EU Agresivitatea Parintilor Asupra Copiilor

7/28/2019 EU Agresivitatea Parintilor Asupra Copiilor

1/10

The Role of Aggressive Personality and Family Relationships inExplaining Family Conflict

Briana N. HorwitzThe Pennsylvania State University

Jody M. GanibanThe George Washington University

Erica L. SpottsNational Institute on Aging

Paul LichtensteinKarolinska Institute

David ReissYale University

Jenae M. NeiderhiserThe Pennsylvania State University

This study investigated whether genetic and environmental influences on global familyconflict are explained by parents personality, marital quality, and negative parenting. Thesample comprised 876 same-sex pairs of twins, their spouses, and one adolescent child pertwin from the Twin and Offspring Study in Sweden. Genetic influences on aggressive

personality were correlated with genetic influences on global family conflict. Nonsharedenvironmental influences on marital quality and negative parenting were correlated withnonshared environmental influences on global family conflict. Results suggest that parentspersonality and unique experiences within their family relationships are important forunderstanding genetic and environmental influences on global conflict in the home.

Keywords: aggression, family conflict, marital quality, negative parenting

Family conflict, as indexed by the Family EnvironmentalScale (FES), refers to openly expressed anger, hostility, andaggression in the home (Moos & Moos, 1981). Several twinstudies have documented both genetic and environmental

influences on reports on the FES (e.g., Kendler & Baker,2007). These previous studies have used ratings by thetwins, not other family members; thus, the meaning of thegenetic variance is unclear. It may reflect single informantbias or twins heritable characteristics influencing actualfamily conflict, as in genotype-environment correlation(rGE). Genotype-environment correlation is a processthrough which a persons heritable characteristics influence

the environments he/she inhabits or creates for himself/herself (e.g., Scarr & McCartney, 1983). One strategy toavoid the problem of single informant bias and to index amore general construct of the family environment (globalfamily conflict) is to use a multi-rater assessment of FES(Deal, 1995). Because genetic information comes from thetwins, genetic influences on other family members reportson family conflict can be described as evidence of rGE. Amore recent investigation revealed genetic contributions tothe extent of agreement between twin, spouse, and childreports on the FES, suggesting the role of rGE in shapingfamily conflict (Horwitz et al., 2010). However, previousstudies have not identified sources of genetic and environ-mental influences on global family conflict. The presentstudy examined the degree to which genetic and environ-mental effects on global family conflict are accounted for byparents aggressive personality, marital quality, and nega-tive parenting.

Family systems theory is often used to understand howconflict arises in the home environment (Cox & Paley,1997). Within this framework, the family environment is acomplex, hierarchically organized system that encompassesmany subsystems, such as dyadic and triadic family rela-tionships. These subsystems are posited to be intercon-nected and permeable. Thus, conflict arising from onefamily subsystem can transfer to another family subsystem,resulting in a more global pattern of family conflict (e.g.,Minuchin, 1985). Different models have been proposed toexplain how family subsystems give rise to family conflict.From the spillover perspective, conflict originating in one

Briana N. Horwitz and Jenae M. Neiderhiser, Department ofPsychology, The Pennsylvania State University; Jody M. Ganiban,

Department of Psychology, The George Washington University;Erica Spotts, Division of Behavioral and Social Research, NationalInstitute on Aging; Paul Lichtenstein, Department of MedicalEpidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute; David Reiss,Child Study Center, Yale University.

The Twin and Offspring Study in Sweden was supported by theNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grant R01MH54610(PI: ReissCohort 1; PI: NeiderhiserCohort 2).

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author andshould not in any way be construed to be the opinions of NIH.

Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed toJenae M. Neiderhiser, 111 Moore, Department of Psychology, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 19802-1294.E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Journal of Family Psychology 2011 American Psychological Association2011, Vol. 25, No. 2, 174 183 0893-3200/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023049

174


2/10

family dyad can carry over to another family dyad, facili-tating ongoing family distress (Margolin, Christensen, &John, 1996). According to the triangulation model, conflictin the family triad arises when feuding spouses attempt toreduce their distress by involving the child in their maritalconflict (Kerig, 1995; Minuchin, 1974). These models de-

scribe environmental or family-based mechanisms thatshape unique emotional climates of families.

Another plausible explanation is that family membersheritable characteristics contribute to negativity in the mar-ital and parent-child subsystems via rGE resulting in globalfamily conflict. Three different types of rGE have beendescribed, including passive, evocative, and active rGE (fordefinitions, see Neiderhiser et al., 2004). There is nowevidence that family members heritable characteristicsshape similarities in the emotional quality of different fam-ily subsystems. Specifically, research using a parent-basedtwin design has shown a substantial degree of genetic over-lap between marital quality and parenting behaviors (Gani-ban et al., 2007). In other words, covariation in marital andparent-child relationships can be partially ascribed to heri-table characteristics of the parent. In addition, researchusing a child-based design, where children vary in theirgenetic relatedness, has shown that family wide effects (i.e.,shared environmental influences) account for a bulk of theoverlap between positivity and negativity in mother-childand sibling relationships (Bussell et al., 1999). Genetic andshared environmental contributions to family relationshipsin parent-based and child-based designs, respectively couldsuggest that parents heritable characteristics shape familywide experiences that cause child siblings to experiencetheir family relationships similarly. For example, a mothersheritable aggression could cause her to have a conflictual

relationship with both of her children. Considered together,these studies illustrate how parents heritable characteristicscan shape similarities in the emotional quality of differentfamily subsystems, but they do not explain how globalfamily conflict is shaped (Cox & Paley, 1997). There isevidence that family conflict is disruptive for child adjust-ment independent of marital quality and parent-child rela-tionships (David, Steele, Forehand, & Amistead, 1996;Jaycox & Repetti, 1993), and in some contexts, familyconflict is more predictive of child adjustment problemsthan lower marital quality (David et al., 1996). For thesereasons, it is important to understand how genetic andenvironmental influences contribute to global conflictwithin the home.

Parents personality traits could be one route throughwhich genetic effects contribute to global family conflict.Personality refers to a set of enduring characteristics thatinfluence behavior and perceptions. Studies have shown thatpersonality explains genetic variance in single informantassessments of family relationships and the family environ-ment (e.g., Chipuer, Plomin, Pedersen, McClearn, & Nes-selroade, 1993; Jockin, McGue, & Lykken, 1996; Johnson,McGue, Krueger, & Bouchard, 2004). Additional work hasexamined the extent to which twins personality traits ex-plain multi-informant measures of their current family re-lationships using data from the Twin and Offspring Study in

Sweden (TOSS). Within one such study, female twinspersonality contributed to the extent of agreement betweentwins and spouses reports on their marital quality (Spottset al., 2005). More recent evidence using self-report andobservational measures of family relationships has shownthat twins aggressive personality partially contributes to

genetic overlap between marital quality and negative par-enting (Ganiban et al., 2009). Taken together, this researchsuggests that personality may influence family relationshipsthrough rGE.

The personality trait of aggression may be especiallyimportant for understanding how parental characteristicsinfluence global family conflict. Aggression is defined ashostility, anger, and irritability, as well as a readiness toengage in physical and verbal aggression (e.g., Buss &Perry, 1992; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Zuckerman,2005). Genetic influences further contribute variation inaggressive personality, with heritability estimates of ap-proximately 50% (Miles & Carey, 1997). Aggressivepersonality also appears to be relatively stable overtime(Zuckerman, 2005), and contributions to this stability arelargely accounted for by genetic effects (Gillespie, Evans,Wright, & Martin, 2004). In addition, aggression may in-fluence family relationships. For example, studies usinglongitudinal designs have found that anger proneness andaggression during childhood are predictive of relationshipinstability and divorce during adulthood (Caspi, 1987; Kin-nunen & Pulkkinenn, 2003). Thus, genetic influences onparents aggressive personality may be linked to globalfamily conflict.

The contribution of parents heritable aggressive person-ality to global family conflict may occur in a variety ofways. First, aggression encompasses heightened sensitivity

to cues of hostility from others (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998;Crick & Dodge, 1996; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997;Wikowski & Robinson, 2008). As such, parents may bebiased towards perceiving greater hostility from theirspouse and child that may then cause the parents to behavewith greater hostility and anger towards these family mem-bers (Wikowski & Robinson, 2008). The anger and hostilitymay evoke more hostile behaviors from their spouse andchild via evocative rGE. In addition, children could inheritaggressive personality characteristics from their parent(s),also increasing the likelihood of negativity in the familysubsystems and global family conflict through passive rGE.However, prior research has suggested that assortative mat-ing (a type of active rGE that refers to mate selection forsimilar heritable characteristics) is less likely to play a role(Krueger, Moffitt, Caspi, Bleske, & Silva, 1998). Evocativeand passive rGE are, therefore, plausible mechanismsthrough which parents aggressive personality may influ-ence negativity across family subsystems and global familyconflict.

The present study used the TOSS data set to investigatewhether parents aggressive personality, marital quality, andnegative parenting explain genetic, shared environmental,and nonshared environmental influences on global familyconflict. Prior research using TOSS has indicated that ge-netic and nonshared environmental influences account for

175GLOBAL FAMILY CONFLICT


3/10

covariation between family relationships (Ganiban et al.,2007) and global family conflict (Horwitz et al., 2010). Forthese reasons, we hypothesized that both genetic and non-shared environmental influences on parents aggressive per-sonality, marital quality, and negative parenting would becorrelated with genetic and nonshared influences on global

family conflict.The TOSS data set includes information from monozy-

gotic (MZ) twins who share 100% of their genes, dizygotic(DZ) twins who share, on average, 50% of their genes, aswell as each twins spouse and child. Genetic influences onassociations among aggressive personality, marital quality,negative parenting, and global family conflict would sug-gest that the twins aggressive personality contributes tonegativity in the family subsystems as well as global familyconflict through rGE. Nonshared environmental effectscould reflect that unique facets of the twins family that aredistinct from the co-twins family (e.g., spouse personality)(Spotts et al., 2004) contribute to the twins aggressivepersonality, family relationships, and global family conflict.

Method

Participants

Participants were from the TOSS, including 909 same-sex MZ and DZ twin pairs, their spouse and one adolescentchild, collected in two cohorts (Neiderhiser & Lichtenstein,2008). Zygosity was determined through the use of DNA formost twins (89%) with a subset being assigned zygositybased on questionnaires. TOSS was reviewed by Institu-tional Review Boards (IRB) in Sweden and the UnitedStates, and all participants provided written informed

consent before participating in the study. More detailedinformation about recruitment, inclusion criteria and othersample description is available elsewhere (Ganiban et al.,2007, 2009; Neiderhiser & Lichtenstein, 2008). The currentstudy included a subset of 876 twin pairs for whom datawere complete, including 327 male pairs (n 124 MZpairs; n 203 DZ pairs) and 549 female pairs (n 263 MZpairs; n 286 DZ pairs). Twins and their spouses ranged inage from 32 to 60 (M 44.86 4.89) and 25 to 65 (M 45.55 5.37), respectively. The adolescent children in-cluded both sons (52%) and daughters (48%), ranging in agefrom 11 to 22 (M 15.74 2.41). The majority of thesample was middle class. Additionally, 82% of the samplewas married, with the remaining participants in cohabitatingrelationshipsa common and socially acceptable practicein Sweden. There was no difference in marital qualitybetween married and cohabitating couples. The averagelength of marriage/cohabitation was 19.4 years (SD 6years), and 76% of the sample had not been married prior totheir current relationship.

Measures

Aggressive personality. Two well-established and widelyused self-report personality measures were used to assessaggressive personality, including the Temperament and

Character Inventory (TCI; Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck,1993) and the Karolinska Scales of Personality (KSP;Schalling & Edman, 1993). This study included the noveltyseeking subscale (20 items, .65) from the TCI and theverbal aggression (5 items, .66) and indirect aggression(5 items, .59) subscales from the KSP. Common factor

analysis with an oblique rotation demonstrated that thesethree personality subscales loaded onto one factor: Verbalaggression (.53), Indirect aggression (.48), and NoveltySeeking (.48). This single factor reflected a tendency towardreactive, unregulated aggression, and impulsivity.

Marital quality. Marital quality was measured usingtwins and spouses reports on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale(DAS; Spanier, 1976), the Expressed Emotion Scale (EE;Hansson & Jarbin, 1997) and the Marital Instability Scale(Booth, Johnson, & Edwards, 1983). The DAS includes foursubscales: dyadic satisfaction, dyadic consensus, affectionalexpression, and dyadic cohesion (s .74 to .93). The EEincludes three subscales tapping the degree to which

participants appraise receiving criticism from their spouse,directing criticism toward their spouse, and are emotionallyoverinvolved with their spouse (s .72 to .88). Finally, asingle item from the Marital Instability Scale tappedwhether respondents discussed divorce or separation with afriend. Internal consistency for the composite measuresused in the current report was acceptable ( .73). Factoranalysis showed that dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohesion,and affectional expression loaded onto the marital qualityfactor, whereas marital instability, emotional overinvolve-ment, and criticism loaded negatively onto this factor.

Negative parenting. Negative parenting was assessed viatwins and childrens reports on four scales that have been

validated and used successfully in prior research examiningadolescent samples (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992;Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, & Plomin, 2000). Thenegative parenting scales included a subscale of the Parent-Child Relationships Scale capturing parent-child conflict( .68), subscales of the Expressed Emotion Scale (Hans-son & Jarbin, 1997), a summary scale from the Parent-ChildAgreement scale assessing total disagreements between theparent and child ( .95), and the Child Rearing IssuesScale assessing the parents disciplinary practices with his/her child, including punitive discipline ( .86) and per-missive discipline ( .69). Cronbachs alpha across eachsubscale was equal to .81.

Global family conflict. Family conflict was assessed viaspouses and childrens reports on the Family EnvironmentScale (FES) (Moos & Moos, 1981). The FES conflict sub-scale includes 5 items assessing the degree of openly ex-pressed anger, aggression, and hostility in the home. FESscores for the spouse ( .81) and child ( .85) reportswere computed separately, with higher scores indicatinggreater family conflict. An exploratory factor analysis sug-gested a single factor explained common variance (69%) inspouses (.83) and childrens reports (.83) on family con-flict, and this common factor was used in all subsequentanalyses as an index of global family conflict.

176 HORWITZ ET AL.


4/10

Biometric Model Fitting

A multivariate Cholesky model was fit by maximumlikelihood estimation of the raw data in Mx (Neale, Boker,Xie, & Maes, 2003). Multivariate Cholesky models estimatesimultaneously the relative additive genetic (A), shared

environmental (nongenetic factors contributing to twin sim-ilarity; C), and nonshared environmental (nongenetic fac-tors contributing to twin dissimilarity; E) contributions toeach observed variable, as well as associations betweenvariables (Figure 1). Aggressive personality was enteredfirst, as it is predictive of later relationship difficulties(Caspi, 1987; Kinnunen & Pulkkinenn, 2003). The subse-quent entry of marital quality, negative parenting, andglobal family conflict was based on the rationale that neg-ativity in the marital relationship transfers to the parent-child relationship and to the family environment (e.g., Mar-golin et al., 1996). This model includes latent genetic (A1,A2, A3, A4), shared environmental (C1, C2, C3, C4), andnonshared environmental (E1, E2, E3, E4) factors. As de-

picted in Figure 1, A1, C1, and E1 account for variance inaggressive personality. The relative contributions of A1,C1, and E1 to aggressive personality are estimated by pathsa11

, c11

, e11

. A1, C1, and E1 may also explain variance in

marital quality (paths a21

, c21

, e21

), negative parenting(paths a

31, c

31, e

31), and global conflict (paths a

41, c

41, e

41).

For example, genetic influences that are accounted for byaggressive personality and also explain covariation amongmarital quality, negative parenting, and global family con-flict are denoted by the following: a

11, a

21, a

31, and a

41. A2,

C2, and E2 represent latent influences on marital quality(paths a

22, c

22, e

22), controlling for aggressive personality.

These latent factors may also account for variance in neg-ative parenting (paths a

32, c

32, e

32) and global family con-

flict (paths a42

, c42

, e42

). A3, C3, and E3 denote latentinfluences on negative parenting, controlling for aggressivepersonality and marital quality (paths a

33, c

33, e

33). A3, C3,

and E3 may also account for variance in global familyconflict (paths a43, c43, e43). Finally, A4, C4, and E4 denotelatent influences on global family conflict, independent ofaggressive personality, marital quality, and negative parent-ing (paths a

44, c

44, e

44). The degree to which latent factors

associated with aggressive personality, marital quality, and

negative parenting explain variance in global family conflictcan be computed as: (a

41

2 c412 e41

2 a422 c42

2 e422

a43

2 c432 e43

2 ). The degree to which latent factors explainglobal conflict independent of aggressive personality, mar-

Variable 1:

Aggressive

Personality

Variable 2:

Marital

Quality

Variable 3:

Negative

Parenting

Variable 4:

Global

Family

Conflict

A1 C1

E3E2E1

C4A4C3A3C2A2

E4

a11

c11

e11

a21c21

a31

c31

a22

a41

c11

c22

a32a42

c42

a33 a43

c33

c43a44 c44

e21e31

e41e22

e32

e42

e33

e43

e44

Figure 1. Multivariate Cholesky model. The sample model includes latent genetic (A1, A2, A3,A4), shared environmental (C1, C2, C3, C4), and nonshared environmental (E1, E2, E3, E4)influences on aggressive personality, marital quality, negative parenting, and global family conflictfor one twin in a pair. Genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental varianceaccounted for by aggressive personality are denoted by the path estimates a11, a21, a31, a41, c11, c21,c31, c41, e11, e21, e31, e41; variance accounted for by marital quality are denoted by the path estimatesa22, a32, a42, c22, c32, c42, e22, e32, e42; variance accounted for by negative parenting are denoted bythe path estimates a33, a43, c33, c43, e33, e43; and variance unique to global family conflict aredenoted by the path estimates a44, c44, e44.



5/10

ital quality, and negative parenting can be computed as:(a

44

2 c44

2 e44

2 ).The full ACE model was compared with more parsimo-

nious models with fewer parameters, referred to as nestedmodels. Because more parsimonious models are nestedwithin the full ACE model, the relative fits of nested models

and the full model could be tested by dropping all pathwaysthat were not statistically different from 0 using the likeli-hood ratio test (LRT). The LRT assesses whether nestedmodels reflect a significantly worse fit to the data than thefull ACE model by testing differences in the 2 values of themodels ( 2) in relation to differences in their degrees offreedom. If the 2 value for a nested model relative to thefull model is nonsignificant, the nested model accuratelyrepresents the data and is, therefore, a preferable fit com-pared to the full model. The 2 statistic is likely to reject amodel that fits the data well but imperfectly, is highlysensitive to sample size and is more likely to favor saturatedmodels (Mulaik et al., 1989; Neale & Cardon, 1992). Forthese reasons, we also calculated the Bayesian InformationCriteria (BIC) fit statistic (Raferty, 1995). The BIC statisticrefers to the 2 statistic for a model minus the product of thedegrees of freedom and the natural log likelihood ofthe sample size. Negative or smaller BIC values are sug-gestive of a preferable fit, reflecting model parsimony forlarge sample sizes.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to all analyses, we examined covariates for associ-ations with the key variables of interest. Findings showedthat childrens age was associated with negative parenting(r .11), twins age was associated with their aggressivepersonality (r .16) and childrens sex was related totheir FES reports (r .14; daughters reported greater familyconflict). Other covariates, including the spouses sex andage and contact between the twins were not significantlyassociated with any of the studys key variables. As such,the effects of childrens age were residualized from negativeparenting, twins age from aggressive personality, and chil-drens sex from their own FES reports prior to all subse-quent analyses (McGue & Bouchard, 1984).

Phenotypic correlations indicated that higher levels ofglobal family conflict were associated with greater aggres-sive personality, lower marital quality, and greater negative

parenting (Table 1). We also tested for the associationbetween anxiety (a personality trait previously linked tomarital quality and negative parenting in TOSS, Ganiban etal., 2009) and global family conflict, but the association wasminimal (r .09) and, therefore, was not included in theCholesky model. Finally, we tested for the presence of

genetically-influenced assortative mating such that twinsselected spouses due to their heritable aggressive personal-ity. If individuals select mates with similar heritable aggres-sive personality, correlations among the spouses of MZtwins on aggressive personality would be twice the magni-tude of the correlations among the spouses of DZ twins(Reynolds, Baker, & Pederson, 2000). Findings revealed theassortment for heritable aggressive personality was notpresent in that the correlations among the spouses of MZpairs (r .14) were similar in magnitude to the correlationsamong the spouses of DZ pairs (r .13).

Biometric Model Fitting

The full model was fit first (model fit: 2LL 15394.76,df 5706, BIC 11632.74). Within this model, all pathsthat were estimated as not significantly different from 0were dropped to create a more parsimonious model (modelfit: 2LL 15419.26, df 17, BIC 11678.08).Elimination of these paths did not significantly affect the fitof the model. The parameter estimates from the full andparsimonious models are summarized in Table 2. In theparsimonious model, latent genetic factors accounted for22% of the total variance in global family conflict (a

41

2 a44

2 .352 .322 .22). Over half (55%) of the geneticcontributions to family conflict were accounted for by thelatent genetic factor related to aggressive personality (A1)(.352/.22 .55). The remaining genetic variance (45%) inglobal family conflict was unique to global family conflict(A4) and independent of all other variables in the model.Latent nonshared environmental factors explained the re-maining variance in global family conflict (e

42

2 e43

2 e442 .342 .342 .742 .79). Interestingly, marital

quality (E2) and negative parenting (E3) collectively ex-plained 30% of the nonshared environmental variance inglobal family conflict, whereas aggressive personality didnot account for nonshared environmental influences onglobal family conflict. Nonshared environmental factorsrelated to marital quality, but unrelated to aggressive per-sonality (E2) contributed to variance in global family con-

Table 1Ranges, Mean, Standard Deviations, and Phenotypic Correlations Between AggressivePersonality, Marital Quality, Negative Parenting and Global Family Conflict

Range Mean SDAggressivepersonality

Maritalsatisfaction

Negativeparenting

Aggressive personality 3.053.41 .00 1.00 Marital satisfaction 4.652.07 .00 1.00 .26 Negative parenting 2.176.18 .00 1.00 .17 .32 Global family conflict 2.822.74 .00 1.00 .25 .41 .50

Note. p .05 for all correlations shown here.

178 HORWITZ ET AL.


6/10

flict, as well as negative parenting. This latent factor ex-plained 15% of the nonshared environmental variance (e

42

2 /e42

2 e43

2 e44

2 .342 / .79 .15) and 12% of the totalvariance in global family conflict (e

42

2 .342 .12). Anadditional latent factor (E3) contributed to the association

between negative parenting and global family conflict, in-dependent of aggressive personality and marital quality.This factor also contributed 15% of the nonshared environ-mental variance and 12% of the total variance in globalfamily conflict. The remaining total variance unique to

Table 2Multivariate Cholesky Model

Variable 1:Aggressivepersonality

Variable 2: Maritalquality

Variable 3: Negativeparenting

Variable 4: Globalfamily conflict

Path Estimate (CI) Path Estimate (CI) Path Estimate (CI) Path Estimate (CI)

Full modelLatent factor

Variance accounted forby aggressivepersonality

A1 a11 .68 (.58, 73) a21 .21 (.08, 39) a31 .16 (.00, .33) a41 .23 (.11, .36)C1 c11 .05 (.00, 29) c21 .15 (.00, .41) c31 .12 (.00, .41) c41 .02 (.00, .33)E1 e11 .73 (.68, 79) e21 .15 (.07, .24) e31 .06 (.00, .17) e41 .13 (.05, .21)

Variance accounted forby marital quality

A2 a22 .42 (.00, .55) a32 .24 (.00, .50) a42 .23 (.00, .51)C2 c22 .03 (.00, .41) c32 .18 (.00, .41) c42 .06 (.00, .34)E2 e22 .86 (.80, .92) e32 .25 (.15, .36) e42 .28 (.20, .36)

Variance accounted forby negativeparenting

A3 a33 .16 (.00, .48) a43 .34 (.00, .47)C3 c33 .00 (.00, .40) c43 .00 (.00, .33)E3 e33 .88 (.80, .94) e43 .32 (.24, .41)

Variance unique toglobal familyconflict

A4 a44 .14 (.00, .43)C4 c44 .00 (.00, .33)E4 e44 .74 (.69, .80)

Parsimonious modelLatent factor

Variance accounted forby aggressivepersonality

A1 a11 .68 (.62, .74) a21 .33 (.26, .40) a31 .23 (.14, .31) a41 .35 (.28, .41)C1 c11 c21 c31 c41

E1 e11 .73 (.68, .78) e21 e31 e41 Variance accounted forby marital quality

A2 a22 .36 (.21, .46) a32 a42 C2 c22 c32 c42 E2 e22 .87 (.82, .92) e32 .30 (.23, .36) e42 .34 (.28, .39)

Variance accounted forby negativeparenting

A3 a33 a43 C3 c33 c43 E3 e33 .93 (.90, .95) e43 .34 (.29, .39)

Variance unique toglobal familyconflict

A4 a44 .32 (.18, .41)C4 c44

E4 e44 .74 (.69, .79)

Note. Latent factors and paths correspond to Figure 1. Each path name has three components: a lower case letter, followed by twosubscripted numbers. The lower case letter and first subscripted number refer to a specific latent factor: A, C, or E. The second subscriptednumber refers to the specific manifest variable (identified by its order in the model) that is linked to the latent factor via the path. Forexample, path a21 links latent factor A1 to the second variable in the model A1. CI 95% confidence interval. For the most parsimoniousmodel, dashes (-) indicate parameters that could be dropped without resulting in a significant increase in the 2 value.



7/10

global family conflict (55%) was attributable to a nonsharedenvironmental factor (E4). Finally, this pattern of findingsdid not differ according to twins sex.

Discussion

This study investigated whether genetic and environmen-tal influences on global family conflict are explained byparents aggressive personality, marital quality, and nega-tive parenting. Findings revealed that a genetic factor con-tributing to the association between twins aggressive per-sonality, marital quality, and negative parenting explainedmore than half of the genetic variance in global familyconflict. The genetic overlap suggests that heritable influ-ences on parents aggression contribute to negativity acrossfamily subsystems as well as global family conflict via rGE.Accordingly, accumulating studies that have been primarilybased upon the TOSS data set have indicated that a twinsheritable characteristics influence his/her marital quality andparenting behaviors through rGE (e.g., Ganiban et al., 2007,2009; Neiderhiser et al., 2004; Spotts et al., 2004). A twinsheritable aggressive personality could cause him/her to bemore hostile towards and more readily construe hostilityfrom the spouse and child (Coie & Dodge, 1998). Consis-tent with evocative rGE, these characteristics could furtherelicit hostility from the spouse and child, facilitating nega-tivity across family subsystems and global family conflict.In addition, marital conflict arising from the spouses neg-ative responses towards the twins aggressive personalitycould cause both parents to detour their conflict to the child(Kerig, 1995; Margolin et al., 1996). The genetic overlapcould also reflect the role of passive rGE. For example, atwin may genetically transmit aggression to his/her child

and shape the conflict to which the child is exposed. Anadditional explanation is that family members reports ofthe family climate may be disproportionately influenced bythe most conflict prone member of the family. There wasalso genetic variance in global family conflict that wasindependent of aggressive personality, marital quality, andnegative parenting. This residual genetic variance couldreflect the role of positive parental traits (e.g., empathy andconflict solving) influencing the emotional dynamics withinfamily subsystems and family conflict. Future researchshould delineate the specific kinds of rGE involved andexamine additional parental characteristics explaining thegenetic variance in global family conflict.

Findings also revealed that a nonshared environmentalfactor that was correlated with marital quality and negativeparenting, independent of aggressive personality contrib-uted to global family conflict. This nonshared environmen-tal overlap may reflect distinct experiences occurring withinthe family that twins do not share with their co-twins.Consistent with this viewpoint, research has shown thattwins marriages to different spouses explain nonsharedenvironmental contributions to marital quality (Spotts et al.,2004, 2005). Because assortative mating for aggressive per-sonality is low (Krueger et al., 1998), it is possible that theunique experiences of each twin due to his/her spousesheritable aggressive personality could lead to differences in

each twins marital quality. Lower marital quality resultingfrom a twins interaction with a spouse who is higher inaggressive personality could generate negative parentingbehaviors and global family conflict via spillover and/ortriangulation (Margolin et al., 1996; Minuchin, 1974). Othernonshared environmental effects could reflect the influence

of adverse life events (Towers, 2003) or work stressors(Horwitz, Luong, & Charles, 2008). Additional nonsharedenvironmental influences explained an association betweennegative parenting and family conflict. These influencescould represent the childs influence on the twins behaviors(e.g., Narusyte et al., 2008; Neiderhiser et al., 2004; also seeHarris, 1995). Moreover, the lack of association with mar-ital quality may reflect global family conflict arising fromother family subsystems linked to negative parenting, in-cluding a childs relationship with his/her sibling. The lackof association with marital quality may further illustratevariability in how parents marriages are affected by chil-dren (e.g., by forming an alliance against the child or byexperiencing decrements in marital quality due to parentinga child with adjustment problems).

Implications and Limitations

The present study underscores current preventive andtherapeutic interventions that focus on marital dynamics.These interventions enhance the capacity of couples toresolve conflicts (Cowan & Cowan, 2010) and help themwall off their relationship problems from intruding on fam-ily life (Kerig & Swanson, 2010). Results clarify that thegenetic component of aggressive personality plays a deci-sive role in influencing marriage, parenting, and system-

wide family conflict. Second, there is substantial overlap ofgenetic influences on these three components of the familysystem. Finding effective ways to prevent the intrusion ofpersonality-based interaction patterns on the broader familysystem is important. Although therapeutic interventions toalter aggressive personality structure and process can bedaunting, the aggressive personality feature of an individualparent has an important interface with the family system:aggressive personality shaped perceptions of each other andof their children. These perceptions, rather than the under-lying aggressive personality dynamics, may be quite ame-nable to change, particularly when the children are stillyoung (Bugental et al., 2002; Bugental & Schwartz, 2009;Bugental & Shennum, 1984). Results coupled with a recentpublication from TOSS (Schermerhorn et al., 2010) alsoenhance our understanding of family dynamics. Schermer-horn et al. revealed that marital quality is linked to childproblem behaviors through genetic and environmental path-ways, whereas family conflict is linked to child behaviorproblems entirely through environmental pathways. Thegenetic pathway linking marital quality to child problembehaviors suggests that parents heritable characteristicsinfluencing marital quality are also transmitted to the childand are expressed as problem behaviors. Thus, when familyconflict ripples beyond the marriage into the global familyenvironment, as demonstrated in the present study, the child

180 HORWITZ ET AL.


8/10

has an additional burden, this time one due entirely toexposure to an adverse family environment.

Findings and implications should be considered in lightof certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of thedata does not provide insight into how aggressive person-ality and emotional dynamics in families unfold over time.

A second potential limitation is the self-report nature of thedata, which may produce stronger associations among thestudys variables than other more objective approaches suchas behavioral observation. We strove to reduce this possiblebias by using a multi-informant assessment of family con-flict. Third, it is important to note the wide age range ofchildren in the sample (11 to 22 years), as the meaning ofaspects of the negative parenting measure (e.g., parentaldiscipline) may not be the same for adolescents aged 11years and young adults aged 22 years. At the same time, thefocus of these analyses is on variation of discipline acrossthe cousin pairs who are no more than 4 years apart in age.Thus, although there may be differences in discipline for 11-to 22-year-old children, there will likely be much smallervariation in discipline for cousin pairs of, for example, 11and 15 years or 18 to 22 years. Fifth, biometric modelsassume a lack of G E, and G E effects that are presentand have not been accounted for typically inflate estimatesof the nonshared environment (e.g., Johnson, 2007). Thus,future research focused on unpackaging family conflictshould examine G E. Finally, although TOSS is predom-inately comprised of married couples, the use of a Swedishsample is important to consider when examining maritalquality, as cohabitation is more widespread in Sweden thanin any other country (Bernhardt, 2004). However, researchhas demonstrated genetic influences on marital quality insamples from both Sweden and the United States (e.g.,

Spotts et al., 2004; Spotts, Prescott, & Kendler, 2006).

Conclusion

Findings from the present study revealed that parentsaggressive personality contributes genetic variance to globalfamily conflict through rGE. Marital quality and negativeparenting are associated with global family conflict vianonshared environmental influences that are independent ofaggressive personality. Collectively, these results suggestthat future research could focus on delineating the specificrGE pathways that are responsible for shaping global familyconflict. Future research could also employ the MZ discor-dant twin design to identify specific nonshared environmen-tal factors that are responsible for shaping family conflict(e.g., spouse personality). Finally, an important avenue forfuture research is to employ longitudinal, genetically in-formed research to assess how the association betweenaggressive personality, family relationships, and the globalfamily climate unfold over time.

References

Bernhardt. E. (2004). Cohabitation in marriage? Preferred livingarrangements in Sweden (Publication, from Retrieved March 15,2010 from http://www.oif.ac.at/sdf/sdf04 04-bernhardt.pdf).

Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuringmarital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,387394. doi:10.2307/351516

Bugental, D. B., Ellerson, P. C., Lin, E. K., Rainey, B., Kokotovic,A., & OHara, N. (2002). A cognitive approach to child abuseprevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 243258. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.3.243

Bugental, D. B., & Schwartz, A. (2009). A cognitive approach tochild mistreatment prevention among medically at-risk infants.Developmental Psychology, 45, 284288. doi:10.1037/a0014031

Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. (1984). Difficult children aselicitors and targets of adult communication patterns: An attri-butional behavioral transactional analysis. Monographs of theSociety of Research in Child Development, 49, 169. doi:10.2307/1165910

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452459.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Bussell, D. A., Neiderhiser, J. M., Pike, A., Plomin, R., Simmens,S., Howe, G. W., . . . Hetherington, M. (1999). Adolescentsrelationships to siblings and mothers: A multivariate genetic

analysis. Developmental Psychology, 35, 12481259. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1248Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 12031213. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1203

Chipuer, H. M., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., &Nesselroade, J. R. (1993). Genetic influence on family environ-ment: The role of personality. Developmental Psychology, 29,110118. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.110

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). Apsychobiological model of temperament and character. Archivesof General Psychiatry, 50, 975990.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocialbehavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and

personality development (5th ed., pp. 779862). New York:Wiley & Sons.

Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2010). How working with couplesfosters childrens development: From prevention science to pub-lic policy. In M. S. Schulz, M. K. Pruett, P. K. Kerig, & R. D.Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationships for optimalchild development: Lessons from research and intervention (pp.211228). Washington DC: American Psychological Associa-tion. doi:10.1037/12058-014

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. AnnualReview of Psychology, 48, 243267. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive and proactive aggression.Child Development, 67, 9931002. doi:10.2307/1131875

David, C., Steele, R., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (1996). Therole of family conflict and marital conflict in adolescent func-tioning. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 8191. doi:10.1007/BF02333341

Deal, J. E. (1995). Utilizing data from multiple family members: Awithin-family approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,11091121. doi:10.2307/353426

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortfulprocesses in the organization of temperament. DevelopmentalPsychopathology, 9, 633652. doi:10.1017/S0954579497001375

Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Khera, G. S., Reiss,D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2007). Can genetic factors explain thespillover of warmth and negativity across family relationships?



9/10

Twin Research Human Genetics, 10, 299 313. doi:10.1375/twin.10.2.299

Ganiban, J. M., Ulbricht, J. A., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P.,Reiss, D., Hansson, K., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2009). Understand-ing the role of personality in explaining associations betweenmarital quality and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 23,646660. doi:10.1037/a0016091

Gillespie, N. A., Evans, D. E., Wright, M. M., & Martin, N. G.(2004). Genetic simplex modeling of Eysencks dimensions ofpersonality in a sample of young Australian twins. Twin Re-search, 7, 637648. doi:10.1375/1369052042663814

Hansson, K., & Jarbin, G. (1997). A new self-rating questionnairein Swedish for measuring expressed emotion. Nordic Journal ofPsychiatry, 5, 287297. doi:10.3109/08039489709090721

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the childs environment? A groupsocialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102,458489.

Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, G. W. (1992). Coping withmarital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, 57, 1242.doi:10.2307/1166050

Horwitz, B. N., Luong, G., & Charles, S. T. (2008). Neuroticismand Extraversion Share Genetic and Environmental Effects withNegative and Positive Mood Spillover in a Nationally Represen-tative Sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 636642. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.003

Horwitz, B. N., Neiderhiser, J. M., Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L.,Lichtenstein, P., & Reiss, D. (2010). Genetic and environmentalinfluences on global family conflict. Journal of Family Psychol-ogy, 24, 217220. doi:2010-07067-014

Jaycox, L. H., & Repetti, R. L. (1993). Conflict in families andpsychological adjustment of preadolescent children. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 7, 344 355. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.3.344

Jockin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality anddivorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 71, 288299. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.288Johnson, W. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences onbehavior: Capturing all the interplay. Psychological Review, 114,423440. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.423

Johnson, W., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr.(2004). Marriage and personality: A genetic analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 86, 285294. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.285

Kendler, K. S., & Baker, J. H. (2007). Genetic influences onmeasures of the environment: A systematic review. Psycholog-ical Medicine, 37, 615626. doi:10.1017/S0033291706009524

Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family circle: Effects offamily structure on marriage, parenting, and child adjustment.Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 28 43. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.28

Kerig, P. K., & Swanson, J. A. (2010). Ties that bind: Triangula-tion, boundary dissolution, and the effects of interparental con-flict on child development. In M. S. Schulz, M. K. Pruett, P. K.Kerig, & R. D. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationshipsfor optimal child development: Lessons from research and inter-

vention (pp. 5976). Washington DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Childhood socio-emotionalcharacteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality.European Psycholo gist, 8, 223237. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.8.4.223

Krueger, R. F., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bleske, A., & Silva, P. A.(1998). Assortative mating for antisocial behavior: Developmen-

tal and methodological implications. Behavior Genetics, 28,173186. doi:10.1023/A:1021419013124

Margolin, G., Christensen, A., & John, R. S. (1996). The contin-uance and spillover of everyday tensions in distressed and non-distressed families. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 304321.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.304

McGue, M., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1984). Adjustment of twin data

for the effects of age and sex. Behavior Genetics, 14, 325343.doi:10.1007/BF01080045

Miles, D. R., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental archi-tecture of human aggression. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 207217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.207

Minuchin, P. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Prov-ocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56,289302.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environmental Scalemanual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for

structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430Narusyte, J., Neiderhiser, J. M., DOnofrio, B. M., Reiss, D.,

Spotts, E. L., Ganiban, J., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Testingdifferent types of genotype-environment correlation: An Ex-tended Children-of-Twins model. Developmental Psychology,44, 15911603. doi:10.1037/a0013911

Neale, M. C., Boker, S., Xie, G., & Maes, H. (1999). Mx: Statis-tical modeling. Richmond, VA: Department of Psychiatry.

Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. R. (1992). Methodology for geneticstudies of twins and families. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Neiderhiser, J. M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). The Twin andOffspring Study in Sweden: Advancing our understanding ofgenotype-environment interplay by studying twins and their fam-ilies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40, 11161123.

Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Pederson, N. L., Lichtenstein, P.,Spotts, E. L., Hansson, K., . . . Ellhammer, O. (2004). Geneticand environmental influences on mothering of adolescents: Acomparison of two samples. Developmental Psychology, 40,335351. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.335

Raferty, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research.Sociological Methodology, 25, 111163.

Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R.(2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and socialinfluences on adolescent development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Reynolds, C. A., Baker, L. A., & Pederson, N. L. (2000). Multi-variate models of mixed assortment: Phenotypic assortment andsocial homogamy for education and fluid ability. Behavior Ge-netics, 30, 455476. doi:10.1023/A:1010250818089

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their ownenvironments: A theory of genotype greater than environmenteffects. Child Development, 54, 424435.

Schalling, D., & Edman, G. (1993). The Karolinska Scales ofPersonality (KSP) manual: An inventory for assessing tempera-mental dimensions associated with vulnerability for psychosocialdeviance. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm: Department of Psy-chiatry, Karolinska Institute.

Schermerhorn, A. C., DOnofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E., Ganiban,J. M., Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., . . . Neiderhiser, J. M.(2010). A genetically informed study of associations betweenfamily functioning and child psychosocial adjustment. Develop-mental Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0021362

182 HORWITZ ET AL.


10/10

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scalesfor assessing quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 38, 1528. doi:10.2307/350547

Spotts, E. L., Lichtenstein, P., Pederson, N., Neiderhiser, J. M.,Hannson, K., Cederblad, M., & Reiss, D. (2005). Personality andmarital quality: A behavioural genetic analysis. European Jour-nal of Personality, 19, 205227. doi:10.1002/per.545

Spotts, E. L., Neiderhiser, J. M., Towers, H., Hansson, K., Lich-tenstein, P., Cederblad, M., . . . Reiss, D. (2004). Genetic andenvironmental influences on marital relationships. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 18, 107119. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.107

Spotts, E. L., Prescott, C., & Kendler, K. (2006). Examining theorigins of gender differences in marital quality: A behaviorgenetic analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 605613.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.605

Towers, H. (2003). Contributions of current family factors and lifeevents to womens adjustment: Nonshared environmental path-ways (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University,2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12-B), 6123.

Wikowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). The cognitive basisof trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis.Personality and Social Psychological Review, 12, 321. doi:10.1177/1088868307309874

Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality (2nd Edi-tion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Received August 17, 2010Revision received December 21, 2010

Accepted January 25, 2011

Call for Papers for a Special Section of the Journal of Family Psychology:Genetics and Epigenetics in a Family Context

Editors: Steven Beach and Mark Whisman

The Journal of Family Psychology invites manuscripts for a special section on Genetics and

Epigenetics in a Family Context. Family psychology touches on the field of genetics in many ways.

As we enter a period of continued dynamic growth in our understanding of genetic and epigenetic

processes, it is timely and appropriate to consider the best way to include family relationships in

contextualized models of genetic effects, whether the focus is on genetic effects associated with

family dynamics, genetic moderation of the effects of family context, or the role of epigenetic

change in family dynamics. Empirical studies of processes that are pertinent to any aspect of this

broad emerging area will be considered for publication.

The intent of this special section is to provide a resource of comprehensive papers on issues

related to this emerging topic within family psychology. Authors will be asked to provide data that

address the question of how incorporation of genetic and epigenetic variables may enhance the study

of families. Data addressing questions of public health utility, clinical utility, impact on models of

relationship development and functioning, as well as potential connections to treatment outcome or

treatment planning are all examples of topics that would be welcomed in the special section.

The deadline for receipt of papers for this special section is December 15, 2011. Empirical papers

on any topic within the area will be considered. Intention to submit a paper should be sent to the

guest special section editor by August 15, 2011 ([email protected]). Please follow the journals

Instructions to Authors for information about how to prepare an article, which can be found on the

journals web page: www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fam. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically

through the Manuscript Submission Portal of the Journal of Family Psychology (www.apa.org/

pubs/journals/fam). Please be sure to specify in the cover letter that the submission is intended forthe special section on genetics and epigenetics in a family context. All papers will be initially

screened by the editors, and papers that fit well with the theme of this special section will be sent

out for masked peer review.


EU Agresivitatea Parintilor Asupra Copiilor

Documents

Transcript of EU Agresivitatea Parintilor Asupra Copiilor