https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3463-5624
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Children’s externalizing problems in kindergarten are risk-factors that can explain psychopathology at adolescence and adulthood. Hence, it is important to study the complex and multiple-layer processes that might explain and reduce their occurrence. Among the most important moderating factors are parental caregiving practices, especially maternal sensitivity, which may depend on the parent’s temperament and character. We hypothesized that maternal effortful control (a temperament trait) and cooperativeness (a character trait) interact to facilitate maternal sensitivity and their children’s self-regulation and conduct.
Method
One hundred and sixty-three mothers and their children participated in a cross-sectional study. The mothers completed self-report measures of effortful control (ATQ), cooperativeness (TCI), expressive encouragement (CCNES), and their children’s effortful control (CBQ) and conduct problems (SDQ). They also performed the Etch-A-Sketch task with their children, which was coded offline for behavioral indicators of mothers’ cooperativeness. A composite factor of cooperativeness was derived from the behavioral and self-report measures. Hayes’s mediation cascade model (Model 6) was used to test our primary hypothesis.
Results
The model explained 22.5% of the child’s conduct problems. Within the mediation model, the mother’s cooperativeness moderated the relation between her effortful control and expressive encouragement of her child’s emotions (). Her expressive encouragement contributed to the child’s effortful control (
) and fewer conduct problems (
). The full mediation path was found to be significant (
).
Citation: Yeshua M, Cloninger CR, Zohar AH, Berger A (2025) Extending the model of children’s conduct problems: A cross-sectional study of the interaction of maternal temperament and character, maternal parenting practices, and their child’s effortful control. PLoS One 20(8): e0330897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330897
Editor: Paulo Alexandre Soares Moreira, ECHS: Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro Escola de Ciencias Humanas e Sociais, PORTUGAL
Received: March 16, 2025; Accepted: August 7, 2025; Published: August 28, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Yeshua et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Availability of data and material: All data and material are available online (https://github.com/MaorYeshua/EC-x-CO-ms.git). Code availability: All code is available online (https://github.com/MaorYeshua/EC-x-CO-ms.git).
Funding: This study was partially supported by the Israel Scientific Foundation (ISF; Grant number 533/20).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Conduct problems in childhood are characterized by frequent temper tantrums, disobedience, fighting with other children, lying and stealing [1]. The earlier the age of the manifestation of conduct problems, the greater is the risk of chronic misconduct [2]. Moreover, Reef et al. [3] in their 24-year follow-up study showed that the presence of externalizing problems and aggressive behavior during childhood and adolescence predicted the presence of such behaviors 24 years later. Thus, it is important to investigate the complex and multiple-layer process resulting in a child’s conduct problems early in life, as in kindergarten-aged children.
Of the factors that contribute to a child’s behavior, the key predictors are their own effortful control (EC; the temperamental construct of self-regulation [4–7]) and the mother’s EC and parenting practices [8–10]. Theoretically and empirically, EC measures an individual’s executive attention and ability to inhibit impulsive conduct and emotional outbursts [7,11,12]. Mothers with better EC tend to engage in more supportive and sensitive parenting practices than others [8]. For example, these mothers are more sensitive and involved [13,14] and establish their expectations for their children more clearly [15]. Such maternal practices, in turn, promote better EC in the child [10,16,17], which is expressed in behavior as better adaptive functioning, particularly fewer conduct problems [9,18–20].
Recently, another aspect was added to this mediation cascade, as a possible predictor of the mothers’ parenting – the mothers’ character traits [21]. In their systematic review, Yeshua and Berger [21] discussed the complex construct of maternal personality that includes temperamental traits (e.g., EC) and character traits that develop later in life (e.g., work ethic or respect for others). They further suggested that interactions between these traits may help explain variations in maternal parenting behavior. Although there are some findings that support this notion (e.g., [22,23]), this idea has not been thoroughly investigated [21]. The current study focused on cooperativeness (CO). CO is a character trait that is defined as being socially tolerant and tender-hearted, empathic, helpful, and compassionate. Its full development can extend to unconditional acceptance of others along with the willingness to help others unselfishly [24]. As suggested in the review by Yeshua and Berger [21], it is possible that the relationship between mothers’ EC and their sensitive parenting is being moderated by their CO. Theoretically, mothers with good inhibitory control and executive attention (i.e., stronger EC) might be more efficient and organized, but it does not follow that they would also be empathic and tolerant towards their child in times of distress (i.e., higher levels of CO). Hence, this study aimed to examine the plausible interaction between the mothers’ temperament (in the form of EC) and their character (in the form of CO), for explaining their caregiving practices, as well as their children’s EC and conduct problems.
Mothers’ CO could moderate the effect of EC, especially when explaining mothers’ sensitive caregiving practice of expressive encouragement, which is when the mothers actively encourage their children’s expression of negative emotions [25]. In order to use expressive encouragement when their children become angry or upset, the mothers need both high EC to moderate their own distress in the presence of their children’s distress, and high CO to be empathic, tolerant and compassionate. In other words, they need to be able to identify their children’s distress and be able to let them express it without being maladaptively affected by it. There is some empirical support for this theoretical notion. Scott and Hakim-Larson [26] showed that mothers who had better EC and lower negative affectivity, as well as their children, showed lower rejection and disapproval of the children’s emotions. Moreover, these findings correspond well with Edler and Valentino’s [27] systematic review that offered that parents’ EC is associated with better practice of discussions of emotions with children; however, as they have stated, surprisingly, the literature on the matter is scarce and further research is needed. In more general terms, better EC of the mother was found to explain more adaptive parenting practices [9,10,28]. Alongside these findings, it was found that mothers who have high levels of CO seem to be more inclined to exert authoritative and caring parenting [29,30]. They also use better parenting practices in general when dealing with their child’s negative emotions [9]. However, as suggested above, the relationship between EC and CO, specifically when explaining expressive encouragement, might be more complex.
Following the mediation cascade described earlier, better emotion socialization, and specifically expressive encouragement, explained better emotion regulation [26], less emotional lability and less conduct problems [31]. As broadly presented earlier, the expressive encouragement of the child also corresponds with the more general concept of maternal sensitivity. Many empirical findings support the relation between better maternal sensitivity and better self-regulation and behavior of the child (see systematic review by [32], and meta-analyses by [33,34]). Hence, the relations between maternal expressive encouragement and children’s EC and conduct problems were expected to be related in a similar manner.
To conclude, no previous study has explored the interaction between mothers’ EC and CO and its role in the intergenerational transmission of self-regulation and the behavioral outcome of children. Therefore, the current study explored the way that the interaction between mothers’ EC and CO explains their parenting practices, which in turn would explain their children’s EC and conduct problems.
Method
Participants
A sample of 175 mothers of neuro-typical kindergarten-aged children was recruited via online platforms (such as Facebook and Instagram) and they were asked to answer a survey and then were invited to a two-hour lab visit. During this visit, the mother and their child performed a defined set of tasks. After data collection and scoring of the relevant behavioral data, 12 dyads were omitted from the main analysis due to missing values; hence, the final sample in the main analysis was 163 dyads.
The mothers’ ages ranged between 28–51 years (M = 36.69 ± 4.45) and years of education ranged between 7–30 years (M = 17.62 ± 3.16), which when compared to national data, indicates the mothers in the current sample were slightly more educated [35]. Their household income was diverse with half having higher/lower income compared to the monthly demographic average. Their children’s sex was evenly distributed (53% males; n = 92) and their mean age was 4.55 years ± .47 (3.00–6.46).
Ethical standards and procedure
The study received ethical approval from the Human Subjects Research Committee of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (protocol no. 1985−2) and the Helsinki Committee (protocol no. 0342-15-SOR). Data collection was conducted between November 23, 2021, and September 5, 2023.
Participants were recruited via online platforms and provided oral consent during an initial screening call, followed by the completion of an online informed consent form. Upon arrival at the laboratory, they also signed the Helsinki consent form concerning both their own and their child’s participation. Children provided oral assent at the time of their visit. To ensure confidentiality, each participant was assigned a unique identification code used throughout all phases of the study. Upon completion of participation, individuals received compensation as agreed upon with the principal investigator.
Procedures and measures
Participants answered a survey built on the Qualtrics platform that included: (1) the Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ–Short Form; [11]), (2) the Coping with Children Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; [25]), (3) the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness sub-scales from the Big-Five Inventory (BFI; [36]), (4) the Cooperativeness and Self-Directedness sub-scales from the Temperament and Character Inventory – Revised (TCI-R; [37]), (5) the Children Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; [38]), (6) the Strength and Deficits Questionnaire (SDQ; [1]), and (7) the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS; [39]).
Dyads that came to the lab performed several tasks, including EEG recording, a computerized Emotional Day-Night task, the Raven task, and two filmed tasks (the Transparent Box and the Etch-A-Sketch). The hypotheses of the present study were tested based on the ATQ, CBQ, CCNES, TCI, CHAOS and SDQ questionnaires, as described in the following sections, as well as on behavioral coding of the mother’s behavior drawn from the Etch-A-Sketch task (see Table 1 for summarized measures). The authors had permission to use these instruments from the copyright holders.
Mothers’ and children’s effortful control.
Assessment was done using a sub-scale from the Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ–Short Form; [11]) and the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; [7]). The EC of the mothers was computed as the mean value of 18 items (Cronbach’s α = .76). The EC of the children was computed as the mean value of 26 items (Cronbach’s α = .84).
Mothers’ character – self-reported cooperativeness.
Assessment was done using a sub-scale from the Temperament and Character Inventory – Revised (TCI-R; [37]). The cooperativeness (CO) of the mothers was computed as the mean value of 20 items (Cronbach’s α = .80).
Etch-A-Sketch – cooperativeness codes.
A 7-minute mother-child interaction [40] was carried out using an Etch-A-Sketch. This task involves a degree of cooperation, responsiveness and compliance between mothers and children. The Etch-A-Sketch toy has two dials – one for moving the drawing point vertically and the other for moving it horizontally. The researcher assigned each individual one dial to use; both of the participants were instructed not to touch the other’s dial. Each 7-minute recording was divided to four segments of 1 minute and 45 seconds. Two coders coded the interaction using an adapted version of the Parent-Child Interaction System (PARCHISY; [41]). Based on a 10-recording sample, the ratings were found reliable (Cohen’s Kappa = .74; ICC = .93). Each mother in each coding had four ratings, which were summed and divided by four in order to calculate a proportional mean value. In this study, we integrated four additional theory-driven codes into the coding, based on two sub-scales of CO, according to Table 2 in Cloninger et al.’s [42] paper. The first theoretical sub-scale that was translated into two codes was social acceptance vs. intolerance, which was designed as a bipolar scale. The second theoretical sub-scale that was translated into two codes was empathy vs. social disinterest. The two poles of each scale can be expressed by the same person in different situations at different times. Therefore, in practice, especially in an ecological setting, both types of behavioral manifestations can occur in different moments of the interaction between the mother and the child; hence, they can be coded as distinct and not mutually exclusive scales. See full description in S1 Appendix.
Parental practices.
To measure parental practices, the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; [25]) was used (72 statements). Adaptive parenting was measured using the following sub-scales: problem-focused responses (PF; helping the child solve the problem that caused the distress, α = .84), emotion-focused responses (EF; helping the child feel better, α = .84), and expressive encouragement responses (EE; actively encouraging children’s expression of negative emotions, α = .90). Aspects of maladaptive parenting were measured as follows: minimization responses (MR; discounting or devaluing the child’s negative emotions/problem, α = .81), punitive responses (PR; using verbal or physical punishment to control the expression of negative emotion, α = .82), and distress responses (DR; becoming adversely aroused/distressed by a child’s negative emotion, α = .72). Observed variables were the mean value of each sub-scale, where higher values indicate higher levels of reported constructs.
Children’s conduct problems.
Assessment was done using a sub-scale from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; [1]) as the mean of five items (Cronbach’s α = .64) regarding disobedience, temper, tendencies to fight, steal, and lie.
Background variables.
As socioeconomic status is a risk factor for the development of psychiatric disorders [43], we examined it as a possible covariate. A factor was extracted using the Principal Component Analysis method loaded by mothers’ years of education (.56), household income (.80), number of cars (.69) and number of household rooms (.69). Moreover, as household chaos and intelligence (of mother and child alike) are related to one another and have an effect on the child’s outcomes [44,45], they were also considered as possible covariates and were assessed using the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS; [39]), which is the mean value of 15 items (Cronbach’s α = .83). In addition, the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) tests (adult and children Raven tests, respectively; [46]) were used. The Raven tests include three sets of 12 figures each, designed to assess fluid intelligence – the CPM was used for children under the age of 11 years and the SPM was used for adults. Each figure is a rectangle filled with geometrical shapes and a piece that is missing in a fixed location. The participants are required to choose between six optional complementary parts, with only one part being the correct answer. The final score is the sum of correct responses (0 = incorrect; 1 = correct) with maximum score of 36 points. Lastly, mothers’ and children’s age, as well as children’s sex were examined.
Analytic plan
Participants who did not complete the questionnaires or failed the alertness checks were removed from the sample. First, as a preliminary analysis, a composite factor of cooperativeness was derived from TCI self-reports of CO and the coded behavioral data. This was done in order to have a more ecological and objective measurement of the mothers’ cooperativeness. Then, zero-order correlations were examined to choose covariates to control in the main analyses. Then, to examine the main study hypothesis, Hayes’s mediation cascade model (Model 6) was used in order to test for mediation beginning with the EC x CO interaction and ending with children’s conduct problems, going through mothers’ expressive encouragement and children’s EC. Then, simple slopes analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of the interaction term. According to a power calculation conducted using G*power, to obtain 95% power, with 5% alpha, two-tailed, with 10 independent variables and a small effect size estimate (), there was a need for N = 133 for the analyses to have sufficient power.
Transparency and openness
All collected data were included in the analysis. The data was collected online via Qualtrics and statistical analysis was done using SPSS 28. All data and the analysis code are available (https://github.com/MaorYeshua/EC-x-CO-ms.git). The study design and analysis were not pre-registered.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Factor analysis.
First, a factor for mothers’ CO was formed using all available data (N = 172). The factor was loaded by self-reported CO, as measured by the TCI, as well as by the four theory-driven observational codes, which were formulated in light of the definition of CO sub-scales: empathy vs. social disinterest and social acceptance vs. intolerance. Table 2 presents zero-order correlations. As expected, social acceptance and intolerance, as well as empathy and social disinterest, were not mutually exclusive or the absolute reverse of one another.
In line with the theoretical conceptualization, social disinterest and intolerance were positively related (r = .36 p < .001, N = 172). Moreover, and in line with the theoretical construct, the relation between social acceptance and intolerance was negative (r = −.18, p = .018, N = 172), and the relation between empathy and social acceptance was positive (r = .29, p < .001, N = 172). In addition, the relation between social acceptance and intolerance to self-reported CO were found to be significant and in the expected direction (r = .20, p = .009, N = 172; r = −.18, p = .021, N = 172, respectively), while empathy and social disinterest were not (ps > .05). The only code that showed counter-intuitive relations to most of the other codes was social disinterest. Empirically, and contrary to the theoretical construct, empathy and social disinterest were positively related (r = .20, p = .010, N = 172).
Factors were extracted using the Principal Component Analysis method, following Varimax rotation with the Kaiser Normalization method. Two factors that exceeded Eigen values of 1 were extracted (see summary in Table 3), while loadings lower than.35 were suppressed to avoid cross-loadings [47,48].
The first factor seemed to better represent CO, as it was better loaded in the expected directions. In line with the inconsistencies of social disinterest with the other scales, it indeed was not loaded into the first factor. The second factor seemed to represent the mothers’ uncooperative tendencies, as it was loaded by the mothers’ intolerance and social disinterest behaviors.
Zero-order correlations.
To identify relevant background variables to control for, a zero-order correlations matrix was computed. After searching for a significant relationship with mothers’ expressive encouragement, children’s EC or conduct problems, the variables that were controlled in the main analysis were household chaos and mothers’ Raven score (see Table 4). Moreover, there were high correlations between all six parenting practices (.15 ≤ |r| ≤ .62, ps < .001, N = 168), and so these were also controlled for in the main analyses.
Main analysis
Mediation cascade analysis.
To test the mediation cascade hypothesis, Hayes’s Model 6 was used for testing the indirect path between mothers’ EC and CO interaction and children’s conduct problems. The first mediator was mothers’ expressive encouragement, and the second mediator was children’s EC; see Fig 1 and Table 5 for the mediation model results.
N = 163. Higher values point to more extreme responses in the expected direction. Controlled variables include household chaos, mothers’ Raven score, and all five scales of parenting practices. EC = effortful control; CO = cooperativeness; EE = expressive encouragement. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tailed.
The analysis revealed that the mothers’ EC x CO direct path to children’s conduct problems is significant, with and without the mediators. However, the explained variance was greater in the model that included the mediators () than the model without them (
). The mothers’ EC x CO interaction significantly explains their expressive encouragement (
). In turn, their expressive encouragement explains the children’s EC (
), which in turn explains the children’s conduct problems (
). The mediation cascade path was found to be significant (
).
Simple slopes analysis
In order to explore the effect of the interaction between EC x CO on mothers’ expressive encouragement and children’s conduct problems, two simple slopes analyses were done; see Figs 2 and 3. The first simple slopes analysis revealed that when mothers’ CO is low, there is no relationship between mothers’ EC and expressive encouragement (). When mothers’ CO is high, the slope of mothers’ EC is significant and positive (
).
N = 163. The horizontal dotted line represents the mean value of the mothers’ expressive encouragement. The solid line represents a significant result. EC = effortful control. High = 1 SD above the mean of mothers’ cooperativeness/effortful control, Low = 1 SD below the mean of mothers’ cooperativeness/effortful control.
N = 163. The horizontal dotted line represents the mean value of the child’s conduct problems. The solid line represents a significant result. EC = effortful control. High = 1 SD above the mean of mothers’ cooperativeness/effortful control, Low = 1 SD below the mean of mothers’ cooperativeness/effortful control.
The second simple slopes analysis revealed that when mothers’ CO is low, the slope of mothers’ EC is significant (, t(150) = -2.72, p =.008, 95% CI [-.55, -.09]). When mothers’ CO is high, the slope of mothers’ EC is not significant and the child’s conduct problems are generally below average (
, t(150) =.23, p =.815, 95% CI [-.18,.24]).
Discussion
We sought to better understand the complex and multi-layered dynamics in mother-child interactions in self-regulation of emotions and behavior in mother-child dyads performing a task that required cooperation and self-control. Specifically, in kindergarten-aged children (ages 3–6), we tested whether a mother’s sensitivity and support in encouraging their children to express their emotions was explained by the interaction of personality measures for cooperation and effortful control of their own emotions and behaviors. In addition, we evaluated whether such controlled and empathic encouragement also contributed to the association of the mother’s effortful control and cooperativeness with their children’s own effortful control and conduct problems. We found that mother’s EC and CO were jointly associated with their encouragement of emotional expression by their children as well as their children’s EC and conduct problems.
While previous studies have made significant contributions to our understanding of personality traits and their relation to parent-child dynamics—primarily using self-report measures—the present study offers two key advancements. First, we employed a more ecologically valid and robust method to assess the trait of cooperativeness, utilizing observational data rather than self-report alone. This approach allows for a richer, behaviorally grounded understanding of this personality dimension. Second, our study is among the first to explore in greater depth the interaction between personality traits and how they manifest in both parental and child behaviors. This integrative perspective provides new insights into the dynamic and bidirectional nature of parent-child relationships. The findings revealed that the interaction between mothers’ EC and CO partially explained the children’s conduct problems, with and without the presence of the mediators. The interaction also partially explained mothers’ practice of expressive encouragement, which in turn contributed to the association between the behavior and personality of the mothers and their children. This suggests that expressive encouragement may serve as a resilience factor for enhancing children’s EC and reducing conduct problems. Moreover, since this is the first study to offer behavioral measurement for two sub-scales of self-reported CO, as measured by the TCI, it is important to point out that the sub-scales were found to be reliable and valid, and they converged with the self-reported CO into one factor of CO.
Cooperativeness behavioral factor
An important innovation of this study is the offering of a behavioral measurement for the sub-scales comprising the CO trait, as defined in the Temperament and Character model [24]. Our exploratory factor analysis was found to be valid and converged with the self-reported CO. This empirical measure combining self-reported and behavioral measurements contributes to the field of character trait measurement via the integration of behavioral observations. This integrative view is in line with Roberts’ [49] perspective for personality assessment that suggested personality is composed of thought and feeling, which could be assessed by questionnaires, as well as by behaviors. Furthermore, in line with Cloninger et al.’s [42] view of social acceptance vs. intolerance, our empirical findings indicated that although they oppose one another, in an ecological setting they can be expressed by the same individual in different situations over time, so they are not mutually exclusive. Regarding empathy vs. social disinterest, we found a positive relation between the two, which may be in contradiction to their theoretical definition; thus, the trait vs. state might rely on the frequency of each of these behavioral poles. However, behavioral social disinterest was not loaded into the factor of CO, and it was loaded into a separate factor of uncooperative behaviors. One possible explanation is that the factor that was formulated by social disinterest and intolerance pointed to a separate and unique aspect of uncooperative behaviors.
There is a great need to assess traits in a more comprehensive way that includes reported and behavioral measures, as there are limitations to each level of information to consider. Cooperativeness is a socially desirable characteristic, so many people tend to describe themselves as more cooperative than they really are, as indicated by skewing toward high scores in self-reports and relations with social desirability measures [50]. On the other hand, objective behavioral observations do not give direct awareness to the subjective thoughts and feelings of another person (i.e., to their subjective motives and intentions) [51]. Meaning, relying only on a sole indicator might compromise the external validity of the results.
In light of the fundamental differences in the perspectives of the two methodologies of assessment offered, the weak—however meaningful—correlations that were found in the current study between the reported and the behavioral scales stand out. Besides the methodological differences addressed above, it is also important to note that the reported CO is computed based on five sub-scales, which further justify the nature of correlations found in this study. Lastly, the behavioral measures allowed observation of changes in communication between mother and child that documented the fluctuation in their interactions in a real-life situation.
Mothers’ parenting practices
When mothers behaviorally displayed lower levels of CO, there was no relation between their EC and expressive encouragement. However, when they displayed high levels of CO and had high levels of EC, the mothers demonstrated the highest levels of expressive encouragement of their children. This finding supported the theoretical models that were suggested by Yeshua and Berger [21], as well as by Edler and Valentino [27]. Mothers who are characterized with high tendency to be empathic, tolerant and compassionate toward their child [24,52] have parenting practices that are more adaptive, as their ability to exert inhibitory control and executive attention is higher (i.e., higher self-regulation; [7,12]). It is likely that when such mothers experience an aversive situation with their child, they are more resilient in coping with stress calmly or in adapting to the negative emotions the situation may arouse in them and/or in their child (better EC) and more empathic and tolerant (as they are high on CO) [53,54]. As a result, they can actively encourage their child to express negative emotions [25] because they can reassure and identify with their child. This theoretical notion is also in line with Scott and Hakim-Larson’s [26] research showing that lower rejection and disapproval of a child’s emotions is identified in mothers who show better EC and lower negative affectivity.
The literature supports partial contributions of EC and CO on parenting practices and styles [9,28–30]. Our findings indicate that the effect of EC depends on its interaction with CO, and that their joint effect on their children’s behavior further depends on the development of caregiving abilities such as expressive encouragement. Yet, it is important to note that our findings are based on a specific type of parenting practice, which has not been specifically tested in the mentioned studies.
Children’s conduct problems
Our mediation cascade model suggests that the interaction between mothers’ EC and CO explained their expressive encouragement, which in turn explained the children’s EC and conduct problems. This multi-step path elaborates on the existing literature that demonstrated the mediating effects of parenting on children’s effortful control and conduct problems [9,10,29], as well as on emotion regulation and emotional lability [26,31]. It is also in line with Bridgett et al.’s [8] model regarding the intergenerational transmission of self-regulation, as well as with the findings in the more general field of maternal sensitivity [32–34]. It is in accord with findings of Cloninger and his colleagues about the self-regulation of genetic-environmental interactions in the epigenetic development of temperament and character, which involves multiple systems of learning that have evolved in a stepwise manner [24,52,55,56]. These findings indicate the general notion that the different personality components of temperament and character are valuable for explaining parenting practices and help in shaping the intergenerational transmission of effortful control. They also emphasize the idea of the caregivers’ sensitive parenting being a buffer against aversive behavior in children [57]. Not only is the interaction being mediated by parenting and children’s effortful control, but it also has a direct effect on children’s conduct problems.
When mothers were found to be high on CO, there was no relation between mothers’ EC and their children’s conduct problems, and the average level of children’s conduct problems was below the mean. On the other hand, when mothers were found to be low on CO, there was a relation between mothers’ EC and their children’s conduct problems—when the mothers were also rated low on EC, their children were rated high on conduct problems. This finding implies that the moderating effect of empathy, social acceptance and compassion on inhibition and executive attention also explains lower levels of “acting out” behaviors (i.e., conduct problems; [58]). The literature suggests that the mothers’ personality is not directly related to the child’s behavior, rather it goes through, to some extent, their parenting practices and style [8–10,21]. Hence, it is possible that this direct path can be explained by other parenting practices that were not measured in the current study, and is being mediated by them, affecting children’s effortful control and conduct problems.
Applied implications
Although the present design and results do not permit causal conclusions regarding the influence of maternal EC and CO on parenting behavior as well as child behavior, it is possible to speculate on such suggestions. The recognition of elements within the child’s microsystem, as well as the pathways through which mothers contribute to shaping this environment and thereby affect their children, lends support to the rationale behind mother-centered interventions. More specifically, these findings underscore the inherent complexity of providing parental guidance within therapeutic settings. When considering that parental sensitivity is possibly rooted in meta-stable maternal personality traits (e.g., EC and CO), such insights offer a valuable framework for refining intervention strategies. Such personality traits are not fixed traits as has sometimes been falsely assumed; rather they are meta-stable, which means that they change in a step-wise manner under appropriate conditions that facilitate change [24]. Understanding the necessary conditions for change will benefit from through consideration of the multi-step nature of personality development in children. For instance, recognizing a parent’s difficulties with inhibition can lead to the introduction of structured tools aimed at improving executive functioning in daily parenting tasks. Similarly, identifying maternal challenges related to empathy or cooperative tendencies opens the door to interventions such as reflective techniques that help the parent attune to the child’s internal states, thereby fostering greater empathy and responsiveness. These considerations are particularly salient during the preschool years—the developmental stage examined in the current study—which have been widely recognized as a critical period for shaping long-term developmental trajectories. The stability of the parent-child dyadic relationship, extending from early childhood into adulthood [59], further underscores the significance of early, tailored, and personality-informed parental guidance.
Limitations and future studies
The present study has several limitations that should be noted. First, the sample is based on mothers only. Hence, our findings cannot be generalized to fathers, as there are findings supporting differences in the relation between personality dimensions and parenting between the genders [60,61]. Regarding the factor of cooperativeness and the new behavioral coding, there are limits to what either overt behavior or self-reports can reveal when used in isolation. Consider the rated behaviors that suggested possible “social disinterest,” such as “Why are you so frustrated? It is only a game.” The same statement may express either disinterest or reassurance. For example, such a statement can be made by a cooperative mother being respectful and empathic in letting go of control of her child in a safe, playful situation. Alternatively, a mother who likes to think of herself as empathic may become frustrated and interact with her child in an unhelpful or disinterested way. Hence, future research can be refined by attention to tone of voice and facial micro-expressions in order to detect changes in unconscious expressed emotions; but these are ultimately inferences that have limitations. Moreover, further research is needed to clarify the limitations of behavioral indices of subjective motivation, as well as to assess the value of combining self-report measures with objective personality indices because the combined use can be valuable in both research and clinical practice. Since the observational variables estimating CO were formulated and analyzed here for the first time, their validity should be replicated and their limitations in capturing subjective motivation should be further explored. A longitudinal design would allow examination of the stability of the behavioral coding and its relation to self-reported cooperativeness. In addition, it would be informative to conduct the behavioral coding in diverse participant populations.
Moreover, the current study focused on a specific interaction of temperament and character in the forms of EC and CO. The concept of temperament and character should be further studied, looking for additional moderations between other traits. Furthermore, the findings concern mothers of preschool- and kindergarten-aged children. Hence, these hypotheses should be tested also on parents and their older-aged children and adolescents. Lastly, although the study’s theoretical model is based on previous well-established theoretical models and empirical findings, our cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw developmental and temporal inferences from the mediation analysis performed.
Conclusions
Mothers’ effortful control interacts with their cooperativeness when explaining their parental practices, which, in turn, partly explains their children’s effortful control and conduct problems. This is the first study offering a behavioral assessment of cooperativeness and the first to test its moderation effects within the area of parenthood. The results suggest that these different aspects of personality interact in ways that explain mothers’ behavior, which acts as a buffer against aversive behavior of their children. Our finding help to clarify the complex and multi-step ways by which a mother’s temperament and character may influence the development of personality and psychopathology in her children.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Etch-A-Sketch – Cooperativeness codes description.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330897.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mrs. Desiree Meloul for the review and formatting of the manuscript.
References
- 1. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–6. pmid:9255702
- 2. Lahey BB, Goodman SH, Waldman ID, Bird H, Canino G, Jensen P, et al. Relation of age of onset to the type and severity of child and adolescent conduct problems. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1999;27(4):247–60. pmid:10503644
- 3. Reef J, Diamantopoulou S, van Meurs I, Verhulst F, van der Ende J. Child to adult continuities of psychopathology: a 24-year follow-up. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;120(3):230–8. pmid:19522882
- 4.
Rothbart MK. Temperament in childhood: a framework. In: Kohnstamm GA, Bates JE, Rothbart MK, editors. Temperament in childhood. New York: Wiley; 1989. pp. 59–73.
- 5.
Rothbart MK. Becoming who we are: Temperament and personality in development. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.
- 6. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE. Temperament and personality: origins and outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78(1):122–35. pmid:10653510
- 7. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, Fisher P. Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: the children’s behavior questionnaire. Child Dev. 2001;72(5):1394–408. pmid:11699677
- 8. Bridgett DJ, Burt NM, Edwards ES, Deater-Deckard K. Intergenerational transmission of self-regulation: a multidisciplinary review and integrative conceptual framework. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(3):602–54. pmid:25938878
- 9. Yeshua M, Zohar AH, Berger A. Mediating roles of character traits and parenting in the relationship between maternal effortful control and children’s conduct problems. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15211. pmid:37065687
- 10. Valiente C, Lemery‐Chalfant K, Reiser M. Pathways to problem behaviors: chaotic homes, parent and child effortful control, and parenting. Soc Dev. 2007;16(2):249–67.
- 11. Evans DE, Rothbart MK. Developing a model for adult temperament. J Res Pers. 2007;41(4):868–88.
- 12.
Rueda MR. Effortful control. In: Zentner M, Shiner RL, editors. Handbook of temperament. New York: Guilford Press; 2012. pp. 145–67.
- 13. Crandall A, Deater-Deckard K, Riley AW. Maternal emotion and cognitive control capacities and parenting: a conceptual framework. Dev Rev. 2015;36:105–26. pmid:26028796
- 14. Lorber MF. The role of maternal emotion regulation in overreactive and lax discipline. J Fam Psychol. 2012;26(4):642–7. pmid:22888786
- 15. Shaffer A, Whitehead M, Davis M, Morelen D, Suveg C. A model-based cluster analysis of maternal emotion regulation and relations to parenting behavior. Fam Process. 2018;57(3):707–18. pmid:29034462
- 16. Eisenberg N, Zhou Q, Losoya SH, Fabes RA, Shepard SA, Murphy BC, et al. The relations of parenting, effortful control, and ego control to children’s emotional expressivity. Child Dev. 2003;74(3):875–95. pmid:12795395
- 17. Valiente C, Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Reiser M, Cumberland A, Losoya SH, et al. Relations among mothers’ expressivity, children’s effortful control, and their problem behaviors: a four-year longitudinal study. Emotion. 2006;6(3):459–72. pmid:16938087
- 18. Dodge KA, Pettit GS. A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Dev Psychol. 2003;39(2):349–71. pmid:12661890
- 19. Annemiek K, Cathy van T, van Aken Marcel AG, Maja D. Predicting young children’s externalizing problems: interactions among effortful control, parenting, and child gender. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2009;55(2):111–34.
- 20. Shaw DS, Shelleby EC. Early-starting conduct problems: intersection of conduct problems and poverty. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:503–28. pmid:24471370
- 21. Yeshua M, Berger A. Self-regulated parenting: a systematic review of the relations between effortful control, the big-five, and parenting practices. Psychol Rep. 2024. pmid:38822819
- 22. Côté S, Moskowitz DS. On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behavior and affect: prediction from neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(4):1032–46. pmid:9825533
- 23. Ode S, Robinson MD. Agreeableness and the self-regulation of negative affect: findings involving the neuroticism/somatic distress relationship. Pers Individ Dif. 2007;43(8):2137–48. pmid:19568327
- 24. Cloninger CR, Svrakic NM, Svrakic DM. Role of personality self-organization in development of mental order and disorder. Dev Psychopathol. 1997;9(4):881–906. pmid:9449010
- 25. Fabes RA, Poulin RE, Eisenberg N, Madden-Derdich DA. The Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage Fam Rev. 2002;34(3-4):285–310.
- 26. Scott SA, Hakim-Larson J. Temperament, emotion regulation, and emotion-related parenting: maternal emotion socialization during early childhood. J Child Fam Stud. 2021;30(10):2353–66.
- 27. Edler K, Valentino K. Parental self-regulation and engagement in emotion socialization: a systematic review. Psychol Bull. 2024;150(2):154–91. pmid:38436650
- 28. Distefano R, Galinsky E, McClelland MM, Zelazo PD, Carlson SM. Autonomy-supportive parenting and associations with child and parent executive function. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2018;58:77–85.
- 29. Zohar AH, Ari LL, Bachner-Melman R. A model for the formation of maternal authority styles starting from attachment, and mediated by temperament and character. Int J Psychol Behav Anal. 2018;4:Article 145.
- 30. Tanaka M, Kitamura T, Chen Z, Murakami M, Goto Y. Do parents rear their children as they were reared themselves? Intergenerational transmission of parental styles (warmth and control) and possible mediation by personality traits. Open Fam Stud J. 2010;2(1):82–90.
- 31. Rolo C, Diniz E, Babore A, Brandão T. Mothers’ responses to children’s emotions and children’s behavior: the mediating role of children’s emotion regulation. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2024;14(7):1940–52. pmid:39056644
- 32. Deans CL. Maternal sensitivity, its relationship with child outcomes, and interventions that address it: a systematic literature review. Early Child Dev Care. 2018;190(2):252–75.
- 33. Cooke JE, Deneault A-A, Devereux C, Eirich R, Fearon RMP, Madigan S. Parental sensitivity and child behavioral problems: a meta-analytic review. Child Dev. 2022;93(5):1231–48. pmid:35357693
- 34. Rodrigues M, Sokolovic N, Madigan S, Luo Y, Silva V, Misra S, et al. Paternal sensitivity and children’s cognitive and socioemotional outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Child Dev. 2021;92(2):554–77. pmid:33511634
- 35.
Central Bureau of Statistics (Israel). Education level of persons aged 25–66 according to the CBS education register, 2008–2021. Jerusalem: CBS; 2024. Available from: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2024/039/06_24_039b.pdf
- 36. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RI. The “Big Five” Inventory – Versions 5a and 54 [Database record]. PsychTests; 1991.
- 37. Zohar AH, Cloninger CR. The psychometric properties of the TCI-140 in Hebrew. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2011;27(2):73–80.
- 38. Putnam SP, Rothbart MK. Development of short and very short forms of the children’s behavior questionnaire. J Pers Assess. 2006;87(1):102–12. pmid:16856791
- 39. Matheny AP Jr, Wachs TD, Ludwig JL, Phillips K. Bringing order out of chaos: psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1995;16(3):429–44.
- 40. Stevenson-Hinde J, Shouldice A. Maternal interactions and self-reports related to attachment classifications at 4.5 years. Child Dev. 1995;66(3):583.
- 41.
Deater-Deckard K, Pylas MV, Petrill SA. Parent–Child Interaction System (PARCHISY). Institute of Psychiatry; 1997.
- 42. Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50(12):975–90. pmid:8250684
- 43. Hosokawa R, Katsura T. Effect of socioeconomic status on behavioral problems from preschool to early elementary school - a Japanese longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197961. pmid:29795678
- 44. Deater-Deckard K, Mullineaux PY, Beekman C, Petrill SA, Schatschneider C, Thompson LA. Conduct problems, IQ, and household chaos: a longitudinal multi-informant study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2009;50(10):1301–8. pmid:19527431
- 45. Whitley E, Gale CR, Deary IJ, Kivimaki M, Batty GD. Association of maternal and paternal IQ with offspring conduct, emotional, and attention problem scores. Transgenerational evidence from the 1958 British Birth Cohort Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(10):1032–8. pmid:21969461
- 46.
Raven J. Raven progressive matrices. In: McCallum RS, editor. Handbook of nonverbal assessment. New York: Springer; 2003. pp. 223–37.
- 47. Ledesma RD, Ferrando PJ, Trógolo MA, Poó FM, Tosi JD, Castro C. Exploratory factor analysis in transportation research: current practices and recommendations. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 2021;78:340–52.
- 48. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2013;9(2):79–94.
- 49. Roberts BW. Back to the future: personality and assessment and personality development. J Res Pers. 2009;43(2):137–45. pmid:20161194
- 50.
Cloninger CR, Przybeck TR, Svrakic DM, Wetzel RD. The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. Washington University Center for Psychobiology of Personality; 1994.
- 51.
Strickland L. Leibniz’s monadology: A new translation and guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2014.
- 52. Zwir I, Del-Val C, Arnedo J, Pulkki-Råback L, Konte B, Yang SS, et al. Three genetic-environmental networks for human personality. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26(8):3858–75. pmid:31748689
- 53. Cloninger CR, Zohar AH, Hirschmann S, Dahan D. The psychological costs and benefits of being highly persistent: personality profiles distinguish mood disorders from anxiety disorders. J Affect Disord. 2012;136(3):758–66. pmid:22036800
- 54. Oh HS, Cloninger CR. The role of temperament and character in the anxiety-depression spectrum among Korean adults. J Affect Disord. 2024;359:1–13. pmid:38759504
- 55. Del Val C, Díaz de la Guardia-Bolívar E, Zwir I, Mishra PP, Mesa A, Salas R, et al. Gene expression networks regulated by human personality. Mol Psychiatry. 2024;29(7):2241–60. pmid:38433276
- 56.
Cloninger CR, Zwir I. Genetics of human character and temperament. In: Cooper DN, editor. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (eLS). Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons; 2022. pp. 1–24.
- 57. Masten AS, Tyrell FA, Cicchetti D. Resilience in development: pathways to multisystem integration. Dev Psychopathol. 2023;35(5):2103–12. pmid:38316623
- 58.
McMahon RJ, Wells KC, Kotler JS. Conduct problems. In: Mash EJ, Barkley RA, editors. Treatment of childhood disorders. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. pp. 137–268.
- 59.
Bornstein MH, Putnick DL. Dyadic development in the family: Stability in mother-child relationship quality from infancy to adolescence. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Parenting: Selected Writings of Marc H. Bornstein. Routledge; 2022. pp. 519–43.
- 60. de Haan AD, Prinzie P, Deković M. Mothers’ and fathers’ personality and parenting: the mediating role of sense of competence. Dev Psychol. 2009;45(6):1695–707. pmid:19899925
- 61. Russell A. Individual and family factors contributing to mothers’ and fathers’ positive parenting. Int J Behav Dev 1997;21(1):111–32.