Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Relationships between adolescents memory of parental

rearing styles, social values and socialisation behavior traits
Anton Aluja
a

a,*

, Victoria del Barrio b, Luis F. Garca

Area de Personalitat, Avaluacio i Tractaments Psicolo`gic, Universitat de Lleida, Complex de la Caparrella,

s/n. 25192 Lleida (Catalonia), Spain
b
National University of Distance Education, Spain
Received 12 May 2004; received in revised form 1 February 2005; accepted 22 February 2005
Available online 4 June 2005

Abstract
This study explores the relationships between memories of parental-rearing (measured through the
EMBU), social values and socialised behaviour traits in an adolescent population, and also the psychometric properties of a measure of social values in the adolescent population. Four hundred and eight boys and
424 girls from the general population constituted the sample. Social values were assessed by a new selfreport questionnaire composed of 30 items. A previous analysis of this measure revealed a three factor
structure (Benevolence, Social power, and Security) with good psychometric properties. Behaviour traits
were assessed by the participants teachers. Results show that aggressive subjects remember their parents
as more rejecting, overprotective, favouring, and less warm. On the contrary, benevolent subjects were
more responsible, sensitive, sociable, and their parent-rearing style was seen as warmer. Social values were
moderately predicted by Emotional Warmth and Rejection.
2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Social values; Socialisation; Adolescents; Parental rearing styles; EMBU

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 973 70 23 26; fax: +34 973 70 23 05.
E-mail address: aluja@pip.udl.es (A. Aluja).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.028

904

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

1. Introduction
Since the late seventies, the role of parent-rearing styles on the socialisation process has been
widely investigated. Longitudinal studies by Baumrind (1968, 1971, 1991) showed that welladjusted children were associated with a consistent, rm, warm and supportive parental style.
The EMBU (Egna Minnen av Barndoms UppfostranMy memories of upbringing; Perris,
Jacobsson, Lindstrom, Von Knorring, & Perris, 1980) is a Swedish self-report measure of the perceptions about the rearing behaviour of parents. Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Brilman, and Monsma
(1983) developed a 64-item version of the EMBU. This version had four sub-scales: Rejection,
Emotional warmth, Overprotection, and Favouring subject. Dierent studies have shown its
cross-cultural stability (Arrindell & Van der Ende, 1984; Arrindell et al., 1988; Arrindell et al.,
1992). More recently, shorter versions excluding the Favouring subject scale have been adapted
in several languages (Aluja, del Barrio, & Garca, in press; Arrindell et al., 1999; Wineeld,
Tiggemann, & Wineeld, 1994).
Smith, Pope, Sanders, Allred, and OKeee (1988) found relationships between parents beliefs
and the process of socialisation in a student sample. Hostile subjects described their families as
conictive and less united. In this sense, the family environment could account for dierences
in hostility (Woodall & Mathews, 1989, 1993). A parental style dened by punishments and excessive control could help to develop a pattern of hostility and a lack of socialisation in children
(Houston & Vavak, 1991). In this line, Meesters, Muris, and Esselink (1995) found that high hostile subjects perceived more Rejection and Overprotection, and less Emotional Warmth than low
hostile subjects. Rejection was the strongest predictor of hostility. More recent studies have shown
that male oenders perceived their fathers as being more rejecting than non-oenders (Palmer &
Hollin, 1999). Furthermore, Palmer and Hollin (2000) stated that perceived parental Rejection
and Emotional Warmth, moral reasoning and attribution of intent were signicantly related to
levels of self-reported delinquency among oenders. The strongest predictors of self-report delinquency scores among oenders were age, perceived paternal Emotional Warmth, and incorrect
attribution of hostility among oenders. For non-oenders, self-reported delinquency was related
to attribution of intent, and incorrect attribution of hostility. Delinquents with a positive family
history of alcohol abuse also reported more Rejection and less Emotional Warmth (Ruchkin,
Koposov, Eisemann, & Hagglof, 2002). Altogether, these results related parent-rearing styles with
childrens socialisation processes and behaviour in adulthood.
The EMBU has been linked to Eysencks personality model in dierent countries. Rejection
usually correlates positively with Neuroticism, and negatively with Extraversion. Emotional
Warmth is positively related to Extraversion and negatively to Psychoticism, the contrary pattern
depicted for Overprotection (Arrindell et al., 1999; Arrindell et al., 2005; Weina & Gonglin, 2002).
In short, parents who are warmer and less likely to resort to punishment would bring up more
emotional stable, extraverted, sociable and empathic children.
Eysencks personality dimensions have also been related to social values. Furnham (1984)
found that extraverted subjects tend to value excitement more than introverts. Neurotics value
independence, freedom from conict, and self-esteem more than non-neurotics. Rim (1984) stated
that people with higher Neuroticism scores assigned more importance to social recognition and
self-respect values, while those scoring low on Neuroticism found greater value in adjectives such
as ambitious and capable. These values were also highly valued by extraverts. Introverts at-

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

905

tached greater importance to obedience and wisdom. Subjects with high scores on Psychoticism
placed importance on values such as independence, imagination, and salvation, whereas those
scoring low on the Psychoticism scale placed more importance on politeness, cleanliness, and obedience. Also, previous evidence suggests that better socialised subjects, assessed in the school, tend
to score lower on Psychoticism (Aluja & Torrubia, 1998; Aluja, Balleste, & Torrubia, 1999), and
prefer values related to prosocial and normative behaviours.
The Five-factor model has also been related to the taxonomy of values devised by Schwartz
(1994). Agreeableness correlated positively with Benevolence and Tradition values, Openness with
Self-Direction and Universalism values, Extraversion with Achievement and Stimulation values,
and Conscientiousness with achievement and Conformity values (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Ariel, 2002). These patterns of relationships were generally supported in a Spanish adult population
(Aluja & Garca, 2004).
Previous evidences suggest that parent-rearing styles and social values are related to the socialisation process. Therefore, adolescent subjects who show socialised behaviours in the classroom
(Aluja & Torrubia, 1998; Aluja et al., 1999) are expected to perceive their parents as being warmer, and less rejecting and overprotecting (Meesters et al., 1995; Weina & Gonglin, 2002). Also,
they would value responsibility, security, benevolence, respect, order, and concern for others
(Rim, 1984; Roccas et al., 2002). The aim of the present study was: (a) to validate the social values
questionnaire in an adolescent population and (b) to investigate the relationships of parenting
rearing styles, social values, and socialised behaviour traits assessed by the teacher.

2. Method
2.1. Subjects
The sample was composed of 408 boys (mean age = 14.4 years; SD = 0.96), and 424 girls (mean
age = 14.4; SD = 0.88) from the general population. Subjects attended Spanish educational system
courses equivalent to eighth of secondary, and rst, second and third grade high school courses.
The questionnaire was applied in the classroom in the presence of a trained psychologist. EMBU
was applied before the Social Values Inventory (SVI). Subjects were allowed to ask the psychologist questions before, during and after the administration of the questionnaire. No relevant incidents during the application of the protocol were reported by the trained psychologists. Total time
of administration was around 30 min.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. SVI
The Social Values Inventory is a list of 30 nouns from a dictionary of the Spanish language that
makes reference to dierent types of individual and collective human values constructed with rational criteria, expressly for this study. Each subject assesses the level of real importance of each
value in his/her life on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important; 5 = very important). This questionnaire has shown good psychometric properties and factor structure in a Spanish adult population
(Aluja & Garca, 2004).

906

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

2.2.2. EMBU
The Egna Minnen av Barndoms UppfostranMy memories of upbringing (Perris et al., 1980)
64-item version (Arrindell et al., 1983; Castro, Toro, Van der Ende, Arrindell, & Puig, 1990) was
administered. Items are answered on a four-point Likert-type scale (1: Never; 4: Always). Good
reliability coecients were reported for the Spanish version. Specically, coecients were 0.89,
and 0.90 for Rejection (25 items), 0.89, and 0.89 for Emotional Warmth (18 items), 0.77, and
0.73 for Overprotection (16 items), and 0.55, and 0.45 for Favouring subject (5 items), for fathers
and mothers, respectively.
2.2.3. Behaviour traits
Teachers rated children on the following behaviour traits: Aggressiveness, Concern about study
(e.g. academic tasks), responsibility, leadership, sociability, and sensitivity/empathy. The answer
format was a Likert-type scale of nine points from nothing (1) to very much (9). This instrument
is based on the Socialization Scale (Silva, 1992).

3. Results
3.1. Structure of the Social Values Inventory
A principal axis with direct oblimin rotation was conducted on the list of 30 values. As the scree
plot suggested, three factors were extracted (Cattell, 1966). Items with loadings lower than 0.35 on
their factors or with secondary loadings higher than 0.30 were suppressed (totalling nine items).
Table 1 shows the factor solution with the 21 items. The KaiserMeyerOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was of 0.843 and Bartletts test of Sphericity was an approximate Chi-Square of
3731.214 (degree of freedom: 210; p < .001). The three factors accounted for 40.60% of the variance. Following Schwartzs taxonomy (1994), the three factors were named Security, Social
power, and Benevolence, respectively.
3.2. Gender dierences
Table 2 shows descriptives, gender dierences and reliabilities of the scales and behaviour traits.
The fathers of the girls scored higher on overprotection (33.93 vs 32.99; p < .05), whereas the
mothers of the girls scored higher on emotional warmth and lower on Favouring subject (51.21
vs 49.91; p < .05 and 7.66 vs 8.05; p < .05, respectively). Boys valued Social power more than girls,
the opposite pattern being found for the Benevolence and the Security factors. Teachers rated
boys as more aggressive, and girls as more responsible, more inclined to lead, sociable and sensitive than boys. Except for the Favouring subject scale, alpha reliability coecients were similar to
previous studies (Arrindell et al., 1983) and oscillated between 0.71 and 0.90.
3.3. Correlational and regression analysis
Table 3 shows correlations among parent-rearing styles, social values and behaviour traits.
Benevolence and Security correlated positively with Emotional Warmth for both fathers and

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

907

Table 1
Principal axis analysis with direct oblimin rotation of the Social Values Inventory (F-I: Security; F-II: Social power;
F-III: Benevolence)
F-I

F-II

F-III

Tenure
Security
Respect
Solidarity
Family
Sons
Friendly

.61
.55
.52
.47
.47
.36
.35

.07
.12
.09
.09
.06
.07
.01

.03
.03
.04
.15
.00
.13
.13

Fame
Elegance
Money
Prestige
Leader
Competence
Ostentation

.11
.22
.12
.00
.09
.17
.04

.68
.65
.55
.51
.51
.46
.45

.22
.22
.30
.14
.09
.20
.03

Honesty
Integrity
Constancy
Public-spiritedness
Justice
Humility
Tolerance

.17
.27
.00
.07
.14
.21
.26

.00
.03
.04
.04
.02
.03
.01

.59
.59
.50
.39
.37
.36
.35

20.50

13.62

6.48

% Variance

mothers, and negatively with Rejection. On the other hand, subjects who value Social power
values highly described their parents as more favouring, especially for mothers. Overprotection was positively related with Social power for boys, and negatively related with Security for
girls.
Behaviour traits were predicted by the memories of upbringing and social values. Aggressiveness correlated positively with Rejection, Overprotection and Favouring, and negatively with
Emotional Warmth. This last scale seems to play the most important role since it correlates with
all behaviour traits for both fathers and mothers. For social values, behaviour traits usually correlate positively with Benevolence, and negatively with Social power. Security did not correlate
with any behaviour trait.
Finally, a linear regression analysis (enter method) was conducted taking each SVI scale as a
dependent variable, and EMBU scales and behaviour traits as independent variables (Table 4).
In general, the percentage of variance explained was low for both boys and girls, with Emotional Warmth positively, and Favouring subject negatively the best predictors for Benevolence.
For Social power, Rejection was the best predictor for both sexes. As expected, Security was predicted by Aggressiveness and Emotional Warmth for boys, and Aggressiveness and Rejection for
girls.

908

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

Table 2
Descriptives, gender dierences and alpha coecients of EMBU, Social values scales, and behaviours traits
EMBU

Boys

Girls

t-test

p < alpha

SD

SD

36.18
50.91
32.99
7.94
36.19
49.91
34.98
8.05

9.14
10.07
6.19
2.36
7.66
8.43
6.05
2.35

36.41
51.68
33.93
7.68
37.24
51.21
35.79
7.66

9.54
11.09
6.78
2.46
8.47
9.20
6.97
2.24

Social values
Honesty
Integrity
Constancy
Public-spiritedness
Justice
Humility
Tolerance

3.86
4.09
3.32
3.41
4.22
3.54
3.91

1.14
1.11
1.13
1.22
1.03
1.25
1.10

4.12
4.26
3.42
3.58
4.34
3.78
4.08

.95
.88
1.01
1.16
.94
1.08
1.01

3.50***
2.48*
1.37
1.96*
1.82
2.97**
2.24*

Benevolence values
Fame
Elegance
Money
Prestige
Leader
Competence
Ostentation

26.34
2.69
3.16
3.92
3.00
2.69
3.13
2.58

5.03
1.34
1.27
1.12
1.13
1.30
1.21
1.23

27.58
2.23
2.79
3.54
2.70
2.35
2.43
2.19

4.33
1.21
1.13
1.04
1.03
1.14
1.07
1.07

3.79***
5.14***
4.44***
4.98***
4.03***
3.97***
8.92***
4.83***

0.83

Social power values

Tenure
Security
Respect
Solidarity
Family
Sons
Friendly

21.19
3.87
4.22
4.12
3.91
4.56
4.15
4.65

5.42
1.04
.94
1.01
1.12
.87
1.15
.70

18.24
4.25
4.33
4.42
4.28
4.78
4.34
4.81

4.60
.90
.82
.84
.91
.62
1.00
.58

8.44***
5.57***
1.78
4.50***
5.15***
4.19***
2.50*
3.67***

0.75

Security values

29.48

4.18

31.20

3.39

6.47***

0.71

Behaviours traits described by the teacher

Aggressive
3.03
Concerned about study
5.22
Responsible
5.33
Leader
4.28
Sociable
5.37
Sensitive/empathic
5.01

2.06
2.31
2.23
2.12
1.92
1.84

2.50
6.25
6.43
4.69
5.76
5.96

1.91
2.28
2.14
2.07
1.85
1.82

3.81***
6.36***
7.12***
2.77**
2.89**
7.32***

Rejection (father)
Emotional Warmth (father)
Overprotection (father)
Favouring subject (father)
Rejection (mother)
Emotional Warmth (mother)
Overprotection (mother)
Favouring subject (mother)

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

.32
.99
1.98*
1.45
1.74
2.06*
1.72
2.28*

0.89
0.90
0.73
0.53
0.85
0.88
0.73
0.49

Table 3
Correlations between EMBUa, Social values scales, and behaviour traitsb
Benevolence
Girls
*

Boys Girls

Rejection (F)
Emotional
Warmth (F)
Overprotection
(F)
Favouring
subject (F)
Rejection (M)
Emotional
Warmth (M)
Overprotection
(M)
Favouring
subject (M)

.09
.11
.12
.37*** .22*** .03

(1) Aggressive
(2) Concerned
about study
(3) Responsible
(4) Leader
(5) Sociable
(6) Sensitive/
empathic
a

.07
.02

Boys

(1)

Girls

(2)

Boys Girls Boys

***

**

(3)
Girls

**

Boys Girls

(5)

(6)

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

**

.05
.23
.15
.37*** .24*** .13*

.16
.10
.12
.10
.16
.01
.14** .18*** .23*** .15** .22*** .10

.06 .03
.07 .02
.10* .15** .11* .11*

.08
.13*

.14**

.00

.16** .01

.12*

.13**

.09

.14** .02

.01

.01

.04

.03

.02

.07

.07

.07

.04

.09

.13*

.11*

.04

.01

.06

.09

.14**

.03

.12*

.05

.06

.05

.10

.04

.11*

.16** .08
.11* .14**

.10
.15**

.06
.10
.14** .15**

.05
.05
.15** .07

.02
.03 .06
.01
.16** .12* .15** .13**

.18*** .11*

.13** .01

.02

.01

.02

.02

.02

.04

.08

.05

.06

.08

.10*

.03

.05

.02

.02

.02

.02

.01

.06

.21**

.14** .09
.15** .01
***
***
.31
.20
.03
.03

.17** .19*** .09

.37*** .21*** .05

.07

.01

.14** .06

.07

.12*

.11*

.20*** .02

.01

.11*
.01
.11*
***
***
.25
.19
.08

.16*** .08
.25*** .02

.07
.06

.17***
.13**
.15**
.11*

.24***
.04
.08
.21***

.06
.08
.07
.04

.18***
.18***
.18***
.17***

.03
.02
.12*
.07

.02

.01
.03
.06
.04

.10

.03

.05

Separately for the father (F), and the mother (M).

Correlations among behaviour traits and EMBU was performed for boys and girls conjointly.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
b

(4)

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

Boys

Social power Security

909

910

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

Table 4
R-square standardised beta coecients, t values and signicance of the linear regression modelsa
Benevolence

Social power

Security

Boys
(R2: 0.19)

Girls
(R2: 0.10)

Boys
(R2: 0.08)

Girls
(R2: 0.12)

Boys
(R2: 0.16)

Girls
(R2 :0.12)

Beta

Beta

Beta

Beta

Beta

Beta

Constant
Rejection
Emotional
Warmth
Overprotection
Favouring
subject
Aggressive
Concerned
about
study
Responsible
Leader
Sociable
Sensitive/
empathic

.01
.32

5.74
.13
4.82***

.13

.04
.16

8.93
.55
2.25*

2.05*

.03

.16

2.75**

.11
.30

.22
.04
.08
.07

.17
.09

3.95
2.29*
1.27

.48

.01

.13

2.35*

1.55
2.90**

.11
.02

1.92*
.48
1.02
.97

.14
.08
.05
.06

.07
.02

5.47
.92
.30

.06
.39

.14

.00

.00

.03

.04

.60

.19

3.52**

1.69
.18

.02
.31

.33
2.81**

.00
.23

1.10
1.05
.58
.66

.14
.04
.15
.06

1.14
.51
1.78
.73

.01
.11
.10
.14

t
9.00
.79
5.78***

.15
.13

15.49
1.93*
1.74

.41

.09

1.41

.12

1.95*

.02

.33

.05
1.89

.17
.03

2.37*
.29

.15
.05

2.39*
.38

.10
1.52
1.11
1.61

.12
.08
.06
.03

.99
1.01
.76
.40

.16
.08
.05
.04

1.27
1.11
.63
.53

Dependent variables: Social values. Predictors: EMBU (father + mother) and behaviours rated by teachers.
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
*

4. Discussion
The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a measure of
social values in the adolescent population. The three scales used presented good factor structure as
well as alpha coecients. These three factors were similar to the Security (and Order), Social
power, and Benevolence types identied by Schwartz (1992, 1994). Thus, the use of the SVI questionnaire in the Spanish context is supported by the results of the present study (also Aluja &
Garca, 2004).
Relationships between the three kinds of variables were in the expected direction. Firstly, subjects with high scores on aggressiveness remembered more rejecting, overprotecting, favouring
and less warm parents (Meesters et al., 1995). On the contrary, the best socialised subjects remembered their parents as less rejecting and warmer. At the same time, subjects who value Benevolence also got high scores on Emotional Warmth and socialised behaviours (Aluja et al., 1999),
with no sharp dierences between boys and girls. Subjects with Social power values showed an
opposite pattern. In this group, boys rated their parent-rearing style as more rejecting, overprotecting, and favouring, and they are more aggressive and sociable. Girls who value Social power
were also rated as being less sensitive, less responsible and less concerned about academic tasks.

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

911

Also, girls who prefer material and hedonistic values (money, fame, social prestige, etc.) had less
rm and consistent parents. Security values failed to correlate with behaviour traits but they were
related with warm parents, and a non-rejecting mother.
It should be noted that sex dierences appear frequently. In general, girls are better socialised
than boys, replicating previous studies with adolescents (Aluja & Torrubia, 1998). They scored
higher on Benevolence, Security, and appropriate behaviours. Girls also reported warm mothers
and protective fathers. On the contrary, boys scored higher on Social power values, and
Aggressiveness.
In conclusion, the results support a relationship between socialised behaviour and memories of
upbringing in adolescents. Moreover, socialised behaviour and memories of upbringing were
slightly related to social values. Subjects who perceive that they have been supported by warm
parents are better socialised, and present prosocial values. Future research should be focus on
the reasons for such relationships. For instance, perhaps poorly socialised adolescents seek to blame
their parents for their own failings, or perhaps their own poor behaviour lead to a more fractious
relationship with their parents, which has subsequently hardened their perception of their parents.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by a grant from the Ajuntament de Lleida and Ministerio de
Educacion y Ciencia (Spain) (BSO2000-0059).
References
Aluja, A., Balleste, J., & Torrubia, R. (1999). Self-reported personality and school achievement as predictors of
teachers perceptions of their students. Personality and Individual Dierences, 27(4), 743753.
Aluja, A., del Barrio, V., & Garca, L. F. (in press). Comparison of several shortened versions of the EMBU:
Exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
Aluja, A., & Garca, L. F. (2004). Relationship between the big ve factors and values. Social Behavior and Personality,
32, 619626.
Aluja, A., & Torrubia, R. (1998). Viewing of mass media violence, perception of violence, personality and academic
achievement. Personality and Individual Dierences, 5, 973989.
Arrindell, W. A., Akkerman, A., Bages, N., Feldman, L., Caballo, V. E., Oei, T. P. S., et al. (2005). The short-EMBU
in Australia, Spain and Venezuela: Factorial invariance and associations with sex roles, self-esteem, and Eysenckian
personality dimensions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 5666.
Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Brilman, E., & Monsma, A. (1983). Psychometric evaluation of an inventory
for assessment of parental rearing practices. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 163177.
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, H., Denia, M., Van der Ende, J., Perris, C., Kokkevi, A., et al. (1988). The constancy of
structure of perceived parental rearing style in Greek and Spanish subjects as compared with the Dutch.
International Journal of Psychology, 23, 323.
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Eisemann, M., Granell de Alda, E., Van der Ende, J., Kkong Sin Guan, D., et al. (1992).
Cross-national transferability of the two-factor model of parental rearing behaviour : a contrast of data from
Canada, the Fed. Rep. Germany, Hungary, Japan, Singapore and Venezuela with Dutch target rating on the
EMBU. Personality and Individual Dierences, 13(3), 343353.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., et al. (1999). The development of
a short form of the EMBU: its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 27, 613628.

912

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 39 (2005) 903912

Arrindell, W. A., & Van der Ende, J. (1984). Replicability and invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behaviour:
further Dutch experiences with EMBU. Personality and Individual Dierences, 5, 671682.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetics Psychology
Monographs, 75, 4388.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 99102.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In Learnenr, R., Petersen, A. C., & Brooks-Gunn,
J. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Adolescence (pp. 746758).
Castro, J., Toro, J., Van der Ende, J., Arrindell, W. A., & Puig, J. (1990). Perceived parental rearing styles in Spanish
adolescents, children and parents: the new forms of the EMBU. In Stefanis, C. N., Solsatos, C. R., & Ravavilas, A.
D. (Eds), Psychiatry: A word perspective: Vol. 4.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research (1). Amsterdam, NL:
Elsevier Science, pp. 140161.
Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and values. Personality and Individual Dierences, 5, 483485.
Houston, B. K., & Vavak, C. R. (1991). Cynical hostility: developmental factors, psychological correlates, and health
behaviours. Health Psychology, 10, 917.
Meesters, C., Muris, P., & Esselink, T. (1995). Hostility and perceived parental rearing behaviour. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 18, 567570.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, R. C. (1999). An evaluation of the shortened EMBU scale in young oenders and non-oenders
in England. Personality and Individual Dierences, 27, 171179.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, R. C. (2000). The interrelations of socio-moral-reasoning, perceptions of own parenting and
attributions of intent with self-reported delinquency. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 201218.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., Von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for
assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265274.
Rim, Y. (1984). Importance of values according to personality, intelligence and sex. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 5, 245246.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Ariel, K. (2002). The big ve personality factors and personal values.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789801.
Ruchkin, V. V., Koposov, R. A., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (2002). Alcohol use in delinquent adolescents from
northern Russia: the role of personality, parental rearing and family history of alcohol abuse. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 32, 11391148.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 165). New York: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are the universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues,
50, 1945.
Silva, F. (1992). Assessing the child and adolescent personality: a decade of research. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 13, 11631181.
Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., Allred, H. D., & OKeee, J. (1988). Cynical hostility at home and work:
psychosocial vulnerability across domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 525548.
Weina, M., & Gonglin, H. (2002). A study on the inuences of parental rearing styles and related factors on personality
traits in medical students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10, 204205.
Wineeld, H. R., Tiggemann, M., & Wineeld, A. H. (1994). Parental rearing behaviour, attributional style and mental
health. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and Psychopathology. Chichester: Wiley.
Woodall, K. L., & Mathews, K. A. (1989). Family environment associated with Type A behaviours and
psychophysiological responses to stress in children. Health Psychology, 8, 403426.
Woodall, K. L., & Mathews, K. A. (1993). Changes in and stability of hostile characteristics: results from a 4-year
longitudinal study of children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 491499.