- Email: [email protected]
Ethnic and gender differences in temperament, and the relationship between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood
Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Ethnic and gender differences in temperament, and the relationship between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood Gerly M. de Boo *, Annemarie M. Kolk University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Clinical Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Received 11 October 2006; received in revised form 9 May 2007; accepted 17 May 2007 Available online 10 July 2007
Abstract Temperamental differences and the relationship between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were investigated in a sample of 423 9–13-year-old Dutch children from four different ethnic/national backgrounds. A temperament questionnaire was used, specifically constructed to ensure measurement equivalence across the Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan and mixed ethnic samples and across gender. We found temperament differences between the Dutch children and the other ethnic groups for Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control. Gender differences were found which were not influenced by ethnicity. Girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity scale. Temperament, especially the dimensions Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control, proved strongly predictive of both Depressive and Aggressive mood in all ethnic groups. Positive Affectivity contributed positively to Depressive mood and showed an interaction effect with Negative Affectivity. We discussed the consequences of our findings for the tripartite model of depression. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ethnic; Gender; Temperament; Depressive mood; Aggressive mood
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 20 5256817; fax: +31 20 639 1369. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.M. de Boo).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.012
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1757
1. Introduction Models of the relationship between temperament and psychopathology are based on the hypothesis that specific temperament characteristics increase vulnerability to specific disorders. This hypothesis has been mainly tested in white Western samples. Little research focused on ethnic and cultural samples and, therefore, it is unclear if these models maintain their validity in populations with other ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Conducting research across cultures however, presents unique methodological challenges. Assessment measures need to be equivalent across populations to ensure that items and underlying constructs have the same meaning. Few studies examined temperament differences between ethnic samples whilst specifically addressing the issue of measurement equivalence. Windle, Iwawaki, and Lerner (1988) ensured equivalence by comparing the covariance patterns of item-factor relations of nine temperament traits in a Japanese–American sample of pre-school children. Japanese children were rated higher on the trait Activity Level and lower on the traits Approach, Flexibility, Quality of mood and Rhythmicity than their American peers. Ahadi, Rothbart, and Ye (1993) compared the factor structures (explorative factor analysis) and scale means in two samples of 6- to 7-year old children from Shanghai and the USA. In both samples they found three similar temperament factors: Positive Affectivity (containing indices of approach, high intensity pleasure, and activity), Negative Affectivity (containing indices of discomfort, fear, anger, and sadness), and Effortful Control (containing indices of inhibitory control, attention, low intensity pleasure). The US sample scored relatively higher on Positive Affectivity and Effortful Control than on Negative Affectivity, whilst this pattern was reversed in the Chinese sample. The same study established gender differences between both cultures. American girls scored higher on the Effortful Control factor than American boys. This pattern was reversed in Chinese boys and girls. Gender differences in temperament were also established in a meta-analysis by Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, and VanHulle (2006). Boys scored lower than girls on Effortful Control. Low scores on Effortful Control have been linked to aggression and conduct problems (Frick & Sheffield Morris, 2004) and to a higher male incidence of inattention and externalizing behavior problems (Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). Girls scored lower than boys on dimensions of Positive Affectivity. Low scores on Positive Affectivity, in combination with high scores on Negative Affectivity, have been linked to depression. The latter combination of temperament dimensions is thought to prevail in girls and might therefore explain the increased vulnerability of women to develop depression (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994). Temperament may have direct effects on the development of psychopathology or may play a mediating or moderating role. According to the tripartite model of anxiety and depression (Clark & Watson, 1991), Negative Affectivity was directly and positively associated with both depression and anxiety, whilst Positive Affectivity was directly, but negatively, associated with depression only. Support for this model is extensive (Compas, Connor-Smith, & Jaser, 2004). High levels of Negative Affectivity were consistently related to conduct problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001) and aggression (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997), whilst Effortful Control was modulating the expression of Negative Affectivity (Eisenberg et al.). Chorpita, Daleiden, Moffitt, Yim, and Umemoto (2000) and Austin and Chorpita (2004) studied the tripartite model in multiethnic samples. In the study by Chorpita et al. the structural validity of the model was examined by a self-report questionnaire, specifically designed to assess three
1758
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
temperament factors (Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Physical Hyperarousal) and four emotional constructs (fear, anxiety, tension and stress). They established an excellent fitting model containing these three temperament factors by confirmatory factor analysis. Although they did not examine if this factor structure was equivalent across the ethnic samples, they compared the mean scores of Caucasian, Chinese American, Filipino American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, and a mixed ethnic group. They found only minor differences on the Positive Affectivity scale. Austin and Chorpita examined the factor structure of the tripartite model in five ethnic samples. Their results confirmed the model: high Negative Affectivity was associated with high Anxiety, and high Negative Affectivity and low Positive Affectivity were associated with high Depression. They found that the strength of these associations was similar for Caucasian, Chinese American, Filipino, Native Hawaiian and Japanese American children and they only reported small temperament differences on the Positive Affectivity scale. Unfortunately, neither Austin and Chorpita, nor Chorpita et al. examined whether the items and constructs in their model were free of ethnic biases. Therefore, the differences that were reported, albeit small, could be the result of measurement biases instead of ethnic influences. In this study we aimed to investigate three aspects of temperament differences in a multi-ethnic sample of normal Dutch children. First, we examined cross-ethnic differences in temperament between Dutch, Turkish, and Moroccan children and a sample of children with a mixed ethnic background. Second, we studied differences in temperament between boys and girls in the ethnic groups. Third, we analyzed the relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood in Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan children and the mixed ethnic group. We used the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Putnam, Ellis, & Rothbart, 2001; translated by Hartman, 2000). This temperament questionnaire is based on empirical evidence (Ahadi et al., 1993; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001) that temperament in children can be captured in three major temperament factors (Positive and Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control) which can be linked to personality constructs in childhood and the Big Five traits in adults (Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Positive Affectivity includes dimensions of activity, approach behavior, and sociability. Negative Affectivity contains dimensions of emotionality, sadness, irritability, and distress to limits. Effortful Control includes attention focusing and shifting, perceptual sensitivity, persistence and inhibitory control. By adopting this typology, we aimed to contribute to the comparability of studies of ethnic diverse samples. The adapted Dutch version was specifically constructed in order to be free of ethnic and gender biases (DeBoo and Kolk, submitted). In line with previous findings, we expected to find differences in temperament across samples of Dutch, Turkish, and Moroccan children and children from the mixed ethnic group. Based on data from western white samples we hypothesized that girls would score higher than boys on Effortful Control and boys would score higher than girls on Positive Affectivity. We explored whether ethnicity and gender interacted. Furthermore, we examined the association between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood (operationalized as traits) across ethnic samples. We hypothesized that high Negative Affectivity and low Positive Affectivity would be predictive of Depressive mood and that Negative Affectivity in combination with Effortful Control would be predictive of Aggressive mood. Interactive effects were explored as the effect of one temperament dimension might be attenuated or amplified by the effect of another (see Shahar, Gallagher, Blatt, Kuperminc, & Leadbeater, 2004).
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1759
2. Methods 2.1. Participants The 423 participants in this study represented three large ethnic groups and one mixed ethnic group (N = 423): Dutch Caucasian children (n = 155; 36.6%), Dutch children with a Turkish background (n = 95; 22.5%), Dutch children with a Moroccan background (n = 103; 24.4%) and a group with mixed ethnic/national backgrounds (n = 70; 16.5%) (see Table 1). For practical reasons we used the term ethnic, but in fact the groups were defined by the national background of both parents. Within the Turkish and Moroccan groups, various ethnicities were represented. The parents of the children in the mixed ethnic group had 35 different national backgrounds (other than Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan). Nineteen percent of the children were living in rural areas; the other children lived in cities. The children ranged in age from 8–13 years (M = 10.7; SD 1.1). 2.2. Procedure Children were recruited from seven public schools and three Islamite schools (44.2% of the Turkish children and 61.2% of the Moroccan children). All children mastered the Dutch language. In line with the school’s policy parents gave passive consent. The parents were fully informed about the purpose of the study and the fact that they could withdraw their consent at any time during the research project. The ethical committee of our department agreed with this consent procedure. None of the parents objected to their child’s participation. Children completed the questionnaire during classes. All children were read a standardized set of instructions, advising them to read each item carefully and select the answer that seemed most appropriate. The participants were reminded that their responses would be kept confidential. The instructors stayed with the children to answer their questions. 2.3. Measures We used an adapted version of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R, Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Dutch translation, Hartman, 2000). The EATQ-R is a theory-based instrument, designed to assess temperament defined as constitutionally based, individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation (Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Ellis and Rothbart investigated the EATQ-R in a sample of 177 (pre-) adolescents aged 10–15 Table 1 Frequency of participants by age, ethnicity and gender Years
9
10
11
12
13
N
Boys %
Dutch Turkish Moroccan Multi ethnic Total
31 7 6 12 56
36 22 34 24 116
54 40 35 19 148
25 18 21 14 78
4 8 7 1 20
155 95 103 70 423
47.1 56.8 40.8 37.1 46.1
1760
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
years and they concluded that it was a reliable tool. However, in a Dutch sample (8–13 years old children) these results were not replicated (i.e., in ten of the twelve scales Cronbach’s alpha was below 0.60). Therefore, new scales were constructed with the aim to maintain the three dimensions of the EATQ-R whilst eliminating items that lowered scale reliability. The adapted version contained three temperament scales: Positive Affectivity (Cronbach’s a 0.70), Negative Affectivity (Cronbach’s a 0.71), and Effortful Control (Cronbach’s a 0.70). This three dimensional model was examined with confirmatory factor analyses. Good model fits were established for the total sample, for boys and girls, and for Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan children (DeBoo & Kolk, submitted). The EATQ-R also included two mood scales: Depressive mood (Cronbach’s a 0.72) and Aggressive mood (Cronbach’s a 0.70). The items were tapping traits and not states (see Appendix A). The three temperament dimensions, items, and reliability parameters are presented in Appendix B. This version of the EATQ-R is child-self-report. The child can react with ‘‘not true’’ – ‘‘always true’’ on a five point Likert scale. 2.4. Data analyses Sample differences in gender and age were examined with a Chi-square test and ANOVA. To analyze differences between ethnic samples, between gender, and explore possible interaction effects, a 4 (Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan, Mixed) by 2 (girls, boys) between-subjects ANOVA was performed, with a post hoc Tukey HSD test for ethnicity. With regard to the relationship between temperament and respectively Depressive and Aggressive mood two Multiple Regression analyses (enter method) were performed in which three conceptually distinct sets of variables were entered as predictors. The first set contained three temperament variables (Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control), and three interactions variables (Positive Affectivity * Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity * Effortful Control, Negative Affectivity * Effortful Control). We transformed the temperament variables to standardized scores prior to the construction of the interaction variables. The second set contained three dummy coded ethnic variables (Dutch versus Turkish, Dutch versus Moroccan, Dutch versus Mixed Ethnicity); the third set contained age.
3. Result There was a significant age difference among the ethnic groups (F(3, 414) = 4.76, p < 0.01). Turkish children were older than Dutch children (p < 0.02), and older than the children in the mixed ethnic group (p < 0.04). The mean age difference between groups was half a year maximum. The proportion of boys in the Dutch group was 47.1%, in the Turkish group 56.8%, in the Moroccan group 40.8%, and in the mixed ethnic group 37.1%. These differences in the proportion of boys were significant (v2 (3, N = 423) = 7.909, p = 0.048). In Table 2 mean scores on the three temperament dimensions are shown separately for boys and girls, for the total group, and for the ethnic groups. The main effect of ethnic group was significant for Negative Affectivity (F(3, 415) = 7.698, p < 0.0005) and for Effortful Control (F(3, 415) = 2.989, p = 0.03). Dutch children scored significantly lower than Moroccan children on the Effortful Control scale (F(3, 419) = 3.020, p = 0.03) and significantly lower than Turkish
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1761
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of Effortful Control, Positive Affectivity and Negative Affectivity by ethnicity and gender (N = 423) n
Effortful Control M (SD)
Positive Affectivity M (SD)
Negative Affectivity M (SD)
Dutch
Boys Girls Total
73 82 155
28.0 (5.9) 28.7 (6.6) 28.3 (6.3)
24.4 (6.0) 26.8 (6.1) 25.7 (6.2)
23.8 (6.2) 26.3 (6.4) 25.1 (6.4)
Turkish
Boys Girls Total
54 41 95
29.6 (5.5) 29.6 (5.6) 29.6 (5.5)
25.6 (6.2) 25.7 (5.5) 25.7 (5.9)
28.3 (6.5) 28.3 (5.8) 28.3 (6.1)
Moroccan
Boys Girls Total
42 61 103
30.6 (6.1) 30.4 (5.8) 30.5 (5.9)
25.0 (5.8) 27.0 (5.9) 26.2 (5.9)
27.6 (7.2) 29.2 (6.5) 28.5 (6.8)
Mixed ethnic
Boys Girls Total
26 44 70
30.0 (6.1) 30.3 (7.2) 30.2 (6.8)
24.1 (6.8) 26.2 (6.2) 25.4 (6.4)
27.3 (6.9) 26.4 (5.7) 26.7 (6.1)
(F(3, 419) = 7.796, p = 0.001) and Moroccan children (F(3, 419) = 7.796, p = 0.001) on the Negative Affectivity scale. The main effect of gender was significant for Positive Affectivity (F(1, 415) = 7.058, p = 0.008). Inspection of Table 2 revealed that girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity scale. There were no significant interaction effects between ethnicity and gender. Two simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted to predict respectively Depressive and Aggressive mood from three ordered sets of variables: temperament, ethnicity and age. The temperament set contained 6 variables: Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity, Effortful Control, and the interaction variables Positive Affectivity * Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity * Effortful Control, and Negative Affectivity * Effortful Control. The ethnicity set contained three variables: Dutch versus Turkish, Dutch versus Moroccan, and Dutch versus Mixed ethnicities. Five outliers were removed from the dataset because these cases had a disproportional impact on the regression solution. Results of these analyses indicated that the temperament set accounted for a significant amount of variance of Depressive mood F(6, 409) = 50.898, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.42. Ethnicity and age did not account for the variability of Depressive mood, as the R2 and Adjusted R2 did not significantly change. Within the set of temperament variables all three temperament dimensions and one interaction variable contributed significantly to the explained variance: Negative Affectivity b = 2.6, p < 0.0005, Effortful Control b = 0.84, p < 0.0005, Positive Affectivity b = 0.73, p = 0.001, and the interaction variable Positive and Negative Affectivity b = 0.53, p < 0.004. Probing this significant two-way interaction we found that in the group which had scored low on Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity was not predictive of Depressive mood. In the group that had scored high on Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity also accounted for a significant amount of variance of Depressive mood F(1, 222) = 27.468, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.11. A significant amount of variance of Aggressive mood was accounted for by the set of temperament variables F(6, 409) = 20.8, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.22. Ethnicity and age did not ac-
1762
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
count for the variability of Aggressive mood, as the R2 and the Adjusted R2 did not significantly change. Two temperament dimensions contributed significantly to the explained variance: Negative Affectivity b = 1.9, p < 0.0005 and Effortful Control b = 1.07, p < 0.0005.
4. Discussion In this study of temperament differences and the relationship between temperament and mood, we have compared boys and girls from four different ethnic/national backgrounds. As expected we found temperament differences between the Dutch children and the other ethnic groups, differences between boys and girls and no ethnic differences in the relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood. Dutch children scored significantly lower than Moroccan children on the temperament dimension Effortful Control, and significantly lower than the Turkish and Moroccan children on the dimension Negative Affectivity. In other studies ethnic differences were found on the Positive Affectivity dimension. These studies compared white American children to children from (mainly) Asian ethnic backgrounds (Windle et al., 1988; Ahadi et al., 1993; Austin & Chorpita, 2004; Chorpita et al., 2000). This discrepancy in the nature of temperament differences might indicate that white Dutch and white American children differ, and that Asian children differ from children with a Turkish and Moroccan background. Ethnic diversity might be more intricate than merely a Western-non-Western distinction. Differences in Negative Affectivity were established between the Dutch and the other samples. This temperament dimension is a robust facet of personality functioning in middle childhood (Shiner, 1998). Negative Affectivity reflects the child’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of stress. A reason for this finding might be that Dutch children are less exposed to stress than children from other ethnic backgrounds, because they are the representatives of the cultural majority. We found, unexpectedly, that girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity dimension. In the meta-analysis of Else-Quest et al. (2006), mainly based on Western white samples, this pattern was reversed. A similar pattern as in the present study was also found in the Chinese sample in the study by Ahadi et al. (1993). These authors posited some interesting considerations for their findings. First they emphasized that temperament referred to inborn capabilities, which would only be manifested within a context that allowed their expression. Even if the underlying structure of temperament were invariant across cultures, there would still be important differences in personality cross-culturally (Ahadi et al., 1993, p. 370). Second, they stressed that temperament characteristics might not be valued in the same way across cultures. These considerations could explain their contrasting results about male-female temperament in the US and the republic of China. The same considerations could be valid for the results of this study. Dutch girls grew up in a society that stimulates independence, personal growth and self expression; hence these girls were socialized to develop the expression of characteristics which are represented by the Positive Affectivity dimension. It is interesting that this gender difference was not influenced by ethnicity. This possibly indicates that girls from other ethnic backgrounds, but living in the same society, were influenced by the same cultural values. Finally, robust relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were established; these were unaffected by ethnicity or age. As hypothesized, Negative Affectivity was a
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1763
strong predictor of Depressive mood. This was in line with the outcomes of the study by Austin and Chorpita (2004) as they established this relationship in five ethnic diverse samples. These findings support the tripartite model of depression and anxiety (Clark & Watson, 1991; Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998) and underscore its hypothesized universal stability. An important difference however is, that we have not assessed symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder, but indicators of Depressive mood instead. Nevertheless, the relationship with Negative Affectivity proved robust. This difference in the severity of depression (mood in this study, versus symptoms in other studies) might also explain the unexpected finding that Positive Affectivity and the interaction between Negative and Positive Affectivity were also positively related to Depressive mood. Children with a Depressive mood might be able to counter act their negative mood by a high level of activity and sociability, whilst children suffering from a Major Depressive Disorder are not able to do so. Therefore, in the tripartite model Positive Affectivity is negatively related to depression. Also Effortful Control significantly contributed to the prediction of Depressive mood. This finding is in line with the assumption that Effortful Control can modulate Negative Affectivity by increasing persistence in difficult situations or by improving coping skill selection and implementation (Rothbart, Posner, & Hershey, 1995 in Compas et al., 2004). Effortful Control also modulated the association between Negative Affectivity and Aggressive mood. Negative Affectivity was predictive of Aggressive mood in all four ethnic samples, in line with our hypothesis based on the work of Frick and Sheffield Morris (2004). Differences in temperament were found between Dutch and Turkish, Moroccan, and a mixed ethnic sample, but relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were consistent across ethnic samples, and in line with previous findings in other ethnic diverse populations. Nevertheless, several limitations of this study need consideration. First, the ethnic groups were quite small, possibly hampering generalization of the outcomes. Second, using ethnic groups may conceal viable distinctions within groups, like cultural differences and variations in level of acculturation. Further, the use of self-report has limitations, as social desirability might influence responses. Fourth, the most serious weakness is the method of data assembly. Cross-sectional analyses of self-reports can spuriously increase the strength of associations. The strength of this study is that an instrument was used specifically developed to be free of biases for ethnicity and gender. The differences we found are likely to represent true differences between children from different ethnic backgrounds. Acknowledging these differences can enhance our understanding of psychological problems and help to specify interventions in order to be more effective.
Appendix A. Two mood scales the EATQ-R Aggressive mood If I am mad at somebody, I tend to say things that I know will hurt their feelings. When I am angry, I throw or break things. If I get really mad at someone, I might hit them. I tend to be rude to people I do not like. When I am mad at a friend, I tend to explode at them. I pick on people for no real reason.
1764
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
Depressive mood I feel pretty happy most of the day (Reversed). My friends seem to enjoy themselves more than I do. It often takes very little to make me feel like crying. I get sad more than other people realize. I get sad when a lot of things are going wrong. I feel sad even when I should be enjoying myself, like at Christmas or on a trip. Appendix B. Three dimensional structure of the EATQ-R Positive Emotionality: a, 0.70; mean inter-item, 0.22; range item-rest, 0.22–0.56. I I I I I I I I
enjoy listening to the birds sing. like to look at the pattern of clouds in the sky. like to look at trees and walk amongst them. like the crunching sound of autumn leaves. notice even little changes taking place around me, like lights getting brighter in a room. tend to notice little changes that other people do not notice. want to be able to share my private thoughts with someone else. will do most anything to help someone I care about.
Negative emotionality: a, 0.71; mean inter-item, 0.22; range item-rest, 0.22–0.52. I worry about my family when I am not with them. I worry about getting into trouble. I get very upset if I want to do something and my parents would not let me. I get irritated when I have to stop doing something that I am enjoying. It really annoys me to wait in long lines. I get very frustrated when I make a mistake in my school work. It frustrates me if people interrupt me when I am talking. I get upset if I am not able to do a task really well. I feel shy about meeting new people. Effortful Control: a, 0.70; mean interitem, 0.21; range, 0.30–0.45. I have a hard time finishing things on time Rev. I do something fun for a while before starting my homework, even when I am not supposed to Rev. If I have a hard assignment to do, I get started right away. I finish my homework before the due date. I put off working on projects until right before they’re due Rev. It is easy for me to really concentrate on homework problems. When trying to study, I have difficulty tuning out background noise and concentrating Rev.
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1765
I pay close attention when someone tells me how to do something. I tend to get in the middle of one thing, then go off and do something else Rev. References Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children’s temperament in the US and China: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 359–377. Austin, A. A., & Chorpita, B. F. (2004). Temperament, anxiety, and depression: Comparisons across five ethnic groups of children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 216–226. Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., Moffitt, C., Yim, L., & Umemoto, L. A. (2000). Assessment of tripartite factors of emotion in children and adolescents I: Structural validity and normative data of an affect and arousal scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 22, 141–160. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336. Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 103–116. Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J., & Jaser, S. S. (2004). Temperament, stress reactivity, and coping: Implications for depression in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 21–31. DeBoo, G. M., & Kolk, A. (submitted for publication). Construction of a self-report temperament scale for children, invariant for ethnicity and gender. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, A. A., Rieser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–1134. Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire. In Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial meeting of the society of research in child development, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & VanHulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. Frick, P. J., & Sheffield Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54–68. Hartman, C. A. (2000). Dutch translation of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire revised. Groningen, the Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Disciplinegroep Psychiatrie. Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412. Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence. In A. Eliasz & F. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in Research on temperament. Germany: Pabst Scientific. Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament in childhood: A framework. In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 59–73). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55–66. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, Ph. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.). Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Hershey, K. L. (1995). Temperament, attention, and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Theory and methods (Vol. 1, pp. 315–340). New York: Wiley. Shahar, G., Gallagher, E. F., Blatt, S. J., Kuperminc, G. P., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). An interactive-synergetic approach to the assessment of personality vulnerability to depression: Illustration using the adolescent version of the depressive experiences questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 605–625.
1766
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916. Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–332. Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2–32. Windle, M., Iwawaki, S., & Lerner, R. M. (1988). Cross-cultural comparability of temperament among Japanese and American preschool children. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 547–567.
Ethnic and gender differences in temperament, and the relationship between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood Gerly M. de Boo *, Annemarie M. Kolk University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Clinical Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Received 11 October 2006; received in revised form 9 May 2007; accepted 17 May 2007 Available online 10 July 2007
Abstract Temperamental differences and the relationship between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were investigated in a sample of 423 9–13-year-old Dutch children from four different ethnic/national backgrounds. A temperament questionnaire was used, specifically constructed to ensure measurement equivalence across the Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan and mixed ethnic samples and across gender. We found temperament differences between the Dutch children and the other ethnic groups for Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control. Gender differences were found which were not influenced by ethnicity. Girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity scale. Temperament, especially the dimensions Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control, proved strongly predictive of both Depressive and Aggressive mood in all ethnic groups. Positive Affectivity contributed positively to Depressive mood and showed an interaction effect with Negative Affectivity. We discussed the consequences of our findings for the tripartite model of depression. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ethnic; Gender; Temperament; Depressive mood; Aggressive mood
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 20 5256817; fax: +31 20 639 1369. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.M. de Boo).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.012
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1757
1. Introduction Models of the relationship between temperament and psychopathology are based on the hypothesis that specific temperament characteristics increase vulnerability to specific disorders. This hypothesis has been mainly tested in white Western samples. Little research focused on ethnic and cultural samples and, therefore, it is unclear if these models maintain their validity in populations with other ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Conducting research across cultures however, presents unique methodological challenges. Assessment measures need to be equivalent across populations to ensure that items and underlying constructs have the same meaning. Few studies examined temperament differences between ethnic samples whilst specifically addressing the issue of measurement equivalence. Windle, Iwawaki, and Lerner (1988) ensured equivalence by comparing the covariance patterns of item-factor relations of nine temperament traits in a Japanese–American sample of pre-school children. Japanese children were rated higher on the trait Activity Level and lower on the traits Approach, Flexibility, Quality of mood and Rhythmicity than their American peers. Ahadi, Rothbart, and Ye (1993) compared the factor structures (explorative factor analysis) and scale means in two samples of 6- to 7-year old children from Shanghai and the USA. In both samples they found three similar temperament factors: Positive Affectivity (containing indices of approach, high intensity pleasure, and activity), Negative Affectivity (containing indices of discomfort, fear, anger, and sadness), and Effortful Control (containing indices of inhibitory control, attention, low intensity pleasure). The US sample scored relatively higher on Positive Affectivity and Effortful Control than on Negative Affectivity, whilst this pattern was reversed in the Chinese sample. The same study established gender differences between both cultures. American girls scored higher on the Effortful Control factor than American boys. This pattern was reversed in Chinese boys and girls. Gender differences in temperament were also established in a meta-analysis by Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, and VanHulle (2006). Boys scored lower than girls on Effortful Control. Low scores on Effortful Control have been linked to aggression and conduct problems (Frick & Sheffield Morris, 2004) and to a higher male incidence of inattention and externalizing behavior problems (Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). Girls scored lower than boys on dimensions of Positive Affectivity. Low scores on Positive Affectivity, in combination with high scores on Negative Affectivity, have been linked to depression. The latter combination of temperament dimensions is thought to prevail in girls and might therefore explain the increased vulnerability of women to develop depression (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994). Temperament may have direct effects on the development of psychopathology or may play a mediating or moderating role. According to the tripartite model of anxiety and depression (Clark & Watson, 1991), Negative Affectivity was directly and positively associated with both depression and anxiety, whilst Positive Affectivity was directly, but negatively, associated with depression only. Support for this model is extensive (Compas, Connor-Smith, & Jaser, 2004). High levels of Negative Affectivity were consistently related to conduct problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001) and aggression (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997), whilst Effortful Control was modulating the expression of Negative Affectivity (Eisenberg et al.). Chorpita, Daleiden, Moffitt, Yim, and Umemoto (2000) and Austin and Chorpita (2004) studied the tripartite model in multiethnic samples. In the study by Chorpita et al. the structural validity of the model was examined by a self-report questionnaire, specifically designed to assess three
1758
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
temperament factors (Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Physical Hyperarousal) and four emotional constructs (fear, anxiety, tension and stress). They established an excellent fitting model containing these three temperament factors by confirmatory factor analysis. Although they did not examine if this factor structure was equivalent across the ethnic samples, they compared the mean scores of Caucasian, Chinese American, Filipino American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, and a mixed ethnic group. They found only minor differences on the Positive Affectivity scale. Austin and Chorpita examined the factor structure of the tripartite model in five ethnic samples. Their results confirmed the model: high Negative Affectivity was associated with high Anxiety, and high Negative Affectivity and low Positive Affectivity were associated with high Depression. They found that the strength of these associations was similar for Caucasian, Chinese American, Filipino, Native Hawaiian and Japanese American children and they only reported small temperament differences on the Positive Affectivity scale. Unfortunately, neither Austin and Chorpita, nor Chorpita et al. examined whether the items and constructs in their model were free of ethnic biases. Therefore, the differences that were reported, albeit small, could be the result of measurement biases instead of ethnic influences. In this study we aimed to investigate three aspects of temperament differences in a multi-ethnic sample of normal Dutch children. First, we examined cross-ethnic differences in temperament between Dutch, Turkish, and Moroccan children and a sample of children with a mixed ethnic background. Second, we studied differences in temperament between boys and girls in the ethnic groups. Third, we analyzed the relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood in Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan children and the mixed ethnic group. We used the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Putnam, Ellis, & Rothbart, 2001; translated by Hartman, 2000). This temperament questionnaire is based on empirical evidence (Ahadi et al., 1993; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001) that temperament in children can be captured in three major temperament factors (Positive and Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control) which can be linked to personality constructs in childhood and the Big Five traits in adults (Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Positive Affectivity includes dimensions of activity, approach behavior, and sociability. Negative Affectivity contains dimensions of emotionality, sadness, irritability, and distress to limits. Effortful Control includes attention focusing and shifting, perceptual sensitivity, persistence and inhibitory control. By adopting this typology, we aimed to contribute to the comparability of studies of ethnic diverse samples. The adapted Dutch version was specifically constructed in order to be free of ethnic and gender biases (DeBoo and Kolk, submitted). In line with previous findings, we expected to find differences in temperament across samples of Dutch, Turkish, and Moroccan children and children from the mixed ethnic group. Based on data from western white samples we hypothesized that girls would score higher than boys on Effortful Control and boys would score higher than girls on Positive Affectivity. We explored whether ethnicity and gender interacted. Furthermore, we examined the association between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood (operationalized as traits) across ethnic samples. We hypothesized that high Negative Affectivity and low Positive Affectivity would be predictive of Depressive mood and that Negative Affectivity in combination with Effortful Control would be predictive of Aggressive mood. Interactive effects were explored as the effect of one temperament dimension might be attenuated or amplified by the effect of another (see Shahar, Gallagher, Blatt, Kuperminc, & Leadbeater, 2004).
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1759
2. Methods 2.1. Participants The 423 participants in this study represented three large ethnic groups and one mixed ethnic group (N = 423): Dutch Caucasian children (n = 155; 36.6%), Dutch children with a Turkish background (n = 95; 22.5%), Dutch children with a Moroccan background (n = 103; 24.4%) and a group with mixed ethnic/national backgrounds (n = 70; 16.5%) (see Table 1). For practical reasons we used the term ethnic, but in fact the groups were defined by the national background of both parents. Within the Turkish and Moroccan groups, various ethnicities were represented. The parents of the children in the mixed ethnic group had 35 different national backgrounds (other than Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan). Nineteen percent of the children were living in rural areas; the other children lived in cities. The children ranged in age from 8–13 years (M = 10.7; SD 1.1). 2.2. Procedure Children were recruited from seven public schools and three Islamite schools (44.2% of the Turkish children and 61.2% of the Moroccan children). All children mastered the Dutch language. In line with the school’s policy parents gave passive consent. The parents were fully informed about the purpose of the study and the fact that they could withdraw their consent at any time during the research project. The ethical committee of our department agreed with this consent procedure. None of the parents objected to their child’s participation. Children completed the questionnaire during classes. All children were read a standardized set of instructions, advising them to read each item carefully and select the answer that seemed most appropriate. The participants were reminded that their responses would be kept confidential. The instructors stayed with the children to answer their questions. 2.3. Measures We used an adapted version of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R, Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Dutch translation, Hartman, 2000). The EATQ-R is a theory-based instrument, designed to assess temperament defined as constitutionally based, individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation (Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Ellis and Rothbart investigated the EATQ-R in a sample of 177 (pre-) adolescents aged 10–15 Table 1 Frequency of participants by age, ethnicity and gender Years
9
10
11
12
13
N
Boys %
Dutch Turkish Moroccan Multi ethnic Total
31 7 6 12 56
36 22 34 24 116
54 40 35 19 148
25 18 21 14 78
4 8 7 1 20
155 95 103 70 423
47.1 56.8 40.8 37.1 46.1
1760
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
years and they concluded that it was a reliable tool. However, in a Dutch sample (8–13 years old children) these results were not replicated (i.e., in ten of the twelve scales Cronbach’s alpha was below 0.60). Therefore, new scales were constructed with the aim to maintain the three dimensions of the EATQ-R whilst eliminating items that lowered scale reliability. The adapted version contained three temperament scales: Positive Affectivity (Cronbach’s a 0.70), Negative Affectivity (Cronbach’s a 0.71), and Effortful Control (Cronbach’s a 0.70). This three dimensional model was examined with confirmatory factor analyses. Good model fits were established for the total sample, for boys and girls, and for Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan children (DeBoo & Kolk, submitted). The EATQ-R also included two mood scales: Depressive mood (Cronbach’s a 0.72) and Aggressive mood (Cronbach’s a 0.70). The items were tapping traits and not states (see Appendix A). The three temperament dimensions, items, and reliability parameters are presented in Appendix B. This version of the EATQ-R is child-self-report. The child can react with ‘‘not true’’ – ‘‘always true’’ on a five point Likert scale. 2.4. Data analyses Sample differences in gender and age were examined with a Chi-square test and ANOVA. To analyze differences between ethnic samples, between gender, and explore possible interaction effects, a 4 (Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan, Mixed) by 2 (girls, boys) between-subjects ANOVA was performed, with a post hoc Tukey HSD test for ethnicity. With regard to the relationship between temperament and respectively Depressive and Aggressive mood two Multiple Regression analyses (enter method) were performed in which three conceptually distinct sets of variables were entered as predictors. The first set contained three temperament variables (Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control), and three interactions variables (Positive Affectivity * Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity * Effortful Control, Negative Affectivity * Effortful Control). We transformed the temperament variables to standardized scores prior to the construction of the interaction variables. The second set contained three dummy coded ethnic variables (Dutch versus Turkish, Dutch versus Moroccan, Dutch versus Mixed Ethnicity); the third set contained age.
3. Result There was a significant age difference among the ethnic groups (F(3, 414) = 4.76, p < 0.01). Turkish children were older than Dutch children (p < 0.02), and older than the children in the mixed ethnic group (p < 0.04). The mean age difference between groups was half a year maximum. The proportion of boys in the Dutch group was 47.1%, in the Turkish group 56.8%, in the Moroccan group 40.8%, and in the mixed ethnic group 37.1%. These differences in the proportion of boys were significant (v2 (3, N = 423) = 7.909, p = 0.048). In Table 2 mean scores on the three temperament dimensions are shown separately for boys and girls, for the total group, and for the ethnic groups. The main effect of ethnic group was significant for Negative Affectivity (F(3, 415) = 7.698, p < 0.0005) and for Effortful Control (F(3, 415) = 2.989, p = 0.03). Dutch children scored significantly lower than Moroccan children on the Effortful Control scale (F(3, 419) = 3.020, p = 0.03) and significantly lower than Turkish
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1761
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of Effortful Control, Positive Affectivity and Negative Affectivity by ethnicity and gender (N = 423) n
Effortful Control M (SD)
Positive Affectivity M (SD)
Negative Affectivity M (SD)
Dutch
Boys Girls Total
73 82 155
28.0 (5.9) 28.7 (6.6) 28.3 (6.3)
24.4 (6.0) 26.8 (6.1) 25.7 (6.2)
23.8 (6.2) 26.3 (6.4) 25.1 (6.4)
Turkish
Boys Girls Total
54 41 95
29.6 (5.5) 29.6 (5.6) 29.6 (5.5)
25.6 (6.2) 25.7 (5.5) 25.7 (5.9)
28.3 (6.5) 28.3 (5.8) 28.3 (6.1)
Moroccan
Boys Girls Total
42 61 103
30.6 (6.1) 30.4 (5.8) 30.5 (5.9)
25.0 (5.8) 27.0 (5.9) 26.2 (5.9)
27.6 (7.2) 29.2 (6.5) 28.5 (6.8)
Mixed ethnic
Boys Girls Total
26 44 70
30.0 (6.1) 30.3 (7.2) 30.2 (6.8)
24.1 (6.8) 26.2 (6.2) 25.4 (6.4)
27.3 (6.9) 26.4 (5.7) 26.7 (6.1)
(F(3, 419) = 7.796, p = 0.001) and Moroccan children (F(3, 419) = 7.796, p = 0.001) on the Negative Affectivity scale. The main effect of gender was significant for Positive Affectivity (F(1, 415) = 7.058, p = 0.008). Inspection of Table 2 revealed that girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity scale. There were no significant interaction effects between ethnicity and gender. Two simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted to predict respectively Depressive and Aggressive mood from three ordered sets of variables: temperament, ethnicity and age. The temperament set contained 6 variables: Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity, Effortful Control, and the interaction variables Positive Affectivity * Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity * Effortful Control, and Negative Affectivity * Effortful Control. The ethnicity set contained three variables: Dutch versus Turkish, Dutch versus Moroccan, and Dutch versus Mixed ethnicities. Five outliers were removed from the dataset because these cases had a disproportional impact on the regression solution. Results of these analyses indicated that the temperament set accounted for a significant amount of variance of Depressive mood F(6, 409) = 50.898, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.42. Ethnicity and age did not account for the variability of Depressive mood, as the R2 and Adjusted R2 did not significantly change. Within the set of temperament variables all three temperament dimensions and one interaction variable contributed significantly to the explained variance: Negative Affectivity b = 2.6, p < 0.0005, Effortful Control b = 0.84, p < 0.0005, Positive Affectivity b = 0.73, p = 0.001, and the interaction variable Positive and Negative Affectivity b = 0.53, p < 0.004. Probing this significant two-way interaction we found that in the group which had scored low on Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity was not predictive of Depressive mood. In the group that had scored high on Negative Affectivity, Positive Affectivity also accounted for a significant amount of variance of Depressive mood F(1, 222) = 27.468, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.11. A significant amount of variance of Aggressive mood was accounted for by the set of temperament variables F(6, 409) = 20.8, p < 0.0005, Adjusted R2 = 0.22. Ethnicity and age did not ac-
1762
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
count for the variability of Aggressive mood, as the R2 and the Adjusted R2 did not significantly change. Two temperament dimensions contributed significantly to the explained variance: Negative Affectivity b = 1.9, p < 0.0005 and Effortful Control b = 1.07, p < 0.0005.
4. Discussion In this study of temperament differences and the relationship between temperament and mood, we have compared boys and girls from four different ethnic/national backgrounds. As expected we found temperament differences between the Dutch children and the other ethnic groups, differences between boys and girls and no ethnic differences in the relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood. Dutch children scored significantly lower than Moroccan children on the temperament dimension Effortful Control, and significantly lower than the Turkish and Moroccan children on the dimension Negative Affectivity. In other studies ethnic differences were found on the Positive Affectivity dimension. These studies compared white American children to children from (mainly) Asian ethnic backgrounds (Windle et al., 1988; Ahadi et al., 1993; Austin & Chorpita, 2004; Chorpita et al., 2000). This discrepancy in the nature of temperament differences might indicate that white Dutch and white American children differ, and that Asian children differ from children with a Turkish and Moroccan background. Ethnic diversity might be more intricate than merely a Western-non-Western distinction. Differences in Negative Affectivity were established between the Dutch and the other samples. This temperament dimension is a robust facet of personality functioning in middle childhood (Shiner, 1998). Negative Affectivity reflects the child’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of stress. A reason for this finding might be that Dutch children are less exposed to stress than children from other ethnic backgrounds, because they are the representatives of the cultural majority. We found, unexpectedly, that girls scored higher than boys on the Positive Affectivity dimension. In the meta-analysis of Else-Quest et al. (2006), mainly based on Western white samples, this pattern was reversed. A similar pattern as in the present study was also found in the Chinese sample in the study by Ahadi et al. (1993). These authors posited some interesting considerations for their findings. First they emphasized that temperament referred to inborn capabilities, which would only be manifested within a context that allowed their expression. Even if the underlying structure of temperament were invariant across cultures, there would still be important differences in personality cross-culturally (Ahadi et al., 1993, p. 370). Second, they stressed that temperament characteristics might not be valued in the same way across cultures. These considerations could explain their contrasting results about male-female temperament in the US and the republic of China. The same considerations could be valid for the results of this study. Dutch girls grew up in a society that stimulates independence, personal growth and self expression; hence these girls were socialized to develop the expression of characteristics which are represented by the Positive Affectivity dimension. It is interesting that this gender difference was not influenced by ethnicity. This possibly indicates that girls from other ethnic backgrounds, but living in the same society, were influenced by the same cultural values. Finally, robust relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were established; these were unaffected by ethnicity or age. As hypothesized, Negative Affectivity was a
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1763
strong predictor of Depressive mood. This was in line with the outcomes of the study by Austin and Chorpita (2004) as they established this relationship in five ethnic diverse samples. These findings support the tripartite model of depression and anxiety (Clark & Watson, 1991; Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998) and underscore its hypothesized universal stability. An important difference however is, that we have not assessed symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder, but indicators of Depressive mood instead. Nevertheless, the relationship with Negative Affectivity proved robust. This difference in the severity of depression (mood in this study, versus symptoms in other studies) might also explain the unexpected finding that Positive Affectivity and the interaction between Negative and Positive Affectivity were also positively related to Depressive mood. Children with a Depressive mood might be able to counter act their negative mood by a high level of activity and sociability, whilst children suffering from a Major Depressive Disorder are not able to do so. Therefore, in the tripartite model Positive Affectivity is negatively related to depression. Also Effortful Control significantly contributed to the prediction of Depressive mood. This finding is in line with the assumption that Effortful Control can modulate Negative Affectivity by increasing persistence in difficult situations or by improving coping skill selection and implementation (Rothbart, Posner, & Hershey, 1995 in Compas et al., 2004). Effortful Control also modulated the association between Negative Affectivity and Aggressive mood. Negative Affectivity was predictive of Aggressive mood in all four ethnic samples, in line with our hypothesis based on the work of Frick and Sheffield Morris (2004). Differences in temperament were found between Dutch and Turkish, Moroccan, and a mixed ethnic sample, but relationships between temperament and Depressive and Aggressive mood were consistent across ethnic samples, and in line with previous findings in other ethnic diverse populations. Nevertheless, several limitations of this study need consideration. First, the ethnic groups were quite small, possibly hampering generalization of the outcomes. Second, using ethnic groups may conceal viable distinctions within groups, like cultural differences and variations in level of acculturation. Further, the use of self-report has limitations, as social desirability might influence responses. Fourth, the most serious weakness is the method of data assembly. Cross-sectional analyses of self-reports can spuriously increase the strength of associations. The strength of this study is that an instrument was used specifically developed to be free of biases for ethnicity and gender. The differences we found are likely to represent true differences between children from different ethnic backgrounds. Acknowledging these differences can enhance our understanding of psychological problems and help to specify interventions in order to be more effective.
Appendix A. Two mood scales the EATQ-R Aggressive mood If I am mad at somebody, I tend to say things that I know will hurt their feelings. When I am angry, I throw or break things. If I get really mad at someone, I might hit them. I tend to be rude to people I do not like. When I am mad at a friend, I tend to explode at them. I pick on people for no real reason.
1764
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
Depressive mood I feel pretty happy most of the day (Reversed). My friends seem to enjoy themselves more than I do. It often takes very little to make me feel like crying. I get sad more than other people realize. I get sad when a lot of things are going wrong. I feel sad even when I should be enjoying myself, like at Christmas or on a trip. Appendix B. Three dimensional structure of the EATQ-R Positive Emotionality: a, 0.70; mean inter-item, 0.22; range item-rest, 0.22–0.56. I I I I I I I I
enjoy listening to the birds sing. like to look at the pattern of clouds in the sky. like to look at trees and walk amongst them. like the crunching sound of autumn leaves. notice even little changes taking place around me, like lights getting brighter in a room. tend to notice little changes that other people do not notice. want to be able to share my private thoughts with someone else. will do most anything to help someone I care about.
Negative emotionality: a, 0.71; mean inter-item, 0.22; range item-rest, 0.22–0.52. I worry about my family when I am not with them. I worry about getting into trouble. I get very upset if I want to do something and my parents would not let me. I get irritated when I have to stop doing something that I am enjoying. It really annoys me to wait in long lines. I get very frustrated when I make a mistake in my school work. It frustrates me if people interrupt me when I am talking. I get upset if I am not able to do a task really well. I feel shy about meeting new people. Effortful Control: a, 0.70; mean interitem, 0.21; range, 0.30–0.45. I have a hard time finishing things on time Rev. I do something fun for a while before starting my homework, even when I am not supposed to Rev. If I have a hard assignment to do, I get started right away. I finish my homework before the due date. I put off working on projects until right before they’re due Rev. It is easy for me to really concentrate on homework problems. When trying to study, I have difficulty tuning out background noise and concentrating Rev.
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
1765
I pay close attention when someone tells me how to do something. I tend to get in the middle of one thing, then go off and do something else Rev. References Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children’s temperament in the US and China: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 359–377. Austin, A. A., & Chorpita, B. F. (2004). Temperament, anxiety, and depression: Comparisons across five ethnic groups of children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 216–226. Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., Moffitt, C., Yim, L., & Umemoto, L. A. (2000). Assessment of tripartite factors of emotion in children and adolescents I: Structural validity and normative data of an affect and arousal scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 22, 141–160. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336. Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 103–116. Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J., & Jaser, S. S. (2004). Temperament, stress reactivity, and coping: Implications for depression in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 21–31. DeBoo, G. M., & Kolk, A. (submitted for publication). Construction of a self-report temperament scale for children, invariant for ethnicity and gender. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, A. A., Rieser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–1134. Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire. In Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial meeting of the society of research in child development, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & VanHulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. Frick, P. J., & Sheffield Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54–68. Hartman, C. A. (2000). Dutch translation of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire revised. Groningen, the Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Disciplinegroep Psychiatrie. Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412. Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence. In A. Eliasz & F. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in Research on temperament. Germany: Pabst Scientific. Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament in childhood: A framework. In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 59–73). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55–66. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, Ph. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.). Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Hershey, K. L. (1995). Temperament, attention, and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Theory and methods (Vol. 1, pp. 315–340). New York: Wiley. Shahar, G., Gallagher, E. F., Blatt, S. J., Kuperminc, G. P., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). An interactive-synergetic approach to the assessment of personality vulnerability to depression: Illustration using the adolescent version of the depressive experiences questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 605–625.
1766
G.M. de Boo, A.M. Kolk / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1756–1766
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916. Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–332. Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2–32. Windle, M., Iwawaki, S., & Lerner, R. M. (1988). Cross-cultural comparability of temperament among Japanese and American preschool children. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 547–567.