Parental Behavior and Attitudes of Their Parents Reported by Young Adults From Intact and Stepparent Families and Relationships Between Perceived Parenting and Personality

\
PERGAMON
Personality and Individual Di}erences 16 "0888# 342365
Parental behavior and attitudes of their parents reported by

young adults from intact and stepparent families and
relationships between perceived parenting and personality
Michael R[ Kraft Jr[\ Marvin Zuckerman
Department of Psychology\ University of Delaware\ Newark\ DE 08605!1466\ USA
Received 2 June 0887^ received in revised form 15 October 0887^ accepted 5 November 0887
Abstract
This study compares the perceptions of mothers and fathers by their children in intact families and
stepparent families and the relationships between these descriptions of parenting and personality traits of
the children[ Subjects were college students] 022 from intact families\ 76 from families with a stepfather and
08 from stepmother families[ Descriptions of parenting by their children were obtained by a short form of
the EMBU yielding three scores] Love\ PunishmentRejection and Control[ Personality traits were measured
by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire!Revised "EPQ!R# and the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality
Questionnaire "ZKPQ#[ Stepmothers were rated lower on Mother Love and stepfathers were rated lower on
Father Love than mothers and fathers in intact families[ Mothers in stepfather families were rated higher in
PunishmentRejection and fathers in stepmother families were rated lower in Father Love than mothers
and fathers in intact families[ Despite their di}erences in perceptions of parents there were no di}erences in
personality traits between children from the three types of families[ Correlations between descriptions of
parents and personality traits in the intact families for both sexes were mostly between Father Love "lack
of# and PunishmentRejection and Neuroticism in both the EPQ and ZKPQ[ Father Punishment also
correlated with Neuroticism in the stepfather families[ 0888 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[
0[ Introduction
Many negative stereotypes exist about the treatment given to stepchildren by both stepfathers
and stepmothers[ In folklore "e[g[ Cinderella\ Snow White#\ stepmothers are described as wicked\
mean\ insecure and rejecting "Dukes\ 0878#\ while stepfathers are often depicted as potential sexual
and physical abusers[ Even the term {stepchild| is used in everyday language to refer to someone
who is neglected[
Corresponding author[ Tel[] 0!291!720!7086^ fax] 0!291!720!2534^ e!mail] zuckermaudel[edu

9080!7758:88:, ! see front matter 0888 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
PII] S 9 0 8 0 ! 7 7 5 8 " 8 7 # 9 9 1 4 4 ! 3
343
M[R[ Kraft Jr[\ M[ Zuckerman : Personality and Individual Differences 16 "0888# 342365
It has been estimated that one!_fth of all children in the US under 07 years of age currently
reside in a stepfamily household "Glick\ 0878#\ with the rate projected to rise to one!third of all
children[ Despite the increasing frequency of divorce and remarriage in the US\ there has been
very little empirical research on stepparents and their children[ Research in this area has often been
limited to two types] examination of developmental outcomes in stepchildren and the children|s
perceptions of stepparents[
0[0[ Stepparentstepchild relationships
Several studies examined the parental practices and perceptions of parents by children in
stepfamilies[ Ganong and Coleman "0876# found that the stepdaughterstepfather relationship
was rated as less emotionally close than other stepparentchild dyads[ Contrary to stereotypes\
stepchildren did not feel more distant from stepmothers than stepfathers and they perceived
themselves as moderately close to their stepparents[ Sauer and Fine "0877# compared the per!
ceptions of parents of college students from intact families with the perceptions of parents and
stepparents of stepchildren[ They found that stepchildren perceived their relationship with their
stepmothers and noncustodial biological mothers as less positive than subjects from intact families[
No signi_cant di}erences were found between perceptions of fathers and stepfathers in the two
groups[
Clingempeel\ Brand and Ievoli "0873# examined the quality of the stepchildstepparent relation!
ship in 21 stepfamilies[ Ratings by stepchildren of their stepparents and parents revealed lower
scores on Love and higher scores on Detachment dimensions for stepparentstepdaughter relation!
ships[ Their _ndings were also consistent with studies suggesting that stepfathers may attenuate
bad outcomes of stepsons[ A comparison group of children from intact families was not included
in this study[
Ganong and Coleman "0882a# measured stepsibling and stepparentstepchild relationships in
094 stepfamilies[ The results showed that biological sibling interactions were more positive than
stepsibling interactions\ especially in cross!sex interactions[ Parents with stepchildren and their
own children reported feeling closer to their own children than parents without stepchildren[ The
study also showed that parents in stepfamilies discipline their own children more often than their
stepchildren[ This study also lacked a comparison group of children from intact families[
0[1[ Personality
Many theories have been proposed to answer the question of how parental attitudes and behavior
a}ect the personality of children[ These explanations have ranged from psychoanalytic con~ict
and identi_cation theories\ to the learning theory view of parents as sources of reinforcement and
punishment[ Despite a growing emphasis on biological and genetic factors for explanations of
personality "Zuckerman\ 0880# and the curious but consistent _nding from behavior genetic studies
that shared family environments are less important than nonshared environmental in~uences
"Plomin + Daniels\ 0876^ Loehlin\ 0881#\ most developmental theories still insist that parenting
behavior is more important than extrafamilial social in~uences in shaping personality[
The major dimensions of parenting behavior have been identi_ed and modern research in the
area of personality has developed objective methods for assessment of parenting behavior[ In one
344
of the _rst articles using the technique of factor analysis in the study of parenting behaviors\
Schaefer "0848# found two dimensions in parental attitude scales given to parents] warmth:hostility
and control:autonomy[ Becker "0853# found two similar dimensions] warmth vs[ hostility and
restrictive vs[ permissive[ Becker "0853# and Egeland and Sroufe "0870# reported that parents who
are warm and loving and who employ a reasoning approach to discipline tend to have socially
cooperative children\ whereas low parental warmth is associated with aggression and non!
compliance in the children[
Lamborn and Mounts "0880# studied the competence and adjustment of adolescents in relation
to the parenting style used by their parents[ The results showed that children of authoritative "high
on acceptance:involvement# parents were better adjusted and competent than children in the other
groups[ These children scored lowest on measures of psychological and behavioral dysfunction[
Children of the authoritarian "low on involvement\ high on strictness# parents did well in school
and scored high in obedience and conformity\ but they also tended to have lower self!esteem than
children from the other groups[ Parents rated as indulgent "high on involvement\ low on strictness#
had adolescents who scored higher on measures of social deviance\ but also tended to be psycho!
logically adjusted "e[g[ high self!esteem# and oriented to peer activities[ Finally\ the children of
parents rated as neglectful "low on involvement and strictness# were characterized by the lowest
scores on adjustment and competence[
It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a complete review of the research on parenting
style and psychosocial outcomes\ but the literature provides an increasingly consistent picture[
Children of parents who are characterized as providing higher levels of warmth and control
score better on psychosocial outcomes than children from families where the parenting style is
characterized as less loving but highly controlled[ This has been found across di}erent age groups
and across di}erent raters "Johnson + Pandina\ 0880^ Parish + McCluskey\ 0881^ Paulson\ 0883#[
Considerably less research has been done on the Indulgent and Neglectful parenting styles\ but the
evidence presented already points to less positive outcomes than in authoritarian homes[
Diagnosed groups of patients with psychopathology "depression\ anxiety disorders and schizo!
phrenia# generally perceive their parents as nonloving and rejecting and in some cases over!
controlling "Perris\ Arrindell\ + Eisemann\ 0883#[ Since most of these groups score highly on
neuroticism and:or psychoticism dimensions on self!report tests\ it can be inferred that these
dimensions of personality will be particularly related to psychopathology[ However\ one cannot
infer a causal relationship between parental treatment and psychopathology in children because
the psychopathology may result in a negative perceptual and memory bias in the children[ It is not
certain how many of the correlations and di}erences are due to this kind of bias[
0[2[ Parental ratings and personality traits
The best way to assess the e}ect of parental behavior on personality are longitudinal studies
beginning in infancy[ Ideally these should be done with adopted children in order to control the
genetic factors in the parents shared with their children[ An alternative option is to assess parental
rearing behavior using retrospective questionnaire measures _lled out by the children[ Although
more problematic\ this option is much more widely used[
Some studies have examined the relationship between personality traits of young adults and
their ratings of the way their parents responded to them[ Two studies conducted in 0873 presented
345
correlations between the EMBU "Egna Minnen Bertra}ande Uppfostran * Own Memories of
Childrearing Experiences^ Perris\ Jacobson\ Lindstrom\ Von Knorring\ + Perris\ 0879# subscales
and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire "EPQ#[ In the _rst study "Benjaminsen\ Jorgensen\
Kragh!Hansen\ + Pedersen\ 0873#\ a group of researchers in Denmark correlated the EMBU with
the EPQ in a group of adult subjects[ For the male subjects\ there were no signi_cant correlations
between the EMBU and the EPQ\ but in the female subjects\ EPQ Neuroticism scores were
associated with their perceptions of guilt!engendering fathers\ while EPQ Psychoticism was associ!
ated with the child|s perceptions of rejecting fathers and shaming mothers[ No signi_cant cor!
relations were found between the EMBU and the EPQ Extraversion scale[
In the second study\ Australian researchers correlated the EMBU subscales and the EPQ scales
in a sample of 046 students and 55 state employees[ As in the Benjaminsen et al[ "0873# study\
Neuroticism was signi_cantly related to subject|s perceptions of guilt!engendering behavior in their
parents and also to shaming behavior and control for both parents[ Extraverted subjects described
parents who were performance oriented and stimulating[ Lastly\ Psychoticism scores were associ!
ated with perceptions of unstimulating and una}ectionate parenting behavior "Clayer\ Ross\ +
Campbell\ 0873#[
McCrae and Costa "0877\ 0883# examined adults| ratings of their parents using the ParentChild
Relation Questionnaire II "PCR^ Siegelman + Roe\ 0868#\ along with self!report and peer ratings
of personality traits using the NEO Personality Inventory "Costa + McCrae\ 0874^ Costa +
McCrae\ 0881#[ The PCR consists of three scales rated separately for mothers and fathers] Loving
"vs[ Rejecting#\ Casual "vs[ Demanding# and Attention[ They "McCrae + Costa\ 0883# found
signi_cant positive relationships between Father and Mother Love and Extraversion "warmth
and positive emotions facets#\ Agreeableness "most facets#\ Conscientiousness "dutifulness and
competence# and Openness "to ideas only# and a negative relationship between parental Love and
Neuroticism "all facets#[ Casual parenting was not consistently related to any traits for both
parents[ The Attention scale was positively related to only one subtrait for both parents] excitement
seeking[ Although some correlations between descriptions of parenting and personality were
signi_cant\ none of them exceeded 9[18\ therefore accounting for only 009) of the variance in
personality traits[
0[3[ Current study
The current study was designed to assess how stepchildren perceive their custodial biological
parent and their stepparent\ compared to a control groups| perceptions of their two biological
parents[ Two major groups of subjects were used] a sample of subjects who reported that they
were raised in a stepfamily and a control group of subjects from intact\ two!parent families[ The
stepfamily group was further subdivided into those in which the stepparent was a father and those
in which the stepparent was a mother[ The secondary focus of the study was on the relationship
between maternal and paternal behaviors\ as reported by their children and the children|s per!
sonality traits[
0[4[ Hypotheses
Although this study is largely exploratory\ several hypotheses may be generated from the
literature[ These hypotheses focus on the two questions posed by the study] how do ratings of
346
parents by stepchildren di}er from those made by children from intact families and how are
descriptions of parental treatment related to personality in their children<
Based on the existing research on stepchildren\ it was predicted that stepchildren will perceive
their stepparents in a less positive manner than controls from intact families perceive their parents[
Stepchildren should make lower ratings of parental love and higher ratings of parental punishment
rejection than subjects from intact families[ Research has shown that stepparents are less involved
with the discipline of their stepchildren\ so stepchildren should rate their stepparents as less
controlling[
Several predictions can be generated regarding the relationship between parental ratings and
personality traits[ Based on previous studies "Becker\ 0853#\ it was predicted that both perceived
father and mother love will be negatively related to measures of neuroticism\ psychoticism and
aggressionhostility in children[ A positive relationship is anticipated between measures of parental
love and extraversion and sociability[ Based on the McCrae and Costa "0883# study\ using the
NEO\ parental control should be positively related to extraversion and sociability and negatively
related to psychoticism and impulsive sensation seeking[
Perceived parental behavior cannot be regarded as an accurate picture of the actual behavior of
parents\ not only because of the perceptual bias of the children as described for psychopathology\
but because some of the bases for the children|s perceptions are their own genetics "Plomin +
Bergeman\ 0880#[ The genetic in~uences are particularly apparent for the perceived parental
dimension of acceptancerejection or warmth and relatively weak or absent for the dimension of
control[
1[ Method
1[0[ Subjects
Subjects were undergraduate students ful_lling the research participation component of intro!
ductory psychology classes at the University of Delaware[ All students who reported during
pretesting that they were raised in a stepfamily were requested as subjects[ The group of subjects
from stepfather families consisted of 21 males and 44 females[ Six male subjects and 02 female
subjects reported that they were raised in stepmother families[ In addition\ 022 students "54 males\
57 females# from intact families were used as the control group[ Subjects from the control group
were selected randomly from all subjects who reported growing up in intact two!parent families[
1[1[ Procedures
Subjects were given the EMBU\ a self!report instrument designed to assess parents| behaviors
toward the subject in the past and present[ The EMBU was _rst developed in Sweden by Perris et
al[ "0879# and later re_ned and validated by Arrindell in the Netherlands "Arrindell\ Emmelkamp\
Brilman\ + Monsma\ 0872#[ It is a self!report\ retrospective recall instrument designed to assess
the perceived parental rearing practices and attitudes toward the subject[ Separate scales are used
to describe fathers and mothers[
Arrindell et al[ "0872# factor analyzed the EMBU using Dutch samples of normals and patient
347
groups of agoraphobics\ social phobics\ height phobics and obsessivecompulsives[ Four factors
emerged for both father and mother forms] Rejection\ Emotional Warmth\ Overprotection and
parent Favoring of subject over other siblings[ The _rst three of these factors were replicated in
cross!cultural comparisons in 03 nations "Arrindell et al[\ 0883#[
Reliability of the four scales was assessed using Cronbach|s a[ Scale a|s were calculated for both
the normals and patients and results showed high reliabilities for the EMBU in both groups[ We
changed each of the items into two forms] {my mother| was substituted for {my parents| in one
form and {my father| was used instead of {my parents| in the other form[ Both forms were factor
analyzed separately[ The principal components analysis yielded four factors for both father and
mother forms of the scale] "0# Love "emotional warmth#\ "1# PunishmentRejection\ "2# Control
"overprotection# and "3# Favoritism[ All of the items except one loaded on the same factors as in
the Arrindell et al[ "0872# study[ The highest loading items on each factor except favoritism were
selected for a short form of the scale containing 23 items "02 Love\ 09 Punishment and Rejection\
00 Control# for mother description and 27 for father description "05 Love\ 01 Punishment
Rejection\ 09 Control#[ This form\ without the Favoritism scales\ was administered to the subjects
in the current study[ The Favoritism scale was not used because of its irrelevance to subjects
without siblings[
Subjects were also given two personality questionnaires] The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire!
Revised "EPQ!R\ Eysenck\ Eysenck\ + Barrett\ 0874# and the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality
Questionnaire "ZKPQ\ Zuckerman\ Kuhlman\ Joireman\ Teta\ + Kraft\ 0882#[ The EPQ!R has
been well researched over the years and widely accepted as a basic personality trait model[
In Eysenck|s view of personality\ Extraversion\ Neuroticism and Psychoticism are considered
{supertraits|\ each made up of a narrower set of traits "Eysenck\ 0836^ Eysenck + Eysenck\ 0874#[
Some of the narrow traits that make up Extraversion are] sociability\ activity\ assertiveness and
sensation seeking[ The Neuroticism supertrait consists of anxiety\ depression\ guilt feelings\ low
self!esteem and moodiness[ Despite its name\ the supertrait of Psychoticism may be more of a
measure of antisocial tendencies than psychosis "Zuckerman\ 0878#[ P subsumes the traits of
aggressiveness\ impulsiveness\ sensation seeking and low socialization "antisocial tendencies#
"Zuckerman\ 0880#[
The ZKPQ is a 88!item questionnaire assessing _ve factors including the traits of Sociability "SY#\
NeuroticismAnxiety "NANX#\ Impulsive Sensation Seeking "IMPSS#\ AggressionHostility
"AGGHOST# and Activity "ACT#[ Ten items are added to assess careless responding[ In order
to assess the psychometric quality of this third version of the ZKPQ\ it was administered to two
large college samples[ The _rst sample consisted of 629 introductory psychology students and the
second sample consisted of 076 students taking a psychology course on personality[ Alpha
coe.cients were computed for each scale to assess reliability[ Sex di}erences on the scales were
examined by t!tests[ Across the two samples\ scale a|s ranged from 9[69 to 9[75[ The Activity scale
had the lowest reliability\ while Neuroticism had the highest[ T!tests between sexes revealed several
signi_cant di}erences[ In the large sample "n629#\ males scored signi_cantly higher than females
on the ImpSS\ AggHost and Act scales[ Females scored signi_cantly higher on the NAnx scale[
In the second sample\ the only signi_cant di}erence found was that females again scored higher
than males on NAnx[ Unpublished norms "Zuckerman + Kuhlman\ unpublished# for about 2999
college students show males scoring signi_cantly higher than females on ImpSS\ AggHost and
Act\ whereas females score signi_cantly higher on NAnx and Sy[
348
1[2[ Statistical analyses

Correlations for the experimental and control groups were computed to assess the relationship
between EMBU ratings and personality scores[ A 12 factorial analysis of variance was used to
assess di}erences between stepchildren and children from intact families on EMBU ratings and
personality factor scores[ The subjects were divided to form the 12 matrix] Males vs[ Females
and Intact families vs[ Stepfather or Stepmother families[
Because the period of exposure to the stepparents could be a critical determinant of attitudes
toward them\ subjects were also asked who they were raised by during each of three di}erent age
ranges] ages 04\ 501 and 0206[ A stepparent entering the child|s life at an early age might have
fewer problems than one arriving in the family during the rebellious adolescent period[ These
answers were used to form four groups] those who spent all three periods with the stepparent\
those who spent only ages 001 with the stepparent\ those who spent ages 506 with the stepparent
and those who spent ages 04 and 0206 with the stepparent "all possible combinations#[ This was
analyzed along with gender in a 31 analysis of variance\ using EMBU scores as the dependent
variables[
2[ Results
Table 0 presents the a!coe.cient reliabilities for each scale of the EMBU\ EPQ and ZKPQ[
Reliabilities for the EMBU scales were very satisfactory\ ranging from 9[64 to 9[83[ The scales of
Mother Love and Father Love had the highest reliabilities\ while the scales of Mother Control and
Father Control had the lowest[
Reliabilities for the personality trait scales were also satisfactory[ Alpha|s for the ZKPQ scales
ranged from 9[67 to 9[77^ NANX had the highest and ACT had the lowest reliability[ The three
EPQ scales of personality had a|s ranging from 9[64 to 9[77^ N had the highest reliability and P
the lowest[
Subjects were divided into groups as described above in Section 1 in order to assess for any
e}ects of time and age spent with the stepparent[ The 13 analysis was adapted to a 12 for
subjects from stepfather families and a 11 for stepmother subjects[ This was due to the fact that
not all cells were _lled "e[g[ no subjects in either group had spent only ages 04 and 0206 with the
stepparent#[ EMBU scales and personality scales were used as the dependent variables[ Results
revealed only one statistically signi_cant main e}ect for time "main e}ects for gender are discussed
elsewhere#[ Subjects who spent ages 001 with a stepmother tended to rate their biological father
lower on Father Love than children who spent ages 506 with a stepmother\ F"0\ 08#8[87\
p9[905[ Because the N in this analysis was extremely low "N5 in the _rst group\ N02 in the
latter group#\ e}ects of age spent with the stepparent were not considered further and these groups
were collapsed[
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the six EMBU scales in males and females
according to family type[ These will be discussed more fully in the following discussion of the
Analysis of Variance tests that were conducted[
A 12 factorial analysis of variance was used to assess di}erences between stepchildren and
children from intact families in EMBU ratings and personality factor scores\ while also testing for
359
Table 0
Reliabilities "a!coe.cients# for the
EMBU\ ZKPQ and EPQ "N135#
Scale
EMBU
Mother love
Mother PunRej
Mother control
Father love
Father PunRej
Father control
9[81
9[70
9[64
9[83
9[76
9[79
ZKPQ
IMPSS
NANX
AGGHOST
SY
ACT
9[75
9[77
9[70
9[79
9[67
EPQ
P
E
N
L
9[64
9[73
9[77
9[69
any e}ects due to gender of the subject or its interaction with family type[ The subjects were
divided in the following manner to form the 12 matrix] Males vs[ Females and Intact vs[
Stepfather vs[ Stepmother families[ Table 1 presents these analyses[ Additional analyses were run
when a main e}ect for family type or a family type by gender interaction was found[ This consisted
of three separate 11 analyses of variance "intact:stepfathergender\ intact:stepmothergender
and stepfather:stepmothergender#[
For ratings of Mother Love\ a signi_cant main e}ect was found for family type\ F"1\ 127#3[71\
p9[998 "see Fig[ 0#[ Additional analyses were conducted to examine which family type di}erences
accounted for the main e}ect[ These showed that children from intact families "F8[89\ df040\
p9[991# and children from stepfather families "F5[55\ df094\ p9[900# rated their mothers
signi_cantly higher on Mother Love than children from stepmother homes[ There were no other
di}erences in ratings of Mother Love and no main e}ect for gender or gender by family type
interaction[
For ratings of Father Love\ a signi_cant main e}ect was found for family type\ "F"1\ 127#5[92\
p9[992# "see Fig[ 0#[ Additional analyses showed that children from intact families rated their
father higher on Father Love than children from both stepfather families\ "F8[78\ p9[991# and
children from stepmother families "F3[63\ p9[920#[ There were no di}erences in ratings of
Father Love between children from stepfather or stepmother families\ no main e}ect for gender
and no gender by family type interaction[
p9[94^ p9[90[
Mother Love
Father Love
Mother PunRej
Father PunRej
Mother Control
Father Control
Variable
33[92
35[59
01[60
04[54
17[06
11[52
34[21
38[30
00[23
02[46
17[15
12[05
33[30
32[77
01[02
04[05
16[02
10[27
33[38
30[39
01[62
04[79
17[19
10[47
females
"N44#
males
"N21#
males
"N54#
females
"N57#
Stepfather "means#
Intact "means#
Table 1
21 Analysis of variance of EMBU scales
30[06
28[22
02[99
19[72
16[56
18[99
males
"N5#
25[51
33[43
01[66
03[74
14[12
15[81
females
"N02#
Stepmother "means#
F3[71
F5[92
F9[71
F2[37
F9[81
F7[16
Family
type "FT#
F9[59
F9[57
F9[21
F6[01
F9[57
F9[05
Gender
"G#
F0[14
F0[49
F1[44
F2[78
F9[66
F9[69
FTG
350
351
Fig[ 0[ Mean scores on Mother Love and Father Love scales for the three family types[
352
Ratings of Mother PunishmentRejection showed no main e}ects for either family type or
gender[ The overall interaction only approached signi_cance\ F"1\ 127#1[44\ p9[97[ Additional
analyses revealed a signi_cant gender by family type interaction between children from intact
families and children from stepfather families\ F3[89\ p9[917 "see Fig[ 1#[ Males from intact
families tend to rate their mothers higher on PunishmentRejection than females from intact
families[ In stepfather families\ however\ females tend to rate their mothers higher on Punishment
Rejection than do males[ No other interactions were signi_cant[
For the overall analysis of Father PunishmentRejection\ there was a signi_cant main e}ect for
family type only\ F"1\ 127#7[15\ p9[990 "see Fig[ 1#[ Additional analyses revealed a signi_cant
main e}ect for family type between children from intact families and children from stepmother
families[ Children from stepmother families rate their father higher on Father PunishmentRejec!
tion than children from intact families "F5[66\ p9[90#[ There was also a signi_cant main e}ect
for gender within this comparison\ with males from intact and stepfather families rating their
fathers higher on PunishmentRejection than females from intact and stepfather families[ There
was no interaction[ Further examination of children from stepmother families and children from
stepfather families revealed a signi_cant e}ect for gender[ Males from stepfather and stepmother
families tend to rate their fathers higher on PunishmentRejection than females from stepfather
and stepmother families "F2[85\ p9[938#[ There was also a signi_cant gender by family type
interaction within this comparison "F5[98\ p9[904#[ Females from stepfather families tend to
rate their stepfathers higher on PunishmentRejection than males from stepfather families\ while
in stepmother families\ males tend to rate their fathers higher on PunishmentRejection than
females[ Finally\ a comparison between children from intact families and children from stepfather
families revealed no main e}ects for family type or gender[ The interaction was signi_cant "F2[67\
p9[94#\ with males from intact families rating their father higher on PunishmentRejection than
females from intact families\ while in stepfather families\ females rated their stepfathers higher on
PunishmentRejection than males rated their stepfathers[
There were no signi_cant main e}ects for gender\ family type\ or their interaction on ratings of
Mother Control[ Additional 11 analyses also revealed no signi_cant main e}ects or interactions[
There was a signi_cant main e}ect for family type\ F7[15\ p9[990 for ratings of Father Control
"see Fig[ 2#[ There were no e}ects for gender or gender by family type interaction[ Additional
analyses showed that children from intact families "F00[33\ df040 p9[990# and children from
stepfather families "F02[75\ df094 p9[990# rated their fathers lower on Father Control than
children from stepmother families[ There was no di}erence in ratings of Father Control between
children from intact families and children from stepfather families[
2[0[ Differences in personality traits between children in intact and stepparent families
Table 2 shows the means on personality traits and ANOVA results comparing children from
intact and stepparent families[ There were no signi_cant di}erences due to family type or the
interaction of family type with gender of children[ There were signi_cant di}erences between males
and females on the personality traits[ Males scored higher than females on the EPQ Psychoticism
scale and females scored higher on the ZKPQ NeuroticismAnxiety scale[ These gender di}erences
have been found previously in many studies using much larger samples[
353
Fig[ 1[ Mean scores on Mother Punishment and Father Punishment scales for the three family types[
Fig[ 2[ Mean scores on Mother Control and Father Control scales for the three family types[
354
p9[90[
EPQ
Psychoticism
Extraversion
Neuroticism
ZKPQ
Sociability
Neuroticism
Impulsive SS
AggHost
Activity
Variable
4[99
04[83
03[40
00[21
8[71
8[05
6[61
6[95
6[01
05[12
01[03
09[64
5[58
09[12
8[14
6[55
09[52
5[61
00[36
8[49
7[11
7[02
04[17
00[80
09\34
09[00
8[45
7[94
5[40
4[74
04[60
03[93
females
"N44#
males
"N21#
males
"N54#
females
"N57#
Stepfather "means#
Intact "means#
Table 2
21 Analysis of variance of EPQ and ZKPQ scales
7[72
7[56
09[22
6[49
6[99
7[22
04[49
03[72
males
"N5#
8[20
8[66
7[35
5[35
4[43
4[04
04[58
03[97
females
"N02#
Stepmother "means#
F1[94
F9[15
F9[73
F0[26
F9[61
F0[41
F9[31
F9[35
Family type
"FT#
F9[05
F6[93
F2[09
F2[09
F2[35
F01[91
F9[91
F0[20
Gender "G#
F9[13
F9[24
F9[19
F9[91
F9[53
F9[03
F9[04
F9[47
FTG
355
356
Table 3
Correlations between EMBU scales and EPQ scales
Intact
Stepfather
male "N54# female "N57#
all "N022#
male "N21# female "N44#
all "N76#
EMML vs[ P
EMFL vs[ P
EMMP vs[ P
EMFP vs[ P
EMMC vs[ P
EMFC vs[ P
9[08
9[19
9[01
9[19
9[13
9[06
9[21
9[97
9[92
9[94
9[94
9[97
9[15
9[06
9[05
9[19
9[01
9[00
9[15
9[93
9[29
9[08
9[91
9[99
9[33
9[39
9[32
9[29
9[12
9[97
9[21
9[07
9[17
9[19
9[97
9[93
EMML vs[ E
EMFL vs[ E
EMMP vs[ E
EMFP vs[ E
EMMC vs[ E
EMFC vs[ E
9[01
9[10
9[90
9[91
9[07
9[91
9[06
9[39
9[91
9[19
9[93
9[97
9[03
9[29
9[99
9[97
9[01
9[95
9[90
9[96
9[17
9[92
9[06
9[09
9[04
9[05
9[03
9[97
9[15
9[09
9[09
9[01
9[93
9[95
9[01
9[09
EMML vs[ N
EMFL vs[ N
EMMP vs[ N
EMFP vs[ N
EMMC vs[ N
EMFC vs[ N
9[03
9[17
9[14
9[20
9[31
9[26
9[01
9[29
9[91
9[21
9[95
9[05
9[00
9[15
9[01
9[15
9[17
9[17
9[12
9[17
9[14
9[35
9[95
9[97
9[39
9[21
9[39
9[24
9[13
9[29
9[23
9[21
9[24
9[27
9[19
9[05
EMML vs[ L
EMFL vs[ L
EMMP vs[ L
EMFP vs[ L
EMMC vs[ L
EMFC vs[ L
9[90
9[97
9[07
9[95
9[05
9[05
9[90
9[95
9[09
9[93
9[09
9[97
9[99
9[90
9[00
9[95
9[01
9[92
9[17
9[19
9[97
9[05
9[91
9[05
9[22
9[93
9[11
9[91
9[29
9[09
9[09
9[09
9[06
9[91
9[19
9[01
p9[94^ p9[90\ two tailed tests[ EMMLMother Love\ EMMPMother PunishmentRejection\ EMMC
Mother Control\ EMFLFather Love\ EMFPFather PunishmentRejection\ EMFCFather Control\ P
Psychoticism\ EExtraversion\ NNeuroticism\ LLie[
2[1[ Relationships between parental ratings and personality traits

Correlations were calculated to assess the relationship between subjects| ratings of their parents
and their own personality traits[ Because of the large number of correlations calculated\ the
signi_cance level was lowered to a9[90[ Although correlations at the 9[94 level are indicated by
a single asterisk in Tables 3 and 4\ they are not considered signi_cant\ but are presented to show
trends which may or may not be in accordance with other correlations in the particular row of the
table[ Table 3 presents the correlations between EMBU scores and EPQ personality traits and
Table 4 presents the EMBU correlations with the ZKPQ personality traits[ Because of small n|s
357
Table 4
Correlations between EMBU scales and ZKPQ scales
Intact
Stepfather
male
female
all
male
female
all
EMML vs[ SY
EMFL vs[ SY
EMMP vs[ SY
EMFP vs[ SY
EMMC vs[ SY
EMFC vs[ SY
9[93
9[03
9[03
9[01
9[93
9[99
9[17
9[21
9[14
9[12
9[92
9[94
9[00
9[13
9[91
9[05
9[93
9[92
9[95
9[03
9[16
9[11
9[04
9[19
9[13
9[29
9[97
9[11
9[09
9[91
9[07
9[05
9[00
9[09
9[93
9[94
EMML vs[ NANX

EMFL vs[ NANX
EMMP vs[ NANX
EMFP vs[ NANX
EMMC vs[ NANX
EMFC vs[ NANX
9[94
9[23
9[01
9[26
9[23
9[32
9[01
9[21
9[91
9[25
9[95
9[19
9[93
9[17
9[91
9[15
9[10
9[21
9[23
9[09
9[15
9[49
9[97
9[03
9[26
9[15
9[23
9[23
9[11
9[15
9[23
9[11
9[21
9[27
9[19
9[11
EMML vs[ IMPSS

EMFL vs[ IMPSS
EMMP vs[ IMPSS
EMFP vs[ IMPSS
EMMC vs[ IMPSS
EMFC vs[ IMPSS
9[93
9[97
9[97
9[09
9[99
9[95
9[92
9[98
9[92
9[95
9[97
9[97
9[99
9[96
9[97
9[09
9[93
9[97
9[23
9[ 98
9[05
9[00
9[05
9[07
9[05
9[29
9[22
9[19
9[24
9[93
9[10
9[05
9[16
9[05
9[17
9[91
EMML vs[ AGGH

EMFL vs[ AGGH
EMMP vs[ AGGH
EMFP vs[ AGGH
EMMC vs[ AGGH
EMFC vs[ AGGH
9[97
9[95
9[97
9[94
9[97
9[19
9[95
9[99
9[06
9[97
9[09
9[93
9[94
9[95
9[92
9[93
9[97
9[09
9[95
9[06
9[02
9[25
9[93
9[99
9[03
9[08
9[06
9[29
9[19
9[91
9[97
9[05
9[03
9[29
9[01
9[90
EMML vs[ ACT

EMFL vs[ ACT
EMMP vs[ ACT
EMFP vs[ ACT
EMMC vs[ ACT
EMFC vs[ ACT
9[97
9[99
9[99
9[02
9[93
9[97
9[91
9[04
9[07
9[97
9[11
9[93
9[93
9[95
9[97
9[01
9[01
9[95
9[15
9[93
9[05
9[01
9[91
9[07
9[97
9[29
9[04
9[38
9[08
9[23
9[93
9[04
9[95
9[17
9[00
9[03
p9[94^ p9[90\ two tailed tests[

SYSociability\ NANXNeuroticism\ IMPSSImpulsive Sensation Seeking\ AGGHAggression
Hostility and ACTActivity[
"six males\ 02 females# in the stepmother group\ these correlations are not presented and only
those from the intact and stepfather families are presented in the tables[ A quarter of the correlations
"01:37# for the combined gender groups in Table 3 and a _fth "01:59# of those in Table 4 were
358
signi_cant "p9[90#[ Since only one or none would be signi_cant by chance at this a level\ the
number of signi_cant correlations obtained cannot be attributed to chance alone[
A few correlations were signi_cant in both intact and stepfather families[ Mother Love was
negatively related to Psychoticism in females in both types of families[ Father Punishment
Rejection was positively related to both EPQ and ZKPQ measures of Neuroticism for both men
and women separately and combined in both types of families[
Several correlations were found to be signi_cant in the intact families only[ Father Love was
positively related to EPQ Extraversion "r9[39# and ZKPQ Sociability "r9[21# in the females
only[ Mother and Father Control were positively related to EPQ and ZKPQ measures of Neur!
oticism in males only[
Correlations that were speci_c to stepfather families were found only in females[ In addition\ all
but three of the signi_cant correlations speci_c to this group involved the subjects| ratings of their
remaining biological mother[ For the EPQ\ Father Love was negatively related to Psychoticism
"r9[39# and Mother Love was negatively related to Neuroticism "r9[39#[ Mother Pun!
ishmentRejection was positively related to both Psychoticism "r9[32# and Neuroticism
"r9[39#[ For the ZKPQ\ Mother Love was negatively related to Neuroticism "r9[26#[ Mother
PunishmentRejection was positively related to Neuroticism "r9[23# and Impulsive Sensation
Seeking "r9[22#[ Mother Control was positively related to Impulsive Sensation Seeking "r9[24#[
Both Father Control and Father PunishmentRejection were positively related to Activity "r9[23\
r9[38\ respectively#[
Most of the correlations between EMBU and ZKPQ scores in children from intact families were
between Father Love and Punishment and NeuroticismAnxiety[ Mother Love and Punishment
scores did not correlate with Neuroticism[ Both Father and Mother Control scores correlated with
neuroticism\ but for males only[ Sociability had only a single signi_cant correlation "Father Love
in females only# and Impulsive Sensation Seeking\ Aggression Hostility and Activity did not show
any signi_cant\ or even near!signi_cant correlations with EMBU scores;
3[ Discussion
3[0[ Retrospective bias
One potential problem in the interpretation of these _ndings\ as well as other using these kinds
of measures\ is the role of retrospective bias in subjects| ratings of parental behavior[ The validity
of retrospective accounts of parenting is widely debated and no _rm conclusions have yet been
reached[ It is useful to brie~y review the main viewpoints discussed in the literature and to keep
them in mind while reviewing the _ndings and interpretations of this study[
A survey of the literature _nds three broad interpretations of retrospective recall instruments]
"0# they may be valid re~ections of actual parental behavior "1# they may be due to a response bias
which confounds other interpretations or "2# they may be re~ections of perceived parental behavior[
Existing evidence for or against each interpretation is brie~y discussed below[
Some researchers suggest that retrospective instruments are valid enough to be considered direct
assessments of the actual parental behavior present in the childhood home of the subject[ Most
369
current evidence argues against this interpretation[ Parker "0870# correlated subjects| retrospective
recall of maternal behavior using the Parental Bonding Instrument "PBI^ Parnes\ Tupling\ +
Brown\ 0868# and the mothers| own self!ratings of their behavior toward the subject[ The cor!
relations between these two respondents were 9[33 for maternal care and 9[44 for maternal control[
These _gures suggest some agreement\ although far from total\ between the parents| view of their
own maternal behavior and the child|s[ Finkel and McGue "0882# reported on a 14!year follow
up of child!rearing practices[ When their children were age 6\ parents _lled out a childrearing
questionnaire[ At follow up "when the child was age 05#\ both parents and children completed a
retrospective child!rearing questionnaire[ Results showed only moderate reliability for the retro!
spective accounts[ Correlations between parents| initial and follow!up accounts averaged around
9[33[ There was even less agreement between the child|s retrospective account and the parents|
original account\ with the highest correlation being 9[08[ Finally\ the correlations between the
child|s and the parent|s retrospective account at follow!up had an average correlation of 9[29[
Although the designs of these studies still leave many unanswered questions\ we should "at least
for now# conclude that there is currently no _rm evidence that retrospective accounts of parenting
are entirely accurate re~ections of past parental behavior\ particularly when there is a long interval
between recall and occurrence of the interactions[ In our sample the interval since the most recent
interactions was fairly short since the subjects were college students just a year or so out of living
in the family home[
Social desirability is another problem for the use of a self!report format[ There is considerable
evidence\ however\ that subjects| retrospective accounts are not biased by social desirability factors
or current mood states[ Several studies have revealed little or no relationship between parental
ratings and social desirability scales[ In data from a sample of 291 undergraduate students in a
course on personality\ correlations between the EMBU scales and social desirability scales ranged
from 9[04 to 9[03 "M[ Zuckerman\ unpublished data#[ Arrindell et al[ "0872# found correlations
between the EMBU and social desirability ranging from 9[05 to 9[97 in a sample of 166 subjects
from a nonpsychiatric control group[
Current mood has not been shown to in~uence parental rearing scores[ Studies have repeatedly
shown that retrospective parental reports remain stable across time\ stage of a disorder and changes
in current mood[ In a meta!analytic review of studies looking at the relationship between anxiety\
depression and retrospective parental ratings\ Gerlsma\ Emmelkamp and Arrindell "0889# found
that healthy controls di}ered in their parental ratings from both current depressives and remitted
depressives[ They also found parental ratings to be di}erentiated between psychiatric disorders\
arguing against a general negative reporting bias in psychiatric samples[ Parker "0870# also found
parental ratings to be stable across current psychiatric status[ He repeatedly assessed mood and
memories of perceived parenting in a sample of 25 psychiatric patients with depressive symptoms[
Although the patients showed considerable changes in depressed mood\ their PBI scores remained
stable[
Our viewpoint of retrospective accounts of parenting is that these accounts are re~ections of
parental behavior as perceived by the subject[ We do not assert that the ratings discussed here are
re~ective of the {actual| parental behavior[ The only way to assess the verdicality of such reports
would be to have judgments made by external observers over time[ This method is di.cult and
expensive and even then we would be unsure of e}ects on parents due to the presence of observers[
These cautions should be kept in mind during the following discussion of the results of this study[
360
3[1[ Parental ratings

This study predicted several di}erences in the way subjects from stepfamilies would describe
their stepparents compared to parental ratings by subjects from intact families[ It was predicted
that stepparents would be rated as less loving\ more punitiverejecting and less controlling than
biological parents[ Stepmothers were rated lower on Mother Love and stepfathers were rated lower
on Father Love than mothers and fathers from intact families[ Stepmothers were also rated lower
on Mother Love than mothers in families where a stepfather is present[ Although not speci_cally
predicted\ this last _nding might be expected[ Mothers from stepfather families have the same
biological bond to their children as mothers from intact families and have probably been their
main caretaker throughout development[
Another interesting _nding was that the remaining biological parent in stepfamilies was often
rated di}erently than the parents from intact families[ Fathers from stepmother families were rated
lower on Father Love than fathers from intact families and mothers from stepfather families were
rated relatively higher in PunishmentRejection than mothers from intact families[ It may be that
the remaining parent takes up most of the disciplinary role in the family and is therefore perceived
by the child as less loving\ more punishing or more controlling[ Another possibility is that the
child blames the remaining parent for the breakup of the marriage and resents the intrusion of the
stepparent into the family[ This is consistent with some of the existing literature on stepparent
families[ Ganong and Coleman "0882b# found that parents with both their own and stepchildren
reported that they usually disciplined only their own children and not their stepchildren[ That
study also found\ however\ that parents with stepchildren reported feeling emotionally closer to
their own children than parents who did not have stepchildren[ The design of the current study
did not assess whether or not stepsiblings were present\ but it would be interesting for future
studies to examine this reported di}erence[ If stepsiblings are present\ it might be predicted that
ratings of the remaining parent would more closely match those of intact parents[
The results of this study suggest that ratings of stepparents tend to resemble ratings of biological
parents in intact families\ especially for the parenting dimensions of PunishmentRejection and
Control[ However\ both stepfathers and stepmothers were rated lower on Love than biological
parents in intact families[ It is possible that the discrepancy between ratings of Love and the ratings
of PunishmentRejection and Control for stepparents is a matter of the content of the dimensions[
Parental Love denotes a more direct emotional relationship\ whereas the other dimensions consist
of a larger behavioral component[ A perusal of the items of the three EMBU dimensions support
this[ Items on the Love scale re~ect an emotional tie between the child and the parent[ To a much
larger extent\ the items for Control and PunishmentRejection ask the subject to respond to the
frequency or intensity of behavioral actions by the parent\ without a necessary emotional compon!
ent[ Perhaps stepparents are not perceived by their stepchildren as acting any di}erently than
biological parents[ On the other hand\ the _ndings suggest that stepparents and stepchildren have
a much harder time forming a close emotional bond[ Future studies should be conducted to further
evaluate this premise[
A second "and unexpected# _nding was that subjects| perceptions of their remaining parent were
more negative than parental ratings in intact families[ The authors are not aware of any other
studies where this has been observed[ The few studies that have looked at parental rearing
dimensions in stepchildren focused on assessments of the stepparents and not the remaining parent[
361
Fine\ Voydano} and Donnelly "0882# used parental self!ratings to assess parental Control and
Warmth in a sample of stepfamilies[ This study speci_cally compared stepparents| self!ratings to
the remaining parents| self!ratings[ Parents reported better relationships with their children than
did the stepparents[ However\ this _nding is not relevant to children|s perceptions of remaining
parents in stepfamilies[ It seems clear that the remaining parents play a much larger role in the
discipline of their children\ which may be perceived by the subject as being overly controlling or
rejecting[ There is also some evidence that this perception of the remaining parent a}ects the
emotional bond between the child and parent\ especially in the case of fathers] fathers from
stepmother families were rated signi_cantly lower on Father Love than fathers from intact families[
Their ratings more closely resembled those of stepfathers[ Perhaps this lower rating of Love from
fathers is to be expected given that mothers traditionally provide much of the emotional nurturance
to children\ but this does not appear to be the case[ Ratings of Father Love from intact families
were as high as ratings of Mother Love[
It was interesting that despite their more negative view of the parenting of their stepparents and
the remaining biological parent in the stepfamily\ the personality traits of children in the step!
families did not di}er in any respect from those in the intact families[ Despite the perceived de_cits
in their parental treatment\ such as lack of love in the stepparent and punishmentrejection in the
mothers in stepfather families\ there was little e}ect on the personality development in the children
growing up in these families[
3[2[ Relationship between parental ratings and personality
The second purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between EMBU parenting
dimensions and the adult personality traits of the subjects[ As is usually the case with correlation\
the direction of causation cannot be determined[ Parental practices might in~uence personality
development or could be a reaction to the personality traits manifested by the children[ Because
of the low number of subjects in the stepmother group\ the correlations in this group were regarded
as intrinsically unreliable and were not presented[
Despite the large number of correlations calculated in the two groups "intact and stepfather
families#\ some interesting trends are worth noting[ First\ it appears that the parental practices of
stepparents are related to the personality traits of their stepchildren[ Subjects| ratings of Father
Love in stepfather families were negatively related to Psychoticism in females and EPQ Neuroticism
in the combined male and female group[ In the case of Neuroticism\ the magnitude of the
correlation closely matched that of biological fathers from intact families[ The correlation between
Psychoticism and Father Love is not present in the intact group\ but reaches a magnitude of 9[39
in the stepfather group[ It seems that the addition of a stepfather perceived as unloving into the
family system is related to the trait of Psychoticism\ generally expressed in rebellious\ non!
conforming behavior and attitudes in the daughters[ Daughters are less likely to accept control
from fathers who do not reward them with love for conformity to parental values[ Stepfathers are
generally perceived as less loving than biological fathers[ Whether this is true or not\ the absent
father can be idealized because he has no day!to!day role in discipline[
In other cases\ the correlations of perceived parenting and personality seem to disappear in
stepfamilies[ The traits of Extraversion and Sociability show signi_cant relationships to Father
Love in females from intact families\ but not to Father Love in stepfathers[ Extraversion and
362
Sociability are hypothesized to be highly heritable "Zuckerman\ 0880#[ The correlation in intact
families between Father Love and these traits may be partially due to a genetic component
underlying the open expression of social a}ection in both father and daughter[ For example\ it is
possible that an extraverted father is more likely to demonstrate a}ection more openly and become
positively involved with his child\ thus being perceived as more loving by the child[ However\ why
is the correlation not found for male children as well< Future studies on the relation between
personality and parental behavior in adoptive families where the genetic in~uence can be excluded
need to be conducted to further examine this hypothesis[
A third trend found in the correlations is that the in~uence of the remaining biological parent
is sometimes di}erent in stepparent families than in intact families[ It could be posited that the
in~uence of the biological parent in the development of the child|s personality should remain the
same regardless of the family type[ For some traits\ however\ this does not seem to be the
case[ This can be seen in the relationships between EMBU ratings and the personality traits of
Psychoticism\ Impulsive Sensation Seeking and Neuroticism[
Perhaps the most signi_cant and consistent _nding across the various relationships between
parenting dimensions and later personality scores is the overall magnitude of the correlations[ The
correlations found in this study ranged from 9[99 to 29[49 "excluding the stepmother family
group#\ with very few correlations above 29[39[ Perceived parenting behavior accounts for only
814) of the variance in personality traits\ with the average being around 01)[ Most of the
signi_cant correlations are between EMBU scores and Neuroticism in both types of families[ Lack
of a}ection\ punishment\ rejection and overcontrolling attitudes may have their major e}ects on
the development of neuroticism\ or perhaps neuroticism leads to biases in perceptions of parental
behavior[ As McCrae and Costa "0883# point out\ psychologists should not presume the long!term
e}ects of child!rearing practices on adult personality until more long!term prospective studies have
been conducted[
The magnitude of the correlations found in this study is consistent with those found in the few
other studies looking at the relationship between parenting and o}spring personality[ McCrae and
Costa "0877\ 0883#\ for instance\ found only low to moderate correlations between personality and
perceived parenting accounting for between only 0 and 09) of the variance[ They also found a
greater concentration of signi_cant correlations between perceived Loving vs[ Rejection and all of
the facets of Neuroticism in comparison to other personality traits[
The results of this current study are also consistent with evidence obtained from behavior genetic
studies[ A review of this literature concluded that 3959) of the variance in personality traits is
attributable to genetics "Zuckerman\ 0880#[ That leaves approximately 49) of variance due to
either shared or nonshared environment[ If perceived parental behavior were an accurate and
purely environmental measure\ then the results of this study and others like it would indicate that
only about 09) or less of the variance can be attributed to shared environment "e[g[ parenting#[
However\ since a quarter to a third of the variance in these measures has genetic sources "Plomin
+ Bergeman\ 0880# the correlations between perceived parenting and personality would indicate a
weaker in~uence of shared parental behavior and attitudes[
Plomin and Daniels "0876# similarly concluded that nonshared environmental experience and
nonshared environment in interaction with genetic predisposition is the major in~uence in the
development of personality[ Di}erential treatment of siblings by parents might account for the
fact that siblings often perceive parental treatment di}erently[ However\ parents and siblings
363
themselves perceive little di}erence in their treatment[ It is possible that small di}erences in
treatment are magni_ed by more neurotic siblings during their development and generalized to
expectations about signi_cant relationships[ Another source of nonshared environmental in~uence
are the interactions between siblings themselves which might create di}erences as well as similarities
in personality\ particularly when the interactions are competitive and aggressive[ Di}erent experi!
ences with peers and authority _gures outside of the family can also in~uence personality devel!
opment[ Speci_c environmental events outside of the family may also play a role[
4[ Conclusions
This study has attempted to examine the di}erences in parental ratings between subjects who
grew up in intact two!parent homes and subjects who were raised by a remaining biological parent
and a stepparent[ In addition\ this study also examined the relationships between parenting and
adult personality of the subject and any di}erences between the two family types[ It is clear that
the formation of a stepfamily presents new obstacles to parents and their relationships with their
children and stepchildren[ Not only are stepparents often perceived di}erently than parents from
intact families\ but the perceptions of the remaining parents also tend to change[ However\ are
there long!term e}ects of these interactions on personality<
Although di}erences in parental dimensions have been associated with developmental and
pathological outcomes in other studies\ this study suggests that parenting contributes much less to
the formation of personality traits than has been traditionally believed in psychology[ Of course\
perceived parenting from the children|s point of view may not be an accurate portrayal of actual
parenting and those with strong traits of neuroticism may exaggerate the rejection and overcontrol
in retrospective descriptions of their parents[ However\ even if the source of perceived parenting
is subjective it is a cognitive in~uence which may a}ect personality[ This has broad implications
for researchers and clinicians\ including the need to reevaluate the common view that {bad|
parenting will inevitably have lasting detrimental e}ects on the child|s personality\ even in the
absence of a genetic vulnerability to such treatment[ Psychologists and laypersons attend to the
instances when personality defects emerge from disturbed family environments\ ignoring the many
instances when essentially healthy personalities emerge from such environments[ Similarly they
are ba/ed when antisocial "{black sheep|# or neurotic personalities emerge from families with
loving and concerned parents[ This conceptual bias has been encouraged by the prevalent theories
of personality\ from Freud on\ which placed the major source of individual di}erences in the family
environment[
In this study no di}erences in personality traits were found between subjects from stepfamilies
and subjects from intact families\ even though stepparents were perceived as less loving than
parents from intact families[ This may be a further indication of the small e}ect parenting seems
to have on the development of personality traits[
References
Arrindell\ W[ A[\ Emmelkamp\ P[ M[ G[\ Brilman\ E[\ + Monsma\ A[ "0872#[ Psychometric evaluation of an inventory
for assessment of parental rearing practices] a Dutch form of the EMBU[ Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\ 56\ 052
066[
364
Arrindell\ W[ A[\ Perris\ C[\ Perris\ H[\ Eisemann\ M[\ Van Der Ende\ J[\ Gasznor\ S[\ Iwawaki\ S[\ Maj\ M[\ + Zhang\
J[ "0883#[ Parental reading behavior from a cross!cultural perspective] a summary of data obtained in 03 nations[ In
C[ Perris\ W[ A[ Arrindell\ + M[ Eisemann "Eds[#\ Parenting and psychopathology "pp[ 034060#[ Chichester\ UK]
Wiley[
Becker\ W[ C[ "0853#[ Consequences of di}erent kinds of parental discipline[ In M[ L[ Ho}man\ + L[ W[ Ho}man
"Eds[#\ Review of child development research "vol 0[\ pp[ 058197#[ New York] Russel Sage Found[
Benjaminsen\ S[\ Jorgensen\ J[\ Kragh!Hansen\ L[\ + Pedersen\ L[ L[ "0873#[ Memories of parental rearing practices and
personality features[ Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\ 58\ 315323[
Clingempeel\ W[ G[\ Brand\ E[\ + Ievoli\ R[ "0873#[ Stepparentstepchild relationships in stepmother and stepfather
families] a multimethod study[ Family Relations\ 22\ 354362[
Clayer\ J[ R[\ Ross\ M[ W[\ + Campbell\ R[ L[ "0873#[ Child rearing patterns and dimensions of personality[ Social
Behavior and Personality\ 01\ 042045[
Costa Jr[\ P[ T[\ + McCrae\ R[ R[ "0874#[ The NEO Personality Inventory Manual[ Odessa\ FL] Psychological Assessment
Resources[
Costa Jr[\ P[ T[\ + McCrae\ R[ R[ "0881#[ Revised NEO Personality Inventory "NEO!PI!R# and NEO Five!Factor
Inventory "NEO!FFI# Professional Manual[ Odessa\ FL] Psychological Assessment Resources\ Inc[
Dukes\ R[ L[ "0878#[ The cinderella myth] negative evaluations of stepparents[ Sociology and Social Research\ 62\ 56
61[
Egeland\ B[\ + Sroufe\ L[ A[ "0870#[ Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy[ In D[ Cicchetti\ + R[ Rizley
"Eds[#\ New directions in child development] developmental approaches to child maltreatment[ San Francisco] Josey!
Bass[
Eysenck\ H[ J[ "0836#[ Dimensions of personality[ New York] Praeger[
Eysenck\ H[ J[\ + Eysenck\ M[ W[ "0874#[ Personality and individual differences] a natural science approach[ New York]
Plenum Press[
Eysenck\ S[ B[ G[\ Eysenck\ H[ J[\ + Barrett\ P[ "0874#[ A revised version of the psychoticism scale[ Personality and
Individual Differences\ 5\ 1018[
Fine\ M[ A[\ Voydano}\ P[\ + Donnelly\ B[ W[ "0882#[ Relations between parental control and warmth and child well!
being in stepfamilies[ Journal of Family Psychology\ 6\ 111121[
Finkel\ D[\ + McGue\ M[ "0882#[ Twenty!_ve!year follow!up of child!rearing practices] reliability of retrospective data[
Personality and Individual Differences\ 04\ 036043[
Ganong\ L[ H[\ + Coleman\ M[ M[ "0876#[ Stepchildren|s perceptions of their parents[ Journal of Genetic Psychology\
037\ 406[
Ganong\ L[ H[\ + Coleman\ M[ M[ "0882#[ An exploratory study of stepsibling subsystems[ Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage\ 08\ 014030[
Ganong\ L[ H[\ + Coleman\ M[ M[ "0882#[ A meta!analytic comparison of the self!esteem and behavior problems of
stepchildren to children in other family structures[ Journal of Divorce and Remarriage\ 08\ 032052[
Gerlsma\ C[\ Emmelkamp\ P[ M[ G[\ + Arrindell\ W[ A[ "0889#[ Anxiety\ depression and perception of early parenting]
a meta!analysis[ Clinical Psychology Review\ 09\ 140166[
Glick\ P[ "0878#[ Remarried families\ stepfamilies and stepchildren] a brief demographic analysis[ Family Relations\ 27\
1316[
Johnson\ V[\ + Pandina\ R[ J[ "0880#[ E}ects of the family environment on adolescent substance use\ delinquency and
coping styles[ American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse\ 06\ 6077[
Lamborn\ S[ D[\ + Mounts\ N[ S[ "0880#[ Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative\
authoritarian\ indulgent and neglectful families[ Child Development\ 51\ 09380954[
Loehlin\ J[ C[ "0881#[ Genes and environment in personality development[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage Publications[
McCrae\ R[ R[\ + Costa\ P[ T[ "0877#[ Recalled parentchild relations and adult personality[ Journal of Personality\ 45\
306323[
McCrae\ R[ R[\ + Costa\ P[ T[ "0883#[ The paradox of parental in~uence] understanding retrospective studies of
parentchild relations and adult personality[ In C[ Perris\ W[ A[ Arrindell\ + M[ Eisemann "Eds[#\ Parenting and
psychopathology[ New York\ NY] John Wiley + Sons[
Parish\ T[ S[\ + McCluskey\ J[ J[ "0881#[ The relationship between parenting styles and young adults| self!concepts and
evaluations of parents[ Adolescence\ 16\ 804807[
365
Parker\ G[ "0870#[ Parental reports of depressives] an investigation of several explanations[ Journal of Affective Disorders\
2\ 020039[
Parnes\ G[\ Tupling\ H[\ + Brown\ L[ B[ "0868#[ A parent bonding instrument[ British Journal of Medical Psychology\
41\ 009[
Paulson\ S[ E[ "0883#[ Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninth!grade students| achievement[
Journal of Early Adolescence\ 03\ 149156[
Perris\ C[\ Arrindell\ W[ A[\ + Eisemann\ M[ "0883#[ Parenting and psychopathology[ Chichester\ UK] Wiley[
Perris\ C[\ Arrindell\ W[ A[\ Perris\ H[\ Eisemann\ M[\ van de Ende\ J[\ + von Knorring\ L[ "0875#[ Perceived parental
rearing pattern and depression[ British Journal of Psychiatry\ 037\ 069064[
Perris\ C[\ Jacobsson\ L[\ Lindstrom\ H[\ Von Knorring\ L[\ + Perris\ H[ "0879#[ Development of a new inventory for
assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour[ Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\ 50\ 154163[
Plomin\ R[\ + Bergeman\ C[ S[ "0880#[ The nature of nurture] genetic in~uences on environmental measures[ Behavioral
and Brain Sciences\ 03\ 262316[
Plomin\ R[\ + Daniels\ D[ "0876#[ Why are children in the same family so di}erent from one another<[ Behavioral and
Brain Sciences\ 09\ 048[
Sauer\ L[ E[\ + Fine\ M[ A[ "0877#[ Parentchild relationships in stepparent families[ Journal of Family Psychology\ 0\
323340[
Schaefer\ E[ S[ "0848#[ A circumplex model for maternal behaviour[ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology\ 48\
115124[
Siegelman\ M[\ + Roe\ A[ "0868#[ Manual] the ParentChild Relations Questionnaire II[ New York] Author[
Zuckerman\ M[ "0878#[ Personality in the third dimension] a psychobiological approach[ Personality and Individual
Differences\ 09\ 280307[
Zuckerman\ M[ "0880#[ Psychobiology of Personality[ New York] Cambridge University Press[
Zuckerman\ M[\ + Kuhlman\ D[ M[ "Unpublished#[ Norms for the ZuckermanKuhlman Personality Questionnaire
"ZKPQ#[
Zuckerman\ M[\ Kuhlman\ D[ M[\ Joireman\ J[\ Teta\ P[\ + Kraft\ M[ "0882#[ A comparison of three structural models
for personality] the Big Three\ the Big Five and the Alternative Five[ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\
54\ 646657[

Parental Behavior and Attitudes of Their Parents Reported by Young Adults From Intact and Stepparent Families and Relationships Between Perceived Parenting and Personality

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Parental Behavior and Attitudes of Their Parents Reported by Young Adults From Intact and Stepparent Families and Relationships Between Perceived Parenting and Personality

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

\

Personality and Individual Di}erences 16 "0888# 342365