Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during thetransition to adulthood: Associations with adolescent BigFive and emerging adulthood adjustment problems

Valeria Castellani a,*, Concetta Pastorelli a, Nancy Eisenberg b, Maria Gerbino a,Laura Di Giunta a, Rosalba Ceravolo c, Michela Milioni c

a Psychology Department, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalybDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, USAc Interuniversity Center for Research on Development of Prosocial and Antisocial Motivations, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Keywords:Mother hostile aggressive conflictTrajectoriesEmerging adulthoodBig FiveAntisocial problemsDepressive problems

* Corresponding author. Sapienza University of RoE-mail addresses: valeria.castellani@uniroma1.it,

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2013 The Foundahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

Please cite this article in press as: Castellaadulthood: Associations with adolescent Bhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.201

a b s t r a c t

The goal of this longitudinal study was to investigate the relation of adolescents’ Big Fivefactor (BFF) personality to the development of different patterns of mother–adolescenthostile, aggressive conflict (MHAC) from late adolescence to young adulthood. Further-more, we examined the prediction of Antisocial Problems (AP) and Depressive Problems(DP) in emerging adulthood from BFF and MHAC trajectories. 385 adolescents participatedin this study (age 15–16 at Time 1 and 21–22 at Time 4). Using latent growth curveanalysis, Low stable (69.1%), Medium Increasing, (23.3%), and High decreasing (7.6%) tra-jectories were distinguished. Low adolescents’ emotional stability was directly related toAP and indirectly related to DP, throughout the mediation of both Medium Increasing andHigh Decreasing trajectories. Agreeableness was directly negatively related to DP andindirectly throughout the mediation of High Decreasing trajectory. Low Conscientiousnesswas indirectly related to DP, throughout the mediation of Medium Increasing trajectory.385 adolescents participated in this study (age 15–16 at Time 1 and 21–22 at Time 4).Using latent growth curve analysis, Low stable (69.1%), Medium Increasing, (23.3%), andHigh decreasing (7.6%) trajectories were distinguished. Low adolescents’ emotional sta-bility was directly related to AP and indirectly related to DP, throughout the mediation ofboth Medium Increasing and High Decreasing trajectories. Agreeableness was directlynegatively related to DP and indirectly throughout the mediation of High Decreasingtrajectory. Low Conscientiousness was indirectly related to DP, throughout the mediationof Medium Increasing trajectory.� 2013 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

It is well recognized that the transition to adulthood brings an augmentation of uncertainty in different domains of in-dividuals’ lives (Elder, 1998). Overall, this is a time of developmental milestones (Schulenberg, Sameroff, & Cicchetti, 2004)and, as suggested by Krueger (1999), it is “an optimal window” for studying the links between personality and negative lifeoutcomes, such as in psychopathology, as well as processes that may contribute to significant variation in the developmentalcourse of problematic life pathways.

me, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italy.valeria.castellani@gmail.com (V. Castellani).

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ni, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toig Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),3.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–122

The study of how personality traits influence parent–youth relationships during the life transition to adulthood, and howthese may affect young adult psychological adjustment, has become particularly important in both European and NorthAmerican countries (Douglass, 2007; Pew Research Center, 2013), where the number of young adults living with their parentsis rising. For example, in the United States, in 2012, 21.6 million (36%) of the young adults aged between 18 and 31 years oldlived with their parents, up from 18.5 million of their same-aged counterparts in 2007 (Pew Research Center, 2013).

It is evident that processes of realignment in regard to expectations and roles in parent–youth relationships need to befurther negotiated and that failure to adapt to these developmental changes may compromise the quality of family relations,with the emergence of conflicts and disagreements, and negative youth outcomes (Aquilino, 2006).

In this study, we considered personality traits as vulnerability factors conducive to psychopathology (antisocial anddepressive problems, Tackett, 2006), but also as predisposing factors to problematic interpersonal relations, which in turnlead to an increase in the development of antisocial and depressive problems (Prinzie et al., 2004). In particular, we haveinvestigated how adolescents’ Big Five factors (BFF) and different patterns of mother hostile aggressive conflict (MHAC) fromadolescence (age 15–16) to young adulthood (age 19–20) were associated with the development of Antisocial Problems (AP)and Depressive Problems (DP) during the life transition to the early adult years (age 21–22).

Associations between personality traits and antisocial and depressive problems

Among the personal characteristics conducive to (mal)adjustment outcomes, personality traits have received particularattention in the last decades. Overall, traits are not considered as fixed behavioural responses, but as reflecting ways ofadapting to the environment that are partially consistent for each individual (Pervin,1989). The Five Factors model (e.g. John &Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992) is one of the most comprehensive personality taxonomies which encompasses fivegeneral dimensions of personality: extraversion refers to the level of activity, positive affect, energy, and sociability; agree-ableness concerns the level of empathy, warmth, and trustiness in interpersonal relations; conscientiousness concernspersistence and organization of goal-directed behaviours; neuroticism (or low emotional stability) concerns chronic levels ofpoor emotional adjustment and control; and openness (or intellect) concerns openness to new experiences, values, andbehaviours. The model has beenwidely recognized as a taxonomy describing the main individual personality differences alsoin children and adolescents (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; De Fruyt et al., 2006; Shiner, 1998).

The relations between personality traits and psychopathological problems have been studied in many different ways.Accordingly, four different models have been identified (e.g. Tackett, 2006) to explain such relations: the vulnerability/pre-disposition model, the complication or scar model, the pathoplastic/exacerbation model, and the spectrum model. In thevulnerability/predisposition model the presence of a certain subset of maladaptive personality traits increases the probabilityof developing andmaintaining a disorder. For example, low Conscientiousness is significantly related to antisocial behavioursthroughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (e.g. Lynam et al., 2000; Raskin White, Bates, & Buyske, 2001).

In the complication/scar model, the experience of psychopathology may affect personality traits over time, such as anexisting depressive disorder is assumed to “complicate” or “scar” personality characteristics, for example, neuroticism/negative emotionality (Schmidt, Lerew, & Joiner, 2000).

In the pathoplastic/exacerbation model personality traits may influence or exacerbate the course of psychopathologicalproblems and their severity after the onset. For example, high level of inhibition, a facet of Neuroticism, results in less severemanifestation of behavioural problems in children diagnosed for conduct disorders (e.g. Bienvenu et al., 2004).

Finally, the spectrummodel posits personality traits and psychopathological symptoms on a continuum and hypothesizesthe existence of common processes underlying both traits and disorder. For instance, in a longitudinal twin study commongenetic influences have been found to account for the association of Emotionality, Shyness, and Internalizing problems inearly childhood.

As suggested by Tackett (2006), there is no broad consensus about the model that better explains the relation betweenpersonality and psychopathology in adults and children. However, it is likely that different models may account for specificaspects of the personality and psychopathology links and consequently answer different questions. Our study is theoreticallyguided by the vulnerability/predisposition model and investigates how adolescents with different levels of personality traits(i.e., vulnerability) may influence reactions from others and shape their family relations overtime, conceivably in order tohighlight the processes by which these traits contribute to young adult antisocial and depressive problems. In other words,we conceived personality traits not only as generic risk factors for later psychopathology, but also as factors contributing toadolescents’ repeated negative interpersonal experiences, as well as to their individual sensitivity and reactivity to conflictualinterpersonal experience.

As regards the relations between BFF and adjustment, agreeableness and conscientiousness have been consistentlydocumented as broad personality traits associated with antisocial behaviours (e.g. Miller, Lynam, & Jones, 2008). Individualswho are less inclined to trust others and be gentle and empathic towards others, and who are less self-disciplined andtenacious are more frequently involved in antisocial behaviours. In addition, the recent metanalytic study of Jones, Miller, andLynam (2011) reported a significant effect size for the relations of low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and highneuroticism to antisocial behaviour. It is probable that, beyond the tendency to experience a broad range of negative emo-tions, the lack of impulse control may account for this association (Jones et al., 2011). The relations between openness andextraversion and antisocial behaviours have been documented less consistently. Indeed, such traits have been weakly andnegatively associated with aggressive behaviour (e.g., Klimstra, Akse, Hale, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 2010), but not significantly

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12 3

with antisocial behaviour (Jones et al., 2011). In reality, studies addressing Big Five at low order trait level (facets) have foundsignificant associations among antisocial behaviour and some facets of extraversion (i.e., high excitement seeking) andopenness (i.e., high openness to new actions, experiences and ideas; low receptivity to one’s own feelings and emotions;Jones et al., 2011).

With regard to depressive problems and disorders, overall, high neuroticism is the personality trait that has been moststrongly associated with these problems, along with low conscientiousness (Klein, Kotov, & Bufferd, 2011; Klimstra et al.,2010; Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010). The association with other traits is weaker; in particular, low extraversionhas shown modest and not always consistent association with a higher level of depressive problems (Klein et al., 2011;Klimstra et al., 2010). Furthermore, low openness has also been found to be only modestly associated with more depres-sive problems (Kotov et al., 2010). Overall, when different clinical depressive disorders were taken into account, all theseassociations between traits and depressive problems were stronger for long-lasting alterations of affective mood (i.e., dys-thymic disorder), more similar to a trait-like individual differences, than to, to depressive episodes (i.e., major depression;Klein et al., 2011).

Parent–youths relations and antisocial and depressive problems over the course of development

Many studies in the developmental literature have provided empirical support for changing patterns of family relationsover the course of their development and how they predict children’s and adolescents’ future psychosocial adjustment (e.g.,Sheeber, Hops, & Davis, 2001). With regard to the normative trend of parent–youth conflict, several studies have documenteda linear increase in conflict from early adolescence until middle adolescence, followed by a decline during the late adoles-cence (De Goede, Branje, Delsing, & Meeus, 2009; Herrenkohl, Kosterman, Hawkins, & Mason, 2009). However, as suggestedby the review of Laursen, Coy, and Collins (1998), while the frequency of parent–adolescent conflict diminishes over time,conflicts become more emotionally intense in terms of disagreements during middle and late adolescence.

Most of the studies on the normative development of parent–youth conflict document substantial inter-individual variability(e.g., Gutman & Eccles, 2007), with some groups exhibiting a pattern that diverges from the average trend. For these reasons,identifying trajectory groups that follow distinct developmental patterns may better inform not only the understanding ofchanges in parent–child relationships, but also the specific associations of conflict with relevant child and family antecedentsand outcomes. To our knowledge, very few studies have examined longitudinal patterns of parent–child relationships and, withthe exception of one study (Trentacosta et al., 2011) focused on family conflict (and warmth) from childhood to adolescence, therelevant studies have examined parenting behaviours (mild or harsh physical discipline) during childhood or adolescence. Forexample, Trentacosta et al. (2011) reported four distinct trajectories of mother–son conflict from the age of 5–15: a high stablegroup (9.4% of sample), a high decreasing group (29.4%), a moderate slightly decreasing group (about 47%), and a low slightlydecreasing group (14%). Most of the trajectory groups showed a significant decline during the transition to adolescence, with theexception of the high stable group that evidenced a pattern of chronic conflictual relations between parents and their children.In addition, the highest level of conflict, as evidenced by the high stable and the high decreasing trajectory groups, was asso-ciatedwith a higher level of antisocial behaviour at 15 years, indicating that the experience of high levels of conflict with parents,limited in time (only childhood) but permeated by hostility, might have a negative long-lasting effect on adolescent life.Furthermore, Lansford et al. (2009) identified three similar trajectory groups for both mild and harsh discipline duringadolescence (age of youths: 10–15 years): a high stable group, amoderate quadratic group (faster decrease starting from age 12),and a low stable group, with the most problematic trajectory groups (high stable and moderate quadratic) associated with ahigher level of antisocial behaviour and lower quality mother–adolescent relationships. Overall, these previous studies havehighlighted the relevance of trajectory analyses in identifying more compromised developmental patterns in mother–child/youth interactions, which may influence later psychosocial adjustment.

Many other longitudinal studies relating to family conflict and adolescent and young adult adjustment have found thatsevere and prolonged hostile and conflictual relations at home are associatedwith worse psychosocial functioning during lateadolescence and young adulthood (Herrenkohl & Herrenkohl, 2007; Hoeve et al., 2007; Hofer et al. 2013; Moylan et al., 2010;Reinherz, Paradis, Giaconia, Stashwick, & Fitzmaurice, 2003). Indeed, a vast body of research has shown that any form ofviolent relationship that starts during adolescence is associated with an increased risk of being involved in delinquent be-haviours during late adolescence (Smith, Thornberry, & Ireland, 2005), and young adult age (e.g., Hoeve et al., 2007), as well aswith depressive problems in the transition to adulthood (Thornberry, Ireland, & Smith, 2001).

Similarly, some studies have documented the long-term effects of conflictual family interactions on the development ofpoor mental health such as depression. For example, Reinherz et al. (2003) examined the emerging adulthood years (from 18to 26 years) with the aim of identifying childhood and adolescent predictors (up to the age of 15) of major depression. Theyfound that family violence, family composition, internalizing problems and low family cohesion at age 15 significantlypredicted major depression in later years.

The mediating role of mother–youth relations between Big Five traits and outcomes

Although the links between personality traits and negative outcomes arewell-established, as well as between problematicfamily interactions and negative developmental outcomes, fewer studies have investigated the processes through whichpersonality characteristics might put adolescents at risk for different forms of adjustment problems during young adulthood.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–124

In conceiving the current study, we reasoned that adolescents’ personality traits may influence antisocial and depressiveproblems through negative family relationships (see Caspi & Shiner, 2006).

We focused on mother hostile aggressive conflict as mediator of the associations between adolescent traits and youngadult antisocial and depressive problems. Despite the scarce empirical investigation, there are theoretical reasons to hy-pothesize that different developmental pathways of mother–child hostile conflict may account for the association betweenpersonality traits and depressive and antisocial problems. Following Caspi and Shiner (2006), wemay assume that traits mayshape the individual’s reactions to the behaviour of significant others (e.g., individuals low in agreeableness may be lessinclined to cooperate and constructively manage interpersonal conflicts; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Traits may alsotrigger the response of significant others that, in turn, affect the quality of relationship (e.g. people high in neuroticism andlow in agreeableness may be more likely to express criticism, be defensive, and elicit less benevolent and more irritablereactions from others) (Caspi & Shiner, 2006).

Consistent with the idea that quality of family interactions may mediate the relations of personality traits to malad-justment, empirical evidence has shown that high agreeableness and high conscientiousness are related to positive andsupportive family relations (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Asendorpf &Wilper, 1998) and less controlling parenting (O’Connor& Dvorak, 2001). Recently, de Haan, Dekovi�c, and Prinzie (2012), in a sample of youths ranging from the age of 12–15, foundthat children’s low agreeableness and high extraversion predicted both negative overreacting parental discipline (i.e., thetendency to respond in an angry and irritable way to child problem behaviour) and parental warmth and involvement twoyears later, while children’s low emotional stability predicted only lower levels of parental warmth.

Furthermore, the mediating effect of the parent–child relationship in the associations between personality traits andnegative outcomes has been supported by some studies. For example, Prinzie et al. (2004), in a cross-sectional study ofyounger age groups (from 5 to 11 years old), found that children’s benevolence (agreeableness) and emotional stability werenegatively associated with externalizing behaviours, both directly and mediated by overreactive parenting. Similarly, but inan older age group (adolescents), Manders, Scholte, Janssens, and De Bruyn (2006) reported that the quality of mother/fa-ther–adolescent relationships (considering together the dimensions of hostility, warmth, and communication) significantlymediated the associations of agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness with externalizing problem behaviour.In contrast, no mediating effect was evident for internalizing problems.

To our knowledge only one longitudinal study (Prinzie, van der Sluis, de Haan, & Dekovi�c, 2010) assessed, in a sample ofchildren (9–13 years old at Time 1), the mediating role of maternal and paternal overreactive parenting in the relation be-tween child personality traits and externalizing behaviour three years later (from 12 to 16 years old at Time 2). Benevolence(agreeableness) and extraversion were related negatively to externalizing problem behaviour three years later and over-reactive parenting (mother and father) partially mediated the relation between benevolence and externalizing problems. Incontrast, only maternal overreactive parenting partially mediated the negative relation between emotional stability andexternalizing behaviour.

We focused specifically onmother hostile aggressive conflict during the transition to adulthood, because in this period themaintenance of good family relationships represents a critical enterprise for those youths who have to establish their au-tonomy and more power balanced relations with their parents while they are still living at home (Fuligni, 2012; Scabini,2000). Therefore, high or increasing level of hostile mother–child conflict in the transition to adulthood may reflect ado-lescents’ serious lack of success in maintaining good family relations that play a critical role in the development of depressivesymptoms and antisocial behaviour.

The present study

In the present study, we sought to expand prior research on the mediating role of the quality of mother–adolescent re-lations in the association between adolescent personality traits and young adult outcomes using a longitudinal design. Inaddition, we examined different developmental trends of mother and adolescent aggressive and hostile conflict (MHAC) fromage 15–16 to age 19–20; to our knowledge, there are no studies addressing these interpersonal pathways as mediators be-tween personality traits and the aforementioned outcomes in the transition to adulthood.

On the basis of previous similar studies (Herrenkohl, Hill, Hawkins, Chung, & Nagin, 2006; Lansford et al., 2009) and astudy conducted in Italy (Castellani et al. submitted for publication) in which a normative declining trend of mother–childhostile conflicts from middle adolescence until young adulthood was found, we expected inter-individual differences inMHAC trajectories. Specifically, we hypothesized that the majority of individuals would not experience substantial levels ofMHAC during this developmental period; however, we additionally expected that certain groups of adolescents withchronically high or increasing levels of MHAC could be identified (e.g. Lansford et al., 2009; Trentacosta et al., 2011).

A consistent body of research showed that early personality characteristics shape how children experience and react todevelopmental transitions, such as childhood and adolescence. However, less studied is the developmental transition toadulthood, and in particular how personality traits favour or compromise the quality of mother–youth relations. Althoughwecannot exclude the possibility that interpersonal context also influences traits overtime, in this study we focused on mother–hostile conflict developmental trajectories as interpersonal mechanism connecting adolescent traits to later adjustmentproblems.

Consistent with other studies, we hypothesized that specific youth personality traits, such as low agreeableness, emotionalstability, and conscientiousness might contribute to the hostile reactions of their mothers (Denissen, Van Aken, & Dubas, 2009;

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12 5

Klimstra et al., 2010; O’Connor & Dvorak, 2001; Prinzie et al., 2004). Althoughwe reasoned that energy and opennessmay revealtheir importance in extra-familial contexts (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004), we introduced them in the model in order tocontrol for the concurrent relations across all traits and to examine their unique role in developmental pathways and outcomes.

Finally we expected youths with low levels of agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness to be more in-clined to develop hostile relationships with their mothers over time and, consequently, to show an increase in their antisocialand depressive problems in emerging adulthood.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited in Genzano, a residential area near Rome (Italy) and were from families involved in an ongoinglongitudinal project in that community that started in the early 1990s (Caprara, Pastorelli, Regalia, Scabini, & Bandura, 2005).

The composition of the original family and the occupational socioeconomic distribution of our sample matched the na-tional profile (ISTAT, 2002). The community represented a socioeconomic microcosm of the larger society: 16% were inprofessional or managerial ranks, 42% were merchants or employees in various types of businesses, 12% were skilled workers,22% were unskilled workers, 3% were retired, 2% were temporarily unemployed but with a salary, and 3% were unemployed.In addition, most participants were from intact families (90.5%) and still living at home with their parents at the last twoassessment points (Time 3: 98.6%; Time 4: 94.9%).

For the present study, due to the availability of measures, we used two of the four cohorts of the Genzano LongitudinalStudy. Cohort effects were not significant for sociodemographic and major study variables. Therefore, the data from the twocohorts were combined, resulting in 385 adolescents (191 girls; mean age at Time 1 ¼ 15.49 years, SD ¼ .50).

Overall, the study design included 4 data points. The adolescents’ self-report of the Big Five factors was assessed at Time 1(T1; 1998; youth age: 15–16 years). The adolescents’ self-reported MHAC was measured at T1, Time 2 (T2; 2000; youth age:17–18 years), and Time 3 (T3; 2002; youth age: 19–20 years).The study outcomes (depressive and antisocial problems) wereassessed at T1 and T4 (T4; 2004; youth age: 21–22 years).

Measures

The measures used in this study are each described in turn. Sex was coded 1 for males and 2 for females.Mother hostile aggressive conflict (MHAC)was rated (1¼ not at all; 2¼ not toowell; 3¼ fairly well; 4¼ very well) by youths

using a 6-item version of the Parent–Adolescent Disagreement Scale (Honess et al., 1997). Items include both maternal verbal(e.g. “she gets really wound up and starts shouting”) and physical aggression (e.g. “she gets really angry and strikes out”).Adolescents were asked “How well does each of the following statements describe your mother when you and she disagreeabout something which is important to both of you?” (as at ages 15–16,17–18, and 19–20 years¼ .81, .79, and .82, respectively).

The Big Five factors (BFF) were assessed using the self-report Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli,Borgogni, & Perugini, 1993), which includes 132 items that form five domain scales, with 24 items on each scale. Adoles-cents indicated the extent to which each item described them (from 1 ¼ very false for me to 5 ¼ very true for me). The BFQ hasbeen validated cross-culturally (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Bermudez, Maslach, & Ruch, 2000). The scales correlate highly with theNeuroticism–Extroversion–Openness Inventory (NEO-PI) and similar BFQ scales (Caprara et al.,1993). Alphaswere at ages 15–16: Energy .71; Emotional Stability .84; Agreeableness .74; Openness .73; and, Conscientiousness .79.

Depressive problems (DP) were assessed with adolescents’ ratings of their symptoms of depression on, respectively, theAffective Problems and the Depressive Problems DSM-oriented scales of the Youth Self-Report at T1 (YSR; Achenbach &Edelbrock, 1991) and the Adult Self-Report at T4 (ASR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). Due to the use different self-reportmeasures over time, YSR and ASR, only common items of the DSM-oriented scale of DP were included (i.e., 11 out of 14;the three excluded items were: “Enjoys little”, “Trouble making Decisions”, “Can’t succeed”). Ratings were made on a 3-pointscale (0¼ not true; 1¼ somewhat or sometimes true; 2¼ very true or often true) and we used the summed score of items for allthe scales. Examples of items are: “Cries” and “Talks about suicide” (a at ages 15–16 and at ages 21–22 ¼ .77 and .82).

Antisocial problems (AP) were assessed with adolescents’ ratings of their behavioural problems on, respectively, theConduct Problems and the Antisocial Problems DSM-oriented scales of the YSR at T1 (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1991) and theASR at T4 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). Due to the use of YSR and ASR, not all items of the DSM-oriented scale of AP areincluded (i.e., 13 out of 20); the seven excluded items were: “ Blames others”, “ Bad relations with family”, “Irresponsiblebehaviour”, “Trouble with the law”, “Fails to pay debts”, “Drives too fast”, “Trouble keeping job”. Ratings were made on a3-point scale (0 ¼ not true; 1 ¼ somewhat or sometimes true; 2 ¼ very true or often true) and we used the summed score ofitems for all the scales. Examples of items are “Breaks rules” and “Steals” (a at ages 15–16 and at ages 21–22 ¼ .78 and .79).

Statistical methods

The number of latent classes of trajectories for MHACwas established bymodelling inMplus Version 5 (Muthén &Muthén,2007). Missing data were handled by using maximum likelihood parameter estimates with robust standard errors (MLR) anda chi-square test statistic that are robust to non-normality and non-independence of observations.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–126

The approach used to examine MHAC trajectories in the present study was latent class growth analysis (LCGA). LCGAallows for latent classes of growth trajectories to be specified. Between-class variation in the trajectory is allowed (i.e., theaverage intercept and slope may differ across classes), but within-class variation (i.e., the intercept variance and slopevariance within each class) is not estimated. We considered several criteria in determining which model best represented thedata including the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Entropy, Posterior probabilities, Lo Mendell Rubin Likelihood RatioTest (LMR LRT), and practical usefulness (Muthen &Muthen, 2000). Models with the lowest BIC and the highest Entropy value(Hix-Small, Duncan, Duncan, & Okut, 2004) usually best represents the data. The posterior probabilities reflect classassignment for each subject, conventionally, values close to one indicate good classification quality (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999).

Statistically significant p-value for the LMR LRT test indicates that dropping one class from the model would significantlyworsen model fit, and that the current model fits the data better. Finally, we also considered the practical usefulness (e.g.number of subjects in each class, usability in analyses) in deciding the model that best represented the data (Muthen &Muthen, 2000; Nagin, 2005).

Linear models were set up so that the latent intercept factor was indicated by MHAC at T1, T2 and T3 with each factorloading set at 1.00. The latent linear slope factor was indicated byMHAC at T1, T2, and T3 with factor loadings set at 0.00, 1.00,and 2.00. In the quadratic model, the setup was the same, but a latent quadratic slope factor was indicated byMHAC at T1, T2,and T3with factor loadings set at 0.00,1.00, and 4.00. For all models, as is typical, manifest MHACmeans were fixed at 0.00 formodel identification, and latent intercept, linear slope and quadratic slope means were estimated. LCGA models were esti-mated considering sex as covariate.

Finally, a path analysis was used to explore the longitudinal mediation hypothesized between BFF and early adulthood DPand AP, by MHAC trajectories (using the continuously distributed probability of individuals’ membership in each trajectorygroup), controlling for sex and for the stability of the outcomes. The mediated effect was indicated by the effect of each BFFtrait on the mediator (a) multiplied by the effect of the mediator on the outcome (b). The distribution of the product co-efficients (ab) method was used for calculating the 90% asymmetric confidence intervals (CI) for the mediated effects usingthe PRODCLIN program (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011).

Results

Descriptive analyses

Correlations among the variables prior to determining MHAC latent class trajectories are presented in Table 1.

Trajectory models

Based upon the comparisons of the sample size-adjusted BIC values and other indices, the 3-class linear model wasconsidered the best LCGAmodel for MHAC (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). The 4-class linear model fits even better, but the additionalgroup (which was high and stable) had an estimated size of only 15 people at T1 and 10 people at T2 and T3. Following therecommendations of Muthen and Muthen (2000) about sample size, and the study of Uher et al. (2010), and because the fourtrajectory solution presented one class with a very low proportion of subjects (3.9% of the sample), we considered that thethree trajectory solution provided the most interpretable description of MHAC.”

In the 3-class linear model, we identified the following trajectories: Class 1 – high decreasing (HD), Class 2 – mediumincreasing (MI), and Class 3 – low stable (LS). For this model, the classification quality was adequate, as noted by the entropy

Table 1Pearson correlations, mean scores, and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mean Standarddeviation

1. Sex – 1.4951% males49% females

.50

2. Energy age 15–16 �.14** – 3.26 .373. Agreeableness age 15–16 .17** .24** – 3.32 .394. Conscientiousness age 15–16 .13** .35** .32** – 3.32 .435. Emotional Stability age 15–16 �.27** .16** .29** .30** – 3.06 .476. Openness age 15–16 .11* .40** .40** .44** .17** – 3.32 .387. MHAC age 15–16 �.02 �.09þ �.23** �.25** �.31** �.21** – 1.60 .588. MHAC age 17–18 .11* �.13** �.14** �.17** �.30** �.15** .51** – 1.65 .589. MHAC age 19–20 �.01 �.115* �.24** �.23** �.29** �.14** .43** .54** – 1.59 .5610. Depressive Problems age 15–16 .20** �.28** �.15** �.22** �.39** �.20** .39** .35** .29** – 2.48 2.4311. Antisocial Problems age 15–16 �.22** �.09þ �.30** �.41** �.29** �.27** .38** .225** .30** .46** – 3.25 2.7112. Depressive Problems age 21–22 .21** �.22** �.28** �.19** �.33** �.18** .25** .42** .39** .34** .20** – 2.60 2.2413. Antisocial Problems age 21–22 �.22** �.06 �.27** �.25** �.25** �.14* .25** .32** .37** .22** .46** .41** – 2.42 2.34

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01, þp ¼ <.10; Sex is coded as follows: 1 ¼ boys, 2 ¼ girls.MHAC: Mother hostile aggressive conflict.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

Table 2Fit indices and means of the intercept, linear, and quadratic slopes for the 1-class model (c1) to 4-class (4c) models.

Model Log likelihood BIC Estimated classcount

Posteriorprobabilities

Entropy Intercept Mean Slope Mean Slope QuadraticMean

1c lin �860.621 1751.060 389 1 N/A 1.618*** �0.0061c quad �859.835 1755.452 389 1 N/A 1.604*** 0.093* �0.0502c lin �747.807 1543.323 99.81 0.895 0.774 2.218*** 0.031

289.19 0.947 1.415*** �0.0222c quad �745.397 1550.429 284.54 0.948 0.762 1.404*** 0.002 �0.011

104.46 0.885 2.153*** 0.351* �0.162þ3c lin �728.531 1522.662 269.95 0.927 0.767 1.394*** �0.028

30.66 0.862 2.868*** �0.330**88.39 0.792 1.876*** 0.177*

3c quad �722.589 1528.669 253.22 0.922 0.782 1.380*** �0.110þ 0.04521.05 0.882 2.866*** 0.320 �0.266114.73 0.846 1.869*** 0.578** �0.258*

4c lin �701.045 1485.580 37.76 0.789 0.810 2.495*** �0.520***15.56 0.859 2.966*** �0.11084.22 0.826 1.820*** 0.234***251.45 0.932 1.333*** �0.001

Note. c ¼ class, lin ¼ linear model, quad ¼ quadratic model; þp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12 7

value (.767) and the classification probabilities (.927, .862 and .792 for Class 1, 2, and 3, respectively). As illustrated in Fig. 1,Class 1 (N ¼ 29, 7.6% of the sample, 46.4% males) included youths whose MHAC was initially high with a linear decrease overtime. Class 2 (N¼ 90, 23.3% of the sample, 42.7%males) included youthswhoseMHACwas initiallymoderate and significantlyincreased in the transition to adulthood. Class 3 (N ¼ 266, 69.1% of the sample, 53% males) included youths whose MHAC wasinitially low and remained stable in the transition to adulthood.

Additional analysis evidenced that the three classes extracted were not different in relation to background variables(father and mother education, family income, respectively: [F(2,381)¼ .70 p ¼ .50]; [F(2,383) ¼ 1.72 p ¼ .18]; [F(2,385)¼ 1.29p ¼ .28]). The percentage of youths–parents cohabitation across the tree trajectories are similar (HD ¼ 100%; LS ¼ 96%;MI ¼ 90%).

Path analysis

We performed a path analysis in which we included BFF traits at the age of 15–16 as potential predictors of DP and AP inearly adulthood (age 21–22), both directly and indirectly through the trajectory probabilities of belonging to the highdeclining group and to the medium increasing group.

In entering the posterior probabilities, we excluded the probability of groupmembership for one of the groups because theposterior probabilities of group membership in each group added up to 1 for a given individual (e.g., the independent var-iables would be perfectly correlated). We decided to exclude the probability of being in the normative group (low stable).Furthermore, we controlled for the effect of sex and for the stability of DP and AP from age 15–16 to age 21–22.

Fig. 2 presents a diagrammatic representation of the model and the path coefficients for only the significant paths. Pathanalyses showed that, controlling for sex and for the stability of outcomes, low levels of emotional stability and agreeablenessat age 15–16 were associated with HD trajectory membership, which in turn predicted DP in early adulthood. In addition, lowlevels of agreeableness at age 15–16 were directly associated with DP in early adulthood. Low levels of conscientiousness andemotional stability at age 15–16 were associated with MI trajectory membership, which in turn predicted DP in earlyadulthood. Moreover, low levels of emotional stability at age 15–16 were directly associated with AP in early adulthood.

Fig. 1. Three class MHAC trajectories. Note: Log likelihood: �728.531; BIC: 1522.662; Entropy: 0.767; LMR LRT test: 0.4700.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

Fig. 2. Path analysis of MHAC trajectories predicting Depressive Problems and Antisocial Problems.

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–128

Finally, the HD trajectory membership significantly mediated the relations between both agreeableness and emotionalstability at age 15–16 and DP in early adulthood (respectively C.I.�0.314,�0.006;�0.244,�0.006). These results suggest thatless agreeable and less emotionally stable youths tend to follow the HD trajectory, which in turn predisposes them to higherlevels of DP in early adulthood. In addition, the MI trajectory membership significantly mediates the relations betweenconscientiousness and emotional stability at age 15–16 and DP in early adulthood (respectively C.I. �0.271, �0.016; �0.0319,�0.035). Thus, youths with low levels of conscientiousness and low emotional stability tended to follow the MI trajectory,which in turn predicted an increase in later DP.

No significant direct effects have been found for energy and openness on both HD and MI trajectory membership andantisocial and depressive problems. In addition, the mediational effects of HD and MI trajectory membership between traitsand antisocial problems have not been corroborated.

Discussion

In the current study, we examined the antecedent role of adolescent personality traits and the consequent young adultoutcomes (i.e., antisocial and depressive problems) of developmental trajectories for conflict within the mother–youth dyad.In line with our expectations, group-based trajectory modelling supported distinct trajectories of MHAC and the findingsindicated that personality traits were directly associated with antisocial and depression problems, whereas, differently fromour hypotheses, membership of compromised trajectory groups significantly mediated (fully and partially) only the relationsbetween traits and depressive problems.

Developmental trajectories

In this study, similar to other trajectories models reported in previous studies mostly in adolescence (Lansford et al., 2009;Trentacosta et al., 2011), we have identified a model of stability and change for MHAC from late adolescence to earlyadulthood. The use of LCGA analysis captured developmental changes in the mother–youth hostile relationships over amultiple-year span of time; threeMHAC trajectories with reasonable estimated sample sizes were found: low stable, mediumincreasing, and high decreasing groups.

We identified a large group of parents and youths experiencing low levels of conflict over time (69.1%), a finding consistentwith previous studies (Lansford et al., 2009; Trentacosta et al., 2011). This pattern of change may be considered to be thenormative pattern of development for the hostile parent–youth relationships. However, more severe forms of parent–adolescent conflict, characterized by harsh confrontationwith adults exist (Collins & Laursen, 2004). Accordingly, researchers

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12 9

have previously documented the existence of a relatively small percentage of parents and adolescents with dysfunctionalrelations (conflictual and coercive) and with the tendency to decrease from early to middle adolescence (Trentacosta et al.,2011). In the current study, we identified a relatively small percentage (7.6%) of mothers and youths who started in mid-dle adolescence with elevated levels of hostile conflict that decreased through late adolescence and into early adulthood,although at the end point of the trajectory (at 19–20 years), a moderate level of conflict remained. This is consistent with thetrajectories of the high/declining groups identified in the study by Trentacosta et al. (2011) and it further supports theassumption of a plausible decrease in mother–youth hostile relationships during the transition to adulthood because of theyouths’ greater involvement in personal relations and activities outside the family.

Finally, a pattern of change characterized by increasing levels of MHACwas identified (23.3%). This pattern of developmentmerits attention because of its linear increase during this transitional period and also for the percentage of youths involved.

Personality and outcomes: direct and mediated links

The main research objective of the present study was the identification of youths’ personality predictors of mother–youthconflict trajectories and the associations of both with youths’maladjustment. Overall, when all the personality predictors (BigFive traits), the membership of compromised trajectories (high decreasing, medium increasing), and the outcomes (antisocialand depressive problems) were examined simultaneously through path analysis, the findings supported either a direct role ofpersonality traits (i.e., low emotional stability and agreeableness) in the development of antisocial and depressive problems inyoung adult age, or more complex patterns of relations among adolescents’ traits (low conscientiousness, low agreeablenessand low emotional stability) and subsequent trajectories of mother–youth conflict and depressive outcomes.

Direct linksAmong the Big Five traits, only low emotional stability (i.e., the tendency to not to regulate emotionality and impulsivity)was

related to the increase of antisocial behaviours over time. As documented in longitudinal studies, antisocial behaviours decreaseduring the transition to adulthood (e.g. Odgers et al., 2008) and their maintenance is usually related to lower inhibition or highimpulsivity (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002). Thus, it is reasonable that low emotional stability might contribute to anincrease of behavioural disinhibition that puts growing adolescents at risk of developing antisocial problems in early adulthood.Contrary to our expectations, no direct effects of the other traits on antisocial problems were found.

With regard to depressive problems, our findings showed that low agreeableness significantly predicted higher depressiveproblems in early adulthood. It is probable that youths with low agreeableness tend to be uncooperative, irritable, andmanipulative (Caspi & Shiner, 2006), and that they are at risk of being rejected by others and over time becomingmore sociallyisolated – all of which may lead to more depressive feelings over time (Hames, Hagan, & Joiner, 2013). Also, in this case, theabsenceof relationsbetweenother traits anddepressiveproblemsshouldbeconsidered in the lightof thestringentnatureofouranalysis (i.e., testing unique direct relations as well asmediated relations, as well as controlling for stability of maladjustment).

Mediated links. Overall, consistent with previous studies (e.g. Prinzie et al. 2010) looking at relations among traits, familyfunctioning, and adjustment, support was found for the mediational role that different developmental pathways of motherhostile conflict have in linking adolescents’ traits and later depressive symptoms. In particular, we found that adolescents’ lowagreeableness, low conscientiousness, and low emotional stability predicted the development of worse mother–youth hostileconflict trajectories, which mediated the relation to higher levels of depressive problems (but not antisocial problems) at theage of 21–22. The findings are in accordancewith other studies (Denissen et al., 2009; O’Connor & Dvorak, 2001) showing thatlower levels of these three traits, considered as part of the self-regulation and/or related to self-control processes (Caspi &Shiner, 2006), may elicit more aggressive maternal reactions. These results are also in line with other studies showing thatsome personality traits (i.e., neuroticism) make adolescents more vulnerable to depression because they are exposed to moreinterpersonal difficulties leading to increase in later depressive symptoms (Wetter & Hankin, 2009).

In regard to the mediating role of membership in the high declining trajectory, those adolescents who were lessemotionally stable (i.e., less able to regulate emotions and impulses), as well as less agreeable, were involved in more highlyconflictual relationships with their mothers (with a relative decrease over time), and perhaps as a consequence, reportedhigher levels of subsequent depressive problems. It is probable that the more insecure and sensitive adolescents with lowemotional stability may be more emotionally vulnerable to a high level of hostile conflict with mothers (see Markey, Markey,& Tinsley, 2004), and also may evoke more conflictual behaviour from mothers, which in turn increases their level ofdiscomfort, sadness, and unhappiness at 21–22 years. Likewise, adolescents with low agreeableness are probably less proneto negotiate family obligations, more self-centered, and less cooperative with their mothers, and contribute to activelymaintaining high to moderate levels of hostile interaction with parents over time that, in turn, become the basis for theirincreased feelings of low worth and depression.

With regard to the medium increasing path, the findings support prediction by adolescents’ low emotional stability andconscientiousness of later depressive problems through their unique effects on mother–adolescent conflict. Being prone tonegative emotions, having more difficulties in regulating impulsivity, and having low conscientiousness may expose ado-lescents to the risk of developing depressive problems in early adulthood through their increasing experience of hostileconflict with mothers. Difficulties in maintaining focused attention and being planful, as reflected by low conscientiousness,as well as difficulties in regulating emotion, appear to compromise interpersonal relationships (e.g., Heatherton & Vohs,1998;

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–1210

Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2007) and the quality of interactions with parents (e.g. Danforth, Barkley, & Stokes, 1991). It ispossible that the timing of the increase in hostile conflict betweenmother and youth (late adolescence to age 20) exacerbatesthe negative effects of conflict on youths’ adjustment. For this group, hostile conflict rebounded close to and after 18 years, theperiod when adolescents/young adults have tomakemore important life choices such as attending university or finding a job.As such, they are in the position to claim more independence from parents, but their permanence at home offers them morecontinuous occasions for conflict and disagreement with their mothers.

As regards antisocial problems, the hypothesized mediational role of mother hostile interactions was not confirmed. Wehave to recognize that the role of difficult family relations in the development of antisocial behaviour has been corroboratedespecially in younger age (Prinzie et al., 2004), whereas with regard to the transition to adulthood, only a small number ofstudies have reported a direct influence of conflictual and violent family relationships on antisocial behaviours (e.g. Moylanet al., 2010; Smith et al., 2005), and they have not taken into account the stability of the antisocial outcomes. The absence ofrelations between mother–child conflict and antisocial behaviour has been found also in a study by Hofer et al. (2013), inwhich mother–child conflict predicted only an adolescent internalizing but not externalizing problems. It is possible thatother mediating mechanisms, such as relationships with peers, account for the longitudinal association between adolescents’personality traits and antisocial behaviour in early adulthood. Further studies have to clarify the extent to which the role ofconflict between mother and child during the transition to adulthood is limited to depressive problems or may have aninfluence also on antisocial behaviours.

Conclusions, limitations and future directions

This longitudinal study extends previous research and provides support for the vulnerability/predisposition hypothesis(Tackett, 2006) by linking personality traits to the development of later antisocial and depressive problems. Most of thefindings are consistent with the conclusion that aggressive conflict may be considered as a stressor that compromises youths’adjustment, especially when they are exposed to day-to-day difficulties and hostile interactions, even during the transition toadulthood.

Furthermore, this study showed a different picture about the processes by which adolescents’ personality is linked todepressive and antisocial behaviour. The relations between personality, mother–youths conflict, and depressive problemsevidence the complex mechanisms by which personality and the environment interact and shape adjustment problems lateron. As reported in other studies (e.g. Yap et al., 2011), youths with low self-regulatory capacities and high negativeemotionality evidenced more emotion dysregulation during interactions with parents, which in turn increased their risk ofmore severe depressive problems later on. Further analysis is needed to understand whether antisocial problems in earlyadults are related exclusively to emotional dysregulation or whether other interpersonal mechanisms may intervene in therelations between personality traits and antisocial behaviours.

Taken together, the results of this study underline the relevance of mother–youths hostile and aggressive interactions ininfluencing the development of depressive problems in early adulthood.

Hostility and aggressiveness in the relation with mothers may be considered as mechanisms that generate feelings ofdiscomfort and negative moods and may exacerbate adolescents’ vulnerabilities (personality traits). As a consequence, thepromotion of good relationships with mothers in the transition to adult age may be considered one of the components ofpsychological intervention for the prevention of depressive problems. In particular, it appears relevant the enhancement ofrelational and self-regulatory abilities that promote the establishment of good long lasting relationships, in a period ofdevelopment characterized by contrasting needs such as autonomy and support from parents.

Although this study contributes to expanding previous research in various ways, some limitations are also worth noting.The longitudinal findings supported complex relations between adolescent personality traits, hostile and aggressive mother–youth relationships, and adjustment in early adulthood. However, we did not address reciprocal relations between adoles-cents’ personality and the quality of family relationships over time, or the potential influence of psychopathological problemson personality characteristics; this could be addressed in further studies. Moreover, the data, albeit longitudinal, are corre-lational and cannot prove causal pathways. In addition, we have relied on only youths’ self-reported data. Further researchshould consider both the mothers’ and adolescents’ points of view to better understand the development of mother–youthhostile relationships and their impact on youth adjustment.

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by grants from the Spencer Foundation and W. T. Grant Foundation to AlbertBandura, from the ItalianMinistry of Education University and Research (COFIN: 1998, 2000), from the University of Rome ‘‘LaSapienza’’ to Gian Vittorio Caprara; and from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment to Carlos Valiente and Nancy Eisenberg (co-PIs).

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1991). The child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003).Manual for the ASEBA adult forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,

Youth, and Families.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–12 11

Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In J. Arnett, & J. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming ofage in the 21st century (pp. 193–217). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11381-008.

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in adolescence: core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal ofPersonality, 71, 629–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7104005.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1531.

Bienvenu, O., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Reti, I. M., Eaton,W.W., & Nestadt, G. (2004). Anxiety and depressive disorders and the five-factormodel of personality:a higher- and lower-order personality trait investigation in a community sample. Depression and Anxiety, 20, 92–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20026.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermúdez, J., Maslach, C., & Ruch, W. (2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures in cross-culturalresearch:an illustrationwith theBig FiveQuestionnaire. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 437–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031004002.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993). The “Big Five Questionnaire”: a new questionnaire to assess the Five Factor Model.Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R.

Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., & Bandura, A. (2005). Impact of adolescents’ filial self-efficacy on quality of family functioning andsatisfaction. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 71–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00087.x.

Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. L. (2006). Personality development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.) (6th ed.)Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 300–365). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Castellani, V., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Caffo, E., Forresi, B., & Gerbino, M. (2013). The development of perceived maternal hostile, aggressive conflict fromadolescence to early adulthood: Antecedents and outcomes (submitted for publication).

Collins, W., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 24, 55–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431603260882.

Danforth, J. S., Barkley, R. A., & Stokes, T. F. (1991). Observations of parent–child interactions with hyperactive children: research and clinical implications.Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 703–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90127-G.

De Fruyt, F., Bartels, M., Van Leeuwen, K. G., De Clercq, B., Decuyper, M., & Mervielde, I. (2006). Five types of personality continuity in childhood andadolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 538–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.538.

De Goede, I. A., Branje, S. T., Delsing, M. H., & Meeus, W. J. (2009). Linkages over time between adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 38, 1304–1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9403-2.

Denissen, J. J. A., Van Aken, M. A. G., & Dubas, J. S. (2009). It takes two to tango: how parents’ and adolescents’ personalities link to the quality of theirmutual relationship. Developmental Psychology, 45, 928–941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016230.

Douglass, C. B. (2007). From duty to desire: emerging adulthood in Europe and its consequences. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 101–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00023.x.

Elder, G. R. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1132065.Fuligni, A. J. (2012). Gaps, conflicts, and arguments between adolescents and their parents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (135), 105–

110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.20006.Gutman, L., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). Stage-environment fit during adolescence: trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental

Psychology, 43, 522–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.522.de Haan, A. D., Dekovi�c, M., & Prinzie, P. (2012). Longitudinal impact of parental and adolescent personality on parenting. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 102, 189–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025254.Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013). Interpersonal processes in depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 355–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185553.Heatherton, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (1998). Why is it so difficult to inhibit behavior? Psychological Inquiry, 9, 212–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/

s15327965pli0903_4.Herrenkohl, T. I., & Herrenkohl, R. C. (2007). Examining the overlap and prediction of multiple forms of child maltreatment, stressors, and socioeconomic

status: a longitudinal analysis of youth outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 553–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9107-x.Herrenkohl, T. I., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J., Chung, I., & Nagin, D. S. (2006). Developmental trajectories of family management and risk for violent behavior in

adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 206–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.11.028.Herrenkohl, T. I., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J., & Mason, W. (2009). Effects of growth in family conflict in adolescence on adult depressive symptoms: mediating

and moderating effects of stress and school bonding. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 146–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.005.Hix-Small, H., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Okut, H. (2004). A multivariate associative finite growth mixture modeling approach examining adolescent

alcohol and marijuana use. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 255–270.Hoeve, M., Smeenk, W. H., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van der Laan, P. H., Gerris, J. R. M., et al. (2007). Long term effects of parenting and family

characteristics on delinquency of male young adults. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 116–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477370807074854.Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Morris, A. S., Gershoff, E., Valiente, C., et al. (2013). Mother–Adolescent conflict: stability, change, and relations with

externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Social Development, 22, 259–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12012.Honess, T. M., Charman, E. A., Zani, B., Cicognani, E., Xerri, M. L., Jackson, A. E., et al. (1997). Conflict between parents and adolescents – variation by family

constitution. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 367–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00527.x.Istituto Italiano di Statistica. (2002). Annuario statistico italiano 2002 [Italian yearbook of statistics 2002]. Rome: ISTAT.Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/1467-6494.00148.Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Malcolm, K. T. (2007). The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 33, 368–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296104.John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 102–138). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329–

337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.03.004.Klein, D. N., Kotov, R., & Bufferd, S. J. (2011). Personality and depression: explanatory models and review of the evidence. Annual Review of Clinical Psy-

chology, 7, 269–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104540.Klimstra, T. A., Akse, J., Hale, W., Raaijmakers, Q. W., & Meeus, W. J. (2010). Longitudinal associations between personality traits and problem behavior

symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 273–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.02.004.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020327.Krueger, R. F. (1999). Personality traits in late adolescence predict mental disorders in early adulthood: a prospective-epidemiological study. Journal of

Personality, 67, 39–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00047.Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Dodge, K. A., Shaw, D. S., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2009). Trajectories of physical discipline: antecedents and developmental

outcomes. Child Development, 80, 1385–1402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01340.x.Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent–child conflict across adolescence: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817–

832. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1132206.Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Wikström, P., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on

offending: the effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.4.563.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002

V. Castellani et al. / Journal of Adolescence xxx (2013) 1–1212

Manders, W. A., Scholte, R. J., Janssens, J. M., & De Bruyn, E. J. (2006). Adolescent personality, problem behaviour and the quality of the parent-adolescentrelationship. European Journal of Personality, 20, 237–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.574.

Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & Tinsley, B. J. (2004). Children’s behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 30, 423–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261886.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 174–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.

Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Jones, S. (2008). Externalizing behavior through the lens of the five-factor model: a focus on agreeableness and conscien-tiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 158–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845245.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: follow-up atage 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001104.

Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. (2010). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence onadolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 53–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9269-9.

Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent

juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181–1196.O’Connor, B. P., & Dvorak, T. (2001). Conditional associations between parental behavior and adolescent problems: a search for personality–environment

interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2295.Odgers, C. L., Moffitt, T. E., Broadbent, J. M., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al. (2008). Female and male antisocial trajectories: from childhood

origins to adult outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 673–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000333.Pervin, L. A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Pew Research Center. (2013). A rising share of young adults live in their parents’ home. Washington. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/

01/a-rising-share-of-young-adults-live-in-their-parents-home/.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 behaviour in children. European Journal of Personality, 18, 73–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.501.Prinzie, P., van der Sluis, C. M., de Haan, A. D., & Dekovi�c, M. (2010). The mediational role of parenting on the longitudinal relation between child personality

and externalizing behavior. Journal of Personality, 78, 1301–1323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00651.x.Raskin White, H., Bates, M. E., & Buyske, S. (2001). Adolescence-limited versus persistent delinquency: extending Moffitt’s hypothesis into adulthood.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 600–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.4.600.Reinherz, H. Z., Paradis, A. D., Giaconia, R. M., Stashwick, C. K., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2003). Childhood and adolescent predictors of major depression in the

transition to adulthood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 2141–2147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.12.2141.Scabini, E. (2000). Parent–child relationships in Italian families: connectedness and autonomy in the transition to adulthood. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16,

23–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722000000100004.Schmidt, N. B., Lerew, D. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2000). Prospective evaluation of the etiology of anxiety sensitivity: test of a scar model. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 38, 1083–1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00138-2.Schulenberg, J. E., Sameroff, A. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The transition to adulthood as a critical juncture in the course of psychopathology and mental

health. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 799–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040015.Sheeber, L., Hops, H., & Davis, B. (2001). Family processes in adolescent depression. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1023/A:1009524626436.Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–332.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.308.Smith, C. A., Thornberry, T. P., & Ireland, T. O. (2005). Adolescent maltreatment and its impact on young adult antisocial behaviour. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29,

1099–1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.02.01.Tackett, J. L. (2006). Evaluating models of the personality–psychopathology relationship in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 584–

599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.003.Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: the varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple

problem outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957–979.Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: an R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x.Trentacosta, C. J., Criss, M. M., Shaw, D. S., Lacourse, E., Hyde, L. W., & Dishion, T. J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of joint trajectories of mother–son

conflict and warmth during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 82, 1676–1690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01626.x.Uher, R. R., Muthén, B. B., Souery, D. D., Mors, O. O., Jaracz, J. J., Placentino, A. A., et al. (2010). Trajectories of change in depression severity during treatment

with antidepressants. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1367–1377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991528.Wetter, E. K., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Mediational pathways through which positive and negative emotionality contribute to anhedonic symptoms of

depression: a prospective study of adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 507–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9299-z.White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–

1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019.Yap, M. B. H., Allen, N. B., O’Shea, M., di Parsia, P., Simmons, J. G., & Sheeber, L. (2011). Early adolescents’ temperament, emotion regulation during mother–

child interactions, and depressive symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 267–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000787.

Please cite this article in press as: Castellani, V., et al., Hostile, aggressive family conflict trajectories during the transition toadulthood: Associations with adolescent Big Five and emerging adulthood adjustment problems, Journal of Adolescence (2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.002