Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Graduate School of Child Development and Education
The Effects of Child Personality Traits on Parenting and Child
Delinquency: A Meta-Analytic Approach
Master Thesis Research Master Child Development and Education Ana F. Silva Pinho, 11119241
Supervisors: Dr. Machteld Hoeve and Dr. Suzanne Jak Date: November 2017
Abstract
Several studies have shown that child personality characteristics influence both parenting and child delinquent behavior, and that parenting is associated with child delinquency. However, these associations have never been simultaneously integrated in a meta-analysis. The present study examined how child personality traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and openness) are related to parenting dimensions (i.e., support,
authoritative control, authoritarian control, behavioral control and psychological control) and child delinquency, using a meta-analytic structural equation model (MASEM). Based on ecological models of parenting and child development, we hypothesized that the impact of child personality traits on juvenile delinquency was partly mediated by parenting dimensions. The sample consisted of 48 primary studies, including a total number of 32,629 children and adolescents. MASEM results confirmed that child personality is directly, and indirectly via parenting, associated with delinquent behavior. Children’s extraversion had a positive direct effect on delinquency, while agreeableness and conscientiousness had a negative direct effect on delinquency. Neuroticism and openness in children were only indirectly related to
delinquency via parenting dimensions. Support and behavioral control from parents were associated with lower levels of delinquency, whereas authoritative control and psychological control were associated with more delinquent acts. These results have important implications for interventions focussing on delinquency.
The Effects of Child Personality Traits on Parenting and Child Delinquency: A Meta-Analytic Approach
Over the past decades, researchers have adopted many perspectives based on behavioral genetics, transactional, and ecological models, to increase our understanding of the interaction between individual characteristics and the environment (for a review, see Hill, 2002), but also of the unique predictive power of within-person (e.g., personality) and
contextual factors (e.g., parenting) on child development and functioning (Belsky 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Patterson & Dishion, 1988). For instance, in a complex approach, Belsky (1984, 1997) proposed a model of parenting, in which it was hypothesized that parenting would influence child behavioral outcomes, and child personality traits would influence parenting and child behavior. Empirical studies have confirmed Belsky’s proposal and suggested that children’s personality is a significant predictor of parenting (Prinzie, Onghena, Hellinckx, Grietens, Chesquière, & Colpin, 2004) and problem behavior and delinquency (Heaven & Virgen, 2001; Krueger, Schmutte, Caspi, Moffit, Campbell, & Silva, 1994). Research has also demonstrated that parenting is linked to delinquency, with some parental behaviors and practices being more strongly related to child delinquent behavior than others (Hoeve, Dubas, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, Smeenk, & Gerris, 2009).
Therefore, in studying juvenile delinquency theoretical and contemporary research has suggested to focus on (a) the independent effects of either parenting or child personality, and (b) the potential mediating role of parenting in the association between child personality traits and delinquency. However, to our knowledge these associations have never been simultaneously integrated in a meta-analytic approach. In order to fill this gap in the literature, the goal of the current study was to investigate the direct effects of child personality characteristics on delinquency, and indirect effects via different parenting dimensions, using a meta-analytic structural equation model.
Associations Between Parenting and Child Delinquency
Parenting literature in relation with child outcomes, such as child delinquency was strongly influenced by early parenting researchers that used distinct methods to identify the main dimensions and styles or typologies underlying observer ratings of parenting
characteristics (Power, 2013). Dimensions consist of concepts related to broad categories of parenting, such as support, while typologies or styles represent more complex patterns of parenting behaviors, consisting of multiple dimensions.
Researchers have predominantly used two major dimensions to describe parenting behavior: support and control (Rollins & Thomas, 1979) or parental responsiveness and parental demandingness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The support dimension involves parental behaviors that make the child feel comfortable and accepted (Rollins & Thomas, 1979). The second dimension, control, is the behavior of the parent which controls the way child behaves and demands from the child desirable outcomes according to parents’ rules. This dimension includes positive or negative features. These features were divided into two categories: authoritative control and authoritarian control (Baumrind 1968, 1971).
Authoritative control is characterized by an effort to direct the child in an issue-oriented and rational manner. In turn, authoritarian control refers to parental behavior focussed on
shaping and controlling attitudes and behavior of the child, using coercive and firm discipline techniques (e.g., punishment).
Besides these types of control, two other categories were suggested by Barber and colleagues: behavioral control and psychological control (Barber, Maughan & Olsen, 2005). Behavioral control is concerned with the supervision, regulation and monitoring. In contrast, psychological control is related to control attempts that negatively affect healthy child development by keeping the child emotionally dependent on the parent. Empirical evidence has shown that monitoring is associated with fewer delinquent behavior problems, while
psychological control is associated with more delinquent problems but only in certain subsamples (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001). Furthermore, Maccoby and Martin (1983) developed a complex scheme of parenting behaviors, consisting of four parenting styles or typologies: authoritative (high support and control), authoritarian (low support, high control), permissive (high support and low control), and neglecting (low support and control).
In previous meta-analyses on the relationship between parenting and child delinquency, parenting dimensions and styles were found to be significantly related to delinquency (Hoeve et al., 2009; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). However, the magnitude of the links depended on the specific parenting dimension. The strongest links were found for psychological control, parental monitoring, and negative aspects of support. The weakest links were found for authoritarian and authoritative control (Hoeve et al., 2009). The present meta-analysis adopted the classification and categorization of parenting variables developed by Hoeve and collegues (2009) and focussed particularly on five parenting
dimensions: Support, Authoritative Control, Authoritarian Control, Behavioral Control and Psychological Control. This inclusion was not merely based on the results of the previous meta-analysis (Hoeve et al., 2009) but also on the substantial number of primary studies using these dimensions to examine the parenting-delinquency linkage.
Associations Between Child Personality Traits and Child Delinquency
From an ecological perspective, the child or adolescent is nested within a complex network of interrelated systems (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986), and therefore multiple sources may exert a significant impact on child behavioral outcomes, such as problem
behavior or delinquency. Besides the strong evidence supporting the association between parenting and delinquency (e.g., Hoeve et al., 2009; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986), child characteristics, such as personality traits have been taken into account as determinants of delinquency (e.g., Heaven, 1996; John, Caspi, Robins, Moffit, and Stouthmer-Loeber,
1994). Therefore, including child personality in our model is relevant to gain a deeper insight into mechanisms underlying juvenile delinquency. Personality traits are considered individual ways of perceiving, feeling, thinking about and behaving toward the environment and oneself in a consistent manner (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). Personality refers, then, to individual differences that are relatively stable over time, mainly because they have a
biological basis (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000).
Studies that have examined the impact of children’s characteristics on delinquency have incorporated many facets and temperamental factors. Nevertheless, contemporary research has made the effort to move forward towards a more general and comprehensive taxonomy (e.g., Shiner & Caspi, 2003), showing a growing consensus about individual differences in children and adolescents’ personality that are usually synthesized in five factors (Prinzie et al., 2004). These five factors are labelled the Big Five personality factors
(Goldberg, 1990) and are composed by dimensions, including neuroticism (inversely called emotional stability), extraversion, agreeableness (or benevolence), conscientiousness, and openness (or imagination).
Neuroticism refers to children and adolescents who tend to be tense, distressed,
nervous and lacking emotional stability. This trait has been positively related to delinquent behavior in children and adolescents (ter Laak, de Goede, Aleva, Brugman, van Leuven, & Hussman, 2003). Extraversion is related to the capacity of the child to be social, spontaneous, energetic and lively. Significant positive links were previously reported between extraversion and delinquency (John et al, 1994). Agreeableness reflects the capacity of the child to be warm, easy-going, and oriented along a continuum from empathy to antagonism in actions, feelings and thoughts. Agreeableness was found to predict less conduct problems (Abe, 2005; Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Clercq, & de Druyt, 2007) and to be significantly negatively related to general delinquency and violent behavior (Heaven, 1996). Conscientiousness refers
the extent to which a child is well-organized, goal oriented and possesses a strong sense of purpose and high standards. This trait has been negatively associated with delinquency (Heaven, 1996; Torrente, & Vazsonyi, 2012) and externalizing behaviors (Prinzie, Onghena, Hellinckx, Greitens, Ghesquire, & Colpin, 2003). Openness is related to child’s ability to be imaginative and to enjoy new experiences. Contrasting results have been reported for the association between openness and delinquency. Some previous studies have suggested a significant link between openness and delinquency (e.g., ter Laak, De Goede, Aleva,
Brugman, Van Leuven, & Hussmann, 2003; van Aken, van Lieshout, & Scholte, 1998), while other studies have not found an association between these two variables (e.g., Heaven, 1996; Torrente, & Vazsonyi, 2012).
Associations Between Child Personality Traits and Parenting
Apart from the strong evidence for the direct effects of parenting and personality on delinquency, contextual and ecological models also suggested that child characteristics would impact the quality of rearing environments and ultimately behavioral outcomes (Belsky 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Patterson & Dishion, 1988). Therefore, we reviewed conceptual arguments and empirical evidence regarding the links between the Big 5 and parenting dimensions. Findings from previous studies show different meaningful links between
personality traits and parenting. Positive associations were reported between neuroticism and authoritarian control (Prinzie et al., 2004; Van den Akker et al., 2010) and positive
associations between children’s emotional stability and support (O’Connor & Dvorak, 2001; the inverse direction is, then, expected between neuroticism and support). Extroversion in adolescents was found to be related to less parents’ restrictive control (i.e., behavioral control; Denissen et al., 2009). High scores on agreeableness were found to be positively related to warmth parenting and affection (i.e., support; Denissen et al., 2009) and negatively associated with authoritarian control (Prinzie et al., 2004). Children scoring high on
conscientiousness reported to elicit more authoritative control and less authoritarian control from their parents (Prinzie, van der Sluis, de Haan, & Dekovic, 2010; Prinzie et al., 2004). Adolescents’ openness was associated with increased levels of restrictive control (Denissen et al., 2009) and children’s high scores on openness was negatively related to authoritarian control (Prinzie et al., 2004).
The Potential Mediating Role of Parenting
In spite of a large body of research documenting the links between child personality, parenting and juvenile delinquency, more theoretical than empirical work has looked at the mediating role of parenting practices in the relationship between child personality and delinquency. The few existing empirical studies investigating these mediation models have either focussed on personality indicators (but not factors) or included externalizing behavior as outcome. For instance, in a study investigating the effect of sensation-seeking (indicator of extraversion) on risk involvement (i.e., delinquency and sexual behavior), youth sensation-seeking was indirectly related to risk involvement through decreased levels of parental monitoring (Wang, Deveaux, Lunn, Dinaj - Koci, Li, & Stanton, 2016). Moreover, the effect of boys’ self-control on delinquency was found to be mediated by family emotional closeness (Manson & Windle, 2002).
Some studies including the Big 5 factors and externalizing behavior also provided evidence for the significant role of parenting in this relationship. For instance, mediation analysis from a previous study has shown that the association between emotional stability, agreeableness and externalizing behavior was partially mediated by overreactive parenting (Prinzie et al., 2010). In the same study, conscientiousness in children had an indirect effect on externalizing behavior via paternal authoritative parenting (Prinzie et al., 2010). Evidence from other two studies also suggested that emotionally stable and agreeable adolescents indirectly showed less problematic behavior via supportive parenting (Manders et., 2006) and
emotionally stable and agreeable children elicited lower levels of negative parental discipline, which was associated with lower levels of externalizing behavior (Prinzie et al., 2004). Conscientiousness in adolescents was found to be negatively related to externalizing behavior via parental support (Manders et., 2006).
Current Study’s Aim and Hypotheses
In summary, the links between child personality-delinquency, parenting-child delinquency, and child personality-parenting have been well documented in previous research. However, contemporaneous investigations testing the big 5 personality traits and parenting in the same mediation model have predominantly considered problem
behavior/externalizing behavior as a unidimensional behavioral outcome. In order to fill the gap in the literature, the current study tested the proposition that the impact of child
personality traits on delinquency was partly mediated by parenting dimensions. This study sought to extend previous research on the aetiology of juvenile delinquency by (a) examining the role of individual (i.e., personality traits) and environmental (i.e., parenting) variables in predicting delinquent behavior in one model, (b) including a more comprehensive taxonomy of personality, (c) integrating positive and negative aspects of parenting, and (d) using an innovative meta-analytical approach that allows testing a more integrative model and provides the possibility to estimate average path-coefficients across a body of empirical studies.
Based on the theoretical model proposed by Belsky (1984, 1997), we hypothesized a model in which the association between child personality and delinquency was partly
mediated by parenting (see Figure 1). More specifically, we predicted the following paths on the basis of previous research on the associations between personality traits, parenting and delinquency.
Direct Effects Personality-Parenting
We predicted: (1) a negative association between neuroticism (N) and support (higher scores in neuroticism leading to lower parental supportive practices) and positive direct effects between this trait and authoritarian control and psychological control (higher scores in neuroticism leading to higher scores on these two parenting dimensions); (2) negative direct effects of extraversion (E) on authoritative control and behavioral control, and positive effect on support; (3) positive associations between agreeableness (A) and support, authoritative control and behavioral control, and negative effect on authoritarian control; (4) positive direct effects of conscientiousness (C) on support, behavioral control and authoritative control and negative on authoritarian control; (5) negative direct effects between openness (O) and authoritarian control and behavioral control, and positive associations between this trait and support and authoritative control.
Direct Effects Personality-Child Delinquency
Expectations for this linkage were: positive direct effect of N and E on delinquency, and negative direct effect of A and C on juvenile delinquency. We refrained from postulating hypothesis regarding O and delinquency, as there is no robust evidence for this association. Direct Effects Parenting-Child Delinquency
With respect to this association, we hypothesized to find negative direct effects of support, authoritative control and behavioral control on delinquency, and positive direct paths between authoritarian control and psychological control on child delinquent behavior.
Indirect Effects Via Parenting
Finally, (a) mediated paths from N through authoritarian control and psychological control to more delinquency; (b) indirect effect of E on delinquency through authoritative control and behavioral control; (c) indirect, mediated effect between A and delinquency via support, authoritative control and behavioral control; (d) indirect association between C and
delinquency through support, authoritative control and behavioral control.
Figure 1. Hypothesized partial mediation model of the effects of child personality on child delinquency. Note. N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, A=Agreeableness, C=
Conscientiousness, O=Openness.
Method Data Collection
Studies were collected according to the following procedure. First, the search method involved inspection of the electronic databases: ERIC, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Abstracts. The literature search included articles, books, chapters, paper presentations, and dissertations written in English between 1950 and 2016. Keywords such as ‘delinquency’, ‘delinquent’, ‘crime’, ‘criminal’, ‘criminality’, ‘offender’, were entered into
‘parenting styles’, and ‘personality’, ‘personality traits’, and ‘big five’1 (see Appendix A for detailed information about the scripts used to collect the manuscripts).
In the second step, manual searches were applied, in which reference lists of reviews and other articles were checked to find relevant studies not located using the web search engines. Finally, several authors were contacted in order to obtain necessary statistical information not reported in the primary studies2.
A study was considered eligible for being integrated in the present study if it satisfied the following criteria. The first inclusion criterion concerned the operationalization of
delinquency, parenting, and personality traits. Delinquency had to be defined as behavior prohibited by the law, if the age of the child was considered by the juvenile criminal/justice system to be a minimum age at which the law would be applicable. Studies focussing exclusively on specific crime typologies or offences, such as sex offences, fire setting, and truancy were beyond the scope of this research. Parenting had to be defined as behavior of the parent that is directed toward the child, and therefore, unidirectional in nature. Practices such as neglect, punishment, monitoring, affection, and communication fit this
operationalization. Based on this operationalisation of parenting, investigations focusing solely on behavior of the parent, such as marital problems, violent dating, intellectual functioning and parental depression were excluded. Personality traits were classified according to the existing personality literature (e.g.,Eysenck & Eysenck,1975; Goldberg, 1990; Norman, 1963) and studies were included if they assessed traits that fell within the Big 5 factors using personality measures shown to have good psychometric properties and
validity (i.e., BFI, John, & Srivastava, 1999; EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, l975; HiPIC,
Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999; IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers, Goldberg, 1992; QBF, Vermulst
1 The scripts were built in collaboration with Janneke Staaks, Subject Librarian Anthropology, Psychology and
Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam.
2 We contacted Brian O’Connor, Alexander Vazsonyi, Patrick Heaven, Sven Barnow, Sara Evans, and Nicholas
& Gerris, 2005; NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1989). Studies that used personality traits that did not fall within the big 5 factors, such as Machiavellianism were not include. The second inclusion criterion was that studies had to focus on Western samples (due to potential cultural differences in parenting). The third criterion was that studies had to report on bivariate
associations between the variables of interest, that is personality traits, parenting, and delinquency. Based on this strict selection criteria, we found 48 published and unpublished manuscripts. Following the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA Statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009), a flow diagram is presented in Figure B2 (Appendix B) to illustrate the screening phase.
Classification of Parenting and Personality Variables
The five parenting dimensions included in the current study followed the classification of parenting variables developed by Hoeve and colleagues (2009). Each
parenting dimension was characterized by different behaviors and practices from parents (see Hoeve et al, 2009 for a more detailed description). The classification of personality variables was based on personality literature (e.g.,Eysenck & Eysenck,1975; Goldberg, 1990; Norman, 1963) and in the primary studies included in present research. Personality traits were divided into categories belonging to one of the Big Five factors (see Table C1 in Appendix C for a description of the personality factors).
Coding Procedure
Besides the coding of the above-mentioned variables, we coded many other
characteristics concerning study, sample, and measures characteristics/descriptors, such as: type of publication, year of publication, publication status, sample size, original sample of the primary study, study design, continent of collected data, percentage of cultural minorities, degree of urbanization of participants, type of sample, percentage of biological parents, percentage of single parent, percentage of males in the sample, type of juvenile delinquency
measure, source of delinquency measures, source of parenting behavior measures, source of personality measures, and number of years between parenting and juvenile delinquency measurements (see Table 1 for an overview).
The coding of the variables was independently conducted by the author of the current manuscript and by a Research Master student. Inter-rater reliability was checked by
comparing the coding created by both coders of a subset of 10 studies. Inter-rater agreement was assessed by calculating the percentage of agreement between the two coders for all study characteristics. The inter-rater agreement for continuous variables was high with the
percentage of agreement ranging from 93.3% (ICC= 0.99) for sample size, mean age, and effect size value to 100% (ICC=1.00) for publication year and percentage of males in the sample. Regarding the categorical variables, the inter-rater agreement was also satisfactory ranging from 80.8% (κ=0.74) for study design and degree of urbanization of participants to 100% (κ=1.00) for type of publication, publication status, continent of collected data, and source of parenting behavior measures.
Data Analysis
We performed meta-analytic structural equation modelling to test the hypothesized mediation model. Model testing procedures were carried out using the software package “metaSEM” (Cheung, 2014; 2015) in R. The MASEM analysis followed a two-stage approach (TSSEM; Cheung 2013; Cheung & Chan, 2005; Jak, 2015). In the first stage, correlation matrices of the primary studies were tested for homogeneity and the pooled correlation matrix was estimated. In Stage 2 of our analysis, we used the pooled random effects correlation matrix as input for the MASEM test of the associations between the eleven variables integrated in our hypothesized partial mediation model. In Stage 2, the weighted least squares (WLS) was used for parameter estimation.
We assessed the overall goodness fit of the model using chi-square test of exact fit, the Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative fit index (CFI). RMSEA values < .05 indicate close fit, between .05 and .08 indicate a ‘reasonable error of approximation’, and models with RMSEA >.10 have poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). CFI values >.95 indicate good fit (Bentler, 1990).
Results Description of Studies
The sample of studies included in this meta-analytic approach consisted of 48 manuscripts, including 45 independent studies, published between 1960 and 2017, reporting on a total of 32,629 children and adolescents. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the studies used data collected in the United States (48.9%) and were conducted in urban areas (60%). The number of studies using a cross-sectional design (27) was higher compared to a longitudinal design (21). The majority of the studies included samples of both females and males (79.2%) and participants were predominantly recruited from the community (81.3%). Furthermore, half of the total sample were participants aged between 15 and 20 years-old, while 37% ranged from 11 to 14 years-old and only 13% between 7 and 10 years-old. Regarding the characteristics of the measures, the most studied type of delinquency was general (93%). This type of delinquency included items of both covert (i.e., non-aggressive delinquent acts, such as vandalism and shoplifting) and overt (i.e., violent offenses, such as threatening or attacking someone with a weapon) delinquency and were mostly reported by the child and/or adolescent (83.8%). Parenting behaviors and personality were predominantly assessed using child/adolescent reports (61%; 71.4%, respectively).
Direct and Indirect Paths of Child Personality Traits on Parenting and Delinquency The results of the random effects analysis showed that the I2 of the 55 correlation
coefficients varied between 0.26 and 0.98, and the averaged correlation matrix is shown in Table 2. In step 2, the produced correlation matrix (Table 2) was fit to the hypothesized partial mediation model (Figure 1). The results of χ2 statistic test showed that the hypothesis
of exact fit was rejected (χ2
(7) = 112.03, p < .05). However, RMSEA (.021 with 95% CI
[.018-.025]) indicated close approximate fit, and CFI of .99 also demonstrated satisfactory fit to the model. The overall tests yielded a fairly good approximate fit to the model. As
hypothesized child delinquency was not fully explained by personality (see Figure 2 for a graphical display of the model including significant and non-significant paths).
Indirect Paths Via Parenting
Findings suggest that parenting is a significant mediator of the relationship between personality and delinquency. Table 3 includes the indirect effects of personality traits on child delinquency through parenting. N was positively associated with delinquency via support (β = .15, p< .05) and psychological control (β = .09, p< .05). E in children would result in more delinquency via support (β = .06, p< .05). Agreeable children and adolescents, on the one hand, was indirectly associated with less delinquency through parental support (β = -.05, p< .05) and behavioral control (β = -.03, p< .05). On the other hand, children
exhibiting this personality trait had higher scores on delinquency when mediated by practices related to authoritative control (β = .01, p< .05). C was mediated by authoritative control (β = .02, p< .05), and behavioral control (β = .02, p< .05), resulting in more delinquent behavior. Finally, O was significantly mediated by support (β = -.03, p< .05) and behavioral control (β = -.03, p< .05), leading to less delinquency.
Direct Paths between Personality and Child Delinquency
Contrary to our expectations, only three personality traits were significantly directly related to delinquency (see Table 4). E had a positive direct effect on delinquency (β = .22, p< .05), while A and C had a negative direct effect on delinquent behavior (β = -.27, p< .05;
β = -.17, p< .05, respectively).
Direct Paths between Personality and Parenting
With respect to personality and parenting, different meaningful paths were found (see Table 4). N was found to lead to less support (β = -.41, p< .05), and more authoritarian control (β = .12, p< .05), and psychological control (β = .23, p< .05). Contrary to our
expectations, E was only significantly related to support (β = -.16, p< .05). The results for A and parenting were in line with our hypothesized associations: agreeable children tend to elicit from their parents more support (β = .13, p< .05), more authoritative control (β = .09, p< .05), and more behavioral control (β = .11, p< .05). Parents of agreeable children and adolescents show less authoritarian control (β = -.23 p< .05). C was positively related to authoritative control (β = .12, p< .05), and negatively related to behavioral control (β = -.06, p< .05). Finally, openness in children leads to more parental support (β = .09, p< .05), and behavioral control (β = .09, p< .05).
Direct Paths between Parenting and Child Delinquency
Regarding parenting-child delinquency linkage, only four parenting dimensions were significantly associated with juvenile delinquency. Support and behavioral control from parents were negatively related to delinquency (β = -.37, p< .05; β = -.27, p< .05, respectively), while authoritative control and psychological control were positively associated with delinquent behavior (β = .14, p< .05; β = .41, p< .05, respectively).
Discussion
In the current meta-analysis, we examined how child personality characteristics directly, and indirectly via parenting, predict child delinquency. This study corroborated the idea that ecological models of parenting and child development are suitable to study
and openness on delinquency were fully mediated by parenting, while the effects of
extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness on delinquency were partly mediated by parenting dimensions.
Our results demonstrated that parenting is a significant mediator of the relationship between personality and juvenile delinquency. Neuroticism and openness were exclusively related to delinquency via parenting. Neurotic children might be at increased risk of
delinquency by increasing the levels of psychological control and decreasing the levels of support from their parents. These findings are in line with previous research on mediation models of externalizing problem behavior that suggested that the association between
emotional stability (inversely called neuroticism) in adolescents and externalizing behavior is fully mediated by supportive parenting (Manders et al., 2006). Emotionally stable adolescents showed less problematic behavior by evoking more support from their parents (Manders et al., 2006) and emotionally stable children indirectly showed lower levels of externalizing behavior by reducing the levels of negative parenting (e.g., discipline; Prinzie et al., 2004). Emotionally stable children might obey to their parents, which may result in supportive and favourable rearing environments (Prinzie et al., 2004). Inversely, neurotic children tend to exhibit higher levels of instability and insecurity, which might lead to love withdrawal, lower levels of support, and higher levels of control from their parents. Our findings suggest that a child exhibiting neuroticism might have this effect on their parents, and as an outcome to commit more delinquent acts.
Results of our analysis also showed that openness in children was only related to delinquency through parental support and behavioral control. Children exhibiting this trait elicited more parental support and behavioral control, resulting in less delinquent behavior. This finding is in line with the assumption that openness is a characteristic that is more internal to the child (Deyoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005; Van den Akker et al., 2010) and
more likely to elicit positive parental practices and parents’ interest in tracking the child’s whereabouts, leading to less negative behavioral outcomes.
Our model revealed that extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness in children were partly mediated by parenting. Children’s extraversion had a positive direct effect on delinquency, while agreeableness and conscientiousness had a negative direct effect on delinquent behavior. These results suggest that the association between these three
personality traits and delinquency might also be explained by other mechanisms (e.g., characteristics inherent to these traits themselves or other surroundings) other than parenting practices. Specific personality dimensions may operate differently due to children’s plasticity and susceptibility to environmental influences (Belsky, & Pluess, 2009), which may
predispose the child to develop more or less adjustable strategies under certain conditions. For instance, the association between extraversion and delinquent behavior may be primarily the result of elevated levels of activity and spontaneity. These facets are also key features of hyperactive children, which have been linked to disruptive behavior (Nigg, 2006), higher scores in delinquency and variety of offending (Sibley, Pelham, Molina, Gnagy,
Waschbusch, Biswas, Maclean, Babinski, Karch, 2011). Furthermore, in a previous study conducted by Heaven (1996), excitement-seeking was identified as a behavioral marker of extraversion and it was found to be an important predictor of violence and vandalism. Extroverts are stimulus-seeking (Hindelang, 1969), and the involvement in delinquent activities may provide the excitement some children and adolescents seek for (Heaven, 1996). These personality indicators may explain the positive direct effect of extraversion on delinquency found in the current study. Additionally, extraversion had also a significant indirect effect on delinquency via support. Extraversion in children led to less supportive parenting, which in turn resulted in higher levels of delinquency. This result does not support the idea that high levels of excitement lead to more support from parents (Watson &
Pannebaker, 1989). A possible explanation for this indirect association could be that extrovert children present lower levels of “manageability” (Van den Akker et al., 2010) compared to other traits, which negatively affects parental support, leading to more delinquent behavior.
The obtained negative direct effect of conscientiousness on delinquency is in line with previous studies that reported a negative link between this trait and delinquency (Heaven, 1996; Torrente, & Vazsonyi, 2012). Conscientiousness is characterized by the capacity of individuals to control their impulses (Loukas, Krull, Chassin, & Carle, 2000), which may explain why children exhibiting this trait tend to engage less in delinquent behavior. Nevertheless, conscientiousness was also indirectly related to delinquency by increasing authoritative control and reducing behavioral control. These children are highly focused on achieving their goals, which may lead parents to focus particularly in parenting practices related to positive reinforcement and rewarding, and lower in monitoring. Previous research suggested a different path between conscientiousness and problematic behavior via parenting (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). Children and adolescents with higher levels of
conscientiousness had fathers but not mothers reporting higher levels of authoritative control and support, which was related to less negative behavioral outcomes (Prinzie et al., 2010; Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). In the present study, parenting included both maternal and paternal parenting practices, which may account for the difference between our results and those of some previous studies.
Agreeableness had a negative direct effect on delinquency. This finding is in line with previous studies that showed that agreeableness in children predict less conduct problems (Abe, 2005; Van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Clercq, & de Druyt, 2007), and less general
delinquency and violent behavior (Heaven, 1996). Agreeable individuals are characterized by their trustfulness, generosity, empathy, and cooperation (Costa & McCrae, 1989).
less behavioral problems (Eisenber, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006), and to report lower levels of maladjustment (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). A possible explanation for the negative direct effect of agreeableness on delinquency is that agreeable children may possess social skills and strategies that might work as protective factors. Furthermore, agreeableness has been associated with positive interpersonal relations and the inhibition of negative emotions in service of those relationships (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). These aspects may also shape children’s surroundings or experiences by biasing information processing and regulation processes (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Following this notion, agreeable children may positively shape their rearing environment, which in turn will influence their behavioral outcomes. This may also explain the significant indirect effects of agreeableness on delinquency via parenting. Our findings indicate that agreeableness in children increased parental support and behavioral control, leading to less delinquency. Notwithstanding the capacity of agreeable children to evoke positive relationships with others (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), our model also suggested that authoritative control might not be as effective in relation to agreeableness to prevent negative behavioral outcomes as was reported in previous studies (Prinzie et al., 2010; Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). These children and adolescents are more likely to increase the levels of authoritative control, and as a consequence they tend to engage in more delinquent behavior. This finding is difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, this counterproductive effect may be the result of the surprising positive association between authoritative control and delinquency found in this meta-analysis.
Authoritative control had a positive effect on delinquency. This finding is not in line with a previous review (Hoeve et al., 2009). Authoritative control was previously found to have positive effects on child behavioral outcomes (Baumrind, 1966). This dimension is characterized by balanced levels of responsiveness that is child-oriented rather than
parent-oriented (high control; Baumrind, 1966). One possible explanation for the obtained
contrasting result could be that in this interplay, aspects of demandingness might have had a heavier weight in the current sample. Other possible explanation could be that the inclusion of several parenting and personality variables in the model might have had a suppression effect on the authoritative control-delinquency path.
Other unexpected result was the non-significant association between authoritarian control and delinquency. Authoritarian control was previously reported to be significantly related to delinquent behavior, however the magnitude of this link was weak using univariate analysis (Hoeve et al., 2009). The lack of association for authoritarian control obtained in the present investigation may be due to the fact that, when examined in an integrative model, other variables explain a considerable part of the variance in delinquency. The remaining associations between parenting and delinquency supported our predictions and were in line with a previous meta-analysis on the parenting-delinquency (Hoeve et al., 2009). Behavioral control and support were positively related to delinquency, while psychological control was negatively related to delinquency.
Limitations, Recommendations and Strengths
There are some limitations to the current study. First, due to the complexity of our model and the considerable number of variables, the inclusion of factors within the parent, such as parents’ personality was beyond the scope of this research. As some transactional and ecological models of parenting and child development also support the idea of the influence of parents’ characteristics on parenting and child behavioral outcomes, future research using the same methodology should include characteristics of the parent. Second, we focussed solely on parenting dimensions. Future research on the impact of personality and parenting on delinquency should consider positive and negative discrete parenting behaviors. This is relevant because some parenting behaviors belonging to the same parenting category might
explain more variance in juvenile delinquency than others. Third, our sample consisted of investigations conducted exclusively in Western societies due to potential differences in parenting.
Future research should consider studies conducted in non-Western samples and investigate whether these findings hold for those samples. Lastly, future manuscripts should also provide more statistical information, such as Means and Standard Deviations of the assessed measures. Unfortunately, we were not able to test the potential moderating effect of personality and temperament on the link between parenting and delinquency, one of our initial goals. This happened due to the reduced number of primary studies reporting the descriptive statistics necessary to conduct moderator analysis, and because the majority of the authors contacted via email no longer had the data available.
Despite some limitations, the current study presents a number of strengths. First, this meta-analytic structural equation modeling research highlights the relevance of the use of more integrative models based on ecological systems to study delinquency and not only externalizing behavior as a broader category. Second, it focussed on a more comprehensive and contemporaneous conceptualization of child personality by including all big 5 factors. Third, its methodological design allows for relatively strong conclusions regarding the associations between personality, parenting and delinquency, as MASEM allows to estimate average path-coefficients across a body of studies.
Conclusion
The results of this study demonstrate that child personality is directly and indirectly associated with delinquency. These findings have important implications for interventions focussing on delinquency and practical significance for practitioners working in the forensic and youth care field. The direct paths between personality and delinquency suggest that children exhibiting high levels of excitement, spontaneity, energy and activity might be at
increased risk of delinquency, while the tendency to be compliant, empathic or the capacity to control impulses might work as protective factors to engage in delinquent acts. As extraversion in children and adolescents directly elevates the risk for delinquent behavior, interventions should target extrovert children to reduce delinquency.
Furthermore, the results of this study also contributed to a deeper understanding of indirect effects of personality on delinquency via parenting. Although most of the indirect effects were small, these were still significant and should not be marginalized. The
meaningful indirect effects found in this study stress the important of intervening with
parents as well. We found that children exhibiting specific traits tend to have more delinquent behavior, via certain parenting practices. Specifically, neuroticism would result in more delinquency via parenting. We also found that authoritative control was a significant mediator of agreeableness and conscientiousness, leading to higher scores in delinquency. This finding should be interpreted with caution and further investigation is needed to explain this effect. Finally, as has been previously suggested by Hoeve and colleagues (2009), the positive effect of psychological control on delinquency found in the current study also shows that interventions should target this parenting dimension.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the current meta-analytic research.
Abe, J. (2005). The Predictive Validity of the Five-Factor Model of Personality with Preschool Age Children: A Nine-Year Follow-up Study. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 423- 442.
Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J., & Cullen, F. (2002). Strain, Personality Traits, and Delinquency: Extending General Strain Theory. Criminology, 40, 43-72.
*Asendorpf, J., & van Aken, M. (2003). Personality–relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666. Barber, B., Maughan, S., & Olsen, J. (2005). Patterns of Parenting Across Adolescence. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 5–16.
*Barnow, S., Lucht, M., & Freyberger, H. (2005). Correlates of Aggressive and Delinquent Conduct Problems in Adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 24-39.
*Barlas, J., & Egan, V. (2006). Weapons Carrying in British Teenagers: The Role of Personality, Delinquency, Sensational Interests, and Mating Effort. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17, 53-72.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. Authoritative Parental Control. Adolescence, 3, 255– 272.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1–103.
Belsky, J. (1984). The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.
Basic Principles. In W. Hellinckx, M. Colton, & M. Williams (Eds.), International perpectives on family support (pp. 1–21). Aldershot: Arena, Ashgate.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885-908.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development. Developmental Psychology, 11, 723–742.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.
*Burt, C., Simons, R., & Simons, L. (2006). A Longitudinal Test of The Effects of Parenting and The Stability of Self-Control: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 44, 353-396.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B., Shiner, R. (2005). Personality Development: Stability and Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1989). The Neo-PI/Neo-FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cheung, M. (2013). Multivariate meta-analysis as structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(3), 429-454.
Cheung, M. (2014). Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Examples and analyses in R, Behavior Research Methods, 46, 29-40
Cheung, M. (2015). metaSEM: An R Package for Meta-Analysis using Structural Equation Modeling. Frontiers in Psychology. 5:1521. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521.
Cheung, M., & Chan, W. (2005) Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling: A Two Stage Approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40-46.
*Crosswhite-Gamble, J. (2006). Mediating Mechanisms: Understanding the Link Between Parenting and Adolescent Deviance. (Doctoral Dissertation).
*de Haan, A., Prinzie, P., & Dekovic, M. (2010). How and Why Children Change in Aggression and Delinquency from Childhood to Adolescence: Moderation of Overreactive Parenting by Child Personality. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 725-733.
*Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Dubas, J. (2009). It Takes Two to Tango: How Parents’ and Adolescents’ Personalities Link to The Quality of Their Mutual Relationship.
Development Psychology, 45, 928-941.
Deyoung, C., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and Neuropsychological Correlates of the Fifth Factor of Personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825-858.
*Eaton, N., Krueger, R., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. (2009). Parental
Monitoring, Personality, and Delinquency: Further Support for a Reconceptualization of Monitoring. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 49-59.
*Evans, S., Simons, L., & Simons, R. (2012). The Effect of Corporal Punishment and Verbal Abuse on Delinquency: Mediating Mechanisms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1095-1110.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Guthrie, I., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional Emotionality and Regulation: Their Role in Predicting Quality of Social Functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136 –157.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Eds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eysenck, H. (1977). Crime and Personality. (3rd Ed.). Granada, London.
Eysenck, H., & Eysenck, S. (1975). Manual: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Junior and Adult). In San Diego: EdITS.
*Furnham, A., & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and Self-Reported Delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 585-593.
Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. (1992). The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
*Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory. Criminology, 39, 707-736.
*Heaven, P. (1994). Family of Origin, Personality, and Self-Reported Delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 445-459.
*Heaven, P. (1996). Personality and Self-Reported Delinquency: Analysis of the “Big Five” Personality Dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 47-54.
*Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Mak, A. (2004). The Impact of Adolescent and Parental Characteristics on Adolescent Levels of Delinquency and Depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 173-185.
Heaven, P. & Virgen, M. (2001). Personality, Perceptions of Family and Peer Influences, and Males’ Self-Reported Delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 321– 331.
Hill, J. (2002). Biological, Psychological and Social Processes in the Conduct Disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 133–164.
Hindelang, M. (1971). Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Self-Reported Delinquent Involvement. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1, 23-31.
*Hinnant, J., Stephen, E. & El-Sheikh, M. (2015). Harsh Parenting, Parasympathetic Activity, ad Development of Delinquency and Substance Use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 137-151.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W. H., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The Relationship Between Parenting and Delinquency: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749–775.
*Ingram, J., Patchin, J., Huebner, B., Mccluskey, J., & Bynum, T. (2007). Parents, Friends, and Serious Delinquency: An examination of Direct and indirect Effects among At-Risk Early Adolescents. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 380-400.
*Intravia, J., Jones, S., & Piquero, A. (2012). The Roles of Social Bonds, Personaity, and Perceived Costs: Na Empirical Investigation into Hirschi’s “New” Control Therory. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 56, 1182-200. *Hundleby, J. (1986). Personality and the Prediction of Delinquency and Drug Use. British
Journal of Criminology, 26, 129-146.
Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modelling. SpringerBriefs in Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (pp. 1-92). Springer International Publishing.
*Janssen, H., Eichelsheim, V., Dekovic, M., & Bruinsma, G. (2016). How is Parenting Related to Adolescent Delinquency? A Between- and Within-Person Analysis of the Mediating Role of Self-Control, Delinquent Attitudes, Peer Delinquency, and Time Spent in Criminogenic Settings. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 169-194. Jensen-Campbell, L., & Graziano, W. (2001). Agreeableness as a Moderator of Interpersonal
Conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362.
John, O., Caspi, A., Robins, R., Moffitt, T., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The “Little Five”: Exploring the Nomological Network of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in Adolescent Boys. Child Development, 65, 160 – 178.
John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press. *Jug, V. (2015). Personality Traits, Social Intelligence, Social Support and Juvenile
Delinquency. Conference: Third International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Economics and Management Study – SEM (Conference Paper, At Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2015) DOI: 10.15224/978-1-63248-063-7-49
Krueger, R., Schmutte, P., Caspi, A., Moffit, T., Campbell, K. & Silva, P. (1994). Personality Traits Are Linked to Crime Among Men and Women: Evidence from a Birth Cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328-338.
*Laible, D., Carlo, G., Davis, A., & Karahuta, E. (2016). Maternal Sensitivity and Effortful Control in Early Childhood as Predictors of Adolescents' Adjustment: The Mediating Roles of Peer Group Affiliation and Social Behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 52, 922-932.
*Lansford, J., Deater‐Deckard, K., Dodge, K., Bates, J., & Pettit, G. (2004). Ethnic Differences in the Link between Physical Discipline and Later Adolescent
Externalizing Behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 801-812 *Larzelere, R., & Patterson, G. (1990). Parental Management: Mediator of the Effects of
Socioeconomic Status on Early Delinquency. Criminology, 28, 301-324. Lengua, L.J., Wolchik, S.A., Sandler, I.N., & West, S.G. (2000). The Additive and
Interactive Effects of Parenting and Temperament in Predicting Problems of Children of Divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232-244.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. H. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (vol. Vol. 7, (pp. 29–149)). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Loukas, A., Krull, J., Chassin, L., & Carle, A. (2000). The relation of personality to alcohol abuse/dependence in a high-risk sample. Journal of Personality, 68, 1153–1175.
Lynam, D., Caspi, A., Moffit, T., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthoemer- Loeber, M. (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431–443.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent– Child Interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social development (vol. IV, (pp. 1–101)). New York: Wiley.
*Mak, A., Heaven, P., & Rummery, A. (2003). The Role of Group Identity and Personality Domains as Indicators of Self-Reported Delinquency. Psychology, Crime & law, 9, 9-18.
*Manders, W., Scholte, R., Janssens, J., & De Bruyn, E. (2006). Adolescent personality, problem behaviour and the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship. European Journal of Personality, 20, 237–254.
*Mann, F., Kretsch, N., Tackett, J., Harden, K., & TuckerDrob, E. (2015). Person x Environment Interactions on Adolescent Delinquency: Sensation Seeking, Peer Deviance and Parental Monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 129-134.
Mason, W., & Windle, M. (2002). Gender, Self-control, and Informal Social Control in Adolescence: A Test of Three Models of the Continuity of Delinquent Behavior. Youth & Society, 33, 479-536.
*Meldrum, R., Connolly, G., Flexon, J., & Guerette, R. (2016). Parental Low Self-control, Family Environments, and Juvenile Delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1623-1644.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 107–127). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
*Miller, H. (2012). Correlates of Delinquency and Victimization in a Sample of Hispanic Youth. International Criminal Justice Review, 22, 153-170.
Moher. D, Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Nigg, J. T. (2006). Temperament and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 395–422.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes: Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583
*O’Connor, B. P., & Dvorak, T. (2001). Conditional Associations between Parental Behavior and Adolescent Problems: A Search for Personality– Environment Interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 1–26.
*Pan, C., & Jacobson, K. (2013). Impulsivity Moderates Promotive Environmental
Influences on Adolescent Delinquency: A Comparison Across Family, School, and Neighbourhood Contexts. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1133-1143.
*Patouris, E., Scaife, V., & Nobes, G. (2016). A Behavioral Approach to Adolescent CUse: Accounting for Nondeliberative, Developmental, and Temperamental Factors. Journal of Substance Use, 21, 506-514.
Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). Multilevel Family Process Models: Traits, Interactions, and Relationships. In R. Hinde, & S. J. Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 283–310). Oxford: Clarendon.
*Peiser, N., & Heaven, P. (1996). Family Influences on Self- Reported Delinquency among High School Students. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 557–568.
*Pierson, G., & Kelly, R. (1963). Anxiety, Extraversion, and Personality Idiosyncrasy in Delinquency. The Journal of Psychology, 56, 441-445.
Pettit, G., Laird, R., Dodge, K., Bates, J., & Criss, M. (2001). Antecedents and Behavior-Problem Outcomes of Parental Monitoring and Psychological Control in Early Adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583–559.
Prinzie, P., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A., Stams, G., & Belsky, J. (2009). The Relations Between Parents’ Big Five Personality Factors and Parenting: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351-362.
*Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Chesquière, P., and Colpin, H. (2004). Parent and Child Personality Characteristics as Predictors of Negative Discipline and Externalizing Problem Behaviour in Children. European Journal of Personality, 18, 73-10.
*Prinzie, P., van der Sluis, C., de Haan, A., & Dekovic, M. (2010). The Mediational Role of Parenting on the Longitudinal Relation Between Child Personality and Externalizing Behavior. Journal of Personality, 78, 1301-1323.
Power, T. (2013). Parenting Dimensions and Styles: A Brief History and Recommendations for Future Research. Childhood Obesity, 9, 14-21
*Ray, J., Frick, P., Thornton, L., Wall Myers, T., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2017). Callous-Unemotional Traits Predict Self-Reported Offending in Adolescent Boys: The Mediating Role of Delinquent Peers and The Moderating Role of Parenting Practices. Developmental Psychology, 53, 319-328.
Rollins, B., & Thomas, D. (1979). Parental Support, Power and Control Techniques in the Socialization of Children. In W. R. Bur, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (vol. I, (pp. 317–364)). London: Free Press. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.
Ruchkin, V., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (1999). Coping Styles in Delinquent Adolescents and Controls: The Role of Personality and Parental Rearing. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 705–717.
*Rushton, J., & Chrisjohn, R. (1981). Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Self-Reported Delinquency: Evidence from Eight Separate Samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 11-20.
Sibley, M., Pelham, W., Molina, B., Gnagy, E., Waschbusch, D., Biswas, A., Maclean, M., Babinski, D., Karch, K. (2011). The delinquency Outcomes of Boys with ADHD with and without Comorbidity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 21-32
*Simon, R., Simons, L., Chen, Y., Brody, G., & Lin, K. (2007). Identifying the Psychological Factors that Mediate the Association Between Parenting Practices and Delinquency. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 45, 481-517.
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality Differences in Childhood and Adolescence: Measurement, Development, and Consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Applied Disciplines, 44, 2–32.
*Stuewig, J. (2001). Factors Related to the Desistance of Crime in a Longitudinal Sample. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 4452 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 2001).
*Smith, D., & McVie, S. (2003). Theory and Methods in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 169-195.
*Tavecchio, L.., Stams, G., Brugman, D., & Thomeer- Bouwens, M. (1999). Moral Judgement and Delinquency in Homeless Youth. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 63–79.
ter Laak, L., De Goede, M., Aleva, L., Brugman, G., Van Leuven, M., & Hussmann, J. (2003). Incarcerated Adolescent Girls: Personality, Social Competence and Delinquency. Adolescence, 38, 251–265.
*Torrente, G. & Vazsonyi, A. (2012). Personality, Parenting and Deviance among Spanish Adolescents. Anales de Psicologia, 28, 654-664.
*Unnever, J., Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Why Is "Bad" Parenting Criminogenic? Implications from Rival Theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 3-33. van Aken, M, van Lieshout, C., & Scholte, R. (1998). The Social Relationships and
Adjustment of the Various Personality Types and Subtypes. Paper presented at the VIIth biennial meeting of the Society of Research on adolescence, San Diego, CA. *Van den Akker, A., Dekovic, M., & Prinzie, P. (2010). Transitioning to Adolescence: How
changes in Child Personality and Overreactive Parenting Predict Adolescent Adjustment Problems. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 151-163.
Van Leeuwen, K., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child Personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior: Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1028-1046.
*Vazsonyi, A., Jiskrova, G., Ksinan, A., & Blatny, M. (2016). An empirical test of self-control theory in Roma adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 66-76. *Vera, E., & Moon, B. (2013). An Empirical Test of Low Self-Control Theory. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 79-93.
Vermulst, A., & Gerris, J. (2005). QBF: Quick Big Five Persoonlijkheidstest Handleiding (Quick Big Five Personality Test Manual). Leeuwarden: LDC.
Wang, B., Deveaux, L., Lunn, S., Dinaj - Koci, V., Li, X., & Stanton, B. (2016). The
Influence of Sensation-seeking and Parental and Peer Influences in Early Adolescence on Risk Involvement through Middle Adolescence. Youth & Society, 48, 220-241. *Walters, G. (2014). Pathways to Early Delinquency: Exploring the Individual and Collective
Contributions of Difficult Temperament, Low maternal Involvement, and Externalizing behaviour. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 321-326.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health Complaints, Stress, and Distress: Exploring the Central Role of Negative Affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254. *Wolfe, T., & Shoemaker, D. (1999). Actor, Situation, and Context: A Framework for
Tables Table 1
Description of Some Characteristics of the Primary Studies Included in the Present Research
Study Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Year of publication (k=45) 1960-1970 1970-1989 1990-2009 2010-2017 1 2 23 19 2.3 4.4 51.1 42.2 Publication status(k=48) Published Unpublished 45 3 93.8 6.2 Sample Characteristics Continent (k=45) North America Europe Australia/New Zealand 22 17 5 48.9 37.8 13.3 Degree of urbanization (k=15) Urban area Rural area Both 9 1 5 60 6.7 33.3 Type of sample (k=48)
General or community sample High Risk Delinquent 39 6 3 81.3 12.5 6.2 Sex of participants (k=48) Males Females Both 5 5 38 10.4 10.4 79.2 Age of participants (k=46) [7-10] [11-14] [15-20] 6 17 23 13 37 50 Measures Descriptors
Type of juvenile delinquency (k=43) General Violence 40 3 93 7 Source of delinquency (k=43) Self-report Parent Report 36 2 83.8 4.6
More than 1 source Other 1 1 2.3 2.3 Informant on parenting (k=41) Self-report Child/adolescent report Observation
More than 1 source
14 25 1 1 34.1 61 2.4 2.4 Informant on personality (k=21) Self-report Parent Report More than 1 source Other 15 3 1 2 71.4 14.3 4.8 9.5 Methodological Characteristics Sample Size (k=48) 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000-4897 2 14 13 12 7 4.2 29.2 27.1 25 14.6 Design (k=48) Cross-sectional study Longitudinal study 27 21 56.3 43.7
Table 2
Pooled Correlation Matrix
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1.Neuroticism - 2.Extraversion -0.29 - 3.Agreeableness -0.09 -0.04 - 4.Conscientiousness 0.02 -0.04 0.31 - 5.Openness -0.17 0.36 0.00 0.48 - 6.Support -0.4 -0.01 0.18 0.09 0.11 - 7.Authoritative Control -0.09 -0.03 0.13 0.2 0.10 0.62 - 8.Authoritarian Control 0.14 -0.04 -0.26 -0.09 -0.04 -0.38 -0.23 - 9.Behavioral Control -0.02 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.32 0.34 -0.14 - 10. Psychological Control 0.19 -0.02 -0.18 -0.37 -0.22 0.42 0.17 0.08 0.03 - 11.Child Delinquency 0.11 0.25 -0.40 -0.25 -0.00 -0.21 -0.15 0.21 -0.34 0.27 -
Table 3
Indirect Effects of Personality on Child Delinquency via Parenting
Indirect effect Parameter estimate
NSupportCD .15* NPsychological ControlCD .09* ESupportCD .06* EAuthoritative ControlCD -.00 EBehavioral ControlCD .01 ASupportCD -.05* AAuthoritative ControlCD .01* ABehavioral ControlCD -.03* C SupportCD .00 CAuthoritative ControlCD .02* C Behavioral ControlCD .02* OSupportCD -.03* OAuthoritative ControlCD .00
O Behavioral ControlCD -.03*
Note. N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, A=Agreeableness, C= Conscientiousness, O=Openness, CD=Child Delinquency.
*p<.05.
Table 4
Direct and Total Indirect Effects
Support Authoritative
Control Authoritarian Control Behavioral Control Psychological Control Child Delinquency N Direct -.41* .12* .23* -.08 Total Indirect .24* E Direct -.16* -.03 -.02 .22* Total Indirect .07* A Direct .13* .09* -.23* .11* -.27* Total Indirect -.07* C Direct -.00 .12* .01 -.06* -.17* Total Indirect .04* O Direct .09* .03 .00 .09* .04 Total Indirect -0.06* Support Direct -.37* Total Indirect - Authoritative Control Direct .14* Total Indirect -
