Thesis Final

The Relationship Between Personality Traits of Parents And Parents’ Reports Of Adolescent’s Problems[1]

Firdevs Savi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey[2] Rengin Akboy, Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey

Abstract The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between personality traits of parents and parents’ reports of adolescent’s problems. The sample consisted of 389 adolescences whose ages range from 12–15 years old and their parents. Measure instrument; Child Behaviour Check List/CBCL/4–16 and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire are used. In order to analyze the data, correlation analysis were employed. As a result of this study, a positive correlation between parents’ personality traits and adolescences’ behaviour problems has been found. In line with this, future studies while analyzing adolescences’ behaviour problems, one must take into account personality traits of parents as densely used sources of information and also the relationship between adolescences’ inclination for problematic behaviour perception. Keywords: Behaviour problems, adolescents, personality traits

1. INTRODUCTION Information about adolescent’s behavioural and emotional problems is commonly provided by different types of informants such as parents, teachers and the adolescent themselves. Various reasons for the disagreement have been suggested: general mechanisms such as response set, social desirability, or a willingness to report negative behaviors on the part of the informant (Youngstrom, et al., 2000); informant personality factors such as depression and anxiety (Briggs-Gowan, et al., 1996); and interactional factors such as the parent–child relationship (Treutler & Epkins, 2003). In the examination of validity of parents’ reports of adolescent’s problems, the role of parental psychopathology must be considered. Rates of distress are high among parents of children referred to clinics for behaviour problems (Gries et al., 1980; Hammen et al., 1999). Parental psychological symptoms appear to influence child development, directly and indirectly, through perceptions of their adolescents’ behaviour. Furthermore, parental depression and psychopathology have been found to influence ratings of child behaviour problems by parents of children with behaviour problems (Brody & Forehand, 1986; Forehand et al., 1986). In this study, the impact of personality factors of the informant on reports of child behavior problems was examined while controlling for situational differences.

A number of researchers (Christensen et al., 1983; Forehand et al, 1982; Rickard et al, 1981) have cautioned clinicians against overreliance on mothers' perceptions of their children's deviant behaviours and have suggested that mothers may inaccurately label their children as deviant due to their own personal adjustment problems, including depression, anxiety, and marital dissatisfaction. Moreover, observational research has suggested that the mothers of clinic-referred children who are distressed either due to depression or marital dissatisfaction may exhibit more commands and may be more negative or hostile in their interactions with their children than non-distressed mothers (Forehand et al., 1986; Patterson, 1980).

Research has also suggested that the clinic-referred children of distressed mothers are much less deviant than the clinic referred children of non-distressed mothers (Rickard et al., 1981).

The question is how to interpret higher levels of problematic child behaviour reported by mothers who themselves display psychopathological symptoms. Do the reports of these mothers reflect actual existing behaviour problems in children, or does maternal psychopathology influence the perception of their child’s behaviour problems? Richter (1992) described these two different interpretations as the accuracy model and the distortion model. The accuracy model is supported by numerous high-risk studies demonstrating the link between maternal psychopathology and emotional or behavioural disturbances in children ( e.g. Beidel & Turner, 1997; Downey & Coyne, 1990; Goodman & Brumley, 1990). The distortion model claim that maternal psychopathology leads to a general over-reporting of symptoms in their children. Both the accuracy and distortion hypothesis predict the reporting of more problematic behaviour in children by parents with psychiatric symptoms (Richter, 1992). Most recent studies report mixed results, which suggest that both models may apply: maternal psychopathology may be associated with increased behaviour problems among children, and mothers with psychopathological symptoms may over-report the incidence and/or severity of such problems (e.g., Chilcoat & Breslau, 1997; Najman et al., 2000).

While there is an extensive literature on how parenting affects children’s behaviour (e.g. Maccoby, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), most of these studies focused on specific personality characteristics of the parent (Bosquet & Egeland, 2000), on parental psychopathology (Goodman & Gotlib, 1999; Nigg & Hinshaw, 1998) and addressed the parenting of mothers (Kochanska et al., 1997) ignoring the possible impact of fathers’ personality characteristics. On the other hand, very little research has been conducted with the fathers of behaviour problem children. Are fathers' perceptions and behaviours with their children also affected by personal adjustment problems? But how accurate are fathers' perceptions of their children's problem behaviours?

When summarizes research concerning the relation between paternal factors and child and adolescent psychopathology, compared with mothers, fathers continue to be dramatically underrepresented in developmental research on psychopathology.,The author reviewed empirical and theoretical clinical child and adolescent literature to ascertain the reasons for this underrepresentation. Four somewhat interrelated factors are discussed: practical issues in participant recruitment, differential base rates of paternal vs maternal psychopathology, theory-driven research based on sexist theories, and research assumptions based on outdated societal norms. However, findings from studies of children of clinically referred fathers and nonreferred samples of children and their fathers indicate that there is substantial association between paternal characteristics and child and adolescent psychopathology. Findings from studies of fathers of clinically referred children are stronger for fathers' effects on children's externalizing than internalizing problems. In most cases the degree of risk associated with paternal psychopathology is comparable to that associated with maternal psychopathology. Evidence indicates that the presence of paternal psychopathology is a sufficient but not necessary condition for child or adolescent psychopathology ( Phares et al.,1992).

1.1.The Concept of Personality

“Personality is that pattern of characteristic thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that distinguishes one person from another and that persists over time and situation'” (Phares, 1991). It is the sum of biologically based and learnt behaviour which forms the person's unique responses to environmental stimuli. The concept of personality must be hypothetically understood (Ryckman, 1982). The personality structure is fairly stable and predictable throughout different situations and time. There are personality traits of different depth and significance. The innermost layer is the basis, while the outermost layer is situation-bound and influenced by, for example, tiredness. Dependent on the situation, personality traits may be more or less visible and personality may also develop over time (Phares, 1991). The changes which reflect events and feelings during the lifespan only affect the surface and not the core character. Profound changes in personality are usually consequences of major life changes or deliberate effort (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

1.2. Personality Theories

Throughout the centuries, personality has been described and measured by a range of theories and models. Some theories (such as those of Freud, 1996 and Jung, 1986) seek to explain the dynamics of personality as a whole. One of the basic concepts of Freud's theories is the notion of different levels of consciousness. We are aware of the phenomena on the conscious level, able to reach the phenomena on the preconscious level but unaware of the issues on the unconscious level. Our personality and reactions are influenced by all these three levels. Jung extended the unconscious concept to include the collective unconscious and the study of archetypes. We inherit in our brains the collective unconscious, which is a latent memory base of our ancestors. Archetypes are themes which have been part of human life throughout all time and cultures. The persona, anima and animus and the self are some of the archetypes described by Jung. The persona represents the mask and the different roles we play in our lives. Each man has a feminine side, anima, while each woman has a male side, animus. The self is depicted as our true potential and aim of self-actualization. All these aspects influence our behaviour and form the basis of our character (Humphreys & Revelle, 1984). Besides the psychodynamic theories of personality there are the descriptive ones. The dispositional personality perspective depicts personality as made up by physiologically based traits, which guide behaviour. Traits can be described as tendencies to behave and react in a specific way (Phares, 1991). Personality states, on the other hand, are the results of the combination of traits and situation. Persons with high emotional instability are, for instance, more likely than calm and stable persons to feel anxiety in a threatening evaluation situation. Traits can thus be described as dispositions to states (Humphreys & Revelle, 1984). Eysenck’s chief contribution to psychology was his model of personality, which is based on a quantitative and dimensional representation of human behaviour. His model includes three orthogonal dimensions: Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. These dimensions are independent of intelligence and have consistently emerged as second order or superfactors from large-scale factor analytic studies (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). The construct of Psychoticism was described in detail and has subsequently been revised to describe and support the idea that high scorers have a greater probability and risk of psychotic illness (Eysenck, 1995; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). They are best described as solitary, not caring for people, troublesome, having difficulty fitting in, cruel and inhumane, lacking feelings and empathy, and altogether insensitive (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). Psychoticism also has implications for social relationships. Whereas found that those high on P responded inappropriately to interpersonal cues, and tended to engage in disruptive and anti-social behaviours, others have reported that high P youth socialize with those who might best be described as reckless or rebellious (e.g. ‘‘is daring at school and on the streets’’) rather than conforming or studious (Mak et al., 2003). These and other results accord with the view that the high P individual can best be described as aggressive, cold, antisocial, impersonal, and impulsive, to name just a few (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).

Similar to Jung’s construct with the same name, Extraversion is a quantitative trait that more or less defines sociability. High scorers like parties, have many friends, and need to have people to talk to. This dimension has been used to differentiate hysterical (extraverted neurotic) from dysthymic (introverted neurotic) neurotic disorders. Neuroticism was originally conceptualized as a quantitative personality trait defining an individual’s vulnerability to various neurotic disorders and psychological distress. Individuals with high Neuroticism are characterized with ‘‘emotional instability’’ and are prone to low self-esteem, feelings of anxiety, depression, and guilt (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991).

Empirical evidence corroborates relations between parental personality and parenting behaviours. For example, supportive and nurturing parenting is positively associated with Extraversion and Openness (Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, 2003), Agreeableness (Belsky et al., 1995) and Conscientiousness (Clark et al., 2000; Losoya et al., 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).

Psychological attributes of parents also influence the way parents manage their children. Parents prone to negative emotional states, be it depression, irritability and/or anger, tend to behave in less sensitive, less responsive and/or harsher ways than other parents; and this appears true whether they are parenting infants/toddlers, older children or adolescents. When parents are extroverted, that is, experience frequent positive emotions and enjoy social engagement, their parenting tends to be emotionally sensitive, responsive and stimulating during the early-childhood and later-childhood years. How agreeable parents are also seems to make a difference, as those who are more cynical, vengeful and manipulative and less trusting, helpful and forgiving are more negatively controlling than other parents, particularly in disciplinary situations ( Clark et al., 2000).

This study integrated the relationship between personality traits of both mothers and fathers of personality traits and parents’ reports of adolescent’s problems. This study has two objectives; (1) the relationship between personality traits of mothers and their reports of adolescent’s problems, (2) the relationship between personality traits of fathers and their reports of adolescent’s problems.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

The participants consisted of 389 people (229 female and 160 male) randomly selected adolescences and parents whose ages range from 12-15. Of the adolescences in the study 21.85% (n=85) were at the age of 12, 26.22 % (n=102) at the age of 13, 23.36% (n=87) at the age of 14 and 29.56% (n=160) at the of 15; of the mothers, 46.01% (n=179) was graduated from primary school, 20.56% (n=80) from secondary school, 21.85% (n=85) from high school and 11.56% of them (n=45) from university; of the fathers in the study 33.67 % (n=131) graduated from primary school, 23.65% (n=92) from secondary school, 26.22% (n=102) from high school and 16.45% (n=64) from university.

2.2. Instruments

Child Behaviour Checklist /4-16 (Achenbach, T. M., 1991): Purpose of the instrument, to obtain caregivers’ reports of children’s competencies and behaviour problems in a standardized format. The Child Behaviour Checklist/4-16 (CBCL/4-16) was the first of what has become a multiaxial empirically based set of measures for assessing children from parent, teacher-, and self-reports. The CBCL/4-16 was re-normed to include children up to 18 years of age and eight cross-informant constructs were identified to facilitate direct comparison between problem behaviour scores on the CBCL, the Teacher Report Form (TRF), and the Youth Self-Report Form (YSR). All three instruments include measurement of the following eight constructs or syndromes: Social Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety/Depression, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent Behaviour, and Aggressive Behaviour. In addition to focusing on a child behaviour as defined by one of the eight syndrome scales, the CBCL, TRF, and YSR also allow the examination of two broad groupings of syndromes: Internalizing Problems and Externalizing Problems. Internalizing Problems combines the Social Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, and Anxiety/Depression scales, while Externalizing combines the Delinquent Behaviour and Aggressive Behaviour scales (Achenbach, 1992; Achenbach et al., 1987). For Turkish test-retest reliability of scale, determined as .78 in Total reliability and .84 in Total Problem these correlations was regarded as excessive. Concerning Inner consistency of the test and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; Total efficiency was determined as .70, introversion .82, extraversion .81, Total Problem .88 (Erol et al., 1997).

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): the scale was developed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1975). The scale can be applied to participants at the of 16 or older. Inventory consists of 100 questions measuring extents of Neuroticism, Psychoticism, lie, and extraversion sizes. Eysenck and Eysenck suggested that all of the personal traits could be reduced to three dimensions; P (psychosis), N (neurotics) and E (extraversion). Scale’s test-retest reliability coefficients were said to range from .78 to .84 (Öner, 1997).

2.3. Data Analysis

In order to identify the range of adolescences’ ages and genres, parents’ educational condition, the data were analyzed descriptively. Also, in order to investigate the relationship between parents’ personality traits and their perception of adolescences’ problems were analyzed inferentially by means of correlation analysis.

3. FINDINGS

The findings of the study are presented in the order of the research questions. Initial finding of the study was about analysis of relationship between mothers’ personality traits and their perception of adolescences’ behaviour problems.

As seen in Table 1, while there has been a significant correlation between mothers’ personality traits of psychotic and neurotic levels and their perception of Social Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety/Depression, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Delinquent Behaviour, Aggressive Behaviour Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, Total Problems (at p