European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Published online 20 December 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.501

Parent and Child Personality Characteristics asPredictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing

Problem Behaviour in Children

P. PRINZIE*, P. ONGHENA, W. HELLINCKX,H. GRIETENS, P. GHESQUIERE and H. COLPIN

Department of Educational Sciences, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Negative discipline has been linked to childhood externalizing behaviour. However,

relatively little attention has been given to the potential effect of individual personality

characteristics of children and parents. Using the Five Factor Model, we examined the

extent to which parents’ and children’s personality characteristics were related to

parenting and children’s externalizing behaviour in a proportional stratified general

population sample ( N¼ 599) of elementary-school-aged children. Based on Patterson’s

macromodel of parenting, an initial model was built, hypothesizing that the impact of

parents’ and child’s personality dimensions on externalizing problems was fully mediated

by negative discipline. Results supported a modified model that added direct pathways

between parent and child personality characteristics and externalizing problem behaviour.

For the mother data, as well as for the father data, children’s Extraversion and

Imagination were positively related to children’s externalizing problem behaviours.

Children’s Benevolence and Conscientiousness and parents’ Emotional Stability were

negatively related to externalizing problem behaviours. For the mother data, maternal

Agreeableness was positively related to externalizing problem behaviours too. Copyright

# 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, ecological, developmental, and behavioural genetic perspectives

have led to an increased appreciation of the complexity of person–environment

interactions (Hill, 2002). Contemporary research on parenting and child development is

predominantly based on ecological models that take into consideration variables from

biological, psychological, physical and socio-cultural levels (Belsky, 1984, 1997;

Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Lerner, Rothbaum, Boulos, &

Received 12 December 2002

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 16 June 2003

*Correspondence to: P. Prinzie, Department of Educational Sciences, Vesaliusstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.E-mail: Peter.Prinzie@ped.kuleuven.ac.be

Castellino, 2002). Although parent and child characteristics have a place in these models

(Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986), the exact nature of that influence is a challenging

question that continues to stimulate controversy (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg,

Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Maccoby, 1992). In his process model of parenting,

Belsky (1984, 1997) explicitly put forward that parents’ as well as children’s personality

characteristics must influence parenting and children’s developmental outcomes. While

there is an extensive literature on how parenting influences children’s behaviour (e.g.

Maccoby, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), surprisingly few empirical investigations have

explored which parent characteristics (for a review, see Belsky & Barends, 2002) or child

characteristics (see e.g. Bates, Pettit, Dodge, & Ridge, 1998; Colder, Lochman, & Wells,

1997; Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, & West, 2000) are primarily involved and to what extent

these characteristics influence parenting or child development. Most of these studies

focused on specific personality characteristics of the parent (Bosquet & Egeland, 2000) or

the child (Bates et al., 1998; Colder et al., 1997), on parental psychopathology (Goodman

& Gotlib, 1999; Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998) and addressed the parenting of mothers

(Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman, 1997) ignoring the possible impact of fathers’ personality

characteristics. Finally, few studies have concurrently assessed child and parent

personality characteristics, parenting and children’s conduct problems, which made it

impossible to separate direct and mediated relations between personality characteristics

and children’s problem behaviour. To our knowledge, studies reporting different effects of

both children’s and parents’ personality characteristics measured by instruments

consistent with the comprehensive Big Five Model (Goldberg, 1990) in nonclinical

samples are lacking. Parental as well as children’s characteristics may have a direct effect

on children’s externalizing behaviour problems or may be mediated by the parenting

practices (Hill, 2002).

This study integrated simultaneously parenting and personality effects of children and

parents. The direct and indirect effects of both parental and child personality dimensions

on externalizing problem behaviour in children were investigated. Personality character-

istics of both parent and child were studied because, in the nature–nurture debate,

behaviour genetic studies provide increasing evidence for the complex interplay between

parent and child effects (Lytton, 1990; Miles & Carey, 1997; Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000;

Rutter, 1997, 2002).

RELATION BETWEEN PARENTING PRACTICES AND CHILDHOOD

EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOUR

Recent literature offers ample evidence that there is a substantial relation between

dysfunctional parenting practices and the development of conduct problems in children

(Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995; Kiesner, Dishion, & Poulin, 2001; Loeber & Dishion,

1983; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Patterson & Fisher, 2002; Shaw & Bell, 1993). According to

these studies, negative (i.e. harsh, authoritarian) discipline by parents is correlated with

behaviour problems in children (Baumrind, 1993; Patterson, 2002; Patterson, Reid, &

Dishion, 1992; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). According to Patterson (2002), disrupted

parenting practices are the proximal mechanism for the production of antisocial behaviour.

From a social learning perspective, Patterson and his colleagues built two parallel

theories at very different but interrelated levels (Patterson, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992;

Snyder, 1995).

74 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

A micromodel, based on extensive observation data of moment-by-moment parent–

child interactions, is used to elucidate in detail how parents and children change each

other’s behaviour over time (Eddy, Leve, & Fagot, 2001; Patterson, 1982; Patterson et al.,

1992). In his coercion theory, Patterson (1982, 2002) describes a multistep family process

called ‘coercion training’ that occurs frequently in families of aggressive boys and that

consists of escape-conditioning contingencies. The first step is an aversive intrusion of the

parent. Typically, the intrusions are minor ones. For example, a mother simply scolds a

child for not doing his homework. The second step involves a counterattack by the child,

through arguing, yelling, whining, shouting, or complaining about the parent’s directive.

The third step, the parent’s response to the child’s coercive attempt, is crucial. When the

parent does not enforce the directive, the child is rewarded for his coercive behaviour. The

danger of this step lies in the behavioural trap inherent in negative reinforcement. The trap

is that coercion is functional in the short run but leads to maladaptive long-term outcomes.

In the short run, a coercive response effectively terminates conflict. In the long run, the

likelihood of coercive behaviour in subsequent conflicts is increased. At the fourth step,

the child terminates the counterattack, and the parent is reinforced for her or his backing

off. In this way, both parent and child reinforce each other in the use of coercive tactics.

These reinforcements increase the probability that the coercive exchange will be repeated

in future interactions. Not only will the exchange be repeated; as the interaction chains

increase in length and hostility, it may also escalate (Dishion & Patterson, 1997; Patterson,

1982, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992). In the long term, the coercive training the young child

receives at home results in massive social skills and academic deficits.

The second level consists of a multimethod- and multiagent-defined macromodel that

explains in very general terms how parenting practices control the contingent parent–child

interactions (Patterson, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992; Snyder, 1995). A strong association

was found between harsh, capricious, and inconsistent parental discipline, parental

monitoring, and child antisocial behaviour (Patterson, 1986). According to this model, the

impact of contextual variables such as social disadvantage (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, &

Simons, 1994), divorce (Forgatch, Patterson, & Skinner, 1988), parental stress (Conger,

Patterson, & Ge, 1995), parental depression (Bank, Forgatch, Patterson, & Fetrow, 1993),

parental antisocial behaviour (Patterson & Dishion, 1988), and children’s characteristics

on child adjustment is mediated by the impact on parenting practices (Dishion &

Patterson, 1997; Reid & Patterson, 1989). However, in contrast to the contextual variables,

the impact of parental and child personality characteristics has not yet been empirically

studied.

RELATION BETWEEN PARENT PERSONALITY, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY,

PARENTING, AND CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES

In the past decades, most of the empirical studies on the relationship between parental

personality characteristics and parenting or children’s developmental outcomes lacked a

systematic approach to the measurement of personality and were restricted to parental

psychopathology (Belsky & Barends, 2002). Among all other dysfunctions, depression has

received the overwhelming majority of attention (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Field, 1995;

Hops, Sherman, & Biglan, 1990; Zahn-Waxler, 1995; Zahn-Waxler, Duggal, & Gruber,

2002). The assessment of personality characteristics has often focused on neuroticism, a

personality dimension that connotes vulnerability to anxiety, worry, and poor coping with

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 75

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

stress. Numerous investigations document the unresponsive, intrusive, and even hostile

ways in which depressed mothers often behave toward infants and young children (for a

review, see Downey & James, 1990). According to Patterson’s macromodel the impact of

parental depression on child adjustment is mediated through its disrupting impact on

family-management practices (Patterson et al., 1992). Parental depression produces

negative outcomes for child adjustment only if the social interchanges between parent and

child becomes interrupted (Conger et al., 1995). Parental depression undermines parents’

practice of discipline and supervision, increasing the probability that youngsters will

become progressively out of control and delinquent.

In studying families of children at high risk for juvenile delinquency, Patterson and

Dishion (1988) have directed special attention to the antisocial personality trait among

parents. Parent antisocial behaviour was defined by the Psychopathic-deviate (Pd) scale of

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), records of moving traffic

violations, licence suspensions, and convictions for violations of the law. Patterson and his

colleagues (e.g. Patterson & Dishion, 1988) found that explosiveness by grandparents was

related to antisocial behaviour in parents, and the effect of antisocial parental patterns on

child antisocial behaviour was also mediated by poor parental discipline practices.

Parental hostile interchanges with children predicted child antisocial development.

However, Brook, Zheng, Whiteman and Brook (2001) found that maternal rearing served

as a mediator for parental aggression but parental aggression has also a direct effect on

toddler aggression.

Another possibility, and a more comprehensive approach, to investigate the impact of

parent personality characteristics on parenting or children’s outcomes is offered by the Big

Five. Personality research has been given a new impetus and direction over the past decade

by a near consensus on the main factors that provide the structure within which the myriad

of more specific personality traits can be arrayed (Caspi, 1998). The Big Five personality

factors have traditionally been numbered and labelled as follows: (I) Extraversion (or

Surgency, Positive Affectivity), (II) Agreeableness (versus Antagonism), (III) Conscien-

tiousness (or Constraint Dependability), (IV) Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism or

Negative Affectivity), and (V) Openness to Experience (or Intellect, Culture) (see Caspi,

1998; Goldberg, 1990). The Big Five has been proven useful as a framework for

organizing findings on individual differences in adulthood. In addition, the Big Five

factors were found in clinical person descriptions (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986).

Moreover, empirical research revealed strong and fairly consistent associations between

the Big Five personality factors and psychopathology in adults (Cloninger, 1999; Lynam &

Widiger, 2001; Watson & Clark, 1994; Widiger & Trull, 1992). From the perspective of

the Big Five, personality disorders represent configurations of basic dimensions of

personality. Widiger and Costa (2002) have identified over 50 published studies that have

shown relations between the Big Five and personality disorder symptoms.

Few studies however have investigated possible relations between the five factor

dimensions and parenting behaviours or children’s adjustment behaviour in nonclinical

samples. As Belsky and Barend (2002, p. 434) pointed out, ‘the power of the Big Five to

capture much of the variation in adult personality has not been sufficiently appreciated’.

With regard to the relation between parent personality traits and parenting, Belsky, Crnic,

and Woodworth (1995) investigated relations between Extraversion, Neuroticism, and

Agreeableness and observed parenting. Using the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa &

McCrae, 1985), they found that, for mothers and fathers, Neuroticism was consistently

associated with less sensitive, less affective, and less stimulating parenting. Extraversion

76 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

and Agreeableness were linked to more adaptive parenting. Losoya, Callor, Rowe, and

Goldsmith (1997) also found that parents with high scores on Extraversion, Agreeable-

ness, and Openness were more engaged in positive supporting parenting such as displaying

positive affection and encouraging independence. Conscientiousness on the other hand

was negatively related to negative, controlling parenting. Using the model of Watson,

Clark, and Harkness (1994), Kochanska et al. (1997) investigated the impact of

Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness on parenting and

children’s developmental outcomes. The results indicated that mothers high in negative

emotionality and disagreeableness showed more negative affect. Their children were more

defiant and angry. These mothers also reported more power-assertive and less nurturing

parenting, as well as less secure attachment, more behavioural problems, and lower

internalization rules in their children. With regard to clinical samples, Nigg and Hinshaw

(1998) reported that, compared with non-ADHD boys, boys with ADHD and comorbid

antisocial diagnosis had fathers with lower Agreeableness, higher Neuroticism, and a

greater likelihood of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Higher rates of observable overt

antisocial behaviours in boys were associated primarily with maternal characteristics such

as higher Neuroticism, lower Conscientiousness, and the presence of Major Depression. In

contrast, higher rates of observable covert antisocial behaviours were associated solely

with fathers’ characteristics, such as substance abuse/dependency and higher Openness.

Maternal neuroticism has also been linked to child delinquency (Borduin, Henggeler, &

Pruitt, 1985) and more generally to externalizing behaviours in children (Bates, Bayles,

Bennet, Ridge, & Brown, 1991). Further, Openness was found to be strongly related to

Sensation Seeking (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994). Sensation Seeking, in turn,

significantly predicted antisocial behaviour (Frick, Juper, Silverthorn, & Cotter, 1995;

Zuckerman, 1991).

RELATION BETWEEN CHILD PERSONALITYAND CHILDHOOD

EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOUR

Studies that have investigated the impact of children’s characteristics on parenting or

behaviour problems in childhood have predominantly focused on specific temperament

characteristics (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Classically, temperament has been viewed as a

substrate for personality development, consisting of simple, basic styles that emerge early

and that are closely tied to later personality dimensions (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Hartup &

van Lieshout, 1995). Research has linked certain temperamental characteristics, which

have been shown to be heritable (Plomin et al., 1993), with externalizing problems in

children (Sanson & Prior, 1999) and adolescents (Romero, Luengo, & Sobral, 2001) (for a

review, see Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Temperamental measures of ‘difficultness’ appear to

predict both externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems (Guerin, Gottfried, &

Thomas, 1997). Difficultness includes negative emotional expression, impulsivity, low

frustration tolerance, restlessness, low fearfulness, and distractibility. However, the

integration of the various results is hampered by definitional differences accompanied by

assessment differences. Moreover, there is no general consensus on the number and nature

of temperamental dimensions and the dimensions do not consistently emerge from factor

analytic studies (see e.g. Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999).

With regard to personality traits in children, considerable progress has been made over

the past decade toward the development of a more generally accepted taxonomy (Caspi,

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 77

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

1998; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). The Big Five factors also have been extended to ratings of

nonclinical children and adolescents (Digman, 1994; Halverson, Kohnstamm, & Martin,

1994; Robins, John, & Caspi, 1994; van Lieshout & Haselager, 1994), related to early

temperament (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Rothbart & Bates, 1998) and to

spontaneous person descriptions by parents of their children (De Fruyt, Van Hiel, & Buyst,

1998). An advantage of the Big Five is that it serves as a framework to conduct systematic

research and that it provides an integration of the diversity of individual personality

measures (McCrae & Costa, 1996). In addition, given the use of the Big Five for exploring

adult personality, extension of the Big Five into childhood and adolescence can facilitate

comparisons across developmental periods. A very comprehensive personality inventory

today, assessing individual differences in children, is the HiPIC (Mervielde & De Fruyt,

1999). The HiPIC as a personality scale is based on an extensive analysis of free parental

descriptions (Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998). Recently, De Fruyt,

Mervielde, Hoekstra and Rolland (2000) showed that—for a self-report version of the

HiPIC administered to a sample of adolescents (12–17, mean age 13.6)—a joint principal

component analysis of HiPIC and NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) facets clearly

demonstrated the close relationship between the 18 HiPIC facets and the adult FFM as

operationalized by the NEO-PI-R. Hence the HiPIC evolved from a variant of the lexical

approach but its facets load the corresponding factors of the adult Five Factor Model, at

least for adolescents.

Only a few studies have investigated the relationships between the five factor

dimensions and adjustment behaviour. John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-

Loeber (1994) suggested that the personality traits in young adolescents are differentially

implicated in the expression of psychopathology, providing evidence for the discrimina-

tive power of the Big Five. Externalizing problem behaviour was more prevalent among

boys who were extraverted, not agreeable, and not conscientious. Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt,

Silva and Mcgee (1996) have linked externalizing behaviour to lower scores on

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. These findings are consistent with the three

replicable personality types that emerged in some studies with regular samples

(Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, & van Aken, 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999;

Block & Block, 1980; Caspi, 1998; De Fruyt, Mervielde & Van Leeuwen 2002; van

Lieshout, 2000). These personality types vary in their flexible and resourceful adjustment

and control of impulses and they consistently show characteristic profiles on the Big-Five

personality factors. The first category, or personality type, is labelled resilients, and

described individuals who were assertive and self-confident, not anxious, and not

immature. The other two types differ in their impulse control. The second personality type

is labelled overcontrollers, and describes individuals who were shy, dependent,

noncompetitive, and nonaggressive. The vulnerable overcontrollers tend to internalizing

problems and score particularly low on Extraversion and Emotional Stability. The third

type is labelled undercontrollers. Undercontrollers tend to be more impulsive, stubborn,

not obedient, restless, and distractible. The antisocial undercontrollers, the great majority

of them being boys, tend to be disagreeable, antagonistic, and hostile; they score high on

Extraversion, but particularly low on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Robins, John,

Caspi, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996). The personality subtypes reveal slightly

different personality profiles, but very distinctive adjustment patterns that seem highly

similar across middle childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Recently, De Fruyt et al.

(2002) showed that, using the HiPIC in a sample aged 7–15 and a longitudinal sample aged

5–13, three types resembling resilients, overcontrollers, and undercontrollers could be

78 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

recovered. In both samples HiPIC Benevolence and Conscientiousness consistently

marked one of the three clusters.

AIM OF THIS STUDY

In the current study, the direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality

characteristics on parenting practices and children’s externalizing problem behaviour were

examined in a proportional stratified sample of 599 nonclinical elementary school-aged

children. The focus was on negative discipline: coercive parental discipline, overreactivity,

and laxness, which are consistently associated with aggressive or externalizing behaviour

(Patterson, 1982, 2002; Patterson et al., 1992; O’Leary, Slep, & Reid, 1999).

We expected that, according to the macromodel of Patterson (Patterson et al., 1992;

Reid & Patterson, 1989), the impact of parent and child personality characteristics was

mediated partly through their impact on dysfunctional parenting practices, but, in addition,

we expected that the personality characteristics of the parent also contributed directly to

children’s externalizing behaviour above and beyond the indirect effects (see e.g. Brook

et al., 2001). Further, we hypothesized that specific child personality characteristics also

have a direct effect on externalizing behaviour problems beyond the parenting effects.

Based on past research (John et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1996; Robins et al., 1996), we

expected that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness contributed directly.

Finally, we investigated whether the direct and indirect effects were the same for the

mother and the father data.

This study sought to extend previous research on the aetiology of children’s behavioural

problems by (i) examining the role of parents’ personality characteristics, children’s

personality characteristics, and dysfunctional parenting behaviours in predicting child

outcomes; (ii) assessing all Big Five dimensions of the parents as well as of the children,

(iii) including fathers, in addition to mothers, to examine their potentially unique

contributions to children’s adjustment; (iv) using a large proportional stratified sample of

school-aged children.

METHOD

Participants

A proportional stratified sample of elementary-school-aged children attending regular

schools was randomly selected (i.e. the names of the children who have had their birthday

before 31 March were arranged alphabetically; the second and the last child but one were

selected). Strata were constructed according to geographical location (province), sex, and

age. Out of 800 invited families, 599 families (92.5 per cent two-parent families) with an

elementary-school-aged child participated. Target children in these families ranged in age

from 5 to 11 years (M¼ 7 years 10 months, SD¼ 1.16). There were 304 boys (M¼ 7 years

10 months, range 5 years 9 months–10 years 10 months, SD¼ 1.16) and 295 girls (M¼ 7

years 10 months, range 5 years–10 years 5 months, SD¼ 1.16). From 555 families, both

parents provided data. From 39 children only the mother and from five children only the

father agreed to complete the questionnaires. All parents had Belgian nationality. The

mean age of the mothers was 36 years 11 months (range 27 years 1 month–52 years,

SD¼ 3.64) and of the fathers 39 years (range 27 years 11 months–61 years 10 months,

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 79

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

SD¼ 4.26). The number of children living at home ranged from one to seven (mean 2.4).

Percentages of mothers (M) and fathers (F) with various educational levels: elementary

school, M 0.9; F 3.0; secondary education, M 41.1, F 43.3; non-university higher

education, M 45.2, F 34.4; university, M 12.8, F 19.2. Due to missing values the data of

580 mothers and 531 fathers were retained.

Instruments and measures

Overreactive and lax parenting

Participants rated the Dutch translation of the Parenting Scale (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, &

Acker, 1993). The parenting scale was originally developed as a self-report questionnaire

to identify parents’ discipline style when handling misbehaviour, even if discipline actions

do not occur frequently. Based on factor analytic findings, three subscales were developed.

The Laxness factor assesses permissive discipline and the ways that parents are

inconsistent or give positive reinforcers for misbehaviour. The Overreactivity factor relates

to parenting behaviours of irritability, anger, meanness, and frustration and is associated

with an ‘authoritarian’ style of discipline. The Verbosity factor relates to nagging,

lecturing, giving many warnings, and a general reliance on talking despite its

ineffectiveness and potential for reinforcement by providing additional attention for the

child’s misbehaviour. The scale consisted of 30 items presenting discipline encounters

(e.g. ‘When my child misbehaves . . . ’) followed by two options that act as opposite anchor

points for a seven-point scale where 7 indicates a high probability of making the discipline

mistake and 1 indicates a high probability of using an effective, alternative discipline

strategy (e.g. ‘I speak to my child calmly’ versus ‘I raise my voice or yell’). The scale’s

factor structure has been found to be consistent with past research and theory. The

Overreactivity and Laxness factors have adequate test–retest reliability, distinguish

clinical from nonclinical samples, and have been validated against behavioural

observations of parenting (Arnold et al., 1993; Locke & Prinz, 2002). An exploratory

factor analysis of the translated version revealed two interpretable factors corresponding

with the Overreactivity and the Laxness factor identified in previous studies of the

parenting scale1 (Prinzie, Onghena, Ghesquiere, & Hellinckx, manuscript submitted for

publication). With the oblique rotation promax, the two factors correlated 0.38. The

Laxness factor includes 11 items related to permissive discipline. These items describe

ways in which parents give in, allow rules to go un-enforced, or provide positive

consequences for misbehaviour (e.g. item 16 ‘When my child does something I don’t

like’ . . . ‘I do something about it every time it happens’ versus ‘I often let it go’; item 8

‘I’m the kind of parent that’ . . . ‘set limits on what my child is allowed to do’ versus ‘lets

my child do whatever he/she wants’). The Overreactivity factor contains nine items and

measures the tendency exhibited by parents to respond with anger, frustration, meanness,

and irritation, impatiently and aversively to problematic behaviour of their children (e.g.

item 25 ‘When my child misbehaves’ . . . ‘I rarely use bad language or curse’ versus ‘I

almost always use bad language’; item 10 ‘When my child misbehaves’ . . . ‘I speak to my

child calmly’ versus ‘I raise my voice or yell’). Cronbach’s alphas for the mother data

(N¼ 580) were 0.78 for the new Overreactivity scale and 0.81 for the new Laxness scale.

For the father data (N¼ 531) Cronbach’s alpha were 0.77 for the new Overreactivity scale

1As in the studies of Harvey, Danforth, Ulaszek, and Eberhardt (2001), Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski and Ary(1999), and Reitman et al. (2001), a confirmatory factor analysis did not replicate the three factors found byArnold et al. (1993).

80 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

and 0.84 for the new Laxness scale. Mother and father Overreactivity and Laxness scores

were correlated, r¼ 0.28, p< 0.001 and r¼ 0.23, p< 0.001, respectively.

Coercive parenting

Further, both parents rated the Leuvens Instrument voor Coercief Opvoedingsgedrag

(LICO; Leuvens Instrument of Coercive Parenting Behaviour; Hellinckx et al., 2000). This

new self-report questionnaire assesses coercion as described by Patterson et al. (1992).

When parents are inconsistent and capitulate to the child, Patterson (1976) hypothesized

that they enter a ‘reinforcement trap’, where short-term gains (e.g. peace and quiet) are

obtained at the cost of strengthening the child’s difficult behaviour. This instrument is

novel in that it is based on the outcome of entire conflict sequences rather than on

immediate reactions to particular individual behaviours. The LICO contains ten situations

in which the child is confronted with an aversive intrusion of the parents (e.g. such as

telling a child playing to clean up toys, to go to bed, to take a bath). For each situation,

parents completed at maximum six items, i.e. three sequences of actions of the child (e.g.

when you ask your child to go to bed, how will your child usually act?) and reactions of the

parent (e.g. given that your child acts like that . . . how do you usually react?). The answer

categories of the child behaviour range on a continuum from 1 (obey) to 4 (get angry, hit).

Parent behaviours range from 1 (give in) to 5 (punish severely). If the child complies

during the first or second sequence, parents go on with the next situation. If on the other

hand the parents capitulate to the child, a coercion score is calculated taking the duration

of the conflict (i.e. the longer the child resists the request, the higher the coercion score)

and the intensity of the aversive child behaviour (i.e. the more aversively the child reacts,

the higher the coercion score) into account. The total score for coercion is derived by

adding the coercion scores of the ten situations. Cronbach’s alphas for the LICO were 0.88

and 0.91 in the mother and father data, respectively. Mother and father coercion scores

were correlated, 0.35; p< 0.001. In the mother data as well as in the father data, the

coercion score correlated r¼ 0.19, p< 0.001 with the Overreactivity score and r¼ 0.26,

p< 0.001 and r¼ 0.22, p< 0.001 with the Laxness score in the mother and father data,

respectively.

Child personality

To measure personality characteristics of their child both parents completed the

Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC, Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999).

Based on an extensive analysis of free parental descriptions (Kohnstamm, Halverson,

Mervielde, & Havill, 1998), the HiPIC is a very comprehensive personality inventory, to

assess individual differences in children. The HiPIC is designed to describe individual

differences among children aged 6–12 years. This instrument includes 144 items,

hierarchically organized under five higher order domains. The items in this questionnaire

are all brief statements referring to overt behaviour that is observable for peers, parents, or

others. All items are formulated in the third person singular, avoid negations, do not

include trait adjectives and refer to overt behaviour. Parents completed children’s

behaviour on a five-point scale, anchored as follows: (1) Almost not characteristic, (2)

Little characteristic, (3) More or less characteristic, (4) Characteristic, and (5) Very

characteristic. Findings concerning structural replicability, convergent and discrimant

validities, temporal stability, and construct validity have recently been reported by

Mervielde and De Fruyt (2002).

The following domain scales were distinguished with number of items and

Cronbach’s alphas for the mothers and fathers, respectively, between parentheses.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 81

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

(i) Extraversion–Introversion (32 items; 0.91, 0.91). This scale contrasts emotional, social

and verbal expressiveness with shyness, inhibition, self-isolation, withdrawal, and non-

assertiveness. (ii) Benevolence (40 items; 0.93, 0.92). This scale covers the broad area of

prosocial versus antisocial interactions. The scale contrasts a warm, empathic consi-

deration of other people’s needs, emotions, and interests, and open, trustful, interpersonal

orientations, with dominance, irritation, and antisocial exploitation of others. To distin-

guish the broader content from the adult Agreeableness factor, this factor was labelled as

Benevolence. (iii) Conscientiousness (32 items; 0.92, 0.93). This scale refers to con-

scientiousness in worklike situations. The scale combines a concentrated, planful, reliable,

and competent high achievement orientation in work situations with high levels of

involvement and perseverance. (iv) Emotional Stability (16 items; 0.88, 0.86). In this

scale, self-reliance, emotional balance, and being easy-going are opposed to being fearful,

anxious, and emotionally disorganized under stress, and having low self-esteem. (v)

Imagination (24 items; 0.92, 0.92). The items of this scale emphasizes openness to new

ideas and experiences in terms of creativity, fantasy, curiosity, imagination, humour, and

resourcefulness in initiating activities. The correlation between mother and father scores

ranged from 0.65, p< 0.001 for Extraversion to 0.75, p< 0.001 for Conscientiousness.

Parent personality

Parents described their own personality using the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI,

Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation; Hendriks, Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999, 2002).

The FFPI was developed within the psycholexical paradigm and is based on the Abridged

Big 5 Circumplex Model (Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992). The FFPI comprises 100

brief non-dispositional sentence items assessing five broad dimensions of individual

differences in behaviour. The scales are labelled Extraversion, Agreeableness, Con-

scientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy. Besides scores for the Big Five

dimensions, the FFPI enables the computation of an additional 40 bipolar facet scores,

derived as blends of the Big Five. Parents completed the items on a five-point scale,

anchored as follows: (1) Not at all applicable, (2) Little applicable, (3) Moderately

applicable, (4) Largely applicable, (5) Entirely applicable. In the normal population, the

FFPI scale and factor scores show high internal consistencies, substantial stabilities, and

good construct validity (Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation; Hendriks et al.,

1999, 2002, in press). Factor weights, established in a large (N¼ 2494) Dutch normative

sample (Hendriks, unpublished doctoral dissertation), were used to produce uncorrelated

factor scores. The FFPI is available in 17 languages.

The following domain scales were distinguished with Cronbach’s alphas for the mothers

and fathers, respectively, between parentheses. (i) Extraversion–Introversion (0.90, 0.91).

This scale describes the extent to which the person actively engages the world or avoids

intense social experiences. (ii) Agreeableness (0.89, 0.89). This scale covers the broad area

of prosocial versus antisocial interactions. Agreeable persons are empathic, altruistic,

helpful, and trusting, whereas antagonistic persons are abrasive, ruthless, manipulative,

and irritable. (iii) Conscientiousness (0.89, 0.89). This scale concerned conscientiousness

in work situations. The scale combines a concentrated, planful, reliable, and competent

high achievement orientation in work situations with high levels of involvement and

perseverance. (iv) Emotional Stability (0.90, 0.88). This scale describes the extent to

which the person experiences the world as distressing or threatening. (v) Autonomy (0.85,

0.87). Short for Intellectual Autonomy, where emphasis is on the capability to take

independent decisions, not be influenced by social pressures to conform, and maintain an

82 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

independent opinion on topics (Perugini & Ercolani, 1998). Recently, De Fruyt, McCrae,

Szirmak, and Nagy (manuscript submitted for publication) found that the Autonomy factor

is not equivalent to the NEO-PI-R Openness factor. Facet analyses indicated that

Autonomy is related to determined self-control and independent decision-making.

Openness to Experience corresponds to the lexical Intellect factor, but it is broader,

including unconventionality and behavioural flexibility (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

Externalizing behaviour problems

Parents were asked to complete the Dutch translation of the CBCL (Achenbach, 1991;

Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1996), which is a global measure of a range of problem

behaviours in children and adolescents. This widely used instrument has two parts, one

part measuring children’s competencies and a second part consisting of 120 items

describing a broad range of problems. Only the findings from the latter part of the CBCL

were used for the purpose of this study. Each item on the CBCL is completed as 0 (not

true), 1 (sometimes true), or 2 (often true). The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;

Achenbach, 1991) is an extensively validated instrument that has adequate reliability and

validity for describing child behaviour (Achenbach, 1991; Vignoe, Berube, & Achenbach,

2000). The externalizing scale (comprising delinquent behaviour and aggressive behaviour

items) was used in the analyses of this study. The aggression subscale is made up of

19 items, including overt aggressive behaviours such as arguing a lot, destroying one’s

own and others’ belongings, being disobedient at home and at school, fighting with other

children, attacking others, and threatening others. The delinquency subscale is made up of

13 items including more covert behaviours such as lying, cheating, being truant, having no

guilt, stealing at home and elsewhere.2 The externalizing scale is traditionally used in raw

score form by summing the score across all items (Achenbach, 1991). Cronbach’s alpha

for mothers was 0.89, for fathers 0.86. Of the 580 children in the mother data, 471 were in

the normal range, 43 in the borderline range, and 66 in the clinical range. Of the 531

children in the father data, 456 were rated in the normal range, 29 in the borderline range

and 46 in the clinical range. The correlation between the mother and father scores was

significant (r¼ 0.68; p< 0.001).

Statistical methods

First, we examined the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each variable

separately. Second, we examined the bivariate relationships among the parenting, the

personality, and the problem behaviour measures. Finally, we used path analysis to

examine simultaneously direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality

characteristics on negative discipline and externalizing problem behaviour. We opted for

path analysis and not for a latent variable model approach because we had only two

indicators (mother and father ratings) for the major latent constructs. Bollen (1989),

among others, suggests that three indicators are a minimum, and others point out that four

indicators per latent variable are necessary to avoid a just-identified model. We used

LISREL 8.52 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2002a) for testing the proposed model on our data and

to disentangle direct and indirect effects of parent personality characteristics in the

2Out of the 13 items, two items (item 101, ‘truancy’, and item 105, ‘alcohol and drugs’) had a prevalence ofzero per cent in the mother as well as in the father ratings. In addition, six items had prevalence less thantwo per cent in the mother ratings as well as in the father ratings (i.e. item 67, ‘runs away’, 0.8 per cent,0.2 per cent; item 72, ‘fire setting’, 0.3 per cent, 0.5 per cent; item 81, ‘stealing at home’, 1.7 per cent, 0.9 per cent;item 82, ‘stealing outside the home’, 0.8 per cent, 0.5 per cent; item 106, ‘vandalism’, 1.8 per cent, 0.2 per cent).

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 83

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

established model of children’s externalizing behaviour. These analyses were based on

asymptotic covariance matrices (estimated moments were covariances), which were

estimated via the PRELIS 2.52 program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2002b). The fit of the

models was examined by looking at the �2-test, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A GFI near to unity and an RMSEA

smaller than 0.05 were taken as indications of a satisfactory fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

RMSEA values up to 0.08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population.

The expected cross validation index (ECVI) was used to choose among alternative models.

The ECVI of the chosen model should be smaller than the values for the alternatives

(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The parameters of chi squared (�2), Akaike’s information

criterion (AIC), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), root mean square

residual (RMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and expected cross

validation index (ECVI) were used to test and compare the fit of the models. Aikaike’s

information criterion is used in model comparisons; the smaller its value, the better the

model. No exact norm values for the model AIC are available. Weighted least squares were

used to estimate the model parameters.

According to Patterson’s assumptions (Patterson, 2002), in an initial basic model all the

child and mother personality characteristics were mediated by the parenting variables. Our

hypothesized model also contained, in addition to the indirect effects, direct effects of

parents’ and child’s personality characteristics. As outlined by Holmbeck (1997), we

examined whether the second model provided a significant improvement in fit over the first

model. Improvement in fit is assessed with a significance test on the basis of the difference

between the two-model chi-squares. To address possible problems with post hoc model

fitting, we employed a cross-validation strategy whereby the final model derived from the

mother data was tested on the father data. This invariance testing strategy gives an

indication of the stability of the model. As Bollen (1989) has indicated, this excessively

rigid test of cross-validation is appropriate when a multigroup focus is directed more

toward the equality of structural—rather than measurement—parameters.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and relations among the study variables

Univariate descriptive statistics revealed in the mother and father data that the coercion

variable was significantly skewed (2.83, 3.82) and had a kurtosis of 9.87 and 21.53,

respectively. To reduce non-normality, a square root transformation was performed (Cohen

& Cohen, 1983). After transformation of the coercion variable, absolute values of

skewness ranged in both samples from 0.01 to 1.67 and absolute values of kurtosis ranged

from 0.02 to 4.21. The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between the

variables are reported in Table 1. Children’s and parents’ scores on the Big Five were

moderately correlated. This is in accordance with the results of Jang, Livesley, and Vernon

(1996), who estimated a broad genetic influence on the five personality dimensions

measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). With respect to the

parent personality–parenting linkage, Table 1 shows that mothers with low scores on

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy scored higher on

Overreactivity and Laxness. A significant negative correlation was found between

Emotional Stability and Coercion. Fathers with low scores on Agreeableness and

84 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Tab

le1

.P

ears

on

corr

elat

ion

s,m

ean

sco

res,

and

stan

dar

dd

evia

tio

ns

for

the

mo

ther

dat

a(N

¼5

80

)an

dth

efa

ther

dat

a(N

¼5

31

)

Mea

sure

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mm

SD

mM

fS

Df

1.

Sex

a—

�0

.01

�0

.01

0.0

9*

0.1

2*

*�

0.0

7�

0.0

1�

0.0

20

.02

0.0

1�

0.0

5�

0.0

4�

0.1

3*

*�

0.0

1�

0.0

0�

0.1

9*

**

2.

Ag

e�

0.0

1—

�0

.07

0.0

6�

0.0

7�

0.0

3�

0.1

3*

*0

.02

0.0

5�

0.0

4�

0.0

2�

0.0

4�

0.0

40

.04

�0

.02

�0

.10

*7

.87

1.1

67

.87

1.1

6

Chil

d’s

per

son

ali

ty

3.

Extr

aver

sion

�0

.02

�0

.09

*—

0.1

2*

*0

.14

**

0.4

7*

**

0.5

7*

**

0.0

7�

0.0

30

.01

0.0

50

.07

�0

.12

**

�0

.11

**

�0

.01

0.0

41

16

.92

16

.10

11

6.4

51

5.1

2

4.

Ben

evo

len

ce0

.12

**

0.0

70

.10

*—

0.3

8*

**

0.2

8*

**

0.1

7*

**

0.1

2*

*0

.15

**

*0

.05

0.0

6�

0.0

9y

�0

.39

**

*�

0.2

0*

**

�0

.22

**

*�

0.6

3*

**

13

9.5

01

9.8

21

37

.45

18

.54

5.

Co

nsc

ien

tio

usn

ess

0.1

1*

*�

0.0

40

.09

0.3

7*

**

—0

.21

**

*0

.50

**

*0

.09

*0

.01

0.1

1*

*�

0.0

5�

0.0

1�

0.2

2*

**

�0

.13

**

�0

.08

�0

.30

**

*1

08

.46

18

.65

10

7.3

01

8.0

6

6.

Em

.S

tab

ilit

y�

0.0

4�

0.0

60

.43

**

*0

.27

**

*0

.19

**

*—

0.3

4*

**

0.0

70

.01

�0

.01

0.1

5*

**

0.0

7�

0.2

1*

**

�0

.12

**

�0

.14

**

�0

.16

**

*5

5.6

91

0.0

05

6.6

09

.06

7.

Imag

inat

ion

0.0

1�

0.1

4*

*0

.44

**

*0

.12

**

0.4

8*

**

0.3

1*

**

—0

.06

�0

.07

0.0

4�

0.0

20

.08

�0

.16

**

*�

0.1

7*

**

�0

.04

�0

.02

92

.58

13

.43

91

.54

12

.72

Pa

rents

’per

sonali

ty

8.

Extr

aver

sion

0.0

3�

0.0

50

.38

**

*0

.16

**

*0

.11

**

0.1

9*

**

0.1

2*

*—

�0

.07

�0

.01

0.0

7�

0.2

8*

**�

0.0

8�

0.0

4�

0.0

7�

0.1

0*

�0

.01

1.0

3�

0.0

11

.06

9.

Ag

reea

ble

nes

s0

.03

0.1

3*

*�

0.0

40

.34

**

*0

.04

�0

.05

0.0

4�

0.1

1*

*—

0.1

0*

0.0

30

.00

�0

.09

*0

.01

�0

.04

�0

.10

*0

.01

0.9

90

.00

0.9

9

10

.C

on

scie

nti

ou

snes

s0

.09

*�

0.0

30

.05

0.1

8*

**

0.3

3*

**

0.0

50

.11

**

0.0

30

.12

**

—0

.12

**

0.2

2*

**�

0.0

9*

�0

.08

0.0

3�

0.0

1�

0.0

00

.97

�0

.01

0.9

7

11

.E

m.

Sta

bil

ity

0.0

40

.00

0.0

50

.23

**

*0

.17

**

*0

.36

**

*0

.15

**

*0

.05

�0

.05

�0

.06

—0

.09

*�

0.0

7�

0.0

3�

0.0

5�

0.0

5�

0.0

10

.99

0.0

10

.96

12

.A

uto

no

my

0.0

40

.01

0.2

3*

**

0.0

20

.21

**

*0

.23

**

*0

.34

**

*�

0.1

7*

**

0.1

1*

0.0

9*

0.0

6—

�0

.01

�0

.07

0.0

00

.11

**

0.0

01

.02

0.0

11

.05

Pa

ren

tin

g

13

.O

ver

reac

tiv

ity

�0

.12

**

0.0

1�

0.0

6�

0.4

2*

**

�0

.25

**

*�

0.1

7*

**

�0

.15

**

*0

.00

�0

.24

**

*�

0.1

1*

*�

0.3

0*

**�

0.2

0*

**

—0

.28

**

*0

.19

**

*0

.37

**

*3

.16

0.8

83

.15

0.8

6

14

.L

axn

ess

�0

.06

�0

.01

�0

.10

*�

0.2

2*

**

�0

.19

**

*�

0.1

7*

**

�0

.20

**

*�

0.0

9*

�0

.16

**

*�

0.1

2*

*�

0.1

1*

*�

0.2

2*

**

0.3

6*

**

—0

.22

**

*0

.04

2.1

40

.64

2.2

00

.69

15

.C

oer

cio

n0

.03

�0

.03

�0

.01

�0

.26

**

*�

0.0

7�

0.1

2*

*�

0.0

2�

0.0

6�

0.0

4�

0.0

5�

0.1

2*

*�

0.0

10

.19

**

*0

.26

**

*—

0.2

1*

**

1.7

41

.75

1.7

91

.79

Pro

ble

mb

eha

vio

rs

16

.E

xte

rnal

izin

g�

0.1

9*

**�

0.1

1*

*0

.07

�0

.67

**

*�

0.3

4*

**

�0

.16

**

*0

.00

�0

.06

�0

.06

�0

.15

**

*�

0.2

5*

**

0.0

10

.36

**

*0

.08

0.2

2*

**

—7

.39

6.6

76

.58

6.1

8

Inte

rco

rrel

atio

ns

for

the

mo

ther

dat

a(n¼

580)

are

pre

sente

dbel

ow

the

dia

gonal

,an

din

terc

orr

elat

ions

for

fath

ers

(n¼

53

1)

are

pre

sen

ted

above

the

dia

go

nal

.

*p<

0.0

5;

**p<

0.0

1;

**

*p<

0.0

01

.aS

exis

cod

edas

foll

ow

s:b

oy

s¼

1,

gir

ls¼

2.

Mm¼

mea

nin

the

moth

erd

ata,

Mf¼

mea

nin

the

fath

erd

ata,

SD

m¼

stan

dar

dd

evia

tio

nin

the

mo

ther

dat

a,S

Df¼

stan

dar

dd

evia

tion

inth

efa

ther

dat

a.M

ean

san

dst

andar

dd

evia

tion

s

of

the

tran

sform

edco

erci

on

var

iable

are

report

ed.

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

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Conscientiousness scored significantly higher on Overreactivity. With respect to the child

personality–parenting linkage, Overreactivity and Coercion occurred much more in

families with a child who scored low on Benevolence. Further, a significant negative

relation was found between the parenting variables Overreactivity and Laxness and the

child personality characteristics Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Imagination.

With respect to the personality characteristics and externalizing behaviour problems

linkage, lower levels of parental Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability and of

children’s Benevolence, Conscientiousness, and to a lesser degree Emotional Stability

were in the mother data related to higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. In the

father data, lower levels of parental Extraversion and Agreeableness and higher levels of

Autonomy were associated with higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. Lower

levels of children’s Benevolence, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability were related

to higher levels of externalizing problem behaviours. For mothers and for fathers,

moderate but significant correlations were found between the parenting variables. These

correlations suggest that the variables were correlated but not redundant.

Results of hypothesis tests using path analyses

First, model 1, in which, according to Patterson’s assumption (Patterson, 2002; Reid &

Patterson, 1989) parental and child personality characteristics were mediated by the

parenting variables, was tested on the mother data. Goodness-of-fit statistics (see Table 2,

model 1) indicated a fairly good fit between the initial model and the mother sample data.

The GFI was 1.00, the RMSEA was 0.074. Although the overall tests indicated a fairly

good fit, some of the relations between the variables had nonsignificant t values, indicating

that a more parsimonious model could be found (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). The

paths from mothers’ Extraversion (�¼ 0.03, t¼ 0.86), Conscientiousness (�¼ � 0.01,

t¼ � 0.35), and Agreeableness (�¼ � 0.06, t¼ � 1.38) and from children’s Extraversion

(�¼ 0.02, t¼ 0.34), Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.04, t¼ � 1.03), and Imagination

(�¼ 0.04, t¼ 0.93) to Overreactivity had nonsignificant t-values. The paths from mothers’

Extraversion (�¼ � 0.01, t¼ � 0.20), Conscientiousness (�¼ � 0.00, t¼ � 0.04),

Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.04, t¼ � 0.97), and Autonomy (�¼ 0.03, t¼ 0.82) and

from children’s Conscientiousness (�¼ 0.02, t¼ 0.35), Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.06,

t¼ � 0.33), and Imagination (�¼ � 0.05, t¼ 1.29) to Coercion also had nonsignificant t-

values. To Laxness, the paths from mothers’ Extraversion (�¼ � 0.07, t¼ � 0.46),

Agreeableness (�¼ 0.02, t¼ 0.30), Conscientiousness (�¼ � 0.03, t¼ � 0.89), and

Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.04, t¼ � 0.92) and from children’s Extraversion (�¼ 0.07,

t¼ 1.55), Conscientiousness (�¼ � 0.06, t¼ � 1.44), and Imagination (�¼ � 0.03,

t¼ � 0.57) were insignificant. In a trimming process (Kline, 1998), nonsignificant paths

were removed from the model, one at a time, beginning with the path with the smallest t

value (model 2, Figure 1). The chi-square difference with 20 degrees of freedom was

nonsignificant, ��2ð20Þ ¼ 16:23, p¼ 0.70. This model explained 43 per cent of the variance

in the externalizing behaviour measure.

In model 3, we investigated the direct effects of children’s and mothers’ personality

characteristics. The paths from mothers’ Extraversion (�¼ 0.03, t¼ 0.94), Conscientious-

ness (�¼ � 0.04, t¼ � 1.20), and Autonomy (�¼ 0.02, t¼ 0.58) and from children’s

Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.03, t¼ � 0.80) to Externalizing had a nonsignificant t-value

and were removed from the model. The paths from children’s Extraversion to Coercion

(�¼ 0.04, t¼ 0.99) and from children’s Emotional Stability to Laxness (�¼ � 0.08,

86 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Tab

le2

.M

od

elfi

tin

dic

esan

dn

este

dm

od

elco

mp

aris

on

sin

mo

ther

and

fath

erd

ata

Pat

han

aly

sis

�2

df

pG

FI

CF

IR

MS

EA

EC

VI

RM

RA

ICR

2ex

tern

aliz

ing

Mo

ther

da

taM

od

el1

(med

iati

ng

mo

del

)1

15

.91

28

0.0

01

.00

0.9

89

0.0

74

0.5

85

16

.44

83

31

.91

0.4

1M

od

el2

(wit

ho

ut

no

nsi

gn

ifica

nt

pat

hs)

13

2.1

34

80

.00

1.0

00

.98

90

.05

60

.54

31

6.1

82

30

8.1

30

.43

Mo

del

3(þ

dir

ect

per

son

alit

yef

fect

s)4

2.4

23

80

.28

61

.00

0.9

99

0.0

14

0.4

21

2.7

64

23

8.4

20

.52

Mo

del

4(w

ith

ou

tn

on

sig

nifi

can

tp

ath

s)4

8.7

34

40

.28

81

.00

1.0

00

.01

40

.41

02

.82

72

32

.73

0.5

2M

od

el5

(on

lyd

irec

tef

fect

s)2

24

.91

48

0.0

00

1.0

00

.82

00

.08

10

.70

71

5.5

06

40

0.9

10

.43

Mo

ther

an

dfa

ther

da

taM

od

el6

(sim

ult

aneo

us

esti

mat

ion

)9

4.8

18

80

.29

11

.00

0.9

99

0.0

12

0.4

22

1.3

46

46

2.8

10

.47

Mo

del

7(þ

equ

alit

yco

nst

rain

ts)

14

5.3

11

09

0.0

12

1.0

00

.99

70

.02

50

.43

01

.60

54

71

.31

Mo

del

8(fi

nal

mo

del

)1

13

.99

10

50

.25

81

.00

0.9

99

0.0

12

0.4

08

1.3

12

44

7.9

90

.49

/0.4

8

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 87

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Fig

ure

1.

Model

2:

par

ent

and

chil

dper

sonal

ity

char

acte

rist

ics

on

exte

rnal

izin

gpro

ble

ms

full

ym

edia

ted

by

neg

ativ

edis

cipli

ne:

indir

ect

effe

cts

of

chil

dre

n’s

and

moth

ers’

per

son

alit

ych

arac

teri

stic

so

nch

ild

ren

’sex

tern

aliz

ing

pro

ble

mb

ehav

iou

rs.

cE

xtr

a,E

xtr

aver

sio

nch

ild

;c

Ben

e,B

enev

ole

nce

chil

d;

cC

on

s,C

on

scie

nti

ousn

ess

chil

d;

cE

mo

S,

Em

oti

onal

Sta

bil

ity

chil

d;

cIm

ag,

Imag

inat

ion

chil

d;

pE

xtr

a,E

xtr

aver

sion

par

ent;

pA

gre

,A

gre

eable

nes

spar

ent;

pC

ons,

Consc

ienti

ousn

ess

par

ent;

pE

mo

S,

Em

oti

onal

Sta

bil

ity

par

ent;

pA

uto

,A

uto

no

my

par

ent;

CO

E,

Coer

cio

n;

LA

X,

Lax

nes

s;O

VR

,O

ver

reac

tiv

ity

;E

XT

,E

xte

rnal

izin

g.

Val

ues

rep

rese

nt

stan

dar

diz

edp

ath

coef

fici

ents

(�).

88 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

t¼ � 1.79) also became insignificant and were removed from the model. Goodness-of-fit

statistics of the final model (model 4) indicated a very good fit between the model and the

mother sample data, �2(44, N¼ 580)¼ 48.73, p¼ 0.29. The GFI was 1.00 and the

RMSEA was 0.014. The chi-square difference with model 2 was significant,

��2ð4Þ ¼ 83:04, p< 0.001. This model explained 52 per cent of the variance in the

externalizing behaviour measure and 34, 14, and 12 per cent of the variance in

the Overreactivity, Laxness, and Coercion measures, respectively. The final model and

the results of the path analysis are shown in Figure 2. As expected, above and beyond the

parenting variables, children’s and parents’ personality characteristics contributed

uniquely to the prediction of externalizing behaviour problems. A strong negative effect

was found for children’s Benevolence (�¼ � 0.60, t¼ � 11,13) and Conscientiousness

(�¼ � 0.14, t¼ � 4,16) and for mothers’ Emotional Stability (�¼ � 0.07, t¼ � 2.31); a

positive direct effect was found for children’s Extraversion (�¼ 0.10, t¼ 3.24) and

Imagination (�¼ 0.09, t¼ 2.58) and for mothers’ Agreeableness (�¼ 0.18, t¼ 4,49).3

Further, a negative effect of age was found, indicating that externalizing behaviour

problems were less pronounced for older children. The significant effect of gender

indicated that boys had more externalizing problem behaviours than girls. The direct and

indirect effects of the personality characteristics of the non-trimmed (model 3) and

trimmed models (model 4) are presented in Table 3.

In a next step, we tested a model that contained only direct effects of parent and child

personality characteristics (i.e. parenting variables mediated no effects). Goodness-of-fit

statistics of this model (model 5) indicated a poorer fit between the model and the mother

sample data, �2(48, N¼ 580)¼ 224.91, p¼ 0.00. The GFI was 1.00 and the RMSEA was

0.081. The chi-square difference with model 4 was significant, ��2ð4Þ ¼ 176:18, p< 0.001.

To investigate the stability of this final model, we used the father data as validation

sample and tested whether the final model could be replicated across this sample. First, a

multigroup baseline model was established against which subsequent models that include

equality constraints were compared. In model 6, model specifications describing the final

model for the mother data were similarly specified for the father data. The goodness-of-fit

statistics reflect the simultaneous estimation of the final model for both the mother and the

father data (Table 2). The GFI value of 1.00 and the CFI value of 0.999 indicate an

adequate fit to the data representing both mothers and fathers. This model was used as the

yardstick against which to determine the tenability of the imposed equality constraints. In

model 7, equality constraints were placed on the structural paths across the mother and the

father data. Results from the estimation of this highly restrictive multigroup model yielded

a �2 value of 145.31 with 109 degrees of freedom. To assess the tenability of these equality

constraints, this model was compared with model 6 in which no constraints were imposed.

Accordingly, this comparison yielded a ��2ð21Þ of 50.5, which is statistically significant

(p¼ 0.0003). In a next step, to pinpoint the non-invariant parameters, we inspected

modification indices of the parameters for which equality constraints were imposed. The

equality constraints from the paths from parents’ Agreeableness to externalizing behaviour

problems and from Autonomy to Overreactivity and Laxness were released. Further, in the

model for the fathers, a path from Sex to Overreactivity was added. The goodness-of-fit3As mentioned in the statistical method section, WLS was used because of non-normality. To control the possibleeffect of the estimation method ML and robust ML were also applied. Different estimation methods did not resultin substantive differences of the estimations, the standard errors, and the overall fit of the model. The fit of model4 with ML was �2(44, N¼ 580)¼ 46.98, p¼ 0.35. The GFI was 0.99 and the RMSEA was 0.011. The SatorraBentler scaled �2 of model 4 (estimated with robust ML) was �2(44, N¼ 580)¼ 44.18, p¼ 0.46. The �2 correctedfor non-normality was 49.29, p¼ 0.27. The GFI was 0.99 and the RMSEA was 0.003.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 89

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Fig

ure

2.

Mo

del

4:

mod

ified

mo

del

wit

hd

irec

tp

athw

ays

bet

wee

np

aren

tan

dch

ild

per

son

alit

ych

arac

teri

stic

san

dex

tern

aliz

ing

pro

ble

mb

ehav

iou

r:in

dir

ect

and

dir

ect

effe

cts

of

chil

dre

n’s

and

moth

ers’

per

sonal

ity

char

acte

rist

ics

on

chil

dre

n’s

exte

rnal

izin

gpro

ble

mbeh

avio

urs

.cE

xtr

a,E

xtr

aver

sion

chil

d;c

Ben

e,B

enev

ole

nce

chil

d;c

Cons,

Consc

ienti

ousn

ess

chil

d;

cE

mo

S,

Em

oti

onal

Sta

bil

ity

chil

d;

cIm

ag,

Imag

inat

ion

chil

d;

pE

xtr

a,E

xtr

aver

sion

par

ent;

pA

gre

,A

gre

eable

nes

spar

ent;

pC

ons,

Consc

ienti

ou

snes

sp

aren

t;p

Em

oS

,E

moti

onal

Sta

bil

ity

par

ent;

pA

uto

,A

uto

nom

ypar

ent;

CO

E,C

oer

cion;

LA

X,L

axnes

s;O

VR

,O

ver

reac

tivit

y;

EX

T,E

xte

rnal

izin

g.V

alues

repre

sent

stan

dar

diz

edp

ath

coef

fici

ents

(�).

90 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Tab

le3

.S

tan

dar

diz

edto

tal,

dir

ect,

and

ind

irec

tef

fect

s(�

coef

fici

ents

)o

fm

oth

ers’

per

son

alit

ych

arac

teri

stic

so

nex

tern

aliz

ing

pro

ble

mb

ehav

iou

rsin

the

fin

aln

on

-tri

mm

edm

od

el(m

od

el3

)an

dth

efi

nal

trim

med

mo

del

(mo

del

4)

Fin

aln

on

-tri

mm

edm

od

el(m

od

el3

)F

inal

trim

med

mo

del

(mo

del

4)

Dir

ect

effe

cts

Ind

irec

tef

fect

sT

ota

lef

fect

sD

irec

tef

fect

sIn

dir

ect

effe

cts

To

tal

effe

cts

1.

Ag

e�

0.0

92

**

�0

.09

2*

*�

0.0

87

**

�0

.08

7*

*2

.S

ex�

0.1

11

**

�0

.11

1*

*�

0.1

13

**

*�

0.1

13

**

*C

hil

dp

erso

na

lity

tra

its

3.

Ex

trav

ersi

on

0.1

00

**

0.0

04

0.1

04

**

0.1

03

**

0.1

03

**

4.

Ben

evo

len

ce�

0.5

91

**

*�

0.0

61

**

�0

.65

2*

**

�0

.59

6*

**

�0

.05

7*

*�

0.6

53

**

*5

.C

on

scie

nti

ou

snes

s�

0.1

24

**

0.0

03

�0

.12

1*

*�

0.1

44

**

*�

0.1

44

**

*6

.E

mo

tio

nal

Sta

bil

ity

�0

.03

00

.01

1�

0.0

19

0.0

10

0.0

10

7.

Imag

inat

ion

0.0

84

*0

.08

4*

0.0

92

**

0.0

92

**

Pa

ren

tp

erso

na

lity

tra

its

8.

Ex

trav

ersi

on

0.0

32

0.0

32

9.

Ag

reea

ble

nes

s0

.17

7*

**

0.0

09

0.1

87

**

*0

.17

6*

**

0.0

09

0.1

85

**

*1

0.

Co

nsc

ien

tio

usn

ess

�0

.04

0�

0.0

40

11

.E

mo

tio

nal

Sta

bil

ity

�0

.06

4*

�0

.02

3*

*�

0.0

87

**

�0

.07

2*

�0

.02

1*

*�

0.0

93

**

12

.A

uto

no

my

0.0

23

�0

.01

30

.01

0�

0.0

10

�0

.01

0P

are

nti

ng

8.

Over

reac

tiv

ity

0.1

24

**

*0

.12

4*

**

0.1

18

**

*0

.11

8*

**

9.

Lax

nes

s�

0.0

78

*0

.04

4*

**

�0

.03

5�

0.0

81

**

0.0

42

**

*�

0.0

39

10

.C

oer

cio

n0

.07

7*

0.0

77

*0

.07

9*

0.0

79

*

*p<

0.0

5;

**p<

0.0

1;

**

*p<

0.0

01

.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 91

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

statistics of this model (model 8) indicated a very acceptable fit. A comparison with model

6 yielded a ��2ð17Þ of 19.18, which is not statistically significant (p¼ 0.32). The significant

path from Sex to Overreactivity indicated that in the father data overreactive interactions

occurred more with boys compared to girls.

DISCUSSION

Parent and child personality traits have a place in most ecological models of parenting or

child development but their impact has seldom been empirically studied. This

investigation contributes to research on parents’ and children’s personality, parenting

and child development. This study overcomes several limitations of past research. First, it

is one of the first studies describing parent as well as child personality characteristics in

terms of the comprehensive Big Five. Second, data were collected from a proportional

stratified sample of non-clinical elementary school-aged children rather than from a

clinical sample. Third, fathers as well as mothers rated the questionnaires. This creates the

possibility of comparing the links between personality, parenting, and children’s problem

behaviour for mothers and fathers.

As hypothesized, parent and child personality traits are associated in meaningful ways

with parenting behaviours and with children’s externalizing problem behaviours. On the

one hand, our results support Patterson’s macromodel, but on the other hand they also

suggest a modification of his macromodel. Consistent with Patterson’s assumption

(Patterson, 2002; Patterson & Dishion, 1988), in both the mother and the father data, most

of the relationships between personality traits and externalizing problem behaviours are

mediated by dysfunctional parenting practices, but contrary to Patterson’s hypothesis, the

influence of parent and child personality characteristics on child externalizing problem

behaviour is not exclusively mediated by parenting practices. Above and beyond the

mediating effects, personality traits are also directly linked to externalizing problem

behaviours in young children.

Direct and indirect effects of parent and child personality traits

In accordance with Patterson’s assumption, parent and child personality traits contributed

indirectly to children’s problem behaviour. Children’s Benevolence was negatively

associated with Laxness, Overreactivity, and Coercion. Children’s Emotional Stability was

positively related to Overreactivity. With respect to parents’ personality traits,

Agreeableness was positively associated with Coercion; Emotional Stability and

Autonomy were negatively associated with Overreactivity; and Autonomy was also

negatively related to Laxness. Some of these results are in accordance with other empirical

research. Kochanska et al. (1997) found that mothers with low scores on emotional

stability expressed more negative affect in interactions with their children. Because they

are prone to becoming tense and distressed, they are more likely to resort to power

assertion. Research has abundantly documented that maternal anger, sadness, and other

negative affect expressed in interactions with children predicted children’s behavioural

problems and poor internalization of parental rules (Belsky et al., 1995). In addition,

mothers’ high negative emotionality, linked to excessive self-focus, may impair responsive

parenting (Dix, 1991) and thus undermine children’s secure attachment, which has been

linked to the early experience of sensitive, responsive, affectively positive, and supportive

92 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

care (Ainsworth, 1979). Children’s personality dimension Benevolence was strongly and

negatively related to the parenting variables. A possible explanation is that children who

are agreeable and empathic, submissive, good-humoured, and cheerful may also be better

able to obey their parents, which may result in a positive, favourable rearing climate.

Irritable and dominant children on the other hand may have more difficulty regulating their

own emotions and behaviours on their own. This may in turn lead to more coercive or

overreactive interactions with others. In addition, highly impulsive children may provoke

more negative interactions with parents, teachers, peers, and their environment, which in

the long run can lead to low self-esteem and depression (Patterson et al., 1992). These

results are also in accordance with Gray’s (1982, 1987, 1991) model of brain functioning

containing three psychophysiological processes, namely an anxiety or Behavioral

Inhibition System (BIS), an approach or Behavioral Activation System (BAS), and the

Fight–Flight system (Newman, 1997). A child with a high score on Benevolence punished

for performing an inadmissible act may be more likely to inhibit future performance of the

act because memory of the aversive consequence overrides the immediate reward of

performing the act. For children with low scores on Benevolence, potential punishment is

less likely to inhibit their response propensity. Psychophysiological processes also involve

children’s approach and avoidance tendencies, including the child’s tendency to choose

risky or dangerous situations. These situations may evoke coercive and overreactive

parenting. Over time, difficulties in learning from punishment in combination with inept

parenting may promote overreactive interchanges between parent and child, and

subsequently externalizing behaviour.

In addition, as hypothesized but in contrast to Patterson’s macromodel, parent and child

personality traits also contributed directly to children’s behaviour problems. Significant

negative effects were found for children’s Benevolence and Conscientiousness and for

parent’s Emotional Stability. Children’s Extraversion and Imagination and parents’

Agreeableness were positively related to externalizing behaviour problems. The effects of

children’s personality characteristics are in accordance with the findings of John et al.

(1994) and Robins et al. (1996).

Direct effects of parenting behaviours

In accordance with Patterson’s coercion theory (Kiesner et al. 2001; Patterson, 1982, 2002;

Patterson et al., 1992), dysfunctional parenting behaviours were related to children’s

externalizing problem behaviours in the mother data as well as in the father data. High

scores on Coercion and Overreactivity predicted higher levels of externalizing behaviour

problems. In addition, higher scores on Laxness predicted high scores on Overreactivity

and Coercion, but lower levels of externalizing problem behaviour. A possible explanation

for the positive association is that lax and permissive parents at first tolerate difficult

behaviour but explode when the child does not quit his behaviour. A possible explanation

for the negative association is that permissive or tolerant parents do not perceive some

child behaviour as problematic. The cross-sectional design makes it impossible to explore

the mechanisms by which such parenting may cause externalizing problem behaviour in

children, but one can speculate about several direct and indirect learning mechanisms.

Patterson (1982; Patterson et al., 1992) claims that overreactive and coercive parenting

behaviour might lead to inconsistent behavioural contingencies, an unpredictable and

volatile environment, and a decreased sense of control. This in turn might increase the

likelihood of externalizing problem behaviours. As described in his coercion theory

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 93

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

(Patterson et al., 1992), the negative reinforcement of externalizing behaviour may increase

the frequency and intensity of this problem behaviour. Gardner (1989) also found that

mothers of conduct problem children were eight times more likely to back off in the face

of children’s opposition than parents of nonclinical controls. Another, more direct

explanation is offered by Bandura (e.g. Bandura, 1973), who showed that children readily

imitate the aggressive behaviour of adults. Much overreactive parenting behaviour, such as

overt expression of anger, verbal and psychical aggression, or arguing, has direct parallels

among the externalizing CBCL items. The significant interrelations between the parenting

variables indicate that inept parenting is a multifactorial concept.

The consistent gender difference in externalizing scores is in accordance with other

empirical studies (Dunn, 2001; Loeber & Hay, 1994; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva,

2001). The emergence of boys’ higher rates of externalizing behaviour seems to occur

during the latter part of the preschool period. Although several investigators have reported

the absence of sex differences in externalizing behaviour problems from ages 1 to 3

(Achenbach, 1993; Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982; Rose,

Rose & Feldman, 1989), this pattern seems to change beginning at ages 4 and 5 (Lahey,

Waldman, McBurnett, 1999; Rose et al., 1989). These differences become more striking

during the school-age period and persist into childhood (Kazdin, 1987). This relation

between gender and aggression has been used as a support for the biological basis of

antisocial behaviour. The strongest candidate for the explanation of gender differences in

rates of externalizing behaviour is testosterone (Hill, 2002). Testosterone may have an

impact through relatively lasting effects on brain structure or through hormonal activation

of existing structure. Keenan and Shaw (1997) suggest two other possible explanations for

the emergence of sex differences beginning at ages 4 and 5. The first explanation concerns

differential socialization practices of parents. As a result of being reinforced for sex-

stereotyped behaviour, girls’ problems may be directed more in the direction of

internalizing problem behaviours. For boys parents are more likely to use physical

punishment, whereas for girls more inductive techniques and reasoning are preferred

(Block, 1978). In the same way, mothers stimulate girls to have more apprehension for

others and to behave prosocially (Ross, Tesla, Kenyon, & Lollis, 1990). Dodge and Frame

(1982) have documented that deficits in these perspective-taking skills are linked to

antisocial behaviour among school-age children. A second explanation is that girls’ faster

development during early childhood may partially account for the differences on

aggression. Fast language development and better self-regulation skills may result in

parents finding girls easier to manage, promoting a more positive parent–child relationship

and thus having fewer behaviour problems (Sanson, Prior, Smart, & Oberklaid, 1993).

The results of this study fit ecological models that conceptualize the development of the

individual as the product of the interplay between biological and social processes (Hill,

2002; Sameroff, 2000). In contemporary research, it is widely recognized that the dual

focus on within-child characteristics and features of the family context imply transactional

processes and implicate environmental and genetic influences, and gene–environment

interactions. This is no longer a debate about nature and nurture (Rutter, 1997), but one

about the complex mechanisms that link genetic predispositions with specific child

rearing. This means that the infant is not a passive recipient of reinforcers but an active

agent, and throughout development there are mutual influences between children and

parents (Lytton, 1990). There is abundant evidence that a person’s characteristics shape

other’s people’s reactions to them. Children’s behaviours can evoke negative behaviours in

parents (evocative person–environment interactions) (see e.g. Anderson, Lytton, &

94 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Romney, 1986) or may lead to the selection of some environments at the expense of others

(proactive person–environment interactions) (Caspi & Moffitt, 1995). Therefore

associations between children’s externalizing behaviour problems and parenting

characteristics cannot be assumed to mirror unidirectional influences of parents on

children. Each of these interactions can work to the advantage of the individual as well as

to the increase of difficulties. The latter is probable if externalizing behaviours evoke or

select negative reactions. It is likely that such reactions in turn amplify the deviance.

Finally, associations between parental characteristics and child behaviours may also be

accounted for by influences of the same genetic factors on both parents and children

(passive genotype–environment correlations) (Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000; Rutter, 2002).

For example, overreactive or coercive parenting may be associated with externalizing

behaviour problems because both are associated with the same inherited aggressive

characteristics in parents and children. With respect to antisocial behaviour there is

increasing support for the importance of genotype–environment interactions, whereby the

effects of adverse genetic influences are reduced or eliminated under favourable

environmental conditions (Rutter, 1997, 2002). These environmental factors may operate

at the level of gene expression, or interact with inherited psychological characteristics

(Reiss & Neiderhiser, 2000).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, this study revealed that parent and

child personality characteristics as well as negative discipline could be viewed as ‘risk

factors’. However, a substantial amount of the variance of externalizing behaviour

problems remained unexplained. Other unmeasured parenting behaviours or the broader

context in which the behaviour occurs may also have an important influence. In the present

study, the focus was on negative discipline. Other research is necessary to test the effects of

positive parenting (gentle, calm, reasoning, negotiating) (Belsky, 1984; Macccoby, 1992),

parental mood (Belsky et al., 1995), or social support (Belsky, 1984) on children’s

behaviour.

A second limitation due to the sample size is the sole reliance on questionnaire

measures. This increases the likelihood of method bias or confound among the measures.

Self-reports of parenting were found to correlate only modestly with observer and child

reports (Patterson et al., 1992). Therefore, a multimethod measurement strategy (by the

inclusion of observational measures) may more accurately assess parenting and children’s

individual differences and hence further strengthen the results.

A third limitation lies in the cross-sectional design of this study. Parenting practices,

personality characteristics, and externalizing behaviour were assessed concurrently. This

precluded inferences about directionality. Future longitudinal research is necessary to

compare changes over time in parenting practices and childhood behaviours.

Finally, taking into account the complexity of the statistical models and the sample size,

no interactions of personality characteristics and parenting behaviours were explored.

Clark, Kochanska, and Ready (2000) found significant interactions between mother’s

personality and child emotionality in the prediction of parenting behaviours. Prinzie et al.

(2003) reported that that children with low scores on Benevolence who were exposed to

overreactive discipline practices exhibited higher levels of externalizing behaviour.

Children characterized by low scores on Conscientiousness who were exposed to coercive

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 95

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

parenting behaviour showed elevated levels of externalizing behaviour. Further

investigation is needed to examine whether the impact of parent personality characteristics

is moderated by child characteristics.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1993). Taxonomy and comorbidity of conduct problems: Evidence fromempirically-based approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 51–64.

Ainsworth, M. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 933–937.Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mother’s interactions with normal and

conduct disordered boys: Who affects whom? Developmental Psychology, 22, 604–609.Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1994). Temperament and the big five factors of personality. In C. F.

Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of of temperamentand personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 69–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measureof dysfunctional parenting and discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137–144.

Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving personalitydescription at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both childrenand adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198.

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolledpersonality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type issue.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815–832.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New York: Holt.Bank, L., Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. S., & Fetrow, R. A. (1993). Parenting practices of single

mothers: Mediators of negative contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,371–384.

Bates, J. E., Bayles, K., Bennet, D. S., Ridge, B., & Brown, M. M. (1991). Origins of externalizingbehavior problems at eight years of age. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The developmentand treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 93–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of temperamental resistanceto control and restrictive parenting in the development of externalising behaviour. DevelopmentalPsychology, 34, 982–995.

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scarr.Child Development, 64, 1299–1317.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.Belsky, J. (1997). Determinants and consequences of parenting: Illustrative findings and basic

principles. In W. Hellinckx, M. Colton, & M. Williams (Eds.), International perpectives on familysupport (pp. 1–21). Aldershot: Arena, Ashgate.

Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 415–438). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodworth, S. (1995). Personality and parenting: Exploring the mediatingrole of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 63, 905–929.

Block, J. H. (1978). Another look at sex differentiation in the socialization behavior of mothers andfathers. In J. Sherman, & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), The psychology of women: Future directions ofresearch (pp. 29–87). New York: Psychological Dimensions.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resilience in the organization ofbehavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations (Vol. 13,pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Pruitt, J. A. (1985). The relationships between juvenile

delinquency and personality dimensions of family members. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,146, 563–565.

96 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Bosquet, M., & Egeland, B. (2000). Predicting parenting behaviors from antisocial practices contentscale scores of the MMPI-2 administered during pregnancy. Journal of Personality Assessment,74, 146–162.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development.Developmental Psychology, 11, 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon(Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.1. Theoretical modelsof human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.

Brook, J. S., Zheng, L., Whiteman, M., & Brook, D. W. (2001). Aggression in toddlers: Associationswith parenting and marital relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 228–241.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, &J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 132–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personalitydevelopment (5th ed., pp. 311–388). New York: Wiley.

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behaviour: From description tounderstanding in the study of antisocial behaviour. In D. Cichetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.),Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 2, pp. 472–511). New York: Wiley.

Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000) Mothers’ personality and its interaction with childtemperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 274–285.

Cloninger, C. R. (Ed.). (1999). Personality and psychopathology. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychiatric Press.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of children’s fear andactivity level on relations between parenting practices and childhood symptomatology. Journal ofAbnormal 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.

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. (1994). Economic stress, coercivefamily process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561.

Conger, R. D., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. (1995). It takes two to replicate: A mediational model forthe impact of parents’ stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66, 80–97.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P. (2000). Assessing adolescents’personality with the NEO-PI-R. Assessment, 7, 329–345.

De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2002). The consistency of personality typeclassification across samples and five-factor measures. European Journal of Personality, 16,S57–S72.

De Fruyt, F., Van Hiel, A., & Buyst, V. (1998). Parental personality descriptions of boys and girls. InG. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson Jr., I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descriptions ofchild personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? (pp. 155–167). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: Does the five-factor model embrace bothdomains? In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developingstructure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 323–338). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocialbehavior. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk,disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421–471). New York: Wiley.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 97

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). The timing and severity of antisocial behavior: Threehypotheses within an ecological framework. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. Maser (Eds.), Handbookof antisocial behavior (pp. 205–217). New York: Wiley.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptative processes.Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3–25.

Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. M. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. ChildDevelopment, 53, 620–635.

Downey D., & Coyne, J. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. PsychologicalBulletin, 108, 50–76.

Dunn, J. (2001). The development of children’s conflict and prosocial behaviour: Lessons fromresearch on social understanding and gender. In J. Hill, & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disordersin childhood and adolescence (pp. 49–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eddy, J. M., Leve, L. D., & Fagot, B. I. (2001). Coercive family processes: A replication andextension of Patterson’s coercion model. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 14–25.

Field, T. M. (1995). Psychologically depressed parents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting: Vol. 4. Applied and practical parenting (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & Skinner, M. L. (1988). A mediational model for the effect ofdivorce on antisocial behavior in boys. In E. M. Hetherington, & J. D. Aresteh (Eds.), Impact ofdivorce, single parenting, and step-parenting on children (pp. 135–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frick, P. J., Juper, K., Silverthorn, P., & Cotter, M. (1995). Antisocial behavior, somatization, andsensation-seeking behavior in mothers of clinic-referred children. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 805–812.

Gardner, F. E. M. (1989). Inconsistent parenting: Is there evidence for a link with children’s conductproblems? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 223–233.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big Five factor structure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressedmothers: A developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. PsychologicalReview, 106, 458–490.

Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau, & A. Angleitner (Eds.),

Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement.Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 105–128). New York: Plenum.

Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., & Thomas, C. W. (1997). Difficult temperament and behaviourproblems: A longitudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years. International Journal of BehaviouralDevelopment, 21, 71–90.

Halverson, C. F., Jr., Kohnstamm, G. A., & Martin, R. P. (1994). The developing structure oftemperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hartup, W. W., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1995). Personality development in social context. AnnualReview of Psychology, 46, 655–687.

Harvey, E., Danforth, J. S., Ulaszek, W. R., & Eberhardt, T. L. (2001). Validity of the parenting scalefor parents of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 39, 731–743.

Hellinckx, W., Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Ghesquiere, P., Colpin, H., Grietens, H., & Hellinckx, E.(2000). Het Leuvens Instrument voor Coercief Opvoedingsgedrag (LICO). Leuven: KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven Section Orthopedagogics.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory(FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (2002). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory:Assessing the Big Five by means of brief and concrete statements. In B. De Raad, & M. Perugini(Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 79–108). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Perugini, M., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Johnson, J. A., De Fruyt, F.,Herbickova, M., Murakami, T., Bratko, D., Conner, M., Nagy, J., Kreitler, S., Rodriguez- Fornells,A., von Guericke, O., & Ruisel, I. (in press). The FFPI across cultures. European Journal ofPersonality.

98 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Hill, J. (2002). Biological, psychological and social processes in the conduct disorders. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 133–164.

Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplexapproaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study ofmediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

Hops, H., Sherman, L., & Biglan, A. (1990). Maternal depression, marital discord, and children’sbehavior: A developmental perspective. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression infamily interaction (pp. 185–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. V. (1999). The value of the Parenting Scale formeasuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 37, 127–142.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the big five personalitydimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577–591.

John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The ‘littlefive’: Exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescentboys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS commandlanguage. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: ScientificSoftware International.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2002a). LISREL 8.52. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2002b). PRELIS 2.52. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of aggression in toddlers: A study of low

income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53–77.Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1997). Developmental influences on young girls’ behavioral and

emotional problems. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95–113.Kiesner, J., Dishion, T. J., & Poulin, F. (2001). A reinforcement model of conduct problems in

children and adolescents: Advances in theory and intervention. In J. Hill, & B. Maughan (Eds.),Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 264–291). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.Kochanska, G., Clark, L. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1997). Implications of mothers’ personality for

their parenting and their young children’s development outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65,387–420.

Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I. & Havill, V. (Eds.). (1998). Parental descriptionsof child personality. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., & Mcgee, R. (1996). Personality traits aredifferentially linked to psychopathology: A multi-trait/multi-diagnosis study of an adolescentbirth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 299–312.

Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). Annotation: The development of antisocialbehavior: 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 interactiveeffects of parenting and temperament in predicting problems of children of divorce. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 29, 232–244.

Lerner, R. M., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Developmental systemsperspective on parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 2. Biology andecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 315–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Locke, L. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance. ClinicalPsychology Review, 22, 895–929.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. PsychologicalBulletin, 94, 68–98.

Loeber, R., & Hay, D. H. (1994). Developmental approaches to aggression and conduct problems. InM. Rutter, & D. H. Hay (Eds.), Development through life: A handbook for clinicians (pp. 488–515). Oxford: Blackwell.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 99

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Losoya, S. H., Callor, S., Rowe, D. C., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1997). The origins of familial similarityin parenting: A study of twins and adoptive siblings. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1012–1024.

Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the Five-Factor Model to represent the DSM-IVpersonality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,401–412.

Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: A reinterpretation.Developmental Psychology, 26, 683–697.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A historical overview.Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–childinteraction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model ofpersonality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. InR. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269–290). Orlando, FL: Academic.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personalitysystems: The California Q-set and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430–446.

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory forChildren. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology inEurope (Vol 7, pp. 107–127). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with the Hierarchical PersonalityInventory for Children. In B. De Raad, & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 129–146).Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Miles, D. R., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture of human aggression.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 207–217.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour:Conduct disorder, delinquency and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge:University Press.

Newman, J. P. (1997). Conceptual models of the nervous system: Implications for antisocialbehavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior(pp. 324–335). New York: Wiley.

Nigg, J. T., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1998). Parent personality traits and psychopathology associated withantisocial behaviors in childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 145–159.

O’Leary, S. G., Slep, A. M. S., & Reid, M. J. (1999). A longitudinal study of mothers’ overreactivediscipline and toddlers’ externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27,331–341.

Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. E.Mash, L. A. E. Hamerlynck, & L. C. E. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp.267–316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,

432–444.Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early developmental of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R.

Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Developmentaltheories and models for intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). Multilevel family process models: Traits, interactions, andrelationships. In R. Hinde, & S. J. Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences(pp. 283–310). Oxford: Clarendon.

Patterson, G. R., & Fisher, P. A. (2002). Recent developments in our understanding of parenting:Bidirectional effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Practical and applied parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 59–88). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

100 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1998). Validity of the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI): An

investigation in Italy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14, 234–248.Plomin, R., Emde, R., Braungart, J., Campos, J., Corley, R., Fulker, D., Kagan, J., Reznick, J.,

Robinson, J., Zahn-Waxler, C., & DeFries, J. (1993). Genetic change and continuity from fourteento twenty months: The MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development, 64, 1354–1376.

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquiere, P., & Colpin, H. (2003). Theadditive and interactive effects of parenting and children’s personality on externalising behaviour.European Journal of Personality, 17, 95–117.

Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of antisocial behavior patterns in childhoodand adolescence. European Journal of Personality, 3, 107–119.

Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2000). The interplay of genetic influences and social processes indevelopmental theory: Specific mechanisms are coming into view. Development andPsychopathology, 12, 357–374.

Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., Hupp, S. D. A., Rhode, P. C., Murphy, M. A., & O’Callaghan, P. M.(2001). Psychometric properties of the Parenting Scale in a Head Start Population. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 30, 514–524.

Richman, M., Stevenson, J., & Graham, P. J. (1982) Pre-school to school: A behavioural study.London: Academic.

Robins, R. W., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personality in earlyadolescence: The Big Five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson Jr, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.267–291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 157–171.

Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., & Sobral, J. (2001). Personality and antisocial behaviour: Study oftemperamental dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 329–348.

Rose, S. L., Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. (1989). Stability of behavior problems in very young children.Development and Psychopathology, 1, 5–19.

Ross, H., Tesla, C., Kenyon, B., & Lollis, S. (1990). Maternal intervention in toddler peer conflict:The socialization of principles of justice. Developmental Psychology, 26, 994–1003.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins andoutcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Social,emotional and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.

Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalising behavior in non-clinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55–74.

Rutter, M. L. (1997). Nature–nurture integration: The example of antisocial behavior. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 390–398.

Rutter, M. (2002). Nature, nurture and development: From evangelism through science toward policeand practice. Child Development, 73, 1–21.

Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development andPsychopathology, 13, 297–312.

Sanson, A., & Prior, M. (1999). Temperament and behavioural precursors to oppositional defiantdisorder and conduct disorder. In H. C. Quay, & A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptivebehaviour disorders (pp. 397–417). New York: Kluwer.

Sanson, A., Prior, M., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Gender differences in aggression inchildhood: Implications for a peaceful world. Australian Psychologist, 28, 85–92.

Shaw, D. S., & Bell, R. Q. (1993). Developmental theories of parental contributors to antisocialbehavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 493–518.

Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence:Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatryand Allied Disciplines, 44, 2–32.

Snyder, J. J. (1995). Coercion: A two-level theory of antisocial behavior. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.),Theories of behavior therapy: Exploring behavior change (pp. 313–348). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Parent and child personality, negative discipline, and externalizing behaviour 101

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Van Lieshout, C. F. M. (2000). Life-span personality development: Self-organising goal-orientedagents and developmental outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24,276–288.

Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. T. J. (1994). The Big Five personality factors in Q-sortdescriptions of children and adolescents. In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.157–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996). Handleiding voor de CBCL/4-18. Rotterdam:Kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie, Sophia.

Vignoe, D., Berube, R. L., & Achenbach, T. M. (2000). Bibliography of published studies using theChild Behavior Checklist and related materials: (1999 ed.). Burlington, VT: University ofVermont Department of Psychiatry.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (Eds.). (1994). Personality and psychopathology [Special issue]. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 103(1).

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance topsychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18–31.

Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Five factor model personality disorder research. In P. T. Costa,& T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp.59–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: An application of the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 363–393.

Zahn-Waxler, C. (1995). Parental depression and distress: Implications for development in infancy,childhood, and adolescence (introduction to special section). Developmental Psychology, 31,347–348.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Duggal, S., & Gruber, R. (2002). Parental psychopathology. In M. H. Bornstein(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp.295–327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

102 P. Prinzie et al.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 73–102 (2004)

Copyright of European Journal of Personality is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.