The Construct Validity of Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood: Contributions from Personality and

Temperament

by

Kathrin Herzhoff

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Department of Psychology University of Toronto

© Copyright by Kathrin Herzhoff 2011

ii

The Construct Validity of Openness to Experience in Middle

Childhood: Contributions from Temperament and Personality

Kathrin Herzhoff

Master of Arts

Department of Psychology

University of Toronto

2011

Abstract

Controversy exists over the validity of child Openness to Experience (OE), which is typically

considered a major trait in adult personality models. In an effort to establish construct validity

for child OE, data were collected for 346 children (51% girls) approximately 9–10 years of age

(M = 9.92, SD = 0.83). Parents completed questionnaires about their children’s personality,

temperament, and behavioral problems and competencies. Factor analyses of relevant

personality and temperament facets revealed a robust and measurable OE factor made up of

three facets: Intellect, Imagination, and Sensitivity. Evidence for convergent and discriminant

validity was established via associations with other higher-order personality traits, behavioral

problems, and behavioral competencies. The results underscore the importance of drawing from

both temperament and personality literatures in attempts to establish construct validity for child

trait domains as well as of moving beyond the higher-order domain and examining facet-level

associations between OE and child behavior.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jennifer L. Tackett, for her invaluable support and

encouragement throughout my years under her supervision. Furthermore, I would also like to

thank my subsidiary advisor, Dr. Marc A. Fournier, for his insightful comments and

recommendations on earlier drafts of this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank the families in the

study for their participation and the research assistants at the Personality Across Development

Lab for their help in the data collection. This research was supported by funding from the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Defining Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood ..................................................... 2

1.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Childhood ................... 4

1.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Childhood Behavior ........................... 6

1.4 The Present Study ................................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Measures .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Personality ............................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Temperament ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Behavioral Problems and Competencies ............................................................... 10

2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 The Structure of Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood ....................................... 12

3.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Middle Childhood ..... 13

3.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Behavior in Middle Childhood ........ 14

Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 15

v

4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.1 The Structure of Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood ....................................... 15

4.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Middle Childhood ..... 16

4.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Behavior in Middle Childhood ........ 17

4.4 Limitations and Future Directions ..................................................................................... 18

4.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 20

References...................................................................................................................................... 22

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 27

Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 31

vi

List of Tables

Table 1 Item Loadings > .40 for Exploratory Factor Analysis of Mother-Reported Openness to

Experience Items .......................................................................................................................... 27

Table 2 Summary of Correlations between the Openness to Experience, ICID, and CBCL scales

Based on Averaged Mother and Father Report. .......................................................................... 28

Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting the Lower-Order Openness to

Experience Facets from Mother- and Father-Reported Personality Traits. ............................... 29

Table 4 Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CBCL Scales from Mother- and Father-

Reported Openness to Experience. .............................................................................................. 30

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Structure of Openness to Experience in middle childhood based on confirmatory factor

analysis of father report. .............................................................................................................. 31

1

Chapter 1

1 Introduction

When parents describe characteristics of their children, items from the fifth factor of the Five

Factor Model (FFM)—Openness to Experience (OE)—play a prominent role (Halverson et al.,

2003). When considering how best to characterize children, it is easy to apply terms such as

imaginative, curious, and inquisitive to individuals from an early age. Despite the natural ease

with which we conceptualize young children in these terms, researchers currently lack a clear

and cohesive understanding of when OE emerges in development and how best to conceptualize

the construct at an early age. Gaining a greater understanding of child OE is important, as

previous research has shown that it predicts numerous outcomes such as behavioral problems

(e.g., Gjerde & Cardilla, 2009; Prinzie et al., 2004) and behavioral competencies (e.g., Abe,

2005; Muris, Meesters, & Diederen, 2009).

The purpose of the present study is to advance our current knowledge about OE in childhood by

establishing evidence for construct validity of the trait in middle childhood. Construct validity is

a broad concept that refers to whether a test is measuring its target construct in addition to the

ongoing process of establishing a nomological network around a given construct (Cronbach &

Meehl, 1955). Attempts to establish construct validity frequently include structural

investigations and analyses examining convergent and discriminant validity. Factor analytic

approaches are often combined with rational item selection to examine the structural validity of

a measure, whereas tests of convergent and discriminant validity are typically conducted to

contribute to the nomological network around a construct. In the current study, we attempted to

establish construct validity for child OE by taking the novel approach of defining child OE in

terms of both personality and temperament constructs and then testing the nomological network

of child OE by examining convergent and discriminant validity via associations with other

personality traits, behavioral problems, and behavioral competencies.

2

1.1 Defining Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood

Controversy exists over whether an OE factor analogous to that found in adults even emerges in

childhood, resulting in a lack of understanding over how best to conceptualize child OE. Some

studies have found an analog of OE in childhood (Goldberg, 2001; Halverson et al., 2003)

whereas others suggest that it may not be a meaningful personality dimension prior to

adolescence (Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg, & Hwang, 2002) and again others have found

that OE is less differentiated in childhood than it is in adulthood and is primarily defined by

items measuring Conscientiousness (Mervielde, Buyst, & De Fruyt, 1995; Mervielde & De

Fruyt, 2000). This controversy is further mirrored in major temperament models of early

individual differences, which do not converge on a major OE trait (Shiner & Caspi, 2003).

Difficulty in establishing an OE trait in childhood has been exacerbated by measurement

limitations in this area of research (Tackett, 2006). For example, Lamb et al. (2002) used a

measure of OE with low internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .33–.57). They concluded that

this was lack of evidence for a meaningful OE trait prior to adolescence, which may have been

preemptive given that others have reliably measured OE in childhood (e.g., Goldberg, 2001;

Halverson et al., 2003).

Even the psychometrically sound child personality measures that have emerged over the last

decade cover a much narrower OE content base than do typical adult measures. For example,

the OE analog in the Inventory of Child Individual Differences (ICID; Halverson et al., 2003) is

heavily defined by intellectual tendencies whereas the OE analog in the Hierarchical Personality

Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999) is heavily defined by imaginative

tendencies. Similarly, in his re-analysis of Digman’s child personality data, Goldberg (2001)

primarily selected markers of the OE factor defined by intellectual and imaginative tendencies.

In some samples, he added a marker that focused on the child’s aesthetics. Adult OE measures,

on the other hand, often provide broader coverage of OE. For example, the NEO PI-R (Costa &

McCrae, 1992) measures the OE facets Fantasy (e.g., vivid imagination and fantasy life),

Aesthetics (e.g., appreciation of art, music, and poetry), Feelings (e.g., receptiveness to inner

emotional states and valuing emotional experience), Actions (e.g., trying new activities, visiting

3

new places, and trying new foods), Ideas (e.g., intellectually curious and open to new ideas), and

Values (e.g., re-examination of traditional social, religious, and political values). To date, it

remains unclear whether the content of child OE should be similarly broadened. The present

study will address this issue by integrating relevant characteristics from both temperament and

personality frameworks in our conceptualization of OE.

As previously noted, researchers working from a temperament framework do not include items

directly measuring OE in any of their major temperament models (Shiner & Caspi, 2003).

Furthermore, although researchers increasingly propose that personality constructs are

theoretically related to temperament constructs (e.g., Shiner & Caspi, 2003), researchers have

not shown much progress in empirically relating temperament constructs to OE in child

populations (Mervielde, De Fruyt, & Jarmuz, 1998). One study in a sample of Flemish children

found that a factor made up of the temperament constructs Perceptual Sensitivity and Low

Intensity Pleasure was moderately correlated with OE measured by the HiPIC (Mervielde & De

Fruyt, 2002) in early childhood (De Pauw, Mervielde, & Van Leeuwen, 2009). Perceptual

Sensitivity measures the detection of slight, low intensity stimuli from the external environment

whereas Low Intensity Pleasure measures pleasure or enjoyment related to situations involving

low stimulus intensity, rate, complexity, novelty, and incongruity (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004).

Perceptual Sensitivity seems conceptually similar to Goldberg’s (2001) marker of OE that

focused on the child’s aesthetics. Although Low Intensity Pleasure does not seem to

conceptually overlap with OE (e.g., McCrae, 1994), it has been related to characteristics of OE

in early childhood (De Pauw et al., 2009) and to the temperament construct Fantasy/Openness in

middle childhood (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004). Specifically, open children were found to have

higher levels of Low Intensity Pleasure. Given these findings, we selected this variable for the

present investigation. Broadening the content of child OE to include temperament constructs

might prove critical to the study of OE earlier in life given that temperament constructs such as

Perceptual Sensitivity can be reliably measured even in infants (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003).

Thus, empirical integration of such constructs into a broad and robust child OE domain was a

4

primary goal of the current investigation in hopes of contributing to a more developmentally

generalizable understanding of OE.

1.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Childhood

In addition to better understanding content and structure, it is important to examine whether

child OE is clearly differentiated from—and additionally shows theoretically expected patterns

of convergence with—other personality traits. Some evidence does suggest that relations

between OE and other personality traits differ in adult and child populations. Specifically, OE

primarily covaries with Extraversion in adults (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2004; DeYoung,

Peterson, & Higgins, 2002) whereas it primarily covaries with Conscientiousness in children

(Goldberg, 2001; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2000; Tackett et al., 2011) and to a lesser degree with

Extraversion (Goldberg, 2001). Furthermore, one study found that child OE predicted adult OE

only in females whereas it predicted adult Conscientiousness in males (Gjerde & Cardilla,

2009).

One reason for the closer relationship between child OE and Conscientiousness could be that

child OE measures focus more on Intellect content than adult measures do (Gjerde & Cardilla,

2009). For example, in Mervielde and colleagues’ (1995, 2000) studies, OE measured with a

focus on Intellect content was not clearly differentiated from Conscientiousness. When they

split their fifth factor into two separate factors, one measuring Intellect and the other measuring

Openness, they found that only the Intellect factor was related to Conscientiousness in 10-to-12-

year-old children (Mervielde et al., 1995). Intellect was also negatively related to

Agreeableness; a finding that other studies that measured a higher-order OE factor did not find

(Goldberg, 2001). Another reason for the closer relationship between OE and Conscientiousness

might be the relatively greater importance of academic achievement during childhood compared

to adulthood. Specifically, OE and Conscientiousness might seem more intertwined to reporters

of child personality because of the developmental salience of academic achievement, which

involves both Conscientiousness and OE (e.g., John, Caspi, Robins, Moffit, Stouthamer-Loeber,

1998; Mervielde et al., 1995). A better understanding of the relationship between Intellect and

5

Conscientiousness is predicated on broadening the OE construct to include aspects other than

Intellect. The present study will do so by introducing temperament constructs such as Perceptual

Sensitivity and Low Intensity Pleasure to the study of OE.

Similarly, Perceptual Sensitivity has been shown to load on both Effortful Control (which is

largely related to Conscientiousness) and Extraversion (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003; Rothbart,

Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001) in early childhood. However, in contrast to findings with OE,

Perceptual Sensitivity has also demonstrated some connections with Neuroticism and

Agreeableness characteristics. In later childhood, Perceptual Sensitivity also showed substantial

covariance with Sadness and Affiliation/Agreeableness (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004), and in

adolescence, Perceptual Sensitivity (and Low Intensity Pleasure) loaded on

Affiliation/Agreeableness and was related to depressive mood (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). A

conceptually related construct to Perceptual Sensitivity, the trait of Absorption, also covaried

highly with Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism in middle childhood (Tackett, Krueger, Iacono,

& McGue, 2008). It could be that heightened sensitivity, potentially common to both Perceptual

Sensitivity and Absorption, shows relationships with Neuroticism beginning in middle

childhood.

In summary, different aspects of child OE are hypothesized to relate to different personality

traits in the present study. Specifically, Intellect aspects of OE are hypothesized to relate most

strongly to Conscientiousness. Aspects of OE such as Openness/Fantasy are hypothesized to

relate most strongly to Extraversion given that these aspects have been emphasized more in

adult OE measures than in child measures, and adult measures of OE have been found to be

most strongly related to Extraversion. Less robust findings for links between Intellect–low

Agreeableness, Perceptual Sensitivity–Neuroticism and Perceptual Sensitivity–Agreeableness

suggest additional tentative hypotheses.

6

1.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Childhood Behavior

Some of the important behavioral domains that child OE predicts both concurrently and

longitudinally are behavioral problems (e.g., Gjerde & Cardilla, 2009; Prinzie et al., 2004) and

behavioral competencies (e.g., Abe, 2005; Muris et al., 2009). To date, more research has been

conducted on the relationship between OE and behavioral problems than on OE and

competencies.

Behavioral problems in children are commonly classified across two major dimensions:

externalizing and internalizing problems (Achenbach, 1978). Externalizing problems in children

typically include acting-out behaviors such as conduct and oppositional problems; internalizing

problems in children typically include anxiety and mood symptoms as well as somatic

complaints. Research on the association between OE and externalizing problems in childhood

has generally revealed negative associations (e.g., Ehrler, Evans, and McGhee, 1999; John et al.,

1994; Victor, 1994) with some inconsistent findings demonstrating positive associations

(Prinzie et al., 2004).Research on the association between OE and internalizing problems has

also yielded somewhat inconsistent findings. Some researchers have found that OE is unrelated

to internalizing problems (John et al., 1994), others finding negative associations (Abe, 2005;

Ehrler et al., 1999; Victor, 1994), and another finding a positive association, but only in girls

(Gjerde & Cardilla, 2009).

Results across all these studies may be somewhat mixed due to use of different measures of OE

and behavior as well as investigations only at the OE domain level. Facet-level investigations,

however, may help clarify such inconsistencies. Investigations with adult samples have shown

that OE facets have divergent associations with psychological problems (e.g., Carrillo, Rojo,

Sanchez-Bernardos, & Avia, 2001; DeYoung, Peterson, Séguin, & Tremblay, 2008; Ring,

Ryder, Lavgine & Bagby, 2008). Specifically, one study found that cognitive aspects of OE,

which are emphasized in the Intellect facet, were negatively related to externalizing problems

whereas Extraversion aspects of OE were positively related to externalizing problems

(DeYoung et al., 2008). Similarly, another study found that the Intellect aspects of OE were

7

negatively related to schizotypal personality disorder whereas the Extraversion aspects of OE

were positively related to schizotypal personality disorder (Ring et al., 2008). Other work has

suggested that the Fantasy facet of OE is positively related to depression (Carrillo et al., 2001).

In sum, different aspects of OE are hypothesized to relate to behavioral problems in divergent

directions, which may result in the higher-order OE factor showing inconsistent relationships

with childhood behavioral problems.

A dominant definition of behavioral competencies refers to successful adaptation in age-specific

developmental tasks (Masten & Curtis, 2000). Common domains examined are school, social

relationships, and extracurricular activities (e.g., Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). OE has been

found to positively predict school competencies in children and adolescents ranging in age from

4 to 17 years (Digman, 1989; Graziano & Ward, 1992; John et al., 1998; Lamb et al., 2002;

Mervielde et al., 1995; Muris et al., 2005; Shiner, 2000). Child OE has also been positively

related to social competencies (Abe, 2005; Muris et al., 2005). The relationship between OE and

competencies in extracurricular activities has so far been unexplored, representing an important

area for closer investigation. A more nuanced understanding of childhood OE at the facet level,

which this study will attempt to provide, may provide a more detailed understanding of these

relationships.

1.4 The Present Study

The present study examined evidence for the construct validity of OE in middle childhood.

Specifically, the current investigation aimed to (a) broaden the content of child OE to include

both personality and temperament constructs, (b) employ reliable measures of children’s

personality and temperament, (c) collect data from multiple informants and, (d) examine

relationships with a variety of other constructs. The following hypotheses were tested:

A robust and psychometrically sound analog of OE would be identified in middle

childhood and include Intellect, Fantasy/Openness, Perceptual Sensitivity, and Low

Intensity Pleasure content.

8

Intellect aspects of child OE would be most strongly related to Conscientiousness,

Fantasy/Openness aspects of child OE would be most strongly related to Extraversion,

and Perceptual Sensitivity aspects would be most strongly related with Agreeableness

and Neuroticism.

The higher-order OE factor would not be related to behavioral problems. Intellect

aspects of OE would be negatively related to externalizing problems and

Fantasy/Openness aspects of OE would be positively related to internalizing problems.

The higher-order OE factor would be positively related to school and social

competencies. Intellect aspects of OE would be positively related with school

competencies, above and beyond contributions from general OE. No hypotheses were

formulated regarding extracurricular activities, given a lack of previous research on this

topic.

9

Chapter 2

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Participants were 328 mothers and 226 fathers of 346 children (51% female) primarily 9-to-10-

years of age (M = 9.92 years, SD = 0.83 years). The child’s ethnicity was designated by the

parents: 70.9% European/White, 13.3% Multiracial, 9.8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.9%

African/American, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.6% Other, and 2% did not report ethnicity. Participants

were recruited through a database of interested parents maintained by the Psychology

Department at the University of Toronto, advertisements in newspapers, and flyers posted in the

Greater Toronto Area. All participants were fluent in English and children did not have previous

diagnoses of mental retardation, autism, or schizophrenia.

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 Personality

The Inventory of Child Individual Differences (Halverson et al., 2003) was completed by both

mothers and fathers. The ICID is an empirically derived bottom-up measure developed for use

in children and youth. It assesses five higher-order factors (analogous to the adult FFM) and 15

lower-order facets. It consists of 108 items which caregivers rated on a scale ranging from 1

(much less than the average child or not at all) to 7 (much more than the average child). The

current study utilized the lower-order facets Openness and Intellect as well as the higher-order

factors Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism. Internal consistencies

for the higher-order factors ranged from α = .90 (Neuroticism) to α = .96 (Agreeableness) with a

mean of α = .94. Internal consistency for the Intellect facet was α = .95 and for the Openness

facet was α = .87 in the present sample.

10

2.2.2 Temperament

The Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ; Simonds & Rothbart, 2004)

was also completed by both mothers and fathers. The TMCQ assesses 17 lower-order facets of

temperament. It consists of 157 items, which are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Almost always

untrue) to 5 (Almost always true) with an additional option of “Not applicable”. Caregivers

were asked to indicate how well a statement described their child within the past 6 months. The

current study utilized the Fantasy/Openness (α = .80), Low Intensity Pleasure (α = .65), and

Perceptual Sensitivity (α = .81) dimensions.

2.2.3 Behavioral Problems and Competencies

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was completed by both

mothers and fathers. The CBCL assesses competencies, adaptive functioning, and behavioral,

emotional, and social problems. It consists of 118 problem behavior items, which are rated on a

scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (often true of the child) and additional competency items,

which measure the amount and quality of the child’s involvement in social, academic, and

extracurricular activities. The problem behavior items are combined into the higher-order

problem domains Total Problems, Externalizing Behaviors, and Internalizing Behaviors, and the

competency items are combined into the higher-order competency domains Total Competencies,

School Competencies, Social Competencies, and Extracurricular Competencies. In our sample,

internal consistencies were α = .83 for Total Problems, α = .88 for Externalizing Behaviors, α =

.83 for Internalizing Behaviors, α = .81 for Total Competencies, α = .80 for School

Competencies, α = .63 for Social Competencies, and α = .69 for Extracurricular Competencies.

2.3 Procedure

Both parents independently completed questionnaires about their child either at home or at the

lab. One parent and the child came to the lab to complete the questionnaires as well as

interviews and behavioral tasks that were part of a larger study examining the development of

personality and behavioral outcomes. During this lab visit, questionnaires by the second parent

were returned. Data collection from a second caregiver (which was typically the father) was

11

added several months into the study, which accounts for a larger amount of missing data for

father participants than for mothers. Missing data were imputed using the maximum-likelihood-

based EM algorithm in SPSS. Families were compensated with CAD $40 and children received

two small gifts for full participation in the complete lab-based protocol which lasted

approximately 2–2.5 hours. The University of Toronto Ethics Board approved all study

protocols and materials.

12

Chapter 3

3 Results

3.1 The Structure of Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood

Given that data were collected from both mothers and fathers, mothers were used as the initial

exploratory sample with follow-up confirmatory analyses conducted with the fathers. Using

mother-report only, item-level exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the Openness and

Intellect facets of the ICID and the Fantasy/Openness, Perceptual Sensitivity, and Low Intensity

Pleasure facets of the TMCQ using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2006). One- through four-

factor structures were extracted using oblique rotation and a maximum likelihood estimator.

Results of the EFA supported a three-factor structure (RMSEA = .08) over a one-factor

(RMSEA = .10) and two-factor (RMSEA = .09) structure. Although the four-factor structure

(RMSEA = .07) provided a slightly better fit than the three-factor structure, clarity of extracted

factors was enhanced for the three-factor solution. Specifically, rather than measuring a separate

personality facet, the fourth factor seemed to measure an affinity to reading with the items “likes

reading or listening to make believe stories”, “enjoys looking at books”, and “likes quiet reading

time”. Thus, the three-factor solution was retained.

Based on content, we labeled the first factor “Intellect”, the second factor “Imagination”, and

the third factor “Sensitivity”. Items on the Intellect factor came from the ICID Intellect and

Openness scales, items on the Imagination factor came from the ICID Openness, the TMCQ

Openness/Fantasy and the TMCQ Low Intensity Pleasure scales, and items on the Sensitivity

factor came from the TMCQ Perceptual Sensitivity scale (for item loadings, see Table 1). Apart

from the item “likes the sound of poems” that loaded on the Imagination factor, none of the Low

Intensity Pleasure items loaded substantially on any of the factors.

The EFA was followed up with a confirmatory factor analysis on the father-report. For the CFA,

we eliminated items that did not load above 0.4 on any factor in the EFA. None of the remaining

13

items had secondary cross-loadings above 0.4. Following Little, Cunningham, Shahar, and

Widaman's (2002) recommendation to parcel items if the goal of a study is to examine the

nature of a construct, we randomly aggregated the items into clusters of four to five items within

factor. Results of the CFA also provided support for a three-factor structure (CFI= .99, RMSEA

= .06; see Figure 1). Based on the results of the CFA, we created indicators of the higher-order

OE factor and the lower-order facets Intellect, Imagination, and Sensitivity by summing the

items that were retained in the CFA. Internal consistencies were α = .93 for mother- and α = .91

for father-reported Intellect, α = .87 for mother- and α = .86 for father-reported Imagination, α =

.81 for mother- and α = .80 for father-reported Sensitivity, and α = .92 for the mother- and α =

.93 for the father-reported higher-order OE factor. Based on scores averaged across parent

informants, the Intellect and Imagination facet correlated with each other at 0.44 (p > .01), the

Intellect and Sensitivity facet correlated with each other at 0.28 (p > .01), and the Imagination

and Sensitivity facet correlated with each other at 0.39 (p > .01; see Table 2).

3.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Middle Childhood

Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the lower-order OE facets was investigated

via a series of hierarchical regressions. Scores from the higher-order ICID factors

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism were averaged across parent

informants (for correlations among those scales and the higher-order OE factor and its lower-

order facets, see Table 2). Each OE facet was designated the dependent variable in one

hierarchical regression, with the remaining two facets simultaneously entered in the first step

and the four higher-order ICID factors entered in the second step. This allowed for tests of

specificity among the three facets. Unique variance in the Intellect facet was most strongly

predicted by Conscientiousness (β = .49, p < .001; see Table 3). Unique variance in the

Imagination facet was most strongly predicted by Extraversion (β = 28, p < .001). Finally,

unique variance in the Sensitivity facet was most strongly predicted by Neuroticism (β = .52, p

< .001) and was also predicted by Agreeableness (β = .37, p < .001).

14

3.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Behavior in Middle Childhood

Evidence for both common and specific associations with behavioral problems and

competencies were investigated via separate hierarchical regressions for each of the three CBCL

problem behavior scales and the four behavioral competency scales. Regressions were

conducted separately with the higher-order OE factor as the independent variable in one

regression and its lower-order facets as the independent variables in another regression. Scores

from the CBCL were averaged across parents.

The results from these analyses revealed that Total Problems, Externalizing Behaviors, and

Internalizing Behaviors were not significantly predicted by the higher-order OE factor (see

Table 4). After controlling for the other OE facets, Total Problems was negatively predicted by

Intellect (β = -.27, p < .001) and positively predicted by Imagination (β = .16, p = .010).

Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors were negatively predicted by unique variance in

Intellect. Total, School, Social, and Extracurricular Competencies were all positively predicted

by the higher-order OE factor (see Table 4). Total Competencies were also predicted by the

unique variance in Intellect (β = .36, p = .001) and Sensitivity (β = .11, p = .035). School

Competencies were predicted by the unique variance in Intellect (β = .47, p < .001). Social

Competencies were predicted by the unique variance in Intellect (β = .25, p < .001) and

Sensitivity (β = .11, p = .049). Extracurricular Competencies were predicted by the unique

variance in Intellect (β = .17, p = .004).

15

Chapter 4

4 Discussion

The present study is the first to provide a comprehensive investigation of the construct validity

of OE in childhood. A major strength of the study is the use of a multi-measure, multi-informant

approach to establishing construct validity for child OE, including both mother and father report

on reliable child personality and temperament measures. The results of the study move the field

of child personality research toward a clearer and more cohesive understanding of how to

conceptualize OE in middle childhood. These results also underscore the importance of drawing

from both temperament and personality literatures in establishing construct validity for child

trait domains.

4.1 The Structure of Openness to Experience in Middle Childhood

Our first hypothesis about the structure of OE was largely supported. Specifically, an analog of

OE—which included content from the domains of Intellect, Fantasy/Openness, and Perceptual

Sensitivity—was clearly identified in middle childhood, showing replication across informants.

The identification of a clear OE factor in middle childhood is consistent with previous work

(e.g., Halverson et al., 2003; Goldberg, 2001); however, distinct from previous work with both

child and adult populations, a new three-factor hierarchical structure for OE emerged. Both

personality and temperament items were important indicators of OE, underlining the importance

of including content from both domains (e.g., De Pauw et al., 2009). The present study

represents an important extension of previous work in child and adolescent samples by

empirically integrating these domains in a measure of OE for the first time. Given that

temperament constructs can be reliably measured from infancy (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003),

these findings offer the opportunity for future work to take an even broader lifespan perspective

of the OE domain.

16

Contrary to our hypothesis, the OE factor did not include Low Intensity Pleasure content with

the exception of one item: “likes the sound of poems”, which loaded on the Imagination facet.

As noted previously, Low Intensity Pleasure is defined as the amount of pleasure or enjoyment

related to situations involving low level intensity, rate, complexity, novelty, and incongruity of a

stimulus (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004). Conceptually, these characteristics do not overlap with

OE (e.g., McCrae, 1994). Empirically, however, Low Intensity Pleasure has been related to

characteristics of OE in early childhood (De Pauw et al., 2009) and to the temperament

construct Fantasy/Openness in middle childhood (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004), which is why it

was selected for the present investigation. The findings regarding the relationship between Low

Intensity Pleasure and OE are too inconsistent to date to conclude whether the construct is

relevant to early OE, representing an important question to address in future research.

4.2 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Personality in Middle Childhood

With regard to the relationship between OE and personality in middle childhood, our hypotheses

were again largely supported. Specifically, our first hypothesis was supported: the Intellect facet

was most strongly predicted by Conscientiousness (e.g., Mervielde et al., 1995). Our second

hypothesis was also supported: the Imagination facet was most strongly predicted by

Extraversion. Adult OE measures cover more Fantasy/Imagination content than Intellect content

(Gjerde & Cardilla, 2009) and are, subsequently, most strongly related to Extraversion (Markon

et al., 2005), supporting our findings in the current study. Finally, the hypothesis that Sensitivity

would be most strongly predicted by Neuroticism and Agreeableness was also supported. This

supports previous findings that Perceptual Sensitivity and Absorption relate more strongly to

Neuroticism and Agreeableness/Affiliation in middle childhood (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001;

Simonds & Rothbart, 2004; Tackett et al., 2008) and into adulthood, where Absorption has

moderate positive loadings on Negative Emotionality (Tellegen, 1978/1982).

In summary, the present results support the broader hypothesis that child OE shows theoretically

expected patterns of convergence with other personality traits. The differential relationships

between the OE facets and other personality traits further underscore the importance of

17

broadening the construct of child OE to include aspects other than Intellect (which dominates

most current child OE measures) in order to examine these unique facet-level associations.

4.3 Relationship between Openness to Experience and Behavior in Middle Childhood

Finally, our hypotheses about the relationship between OE and behavior were also largely

supported. Specifically, the higher-order OE factor did not significantly predict any problem

scales, in line with overall inconsistent findings in the literature (e.g., John et al., 1994; Ehrler et

al., 1999; Victor, 1994; Prinzie et al., 2004). At the facet level, however, Total Problems was

negatively predicted by Intellect and positively predicted by Imagination. Furthermore, both

Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors were negatively predicted by Intellect, after

controlling for the other OE facets.

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, the Imagination facet positively predicted only Total

Problems, after controlling for the other OE facets. Although we expected to find a relationship

between Imagination and Internalizing Behaviors, the rate of internalizing problems is still

relatively low in middle childhood and increases through adolescence (Bongers, Koot, van der

Ende & Verhulst, 2003). This may have limited our power to detect the predicted association in

this age group, emphasizing the need for future studies of these relationships in adolescent

samples. The finding that Imagination appears to serve as a potential risk factor for behavioral

problems maps on to research finding a link between creativity and psychopathology in adult

populations (Nettle, 2005; Post, 1994). Overall, these results suggest that, as hypothesized,

broadening the OE construct to include both personality and temperament items is relevant to

better understanding the important role that facets of OE play in predicting problem behaviors in

children. Importantly, these findings suggest that previous results from studies relying on only

broadband measures of child OE may have masked such relationships at the facet level (e.g.,

John et al., 1994; Ehrler et al., 1999; Prinzie et al., 2004).

Our hypotheses about the relationship between OE and behavioral competencies were

supported. Specifically, all CBCL competency domains were positively predicted by the higher-

18

order OE factor. Total and Social Competencies were predicted by Intellect and Sensitivity,

after controlling for the other OE facets. Furthermore, School and Extracurricular Competencies

were predicted by Intellect, after controlling for the other OE facets. Taken together, these

findings suggest that Intellect might be both a protective factor against behavioral problems as

well as a positive predictor of behavioral competencies in childhood.

Somewhat surprisingly, Sensitivity was a positive predictor of Social Competencies and

unrelated to behavioral problems. This was unexpected given that Neuroticism was the best

predictor of Sensitivity in this sample and Neuroticism is the most psychopathology-laden trait

of the big five (e.g., De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010). It may be that heightened sensitivity to social

cues leads to increased social competence, which can protect from behavioral problems (Burt,

Obradovic, Long, & Masten, 2008). This hypothesis is further strengthened by the fact that

Sensitivity was also positively predicted by Agreeableness (see Table 3)—a personality trait that

plays a major role in social competency issues (Shiner, 2000). It may also be that heightened

sensitivity only begins to lead to more negative outcomes such as overreaction to interpersonal

slights in middle childhood. As peers become more important during adolescence (Steinberg et

al., 2006), such overreaction may then result in depression and anxiety for some children.

Longitudinal research is needed to investigate this hypothesis. To sum up, our more nuanced

understanding of OE at the facet-level provided a much more detailed understanding of the

relationship between OE and childhood behaviors.

4.4 Limitations and Future Directions

Some limitations of our study deserve note. First, a general limitation of factor analysis is that

the factors extracted depend on the content of the initial pool of items. A strength of this study

was the inclusion of relevant content from both personality and temperament measures in

examining the OE construct, which has not yet been examined in previous studies. It is still

possible, however, that the items included here do not fully measure the construct. For example,

two other facets of OE in the adult NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) are Actions and Values.

The Actions facet describes an individual's openness to new activities, such as visiting new

19

places or eating new food, whereas the Values facet describes an individual's openness to re-

examining traditional values with regard to society, religion, or politics. Most measures of child

individual differences, including the measures we used here, do not measure this type of OE

content. It remains to be seen in future studies whether such content is appropriate and

applicable to children and, if so, whether it can be measured reliably at these ages and

incorporated with the structure presented here. Second, the present study is limited by its cross-

sectional design, which can answer questions only about concurrent relationships between OE

and personality and behavior. Longitudinal research is needed to investigate when the

hierarchical structure of child OE established here emerges in development and whether the

middle-childhood OE construct predicts the same important life outcomes over time that it

predicts concurrently.

Finally, such work will greatly benefit from the use of other informants and other methods to

test the robustness of the structural model of child OE that we present here. In Mervielde and De

Fruyt’s (2000) study of the structure of 9-to-12-year-old children’s peer nominations, the OE

factor was less differentiated and emerged only combined with Conscientiousness, suggesting

that the use of younger informants may yield different answers to this research question. A study

using the TMCQ as a self-report questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004), did find that

Fantasy/Openness and Perceptual Sensitivity were both reliably measured in 7-to-10-year-old

children with Cronbach’s αs of .78 and .80, respectively. Future research is needed utilizing

informants with varied roles (e.g., peer, teacher, self, unacquainted observer) to better

triangulate on the conceptualization of OE in childhood.

One of the most pressing questions remaining is when OE first emerges in development. The

present study marks an important step toward that end in establishing that child OE is at least

partly defined by the temperament construct Perceptual Sensitivity, which can be reliably

measured as early as infancy (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003). In addition, the three-factor structure

demonstrated here is reliably measured by middle childhood, dispelling previous suggestions

that OE does not emerge until adolescence. Future research should investigate whether

Perceptual Sensitivity that emerges in infancy eventually develops into the OE construct that we

20

identified in middle childhood or OE as measured in adults. Furthermore, Perceptual Sensitivity

has been shown to have different primary loadings at different ages: on Extraversion/Surgency

in infancy (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003), on Effortful Control in pre-school (Rothbart et al.,

2001), and on Affiliativeness in adolescence (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). Therefore, examining

how OE and Perceptual Sensitivity relate to other traits at younger ages might be useful to fully

understand the longitudinal nature of OE.

Another interesting suggestion raised by the present results is that a facet-level approach to

childhood OE may help establish OE’s clinical relevance. A recent meta-analysis with adult

samples found OE to be largely unrelated to such psychological disorders as anxiety,

depression, and substance use disorders (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010). As

previously noted, however, other studies that examined facet-level associations between OE and

different psychological disorders found that facets of OE are predictive of psychological

disorders in divergent directions (e.g., Carrillo, et al., 2001; DeYoung et al., 2008; Wolfenstein

& Trull, 1997). These findings in adults, in combination with the present investigation, suggest

the need for facet-level investigations to fully elucidate links between OE and psychopathology.

Finally, it would also be interesting to conduct cluster analyses of children’s OE facet scores to

see if distinct clusters of “OE signatures” predict distinct developmental outcomes. Personality

signatures are consistent patterns of within-individual variability across situations in the

expressions of personality (Mischel, 2004) and are exhibited by both adults (Fournier,

Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2007) and children (Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994). Preliminary data

suggests that children exhibit the most within-individual variance across situations in their

expression of OE compared to the other FFM personality traits (Gao, Jawa, Fournier, & Tackett,

2011), suggesting that analyzing OE signatures might be especially relevant. In particular, OE

signatures might have great utility in furthering our understanding of the relationship between

the Imagination facet and internalizing problems. Previous research has shown that sad mood

induction via mental imagery of a sad memory is more effective in imaginative children than it

is in unimaginative children (Stegge, Meerum Terwogt, & Koops, 1995), suggesting that the

tendency toward a vivid imagination has direct effects on sad mood in sad situations. Future

21

research should examine whether repeated exposure to sad situations might increase the risk for

internalizing problems only for the group of children who express a lot of imagination during

sad situations. Furthermore, future research should also explore additional relationships between

clusters of OE signatures and developmental outcomes such as psychopathology as such

knowledge is needed to fully understand the predictive utility of OE.

4.5 Conclusion

Drawing from both personality and temperament taxonomies, the present study attempted to

establish initial construct validity for OE in middle childhood. Specifically, both temperament

and personality content emerged as important to define the broader OE domain in childhood,

suggesting that research with younger populations may be limited by examining constructs

using only one measure or model. The three-factor model of child OE that emerged

demonstrated facet-level associations between OE and behavioral problems and competencies

that previous studies—relying on domain-level measures of child OE—may have masked. The

results of the present study suggest that future research on child traits would be improved by (1)

measuring child traits with both personality and temperament measures and (2) examining not

only domain-level but also facet-level associations between child traits and important life

outcomes. These findings provide clear support for the validity and reliability of child OE,

hopefully reconciling lingering questions about whether the fifth factor of personality has

emerged as a robust and meaningful trait domain by this early age.

22

References

Abe, J. A. A., (2005). The predictive validity of the Five-Factor Model of personality with

preschool age children: A nine year follow-up study. Journal of Research in Personality,

39, 423–442.

Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: I Boys Aged 6 – 11. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 478–488.

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms &

Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,

Youth, & Families.

Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2003). The normative

development of child and adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 112, 179–192.

Burt, K. B., Obradović, J., Long J. D., & Masten, A. S. (2008). The Interplay of Social

Competence and Psychopathology Over 20 Years: Testing Transactional and Cascade

Models. Child Development, 79, 359–374.

Carrillo, J. M, Rojo, N., Sanchez-Bernardos, M. L., & Avia, M. D. (2001). Openness to

Experience and depression. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 130–

136.

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological

Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO personality Inventory professional manual. Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment

using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64,

21–50.

De Pauw, S. S. W., & Mervielde, I. (2010). Temperament, personality and developmental

psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions underlying childhood

traits. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 41, 313–329.

De Pauw, S. S. W., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen K. G. (2009). How are traits related to

problem behaviour in preschoolers? Similarities and contrasts between temperament and

personality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 309–325.

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Séguin, J. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Externalizing

behavior and the higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

117, 947–953.

23

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533–552.

Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal

of Personality, 57, 195–214.

Ehrler, D. J., Evans, J. G., & McGhee, R. L. (1999). Extending Big-Five theory into childhood:

A preliminary investigations into the relationship between Big-Five personality traits and

behavior problems in children. Psychology in the School, 36, 451–472.

Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament

Questionnaire. Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial Meeting of the Society for

Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Fournier, M. A., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2008). Integrating dispositions, signatures,

and the interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 531-

545.

Gao, W., Jawa, N. A., Fournier, M. A., & Tackett, J. L. (June, 2011). Situation-based

contingencies in personality expression in middle childhood. Poster presented at the 72nd

Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, ON.

Gartstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2003). Studying infant temperament via the Revised Infant

Behaviour Questionnaire. Infant Behavior & Development, 26, 64–86.

Gjerde, P. F., & Cardilla, K. (2009). Developmental Implications of Openness to Experience in

Preschool Children: Gender Differences in Young Adulthood. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 1455–1464.

Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Analyses of Digman’s child-personality data: Derivation of Big-Five

factor scores from each of six samples. Journal of Personality, 69, 709–743.

Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence: Personality and

adjustment during a developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60, 425–439.

Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., Deal, J., Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., Pavlopoulos, V., … Wen, L.

(2003). Personality structure as derived from parent ratings of free descriptors of

children: The Inventory of Children's Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 71,

995–1026.

John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The “Little

Five”: Exploring the nomological network of the Five-Factor Model of personality in

adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.

Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to

anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 136, 768–821.

24

Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., 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.

Markon, K. E., Kruefer, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and

abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.

Masten, A. S., Curtis, W. J. (2000). Integrating competence and psychopathology: Pathways

toward a comprehensive science of adaptation in development. Development and

Psychopathology, 12, 529–550.

McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to Experience – Expanding the boundaries of Factor-V.

European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272.

Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big-Five as a model for

teachers’ ratings of individual differences among children aged 4-12 years. Personality

and Individual Differences, 18, 525–534.

Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for

Children. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality

psychology in Europe (Vol 7, pp. 107–127). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Mervielde, I. & De Fruyt, F. (2000). The Big Five personality factors as a model for the

structure of children's peer nominations. European Journal of Personality, 14, 91–106.

Mervielde, I., De Fruyt, F., Jarmuz, S. (1998). Linking openness and intellect in childhood and

adulthood. In G. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson, I. Mervielde, & V. Havill (Eds.)

Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five?

(pp. 105–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology,

55, 1-22.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Diederen, R. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Big Five

Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C) in a Dutch sample of young adolescents.

Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1757–1769.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén.

Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and

mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 876–890.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to

parcel: Exploring the questions, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,

151–173.

Post, F. (1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous men. British

Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 22–34.

25

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H., Ghesquiere, P., & Colpin, H. (2004).

Parent and child personality characteristics as predictors of negative discipline and

externalizing problem behavior in children. European Journal of Personality, 18, 73–

102.

Ring, A. J., Ryder, A. G., Lavigne, K., Bagby, R. M. (2008, July). Schizotypal personality and

the five-factor model: Two aspects of openness make opposite predictions. Poster

presented at the 29th

meeting of the International Congress of Psychology, Berlin,

Germany.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of

temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child

Development, 72, 1394–1408.

Shiner, R. (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.

Shiner, R. & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence:

Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 44, 2–32.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization and

patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic

analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674-687.

Simonds, J. & Rothbart, M. K. (2004, October). The Temperament in Middle Childhood

Questionnaire (TMCQ): A computerized self-report measure of temperament for ages 7–

10. Poster session presented at the Occasional Temperament Conference, Athens, GA.

Stegge, H., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Koops, W. (1995). Mood congruity in children: Effects of

age, imagery capability, and demand characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 18, 177–191.

Steinberg, L., Dahl, R., Keating, D., Kupfer, D., Masten, A., & Pine, D. (2006).

Psychopathology in adolescence: Integrating affective neuroscience with the study of

context. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2:

Developmental neuroscience (2nd

ed., pp. 710–741). New York: Wiley.

Tackett, J. L. (2006). Evaluating models of the personality-psychopathology relationship in

children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 584–599.

Tackett, J. L., Krueger, B. F., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2008). Personality in middle

childhood: A hierarchical structure and longitudinal connections with personality in late

adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1456–1462.

Tackett, J. L., Slobodoskaya, H. R., Mar, R. A., Deal, J., Halverson, C. F., Baker, S. R., …

Besevegis, E. (2011). The Hierarchical Structure of Childhood Personality in Five

26

Countries: Continuity from Early Childhood to Early Adolescence. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Tellegen, A. (1978/1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

Victor, J. B. (1994). The five-factor model applied to individual differences in school behavior.

In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.) The developing structure of

temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. (pp. 355–366). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolfenstein, M., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Depression and Openness to Experience. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 69, 614–632.

27

Tables Table 1

Item Loadings > .40 for Exploratory Factor Analysis of Mother-Reported Openness to Experience Items

Item Stem: My child… Intellect Imagination Sensitivity

… is quick to learn .88

… has good thinking abilities .85

… is intelligent .84

… is quick to understand what is said or going on .76

… has a large vocabulary .74

… is good at problem solving .73

… is eager to learn .71

… is slow to learn -.70

… has difficulty solving problems -.66

… has a good memory .62

… speaks well .58

… likes to ask questions .53

… shows interest in everything .50

… is curious .49

… has a sense of humor .42

… has a lot of imagination .72

… has a big imagination .68

… is creative .63

… likes to pretend .61

… enjoys drawing pictures .57

… likes to make up stories .53

… likes the sound of poems .51

… likes to think of new ideas .48

… is unimaginative -.48

… likes poems .46

… likes to make things .46

… likes reading or listening to make believe stories .43

… notices small changes in the environment, like lights .73

… notices things others don’t notice .67

… notices the color of people’s eyes .58

… notices the sound of birds .56

… notices when parents are wearing new clothing .56

… notices odors like perfume, smoke, and cooking smells .49

… notices even little specks of dirt on objects .46

… likes to run hand over things to see if they are smooth … .44

Note. Items in bold are from the Inventory of Child Individual Differences (Halverson et al., 2003); items in italics

are from the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, 2004).

All factor loadings significant at p < .01.

28

Table 2

Summary of Correlations between the Openness to Experience, ICID, and CBCL scales Based on Averaged Mother

and Father Report.

Openness Intellect Imagination Sensitivity

Agreeableness .26** .25** .16** .16**

Conscientiousness .57** .64** .24** .27**

Extraversion .60** .54** .46** .32**

Neuroticism -.35** -.41** -.15** -.11

Total Problems -.10 -.19** .05 .01

Externalizing Behaviors -.09 -.14** .03 -.03

Internalizing Behaviors .01 -.06 .08 .07

Total Competencies .38** .39** .20** .22**

School Competencies .35** .44** .12 .11

Social Competencies .29** .29** .16** .19**

Extracurricular Competencies .22** .21** .14 .14**

Note. ICID = Inventory of Child Individual Differences (Halverson et al., 2003); CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist

(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001)

** p < .01.

29

Table 3

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting the Lower-Order Openness to Experience Facets from Mother- and Father-Reported Personality Traits.

Lower-order Openness facets

Intellect Imagination Sensitivity

Variable ∆R2

B [95% CI] β ∆R2 B [95% CI] β ∆R

2 B [95% CI] β

Step 1 .21*** .27*** .16***

Controla

Step 2 .36*** .06*** .07***

A -0.13 [-0.20, -0.06] -.28*** 0.06 [0.00, 0.11] .19 0.07 [0.03, 0.10] .37***

C 0.36 [0.29, 0.43] .49*** -0.02 [-0.08, 0.05] -.04 0.08 [0.04, 0.12] .28***

E 0.12 [0.08, 0.15] .29*** 0.07 [0.04, 0.10] .28*** 0.03 [0.01, 0.05] .19**

N -0.08 [-0.16, 0.00] -.18* 0.07 [0.01, 0.13] .27* 0.09 [0.05, 0.13] .52***

Total R2 .57 .33 .24

Note. A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; CI = Confidence Interval.

a Control variables in step 1 included the other two lower-order Openness to Experience facets.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

30

Table 4

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CBCL Scales from Mother- and Father-Reported Openness to Experience.

CBCL Problem Scales

Total Problems Externalizing Behaviors Internalizing Behaviors

Predictor B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β

Openness -0.08 [-0.17, 0.01] -.10 -0.02 [-0.05, 0.01] -.09 0.00 [-0.02, 0.03] .01

Total R2 .01 .01 .00

Intellect -0.35 [-0.50, -0.20] -.27*** -0.08 [-0.13, -0.03] -.19*** -0.05 [-0.09, 0.00] -.12*

Imagination 0.34 [0.08, 0.60] .16* 0.08 [0.00, 0.17] .12 0.06 [-0.01, 0.14] .11

Sensitivity 0.07 [-0.32, 0.45] .02 -0.03 [-0.16, 0.10] -.03 0.06 [-0.05, 0.18] .07

Total R2 .06*** .03* .02

CBCL Competency Scales

Total Competencies School Competencies Social Competencies Extracurricular Comp.

Predictor B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β

Openness 0.08 [0.06, 0.10] .38*** 0.02 [0.01, 0.02] .35*** 0.04 [0.02, 0.05] .29*** 0.02 [0.01, 0.03] .22***

Total R2 .15*** .13*** .09*** .05***

Intellect 0.12 [0.08, 0.15] .36*** 0.04 [0.03, 0.05] .47*** 0.05 [0.03, 0.07] .25*** 0.03 [0.01, 0.05] .17**

Imagination 0.00 [-0.06, 0.06] .00 -0.01 [-0.03, 0.00] -.09 0.00 [-0.04, 0.04] .01 0.01 [-0.03, 0.04] .03

Sensitivity 0.09 [0.01, 0.19] .11* 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] .01 0.06 [0.00, 0.11] .11* 0.04 [-0.01, 0.08] .08

Total R2 .17*** .20*** .10*** .05*

Note. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001

31

Figures

Figure 1. Structure of Openness to Experience in middle childhood based on confirmatory factor

analysis of father report. Values in brackets indicate 95% confidence intervals. All loadings and

correlations are significant at p < .01. RMSEA = .06; CFI = .99.