The role of early childhood personality in the developmental course of social adjustment

Abstract

This study explored children, preschool, and family characteristics that contribute to individual differences in the developmental trajectories of social competence and internalizing and externalizing behavior. Teachers reported on personality and social adjustment of 304 children at ages 3, 4, 5, and 6 years. Predictors of social adjustment included: (1) children’s gender and the ratings of extraversion, conscientiousness, disagreeableness, and neuroticism; (2) maternal and paternal education, and parent-reported parenting practices at the beginning of the study; and (3) the child’s age of entry to preschool. Child social adjustment was most strongly predicted by teacher-rated child personality. The change in a child’s rank-order position on social competence was related to the change in the rank-order position on extraversion; the change in internalizing behavior was related particularly to a change in neuroticism, and the change in externalizing behavior especially to a change in disagreeableness. Specific family variables and the child’s age at the time of entry into preschool played a minor but statistically significant role.

Keywords

child personality developmental trajectories internalizing/externalizing behavior social competence

Social adjustment in childhood contributes significantly to several crucial developmental outcomes and it is therefore important to understand the course of its early development. Studies of social adjustment often focus on externalizing and/or internalizing problem behavior and social competence. Externalizing problems in children are considered precursors of later violence and academic failure (Broidy et al., 2003; Masten et al., 2005) and internalizing problems are associated with impairment in relational and academic functioning (e.g., Masten, 2005; Normandeau & Guay, 1998), while social competence plays a vital role in social adjustment and academic achievement (e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000; Ladd, 2005).

Social adjustment appears considerably stable over time in terms of rank-order consistency (e.g., Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2010; Kerr, Lunkenheimer, & Olson, 2007; Masten et al., 2005), but this does not necessarily imply the mean-level or normative constancy. Some studies have demonstrated that social competence shows a small normative increase as the children get older (e.g., LaFreniere, Dumas, Zupančič, Gril, & Kavčič, 2001), while externalizing (e.g., Bongers, Koot, Van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2004) and internalizing problems (e.g., Asendorpf, Denissen, & Van Aken, 2009) tend to decrease. However, Asendorpf et al. (2009) acknowledged that research on the developmental trajectories of these behaviors, and especially factors affecting them, is still lacking.

The life course theory (e.g., Elder & Giele, 2009) emphasizes the importance of studying variation in developmental trajectories (as opposed to the lifespan approach, focusing on average, normative trajectories). The theory contends that diverse courses of development are influenced, among other factors, by social integration (relationships with significant others), agency and personal control (individuals position themselves into roles and situations), and the timing of events in a person’s life.

In accordance with this perspective, our study examined the role of individual differences in children and family characteristics, as well as the time of entry into preschool, in predicting children’s position in social adjustment within their reference group over time; that is, patterns of change in social competence and internalizing and externalizing behavior. Primary predictions were that social competence would increase from early into middle childhood, whereas problem behaviors would decrease; trajectories of individual children would, however, depart from the normative ones according to the specifics of a child’s personality and social environment. In childhood, social interactions take place mainly within the family and (pre)school context.

Children’s personality shaping social adjustment

Individual differences in children are manifested in relatively consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior (e.g., Caspi, 2000; Markey, Markey, & Tinsley, 2004; Shiner, 2000, 2006). They have been typically evidenced as temperament, whereas personality traits have been qualified as adult individual differences. Traditionally, temperament was distinguished from personality, but it has been established by now that the conceptual distinction is more historical than substantive (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; De Pauw, Mervielde, & Van Leeuwen, 2009). Research demonstrates that the five-factor model (FFM) of personality adequately represents the organization of individual differences in adults (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997) and also summarizes the individual differences in children and adolescents (De Pauw et al., 2009; Grist & McCord, 2010; Halverson et al., 2003; Markey et al., 2004; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010; Zupančič, Sočan, & Kavčič, 2009). The FFM posits that personality traits are hierarchically organized and that the robust or higher-order traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness reside at the top of the hierarchy. The robust traits and their lower-order constituent traits can be reliably rated by adults, at least in 3-year-olds (Halverson et al., 2003; Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg, & Hwang, 2002; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010; Zupančič et al., 2009). According to the most accepted view, the child personality traits function as chronological precursors to adult personality (Asendorpf et al., 2009; Caspi, 2000; Caspi et al., 2005), though the FFM traits are often found to be less stable and/or differentiated in children than in adults (Grist & McCord, 2010; Markey et al., 2004; Zupančič et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the early personality traits predict several important developmental outcomes, including social functioning (Caspi et al., 2005; Shiner, 2006; Slobodskaya, 2007; Van Aken, 2009).

Child personality ratings at a single point in time show concurrent and longitudinal links with social competence and internalizing and externalizing behavior. Early childhood extraversion is associated with adjustment to peers at age 8, while early agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to later rule-abiding behavior in school and following learning instructions (Lamb et al., 2002). Similarly, agreeableness and extraversion are associated with social competence in school-age children (Shiner, 2000). Neuroticism and low extraversion in children are generally found to be major predictors of internalizing problems (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Huey & Weisz, 1997; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010), whereas low agreeableness (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Huey & Weisz, 1997; Meunier et al., 2011; Prinzie, Onghena, & Hellinckx, 2005; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010) and low conscientiousness (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010) are consistently related to externalizing problems (see also De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010).

However, not only baselines (as reflected in single measurements), but also the change in child personality traits over time might be related to the development of social adjustment, as demonstrated by Branje, Van Lieshout, and Van Aken (2004), in families with adolescents. Therefore we measured the child’s social adjustment and personality repeatedly to investigate whether they change concomitantly—if a child’s personality changes, this should be reflected in the changes in social adjustment.

Whereas extant studies exploring contributions of individual differences in young children to social adjustment trajectories have focused on temperament/personality types (e.g., Denissen, Asendorpf, & van Aken, 2008; Odgers et al., 2008), and/or included samples with clinically referred children over-represented (e.g., Meunier et al., 2011), we extended the research in the field by targeting robust personality traits in normative preschool children. Based on the aforementioned review of literature, it was hypothesized that: (1) a change in the children's rank-order position according to social competence would be linked with the change in development of extraversion and agreeableness; (2) the internalizing behavior trajectory would be related particularly to the change in neuroticism and extraversion; and (3) the externalizing behavior trajectory would be predicted mainly by the change in disagreeableness and conscientiousness.

Environmental factors predicting social adjustment

Parental education and parenting are associated with several child outcomes (e.g., National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Early Child Care Research Network [NICHD ECCRN], 2005; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). As a rule, research suggests consistently significant, but weak, associations of parental education and parenting practices (excluding severely risky characteristics, such as child neglect, poverty, family violence or child abuse) with a child’s social development (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinall, Pipes McAdoo, & Garcia Coll, 2001; Meunier et al., 2011; Miller, Tserakhava, & Miller, 2011; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). In general, authoritative parenting is associated with greater social competence and less problems in behavior (e.g., Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994), whereas permissive and authoritarian parenting are related to internalizing and/or externalizing behavior (e.g., Rankin Williams et al., 2009).

Similarly, a relationship between socio-economic status (SES; measured as parental education, occupation, and/or income) and socio-emotional outcomes emerges in early childhood, but becomes more consistent in middle childhood (for review, see Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). For instance, in a United States sample of first-graders, over-represented for conduct problems, parental education predicted teacher-rated social competence but not internalizing and externalizing problems, once other family and neighborhood variables were accounted for (Greenberg et al., 1999). Therefore we expected that parents’ education and their parenting practices would contribute to the level and course of their children’s social adjustment. Education was proposed to be positively linked with adaptive behavior; authoritative parenting was hypothesized to predict social competence; and the components of permissive (ineffective control) and/or authoritarian parenting (power assertion) were assumed to be associated with children’s problem behavior.

Compared to family variables, out-of-home environmental characteristics have been less frequently investigated as contributors to social adjustment in early childhood. Full time attendance of preschool¹ is a normative experience for 89% of 3–6-year-olds in Slovenia (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2010), as well as for the majority of children in other Western societies (Vandell et al., 2010). Two views about the effect of preschools (and other types of non-parental care) on children’s development prevail among the general public and within the professional community. The view of non-parental care as harmful for child development stems mostly from attachment theories contending that (especially early) childcare disrupts the attachment bonds and consequently leads to problem behavior (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1988). Contrarily, cognitivists stress the positive value of well-designed stimulation and instruction in preschools for a child’s social development (e.g., Ahnert, Rickert, & Lamb, 2000). Research on the effects of early entry into preschool (during the first 2 years after birth) on children’s development of social adjustment offered somewhat conflicting findings (Andersson, 1989; Belsky & Rovine, 1988; NICHD ECCRN, 2005; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2006). Thus we explored how the children’s age of entry into preschool (ages 1 to 3 years) affects their later developmental course of social adjustment (from ages 3 to 6). We expected that an early entry (at age 1 or 2) would be associated with more adaptive behavior than the late entry (age at around 3), because the early starters may be better integrated into the daily life in preschools than the late starters, who could still undergo the process of adjustment to the novel developmental context (Ahnert, Gunnar, Lamb, & Barthel, 2004).

The current study

We aimed to estimate the developmental course of social adjustment from early into middle childhood, and to examine how the child’s personality, family, and preschool factors contribute to individual differences in the rate of change in social competence, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior. Previous research was extended in the following ways: (1) both of the super-ordinate aspects of problem behavior—that is, externalizing and internalizing behavior—were targeted, as well as social competence representing an aspect of adjustment; (2) child development within a period of a relatively rapid psychological change (Meunier et al., 2011) was studied with annual measurements of social adjustment and personality; (3) individual and environmental (family and out-of-family) factors were included as potential contributors to the change in a child’s social adjustment; and (4) characteristics of both parents were accounted for.

Method

Participants

At the beginning of the study the sample consisted of 350 Slovene 3-year-olds who attended one of 17 state-funded preschools (available for children aged 10 months and over) in different regions of the country. The preschools are non-compulsory, employ teachers with a college degree in early childhood education, comply with the national curriculum on preschool education, and are, in general, considered to be of high quality (Zupančič & Kavčič, 2006).

The sample was followed up annually across four waves (W). Data for 46 children were subsequently omitted from analyses due to missing data on two or more measurement occasions (e.g., children were absent from preschool during the available time for data collection, families moved out, parents did not return questionnaires). The analyses were thus performed with data on 304 children (52% girls) who entered preschools at ages from 10 months to 3 years and 6 months (M = 23.3 months, SD = 9.8 months). In W1 their age ranged from 2 years and 7 months to 3 years and 10 months (M = 38.0 months, SD = 2.5 months) and all of them remained in the same preschool prior to entering school. Three years later (W4), the children were enrolled into one of 58 compulsory schools.

Both of the children’s parents (N was thus 608; all of the couples were married or lived in an extra-marital community throughout the study), 95 preschool teachers, and 83 school teachers responded to questionnaires. Maternal and paternal education² ranged from 8 to 20 years and from 8 to 19 years of completed schooling, respectively (see also Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for predictors (unstandardized scores)

	Wave 1		Wave 2		Wave 3		Wave 4
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Child age (months)	38.02	2.49
Child personality
Extraversion	4.30	0.71	4.36	0.67	4.53	0.75	4.55	0.82
Conscientiousness	4.23	0.70	4.26	0.70	4.41	0.82	4.42	1.00
Disagreeableness	3.61	0.84	3.63	0.89	3.65	0.93	3.26	1.03
Neuroticism	3.73	0.80	3.75	0.87	3.57	0.83	3.41	0.93
Parenting—father
Authoritative	3.33	0.32
Ineffective control	1.84	0.36
Power assertion	1.69	0.31
Stimulation	3.05	0.44
Parenting—mother
Authoritative	3.23	0.36
Ineffective control	1.89	0.38
Power assertion	1.75	0.36
Stimulation	2.80	0.46
Maternal education (yrs)	12.88	2.35
Paternal education (yrs)	12.30	2.31
Age at entry into preschool (mths)	23.33	9.75

Measures

An adult report form of the Inventory of Child Individual Differences (ICID; Halverson et al., 2003) was used to measure child personality. The instrument is standardized in Slovenia (Zupančič & Kavčič, 2009) and consists of 108 items. They are based on parental natural language descriptors across several countries and rated along a seven-point scale (1 = the characteristic is present in my child much less than in the average child or not at all; 7 = … much more than in the average child). The items combine into 15 internally consistant mid-level scales (all αs over .62). With Slovene children rated by (pre)school teachers, the 15 mid-level scales form four robust, moderately correlated dimensions that are structurally invariant across ratings by multiple informants, regardless of the targets’ age. The factors are labeled as follows: extraversion (including mid-level scales of activity level, considerate, positive emotions, open to experience, and sociable), conscientiousness (achievement orientation, compliant, distractible; reverse-scored: intelligent, and organized), disagreeableness (antagonistic, negative affect, and strong will), and neuroticism (fearful/insecure, and shy). We considered four instead of five factors in this study because the invariant five-factorial ICID structure has only been assured with two of the mid-level scales omitted (Knyazev, Zupančič, & Slobodskaya, 2008). The Slovene validation study found high internal consistencies of dimensional ICID scores (all αs over .83), a moderate to high rank-order stability over early childhood, and a high interrater agreement between teacher pairs (teacher and assistant teacher) working in the same group/class of children (Zupančič & Kavčič, 2009; Zupančič et al., 2009). The ICID scores are differentially related to measures of temperament, for example extraversion is associated with low temperamental inhibition and positive affect; disagreeableness and low conscientiousness show links with temperamental impulsivity and problem behavior; neuroticism and low extraversion are related to internalizing behavior (Halverson et al., 2003); and disagreeableness, extraversion, and low conscientiousness are linked to externalizing behavior (Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2006).

The Family Environment Questionnaire (FEQ; Zupančič, Podlesek, & Kavčič, 2004) was used as a parent report measure of maternal and paternal parenting practices in W1. It includes 52 items tapping parental behavior towards their preschool children. The frequency of specific behaviors is rated along a four-point rating scale (1 = almost never; 4 = almost always). The items combine into four dimensions: authoritative parenting (setting limits, responsiveness, sensitivity, warmth, induction); ineffective control (inconsistency in demands and rule setting, giving in to a child’s unreasonable requests); power assertion (punishment, withholding of privileges, requiring immediate compliance); and stimulation of a child’s cognitive development (encouraging different forms of play, teaching numbers, shapes, colors, etc.). With Slovene 3-year-olds, internal consistencies of the dimensions range from .66 to .86 and from .68 to .87 for mothers and fathers, respectively. Maternal and paternal ratings are moderately correlated (rs range from .42 to .47).

The Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation Scale (SCBE; LaFreniere & Dumas, 1995), which is standardized in Slovenia (LaFreniere et al., 2001), was rated by children’s (pre)school teachers. The questionnaire includes 80 statements reflecting children’s emotional expressiveness and quality of interactions with peers and adults in an educational setting. However, moderate correlations of children’s behavior as observed by the parents and teachers were also obtained (Lobo & Winsler, 2006). The SCBE items are rated along a six-point scale (1 = behavior almost never occurs in the child; 6 = almost always occurs). The principal component analysis using Varimax rotation procedures with both the original Quebec sample (LaFreniere & Dumas, 1995) and the Slovene validation sample (LaFreniere et al., 2001) yielded a clear structure of three non-overlapping components: social competence (40 items, including joyful, secure, tolerant, integrated, calm, prosocial, cooperative, and autonomous behavior); internalizing behavior (20 items describing depressive, anxious, isolated, and dependent behavior); and externalizing behavior (20 items describing angry, aggressive, egotistical, and oppositional behavior). With the Slovene validation sample of children, aged from 2 years and six months to 7 years, the summary scales show high internal consistency (αs from .85 to .95), retest reliability (rs from .74 to .89), interrater agreement between preschool teachers and assistant teachers (rs from .69 to .89), and satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity (LaFreniere et al., 2001).

Procedure

Preschool principals were contacted and asked for participation at the beginning of the study (all but one of the invited preschools agreed). Next, questionnaires were distributed to teachers and parents who gave an informed written consent to participate. The parents provided demographic data (their child’s date of birth, gender, and age of entry into preschool, years of completed schooling for the mother and father) and reported on their parenting practices (the FEQ) in W1 only, whereas the preschool teachers reported on children’s personality and social adjustment annually, from W1 through W3. In W3 the parents were additionally asked about the specific compulsory school in which their children were supposed to enroll in the subsequent year. Prior to data collection in W4, principals and teachers of those schools were contacted and asked for participation (none of them refused). The school teachers provided the ICID and the SCBE ratings of the target children in W4. The respondents returned the filled-in questionnaires to the research team in sealed envelopes in each of the four waves.

Data analysis

Children with either complete data or missing data on the ICID or SCBE in one of the four waves were included in the analysis. Attrition analyses showed that the differences between the children omitted from the analyses and those who were included were not statistically significant on any of the W1 measures, with the exception of omitted children scoring moderately lower on maternal power assertion (n = 46, M = 1.54, SD = 0.27) than the remaining children (n = 304, M = 1.70, SD = 0.31), F(1, 334) = 9.62, p = .002, Cohen’s f = 0.255.

Missing data were imputed with IBM SPSS Statistics 19 multiple imputation procedure. Five datasets were formed and later entered into the Hierarhical Linear Modeling (HLM) 6.8 statistical program (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) where a pooled hierarchical linear model was used to predict the change in the rank-order position of each child with regard to his/her social behavior. To eliminate a possible biasing influence of different groups of raters, we standardized the SCBE scores in each wave and then focused on changes in the individual rank-order position rather than on the changes in individual absolute scores. Linear individual growth models were employed at level 1 (repeated-observations model with grand-mean centered time points). With these analyses we observed how a child’s rank in social (mal)adjustment changes over time.

We tested three different models for predicting individual standardized scores on each of the SCBE scales as dependent variables. First, the unconditional model with level 2 random effects, both for the intercept and slope parameters, was applied (i.e., time-only model). With this model we took into account that individual rank positions were different in W1 and could change at a different rate afterwards; that is, the intercept and the slope of the growth function (the function of standardized scores changing over time) may differ for different children. In the second model (i.e., time and personality model), standardized scores of four personality dimensions obtained in W1–W4 were additionally entered as fixed level 1 predictors (i.e., as fixed time-varying covariates) of the SCBE standardized score in order to explore to what extent a child’s rank in social adjustment follows his/her rank in a given personality trait. With this model we assessed how much of the change in a child’s rank in social adjustment over time could be attributed to temporal changes in personality and how much to other, unknown time-specific factors. Third, in the so-called time, personality, and level 2 predictors model, slopes of individual growth functions were predicted by several level 2 variables which were simultaneously entered in the model: gender, exact age of the child in W1, age at time of entry into preschool, maternal and paternal education in years, and the four dimensions of maternal and paternal parenting practices. These variables (except gender) were expressed in a standardized form to ease interpretation of their effects. All statistical hypotheses were tested at a .05 alpha error rate.

Results

Average trajectories of social adjustment

Descriptive statistics for raw scores on all predictors are presented in Table 1. Average ratings of child personality dimensions show age-related increase in extraversion and conscientiousness, and decrease in disagreeableness and in neuroticism towards the end of the observed period. Figure 1 shows change in average scores on each of the SCBE scales over time. There was an increase in social competence and a decrease in internalizing and externalizing behavior from W1 to W4.

Figure 1.

Four time points of the developmental course in a child's social adjustment. Means and standard deviations (pooled over five imputations) are shown as points and bars, respectively. Possible range of scores is from 0 to 200 for social competence and from 0 to 100 for externalizing and internalizing behavior.

Change in individual social adjustment rank over time

Based on an inspection of the individual standardized scores in different waves, we first modeled the change in those scores on each scale of social adjustment with a combined quadratic and linear model of growth, but there were extreme negative correlations between the parameters for the linear and the quadratic component; also, the reliability of the estimated growth curve parameters was low, which is why we decided to model the changes in the rank position of social adjustment with a linear function.

Table 2 shows variance components in the three models related to each of the SCBE scales. In the first step, individual growth functions were assessed with time only models for each of the three scales of social adjustment. Individual growth functions were not perfectly linear. In the time only model for social competence, 46% of data variance could be attributed to level 1 error variance—that is, variance around individual regression lines. Level 1 error variance represented 53% of variance in internalizing behavior and 50% in externalizing behavior. Still, in all three time only models the intercept and slope variances were statistically significant, indicating that individual growth functions varied notably.

Table 2.

Estimations of variance components in three models of separate SCBE scale scores

Variance component	SD	var	df	χ²	p
Social competence
Time only model
Intercept	0.681	0.464	303	1543.79	< .001
Slope	0.250	0.063	303	513.75	< .001
Level 1 error	0.674	0.455
Time and personality model
Intercept	0.306	0.093	303	726.62	< .001
Slope	0.133	0.018	303	403.85	< .001
Level 1 error	0.519	0.269
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Intercept	0.306	0.094	303	728.24	< .001
Slope	0.108	0.012	290	370.16	.001
Level 1 error	0.519	0.269
Internalizing behavior
Time only model
Intercept	0.621	0.385	303	1192.64	< .001
Slope	0.260	0.067	303	498.36	< .001
Level 1 error	0.726	0.527
Time and personality model
Intercept	0.370	0.137	303	723.41	< .001
Slope	0.175	0.031	303	421.76	< .001
Level 1 error	0.630	0.397
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Intercept	0.370	0.137	303	723.78	< .001
Slope	0.137	0.019	290	376.31	.001
Level 1 error	0.630	0.397
Externalizing behavior
Time only model
Intercept	0.674	0.454	303	1414.60	< .001
Slope	0.189	0.036	303	412.78	< .001
Level 1 error	0.706	0.498
Time and personality model
Intercept	0.324	0.105	303	647.17	< .000
Slope	0.092	0.009	303	333.97	.107
Level 1 error	0.610	0.372
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Intercept	0.329	0.108	303	665.12	< .001
Slope	0.081	0.007	290	315.66	.144
Level 1 error	0.603	0.364

Note. Time only model refers to the unconditional model where only time was entered as a level 1 predictor of the SCBE scale-score. Time and personality model refers to the model with four personality dimensions and time entered as level 1 predictors. In time, personality, and level 2 predictors model, child gender and age, parental education, and parenting practices were added as level 2 predictors of the slope of the SCBE scale score trajectory.

A large part of the variance (46% in social competence, 39% in internalizing behavior, and 45% in externalizing behavior) could be attributed to individual differences in the intercepts of the growth functions; that is, in the average standardized score in social adjustment over time, estimated according to the linear growth model. A smaller portion of the variance (6% in social competence, 7% in internalizing behavior, and 4% in externalizing behavior) could be attributed to differences in slopes of individual growth functions (see Table 2).

The role of personality in the change in individual social adjustment rank over time

In the second step, effects of the level 1 predictors on dependent variables were examined with the time and personality models. Introducing level 1 covariates in the model resulted in the reduction of unexplained variance in the intercepts and slopes of individual growth functions and in the reduction of error variance (see Table 2). Overall, the unexplained variance decreased by 61% for social competence, 42% for internalizing behavior, and 51% for externalizing behavior, which is why we can conclude that personality dimensions explain a great deal of variance in social adjustment standardized scores.

After the introduction of personality dimensions as covariates in the model, the growth functions can be described as the change in the residuals of the dependent variable over time. For social competence, the variance of intercepts of such residual growth functions was 80% smaller than the variance of intercepts in the time only model. There was a 64% decrease in intercept variance for internalizing behavior and a 77% decrease for externalizing behavior. However, the unexplained variance of individual intercepts remained statistically significant for all three dependent variables.

In the time and personality model predicting externalizing behavior, unexplained variance in individual slopes was reduced to the level which was not statistically significant any more (the variance of the slopes in the residual growth functions was 75% smaller than the variance of the slopes in the time only model). The unexplained variance of the slope in the residual growth functions of social competence and internalizing behavior remained statistically significant, suggesting that some level 2 predictors of slope should be included in the model. In comparison to the slope variance in the time only model, the slope variance of the residual growth functions was 71% smaller for social competence and 54% smaller for internalizing behavior.

By entering child personality dimensions as level 1 predictors in the model, level 1 error variance decreased by 41% for social competence, 25% for internalizing behavior, and by 25% for externalizing behavior, suggesting that the variation of individual scores around the line in the time only model was to some extent related to changes in personality scores.

The rank in social competence was significantly predicted by the rank in extraversion (see Table 3, social competence section, time and personality model). If the child’s rank-order position in extraversion increased over time, so did the rank-order position in social competence. In a similar manner, the child’s rank in social competence increased if his or her rank in conscientiousness increased and if his or her rank in disagreeableness decreased. An increase in the rank in internalizing behavior over time was related to an increase in the rank in neuroticism and a decrease in the ranks in extraversion and disagreeableness. An increase in the rank in externalizing behavior was predicted by an increase in the rank in disagreeableness and by a decrease in the ranks in neuroticism and conscientiousness.

Table 3.

Statistically significant effects on trajectories of child social adjustment in conditional models

Fixed effect	Coefficient	Robust SE	t	df	p
Social competence
Time and personality model
Extraversion	0.485	0.035	13.76	69	< .001
Conscientiousness	0.288	0.032	8.89	40	< .001
Disagreeableness	–0.159	0.021	–7.65	439	< .001
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Level 1 covariates
Extraversion	0.479	0.035	13.63	85	< .001
Conscientiousness	0.287	0.031	9.08	44	< .001
Disagreeableness	–0.157	0.02	–7.71	532	< .001
Level 2 predictors of slope
Entry into preschool	0.054	0.016	3.43	290	.001
Internalizing behavior
Time and personality model
Extraversion	–0.236	0.049	–4.84	40	< .001
Disagreeableness	–0.079	0.031	–2.55	137	.012
Neuroticism	0.403	0.03	13.21	280	< .001
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Level 1 covariates
Extraversion	–0.234	0.049	–4.81	42	< .001
Disagreeableness	–0.072	0.031	–2.32	101	.023
Neuroticism	0.403	0.03	13.4	349	< .001
Level 2 predictors of slope
Entry into preschool	–0.063	0.02	–3.11	120	.003
Externalizing behavior
Time and personality model
Conscientiousness	–0.174	0.037	–4.78	83	< .001
Disagreeableness	0.636	0.029	22.14	1210	< .001
Neuroticism	–0.185	0.028	–6.67	1210	< .001
Time, personality, and level 2 predictors model
Level 1 covariates
Conscientiousness	–0.175	0.037	–4.77	67	< .001
Disagreeableness	0.628	0.029	22.01	1197	< .001
Neuroticism	–0.177	0.028	–6.31	1197	< .001
Level 2 predictors of slope
Paternal education	–0.042	0.020	–2.12	56	.038
Paternal power assertion	0.036	0.018	2.00	290	.046

Note. Time and personality model refers to the model with four personality dimensions and time entered as level 1 predictors. In time, personality, and level 2 predictors model, child gender and age, parental education and parenting practices were added as level 2 predictors of the slope of the SCBE scale score trajectory.

The role of additional factors in the change in individual social adjustment rank over time

In the third step, level 2 predictors were entered in the models, predicting the parameters of individual residual growth functions for the three dependent variables. The random level 1 intercepts and slopes were negatively correlated (r = –.80 for social competence, r = –.52 for internalizing behavior, r = –.95 for externalizing behavior), indicating that the rank-order position of the children with a higher initial rank in a certain social behavior changed less than those with a lower initial rank, presumably because of the SCBE scales’ ceiling effect. Due to strong associations between the intercepts and slopes of individual residual growth functions, we decided to model the slopes only. Introduction of the level 2 predictors into the model resulted in a much smaller reduction of slope variances than introduction of personality dimensions (see Table 2). The former reduced the slope variance by an additional 11% (social competence), 18% (internalizing behavior), and 6% (externalizing behavior). In the time, personality, and level 2 predictors model, effects of level 1 predictors remained similar as in the time and personality model (see Table 3). Among the level 2 predictors, age at the time of entry into preschool was the only one which significantly predicted the slopes of individual residual growth functions for social competence and internalizing behavior—the older the children at entry, the larger the increase in their rank in social competence and decrease in their rank in internalizing behavior over time. The slope of change in the individual’s rank in externalizing behavior was significantly predicted by paternal education and paternal power assertion—the higher the paternal education and less frequent the father’s power assertion, the steeper the decline of the child’s rank-order position in externalizing behavior compared to his or her peers.

Discussion

The average developmental trajectories obtained in the present study showed a progressive change in the three domains of social adjustment, from early into middle childhood: a normative (mean-level) increase in social competence and decrease in both internalizing and externalizing behavior as observed by the children’s teachers in (pre)school. Among the child, family, and preschool-related factors that were considered, teacher-rated child personality was demonstrated to be a major predictor of social adjustment. The change in a child’s rank in social adjustment was related to changes in personality measures.

Child personality predicting change in social adjustment

As hypothesized from an overview of the research linking child personality traits with concurrent and/or later social adaptation (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Caspi et al., 2005; De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Slobodskaya, 2007; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010), changes in social competence followed mainly the changes in extraversion, while those in internalizing behavior were related particularly to changes in neuroticism, and the change in externalizing behavior was tied especially to a change in disagreeableness.

The association between extraversion and social competence is not surprising bearing in mind that sociable, expressive, lively, high-spirited children, who are also considerate and concerned about others (extraverted children³), are motivated to engage in positive social interactions and tend to maintain social interactions through prosocial behavior, cooperation, consideration of others’ points of view, negotiation, and other constructive ways of interpersonal problem solving indicative of socially competent behavior (Caspi et al., 2005; Slobodskaya, 2007). An obviously smaller but significant role of conscientiousness and low disagreeableness in predicting social competence in our study may be explained by the children’s capacity to regulate negative emotions in social interactions, as these two robust personality traits have been suggested to stem from an underlying regulative capacity (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2005).

Considering the course of internalizing behavior in our sample, neuroticism, low extraversion, and low disagreeableness may be regarded as predisposing children towards manifestations of anxiety, sadness, inhibition in social interactions and novel situations, and dependence on adults. Fearfulness/insecurity and shyness, which are indicative of neuroticism, predict a range of withdrawal-related responses (see De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Shiner, 2006) which, in the (pre)school context, seem to include poor engagement in peer groups, cautious behavior in the classroom, wariness in challenging situations, and reliance on the teachers’ competence and/or authority. Low extraversion, particularly the tendency to experience few positive emotions, is related to depression (see De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010) and may be displayed through children’s low mood in (pre)school; the passivity of children who are low in extraversion may contribute to their being overlooked and ignored in the classroom; whereas low sociability, which differs from social inhibition, may have its behavioral expression in a child’s tendency to avoid social contacts. In our study, low disagreeableness had a small but significant effect on internalizing behavior and this trait could be regarded as predisposing children towards a meek and non-assertive interpersonal behavior.

Our research further proposes that high disagreeableness, low conscientiousness, and low neuroticism may predispose children to externalizing behavior. Strong-willed, antagonistic children, prone to negativity (anger, irritability), tend to interpret other people’s behavior as hostile and therefore act aggressively, create disturbing situations, and evoke negative responses in others (Caspi, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2000), for example, peer rejection. They may experience difficulties in conforming to (pre)school rules and demands of the teachers, and are thus likely to create frustrating circumstances that evoke aggression and self-centered and oppositional behavior (i.e., externalizing behavior). Poor self-regulation, typical of children low in conscientiousness, may provide difficulties for children to regulate their anger/irritability and behavior effectively (see De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Eisenberg et al., 2000). A minor but significant role of low neuroticism in externalizing behavior might suggest that the absence of anxiety, fear, or emotional distress may predispose children to express aggression, especially in an instrumental, proactive manner (De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010).

Child’s gender, parenting, and timing of preschool entry predicting change in social adjustment

Whereas a significant role of child gender (Bongers et al., 2004; Carter et al., 2010; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2011) in social adjustment measured at single occasions has been documented, our analyses provided no support for the effect of gender on the developmental course of social adjustment from early into middle childhood. Possibly, the contribution of gender is too subtle to emerge once child personality and family characteristics are accounted for; it may emerge later in development and/or may appear with regard to the trajectories of more fine-tuned social behaviors than those explored in our study.

Contrary to our predictions, positive parenting did not add significantly to the prediction of socially adjusted behavior. Nevertheless, higher paternal education and less frequent power assertion over the child predicted a steeper decrease in a child’s rank in externalizing from age 3 to 6. The mechanism through which paternal education contributes to the externalizing behavior in children awaits future inquiry. The link between paternal power assertion and child externalizing behavior is consistent with well-documented associations between harsh parenting (including power assertion) and child behavior problems (e.g., Bradley et al., 2001; Prinzie et al., 2004), and with Patterson’s coercion theory (2002). In the long term, the effects of coercive paternal discipline on a young child may result in less favorable development of angry, aggressive, egotistical, and oppositional behaviors, which showed a normative decrease from early into middle childhood in our study.

Contrary to previous findings (e.g., Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994), paternal characteristics in our study emerged as more powerful predictors of the development of social adjustment in children than maternal ones. These results draw attention to the importance of including both parents in studies of family environment, as paternal and maternal parenting may have distinct patterns of influence on outcomes in children (Meunier et al., 2011). It seems that the effects of most of the family characteristics considered in our study were not robust enough to be revealed once child personality was accounted for. Stronger associations between familial environment and the children’s development of social adjustment might have emerged if observational measures were used instead of parental reports on parenting practices.

Along with looking at developmental trajectories, the life course perspective emphasizes the importance of the timing of developmental transitions (Bianchi & Casper, 2005; Elder & Giele, 2009). The child’s entry into preschool was considered as such a transition in the present study, and indeed the timing of the entry (the child’s age at the transition) contributed slightly but significantly to the trajectories of social competence and internalizing behavior. Relative to children who entered earlier, late starters (entering preschool a few months prior to the beginning of the study) showed a steeper increase in social competence rank and a steeper decline in the internalizing behavior rank. Our previous analyses of W1 data (Zupančič & Kavčič, 2006) suggested a higher baseline of internalizing behavior in late as compared to early entrants. In addition to those findings, the results of the present study may indicate that the late starters only exhibit temporary problems in adjustment to a novel developmental context (e.g., Ahnert et al., 2004; Zupančič & Kavčič, 2006), as they also more rapidly decrease in internalizing behavior than the early starters. However, our previous studies demonstrated no significant effect of the age of entry into preschool on social competence at age 3, and further investigations are needed to provide an explanation for a slightly faster increase in social competence among the late compared to the early starters.

Strengths and limitations

Generalization of the results presented is limited by the fact that the target participants were a random sample of children attending public preschools in Slovenia (albeit representing a vast majority of the Slovene children). Future studies with cross-national samples, including children not attending preschools, are needed for replication of the trajectories revealed. Also, a non-random drop out for mother-reported power assertion emerged over the course of our research. This might have resulted in a reduced range of maternal power assertion scores, possibly leading to an imprecise estimation of the effect of this maternal parenting behavior on children’s social adjustment. Nevertheless, the attrition was not biased regarding all of the other variables considered. Reliance on teachers’ reports about children’s personality and social adjustment is another shortcoming of our design, as the associations of child personality ratings with indicators of social adjustment might have been overestimated due to the shared method variance. Forthcoming studies should include other informants, referencing multiple contexts and/or observational measures of a child’s (mal)adaptive behavior.

The strengths of our research include the longitudinal and multiple method design, a fairly representative sample from the country that has been under-represented in the developmental literature, and the focus on several child-related and experience factors as contributors to the developmental course of social adjustment in addition to studying the average trajectories of social competence, internalizing and externalizing behavior.

With regard to the predictor variables under investigation, we found children’s social adjustment in educational settings to be more strongly related to their personality than to parenting practices as reported by parents. This finding does not disagree with a general theoretical and research-based view on the development of problem behavior, which is considered to evolve in a combination of difficult child personality and an ill-functioning environment (Van Aken, 2009). Our results basically corroborate the proposition that identifying the robust personality trait patterns may be useful for understanding underlying predispositions and motives associated with children’s problem behavior (Ehrler, Evans, & McGhee, 1999).

Footnotes

Notes

References

Ahnert

Gunnar

M. R.

Lamb

M. E.

Barthel

(2004). Transition to child care: Associations with infant–mother attachment, infant negative emotion, and cortisol elevations. Child Development, 75, 639–650.

Ahnert

Rickert

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). Shared caregiving: Comparisons between home and child-care settings. Developmental Psychology, 36, 339–351.

Andersson

B. E.

(1989). Effects of public daycare: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 60, 857–866.

Asendorpf

J. B.

Denissen

J. A.

Van Aken

M. A. G.

(2009). Personality trajectories from early childhood through emerging adulthood. In Schneider

Bullock

(Eds.), Human development from early childhood to early adulthood: Findings from a 20 year longitudinal study (pp. 119–144). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Asendorpf

J. B.

Van Aken

M. A. G.

(2003). Validity of big five personality judgements in childhood: A 9 year longitudinal study. European Journal of Personality, 17, 1–17.

Aunola

Nurmi

J.-E.

(2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76, 1144−1159.

Belsky

Rovine

(1988). Nonmaternal care in the first year of life and attachment security. Child Development, 59, 157–167.

Bianchi

S. M.

Casper

L. M.

(2005). Explanations of family change: A family demographic perspective. In Bengtsen

V. L.

Acock

A. C.

Allen

K. R.

Dilworth-Anderson

Klein

D. M.

(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 93–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Bongers

I. L.

Koot

H. M.

van der Ende

Verhulst

F. C.

(2004). Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1523–1537.

10.

Bornstein

M. H.

Hahn

C. -S.

Haynes

O. M.

(2010). Social competence, externalizing, and internalizing behavioral adjustment from early childhood through early adolescence: Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 717–735.

11.

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F

. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.

12.

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F.

Burchinal

Pipes McAdoo

Garcia Coll

(2001). The home environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Development, 72, 1868–1886.

13.

Branje

S. J. T.

van Lieshout

C. F. M.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2004). Relations between big five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 615–628.

14.

Broidy

L. M.

Nagin

D. S.

Tremblay

R. E.

Bates

J. E.

Brame

Dodge

Vitaro

. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222–245.

15.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Pastorelli

Bandura

Zimbardo

P. G.

(2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.

16.

Carter

A. S.

Godoy

Wagmiller

R. L.

Veliz

Marakovitz

Briggs-Gowan

M. J.

(2010). Internalizing trajectories in young boys and girls: The whole is not a simple sum of its parts. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 19–31.

17.

Caspi

(2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158–172.

18.

Caspi

Roberts

B. W.

Shiner

R. L.

(2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

19.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Asendorpf

J. B.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2008). Childhood personality predicts long-term trajectories of shyness and aggressiveness in the context of demographic transitions in emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality, 76, 67–100.

20.

De Pauw

S. S. W.

Mervielde

(2010). Temperament, personality and developmental psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions underlying childhood traits. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41, 313–329.

21.

De Pauw

S. S. W.

Mervielde

Van Leeuwen

K. G.

(2009). How are traits related to problem behavior in preschoolers? Similarities and contrasts between temperament and personality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 309–325.

22.

Ehrler

D. J.

Evans

J. G.

McGhee

R. L.

(1999). Extending the big-five theory into childhood: A preliminary investigation into the relationship between big-five personality traits and behavior problems in children. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 451–458.

23.

Eisenberg

Guthrie

I. K.

Fabes

R. A.

Shepard

Losoya

Murphy

B. C.

Reiser

. (2000). Prediction of elementary school children’s externalizing problem behaviors from attentional and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality. Child Development, 71, 1367–1382.

24.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. Giele

J. Z.

(2009). Life course studies: An evolving field. In Elder

G. H.

Jr. Giele

J. Z.

(Eds.), The craft of life course research (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

Greenberg

M. T.

Lengua

L. J.

Coie

J. D.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Bierman

Dodge

K. A

McMahon

R. J

. (1999). Predicting developmental outcomes at school entry using a multiple-risk model: Four American communities. Developmental Psychology, 35, 403–417.

26.

Grist

C. L.

McCord

D. M.

(2010). Individual differences in preschool children: Temperament or personality? Infant and Child Development, 19, 264–274.

27.

Halverson

C. F.

Havill

V. L.

Deal

Baker

S. R.

Victor

B. J.

Pavlopoulos

Wen

. (2003). Personality structure as derived from parental ratings of free descriptions of children: The inventory of child individual differences. Journal of Personality, 71, 995–1026.

28.

Huey

Weisz

J. R

. (1997). Ego control, ego resiliency, and the five-factor model as predictors of behavioral and emotional problems in clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 404–415.

29.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Graziano

W. G.

(2005). The two faces of temptation: Differing motives for self-control. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 287–314.

30.

Kaga

Bennett

Moss

(2010). Caring and learning together: A cross-national study of the integration of early childhood care and education within education. Paris, France: UNESCO.

31.

Kerr

D. C. R.

Lunkenheimer

E. S.

Olson

S. L.

(2007). Assessment of child problem behaviors by multiple informants: A longitudinal study from preschool to school entry. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 967–975.

32.

Knyazev

G. G.

Zupančič

Slobodskaya

H. R.

(2008). Child personality in Slovenia and Russia: Structure and mean level of traits in parent and self-ratings. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 39, 317–334.

33.

Ladd

G. W.

(2005). Children’s peer relations and social competence: A century of progress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

34.

LaFreniere

P. J.

Dumas

J. E.

(1995). Social competence and behavior evaluation ( Preschool ed. [SCBE]). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

35.

LaFreniere

P. J.

Dumas

J. E.

Zupančič

Gril

Kavčič

(2001). Vprašalnik o socialnem vedenju. Priročnik [Social competence and behavior evaluation scale. Manual]. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Center for Psychodiagnostic Resources.

36.

Lamb

M. E.

Chuang

S. S.

Wessels

Broberg

A. G.

Hwang

C. P.

(2002). Emergence and construct validation of the big five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73, 1517–1524.

37.

Lobo

Y. B.

Winsler

(2006). The effects of a creative dance and movement program on the social competence of head start preschoolers. Social Development, 15, 501–519.

38.

Markey

P. M.

Markey

C. N.

Tinsley

B. J.

(2004). Children’s behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 423–432.

39.

Masten

A. S.

(2005). Peer relationships and psychopathology in developmental perspective: Reflections on progress and promise. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 87–92.

40.

Masten

A. S.

Roisman

G. I.

Long

J. D.

Burt

K. B.

Obradović

Riley

Tellegen

. (2005). Developmental cascades: Linking academic achievement and externalizing and internalizing symptoms over 20 years. Developmental Psychology, 41, 733–746.

41.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1997). Personality trait structure as human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

42.

Meunier

J. C.

Roskam

Stievenart

van de Moortele

Browne

D. T.

Kumar

. (2011). Externalizing behavior trajectories: The role of parenting, sibling relationships and child personality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 20–33.

43.

Miller

S. R.

Tserakhava

Miller

C. J.

(2011). ‘‘My child is shy and has no friends: What does parenting have to do with it?’’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 442–452.

44.

National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (NICHD ECCRN). (2005). Early child care and children’s development in the primary grades: Results from the NICHD study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 537–570.

45.

Normandeau

Guay

(1998). Preschool behavior and first-grade school achievement: The mediational role of cognitive self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 111–121.

46.

Odgers

C. L.

Moffitt

T. E.

Broadbent

J. M.

Dickson

Hancox

R. J.

Harrington

Caspi

. (2008). Female and male antisocial trajectories: From childhood origins to adult outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 673–716.

47.

Patterson

G. R.

(2002). The early development of coercive family process. In Reid

J. B.

Patterson

G. R.

Snyder

(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Developmental theories and models for intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social development trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553.

49.

Prinzie

Onghena

Hellinckx

(2005). Parent and child personality traits and children’s externalizing problem behavior from age 4 to 9 years: A cohort-sequential latent growth curve analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 335–366.

50.

Prinzie

Onghena

Hellinckx

Grietens

Ghesquiere

Colpin

(2004). Parent and child personality characteristics as predictors of negative discipline and externalizing problem behavior in children. European Journal of Personality, 18, 73–102.

51.

Rankin Williams

Degnan

K. A.

Perez-Edgar

K. E.

Henderson

H. A.

Rubin

K. H.

Pine

D. S

Fox

N. A

. (2009). Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1063–1075.

52.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

(2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

53.

Rothbaum

Weisz

J. R.

(1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in non clinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55−74.

54.

Shiner

(2000). Linking childhood personality with adaptation: Evidence for continuity and change across time into late adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 310–325.

55.

Shiner

R. L.

(2006), Temperament and personality in childhood. In Mroczek

D. K.

Little

(Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 213–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

56.

Slobodskaya

H. R.

(2007). The associations among the big five, behavioural inhibition and behavioural approach systems and child and adolescent adjustment in Russia. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 913–924.

57.

Slobodskaya

H. R.

Akhmetova

O. A.

(2010). Personality development and problem behavior in Russian children and adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 441–451.

58.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. (2010). Children attending kindergartens. Retrieved from http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Demographics/09_education/03_pree-school_education/01_09525_children_kindergarten/01_09525_children_kindergarten.asp

59.

Steinberg

Lamborn

Darling

Mounts

Dornbusch

(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.

60.

Van Aken

M. G. A.

(2009). Personality in children and adolescents: Development and consequences. In Tremblay

R. E.

Van Aken

M. A. G.

Koops

(Eds.), Development and prevention of behavior problems: From genes to social policy (pp. 131–142). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

61.

Vandell

D. L.

Belsky

Burchinal

Steinberg

Vandergrift

., & National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD). (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development, 81, 737–756.

62.

Yeung

Linver

M. R.

Brooks-Gunn

(2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investments and family processes. Child Development, 73, 1861–1879.

63.

Zupančič

Kavčič

(2006). The age of entry into high-quality pre-school, child and family factors, and developmental outcomes in early childhood. European Early Child Education Research Journal, 1, 91–112.

64.

Zupančič

Kavčič

(2009). Vprašalnik o medosebnih razlikah pri otrocih in mladostnikih (VMR-OM): priročnik [The inventory of child and adolescent individual differences (ICID): The Manual]. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Center for Psychodiagnostic Resources.

65.

Zupančič

Kavčič

(2011). Factors of social adjustment to school: Child’s personality, family and pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 493–504.

66.

Zupančič

Podlesek

Kavčič

(2004). Parental child-care practices of Slovenian preschoolers’ mothers and fathers: The family environment questionnaire. Horizons of Psychology, 13, 7–26.

67.

Zupančič

Sočan

Kavčič

(2009). Consistency in adult reports on child personality over the preschool years. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 455–480.