Fathers’ personality and its interaction with children’s personality as predictors of perceived parenting behavior six years later

Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 183–189

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Fathers’ personality and its interaction with children’s personality as predictorsof perceived parenting behavior six years later

Peter Prinzie a,⇑, Maja Dekovic a, Alithe L. van den Akker a, Amaranta D. de Haan a, Sabine E.M.J. Stoltz a,A.A. Jolijn Hendriks b

a Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, The Netherlandsb Groningen Institute for Educational Research (GION), University of Groningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 July 2011Received in revised form 8 October 2011Accepted 13 October 2011Available online 8 November 2011

Keywords:Big FiveParentingParent–child interactionPersonalityFathers

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.012

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of CUtrecht University, P.O. Box 80 140, 3508 TC Utrech302534566; fax: +31 302537731.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Prinzie), [email protected] (A.L. van den Akker), [email protected] (S.E.M.J. Stoltz), A.A.J.Hendriks@ru

a b s t r a c t

We investigated fathers’ personality and its interaction with children’s personality as predictors of ado-lescent perceived parenting behavior. Data were used from the Flemish Study on Parenting, Personalityand Development including 353 children. At Time 1 fathers rated their personality whereas teachersrated the child’s personality. Six years later, adolescents rated their fathers’ parenting. Higher levels ofpaternal Emotional Stability were associated with less perceived overreactive and more positive parent-ing behaviors only when children were high on Extraversion, Benevolence, Conscientiousness, EmotionalStability and Imagination. This study is of theoretical interest because the results demonstrate that dif-ferent forms of parenting are associated with goodness-of-fit relations between parent and child person-ality and that these relations are different for negative and positive parenting.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

There is growing empirical evidence that personality matters.Personality traits predict mortality, divorce, and occupationalattainment (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Itis surprising, however, that with regard to parenting, relativelyfew studies have considered the personalities of parents as an in-ner resource that affects parenting.

A recent meta-analysis revealed that more responsive parentingand behavioral control were related to higher levels of Extraver-sion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability andOpenness, whereas more autonomy support was related to higherlevels of Agreeableness and Emotional Stability (Prinzie, Stams,Dekovic, Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009). Emotional Stability was themost important personality trait. People low on Emotional Stabilitytend to be easily distressed, anxious, tense, and nervous. Thisproneness toward negative emotionality may limit parents’ abilityand willingness to respond adequately to their child’s signals. Thesecond most important personality factor that matters for parent-

ll rights reserved.

hild and Adolescent Studies,t, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31

[email protected] (M. Dekovic),[email protected] (A.D. de Haan),g.nl (A.A. Jolijn Hendriks).

ing was Agreeableness. Agreeableness reflects one’s interpersonalorientation along a continuum from empathy to antagonism inthoughts, feelings and actions. Parents who score higher on Agree-ableness tend to be more sensitive and warm and may create awarm environment that supports the child (Hughes & Gullone,2010).

In their overview, Prinzie and colleagues stated that most find-ings were derived from cross-sectional studies. They underlinedthat prospective longitudinal studies covering longer periods areneeded to deepen the understanding of the role that parental per-sonality plays in parenting behavior. Further, the important devel-opmental period of early adolescence is relatively understudiedcompared to (early) childhood. Finally, they suggested that effectsizes may have been relatively small, because the relation betweenparental personality and parenting is moderated by child personal-ity characteristics. Theory proposes that individual differences areamplified under stress (Caspi & Moffitt, 1993). Children with per-sonality characteristics related to difficult temperament (i.e., lowlevels of Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability)can be a source of parenting stress (Koenig, Barry, & Kochanska,2010). Given that parental Emotional Stability influences copingstyles, differences in this trait may be more strongly related to par-enting for children with ‘difficult’ personality characteristics.

This research expands on previous work that has primarilyexamined relations between parental personality and parentingduring childhood or between child personality and parenting. From

184 P. Prinzie et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 183–189

an ecological perspective, Belsky (1984) explicitly articulated in hismodel on parenting the need to investigate both the parent and thechild in their relationship that represents the joint contribution ofboth. This is in accordance with the goodness-of-fit models (Tho-mas & Chess, 1977) that highlight the important interplay betweenparental personality and child personality. Empirical evidenceindicates that during childhood, child personality characteristicscan evoke differential reactions from parents, thereby influencingfuture interactions (Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000; Kochanska,Friesenborg, Lange, & Martel, 2004). Paternal Neuroticism, whichis linked to a low capacity to cope with stressors (Watson, Clark,& Harkness, 1994), may lead to less adequate parenting. For in-stance, based on cross-sectional data, Coplan, Reichel, and Rowan(2009) reported that maternal Neuroticism was more stronglyassociated with overprotective parenting at higher levels of childshyness. However, the majority of these studies focused on youngchildren. This is surprising because early adolescence is an impor-tant developmental period for both children and parents (Van denAkker, Dekovic, & Prinzie, 2010). Children transfer to secondaryschool and face the developmental task of increasing autonomy.Parents must learn to relax some control and remain supportive.How children and parents handle these changes might be impor-tant for subsequent adolescent adjustment. To our best knowledge,only one cross-sectional investigation has examined the joint con-tribution of maternal and child temperament on parenting in anadolescent sample (Latzman, Elkovitch, & Clark, 2009). Results re-vealed that adolescent temperament moderated the concurrentrelations between maternal temperament and positive parenting,poor monitoring and corporal punishment.

The reviewed literature shows that past research on (predictorsof) parenting has primarily focused on mothers and minimal atten-tion has been paid to fathers (Phares, Fields, Kamboukos, & Lopez,2005). Research on fathering has found a number of importantsimilarities and differences between fathering and mothering(e.g., Neiderhiser, Reiss, Lichtenstein, Spotts, & Ganiban, 2007).Moreover, the impact of fathers’ behavior on adolescent adjust-ment is different from that of mothers’ behavior (Collins & Russell,1991). However, as far as we know, no research has examined thepredictive power of paternal and child Big Five personality factorsfor perceived paternal parenting.

Therefore, the current study sought to extend our knowledge onthe determinants of parenting. Our first aim was to examine pro-spective 6-year longitudinal relations between paternal personal-ity and perceived parenting in a community-based sample offathers and early-adolescents.

Our second aim was to investigate the moderating effect ofchild personality on the relation between paternal personalityand perceived parenting. Paternal and child personality were as-sessed 6 years prior to the assessment of perceived parenting.The choice of parenting measures was theoretically driven. We fo-cused on two negative (overreactive parenting and overprotection)and two positive (warmth and autonomy encouragement) parent-ing dimensions that have been shown to be related to (mal)adap-tive adolescent development.

Consistent with Belsky’s process model (1984) on determinantsof parenting and based on the results of a recent meta-analysis(Prinzie et al., 2009), we expected that (1) paternal EmotionalStability would be related to less negative parenting (2) paternalAgreeableness would be associated with more positive parenting(3) consistent with a goodness-of-fit model of parenting, we ex-pected more associations between parental personality and par-enting for fathers challenged by child personality characteristicsthat are related to difficult temperament (i.e., children’s EmotionalStability, Extraversion and Conscientiousness), (De Pauw,Mervielde, & Van Leeuwen, 2009). Based on theory that suggeststhat personality differences matter more under stress and in line

with research investigating mothers of younger children, weexpect that most interactions will involve fathers’ EmotionalStability (Koenig et al., 2010; Latzman et al., 2009).

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedure

This study is part of the longitudinal Flemish Study on Parent-ing, Personality, and Development (FSPPD), (for a description ofthe recruitment of participants, see e.g., Prinzie et al., 2003). AtTime 1 (2001), fathers rated their personality and teachers ratedthe child’s personality. Participants were 464 Caucasian fathers(mean age = 39 years) of families with an elementary school-agedchild. There were 233 boys and 231 girls (mean age = 7 years10 months). Of these 464 families, 449 families were a two-parenthousehold. All fathers had the Belgian nationality. For each child, adifferent teacher rated children’s personalities. We opted for tea-cher ratings because teachers are familiar with a broader rangeof children and they have greater expertise regarding normativechild development than parents (e.g., Prinzie & Dekovic, 2008).

At Time 2 (2007), 353 adolescents (170 boys and 183 girls)rated their fathers’ parenting. Using adolescents’ ratings of parent-ing is consistent with the view that the impact of parenting on ado-lescent adjustment is mediated by how adolescents perceive theirparents’ behaviors (Neiderhiser, Pike, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1998)and eliminates the risk of shared method variance. This study isbased on families with complete data (N = 353).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Parent personalityFathers rated the Five Factor Personality Inventory (Hendriks,

Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999). The following domain scales containing20 items were distinguished, (alphas between parentheses): (1)Extraversion–Introversion (.91) describes the extent to which theperson actively engages the world or avoids intense social experi-ences, (2) Agreeableness (.89) covers the broad area of prosocialversus antisocial interactions, (3) Conscientiousness (.89) com-bines a concentrated, planful, reliable, and competent highachievement orientation in work situations. (4) Emotional Stability(.88) describes the extent to which the person experiences theworld as distressing or threatening. (5) Autonomy (.87) describesthe capability to take independent decisions.

2.2.2. Child personalityTeachers rated the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Chil-

dren (HiPIC, Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999; Shiner & Caspi, 2003).This instrument includes 144 items containing the following fac-tors (number of items and Cronbach’s alphas between parenthe-ses): (1) Extraversion–Introversion (32 items; .94) is composed offour facets, i.e. Shyness, Expressiveness, Optimism, and Energy.(2) Benevolence (40 items; .95) includes Altruism, Dominance,Egocentrism, Compliance and Irritability. (3) Conscientiousness(32 items; .96) includes the facets Achievement Striving, Order,Perseverance and Concentration. (4) Emotional Stability (16 items;.90) including the facets Anxiety and Self-confidence. (5) Imagina-tion (24 items; .95) contains the facets Creativity, Curiosity andIntellect.

2.2.3. ParentingFirst, adolescents rated fathers’ overreactive parenting (9 items)

using the Parenting Scale (Prinzie, Onghena, & Hellinckx, 2007).Overreactivity measures fathers’ tendency to respond with anger,frustration to problematic behavior (e.g., When I misbehave. . .

P. Prinzie et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 183–189 185

my father speaks to me calmly versus he raises her voice or yells’’)(a = .81).

Second, perceived overprotective parenting (12 items) was mea-sured by the EMBU-C (Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran; Per-ris, Jacobsson, Lindström, von Knorring, & Perris, 1980), aquestionnaire that assesses perceptions of parental child rearing(e.g., ‘‘Do you think that your father is too worried about thingshappening to you?’’) (a = .74).

Third, adolescents rated fathers’ warm parenting (11 items)using the Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Robinson, Mandleco,Olsen, & Hart, 1995). This scale assesses the extent to which fathersexhibit warm parenting and are involved in their adolescents’ lives(e.g., ‘‘my father is responsive to my feelings or needs’’) (a = .87).

Fourth, adolescents rated fathers’ autonomy encouragement (7items) using the Mother–Father–Peer Inventory (MFP, Epstein,1983). This scale assesses the extent to which fathers exhibitresponsive parenting (e.g., ‘‘. . .encourages me to make my owndecisions’’) (a = .79).

3. Overview of analysis

Before conducting the regression analyses, the variables werescreened for normality. No variables exceeded the cutoff valuesof two for skewness and seven for kurtosis (West, Finch, & Curran,1995). Next, as outlined in Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Braet, andBosmans (2004), separate hierarchical multiple regressions werecarried out in order to detect significant interactions betweenfather and child personality. Child sex and age were entered in Step1. In Step 2, one of the five father personality factors and one of thechild personality factors were entered. In Step 3, the cross-productof the centered father and child personality variable was entered.Evidence for a moderator effect is found when there is a significantincrease in the multiple R2 after entering the interaction term, asindicated by a significant incremental F test. Because of the multi-ple models tested, we applied the Benjamini and Hochberg FalseDiscovery Rate for dependent models (Benjamini & Yekutieli,2001) to correct for capitalization on chance. This method allowsfor good power with multiple tests and is more powerful than tra-ditional family-wise error rates, such as Bonferroni correction. Forprobing interactions, we followed the Johnson–Neyman technique,which identifies regions in the range of the moderator variablewhere the effect of the focal variable on the outcome is statisticallysignificant and not significant (Hayes & Matthes, 2009).

4. Results

Descriptives and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 1.

4.1. Children’s and fathers’ personalities as contributors to paternalparenting

Main effects and statistically significant interaction effects arepresented in Table 21.

4.1.1. Negative parenting: Overreactive parentingFor overreactive paternal parenting, a significant age effect was

found (R2 = .025; Fchange = 9.03) such that older adolescents re-ported higher levels of overreactive parenting. Further, the first-or-der effect of child Imagination was significant (R2 = 0.058;Fchange = 7.64), such that higher levels of Imagination predicted lessoverreactive parenting. In addition, a significant interaction wasfound for paternal Emotional Stability and child Conscientiousness(R2 = 0.052; Fchange = 4.00) and Emotional Stability (R2 = 0.062;

1 Complete results of the analyses are available from the first author upon request.

Fchange = 6.79). The Johnson-Neyman technique indicated that forchildren with scores below 3.80 on Conscientiousness, fathers’Emotional Stability was not related to overreactivity. However, asignificant negative relation was found between fathers’ EmotionalStability and overreactivity for children scoring high on Conscien-tiousness (scores > 3.80). Similarly, higher levels of fathers’ Emo-tional Stability were related to less overreactive parenting onlyfor children with higher levels of Emotional Stability(scores > 3.58).

4.1.2. Negative parenting: OverprotectionLow levels of Emotional Stability predicted more overprotective

parenting (R2 = 0.022; Fchange = 6.41). In addition, a significantinteraction was found for paternal Autonomy and child Imagina-tion (R2 = 0.020; Fchange = 4.44). Paternal Autonomy was positivelyrelated to overprotective parenting for children with low scoreson Imagination (scores < 2.37) whereas for children with higherscores on Imagination, no statistically significant relation wasfound.

4.1.3. Positive parenting: WarmthOlder adolescents reported lower levels of paternal warmth

(R2 = 0.079; Fchange = 30.16). Further, the first-order effect of pater-nal Agreeableness was significant (R2 = 0.091; Fchange = 4.25), suchthat high levels of Agreeableness predicted more warmth. In addi-tion, the interaction between paternal Emotional Stability andchild Extraversion was statistically significant (R2 = 0.092;Fchange = 4.37). For children with high scores on Extraversion(scores > 4.06) a positive relation was found between fathers’ Emo-tional Stability and warmth. For children with low scores on Extra-version no statistically significant relation was found.

4.1.4. Positive parenting: Autonomy encouragementOlder adolescents reported lower levels of paternal autonomy

encouragement (R2 = 0.022; Fchange = 7.73). In addition, the interac-tions between paternal Emotional Stability and child Extraversion(R2 = 0.038; Fchange = 4.12), Benevolence (R2 = 0.041; Fchange = 6.27)and Imagination (R2 = 0.040; Fchange = 5.82) were significant.Fathers’ Emotional Stability was related to lower levels of auton-omy encouragement for children with lower levels of Extraversion(scores < 2.49), Benevolence (scores < 2.94) and Imagination(scores < 2.86) whereas fathers’ Emotional Stability was relatedto higher levels of autonomy encouragement for children withhigher levels of Benevolence (scores > 4.73), and Imagination(scores > 4.80).

5. Discussion

Our findings inform research on the complex interplay betweendeterminants of parenting. Specifically, this study is one of the firstto investigate the degree to which paternal personality, alone andin interaction with child personality, is prospectively related to dif-ferent dimensions of parenting as perceived by adolescents.

5.1. Direct effects of fathers’ and children’s personality characteristics

Only two direct effects of father personality were found. Adoles-cents perceived more overprotective parenting from fathers whoscored lower on Emotional Stability. This result is in accordancewith the finding of Coplan, Reichel, and Rowan (2009) who re-ported also that Emotional Stability was negatively related to over-protective parenting in a sample of mothers of elementary schoolchildren. Parents who are more anxious may perceive more threatsin their child’s environment and hence use more overprotectiveparenting (Lindhout et al., 2006). In addition agreeable fathers

Table 1Pearson Correlations, Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the Predictor and Criterion Variables (N = 353).

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M SD

1. Sexa –2. Ageb .03 – 94.22 13.20

Fathers’ personality (T1)3. Extraversion �.06 �.02 – .78 1.074. Agreeableness .05 �.00 �.06 1.62 1.075. Conscientiousness �.02 �.03 �.04 .11* – 1.07 1.006. Emotional Stability �.01 �.03 .11* .19*** .10 – 1.13 0.877. Autonomy .01 �.11* �.17** .01 .20*** �.13* – .74 1.12

Child’s personality (T1)8. Extraversion �.07 �.09 .02 �.13* �.02 .06 .12* – 3.24 0.619. Benevolence .09 �.05 �.04 .14* .08 .09 �.18*** �.03 – 3.65 0.5810. Conscientiousness .18*** �.07 �.06 .08 .24*** .00 .12* .18*** .47*** – 3.67 0.6911. Emotional Stability .02 �.08 �.00 �.07 .05 .07 .10 .46*** .18*** .24*** – 3.51 0.6812. Imagination .01 �.17** �.04 �.06 .12* .03 .21*** .60*** .16** .66*** .45*** – 3.55 0.72

Parenting (T2)13. Overreactivity �.08 .16** �.06 �.06 .05 .04 �.08 �.05 �.06 �.08 �.09 �.17** – 3.36 1.1014. Overprotection �.03 �.05 �.06 .04 �.08 �.13* .02 .04 .03 �.06 �.03 �.05 .15** – 1.96 0.4115. Warmth �.03 �.28*** .08 .10 �.01 .03 .01 .05 .01 .02 �.03 .05 �.41*** .28*** – 3.04 0.8216. Autonomy encouragement �.04 �.15** �.02 .09 �.00 �.02 .10 .02 �.02 .03 �.02 .03 �.34*** .59*** .45*** 2.92 0.54

a Sex is coded as 1 = boy, 2 = girl.b Age in months.* p < .05.

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

186P.Prinzie

etal./Personality

andIndividual

Differences

52(2012)

183–189

Table 2Paternal and Child Personality as Contributors to Paternal Parenting in Adolescence 6-years later (N = 353).

Overreactiveparenting Overprotection Warmth Autonomy encouragement

Variable DF B SE B b f2 DF B SE B b f2 DF B SE B b f2 DF B SE B b f2

Age 5.73** .01 .004 .16** 0.60 �.00 .002 �.05* 15.11** �.02 .003 �.28** 4.12** �.01 .002 �.15**

Gender �.18 .12 �.08 �.03 .04 �.03 �.03 .08 �.02 �.04 .06 �.04Extraversion Fath 1.51 �.07 .05 �.07 1.54 �.03 .02 �.07 2.22 .06 .04 .08 .29 �.01 .03 �.03Agreeableness Fath 1.12 �.06 .05 �.06 0.62 .02 .02 .04 4.24 .08 .04 .11⁄ 3.06 .05 .03 .09Conscientiousness Fath 0.64 .05 .06 .04 2.65 �.04 .02 �.09 0.28 �.02 .04 �.03 .10 �.01 .03 �.02Emo Stab Fath 2.21 �.10 .07 �.08 6.41⁄ �.06 .03 �.13⁄ 0.16 .02 .05 .02 .18 �.01 .03 �.02Autonomy Fath 0.35 �.03 .05 �.03 0.06 .01 .02 .01 .17 �.02 .04 �.02 2.82 .04 .03 .09Extraversion Ch 0.78 �.08 .10 �.05 0.41 .02 .04 .03 .17 .03 .07 .02 .01 .01 .05 .01Benevolence Ch 1.96 �.14 .10 �.07 0.29 .02 .04 .03 .01 �.01 .07 �.01 .24 �.02 .05 �.03Conscientiousness Ch 1.29 �.10 .09 �.06 1.18 �.04 .03 �.06 .03 .01 .06 .01 .18 .02 .04 .02Emot Stab Ch 2.45 �.13 .09 �.08 .49 �.02 .03 �.04 1.31 �.07 .06 �.06 .40 �.03 .04 �.03Imagination Ch 8.23** �.23 .08 �.15** 1.31 �.04 .03 �.06 .04 .01 .06 .01 .01 .00 .04 .01Emo Stab Fath X

Extraversion Cha4.37* .17 .08 .11* 0.011 5.14* .13 .03 .12* 0.014

Emo Stab Fath XBenevolence Ch

6.27* .12 .05 .13* 0.019

Emo Stab Fath XConscientiousness Ch

4.00* �.21 .10 �.11* 0.012

Emo Stab Fath XEmo Stab Ch

6.79** �.24 .09 �.14** 0.016

Emo Stab Fath XImagination Ch

5.82* .11 .05 .13*

Autonomy Fath XImagination Ch

4.44* �.06 .03 �.12* 0.011 0.016***

Note. Emo Stab = Emotional Stability; Fath = father; Ch = child.a Only statistically significant interactions are reported.* p < .05.

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

P.Prinzieet

al./Personalityand

IndividualD

ifferences52

(2012)183–

189187

188 P. Prinzie et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 183–189

were rated by their adolescents as more warm, a finding that is inaccordance with the meta-analytic results of Prinzie et al. (2009).Kind, good-natured and easy going fathers have the capacity toprovide warmth. Moreover, fathers high on Agreeableness proba-bly tend to have more positive attributions regarding the child’sbehavior (Bugental & Shennum, 1984). The parental role requiresconcern for others and fathers with greater ability to empathizewith the child are probably better able to identify and respond tochildren’s needs. Recently De Haan, Prinzie, and Dekovic (2009) re-ported that Agreeableness predisposes individuals to a highersense of competence, which in turn is related to higher levels ofwarmth. That the association between Agreeableness and warmthis not moderated by child personality traits corresponds with thecross-sectional findings of Coplan, Reichel, and Rowan (2009).

One significant child personality effect was found. Less paternaloverreactive parenting was perceived by adolescents who scoredhigh on Imagination. Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, De Clercq, and DeFruyt (2007) reported also that children high on Imagination tendto receive lower levels of inadequate parenting. In contrast, childrenwho score low on Imagination (indicating lower levels of creativityand curiosity) may be less flexible and have more difficulty to obeytheir parents which may elicit more overreactive interactions.

5.2. Interactions between father and child personality

More importantly, results indicate that challenges resultingfrom children’s personality characteristics seem to amplify associ-ations between paternal personality and parenting. As in studiesincluding younger children (see e.g., Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken,& Dekovic, 2008) paternal Emotional Stability appears to be themost important personality dimension and interestingly, we foundthat all children’s personality dimensions interacted with this trait.Fathers with higher levels of Emotional Stability showed less over-reactive parenting only in interactions with more conscientiousand emotionally stable children. Further, paternal Emotional Sta-bility was related to higher levels of perceived autonomy encour-agement with children who were high on Extraversion,Benevolence and Imagination. Children high on these characteris-tics may evoke more supportive parenting and may be more easilyguided. Children with lower scores on Benevolence are more irrita-ble and dominant and less compliant. These children may be agreater source of stress for parents. Fathers with higher levels ofEmotional Stability showed more warmth only in interactions withmore extraverted children. Children high in Extraversion, tend tobe more expressive, energetic, and enjoy engaging in social interac-tions. These children may be more likely to express high positivityduring interactions and may evoke more warm and joyful interac-tions. Finally, in addition to the main effect of paternal EmotionalStability, the interaction between paternal Autonomy and childImagination was significantly related to perceived overprotectiveparenting. Specifically, fathers who scored high on Autonomy wereperceived as more overprotective by children low on Imagination.Children who are less creative and initiate fewer activities mayevoke that fathers high on Autonomy intervene too early and toooften. Taken together, the interactions found in this study provideempirical evidence for a goodness-of-fit model of parenting inwhich a match between parent and child characteristics is impor-tant. Our findings also suggest that adolescent perceived parentingcan best be explained from a transactional perspective in whichparent and child personalities are mutually influential (Belsky,1984).

5.3. Limitations and future research

Although this study extends previous research in several ways,some limitations are also worth noting. First, our assessment of the

father–child relation is based on adolescents’ reports and not on di-rect observations. However, adolescent perceptions do offer obvi-ous advantages over other choices. The impact of fathering foradolescents is likely to be mediated by how adolescents perceivetheir fathers. Second, it is important to notice that mother andfather parenting are interdependent and may influence each other.Therefore, further research should investigate to what extent theeffect of paternal personality is mediated or moderated by mater-nal personality. Third, due to the large sample size only question-naires were used. A multimethod measurement strategy (e.g.,inclusion of observational measures) may more accurately assessparenting and hence further strengthen the results. Fourth, be-cause we conducted multiple analyses, the possibility of chancefindings may have been enhanced. However, the interaction effectsshould also be considered as important. As is described in the liter-ature interaction effects are difficult to detect and the reduction inmodel error due to adding a product term appears to be low, evenwhen reliable interaction effects are found (Whisman & McClel-land, 2005). In addition, capitalization on chance was reduced byapplying the Benjamini and Hochberg False Discovery Rate.

Taken together, this study enhances our understanding of whyparents parent the way they do. Where most investigations havefocused on direct effects of personality on parenting, this study fo-cused on how child characteristics moderate the relation betweenparental personality and parenting. Our results provide evidencethat intervention programs designed to improve parenting shouldtake into account a goodness of fit between parent and childpersonality.

References

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. ChildDevelopment, 55, 83–96.

Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate inmultiple hypothesis testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29,1165–1188.

Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. (1984). ‘‘Difficult’’ children as elicitors and targetsof adult communication patterns: An attributional–behavioral transactionalanalysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49 (1,Serial No. 79).

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? Aparadoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247–271.

Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mothers’ personality and itsinteraction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 274–285.

Collins, A. W., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother–child and father–child relationships inmiddle childhood and adolescence. A developmental analysis. DevelopmentalReview, 11, 99–136.

Coplan, R. J., Reichel, M., & Rowan, K. (2009). Exploring the associations betweenmaternal personality, child temperament, and parenting: A focus on emotions.Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 241–246.

De Haan, A. D., Prinzie, P., & Dekovic, M. (2009). Mothers’ and fathers’ personalityand parenting: The mediating role of sense of competence. DevelopmentalPsychology, 45, 1695–1707.

De Pauw, S. S. W., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. G. (2009). How are traits relatedto problem behavior in preschoolers? Similarities and contrasts betweentemperament and personality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37,309–325.

Epstein, S. (1983). The Mother–Father–Peer scale. Unpublished manuscript.Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactionsin OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior ResearchMethods, 41, 924–936.

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

Hughes, E. K., & Gullone, E. (2010). The contribution of personality and emotionregulation to parent emotion socialisation practices. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 49, 694–699.

Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Dekovic, M. (2008). The relationbetween parental personality and observed parenting: The moderating role ofpreschoolers’ effortful control. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,723–734.

Kochanska, G., Friesenborg, A. E., Lange, L. A., & Martel, M. M. (2004). The parents’personality and the infants’ temperament as contributors to their emergingrelationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 744–759.

P. Prinzie et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 183–189 189

Koenig, J. L., Barry, R. A., & Kochanska, G. (2010). Rearing difficult children: Parents’personality and children’s proneness to anger as predictors of future parenting.Parenting, 10, 258–273.

Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., & Clark, L. A. (2009). Predicting parenting practicesfrom maternal and adolescent sons’ personality. Journal of Research inPersonality, 43, 847–855.

Lindhout, I., Markus, M., Hoogendijk, T., Borst, S., Maingay, R., Spinhoven, P., et al.(2006). Childrearing style of anxiety disordered parents. Child Psychiatry andHuman Development, 37, 89–102.

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical PersonalityInventory for Children. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf(Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7 (pp. 107–127). Tilburg: UniversityPress.

Neiderhiser, J. M., Pike, A., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1998). Adolescentperceptions as mediators of parenting: Genetic and environmentalcontributions. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1459–1469.

Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Lichtenstein, P., Spotts, E. L., & Ganiban, J. (2007).Father–adolescent relationships and the role of genotype–environmentcorrelation. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 560–571.

Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindström, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980).Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearingbehaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265–274.

Phares, V., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D., & Lopez, E. (2005). Still looking for poppa.American Psychologist, 60, 735–746.

Prinzie, P., & Dekovic, M. (2008). Continuity and change of childhood personalitycharacteristics through the lens of teachers. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 45, 82–88.

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Re-examining the parenting scale:Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing thediscipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 24–31.

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquière, P., & Colpin, H.(2003). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and children’s

personality on externalizing behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 17,95–117.

Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). Therelation between parent personality and parenting: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351–362.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power ofpersonality: A comparative analysis of the predictive validity of personalitytraits, SES, and IQ. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative,authoritarian and permissive parenting practices: Development of a newmeasure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819–830.

Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality Differences in Childhood and Adolescence.Measurement Development, and Consequences. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 44, 2–32.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. NewYork: Brunner/Mazel.

Van den Akker, A. L., Dekovic, M., & Prinzie, P. (2010). Transitioning to adolescence.How changes in child personality and overreactive parenting predict adolescentadjustment problems. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 151–163.

Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child personalityand parental behavior as moderators of problems behavior: Variable- andperson-centered approaches. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1028–1046.

Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B. J., & De Fruyt, F. (2007). Extending theSpectrum Idea: Child Personality, Parenting and Psychopathology. EuropeanJournal of Personality, 21, 63–89.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and theirrelevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18–31.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models withnonnormal variables. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 56–75).CA: Sage: Thousands Oaks.

Whisman, M. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2005). Designing, testing, and interpretinginteractions and moderator effects in family research. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 19, 111–120.