Recent Developments in
Child Personality
Research
Maja Zupančič
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The trait approach, focus on the FFM
Search for precursors of the Big Five in childhood
A newly developed measure, the ICID
Structure of pre-adult personality
Cross-cultural, gender and age differences in trait
expression
Aspects of child trait consistency
Personality traits in predicting important outcomes
Child personality types
Other recent measures
Future prospects
The Trait Approach
• Traits: Enduring tendencies to feel, think, and act in
a relatively consistent way over time & across
contexts (Burger, 2008; Funder, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 2004)
• A relative agreement on the Five-Factor Model
(FFM) to summarize the organization of adult
personality traits across countries (e.g., MCrae & Costa, 1997)
• Covers the OCEAN of human personality
• Criticism & limitations (Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1997; Paunonen &
Jackson, 2000; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998), e.g. developmentally
shallow (Graziano, 1994)
What about Children?
• Empirical FFM studies: Adults, except Digman (1963,
1989, 1990; Digman & Inouye, 1986)
• Developmental ψ (Shiner, 2006): Personality
– Conceptualized with an eye towards adult structure
– Understood in light of its antecedents
• Do adults perceive children beyond temperament?
How do adults organize child characteristics?
• Usefulness of the FFM in older children/early
adolescents, 2 major approaches:
– Adult FFM measure, adjustment of phrasing, rating
– FFM scores from measures constructed within an other
model
Questions on Ecological
Validity
• Items may not represent a full range of
individual differences
– Based on measures to assess adults
– Capture theorists-imposed core constructs
– May not reflect characteristics salient for
caregivers/teachers in daily life
• Difficult to deduce from scores:
– Personality structure reflects child features or
results from a specific instrument
– Forced squeezing may obscure age-specific
features
The 3rd Approach: Free
Descriptive
• Create a lexicon of child personality
descriptive words (John, 1990):
– No catalogue on child individual differences
– Dictionaries reflect passive vocabulary
• Lexical hypothesis: Parental natural language will
encode child individual differences that are
significant in daily interaction. The more important
the feature, the more will be talked about.
How do Caregivers Describe
Children?
• The 3rd approach used within a multi-national
project (Kohnstamm et al., 1998):
– Interview caregivers of children ages 3-12
– B, CHN, D, GR, NL, PL, USA: Increase ecological
representativeness of the descriptions
– Parse & code personality descriptors
Coding Manual: The Big 5
(Havill et al., 1994)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
sociable
dominant
active
amiable
manageable
honest
careful
interdependent
diligent
Emotional Stability
Openness
+ Little 8
reactive
self-confident
fearful
open to experience
interested
intelligent
% of Overall Descriptors in 5
Main Categories: 7 countries
• Across all samples over 86% of descriptors coded into Big 5
Personality Categories (Kohnstamm et al., 1998)
% of Overall Descriptors in 5
Main Categories: SLO
• Replicated in Slovenia; multiple-informants, extended to
infants/toddlers (Zupančič, 2001, 2004; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2002)
Parental Natural Language:
Differences & Similarities*
- Remarkable similarities in
frequency of the descriptors
across (sub)categories
- Small age, gender, culture
differences
- FFM-inspired system: A good
heuristic
- No conclusions on underlying
strucure
*Kohnstamm et al., 1998; Zupančič, 2004
Parental Language
Questionnaire Development
• New instruments were created in each country for
separately assessing children age 3, 6, 9 & 12
• Could a cross-age and cross-country questionnaire
be produced?
– HiPIC in B (Mervielde & DeFruyt, 2002)
– Georgia, US: Prototypical items for all (CHN, GR,
NL, US) age-specific samples, matching the
distribution of the Big 5 - a preliminary ICID
(Halverson & Havill, 1997)
– Independent samples in CHN, GR, US, further
procedures and refinements
The Inventory of Child
Individual Differences (ICID)*
• Final version: 108 items, the same across
age and country were retained
• Factor analyses in 3 countries & across age
revealed 15 mid-level personality scales:
– Achievement Oriented (‘…has a drive to do better’)
– Active (‘…is always busy doing something’)
– Antagonistic (‘…is agressive toward others’)
* Halverson et al., 2003
The ICID Mid-level Scales
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compliant (‘…is obedient’)
Considerate (‘…is sensitive to others’ feelings’)
Distractible (‘…gets bored easily’)
Fearful/Insecure (‘…lacks confidence’)
Intelligent (‘…is quick to learn’)
Negative Affect (‘…is irritable’)
Open to Experience (‘…is interested in new
things’)
Organized (‘…does things carefully and with
thought’)
Positive Emotions (‘…is cheerful’)
Shy (‘… is withdrawn’)
Sociable (‘…makes friends easily’)
Strong Willed (‘…manipulates to get his/her own
way’)
Properties of the ICID Scales*
• Translated and thoroughly examined in SLO & RUS
• Sound psychometric properties of the 15 scales
across countries & age:
– Internal reliability for parent- (CHN, GR, RUS, SLO, US) and &
self-report (GR, RUS, SLO, US)
– Inter-rater agreement: Spouses (SLO, US), parent-teacher
(SLO), parent-self (GR, SLO, US)
– Short-term stability (US)
– convergent & discriminant validity (GR, RUS, SLO, US)
* Halverson et al., 2003; Knyazev et al., 2008; Zupančič et al., 2007
The Structure of the ICID*
• Latent dimensions derived from parent report scale
scores: EFA, factor congruence analyses in CHN (N =
1060), GR (N = 506), RUS (N = 1636), SLO (N = 1872), US (N
= 1035)
– Very similar structure across countries
– 4 consistent factors: E, A, C, N (coeff. clearly exceed .90)
– A less stable 5th factor
• Remarkably similar structure:
– Parent RUS vs. SLO
– Parent vs. adolescent self-report in RUS (N = 555) & SLO (N =
420)
* Havill et al., 2003; Knyazev et al., 2008
The Latent Structure: CFA*
US parent
report
omitted):
•• RUS
& SLO,
age,(Compliant
parent & self
(Compliant & Considerate
dropped):
–
–
–
–
–
E (Sociable, Positive Emotions, Active, Considerate & Open)
C (Organized, Achievement, unDistractible)
N (Fearful/insecure, Negative Affect, Shy)
A (Strong Willed-R, Antagonistic-R)
I (Intelligent)
O
(Open to Experience & Intelligent)
* Halverson et al., 2003; Knyazev et al., 2008
Cross-cultural Comparison of
Child Trait Expression
• Characteristic adaptations of individuals may be
subject to culture, cohort, gender, age (e.g., McCrae &
Costa, 2004)
• Cross-cultural differences in adult trait expression
(e.g., McCrae et al., 2005) & child temperament (e.g.,
Kohnstamm, 1989)
• SLO-RUS*, self- & caregiver reports age 2 to 15
• In all age groups & across methods:
– SLO > E, C, O (p < .01)
*Knyazev, Zupančič, & Slobodskaya, 2008
ICID-S Big 5 in RUS & SLO: Parent
Report (Slobodskaya & Zupančič, 2008)
*
*
*
* p < .01
Cross-sectional: SLO-RUS*
- Differences even in
2-3 olds
- Slight age-increase
- M magnitude of
parent (d=.29) vs.
self-ratings (d=.18)
- Main effects & culture
by age interaction
* Knyazev et al., 2008
Gender Differences*
• Across age, informants, countries:
– Small (SLO, RUS mean ds parent .14, .16)
– Present even in toddlers, do not conform to the biosocial
hypotehsis
– ♀ > C, A, compliant, considerate
– Smaller based on adolescent self-reports (mean ds SLO,
RUS .14 & .10, parent .21); parental gender bias?
– May reflect actual differences, implicit theories &
expectations, effect of the reference group
* Halverson, 2003; Zupančič, Gril, & Kavčič, 2006; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2005, 2007;
Zupančič, Knyazev, & Slobodskaya, in press
Age Differences*
• Small age effects - 4 developmental periods:
– A sistematically ↑, due to ↓ in strong will & antagonism
– Compliance continual ↑
– O & Activity peak in early childhood
• Findings on mean level age differences may also
reflect
– Parental implicit theories on child development
– The reference group effect (underestimation)
* Halverson, 2003; Slobodskaya, 2005; Zupančič et al., 2006
SLO Longitudinal Study on
Child Personality*
• 3 aspects of consistency over time & across
informants
• Data collected: mothers, fathers, (pre)school
teachers; age 3  4  5  6 (complete data N = 192)
• Structural consistency (PCA, congruence, permutation, SEM):
– Over 3 yrs, the organization of child personality is
construed in a similar way by 3 informant groups
– Minor differences over time across parents
– Teacher: Less differentiated but temporally stable
* Zupančič & Kavčič, 2007; Zupančič, Sočan, & Kavčič, 2007
SLO Longitudinal Study on
Child Personality*
• Rank-order stability of trait ratings:
–
–
–
–
Intra-rs over time .50 - .74; increase with age
Inversely related to time interval
Stronger for the same informant over time (same-rater bias)
Some traits more stable than others
• Observability
• Change in expectations & standards for assessment
– Concurrent cross-informant stability; spouses > parentteacher
• Information & settings
• Roles & perspectives
• Levels of communication about child
* Zupančič & Kavčič, 2007; Zupančič, Sočan, & Kavčič, 2007
SLO Longitudinal Study on
Child Personality*
• Mean level continuity of trait scores:
– ↑ E & C over time (small)
– ↑ A at the transition to middle childhood (small)
– Concurs with cross-sectional results
• Change in mean level expression:
– Maturational processes & environmental influences shared
by children
– May be deflated
• Parent ratings > teacher on desirable traits  own
child enhancement effect
* Zupančič & Kavčič, 2007; Zupančič, Sočan, & Kavčič, 2007
Personality Predicting
Important Child Outcomes
• Social adjustment in (pre)school
- controlling for the same-rater bias, multiple informants:
– Social Competence
– Internalizing/Externalizing Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
Concurrently over early childhood & grade 1
Longitudinally: early years  grade 1 (10-25%)
(pre)school personality (up to 40%) > home (app. 10%)
Over & beyond environmantal variables
Differential prediction: C, O  SC; -E, N  IB; -A  EB
* Zupančič & Kavčič, 2007, 2008
Child Personality Predicting
Important Outcomes
• Sibling relationships (diads): Concurrently &
longitudinally (Kavčič & Zupančič, 2006; Kavčič, Zupančič, & Havill,
2008)
– N, -A; younger E & older -A  conflict
– –A  rivalry/competition
– O, C  warmth
• Differential parenting: Concurrently & longitudinally
(Kavčič & Zupančič, 2006, 2007)
– Less A sib  more control
– Larger sib A differences  more differential control
• Academic achievement (Marjanovič Umek et al., 2006a; Zupančič
& Kavčič, 2007, 2008)
– C, O  G1;  G3
Personality Predicting
Adolescent Outcomes
• Interpersonal Problems (Ingles et al., 2008)
– N, A, -O, -E  Overall, public speaking, with the
opposite sex (app. 25% self, 10% parent)
• Internalizing/Externalizing (Slobodskaya, 2005)
• Academic:
– C  Motivation in a course (20-30% - mastery
goal)
– C, O  Self-efficacy (20%; Zupančič & Puklek
Levpušček, 2005)
– Achievement (Marjanovič Umek et al., 2006b; Puklek
Levpušček & Zupančič, in prep)
G8: Predicting G9 Math Grades
Levpušček & Zupančič, in press)
Big Five: R2 = .20***
(Puklek
O
-E
Motivation – Math:
R2 = .13***
Non-verbal Intelligence:
R2 = .11***
-N
yes
Math 9
yes
Adj.R2=.43***
G8: Predicting G9 Math Grades
(Puklek Levpušček & Zupančič, in press)
Non-verbal Intelligence:
R2 = .25***
yes
yes
Motivation - Math:
R2 = .09***
Math 9
-N
Big Five:
R2 = .10***
-E
O
Adj.R2=.43***
Personality Traits : Types
• Empirical research predominantly treated personality
from a variable-centered perspective, missing the
configuration of traits within an individual
• Recent evidence, at least 3 different
temperament/personality types (fuzzy boarders) in
adults (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Barbaranelli, 2002; Costa et al.,
2002; Schnabel & al., 2002) & children (Asendorpf et al., 2001;
Caspi, 2000; Caspi & Silva, 1995; DeFruyt et al., 2002; Hart et al.,
1997, 2003)
– Resilient
– Undercontrolled
– Overcontrolled
ICID Personality Types
(Zupančič, Podlesek, & Kavčič, 2006)
• Age 3
(2-step clustering procedure):
3 internally replicable patterns of parent-perceived
child trait expression
ICID Personality Types*
– Both structurally consistent & moderate type
membership consistency across informants/time
(1yr)
– 4  14 yrs: 4 internally replicable ICID types
– Predictive value  social behavior
– Head-to-head comparisons: Predictive utility of
types (9%, no incremental; improved with consistenlty
classified children) < traits (up to 12% incremental)
* Zupančič et al., 2006; Zupančič & Gril, 2006; Zupančič & Kavčič,
2007
Other Recent Measures
• ICID-Short US parent (Deal et al., 2007); SLO & RUS
parent & self-report (Slobodskaya & Zupančič, 2008)
• HiPIC (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002)
• BFQ – Children version (Barbaranelli, Caprara, Rabasca, &
Pastorelli, 2003)
• BPI Child self-report method (Measelle, John, Ablow,
Cowan, & Cowan, 2005)
• Observation of RBQ behaviors (Markey, Markey, & Tinsey,
2005)
Future Prospects
• Develop implicit child measures
• The normalization of the ICID
• Continue exploring personality of children with
cognitive disability (e.g., Colnerič & Zupančič, 2005):
– Describe syndrome-specific FFM profile
– Examine effects of a portfolio intervention
• Investigate the mid-level vs. broad-domain and the
type-trait issue
• Extend cross-cultural research on development
Explore Sources of Personality
Stability/Change/Prediction
• Genetic
• Intraindividual
– Other traits
– Intelligence
– Adaptations
• Environmental: Family, peer group, (pre)school
• Person-environment transactions: Evocative,
reactive, proactive, manipulative (e.g., Caspi, 1998, 2000)
• Pathways of linking personality & adaptation: The
factors that mediate, moderate the links personality –
life outcomes
Acknowledgements
The research was carried out in collaboration with
• Tina Kavčič, UL, SLO
• Gregor Sočan, Anja Podlesek, Melita Puklek
Levpušček, UL, SLO
• Valerie L. Havill, UG, USA
• Helena R. Slobodskaya, Gennady G. Knyazev, SB
Russian Academy of Science, RUS
• Alenka Gril, ERI, SLO
• Contributors to related SLO research on child
personality and data collection: L. Marjanovič Umek
(UL, SLO), D. Boben (CPA), M. Vidmar (ERI, SLO),
U. Fekonja Peklaj, K. Bajc, B. Bajec (UL, SLO)
• Luka Komidar (UL, SLO), technical assistance