventories should
provide valid ratings on the different FFM dimensions. In order to evaluate the
structural validity of the two personality questionnaires, we ran principal axis
factoring analyses followed by oblimin rotation.
Table 1 shows that at Time 1 and Time 2 the primary factor loadings for most
of the HiPIC facets were above .50. Some facets had high secondary loadings (equal
to or above .30), but these findings are consistent with other studies (Mervielde & De
Fruyt, 2002). The Cronbach alpha’s of the domain scales ranged from .76 to .88.
Table 2 shows that the QBF items loaded the five intended factors, with all secondary
loadings below .30. The Cronbach alpha’s of the QBF scales ranged from .68 to .88,
indicating moderate to good internal consistency.
Consistency and stability of prototypes across time and measures
In order to replicate the types, we followed the method described by
Asendorpf et al. (2001). In a first step, hierarchical cluster analyses according to
Ward’s method were conducted, using raw domain scores. The resulting three-cluster
solutions of these analyses were then used as initial cluster centers in a
nonhierarchical K-means clustering. Table 3 presents the cluster centers after
transformation to z-scores, allowing better comparability of the results. The
undercontrolled cluster, with expected below average mean scores (about one half of
a standard deviation below the mean) for Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, was
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 67 as predictors of problem behavior
replicated for HiPIC measures at Time 1 and Time 2, and for the QBF data. The
overcontrolled cluster, with expected above average mean scores for Neuroticism and
below average mean scores for Extraversion, was clearly present in the QBF
personality reports of the children. A clear and pronounced overcontrolled pattern
could not be retrieved in the HiPIC data, although the Time 1 z-values resembled the
pattern better than the Time 2 z-values. The resilient cluster, with below average mean
scores for Neuroticism and average scores on the socially desirable traits
Extraversion, Imagination, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, was also present in
the three datasets. The z-scores of the socially desirable traits however, were
substantially higher than average.
Gender differences were tested with the chi-square test. Based on the QBF
data, 50% of the boys were classified as undercontrolled, 27.6% as overcontrolled and
22.4% as resilient. Of the girls, 36.3% were identified as undercontrolled, 32.8% as
overcontrolled and 30.9% as resilient. Differences between boys and girls were
significant with χ² (2, N = 484) = 9.57, (p = .008). We further examined which
prototypes showed gender differences, by comparing the sex proportion per prototype
with the sex proportion of the aggregated remaining prototypes. There were more
resilient girls than boys (χ² (df = 1) = 4.43, p = .035), more undercontrolled boys than
girls (χ² (df = 1) = 9.21, p = .002), but there was no gender difference for
overcontrollers (χ² (df = 1) = 1.53, p = .216).
Consistency of the types across samples was assessed by cross-classification
of the original clusters in sample 1 and the original clusters of sample 2, evaluated
with Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Kappa’s range between -1 and 1, with 0 referring to
judgmental independence. Kappa’s above .60 are considered as acceptable by
Asendorpf et al. (2001). Cross-classification of cluster assignment in parental ratings
at Time 1 and Time 2 (HiPIC measures), resulted in a kappa of .47. Cross-
classification of parental and adolescent cluster assignment at Time 1 demonstrated a
kappa of .15, and .12 at Time 2. These are the highest kappa’s when all possible
cross-classifications of clusters were tested. Kappa’s ranged from -.26 to .47 for
cross-classifications between parent ratings Time 1 and Time 2, from -.11 to .15 for
cross-classifications between parent ratings Time 1 and adolescent ratings Time 2;
and from -.09 to .12 for cross-classifications between parent ratings Time 2 and
adolescent ratings.
68 Chapter 2
The kappa value of .47 for the cross-classification of cluster assignment in
parental ratings at Time 1 and Time 2 (HiPIC measures), suggests low stability over
time. In contrast, the variable approach did show high stability over time. Pearson
correlations between HiPIC Time 1 and Time 2 measures were all significant, with r
= .76 (p < .001) for Conscientiousness, with r = .75 (p < .001) for Benevolence, with
r = .72 (p < .001) for Extraversion, with r = .68 (p < .001) for Emotional Stability and
with r = .73 (p < .001) for Imagination.
Comparison of the cluster centers of the HiPIC measures at Time 1 and Time
2 showed some similarities. In both samples, only the resilient and undercontrolled
types were replicated, suggesting partial continuity.
The cross-classifications of parental and adolescent cluster assignments at
Time 1 and Time 2 indicate low consistency across measures and judges. This was
also concluded from comparisons of cluster centers of the different measures. In
contrast, there was evidence for moderate agreement between different raters at the
variable level. Correlations between parental and adolescent ratings at Time 2 were all
significant, with r = .20 (p < .001) for Benevolence, r = .46 (p < .001) for
Conscientiousness, r = .37 (p < .001) for Neuroticism, r = .46 (p < .001) for
Extraversion and r = .34 (p < .001) for Imagination. Also, the correlations between
adolescent ratings and parental ratings at Time 1 were significant, with r = .13 (p <
.01) for Benevolence, r = .11 (p < .05) for Conscientiousness, r = .28 (p < .001) for
Neuroticism, r = .33 (p < .001) for Extraversion and r = .27 (p < .001) for
Imagination.
Conclusion
Although both the HiPIC and the QBF can be considered as good FFM
markers, the three prototypes were only partly replicable. Undercontrolled and
resilient types were found in parental HiPIC and adolescent QBF ratings, whereas the
overcontrolled type was only replicable in the adolescent personality reports. This
implies that for the study of the external and incremental validity of the types (Study
2), only the type classification based on the adolescent QBF ratings can be used.
Study 1 showed some continuity of the types, because the same types, i.e.
overcontrolled and resilient, were found in the parental ratings at Time 1 and Time 2.
Stability of the types was low, indicated by small kappa’s between parental ratings at
Time 1 and Time 2, contrary to the high variable-centered stability indicated by the
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 69 as predictors of problem behavior
highly significant correlations between HiPIC Time 1 and Time 2 measurements.
Consistency of types between parental HiPIC and adolescent QBF ratings was low.
Study 2
In Study 2, the external validity of the three prototypes, derived from
adolescent personality reports, was investigated by examining how they are associated
with internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, based on adolescent self-
reports as well as parent reports on the one hand, and on the other hand with FFM
ratings provided by parents. The incremental validity of the person-centered approach
is evaluated by comparing the relative utility of types and traits in predicting
adolescent problem behavior.
Method
Participants, procedure, and personality measures were identical to those of
Study 1, but only those persons were retained who participated at both Time 1 and
Time 2 assessments.
Child problem behavior
Parents rated their child’s problem behavior with the Dutch version of the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996), a screening
instrument for behavioral and emotional problems in children. Parents rated the
frequency of problem behaviors on a 3-point Likert scale. Two broadband factors can
be derived from the CBCL scales: Internalizing problem behavior, with items
referring to somatic complaints, social withdrawal, and anxiety/depression, and
Externalizing problem behavior, including items related to aggression, hyperactivity,
and delinquency. There is substantial evidence regarding the CBCL’s test-retest-
reliability and its cross-cultural construct validity (Dedrick, Greenbaum, Friedman,
Wetherington & Knoff, 1997; De Groot, Koot, & Verhulst, 1994; Verhulst et al.,
1996). Ratings provided by mothers and fathers were averaged for all analyses.
Correlations between maternal and paternal ratings were all significant (p < .001),
with .53 for internalizing behavior, and .58 for externalizing behavior.
70 Chapter 2
Children were administered the Dutch version of the Youth Self Report (YSR;
Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1997), a parallel measure of the CBCL, providing
self-reports on internalizing and externalizing problem behavior.
Results
Associations between prototypes and measures of problem behavior and personality
traits
ANOVA’s were run with the 3-cluster solution of the QBF data as the
independent variable and internalizing, externalizing and total problem score of the
CBCL (T1 & T2) and the YSR as the dependent variables.
Problem behavior. Table 4 shows several significant F-tests, indicating differences
between the three prototypes. Post-hoc analyses of parental ratings of problem
behavior showed that overcontrollers scored significantly higher on internalizing
problem behaviors than undercontrollers (p < .01) and resilients (p < .001) at Time 1
and at Time 2 (p < .001). These findings also extended to self-ratings of internalizing
behavior. When children rated their own internalizing behavior, all three subtypes
significantly differed from each other, with overcontrollers scoring higher than
resilients and undercontrollers (p < .001), and undercontrollers scoring higher than
resilients (p < .01).
For externalizing behavior, undercontrollers scored significantly higher than
resilients for CBCL reports, but only at Time 2 (p < .05). For YSR externalizing
behavior, undercontrollers scored significantly higher than overcontrollers (p < .05)
and resilients (p < .001).
For the total problem scale, undercontrollers scored significantly higher than
resilients for CBCL ratings (p < .05) at Time 2 and for YSR ratings (p < .001).
Overcontrollers scored significantly higher than resilients for CBCL ratings at Time 1
(p < .05), Time 2 (p < .01) and for YSR ratings (p < .001).
Big Five Personality. Post hoc tests for significant ANOVA results showed higher
scores on Neuroticism for overcontrollers than for undercontrollers (p < .001 at both
times) and resilients (p < .001 at both times), and significantly lower scores on
Extraversion for overcontrollers compared to undercontrollers and resilients (p < .001
in all cases) for parental ratings of children’s personality. Significantly lower scores
were obtained on Conscientiousness for undercontrollers compared to overcontrollers
(p < .001 at both times) and resilients (p < .01 at Time 1 and p < .001 at Time 2). The
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 71 as predictors of problem behavior
expected lower scores on Agreeableness for the undercontrollers were only found at
Time 2 (p < .01). Resilients had the highest scores on the more socially desirable
domains, although differences were not always statistically significant.
For children’s self-ratings of personality the expected differences were found,
with all post hoc tests significant at the p < .001 level. Overcontrollers had
significantly lower scores on Emotional stability and Extraversion than
undercontrollers and resilients. Undercontrollers had significantly lower scores than
overcontrollers and resilients on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Resilients had
the highest scores on all the socially desirable trait dimensions and the lowest score on
Neuroticism. They always differed significantly from the under- and overcontrollers.
Incremental validity of the person-centered approach for the prediction of problem
behavior
The incremental validity of the person-centered approach in predicting
problem behavior was examined through hierarchical multiple regression analyses
(HMRA; see Table 5). Type membership, based on QBF adolescent ratings, was
translated in two dummy-coded variables. When three types are distinguished, two
dummy-coded variables capture all information on differences between the types
(Asendorpf, in press; Costa et al. 2002). Outcome variables were parental and
adolescent ratings of internalizing and externalizing problem behavior at Time 2.
When the outcome variable was rated by parents, parental five-factor measures
(HiPIC) were used in the HMRA; when the outcome variable was
externalizing/internalizing behavior as rated by the adolescents, adolescent five-factor
measures (QBF) were used. Two kinds of models were analyzed: in Model A, the two
dummy-coded types were entered in Block 1 and five-factor variables in Block 2; in
Model B, the five-factor variables were entered in Block 1 and the two dummy-coded
types in Block 2.
When entered as Block 1 of the HMRA (Model A), the types were significant
predictors of the outcome variables with values of R² between .02 and .13 for both
adolescent and parental ratings. In model A, the five-factor measures explained
additional variance (F with p < .001), with values of R² change between .20 and .54
for both parental and adolescent ratings.
When entered in Block 2 of the HMRA (Model B), the types did not explain
additional variance on top of the five-factor measures in the case of parental ratings.
72 Chapter 2
With adolescent self-ratings, the two dummy-coded types explained significant
additional variance for both externalizing and internalizing behavior with R² changes
of .01, although the increase was limited in magnitude.
General discussion
In this study we examined the replicability across time, raters and different
FFM measures of the resilient, undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality
prototypes in a general population sample of Flemish adolescents. In addition, the
external validity of the types was assessed with measures describing problem
behavior, as well as their incremental validity relative to trait dimensions as predictors
of clinical criteria. Compared to previous work on the type-approach, this study used
multiple FFM measures, adopting the same method for deriving types as
recommended by Asendorpf et al. (2001), but examining different age groups (7-15
and 10-18) and using different judges (parental versus adolescent self-ratings). The
longitudinal design with a considerable time interval of 3-years further enabled the
investigation of type continuity and type membership stability.
Type continuity across measures and informants
All three personality types could be derived from adolescent self-ratings on a
short adjective list, but only the undercontrolled and resilient prototypes could be
inferred from parental HiPIC ratings. The overcontrolled prototype was not clearly
identifiable at both Time 1 and Time 2. The resulting third clusters seem to group
both overcontrolled and average children, explaining the large number of adolescents
assigned to this cluster and the more extreme z-values of the socially desirable traits
of the resilient type. The resilient type grouped the smallest percentage of subjects
(about 27%), in contrast to other studies, where the largest percentage of individuals
is usually classified as resilient. Almost 50% of the subjects were typed as resilient in
the study of Asendorpf et al. (2001) and Dubas et al. (2002), while Boehm et al.
(2002) and Schnabel et al. (2002) found about 40% of resilients. Significantly more
girls than boys were typed as resilient in our study and significantly more boys than
girls were typed as undercontrollers. The results with respect to type-sex differences
reported in the literature are mixed. Asendorpf and Van Aken (1999) and Asendorpf
et al. (2001) report similar findings, but no sex differences were found in the study of
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 73 as predictors of problem behavior
Boehm et al. (2002), whereas Schnabel et al. (2002) reported that more men than
women were typed as resilient, and more women than men were typed as
undercontrolled. In sum, our study contributed to the evidence with respect to the
replicability of the resilient and the undercontrolled prototypes across samples, FFM
measures and informants. The overcontrolled pattern could not be identified from
parental ratings in this sample. In addition, the number of subjects assigned to a
prototype and the sex-distribution across types turned out to be largely sample-
specific.
It is hard to disentangle in this study whether the difficulty to replicate types
can be attributed to differences in FFM measures or raters, because parents and
children in the present study also used different FFM indicators. However, failure to
replicate the overcontrolled type cannot be attributed to parental ratings, the HiPIC, or
the combination of both, because the three types were replicated in a larger dataset (N
= 539), available at the first measurement moment (De Fruyt et al., 2002). Boehm et
al. (2002) also concluded that clustering solutions are highly sensitive to sample
composition: adding as few as 26 subjects had notable effects on cross-study
consistency. Therefore it is likely that not the type of measure or informant, but rather
the composition of the sample determined the likelihood of finding the three
prototypes.
Type continuity across time and type membership stability
Parental ratings of children’s personality at both assessment occasions enabled
the evaluation of type continuity and type consistency across time. At both moments,
only the resilient and undercontrolled types were replicated, indicating moderate
continuity of types across time. However, our analyses indicate low stability in type
membership in childhood and adolescence, despite substantial correlations between
Time 1 and Time 2 HiPIC scales, indicating substantial differential stability over 3
years. Stability of trait configurations in individuals is also referred to as ipsative
stability. Our study suggests that personality during childhood and adolescence is
differentially stable, but that the evidence for ipsative stability is rather weak.
Asendorpf et al. (2001) do not expect high type stability between childhood
and adulthood, because the stabilities obtained in variable-centered analyses, although
significant, are usually also low. They also point out that low stabilities probably
indicate that the type-approach is sensitive to developmental changes, considering
74 Chapter 2
sufficient retest reliabilities. Bergmann and Magnusson (1997) even warn for the old
typological thinking in which persons are assigned to permanent classes and
emphasize that a type pattern can change in the developmental course. Perhaps a more
differentiated typology may eventually identify types with a greater cross-time
stability. Although Asendorpf et al. (2001) encourage the search for subtypes in order
to create a more differentiated classification system, it is not clear which method
should be used to reach this goal. A more detailed system that takes into account the
diversity of personalities in a sample also increases the chances for isolating small
groups that are hard to replicate in other samples (Caspi, 1998). Moreover, given that
the robustness of the three-type model is still debatable, it seems premature to try to
establish a consensus on a more fine-grained typology.
The method adopted in this study to assign individuals to types was chosen to
enhance comparability with previous work. However, this method has some
limitations. For example, it is typical for Ward’s method to produce clusters of
similar size. Bergman (2001) also remarks that the more conventional classification
methods classify all of the subjects, although a complete classification is unrealistic.
Bergman and Magnusson (1997) recommend searching for ‘dense points’ in the
multidimensional space, in order to identify a homogeneous class of subjects with a
typical pattern, without forcing all the subjects into an a-priori specified number of
types.
External and incremental validity
Predictive validity is ultimately one of the most important criteria to evaluate
the usefulness of psychological constructs, in this case personality types. In addition,
it is also essential to demonstrate that the type-approach predicts criteria of interest
beyond what can be predicted by means of already well-established perspectives, such
as the variable approach. The fact that the three prototypes show differential
relationships with measures of internalizing and externalizing problem behavior
confirms their external validity. The overcontrolled, undercontrolled and resilient
prototypes derived from adolescent ratings also demonstrated the presumed
relationships even when using parental ratings of problem behavior and five-factor
personality. Overcontrollers are characterized by internalizing behavior and higher
neuroticism, undercontrollers by more externalizing behavior, lower
conscientiousness and lower agreeableness, whereas resilients always scored low on
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 75 as predictors of problem behavior
problem behavior and high on the socially desirable trait dimensions. The external
validity of the three prototypes derived from measures assessing the adaptive range of
individual differences seems to be robust and can be clearly linked to clinical profiles
and dimensions used by researchers and practitioners.
The second study demonstrated that overall five factor measures better
predicted adolescent problem behavior than types. Entered first or second in a
hierarchical multiple regression analysis, types only explained a small part of the
variance of the outcome variables. These findings suggest that the type perspective is
probably less interesting for researchers working with large samples and mainly
interested in prediction and in the covariance structure of variables. Choosing between
the type- and the variable approach implicates considering two alternatives: losing
information on interindividual variation between types (adopting the type-approach)
versus preserving information on personality structure (adopting the variable-
approach). A loss in interindividual variation, or restriction of range, is by definition a
disadvantage for predictive studies, and hence it is less likely that the person-centered
approach will outperform the variable-approach when accurate prediction is the main
objective. However, when professionals have to make decisions about an individual,
information of type membership may be necessary and indeed very informative and
useful. Professionals are often required to take decisions at the level of the individual,
judging a single case by combining and weighing information on several variables.
Knowledge about trait patterns within individuals is then indispensable for an
adequate interpretation of the available diagnostic information. De Fruyt (2002), for
example, in a follow-up study of college undergraduates entering the labor market,
demonstrated that some types were considerably more at risk to be unemployed. As it
stands now, there is evidence for three to four interesting prototypes, i.e. resilients,
over-, and undercontrollers, and individuals combining over and under-controlled
characteristics. Moreover several studies, including this one, have revealed clinical
correlates of the different prototypes for both children and adolescents. Given that the
replicability of the types tends to be sample dependent it is perhaps advisable to put
more effort in combining research on the replicability of types with assessment of
external validity within specific or clinical samples.
76 Chapter 2
References
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Editorial: The puzzle of personality types. European
Journal of Personality, 16, S1-S5.
Asendorpf, J. B. (in press). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity
of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17.
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. (2001).
Carving personality description at its joints: confirmation of three replicable
personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality,
15, 169-198.
Asendorpf, J. B., Caspi, A., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (Eds.) (2002). The puzzle of
personality types. [Special issue]. European Journal of Personality, 16.
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, 815-832.
Barbaranelli, C. (2002). Evaluating cluster analysis solutions: an application to
the Italian NEO Personality Inventory. European Journal of Personality, 16, S43-S55.
Bergman, L. R. (2001). A person approach in research on adolescence: some
methodological challenges. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 28-53.
Bergman, L. R., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2001). Developmental processes and the
modern typological perspective. European Psychologist, 6, 177-186.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in
research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9,
291-319.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980). The California Child Q-set. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1969).
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in
the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child
Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boehm, B., Asendorpf, J. B., & Avia, M. D. (2002). Replicable types and
subtypes of personality: Spanish NEO-PI samples. European Journal of Personality,
16, S25-S41.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 77 as predictors of problem behavior
Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311-388). New York:
Wiley.
Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age 3 predict
personality traits in young adulthood: longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child
Development, 66, 486-498.
Costa, P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., Samuels, J., & Ozer, D. J. (2002).
The replicability and utility of three personality types. European Journal of
Personality, 16, S73-S87.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
and NEO Five Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds) (2002). Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association, 493 pp.
De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). Personality disorder symptoms in
adolescence: A Five-Factor Model perspective. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17,
269-292.
Dedrick, R. F., Greenbaum, P. E., Friedman, R. M., Wetherington, C. M., &
Knoff, H. M. (1997). Testing the structure of the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 using
confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 306-
313.
De Fruyt, F. (2002). A person-centered approach to P-E fit questions using a
multiple-trait model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 73-90.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000).
Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7, 329-345.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of
personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European
Journal of Personality, 16, S57-S72.
De Groot, A., Koot, H. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1994). Cross-cultural
generalizability of the Child Behavior Checklist cross-informant syndromes.
Psychological Assessment, 6, 225-230.
De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five factor assessment: introduction.
In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 1-26). Göttingen:
Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
78 Chapter 2
Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R. M., Janssens, J. R. M., & Vermulst, A. A. (2002).
Personality Types of Adolescents: Concurrent Correlates, Antecedents, and Type X
Parenting Interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 79-92.
Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E.M.G., de Schipper,
J. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents, Adolescents and
Young Adults in Dutch Families: a longitudinal study. Nijmegen: Institute of Family
Studies.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Hart, D., Hofmann, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997). The relation of
childhood personality types to adolescent behavior and development: a longitudinal
study of icelandic children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 195-205.
Hofstee, W. K. B. (2002). Types and variables: towards a congenial procedure
for handling personality data. European Journal of Personality, 16, S89-S96.
Huey, S. J., Jr., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). Ego control, ego resiliency, and the
five-factor model as predictors of behavioral and emotional problems in clinic-
referred children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 404-415.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, 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, 160-178.
Mervielde, I., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2000). Variable-centered and person-
centered approaches to childhood personality. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in
Personality Psychology. Volume 1 (pp. 37-76). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical
Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 107-127). Tilburg
University Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.),
Big Five Assessment (pp. 129-146). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Newman, D. L., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Antecedents
of adult interpersonal functioning: effects of individual differences at age 3
temperament. Developmental Psychology, 33, 206-217.
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 79 as predictors of problem behavior
Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und persönlichkeitsstruktur: zur validät des
fünf-faktoren-modells der persönlichkeit [Validity of the five-factor model of
personality). Regensburg, Germany: S. Roderer.
Rammstedt, B., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (in press).
Resilients, overcontrollers, and undercontrollers: the replicability of the three
personality prototypes across informants. European Journal of Personality, 17.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber,
M. (1996). Resilient, Overcontrolled, and Undercontrolled boys: three replicable
personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 157-171.
Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Ostendorf, F. (2002). Replicable types and
subtypes of personality: German NEO-PI-R versus NEO-FFI. European Journal of
Personality, 16, S7-S24.
Scholte, R. H. J., van Aken, M. A. G., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1997).
Adolescent personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their
prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment,
69, 534-554.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle
childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308-332.
Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and
adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2-32.
Van Leeuwen, K. (2000). Deficits in parenting skills as an indicator of
behavior problems with children and youth. Development of a screening instrument
for the Flemish community. Unpublished manuscript. Ghent University.
Van Lieshout, C. F. M., Haselager, G. J. T., Risken-Walraven, J. M., & van
Aken, M. A. G. (1995). Personality development in middle childhood. Paper
presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Indianapolis, IN.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual for the CBCL/4-18]. Rotterdam: Afdeling Kinder- en
Jeugdpsychiatrie, Academisch Ziekenhuis /Erasmus Universiteit.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997). Handleiding voor de
Youth Self-Report (YSR). [Manual for the Youth Self-Report (YSR)]. Rotterdam:
Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie, Academisch Ziekenhuis /Erasmus Universiteit.
80 Chapter 2
Table 1
Factor Pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the HiPIC measured at
Time 1 and Time 2 Domain/facets CO BE EX ES IM T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 Conscientiousness Achievement motivation .76 .75 .21 -.20 .11 .10 .24 .19 -.28 -.26 Concentration .84 .75 -.05 .10 -.07 -.12 -.18 -.18 -.09 -.15 Perseverance .77 .82 -.13 .06 -.03 .07 -.07 -.08 -.09 .00 Orderliness .80 .80 -.06 .11 -.02 -.02 .09 .07 .13 .11 Benevolence Egocentrism -.11 -.19 .82 -.73 -.12 -.04 .17 .23 .02 .02 Irritability -.20 -.25 .65 -.58 .02 .09 .37 .40 -.01 -.01 Compliance .47 .40 -.60 .66 .13 .02 .09 .01 .02 -.02 Dominance .09 .02 .80 -.76 .29 .38 -.17 -.15 -..04 -.05 Altruism .02 .02 -.47 .58 .53 .43 .22 .22 -.05 -.10 Extraversion Shyness -.05 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.71 -.72 .30 .34 -.05 -.05 Optimism -.01 -.06 -.26 .37 .63 .55 -.12 -.22 -.20 -.21 Expressiveness .00 .09 .13 -.09 .75 .77 .06 .09 -.05 -.03 Energy -.20 -.09 .19 -.18 .38 .47 .06 .03 -.25 -.17 Emotional Stability Anxiety .13 .06 .07 .00 .00 -.01 .92 .92 .00 -.04 Self-confidence .13 .06 .09 -.09 .28 .29 -.66 -.67 -.23 -.27 Imagination Creativity .01 .05 -.04 .13 .22 .25 -.08 .06 -.44 -.49 Curiosity .01 .01 -.04 .02 -.07 -.03 .07 .08 -1.04 -.97 Intellect .33 .20 .05 -.06 -.07 -.15 -.26 -.34 -.54 -.65 Cronbach’s alpha .88 .88 .83 .85 .76 .77 .79 .79 .77 .79 Total % explained variance at T1 = 68.95 Total % explained variance at T2 = 69.95 HiPIC= Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999)
CO= Conscientiousness ; BE = Benevolence ; EX= Extraversion ; ES= Emotional Stability ; IM =
Imagination
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 81 as predictors of problem behavior
Table 2
Factor Pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the QBF
AG EX CO RE ES Agreeableness Cooperative .75 .10 -.06 -.06 .05 Kind .71 .03 .01 .02 .02 Helpful .66 .16 -.10 -.02 .08 Pleasant .58 -.24 -.04 .06 -.09 Sympathetic .56 -.19 -.05 .11 -.04 Agreeable .49 -.25 -.02 .11 -.02 Extraversion [-] Withdrawn -.04 .72 -.05 .05 -.13 [-] Reserved .03 .66 .04 .05 -.10 [-] Introverted -.05 .66 .06 .08 -.12 [-] Quiet .07 .60 -.07 -.01 .04 [-] Bashful .02 .48 .04 -.08 -.09 Talkative .16 -.46 .01 .12 -.10 Conscientiousness Organized -.02 -.04 -.90 .04 .00 Neat .03 -.05 -.88 -.05 -.04 [-] Sloppy .13 .11 .86 .09 -.02 Careful .13 .09 -.75 -.05 .01 Thorough .10 .07 -.60 .07 -.03 Systematic .02 .03 -.36 .13 -.01 Resourcefulness Creative .01 .04 -.06 .68 .04 Artistic .02 .11 -.10 .60 .09 Imaginative .08 -.05 .10 .52 .05 Innovative .14 -.15 -.03 .42 -.04 Deep -.11 .03 -.01 .37 -.05 Complex .08 -.09 .00 .34 -.05 Emotional Stability [-] High-strung -.06 -.05 -.08 -.14 -.83 [-] Nervous -.01 -.05 -.04 -.07 -.72 [-] Touchy -.02 .12 .01 .11 -.53 [-] Fearful -.06 .24 .01 .00 -.49 [-] Anxious .22 .15 .00 -.05 -.47 [-] Irritable -.07 -.02 .10 .14 -.42 Cronbach’s alpha .82 .78 .88 .67 .77 Total % explained variance = 43.61 QBF= Questionnaire Big Five (Gerris et al., 1998)
EX= Extraversion ; AG= Agreeableness ; CO= Conscientiousness ; ES= Emotional Stability ; RE=
Resourcefulness
[-] = item to be reversed
82 Chapter 2
Table 3
HiPIC and QBF final cluster centers (z-values) HiPIC time 1 (n=491) HiPIC time 2 (n=491) QBF time 2 (n=484) Clu1 Clu2 Clu3 Clu1 Clu2 Clu3 Clu1 Clu2 Clu3Neuroticism 0.34 0.01 - 0.70 0.29 0.09 - 0.45 - 0.20 0.83 - 0.62 Extraversion - 0.29 0.01 0.57 - 0.21 - 0.12 0.40 0.25 - 0.88 0.59 Openness to experience - 0.28 - 0.30 1.00 - 0.40 - 0.30 0.88 - 0.17 - 0.10 0.38 Agreeableness 0.30 - 0.95 0.75 - 1.14 0.27 0.76 - 0.40 - 0.03 0.67 Conscientiousness 0.15 - 0.98 1.10 - 0.95 - 0.12 1.16 - 0.82 0.35 0.91 N 224 157 110 140 215 136 207 147 130 Cluster % 45.6 32.0 22.4 28.5 43.8 27.7 42.8 30.4 26.8
Note: HiPIC time 1: Cluster 1 = not identifiable; Cluster 2 = Undercontrollers; Cluster 3 = Resilients;
HiPIC time 2: Cluster 1 = Undercontrollers; Cluster 2 = not identifiable; Cluster 3 = Resilients;
QBF time 2: Cluster 1 = Undercontrollers; Cluster 2 = Overcontrollers; Cluster 3 = Resilients
The Utility of Resilient, Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled Personality Types 83 as predictors of problem behavior
Table 4
Means and standard deviations of CBCL scales of the QBF-based prototypes Cluster 1
U Cluster 2
O Cluster 3
R
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F (2, 481) Post hoc a
CBCL - Time 1 Internalizing 53.06 (9.16) 56.22 (8.64) 51.22 (10.05) 10.53 *** U<O, O>R Externalizing 52.27 (9.92) 51.88 (10.29) 50.51 (9.60) 1.29 Total problem behavior 52.40 (10.22) 54.00 (9.95) 50.33 (11.43) 4.23 * O>R CBCL - Time 2 Internalizing 50.79 (8.83) 54.48 (9.96) 49.31 (8.49) 12.30 *** U<O O>R Externalizing 52.87 (10.19) 51.73 (10.05) 49.86 (9.13) 3.73 * U>RTotal problem behavior 51.73 (10.17) 52.87 (10.86) 48.57 (10.06) 6.38 ** O>R U>R YSR - Time 2 Internalizing 51.40 (9.54) 57.54 (10.55) 47.50 (9.91) 36.06 *** U<O O>R U>RExternalizing 53.49 (10.58) 50.68 (9.77) 48.12 (9.13) 11.82 *** U>O U>RTotal problem behavior 53.43 (9.82) 54.94 (10.65) 48.05 (9.67) 17.90 *** O>R U>R HiPIC - Time 1 Neuroticism 5.25 (1.13) 5.89 (1.20) 5.24 (1.12) 16.34 *** U<O O>R Extraversion 14.50 (1.84) 13.45 (2.10) 14.41 (1.69) 14.85 *** U>O O<R Openness to experience 11.05 (1.53) 10.62 (1.72) 11.23 (1.65) 5.23 ** O<R Agreeableness 17.52 (2.40) 17.55 (2.42) 17.83 (2.52) 0.73 Conscientiousness 12.27 (2.37) 13.13 (2.75) 13.69 (2.65) 13.08 *** U<O U<R HiPIC - Time 2 Neuroticism 4.84 (0.97) 5.68 (1.22) 4.79 (0.96) 34.35 *** U<O, O>R Extraversion 13.97 (1.81) 12.71 (1.92) 14.19 (1.63) 28.91 *** U>O,
10.56 (1.55) 10.11 (1.72) 10.98 (1.59) 17.86
11.91 (2.49) U<R
(0.81) O<R
(0.93) 132.93 (0.78)
5.12 (0.76) 5.41 (0.71) 5.97 (0.64) U<R(1.07) U<O
O<R Openness to experience 10.01 *** U>O, O<RAgreeableness 17.45 (2.61) (2.53) 18.34 (2.38) 4.98 ** U<RConscientiousness (2.22) 13.12 (2.71) 13.83 26.36 *** U<O QBF - Time 2 Emotional stability 4.38 (1.00) 3.22 4.85 (0.92) 117.97 *** U>O U<RExtraversion 5.18 3.90 (0.93) 5.56 (0.85) *** U>O O<R U<ROpenness to experience 4.51 (1.00) 4.57 5.04 (0.95) 13.92 *** O<R U<RAgreeableness 56.45 *** U<O O<RConscientiousness 3.01 (0.81) 4.60 5.35 (0.87) 291.69 *** O<R U<R
ypes differ at p <.05 in the Scheffé (equal variances) and Tamhane’s T2 (non equal variances)
post hoc comparisons
a subt
U = Undercontrolled; O = Overcontrolled; R = Resilient* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
84 Chapter 2
Table 5
Hierarchical regression analyses with types as dummy-coded variables Model A Model B
R² ∆ R² ∆ F Df R² ∆ R² ∆ F Df
Dependent variable = Externalizing behavior (parental ratings)
2 dummy-coded types 1 .015 .015 3.73 * 2,481 A, C, N, E, I ² .557 .557 120.05*** .557 116.41 5,476 .000 2, 476
.049 A, C, N, E, I ² .461 5, 478A, C, N, E, O ² .461 .413 72.89*** 5, 476 2 dummy-coded types 1 .461 .000 0.02 2, 476
5, 478A, C, N, E, O ² .542 *** 2 dummy-coded types 1 .557 0.16
Dependent variable = Internalizing behavior (parental ratings)
2 dummy-coded types 1 .049 12.30*** 2, 481 .461 81.81***
Dependent variable = Externalizing behavior (adolescent ratings) 2 dummy-coded types .047 .047
25.57
Dependent variable = Internalizing behavior (adolescent ratings) 36.06 A, C, N, E, I ³ .368 38.61
1 11.82*** 2,478 A, C, N, E, I ³ .239 .239 29.89*** 5, 475A, C, N, E, O ³ .250 .203 *** 5,473 2 dummy-coded types 1 .250 .011 3.33* 2, 473
2 dummy-coded types 1 .131 .131 *** 2, 478 .368 55.37*** 5, 475A, C, N, E, O ³ .383 .252 *** 5, 473 2 dummy-coded types 1 .383 .015 5.64** 2, 473
Note: Model A = Types entered in Block 1 and Five Factor Measures entered in Block 2; Model B =
Five Factor Measures entered in Block 1 and Types in Block 2
A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to
experience * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 1 Types based on adolescent QBF ratings; ² Parental ratings of adolescent personality (HiPIC) ; ³ Self-
ratings of adolescent personality (QBF)
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 85 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
CHAPTER 3
A VARIABLE- AND A PERSON-CENTERED APPROACH
CHILD PERSONALITY AND PARENTAL BEHAVIOR AS
MODERATORS OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR:
Abstract
Parenting by child personality interactions in predicting child externalizing and
internalizing behavior were investigated in a variable- and a person-centered study.
The variable-centered study utilized data from a 3-year longitudinal study of 600
children, aged 7 to 15 at T1; and 512 children aged 10 to18 at T2. Parents rated Five
Factor Model child personality, Negative control, Positive parenting, child problem
behavior whereas children rated parental behavior. Hierarchical moderated regression
analyses showed significant parenting by child personality interactions, principally for
externalizing behavior. The interactions were largely replicable across informants and
across the 3-year time span. The most prominent personality domains featuring in the
interactions were Benevolence and Conscientiousness. The person-centered study,
classifying subjects in three types, showed that Negative parental control was more
related to externalizing behavior for undercontrollers than for resilients. Negative
parental control enhanced internalizing behavior for overcontrollers, whereas it did
not affect internalizing behavior of resilient children.
86 Chapter 3
Introduction
From an ecological or contextual perspective the child is nested in a complex
network of interconnected systems (cf. Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Dishion,
French & Patterson, 1995; Sameroff, 2000), and therefore multiple sources may
contribute to the development of (problem) behavior in children. Besides individual
risk and protective factors such as intelligence, neuropsychological deficits and
temperament, variables such as parenting, family climate, marital relationship,
relationships with peers, and contextual factors (e.g. neighborhood, socio-economic
status) have been taken into account as determinants of problem behavior (Deater-
Deckard, 2001; Deković, 1999; Frosh & Mangelsdorf, 2001; Harris, 1998; Jessor,
Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa & Turbin, 1995; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993).
Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates and Pettit (1998) demonstrated that child factors
uniquely explain up to 19% of the variance in externalizing behavior, peer-related
factors up to 13%, parenting factors up to 6% and socio-cultural factors up to 4%.
Although the main effects of child personality and parental behavior on child
problem behavior have been extensively documented in past research, some of which
is shortly reviewed below, relatively few studies have addressed the combined or
interactive effects of personality and parental behavior as determinants of
internalizing and externalizing behavior (Barber, 1992; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg,
Hetherington & Bornstein, 2000; O’Connor & Dvorak, 2001). However, ignoring
personality-environment interactions and considering only main effects, can lead to
spurious correlations with problem behavior. As O’Connor and Dvorak (2001) point
out, bivariate relationships may be hiding associations that are conditional, and not
universal. For example, negative parental control is related to externalizing behavior
but this overall relation can hide the fact that the relationship holds in particular for
children with a difficult temperament but not for resilient children. Hence, ignoring
this interaction may lead to unwarranted conclusions about the detrimental effects of
parenting behavior. The present study aims to examine the role of interactions
between parenting and child personality variables, as predictors of child and
adolescent externalizing and internalizing behavior. The study is innovative because it
is one of the first to use the Five Factor Model to assess the child’s personality,
adopting a longitudinal as well as a cross-sectional perspective to predict the effect of
interactions. Furthermore in order to assure sufficient power for the tests of interaction
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 87 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
effects, the study is conducted with a moderately large sample. In addition, it is the
first study to examine child personality by parenting interactions from a person-
centered approach, searching for reliable interaction effects between parenting and the
personality types resilient, undercontrolled and overcontrolled.
Personality and Temperament as Predictors of Child Problem Behavior
Both temperament and personality refer to individual differences that evince
some stability over time presumably because they have a biological basis (Eisenberg,
Fabes, Guthrie & Reiser, 2000). Temperament refers to “the constitutionally based
individual differences in emotional, motor and attentional reactivity and self-
regulation” (Rothbart & Bates, 1998, p. 109), whereas the construct of personality
refers to “individual differences in the tendency to behave, think, and feel in certain
consistent ways” (Caspi, 1998, p.312). Temperamental differences in infancy are
assumed to be the precursors of later personality differences (Caspi & Silva, 1995;
Eisenberg et al. 2000), however, they include only a subset of personality differences
in late childhood and adulthood (Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Several reviews have linked
the traditional dimensions of temperament to the Five Factor model (Caspi, 1998;
Mervielde & Asendorpf, 2000; Shiner, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Recent
developments in personality research show a growing consensus about how individual
differences in children’s personality can be mapped in a comprehensive taxonomic
system, usually referred to as the ‘Big Five’ or the Five Factor Model (FFM). The five
broadband dimensions, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, forming the top level of this hierarchical
system, are derived from lexical studies of the personality descriptive language of
adults and from the analysis of free parental descriptions of child personality
(Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde & Havill, 1998).
Main-effect-type studies show relations between temperament and problem
behavior, with negative emotionality as a general risk factor (Eisenberg et al., 2000).
Externalizing behavior including hyperactivity, attention problems, antisocial
behavior and conduct disorder, has been related to lack of control (Caspi, Henry,
McGee, Moffitt & Silva, 1995; Eisenberg et al., 2000). Other studies found evidence
for the association between personality and delinquency (Krueger, Schmutte, Caspi,
Moffitt, Campbell & Silva, 1994; Ruchkin, Eisemann & Hägglöf, 1999). Internalizing
behavior, indicating anxiety and depression, has been associated with behavioral
88 Chapter 3
inhibition (Eisenberg et al., 2000), flat affect and passivity (Caspi et al., 1995). Finch
and Graziano (2001) showed that the influence of temperament on depression in
adolescents is entirely mediated by the personality dimensions agreeableness,
extraversion and neuroticism.
Child Personality from a Variable- or a Person-centered Perspective
Mervielde and Asendorpf (2000) identified and compared two empirical
approaches for studying individual differences in children’s dispositions to behave,
think and feel. The variable-centered approach distinguishes replicable broad
categories of variables across individuals, such as the dimensions of the Five Factor
Model (FFM) of personality. Variable-centered research assesses the correlational
structure of the variables across persons within a particular population. The person-
centered approach studies ‘types’, identifying clusters of individuals with similar
personality patterns. The person-centered approach delineates typical configurations
of variables within the person and hence assesses the common within-person structure
of variables. Mervielde and Asendorpf (2000) attempted to clarify the distinction
between the two approaches by referring to the card game as an analogue. The
variable-centered approach delineates the features (e.g. color, suit and values) of the
cards that are used in the game, whereas the person-centered approach studies the
typical hands that are received by the players. From this analogue it is clear that
variable- and person-centered methodologies should not be conceived as competing
approaches but rather as complementary methods that together provide a more
comprehensive picture of how individual differences can and should be addressed.
The detection of reliable and replicable types depends on the identification of
adequate dimensions to represent individual differences. Hence, the growing
consensus about the utility of the Five Factor Model as a model to represent
individual differences from childhood to adulthood, not only sets the stage for the
discovery of reliable personality types but also for the study of the interaction between
types and dimensions on the one hand and environmental variables (e.g. parenting) on
the other hand.
Several researchers studied the replicability of three types: resilients,
overcontrollers and undercontrollers (cf. Asendorpf, Caspi & Hofstee, 2002). In terms
of FFM scores, the three types can be described as follows: (a) resilients score average
on the characteristics Benevolence, Extraversion, Openness to experience and
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 89 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Conscientiousness, and below the mean on Neuroticism, (b) overcontrollers receive
high ratings on Neuroticism and low ratings on Extraversion, and (c) undercontrollers
have below mean scores on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. So far, attempts to
replicate the three types across heterogeneous samples, time, informants, methods and
variables for clustering, have produced mixed results (for an overview, see Asendorpf,
Borkenau, Ostendorf & van Aken, 2001, and Asendorpf et al., 2002). This has led to
the conclusion that although the three prototypes are frequently recovered, they are
not necessarily the prototypes that best describe each particular sample (Asendorpf,
2003; Van Leeuwen, De Fruyt & Mervielde, in press).
The use of personality types in developmental psychology has several benefits.
Instead of considering different features independently, types specify a more
parsimonious configuration or combination of characteristics. As such, types facilitate
communication among researchers and clinicians interested in describing personality
in applied settings and identifying types at risk for developing psychopathology
(Asendorpf et al., 2001; Costa, Herbst, McCrae, Samuels, & Ozer, 2002). Types have
utility as predictors of child and adolescent (mal)adaptive development. Several
studies provided evidence for the link between externalizing behavior and the
undercontrolled type, and between internalizing and the overcontrolled type
(Asendorpf et al., 2001; De Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen, 2002; Van Leeuwen,
De Fruyt & Mervielde, in press).
Parental Behavior and Child Problem Behavior
Although they are often used as interchangeable concepts, it should be noted
that ‘parental behavior’ is distinctive from ‘parenting styles’ as defined by, e.g. the
typology of Maccoby and Martin (1983), whereby authoritarian, authoritative,
permissive and indifferent parenting are based on two dimensions, demandingness
and responsiveness. Parenting styles can be regarded as the general context, the
climate in which the more specific parenting practices or behaviors are expressed
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
Most studies on risk and protective factors for the development of problem
behavior have focused on externalizing behavior, probably because it is more visible
and has more negative social consequences (Deković, 1999). The relationship of
parenting to child externalizing behavior has been documented both in clinical and
non-referred samples (Belsky, Hsieh & Crnic, 1998). Lack of parental involvement or
90 Chapter 3
poor acceptance-responsiveness, lack of supervision or poor parental monitoring,
harsh and inconsistent punishment and insufficient rewarding of positive behavior
have been identified as predictors of externalizing behavior (Deater-Deckard &
Dodge, 1997; Forehand, Miller, Dutra & Chance, 1997; Haapasalo & Tremblay,
1994; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Patterson &
Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Ruchkin, Eisemann & Hägglof,
1999; Stormshak et al., 2000; Wakschlag & Hans, 1999; Weiss, Dodge, Bates &
Pettit, 1992). Parenting has also been associated with child internalizing behavior,
such as anxiety (Gruner, Muris & Merckelbach, 1999; Siqueland, Kendall &
Steinberg, 1996) and depression (Muris, Schmidt, Lambrichs & Meesters, 2001;
Richter, 1994).
Child Personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Child Problem Behavior
According to Thomas and Chess’ goodness-of-fit-theory’ (1977), the
development of problem behavior has its origins in the child’s temperament and in its
interaction with the socializing environment. When there is a mismatch between a
difficult temperament and parenting practices, behavioral disturbances may develop.
In theory, temperament does not lead to behavioral problems by itself; it only has an
effect in conjunction with particular environments (Bates, Pettit, Dodge & Ridge,
1998). At present, there is some empirical evidence underscoring the importance of
interactions between child characteristics and parenting in the prediction of child
problem behavior. These studies vary in (a) design, i.e. cross-sectional versus
longitudinal (e.g. Bates et al., 1998; Belsky et al., 1998; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer &
Hastings, 2003; Stoolmiller, 2001) versus experimental (e.g. Anderson, Lytton &
Romney, 1986), (b) sample composition, i.e. non-referred versus referred (e.g.
Anderson et al., 1986; Colder, Lochman & Wells, 1997), (c) age, i.e. preschool (e.g.
Paterson & Sanson, 1999; Rubin et al., 2003), school-aged (e.g. Lengua, Wolchik,
Sandler & West, 2000; Stoolmiller, 2001; Wootton, Frick, Shelton &
Silverthorn,1997) and adolescent (e.g. Carlo, Roesch & Melby,1998; Olweus, 1980),
and (d) gender, for example some studies only include boys (e.g. Anderson et al.,
1986; Belsky et al., 1998; Colder et al., 1997; Olweus, 1980; Stoolmiller, 2001). The
studies also differ in how parental behavior and child temperament are assessed. Most
studies linking parenting and child characteristics have been restricted to the
assessment of the child’s temperament, leading to the general conclusion that children
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 91 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
with a difficult temperament are particularly vulnerable when also exposed to punitive
parenting or negative control. Few studies have examined personality-environment
interactions from the perspective of the Five Factor Model. O’Connor and Dvorak
(2001) showed that parental behaviors only matter for some kinds of children and not
for others, and hence that specific combinations of personality characteristics and
parenting variables operate as protective or risk factors. Prinzie et al. (2003) also used
the FFM in their investigation of interaction effects between personality and parenting
on externalizing behavior. They showed (a) that benevolence functions as a protective
factor, buffering the effect of maternal or paternal overreactivity, i.e. the tendency by
parents to respond with irritation and/or anger to problematic behavior of their
children, and (b) that coercive parental behavior is more strongly related to
externalizing problems for children low on conscientiousness. The present study
extends previous research on child personality and parental behavior as moderators of
child problem behavior by (a) adopting the Five Factor Model for the assessment of
child personality in the prediction of problem behavior, instead of examining
temperament, (b) including both a more affective and positive component of parenting
as well as a control dimension, whereas most studies solely concentrate on a
detrimental form of parenting, (c) investigating both internalizing and externalizing
behavior as the outcome variables whereas past research has focused predominantly
on externalizing behavior, (d) utilizing a large population sample including both boys
and girls (e) adopting a longitudinal design as well as a cross-sectional design for
assessment of the effects of parenting by child personality interactions.
Problems with Moderated Regression Research
Although interaction effects are frequently reported in experimental studies,
field researchers often experience that moderator effects are extremely difficult to
detect (McClelland & Judd, 1993). This can be attributed in part to statistical
problems with moderated multiple regression (MMR) research (cf. Aguinis, 1995;
Chaplin, 1991; McClelland & Judd, 1993). In general, tests of hypotheses regarding
the effects of moderators often have very low statistical power and a high risk of Type
II errors. This leads researchers to prematurely dismiss theoretical models that include
moderating effects.
Several specific factors have been identified as determinants of the statistical
power of moderator research: (a) variable distributions, (b) operationalizations of
92 Chapter 3
predictor and criterion variables, (c) sample size, and (d) multicollinearity of predictor
variables (Aguinis, 1995). Problems of variable distributions occur when there is
predictor variable range restriction, due to nonrandom or biased sampling, such as in
clinical samples (Aguinis, 1995; Holmbeck, 1997). Second, inaccurate
operationalization of predictor and criterion variables can result in high measurement
error. Low reliability of the predictor variables adversely affects the reliability of the
product term. When the rating scale of the criterion variable does not include
sufficient scale points, referred to as ‘scale coarseness’, this results in information loss
and impedes the detection of moderator effects (Aguinis, 1995). Aiken and West
(1991, p.160-164) show that small effect sizes need large samples to be detected and
that the required sample size to produce power of .80 at α = .05 dramatically increases
as reliability decreases. The necessity for large samples also increases when the
proportion of variance accounted for by the first order effects is large and when the
interpredictor correlation is small. The final problem with MMR concerns predictor
multicollinearity: when predictor scores and the interaction term are highly correlated,
regression coefficients will be unstable due to larger error terms. However, Cronbach
(in Aguinis, 1995, p. 1149) argues that multicollinearity is not detrimental to the
power of MMR, in particular when there are only two predictors.
Several precautions were taken in the present study to reduce statistical
problems with MMR. First, we used reliable measures. Both personality and parenting
measures are second order factors. In order to assess child and adolescent personality,
a psychometrically well-validated instrument based on the Five Factor Model was
used. Moreover, the use of these five broadband personality domains facilitates
replicability and assures a comprehensive test (Caspi, 1998, De Raad & Perugini,
2002). The parenting variables are two second-order factors, i.e. ‘positive parenting’
and ‘restrictive or negative control’, derived from a measurement instrument based on
social learning theory. These factors are analogous to two dimensions of parenting
that are regularly mentioned in the literature (Gallagher, 2002), the first describing the
affective nature of the parent-child relationship, as indicated by involvement and
providing support (‘warmth’ or ‘responsiveness’) and the second referring to efforts
of parents to influence their child’s behavior, such as setting and enforcing standards
of behavior (‘control’ or ‘demandingness’) (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). To reduce
measurement error, we used a cross-rater strategy (Chaplin, 1991) and created
aggregated scores based on ratings provided by different informants (cf. infra).
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 93 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Second, a non-restricted large general population sample (N= 600) was utilized. The
size of this sample approximates the range of N required to produce power of .80 at α
= .05 for small effect sizes and a reliability of .80 (cf. Aiken & West, 1991, p. 164).
To eliminate multicollinearity, two solutions are proposed in the literature, i.e.
centering of the predictor variables (putting predictors in a deviation score form so
that their means are zero) and the use of principal-components regression (PCR)
(Aguinis, 1995). The use of PCR has not been widely accepted as a method for
improving the tests of interactions (Aiken & West, 1991, p. 168-169). Centering of all
predictors, however, reduces multicollinearity, and in addition has also
interpretational advantages, and hence is therefore strongly recommended (Cohen,
Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003, p. 267).
Finally, to reduce the likelihood of capitalizing on chance, we checked for cross-rater
stability, i.e. parent versus child ratings of parental behavior and for cross-sample
stability, i.e. by replicating the findings across a three-year interval. We also
investigated whether the interaction effects assessed at Time one predicted Time two
problem behavior.
The Current Research
Interactions between parenting and child personality as predictors of child and
adolescent externalizing and internalizing behavior will be investigated in two studies.
In the first study, the parenting by personality interaction is examined from a variable-
centered approach. In order to assure a comprehensive test of the role of various
personality traits as moderators of problem behavior, a broadband Five Factor Model
instrument is used to assess children’s personality. Moreover, to guarantee sufficient
power to detect interaction effects the hypotheses are verified on a large sample and
checked for cross-rater and cross-time stability. In line with the variable-centered
methodology both parenting and personality are entered as (continuous) quantitative
variables predicting child and adolescent problem behavior. As the variable-centered
approach emphasizes interactions between variables and does not take into account
the within-person personality structure, the first study is supplemented with a second
study, adopting a person-centered approach. In the second study, utilizing a classic
ANOVA design, we look for interaction effects between the personality types
resilient, undercontrolled and overcontrolled (derived from clustering subjects based
94 Chapter 3
on their Five Factor personality profile) and discrete categories of parents with high
and low levels of positive parenting and negative parental control.
Study 1
Method
Participants
The present study is based on data from a longitudinal study investigating
parenting, parental and child personality characteristics and children’s problem
behavior, at two assessment periods separated by a 3-year interval. Subjects were
parents (both mothers and fathers) and one, non-referred child. At Time one, 600
families were included (N of mothers = 596, N of fathers = 533). The target children,
281 boys and 319 girls, had a mean age of 10.9 (SD = 1.8; range 7-15). The age
distribution is as follows: 1.3% of the children was 7 years old, 11.5% 8 years, 12.5%
9 years, 15.8% 10 years, 11.8% 11 years, 22.3% 12 years, 19.7% 13 years, 4.5% 14
years and 0.5% 15 years. Of the families 9.8% was not the original family and 8.2%
of the families included a single parent. For mothers and fathers respectively, the
mean age was 38.6 (SD = 4.7; range 20-68) and 40.6 (SD = (5.0; range 26-63). Both
mothers and fathers had representative levels of education: the highest level of
education was elementary school for 12.9% of the mothers and 7.9% of the fathers,
48.5% of the mothers and 49.5% of the fathers completed secondary education, 29.7%
of the mothers and 29.4% of the fathers finished higher education, and 8.7% of the
mothers and 13.3% of the fathers obtained a university degree. Of the mothers 75.2%
was employed whereas of the fathers 95.3% was employed.
At Time two about 85% of the families continued collaboration, with 512
families (N of mothers = 501, N of fathers = 443). The remaining 244 boys and 268
girls had a mean age of 13.9 (SD = 1.8; range 10-18). The age distribution is as
follows: 0.8% of the children was 10 years old, 10.6% 11 years, 13.7% 12 years,
16.8% 13 years, 13.3% 14 years, 22.3% 15 years, 18.0% 16 years, 3.9% 17 years and
0.6% 18 years. The ratio boys/girls, χ²(1) = .07, p > .05, and mothers/fathers, χ²(1) =
.03, p > .05 was equal across the two assessment moments. Chi-square statistics
showed no significant differences between the Time one and Time two samples for
family characteristics, χ²(2) = 2.91, p > .05, social indices for mothers, χ²(5) = 2.24, p
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 95 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
> .05, and fathers, χ²(5) = 1.42, p > .05, and employment status for mothers χ²(2) =
2.36, p > .05, and fathers χ²(2) = 0.24, p > .05. Hence, it can be concluded that the
Time two sample characteristics did not differ from the Time one sample
characteristics as a consequence of attrition.
Measures
Parental behavior. The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS, Van Leeuwen
& Vermulst, in press) is a questionnaire, designed to assess parenting behavior based
on concepts from Social Learning Theory (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid
& Dishion, 1992). This theoretical framework organizes parenting into five well-
defined constructs derived from observable parental behavior. Validation of a pilot
version led to the conclusion that the five Patterson constructs (positive involvement,
monitoring, problem solving, structure and positive reinforcement) appeared to be too
heterogeneous. Refinement of the constructs resulted in a new questionnaire with nine
scales: Autonomy, Discipline, Positive parental behavior, Harsh punishment,
Monitoring, Rules, Ignoring unwanted behavior, Material rewarding, and Inconsistent
discipline. Evidence for the factorial validity and for a moderate to good internal
consistency of the majority of the scales is provided by Van Leeuwen and Vermulst
(in press). Subjects rate the frequency of each behavioral item on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. The parent version provides self-ratings for
parental behavior and the child version, with the same items as in the parent version,
allows children/adolescents to rate the parental behavior of their mother and/or father.
In order to reduce the number of scales of the GPBS, factor analyses with
principal axis factoring and oblimin rotation were conducted for four groups of raters:
mothers, fathers, children about their mothers and children about their fathers. A two-
factor solution was most appropriate. Because the scales monitoring, material
rewarding and inconsistent discipline did not consistently load on the same
dimensions for each of the groups, they were dropped. In each of the four groups of
raters, two dimensions consistently emerged: ‘positive parenting’ (consisting of the
scales positive parental behavior, teaching rules and autonomy), and ‘negative
control’ (consisting of the scales discipline, ignoring of unwanted behavior and harsh
punishment). Table 1 shows factor loadings, percentages of explained variance and
Cronbach alpha’s for the two dimensions. The intercorrelations between the two
96 Chapter 3
factors are .03 and .13 for both assessment moments, indicating independency of the
two parenting dimensions. The correlations between the ratings provided by parents
and children on the two parenting dimensions were all positive and significant with p
< .001, ranging from .19 to .38 for Time one and ranging from .21 to .42 for Time
two.
Child Personality. The Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children
(HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999) was used to assess the child’s personality. Five
personality domains are measured, based on 18 facets hierarchically organized under
the five domains, i.e. Extraversion (based on the facets Shyness, Optimism,
Expressiveness, Energy), Benevolence (based on Egocentrism, Irritability,
Compliance, Dominance, Altruism), Conscientiousness (based on Achievement
motivation, Concentration, Perseverance, Orderliness), Emotional Stability (based on
Anxiety and Self-confidence) and Imagination (based on Creativity, Curiosity and
Intellect). Parents rated the 144 items on a 5-point Likert scale. The factor structure
proves to be highly replicable across both childhood and adolescence (Mervielde &
De Fruyt, 2002). In our study, Cronbach alpha’s (for maternal and paternal ratings at
the two measurement moments) ranged from .93 to .94 for Benevolence (N of items =
40), from .94 to .94 for Conscientiousness (N of items = 32), from .86 to .88 for
Emotional Stability (N of items = 16), from .89 to .91 for Extraversion (N of items =
32) and from .91 to .92 for Imagination (N of items = 24).
Child problem behavior. The Dutch version of the Achenbach Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996) is used as an instrument for
screening children with behavioral and emotional problems. Parents rate the
frequency of 113 problematic behaviors on a 3-point Likert scale. Two broadband
syndromes can be derived: Internalizing, with items referring to somatic complaints,
social withdrawal, and anxiety/depression, and Externalizing, including items
indexing aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency. Cronbach alpha’s for the scale
Internalizing behavior (N of items = 31), ranged from .86 to .88 for maternal and
paternal ratings over the two measurement moments, and from .90 to .91 for the scale
Externalizing behavior ((N of items = 33).
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 97 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Procedure
Families were recruited via stratified random sampling of elementary and
secondary schools. For elementary schools the sample was stratified by province,
(East and West Flanders), region (rural or urban), school type (public/private/catholic
schools) and grade (third, fourth, fifth and sixth year of elementary school). For
secondary schools, sampling was based on province (East and West Flanders), type of
curriculum (vocational, technical and general education) and grade (first and second
year of secondary school). A letter addressed to the parents informed them about the
goal and the procedures of the research project. The response rate of parents with
children in primary schools was 41%, and 39% for parents with children in secondary
schools.
Given this modest response rate, we compared the socio-economic status of
the present sample with the characteristics of a representative general community
sample (N families = 1789) used to investigate the Quality of Life in Flemish school-
aged children (Van den Bergh, 1997). The family composition was somewhat
different, χ²(2) = 11.95, p < .01, mainly due to the higher proportion of single-parent
families in the present study. The educational level differed for mothers, χ²(5) =
12.37, p < .05, and fathers, χ²(5) = 25.46, p < .05, but not as a consequence of an
overrepresentation of the higher educational levels in the present study. There was a
difference in employment status for mothers χ²(2) = 9.75, p < .01, but not for fathers
χ²(2) = 1.16, p > .05. Although small differences between the two samples can be
observed, it can be concluded that the present sample represents the broad socio-
economic strata.
As regards the presence of problem behavior, we compared the prevalence of
children scoring above the 90th percentile (T-score > 63) on the Total Problem
Behavior Scale with an epidemiological study in Flanders, investigating emotional
and behavioral problems in children aged 6 to 12 (Hellinckx, De Munter, & Grietens,
1991). In the present study the percentage of children showing serious emotional
and/or behavioral problems was 13.8, whereas the percentage in the epidemiological
study was 15.4. Hence it can be concluded that the sample in the present study does
not consist of children with less problem behavior than might be observed in the
target population. Moreover the present study does not focus on assessment of mean
98 Chapter 3
levels or prevalence rates but rather on the relationships among variables and hence
the issue of representative sampling carries less weight.
At each assessment period, a trained psychology student who instructed the
mother, father and child to independently complete a series of questionnaires, visited
the families at home. Both parents filled out the HiPIC, GPBS and CBCL, whereas
children were administered the GPBS at both measurement moments. In addition,
teachers filled out the Dutch version of the Achenbach’s Teacher Report Form (TRF;
Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1997a) at Time one and children completed the
Youth Self Report (YSR; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1997b) and a Dutch
shortened version of Goldberg’s (1992) hundred adjectives, entitled the Questionnaire
Big Five (QBF; Gerris et al., 1998) at Time two, to provide self-ratings of problem
behavior and personality respectively. In this study we only used measures that were
presented at both measurement moments, in order to facilitate comparison of the
results. We did not opt to query the children about their problem behavior and
personality at the first measurement moment (a) because the YSR is intended to asses
self-reported problem behavior from age 11 onwards, but almost half of the children
were younger than 11 years at the first assessment period; (b) because at present there
is little evidence for the validity and in particular for the discriminant validity of self-
rated personality elementary school children in general; (c) for practical reasons: we
did not want to overload the children with questionnaires at the first assessment
moment, bearing in mind their age and the length of the questionnaires (e.g. the
HIPIC consists of 144 items). The Ghent Parental Behavior Questionnaire was
specifically designed to obtain ratings of both parents, and children with reading
abilities (aged 7-8 years and older).
Statistical analyses
Parallel cross-sectional hierarchical multiple regressions were carried out on
the Time one and Time two data in order to detect significant interactions between
child personality and parenting. In order to check cross-rater stability, we conducted
at both times analyses for (a) the parent sample, with parental self-ratings of Negative
control and Positive parenting, and (b) the child sample, with child ratings of Negative
control and Positive parenting. Child gender (boy is coded as 1 and girl is coded as 2)
and age were consistently entered in Step 1 as control measures. In Step 2, one of the
five child personality domains (i.e. Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 99 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
stability, Extraversion and Imagination) and one of the two parenting constructs
variables (i.e. Positive parenting and Negative control) were entered, and in Step 3 the
cross-product of the personality variable and the parenting variable. Multiplying the
two centered predictors formed the interaction term. Evidence for a moderator effect
is found when there is a significant increase in the multiple R² after entering the
interaction term, as indicated by a significant incremental F test. In order to prevent
chance capitalization in finding moderator effects we applied the Bonferroni
correction. In this study, the alpha level was set at .05, with forty tests explaining
Externalizing behavior and forty tests explaining Internalizing behavior. Application
of the Bonferroni correction indicated that the alpha level for each individual test
needed to be lowered to .001 in order to adjust the overall alpha level to .05.
For testing and interpreting interactions, we followed the guidelines proposed
by Aiken and West (1991) and Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003). First,
significant interactions were interpreted by plotting simple regression lines for high (=
1 SD above the mean), mean and low (= 1 SD below the mean) values of the
moderator variables. Second, the significance of the slopes for these simple regression
lines and the difference between the slopes was tested with t-tests. Finally, interaction
patterns were identified, based on the signs of the regression coefficients of the two
independent (B1 and B2) and the interaction (B3) variables. Three theoretically
meaningful interaction patterns can be distinguished (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 285-286):
(a) synergistic or enhancing interactions, in which all three regression coefficients
have the same sign, indicating that combining predictors produces an incremental
effect beyond the additive effects; (b) buffering interactions, in which the two
predictors have regression coefficients of opposite sign, meaning that one predictor
weakens the effect of the other predictor. For buffering interactions one predictor
represents a risk factor, while the other predictor acts as a protective factor; (c)
interference or antagonistic interactions, in which both B1 and B2 have the same sign
and B3 is of opposite sign, indicating a compensatory or ‘either-or’ effect of B1 and B2
on the criterion. Interactions are sometimes described as ordinal (non crossing) or
disordinal (crossing). This distinction is less useful because it is mainly determined by
the strength of the first-order effects.
100 Chapter 3
Constructing composite scores
For the present analyses, aggregated scores for predictor and criterion
variables were created to reduce the potential number of analyses, generated by the
numerous combinations of types of raters (i.e. mothers, fathers, children rating
mothers and fathers), parenting variables (i.e. Positive parenting and Negative
control), personality domains (i.e. Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Emotional
stability, Extraversion and Imagination), dependent variables (Internalizing and
Externalizing behavior) and measurement moments. This was accomplished by
extracting a common factor score from each pair of ratings provided by two different
informants by means of principal component analyses: for mother and father ratings
of their own parental behavior, for ratings of child personality and problem behavior,
and for child ratings of maternal and paternal behavior. The score of the other rating
substituted the missing value in case only one of the two ratings was available (for
example in single-parent families). Thus, the common factors reflect (a) self-reported
parenting by two different informants (mother and father), (b) other-reports of child
personality and problem behavior by two different informants (mother and father),
and (c) other-reports of maternal and paternal behavior by one informant (the child).
The use of composite scores is supported by the meaningful and significant (p
< .001) correlations between the paired ratings composing the aggregated scores: the
correlation between mothers and fathers was .75 for externalizing behavior, .59 for
internalizing behavior, .70 for Benevolence, .81 for Conscientiousness, .69 for
Emotional stability, .69 for Extraversion, .69 for Imagination, .22 for Positive
parenting and .44 for Negative control. The correlation between child ratings for
mothers’ and fathers’ Positive parenting was .74, and .70 for Negative control. The
explained variances across the two time-points ranged from 79.50% to 87.63% for the
two dependent variables, from 82.46% to 90.76% for the five personality variables,
and from 61.17% to 89.53% for the two parenting variables.
Parent and child ratings of parental behavior were not aggregated because
principal component analyses at both measurement moments distinguished two
separate factors for Positive parenting, i.e. a factor including ratings of mothers and
fathers, and a factor including child ratings of maternal behavior and child ratings of
paternal behavior. Not aggregating scores of parents and children also enables the
cross-validation of interaction effects across ratings of parents and children.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 101 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Moreover, using child ratings of parenting in analyses with parent measures of
problem behavior and personality, decreases shared method variance.
The use of factor scores is valuable because they reflect the common core of
variables, reduce measurement error and hence increase the power of statistical tests
for interaction (Chaplin, 1991; Jaccard & Wan, 1995). In addition they center the
predictor variables, as the mean equals zero and the standard deviation equals one.
The present study partially controls for shared method variance, by combining
parental ratings of personality and child problem behavior with child ratings of
parenting in Study 1. We acknowledge that it would be more appropriate to use
ratings supplied by different informants for each of the measures. However, we prefer
to use ratings that were presented at both measurement moments, in order to facilitate
comparison of the results. Another way to address the problem of shared method
variance is to assess the convergent validity of the data supplied by the informants
against external criteria. Correlations between Time one TRF and CBCL ratings were
all significant at p < .001 with values of .44 (father-teacher) and .46 (mother-teacher)
for externalizing behavior and .18 (father-teacher) and .16 (mother-teacher) for
internalizing behavior. Correlations between Time two CBCL and YSR ratings were
all significant at p < .001 and with values of .41 (father-child) and .41 (mother-child)
for externalizing behavior and .35 (father-child) and .40 (mother-child) for
internalizing behavior. Correlations between Time two parental and QBF adolescent
ratings were all significant at p < .001 and with r = .20 for Benevolence, r = .46 for
Conscientiousness, r = .37 for Neuroticism, r = .46 for Extraversion and r = .34 for
Imagination. This type of analysis illustrates that the data provided by the informants
exhibit a reasonable degree of convergent validity and hence that the results of the
present study are not seriously encumbered by problems of shared method variance.
Results
Shared Method Variance
Cross-sectional Analyses at Time one
Gender and age effects. Results of the hierarchical regressions analyses are
shown in Table 2 and 3. Of the two control measures Gender and Age, entered in Step
1, Gender accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in Externalizing
behavior (R² = .039).
102 Chapter 3
Interaction effects. Three moderator effects were predictive of child
externalizing behavior, when parents supplied ratings of their own parental behavior.
Significant interactions for Negative control were found with the personality domains
Benevolence (R² = .025 and F change (1, 577) = 30.61, p < .001) and
Conscientiousness (R² = .014 and F change (1, 577) = 11.95, p < .001). A significant
interaction between Positive parenting and Benevolence predicted child externalizing
(R² = .010 and F change (1, 577) = 11.17, p < .001). No interactions significantly
predicted child internalizing behavior.
An interference or antagonistic interaction is found for the Positive parenting
X Benevolence interaction (See Figure 2). Here, the interaction term has the opposite
sign of both predictors. This suggests that both positive parenting and child
personality are negatively related to externalizing behavior, but that the importance of
positive parenting is lessened by Benevolence or vice versa.
Testing and interpreting interaction effects. The tests on the significance of the
difference between simple slopes (see Table 5) show that the slopes for children rated
low (1 SD below the mean) or around the mean on the personality characteristics
Benevolence and Conscientiousness are significant. For these children, parenting has
a significant effect on child problem behavior. When rated high (1 SD above the
mean) on one of these personality domains, the slopes are not significant. This
indicates that for children characterized by highly adaptive personality characteristics,
parenting does not predict externalizing behavior.
Based on the signs of the regression coefficients (see Table 2 and 3), two
interaction patterns can be identified, (a) buffering interactions and (b) interference or
antagonistic interaction patterns. For the Negative control X personality interactions
(see Figure 1), the coefficients of the independent predictors have opposite signs,
indicating that one predictor diminishes problem behavior while the other predictor
enhances it. Hence, negative control can be considered as a risk factor for
externalizing behavior in particular for children rated low or around the mean on
Benevolence and Conscientiousness. On the other hand, the impact of low scores on
Benevolence and Conscientiousness will be diminished for children experiencing low
parental Negative control. Benevolence and Conscientiousness can be regarded as
protective factors: children scoring high on these personality domains do not show
problem behavior at all, even when faced with Negative parental control.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 103 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
The figures show that most interactions are ordinal: the rank order of the
outcomes of one predictor is maintained across all levels of the other predictor, within
the observed range of the second predictor. This appearance is influenced by the
strength of the first-order effects (cf. Cohen et al., 2003, p. 286). In this study, the
strongest independent effects are found for the personality variables.
Effect sizes and statistical power of interactions. In order to permit
comparison across studies, effect size measures are reported in Table 5. Effect sizes
for the interactions at Time one range from .01 to .05, and can be regarded as ‘small’
(Aiken & West, 1991, p. 158). The statistical power for the interaction terms does not
equal, but approximates the standard of .80. Taking the Negative control X
Benevolence as an example, we note reliabilities of .80, an interpredictor correlation
of -.30 and a squared multiple correlation of .50 for the main effects. According to
Aiken and West (1991, p.164) these values correspond with a power of .39-.44 at N =
392. A power of .80 with these values requires a sample size between 909 and 1056.
Replication of the cross-sectional analyses at Time two
Gender and Age effects. The control measure Gender, entered in Step 1,
significantly explained about 3% of the variance of externalizing behavior.
Interaction effects. The significant interactions with Negative control at Time
one for externalizing behavior, were replicated at Time two (see Table 2) both with
Benevolence (R² = .042 and F change (1, 501) = 51.60, p < .001) and
Conscientiousness (R² = .019 and F change (1, 501) = 14.13, p < .001). In addition the
Negative control X Benevolence interaction (R² = .024 and F change (1, 498) = 28.15,
p < .001) and the Negative control X Conscientiousness interaction (R² = .030 and F
change (1, 498) = 21.84, p < .001) were also replicated when children rated parenting
behavior. At Time one these interactions were only significant when the alpha level
was set at .01. The Positive parenting X Benevolence interactions was not replicable.
No interaction terms significantly predicted child internalizing behavior at Time two
(see Table 3).
Testing and interpreting interaction effects. The same interaction patterns of
Time 1, were replicated at Time 2. For the Negative control X Benevolence or
104 Chapter 3
Conscientiousness interactions, the interactions were of the buffering type. The effect
sizes of the interaction terms are also small, ranging from .01 to .10.5
Time one variables predicting Time two problem behavior
Table 4 reports the results of HMRA with Time one variables predicting Time
two externalizing and internalizing behavior. When parents provided self-ratings of
parental behavior the Negative control X Benevolence interaction (R² = .024 and F
change (1, 465) = 18.84, p < .001) and the Negative control X Conscientiousness
interaction (R² = .022 and F change (1, 465) = 13.95, p < .001) predicted Time two
child externalizing behavior. The results also show that Time one child personality is
a predictor for Time two externalizing behavior, in particular Benevolence and
Conscientiousness. Time two internalizing behavior is predicted by each of the five
personality dimensions, with Emotional stability and Extraversion as the strongest
predictors. Considering the parenting variables, shows that Time one Negative control
is a predictor of both Time two externalizing and internalizing behavior for parental
self-ratings, and also a predictor of externalizing behavior when child ratings are used
in the analyses. Time one Positive parenting is not a strong predictor of time two child
problem behavior.
5 We also checked for nonlinear relationships between independent and dependent variables, although
(a) the inclusion of curvilinear relationships in this study is not driven by theoretical assumptions and
(b) there is an ongoing debate whether one should include curvilinear effects if the central interest is in
the interaction term. Curvilinear effects show lower reliability than the cross-product terms and the
inclusion of multiple higher order terms introduces multicollinearity and instability of the regression
equation (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 299-300). Testing quadratic relationships was limited to models with
significant parenting by personality interactions. For the time 1 data, significant quadratic relationships
were present for benevolence and conscientiousness in the prediction of child externalizing behavior
and for benevolence predicting child internalizing behavior. These quadratic effects did not influence
the parenting by personality interactions for the majority of the models, indicating that the interactions
were not the result of the curvilinear nature of the regression model. Only two interactions could be
attributed to the curvilinear effects: the benevolence by positive parenting (parental ratings) interaction
and the benevolence by negative control (child ratings) interaction in the prediction of externalizing
behavior. For the time 2 data, the conscientiousness by positive parenting (child ratings) interaction
was not a significant predictor of externalizing behavior when the quadratic effect of conscientiousness
was included in the regression model.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 105 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Discussion
In this study we investigated parenting by child personality interactions for the
prediction of child and adolescent problem behavior. The current study examines
interactions detected in previous studies, for example between negative parental
control and low agreeableness as predictors of externalizing behavior (e.g. O’Connor
& Dvorak, 2001; Prinzie et al., 2003). However, integrating all Big Five personality
domains in this study, i.e. agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
extraversion and imagination, enabled us to test for interactions between parenting
and each of the five broad child personality domains as predictors of both
externalizing and internalizing behavior.
HMRA analyses showed prominent interactions between negative parental
control and the personality domains benevolence and conscientiousness, predicting
externalizing behavior, and hence corroborating the findings of previous studies.
These interactions were found for parental self-ratings of parenting behavior and were
partly replicable across raters and a three year interval. Moreover, the Time one
interactions predicted Time two externalizing behavior. The results indicate that
negative control is a risk factor for externalizing behavior in particular for children
rated low or around the mean on benevolence and conscientiousness. On the other
hand, children rated high on these personality domains are not likely to develop
externalizing behavior even when exposed to restrictive parental control.
Significant interactions were also found between positive parenting and
benevolence.
From these results it can be concluded that children rated low on Benevolence are
likely to show externalizing behavior in particular when parents are not supportive.
When children show high levels of benevolence they are not affected by low levels of
positive parenting. However, this positive parenting by benevolence interaction is not
stable across judges and across time.
With internalizing behavior as the outcome variable, there were no significant
interactions. Our findings suggest mainly independent or additive contributions of
parenting and child characteristics to internalizing behavior. The significant main
effects suggest that in particular child personality is an important independent
predictor of internalizing behavior.
The first study adopted a variable-centered approach on child personality,
considering the effects of single Big Five domains and parenting variables as well as
106 Chapter 3
the effects of personality-parenting interactions. The variable-centered approach
identifies the important personality and parenting dimensions but it does not allow us
to target particular groups of children at risk. Moreover, it does not take into account
the prevalence and relevance of particular combinations of risk factors such as a low
score on both benevolence and conscientiousness and therefore it is not clear to what
extent such configurations constitute an additional risk factor for developing
externalizing or internalizing problem behavior. The second study, adopting a person-
centered approach, groups children into types based on their personality profile. The
same sample of children will be assigned to three replicable personality types, i.e.
resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled, and hence the next study will focus on
the interactions between these types and the parenting dimensions.
Study 2
In order to derive the overcontrolled, undercontrolled and resilient personality
types, we followed the method described by Asendorpf et al. (2001). In a first step,
Method
Participants
The sample in study 2 is part of the Time one sample of the longitudinal
dataset as described in study 1, and consists of 539 families with 251 boys and 288
girls. Subjects with missing variables were dropped, accounting for the reduced
sample size in comparison with the Time one sample of study 1.
Measures and Procedure
The results of this study are based on the same questionnaires administered in
study 1: the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS; Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, in
press), the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De
Fruyt, 1999) and the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Verhulst et al., 1996). The
data collection procedure is the same as described in study 1.
Assessment of Personality types 6
6 A full description of the derivation of the three types for this sample is given in De Fruyt et
al. (2002).
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 107 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
hierarchical cluster analyses with Ward’s method were conducted, using raw HiPIC
domain scores. The resulting three-cluster solutions of these analyses were then used
as initial cluster centers in a nonhierarchical K-means clustering procedure.
The continuous variables positive parenting and negative control, rated by the
parents, were recoded into three categories: scores of one SD ≤ the mean, scores
around the mean and scores of one SD ≥ the mean. In the analyses only subjects
scoring low or high on parenting variables were included. The number of children
exposed to high positive parenting was 105, whereas for low positive parenting N =
100. The category high negative control included 97 subjects and the category low
negative control grouped 91 subjects.
Personality types
Parenting by Personality type Interactions
Delineation of parenting categories
Results
The final three-cluster solution obtained after applying the two-step procedure
(Ward’s method and K-means clustering) clearly resembled the resilient,
undercontrolled and overcontrolled prototypes. The first cluster grouped 185 children,
with above average cluster centers for the personality domains benevolence,
extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability and imagination. This group was
identified as the resilient type. The second cluster included 162 children, scoring low
on emotional stability and extraversion, and resembled the overcontrolled type. The
third cluster with 192 children, characterized by low scores on conscientiousness and
benevolence and around the mean scores for emotional stability, extraversion and
imagination, was designated as the undercontrolled type.
GLM univariate analyses of variance were conducted to detect significant
parenting by personality type interactions. In the analyses with externalizing behavior
as the dependent variable, the dichotomy undercontrollers versus resilients was
entered as one of the independent variables, whereas in the analyses with internalizing
behavior as the dependent variable, the dichotomy overcontrollers versus resilients
was entered as one of the independent variables. This choice is based on previous
research, showing a meaningful relationship between the undercontrolled personality
108 Chapter 3
type and externalizing behavior and a relationship between the overcontrolled
personality type and internalizing behavior (Asendorpf et al., 2001; De Fruyt et al.
2002; Van Leeuwen et al., in press).
Table 6 shows the category means and the results of the analyses of variance.
Significant parenting by personality type interactions were only found when negative
control was included as the parenting variable, both for externalizing and internalizing
behavior. The results indicate that undercontrolled children are rated significantly
higher on externalizing behavior than resilient children, with the greatest difference
for children exposed to high levels of parental negative control. This suggests that
especially undercontrolled children, subjected to negative parental control, are at risk
for externalizing behavior. The difference in problem behavior between
undercontrollers and resilients fades, when the level of received negative control is
low.
The overcontrolled children are rated significantly higher on internalizing
behavior than resilient children, with the overcontrolled children in negative control
families showing the highest levels of internalizing problem behavior. The results also
indicate that high or low negative parental control does not make a difference for the
resilient children: the mean scores on internalizing behavior are almost equal.
7
The value of eta-squared (η², see Table 6), which is the regression coefficient
(R²) for a non-linear regression curve, can be used as an estimate of effect size. For the
interaction effects in this study, we found values of .04, which resemble the effect
sizes of the interaction effects in study 1 (see Table 5). Values of the observed
7 Parenting by type interactions were also examined with HMRA, with types as dummy-coded
variables (resilients versus undercontrollers and resilients versus overcontrollers) and parenting
dimensions as continuous variables. This revealed one significant interaction effect, i.e.
undercontrolled/resilient types by negative control, in predicting child externalizing behavior (R²
change = .027; F change (1,369) = 15.77, p < .001). This interaction was of the ‘synergistic or
enhancing’ type (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 285), with both predictors affecting externalizing behavior in
the same direction and their combination producing an additional effect. The effect size of this
interaction was .04, which equals the effect size of the GLM interaction effect (see Table 6), although
the number of included subjects was larger in the HMRA analysis (N = 374) than in the GLM analyses
(N = 121). The overcontrolled/resilient types by negative control interaction effect on internalizing
behavior, which was significant in the GLM analysis (N = 110), showed a statistical trend (p = .085) in
the HMRA analysis (N = 345).
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 109 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
statistical power of the interaction effects equal .59 and .65 and are also comparable
to the power estimations of study 1.
No significant interactions were found between the personality types and
positive parenting. However, there were significant main effects for both positive
parenting and personality type. Undercontrollers are rated significantly higher on
externalizing behavior than resilients, and overcontrollers are rated significantly
higher on internalizing behavior than resilients. Children, who are supported by their
parents, show significant lower levels of problem behavior in comparison with
children receiving low levels of positive parental behavior.
GLM analyses showed two significant interaction effects. Undercontrolled
children, (characterized by below average levels on both conscientiousness and
benevolence) showed significantly more externalizing behavior than resilient children,
especially when exposed to highly negative parental control. Overcontrolled children
(scoring low on emotional stability and extraversion) exhibited higher levels of
internalizing behavior than resilient children, with the highest levels of internalizing
behavior for children experiencing high negative parental control. Resilient children
were not affected by negative control and showed no problem behavior at all. In
Time one categorization predicts Time two problem behavior
Table 6 reports how Time one categorization predicts Time two problem
behavior. The Time one Negative control by Undercontrollers versus Resilients
interaction predicted Time two externalizing behavior. The results further illustrate
that the Time one personality types significantly predict Time two externalizing and
internalizing behavior. The Negative control categories also predicted Time two
externalizing and, to a lesser extent, internalizing behavior, whereas the Positive
parenting categories mainly predicted externalizing behavior.
Discussion
Study 2 adopted a person-centered approach and examined the interactive
effects of parenting and the personality types resilient, undercontrolled and
overcontrolled. The types were assigned according to the standard procedure outlined
by Asendorpf et al. (2001). Children were assigned to groups experiencing differences
in parenting based on their scores on the parenting variables: children experiencing
below or above average positive parenting and children exposed to below or above
average negative control.
110 Chapter 3
addition the results showed that the strongest Time one interaction effect still
predicted Time two externalizing behavior. The Time one main effects of personality
types and parenting categories largely held up over time.
The results of study 2 are partially in line with the results of study 1. Children
scoring below the mean on the dimensions benevolence and conscientiousness in
study 1 correspond to the undercontrolled children in study 2. These children are at
risk for externalizing behavior when exposed to high levels of negative parental
control. Children with above average scores on benevolence and conscientiousness in
study 1 resemble the resilient children in study 2. These children are not affected by
restrictive control. However in contrast to study 1, positive parenting, benevolence
and conscientiousness were not identified as moderators in the prediction of
externalizing behavior, because there was no significant interaction between positive
parenting and the dichotomy undercontrolled/resilient.
This study demonstrates the utility of personality types as moderators of the
relationship between environmental variables such as parenting and problem
behavior. Groups of children with similar configurations of personality characteristics
were a priori identified. Notice that to group children in a variable-centered approach,
researchers or clinicians have to define arbitrary ad hoc cut-off scores on the
dimensions or divide the children into groups based on a median-split. The present
study illustrates that a priori defined types have predictive validity in explaining
maladaptive child behavior and therefore they should be considered as a viable
alternative for the variable-centered approach in developmental and clinical research.
However, it has to be recognized that identifying the relevant personality dimensions
(adopting the variable-centered approach) remains important because the scores on
the dimensions are indispensable to group children into the types and to describe the
typical personality profiles of the resilient, undercontrolled and overcontrolled
children. The knowledge that undercontrolled children are at risk for developing
externalizing behavior, in particular when they have experienced a highly negative
parental style may have practical utility when one has to decide whether they are at
risk. However in order to explain why they are at risk it may be useful to refer to the
dimensions defining the particular personality profile of each personality type.
Therefore, types and dimensions should be considered as useful classes of information
generated by two complementary research strategies, i.e. the variable- and the person-
centered approach.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 111 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Past moderator research has been hampered by various methodological and
statistical shortcomings. To reduce these problems we used (a) a non-restricted large
population sample, (b) reliable measures, (c) more than one informant, and (d) a
follow-up measurement within a three year interval. The hierarchical moderated
regression analyses provide evidence for several significant parenting by child
personality interactions. Six major conclusions can be drawn: (a) several significant
parenting by personality interactions were identified, but they were more prominent
for externalizing than for internalizing behavior; (b) two types of interactions can be
identified, i.e. buffering interactions and interference interactions; (c) the interactions
are largely replicable across informants, i.e. parents and children, and across a three
year interval, i.e. for children and adolescents; (d) the most prominent personality
domains that figure in the interactions are Benevolence and Conscientiousness, (e) the
person-centered study also showed meaningful personality by parenting interactions,
General discussion
A comprehensive test of personality as a moderator
The present research extends in several ways previous empirical studies
documenting the role of personality-environment interactions for the development of
child problem behavior. First, other studies linking parenting and child characteristics
have been restricted to the assessment of the child’s temperament or various specific
personality characteristics. Our study includes a broadband measure of child
personality based on the Five Factor Model (FFM), that can be regarded as a robust
reference-model (De Raad & Perugini, 2002), applicable to both children and
adolescents (Shiner, 1998). In a second study, we consider child personality from a
person-centered approach, studying the role of personality types in interaction with
parenting. Second, review of the literature indicates that most studies investigating
parenting by temperament or personality interactions, are limited to negative child
parenting practices, such as coerciveness or restrictive control. The present research
includes both a positive and a negative dimension of parenting behavior. Finally, both
internalizing and externalizing behavior are studied as outcome variables, whereas
past research has focused mostly on externalizing behavior.
Reliable moderator effects
112 Chapter 3
and (f) interactions measured at Time one predict problem behavior across a three
year interval.
The present research identified moderating effects predominantly for
externalizing behavior, whereas for internalizing behavior parenting and child
personality turned out to be primarily additive effects. Strong negative first order
effects of extraversion and emotional stability on internalizing behavior were clearly
present: children scoring low on these adaptive traits are more prone to internalizing
behavior. Independent effects of extraversion and emotional stability on externalizing
behavior were much smaller. This corroborates previous research findings by Finch &
Graziano (2001) showing that the personality dimensions benevolence, extraversion
and neuroticism are strongly related to depression.
The weaker associations between the parenting variables and internalizing
behavior, in comparison with externalizing behavior, could be explained by the
theoretical and empirical grounds on which the parenting questionnaire is based, i.e.
the heavy emphasis in social learning theory on antisocial behavior and parenting. For
example, the majority of the behavior control items in the questionnaire
predominantly describe how a parent reacts when a child misbehaves, and hence there
is a limited emphasis on parental behavior that may reduce internalizing behavior. A
study of Barber (1996) showed that behavioral control, referring to the attempts to
control or manage children’s behavior, is uniquely associated with externalizing, and
not with internalizing adolescent problem behavior. However, there was no evidence
for a particular association between internalizing behavior and psychological control,
aimed at the psychological and emotional development of the child.
Types of interaction
A buffering interaction pattern was identified for the negative control by
personality interactions. Negative parental control tends to be a risk factor for
externalizing behavior, especially for children rated low or around the mean on
benevolence and conscientiousness. Hence, these personality domains function as
protective factors: children rated high on these domains do not show problem
behavior at all, even in the presence of parental restrictive control. Interference or
antagonistic interactions were present for positive parenting and benevolence. Again,
Differences in the prediction of externalizing and internalizing behavior
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 113 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
the results show that children rated high on benevolence do not show problem
behavior at all, even when they are deprived of positive parenting. The combination of
above mean level positive parenting and below mean level benevolence diminishes
externalizing behavior.
The replicability of the interactions
Some of the findings in this study were replicable across judges and across a
three year interval. Our study included two measurement moments: the first when
most of the subjects were school-aged children, the second when 88% of the sample
were adolescents. The benevolence by negative control and the conscientiousness by
negative control interactions predicting externalizing problem behavior for the school-
aged children remained three years later. These interactions measured at Time one,
were also predictive for Time two externalizing behavior. The first-order effects of
personality showed great stability over time, whereas the effects of parenting
behavior, especially on internalizing behavior, slightly diminished over time.
The role of benevolence and conscientiousness
The most prominent interactions include the personality domains benevolence
and conscientiousness. This finding is consistent with Prinzie et al. (2003) and related
to studies investigating parenting by temperament interactions. The interactions of
parenting and benevolence and conscientiousness may reflect ‘evocative person-
environment transactions’ (Caspi, 1998, p. 357): on the basis of their unique
personality characteristics, individuals act, the environment reacts, resulting in
mutually interlocking evocative transactions. Patterson (1982) also described this
process as part of the coercive family process.
The analyses showed no significant interactions for imagination, extraversion
and emotional stability, and hence the present results are consistent with Prinzie et al.
(2003).
The importance of interaction effects
The emphasis in the present study on the importance of parenting by child
personality interaction effects is not meant to minimize or to cloud the main effects of
the child’s personality or the effects of parenting. The importance of main effects is
clearly documented in tables 2,3,5 and 6 and is also recognized and stressed in several
114 Chapter 3
studies referred to in the introduction to this study. Although it is evident that main
effects explain a greater proportion of the variance of externalizing and internalizing
behavior, documenting reliable interaction effects essentially qualifies the main
effects.
The study of interaction effects is important both from a theoretical and from a
practical perspective. Reliable interaction effects qualify theories that are based on
straightforward and unqualified effects of parenting and child personality. Moreover,
because most theories are tested by adopting a variable-centered approach, the
implications at the individual or person level are usually underestimated. The practical
implications at the individual level can be judged more appropriately by adopting a
person-centered approach because it specifies the type of subjects for whom the
general rule does or does not apply e.g. negative control has detrimental effects on
(Time one) internalizing (see table 6). For instance, high versus low negative parental
control does make a difference for the degree of internalizing of the 162
overcontrollers but the same differences in parenting do not affect the internalizing
scores of the 185 resilient children. Hence although this interaction effect only
explains four percent of the variance it nevertheless shows that parenting is an
additional risk factor for less than half of the sample. Moreover in this case the main
effect of parenting explains less of the internalizing variance than the interaction
effect.
A similar procedure can be applied to the data reported in the variable-
centered study. Although this require setting arbitrary ad hoc cut-off points to
calculate the number of subjects to whom the general rule does or does not apply, the
logic is essential the same. In table 5 we report the interaction between personality
and parenting on externalizing as well as the simple slopes for the relationship
between parenting and externalizing for three (ad hoc) groups: those scoring high on
benevolence, moderate and low on benevolence. Figure 1A shows that the parenting –
externalizing relationship is significant for the group scoring below and around the
mean but not for the group scoring above the mean. Moreover calculation of the R2’s
for each of these groups shows that the effect of parenting explains 11% of the
variance of externalizing for the low benevolence group and 10% for the medium
group where it only explains 5% for the high benevolence subjects. This comparison
illustrates that the overall main effect of parenting underestimates the importance of
parenting for children low or around the mean on benevolence but overestimates it for
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 115 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
the other ad hoc personality group. Finally this sort of data not only has theoretical
significance but it is also important for clinical researchers who want to screen the
children and parents who will benefit from treatment such as enrollment in a parenting
training program.
Variable- versus person-centered approaches
Including personality types in interactions with parenting, instead of
personality variables, enriched the findings of the first study. Neither the number of
significant effects nor the effect sizes are remarkable in comparison with the findings
of study 1. After all, it was not our goal to enhance the likelihood of finding
interaction effects by using categorical variables, a strategy that is dissuaded by
McClelland and Judd (1993). The main advantage of the personality type-approach is
that it, instead of considering only one variable at a time, combines children with a
given profile of scores on multiple personality variables into one category. From study
1 we concluded that children rated low on conscientiousness or low on benevolence
were at risk for externalizing behavior when exposed to parental negative control.
Including personality types in the interactions, leads to the conclusion that children
rated below the mean on both conscientiousness and benevolence, i.e. the
undercontrolled children, are at risk for externalizing behavior when exposed to
parental negative control in comparison with resilient children. This study further
showed that children scoring low on emotional stability and low on extraversion, i.e.
the overcontrolled children, are at risk for internalizing behavior when exposed to
parental negative control. Resilient children are protected against possible negative
effects of parental negative control. With the variable-centered approach in study 1,
we only found evidence for main effects of personality and parenting in the prediction
of internalizing behavior. However studying overcontrolled children with a profile
indicating low scores on the two relevant dimensions (emotional stability and
extraversion) provides extra information on moderators of internalizing behavior.
These results emphasize the relevance of using personality types in
developmental research and clinical practice. Types clearly have predictive validity in
the study of maladaptive child behavior and should be further integrated in research
about personality-environment interactions. Types also have practical value because
they combine information on several personality domains in a single case. This
facilitates for example the diagnostic process as well as clinical decision making.
116 Chapter 3
To our knowledge there is only one other study, which has investigated
interactions between parenting and personality types in predicting problem behavior.
Dubas, Gerris, Janssens, and Vermulst (2002) found that undercontrolled adolescents
exposed to high levels of restrictive control, scored higher on internalizing behavior
than resilients and overcontrollers in less restrictive families. This finding is in
contrast with previous studies evaluating the external validity of the types. Dubas et
al. attribute this to the co-morbidity of externalizing and internalising problems.8 Our
study corroborates the externalizing tendencies for undercontrollers and the
internalizing tendencies for overcontrollers.
Limitations of this Study and Future Research
A study with biologically related parents and children, does not exclude that
associations between parental behavior and child measures are due to common factors
instead of environmental influences. Environmental influences, like parenting, partly
reflect genetic influences, i.e. genotype-environment covariance (Lahey, Waldman &
McBurnett, 1999). An example of such a passive type of genotype-environment
interaction is a child diagnosed as having a conduct disorder reared by parents
showing aggressive behavior. In such a case parental and child behavior are correlated
(Rowe, 2003).
The present study found evidence for a moderator effects model, explaining
child outcomes by the simple interaction of constitutional vulnerability (child
personality), and environmental factors (parenting). However, such a model does not
imply that conclusions can be drawn about reciprocal and recurrent interactions over
time between organism and the environment, as postulated by the transactional effects
model (Lytton, 1990).
The reliance in the present study on a questionnaire measure to assess
parenting is a potential limitation. Studies investigating effects of parenting on social
development, based on direct behavioral observations usually show larger effect sizes
than studies centering on parental reports (Collins et al., 2000). However, the need for
a large sample in order to maximize statistical power forced us to use self-rating
questionnaires. The GPBS was developed with great care, and has good psychometric
8 In an additional GLM analysis of variance, we checked if this interaction could also be
found in our data, but this was not the case.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 117 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
properties. Besides, the questionnaire was administered to two informants, parents and
children. The combination of child ratings of parenting with parental ratings of
personality and problem behavior reduces shared method variance and allows
replication of the results found for parental ratings. It should be acknowledged that the
use of aggregated scores for parental behavior might mask differential effects of
maternal or paternal parental behavior, in particular for positive parenting because the
correlation between ratings supplied by mothers and fathers was below .3. We also
recognize the possibility that parental disagreement about child rearing also might
predict problem behavior.
Although we used measures at two assessment moments in order to replicate
the basic findings, these follow-up measures are not independent and hence
replication in independent samples is warranted. Nevertheless, the five broadband
measures of personality and the two parenting dimensions used in this study, can be
considered as useful measures to detect personality by parenting interactions.
Main effects of parental behavior on problem behavior of the child often
conceal interactions with personality of the child. This often leads to the erroneous
conclusion that some parenting practices (e.g. restrictive parenting) are detrimental or
bad and should be avoided at all costs. The present study documents that the effects of
parenting behavior should be qualified and hence that it may be premature to blame
all parents adopting a common parenting style for the problem behavior of children
without taking into account the moderating effects of the child’s personality.
Although in our analyses we consistently controlled for effects of child gender
and age, we did not look for differential effects of age and gender. Further research
could examine whether parenting by personality interactions are different for girls and
boys or depend on age groups, e.g. school-aged children versus adolescents. The
importance of this differentiation can be illustrated by research on externalizing
behavior showing evidence for a developmental typology of delinquency, i.e. the
childhood-onset category and the adolescent-onset category, characterized by
different etiologies (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington & Milne, 2002). Three-way
interactions in hierarchical multiple regression analyses could verify if parenting by
personality interactions differ for boys and girls and according to age.
The finding that stable personality characteristics play a major role in child
problem behavior should not be equated with the pessimistic or deterministic view
that changing problematic behavior is impossible, but rather should be taken as
118 Chapter 3
evidence for a more realistic perspective (Lytton, 1990). Parents can have an impact
on their children’s behavior, but they will not be able to change major personality
traits, such as extraversion and neuroticism (Rowe, 1990). The present studies support
the view that parents may receive too much blame for the behavioral difficulties of
their children because the moderating role of the child’s personality is often ignored.
On the other hand, environmental factors combined with certain personality types
may increase the likelihood for the development of problem behavior.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 119 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
References
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple
regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141-1158.
Asendorpf, J. B., Caspi, A., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (Eds.) (2002). The puzzle of
personality types. [Special issue]. European Journal of Personality, 16.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers’ interactions
with normal and conduct-disordered boys: who affects whom? Developmental
Psychology, 22, 604-609.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of
personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17, 327-346.
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. & van Aken, M. (2001). Carving
personality description at its joints: confirmation of three replicable personality
prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169-
198.
Barber, B. (1992). Family, personality, and adolescent problem behaviors.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 69-79.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected
construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.
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
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology,34, 982-995.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant
negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3
years: differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 301-319.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521-530.
Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen
latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.
120 Chapter 3
Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative relations of
parenting and temperament to prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 266-290.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,
Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311-388). New York:
Wiley.
Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995).
Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: from age three to
age fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55-68.
Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age 3 predict
personality traits in young adulthood : longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort.
Child Development, 66, 486-498.
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in
personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143-178.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3th ed.). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects
of children’s fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and
childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251-263.
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, 218-232.
Costa, P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., Samuels, J. & Ozer, D. J. (2002).
The replicability and utility of three personality types. European Journal of
Personality, 16, S73-S87.
Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of
peer relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 565-579.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 121 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems
and discipline revisited: nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and
gender. Psychology Inquiry, 8, 161-175.
Deater-Deckard, K, Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple
risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: group and
individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
Deković, M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the development of
problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 667-
685.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I. & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of
personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European
Journal of Personality, 16, S57-S72.
De Raad, B. & Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five factor assessment: introduction.
In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 1-26). Göttingen:
Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and
ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (red.), Developmental
Psychopathology. Vol. 1 Theory and Methods (pp. 421-471). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R. M., Janssens, J. R. M. & Vermulst, A. A. (2002).
Personality Types of Adolescents: Concurrent Correlates, Antecedents, and Type X
Parenting Interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 79-92.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional
emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136-157.
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament,
personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 27-49.
Forehand, R., Miller, K. S., Dutra, R., & Chance, M. W. (1997). Role of
parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: replication across and within two ethnic
groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1036-1041.
Frosch, C. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2001). Marital behavior, parenting
behavior, and multiple reports of preschoolers' behavior problems: mediation or
moderation? Developmental Psychology, 37, 502-519.
122 Chapter 3
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence of
parenting on adjustment? Developmental Review, 22, 623-643.
Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G., de
Schipper, J. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents,
Adolescents and Young Adults in Dutch Families: a longitudinal study. Nijmegen:
Institute of Family Studies.
Gruner, K., Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). The relationship between
anxious rearing behaviours and anxiety disorders symptomatology in normal children.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 27-35.
Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from
ages 6 to 12: family background, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1044-1052.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: why children turn out the way
the do. New York: Free press.
Hellinckx, W., De Munter, A., & Grietens H. (Eds.) (1991). Gedrags- en
emotionele problemen bij kinderen. Een epidemiologisch onderzoek bij 6- tot 12-
jarigen in Vlaanderen. Deel 1: Beschrijving en screening van probleemgedrag.
[Behavioral and emotional problems in children. An epidemiological study of 6- to 12
year olds. Part 1: Description and screening of problem behavior.] Leuven-Apeldoorn:
Garant.
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,
599-610.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of
interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: multiple
indicator and structural equation approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357.
Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S.
(1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: moderator effects and
developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923-933.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998).
Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big
Five? Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 123 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva,
P. A. (1994). Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.
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, 669-682.
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, 232-244.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: a
review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris
(Eds.) Crime and Justice: A review of research (Vol.7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: a
reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-697.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P.H. (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. IV. Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101).
New York: Wiley.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
Mervielde, I., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2000). Variable-centered and person-
centered approaches to childhood personality. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in
Personality Psychology. Volume 1 (pp. 37-76). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical
Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. (pp. 107-127). Tilburg University
Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.),
Big Five Assessment (pp. 129-146). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
124 Chapter 3
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the
life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age
26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 179-207.
Muris, P., Schmidt, H., Lambrichs, R., & Meesters, C. (2001). Protective and
vulnerability factors of depression in normal adolescents. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 39, 555-565.
O’Connor, B. P., & Dvorak, T. (2001). Conditional associations between
parental behavior and adolescent problems: a search for personality-environment
interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 1-26.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive
behavior in adolescent boys: a causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660.
Paterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999).The association of behavioural adjustment to
temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year old children. Social
Development, 8, 293-309.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial Boys. A social
interactional approach. Volume 4. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family
management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquière, P., &
Colpin, H. (2003). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and children’s
personality on externalising behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 17, 95-117.
Richter, J. (1994). Parental rearing and aspects of psychopathology with
special reference to depression. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell a M. Eisemann (Eds.),
Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 235-251). Chisester: John Wiley & Sons.
Rothbart, M.K. & Bates, J.E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.)
& N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology : Vol. 3. Social, emotional
and personality development (pp. 105-176). New York : Wiley.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J.R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing
behavior in nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74.
Rowe, D. C. (1990). As the twig is bent? The myth of child-rearing influences
on personality development. Journal of Counselling and Development, 68, 606-611.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 125 A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach
Rowe, D. C. (2003). Assessing genotype-environment interactions. In R.
Plomin, J. C. Defries, I. W. Craig, & P. McGuffin, (Eds.), Behavioral Genetics in the
Postgenomic Era (pp. 71-86). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003).
Predicting preschoolers’ externalising behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict
and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39, 164-176.
Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M., & Hägglöf, B. (1999). Coping styles in
delinquent adolescents and controls: the role of personality and parental rearing.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 705-717.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297-312.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle
childhood?: A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308-332.
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and
adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2-32.
Siqueland, L., Kendall, P. C., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Anxiety in children:
perceived family environments and observed family interaction. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 25, 225-237.
Stoolmiller, M. (2001). Synergistic interaction of child manageability
problems and parent-discipline tactics in predicting future growth in externalizing
behavior for boys. Developmental Psychology, 37, 814-825.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R., Lengua, L. J., & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
29, 17-29.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Zhang, Q., van
Kammen, W., & Maguin, E. (1993). The double edge of protective and risk factors for
delinquency: interrelations and developmental patterns. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 683-701.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Van den Bergh, B. (1997). Kindertijd. Kinderen en ouders over de leefsituatie
van kinderen op lagere schoolleeftijd in Vlaanderen. [Childhood. Children and
126 Chapter 3
parents about the quality of life of elementary school-aged children].
Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. A. (in press). The Ghent Parental
Behavior Scale: some psychometric properties. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment.
Van Leeuwen, K., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (in press). A longitudinal
study of the utility of the resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality
types as predictors of children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior. International
Journal of Behavioral Development.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual of the CBCL/4-18.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling
Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997a). Handleiding voor de
Teacher’s Report Form. [Manual of the TRF.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam,
Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997b). Handleiding voor
de Youth Self Report. [Manual of the YSR.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam,
Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Wakschlag, L. S., & Hans, S. L. (1999). Relation of maternal responsiveness
during infancy to the development of behavior problems in high-risk youths.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 569-579.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some
consequences of early harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social
information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321-1335.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997).
Ineffective parenting and childhood conduct problems: the moderating role of callous-
unemotional traits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 301-308.
Table 1
Factor Pattern matrix for the GPBS dimensions Positive parenting and Negative control across a three year interval Time 1 Time 2 M F CM CF M F CM CF POS CON POS CON POS CON POS CON POS CON POS CON POS CON POS CONPOS .69 -.12 .78 -.11 .73 -.07 .73 -.12 .56 -.18 .65 -.22 .56 .16 .53 -.22RUL .72 .17 .75 .11 .76
.63.09 .81 .17 .81 .18 .78 .13
.01 .87 -.26 .88 .11
AUT .33 .02 .53 -.01 .00 .61 .01 .28 -.03 .55 .51 .01 .63 .07DIS
.15 .60 .17 .66 .09 .73 .09 .65 .19 .34 .27 .44 .19 .67 .15 .50IGN -.05 .45 .00 .44 -.12 .76 .02 .49 -.11 .52 -.18 .40 -.05 .61 -.03 .25HAR -.08 .63 -.14 .50 .04 .62 -.11 .73 -.15 .59 -.01 .53 -.11 .31 -.11 .72% Variance 35.47 39.94 50.69 47.07 32.06 35.67 39.82 39.54Cronbach α .82.86 .80 .91 .80 .90 .87 .90 .86 .77 .90 .75 .90 .91 .81 .80N of items 21 14 21 14 20 14 20 14 21 14 21 14 20 14 20 14 GPBS = Ghent Parental Behavior Scale
M = ratings by mothers ; F = ratings by fathers ; CM = children rating mothers ; CF = children rating fathers
POS = Positive parenting ; CON = Negative control
POS = Positive parental behavior ; RUL = Setting rules ; AUT = Autonomy ; DIS = Discipline; IGN = Ignoring ; HAR = Harsh punishment
128 Chapter 3
Table 2
Moderators of Externalizing behavior Time 1 Time 2 Parental ratings of
parenting Child ratings of parenting
Parental ratings of parenting
Child ratings of parenting
∆F ∆F B B ∆F B ∆F B Negative control Sex, Age 11.63 a -.13 b, .02 11.70 a -.16 b, .02 8.14 a -.07, .00 8.10 a -.11, .00 BE, CON
271.23 a -.57 a, .21 a 238.44 a -.64 a, .08 b 294.03 a -.66 a, .12 a 280.61 a -.69 a, .06 BE x CON 30.61 a -.15 a 8.44 b -.08 b 51.60 a -.18 a 28.15 a -.15 a Sex, Age 11.63 a -.19 b, .00 11.70 a -.20 b, .02 8.14 a -.10, .01 8.10 a -.13, .01 CO, CON 105.14 a -.35 a, .30 a 76.50 a -.40 a, .18 a 101.81 a -.42 a, .25 a 85.19 a -.41 a, .16 a CO x CON 11.95 a -.12 a 8.74 b -.11 b 14.13 a -.14 a 21.84Sex, Age 11.63 a -.32 a, .03 -.29 a, .02 8.10
a -.18 a 11.70 a -.34 a, .05 c 8.14 a a -.31 a, .03
ES, CON 58.73 a -.15 a, .37 a 26.44 a -.18 a, .23 a 45.08 a -.17 a, .33 a 33.93 a -.19 a, .27 a ES x CON 0.05 .01
8.14 0.03 -.01 0.04 -.01 0.13 .01
Sex, Age 11.63 a -.30 a, .03 11.70 a -.32 a, .04 c a -.24 b, .03 8.10 a -.25 b, .03 EX, CON 36.02 .29EX x CON 0.04 .01 Sex, Age 8.10
49.85 a .03, .37 a 15.32 a .04, .21 a a .02, .35 a 22.82 a .02, a 0.01 .00 .01 0.04 0.41 -.03 11.63 a -.31 a, .01 11.70 a -.33 a, .02 8.14 a -.26 b, .01 a -.28 a, .01
IM, CON 56.59 30.86 1.71
a -.13 a, .37 a 23.41 a -.17 a, .21 a 41.84 a -.14 a, .33 a a -.16 a, .27 a IM x CON -.05 2.94 -.07 0.71 -.03 2.26 -.06 Positive parenting Sex, Age 8.14 8.10 11.63 a -.18 b, .02 11.85 a -.19 b, .02 a -.11, -.01 a -.13, -.01 BE, POS 232.02 a -.65 a, -.03 233.18 a -.67 a, .02 277.42
11.17 0.82 .02 8.10
a -.73 a, .04 275.07 a -.73 a, .02 BE x POS a .10 a 0.54 -.02 .02 0.71 Sex, Age 11.63 a -.24 a, .01 11.85 a -.25 a, .01 8.14 a -.15, .00 a -.15, .01 CO, POS 64.47 a -.40 a, -.09 c 60.78 a -.42 a, .02 74.82 a -.49 a, -.07 72.61
a -.48 a, .00 CO x POS 7.58 b .10 b 0.33 .02 8.65 b .11 b 4.59 c .09 c Sex, Age 11.63 a -.39 a, .03 11.85 a -.39 a, .04 8.14 a -.42 a, .02 8.10 a -.39 a, .03 ES, POS 20.20 a -.16 a, -.19 a 9.00 a -.17 a, -.03 17.49 a -.19 a, -.13 b 13.72 a -.21 a, -.07 ES x POS 0.01 .00 0.63 -.03 1.49 -.05 2.02 -.06 Sex, Age 11.63 a -.38 a, .04 11.85 a -.39 a, .04 8.14 a -.36 a, .03 8.10 a -.32 a, .03 EX, POS 15.51 a .11 b, -.22 a 1.46 .07, -.02 8.17 a .06, -.18 a 2.30 .04, -.09 c
EX x POS 0.09 -.01 3.85 c .08 c 0.40 -.03 0.03 -.01 Sex, Age 11.63 a -.37 a, .02 11.85 a -.39 a, .01 8.14 a -.36 a, .00 8.10 a -.34 a, .01 IM, POS 17.11 a -.13 b, -.18 a 8.25 a -.17 a, -.01 14.42 a -.17 a, -.14 b 11.30 a -.19 a, -.06 IM x POS 4.74 c .09 c 0.59 .03 3.57 .08 0.64 .03
Note. With multiplicative terms, neither traditional unstandardized nor standardized regression coefficients are
appropriate to report. However, when the crossproduct is based on z-scores, which is known as Friedrich’s
procedure, it is appropriate to use the unstandardized solution with interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991, p. 43-
44). In our study, all predictors are standardized, because they are factor scores.
BE = Benevolence; CO = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability, EX = Extraversion; IM = Imagination;
POS = Positive parenting; CON = Negative control
p ≤ .001 ; p ≤ .01 ; p ≤ .05 a b c
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 129 A Variable- and a Person-centered Approach
Table 3
Moderators of Internalizing behavior Time 1 Time 2 Parental ratings of
parenting Child ratings of parenting
Parental ratings of parenting
Child ratings of parenting
∆F B ∆F ∆F B ∆F B B Negative control Sex, Age 2.17 .01, .03 2.20 -.03, .03 1.34 .12, .03 1.49 .10, .03 BE, CON 24.38
1.00 Sex, Age 1.34
a -.22 a, .09 c 23.70 a -.28 a, -.08 c 36.56 a -.32 a, .08 33.91 a -.34 a, .01 BE x CON 9.44 b -.12 b -.04 2.27 -.06 3.15 -.07
2.17 .00, .02 2.20 -.03, .02 .11, .03 1.49 .10, .03 CO, CON 23.84 a -.23 a, .11 b 20.49 a -.26 a, -.04 22.14 a -.23 a, .13 b 17.94 a -.23 a, .05 CO x CON 2.55 -.06 0.56 -.03 0.01 .00 2.41 -.07 Sex, Age 2.17 -.17-.15 c, .05 b 2.20 -.17 c, .05 b 1.34 -.17 c, .04 1.49 c, .04 c ES, CON 160.73 a -.57 a, .12 a 150.31 a -.58 a, .01 175.83 a -.63 a, .09 c 170.95 a -.63 a, .06 ES x CON
-.03, .01 0.26 -.02 0.27 .02 0.10 .01 2.72 .05
Sex, Age 2.17 2.20 -.06, .02 1.34 .05, .01 1.49 .04, .01 EX, CON 54.59 a -.36 a, .19 a 40.98 a -.35 a, .02 59.58 a -.41 a, .18 a 52.76 a -.41 a, .13 b EX x CON 0.25 -.02 0.06 .01 1.52 -.05 0.06 Sex, Age 2.17 -.09, .00 2.20 -.13, .01 1.34 .01, .01 1.49
-.01 -.01, .01
IM, CON 28.67 a -.26 a, .14 a 22.93 a -.28 a, -.03 24.84 a -.25 a, .14 a 21.45 a -.26 a, .09 c IM x CON 1.32 -.04 1.09 -.04 0.04 -.01 2.87
-.07
Positive parenting Sex, Age 2.17 -.03, .03 2.23 -.03, .03 1.34 .09, .02 1.49 .10, .02 BE, POS 25.56 a -.24 a, -.10 c 22.09 a -.27 a, -.01 35.45 a -.34 a, -.05 34.32 a -.35 a, -.04 BE x POS 1.08 .04 1.09 -.04 0.11 .00 0.20 .02 Sex, Age 2.17 -.03, .02 2.23 -.02, .02 1.34 .07, .02 1.49 .10, .03 CO, POS 23.38 a -.23 a, -.10 b 19.89 a -.26 a, .00 a, -.10 c 19.59 a -.25 17.75 a -.25 a, -.05 CO x POS 1.31 .04 0.13 .02 1.19 .05 1.51 .05 Sex, Age 2.17 -.17 b, .05 b 2.23 -.17 b, .05 b 1.34 -.17 c, .04 c 1.49 -.18 b, .04 c ES, POS 23.38 a -.58 a, -.13 a 150.16 a -.58 a, -.02 171.47 a -.64 a, -.04 169.51 a -.63 a, -.04 ES x POS 1.31 .06 0.02 -.01 5.93 c .08 c 2.53 .05 Sex, Age 2.17 -.07, .02 2.23 -.07, .02 1.34 -.01, .01 1.49 .01, .01 EX, POS 44.26 a -.33 a, -.09 c 40.92 a -.35 a, .01 48.82 a -.39 a, -.06 48.14 a -.39 a, -.05 EX x POS 0.20 .02 2.03 .06 2.61 .07 3.47 .08 Sex, Age 2.17 -.12, .01 2.23 -.12, .01 1.34 -.04, .01 1.49 -.02, .01 IM, POS
1.74 26.66 a -.25 a, -.11 b 22.56 a -.27 a, .00 21.31 a -.25 a, -.08 20.14 a -.26 a, -.05
IM x POS 0.07 -.01 0.78 .04 -.05 1.97 .06 BE = Benevolence; CO = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability, EX = Extraversion; IM = Imagination;
POS = Positive parenting; CON = Negative control a p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05
130 Chapter 3
Table 4
Time 1 variables predicting Time 2 problem behavior Externalizing Time 2 Internalizing Time 2 Parental ratings of
parenting Child ratings of parenting
Parental ratings of parenting
Child ratings of parenting
Time 1 variables ∆F B ∆F B ∆F B ∆F B Negative control Sex, Age 5.76 b -.05, .03 5.78 b -.10, .03 0.80 .13, .03 0.80 .09, .03 BE, CON 115.47 a -.45 a, .17 a 101.69 a -.51 a, .03 15.84 a -.17 a, .11 c 12.74 a -.21 a, -.02 BE x CON 17.84 a -.15 a -.05 1.23 -.05 0.07 -.01
2.53
Sex, Age 5.76 b -.11, .01 5.78 b -.13, .01 0.80 .10, .02 0.80 .08, .02 CO, CON 63.36 a -.31 a, .23 a 46.24 a -.35 a, .10 b 13.65
Sex, Age 0.80 -.02, .04
a -.15 a, .13 b 9.12 a -.18 a, .00 CO x CON 13.95 a -.14 a 8.18 b -.11 b 1.72 .05 0.00 -.00
5.76 b -.20 c, .03 5.78 b -.24 b, .04 0.80 .01, .04 ES, CON 32.64 a -.11 b, .31 a 10.18
5.76
a -.14 a, .15 a 71.61 a -.42 a, .15 a 62.30 a -.43 a, .04 ES x CON 0.86 .04 1.88 -.06 0.17 .02 0.96 -.04 Sex, Age b -.19 c, .03 5.78 b -.23 b, .04 0.80 .09, .01 0.80 .07, .02 EX, CON 28.56 a .04, .31 a 5.74 b .05, .14 b 25.48 a -.24 a, .17 a 16.49 a -.24 a, .05 EX x CON
0.05 -.01 0.27 -.02 1.83 -.05 0.43 -.03
Sex, Age 5.76 b -.21 c, .02 5.78 b -.25 b, .02 0.80 .04, .01 0.80 .01, .01 IM, CON 30.29 a -.09 c, .30 a 9.19 a -.14 b, .14 a 13.31 a -.15 a, .14 a 7.67 a -.18 a, .02 IM x CON 0.36 0.12
-.03 6.11 c -.10 c -.02 4.70 c -.09 c
Positive parenting Sex, Age 0.80 5.76 b -.11, .03 5.91 b -.12, .03 .09, .02 0.80 .10, .03 BE, POS 101.12 a -.51 a, -.01 102.33 a -.52 a, .00 15.62 a -.19 a, -.10 c 14.08 a -.21 a, -.06 BE x POS 0.04
.08, .02 0.79 .03 0.00 .00 0.16 .02 .01
Sex, Age 5.76 b -.17 c, .01 5.91 b -.18 c, .01 0.80 0.80 .08, .02 CO, POS 42.60 a -.36 a, .04 41.95CO x POS 2.59 .06 .04 1.32 -.05
-.03, .04
a -.36 a, .00 12.21 a -.16 a, -.11 c 10.13 a -.17 a, -.06 0.98 0.50 .03
Sex, Age 5.76 b -.28 a, .03 5.91 b -.28 a, .04 0.80 0.80 -.02, .04 ES, POS 7.80 a -.12 b, -.11 4.61 b -.12 b,-.03 67.48 a -.42 a, -.11 b 63.59 a -.42 a, .-06 ES x POS 2.50 -.07 1.30
b, .04 0.37 -.03 3.28 .07 .04
Sex, Age 5.76 b -.27 b, .03 5.91 b -.27 0.80 .06, .01 0.80 .06, .02 EX, POS 5.95 b .09, -.14 b 1.33 .07, -.02 18.66 a -.21 a, -.09 c 17.20 a -.23 a, -.06 EX x POS 0.21 -.02 6.24 c .11 c 0.02 .01 0.31 .02 Sex, Age .01, .01 5.76 b -.28 a, .02 5.91 b -.28 a, .02 0.80 .00, .01 0.80 IM, POS 7.06 a
.01 -.11 c, -.10 c 4.41 c -.13 b, -.02 11.43 a -.15 a, -.11 c 8.70 a -.16 a, -.06
IM x POS 0.02 0.16 .02 1.68 -.06 0.05 .01
BE = Benevolence; CO = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability, EX = Extraversion; IM = Imagination;
POS = Positive parenting; CON = Negative control a p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05
Table 5
Tests of significance of difference between simple slopes (T-values) and Effect sizes of interactions TIME 1 TIME 2 T-values Effect sizes T-values Effect sizes le slopes Simple slopes Interaction Simp Interaction BFM BFM BFM BFM
+ 1 SD Mean - 1 SD r²Y.MI r²Y.M f² + 1 SD BFM Mean BFM
- 1 SD r²Y.MI r²Y.M f²
Externalizing behavior Negative control: parental ratings Neg. control x Benevolence 1.30 6.95 a 8.80 a - 0.504 3.88 - 5.53 a 0.529 0.05 - 1.62 a 7.87 a 7.18 a 0.596 0.554 0.10Neg. control x Conscientiousness 3.72 a - - 6 a 0.330
8.57 a 8.66 a 3.46 a 0.309 0.295 0.02 1.98 c 6.53 a 7.48 a 3.7 0.311 0.03
Negative control: child ratings Neg. control x Benevolence - 0.02 2.58 - 0.01 1.76 5.19 a - 5.3 b 4.21 a 2.90 b 0.481 0.474 - 2.08 c 1 a 0.568 0.544 0.06Neg. control x Conscientiousness 1.32 4.95 - - Positive parenting: parental ratings
a 5.76 a 2.96 b 0.252 0.240 0.02 - 0.26 4.17 a 6.48 a 4.67 a 0.308 0.278 0.04
Pos. parenting x Benevolence 1.51 0.467 - 0.99 - 3.13 b 3.34 a 0.477 0.02
Note. Effect size (f²)= (r² - r² ) / (1-r² ) (Aiken & West, 1991, p. 156)
BFM = Big Five Measure
Y.MI Y.M Y.MI
r²Y.MI = the squared multiple correlation from combined predictors by two sets of variables, M (main effects) and I (interaction effect)
r²Y.M = the squared multiple correlation resulting from prediction by set Ma p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05
Table 6
Category means and results of GLM with parenting categories and personality types Resilients Overcontrollers Undercontrollers Negative control Personality type Parenting X personality
type Low
(N) η² F Power ηLow* (N)
High* (N)
Low (N)
High (N)
High (N) F Power η² F ² Power
Externalizing T1 -0.66 (38)
0.05 (16) -0.25 1.32
38.38 .247 20.97 .152 5.53 .045 (28) (39) a 1.00 a 0.99 c 0.65
Externalizing T2 -0.56 (35) -0.45
-0.31 (11) (23) (33) 17.84 a .154 .987 18.27 a .157 .988 8.49 b .080 .823
Internalizing T1 (38) -0.49 (16)
0.18 (20)
0.99 (36) 4.23
-0.30 1.07
c .038 0.53 30.85 a .225 1.00 4.92 c .044 0.59
Internalizing T2 -0.54 .594 .173 .025
Undercontrollers Parenting X personality type
(35) -0.39 (11)
-0.02 (18)
0.77 (25) 4.96 c .055 17.84 a .987 2.16 .306
Resilients Overcontrollers Positive parenting Personality type
Low* High* F (N) (N) Low (N)
High (N)
Low (N)
High (N) η² Power F η² Power F η² Power
Externalizing T1 10.67 0.90 .086 .001 -0.01 (19)
-0.55 (44)
0.71 (42)
0.02 (22)
a .080 11.61 a 0.92 0.15 0.07
Externalizing T2 .006
Internalizing T1 (19) (44) 0.74 (28)
0.28 (22) 4.26 c .038 0.53 25.99 a .193 0.99 0.33 .003 0.09
-0.22 (15) -0.25
-0.54 (32) -0.51
-0.41 (37)
-0.16 (17) 6.87 b .066 .738 9.08 b .086 .847 0.57 .117
Internalizing T2 -0.08 (15)
-0.50 (32)
0.30 (23)
0.24 (18) 1.63 .019 .243 9.19 b .099 .850 0.94 .011 .160
Note: * Low and high refer to categories of parentinga p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05 ; T1 = dependent variables Time one; T2 = dependent variables Time two
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 133 A Variable- and a Person-centered Approach
A: Benevolence
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Negative control
Exte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- BEMean BE1SD+ BE
B: Conscientiousness
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Negative control
Exte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- COMean CO1SD+ CO
Figure 1
Interaction between Personality and Negative control predicting Externalizing behavior at
Time 1. Panel A: Benevolence (BE); Panel B: Conscientiousness (CO)
134 Chapter 3
Benevolence
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Positive parenting
Exte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- BEMean BE1SD+ BE
Interaction between Benevolence and Positive parenting predicting Externalizing
behavior at Time 1
Figure 2
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 135 in Referred and Non-referred Children
CHILD PERSONALITY AND PARENTAL BEHAVIOR AS
INTERACTING PREDICTORS OF CHILD
IN CLINICALLY REFERRED AND NON-REFERRED
CHILDREN
CHAPTER 4
INTERNALIZING AND EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR
Abstract
Interactions between Five Factor Model child personality and two parenting
dimensions were investigated as predictors of child problem behavior. The same
measures were used in both a large community sample (N = 596) and a sample with
clinically referred children (N = 205). Ratings of the child’s personality, internalizing
and externalizing behavior and the mother’s positive parental behavior and negative
control were obtained by the mother. Results showed significant mean-level
differences for personality and parenting. Both personality and parenting predicted
child problem behavior, with some differences in strength of the effects for the two
samples. Parenting by personality interactions predicted both externalizing and
internalizing behavior, with benevolence and conscientiousness as the most prominent
moderators. These effects were largely replicable in both the referred and non-referred
children. The results corroborate the continuity or spectrum model, as differences
between clinical and non-clinical samples are mainly mean level differences and
differences in strength of the relationship, but not structural or qualitative differences.
136 Chapter 4
Introduction
A relatively new trend in research on developmental psychopathology is the
study of the contribution of person by environment interactions as predictors of
problem behavior, beyond what is predictable by the main effects of risk factors.
Child temperament or personality and parenting have been identified as respectively
individual and environmental risk factors associated with maladaptive behavior
(Gallagher, 2002). Our reasons to examine interactions between these variables are
based on theoretical grounds, previous empirical findings, considerations about
clinical practice and the lack of research comparing the effect of moderators in
samples with clinically referred and non-referred children.
First, contextual or ecological models emphasize that a complex network of
interconnected variables is responsible for child adjustment (Belsky, 1984;
Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995; Sameroff, 2000). An
important feature of these models is that the predictors do not operate in isolation
when affecting the outcome variable. Instead, the models suggest combined effects of
predictors, fostering the need for exploratory research investigating interactions
between predictor variables (Hinshaw, 2002). This is also suggested by Thomas and
Chess’ goodness-of-fit-theory (1977), postulating that maladaptive child behavior is
the result of a mismatch between a difficult child temperament and parenting practices
(Bates, Pettit, Dodge & Ridge, 1998).
Second, behavior-genetic studies have argued against the crucial role assigned to
parenting in explaining child development (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Sessa, Avennevoli
& Essex, 2002). Until now, the most repeated conclusion of behavior-genetic studies
is that the shared environment plays a small and rather insignificant role in the
development of children (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein,
2000). However, recent studies investigating child characteristics by parenting
interactions show a different picture, suggesting that the way parents treat their
children does indeed have an effect on child outcome, but only for children with
certain individual characteristics (see infra). Research in developmental
psychopathology will benefit from examining the interplay between person and
environment, because these types of findings contribute to the understanding of the
etiology of maladaptive child behavior in general, and risk and protective factors in
particular.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 137 in Referred and Non-referred Children
A third argument to consider interactions between parenting and child
individual characteristics stems from psychological practice. Studies investigating
main effects of parenting on child adjustment often lead to the conclusion that parents
are responsible for the behavioral difficulties of their children and hence that the
parents should be subjected to intervention or treatment programs aimed at enhancing
parenting skills in order to reduce child and adolescent maladaptive behavior (Kalb &
Loeber, 2003). It is not our intention to question the effectiveness of parent training
because there is ample evidence that parent training is indeed an effective intervention
method (Kalb & Loeber, 2003), especially for reducing child and adolescent antisocial
behavior (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998). Rather we want to emphasize that findings of
moderator research point toward a more realistic perspective on changing child
problem behavior (Lytton, 1990; Rowe, 1990).
Finally it should be emphasized that previous moderator research focused on
the study of parenting-child interactions either in general population samples or in
samples with clinically referred children. However, because these studies generally
rely on different instruments to study child-parenting interactions, it is difficult to
assess the continuity of the moderator effects across referred and non-referred
samples. The present study compares the effects of the child-parenting interactions in
both types of samples with the same instruments and hence explores the continuity of
moderator effects across a broad spectrum of values for parenting variables, child
personality variables and problem behavior. If the moderator effects do not depend on
the type of sample, the present study supports the case for the continuity of processes
moderating internalizing and externalizing problem behavior in normal (non-referred)
and clinical (referred) populations.
The present study extends previous research through (a) the focus on broad-
band personality dimensions to measure child characteristics, (b) the selection of
parenting variables, (c) the choice of outcome variables, (d) introducing various
methodological refinements intended to increase the power to detect interaction
effects, and (e) assessing the continuity of moderator processes across referred and
non-referred samples of children.
Child personality versus child temperament
A review of the literature indicates that previous research investigating person-
environment interactions mainly focuses on the child’s temperament or various
138 Chapter 4
specific personality characteristics, rather than relying on a comprehensive personality
taxonomy, such as the Five Factor Model (FFM). Temperament refers to early
behavioral tendencies, which are frequently emotional in nature and have a presumed
biological basis (Shiner, 1998), whereas personality refers to individual differences in
the tendency to behave, think, and feel in certain consistent ways (Caspi, 1998, p.
312). Although temperament traits are believed to capture a broad range of individual
differences in infancy, those differences constitute only a subset of personality
differences in later childhood and adulthood (Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Especially
longitudinal research designs may benefit from using a structure of individual
differences applicable to both children and adults. The FFM personality taxonomy
may serve this purpose, as there is growing evidence for similarities between the adult
‘big five’ dimensions and child personality structure. For example, cross-cultural
studies of parents’ free descriptions of their own children’s personality revealed
substantial support for the link between five factor structure in childhood and
adulthood (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde & Havill, 1998). Moreover, several
authors have shown that the traditional dimensions of temperament are closely related
to the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (Caspi, 1998; Mervielde & Asendorpf,
2000; Shiner, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). The five broad dimensions of the FFM
are commonly labeled as: Agreeableness (describes a continuum from warmth and
compassion to antagonism), Conscientiousness (the extent and strength of impulse
control), Extraversion (the extent to which the person actively engages the world or
avoids social experiences), Neuroticism (the extent to which someone experiences the
world as distressing or threatening) and Openness to experience (the quality and depth
of a person’s mental and experiential life) (Caspi, 1998).
Several studies provide evidence for relationships between child or adolescent
problem behavior and temperament or personality dimensions. The temperamental
disposition ‘lack of control’ (i.e. emotional lability, restlessness, short attention span
and negativism) has been associated with externalizing behavior, such as
hyperactivity and attention problems, antisocial behavior, and conduct disorder
(Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt & Silva,1995; Eisenberg, Miller, Dutra & Chance,
2000). Agreeableness was linked to externalizing problems in non-clinical and clinical
samples of children and adolescents (John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1994; Laursen, Pulkkinen & Adams, 2002). Other studies offer evidence for
the association between personality characteristics and delinquent behavior (Krueger,
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 139 in Referred and Non-referred Children
Schmutte, Caspi, Moffitt, Campbell & Silva, 1994; Ruchkin, Eisemann & Hägglöf,
1999). Flat affect, passivity and behavioral inhibition were identified as contributors
of internalizing problems (Caspi et al., 1995; Eisenberg et al., 2000) and
agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism have been related to depression (Finch &
Graziano, 2001). Neuroticism was associated to both anxiety and depression
(Millikan, Wamboldt & Bihun, 2002). Extreme scores on the five domains have also
been associated with several personality disorders (Coker, Costa & Widiger, 2002).
Parenting dimensions versus parenting styles
Research linking parenting and child adjustment consistently refers to two
primary parenting dimensions (Gallagher, 2002; Maccoby & Martin, 1983)
comprising related parental behaviors: Parental support (or responsiveness) describes
the affective nature of the parent-child relationship and includes parental behaviors
like involvement, showing interest in the child; Control (or demandingness) refers to
efforts of parents to influence their child’s behavior, such as setting rules and
enforcing standards of behavior (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The control concept has
been further differentiated into psychological control, referring to behaviors intruding
into the psychological and emotional development of the child, such as love
withdrawal and guilt induction, and behavioral control, referring to parental behaviors
that attempt to manage children’s behavior (Barber, 1996; Barber, Olsen & Shagle,
1994). Parenting behaviors or dimensions can be distinguished from typologies of
parenting, resulting from the combination of different parenting dimensions. For
example, combining high and low demandingness and responsiveness, Maccoby and
Martin (1983) created four types: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and
indifferent parenting. Such a type-approach is very useful because it takes into
account the prevalence of particular blends of risk factors (e.g. low demandingness
and low responsiveness). However, most parenting typologies are not yet properly
validated and therefore it is suggested to examine the separate dimensions that
constitute overall parenting style (Galambos, Barker & Almeida, 2003).
Several main effects studies, including correlational and experimental designs
(Hinshaw, 2002) and clinical and non-referred samples (Belsky, Hsieh & Crnic,
1998), confirm that parenting behaviors are good predictors of child maladaptive
behavior. Externalizing behavior, such as aggressive or antisocial behavior and
conduct disorder, has been predicted by lack of parental involvement or poor
140 Chapter 4
acceptance-responsiveness, lack of supervision or poor parental monitoring, harsh and
inconsistent punishment and insufficient rewarding of adequate child behavior
(Forehand, Miller, Dutra & Chance, 1997; Haapasalo & Tremblay, 1994; Loeber &
Dishion, 1983; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber,
1984; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Ruchkin, Eisemann & Hägglof, 1999; Stormshak,
Bierman, McMahon, Lengua et al., 2000; Wakschlag & Hans, 1999; Weiss, Dodge,
Bates & Pettit, 1992). A smaller number of studies investigated main effects of
parenting on emotional problems, such as anxiety (Gruner, Muris & Merckelbach,
1999; Siqueland, Kendall & Steinberg, 1996) and depression (Garber, Robinson &
Valentiner, 1997; Muris, Schmidt, Lambrichs & Meesters, 2001; Richter, 1994).
Some of the studies investigating main effects of parenting included both
externalizing and internalizing behavior as outcome variables and confirmed the
hypothesis that psychological control is more predictive of adolescent internalizing
behavior, whereas behavioral control is more predictive of externalizing behavior
(Barber, 1996; Barber, Olsen & Shagle, 1994). However, parental support was not
identified as a significant predictor of externalizing nor of internalizing behavior
(Galambos, Barker & Almeida, 2003).
Most studies concentrate on the negative aspects of parenting, presented as
risk factors in the etiology of maladaptive child behavior. However, it is equally
important to examine parenting skills that stimulate child adjustment or protect the
developing child against emotional and behavioral problems. Therefore, the present
study includes both a more affective component of parenting and a control dimension.
The studies linking parenting and child characteristics in the prediction of
externalizing behavior are mainly restricted to the assessment of the child’s
Internalizing versus externalizing behavior as outcome variables
The current study focuses on both internalizing and externalizing behavior as
outcome variables, although a literature review regarding parenting by child
characteristics interactions shows that externalizing behavior is predominantly studied
as the outcome variable. This probably can be attributed to the fact that in main
effects studies parenting frequently has been linked to aggression, behavior problems
and antisocial behavior (see supra). Alternatively it is possible that parenting by child
characteristics interactions genuinely affect externalizing behavior more than
internalizing behavior.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 141 in Referred and Non-referred Children
temperament. These studies vary in (a) design, most studies being cross-sectional,
some being longitudinal (e.g. Bates et al., 1998; Belsky et al., 1998; Rubin, Burgess,
Dwyer & Hastings, 2003; Stoolmiller, 2001) or experimental (e.g. Anderson, Lytton
& Romney, 1986), (b) sample composition, i.e. clinically referred (e.g. Anderson et
al., 1986; Colder, Lochman & Wells, 1997) versus non-referred samples, (c) in child
age, i.e. preschool (e.g. Paterson & Sanson, 1999; Rubin et al., 2003), school-aged
(e.g. Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler & West, 2000; Stoolmiller, 2001; Wootton, Frick,
Shelton & Silverthorn,1997) and adolescent (e.g. Carlo, Roesch & Melby,1998;
Olweus, 1980), and (d) gender, for example some studies only include boys (e.g.
Anderson et al., 1986; Belsky et al., 1998; Colder et al., 1997; Olweus, 1980;
Stoolmiller, 2001). The most important finding of these studies can be summarized as
follows. A ‘difficult to manage’ child or a child characterized by behavioral-
emotional undercontrol, high impulsivity, high activity levels, low emotionality will
show aggressive or antisocial behavior, when faced with punitive, harsh or
inconsistent discipline or poor parental monitoring. This means that children with a
difficult temperament are particularly vulnerable when also exposed to punitive
parenting or negative control. Also interesting is the finding that children with high
levels of callous (i.e. lack of empathy, manipulativeness) and unemotional (i.e. lack of
guilt, emotional constrictedness) traits tend to show high rates of conduct problems,
regardless of the quality of parenting they receive (Wootton et al., 1997).
Few studies have focused on the Five Factor Model as a measure of child
personality in the prediction of problem behavior. O’Connor and Dvorak (2001)
found that specific combinations of personality characteristics and parenting variables
operate as protective or risk factors and hence that parental behaviors only matter for
some kinds of children and not for others. Prinzie et al. (2003) showed that children
rated high on benevolence are protected from the negative effect of maternal or
paternal overreactivity, i.e. the tendency by parents to respond with irritation and/or
anger to problematic behavior of their children. Children rated low on
conscientiousness were at risk for externalizing problems when exposed to coercive
parental behavior.
A few studies have included both internalizing and externalizing behavior as
outcome variables. Blackson, Tarter and Mezzich (1996) concluded that school-aged
boys with a difficult temperament and experiencing negative parental discipline
showed more externalizing and internalizing behavior. Colder et al. (1997) detected
142 Chapter 4
interaction effects of parenting and temperament predicting childhood depressive
symptoms. Children characterized by high levels of fear and exposed to high levels of
parental involvement (‘overinvolvement’) showed more depressive symptoms.
However, for children with moderate levels of fear, low levels of parental
involvement were associated with lower levels of emotional competency. Harsh
discipline was associated with depressive symptoms for children characterized by
high fear. Lengua et al. (2000) showed that for school-aged boys and girls low in
‘emotionality’, parental rejection was more strongly associated with depression after
divorce. Tschann, Kaiser, Chesney, Alkon and Boyce (1996) also found evidence for
the general finding that children with more difficult temperaments display more
internalizing and externalizing behavior than children with easier temperaments,
particularly when also exposed to high levels of family conflict.
A first methodological issue concerns data sampling. The sample studied
needs to be large enough to provide adequate power to test interaction effects. In
moderated multiple regression research, sample size is one of the most important
single factors affecting power (Aguinis, 1995). In order to produce a power of .80 for
detecting small interaction effects, a sample size in the range of 752 and 1056 is
needed, with estimated reliabilities of .80 for the predictors, interpredictor correlations
between 0 and .50 and a squared multiple correlation between .20 and .50 for the main
effects of the predictor variables (Aiken & West, 1991, p.164). In addition, the
detection of person-environment effects is difficult in population samples, because
they require variation in both the person and environmental variables, which is often
only found in specific subgroups (Rutter et al., 1997). Compared to experimental
studies, field studies are often less than 20% efficient in detecting interactions
(Mclelland & Judd, 1993). A possible solution for this problem is to oversample
extreme observations of the predictor variables (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997;
Mclelland & Judd, 1993). In this study, a randomly drawn sample (N = 600) will be
supplemented with a clinically referred sample (N = 205). Both the large number of
Methodological precautions
A widely used method to investigate interactions is moderated regression
analysis. In order to enhance the probability of detecting interactions, some
precautions can be taken into consideration.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 143 in Referred and Non-referred Children
cases and the inclusion of more cases at the extremes of the joint distribution of the
predictor variables will increase the power for detecting interaction effects.
Continuity of moderator effects across referred and non-referred samples
Second, it is crucial to have measures with good psychometric properties. In
addition, the present study needed measures that could be administered to a large
sample, therefore the use of questionnaires was indicated. Although studies utilizing
direct behavioral observations of parenting usually report larger effect sizes than
studies relying on data from questionnaires (Collins et al., 2000), there are several
questionnaire studies reporting parenting effects (e.g. Barber, 1996; Galambos et al.,
2003; Garber et al., 1997; Stormshak et al., 2000). To reliably measure parenting, an
instrument with good psychometric properties was developed (Van Leeuwen &
Vermulst, in press) assessing two parenting dimensions - positive parenting and
negative control - based on second-order factors. In order to assess child personality, a
comprehensive and psychometrically well-validated instrument was used, measuring
five broadband personality domains (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002). The outcome
variables were assessed with a Dutch version of a standard instrument (Achenbach
Child Behavior Checklist; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996) assessing several
syndromes that are grouped in two broad-band factors: internalizing and externalizing
behavior.
Previous studies on how child personality moderates the effect of parenting on
problem behavior were conducted either with general population samples or clinical
samples. Because the sample choice usually entails a different selection of measures it
remains unclear to what extent the moderator effects can be generalized across
clinical and non-clinical samples. The present study assesses moderator effects with
the same measures (child personality, parenting and problem behavior) in both a large
community sample and a sample with children referred to an ambulant or residential
clinical setting. Such a study includes a broad spectrum of values for child personality
variables, parenting and problem behavior and allows a more sensitive test of
moderator effects that depends on the range of values and in particular on the
frequency of extreme cases (Mclelland & Judd, 1993). Furthermore, including
referred and non-referred children in the same study permits a test of the continuity of
moderator effects across clinical and non-clinical samples. Between and among
clinical psychologists and psychiatrists there is a long-standing debate about whether
144 Chapter 4
the differences between normal and abnormal behavior should be conceived as either
qualitative or quantitative. Recent research on the relationships between (normal,
adaptive) personality dimensions and (abnormal, maladaptive) personality disorders
(Costa & Widiger, 2002; O'Connor, 2002) provides evidence for the continuity or
spectrum model that conceives abnormal or maladaptive personality disorders as
extreme variants of normal personality traits. Hence the differences between clinical
and non-clinical samples are considered to be mainly main level differences and not
structural or qualitative differences. Likewise the present comparison of personality
moderator effects in clinical and non-clinical samples can be considered as an
extension of this type of research because it provides a test of the continuity of the
moderator effects across both types of samples. If the child personality by parenting
interaction does not depend on the sample, the relationships between parenting, child
personality and problem behavior are similar for referred and non-referred children
and presumably based on the same processes in both groups. Hence the differences
between the two types of samples can be conceived as quantitative and a common
model can be postulated to explain how child personality moderates effects of
parenting on problem behavior.
The present research
Method
The present study utilizes a sample consisting of both clinically referred and
non-referred children. First, we will check whether child personality and parenting
differ for clinically referred children and non-referred children, that is, are there
mean-level differences for child personality and parenting. Second, it will be
investigated if there is evidence for parenting by child personality interactions in the
prediction of child internalizing and externalizing behavior. Furthermore we will
check whether these interactions differ for referred and non-referred children. Finally
it will be explored if the effects of child personality and parenting differ for
internalizing and externalizing behavior.
Subjects
The clinically referred sample consists of 205 mothers and children, recruited
from various mental health services. Children in the sample are 118 boys and 87 girls,
5 to 14 years old (M = 9.9, SD = 1.9). The children were referred for a variety of
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 145 in Referred and Non-referred Children
behavioral and emotional difficulties. Based on the primary intake problem, the
children were assigned to the following broad diagnostic categories: 21.3% showed
symptoms of anxiety/depression, 8.4% presented withdrawn behavior or deficits in
social skills, 6.9% was referred for eating/sleeping/psychosomatic problems, 25.2%
manifested externalizing behavior, such as lying, aggression and temper tantrums,
11.4% exhibited conduct disorders, related to developmental disorders such as
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome or autism, 9.4% reported
attention or concentration problems, 15.8% suffered from adjustment problems due to
major life stressors, such as divorce or decease of a parent, 1% displayed
obsessive/compulsive behavior, and finally, 0.5% was referred for suicide attempt or
self-injurious behavior.
The non-referred sample of children is part from a longitudinal study
investigating parenting, personality characteristics and children’s problem behavior.
Subjects were parents (both mothers and fathers) and one of their children aged 7 to
15. For the present study only ratings of the mothers (N = 596) from the first
assessment period are included. The 276 boys and 320 girls, had a mean age of 10.9
(SD = 1.9; range 7-15). The sample is well balanced regarding social-economic status,
gender and age (Van Leeuwen, 2000).
Measures
A comparison between referred and non-referred children showed significant
differences in gender and age. The non-referred group included 46.3% boys and the
clinical group 57.6% (χ²(1) = 7.73, p = .005). The mean age for the non-referred
children was 10.96 whereas for the referred group this was 6.87, with t(799) = 6.87, p
< .001. Therefore, age and gender will be entered as control variables in further
analyses.
Parental behavior. Two parenting dimensions, i.e. positive parenting and
negative control, were measured with the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS, Van
Leeuwen & Vermulst, in press). This questionnaire is based on concepts from Social
Learning Theory (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992),
organizing parenting into well-defined constructs derived from observable parental
behavior. Subjects rate the frequency of behavioral items on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. Validation of a pilot version of the GPBS led to the
conclusion that the five hypothesized constructs (positive involvement, monitoring,
146 Chapter 4
problem solving, structure and positive reinforcement) appeared to be too
heterogeneous. Refinement of the constructs resulted in a new questionnaire with nine
scales: Autonomy, Discipline, Positive parental behavior, Harsh punishment,
Monitoring, Rules, Ignoring unwanted behavior, Material rewarding, and Inconsistent
discipline. Factor analyses showed evidence for two higher-order factors: ‘positive
parenting’ (consisting of the scales positive parental behavior, teaching rules and
autonomy), and ‘negative control’ (consisting of the scales discipline, ignoring of
unwanted behavior and harsh punishment) (Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, in press).
Cronbach alpha’s in the present sample equaled .86 for positive parenting and .79 for
negative control.
Child Personality. The Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children
(HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999) was used to assess child personality. The
inventory comprises items that describe the normal range of child personality related
behavior. Five broad personality domains are measured, dispersed over 18 facets that
are hierarchically organized under the five domains, i.e. Extraversion (partitioned in
the facets Shyness, Optimism, Expressiveness, Energy), Benevolence (also known as
Agreeableness; further divided into Egocentrism, Irritability, Compliance,
Dominance, Altruism), Conscientiousness (split into Achievement motivation,
Concentration, Perseverance, Orderliness), Emotional Stability (divided into Anxiety
and Self-confidence) and Imagination (also known as Openness to experience;
partitioned into Creativity, Curiosity and Intellect). Mothers rated the 144 items on a
5-point Likert scale. The factor structure of the HiPIC proves to be highly replicable
across both childhood and adolescence (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002). In the present
study we found Cronbach alpha’s of .95 for Benevolence (N of items = 40), .94 for
Conscientiousness (N of items = 32), .89 for Emotional Stability (N of items = 16),
.91 for Extraversion (N of items = 32) and .91 for Imagination (N of items = 24).
Child problem behavior. The Dutch version of the Achenbach Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996) assesses behavioral and
emotional problems in children. Mothers rated the frequency of 113 problematic
behaviors on a 3-point Likert scale. Two broadband syndromes can be derived from
CBCL scores: Internalizing, with items referring to somatic complaints, social
withdrawal, and anxiety/depression; and Externalizing, including items indexing
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 147 in Referred and Non-referred Children
aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency. For Internalizing behavior (N of items =
31) the value of Cronbach’s alpha was .89, for Externalizing behavior it was .92 (N of
items = 33).
Procedure
Children of the referred sample were recruited from various mental health
services. Third year students were instructed to enlist clinically referred children with
emotional or behavioral problems as part of an assignment for the advanced course on
Personality Psychology at the Ghent University. Informed consent was given by the
therapist or counselor and the parents of the children. Mothers completed the CBCL,
the HiPIC and the GPBS. Exclusion criteria were the presence of a physical disability
or a condition of chronic disease.
Non-referred children were recruited via randomly selected elementary and
secondary schools. For elementary schools the sample was stratified by province,
(East and West Flanders), region (rural or urban), school type (public/private/catholic
schools) and grade (third, fourth, fifth and sixth year of elementary school). For
secondary schools, sampling was based on province (East and West Flanders), type of
curriculum (vocational, technical and general education) and grade (first and second
year of secondary school). A letter addressed to the parents informed them about the
goal and the procedures of the research project. Families were visited at home by a
trained psychology student who instructed the family members to independently
complete a series of questionnaires. Both parents filled out the HiPIC, GPBS and
CBCL. In the present study, we only focus on the ratings provided by the mothers, to
enable a joint analysis with the data supplied by the mothers of the clinical or referred
group of children.
Statistical analyses
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses (HMRA) were conducted to test the
main hypotheses. Several ‘functional sets’, i.e. groups of independent variables
grouped for logical reasons are included in different steps of the HMRA (Cohen,
Classic ANOVA’s were carried out in order to check mean-level differences
for group (clinically referred or non-referred children) and gender, and possible group
by gender interactions. These analyses were primarily carried out to verify if it would
be necessary to include interactions between gender and the other variables.
148 Chapter 4
Cohen, Aiken & West, 2003). In these analyses gender and age were consistently
entered in Step 1 as control measures. In Step 2, we entered ‘group’ as a variable, one
of the five child personality domains (i.e. Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, Extraversion or Imagination), and one of the two parenting dimensions (i.e.
Negative control or Positive parenting). This step enables us to investigate
independent or main effects of group, personality and parenting variables. In Step 3,
we entered the interactions between the three predictor variables, i.e. personality by
parenting, personality by group and parenting by group. The first interaction tests
whether the effects of parenting depend on certain values of child personality (or vice
versa) in the prediction of problem behavior. The personality by group and parenting
by group interactions indicate to what extent the relationship between personality or
parenting and problem behavior is different for the clinical and the non-referred
group. In step 4, a 3-way interaction term was entered, i.e. personality by parenting by
group. A significant three-way interaction term indicates that the parenting by
personality interaction is different for the clinical and the non-referred groups. That is,
it verifies whether the parenting by child personality interaction depends on or can be
generalized across the referred and the non-referred samples.
For testing and interpretation of interactions, we followed the guidelines by
Aiken and West (1991) and Cohen et al. (2003). To form an interaction term between
the continuous variables, the two centered predictors were multiplied. Centering the
predictor variables (i.e. putting predictors in a deviation score form, so that their
means are zero) is recommended to eliminate multicollinearity between predictor
variables. We used z-scores in the analyses, because with multiplicative terms, neither
traditional unstandardized nor standardized regression coefficients are appropriate to
report. However, when the crossproduct is based on z-scores (commonly known as
Friedrich’s procedure) it is appropriate to use the unstandardized solution with
interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991, p. 43-44). Interaction terms between the
categorical variable ‘group’ and the continuous parenting and child personality
variables were formed by multiplying the dummy-code variable group (non-referred
group = 0 and clinical group = 1) with the centered continuous variable.
We further applied the step-down procedure proposed by Aiken and West
(1991, p. 105) and dropped non-significant interactions when strong theoretical
grounds for expecting an interaction were lacking. Evidence for a significant
interaction is found when there is a significant increase in the multiple R² after
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 149 in Referred and Non-referred Children
entering the interaction term, as indicated by the incremental F test. When the three-
way interaction turned out to be not significant, it was dropped from the final model.
Results
Effects of group and gender
Table 1 shows means, standard deviations and results of GLM analyses of
variance. Significant main effects of group were present for each variable. Referred
children had significantly higher mean scores on both internalizing and externalizing
problem behavior compared to non-referred children. Referred children scored
significantly lower on the personality domains benevolence, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, extraversion and imagination than the children in the general
population sample. As regards the parenting variables, the mothers of the clinically
referred children reported significantly more negative control and less positive
parental behavior than the mothers of the non-referred children.
Significant gender effects were found for externalizing behavior, with higher
average scores for boys. Boys scored significantly lower than girls on the personality
domains benevolence and conscientiousness, whereas girls scored significantly lower
than boys on emotional stability. The effect sizes ranged from .01 to .17 for the effect
of group, and from .01 to .03 for the effect of gender.
Two significant interaction effects of group by gender were present. For
internalizing behavior children from the referred group had higher means than the
non-referred children, but this difference was greater for girls than for boys. A group
by gender effect was also found for the personality domain extraversion, with referred
children scoring significantly lower than non-referred children, but with a greater
difference for girls than for boys.
Personality as a predictor of child problem behavior
Main effects of personality. Table 2 reports, as part of the HMRA involving
either maternal negative control (top panel) or positive parenting (bottom panel), the
main effects on internalizing and externalizing problem behavior for each of the five
broad personality domains measured. The results across the two panels are entirely
consistent. Benevolence is significantly related to externalizing and to a lesser extent
to internalizing behavior, confirming previous research (John et al., 1994; Laursen et
al., 2002), indicating a negative relationship between this personality factor and
150 Chapter 4
problem behavior. A similar pattern emerges for conscientiousness. Children scoring
high on this personality factor tend to have far fewer externalizing problems and less
internalizing problems. Taking into account the prominent role of emotional stability
in the development of adult psychopathology, it is important to notice that also for
children and adolescents this personality factor significantly predicts internalizing
behavior and to a lesser extent externalizing behavior. Extraversion, as expected, is
significantly related to internalizing behavior but not to externalizing problem
behavior. Finally, smaller but significant effects of imagination on both internalizing
and externalizing behavior are reported in Table 2. From these analyses a clear and
consistent pattern for the relationship between personality and problem behavior
emerges. Benevolence and conscientiousness are negatively related to externalizing
behavior and to a lesser extent to internalizing behavior. Emotional stability and
extraversion are negatively related to internalizing behavior and emotional stability is
to some extent related to externalizing behavior. Finally, children scoring high on
imagination tend to present less internalizing and externalizing problems although this
effect is small compared to the effects of the four other broad-band personality
factors.
Consistency of personality effects across referred and non-referred groups.
The HMR analyses reported in Table 2 show several significant group by personality
interactions, indicating differences in the strength of the relationship between
personality and problem behavior for the clinical and non-referred group. Four of the
ten group by personality interactions reported in this table are significant in the top
panel (entering maternal control in the second step of the HMRA) as well as in the
bottom panel (reporting HMRA controlling for positive parenting in the second step).
In addition to these consistent group by personality interactions there is one small
(p<.05) group by benevolence interaction for internalizing when controlling for
positive parenting. Only one of the four consistent (across both panels) group by
personality interactions predicts externalizing behavior, showing that the relationship
between benevolence and externalizing depends on the group. The slopes in Figure 1
indicate that the relationship between benevolence and externalizing behavior is
stronger in the referred group, although the slopes are significant in both the non-
referred (t = -14.55, p < .001) and in the referred group of children (t = -15.3, p <
.001).
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 151 in Referred and Non-referred Children
Group by personality interactions were more prominent for predicting
internalizing behavior. Figure 2 shows that, as expected, internalizing behavior is
more frequent in the referred than in the non-referred group but that in addition to this
main effect, the personality-internalizing relationship is stronger in the referred group
for emotional stability (panel A) and extraversion (panel B). Both for emotional
stability and extraversion the slopes of the non-referred (ES: t = -13.56, p < .001; EX:
t = -7.13, p < .001) and referred group (ES: t = -13.88, p < .001; EX: t = -7.33, p <
.001) are significant. Somewhat surprising is the result reported in panel C, showing a
negative relationship between conscientiousness and internalizing for the non-referred
group (t = -4.75, p < .001) but not for the referred group (t = 0.75, p = .455). Given
that this is the first study testing the consistency of personality-internalizing behavior
relationships across referred and non-referred samples, it remains to be seen whether
this effect can be replicated. In general the relationship between personality and
problem behavior tends to be somewhat stronger in the referred than in the non-
referred group and in particular for internalizing behavior. At first sight it may seem
reasonable to find that the relationship between personality and problem behavior is
stronger in the referred or clinical group because referred children as a group show
higher levels of problem behavior. However this main effect does not imply that the
relationship between problem behavior and its predictors (i.e. personality) should also
be stronger in the referred group, because the strength of this relationship is not
affected by mean level differences between the referred and the non-referred group of
children.
Although in less than half the cases the relationship between personality and
problem behavior is different in the referred and the non-referred sample, it is
debatable to what extent this evidence challenges the spectrum hypothesis. Strictly
speaking the spectrum hypothesis postulates a continuum from normal to maladaptive
or abnormal personality and hence only mean level differences between clinical and
non-clinical samples are to be expected. This implies that the relationship between
adaptive (normal) personality and problem behavior (e.g. internalizing or
externalizing) is the same in clinical and non-clinical groups. Three of the four
documented interactions indicate a personality-problem behavior relationship that is
similar in form but differs in strength. Moreover for three out of the four cases the
slopes of the personality-problem behavior regression are significant in both referred
152 Chapter 4
and non-referred groups and hence similar relationships emerge that tend to be
somewhat stronger in the referred than in the non-referred group.
Parenting as a predictor of child problem behavior
Main effects of parenting. Negative control as a dimension of parenting is
strongly related to the degree of externalizing behavior and to a lesser extent to
internalizing. As is evident from the top panel of Table 2, negative control
consistently predicts higher levels of both types of problem behavior, irrespective of
the effects of the personality variables that are entered in the second step of the
HMRA.
The bottom panel of Table 2 shows that positive parenting significantly decreases
both internalizing and externalizing problems, except when benevolence is entered
together with positive parenting in the second step of the regression. Overall the
effects of parenting on problem behavior tend to be smaller than the effects of
personality variables reported in the previous section. Nevertheless the present results
confirm the substantial detrimental impact of negative control but in addition show
the beneficial effect of positive parenting on the degree of internalizing and
externalizing problems presented by children and adolescents.
Consistency of parenting effects across referred and non-referred groups. The
top panel of Table 2 illustrates that the strength of the relationship between negative
control and externalizing behavior depends on the group. As show in Figure 3 (panel
A), negative control is more detrimental for externalizing behavior in the referred
group (t = 7.99, p < .001) than in the non-referred group (t = 6.16, p < .001) although
both slopes are significant. That is restrictive parenting generally predicts
externalizing behavior of all children and adolescents but negative control is
especially harmful for referred children.
The bottom part of Table 2 reports significant interactions between the group
and positive parenting for both internalizing and externalizing problems. Figure 3,
panel B illustrates that positive parenting has no effect on externalizing for the
referred group (t = -0.01, p = .990) but is a protective factor for non-referred children
(t = -3.59, p < .000). Moreover a similar pattern emerges from Figure 4, illustrating
that positive parenting has a positive effect on internalizing problems in the non-
referred group (t = -2.92, p < .01) whereas it has virtually no effect in the referred
group (t = 1.27, p = .206). In general it can be concluded that the relationship between
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 153 in Referred and Non-referred Children
control or restrictive parenting and externalizing behavior is stronger in the referred
group than in the non-referred group and hence that this parenting style predicts
problem behavior for both referred and non-referred children and adolescents.
Positive parenting on the other hand predicts reduced problem behavior only for the
non-referred children and it decreases both internalizing and externalizing behavior.
However referred children do not seem to benefit from positive parenting.
Personality variables as moderators
Table 2 reports eight significant personality by parenting interactions. Four of
the five personality variables moderate the effects of parenting on either internalizing
or externalizing behavior. The parenting by personality interactions indicate that
benevolence, conscientiousness, emotional stability and imagination can be identified
as moderators of the effect of parenting on problem behavior.
In order to interpret the interaction effects, the signs of the regression
coefficients of the two independent predictor variables and the interaction variable
were inspected (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 285-286). This revealed two interaction
patterns: (a) buffering interactions, in which the two predictors have regression
coefficients of the opposite sign, meaning that one predictor weakens the effect of the
other, (b) interference or antagonistic interactions in which both the regression
coefficients have the same sign and the interaction coefficient is of the opposite sign,
indicating an either-or effect of the predictor variables on the criterion. The buffering
interactions were found for the interactions with parental negative control, the
interference/antagonistic interactions were found for the interactions with positive
parenting. Significant interactions were interpreted by plotting simple regression lines
for high (1 SD above the mean), mean and low (1 SD below the mean) values of the
moderator variables. The significance of the slopes for these simple regression lines
slopes was tested with t-tests.
Negative control showed a significant interaction with benevolence and
conscientiousness in predicting both externalizing and internalizing behavior. Figure 5
shows two examples of these interactions. Panel A represents the benevolence by
negative control interaction predicting externalizing behavior with significant slopes
for low (t = 6.17, p < .001) and mean (t = 5.08, p < .001) scores on benevolence and
non- significant slope for high (t = 0.98, p = .328) scores on benevolence. The
conscientiousness by negative control interaction predicting externalizing behavior
154 Chapter 4
has significant slopes for low (t = 6.25, p < .001), mean (t = 6.16, p < .001) and high (t
= 2.92, p < .01) scores on conscientiousness. Panel B graphs the conscientiousness by
negative control interaction predicting internalizing behavior, with significant slopes
for low (t = 3.21, p < .001) and mean (t = 2.76, p < .01) scores on conscientiousness
but not for high (t = 0.85, p = .396) scores on conscientiousness. The interaction effect
of negative control by benevolence predicting internalizing behavior is of the same
kind, with significant slopes for low (t = 4.40, p < .001) and mean (t = 3.28, p < .001)
scores on benevolence but not for high (t = 0.01, p = .988) scores on benevolence.
Positive parenting showed a significant interaction with benevolence,
conscientiousness and imagination in the prediction of externalizing behavior, and a
significant interaction with emotional stability in the prediction of internalizing
behavior. Figure 6 graphs two examples of personality moderating the effects of
positive parenting. Panel A shows the significant imagination by positive parenting
interaction, predicting externalizing behavior, with significant slopes for children
rated low (t = -3.89, p < .001) or around the mean (t = -3.59, p < .001) on imagination,
but not for children rated high (t = -1.63, p = .103) on imagination. Panel B shows the
emotional stability by positive parenting interaction, predicting internalizing behavior,
with significant slopes for low (t = -3.54, p < .001) and mean (t = -3.73, p < .001)
emotional stability, but not for high scores on this domain (t = -1.88, p = .060). In the
interaction with positive parenting predicting externalizing behavior, only the slope
for low (t = -2.79, p < .01) scores on benevolence is significant, not the slopes for
mean (t = -1.33, p = .183) and high (t = 1.05, p = .292) scores. For the positive
parenting interactions with conscientiousness, the slopes for low (t = -3.00, p < .01)
and mean (t = -2.10, p < .05) scores are significant, not for high (t = -0.19, p = .847)
scores.
From the results it can be concluded that parenting by personality interactions
are more frequently predicting externalizing (five) than internalizing behavior (three).
Benevolence is a prominent moderator variable, although it should be noted that only
children rated low or around the mean are at risk for problem behavior, when also
exposed to inadequate parenting. Conscientiousness is also an important moderator of
the effects of both dimensions of parenting on externalizing behavior. Children with
high ratings on benevolence, conscientiousness and imagination are protected against
inadequate forms of parenting.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 155 in Referred and Non-referred Children
Differences in parenting by personality interactions for referred and non-referred
children
Significant 3-way interactions indicate different parenting by personality
interactions for clinically referred and non-referred samples of children. Although we
have no reasons to expect different patterns for the referred and non-referred samples,
three significant 3-way interactions on a total of twenty tested were found. First, the
imagination by negative control interaction predicting externalizing behavior is not
significant for the non-referred group, but only affects externalizing behavior in the
referred group of children. Referred children scoring low on imagination are more at
risk for externalizing behavior when they are also exposed to high levels of negative
maternal control (t = 7.27, p < .001), whereas referred children scoring high on
imagination are protected against externalizing behavior, even when their mothers
show high levels of negative control (t = 2.81, p < .01). A significant
conscientiousness by negative control interaction predicting internalizing behavior is
only found in the non-referred group, with significant slopes for low (t = 4.40, p <
.001) and mean (t = 3.28, p < .001) levels, and not for high levels of conscientiousness
(t = 0.01, p = .988). A significant emotional stability by positive parenting interaction
predicting internalizing behavior was only found in the non-referred sample of
children. Non-referred children scoring low (t = -4.66, p < .001) or around the mean (t
= -4.55, p < .001) on emotional stability are at risk for internalizing behavior when
they are deprived from positive parenting. The slope for non-referred children scoring
high on emotional stability is not significant (t = -1.02, p = .309).
The finding that only three out of twenty possible three-way interactions are
significant, suggests that in general, there are few differences between referred and
non-referred groups of children in the way personality and parenting interact.
Moreover the three cases show inconsistent interaction patterns, one showing a
personality by parenting interaction for the referred group and the two others a
significant interaction for the non-referred group.
General discussion
The present study examined child personality by parenting interactions in both
a general population sample and a sample with clinically referred children.
Administering the same instruments in both samples enabled us to explore to what
156 Chapter 4
extent (a) the relationships between personality and problem behavior depend on the
group, (b) the parenting-problem behavior relationships differ for referred and non-
referred children, (c) personality moderates effects of parenting on externalizing and
internalizing behavior, and (d) the personality-parenting interaction can be
generalized across both samples. The results of these analyses are discussed in light of
the continuity or spectrum model which postulates that differences between normal
and abnormal or clinical samples are restricted to quantitative or mean level
differences on the relevant domains of functioning (Costa & Widiger, 2002; Widiger
& Clark, 2000).
Personality as a predictor of child problem behavior
In the present study, personality was measured with an instrument assessing
the five factor domains and comprising items that describe the normal range of
personality characteristics and behaviors (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999, 2001).
Morey (1997) has suggested that personality traits describing the normal variation in
personality can represent both clinical and normal subjects, whereas measures of
abnormal traits can only adequately describe clinical subjects. In contrast, evidence
was found for structural invariance of measures of psychopathology and normal
personality in referred (O’Connor, 2002) and non-referred (De Clercq & De Fruyt,
2003; O’Connor, 2002) groups of respondents, pointing towards a common
dimensionality and structure for clinical and non-clinical samples. However, the
equivalence of the dimensional structure of measures addresses only one important
facet in the comparative study of normal and abnormal functioning. It is equally
important to statistically compare the effects of predictors (independent variables) on
problem behavior (dependent variables) across referred and non-referred samples. The
present study confirms large mean level differences between the referred and non-
referred group on problem behavior and personality, indicating that the referred
children obtain higher scores on problem behavior and lower scores on the Big Five
personality dimensions as measured by the HiPIC.
Besides mean level differences between the referred and the non-referred
sample, the present study demonstrated that personality is a strong predictor of child
problem behavior, with differential effects of the five domains for internalizing and
externalizing behavior. In general, personality predicted problem behavior in both the
referred and non-referred groups of children but the relationship between personality
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 157 in Referred and Non-referred Children
and problem behavior tended to be somewhat stronger in the referred than in the non-
referred group, particularly for internalizing behavior. Hence, it can be concluded that
the five-factor personality model is a useful model to study antecedents of problem
behavior in both referred and non-referred samples, showing continuity of effects
across non-referred and referred children.
Although strictly speaking the relationship between personality and problem
behavior differs, the difference pertains to the strength of the relationship and not to
the kind of relationship. If one postulates a weaker version of the spectrum hypothesis
allowing for mean differences and differences in strength but not for qualitative
differences in the relationship between personality and problem behavior, then this
weaker form of the spectrum hypothesis is strongly supported. It is clear that the
majority of personality-problem behavior relationships do not depend on the group
and that for three out of the four significant interaction effects the relationship is
similar in form but slightly stronger in the referred group. Hence the difference
between referred and non-referred groups is quantitative rather then qualitative. If one
wants to build a model for personality-problem behavior relationships for referred and
non-referred groups, the model would include the same variables, the path coefficients
would indicate the same direction but some of the path coefficients would turn out to
be slightly higher for referred than for the non-referred groups. Although strictly
speaking this is a deviation from the spectrum hypothesis, it is a minor deviation that
is a far cry from the often claimed qualitative differences between referred and non-
referred groups.
Parenting as a predictor of child problem behavior
Mean level analyses showed higher maternal negative control and lower
positive parental behavior in the referred group of children. Negative control was
identified as a strong predictor of externalizing behavior, confirming the results of
previous studies (Barber, 1996; Barber et al., 1994; Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997;
Stormshak et al., 2000; Weiss et al., 1992) and documenting the negative relationship
of restrictive parenting or negative control with problem behavior. The problem
behavior enhancing effect of negative control, was found in both the referred and non-
referred group of children, but the effect was somewhat stronger in the referred group.
A different result emerged, however, for the positive parenting dimension. A lack of
positive parenting predicted both externalizing and internalizing behavior, but only for
158 Chapter 4
children in the non-referred group. This is in contrast with Galambos et al. (2003),
who did not found evidence for parental support as a significant predictor of
externalizing nor of internalizing behavior.
In the discussion of the relationship between personality and problem behavior
it was emphasized that the form of relationships was similar for the referred and non-
referred groups but the associations tended to differ in strength. This pattern is
confirmed for the negative control parenting-problem behavior relationship but not for
the relationship between positive parenting and problem behavior. Positive parenting
predicts less problem behavior in the non-referred group but not in the referred group.
Because both types of parenting have a different relationship with problem behavior,
these analyses confirm post hoc the discriminant validity of the parenting dimensions.
Moreover the lack of continuity of effects of positive parenting across referred and
non-referred groups is a challenge for the spectrum hypothesis. A model for parenting
effects on non-referred children should include significant paths from negative control
and positive parenting to problem behavior. A model for effects of parenting in
referred or clinical children and adolescents could do without a path from positive
parenting to problem behavior.
Personality as a moderator in the relationship between parenting and problem
behavior
The results of this study support the differential susceptibility hypothesis of
Belsky (1997), which assumes that children scoring differently on specific personality
domains also vary in their sensitivity to parental influences. In particular, children
rated high on conscientiousness and benevolence are protected against the detrimental
effects of high maternal negative control and low positive behavior. Being rated low
or around the mean on benevolence or conscientiousness is consistently associated
with more problem behavior, when also exposed to inadequate parenting. These
findings corroborate the results of Prinzie et al. (2003) and O’Connor and Dvorak
(2001).
In a strict sense, the design of the present study does not allow to draw
conclusions about recurrent reciprocal interchanges over time between child and parent,
i.e. as specified by the transactional effects model explaining child development (Lytton,
1990). Our measures do not assess child behavior at time 1, eliciting a certain parental
response, which influences the child at time 2, and so on. These transactional interaction
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 159 in Referred and Non-referred Children
sequence is suggested in Patterson’s coercion theory (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid &
Dishion, 1992), which assumes that a child learns by negative reinforcement that his or
her aversive behavior is an effective strategy for controlling the behavior of others and
to escape from undesirable situations. This theory tends to focus on the parental response
to the child (Stoolmiller, 2001), and in particular on the fact that some parents are not
able to manage their child’s behavior. By including child individual characteristics in the
present study and investigating the statistical interaction between parenting and child
personality, we have shown that the effects of parental behavior on child problem
behavior depend on certain child characteristics or vice versa. Low benevolence and low
conscientiousness in particular, are related to child unmanageability, a concept which is
highly relevant to coercion theory (Stoolmiller, 2001). Therefore it can be hypothesized
that children rated low on benevolence and conscientiousness evoke increasing levels of
negative control from their mothers, which enhance in return the risk for developing
problem behavior.
Continuity of moderator processes across referred and non-referred samples of
children
The validity of the continuity or spectrum model was also tested by assessing
whether the interaction effects of child personality and parenting were sample
dependent. In line with the spectrum hypothesis we did not expect differences in
moderator effects across referred and non-referred samples of children. The results
showed some minor (three out of twenty) three-way interactions, indicating different
interactions for the referred and non-referred children. The significance of these third-
order interactions was due to the existence of a significant personality by parenting
interaction in one group, and a non-significant interaction in the other group. However
the three significant interactions explained only a minor part of the variance and the
pattern was not consistent across groups or personality dimensions. One analysis
showed a significant imagination by negative control interaction for the referred group
but not for the non-referred group whereas the conscientiousness by negative control
interaction was significant in the non-referred group but not in the referred group.
Hence before rejecting the spectrum hypothesis regarding personality by parenting
interactions, a replication of these findings in an independent sample is needed to
establish the robustness of these small and inconsistent effects. In sum we can
conclude that the personality by parenting effects are largely replicable in both the
160 Chapter 4
referred and non-referred group of children and thus corroborate the spectrum
hypothesis assuming that similar processes regulate problem behavior in both groups.
Internalizing versus externalizing behavior
The present study reveals some differential relationships between personality
and parenting on the one hand and internalizing and externalizing behavior on the
other hand. It was shown that benevolence and conscientiousness are negatively
related to externalizing problem behavior, whereas internalizing behavior was mainly
predicted by low emotional stability and low extraversion. These results are
compatible with the pattern emerging from studies adopting a person-centered
approach (De Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen, 2002; Van Leeuwen, De Fruyt &
Mervielde, in press). These studies demonstrate that resilient children (scoring above
average on all personality domains) display the least amount of internalizing and
externalizing behavior. Undercontrolled children (scoring low on
benevolence/agreeableness and conscientiousness) tend to show externalizing
problems whereas overcontrollers (scoring low an emotional stability and
extraversion) mainly show internalizing problem behavior. In addition to these classic
personality-problem behavior relationships, the present study also provides evidence
for a significant but weaker negative relationship between imagination and both
internalizing and externalizing.
The relationships between the two parenting dimensions and child problem
behavior also reveal a differential pattern. Negative maternal control is a significant
predictor of externalizing behavior, with high levels of negative control predicting
high levels of externalizing behavior. Negative control also predicts internalizing
behavior, but the regression coefficients are smaller, indicating smaller effects.
Positive parental behavior on the other hand predicts both internalizing and
externalizing behavior but to a lesser extent than maternal negative control. Overall,
negative maternal control is the better predictor of externalizing behavior whereas
positive parenting is a weaker predictor of both internalizing and externalizing
behavior.
Limitations of this Study and Future Research
Because this study is the first to assess the consistency of moderator effects of
parenting and personality across a referred and a non-referred sample, replication of
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 161 in Referred and Non-referred Children
this study in independent samples is needed in order to examine the robustness of the
effects. Moreover, the inclusion of longitudinal data would provide the opportunity to
compare effects over time, and hence permit stronger conclusions regarding the
direction of the effects and the causal status of the antecedents of child
psychopathology.
The results are based on measures that are completed by the same informant
(the mother) and as such this poses the problem of confounded method-variance.
Relying on a single reporter can exaggerate the true relations between parenting and
child adjustment (Galambos et al., 2003), and therefore it is worthwhile to obtain
ratings from more than one informant. Future research should address this issue by
collecting data from fathers in referred samples and or by aggregating scores over
parents.
The finding that stable child personality characteristics predict child problem
behavior should not be associated with the pessimistic or deterministic view that
problematic behavior is stable and difficult to change, but rather as evidence for a
more realistic perspective (Lytton, 1990). The present study supports the viewpoint
that parents often receive too much blame for the behavioral difficulties of their
children (Anderson, Lytton & Romney, 1986) or take too much credit for the lack of
problem behavior because they ignore the fact that effects of parenting interact with
child characteristics. For example Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin and Dane (2003)
suggest that children scoring high on callous-unemotional traits are less susceptible to
parental training than children low on these traits. Likewise, therapists and counselors
who steer clear of blaming parents for their children’s behavioral outcomes, may
uncover that parents become more eager partners for implementing effective
interventions (Rowe, 1990). On the other hand, environmental changes may reduce
the likelihood that predispositions become more manifest (Raine & Dunkin, 1990).
Given a mismatch between child characteristics and parental behavior, parents can be
instructed to use more effective parenting strategies to prevent the development of
problem behavior (Colder et al., 1997). Taking account of the child’s personality can
guide the development of more effective custom-made treatment programs. Center
and Kemp (2003, p. 83) note that: “Differentiating between parents of children with
typical and difficult personality profiles could possibly enhance the effectiveness of
Implications for Clinical Practice
162 Chapter 4
the approach. Parents of children with a difficult child profile probably require both
education about their child’s predispositions as well as more extensive training in
child management techniques.” Screening of child personality and parenting may
indeed be necessary to point out the ‘poorness of fit’ in parent-child interactions
(Ostergren, 1997) and to develop tailor-made and hence more realistic and effective
training programs (Kalb & Loeber, 2003; Sheeber & Johnson, 1994; Teerikangas,
Aronen, Martin & Huttonen ,1998).
Finally, the fact that the present study generally supports the spectrum
hypothesis, contending continuity for the personality-parenting-problem behavior
relationships across referred and non-referred samples, obviates the need to invest
resources in the development of sample specific models for understanding and
treatment of children’s internalizing or externalizing behavior.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 163 in Referred and Non-referred Children
References
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple
regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141-1158.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers’ interactions
with normal and conduct-disordered boys: who affects whom? Developmental
Psychology, 22, 604-609.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected
construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E. & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between
parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized
behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.
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
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 34, 982-995.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influence: an
evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 230-235.
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant
negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3
years: differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 301-319.
Blackson, T. C., Tarter, R. E., & Mezzich, A. C. (1996). Interaction between
childhood temperament and parental discipline practices on behavioral adjustment in
preadolescent sons of substance abuse and normal fathers. American Journal of Drug
and Alcohol Abuse, 22, 335-348.
Brestan, E. V., Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial treatments of
conduct-disordered children and adolescents: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5.272 kids.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 180-189.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521-530.
164 Chapter 4
Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen
latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative relations of
parenting and temperament to prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 266-290.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,
Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311-388). New York:
Wiley.
Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995).
Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: from age three to
age fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55-68.
Center, D., & Kemp, D. (2003). Temperament and personality as potential
factors in the development and treatment of conduct disorder. Education and
treatment of children, 26, 75-88.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3th ed.). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coker, L. A., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Maladaptive personality
functioning within the big five and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 16, 385-401.
Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects
of children’s fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and
childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251-263.
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, 218-232.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds) (2002). Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association, 493 pp.
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems
and discipline revisited: nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and
gender. Psychology Inquiry, 8, 161-175.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 165 in Referred and Non-referred Children
De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). Personality disorder symptoms in
adolescence: A Five-Factor Model perspective. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17,
269-292.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of
personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European
Journal of Personality, 16, S57-S72.
Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and
ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (red.), Developmental
Psychopathology. Vol. 1 Theory and Methods (pp. 421-471). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional
emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136-157.
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament,
personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 27-49.
Forehand, R., Miller, K. S., Dutra, R., & Chance, M. W. (1997). Role of
parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: replication across and within two ethnic
groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1036-1041.
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003).
Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem
severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 31, 457-470.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter:
trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early
adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594.
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence of
parenting on adjustment? Developmental Review, 22, 623-643.
Garber, J., Robinson, N. S., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relation between
parenting and adolescent depression : self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 12, 12-33.
Gruner, K., Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). The relationship between
anxious rearing behaviours and anxiety disorders symptomatology in normal children.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 27-35.
166 Chapter 4
Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages
6 to 12: family background, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1044-1052.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Process, mechanism, and explanation related to
externalizing behavior in developmental psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 30, 431-446.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, 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, 160-178.
Kalb, L. M., & Loeber, R. (2003). Child disobedience and non-compliance: a
review. Pediatrics, 111, 641-652.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998).
Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big
Five? Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva,
P. A. (1994). Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.
Laursen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The antecedents and
correlates of agreeableness in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 591-603.
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, 232-244.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: a
review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris
(Eds.) Crime and Justice: A review of research (Vol.7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: a
reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-697.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. IV. Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101).
New York: Wiley.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 167 in Referred and Non-referred Children
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
Mervielde, I., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2000). Variable-centered and person-
centered approaches to childhood personality. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in
Personality Psychology. Volume 1 (pp. 37-76). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf
(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. (pp. 107-127). Tilburg University Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.),
Big Five Assessment (pp. 129-146). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Millikan, E., Wamboldt, M. Z., & Bihun, J. T. (2002). Perceptions of the family,
personality characteristics, and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1486-1494.
Morey, L. C. (1997). Personality diagnosis and personality disorders. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 919-
946). San Diego: Academic Press.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avennevoli, S., & Essex,
M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting
predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461-471.
Muris, P., Schmidt, H., Lambrichs, R., & Meesters, C. (2001). Protective and
vulnerability factors of depression in normal adolescents. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 39, 555-565.
O’Connor, B. (2002). The search for dimensional structure differences
between normality and abnormality: A statistical review of published data on
personality and psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
962-982.
O’Connor, B. P., & Dvorak, T. (2001). Conditional associations between
parental behavior and adolescent problems: a search for personality-environment
interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 1-26.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive
behavior in adolescent boys: a causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660.
Ostergren, C. S. (1997). Differential utility of temperament-based guidance
materials for parents of infants. Family Relations, 46, 63-71.
168 Chapter 4
Paterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999).The association of behavioural adjustment to
temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year old children. Social
Development, 8, 293-309.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family
management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial Boys. A social
interactional approach. Volume 4. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Company.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquière, P., &
Colpin, H. (2003). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and children’s
personality on externalising behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 17, 95-117.
Raine, A., & Dunkin, J. J. (1990). The genetic and psychophysiological basis
of antisocial behavior : implications for counseling and therapy. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 68, 637-644.
Richter, J. (1994). Parental rearing and aspects of psychopathology with
special reference to depression. In C. Perris, W.A. Arrindell a M. Eisemann (Eds.),
Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 235-251). Chisester: John Wiley & Sons.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing
behavior in nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74.
Rowe, D. C. (1990). As the twig is bent? The myth of child-rearing influences
on personality development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 606-611.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003).
Predicting preschoolers’ externalising behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict
and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39, 164-176.
Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M., & Hägglöf, B. (1999). Coping styles in
delinquent adolescents and controls: the role of personality and parental rearing.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 705-717.
Rutter, M., Dunn, J., Plomin, R., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Maughan, B.,
Ormel, J., Meyer, J., & Eaves, L. (1997). Integrating nature and nurture: implications
of person-environment correlations and interactions for developmental
psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 335-364.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297-312.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior 169 in Referred and Non-referred Children
Sheeber, L. B., & Johnson, J. H. (1994). Evaluation of a temperament-focused,
parent-training program. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 249-259.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle
childhood?: A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308-332.
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and
adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2-32.
Siqueland, L., Kendall, P. C., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Anxiety in children:
perceived family environments and observed family interaction. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 25, 225-237.
Stoolmiller, M. (2001). Synergistic interaction of child manageability
problems and parent-discipline tactics in predicting future growth in externalizing
behavior in boys. Developmental Psychology, 37, 814-825.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R., Lengua, L. J., & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
29, 17-29.
Teerikangas, O. M., Aronen, E. T., Martin, R. P., & Huttonen, M. O. (1998).
Effects of infant temperament and early intervention on the psychiatric symptoms of
adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
37, 1070-1076.
Tshann, J. M., Kaiser, P., Chesney, M. A., Alkon, A., & Boyce, T. W. (1996).
Resilience and vulnerability among preschool children: family functioning,
temperament, and behavior problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 184-192.
Van Leeuwen, K. (2000). Deficits in parenting skills as an indicator of
behavior problems with children and youth. Development of a screening instrument
for the Flemish community. Ghent University, Department of Psychology.
Van Leeuwen, K., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (in press). A longitudinal
study of the utility of the resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality
types as predictors of children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior. International
Journal of Behavioral Development.
170 Chapter 4
Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. A. (in press). The Ghent Parental
Behavior Scale: some psychometric properties. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual of the CBCL/4-18.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling
Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Wakschlag, L. S., & Hans, S. L. (1999). Relation of maternal responsiveness
during infancy to the development of behavior problems in high-risk youths.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 569-579.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some
consequences of early harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social
information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321-1335.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification
of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946-963.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997).
Ineffective parenting and childhood conduct problems: the moderating role of callous-
unemotional traits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 301-308.
Table 1
Category means and results of GLM with group and gender Non-referred Referred Group Gender Group X Gender Bo ys Girls Boys Girls M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N F η² F η² F η² Externalizing 9.01
(7.65) 275 6.43 (6.05) 320 16.99
(11.24) 118 12.51 (10.67) 87 112.68 a 0.12 28.50 a 0.03 2.06 0.00
Internalizing
87
118
0.00
319
0.15
8.09(6.84) 275 7.03
(5.90) 320 12.87 (8.62) 118 16.23
(9.51) 87 143.99 a 0.15 3.88 c 0.00 14.40 a 0.02
Benevolence -0.75(2.71) 268 0.14
(2.42) 314 -3.55 (3.00) 118 -2.60
(3.18) 87 156.33 a 0.17 17.39 a 0.02 0.02 0.00
Conscientiousness 12.45(2.63) 268 13.37
(2.65) 314 10.77 (2.61) 118 12.13
(2.71) 87 45.35 a 0.05 27.65 a 0.03 1.04 0.00
Emotional stability 0.58 (1.35) 268 0.40
(1.28) 314 -0.63 (1.30) 118 -1.14
(1.49) 160.24 a 0.17 9.94 b 0.01 2.22 0.00
Extraversion 8.15(2.20) 268 8.33
(2.13) 314 7.23 (2.19)
6.59 (2.66) 87 53.49 a 0.06 1.58 0.00 5.01 c 0.01
Imagination 11.10(1.68) 268 11.00
(1.80) 2.02
314 10.19 (1.86) 118 10.60
(1.91) 87 20.21 a 0.03 1.21 3.01 0.00
Negative control 2.10 (0.52) 274 (0.53)
2.20 (0.42) 118 2.12
(0.47) 87 6.02 c 0.01 3.40 0.00 0.01 0.00
Positive parenting 4.26 (0.40) 276 4.26
(0.38) 320 4.03 (0.48) 118 4.01
(0.45) 87 50.98 a 0.06 0.26 0.00 0.00
172 Chapter 4
Table 2
Moderators of Problem Behavior
Child Externalizing behavior Child Internalizing behavior ∆F B ∆F B Panel 1:Maternal Negative control Sex, Age 22.96 a -.14 b, .00 2.57 .09, .01 Group, BE, CON 271.21 a .13 c, -.52 a, .14 a 57.07 a .79 a, -.22 a, .09 c BE x CON, GR x BE, GR x CON 19.70 a -.11 a, -.20 a, .11 3.21 c -.08 c, .15, -.11 BE x CON x GR 0.01 1.60 Sex, Age 22.96 a -.20 a, -.02 2.57 .07, .01 Group, CO, CON 113.95 a .53 a, -.28 a, .20 a 53.20 a .90 a, -.19 a, .11 b CO x CON, GR x CO, GR x CON 13.30 a -.08 b, -.03, .34 a 4.58CO x CON x GR 1.24 6.67
a, .00 2.57
b -.11 b, .23 b, .04 b .20 b
Sex, Age 22.96 a -.33 -.08, .03 Group, ES, CON 77.72 a .58 a, -.10 c, .23 a 185.95 a .23 b, -.48 a, .10 b ES x CON, GR x ES, GR x CON 12.45
0.09 a .00, -.04, .47 a 8.89 b -.04, -.30 a, .10
ES x CON x GR 0.33 Sex, Age 22.96 a -.30 a, .00 2.57 .01, .00 Group, EX, CON 90.84
2.57
77.42 a .75 a, .05, .23 a a .63 a, -.28 a, .14 a EX x CON, GR x EX, GR x CON 11.03 a -.01, .06, .42 a 2.10 -.02, -.17 c, .01 EX x CON x GR 3.79 0.26 Sex, Age 22.96 a -.31 a, -.01 .03, .00 Group, IM, CON 55.18
1.42 6.93
78.68 a .64 a, -.09 c, .23 a a .81 a, -.14 a, .10 b IM x CON, GR x IM, GR x CON 11.87 a -.02, .07, .39 a IM x CON x GR b -.19 b 1.98 Panel 2: Maternal Positive parenting Sex, Age 22.82 a -.16 b, .00 2.74 .07, .01 Group, BE, POS 246.01 a .13, -.58
2.74
a, -.04 55.67 a .79 a, -.24 a, -.09 BE x POS, GR x BE, GR x POS 11.32 a .08 b, -.23 a, .11 2.52 .04, .16 c, .16 c BE x POS x GR 0.30 0.00 Sex, Age 22.82 a -.23 a, -.03 .06, .00 Group, CO, POS 80.25 a .56 a, -.32 a, -.08 c
4.90 0.22
50.66 a .89 a, -.20 a, -.09 c CO x POS, GR x CO, GR x POS 3.38 c .07 c, -.11, .09 b .06, .25 b, .14 CO x POS x GR 0.03 Sex, Age 22.82 a -.37 a, -.01 2.74 -.10, .02 Group, ES, POS 41.99 a .70 a, -.11 b, -.15 a
181.08 a .25 b, -.51 a, -.15 a ES x POS, GR x ES, GR x POS 1.54 9.26 a .11 b, -.27 a, .16 c ES x POS x GR 0.00 4.82 c -.14 c Sex, Age 22.82 a -.35 a, -.01 2.74 .00, -.01 Group, EX, POS 42.77 a .85 a, .07, -.17 a 84.25 a .66 a, -.28 a, -.12 b EX x POS, GR x EX, GR x POS 2.31 .03, .11, .16 c 4.56 b .06, -.15 c, .19 b EX x POS x GR 0.84 0.05 Sex, Age 22.82 a -.34 a, -.02 2.74 .02, -.01 Group, IM, POS 43.89 a .71 a, -.10 b, -.15 a 52.04 a .85 a, -.18 a, -.11 b IM x POS, GR x IM, GR x POS 2.70 c .07 c, -.03, .15 c 3.34 c .06, .14, .16 c IM x POS x GR 0.90 1.44 Note. BE = Benevolence; CO = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability, EX = Extraversion; IM =
Imagination; POS = Positive parenting; CON = Negative control; a p ≤ .001 ; b p ≤ .01 ; c p ≤ .05
Via a step-down procedure non-significant interactions were dropped, and therefore only steps with
significant coefficients are reported.
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior in Referred and Non-referred Children
173
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Benevolence
Exte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Figure 1
Interaction between Benevolence and Group predicting Externalizing behavior
Note: Figures 1 and 2 can be considered as representative figures for all significant personality by
group interactions, with different parenting variables included in the HMRA model. The graphing of
the interactions in Figure 1 and Figure 2, Panel B are based on HMRA models with Negative control
included; the graphing of the interactions of Figure 2, Panel A and Panel C are based on HMRA
models with Positive parenting included. Figures 1 and 4 can be considered as representative figures
for all significant parenting by group interactions, with different personality variables included in the
HMRA model. In figure 3, Panel A is based on a HMRA with Conscientiousness included, and Panel B
is based on a HMRA with Imagination included. Figure 4 is based on a HMRA model with
extraversion included.
174 Chapter 4
Panel A: Emotional Stability by Group
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Emotional stability
Inte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Panel B: Extraversion by Group
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Extraversion
Inte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Panel C: Conscientiousness by Group
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Conscientiousness
Inte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Figure 2
Interactions between Personality and Group predicting Internalizing behavior
Panel A: Extraversion; Panel B: Emotional Stability; Panel C: Conscientiousness
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior in Referred and Non-referred Children
175
A: Negative control by Group
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Negative control
Exte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
B: Positive parenting by Group
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Positive parenting
Exte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Figure 3
Interactions between Parenting and Group predicting Externalizing behavior
Panel A: Negative control
Panel B: Positive parenting
176 Chapter 4
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
SD 1- mean SD 1+
Positive parenting
Inte
rnal
izin
g
referrednon-referred
Figure 4
Interactions between Positive parenting and Group predicting Internalizing behavior
Child personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior in Referred and Non-referred Children
177
A: Benevolence (BE) x Negative control predicting Externalizing behavior
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Negative control
Exte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- BEMean BE1SD+ BE
B: Conscientiousness (CO) x Negative control predicting Internalizing behavior
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Negative control
Inte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- COMean CO1SD+ CO
Figure 5
Negative control by personality interactions
Panel A: with Benevolence predicting Externalizing behavior
Panel B: with Conscientiousness predicting Internalizing behavior
178 Chapter 4
A: Imagination (IM) x Positive parenting predicting Externalizing behavior
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Positive parenting
Inte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- ESMean ES1SD+ ES
B: Emotional Stability (ES) x Positive parenting predicting Internalizing behavior
0,00
0,50
1,00
1SD- Mean 1SD+
Positive parenting
Exte
rnal
izin
g
1SD- IMMean IM1SD+ IM
Figure 6
Positive parenting by personality interactions
Panel A: with Imagination predicting Externalizing behavior
Panel B: with Emotional stability predicting Internalizing behavior
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 179
CHAPTER 5
PARENT PERSONALITY, CHILD PERSONALITY AND
PARENTING AS PREDICTORS OF CHILD
INTERNALIZING AND EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR
Abstract
The present study investigates the concurrent effects of parenting, child personality
and parent personality on child internalizing and externalizing behavior. Two
alternative models are tested by means of path analyses. The first model conceives
child and parent personality as antecedents of parenting, which in turn influences
child internalizing or externalizing behavior. In the second model the relationship is
reversed, postulating a link from parenting and parent personality to child personality,
which in turn, affects problem behavior. None of the parent personality domains
directly influenced child externalizing behavior. However, neuroticism in both
parents, and openness to experience in mothers were associated with higher levels of
child internalizing behavior. Parent personality moderately affected parental behavior.
The results showed indirect effects of negative control on child problem behavior. The
results showed evidence for both models and bi-directional influences of parenting
and personality.
180 Chapter 5
Introduction
Current research trying to explain child (mal)adaptive behavior assumes that
neither the family environment, nor the child, nor the broader social context can be
considered as the single significant determinant of child outcome. This idea is well
represented by contextual or ecological models, emphasizing that a complex network
of interconnected variables is responsible for child adjustment (Belsky, 1984;
Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995; Lerner, Rothbaum, Boulos
& Castellino, 1997; Sameroff, 2000). Although parent personality is usually
recognized as one of the nodes in the network determining child (mal)adaptive
outcome, studies assessing the combined effects of parent personality, child
personality and parenting are rare (Belsky & Barends, 2002). In a heuristic model
graphing the determinants of parenting and child developmental outcomes, Belsky
(1984) suggests that parents’ personality indirectly influences their children’s
development, through their parental behavior. In other words, parenting reflects
parents’ personality, and hence parenting intervenes as a mediator in the relationship
between parent personality and child behavior. According to Belsky, parent
personality can be considered as the most important determinant of parenting, next to
contextual sources of stress and support, and the child’s individual characteristics. The
model also posits a direct influence of child individual characteristics on child
developmental outcomes, but it does not include a direct influence of parent
personality on child personality or child outcome behavior. However, from empirical
evidence examining the relationship between parent personality and child personality
and between parent personality and child outcome behavior, it can be hypothesized
that parent personality also could have a unique effect on children’s personality and
outcome behavior. It can also be questioned whether the postulated relationship
between child individual characteristics and parenting can be reversed, with parenting
influencing child personality, instead of child personality affecting parenting.
The goal of the present study is to investigate the relationships between parent
personality, child personality, parenting and child problem behavior in two alternative
models that take into account the previous remarks. The hypothesized paths are based
on empirical findings, some of which are briefly reviewed below. Although the design
of the current study does not permit to disentangle genetic and environmental effects,
we will consider conclusions from behavioral genetic studies when discussing the
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 181
relationships between parent personality, child personality, parenting and child
problem behavior. In the past, social scientists and behavioral geneticists have offered
distinct views on the relative contribution of genes, the shared and the non-shared
environment. According to the behavioral geneticists, social scientists overestimate
the effects of the environment by regarding environmental influence as independent of
genetic effects (Rowe, 1997). Social scientists, on the other hand, criticize the method
of analysis used in behavioral genetic studies, pointing out that they overestimate the
effects of genes (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington & Bornstein, 2000).
Child individual characteristics and parenting as predictors of child problem
behavior
Several studies have documented the impact of individual child characteristics
and parenting on child problem behavior. Most of these studies searched for
independent or main effects of these variables, others looked at additive or cumulative
effects and a third type of study investigated parenting or child characteristics as an
intervening variable, i.e. as a moderator or a mediator (Putnam, Sanson & Rothbart,
2002).
Studies investigating child main effects assume that a child’s individuality is
responsible for the child’s outcome. Externalizing problems have been linked to the
temperamental disposition ‘lack of control’ and to the personality domains
agreeableness and conscientiousness (Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt & Silva, 1995;
Eisenberg, Miller, Dutra & Chance, 2000; Krueger, Schmutte, Caspi, Moffitt,
Campbell & Silva, 1994). Internalizing problems were associated with flat affect,
passivity and behavioral inhibition (Caspi et al., 1995; Eisenberg et al., 2000) and
with the personality domains agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism (Finch &
Graziano, 2001; Millikan, Wamboldt & Bihun, 2002). Other studies have shown a
link between externalizing behavior and the undercontrolled personality type, i.e.
children scoring low on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and between
internalizing and the overcontrolled type, i.e. children scoring high on Neuroticism
and low on Extraversion (Asendorpf, Borkenau & Ostendorf, 2001; De Fruyt,
Mervielde & Van Leeuwen, 2002).
Main effects of parenting have been investigated in correlational as well as in
experimental studies (Hinshaw, 2002) and in clinical and non-referred samples
(Belsky, Hsieh & Crnic, 1998). In summary, externalizing behavior is predicted by
182 Chapter 5
lack of parental involvement or poor acceptance-responsiveness, lack of supervision
or poor parental monitoring, harsh and inconsistent punishment and insufficient
rewarding of desirable child behavior (Forehand, Miller, Dutra & Chance, 1997;
Haapasalo & Tremblay, 1994; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Loeber & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1986; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994;
Ruchkin, Eisemann & Hägglof, 1999; Wakschlag & Hans, 1999; Weiss, Dodge, Bates
& Pettit, 1992). It also has been shown that psychological control is more predictive
of adolescent internalizing behavior, whereas behavioral control is more predictive of
externalizing behavior (Barber, 1996; Barber, Olsen & Shagle, 1994).
Although results of main effect and cumulative risk studies underscore the
influence of both parenting and child characteristics on maladaptive outcomes, these
studies have been criticized, because main effects may reveal spurious correlations of
parenting or child characteristics with problem behavior. McCrae and Costa (1994)
doubt that parenting has a major influence on psychopathology, but yet they suggest
that personality and parenting may have interactive effects on psychopathology. The
general conclusion is that children with a difficult temperament are more at risk for
externalizing problems, when also exposed to negative, punitive parenting (e.g.
Anderson, Lytton, & Romney, 1986; Bates, Pettit, Dodge & Ridge, 1998; Belsky,
Hsieh & Crnic, 1998; Carlo, Roesch & Melby, 1998; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer &
Hastings, 2003; Paterson & Sanson, 1999).
Recently some studies examined personality-environment interactions,
assessing personality from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model (FFM), including
the personality domains Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The FFM taxonomy has become
acknowledged as a robust reference-model of personality (De Raad & Perugini,
2002), representing personality not only in adults but also in children and adolescents,
and hence facilitating comparisons across developmental periods (Kohnstamm,
Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). O’Connor and Dvorak
(2001) showed that children with particular personality characteristics are more at risk
than others for problem behavior when exposed to certain parenting practices. Prinzie,
Onghena, Hellinckx, Grietens, Ghesquière and Colpin (2003) found that children
rated high on benevolence were protected against parental overreactivity, i.e. the
tendency by parents to respond with irritation and/or anger to problematic behavior of
their children. Children low on conscientiousness were more at risk for externalizing
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 183
behavior when exposed to coercive parenting. A study by Van Leeuwen, Mervielde,
Braet, and Bosmans (submitted) included the interaction effects of parental ‘support’
and ‘negative control’ as well as the child’s five-factor personality profile as
determinants of internalizing and externalizing behavior. The results indicated that
children rated low or around the mean on benevolence and conscientiousness were at
risk for externalizing behavior in particular when they were exposed to parental
negative control or deprived from positive parenting. With internalizing behavior as
the outcome variable, only the negative parental control by benevolence interaction
was significant.
Parent personality as a predictor of parenting and child problem behavior
Although most research considers child personality and parenting as the major
determinants of child problem behavior, it is often ignored that parenting itself may be
determined by stable parental personality traits (Spinath & O’Connor, 2003). In spite
of that, there are few studies addressing the relationship between the normal variation
in personality and parenting. Belsky and Barends (2002) have summarized the results
of studies regarding the effect of parental Big Five personality on parenting.
Neuroticism, or facets of neuroticism, such as anxiety and irritability/hostility are
related to less competent parenting. More extraverted persons, who are sociable,
active, talkative, person oriented and affectionate, tend to be engaged in more
affective and more supportive parenting. Parents, who enjoy new experiences, have
broad interests and are imaginative, i.e. scoring high on Openness to experience, are
likely to engage in more positive parenting. Parents scoring high on Agreeableness,
being softhearted, good-natured, trusting, helpful, etc., show more positive affect and
sensitivity, and less negative control. Conscientious parents, characterized by
orderliness, responsibility and dependability, tend to show more supportive parenting
and less negative control. A review of research addressing the correlation between the
normal variation in personality and parenting shows a clear but modest link (Spinath
& O’Connor, 2003).
Behavioral genetic studies suggest genetic influences on parenting. Measures
of parenting, reflecting the behavior of individuals, may indirectly assess heritable
personality traits. Rowe (1997) found evidence for genetic variation in measures of
parental affection/warmth, but not for parental control. Spinath and O’Connor (2003)
tested competing theories about the origins of individual differences in parenting,
184 Chapter 5
using parenting data of an adult twin sample. They showed (a) that there was
moderate genetic influence on the parenting variables over-protectiveness,
authoritarianism, supportive/indulgent parenting, but not on parental rejection; (b) that
shared environmental influences on parental rejection support a cultural/familial
transmission of harsh and rejecting parenting; (c) that in general, the overlap between
personality and parenting is modest, and that the overlap, is mainly between negative
parenting behaviors and personality characteristics.
Regarding the link between parental characteristics and child problem
behavior, one research line has adopted a categorical approach by focusing on the
effect of parental psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, depression, anxiety,
eating disorders, personality disorders, alcoholism and substance use, on child-rearing
behavior and child developmental outcomes (Zahn-Waxler, Duggal, & Gruber, 2002).
However, adopting a dimensional approach for assessing personality traits could
prove to be more sensitive to a wider range of functioning, because trait measures are
not confined to assessment of extreme forms of functioning (Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998).
Evidence for the relation of parent personality and parenting with child
internalizing problem behavior was found in a study of Brook, Brook and Whiteman
(2003). They showed that maternal personality has both direct and indirect effects on
a toddler’s insecure and dependent behavior. Child rearing had a direct effect on the
behavior of the toddler, but also served as a mediator in the relationship between
maternal personality and toddler behavior. Clark, Kochanska and Ready (2000)
observed the child’s negative emotionality and related it to the parents’ style of
control and responsiveness, and parental personality as measured with the NEO-FFI.
Parent personality, alone and in interaction with child emotionality, had significant
effects on parenting, although a substantial amount of the variance remained
unexplained. Parents scoring high on neuroticism and extraversion displayed a more
controlling parenting style, and parents scoring high on conscientiousness were more
responsive to their children. An interaction was found between low empathy/
extraversion of the mother and high child negative emotionality, predicting more
power-assertive parenting. Nigg and Hinshaw (1998) studied parent’s FFM
personality in relation to their children’s antisocial behavior. Higher rates of child
overt antisocial behavior were primarily related to maternal FFM measures, such as
higher neuroticism and lower conscientiousness. Boys with ADHD and comorbid
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 185
ODD or CD tend to have fathers characterized by lower levels of agreeableness and
higher levels of neuroticism.
The relationship between parent personality and child personality
Given that parental and child personality are correlated, one wonders to what
extent this relationship is based on genetic effects. Behavioral genetic studies have
documented that personality is partly heritable, and that, although environmental
influence is important, almost all the environmental variance is nonshared. Research
adopting the FFM shows heritabilities ranging from 30% to 50%, with extraversion
emerging as one of the most heritable traits, followed by neuroticism or emotional
stability (Ebstein, Benjamin & Belmaker, 2003; Loehlin, 1992; McCrae et al., 2000;
Rowe 1997).
Child personality as a predictor of parenting or vice versa?
The macromodel of Dishion, French and Patterson (1995) explaining child and
adolescent antisocial behavior is a typical example of a socialization model
postulating effects of parenting practices on child temperament. However, according
to behavior genetic studies, there is not much empirical evidence underscoring the
widespread and entrenched cultural belief that child rearing is responsible for a major
part of the individual differences in children’s personality traits (McCrae & Costa,
1994; Rowe, 1997). On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that extreme
environments, in particular negative control, elicit changes. However changes in the
developmental course of children seems to be probable when environmental
circumstances are outside the normal range (Scarr, 1992). Experimental research
designs, based on random assignment to treatment and control group, can reveal
effects of parenting interventions on children’s functioning (Vandell, 2000).
Stoolmiller (2001) notes that critics of the parenting-practices perspective have never
dealt adequately with the strong evidence provided by randomized trials, indicating
the causal role of parenting in antisocial behavior and delinquency. For example
parent training proved to be effective as an intervention strategy aimed at reducing
child and adolescent antisocial behavior (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998), by enhancing
specific skills in parents and/or children to behave in particular situations. However, it
remains unclear whether these interventions primarily change the child’s maladaptive
behavior or also have an effect on the rather stable child personality characteristics.
186 Chapter 5
McCrae and Costa (1994) state that child-rearing practices have little effect on basic
tendencies in personality, such as perceptual and cognitive abilities, physical
characteristics and personality traits, but that they may have a major effect on the
individual’s characteristic adaptations such as the child’s self-concept.
Another method to study the effects of parenting on normal adult personality traits
makes use of memory based retrospective ratings of parenting. Reti, Samuels, Eaton,
Bienvenu, Costa and Nestadt (2002) found significant but modest correlations.
Subjects rating themselves as high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, low on
self-directedness and high on harm avoidance, experienced lower parental care, higher
parental behavior restrictedness and denial of psychological autonomy in childhood.
The effect of child personality or child temperament on parenting is a
cornerstone of Thomas and Chess’ goodness-of-fit-theory (1977). A child with a
difficult temperament elicits particular parental behavior, and a mismatch between
temperament and parenting practices may result in maladaptive child behavior.
Studies examining interactions between child characteristics and parenting as
predictors of child problem behavior also are based on the premise that children with
a particular temperament or personality evoke (mal)adaptive parental behavior, and
presume that a particular combination of child characteristics and parental behaviors
is associated with child problem behavior.
The present study
Recently, Prinzie, Onghena, Hellinckx, Grietens, Ghesquiere and Colpin (in
press) investigated the concurrent effects of Five-Factor child and parent personality,
and negative parenting on children’s externalizing behavior. They found that the
influence of parent and child personality characteristics on child externalizing
behavior is not exclusively mediated by negative parenting practices, such as laxness,
coerciveness, and overreactivity. The child personality domain benevolence
(agreeableness in the FFM) negatively affected the parenting variables, whereas
emotional stability positively affected overreactivity. The parent personality domains
agreeableness, emotional stability and autonomy were related to some of the parenting
variables. They also provided evidence for the direct influence of parent personality
domains on child externalizing behavior, because neuroticism showed a positive
effect and agreeableness a negative effect on externalizing behavior.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 187
The current study is partly based on the findings of this study, and investigates
two different path models. Model 1 (see Figure 1) includes direct paths from each
parent personality domain (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism,
Extraversion and Openness to experience) and each child personality domain
(Benevolence, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion and Imagination)
to either Internalizing or Externalizing behavior. In addition, this model includes
indirect paths from each of the parent and child personality domains to child problem
behavior, passing through the parenting variables negative control and positive
parenting. Hence, this model includes both the direct effects of child and parent
personality on child externalizing and internalizing behavior as well as the indirect
effects of child and parent personality through parenting. This model is tested
separately for mother and father self-ratings of personality and parenting, and also for
child externalizing and internalizing behavior.
Model 2 (see Figure 1) is an alternative model including direct paths from the
parent personality variables and parenting variables to child problem behavior. The
model also postulates effects of parent personality and parenting on child personality,
providing estimates for the indirect effects of child personality on child problem
behavior. Again, this model will be tested separately for mother and father self-ratings
of personality and parenting, and separately for child externalizing and internalizing
behavior.
Method
Participants
The current study utilizes data from a general population sample (N = 600).
Due to list wise deletion of missing observations, the sample was reduced to 499
families. In these families data was available from at least one parent. Target children
were 225 boys and 274 girls with a mean age of 10.95 (SD = 1.87; range 7-15). Of the
families 9.1% was not the original family and 5.2% of the families included a single
parent. The effective size of the mother sample was 413, with 97% biological
mothers. The mean age of the mothers was 38.69 (SD = 4.39; range 20-59). Of the
mothers 74.6% was employed. The effective size of the father sample was 409, with
93.6% biological fathers. The mean age of the fathers was 40.73 (SD = 4.76; range
29-63) and 94.6% of the fathers was employed. Both mothers and fathers had
representative levels of education.
188 Chapter 5
The sample for the cross-validation of the models consisted of 175 families in
which two siblings were rated, both in the same age range as the initial data set. For
163 families and 310 children there was complete data for at least one of the parents.
The 310 target children included 137 boys and 173 girls with a mean age of 10.59 (SD
= 1.80; range 7-14). The majority of the families (8.6%) was original and 0.6% was a
single parent family. The effective number of children rated by their mothers after list
wise deletion of missing values was 247, whereas the effective number of children
rated by their fathers after list wise deletion of missing values was 286. The mean age
of the mothers was 39.2 (SD = 3.9; range 29-53), 99.4% were biological mothers and
81% of the mothers were employed. The mean age of the fathers was 41.2 (SD = 4.6;
range 26-60), 95.7% were biological fathers and 98.8% was employed.
A chi-square test, χ²(1) = 0.91, p > .05, showed no significant difference in the
number of boys and girls across the two samples.
Measures
Parental behavior
The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (GPBS, Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, in
press) assesses parenting behavior derived from Social Learning Theory (Capaldi &
Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992). The central idea of this theory is
that child problem behavior is the result of a series of interactional processes,
characterized by the contingent use of aversive behavior, combined with ineffective
parental management techniques. The Social learning theory focuses on observable
parental behavior and specific family management practices such as monitoring, limit
setting, positive reinforcement, problem solving and parental involvement.
Subjects rate the frequency of behavioral items on a 5-point Likert scale. Nine
scales can be distinguished: Autonomy, Discipline, Positive parental behavior, Harsh
punishment, Monitoring, Rules, Ignoring unwanted behavior, Material rewarding, and
Inconsistent discipline. Evidence for the factorial validity and for a moderate to good
internal consistency is provided by Van Leeuwen and Vermulst (in press). To limit
the number of variables to be included in the path analyses, two second-order factors
were computed and labeled as: ‘positive parenting’ (consisting of the scales positive
parental behavior, teaching rules and autonomy), and ‘negative control’ (consisting of
the scales discipline, ignoring of unwanted behavior and harsh punishment). These
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 189
dimensions resemble two parenting dimensions regularly mentioned in the literature
(Gallagher, 2002), the first referring to the affective nature of the parent-child
relationship (‘support’ or ‘responsiveness’), and the second describing the efforts of
parents to influence their child’s behavior, such as setting and enforcing standards of
behavior (‘control’ or ‘demandingness’) (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Cronbach alpha’s for positive parenting showed values of .86 and .91 for
mother and father ratings respectively, and .80 for both mother and father ratings of
negative control.
Parent personality
The Dutch version of Costa and McCrae’s NEO PI-R (Hoekstra, Ormel & De
Fruyt, 1996) was used to assess FFM domain scores for the parents: Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Domain
scores are obtained by aggregating six domain facets, and each facet is measured with
eight items. The facets Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness,
Impulsiveness and Vulnerability form the Neuroticism domain. Extraversion includes
the facets Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement-Seeking and
Positive Emotions. Openness to experience comprises the facets Fantasy, Aesthetics,
Feelings, Actions, Ideas and Values. Agreeableness is based on the facets Trust,
Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty and Tender-Mindedness.
Conscientiousness comprises the facets Competence, Order, Dutifulness,
Achievement Striving, Self-Discipline and Deliberation. The Dutch NEO PI-R has
satisfactory psychometric characteristics (Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 1996).
Internal consistency in the present study was sufficient, with Cronbach alpha values of
.92 and .92 for Neuroticism, .87 and .88 for Extraversion, .87 and .88 for Openness to
experience, .87 and .87 for Agreeableness, and .88 and .90 for Conscientiousness for
mother and father ratings respectively.
Child personality
The child’s personality was assessed with the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999). There is empirical
evidence for similarities between the adult ‘Big Five’ dimensions and child
personality structure (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde & Havill, 1998; Shiner &
Caspi, 2003). De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra and Rolland (2000) showed considerable
190 Chapter 5
convergence between the two measures included in the present study. A joint
principal component analysis of adolescent self-ratings on the NEO PI-R and the
facets of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children underscored the assumed
hierarchical structure in both questionnaires.
The HiPIC includes eighteen facets hierarchically organized under the five
domains, with (a) Extraversion comprising the facets Shyness, Optimism,
Expressiveness and Energy, (b) Benevolence including Egocentrism, Irritability,
Compliance, Dominance and Altruism, (c) Conscientiousness consisting of
Achievement motivation, Concentration, Perseverance and Orderliness, (d) Emotional
Stability based on Anxiety and Self-confidence, and (e) Imagination containing
Creativity, Curiosity and Intellect. The parents rate the items on a 5-point Likert scale.
There is evidence for the replicability of the factor structure across samples of
children and adolescents (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002).
In the present study, Cronbach alpha’s for mother and father ratings
respectively, ranged from .93 to .94 for Benevolence (N of items = 40), from .94 to
.94 for Conscientiousness (N of items = 32), from .86 to .88 for Emotional Stability
(N of items = 16), from .89 to .91 for Extraversion (N of items = 32) and from .91 to
.92 for Imagination (N of items = 24). The correlations between ratings of mothers
and fathers showed values of .70 for Benevolence, .82 for Conscientiousness, .69 for
Emotional Stability, .69 for Extraversion, and .69 for Imagination (p < .001),
indicating a strong convergence between parental ratings.
Child problem behavior
Child problem behavior was measured using the Dutch version of the
Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996).
The two broadband syndromes that can be derived from the CBCL were used as
measures of problem behavior: Internalizing, including items referring to somatic
complaints, social withdrawal, and anxiety/depression, and Externalizing, comprising
items indexing aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency. Cronbach alpha values for
the scale Internalizing behavior (N of items = 31) equaled .86 for maternal and .88 for
paternal ratings; for the scale Externalizing behavior (N of items = 33) Cronbach
alpha values were .90 for mother and .91 for father ratings. Correlations between
mother and father ratings were all significant (p < .001), with .53 for internalizing
behavior, and .58 for externalizing behavior.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 191
Procedure
Six hundred families were randomly selected by contacting parents via
elementary and secondary schools. For elementary schools the sample was stratified
by province, (East and West Flanders), region (rural or urban), school type
(public/private/catholic schools) and grade (third, fourth, fifth and sixth year of
elementary school). For secondary schools, sampling was based on province (East and
West Flanders), type of curriculum (vocational, technical and general education) and
grade (first and second year of secondary school). The response rate of parents with
children in primary schools was 41%, and 39% for parents with children in secondary
schools. A trained psychology student visited families at home, and instructed parents
to independently complete all inventories.
The cross-validation data were collected by students taking courses in
Developmental Psychology at Ghent University. They were instructed to solicit the
cooperation of a family of their choice. In order to standardize the visits as much as
possible, the research-assistants and students received oral and written instructions.
Both the parents (if they lived together) independently completed the questionnaires at
home, in the presence of the student.
Analyses
A potential methodological problem is the reliance upon reports of the same
rater in one and the same model. To overcome this problem of shared method
variance, we used aggregated scores of mother and father ratings for child personality
and child problem behavior variables. This was accomplished by extracting a
common factor score from each pair of ratings from mothers and fathers.
We controlled for effects of gender and age by regressing the child personality
variables, the parenting variables and the problem behavior variables on age and
gender and saving the standardized residuals. The resulting matrix of standardized
residuals was further used as an input matrix to compute the covariance matrix in
PRELIS 2.53, with list wise deletion of missing observations. Because all the
variables in the model were continuous the Maximum Likelihood method was used to
estimate the model parameters in LISREL 8.53. To evaluate possible data-model
inconsistencies and overall data-model fit, we used the following fit indices: (a) chi-
square; (b) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), with values below
.05 indicating a good fit, between .05 and .08 a reasonable fit, between .08 en .10 a
192 Chapter 5
mediocre fit and above .10 a poor fit (Byrne, 1998); (c) the square root of the average
squared residual (RMR), used to compare the fit of two different models for the same
data (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) with small residuals indicating a well fitting model;
(d) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of Bentler, which is an incremental fit index with
values greater than .90 indicating an acceptable fit, and recommended by Marsh, Balla
and McDonald (1996); (e) Akaike’s information criterion, providing information
about the parsimony of the model, with smaller values indicating a more efficient
model. Paths with nonsignificant t-values were removed in a trimming process,
starting with deleting the path with the smallest t-value. In addition, non-significant
phi-coefficients were fixed to zero.
Results
Results of Model 1 testing
Model with Externalizing behavior as the outcome variable. The final model
(see Figure 3) with excellent fit indices (see Table 1) included some significant effects
of mother’s personality variables on parental behavior. Standardized total and indirect
effects are reported in Table 2. There were significant positive effects from mother’s
Conscientiousness (t = 3.74) and Openness to experience (t = 2.46) on Positive
parenting, positive effects from mother’s Extraversion (t = 3.60) and Neuroticism (t =
4.61) on Negative control and a negative effect from mother’s Openness to experience
(t = -2.99) on Negative control. Agreeableness was not significantly related to the
parenting variables nor to Externalizing behavior. None of the mother’s personality
variables was directly related to child Externalizing behavior. However, there were
some significant indirect effects of mother’s personality on externalizing behavior
through the parenting variable negative control: indirect effects of Extraversion (t =
2.86), Neuroticism (t = 3.29) and Openness to experience (t = -2.52).
The child’s personality variables were all related to Externalizing behavior,
except for Imagination, with the highest coefficient for Benevolence (t = -15.32) and
lower but comparable coefficients for Conscientiousness (t = -3.80), Emotional
stability (t = -3.00) and Extraversion (t = 3.60). Conscientiousness affected Positive
parenting (t = 4.08). Benevolence (t = -4.43) and Extraversion (t = 2.34) also affected
Negative control, leading to some significant indirect effects on Externalizing of
Benevolence (t = -3.22) and Extraversion (t = 2.10).
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 193
Of the parenting variables, only Negative control had a direct effect on
Externalizing behavior (t = 4.69). The squared multiple correlations for the structural
equations indicate the proportion of variance in the endogenous variables accounted
for by the variables in the structural equations. In this model 51% of the variance in
Externalizing behavior was explained, 13% of the variance in Negative control and
11% of the variance in Positive parenting.
The final model for fathers, after model trimming, showed no significant paths
from father’s personality to child Externalizing behavior, which w as also found in
the mothers’ data. However, there were two significant indirect effects of father’s
personality on Externalizing behavior through Negative control, i.e. Agreeableness (t
= -2.28) and Openness to experience (t = -2.48). Several significant effects were
found from father’s personality on father’s parental behavior: Conscientiousness (t =
5.39) and Openness to experience (t = 3.97) affected Positive parenting. These effects
were also present in the mother’s data. Agreeableness (t = -2.68), Conscientiousness (t
= 2.12) and Openness to experience (t = -3.02) affected Negative control.
The child personality domains Benevolence (t = -14.90), Conscientiousness (t
= -3.67), Emotional stability (t = -3.50) and Extraversion (t = 3.59) predicted
Externalizing behavior. Benevolence also predicted indirectly Externalizing behavior,
through the parenting variable Negative control (t = -3.32).
Of the two parenting variables, only Negative control affected directly
Externalizing behavior (t = 4.34). This model explained 54% of the variance in
Externalizing behavior, 19% of the variance in Positive parenting and 11% of the
variance in Negative control.
The model for father self-ratings of personality and parenting is largely
comparable to the model for mother self-ratings of personality and parenting. The
main difference is that mother’s Extraversion and Neuroticism predicted Negative
control in addition to Openness to experience, whereas father’s Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness explained Negative control in addition to Openness to experience.
Model with Internalizing behavior as the outcome variable. The final model
with maternal self-ratings of personality and parenting (See Figure 4) showed direct
paths from mother’s Neuroticism (t = 2.68) and Openness to experience (t = 2.94) to
child Internalizing problem behavior. This is in contrast with the model for
Externalizing problem behavior, where no evidence was found for direct effects of
mother’s personality on Externalizing behavior. Also in contrast with the previous
194 Chapter 5
model, is the number of indirect effects of mother’s personality on Internalizing
behavior: here, only the effect of Neuroticism (t = 2.04) through Negative control was
significant, whereas in the model for Externalizing behavior, Extraversion and
Openness to experience showed additional indirect effects through Negative control.
The effects of mother’s personality on parenting and the effects of child
personality on parenting are not further discussed here, because they are equal to the
effects in the model explaining Externalizing behavior.
The child personality domains predicted somewhat differently child
Internalizing behavior in comparison with Externalizing behavior. The highest effect
was for Emotional stability (t = -11.83), and there were additional effects of
Benevolence (t = -4.40) and Extraversion (t = -3.59). No effects were found for
Conscientiousness and Imagination. There were no significant indirect effects of the
child personality variables through parenting.
As regards the parenting variables, Internalizing behavior was only predicted
by maternal Negative control (t = 2.27), not by Positive parenting. The model
explained 43% of the variance in Internalizing behavior, 11% in Positive parenting
and 13% in Negative control.
The model with father self-ratings of personality and parenting showed a
direct effect of father’s Neuroticism on child Internalizing behavior (t = 2.69). The
effect of father’s personality and child personality on the parenting variables were the
same as in the model for Externalizing behavior. For the child personality domains
predicting Internalizing behavior, some differences in strength of the coefficients were
found: the strongest predictor of Internalizing behavior was Emotional stability (t = -
10.53), followed by Benevolence (t = -3.95), Extraversion (t = -2.60), and
Conscientiousness (t = -2.11). None of the father’s parenting variables predicted child
Internalizing behavior. The model explained 19% of the variance in Positive
parenting, 11% in Negative control and 42% in Internalizing behavior.
The main difference between the models for mother and father data is the lack
of significant effects of parenting on Internalizing behavior in the father model. Also,
in the mother’s model, both mother’s Neuroticism and Openness to experience
directly affected child Internalizing behavior, whereas in the father’s model only
father’s Neuroticism predicted Internalizing behavior.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 195
Results of Model 2 testing
Model with Externalizing behavior as the outcome variable. After model
trimming by deleting the insignificant paths, the final model had a χ² = 36.21, df = 42,
p = .722. Significant paths were found between the comparable mother and child
personality domains Conscientiousness/ Conscientiousness (t = 4.94), Neuroticism/
Emotional stability (t = -6.63), Extraversion/ Extraversion (t = 3.86), and Openness to
experience/ Imagination (t = 5.54), but not for Agreeableness/ Benevolence. Mother’s
Positive parenting showed a significant path to child Benevolence (t = 2.82) and
Conscientiousness (t = 3.79), but not directly to Externalizing behavior. Mother’s
Negative control showed a significant path to child Benevolence (t = -4.76) and
Externalizing behavior (t = 4.71). There was also an indirect effect of Negative
control on Externalizing behavior (14, t = 4.91), The model indicated no direct, but an
indirect effect of Positive parenting on Externalizing behavior (t = -3.70). All of the
child personality domains, except for Imagination, affected Externalizing behavior
with the highest coefficients for Benevolence (t = -14.63), and comparable effects for
Conscientiousness (t = -3.83), Emotional Stability (t = -3.00), and Extraversion (t =
3.14). Significant paths were also found between several child personality variables,
with Benevolence affecting Extraversion (t = -4.97), Conscientiousness affecting
Emotional Stability (t = -2.92), Extraversion (t = 6.27) and Imagination (t = 9.38),
with Emotional stability affecting Conscientiousness (t = 4.48) and Extraversion (t =
2.12), with Extraversion affecting Benevolence (t = 4.57), Conscientiousness (t = -
5.82) and Imagination (t = 2.53), and with Imagination affecting Benevolence (t = -
3.19) and Emotional Stability (t = 5.53). Due to the inclusion of paths between the
different child personality variables, numerous indirect effects were present, that are
not further discussed.
The final model for fathers (χ² = 21.15, df = 36, p = .977) showed significant
paths between the comparable father and child personality domains Neuroticism/
Emotional stability (t = -5.15), Extraversion/ Extraversion (t = 3.07), and Openness to
experience/ Imagination (t = 2.65), but not between Agreeableness/ Benevolence and
Conscientiousness/ Conscientiousness. As expected from the results in Model 1 there
were no direct effects from father’s personality on Externalizing behavior. Father’s
positive parenting showed significant effects on child Benevolence (t = 4.91) and
Extraversion (t = 2.79) whereas Negative control affected Benevolence (t = -3.05),
196 Chapter 5
Emotional stability (t = -2.81) and Extraversion (t = 2.32). The model included a
direct effect (4.34) and an indirect effect (t = 5.09) from Negative control on
Externalizing behavior. There was no direct effect of father’s Positive parenting, but a
significant indirect effect on Externalizing behavior (t = -2.80). As in the previous
models, the child personality domains Benevolence (t = -15.03), Conscientiousness (t
= -3.68), Emotional stability (t = -3.52) and Extraversion affected (t = 3.61)
Externalizing behavior. Several significant paths were found between some child
personality domains with Benevolence affecting Conscientiousness (t = 6.83),
Emotional stability (t = -2.81) and Extraversion (t = 4.00), Conscientiousness
affecting Emotional stability (t = -2.39), Extraversion (t = -4.50) and Imagination (t =
7.61), Emotional stability affecting Benevolence (t = 3.94), Conscientiousness (t =
3.48) and Extraversion (t = -3.37), Extraversion affecting Benevolence (t = -4.38) and
Emotional stability (t = 4.28), and finally Imagination affecting Extraversion (t =
8.88).
A comparison between the mother and father model showed some differences.
There was no path between child and father Conscientiousness, as was the case in the
mother’s model. In the father’s model there was an additional path from Negative
control to child Extraversion.
Model with Internalizing behavior as the outcome variable. The final model
for mothers with χ² = 32.44, df = 41, p = .828, included significant paths from mother
Neuroticism (t = 2.68) and Openness to experience (t = 2.97) to Internalizing
behavior. Between the comparable mother and child personality domains, the same
significant paths were found as for Externalizing behavior, with similar t-values. The
paths between the child personality variables were also similar to those in the model
for Externalizing behavior. There were significant paths from the child personality
variables to Internalizing behavior, with the largest coefficient for Emotional stability
(t = -11.82) and comparable coefficients for Benevolence (t = -4.41) and Extraversion
(t = -3.59). Negative control directly affected Internalizing behavior (t = 2.29) and
child Benevolence (t = -4.76). Positive parenting affected both child Benevolence (t =
2.82) and Conscientiousness (t = 3.79), but not Internalizing behavior. In contrast to
the Externalizing model, there was no indirect effect of Positive parenting or Negative
control through the child personality domains.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 197
The father model for Internalizing behavior, with χ² = 23.04, df = 36, p = .954,
showed the same effects (and the same t-values) of the father personality domains on
the child personality domains as in the model for Externalizing behavior. There was
also a significant effect of father Neuroticism on Internalizing behavior (t = 2.71). No
direct paths were present from the parenting variables to Internalizing behavior.
However, there was an indirect effect of Positive parenting (t = -2.26) through the
child personality domains, which was not the case for Negative control. Father’s
Positive parenting affected child Benevolence (t = 3.34) and Conscientiousness (t =
2.87), whereas father’s Negative control affected Emotional stability (t = -2.78) and
Extraversion (t = 3.34). The child personality domains Emotional stability (t = -
10.61), Benevolence (t = -3.96), Extraversion (t = -2.62), and Conscientiousness (t = -
2.13) predicted Internalizing behavior. Finally, the same paths were found between
the child personality domains as in the father model for Externalizing behavior.
Comparison of Model 1 and Model 2
In the present study, we specified two alternative or competing models, the so-
called AM situation (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), and on the basis of an analysis of a
single set of data, one of the models should be selected. However, it should be noted
that the analyses in this study cannot be considered as strictly AM (alternative model
testing).They can be considered as explorative and hence as MG (model generating)
because data-fitting models were constructed, starting from almost saturated models,
and trimmed by a process of gradual deletion of non-significant paths.
The choice of one of the two models as the best fitting model cannot be made
straightforwardly in this study. From Table 1 it can be concluded that the model fit
indices RMSEA, RMR, CFI and AGFI are excellent for all the models. The AIC
measure showed smaller values in the second than in the first model, indicating
greater parsimony of the second model. From these findings, one should conclude that
the second model fits the data better, in particular the father data. However, the
second model includes reciprocal paths between the child personality variables,
showing instability indices higher than the rule of thumb value of 1 (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1993, p. 155). This is an argument against selecting model 2 as the preferred
model. However, it seems premature to reject model 2 only because of the fact that
198 Chapter 5
the five child personality variables are strongly related, and because they render the
model instable by admitting several paths between these variables.
Cross-validation of the models in an independent sample
The replication of the structure of Model 1 in an independent sample showed
reasonable results for mothers and excellent results for fathers (see Table 1). The p-
values associated with the chi-square values were above .050 for the mother model
explaining internalizing behavior as well as for the father models explaining both
internalizing and externalizing behavior, and above .010 for the mother model
explaining externalizing behavior. RMSEA values were all below .05. Replication of
the model with the path coefficients set equal to the path coefficients of the initial data
indicated that the strength of the relationships differed for the two data sets, with
significant chi-square values for both mothers and fathers and for both internalizing
and externalizing behavior.
Replication of the structure of Model 2 was successful for the mother data
explaining externalizing and internalizing behavior and for the father data explaining
externalizing behavior. The model did not converge for the father data explaining
internalizing behavior. Chi-square values of the constrained model (path coefficients
set equal to the path coefficients of the initial model) showed that the strength of the
relationships was significantly different across the two data sets.
The cross-validation of the models again does not permit to select one of the
two alternative models. In some cases Model 2 was better replicable than Model 1,
but in other cases Model 2 was more replicable than Model 1.
General discussion
Inspired by ecological or contextual models, and in particular by the heuristic
model of Belsky (1984), the present study examined the simultaneous effects of
parent personality, child personality and parenting on child internalizing and
externalizing behavior. The study should be considered as exploratory, because the
fitted models are data-driven rather than theory-driven. This is due to the limited and
inconsistent empirical evidence to derive the initial path models. In this respect, our
study can also be regarded as innovative and contributing to a still emerging body of
empirical findings integrating parent and child personality and parenting in the
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 199
prediction of child problem behavior. Although testing and modifying models with
the same data is not the most appropriate method, in practice is it the most common
method. A strength of this study is that to wipe out the problem that the final fitting
models were obtained by capitalizing on chance, we cross-validated them in an
independent sample. A second benefit is the use of a comprehensive personality
taxonomy, i.e. the Five-Factor Model, to assess both child and parent individual
characteristics. Utilizing the same taxonomy for measuring parent and child individual
differences, instead of focusing for example on child temperament, enhances the
comparability of measures across parents and children. A third strength of this study
compared to previous research is the inclusion of both ineffective parental
management techniques, i.e. negative control, as well as more ‘supportive’ parental
behavior. Until now, the role of positive forms of parenting in the prediction of child
problem behavior remains unclear.
As a general conclusion, the results of our study underscore the importance of
including parent personality, child personality and parenting in models predicting
child outcome behavior.
Parent personality as a predictor of parenting, child personality and child problem
behavior
We investigated the effects of parent personality on parenting, based on the
hypothesis that parenting behavior may reflect general and stable parental personality
domains. Mother’s higher self-ratings on Conscientiousness and Openness to
experience were associated with more Positive parenting. The same significant
relationships were found in the father data. These findings corroborate the results of
previous studies summarized by Belsky and Barends (2002). Higher mother self-
ratings on Neuroticism, Extraversion and lower ratings on Openness to experience
predicted more maternal Negative control. The father data also showed that lower
levels of Openness to experience predicted Negative control. In addition, lower levels
of Agreeableness predicted Negative control. Somewhat unexpected was the positive
relationship between father’s Conscientiousness and Negative control. Belsky and
Barends (2002) mention that it is not clear how Conscientiousness should relate to
parental behavior. It is possible that highly conscientious parents are too demanding
for their children, and hence impose a lot of restrictive control. The relationship
200 Chapter 5
between Neuroticism and Openness to experience and the parenting variable Negative
control was also reported in Prinzie et al. (in press).
Agreeableness did not show any significant relationships with parenting nor
with child problem behavior in the mother data, and this finding is in contrast with
Kochanska, Clark and Goldman (1997) who reported a relationship between low
Agreeableness and more power-assertive and less responsive parenting. In the father
data there was a path from Agreeableness towards Negative control. In contrast with
the results of Losoya, Callor, Rowe and Goldsmith (1997) there was no association
between self-reported Agreeableness and more positive parenting.
Previously, parenting behavior has been identified as an important behavioral
variable, that is only modestly associated with personality in non-referred samples
(Spinath & O’Connor, 2003). The finding that parent personality only partly explains
parental behavior, suggests that parental behavior is more than an fallible indicator of
parent personality. This corroborates evidence showing that parenting is multiple-
determined, for instance by sources of stress and support or by the parents’ own
childhood parenting experiences (Belsky, 1984; Spinath & O’Connor, 2003).
There was no evidence for a direct link between child externalizing behavior
and mother’s or father’s personality domains. This is in contrast with the results of
Prinzie et al. (in press), who reported a negative effect of Emotional stability and a
positive effect of Agreeableness on child externalizing behavior problems. Our results
indicated that children ‘s internalizing behavior is directly influenced by mother’s
Neuroticism and Openness to experience. Higher levels of Neuroticism and Openness
to experience predicted more child internalizing behavior. For fathers, only
Neuroticism directly influenced children’s internalizing behavior.
In the second model we investigated relationships between parent personality
and child personality. Significant relationships were found between the coincident
mother and child personality domains Conscientiousness, Neuroticism/ Emotional
stability, Extraversion, and Openness to experience/ Imagination. The same
relationships were found for fathers, except for Conscientiousness. Parents’
Agreeableness did not affect children’s Benevolence. For Model 1 some of the
coincident parent and child personality domains generated the same effects. Both
mother’s and child’s Conscientiousness affected mother’s positive parenting, whereas
both mother’s and child’s Extraversion affected maternal negative control. Mother’s
Neuroticism and the child’s Emotional stability were both related to the child’s
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 201
internalizing behavior. In the father model, father’s Agreeableness and the child’s
Benevolence both affected father’s negative control. Internalizing behavior was also
affected by both father’s Neuroticism and child’s Emotional stability.
Our results partly corroborate the ‘vulnerability-stress’ model, which
postulates that a predisposition to a disorder is inherited, and that this liability is likely
to be actualised in the presence of certain stressors in the family, such as poor
parenting (Goldstein, 1988; Lytton & Gallagher, 2002). In the present study for
example, highly neurotic mothers and children affect child internalizing behavior, but
there is also an indirect link between parental neuroticism and child internalizing (and
externalizing) behavior, through negative control. Moreover there is a relationship
between the child’s Emotional stability and parental Neuroticism.
Child personality and parenting as predictors of child problem behavior
The child personality domain Benevolence was the best predictor of child
externalizing behavior, which is in accordance with the study of Prinzie et al. (in
press). As regards internalizing behavior, Emotional stability was the strongest
predictor. Imagination neither predicted child internalizing or externalizing problem
behavior.
In general, our models indicate stronger effects of negative control than for
positive or supportive parental behavior. Only negative control directly affected child
problem behavior. In Model 1 the effects of negative control were partly determined
by effects of parent and child personality. In the mother data, parental Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Openness to experience, and child Benevolence and Extraversion
affected negative control. Mother’s negative control predicted both externalizing and
internalizing child behavior. In the father data, only child externalizing behavior was
related to negative control, which in return was affected by father’s Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Openness to experience, and children’s Benevolence. The
model suggests only partial mediation by the parenting variable negative control.
Researchers often inadvertently claim to have detected a mediational effect when in
fact they found evidence for an indirect effect (Holmbeck, 1997). For example, in the
mother data, negative control seems to mediate the association between the child
personality domain Benevolence and externalizing behavior. From the SEM approach
202 Chapter 5
to test mediated effects described in Holmbeck (1997, p.602-603)9, it can be
concluded that none of the parenting variables could be considered as a mediator in
the relationship between parent or child personality and child problem behavior.
Model 2 showed also indirect effects of negative control through the child personality
characteristics.
Positive parenting was not directly associated with child problem behavior.
This is in accordance with Galambos, Barker and Almeida (2003), who found that
parental support was neither a significant predictor of externalizing nor of
internalizing behavior. However, some indirect effects of positive parenting were
found through the child personality variables.
Child personality as a predictor of parenting or vice versa?
The two alternative models postulated different directions for the relationship
between child personality and parenting. For some of the variables, we found that
child personality domains affect certain parenting variables according to the first
model and vice versa via for the second model, hence suggesting bi-directional
influences of child personality and parenting. In Model 1 there is an effect of
Benevolence on Negative control and in Model 2 an effect of Negative control on
Benevolence, for both mothers and fathers. Low child Benevolence is related to
higher Negative control, but high Negative control also leads to lower benevolence in
children. The mother data further show that highly conscientious children elicit more
maternal positive parenting, but positive parenting also increases child
conscientiousness. For fathers, a similar association is found for Benevolence and
Positive parenting. In the father model explaining Externalizing behavior we also
found that Extraverted children elicit more Positive parenting and vice versa. In
9 The SEM approach to test mediated effects is described in Holmbeck (1997, p.602-603). First, in an
overall fitting model, the paths should be significant between the predictor variable (A) and the
mediator (B), between the mediator (B) and the outcome variable (C), and the predictor variable (A)
and the outcome variable (C). Next, one assesses the fit of the A→ B→ C model under two conditions.
In the first condition the A→ C path is constrained to zero, in the second condition this path is not
constrained. A significant improvement in fit over the first model, examined by a significance test on
the basis of the difference between the two model chi-squares, implies that there is no mediational
effect of variable B.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 203
addition it should be noted that these ‘bi-directional’ effects were more stable for the
models explaining externalizing and internalizing behavior in the mother than in the
father data.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
A first limitation of the present study is the small size of the cross-validation
sample. The power of the final models for the initial samples (N = 413 for mothers
and N = 409 for fathers) ranges from .79 to .95, with RMSEA’s ranging from .00 to
.02 (see Hancock & Freeman, 2001). However, the models in the cross-validation
samples (N = 247 for mothers and N = 286 for fathers) have insufficient power with
RMSEA values ≥ .02, possibly resulting in an indeterminate conclusion. Only the
cross-validation of Model 1 explaining internalizing and externalizing behavior in the
father data showed sufficient power.
A second limitation is that the documented relationships do not necessarily
indicate causation. The data in this study are cross-sectional, and do not permit
definite conclusions about the development of problem behavior. Furthermore, some
of the relationships can be examined from a reversed direction, for example the
effects of child problem behavior on parenting behavior. The fact that child
personality affects parenting and vice versa, strongly suggests interactions between
these variables. A possible alternative is to estimate and test hypotheses about
interactions between continuous variables using structural equation interaction models
(cf. Moulder & Algina, 2002; Schumaker, 2002).
The present study tried to extend the limited empirical evidence regarding the
concurrent effects of parent personality, child personality and parenting on child
externalizing and internalizing. Our results suggest that these variables explain a
substantial part of the variance in problem behavior, but also that some variables seem
to be more important than others. Further research is necessary to replicate the
findings of the current study, but also to evaluate new, even more complicated
models.
204 Chapter 5
References
Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers’ interactions
with normal and conduct-disordered boys: who affects whom? Developmental
Psychology, 22, 604-609.
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. & van Aken, M. (2001). Carving
personality description at its joints: confirmation of three replicable personality
prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169-
198.
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
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology,34, 982-995.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected
construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E. & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between
parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized
behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influence: an
evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 230-235.
Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (pp.
255-277). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant
negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3
years: differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 301-319.
Brestan, E. V., Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial treatments of
conduct-disordered children and adolescents: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5.272 kids.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 180-189.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521-530.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 205
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Maternal correlates of
toddler insecure and dependent behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 72-88.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and
SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., & Melby, J. (1998). The multiplicative relations of
parenting and temperament to prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 266-290.
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R. F., & Moffitt,
T. E. (2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality
traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71, 495-514.
Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995).
Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: from age three to
age fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55-68.
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, 274-285.
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, 218-232.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000).
Assessing adolescents’ personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7, 329-345.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I. & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of
personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European
Journal of Personality, 16, S57-S72.
De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five factor assessment: introduction.
In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 1-26). Göttingen:
Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and
ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (red.), Developmental
Psychopathology. Vol. 1 Theory and Methods (pp. 421-471). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Ebstein, R. P., Benjamin, J., & Belmaker, R. H. (2003). Behavioral genetics,
genomics, and personality. In R. Plomin, J. C. Defries, I. W. Craig, & P. McGuffin
206 Chapter 5
(Eds.), Behavioral Genetics in the postgenomic era. (pp.365-388). Washington DC:
American Psychological Association.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional
emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136-157.
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament,
personality, and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 27-49.
Forehand, R., Miller, K. S., Dutra, R., & Chance, M. W. (1997). Role of
parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: replication across and within two ethnic
groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1036-1041.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter:
trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early
adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594.
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence of
parenting on adjustment? Developmental Review, 22, 623-643.
Goldstein, M. (1988). The family and psychopathology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 39, 283-299.
Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages
6 to 12: family background, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1044-1052.
Hancock, G. R., & Freeman, M. J. (2001). Power and sample size for the root
mean square error of approximation test of not close fit in structural equation
modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 741-758.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Process, mechanism, and explanation related to
externalizing behavior in developmental psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 30, 431-446.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO
Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten: NEO PI R en NEO-FFI. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
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,
599-610.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 207
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, 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, 160-178.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling
with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8. User's Reference Guide.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kochanska, G., Clark, L. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1997). Implications of mothers’
personality for their parenting and their young children’s developmental outcomes.
Journal of Personality, 65, 387-420.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998).
Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big
Five? Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva,
P. A. (1994). Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.
Laursen, B., Pulkkinen, L., & Adams, R. (2002). The antecedents and
correlates of agreeableness in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 591-603.
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. Handbook of Parenting (pp. 315-344). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: a
review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris
(Eds.) Crime and Justice: A review of research (Vol.7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Losoya, S., Callor, S., Rowe, D., & Goldsmith, H. (1997). Origins of familial
similarity in parenting. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1012-1023.
Lytton, H., & Gallagher, L. (2002). Parenting twins and the genetics of parenting.
In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 1. Children and Parenting (pp.
227-253). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
208 Chapter 5
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. IV. Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101).
New York: Wiley.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1994). The paradox of parental influence :
understanding retrospective studies of parent-child relations and adult personality. In
C. Perris, W. A. Arindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and Psychopathology
(pp. 107-125). New York : Wiley.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebỉčkovả,
M., Avia, M.D., Sanz, J., Sanches-Bernardos, M. L., Kusdil, E., Woodfield, R.,
Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: temperament,
personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 173-186.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf
(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. (pp. 107-127). Tilburg University Press.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.),
Big Five Assessment (pp. 129-146). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Millikan, E., Wamboldt, M. Z., & Bihun, J. T. (2002). Perceptions of the family,
personality characteristics, and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1486-1494.
Moulder, B. C., & Algina, J. (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and
testing latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 1-19.
Nigg, J. T., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1998). Parent personality traits and
psychopathology associated with antisocial behaviors in childhood attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 145-159.
Paterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999).The association of behavioural adjustment to
temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year old children. Social
Development, 8, 293-309.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family
management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 209
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquière, P., &
Colpin, H. (2003). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and children’s
personality on externalising behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 17, 95-117.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquiere, P., &
Colpin, H. (in press). Parent and child personality characteristics as predictors of
negative discipline and externalising problem behaviours in children. European
Journal of Personality.
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and
parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 1. Children and
parenting (pp. 255-277). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reti, I. M., Samuels, J. F., Eaton, W. W., Bienvenu, O. J., Costa Jr, P. T., &
Nestadt, G. (2002). Influences of parenting on normal personality traits. Psychiatry
Research, 111, 55-64.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing
behavior in nonclinical samples: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74.
Rowe, D. C. (1990). As the twig is bent? The myth of child-rearing influences
on personality development. Journal of Counselling and Development, 68, 606-611.
Rowe, D. (1997). Genetics, temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795-824).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003).
Predicting preschoolers’ externalising behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict
and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39, 164-176.
Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M., & Hägglöf, B. (1999). Coping styles in
delinquent adolescents and controls: the role of personality and parental rearing.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 705-717.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297-312.
Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and
individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1-19.
Schumacker, R. E. (2002). Latent variable interaction modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 40-54.
210 Chapter 5
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and
adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2-32.
Spinath, F. M., & O’Connor, T. G. (2003). A behavioral genetic study of the
overlap between personality and parenting. Journal of Personality, 71, 785-808.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R., Lengua, L. J., & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
29, 17-29.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Van Bakel, H. J. A., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2002). Parenting and
development of one-year olds: links with parental, contextual, and child
characteristics. Child Development, 73, 256-273.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G.. Child
personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: a variable- and
a person-centered approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B.J., & De Fruyt, F. Child
personality and parental behavior as interacting predictors of child internalizing and
externalizing behavior in clinically referred and non-referred children. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. A. (in press). The Ghent Parental
Behavior Scale: some psychometric properties. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual of the CBCL/4-18.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling
Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Wakschlag, L. S., & Hans, S. L. (1999). Relation of maternal responsiveness
during infancy to the development of behavior problems in high-risk youths.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 569-579.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some
consequences of early harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social
information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321-1335.
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 211
Zahn-Waxler, C., Duggal, S., & Gruber, R. (2002). Parent psychopathology. In
M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 2. Social conditions and applied
parenting (pp. 295-327). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Table 1
Goodness of fit measures Model 1 Chi-square Df P RMSEA RMR CFI AGFI AICMothers Externalizing behavior 26.34 34 .823 .000 0.019 1.00 0.97 140.34 Cross validation structure 51.38
34 .028 .047 0.037 0.97 0.92 165.38
Cross validation constraints 81.18 47 .001.931
.056 0.046 0.95 0.91 195.18137.84 Internalizing behavior 21.84 33 .000 0.019 1.00 0.98
Cross validation structure 46.35
33 .062 .041 0.035 0.98 0.92 162.35Cross validation constraints
83.58 47 .001 .057 0.048 0.94 0.90 199.58
FathersExternalizing behavior 36.95 33 .291 .017 0.025 1.00 0.96 152.95 Cross validation structure 24.03
33 .873 .000 0.024 1.00 0.96 140.03
Cross validation constraints 68.35 46 .018.300
.042
.017 0.058 0.96
1.00 0.930.96
184.35153.75 Internalizing behavior 35.75 32 0.025
Cross validation structure 24.46
32 .827 .000 0.024 1.00 0.96 142.46194.83 Cross validation constraints 76.83 45 .002 .051 0.058 0.96 0.92
Model 2 Mothers Externalizing behavior 36.21 42 .722 .000 0.026 1.00 0.97 134.21 Cross validation structure 59.03 .041
42 .042 0.046 0.97 0.92 157.03
Cross validation constraints 107.64 65 .001 .052 0.074 0.94 0.91 205.64Internalizing behavior 32.56 41 .824 .000 0.027 1.00 0.97 132.56 Cross validation structure 52.57
41 .106 .034 0.044 0.98 0.93 152.57Cross validation constraints
115.02
65 .000 .057 0.073 0.93 0.91 215.02 Fathers
Externalizing behavior 21.15 36 .977 .000 0.021 1.00 0.98 131.15 Cross validation structure 41.99
36 .227 .024 0.035 0.99 0.94
0.93151.99
Cross validation constraints 91.14 61 .007 .042 0.0590.022
0.961.00
201.14Internalizing behavior 23.04 36 .954 .000 0.98 133.04 Cross validation structure *
Cross validation constraints ** model does not converge
Table 2
Standardized Total and Indirect Effects of Model 1 Predictors NEO-A NEO-C NEO-E NEO-N NEO-O BE CO ES EX IM POS CONMothers I I I T I T I T I T T T I T I T I T I T I T I TPOS .18 a .12a .20a CON 2 - - 1
- - - - -
.20a . 3a .15a .21a .1 a
.14EXT .0
3a .03
a .04
a .04a
.03a .0
3a .6
0a .0
4a - .15
a .1
1a a .02
a .1
7a
Mothers POS a 1 .2 .18 . 2a 0a CON
- - 1
01 - a - - -
.20a .23a .15a .21a
.19 .1 a
INT .02
.02
.13a .02a .10a - . .02a .50a
.14a
.01
.09a
Fathers POS 0 .25a .18a .13a .2 a CON - -
- .02 - - - .0 - 1 ers
- .13a .11a .14a .25a EXTFath
- .02a .02a .02 - .02a .02a
.62a 4a - .14a .13a .13a . 5a
POS 20 .25a .18a .13a . a CON - .13a - -
11a - .17a - .09a 46a - .11a .14a .25a
INT . - . .11a
a p < .05; an alpha value of .05 was used for all statistical tests; T = standardized Total effects, I = standardized Indirect effects
Parental ratings: NEO-A: Agreeableness; NEO-C: Conscientiousness; NEO-E: Extraversion; NEO-N: Neuroticism; NEO-O: Openness to experience; POS: Positive
parenting; CON: Negative control; EXT: child Externalizing behavior; INT: child Internalizing behavior
Child ratings: BE: Benevolence; CO: Conscientiousness; ES: Emotional stability; EX: Extraversion; IM: Imagination
Table 3
Standardized Total and Indirect Effects of Model 2 Predictors
NEO-N CO IM NEO-C NEO-E NEO-O BE ES EX POS CONMothers I T I T I T I T I T I T I T I T I T T I T IBE .06 .06 .11 - - a - 5 a .2 a .20 a a .17 a .3 a - 2 a - a .30 a .1 a - 04 - a a .11 a - .05 a - .05 a - .05 a .05 a .45 .4 0 .17 5 .6 .25 5 . .19 a .16 a CO - .07 .09 - .28 - - - -
.01 - - 02 - 02 02 .14 a 07 -
-
rs
.20 a
.01 - .10 a .07 a -
- a - .09 a - .02 .02 a .28 a
.05.34 a .34 a .26 a
.01 --
.20 a .22 a .51 a .04
- .07.34 a
- .0
.072 a
.20 a
.- .02
.02 - .10 a
..10 a .ES
EX -
- .1
.014 a
.01
.11 a- .32 a .00
.09.07 a .07 a .05 -
-
.04 .22 a -
.01.
.04 - .22 - .09 a - a .07 a .07 a
- .42 a .87 a
.44 a - .63 a .27 a .67 a
- .67 a .32 a .32 a .02 .02 .15 a
.15 a
IM .13 a .13 a --
.02 --
.02 - .06 a -
.06 a .22 a .00.03
.08 .08 .42 a - .10 a .18 a .18 a - .06 --
.23 a .02 .02 .11 a .11 a -
.03 - .03
EXT Mothe
.05 a
- .05 a
.04 a
.04
.07 a .07 a .03 a
a - .39 a .17 a
- .15 a
.00 - .21 a
- .10 a
- .13 a
.25 a .15 a .15 a
- .11 a - .11 a .31 a
.14 a
BE .06 a .17 .62 .06 a .11 a .11 a - .05 a - .05 a - .05 a - .05 a - .45 a - .45 a .20 a .20 a a .17 a .35 a - a - .25 a .30 a .15 a - .04 - .19 a .16 a CO ES
- -
- 02 .02 . . .06 .11 08 - - .02
.20 a - .10 a .07 a - .07 a - .09 a - .09 a - .02 -
.02 .28 a .28 a --
.34 a - .34 a .26 a - .20 a - .22 a .51 a - .07 - .07 .20 a
- .02 - .10 a
.10 a -
.01 - .01 .01 .01 - .32 a .00 .07 a .07 a - .05 -
.05 .04 .22 a -
.01.27
- .01 .04 .67 a
.04
.67 a.34 a .02 a - .02
.- .02 .02 .02
EX .14 a .14 a .11 a - .22 a 02
- .09 a - .09 a .07 a .07 a 00
- .42 a .87 a .44 a - .63 a a .07.18
- .32 a .32 a .15 a .03
.15 a IM .13 a .13 a -
-.02 -
- -
.06 a -
.06 a .22 a .07
.08 .08 .42 a - .10 a .
.18 a a --
- .23 a
.02
.17.02.17
a .11 a
- - .03
INT - .02 - .02 .04 a
.04 a
.29 a .18 a
- .04 a
- .01 .16 a
- .08 - .56 a
.06 a .13 a
.02 - a - a - - .02 .09 a
.00 Fathers
BE - .04 .04 .19 .19 .02 a - .16 .16 a - a - a - a - - .02 a - .40 a - .40 a - .15 a .15 a .43 a - .26 - .21 a .57 a - a - a .17 a - .17 a - .24 a - .05CO
a -
.02 .02 - .19 a -
.19 a .01 .01 .21 a -
.29 a - .23 a - .23 a .45 a .00 .10 .10 .08 .08 .09 a .09 a - .13 a - .13 a ES .08 a .08 a - .22 a .21 a .04 a .04 a -
.20 a .32 a - .34 a .12 - .48 a - .48 a .46 a - .14 .37 a .37 a
.26.01 .01 - .02 .22 a
EX .12 a - .06 a .04 .04 .06 a .06 a .34 a -
.17 a -
.10 .48 a -
.10 .33 - .33 a - .33 a .53 a - a .23 a .04
.06 .06 - .09 a IM EXT
.01 .01 -
.09 a
.17-
.09 a .12 a .00 .10 a .10 a .36 a - .10 a .20 a .20 a
.26.05 .05 .04 .04 a .04 a -
.06 a .06 a
.02 a
.02 a
a .17 a
.01 .01
- .30 a .28 a
.01 .15 a - .39 a
- a .13 a
.00 .10 a .10 a
- .08 a
- .08 a
.32 a
.17 a Fathers
BE - .20 - .20 a - .02 a .02 a .08 a - .08 a - a - - .69 a - .69 a .17 a - .47 a .43 a .43 a - .32 a .89 a - .20 a - .70 a .16 a - .22 a - .21 a - .21 a CO ES
- - - a 03 - - - .05
.01 .01 - .23 a -
.23 a -
.01 -
.01 -
.20 a
.13-
.20 a - .46 a - .46 a .48 a - .46 a .03 .79 a - .06
.36 - .06 .05 - .18 a
- .10 a
.10 a .20 .07 a .07 a - .25 a .23 a .04 a .04 a a .64 a - .27 a .28 - .48 a
- .48 a .27 a .16 a .36 a -
.01 -
.01 -
.03 a
EX .08 a - .19 a - .01 - .01 .06 a .06 a .24 a
- 1.04 a .27 a .30
1.26 a .01 .84 a - .71 a
- .71 a .53 a
- .56 a
.22 a .22 a
.09 a .24 a
IM .00 .00 -
.13 a -
.13 a .11 a .00 - .11 - .11.03
- .26 a .27 a .27 a
.02 .02 --
.04
.19--
.04
.19 a. .03 - .06 a
.06 a
INT .03 a - .03 a .28 a .17 a - .02 a - .02 a - .14 a .02 .11 - .36 a .10 - .11 a .00 a a - .05 a .05 .05a p < .05; an alpha value of .05 was used for all statistical tests; T = standardized Total effects, I = standardized Indirect effects ;Parental ratings: NEO-C: Conscientiousness;
NEO-E: Extraversion; NEO-N: Neuroticism; NEO-O: Openness to experience; POS: Positive parenting; CON: Negative control; EXT: child Externalizing behavior; INT:
child Internalizing behavior ; Child ratings: BE: Benevolence; CO: Conscientiousness; ES: Emotional stability; EX: Extraversion; IM: Imagination
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 215
Model 1
Model 2
Parent
Personality
Child
Personality
Parenting Child Problem Behavior
Parent
Personality
Parenting
Child
Personality
Child Problem Behavior
Figure 1
Two alternative path models explaining child problem behavior
216 Chapter 5
Note: Model 1 for fathers includ
Agreeableness (-.13) and Conscie
and Extraversion (.19) to Positive
the father data: from father Ex
Conscientiousness to Positive pare
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to experience
Benevolence
Conscientiousness
Child
personality
Parent
personality
5
Emotional stability
Extraversion
Imagination
Figure 3
Model 1 for mothers explain
.18
.23
Positive parenting
.20.12
-.1es t
ntio
pare
trave
ntin
1
ing
-.2
he following extra
usness (.11) to Neg
nting. The followin
rsion and Neuroti
g.
Negative control
0
5
1
Externalizing beh
-.6
-.1
-.1
.14
paths: from the father per
ative control, from child B
g paths are present in the
cism to Negative control
avior
.17
.11.20
sonality domains
enevolence (.13)
mother but not in
and from child
Externalizing behavior
Parent Personality, Child Personality, Parenting and Problem Behavior 217
Figure 4
Model 1 for mothers explainin
Note: Model 1 for fathers includes
Agreeableness (-.13) and Conscient
and Extraversion (.19) to Positive
behavior. The following paths are
Neuroticism to Negative control, fr
Extraversion to Negative control.
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to experience
Benevolence
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Extraversion
Imagination
Parent
personality
Child
personality
5
.18
e parentingPositiv
.20
g Internalizing behavio
the following extra path
iousness (.11) to Negative
parenting, from child Co
not present in the fathe
om child Conscientiousne
Negati
9
1
0
4
.13
.23
.12
-.1
.10
-.1
-.2
Internalizing .20ve control behavior
-.5
-.1
.11
r
s: from the fath
control, from
nscientiousness
r data: from f
ss to Positive p
.09
er personality domains
child Benevolence (.13)
(-.09) to Internalizing
ather Extraversion and
arenting and from child
General Conclusions 219
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In this section the findings from the previous chapters are integrated and
general conclusions are formulated. Furthermore, we discuss the clinical implications
of our results. Finally, some general limitations of our research and promising
directions for future research are discussed.
The relative contribution of child personality, parent personality and parenting
to child problem behavior
This dissertation joins several contemporary research trends. First, research on
interactions between parenting and non-environmental factors, has been suggested as
one of the new directions in the study of child development (Collins, Maccoby,
Steinberg, Hetherington & Bornstein, 2000; Cummings, Davies & Campbell, 2000;
Gallagher, 2002). This approach addresses criticism by behavioral geneticists (e.g.
Rowe, 1997) and others (e.g. Harris, 2000), stating that the effects of parenting are
often overestimated, e.g. by studying only main effects of parenting. Our research
investigated the effects of interactions between child personality and parenting on
child outcome (chapters 3 and 4). The psychometric qualities of the questionnaire
used to assess parental behavior were evaluated in chapter 1. Second, the present
dissertation joins the current enthusiasm for the person-centered and variable-centered
approach to personality (cf. Asendorpf, Caspi & Hofstee, 2002), by examining the
replicability of types and their incremental validity (chapter 2) and by assessing
interactions between personality dimensions and types and parenting behavior as
predictors of child outcome behavior (chapter 3). A third, innovative approach
included an investigation of assumptions of a continuity or spectrum model of
individual differences (Costa & Widiger, 2002; Widiger & Clark, 2000), postulating
that differences between normal and clinical samples are quantitative rather than
categorical. This was examined by comparing parenting by child personality
interactions in a referred and a non-referred sample of children (chapter 4).
The last chapter of the dissertation focuses on ecological models of child
development (Belsky, 1984; Lerner, Rothbaum, Boulos & Castellino, 2002), and takes
220 General Conclusions
into account multiple determinants of child outcomes, by examining with path
analysis, the concurrent effects of parent personality, child personality and parenting
on emotional and behavioral outcomes of children (chapter 5). The major findings
from our studies are summarized in the following section.
Which child personality characteristics serve as a protective or a risk factor in rather
inadequate rearing environments?
The most prominent child personality domains interacting with parenting
(chapters 3 and 4) were benevolence and conscientiousness. Benevolence refers to the
broad trait underlying egocentrism, irritability, compliance, dominance and altruism,
whereas conscientiousness combines the facets achievement motivation,
concentration, perseverance and orderliness. Children rated low or around the mean
on benevolence and conscientiousness were at risk for externalizing behavior when
parents showed high levels of negative control in the interaction with their child.
Negative control refers to discipline, harsh discipline, and ignoring unwanted child
behavior. High scores on this dimension indicate inadequate efforts of parents to
influence the child’s behavior. In contrast, children rated high on benevolence and
conscientiousness were not likely to show externalizing behavior even when exposed
to negative control. In other words children rated high on these personality domains
are protected against the effects of detrimental parenting. With internalizing behavior
as the outcome variable interactions are almost nonexistent.
Children rated low on benevolence were also more prone to externalizing
behavior when parents exhibited little positive parental behavior. This parenting
dimension refers to parental involvement, social reinforcement, problem solving,
stimulation of autonomous behavior and rule setting, with parents scoring high on this
dimension being supportive in the relationship with their child. The interactions
between positive parenting and personality domains turned out to be less stable across
informants and time, compared to the negative parental control by personality
interactions. By taking into account multiple determinants of problem behavior (in
chapter 5), positive parenting no longer predicted child externalizing or internalizing
behavior across informants.
General Conclusions 221
Is it possible to identify ‘types’ of children which are more or less vulnerable of
showing problem behavior in the presence of certain parental behavior ?
Our results show some evidence for three types of children: the overcontrolled
children, scoring low on emotional stability and extraversion, the undercontrolled
children, rated low on both benevolence and conscientiousness, and the resilient
children, scoring above the mean on conscientiousness, benevolence, emotional
stability, extraversion, and imagination. Our findings demonstrate that parental
behavior only affected particular groups of children. Undercontrolled children showed
more externalizing problems when also exposed to parental restrictive control,
whereas overcontrolled children exhibited more emotional problems when
experiencing negative control. Resilient children did not show problem behavior, even
when the child-rearing environment was not optimal, i.e. children rated high on
socially desirable personality domains were not affected by high levels of negative
control. Finally, positive parenting coded as a categorical variable showed no
significant interactions with personality types in the prediction of child problem
behavior.
Are there different antecedents for behavioral problems and emotional problems?
Previous studies examining the effects of parenting and child individual
characteristics have predominantly focused on externalizing behavior as the outcome
variable. The present research also included child internalizing behavior, allowing to
study the relative importance of the predictor variables for both types of
developmental problems.
Our results suggest that child personality characteristics and parenting
differentially affect emotional versus behavioral problems in children. Benevolence
and conscientiousness were the main predictors of externalizing, whereas emotional
stability and extraversion were predominantly associated with internalizing behavior.
Different forms of parental behavior also produced different outcomes.
Negative parental control was primarily predictive of externalizing behavior, but also
had a minor effect on child internalizing behavior. The effects of positive parenting
were less stable, often showing smaller effects than negative control and with diverse
results depending on the kind of analysis.
Moderating effects were predominantly found for externalizing behavior.
Internalizing behavior was primarily determined by main effects: both parenting and
222 General Conclusions
child personality were independent predictors of internalizing behavior that did not
interact. Internalizing behavior increased with more negative parenting and with
below average emotional stability and extraversion.
Are the effects of child personality and parenting on problem behavior the same for
referred and non-referred children?
Extending of our general community sample with a sample of children
referred to an ambulant or residential clinical setting (see chapter 4) allowed us to
explore mean level differences in parenting and personality, differences in main
effects of personality and parenting, and differences in parenting by personality
interactions.
Mean level analyses showed that the referred group of children obtained
higher scores on emotional and behavioral problems and lower scores on
benevolence, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and imagination.
Furthermore, children in the referred group experienced less positive parenting and
more negative control.
It was shown that personality was a strong cross-sample predictor of both
externalizing and internalizing behavior but with a somewhat stronger effect in the
referred than in the non-referred group, particularly for predicting internalizing
behavior. However, the analyses pointed towards a quantitative rather than to a
qualitative difference. Parental negative control was the best predictor of behavioral
problems in both the referred and non-referred group. Moreover, lack of positive
parenting predicted problem behavior, but only for children in the non-referred group.
In line with the continuity or spectrum hypothesis we did not expect to find
differences in moderator effects across referred and non-referred samples of children.
In other words, it was shown that problem behavior is predicted by the same variables
and presumably based on similar processes in both groups. Hence, our results largely
confirmed the spectrum or continuity hypothesis.
Should parenting be considered as a moderator or as a mediator of the relationship
between personality and problem behavior?
Theoretical models (Belsky, 1984) and previous research (Prinzie, 2002)
suggest that parental behavior can be considered as mediating the relationship
between individual characteristics and problem behavior of the child. In the fifth
General Conclusions 223
chapter it was investigated whether the parenting dimensions negative control and
positive parenting can account for the relationship between personality characteristics
(of parents and children) and child problem behavior. The results did not provide
strong evidence for this hypothesis; only indirect effects of parenting were present. In
the mother data self-rated extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and child
benevolence affected negative control, which in turn predicted both child
externalizing and internalizing behavior. In the father data, self-rated agreeableness,
conscientiousness, openness to experience and child benevolence predicted negative
control, which only predicted child externalizing behavior. The results reported in
chapters 3 and 4 provide evidence for parenting as a moderator, i.e. under specific
conditions of parenting a given effect of child personality occurred. Our results further
point towards bi-directional influences of some personality and parenting variables,
such as benevolence and negative control.
What is the relative importance of parent personality, parenting and child personality
as determinants of child outcome behavior?
The fifth chapter included parent personality, in addition to parenting behavior
and child personality as predictor of child problem behavior. None of the father or
mother personality domains was directly related to child externalizing behavior.
Higher levels of parental neuroticism were associated with higher levels of
internalizing behavior for both mothers and fathers, whereas higher levels of maternal
openness to experience predicted more internalizing behavior . It was also shown that
parent personality moderately affected parental behavior. For both mothers and
fathers higher self-ratings on conscientiousness and openness to experience were
related to more positive parenting. Higher self-ratings on neuroticism and extraversion
and lower self-ratings on openness to experience predicted more negative control for
mothers, whereas lower openness to experience, lower agreeableness and higher
conscientiousness induced paternal negative control. Our results suggest that parental
behavior is more than a reflection of parent personality alone and hence that parenting
probably has multiple determinants. For instance it is likely that parenting is affected
by sources of stress, such as marital relationship problems and by a disadvantaged
socio-economic background.
224 General Conclusions
Is the dimensional approach more suitable for research purposes and the typological
approach more suitable for professional practice?
One important feature of this dissertation is the comparison of the utility of the
dimensional versus the categorical or typological approach. Relying on the results of
the present studies it can be concluded that the dimensional approach is particularly
interesting for research purposes. The second chapter showed that the Five-Factor
Model of personality had more predictive power than the type approach. The third
chapter also provides evidence for the usefulness of the dimensional approach to
study the antecedents of problem behavior. It was pointed out that the dimensional
approach, compared to the type approach, does not suffer from a reduction of
interindividual variation or from a restriction of range. Therefore, adopting a
dimensional approach for assessing personality traits is probably a more sensitive
strategy for assessment of a broader spectrum of psychological functioning.
The second and third chapter of this dissertation revealed clinical correlates of
the different prototypes for both children and adolescents. This indicates the
advantage of the type-approach in particular for clinical psychologists. Types are
convenient because they consider several traits concurrently. The use of a single label
for the interplay of traits within an individual facilitates communication among
practitioners. For purposes of prevention, the types can be used to screen at-risk
children in a non-referred population. For purposes of diagnosis, types are interesting
because personality domains are considered in conjunction with each other.
Moreover, the types are derived from FFM ratings on questionnaires describing the
normal range of child behavior instead of maladaptive behavior. Subjects or
informants might feel more willing and cooperative to describe individual differences
using an adaptive item pool.
Clinical implications
Implications for diagnosis
This research suggests that assessment of both parental behavior and child
personality is advisable when children are referred for behavioral or emotional
problems. Assessing child personality and parenting are necessary to examine parent-
child interactions (Ostergren, 1997). The measures used in our dissertation are
suitable for this purpose. The Ghent Parental Behavior Scale is easy to administer and
General Conclusions 225
allows parents and children to rate both strengths and weaknesses in parental
behavior. The Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children is a robust measure of
child personality based on the FFM. For both measures extensive normative data are
available, facilitating a more effective delineation of the borders between adaptive and
maladaptive behavior.
Implications for treatment programs
The present study supports the viewpoint that parents should not be blamed
for the behavioral difficulties of their children or deserve too much credit for the lack
of problem behavior because such a stance ignores the fact that effects of parenting
interact with and hence depend on child characteristics. Likewise, therapists and
counselors who take the blame for children’s problem behavior off the parents’ back,
may find out that these parents will become more willing co-therapists and active
agents in the therapeutic process (Rowe, 1990).
Some clinicians hesitate to acknowledge that temperament or personality
predicts child problem behavior. Because child personality characteristics are
relatively stable, it is presumed that this stability implies that problematic behavior
is also stable and hence difficult to treat. We hope that this dissertation will
encourage parents and clinicians to adopt a more realistic perspective, in stead of a
pessimistic or deterministic point of view. It is true that it will not be possible to
fundamentally change some child predispositions. Although a highly active child
may be able to expend some energy in sports or outdoor activities, this will not turn
him/her into a calm and composed child. However, by enhancing some specific skills
and providing information on how to behave in specific situations, the child may
gradually increase the level of adaptive behavior. On the other hand, environmental
changes may reduce the likelihood that predispositions become more manifest (Raine
& Dunkin, 1990). Given a mismatch between child characteristics and parental
behavior, parents can be instructed to use more effective parenting strategies in order
to prevent or alter problem behavior. For example our results show that a lot of
negative control is more detrimental than beneficial for the child’s development.
Parents can learn to adopt alternative parenting strategies, such as the rewarding of
prosocial behavior, to mould the child’s behavior.
226 General Conclusions
Addendum: temperament-focused parent training
According to Putnam, Sanson and Rothbart (2002) programs aimed at
enhancing parenting skills will be deficient if parents attention is not directed to the
child’s individuality and to the need to be flexible in their approach to childrearing.
Taking the child’s individual characteristics into account can guide the development
of more effective individually-tailored treatment programs. The educational
component of such a program familiarizes parents with the concept of child
temperament and helps them understand how the child’s temperament contributes to
child behavior. This is followed by a training in parent management skills that are
compatible with the child’s temperament (Sheeber & Johnson, 1994). Evaluation of
the benefits of this kind of training shows that participants report greater satisfaction
in the relationship with their children, feel more competent as parents, and experience
more secure attachment. Teerikangas, Aronen, Martin and Huttonen (1998) have
shown that the psychosocial prognosis of children at temperamental risk (i.e. being
fussy/demanding) can be improved, by home-based interventions focusing on parent-
child interaction during the first five years of their life. Our research investigating
parenting and child personality relationships may be indicative for the development of
this kind of programs.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
Assessment of parental behavior
Although the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale is a promising instrument, based
on a sound theoretical framework, showing reasonable psychometric properties and
being practical to use, further research is necessary, with a focus on examining the
utility of the questionnaire for clinical practice by investigating the discriminative
validity for parents with or without child-rearing problems. Our study was only based
on parental and child ratings of parental behavior. However, studies utilizing direct
behavioral observations usually show larger effect sizes (Collins et al., 2000). One
possibility is to relate observations of parent-child interactions to the GPBS scales, in
order to further investigate its construct validity.
In line with the type-approach to personality assessment, one wonders whether
it would be useful to identify types of parenting. Parenting typologies result from the
combination of different parenting dimensions or behaviors. For example Maccoby
General Conclusions 227
and Martin (1983) created four parenting types, i.e. authoritarian, authoritative,
permissive and indifferent parenting, by combining high and low demandingness and
responsiveness. However, because most parenting typologies are not yet properly
validated it is suggested to further examine the dimensions that constitute overall
parenting style (Galambos, Barker & Almeida, 2003). Previous research adopting the
typological approach in parenting has several limitations, such as: (a) the lack of
ecological validity, resulting in difficulties to properly classify all of the parents; (b)
the assignment of parents to types based on sample-specific median splits rather than
on the basis of well-validated cutoff points; (c) the limited information on the relative
contribution of the dimensions constituting the types (Jackson & Foshee, 1998).
Nevertheless, a type-approach to parenting can be considered as viable because it
integrates multiple indicators into a in single type (e.g. high negative control and low
positive parenting), which is convenient for both researchers and clinicians.
Therefore, the development of a valid parenting typology might be an interesting
future research line.
Transactional effects
One of the shortcomings in our research is that we cannot draw conclusions
about transactional effects (Lytton, 1990; Sameroff, 1975), pertaining to the recurrent
reciprocal interchanges over time between the environment (parents and others) and
the child. This is due to the strong demands of a research design investigating these
transactional effects. However, our study includes data measured at two assessment
occasions separated by a 3-year interval. Further analyses of these follow-up data are
feasible, allowing more firm conclusions than cross-sectional analyses, and hence
enhancing our understanding of the determinants of child problem behavior. For
instance, we could use cross-lagged panel analysis to examine relationships between
parenting at Time 1 and children’s behavior at Time 2, controlling for children’s
behavior at Time 1 (Vandell, 2000). An interesting alternative, suggested by
Stoolmiller (2002), is to study the effect of the interaction of child problem behavior
and parenting at Time 1 on child behavior at Time 2. This is based on the idea that
unmanageability interacts synergistically with parenting behavior in the prediction of
later antisocial behavior, hence providing support for the theory of coercive family
cycles.
228 General Conclusions
Age and gender
In our analyses we consistently controlled for effects of child gender and age
instead of looking for differential effects of age and gender. Further research could
examine whether parenting by personality interactions are different for girls and boys
or depend on age groups, e.g. school-aged children versus adolescents. The follow-up
data further permit to investigate developmental changes, such as changes in parental
behavior over time. From a developmental point of view individuals need to
accomplish certain ‘developmental tasks’ across different life-span periods, in order to
reach global competence or successful adaptation (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995). For
example, adolescents need to reach a certain degree of independence, but this is only
possible when parents stimulate autonomy. It could be examined if parents adapt their
parental behavior according to the lifespan or developmental stage of the child.
Within-family analysis
Another promising direction for future research is the analysis of within-
family effects. Studying families with at least two siblings living in the same
household, can provide additional information on effects of parenting (Vandell, 2000).
In behavioral genetics, parenting has been identified as a shared environmental
influence, i.e. the experiences shared by children growing up in the same family.
Several studies indicate that in particular non-shared environmental influences, i.e. the
unique experiences of each individual, also predict child adjustment. The effects of
the shared environment, including the family environment, are thought to be minimal.
However, differential treatment by parents of children in the same family might entail
different outcome behavior. Likewise it is possible that children with different
personalities elicit different parental behavior, leading to differential developmental
outcomes. One convenient way to measure differential parenting consists of
computing difference scores for parental and maternal parenting. An alternative and
more sophisticated approach would be the use of multilevel modeling allowing
simultaneous estimation of shared environmental effects and child-specific effects (cf.
Jenkins, Rashbash & O’Connor, 2003).
Effects of the broader family context
As mentioned before, multiple sources may contribute to the development of
(problem) behavior in children. Intelligence, neuropsychological deficits,
General Conclusions 229
temperament, parenting family climate, marital relationship, relationships with peers,
and contextual factors (e.g. neighbourhood, socio-economic status) have been taken
into account as determinants of problem behavior. Ecological models of child
development suggest that the broader social environment, or the ‘macrocontext’ is an
important determinant of child functioning. Although not included in the present
research, we obtained measures assessing the socio-economic status of the family,
marital conflict and stressful life-events, which permit us to investigate hypotheses
regarding the stressful family environment. Another significant predictor of child
problem behavior, which was not included in this study, is the influence of peers
(Harris, 2000).
Final Conclusion
In conclusion, the research reported in this dissertation can be considered as
innovative and adding new information to the field of developmental
psycho(patho)ology. From a theoretical point of view, we incorporated some actual
research ideas, by studying interactions between environmental, i.e. parenting, and
non-environmental factors, i.e. personality, by adopting both a person-centered and a
variable-centered approach in our studies, and by investigating assumptions of a
continuity or spectrum model of individual differences.
The present research further provided empirical evidence that improves our
understanding of the antecedents of child emotional and behavioral problems. The
studies identified some important predictors of problem behavior. It was also
demonstrated that problem behavior is predicted by the same variables in a referred
and a non-referred group of children and presumably based on similar processes.
Finally, our results yielded some implications for clinical practice, such as the
importance of combining the assessment of parental behavior and child personality.
Our findings may be indicative for the development and improvement of therapeutic
programs aimed at preventing and reducing problem behavior in children and
adolescents.
230 General Conclusions
References
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, 218-232.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds) (2002). Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association, 493 pp.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental
Psychopathology and Family Process. Theory, research, and clinical implications.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Harris, J. R. (2000). Socialization, personality development, and the child’s
environments: comment on Vandell (2000). Developmental Psychology, 36, 711-723.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1995). Competence, Resilience, and
Psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology. Vol 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421-471). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Jackson C., & Foshee, V. A. (1998). Violence-related behaviors of
adolescents: Relations with responsive and demanding parenting. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 13, 343-359.
Jenkins, J. M., Rasbash, J., & O’Connor, T. G. (2003). The role of the shared
family context in differential parenting. Developmental Psychology, 39, 99-113.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter:
trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early
adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594.
Gallagher, K. C. (2002). Does child temperament moderate the influence of
parenting on adjustment? Developmental Review, 22, 623-643.
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. Handbook of Parenting (pp. 315-344). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: a
reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-697.
General Conclusions 231
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. IV. Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101).
New York: Wiley.
Ostergren, C. S. (1997). Differential utility of temperament-based guidance
materials for parents of infants. Family Relations, 46, 63-71.
Prinzie, P. (2002). Coercive family processes, parent and child personality
characteristics as predictors of antisocial behavior in 4-to-9-year-old children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and
parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 1. Children and
parenting (pp. 255-277). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Teerikangas, O. M., Aronen, E. T., Martin, R.P., & Huttonen, M.O. (1998).
Effects of infant temperament and early intervention on the psychiatric symptoms of
adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
37, 1070-1076.
Raine, A., & Dunkin, J. J. (1990). The genetic and psychophysiological basis
of antisocial behavior : implications for counseling and therapy. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 68, 637-644.
Rowe, D.C. (1990). As the twig is bent? The myth of child-rearing influences
on personality development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 606-611.
Rowe, D. (1997). Genetics, temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795-824).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sheeber, L. B., & Johnson, J. H. (1994). Evaluation of a temperament-focused,
parent-training program. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 249-259.
Stoolmiller, M. (2001). Synergistic interaction of child manageability
problems and parent-discipline tactics in predicting future growth in externalizing
behavior in boys. Developmental Psychology, 37, 814-825.
Vandell, D. L. (2000). Parents, peer groups, and other socializing influences.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 699-710.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification
of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946-963.
Samenvatting 233
SAMENVATTING
Dit proefschrift bestaat uit vijf hoofdstukken die kaderen binnen de
vraagstelling waarom sommige kinderen emotionele of gedragsproblemen vertonen
en andere niet. Er wordt onderzocht in welke mate dit kan verklaard worden door
individuele verschillen, met name de persoonlijkheid van het kind en de
persoonlijkheid van de ouder(s), en omgevingsinvloeden, met name het
opvoedingsgedrag van de ouders. Het algemeen theoretisch kader waarop het
proefschrift is gebaseerd, is het ecologisch of contextueel perspectief, waarbij men
aanneemt dat kindgedrag bepaald wordt door een complex netwerk van factoren. Met
de studies in onze verhandeling pogen we een antwoord te vinden op een aantal
pertinente vragen: heeft ouderlijk gedrag enkel een effect op kinderen met bepaalde
eigenschappen; kunnen bepaalde persoonlijkheidseigenschappen dienen als
beschermende of risicofactoren in de aanwezigheid van eerder onaangepast of positief
ouderlijk gedrag; is het mogelijk om bepaalde types van kinderen te identificeren die
min of meer kwetsbaar zijn voor het ontwikkelen van probleemgedrag; leiden
verschillende ouderlijke gedragingen ook tot verschillende uitkomsten bij kinderen;
zijn ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheidskenmerken van kinderen op dezelfde manier
gerelateerd aan emotionele als aan gedragsproblemen; spelen persoonlijkheid en
ouderlijk gedrag een gelijkaardige rol voor klinische en niet-klinische kinderen; wat is
het aandeel van de ouderlijke persoonlijkheid in het netwerk van relaties tussen de
persoonlijkheid van het kind, ouderlijk gedrag en probleemgedrag van het kind?
We focussen in dit proefschrift op twee brede leeftijdsgroepen, met name
schoolkinderen en adolescenten. Subjecten in de studies zijn ouders en kinderen, voor
de meerderheid ad random geselecteerd uit de algemene populatie. Eén van de studies
onderzoekt ook kinderen die in behandeling zijn voor psychologische problemen.
De afhankelijke variabele in de studies is probleemgedrag bij kinderen,
opgedeeld in gedrags- of externaliserende problemen, en emotionele of
internaliserende problemen. Om deze variabele te meten is gebruik gemaakt van het
Achenbach System of Empirical Based Assessment, met vragenlijsten voor ouders,
leerkrachten en jongeren (Verhulst, Van der Ende, & Koot, 1996; 1997a; 1997b). De
onafhankelijke variabelen zijn geoperationaliseerd aan de hand van vragenlijsten die
234 Samenvatting
adaptief gedrag meten. De vragenlijsten hebben een theoretische basis en goede
psychometrische eigenschappen. Om persoonlijkheid bij kind en ouders te meten is
gebruik gemaakt van het robuuste Vijf-factorenmodel voor persoonlijkheid. Bij het
kind zijn de vijf domeinen Emotionele stabiliteit, Extraversie, Openheid,
Welwillendheid en Consciëntieusheid gemeten met de Hiërarchische Persoonlijk-
heidsvragenlijst voor Kinderen (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999). Bij de ouders zijn de
overeenkomstige vijf domeinen Neuroticisme, Extraversie, Openheid, Altruïsme en
Consciëntieusheid gemeten met de NEO PI-R (Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 1996).
Om ouderlijk gedrag te meten, is in het kader van dit proefschrift een vragenlijst
ontwikkeld, de Schaal voor Ouderlijk Gedrag (SOG), waarvan de bespreking deel
uitmaakt van het eerste hoofdstuk.
Hoofdstuk 1
Psychometrische eigenschappen van De Schaal voor Ouderlijk Gedrag
De Schaal voor Ouderlijk Gedrag (SOG) is gebaseerd op het sociaal
interactioneel denkkader van Patterson en collega’s. Volgens hun ‘coercion theory’ is
onaangepast gedrag van kinderen het gevolg van een opeenvolgende reeks van
interacties, waarbij kinderen leren dat onaangepast gedrag effectief kan zijn om
onaangename situaties te ontwijken, doordat ouders met ineffectief ouderlijk gedrag
reageren op dit onaangepast gedrag. In een macromodel stellen zij dat ouderlijke
vaardigheden mediëren in de relatie tussen enerzijds contextuele factoren zoals socio-
economische omstandigheden, de buurt, familiale context en anderzijds de aanpassing
van het kind. Zij leggen hierbij de nadruk op vijf ouderlijke vaardigheden: ouderlijke
betrokkenheid, monitoring (supervisie van het kind), discipline (ook benoemd als
grenzen stellen), positieve bekrachtiging, en probleem-oplossen.
Een inventaris van de nederlandstalige vragenlijsten met betrekking tot gezin
en opvoeding (cf. Langemijer, Pijnenburg & Veerman, 1997), leerde ons dat er geen
vragenlijsten bestaan met de meetpretentie die wij beogen. Tenslotte liet een
screening van de internationale vragenlijsten verschillende beperkingen zien op
psychometrisch en praktisch vlak.
De resultaten van een pilootversie van de SOG (Van Leeuwen, 1999) toonde
aan dat het niet mogelijk was om de vijf Patterson constructen structureel te
onderscheiden binnen de initiële set van items. Vier van de vijf constructen zijn
Samenvatting 235
behouden in een nieuwe versie: ouderlijke betrokkenheid, monitoring, positieve
bekrachtiging en probleem-oplossen. Omdat factoranalyse aangaf dat het construct
disciplinering multidimensioneel was, is dit gedifferentieerd in: regels stellen, straffen
van ongewenst gedrag, inconsistent straffen, hard straffen en negeren. Al deze schalen
zijn gerelateerd aan de Sociale Interactie Theorie. Verder is de vragenlijst aangevuld
met items die verwijzen naar het aanleren van autonoom gedrag, wat vanuit
ontwikkelingspsychologisch oogpunt een interessant concept is. De gereviseerde SOG
bestaat uit 55 items waarbij de frequentie van een bepaald ouderlijk gedrag wordt
beoordeeld op een vijf-puntenschaal. Ouders kunnen hun eigen gedrag beoordelen en
er is een versie voor kinderen met dezelfde items waarbij afzonderlijk het gedrag van
vader en moeder beoordeeld wordt.
Door middel van twee studies zijn de psychometrische eigenschappen van de
SOG geëvalueerd. De eerste studie onderzoekt in een ad random samengestelde
steekproef van 600 gezinnen met kinderen tussen 7 en 15 jaar: (a) de factoriële
structuur van de SOG, (b) de interne consistentie van de subschalen, (c) de correlaties
tussen beoordelingen van ouders en kinderen, en (d) de constructvaliditeit door
correlaties te berekenen tussen de subschalen van de SOG en enerzijds het ervaren
van stress in de opvoeding door de ouders, gemeten met de Nijmeegse Ouderlijke
Stress Index (NOSI; de Brock, Vermulst, Gerris & Abidin, 1992), en anderzijds
probleemgedrag bij het kind, gemeten met de Gedragsvragenlijst voor Kinderen
(CBCL; Verhulst, Van der Ende & Koot, 1996). De tweede studie onderzoekt de
repliceerbaarheid van de resultaten uit de eerste studie binnen een onafhankelijke
steekproef van 175 gezinnen met gegevens over twee kinderen.
De factoranalyses leverden negen schalen op: Autonomie, Positief ouderlijk
gedrag (met items refererend naar positieve betrokkenheid, sociaal belonen en
probleem-oplossen), Straffen, Hard straffen, Inconsequent straffen, Negeren,
Monitoring, Regels stellen en Materieel belonen. Een confirmatorische factoranalyse
toonde aan dat de negen componenten repliceerbaar zijn over verschillende
beoordelaars (ouders en kinderen). Een tweede-orde factoranalyse gaf twee dimensies
aan die benoemd zijn als (a) Positief ouderlijk gedrag, gebaseerd op de schalen
Positief ouderlijk gedrag, Regels stellen en Autonomie, en (b) Negatieve controle,
gebaseerd op de schalen Straffen, Hard straffen en Negeren. De interne consistentie
was matig tot goed voor het merendeel van de schalen. De correlaties tussen
beoordelingen van ouders en kinderen waren positief en significant. De verwachte
236 Samenvatting
relaties tussen de schalen van de SOG en de criteriumvariabelen waren aanwezig.
Meer opvoedingsstress was gerelateerd aan minder positief ouderlijk gedrag, regels en
autonomie, en aan meer straffen, inconsequent straffen, hard straffen en het niet
optreden bij ongewenst gedrag. Wat de relaties met probleemgedrag van het kind
betreft, waren er vooral significante correlaties met externaliserend probleemgedrag.
Minder positief ouderlijk gedrag en regels en meer straffen, inconsequent straffen,
hard straffen en negeren van ongewenst gedrag waren geassocieerd met meer
externaliserend gedrag. Enkel de verwachte negatieve correlatie tussen
probleemgedrag en monitoring werd niet gevonden.
Hoofdstuk 2
Een longitudinale studie naar de bruikbaarheid van de
persoonlijkheidstypologie ‘overcontrollers, undercontrollers en resilients’
in de predictie van probleemgedrag bij kinderen en adolescenten
Het beschrijven van individuele karakteristieken bij kinderen kan vanuit twee
perspectieven: de variabele- en de typebenadering. De variabelebenadering bestudeert
categorieën van variabelen zoals de dimensies van het Vijf-factorenmodel (FFM) voor
persoonlijkheid. Hierbij onderzoekt men de repliceerbaarheid van de structuur van de
variabelen over personen binnen verschillende steekproeven. Bij de typebenadering
trachtt men types binnen een groep subjecten te identificeren, dit zijn clusters van
individuen met dezelfde kenmerken of persoonlijkheidspatronen. Via deze benadering
is het mogelijk om verschillende persoonlijkheidsdimensies te combineren binnen één
persoon, en krijgt men een categoriale indeling. Deze studie onderzoekt de
repliceerbaarheid van drie persoonlijkheidstypes, die meermaals empirisch zijn
geïdentificeerd volgens een analytische standaardprocedure, een combinatie van
clusteranalyses: de ‘resilients’ of veerkrachtige kinderen, die gemiddeld scoren op de
vijf domeinen, de ‘undercontrollers’ of kinderen die onder het gemiddelde scoren op
welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid, en de ‘overcontrollers’ of kinderen die laag
scoren op emotionele stabiliteit en extraversie.
De studie sluit aan bij de huidige trend in onderzoek naar
persoonlijkheidstypes, maar is vernieuwend in een aantal opzichten: (a) er wordt
rekening gehouden met verschillende informanten (beoordelingen van ouders en
adolescenten); (b) er worden twee verschillende maten gebruikt om persoonlijkheid te
Samenvatting 237
meten, namelijk de HiPIC (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999), afgenomen bij ouders, en een
verkorte versie van Goldberg’s adjectievenlijst, de Questionnaire Big Five (Gerris et
al., 1995), afgenomen bij adolescenten; (c) het onderzoeksdesign omvat follow-up
data met een interval van drie jaar tussen de twee meetmomenten, waardoor twee
verschillende leeftijdsgroepen – kinderen en adolescenten – worden onderzocht.
Volgende onderzoeksdoelen zijn met deze studie beoogd: (a) de repliceerbaarheid van
de types, (b) de continuïteit van de types over twee meetmomenten met een interval
van drie jaar, (c) de stabiliteit van het individueel lidmaatschap tot één van de types
over de twee meetmomenten en (d) de relatieve predictieve waarde van types versus
variabelen voor probleemgedrag.
De drie persoonlijkheidstypes konden gerepliceerd worden bij
zelfbeoordelingen van adolescenten op een lijst met adjectieven, maar enkel de types
undercontrolled en resilient konden afgeleid worden uit ouderbeoordelingen. De derde
cluster groepeerde zowel het overcontrolled type als kinderen die gemiddeld scoren
op de vijf persoonlijkheidsdimensies. De continuïteit van de types over de twee
meetmomenten was matig: op beide meetmomenten konden enkel de types
undercontrollers en resilients gerepliceerd worden. Verder toonde de analyses een
lage stabiliteit van het individueel behoren tot een bepaald persoonlijkheidstype bij de
overgang van kindertijd naar adolescentie. Wat betreft de predictieve validiteit van de
types kon worden aangetoond dat de types differentieel geassocieerd zijn met de vijf
persoonlijkheidsdomeinen alsook met internaliserend en externaliserend
probleemgedrag van kinderen. Overcontrollers waren gekenmerkt door een hoge mate
van neuroticisme en internaliserend gedrag, undercontrollers door weinig
consciëntieusheid en welwillendheid en veel externaliserend gedrag. Resilients
werden altijd positief beoordeeld op sociaal wenselijke persoonlijkheidsdimensies en
hadden gemiddelde scores voor probleemgedrag. De studie toont echter ook aan dat
de drie types geen betere voorspellers waren van probleemgedrag ten opzichte van de
vijf dimensies. De resultaten impliceren dat de keuze tussen een variabele- of een
typebenadering afhangt van de doelstelling. Voor empirisch onderzoek lijkt de
variabelebenadering voordelig omdat men informatie behoudt over de interindividuele
variatie en niet onderhevig is aan range-restrictie. Voor praktisch gebruik lijkt de
typebenadering handig, zeker wanneer men beslissingen moet nemen over individuen
en men de informatie afkomstig van verschillende variabelen tegenover mekaar moet
afwegen.
238 Samenvatting
Hoofdstuk 3
Persoonlijkheid van het kind en ouderlijk gedrag als moderatoren van
probleemgedrag: een variabele- en een typebenadering
Relatief weinig studies hebben de gecombineerde of interactie-effecten van
ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheid onderzocht als determinanten voor internaliserend
en externaliserend probleemgedrag. In dit manuscript zijn interacties tussen de
persoonlijkheid van het kind en ouderlijk gedrag onderzocht in twee studies. Om
voldoende power te garanderen voor de detectie van interactie-effecten via
hiërarchische multiple regressie-analyse, is gebruik gemaakt van een vrij grote
steekproef (N = 600) en betrouwbare maten. Om uit te sluiten dat interacties enkel op
basis van het toeval gevonden worden, is er gekeken naar de stabiliteit van de effecten
over beoordelaars, met name ouders en kinderen, en over tijd, via een cross-sectioneel
en longitudinaal design.
De eerste studie onderzocht interactie-effecten vanuit een variabelebenadering,
wat inhoudt dat zowel ouderlijk gedrag als persoonlijkheid als (continue)
kwantitatieve variabelen in de analyses zijn ingevoerd. De analyses toonden
interacties tussen ouderlijke negatieve controle en de persoonlijkheidsdomeinen
welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid in de predictie van externaliserend gedrag. Deze
interacties waren repliceerbaar over beoordelaars en over tijd. Bovendien bleken de
interacties gemeten op tijdstip 1 ook bij te dragen tot externaliserend gedrag op
meetmoment 2. De resultaten suggereren dat negatieve controle een risicofactor is
voor externaliserend gedrag, en meer bepaald voor kinderen die weinig of gemiddeld
welwillend of consciëntieus zijn. Een hoge mate van welwillendheid of
consciëntieusheid lijkt een protectieve factor te zijn, want deze kinderen vertonen
weinig externaliserend gedrag, zelfs als de ouders veel negatieve controle uitoefenen.
Predictieve interacties voor externaliserend gedrag werden ook gevonden tussen
positief ouderlijk gedrag en welwillendheid. Weinig welwillende kinderen vertoonden
meer externaliserend gedrag wanneer ouders weinig ondersteunend waren. Kinderen
die beoordeeld werden als zeer welwillend toonden weinig probleemgedrag, zelfs bij
geringe ouderlijke ondersteuning. De interacties met positief ouderlijk gedrag waren
echter minder stabiel over beoordelaars en tijd dan de interacties met negatieve
controle. Bij de analyses van internaliserend gedrag waren geen interacties significant.
De resultaten suggereren vooral onafhankelijke effecten van persoonlijkheid en
Samenvatting 239
ouderlijk gedrag. Een lage mate van vooral emotionele stabiliteit en extraversie,
weinig positief ouderlijk gedrag en uitgesproken negatieve controle waren
geassocieerd met meer internaliserend gedrag.
De tweede studie vertrok vanuit een typebenadering voor wat de
persoonlijkheid van het kind betreft. Kinderen konden toegewezen worden aan drie
persoonlijkheidstypes, de ‘resilients’, de ‘undercontrollers’ en de ‘overcontrollers’.
Omdat tot op heden weinig evidentie is gevonden voor prototypische
ouderschapsstijlen is ouderlijk gedrag ingedeeld in de categorieën weinig (- 1 SD
onder het gemiddelde), matig, of veel (+1 SD boven het gemiddelde). De resultaten
waren vergelijkbaar met de eerste studie. De undercontrollers vertoonden meer
externaliserend gedrag dan de resilients, en overcontrollers meer internaliserend
gedrag dan de resilients vooral wanneer ze blootgesteld werden aan veel negatieve
ouderlijke controle. De minder stabiele effecten uit de eerste studie, werden niet
gerepliceerd in de tweede studie.
Concluderend kan gesteld worden dat deze studie het belang aantoont van
interacties tussen de persoonlijkheid van kinderen en ouderlijk gedrag in de predictie
van probleemgedrag. Ouderlijk gedrag kan een impact hebben op probleemgedrag van
het kind, maar enkel bij kinderen met bepaalde persoonlijkheidskenmerken. Een
persoonlijkheid van het kind, gekenmerkt door vooral sociaal aanvaarde kenmerken,
kan een protectieve rol spelen bij minder adequaat ouderlijk gedrag, terwijl kinderen
met sociaal ongewenste eigenschappen risico lopen op probleemgedrag bij inadequaat
ouderlijk gedrag. Verder toonde deze studie het belang aan van zowel de variabele-
als de typebenadering in de voorspelling van probleemgedrag.
Hoofdstuk 4
Persoonlijkheid van het kind en ouderlijk gedrag als interagerende voorspellers
van emotionele en gedragsproblemen bij kinderen
in een klinische en niet-klinische steekproef
Deze studie is een aanvulling op de vorige studie door de steekproef uit de
algemene populatie (de “niet-klinische” groep) uit te breiden met een steekproef van
kinderen die in ambulante of residentiële behandeling zijn voor emotionele of
gedragsproblemen (de “klinische groep”). Ten eerste wordt onderzocht of er
verschillen zijn in gemiddelden voor de twee groepen op vlak van persoonlijkheid,
240 Samenvatting
opvoedingsgedrag en probleemgedrag. Ten tweede wordt nagegaan of interacties
tussen persoonlijkheid van het kind en ouderlijk gedrag probleemgedrag verklaren.
Immers, de inclusie van een klinische groep kinderen verhoogt statistisch gezien de
power om interactie-effecten te detecteren. Tenslotte wordt gekeken of de interactie-
effecten kunnen gegeneraliseerd worden over de klinische en de niet-klinische groep.
Dit onderzoeksdoel is belangrijk binnen het debat dat klinisch psychologen en
psychiaters voeren over de vraag of het verschil tussen normaal en abnormaal gedrag
als kwalitatief of kwantitatief moet gepercipieerd worden. In onderzoek naar
persoonlijkheidsstoornissen gaat men uit van een continuïteits- of spectrummodel,
waarbij geponeerd wordt dat verschillen tussen normale en klinische steekproeven
bepaald worden door verschillen in gemiddelden op relevante domeinen van het
functioneren. In de studie wordt deze visie geëxponeerd naar de hypothese dat tussen
klinische en niet-klinische groepen verschillen tussen gemiddelden waarneembaar
zijn, maar dat gelijkaardige relaties tussen persoonlijkheid, opvoeding en
probleemgedrag bij de twee groepen kunnen geobserveerd worden.
De resultaten toonden aan dat er verschillen in gemiddelden zijn tussen de
klinische en niet-klinische groep voor wat betreft probleemgedrag van het kind, de
vijf persoonlijkheidsvariabelen, en opvoedingsgedrag van de moeder. De kinderen uit
de niet-klinische groep hadden gemiddeld lagere scores op internaliserend en
externaliserend probleemgedrag en gemiddeld hogere scores op welwillendheid,
consciëntieusheid, emotionele stabiliteit, extraversie en vindingrijkheid, in
vergelijking met de klinische groep kinderen. Moeders rapporteerden gemiddeld meer
positief ouderlijk opvoedingsgedrag en minder negatieve controle in de niet-klinische
groep.
De persoonlijkheid van het kind verklaarde probleemgedrag van het kind in
beide groepen, maar de sterkte van de relatie verschilde enigszins voor de twee
groepen en bleek ietwat sterker te zijn in de klinische groep, vooral voor
internaliserend gedrag. Dit verschil is echter eerder kwantitatief dan kwalitatief van
aard. Wat de relatie tussen probleemgedrag en opvoedingsgedrag betreft, toonden de
analyses dat negatieve controle samenhing met meer probleemgedrag en dat die
samenhang iets sterker was in de klinische groep. Voor positief ouderlijk gedrag bleek
de relatie verschillend voor de klinische en de niet-klinische groep: weinig positief
ouderlijk gedrag was geassocieerd met zowel internaliserend als externaliserend
gedrag, maar enkel in de niet-klinische groep. Verder bleken ook interactie-effecten
Samenvatting 241
voor beide groepen probleemgedrag te verklaren. Kinderen die gekenmerkt werden
door een lage welwillendheid of consciëntieusheid vertoonden probleemgedrag bij
blootstelling aan negatief ouderlijk gedrag, vooral negatieve controle. Voor drie van
de twintig onderzochte interacties bleken de interacties voor klinische en niet-
klinische groepen te verschillen, in die zin dat bepaalde interacties wel in de ene groep
maar niet in de andere groep voorkwamen. Deze verschillen waren echter niet
consistent over de groepen en over persoonlijkheidsdimensies. Samengevat kunnen
we besluiten dat onze resultaten de spectrumhypothese ondersteunen. Verschillen
tussen een klinische en niet-klinische groep zijn eerder kwantitatief van aard, en
gelijkaardige processen liggen aan de basis van probleemgedrag in de klinische en
niet-klinische groep.
Hoofdstuk 5
Ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheid van ouder en kind als predictoren van
internaliserend en externaliserend gedrag
Het doel van deze studie is de gelijktijdige effecten te onderzoeken van
ouderlijk gedrag, persoonlijkheid van het kind en persoonlijkheid van de ouder binnen
een padmodel. Contextuele of ecologische modellen (cf. Belsky, 1984) erkennen dat
de persoonlijkheid van de ouder een rol speelt binnen de ontwikkeling van het kind,
maar er zijn weinig studies die effectief persoonlijkheid van de ouders als verklarende
variabele voor probleemgedrag bij het kind hebben onderzocht. Binnen deze studie
worden zowel persoonlijkheid van de ouder als persoonlijkheid van het kind volgens
het Vijf-factorenmodel geoperationaliseerd. Twee alternatieve padmodellen worden
onderzocht, afzonderlijk voor moeders en vaders, en afzonderlijk voor externaliserend
en internaliserend probleemgedrag. Het eerste model omvat paden vanaf elk van de
vijf ouderlijke persoonlijkheidsvariabelen en vanaf elk van de vijf kind
persoonlijkheidskenmerken naar het probleemgedrag van het kind. Daarnaast zijn er
ook indirecte paden van de persoonlijkheid van kind en ouder naar probleemgedrag
van het kind via de ouderschapsdimensies negatieve controle en positief ouderlijk
gedrag. Het tweede padmodel onderzoekt de directe effecten van de vijf ouderlijke
persoonlijkheidsdomeinen en de opvoedingsdimensies op het probleemgedrag van het
kind alsook de indirecte effecten van deze domeinen via de vijf
persoonlijkheidsdimensies van het kind.
242 Samenvatting
Het effect van ouderlijke persoonlijkheid op ouderlijk gedrag is onderzocht
vanuit de hypothese dat ouderlijk gedragingen stabiele persoonlijkheidskenmerken
van ouders kunnen reflecteren. De resultaten van het eerste model toonden aan dat een
hogere mate van consciëntieusheid en openheid bij moeders en vaders samenhing met
meer positief ouderlijk gedrag. Meer neuroticisme, extraversie en minder openheid bij
moeders was gerelateerd aan meer negatieve controle, terwijl deze dimensie bij vaders
voorspeld werd door minder altruïsme en openheid. Ook meer consciëntieusheid bij
vaders was geassocieerd met meer negatieve controle. Ouderlijke persoonlijkheid
droeg slechts gedeeltelijk bij tot ouderlijk gedrag, wat doet vermoeden dat ouderlijk
gedrag door meerdere determinanten kan verklaard worden, zoals bronnen van stress.
Er is geen evidentie gevonden voor een direct verband tussen ouderlijke
persoonlijkheid en externaliserend gedrag van het kind, noch bij moeders, noch bij
vaders. Internaliserend probleemgedrag daarentegen werd wel direct verklaard door
neuroticisme en openheid van de moeder, en door neuroticisme van de vader.
Het tweede model toonde associaties tussen de vergelijkbare moeder en
kinddomeinen consciëntieusheid, neuroticisme/emotionele stabiliteit, extraversie en
openheid. Dezelfde relaties waren aanwezig in de vaderdata, behalve voor het domein
consciëntieusheid. Altruïsme bij ouders bleek niet samen te hangen met
welwillendheid van kinderen. De samenhang tussen persoonlijkheidskenmerken van
ouders en kinderen bleek ook de resultaten van het eerste model, omdat sommige van
de overeenkomstige persoonlijkheidsdomeinen dezelfde effecten sorteerden. Zo
bleken consciëntieusheid van zowel moeder als kind samen te hangen met positief
ouderlijk gedrag van moeders, terwijl extraversie van zowel moeder als kind
geassocieerd waren met negatieve controle. Neuroticisme bij zowel moeders als
vaders en emotionele stabiliteit bij kinderen waren ook beiden gerelateerd aan
internaliserend gedrag van het kind. In het model voor vaders bleken altruïsme van de
vader en welwillendheid van het kind negatieve controle bij vaders te beïnvloeden.
Model 1 toonde slechts een gedeeltelijk mediërend effect van ouderlijk gedrag binnen
de relatie persoonlijkheid kind/ouder en probleemgedrag. In de padmodellen had
ouderlijk gedrag eerder een indirect effect op probleemgedrag, via de effecten van de
persoonlijkheid van ouder en kind op probleemgedrag.
De keuze voor één van beide modellen ligt niet voor de hand, noch vanuit
statistisch oogpunt, noch vanuit theoretisch oogpunt. Beide modellen lijken
Samenvatting 243
aanvaardbaar en suggereren een bidirectionele invloed van ouderlijk gedrag en
persoonlijkheid in de ontwikkeling van probleemgedrag.
Algemeen besluit
In dit algemeen besluit komen we terug op de leidende onderzoeksvragen die
bij de inleiding zijn gesteld en bespreken we de relatieve bijdrage van de
persoonlijkheid van kind en ouders en ouderlijk opvoedingsgedrag tot emotionele en
gedragsproblemen bij het kind.
Ook positief ouderlijk gedrag is in interactie met de persoonlijkheid van het
kind, vooral met welwillendheid, geassocieerd met gedragsproblemen. Deze dimensie
van ouderlijk gedrag verwijst naar ouderlijke betrokkenheid, sociale bekrachtiging,
probleem-oplossen, het stimuleren van autonomie bij het kind en het stellen van
regels. Bij kinderen die weinig welwillend zijn, gaat een gebrek aan positief ouderlijk
Welke persoonlijkheidskenmerken van het kind vervullen de rol van risico- of
protectieve factor in een eerder inadequate opvoedingsomgeving?
De belangrijkste persoonlijkheidskenmerken die interageren met ouderlijk
gedrag zijn welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid. Welwillendheid is het brede
persoonlijkheidsdomein dat egocentrisme, irriteerbaarheid, gehoorzaamheid,
dominantie en altruïsme overkoepelt, terwijl consciëntieusheid verwijst naar de
onderliggende facetten prestatiemotivatie, concentratie, doorzettingsvermogen en
ordelijkheid. Kinderen met lage scores op welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid
vertonen meer externaliserend probleemgedrag wanneer de ouders veel negatieve
controle uitoefenen in de interacties met die kinderen. Negatieve controle verwijst
hier naar straffen, hard straffen en het onbestraft laten van ongewenst gedrag. Een
hoge mate van negatieve controle refereert dus naar inadequate pogingen van ouders
om ongewenst gedrag te beïnvloeden. Kinderen die gekenmerkt worden door een
hoge mate van welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid, vertonen geen
gedragsproblemen, zelfs als ze worden blootgesteld aan negatieve controle. Bijgevolg
kunnen een hoge mate van welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid als beschermend
worden beschouwd tegen negatieve ouderlijke invloeden. De interacties tussen
negatieve controle met welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid zijn repliceerbaar over
informanten en over de tijd.
244 Samenvatting
gedrag samen met meer externaliserend probleemgedrag. Voor kinderen die juist wel
welwillend zijn, houdt het al dan niet blootgesteld worden aan positief ouderlijk
gedrag geen verband met probleemgedrag. De interacties tussen kindkarakteristieken
en positief ouderlijk gedrag zijn wel minder stabiel dan de interacties met negatieve
controle. Voor emotionele problemen zijn de interacties tussen de persoonlijkheid van
het kind en het opvoedingsgedrag van de ouder minder belangrijk als verklarende
factor.
Is het mogelijk om bepaalde types van kinderen te identificeren die meer of minder
probleemgedrag vertonen bij bepaalde opvoedingspraktijken?
Onze resultaten tonen evidentie voor een indeling van kinderen in drie
persoonlijkheidstypes: de ‘resilients’ of veerkrachtige kinderen, die gemiddeld scoren
op de vijf persoonlijkheidsdomeinen, de ‘undercontrollers’, die onder het gemiddelde
scoren op welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid, en de ‘overcontrollers’, die laag
scoren op emotionele stabiliteit en extraversie. Het ‘undercontrolled’ type vertoont
meer externaliserend gedrag wanneer er tevens ouderlijke negatieve controle is, het
‘overcontrolled’ type vertoont meer internaliserend gedrag bij negatieve controle. Bij
veerkrachtige kinderen wordt geen probleemgedrag vastgesteld, zelfs als de
opvoedingsomgeving niet optimaal is, zoals bij een hoge mate van negatieve controle.
Interacties tussen de persoonlijkheidstypes en veel of weinig positief ouderlijk gedrag
hangen niet samen met probleemgedrag bij het kind.
Zijn ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheidskenmerken van kinderen op dezelfde manier
gerelateerd aan emotionele als aan gedragsproblemen?
De resultaten tonen een differentiële samenhang tussen kindkenmerken,
ouderlijk gedrag en externaliserend en internaliserend probleemgedrag. De
persoonlijkheidsdimensies welwillendheid en consciëntieusheid zijn de belangrijkste
voorspellers voor externaliserend gedrag, terwijl emotionele stabiliteit en extraversie
meest samenhangen met internaliserend gedrag. Wat ouderlijk gedrag betreft, blijkt
negatieve ouderlijke controle vooral geassocieerd te zijn met externaliserend gedrag
en in mindere mate met internaliserend gedrag. De effecten van positief ouderlijk
gedrag zijn minder stabiel over studies heen en zijn meestal minder sterk dan
negatieve controle. Interacties tussen ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheid van het kind
zijn vooral geassocieerd met externaliserend gedrag, terwijl internaliserend gedrag
Samenvatting 245
vooral verklaard wordt door onafhankelijke of hoofdeffecten van persoonlijkheid en
ouderlijk gedrag.
Spelen persoonlijkheid en ouderlijk gedrag een gelijkaardige rol voor klinische en
niet-klinische kinderen?
Op basis van gemiddelden kan er een duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt worden
tussen kinderen die wel en niet in behandeling zijn voor psychologische problemen:
de klinische kinderen vertonen hogere scores voor internaliserend en externaliserend
probleemgedrag, worden gekenmerkt door lagere scores op de persoonlijkheids-
domeinen welwillendheid, consciëntieusheid, emotionele stabiliteit, extraversie en
openheid, en zijn blootgesteld aan minder positief ouderlijk gedrag en meer negatieve
controle. Voor beide groepen blijkt persoonlijkheid bij te dragen tot internaliserend en
externaliserend probleemgedrag, al zijn er kleine verschillen in de sterkte van de
relaties. Ook negatieve ouderlijke controle blijkt voor de beide groepen op dezelfde
manier bij te dragen tot probleemgedrag. Een gebrek aan positief ouderlijk gedrag is
enkel voor kinderen in de niet-klinische groep geassocieerd met probleemgedrag.
Interacties tussen ouderlijk gedrag en persoonlijkheid als verklarende variabelen voor
probleemgedrag blijken nauwelijks te verschillen tussen een klinische en niet-
klinische groep. Samengevat kunnen we stellen dat onze resultaten lijken aan te geven
dat dezelfde antecedenten van belang zijn voor het verklaren van probleemgedrag in
een klinische en niet-klinische groep kinderen, en dat de verschillen eerder
kwantitatief dan kwalitatief van aard zijn.
Wat is de bijdrage van persoonlijkheid van ouders binnen het netwerk van relaties
tussen persoonlijkheid van kinderen, ouderlijk gedrag en probleemgedrag?
Persoonlijkheid van ouders verklaart gedeeltelijk probleemgedrag bij kinderen,
al zijn de verbanden eerder indirect dan direct. Geen van de
persoonlijkheidskenmerken van moeder of vader houdt direct verband met
externaliserende problemen. Voor internaliseren is er wel een direct verband met
neuroticisme bij beide ouders en ook met openheid bij moeders. Sommige
persoonlijkheidskenmerken van ouders zijn geassocieerd met ouderlijk
opvoedingsgedrag. Meer positief ouderlijk gedrag hangt samen met meer
consciëntieusheid en openheid. Meer negatieve controle wordt voorspeld door meer
zelfgerapporteerd neuroticisme, en een lagere mate van extraversie en openheid bij
246 Samenvatting
moeders, evenals door een mindere mate van openheid, altruïsme en meer
consciëntieusheid bij vaders. De resultaten tonen een indirect verband aan tussen
persoonlijkheid en probleemgedrag. Negatieve ouderlijke controle wordt zowel bij
vaders als moeders verklaard door bepaalde persoonlijkheidskarakteristieken, maar
beïnvloedt zelf ook probleemgedrag.
Klinische implicaties
De onderzoeksresultaten suggereren dat assessment van zowel ouderlijk
gedrag als persoonlijkheid van het kind aan te bevelen is als kinderen voor gedrags- of
emotionele problemen worden doorverwezen. Dit kan het inzicht in de interacties
tussen ouders en kind vergroten. De meetinstrumenten die in het proefschrift zijn
gebruikt, zijn geschikt voor dit doel. De Schaal voor Ouderlijk Gedrag (SOG) is
eenvoudig om af te nemen, laat toe dat zowel ouders als kinderen ouderlijk gedrag
beoordelen, en geeft een indicatie over sterkten en zwakten van ouderlijk
opvoedingsgedrag. De Hiërarchische Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst (HiPIC; Mervielde
& De Fruyt, 1999) is een instrument met goede psychometrische eigenschappen. Voor
beide instrumenten zijn normen beschikbaar die toelaten om normaal en afwijkend
gedrag vast te stellen.
Sommige praktijkmensen staan huiverachtig tegenover de evidentie dat
kindkarakteristieken een rol spelen bij probleemgedrag van kinderen. Omdat
temperament en persoonlijkheid worden beschouwd als relatief stabiel over tijd neemt
men aan dat ook probleemgedrag stabiel is en bijgevolg moeilijk behandelbaar.
Andere hulpverleners creëren dan weer onrealistische verwachtingen, door geen
rekening te houden met bepaalde individuele eigenschappen. We hopen met onze
resultaten vooral een realistische visie op probleemgedrag aan te moedigen in plaats
van een pessimistische of deterministische visie, of anderzijds een te optimistische
visie. Door therapie zal men bepaalde eigenschappen van een kind niet fundamenteel
kunnen veranderen. Toch kan men gewenst gedrag doen toenemen door het geven van
specifieke informatie. Ook kan beïnvloeding door de omgeving voorkomen dat
bepaalde predisposities meer manifest worden. Wanneer er een disharmonie is tussen
kenmerken van het kind en ouderlijk gedrag, kan men ouders instrueren om meer
effectieve ouderlijke strategieën te gebruiken om probleemgedrag te voorkomen of te
Samenvatting 247
verminderen. De resultaten suggereren bijvoorbeeld dat veel en hard straffen bij een
kind dat weinig welwillend of consciëntieus is eerder schadelijk is. Een alternatieve
aanpak lijkt aangewezen, zoals bijvoorbeeld het belonen van prosociaal gedrag.
Het onderzoek ondersteunt verder de visie dat ouders niet moeten
verantwoordelijk worden gesteld voor de gedragsmoeilijkheden bij hun kind, of
anderzijds te veel krediet moeten krijgen voor de afwezigheid van probleemgedrag.
Indien men dit wel doet, negeert men de interacties tussen ouderlijk gedrag en de
persoonlijkheid van het kind. Therapeuten die de schuldvraag bij ouders omtrent het
probleemgedrag van hun kind wegnemen, zullen die ouders als co-therapeuten kunnen
gebruiken in het therapeutisch proces. Er zijn reeds therapeutische programma’s
ontwikkeld waarbij men als educatieve component uitleg verschaft omtrent
temperament en persoonlijkheid van het kind, wat vervolgens wordt aangevuld met
een training in specifieke ouderlijke vaardigheden, aanleunend bij de individuele
karakteristieken van het kind.
Concluderend kan gesteld worden dat het onderzoek een bijdrage biedt op
zowel theoretisch, empirisch als praktisch vlak. Op theoretisch vlak zijn een aantal
actuele en/of vernieuwende ideeën in het proefschrift opgenomen, zoals het
bestuderen van interacties tussen omgevingsfactoren, met name de opvoeding, en
individuele karakteristieken, met name de persoonlijkheid, in het verklaren van
probleemgedrag. Daarbij zijn zowel een type- als een variabelebenadering gebruikt.
Verder zijn assumpties getest van een spectrummodel voor individuele verschillen.
Op empirisch vlak is evidentie geleverd voor het belang van de studie van interacties
van persoonlijkheid en ouderlijk gedrag als verklaring voor probleemgedrag bij
kinderen. Daarbij zijn enkele prominente persoonlijkheidsdomeinen en ouderlijke
gedragingen naar voor gekomen als voorspellers van probleemgedrag bij kinderen. Op
praktisch vlak kunnen onze bevindingen richtlijnen geven voor de ontwikkeling en
verbetering van therapeutische programma’s gericht op preventie en verminderen van
probleemgedrag bij kinderen en adolescenten.
Verder onderzoek is echter zinvol en kan focussen op ondermeer: assessment
van ouderlijk gedrag, geslachts- en leeftijdsverschillen voor (interactie-)effecten van
persoonlijkheid en ouderlijk gedrag, verder longitudinaal onderzoek, analyses omtrent
verschillende kinderen binnen een gezin en de inclusie van variabelen omtrent de
bredere familiale context.
248 Samenvatting
Gerris, J. R. M., Houtmans, M. J. M., Kwaaitaal-Roosen, E. M. G., de
Schipper, J. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1998). Parents,
Adolescents and Young Adults in Dutch Families: a longitudinal study. Nijmegen:
Institute of Family Studies.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO
Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten: NEO PI R en NEO-FFI. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Langemeijer, K., Pijnenburg, H., & Veerman, J. W. (1997). Standaardisatie
van de gezinsdiagnostiek. Een inventarisatie van Nederlandstalige
gezinsdiagnostische instrumenten. Nijmegen: Stichting de Waarden, afdeling
Onderzoek en Ontwikkeling.
Van Leeuwen, K. (1999). Het meten van opvoeding met de Schaal voor
Ouderlijk Gedrag. Diagnostiek-Wijzer, 3, 151-170.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de
CBCL/4-18. [Manual of the CBCL/4-18.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling
Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997a). Handleiding voor de
Teacher’s Report Form. [Manual of the TRF.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam,
Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.
Referenties
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.
De Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R.
(1992). NOSI: Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress Index. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf
(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. (pp. 107-127). Tilburg University Press.
Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997b). Handleiding voor de
Youth Self Report. [Manual of the YSR.] Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Afdeling
Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie.