Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Big ve parental personality traits, parenting behaviors, and adolescent

behavior problems: A mediation model
Pamella H. Oliver *, Diana Wright Guerin, Jacqueline K. Coffman
Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834-6868, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 February 2009
Received in revised form 13 May 2009
Accepted 22 May 2009

Keywords:
Parental personality
Conscientiousness
Parenting behaviors
Adolescent
Behavior problem
Mediator
Longitudinal
Limit setting

a b s t r a c t
The direct links between mothers and fathers personality, parenting behaviors, and adolescent behavior
problems were examined, as well as the potential mediating inuence of parenting behaviors on links
between parental personality and child adjustment. This longitudinal, prospective study included 111
adolescents and their mothers and fathers. Results based on mothers, fathers, and adolescents reports
of behavioral adjustment concurred: adolescents with more conscientious mothers had fewer externalizing behaviors. Additionally, mothers and fathers who rated themselves as more conscientious reported
greater ease in setting limits for their adolescents. For both parents, parenting behaviors related to their
adolescents externalizing behavior problems. Maternal limit setting mediated the direct relation
between maternal personality and adolescent adjustment. These ndings highlight parental conscientiousness as a personality trait related to parents ease in setting limits in their parental role and corroborate the signicant relation between limit setting as a parental behavior potentially facilitating
adolescents behavioral adjustment.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Numerous factors contribute to individual differences in parenting behavior, and parental personality has been assigned a major role by some theorists (Vondra, Sysko, & Belsky, 2005) because
it relates to both the way mothers and fathers execute the parental
role as well as to the quality of their close relationships (Belsky &
Barends, 2002). Given that adult personality is stable over time
(Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006), it has the potential to relate
consistently to parenting behaviors. Research has indicated direct
links between certain parent personality traits, such as parental
psychopathology or negative emotionality, and child behavior
problems (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman,
1997); moreover, researchers have identied indirect links from
parental personality to childrens behavior problems through parenting behaviors (Brook, Whiteman, & Zheng, 2002).
1.1. Direct relations between parental personality and child outcomes
Parental personality may directly inuence childrens behavior
through means such as modeling (Brook et al., 2002; Prinzie
et al., 2005) or through genetic factors (Prinzie et al., 2005). Much
of the research examining relations between parental personality
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 657 278 2896; fax: +1 657 278 4456.
E-mail address: poliver@fullerton.edu (P.H. Oliver).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.026

factors and child outcomes has focused on neuroticism, which relates positively to externalizing behavior problems in children of
various ages. Maternal neuroticism (e.g., negative emotionality,
disagreeableness, anxiety, or depression) has been linked to deant
and angry behavior in toddler-aged children (Kochanska et al.,
1997), to externalizing problems in 8-year-old boys (Bates, Bayles,
Bennett, Ridge, & Brown, 1991), and to overt signs of antisocial
behavior in a clinical sample of boys ages 6 to 12 years, half of
whom were diagnosed with ADHD (Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998). Likewise, fathers neuroticism positively related to symptoms of ADHD
(Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998). Prinzie and colleagues (2004, 2005) found
a negative relation between mothers emotional stability and childrens externalizing problems in a Belgian sample of over 500
school-aged children. Thus, evidence shows that parental neuroticism or emotional instability has a consistent positive direct relation with behavior problems in children from toddler through
elementary school ages.
Fewer studies have examined the remaining personality dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality (Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness; Goldberg,
1990) as they relate to child behavior problems. Children whose
parents report high levels of Extraversion (Prinzie et al., 2005)
and Conscientiousness (Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998; Prinzie et al.,
2005) demonstrate lower levels of behavior problems. In contrast,
Openness to new experience in fathers positively relates to antisocial behavior in elementary school-aged children (Nigg & Hinshaw,

632

P.H. Oliver et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

1998). Research on parental Agreeableness has shown mixed ndings. Although Nigg and Hinshaw (1998) observed that mothers
Agreeableness was negatively related to ADHD, Prinzie and colleagues (2004) found mothers Agreeableness positively related
to school-aged childrens externalizing problems.
1.2. Parent personality and parenting behaviors
Empirical evidence corroborates relations between parental
personality and parenting behaviors. For example, supportive and
nurturing parenting is positively associated with Extraversion
and Openness (Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, 2003), Agreeableness (Belsky, Crnic, & Woodworth, 1995) and Conscientiousness (Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000; Losoya, Callor, Rowe, & Goldsmith, 1997),
and inversely related to Neuroticism (Metsapelto & Pulkkinen,
2003). In contrast, negative, controlling parenting is positively
associated with Neuroticism and inversely related to Agreeableness (Belsky et al.,1995; Losoya et al., 1997).
1.3. Indirect relations between parent personality and child behavior
problems
In addition to the direct relation between parent personality
and child outcomes, parent personality may relate to child behavioral outcomes through its inuence on parenting behaviors (Belsky & Barends, 2002). Parenting behaviors that relate to positive
child development and low levels of problem behavior include
parental warmth/responsiveness and behavioral control (Baumrind, 1966). Although current conceptualizations expand the number of dimensions of parenting style (Steinberg, 2001), Baumrinds
twin dimensions continue to be considered as core facets of parenting. In research that examines parental warmth and child outcomes, empirical evidence establishes that when parents have
warm, responsive relationships with their sons and daughters,
children demonstrate fewer aggressive and delinquent behaviors
and lower levels of social withdrawal, psychological distress, and
somatic symptoms (Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997). In terms of the
control dimension, parents use of rm behavioral control relates
to lower levels of adolescents externalizing problems (Galambos,
Barker, & Almeida, 2003) and lower levels of adolescents aggressive behavior (Mazefsky & Farrell, 2005). In addition, Heaven and
Ciarrochi (2006) found that warmth and control predicted lower
levels of Eysenckian psychoticism in adolescent boys.
Recent evidence shows that parenting behaviors serve as mediators between parent personality and toddler behavior. Prinzie and
colleagues (2004) found parent personality was directly related to
externalizing problems in children and was also related to negative
parenting, which in turn was linked to child behavior problems.

1997; Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998; Prinzie et al., 2004, 2005) and that
Conscientiousness and Extraversion would relate negatively to
externalizing problems (Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998; Prinzie et al.,
2005). Given positive relations between nurturing parenting and
Openness (Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, 2003) and Agreeableness (Belsky et al., 1995), we predicted they would relate inversely to externalizing problems.
Second, we examined the relation between parental personality
and parenting behaviors. We hypothesized that parental Neuroticism would relate negatively to responsive parenting (Losoya
et al., 1997; Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, 2003) and that the other four
personality factors would relate positively (Bates et al., 1991; Clark
et al., 2000; Kochanska et al., 1997; Prinzie et al., 2004, 2005).
These predictions parallel the conclusions of Vondra and colleagues (2005, p. 43) who, after reviewing this literature, said,
. . .if one could choose ones parents, the most benecial choice
would be parents who are low in neuroticism, high in extraversion
and agreeableness, and perhaps high in openness to experience
and conscientiousness.
Finally, we examined the extent to which the parenting behaviors serve as mediators between parental personality and adolescent behavior problems. We predicted that parental limit setting
and involvement would mediate the relation between parental
personality and adolescent behavior problems as they reect qualities of the parentchild relationship, a linkage previously reported
by researchers studying younger children (Brook et al., 2002; Prinzie et al., 2004).

2. Method
2.1. Participants
This investigation is based on the Fullerton Longitudinal Study
(FLS), a prospective project that began in 1979 with 130 children
who were 1 year of age and their parents who averaged approximately 30 years of age (mothers: M = 28.6, SD = 4.2; fathers:
M = 31.5, SD = 5.1). Data analyzed herein were collected at annual
assessments when participants were 13 through 17 years old. Return rates consistently exceeded 80%, with no evidence of differential attrition (Guerin, Gottfried, Oliver, & Thomas, 2003). At the 17year assessment, the sample included a wide range of middle SES
families (M = 48.7, SD = 11.3) as measured on the Hollingshead
Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, unpublished manuscript). Demographically, participants were predominantly EuroAmerican (90%) with approximately equal numbers of males and
females. For additional demographic information see Guerin et al.
(2003).

1.4. Contributions of the current study

2.2. Measures

In the current study, we extend the literature in important

ways. Previous studies examined the links between parent personality and behavioral adjustment of toddlers and school-age children. We examine these links in a sample of parents with
adolescent children. Moreover, data analyzed herein were collected prospectively over a ve-year period. Contrary to much past
research that has focused primarily on maternal Neuroticism, we
measured all factors of the FFM for both mothers and fathers. Finally, our measures of adolescent behavioral adjustment included
multiple informants: mothers, fathers, and adolescents.
The rst purpose of the present study was to examine the direct
links between each of the FFM factors of both fathers and mothers
and adolescent behavior problems. Based on previous literature,
we hypothesized that parental Neuroticism would relate positively
to externalizing problems (Bates et al., 1991; Kochanska et al.,

2.2.1. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

At the 13-year assessment, mothers and fathers completed the
NEO-FFI, Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1989). This inventory measures
ve global domains of personality: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion
(E), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness(C).
Each of these scales includes 12 items. Respondents indicate their
agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Internal consistencies for mothers and fathers in our sample were:
.82 and .86 for N, .82 and .78 for E, .71 and .70 for O, .68 and .69 for
A, and .85 and .88 for C. T-scores were used for all analyses.
2.2.2. ParentChild Relationship Inventory (PCRI)
To assess parenting behaviors, mothers and fathers completed
the PCRI (Gerard, 1994) at the 15- and 16-year assessments. This
measure includes 78 statements that utilize a four-point Likert

P.H. Oliver et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

scale: 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). We used three PCRI

scales that correspond to warmth and control aspects of parenting:
Involvement, Communication, and Limit Setting. Gerard reported
internal consistencies for these scales ranging from .76 to .88 with
a median of .82; in our sample, the median alpha values were .80
for mothers and .78 for fathers (Coffman, Guerin, & Gottfried,
2006). Given signicant one-year stabilities for both parents PCRI
scores (Coffman et al., 2006), analyses in this investigation were
based on averages of each parents 15- and 16-year T-scores.
Strong correlations between the Involvement and Communication
scales (.79 and .71 for mother and father reports, respectively) led
us to create a composite Involvement/Communication scale. Cronbachs alpha for Involvement/Communication was .86 for mothers
and .87 for fathers.
2.2.3. Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR)
Externalizing behavior problems were assessed using the CBCL
and YSR (Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b). Mothers and fathers independently completed the CBCL (Ns = 89 and 78, respectively) and adolescents completed the YSR (N = 102) at the 17-year assessment.
Measures are of similar format and include 118 items (102 of
which overlap) that identify specic behaviors. Each item response
utilizes a 3-point Likert scale to describe the childs recent behavior: 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true). Achenbach reported
internal consistencies across age and gender groups for the Externalizing scale on the CBCL of .90.93 (Achenbach, 1991a) and on
the YSR of .89.91 (Achenbach, 1991b). All analyses reported herein are based on raw scores on the Externalizing scale, which assesses aggressive and delinquent behaviors.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive ndings
Personality characteristics and parenting behaviors of mothers
and fathers were in the normal range; Table 1 displays descriptive
statistics for the NEO-FFI and PCRI. The mean number of externalizing problems reported by mothers and fathers were 5.01
(SD = 6.3) and 5.6 (SD = 5.9), respectively. Adolescent self-reported
externalizing averaged 12.2 (SD = 6.4).
3.2. Correlations between parent personality and adolescent behavior
problems
One consistent relation between parent personality and adolescents behavior problems across informants was observed. Mothers
who rated themselves as more conscientious had adolescents with
fewer externalizing problems at age 17 as assessed by mothers,

Table 1
Means and standard deviations for measures of parental personality (13-year wave)
and parentchild relationships (15- and 16-year waves, averaged).
Mothersa

Fathersb

SD

SD

NEO-FFI T-scores
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

44.5
55.7
51.4
54.2
53.2

9.0
10.9
10.0
9.5
10.4

46.4
54.5
52.5
46.3
52.9

10.0
10.2
9.8
10.4
11.0

PCRI T-scores
Involvement/communication
Limit setting

47.8
57.8

9.1
10.4

44.4
55.9

10.1
8.6

a
b

N = 101 on NEO; N = 104 on PCRI.

N = 73 on NEO; N = 90 on PCRI.

633

fathers, and the youths themselves. No signicant relations were

observed between fathers personality and adolescent externalizing problems, all ps > .05. Pearson correlations between parents
ratings on the ve scales of the NEO and adolescents externalizing
problems assessed via mothers, fathers, and self-report are displayed in Table 2. Coefcients for fathers are displayed above the
diagonal; those for mothers are displayed below.
3.3. Correlations between parental personality and parenting
behaviors
Personality traits of both mothers and fathers related to self-reports of their parenting behaviors on the PCRI, as shown in Table 2.
Fathers who were less neurotic, more extraverted, more agreeable,
and more conscientious reported higher involvement/communication with their adolescents; fathers who were more agreeable and
more conscientious viewed it easier to set limits for their adolescents. Additionally, mothers who were less neurotic, more agreeable, and more conscientious described their relationship with
their adolescent as higher in involvement/communication, and
they found it easier to set limits for their adolescent. Mothers higher in extraversion reported greater involvement/communication
with their adolescent; higher openness also related to ease of limit
setting.
3.4. Correlations between parenting behaviors and adolescent
behavior problems
Signicant relations were observed between specic parenting
behaviors on the PCRI and adolescent behavior problems. As
shown in Table 2, for both mothers and fathers, there was evidence
that greater ease of setting limits correlated with lower levels of
externalizing problems at 17 years. Also, adolescents of mothers
who reported more involvement/communication at 15/16 tended
to exhibit fewer externalizing problems at 17.
3.5. Tests of mediation
To test the hypothesis that dimensions of parenting behavior
mediate the relation between parent personality and adolescents
behavior problems (as depicted in Fig. 1), the procedures outlined
by Baron and Kenny (1986) were used. To establish a mediation effect, four conditions must be met. First, the predictor variable
(parental personality) must correlate signicantly with the criterion variable (adolescent behavior problems); this path is labeled
c in Fig. 1. Second, the predictor must correlate with the proposed
mediator (parenting behavior), labeled path a in Fig. 1. Third, the
proposed mediator must correlate with the criterion (path b). Finally, the correlation between the predictor and the outcome must
be less when controlling for the mediator (path c0 ). Examining the
results in Table 2, ve instances meeting these criteria were observed, all of them involving maternal Conscientiousness.
These ve instances are shown in Table 3, which displays the
unstandardized regression coefcients for each path resulting from
stepwise regression analyses for the models tested (I through V). In
the rst three models, mothers who were more conscientious reported that setting limits for their adolescents was easier, which
in turn subsequently related to fewer externalizing problems
(mother, father, and youth report). In the fourth and fth models,
more conscientious mothers reported greater involvement/communication with their adolescents, who in turn exhibited fewer
externalizing problems as reported by mothers and adolescents,
respectively.
To test whether or not these potential mediation effects were
signicant, the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams,
& Lockwood, 2007) was used. This procedure has been shown to

634

P.H. Oliver et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

Table 2
Correlations among personality, parenting behaviors, and behavior problem measures for fathers (above diagonal) and mothers (below diagonal).
Measures

Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Involvement/comm
Limit setting
Externalizing (M)
Externalizing (F)
Externalizing (A)

NEO-FFI

PCRI Scales

Externalizing Problems

10

.30**
.16
.33**
.21*
.33**
.36***
.18
.29*
.10

.43***

.17
.36***
.14
.27**
.04
.02
.02
.02

.05
.20

.03
.03
.15
.25*
.13
.07
.01

.36**
.31**
.19

.20
.35**
.25*
.14
.04
.16

.50***
.42***
.04
.12

.25*
.35**
.45***
.26*
.24*

.29*
.48***
.18
.28*
.37**

.59***
.34**
.17
.18*

.24
.17
.13
.25*
.35**
.62***

.55***
.41***
.33***

.06
.07
.07
.09
.06
.07
.22

.44***
.24*

.08
.07
.08
.04
.12
.20
.38**
.44***

.35**

.04
.08
.07
.08
.21
.09
.18
.23*
.34**

Ns range from 95 to 104 for mothers and 73 to 90 for fathers.

p < .05.
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
*

**

Mediating Variable
Parenting
Behavior

I. Conscientious, Lim Set.35

II. Conscientious, Lim Set.35
III. Conscientious, Lim Set.35

Path a

Path b

I. Externalizing (Mother) -.44

II. Externalizing (Father) -.38
III. Externalizing (Adoles) -.32

I. -.44
II. -.28
III. -.23

Path c
Adolescent
Behavior
Problems

Parental
Personality
Path c'
I. -.27
II. -.16
III. -.11

PredictorVariable

Criterion Variable

Fig. 1. Standardardized regression coefcients (b) for mediation tests of the effect of maternal personality on youth externalizing behavior problems. All b coefcients were
signicant for paths a, b, and c. Path c is the unmediated effect of maternal personality. Path c0 is the effect of maternal personality as mediated by the parentchild
relationship.

Table 3
Unstandardized regression coefcients, standard errors, and condence intervals for mediation tests of the effect of parental personality on adolescent behavior problems.
NEO-FFI factor

PCRI scale

Behavior problem

a (sea)

b (seb)

I. Conscient (M)
II. Conscient (M)
III. Conscient (M)
IV. Conscient (M)
V. Conscient (M)

Lim set (M)

Lim set (M)
Lim set (M)
Inv/comm (M)
Inv/comm (M)

Externalizing
Externalizing
Externalizing
Externalizing
Externalizing

.35
.35
.35
.22
.22

.21
.21
.20
.10
.11

(M)
(F)
(A)
(M)
(A)

(.10)
(.10)
(.10)
(.09)
(.09)

(.05)
(.06)
(.07)
(.06)
(.08)

c (sec)
.22
.15
.14
.22
.14

(.05)
(.06)
(.06)
(.05)
(.06)

c0 (sec)
.13
.09
.07
.20
.12

(.05)
(.06)
(.07)
(.05)
(.07)

CI(lower,

upper)

.130,
.140,
.137,
.058,
.067,

.028*
.024*
.019*
.003
.008

Note: Informants are shown in parentheses after scales of the NEO-FFI, PCRI, and behavior problems. Path c is the unmediated effect of parental personality. Path c0 is the effect
of parental personality as mediated by the parentchild relationship. All coefcients were signicant for paths a, b, and c. The hypothesis that parentchild relationship
mediates the relation between parental personality and child behavior problems is supported when the condence interval (CI) does not include zero. M = mother, F = father,
and A = adolescent.
*
p < .05.

yield more accurate condence limits for the indirect effect than
other widely used tests. If the range of condence limits yielded
by PRODCLIN does not include zero, the indirect effect in the mediation model (that is, the path from parental personality through
parenting behavior to behavior problems) is signicant. The upper
and lower 95% condence limits for each of the cases tested are
shown in the nal column of Table 3. For models I, II, and III, the
condence intervals do not include 0, which is consistent with a
statistically signicant mediation effect. To facilitate interpretation
of the models with signicant mediation, standardized regression

coefcients are displayed in Fig. 1. Mothers who were more conscientious at the 13-year assessment wave reported it easier to set
limits for their adolescent-aged child at the 15/16-year assessment
waves, which in turn was associated with fewer externalizing
problems at 17 years.
4. Discussion
These ndings support and extend the previous literature on
the links between parents personality and their childrens adjust-

P.H. Oliver et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

ment. A direct link between maternal Conscientiousness and adolescent externalizing problems was replicated across three informants of behavior problems: more conscientious mothers had
adolescents with fewer externalizing problems. Paternal personality, however, was virtually unrelated to adolescent behavior problems. In contrast, both mothers and fathers personality related to
parenting. Parental Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were most salient: less neurotic, more agreeable, and
more conscientious parents reported greater involvement/communication and more ease in setting limits. Finally, the ease of setting
limits mediated the relation between maternal personality and
adolescent behavior problems. Mothers who were more conscientious viewed it easier to set limits, and their adolescents subsequently had fewer externalizing problems.
4.1. Integration with previous literature
Our nding of a direct association between parental personality
and adolescents behavior, specically that mothers who were
more conscientious had adolescents with fewer externalizing
problems, is consistent with previous research (Nigg & Hinshaw,
1998; Prinzie et al., 2005). Social learning theory suggests that children learn behaviors from models in their lives and imitate those
behaviors. Given the stability of adult personality characteristics
(Terracciano et al., 2006), this modeling of conscientiousness may
extend across many years. In addition, it is possible that mothers
who are conscientious have children who are genetically predisposed to conscientiousness and thus to lower levels of behavioral
problems.
Previous studies offer insight into potential explanations for our
nding fewer direct links between fathers personality and adolescent outcomes compared to those found for mothers. To the degree
that direct effects are the result of modeling, time spent with each
parent may be a salient factor. Steinberg and Silk (2002) indicate
that adolescents spend more time and communicate more with
their mothers than fathers. Paulson and Sputa (1996) found that
adolescents, mothers, and fathers all agreed that mothers were
more involved with and did more activities with their adolescents
than did fathers.
In general we did not nd a pervasive connection between
mothers or fathers neuroticism and adolescent behavior problems, a nding that is inconsistent with the literature (Bates
et al., 1991; Downey & Coyne, 1990; Kochanska et al., 1997; Nigg
& Hinshaw, 1998). One possible explanation for this difference
may be the age of our participants. In many of the studies examining parental neuroticism and child outcomes, the children were infants, toddlers, or school-aged (Bates et al., 1991; Kochanska et al.,
1997; Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998), whereas we were studying adolescents. Wachs (2000) suggests that inuences on childrens development become more complex as children grow older and by
adolescence it may be more difcult to nd straightforward, direct
relations. It is not that factors are less important, it is just that they
interact with a variety of other factors.
4.2. Direct links between parental personality and aspects of parenting
Numerous links between parental personality factors, parental
involvement/communication, and limit setting were evident. Consistent with the literature, we found that mothers and fathers
Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness related to
these aspects of parenting (Clark et al., 2000; Losoya et al., 1997).
Prinzie et al. (2005), in fact, identify these personality characteristics as the most relevant parental traits based on the developmental literature. In addition, we found that mothers and fathers who
were higher in Extraversion also indicated they were more involved and communicated more with their adolescents.

635

4.3. Methodological issues

We measured characteristics of parenting through self-reports
of the parentchild relationship, rather than directly assessing actual parenting behavior. In support of our measure, the parents
perceptions of different aspects of the parentchild relationship
are validated by the adolescents perceptions of their relationship
with their parents (Coffman et al., 2006). Future research on the
link between parental personality and adolescent behavior that
measures parenting with a direct behavioral measure or observation would further illuminate this issue.
4.4. Conclusions
Our ndings highlight Conscientiousness as an understudied
personality characteristic for parenting, and they corroborate and
extend other published research (Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998; Prinzie
et al., 2005). We found that parental conscientiousness related inversely to adolescent behavior problems and directly to parenting
behaviors. The signicant mediation effect demonstrating that
higher maternal conscientiousness related to greater ease in setting
limits, which in turn was associated with reduced levels of externalizing behavior problems, provides insight into the process by
which Conscientiousnessat least in mothersmay result in enhanced behavioral outcomes for adolescents. The limited empirical
research available has indicated that conscientious parents are supportive and not negatively controlling (Losoya et al., 1997) and that
they are responsive and less power assertive than parents who are
low in conscientiousness (Clark et al., 2000). Our data indicate that
maternal and paternal conscientiousness was related to ease of limit setting, an essential dimension of parenting (Baumrind, 1966).
Limit setting as a positive parental behavior connects to a large
literature indicating the importance of authoritative parenting and
the avoidance of a coercive cycle in disciplining children and adolescents (Patterson, 2002). A major source of parental inuence is
behavioral control or the regulation of a child with rm and reliable discipline (Galambos et al., 2003). This has been associated
with decreases in aggressive behavior in children (Mazefsky & Farrell, 2005). If parents cannot set limits or discipline effectively,
there are often empty threats of consequences that may contribute
to externalizing behavior problems in children (Patterson, 2002).
Appropriate limit setting, along with monitoring of childrens
behavior, is related to the positive outcomes attributed to authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 1966). Although, research has demonstrated that the value of authoritative parenting may not be
universal (Steinberg, 2001), our ndings in this context with
Euro-American families support the important role of appropriate
limit setting as a mediator of the relation between maternal conscientious and adolescent behavior problems, which is consistent
with an authoritative parenting model.

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and 1991 Prole.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Prole.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bates, J. E., Bayles, K., Bennett, D. S., Ridge, B., & Brown, M. M. (1991). Origins of
externalizing behavior problems at eight years of age. In D. J. Pepler & K. H.
Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression
(pp. 93120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37, 887907.
Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. B. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed.,
pp. 415438). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

636

P.H. Oliver et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 631636

Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodworth, S. (1995). Personality and parenting: Exploring
the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 63,
905929.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., & Zheng, L. (2002). Intergenerational transmission of
risks for problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 6576.
Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mothers personality and its
interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 274285.
Coffman, J. K., Guerin, D. W., & Gottfried, A. W. (2006). Reliability and validity of the
ParentChild Relationship Inventory (PCRI): Evidence from a longitudinal crossinformant investigation. Psychological Assessment, 18, 209214.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO PI/FFI manual supplement: For use with
the NEO personality inventory and the NEO ve-factor inventory. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Downey, G., & Coyne, J. G. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 5076.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter:
Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early
adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578594.
Gerard, A. B. (1994). ParentChild Relationship Inventory (PCRI): Manual. Los Angeles:
Western Psychological Services.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five
factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229.
Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Thomas, C. W. (2003). Temperament:
Infancy through adolescence. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2006). Perceptions of parental styles and Eysenckian
psychoticism in youth: A prospective analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 6170.
Hollingshead, A. B. (unpublished manuscript). Four factor index of social status. New
Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Sociology.
Kochanska, G., Clark, L. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1997). Implications of mothers
personality for their parenting and their young childrens developmental
outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65, 387420.
Losoya, S. H., Callor, S., Rowe, D. C., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1997). Origins of familial
similarity in parenting: A study of twins and adoptive siblings. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 10121023.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of
the product condence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN.
Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 384389.

Mazefsky, C. A., & Farrell, A. D. (2005). The role of witnessing violence, peer
provocation, family support, and parenting practices in the aggressive behavior
of rural adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 7185.
Metsapelto, R. L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting:
Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative
factors. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5978.
Nigg, J. T., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1998). Parent personality traits and psychopathology
associated with antisocial behaviors in childhood attention-decit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 145159.
Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. B.
Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents (pp. 2544). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Paulson, S. E., & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence:
Perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369381.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological
context, and childrens adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 68, 908923.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquire, P., & Colpin, H.
(2004). Parent and child personality characteristics as predictors of negative
discipline and externalizing problem behaviour in children. European Journal of
Personality, 18, 73102.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquire, P., & Colpin, H.
(2005). Direct and indirect relationships between parental personality and
externalizing behaviour: The role of negative parenting. Psychologica Belgica, 45,
123145.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parentadolescent relationships in
retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 119.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting. Children and parenting (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 103133).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personaltiy plasticity after age
30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 9991009.
Vondra, J., Sysko, H. B., & Belsky, J. (2005). Developmental origins of parenting:
Personality and relationship factors. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting:
An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 3571). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wachs, T. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufcient. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.