Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx

Running Head: CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE 1
CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE 3
CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE
Name
Institution
Critique essay outline
I. Paragraph
A. Title: Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is
associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low
self-esteem.
B. Author: Heather Cleland Woods, Holly Scott
C. The publication containing the article: 2016. The foundation
for professionals in services for adolescents. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Thesis statement: There is a link between social media use
and different aspects of adolescent wellbeing including sleep
and mental health. The overall, including night time use of
social media effect on youth’s sleep routine and wellbeing.
II. Paragraph
A. Night time specific social media habit and emotional
investment in social media correlated to sleep quality, anxiety,
depression and self-esteem in youth.

B. The author bases an argument that poor sleep is related to
computer and internet use on different pieces of evidence.
C.
III. Paragraph
A. The author brings in the idea of the relationship between
social media use and the mental health of the user. The idea is
supported by previously done studies such as an article done by
Metaughlin and King in 2015.
B. The author supported this broad idea in non-native English
speakers and also no enough internet access, this will lead to
claim an inaccurate data.
C. The same words and sentences repeated multiple time instead
of supporting the issue by different example and technique of
sentence structure.
D. The authors supported the issue with different facts,
evidences and studies to prove the effectiveness of their
research.
E. The author brings in the idea of the relationship between
social media use and the mental health of the user.
IV. Paragraph
A. It outlines a result of the study which authors uses measures
of central tendency to develop the correlation between social
media use and sleep.
B. The research is very helpful and informative based on
accurate standard data collation method.
C. This work has absolute positive effect on a lot of parents and
internet addictive teenagers.
D. The research proved any night time social use has negative
side effect on youth’s sleep, wellbeing and this will have led
them to feel worthless.
E. The authors develop demerits and future challenges that
could be attributed to the present study methodology.
V. Conclusion
The author develops the methodology of the study. This section
is subdivided into different subsections: participants and

procedure, measures of poor sleep quality, anxiety and
depression, self-esteem and emotional investment in social
media.
The author discusses the findings of the study in this section.
He presents the results in form of tables.
The author concludes the study by making inferences of the
study. The section contains a list of references used by the
author in developing the critique essay. (please state the overall
important and main idea of the research in short)
O R I G I N A L P A P E R
Parental Influences on the Prevalence and Development of Child
Aggressiveness
Klaus Wahl • Cornelia Metzner
Published online: 13 April 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The development of aggressiveness between 5
and 17 years and some parental influences on this devel-
opment were analyzed using data from Germany. Interna-
tional studies have shown a ‘‘camel humps’’ curve, i.e., a
peak of aggression of children (primarily boys) between 2
and 4 years and a second peak of antisocial or aggressive

behavior of boys between 15 and 20 years, but small
groups of children and adolescents were persistently
aggressive. A representative longitudinal study (2,190
children and their parents) and an additional study (1,372
children and adolescents) were conducted in Germany. The
hypotheses of this article are that in the data can be found
(a) an U-shaped course of aggressiveness for boys and
girls, but on different levels, (b) a minority of persistently
aggressive children and youth, (c) influences of parental
temperaments, behavioral tendencies, parenting styles and
the family status on the children’s aggressiveness. The
results replicate roughly the ‘‘valley’’ of the U-shaped
course of aggressiveness. Small groups of chronically
aggressive children were found as well. Influences of
parental temperaments and corresponding behavioral ten-
dencies (internalizing and externalizing behavior), parent-
ing styles (child-centered communication, use of violence)
and the social status of the families on child aggressiveness

confirmed the hypotheses. These processes were moderated
by gender effects between mothers, fathers, daughters, and
sons. In regard to the group of persistently aggressive
young people prevention of aggression should start early in
childhood and over the long term. Parent education should
consider more the individual personalities of the parents,
not only parenting styles.
Keywords Aggression � Children � Adolescents �
Parents � Longitudinal study � Germany
Introduction
During the last decades many societies were alarmed about
the increasing violence of adolescents (Bundeskriminalamt
2009; Krug et al. 2002). For a long time, research on the
causes of aggression and aggressiveness (as the disposition
for aggressive behavior) concentrated on adolescents
because their acts of violence are particularly visible to the
public (e.g., Stattin and Magnusson 1989). But it became
obvious that aggressiveness and certain forms of aggres-
sion arise earlier in life. There is some continuity of general

aggressiveness from childhood to adulthood; studies
determined that most adolescents and adults who commit
acts of violence were already aggressive or socially con-
spicuous as children (Alink et al. 2006; Huesmann et al.
2009; Kokko et al. 2009; Loeber et al. 2005; Tremblay
2000, 2007; Wahl 2002, 2003; Wahl et al. 2001). This is an
important insight for the early prevention of aggression and
for the role of parents in prevention programs.
However, the attempt to summarize research results on
the development of aggression starting in childhood is
confronted with a series of problems. For example, there is
no unified definition of aggression: It is sometimes regar-
ded as deliberate bodily harm done to another; but some-
times the criterion of intention is not included, especially
where children are concerned. Some studies use aggression
K. Wahl (&)
Psychosocial Analyses and Prevention - Information System
(PAPIS), Höllriegelskreuther Str. 1, 81379 München, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]
C. Metzner
Fasanenhof Clinic, München, Germany
123
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9484-x
as a component of externalizing behavior or delinquency.
In this article aggression is regarded as an ensemble of
mechanisms formed during the course of evolution in order
to assert oneself, relatives or friends against others, to gain
or to defend resources (ultimate causes) by harmful dam-
aging means (for example, hitting others). These mecha-
nisms are often motivated by emotions like fear,
frustration, anger, feelings of stress, dominance or pleasure
(proximate causes). Aggression can be considered patho-
logical when it is exaggerated, persistent or expressed out
of context (Nelson and Trainor 2007; Wahl 2009). The
term aggressiveness is used for the individual disposition

for aggression (for example, expressed in a child’s desire to
start fights with others).
The methods of research into aggression are also
diverse, which has effects on the results: Aggressive
behavior is determined by self-reports from children, by
reports from parents, teachers, police, or the researchers
themselves. There are retrospective and prospective stud-
ies. Some studies only consider one gender, which is
usually boys because bodily aggression is more widespread
among them while girls tend more to indirect or ‘‘relational
aggression’’ (Foster and Hagan 2003), according to the
meta-analysis of 148 studies by Card et al. (2008).
In the last years there was more research on aggression
in young children. In a Dutch longitudinal study, parents
described a peak in the prevalence of physically aggressive
behavior (77%) among their two-year-olds (Alink et al.
2006). Based on international longitudinal studies
(including Nagin and Tremblay 1999), Tremblay (2007)

concludes that a peak of aggressive behavior is reached
between the end of the second and the end of the fourth
year. With regard to the persistently highly aggressive
children in the studies conducted by Tremblay, there was
no group of boys in which physical aggression first started
after the age of six and was maintained thereafter. The
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth
(NLSCY) produced current results for 12,292 Canadian
children between the ages of 5 and 11 years. While 3.7% of
the boys remained frequently physically aggressive
throughout this age range, this number dropped from 2.3 to
0.5% for girls (Lee et al. 2007). In a representative sample
of the German Child and Adolescent Health Survey with
2,863 families with children between the ages of 7 and
17 years, 6–7% of these children and adolescents were
aggressive (Ravens-Sieberer et al. 2007).
A comparative analysis of six longitudinal studies in
New Zealand, the United States and Canada, which began

with several thousand participants at birth and continued
until adolescence, also explored the connection between
early physical aggression in childhood and later acts of
physical violence in adolescence. Depending on the sample
between 4 and 10% of the boys showed a continuity of
physical aggression. The boys who were already chroni-
cally aggressive in elementary school age had an increased
risk of higher levels of violent activity and other forms of
offenses later during their adolescence between the ages of
13 and 18. Among the girls, the chronically aggressive
groups fluctuated between 0 and 10% in the various studies
and there were no clear predictors of later behavior in
measured degrees of aggressive behavior in childhood.
These studies also concluded that chronically aggressive
children already display a high level of disruptive behavior
by the time they enter kindergarten (Broidy et al. 2003).
Moffitt (1993) identified two developmental paths in
male children and adolescents displaying antisocial

behavior including aggressive tendencies, to which the
greater majority could be classified, based on an analysis of
numerous studies: About two-thirds of the boys only epi-
sodically displayed conspicuous antisocial behavior during
adolescence (adolescence-limited). A small group of
approximately 5% of the boys already displayed such
behavior in the preschool stage of childhood and perma-
nently maintained it throughout adolescence (life-course
persistent).
In summarizing the insights of all these longitudinal
studies on the development of aggression and antisocial
behavior during childhood, there seems to be a first peak of
the prevalence of these behaviors around the third year,
particularly for boys. A second peak for the majority can be
found during mid to late adolescence—those who are
episodically conspicuous. Taken together in an ideal type,
the result is a ‘‘camel humps’’ curve of the prevalence of
(episodic) aggression in childhood and adolescence. Of

special interest is a small group of boys (and a very small
one of girls) at the base of this curve with considerable
antisocial behavior and particularly high levels of chronic
aggression during childhood and adolescence. In a first
step, this article examines whether the prevalence and the
development of child aggressiveness according to new data
from Germany corresponds to these international findings.
There is a wealth of biological, psychological and
sociological findings concerning the causes of aggression
and aggressiveness (summaries by Heitmeyer and Hagan
2003; Tremblay et al. 2005; Wahl 2009). Researchers
explain the early onset of aggressive behavior of children
by biological factors, learning processes and frustration
leading to aggressive reactions as early as in the first year.
Moreover, with an increasing sense of autonomy, children
come up against parental limits that could trigger aggres-
sion. Later, the level of children’s aggression decreases
because their moral development is so effective that they

display more socially acceptable behavior (Alink et al.
2006), they are better able to tolerate waiting for a reward
and to use language, rather than hitting, as a means of
convincing others beginning at this age (Tremblay 2007).
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 345
123
Parents can influence the aggressiveness of their chil-
dren in different ways, by their genes inducing precondi-
tions for aggressiveness (Pérusse and Gendreau 2005), by
the mothers’ behavior during pregnancy (e.g., smoking)
(Huijbregts et al. 2007), by the parenting style (Georgiou
2008), by the emotional family climate as a possible trigger
of children’s aggressiveness (Lau et al. 2006) and by the
socioeconomic and cultural environment (facilitated by
income, education, etc.) which they offer to the children
(Barker et al. 2008). In this article we are especially
interested in the parents’ role in the intergenerational

transmission of problem behavior like child aggressiveness
by some aspects of their general behavior (Meurs et al.
2009): (1) The parents’ temperaments expressed in corre-
sponding behavior tendencies (externalizing and internal-
izing behavior), (2) their parenting styles (child-centered
communication, control, violence; the emotional family
climate as result of parental behavior) and (3) the self-
images of the mothers and fathers. Children can react to all
these parental behaviors and expressions by insecure or
disorganized attachment, epigenetic reactions (e.g.,
increased sensitivity to environmental influences), identi-
fication, imitation, opposition and emotional reactions such
as fear, insecurity, frustration, anger, a sense of power-
lessness, low self-esteem, etc. which can promote aggres-
siveness (McNamara et al. 2010; Meyer-Lindenberg et al.
2006; Wahl 2002; Zoccolillo et al. 2005).
An interesting question is the mediating role of par-
enting on the relation between parental attributes and the

children’s behaviors (van Aken et al. 2007). Foci of this
article are on these two factors which are also relevant
for prevention programs for parents trying to minimize
child aggression. Up to now many of the prevention
programs are aiming at the socioeconomic situation of
the parents and the parenting styles (Brotman et al. 2008;
Tremblay 2008). This is not enough. The parents’ tem-
perament with corresponding behavioral tendencies (e.g.,
externalizing behavior) and affiliated attributes (e.g., self-
images of mothers and fathers) may interfere with
learning a modified parenting style, e.g., a mother’s
disposition to externalizing behavior makes it difficult for
her to raise her children without violence. We argue here
that prevention programs should consider that such fac-
tors play important roles for the development of child
aggressiveness.
The gender constellation between mothers, fathers,
daughters, and sons may also play a role, as shown by

Casas et al. (2006): A permissive style on the part of
mothers was associated with a higher degree of physical
aggressiveness in girls. In comparison, an authoritative (not
authoritarian) style was coupled with less aggressiveness in
girls. Boys and girls were more aggressive when the
mothers employed a psychologically controlling style of
parenting. When the fathers behaved like this, the girls
were more aggressive but not the boys.
Against this background, in a secondary analysis of the
data of a representative longitudinal study and an addi-
tional study on the situation of parents and children in
Germany we try to attain the following goals.
The first goal is an analysis of the prevalence and
development of child aggressiveness: Do these data confirm
international findings of decreasing prevalence of aggres-
siveness in boys and girls (on different levels) between 5
and 11 years, paralleled by a minority of chronically
aggressive children as a risk group for later criminal vio-

lence? Does an additional study confirm international
findings of an U-shaped curve between 5 and 17 years
corresponding with the valley of the ‘‘camel humps’’ curve?
The second goal of the article is an analysis of some
influences of parents on the aggressiveness of the children:
How strong are the relative effects of (1) some aspects of
the temperaments, behavioral tendencies and affiliated
attributes of the mothers and fathers, (2) the parenting
styles, and (3) the socioeconomic situation of the families
on the aggressiveness of their boys and girls? Regarding
the second goal, we want to test the hypothesis that the
mothers’ and fathers’ externalizing and internalizing
behaviors, their self-images and the family climate have
comparable strong effects on the development of aggres-
siveness in children as does the parenting style and the
socioeconomic situation of the parents. This would have
consequences for the starting points and foci for aggression
prevention, e.g., in parent education.

Methods
Participants
The following calculations use the data of the three survey
waves of the DJI Children’s Panel Study, a longitudinal
study of the German Youth Institute (Deutsches Jugend-
institut, DJI). It is based on a random sample of children
between 5 and 11 years (boys and girls with their parents)
from the registers of residents which is representative for
Germany (persons with migration backgrounds were
included if they had sufficient knowledge of German for
interviews and questionnaires). The first wave of surveys
was in 2002 with 2,190 families that had children in two
age cohorts (the younger with 5- to 6-year-olds; the older
cohort had 8- to 9-year-olds). Children and mothers were
surveyed at home through standardized interviews and the
fathers by questionnaires. For the 5- to 8-year-olds, for
methodological reasons (length and comprehensibility of
the interview) instead of the children the mothers were

consulted regarding the questions on behalf of the children.
346 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
123
The second wave of survey was in 2004 and the third in
2005. See Table 1 for the design of the DJI Children’s
Panel Study.
Besides the data from the DJI Children’s Panel, which
only extends to the age of about 11–12 years, data is also
available from an additional representative study by the
German Youth Institute starting in 2007 in which children
and adolescents in Germany between 13 and 17 years of
age were surveyed (N = 1,372). In both studies the chil-
dren and adolescents responded to the statement, ‘‘I like to
fight’’, on a four-tiered scale ranging from agreement to
disagreement.
Instruments
The Children’s Panel Study was planned by scientists from

the German Youth Institute as well as from German and
Austrian universities. The broad variety of their research
interests on the one hand and the limited duration of the
interviews on the other hand resulted in compromises like
shortened lists of items in some questions and tests. This
restricts the possible analyses in this article.
One of the main instruments of the DJI Children’s Panel
was a scale for the temperament and behavior of the
children. The 30 items came in parts from the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach 1991), the Tem-
perament Scale (Windle and Lerner 1986) or its shortened
version (Schwarz and Rinker 1998), and a Leipzig Longi-
tudinal Study (Zentralinstitut für Jugendforschung 1988).
Based on a factor analysis three indices were formed from
this scale to determine the aggressiveness of the children
(from the perspective of the children, mothers, and fathers)
in the three survey waves by the average of the answer
values for the items ‘‘likes to fight’’, ‘‘enjoys making others

angry’’, ‘‘often starts arguments with others’’ on a scale of
1 (completely incorrect) to 4 (completely correct). For the
mothers’ perspective on the children’s aggressiveness the
internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) for the three waves was
.67, .69, and .70 (fathers’ perspective: .71, .71, .74; chil-
dren’s perspective: .51, .50, .53). In the following text the
degrees of child aggressiveness resulting from combina-
tions of the three perspectives or for means over the three
survey waves are described as aggressive (with a value of
3.00–4.00 on the scale), slightly aggressive (2.01–2.99) and
not aggressive (1.00–2.00).
For gathering statistics about some aspects of the tem-
perament and behavior of the parents, the mothers and
fathers were asked to respond to 11 items on a newly
developed four-level response scale covering three
dimensions (according to a factor analysis): Four items
such as ‘‘sometimes I am sad’’, ‘‘I sometimes feel unsure of
myself’’ (mothers’ perspective in the first wave: a = .71;
fathers’ perspective: .75) attributed to a factor which

described a depressive mood and internalizing behavior.
Other factors were impulsivity/rage (predisposing to
externalizing behavior) with two items: ‘‘I often act before
thinking things over’’ and ‘‘I am often angry at others’’ (in
the case of two items the correlation is calculated instead of
a: Mothers’ perspective r = .34** and fathers’ perspective
r = .33**; **P B .01) and a positive self-image: Five
items such as ‘‘I am usually in a good mood’’, ‘‘I am proud
of things that I have accomplished’’ (a = .63 and .61).
The second wave of the DJI Children’s Panel Study also
investigated the parenting styles in two dimensions:
attention and control. Using a scale in accordance with
Simons et al. (1992), the parents provided information
about the mothers’ and fathers’ communication with their
children with regard to how much attention they pay to the
children’s needs and desires. Child-centered communica-
tion was measured by six items such as ‘‘speaking with the
Table 1 Design of the DJI
children’s panel study. The gray

boxes represent the two age
cohorts
DJI Children’s Panel Study
Child’s
age
First wave
n = 2190
Second wave
n = 1493
Third wave
n = 1293
21-11 620 mothers
351 fathers
620 children
9-10 722 mothers
484 fathers
722 children
8-9 1042 mothers
658 fathers
1042 children
673 mothers
379 fathers
673 children
6-7 771 mothers

503 fathers
child mother (proxy)
5-6 1148 mothers
678 fathers
child mother (proxy)
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 347
123
child about his/her experiences’’ and ‘‘asking the child’s
opinion in matters that concern him/her’’ (mothers’ per-
spective a = .70, fathers’ perspective .75). In addition,
parents informed about the extent to which they exercise
strict or mild control in parenting using a scale of Schwarz
et al. (1997) with five items such as ‘‘I don’t think that a
child should defy adults’’ and ‘‘I believe in punishment if
the child acts against my will’’ (a = .70 and .74). The use
of violence in child-raising was asked by means of an
abridged version of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS)
(Straus 2007) with three items to report on their own
behavior: ‘‘Spanking or shaking the child’’, ‘‘slapping the

face’’, and ‘‘hitting’’ (a = .58 and .63).
The emotional climate in the family was determined from
the combined perspectives of the parents and the children
through a scale of five items (according to Zinnecker and
Silbereisen 1996) that includes questions such as whether
there is often ‘‘friction within the family’’, whether it is
‘‘possible for family members to speak freely’’, and whether
‘‘each member goes his/her own way’’ (a = .70).
The family income, the educational level of the mothers
and fathers and a migrant background of the child were
used as variables for the social status and the living con-
ditions of the families. The family income (resulting from
the information given by the fathers and the mothers) was
measured in accordance with the equivalence income
defined by the OECD, i.e., the income of the parents set off
against various weighting for adults, children up to and
older than 14 years (cf. Alt and Quellenberg 2005, p. 289);
the educational level of the parents reached from ‘‘no
graduation’’ up to ‘‘high school graduation and higher’’; the

migrant background of the child was defined following the
German Federal Statistical Office as born as a foreigner in
Germany or immigrated to Germany or with at least one
parent who immigrated to Germany.
The data analysis (by SPSS) of the Children’s Panel Study
had two steps: First, descriptive statistics were performed to
assess the prevalence and development of child aggressive-
ness from the combined perspectives of the mothers, fathers,
and children. Second, we calculated correlations between
temperaments, behavioral tendencies and affiliated attri-
butes of the parents and the children’s aggressiveness.
Finally, we used these variables for a stepwise regression
analysis predicting children’s aggressiveness.
Results
Development of Physical Aggressiveness in Children
and Adolescents
The parents assessed the level of their children’s aggres-
siveness as significantly higher than the children

themselves. The children’s self-perspective showed a
stronger correlation with the perspective of the mothers
(rwave 1 = .47**, rwave 2 = .45**, and rwave 3 = .47**;
both here and below **P .01 and *P .05) than with
the perspective of the fathers (rwave 1 = .38**, rwave 2 =
.42** and rwave 3 = .31**). While the parents’ assessments
of aggressiveness tended to decline with increasing age,
the self-perception of the children remained nearly
unchanged.
The most ratings of the children’s aggressiveness came
from the mothers because only this group rated the children
between 5 and 8 years and the mothers outnumbered the
fathers. So from the mothers’ perspective, 2.3% of the
children were persistently aggressive (i.e., with values of
3.00 or more in all three waves), 3.6% of the boys and
1.0% of the girls. Half of the children (49.6%) were never
aggressive (38.3% of the boys and 60.5% of the girls).
21.4% were decreasingly aggressive; 9.8% were increas-

ingly aggressive.
Both age cohorts of children that were assessed in the
three survey waves allow age-related differentiated state-
ments about the development of the prevalence and the
degrees of child aggressiveness from the perspectives of
the mothers (Table 2).
The portions of aggressive children between the ages
of 5 and 11 decreased for both genders. Among the
aggressive boys, this prevalence decreased from 19.8%
among those with 5 years to 9.8% among those with
11 years, i.e., by a half. Among the aggressive girls, the
portion dropped from 11.2 to 3.8%, i.e., by almost two-
thirds. As regards the means of child aggressiveness, it
decreased in this time significantly from 1.71 to 1.37 for
the boys and from 1.45 to 1.18 for the girls (P .001).
The fathers and the children themselves also described
the boys as aggressive with significantly greater fre-
quency than the girls.
The combination of results from the Children’s Panel

(starting at age 8, when the children themselves were
interviewed) and the additional study with children and
adolescents from 13 to 17 years reveal an age-related dis-
tribution for the item ‘‘I like to fight’’ as a measure for
aggressiveness for both genders from 8 to 17 years of age
(Wahl 2010) as shown in Table 3.
A synopsis of the data of the two studies shows that
among boys and girls there was a first peak of the desire to
fight at the age of 9 years. In the following years this
indicator of aggressiveness decreased up to the age of 13.
Among boys this was followed by an increase up to the age
of 16, and then a decrease again up to the age of 17.
Among girls there was a fluctuating distribution between
the ages of 13 and 17. All in all, there is a roughly
U-shaped development in the distribution of aggressive-
ness, particularly among boys.
348 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
123

Factors that Promote Aggressiveness in Children
The hypothesis of this article is that specific aspects of
parental attributes (externalizing and internalizing behav-
ior, self-image) have comparable strong effects on the
development of child aggressiveness as parenting styles
and the social status of the families. As a preparatory step
to test this hypothesis, correlations between these variables
and children’s aggressiveness are presented in Table 4.
All variables apart from the parents’ self-images and
educational levels showed significant correlations with the
children’s aggressiveness, but gender modified these cor-
relations. As Table 4 displays as well, the gender of parents
and children had an influence on the strength of the cor-
relations between parental behavioral tendencies and
attributes, parenting styles and child aggressiveness.
Comparatively strong correlations were between the
mothers’ and fathers’ low level of child-centered

communication as well as their use of violence in parenting
and the children’s aggressiveness. Higher paternal exter-
nalizing behavior was related to more aggression in girls,
higher paternal internalizing behavior was related to more
aggression in boys. A low family income was correlated
with higher aggressiveness of girls.
A stepwise regression analysis provided more informa-
tion about the effects of the groups of factors in mothers’
and fathers’ attributes and parenting styles compared with
other variables (Table 5).
The steps of this analysis introduced consecutively the
children’s gender, mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles,
the family climate, mothers’ and fathers’ behavioral ten-
dencies and the social status of the family. After the last
step (step 7) the explained variance of child aggressive-
ness was R2 = .27. Step 1 (child’s gender) had a com-
paratively strong significant effect. Step 2 (mother’s
parenting style) and step 5 (mother’s behavioral

Table 2 Prevalence and degree of child aggressiveness
according to age and gender (mothers’ perspective; percentages,
means, standard
deviations, and confidence intervals)
Age (years)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prevalence of aggressiveness (%)
Boys
Aggressive 19.8 17.6 20.9 13.2 14.9 8.1 9.8
Slightly aggressive 31.1 33.8 28.5 24.5 14.3 24.2 17.5
Not aggressive 49.1 48.6 50.6 62.4 70.8 67.7 72.7
Girls
Aggressive 11.2 10.9 9.0 6.7 4.7 5.0 3.8
Slightly aggressive 22.2 19.4 15.4 11.8 17.0 14.4 10.1
Not aggressive 66.5 69.7 75.6 81.5 78.4 80.7 86.1
Degree of aggressiveness (M)
Boys
M 1.71 1.69 1.70 1.51 1.51 1.40 1.37
SD .78 .75 .79 .72 .71 .64 .66

95% CI 1.64 1.57 1.60 1.44 1.36 1.31 1.30
1.78 1.81 1.80 1.58 1.66 1.49 1.45
n 485 148 239 433 88 198 285
Girls
M 1.45 1.41 1.33 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.18
SD .69 .68 .64 .57 .52 .54 .47
95% CI 1.38 1.31 1.25 1.20 1.13 1.16 1.12
1.51 1.51 1.42 1.31 1.36 1.32 1.23
n 454 175 201 416 77 181 288
N 939 323 440 849 165 379 573
M mean; SD standard deviation; CI confidence interval.
Difference of means between boys and girls: ** P .01.
Sometimes children of the
same age were included in more than one survey wave. To
simplify the table for these cases only the boys and girls of the
wave with the greatest
number of children of this age were considered. There were
only 36 children in the age group of 12-year-olds, therefore no
percentages and
means were calculated for this group
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 349
123

tendencies) led to the highest increase of the explained
variance (DR2). The emotional family climate (step 4) had
only very small effects. The father’s behavioral tendencies
(step 6) and the social status of the family (step 7) as well
brought small effects as shown by the variance of chil-
dren’s aggressiveness explained by these groups of fac-
tors. Looking at the individual standardized regression
coefficients, the results of the correlation analysis were
partially echoed by the significant weights of the mothers
with low child centered communication, externalizing
fathers and low family income. All in all, the effect of the
fathers’ variables was weaker than the effect of the
mothers’ variables. Separate stepwise regression analyses
for boys and girls resulted in additional effects: In the case
of the boys the mother’s positive self-image and in the
case of girls the migrant background had significant
impacts.

Discussion
Due to the various definitions and methods used in the
international studies on child aggression and aggressive-
ness summarized at the beginning, as well as in the DJI
Children’s Panel Study and the additional study, the find-
ings on the extent of such behavioral tendencies cannot be
precisely compared. However, this is possible for the
structure (e. g., the stronger distribution among boys than
girls) and the trajectories through the age levels. Our data
showed a decreasing prevalence of aggressiveness between
5 and 11 years in Germany which is consistent with
international longitudinal studies. In combination with the
data of an additional study with adolescents up to 17 years
the prevalence of aggressiveness (as the desire to fight)
followed roughly an U-shaped curve corresponding to the
‘‘valley’’ of the ‘‘camel humps’’ curve, but somewhat
Table 3 Agreement of children and adolescents with the
statement ‘‘I like to fight’’ by age and gender (children’s
perspective; percentages,
means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals)

Children’s panel study Additional study
Age (years) Age (years)
8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17
‘‘I like to fight’’ (%)
Boys
Strongly agree 16.7 20.5 10.7 8.1 0.9 3.8 4.9 2.5 1.9
Agree 15.5 23.9 14.2 13.3 13.9 7.1 11 15.9 12.5
Disagree 20.6 20.5 28.9 37.2 30.6 45.5 39.9 44.6 40.4
Strongly disagree 47.2 35.2 46.2 41.4 54.6 43.6 44.2 36.9 45.2
Girls
Strongly agree 7.6 10.4 6.7 8.4 0 3.6 3.9 1.3 3.3
Agree 8.1 7.8 8.3 5.6 4.3 5.1 5.5 9.3 9.8
Disagree 15.9 23.4 21.1 17.4 39.1 42 27.1 37.1 28.7
Strongly disagree 68.5 58.4 63.9 68.6 56.5 49.3 63.5 52.3 58.2
Degree of aggressiveness (M)
Boys
M 2.02 2.30 1.89 1.88 1.61 1.71 1.77 1.84 1.71
SD 1.14 1.16 1.01 .93 .76 .76 .84 .78 .76

95% CI 1.91 2.05 1.75 1.77 1.47 1.59 1.64 1.72 1.56
2.12 2.54 2.04 1.99 1.76 1.83 1.90 1.96 1.86
n 432 88 197 285 108 156 163 157 104
Girls
M 1.55 1.70 1.58 1.54 1.48 1.63 1.50 1.60 1.58
SD .93 1.00 .90 .93 .58 .75 .77 .71 .80
95% CI 1.46 1.47 1.45 1.43 1.36 1.50 1.38 1.48 1.44
1.93 1.71 1.64 1.64 1.76 1.61 1.71 1.73 1.64
n 409 77 180 287 92 138 181 151 122
N 841 165 377 572 200 294 344 308 226
DJI Children’s Panel Study and Additional Study. M mean; SD
standard deviation; CI confidence interval. Sometimes children
and adolescents of
the same age were interviewed in more than one survey wave.
To simplify the table for these cases only the boys and girls of
the wave with the
greatest number of children of this age were considered
350 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
123

phase-delayed in comparison to other studies: Our data
suggests (at least for the indicator of ‘‘desire to fight’’) a
later first peak and a somewhat later low point in the
development of aggressiveness. Also, the existence of a
small group of chronically aggressive children (primarily
boys) in the Children’s Panel conforms to findings of
international studies (Alink et al. 2006; Lay et al. 2005;
Moffitt 1993; Moffitt et al. 1996; Tremblay 2007).
In addition, our data explored effects of some aspects of
the parental temperaments, behavioral tendencies, parent-
ing styles, self-images, and the social status of the families
on child aggressiveness that confirm and specify our
hypothesis: There were significant connections between
some aspects of the parents’ temperament and behavior
(particularly internalizing and externalizing behavior) and
child aggressiveness. Among the parenting styles, a weak
child-centered communication and the use of violence in
parenting were effective. The family climate had only

minor effects. The family income and to a smaller degree a
migrant background and the educational level of the
mothers influenced the children’s aggressiveness. Some
effects of the parents’ attributes and parenting styles
depended on the gender of the parents and children (e.g.,
fathers’ violence in child-rearing was more correlated with
aggressiveness of boys than of girls). All in all, the moth-
ers’ impact on child aggressiveness was higher than the
fathers’ impact. Compared to parenting styles, some
aspects of the parents’ temperament and behavioral ten-
dencies had a remarkable impact on the aggressiveness of
their children.
In sum, most parts of the hypotheses of this article were
confirmed: Within the limits of the measured variables,
aspects of the parental temperament or behavioral ten-
dencies had at least as strong effects on the development of
aggressiveness in children as the parenting styles and the
social status of the parents. What are possible explanations

for that? Temperament and corresponding behavioral ten-
dencies of parents and children are strongly influenced by
shared genes favoring similar personalities and behaviors.
In contrast, the effects of parenting styles are contingent
learning processes in which children can react to their
parents by all degrees of adaptation and resistance.
However, biological, learning and environmental factors
work together in influencing the aggressiveness of children.
The past years have seen increasing interdisciplinary
research on revealing this complicated interplay of bio-
logical, psychological and environmental influences on
aggression: Environmental factors can influence gene
expression (epigenetics) or interfere with brain maturation.
Genetic factors can affect brain areas to the extent that
children become particularly sensitive with regard to
environmental experiences (Meyer-Lindenberg et al.
2006). Hyperactive children provoke hostile parenting
behavior, which in turn makes the children aggressive

(Thomas and Chess 1977). Regarding influences on chil-
dren’s aggressiveness, Tremblay and Szyf hypothesize that
environmental effects are transmitted intergenerationally,
most clearly from mothers to daughters; e.g., smoking,
stress and depression during pregnancy have epigenetic
effects on the daughter’s brain development. The daughter
probably will have a similar lifestyle during her own
pregnancies, and so on. In this way, mother to daughter
epigenetic transmission of behavior problems could be the
hidden mechanism of intergenerational transmission of
male chronic aggression (Tremblay and Szyf 2010). Fol-
lowing this line of argument and the results of the DJI
Children’s Panel, a wide spectrum of behavior patterns of
mothers and fathers should be regarded as possible factors
for the children’s aggressiveness, not only parenting styles
as a focus of many contemporary parent education
programs.
Our data show a connection between the externalizing

behavior of parents and the aggressiveness of their chil-
dren. This can be done by different processes (genes,
imitation, frustration) (Leve et al. 2010). The effects of
high degrees of internalizing behavior of parents on the
children’s aggressiveness (as in the data of the Children’s
Panel) are complicated as well. Studies of Loeber et al.
(1998) and Garland (2007) suggest that anxiety, depression
Table 4 Correlations of variables (survey waves 1 and 2) with
children’s aggressiveness (survey wave 3)
Variables Survey
wave
Total
r
Boys
r
Girls
r
Child’s gender
a
1 -.24**

Child-centered mother 2 -.19** -.19** -.12*
Controlling mother 2 .12** .07 .13*
Violent mother 2 .22** .17** .19**
Child-centered father 2 -.17** -.16** -.16**
Controlling father 2 .11** .09 .04
Violent father 2 .20** .17** .11*
Good family climate 2 -.13** -.15 -.15
Externalizing mother 1 .13** .10 .11*
Internalizing mother 1 .15** .13* .13*
Mother’s positive self-image 1 .03 .05 .01
Externalizing father 1 .16** .14* .21**
Internalizing father 1 .14** .17** .09
Father’s positive self-image 1 -.04 -.07 .02
Mother’s educational level 1 .01 .05 -.02
Father’s educational level 1 .01 -.01 -.02
Family income 1 -.10* -.04 -.16**
Migrant background
b
1 .06* .06 .04

n 292–726 149–365 143–361
Reference categories:
a
boy,
b
no migrant background. r Pearson’s
correlation or Kendall’s tau b. ** P .01; * P .05
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 351
123
and related stress contribute to a parent’s problematic use
of parenting techniques which in turn leads to aggressive-
ness in children. However, more aspects of child-raising
behavior might be influenced by the internalizing behavior
of parents, e.g., inconsistencies of the parental behavior.
Another study with the data from the Children’s Panel
revealed that such inconsistencies lead to more external-
izing behavior of the children (Huber 2008).
In parenting, a low level of child-centered communi-

cation and the use of physical violence can activate
aggressiveness in the children, as shown by our data. Using
violence in child rearing, as manifested by a part of the
mothers and fathers in this study, may be connected with a
child’s aggressiveness by different mechanisms, e.g., imi-
tation, a frustration-aggression reaction or by a number of
shared genes of parents and children (Baker et al. 2007;
Brendgen et al. 2005; Hudziak et al. 2003; Miles and Carey
1997; van den Oord et al. 1994; Wahl 2009).
In addition, the research literature reports on various
effects of parental styles on child aggressiveness depending
on the gender constellation between mothers, fathers, girls,
and boys that is considered (e.g., Casas et al. 2006). This
can be confirmed by the data from the Children’s Panel
Study. The influences of maternal parenting differed from
those of paternal parenting and both parenting styles
depended on the child’s gender. We could hypothesize that
boys rather react disappointed, angrily and aggressively to

fathers’ internalizing behavior and girls react angrily and
aggressively to fathers’ externalizing behavior because it is
contrary to their role expectations. Future research should
offer more answers to open questions about such
differences.
Aspects of the social status like the educational level of
the parents, the family income and a migrant background
are part of the ‘‘usual suspects’’ in aggression research
(Wahl 2009, p. 153 ff) and they were found correlated with
Table 5 Stepwise regressions predicting children’s
aggressiveness (b)
Variables Standardized regression coefficients (b)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Child’s gender
a
-.28** -.22** -.21** -.22* -.19** -.21** -.19**
Mother’s parenting style
Child-centered mother -.18** -.14* -.13 -.10 -.08 -.07
Controlling mother .06 .06 .06 .07 .06 .06

Violent mother .11 .10 .09 .09 .10 .09
Father’s parenting style
Child-centered father -.10 -.07 -.07 -.07 -.03
Controlling father .01 .01 .04 .05 .05
Violent father .02 .02 .03 .02 .00
Family climate -.09 -.06 -.05 -.09
Mother’s behavioral tendencies
Externalizing mother .06 .07 .10
Internalizing mother .21** .20** .18**
Mother’s positive self-image .07 .08 .09
Father’s behavioral tendencies
Externalizing father .15* .13
Internalizing father .05 .04
Father’s positive self-image .02 .01
Social status
Mother’s education -.10
Father’s education .08
Family income -.14*

Migrant background
b
.14
Constant 2.03 2.36 2.48 2.70 1.93 1.55 1.55
Standard error .42 .41 .41 .41 .40 .40 .39
R2 .08 .14 .15 .15 .20 .23 .27
DR2 .06** .01 .01 .05** .03 .04*
Reference categories:
a
boy,
b
no migrant background. N = 292, ** P .01; * P .05
352 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
123
child aggressiveness in our data as well. These variables
imply knowledge deficits or could lead to negative patterns
of parenting according to the frustration-aggression theory.
The findings of this secondary analysis of the data from
the DJI Children’s Panel are subject to some limitations

caused by the design, the sample, and the methods of this
study which was a compromise of interests of a heteroge-
neous group of scientists from different institutes and
scarce resources. The target person of the study refused to
participate in approximately one quarter of the gross ran-
dom sample. Due to these refusals and the exclusion of
migrants with insufficient knowledge of German (there was
an additional study for migrants who did not speak German
at all) persons with certain difficulties in life might be
underrepresented. As usual in longitudinal studies the
decreasing number of participants from one survey wave to
the next might have led to a greater loss of persons with life
problems than others. Older children and mothers were
questioned by interviewers; the fathers filled out a ques-
tionnaire, this difference could imply some distortions in
the responses. Despite the interviewers’ efforts, they were
not always successful in questioning the children in
absence of the mothers and fathers.

Family socialization includes two-way processes, e.g.,
the effects between negative parenting and child aggression
are bidirectional (Vitaro et al. 2006). Such effects need
more research. Nevertheless, the study has determined that
some personal characteristics of the parents (e.g., inter-
nalizing and externalizing behavior) seem to have signifi-
cant influences on the degree of child aggressiveness. The
effects of these personal attributes seem to be as strong as
various aspects of the parenting style or the family income.
For a more systematic analysis of the relations between
parents’ temperament, their corresponding behavioral ten-
dencies and parenting styles further research is needed
because the Children’s Panel offered only a restricted set of
variables. The strengths of the DJI Children’s Panel are the
representative sample, the longitudinal design, and the
three-sided perspectives from the mothers, fathers, and
children.
Considering the children with high degrees of aggres-

siveness with only 5 years of age and continuing aggres-
siveness one consequence for the practice has become
clear: Since the development of aggression in future violent
criminals not only has a considerable genetic component
but can also be promoted by influences of the social
environment beginning during pregnancy, by epigenetic
processes starting early in life in the family, by parenting
styles etc., measures to prevent aggression and violence
should be initiated at a very early stage and over the long
term, and they have to consider the individual personalities
of parents, not only the parenting styles. This is an
important advice for parent education, too.
Acknowledgments The empirical research was supported by the
German Youth Institute, Munich. The review of literature was
facil-
itated by a fellowship from the Institute for Advanced Study,
Del-
menhorst, awarded to Klaus Wahl. We thank the families who
participated in the studies and Christian Alt, Beatriz Barquero,
and

Ulrich Pötter for comments on drafts of the text.
References
Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for child behavior checklist 4–18
and
1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Depart-
ment of Psychiatry.
Alink, L. R., Mesman, J., van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N., Juffer, F.,
Koot,
H. M., et al. (2006). The early childhood aggression curve:
Development of physical aggression in 10- to 50-month-old
children. Child Development, 77, 954–966.
Alt, C., & Quellenberg, H. (2005). Daten, Design und
Konstrukte.
Grundlagen des Kinderpanels. In C. Alt (Ed.), Kinderleben—
Aufwachsen zwischen Familie, Freunden und Institutionen (pp.
277–303). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Baker, L. A., Jacobson, K. C., Raine, A., Lozano, D. I., &
Bezdjian, S.
(2007). Genetic and environmental bases of childhood antisocial
behavior: A multi-informant twin study. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 116, 219–235.
Barker, E. D., Boivin, M., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N.,
Arseneault, L.,

Vitaro, F., et al. (2008). Predictive validity and early predictors
of peer-victimization trajectories in preschool. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 65, 1185–1192.
Brendgen, M., Dionne, G., Girard, A., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., &
Pérusse, D. (2005). Examining genetic and environmental
effects
on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old twins. Child
Development, 76, 930–946.
Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E.,
Brame, B.,
Dodge, K. A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of
childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A
six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39,
222–245.
Brotman, L., Gouley, K., Huang, K., Rosenfelt, A., O’Neal, C.,
Klein,
R. G., et al. (2008). Preventive intervention for preschoolers at
high risk for antisocial behavior: Long-term effects on child
physical aggression and parenting practices. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 37, 386–396.
Bundeskriminalamt. (2009). PKS-Zeitreihen 1987 bis 2009.
Wiesba-
den: Bundeskriminalamt.

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D.
(2008).
Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adoles-
cence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercor-
relations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development,
79, 1185–1229.
Casas, J. F., Weigel, S. M., Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Woods,
K. E., Yeh,
E. A. J., et al. (2006). Early parenting and children’s relational
and
physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Journal
of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 209–227.
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2003). Patterns and explanations of
direct
physical and indirect nonphysical aggression in childhood. In
W.
Heitmeyer & J. Hagan (Eds.), The international handbook of
violence research (pp. 545–565). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Garland, B. H. (2007). Parenting techniques and parent
character-
istics associated with child externalizing behavior problems.
College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school:
The role
of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
109–125.
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 353
123
Heitmeyer, W., & Hagan, J. (Eds.). (2003). The international
handbook of violence research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Huber, J. (2008). ‘‘Der Dritte im Bunde ist immer dabei…’’—
Die
Bedeutung des Vaters im familiären Erziehungsgeschehen. In C.
Alt (Ed.), Kinderleben—Individuelle Entwicklungen in sozialen
Kontexten (pp. 149–180). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hudziak, J. J., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., Bartels, M.,
Rietveld, M.
J. H., Rettew, D. C., Derks, E. M., et al. (2003). Individual
differences in aggression: Genetic analyses by age, gender, and
informant in 3-, 7-, and 10-year-old Dutch twins. Behavioral
Genetics, 33, 575–589.
Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., & Boxer, P. (2009). Continuity
of

aggression from childhood to early adulthood as a predictor of
life outcomes: implications for the adolescent-limited and life-
course-persistent models. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 136–149.
Huijbregts, S., Séguin, J., Zoccolillo, M., Boivin, M., &
Tremblay, R.
(2007). Associations of maternal prenatal smoking with early
childhood physical aggression, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and
their co-occurrence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35,
203–215.
Kokko, K., Pulkkinen, L., Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., &
Boxer,
P. (2009). Intensity of aggression in childhood as a predictor of
different forms of adult aggression: A two-country (Finland and
the United States) analysis. Journal of Research on
Adolescence,
19, 9–34.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., &
Lozano, R.
(Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva:
WHO.
Lau, A. S., Takeuchi, D. T., & Alegrı́a, M. (2006). Parent-to-
child

aggression among Asian American parents: Culture, context,
and
vulnerability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 1261–
1275.
Lay, B., Ihle, W., Esser, G., & Schmidt, M. H. (2005). Juvenile-
episodic, continued or adult-onset delinquency? Risk conditions
analysed in a cohort of children followed up to the age of
25 years. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 39–66.
Lee, K. H., Baillargeon, R. H., Vermunt, J. K., Wu, H. X., &
Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Age differences in the prevalence of
physical aggression among 5–11-year-old Canadian boys and
girls. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 26–37.
Leve, L. D., Kerr, D. C. R., Shaw, D., Ge, X., Neiderhiser, J.
M.,
Scaramella, L. V., et al. (2010). Infant pathways to
externalizing
behavior: Evidence of genotype 9 environment interaction.
Child Development, 81, 340–356.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van
Kammen, W. B. (1998). Antisocial behavior and mental health
problems: Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loeber, R., Pardini, D., Homish, D. L., Wei, E. H., Crawford,
A. M.,

Farrington, D. P., et al. (2005). The prediction of violence and
homicide in young men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 1074–1088.
McNamara, K. A., Selig, J. P., & Hawley, P. H. (2010). A
typological approach to the study of parenting: Associations
between maternal parenting patterns and child behaviour and
social reception. Early Child Development and Care, 180,
1185–1202.
Meurs, I., van Reef, J., Verhulst, F., & van der Ende, J. (2009).
Intergenerational transmission of child problem behaviors: A
longitudinal, population-based study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 1–8.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Buckholtz, J. W., Kolachana, B. R.,
Hariri, A.,
Pezawas, L., Blasi, G., et al. (2006). Neural mechanisms of
genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans.
Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 6269–6274.
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. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-

persistent
antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological
Review, 100, 674–701.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W.
(1996).
Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct
problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years.
Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399–424.
Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’
physical
aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to phys-
ically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child
Development, 70, 1181–1196.
Nelson, R. J., & Trainor, B. C. (2007). Neural mechanisms of
aggression. Nature Review Neuroscience, 8, 536–546.
Pérusse, D., & Gendreau, P. L. (2005). Genetics and the
development
of aggression. In R. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer
(Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 223–241).
New
York: Guilford.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Wille, N., Bettge, S., & Erhart, M. (2007).
Psychische Gesundheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deu-

tschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung -
Gesundheitsschutz, 50, 871–878.
Schwarz, B., & Rinker, B. (1998). Temperament. In J.
Zinnecker & R.
K. Silbereisen (Eds.), Kindheit in Deutschland. Aktueller survey
über kinder und ihre eltern (pp. 159–168). Weinheim, Germany:
Juventa.
Schwarz, B., Walper, S., Gödde, M., & Jurasic, S. (1997).
Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente der 1. Hauptbefra-
gung (rev. ed.). München, Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I.
(1992).
Support from spouse as mediator and moderator of the
disruptive
influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development,
63, 1282–1301.
Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1989). The role of early
aggressive
behavior in the frequency, seriousness, and types of later crime.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 710–718.
Straus, M. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N. A. Jackson
(Ed.),
Encyclopedia of domestic violence (pp. 190–197). New York,

NY: Routledge.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and
development.
York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive
behaviour
during childhood: What have we learned in the past century?
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129–141.
Tremblay, R. E. (2007). The development of youth violence: An
old
story with new data. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research, 13, 161–170.
Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Understanding development and
prevention
of chronic physical aggression: Towards experimental
epigenetic
studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363,
2613–2622.
Tremblay, R. E., Hartup, W. W., & Archer, J. (Eds.). (2005).
Developmental origins of aggression. New York, NY: Guilford.
Tremblay, R., & Szyf, M. (2010). Developmental origins of
chronic
physical aggression and epigenetics. Epigenomics, 2, 495–499.
van Aken, C., Junger, M., Verhoeven, M., van Aken, M. A. G.,

Deković, M., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2007). Parental personality,
parenting and toddlers’ externalising behaviours. European
Journal of Personality, 21, 993–1015.
van der Oord, E. J. C. G., Boomsma, D. I., & Verhulst, F. C.
(1994).
A study of problem behaviors in 10- to 15-year-old biologically
related and unrelated international adoptees. Behavioral Genet-
ics, 24, 193–205.
354 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355
123
Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., Boivin, M., Brendgen, M., &
Tremblay, R.
E. (2006). Do early difficult temperament and harsh parenting
differentially predict reactive and proactive aggression? Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 685–695.
Wahl, K. (2002). Development of xenophobia and aggression.
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal
Justice, 26, 247–256.
Wahl, K. (Ed.). (2003). Skinheads, Neonazis, Mitläufer.
Täterstudien
und Prävention. Opladen, Germany: Leske ? Budrich.

Wahl, K. (2009). Aggression und Gewalt. Ein biologischer,
psycho-
logischer und sozialwissenschaftlicher Überblick. Heidelberg,
Germany: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Wahl, K. (2010). Verbreitung, Entwicklung und Bedingungen
der
Aggression bei Kindern. Unpublished expertise. München,
Deutsches Jugendinstitut.
Wahl, K., Tramitz, C., & Blumtritt, J. (2001).
Fremdenfeindlichkeit.
Auf den Spuren extremer Emotionen. Eine interdisziplinäre
Untersuchung. Opladen, Germany: Leske ? Budrich.
Windle, M., & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the
dimensions of
temperamental individuality across the life span: The revised
dimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R). Journal of
Adolescent Research, 1, 213–229.
Zentralinstitut für Jugendforschung. (1988). Leipziger
Längsschnitt,
3. Welle Leipzig, Germany: ISF.
Zinnecker, J., & Silbereisen, R. K. (1996). Kindheit in
Deutschland:
Aktueller survey über kinder und ihre eltern. Weinheim,
Germany: Juventa.
Zoccolillo, M., Romano, E., Joubert, D., Mazzarello, T., Côté,
S.,

Boivin, M., et al. (2005). The intergenerational transmission of
aggression and antisocial behavior. In R. Tremblay, W. W. Har-
tup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression
(pp. 353–375). New York: Guilford.
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:344–355 355
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
c.10826_2011_Article_9484.pdfParental Influences on the
Prevalence and Development of Child
AggressivenessAbstractIntroductionMethodsParticipantsInstrum
entsResultsDevelopment of Physical Aggressiveness in Children
and AdolescentsFactors that Promote Aggressiveness in
ChildrenDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences
A Developmental Perspective on Personality in Emerging
Adulthood:
Childhood Antecedents and Concurrent Adaptation
Rebecca L. Shiner
Colgate University
Ann S. Masten and Auke Tellegen
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus
Personality and competence were examined in a community

sample of 205 children ages 8–12 who were
followed up 10 years later in emerging adulthood (ages 17–23).
Adult Positive Emotionality (PEM),
Negative Emotionality (NEM), and Constraint (CON) were
presaged by childhood personality. PEM was
associated with current success in social and romantic
relationships. Low CON was associated with
childhood and current antisocial conduct. NEM was broadly
linked to childhood and current maladap-
tation, consistent with the possibility that failure in major
developmental tasks increases NEM. Findings
highlight the pervasive linkage of NEM to maladaptation and
suggest that adult personality may develop
from processes embedded in childhood adaptation as well as
childhood personality.
Parents, policy makers, psychologists, and psychiatrists have all
speculated about whether there are meaningful connections be-
tween childhood functioning and adult personality or whether it
is
impossible to predict adult personality from earlier functioning.
Freud (see Strachey, 1976) was one of the most influential
propo-
nents of the view that adult personality has its roots in early
developmental processes. He argued that personality structure
prior to approximately age 6 or 7 significantly determines
person-
ality and psychopathology in adulthood. Other developmental
the-
orists and researchers have contended that randomness and
chance
often characterize human personality development (e.g., Lewis,
1997, 2001). From this perspective, the prediction of adult
person-
ality from childhood behavior may prove to be a futile
endeavor.

In recent years, researchers in child development and
personality
have called for a developmental science of personality that ad-
dresses questions of personality continuity and discontinuity
across the life course (Caspi, 1998; Caspi & Roberts, 1999; Hal-
verson, Kohnstamm, & Martin, 1994; John & Srivastava, 1999;
Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998; Rothbart,
Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Shiner, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, in press).
There have been increasing attempts to correct an impoverished
developmental understanding of adult personality through
theoret-
ical and empirical links between adult personality and
childhood
functioning.
This emerging developmental science of personality has begun
to address the question of whether personality traits evince
conti-
nuity across time from childhood to adulthood. Rank-order con-
sistency refers to the consistency of individuals’ relative
standing
within a group on personality traits across time (Caspi, 1998;
Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Although many studies have ex-
amined the rank-order consistency of personality traits within
developmental periods (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000), far fewer
studies have tracked individuals across childhood into
adulthood.
Nonetheless, a small number of both classic and more recent
studies have examined the rank-order consistency of personality
traits across childhood into adulthood (e.g., Block, 1971; Caspi,
2000; Caspi, Bem, & Elder, 1989; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Gest,
1997; Kagan & Moss, 1962; Moss & Susman, 1980). These
studies
have documented the modest to strong continuity of some
person-

ality traits across these developmental periods (Caspi &
Roberts,
2001). However, methodological features of most of these
studies
may limit the studies’ capacity to answer the question of
whether
most adult personality traits can be predicted from childhood
personality traits in a normative population. Some of these
studies
included participants only from a narrow range of
socioeconomic
and educational backgrounds, primarily upper middle class and
well educated. Many of these studies have provided useful
infor-
mation about the continuity of single, lower order personality
traits
(e.g., behavioral inhibition, aggression) but have not addressed
the
prediction of the broadband, higher order personality traits that
are
of interest to adult personality researchers, such as the Big Five.
Thus, further examination of the links between childhood and
adult
personality traits in a normative population is warranted.
From a developmental perspective, childhood personality is, of
course, one potentially important antecedent of adult
personality.
A second potentially informative childhood antecedent of adult
Rebecca L. Shiner, Department of Psychology, Colgate
University; Ann
S. Masten and Auke Tellegen, Department of Psychology,
University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Colgate
Research
Council. The results were based on data collected as part of the
Project
Competence longitudinal study, which has been supported
through grants
to Ann S. Masten, Auke Tellegen, and Norman Garmezy from
the National
Institute of Mental Health (Grant MH33222), the William T.
Grant Foun-
dation, the National Science Foundation (Grant SBR-9729111),
and the
University of Minnesota. Preliminary results were presented at
the 108th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
August
2000, Washington, DC; the European Association of Personality
Psychol-
ogy Expert Workshop, November 2000, Ghent, Belgium; and the
annual
meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, January
2002,
Savannah, Georgia.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Rebecca
L. Shiner, Department of Psychology, Colgate University, 13
Oak Drive,
Hamilton, New York 13346. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002 by
the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2002, Vol. 83, No. 5, 1165–1177 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI:
10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1165
1165

Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he

rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u

se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at

ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
personality is childhood history of adaptive functioning or
mastery
of developmental tasks (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). In recent years,
there has been a profusion of studies linking adult personality
with
important life outcomes; adult personality traits are clearly
related
to individuals’ relative success or failure at important life tasks.
For example, adults high on the traits of Conscientiousness or
Constraint exhibit greater educational attainment and stronger
work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Clark & Watson,
1999). Adults high on Extraversion or Positive Emotionality
report
more generally active, positive social relationships with peers
and
romantic partners (Clark & Watson, 1999) and attain higher
social
status in groups (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). Al-
though numerous studies have linked adult personality traits
with
concurrent adaptive functioning, it is not clear whether these
adult
personality traits are related to childhood histories of adaptive
functioning. In other words, it is not known how early in devel-
opment individuals’ adaptive functioning becomes predictive of

their relative standing on adult personality traits.
Developmental theorists have argued that success or failure at
crucial age-salient adaptive tasks also may have implications
for
personality development (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995; Sroufe &
Rutter, 1984). Competence in adaptive developmental tasks may
reflect personality functioning in part. However, adaptive
success
or failure may also contribute to changes in personality over
time.
For example, children who are particularly well-liked and
success-
ful with their peers may show higher levels of positive emotions
or
Extraversion across development. In contrast, children who are
prone to negative emotions or impulsive behavior may
experience
difficulty mastering important tasks, such as academic achieve-
ment and peer relationships. Failure in these areas could then
contribute to increasing levels of negative emotions or Neuroti-
cism over time. In other words, there may be transactions
between
children’s personality dispositions and their performance in im-
portant domains of adaptation, such that the two become
increas-
ingly intertwined over time (Ford & Lerner, 1992; Magnussen &
Stattin, 1998; Shiner & Caspi, in press).
The Present Study
In the present study, we attempted to provide a more develop-
mentally rich understanding of how personality traits in
emerging
adulthood are presaged by childhood functioning. The data for
this

study were drawn from a longitudinal study of competence, ad-
versity, and resilience (Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Masten et
al.,
1988, 1995, 1999). The participants included a normative
sample
of elementary school students who were 8 to 12 years old when
the
study began. Their general adaptive functioning, personality,
en-
vironmental contexts, and experiences were measured through a
variety of methods. Approximately 10 years later, when the
cohort
was 17 to 23 years old, these participants and their parents were
interviewed and completed a variety of tests and questionnaires
about the participants’ adaptive functioning, and the
participants
completed a personality questionnaire. This age period has
come to
be called emerging adulthood in recent years, reflecting an ex-
tended period of transition from adolescence to adulthood in
contemporary, industrialized societies (Arnett, 2000). The
present
study used a longitudinal design to relate participants’ self-
described personality traits at the brink of adulthood to their
personality and adaptive functioning assessed 10 years
previously.
A strength of this study is that separate reporters provided
infor-
mation on childhood functioning and young adult personality.
The self-report measure of personality completed by partici-
pants around age 20 was the Multidimensional Personality
Ques-
tionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, in press; Tellegen & Waller, 1992),
an

omnibus measure assessing three higher order personality traits:
Positive Emotionality (PEM), Negative Emotionality (NEM),
and
Constraint (CON). The personality structure elaborated in this
model is one of several adult personality taxonomies proposing
a
three-factor, higher order structure (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1999;
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; Gough, 1987; Tellegen, 1985;
Watson
& Clark, 1993). Each of the three higher order traits in the MPQ
model incorporates several lower order traits. For example,
NEM
includes the lower order traits of Stress Reaction, Alienation,
and
Aggression. Thus, in the present study, when one of the higher
order traits was related to some aspect of childhood functioning,
it
was possible to look at the component lower order traits for a
more
fine-grained analysis.
Individuals high on PEM are predisposed to be positively and
actively engaged with their social and work environments and to
experience activated positive emotions such as enthusiasm and
zest. They also tend to have a strong sense of well-being. This
higher order trait is most related to the Big Five Extraversion
trait,
but it includes the achievement strivings and persistence
compo-
nents of Conscientiousness (Clark & Watson, 1999). The
frequent
experience of positive emotions is a core component of both the
PEM and the Extraversion traits (Watson & Clark, 1997).
Individ-
uals high on NEM tend to experience negative emotions such as
anxiety, resentment, and anger in a wide variety of situations

and
to have negatively charged relationships. These individuals may
be
vulnerable to the adverse effects of stress. This higher order
trait is
most closely related to the Big Five Neuroticism trait, although
it
includes some components that overlap with Agreeableness
(e.g.,
lack of trust of others, hostility toward others; Clark & Watson,
1999). Individuals endorsing high levels of CON tend to be cau-
tious, planful, harm avoidant, and more traditional and conven-
tional; those low on CON tend to acknowledge higher levels of
impulsiveness and sensation seeking and to reject conventional
values. This higher order trait is most related to the Big Five
Conscientiousness trait (Clark & Watson, 1999).
In the present study, we related the participants’ self-report of
personality on the MPQ to their relative standing on five
person-
ality traits assessed 10 years previously. The childhood
personality
traits—Mastery Motivation, Academic Conscientiousness,
Surgent
Engagement, Agreeableness, and Self-Assurance versus Anxious
Insecurity—were derived through a process of data reduction
using reports from a parent interview, an interview with the
chil-
dren themselves, and a teacher questionnaire (Shiner, 2000).
These
five traits provided reasonably comprehensive coverage of the
four
major temperament and personality trait domains often
measured
in childhood (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Shiner, 1998; Shiner &
Caspi, in press): (a) PEM/Extraversion, (b) NEM/Neuroticism,

(c)
Agreeableness, and (d) CON/Conscientiousness. Because the
childhood personality traits were not measured through a self-
report questionnaire format, any continuity from childhood to
emerging adulthood is not attributable to shared method.
We also examined the links between participants’ personality in
emerging adulthood and their concurrent and childhood adaptive
functioning. Competent adaptive functioning has been defined
as
1166 SHINER, MASTEN, AND TELLEGEN
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th

e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i

ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly

fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot

to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
“reasonable success with major developmental tasks expected
for
a person of a given age and gender in the context of his or her
culture, society, and time” (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998, p.
206).
Several domains of adaptive functioning have been identified as
central developmental tasks in childhood and throughout adoles-
cence and emerging adulthood, though the nature of the tasks
changes over periods of development (Masten & Coatsworth,
1998; Masten et al., 1995). Academic achievement is salient
across
the school years. Academic achievement in childhood includes

the
development of basic academic skills; later, success in this
domain
reflects secondary school completion and further education as
needed for employment in contemporary society. Rule-abiding
conduct versus antisocial behavior refers to the expectation that
individuals will learn to control their behavior and abide by
soci-
etal rules for conduct. In childhood this domain reflects
learning
and following the rules for conduct at home, in school, and in
the
community. By adolescence, the conduct domain also reflects
law-abiding behavior. In childhood, social competence with
peers
involves peer acceptance in structured settings such as school as
well as friendships; in adolescence and early adulthood, peer
social
competence reflects expanding social networks and acceptance
by
a self-selected group of friends. In the present study, for the
three
domains of adaptive functioning that cut across childhood and
emerging adulthood, it was possible to examine whether the pat-
terns of relationships between adult personality and concurrent
adaptation were comparable to those between adult personality
and
childhood adaptation. In adolescence and early adulthood, new
tasks emerge, most notably concerning romantic relationships
and
work. Job competence was measured as effective performance at
paid employment, and romantic competence by evidence of
being
able to start and maintain romantic relationships. Success in
these
emergent domains was evaluated on the basis of performance

commensurate with the beginning phases of new competence
domains; these domains become more salient as individuals
estab-
lish themselves in adulthood.
Finally, we examined whether childhood adaptation predicted
adult personality after the continuity of personality from
childhood
to adulthood was controlled for. It is possible that personality in
emerging adulthood could be linked with childhood adaptation
merely because of the stability of personality from childhood to
adulthood. It is also possible that good or poor adaptation
promotes
changes in personality traits over time. We examined these com-
peting hypotheses regarding the links between adult personality
and childhood adaptation.
Several sets of predictions were tested. First, we expected to
find modest continuity of personality across the 10-year period.
Second, we expected to find some distinctive links between the
adult personality traits and concurrent adaptive functioning, in-
cluding the following. First, we predicted that individuals high
on
PEM would have more positive relationships with friends and
romantic partners, on the basis of the literature on adults (e.g.,
Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Clark & Watson, 1999). Second,
we
predicted that individuals high on NEM would have a variety of
adaptational difficulties. Individuals who describe themselves
as
hostile and alienated evidence higher levels of antisocial
behavior
(Krueger, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000), and a history of antisocial
behavior is known to predict academic and occupational failure
(Masten et al., 1995; Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton,
1996). Thus, we expected that individuals high on these aspects

of
NEM would exhibit higher levels of antisocial behavior, poorer
academic achievement, and more difficulty establishing compe-
tence in work settings. High levels of NEM are often associated
with difficulties in romantic relationships (Caughlin, Huston, &
Houts, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and other social
interac-
tions (Furr & Funder, 1998); we expected to obtain similar find-
ings for our measures of social and romantic competence. Third,
we predicted that individuals high on CON would be more
effec-
tive in developmental tasks that require good self-regulation of
behavior, including academic achievement, rule-abiding
conduct,
and job competence (see, e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Clark &
Watson, 1999; Krueger et al., 2000). Because the analyses
exam-
ining the relationship between childhood adaptation and adult
personality were exploratory, we did not generate hypotheses
about the capacity of childhood adaptation to predict
personality
over time.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Participants were drawn from a normative cohort of 205
children (91
boys and 114 girls) whose families initially were recruited from
students
attending third to sixth grade in two urban elementary schools
in Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, to participate in a study of competence and
resilience

(Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Masten et al., 1988, 1995, 1999).
The chil-
dren ranged in age from 8 to 12 years of age (M � 9.96). A
multimethod,
multiple-informant approach was taken to assessment of child
functioning.
During this first phase of the project, numerous tests of
individual differ-
ences, including an individual achievement test, were
administered to the
children, and they also were interviewed during two sessions
(for most,
during the school day). Their parents or guardians (mothers, in
most cases)
were interviewed during three sessions at their home. Teachers
completed
the Devereux Elementary School Rating Scale (Spivack &
Swift, 1967),
and classroom peer nomination ratings and school records were
also
obtained.
The participants’ schools were located in a diverse but
predominantly
lower to middle class area of Minneapolis; socioeconomic status
among the
children’s families ranged from 7 to 92.3 on the 100-point
Duncan Socio-
economic Index (Hauser & Featherman, 1977), with a sample
mean of 43
(the equivalent of skilled labor or clerical positions). Twenty-
nine percent
of the sample was of an ethnic/racial minority, including
biracial children
(18% African American, 7% American Indian, 3% Hispanic, 1%
Asian).

At the time, 27% of the school district was estimated to have
ethnic/racial
minority heritage, though sight counts of minority status for
these two
study schools suggested that these schools had somewhat higher
minority
enrollments in the grades sampled.
The sample was followed up initially after 7 years and then
again after
about 10 years, when the sample ranged in age from 17 to 23.
The 7-year
follow-up was conducted through mailings sent to the
participants and
parents or guardians. A more thorough assessment was
undertaken for the
10-year follow-up, including completion of questionnaires and
interviews.
All but 1 of the original cohort were located, and information
was obtained
concerning 202 of the sample (98.5%), including self-report
personality
data from 187 of the young adults. During this 10-year follow-
up, the
participants filled out a Status Questionnaire, Competence
Rating Scales,
and a self-report personality questionnaire along with other
measures, and
they underwent a 3-hr semistructured interview (usually at the
university).
Their parents (mothers again, in most cases) filled out a Status
Question-
naire and Competence Rating Scales describing their young
adult off-
spring, and they completed a 2-hr interview in their home. The
following

analyses include data only from childhood and the 10-year
follow-up,
because these two assessment periods were far more
comprehensive. In the
1167DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON ADULT
PERSONALITY
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e
A
m

er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli

ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he

p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e

di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
following sections, we sometimes refer to these two data points
as age 10
and age 20, the mean ages for the participants during those
assessments.
Measures
Personality
Childhood (age 10). Measures of four personality traits in
childhood
were derived previously in this sample (Shiner, 2000): Mastery
Motivation,
Academic Conscientiousness, Surgent Engagement, and
Agreeableness.
Each of these higher order traits was measured through the
combination of

lower order scales from the parent interview, the Devereux
teacher ques-
tionnaire, and/or the child interview. Mastery Motivation
incorporated the
parent interview scale Zestful Engagement in Activities, the
child interview
scale Achievement Motivation, and the teacher questionnaire
scale Perfor-
mance Anxiety, which was scored negatively. A child high on
this trait
tended to work with enthusiasm, creativity, and persistence at
schoolwork
and other activities and to strive toward high standards, with
relatively little
concern about external measures of performance. Academic
Conscientious-
ness incorporated the parent interview scale Academic
Conscientiousness
and the teacher questionnaire scale School Carelessness, which
was scored
negatively. A child high on Academic Conscientiousness tended
to ap-
proach school in a serious, thorough, and responsible fashion.
Surgent
Engagement incorporated the parent interview scale
Extraversion, the child
interview scale Expressiveness, and the teacher questionnaire
scale Poor
Comprehension–Disattention, which was scored negatively. A
child scor-
ing high on this scale was engaged in an active, vigorous,
surgent fashion
in both social and nonsocial settings and in familiar and novel
contexts. A
child scoring low on this scale was socially withdrawn and
inhibited,

passive, inattentive at school, and reliant on others’ assistance
and likely
had difficulties expressing his or her experience of the world.
Agreeable-
ness incorporated the parent interview scale Friendly
Compliance and the
child interview scale Agreeableness. A child high on
Agreeableness tended
to be cooperative, kind, prosocial, and flexible in accepting
limits rather
than selfish, hurtful, egotistical, and cynical.
A fifth childhood personality trait was added to the present
analyses to
provide more comprehensive coverage of the potential realm of
childhood
personality traits. A child interview lower order scale called
Self-
Assurance versus Anxious Insecurity had been excluded from
previous
analyses in this sample (Shiner, 2000) because of its
heterogeneous con-
tent. The items with the highest positive loadings on this scale
were “has
high level of self-esteem,” “involved in physical activities,” and
“has easy
time making friends,” and the items with the highest negative
loadings
were “fearful/worried/anxious,” “is picked on by other
children,” and
“self-critical.” This scale was included in the present analyses
because it
helped broaden the content of the childhood personality
dimensions to
include a child’s confidence, positive self-regard, lack of

negative emo-
tions, and lack of negative self-regard.
Emerging adulthood (age 20; 10-year follow-up). The
participants
completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
(MPQ; Telle-
gen, 1985; Tellegen, in press; Tellegen & Waller, 1992), a 300-
item
self-report inventory that measures individual differences on a
broad array
of personality traits. The MPQ yields scores on 11 lower order
trait
dimensions; the lower order trait of absorption is not used in the
present
study. These lower order dimensions were derived through an
iterative
process that involved both conceptual elaboration and empirical
refinement
through factor analysis. The item clusters making up the 10
lower order
traits used in this study are described in Table 1. Previous
studies of the
MPQ with samples of late adolescents and adults have
demonstrated that
these lower order scales are internally consistent, stable over
time, and
relatively independent of one another (Caspi & Silva, 1995;
McGue,
Bacon, & Lykken, 1993; Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002;
Tellegen et al.,
1988; Tellegen & Waller, 1992).
Factor analyses of the lower order scale scores have resulted in
the three
higher order factors described in the introduction (Patrick et al.,

2002;
Tellegen, 1985; Tellegen & Waller, 1992). PEM is measured by
the
Well-Being, Achievement, Social Potency, and Social Closeness
scales.
NEM is measured by the Stress Reaction, Alienation, and
Aggression
scales. CON is measured by the Control, Harm Avoidance, and
Tradition-
alism scales.
Competent Adaptive Functioning
In an earlier study from this project, three domains of
competent adap-
tive functioning in childhood and emerging adulthood were
confirmed
through structural equation modeling: academic achievement,
rule-abiding
versus antisocial conduct, and social competence with peers
(Masten et al.,
Table 1
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Scales
Higher order and lower
order MPQ scales Item clusters for lower order scales
Positive Emotionality
Well-Being Optimistic, hopeful; has cheerful disposition; has
interesting experiences; engages
in enjoyable activities
Social Potency Forceful, decisive; persuasive; seeks leadership
roles; enjoys visibility
Achievement Works hard; enjoys effort; welcomes difficulties;

persistent; ambitious;
perfectionistic
Social Closeness Sociable; values close relationships; warm,
affectionate; seeks support
Negative Emotionality
Stress Reaction Tense, nervous; sensitive, vulnerable; worry-
prone, anxious; easily upset;
unexplainable negative emotions; prone to feel guilty
Alienation Target of malevolence; victim of false rumors;
betrayed, deceived; exploited;
pushed around; unlucky
Aggression Physically aggressive; enjoys distressing others;
vengeful, vindictive; enjoys
witnessing violence; victimizes for own gain
Constraint
Control Reflective; cautious, careful; level-headed, sensible;
makes detailed plans
Harm Avoidance Dislikes risky adventures; avoids disaster
areas; dislikes emergencies; avoids injury
Traditionalism Moralistic; endorses religion; positive regard for
parents; condemns selfishness;
endorses strict rearing; values “proper” conduct; opposes
rebelliousness
1168 SHINER, MASTEN, AND TELLEGEN
Th
is

d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol

og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.

Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o

f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b

ro
ad
ly
.
1995). Two additional domains were confirmed in emerging
adulthood: job
competence and romantic competence. The participants’ relative
standing
on these dimensions was determined in the current study as
well. The
measures of adaptation and their reliabilities are described in
Table 2. At
each assessment period, a multiple-method, multiple-informant
approach
yielded multiple indicators for each domain of competence. The
indicators
of each competence domain were derived systematically through
data
reduction processes described in detail elsewhere (see Masten et
al., 1995,
1999). Strategies of data reduction included factor analysis and
examina-
tion of reliabilities and discriminant validity. Items that
conceptually and
empirically cohered were typically standardized and averaged to
form
composite scores within informant and method (thus, the scores
were factor
based but not weighted by factor loadings). The participants’
standardized
scores on three to eight reliable indicators were averaged to

create a
Table 2
Measures of Competent Adaptive Functioning in Childhood and
Emerging Adulthood
Measure No. items Reliabilitya Description or sample item
Adaptation in childhood
Academic achievement (� � .88)
Grade point average 1 Average in math, reading, language,
spelling, science
Achievement test 1 Total raw score Peabody Individual
Achievement Test
Teacher rating 1 “Knows material when called upon”
Parent interview 3 .80 “How is X doing in school?”
Rule-abiding conduct (� � .77)
Parent interview, home compliance 3 .66 “Does X respond to
your rules at home?”
Parent interview, school compliance 3 .78 “Does X get into
fights and quarrels at school?”
Teacher ratings 8 .93 “Breaks classroom rules” (reversed)
Child interview 6 .89 Reported antisocial behavior
Social competence (� � .50)
Positive peer nomination 7 .93 “Everyone likes to be with”
Negative peer nominations 3 .80 “Has trouble making friends”
(reversed)
Child interview 6 .89 “Develops genuine, close, lasting
relationships”
Adaptation in emerging adulthood
Academic achievement (� � .90)

Participant questionnaire 1 .93 “How well is X doing in
school?”
Parent questionnaire 1 .85 “How well is X doing in school?”
Participant interview 1 .85 Grades and attainment
Parent interview 1 .84 “How well is X doing in school?”
Rule-abiding conduct (� � .79)
Participant questionnaire 1 .92 Seriousness of trouble with law
(reversed)
Parent questionnaire 1 .77 Seriousness of trouble with law
(reversed)
Participant interview 5 .83 “Gets into trouble with authority”
(reversed)
Parent interview 3 .80 Aggression (reversed)
CRS—parent 2 .54 “Some people rarely get into fights . . .”
Social competence (� � .86)
Participant questionnaire 1 .83 “Has a positive/active social
life”
Parent questionnaire 1 .69 “Has a positive/active social life”
Participant questionnaire 1 .69 “Has close, confiding
relationships”
Parent questionnaire 1 .66 “Has close, confiding relationships”
Participant interview 8 .94 “Relationship with best friend is
close and reciprocal”
Parent interview 2 .85 Social acceptance
CRS social acceptance—parent 2 .80 “Are popular with others
their age . . .”
CRS close friendships—parent 2 .88 “Don’t have a close friend
. . .” (reversed)
Job competence (� � .73)
Participant questionnaire 1 .68 “Is holding down a job
successfully and reliably”
Parent questionnaire 1 .69 “Is holding down a job successfully
and reliably”

Participant interview 4 .96 “Does quite well at paid jobs”
Parent interview 2 .94 “Does quite well at paid jobs”
CRS—participant 1 “Could do better at their paid jobs . . .”
(reversed)
Romantic competence (� � .75)
Participant interview—romantic relationships 2 .82 “Intimacy
with the opposite sex”
Participant interview—sexual responsibility 2 .67 “Responsible
sexual behavior”
CRS—participant 3 .75 “Are able to keep a romantic
relationship going . . .”
CRS—parent 3 .77 “Find it hard to start a romantic relationship
. . .” (reversed)
Note. CRS items are from Manual for the Self-Perception
Profile for College Students by J. Neemann and S. Harter, 1986,
unpublished manuscript,
University of Denver. Copyright 1986 by the authors. Reprinted
with permission. Teacher rating items are from the Devereux
Elementary School Behavior
Rating Scale Manual by G. Spivak and M. Swift, 1967, Devon,
PA: Devereux Foundation. Copyright 1967 by the Devereux
Foundation. Reprinted with
permission. Portions of this table were published in “Linking
childhood personality with adaptation: Evidence for continuity
and change across time into
late adolescence,” by R. L. Shiner, 2000, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, Table 1, p. 313. Copyright 2000 by
the American Psychological
Association. CRS � Competence Rating Scales.
a Reliability coefficients are intraclass correlations for single-
item indicators and coefficient alphas for multiitem indicators.
1169DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON ADULT
PERSONALITY

ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
composite competence score. More than one indicator was used
for each
domain of competence to increase reliability and validity.
Academic achievement. At age 10, academic achievement was
mea-
sured with the child’s grade point average in academic subjects
reported on
the school record from the end of the school year, the total
score obtained
on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn &
Markwardt, 1970),
a teacher rating of how well participants knew academic
material from the
Devereux Elementary School Rating Scale (Spivack & Swift,
1967), and a
composite of three parent interview items. At age 20, four
indicators were
used: parallel adolescent and parent questionnaire ratings of
how well the
adolescent was doing (or had done) in school, the adolescent
interviewer’s
overall rating of academic achievement, and a parent interview
rating of

how well the adolescent was doing in school.
Conduct. The childhood conduct composite provided an index
of the
extent to which a child exhibited compliance at home and at
school as well
as the extent to which a child did not evidence rule-breaking,
aggressive,
antisocial behavior in the home, school, and broader
community. At
age 20, the participants’ law-breaking behavior was also
included. Al-
though the conduct items tapped rule-breaking behaviors, the
conduct
composite was scored in the opposite direction (ranging from
poor to good
conduct) to be consistent with the other measures of positive
competence.
At age 10, four separately derived, factor-based conduct
indicators were
used, including composites from three parent interview ratings
of compli-
ance at home, three parent interview ratings of compliance
versus rule-
breaking behavior at school, six child interview ratings, and
eight Dev-
ereux teacher questionnaire items. For age 20, conduct was
measured with
five indicators: parallel participant and parent questionnaire
ratings of the
seriousness of the participant’s involvement with the law, a
five-item
factor-based scale from the participant interview, a three-item
factor-based
scale from the parent interview, and a two-item scale taken from
a parent-

report version of a set of Competence Rating Scales. The self-
report and
parent-report versions of the Competence Rating Scales were
adapted in
consultation with Harter (Harter, 1986; Neemann & Harter,
1986) from
early versions of her self-perception scales for adolescents and
young
adults.
Social competence. At age 10, the measure of social competence
incorporated indicators of the children’s popularity and
acceptance with
peers and quality of friendships. Peer popularity and acceptance
were
assessed using two indicators from the Revised Class Play peer
nomination
measure (Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985; Morison &
Masten, 1991):
a seven-item scale of positive social functioning and a reverse
keyed,
three-item scale of social difficulties. Quality of close
friendships was
measured with a nine-item composite from the child interview.
To capture
the developmental changes in children’s peer functioning, the
age 20 social
competence measure primarily tapped the extent to which the
participant
had close friends and an active social life. The eight age 20
indicators were
the following: parallel participant and parent questionnaire
ratings of the
extent to which the participant had a positive, active social life;
parallel
participant and parent questionnaire ratings of the extent to

Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx

Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx

Similar to Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx (20)

More from todd271

More from todd271 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE1CRITIQUE ESSAY OUTLINE.docx