Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Temperament and parental styles as predictors of ruminative brooding and worry

Chiara Manfredi a, Gabriele Caselli a,b,⇑, Francesco Rovetto c, Daniela Rebecchi a,d, Giovanni M. Ruggiero a,Sandra Sassaroli a, Marcantonio M. Spada b,e

a Studi Cognitivi, Cognitive Psychotherapy School, Modena, Italyb London South Bank University, London, UKc University of Pavia, Pavia, Italyd Servizio di Psicologia Clinica, AUSL, Modena, Italye North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 24 May 2010Received in revised form 16 September 2010Accepted 17 September 2010Available online 16 October 2010

Keywords:AvoidanceBroodingNegative affectParental styleRuminationWorry

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.023

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Studi CognitivSchool, Viale Giardini 472/L, 41100 Modena, Italy. Te

E-mail addresses: gabriele.caselli@gmail.com,(G. Caselli).

The objective of this study was to investigate the relative contribution of temperament and parentalstyles in predicting ruminative brooding and worry whilst controlling for negative affect. A communitysample (n = 307) was administered six self-report instruments that assessed anxiety, depression, temper-ament, parental styles, ruminative brooding and worry. Results showed that both ruminative broodingand worry were positively correlated with anxiety, depression, harm avoidance and parental overprotec-tion. In addition, ruminative brooding was positively correlated with reward dependence, and worry withnovelty seeking. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that anxiety, depression, reward dependenceand parental overprotection were significant predictors of ruminative brooding, and that anxiety, depres-sion, harm avoidance and parental overprotection were significant predictors of worry. These findingsshow that a temperament characterized by high levels of harm avoidance or high levels of reward depen-dence may facilitate the tendency to use worry or ruminative brooding, respectively, and that a parentalstyle characterized by high control and protectiveness is an independent risk factor for the developmentof both types of recurrent negative thinking.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Ruminative brooding and worry are two types of recurrent,dysfunctional and rigid negative thinking that have been respec-tively associated to depression and anxiety (Borkovec, 1994;Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991). Ruminative brooding representsa perseverative thinking style that occurs in the absence ofimmediate environmental demands (Martin & Tesser, 1996) and isfocused on personal depressive symptoms and their consequences(Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991). It has been found to predictthe onset and duration of depressive symptoms (Nolen-Hoeksema,2000; Spasojevic & Alloy, 2002) and engagement in dysfunctionalcognitive processes such as thought suppression (Erber & Wegner,1996; Erskine, Kvavilashvili, & Kornbrot, 2007). Worry can bedefined as an apprehensive expectation of possible negativeoutcomes in the future (Borkovec, 1994) and is considered to be aprimary attribute of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) (American

ll rights reserved.

i, Cognitive Psychotherapyl.: +39 349 16 37 782.

g.caselli@studicognitivi.net

Psychiatric Association, 2000). Though sharing a variety of features,these two forms of perseverative thinking differ, with ruminativebrooding being associated with less verbal content, lower effort,lower confidence in problem-solving and greater orientation tothe past than worry (Papageorgiou & Wells, 2001).

A risk factor that may predict the genesis of ruminative broodingand worry is temperament. Temperament has been defined as thegenetically-based component of personality which is responsible forindividual differences in reactivity and self-regulation (Cloninger,1986; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). One theory that has attractedconsiderable attention is the temperament model of Cloninger(1986) which distinguishes between three genetically independentdimensions of temperament: novelty seeking (NS), harm avoidance(HA), and reward dependence (RD). Novelty seeking is character-ized by an inherited tendency toward the activation of behaviorsuch as exploratory activity in response to novelty, impulsive deci-sion making and quick loss of temper. Harm avoidance has beenconceptualised as the tendency towards the inhibition or cessationof behaviours and it is expressed as an innate tendency to caution,apprehensiveness and pessimism. Reward dependence is assumedto be an inherited tendency toward the resistance to extinction ofpreviously rewarded behaviors thus it has been associated withpersistence in goal pursuing (Cloninger, 1987).

C. Manfredi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191 187

Research has indicated that harm avoidance is associated withgeneralized anxiety (Starcevic, Uhlenhuth, Fallon, & Pathak,1996) and depressive psychopathology (Celikel et al., 2009), disor-ders which are respectively related to worry (APA, 2000) and rumi-native brooding (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003).Harm avoidance has also been found to be associated with depres-sive temperament (Maremmani et al., 2005) and chronic anxiety(Ettelt et al., 2008). In addition, high levels of persistence, asub-dimension of reward dependence, have been identified as arisk factor for the development of depressive symptoms (Elovainioet al., 2004). In related research, negative affectivity (anotheraspect of temperament) has been found to interact with ruminationin predicting depressive symptoms in the presence of low effortfulcontrol (Muris & Ollendick, 2005; Verstraeten, Vasey, Raes, &Bijttebier, 2009).

Parental styles represent a further risk factor in the develop-ment of ruminative brooding and worry. There is evidence showinghow parental styles characterized by children’s perception ofparental rejection, anxious rearing, or control are associated withanxiety symptoms (Grüner, Muris, & Merckelbach, 1999; Messer& Beidel, 1994; Muris & Merckelbach, 1998). Parental styles char-acterized by low warmth, affection and care and high levels ofoverprotection and control have been shown to be associated withdepression (Gerlsma, Emmelkamp, & Arrindell, 1990; Oakley-Browne,Joyce, Wells, Bushnell, & Horneblow, 1995). Research that hasspecifically examined the antecedents of ruminative broodingand worry has shown that parental rejection is positively associ-ated with children’s worrying (Muris, Meesters, Merckelbach, &Hülsenbeck, 2000) whilst ruminative or overcontrolling parentalstyles appear to predict the tendency to ruminate in response tonegative mood (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wolfson, Mumme, & Guskin,1995; Spasojevic & Alloy, 2002).

To date, no research has investigated the relative contributionof temperament and parental styles to ruminative brooding andworry; this forms the aim of the current study. A deeper knowl-edge of this area may have relevant implications in understandingdevelopmental aspects of dysfunctional thinking processes andin designing preventative programmes for reducing emotionalvulnerability. In the current study we wanted to test specifichypotheses derived from the research literature. Firstly, thatreward dependence would predict ruminative brooding. This isbecause reward dependence is associated with persistence in goalpursuing which may lead to difficulties in goal disengagementeven when facing loss or a frustrating event, contributing to theenhancement of brooding. Secondly that harm avoidance wouldpredict level of worry. This is because harm avoidance, which hasbeen conceptualised as the tendency towards the inhibition orcessation of behaviours, is likely to stimulate worry as a form ofmental problem-solving rather than actual problem-solving. Thirdly,that both low parental care and overprotection would predict bothruminative brooding and worry. This is because these parentalstyles may respectively foster the perception of uncontrollabilityof negative experiences and hinder children’s learning throughautonomous action-oriented experiences. Finally, the aforemen-tioned temperament and parental dimensions would have a directand significant predictive effect on ruminative brooding and worryindependently of anxiety and depression as these variables mayimpact on reported levels of ruminative brooding and worry.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 307 participants (162 females) whowere recruited from the general population through leaflets and

advertisements in work environments and public places. Age andgender distributions were balanced in order to assure representa-tiveness of the sample. The average numbers of years in educationwas 13.0 (SD = 3.9; range = 8–18). The mean age of the sample was33.9 years (SD = 13.1; range = 18–57). The majority of the sample(95%) was Caucasian and was recruited from the region of EmiliaRomagna, Italy.

2.2. Self-report instruments

The following is a brief description of the self-report instru-ments administered to all participants:

Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer,1988). This is a 21-item self-report instrument measuring the com-mon symptoms of anxiety, such as nervousness and fear of losingcontrol. Respondents are required to indicate the degree to whichthey are bothered by each symptom ‘‘during the past week includ-ing today”. Each symptom is rated on a 4-point scale ranging from0 (not at all) to 3 (severely, I could barely stand it). Total scoresrange from 0 to 63, with higher scores corresponding to higher lev-els of state anxiety. The BAI shows high internal consistency andtest–retest reliability (Beck, Epstein, et al., 1988; Beck, Steer, &Garbin, 1988).

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, &Erbaugh, 1961). This is a 21-item self-report instrument measuringthe common affective, cognitive, behavioural and somatic symp-toms of depression. Respondents are required to indicate thedegree to which they are bothered by each symptom ‘‘during thepast week including today”. Each symptom is rated on a 4-pointscale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (severely). Total scores rangefrom 0 to 63, with higher scores corresponding to higher levels ofdepression. This BDI has been used extensively in both clinical andnon-clinical populations and has been shown to possess good psy-chometric properties (Beck, Steer, et al., 1988).

Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ; Cloninger, 1986).This is a self-report instrument which includes 100 items, designedto assess three higher order dimensions of temperament: noveltyseeking (NS, 34 questions, scores 0–34), harm avoidance (HA, 33questions, scores 0–33) and reward dependence (RD, 33 questions,scores 0–33). Examples of NS items include: ‘‘I’m slow to get ex-cited about new ideas” (reverse scored), ‘‘I think in detail beforedeciding” (reverse scored), and ‘‘I do things spontaneously”. Exam-ples of HA items include: ‘‘I’m confident that things will go well”(reverse scored), ‘‘I get tense and worried in unfamiliar situations”and ‘‘I have less energy than most”. Examples of RD items include:‘‘I’m strongly moved by sentimental appeals”, ‘‘I don’t open upmuch even with friends” (reverse scored), and ‘‘Others think I amtoo independent” (reverse scored). The test–retest reliability of thisinstrument has been found to be moderately high (Cloninger,Przybeck, & Svrakic, 1991) with the instrument demonstratinggood psychometric properties (Cloninger, 1987).

Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown,1979). This is a self-report instrument consisting of 25 items usedto assess individual recall of parental rearing styles over the first16 years of life. Father and mother are judged on a 4-point scale(from true to not true) and two factors are derived for each parent(care and overprotection), dividing child-rearing styles into fourcategories (‘‘high care-low control”, ‘‘high care-high control”,‘‘low care-low control” and ‘‘low care-high control”). The fourscales (two scales for each parent) have high internal consistencyand have been used in a large number of studies on parentalrearing styles (Brewin, Andrews, & Gotlib, 1993; Parker, Barrett,& Hickie, 1992). The PBI has been used in many studies of parent-ing and has demonstrated adequate split-half reliability: care 0.74,overprotection 0.88 (Gerlsma et al., 1990; Parker et al., 1979).Ratings of mother and father have been combined as in previous

188 C. Manfredi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191

studies (e.g. Rankin, Bentall, Hill, & Kinderman, 2005) and in thelight of results by Overbeek, Ten Have, Vollebergh, and De Graaf(2007), who found no differences in the impact of paternal andmaternal rearing behaviors on mental disorders.

Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) of the Response Style Question-naire (RSQ; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991). This is a 22 itemsub-scale of the 71-item RSQ which measures the propensity toruminate in response to depression. Respondents are required toindicate the degree to which they engage in a ruminative thinkingstyle when feeling depressed. Each item is rated on a 4-point scaleranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (always). Total scores rangefrom 22 to 88, with higher scores corresponding to higher levelsof rumination. The sub-scale possesses good psychometric proper-ties and has been extensively used (Just & Alloy, 1997; Nolan,Roberts, & Gotlib, 1998; Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999). Recentresearch has suggested further dividing RRS into two sub-scales,ruminative brooding (RRS-Brood) and reflections (RRS-Reflect). Inthe present study only the RRS-Brood scale was administered, asit has been shown to capture the dysfunctional aspect of rumina-tive thinking style (Treynor et al., 2003).

Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger,& Borkovec, 1990). This is a 16-item instrument designed tocapture the generality, excessiveness and uncontrollability ofpathological worry (Fresco, Mennin, Heimberg, & Turk, 2003).Respondents are required to indicate how characteristic each itemis of them. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1(not at all typical) to 5 (very typical). Total scores range from16 to 80, with higher scores corresponding to higher levels ofworry. The instrument shows good psychometric properties(Molina & Borkovec, 1994).

2.3. Procedure

The research project was approved by the ethics committee ofan Italian university. Participants received the research projectcontent by direct distribution and all took part on a voluntaryand unpaid basis. The research project was described to partici-pants both verbally and in a written introduction as an investi-gation on the relationship between temperament, parentalstyles and thinking styles. All participants were informed thatdata provided in the research project would be anonymousand that they could withdraw at any time if they so wished.Following a brief introduction to the aim of the research project,participants gave informed consent and were instructed to com-plete the research project content anonymously in a location oftheir choice. All participants had the possibility to contact thefirst author for debriefing and to receive more details aboutthe research project.

Table 1Means, standard deviations, ranges, and two-tailed pearson product-moment correlations

Alpha Mean score SD BDI

Anxiety (BAI) .88 8.65 8.23 .53**

Depression (BDI) .84 7.07 6.43 –Novelty seeking (TPQ-NS) .76 16.27 5.36 –Harm avoidance (TPQ-HA) .88 15.08 6.38 –Reward dependence (TPQ-RD) .76 19.01 4.24 –Parental care (PBI-C) .89 48.58 12.85 –Parental overprotection (PBI-O) .89 28.00 12.86 –Ruminative brooding (RRS-B) .90 9.71 3.23 –Worry (PSWQ) .91 42.45 12.35 –

Note: n = 301.* p < .05.** p < .01.

2.4. Statistical analyses

The first part of the analyses involved data configuration, datadescription and the computing of correlation analyses. In orderto test the hypothesis that temperament and parental stylespredicted levels of ruminative brooding and worry independentlyof negative affect, two multiple linear regression analyses wereperformed with ruminative brooding and worry, respectively insertedas dependent variables. Missing data was excluded from theanalyses.

3. Results

3.1. Data configuration

An inspection of histograms, skewness and kurtosis showedthat all dependent variables were normally distributed, consider-ing both symmetry and peakedness. We calculated the distanceof Mahalanobis (D2) which identified six participants as multivar-iate outliers. These were eliminated from further analyses toensure a linear relationship between variables. The coefficient ofMardia and an inspection of graphical distribution of D2 on Q–Qplots indicated a multivariate normal distribution for both rumina-tive brooding and worry. We then examined multicollinearityusing the Tolerance Index (Ti) and the Variance Inflation Factor(VIF). The range for the Ti (from .69 to .92) and for the VIF (from1.08 to 1.53) supports the absence of multicollinearity betweenvariables. An inspection of residual Q–Q plots, skewness, andkurtosis support the homoscedasticity of variables. The Durbin–Watson statistic supports the absence of autocorrelation for bothruminative brooding (d = 1.98) and worry (d = 2.12) (Durbin &Watson, 1951).

3.2. Data description

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1.Pearson product-moment correlations showed that both rumina-tive brooding and worry were positively correlated with anxiety,depression, harm avoidance and parental overprotection. In addi-tion, ruminative brooding was positively correlated with rewarddependence, and worry was negatively correlated with noveltyseeking. Parental care was not correlated with either of the depen-dent variables and was thus eliminated from further analyses.

3.3. Hierarchical regression analyses

Two hierarchical regression analyses were run to explore therelative contribution of temperament and parental overprotectionin the prediction of both forms of ruminative brooding and worry

of study variables.

TPQ-NS TPQ-HA TPQ-RD PBI-C PBI-O RRS-B PSWQ

.05 .31** �.02 �.13* .20** .45** .43**

.01 .39** �.11 �.15** .19** .49** .42**

– �.28** .05 .04 �.08 .05 �.13*

– – .04 �.10 .21** .33** .49**

– – – .16** .02 .16** .09– – – – �.44** �.10 �.12– – – – – .24** .28**

– – – – – – .57**

– – – – – – –

Table 2Hierarchical multiple linear regression statistics with ruminative brooding and worry as the outcome variables and anxiety, depression, temperament, and parentaloverprotection as predictor variables.

Ruminative brooding Worry

B t p P t p

Step 1Anxiety .26 4.50 .00 .29 4.85 .00Depression .36 6.16 .00 .27 4.44 .00r2 .29 .24r2 Change .29 .24F Change 60.83 .00 45.93 .00

Step 2Anxiety .23 4.15 .00 .25 4.36 .00Depression .35 5.91 .00 .16 2.69 .01Novelty seeking – – – �.05 �1.06 .29Harm avoidance .11 2.13 .03 .34 6.34 .00Reward dependence .20 4.09 .00 – – –r2 .34 .35r2 Change .05 .11F Change 11.41 .00 25.18 .00

Step 3Anxiety .22 3.93 .00 .23 4.09 .00Depression .34 5.80 .00 .15 2.54 .00Novelty seeking – – – �.05 �.94 .35Harm avoidance .10 1.83 .07 .33 6.05 .00Reward dependence .19 4.07 .00 – – –Parental overprotection .11 2.23 .02 .13 2.64 .01r2 .36 .37r2 Change .02 .02F Change 4.95 .02 6.94 .01

Note: n = 301.

C. Manfredi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191 189

(see Table 2). These analyses were chosen in order to examine theunique contribution of the independent variables: negative affect,temperament dimensions and parental styles. In the first regres-sion analysis ruminative brooding was entered as a dependent var-iable with anxiety and depression controlled in step 1, harmavoidance and reward dependence entered in step 2, and parentaloverprotection entered in step 3. Results of this analysis indicatedthat harm avoidance, reward dependence and parental overprotec-tion accounted for 7% (p = .02) of variance in ruminative broodingover and above the variance accounted for by anxiety and depres-sion (29%, p < .0001). A closer inspection of the final equation inthe analysis reveals that anxiety, depression, reward dependenceand parental overprotection were significant predictors of rumina-tive brooding, whilst in the last step harm avoidance becomenon-significant (p = .07). In the second regression analysis worrywas entered as a dependent variable with anxiety and depressioncontrolled in step 1, harm avoidance and novelty seeking enteredin step 2, and parental overprotection in step 3. Results of this anal-ysis indicated that harm avoidance, novelty seeking and parentaloverprotection accounted for 13% (p = .01) of variance in worryover and above the variance accounted for by anxiety and depres-sion (24%, p < .0001). A closer inspection of the final equation in theanalysis reveals that anxiety, depression, harm avoidance andparental overprotection were significant predictors of worry whilstnovelty seeking was a non-significant predictor. Then, a series ofregression analysis were run without partialling anxiety anddepression with very similar results.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to investigate the relative contri-bution of temperament and parental styles in predicting rumina-tive brooding and worry whilst controlling for negative affect.Results showed that both ruminative brooding and worry sharedperceived parental overprotection as the only significant predictoramong parental styles. With respect to temperament, reward

dependence significantly predicted ruminative brooding, whilstharm avoidance uniquely predicted worry. The predictive impactof both parental overprotection and dimensions of temperamenton ruminative brooding and worry was independent of negativeaffect.

The finding that parental overprotection predicts ruminativebrooding and worry adds further weight to earlier studies thatreported similar findings (Muris et al., 2000; Nolen-Hoeksemaet al., 1995; Spasojevic & Alloy, 2002). It is possible that parents’overprotection hinders children’s exploration experiences preventingthe learning of action-oriented coping strategies and consequentlyfostering abstract and inactive responses (such as ruminativebrooding and worry) (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1995). On the otherhand, the finding that low parental care appears not to be associ-ated with ruminative brooding and worry is difficult to explain,given its well-established role as risk factor for many kinds ofpsychopathology. A possible explanation is that parental caremay be selectively associated to psychopathological dimensionsother than perseverative thinking styles.

The findings that ruminative brooding is associated with rewarddependence, whilst worry is associated with harm avoidance, arerelatively new to the field. What could these findings mean?Firstly, reward dependence is associated with persistence in goalpursuing. This persistence may lead to difficulties in goal disen-gagement even when facing loss or a frustrating event, contribut-ing to the enhancement of ‘‘moody pondering” on one’s ownproblems or negative emotional states which is typical of rumina-tive brooding (Treynor et al., 2003). Moreover, rumination has beendefined in terms of conscious thoughts around a theme that mighthelp individuals to attain personal goals (Martin & Tesser, 1996). Itis plausible that ruminative brooding represents an outcome dueto an inappropriate and obstinate attempt to reach a coveted stateor goal. From this perspective, when the goal is not easily reach-able, the person may start brooding about the incompetence orinability to achieve the goal. Secondly, harm avoidance, whichhas been conceptualised as the tendency towards the inhibition

190 C. Manfredi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191

or cessation of behaviours (Cloninger, 1987) is likely to be associatedwith worry because the latter is a form of ‘mental problem-solving’(Borkovec, 1994) rather than actual problem-solving which neces-sitates active engagement with the environment.

The results of this study have a number of possible implicationsfor both educational and prevention programmes aimed at reduc-ing vulnerability to emotional distress. In particular, the assess-ment of family environmental factors and temperament mayhelp to identify individuals at risk of developing perseverativethinking styles such as ruminative brooding and worry. Withrespect to interventions, the facilitation of skills that promote moreconcrete strategies to cope with problems and stressful situations,as well as parent training oriented to modifying the tendencytowards overprotection, may be helpful in reducing individuals’vulnerability to emotional distress.

Results of this study must also be considered with regard toseveral limitations. Firstly, without a behavioral or neurologicaldemonstration of temperament to corroborate data from self-report instruments, findings should be interpreted with cautiondue to the cross-sectional and correlational nature of the data.Secondly, social desirability, self-report biases, context effects andpoor recall may have contributed to errors in self-report. Thirdly,measures of parental styles are retrospective, so they refer onlyto the individual perception of parental rearing behaviours andmay have been influenced by mood congruent recalling biases thatlead to perceive one’s early environment as worse than it was.Fourthly, the sample in this study was almost entirely Caucasianand was taken from one geographic region. Finally, the findings areexclusively applicable within the frame of reference of Cloninger’stemperament theory.

Future studies may wish to employ longitudinal designs toassess the relative contribution of temperament and parentaloverprotection and their interacting effect in predicting ruminativebrooding and worry. In addition, direct measures of parentalstyles, through the involvement of parents and family as well asbehavioral and neurological measures of temperament, should beemployed. Finally, it would be important to evaluate the mediatingrole of the direct change in parental overprotection in reducing thetendency to engage in ruminative brooding and worry in longitudi-nal randomized controlled trials of prevention programmes.

These findings show that a temperament characterized by highlevels of harm avoidance or high levels of reward dependence isrespectively associated to the tendency to use worry or ruminativebrooding, and that a parental style characterized by high controland protectiveness is associated to both types of recurrent negativethinking independently of temperament.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders. Washington, DC: APA.

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuringclinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 56, 893–897.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the BeckDepression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical PsychologyReview, 8, 77–100.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventoryfor measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.

Borkovec, T. D. (1994). The nature, functions and origins of worry. In G. C. L. Davey &F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment(pp. 5–33). New York, USA: Wiley.

Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology and earlyexperience – A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113,82–98.

Celikel, F. C., Kose, S., Cumurcu, B. E., Erkorkmaz, U., Sayar, K., Borckardt, J. J., et al.(2009). Cloninger’s temperament and character dimensions of personality inpatients with major depressive disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50, 556–561.

Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in thedevelopment of anxiety states. Psychiatry Development, 4, 167–226.

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description andclassification of personality variants. A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry,44, 573–588.

Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1991). The tridimensionalpersonality questionnaire: US normative data. Psychological Reports, 69,1047–1057.

Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squaresregression. Biometrika, 37, 409–428.

Elovainio, I. M., Kivimäki, M., Puttonen, S., Heponiemi, T., Pulkki, L., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2004). Temperament and depressive symptoms: A population-based longitudinal study on Cloninger’s psychobiological temperament model.Journal of Affective Disorders, 83, 227–232.

Erber, R., & Wegner, D. M. (1996). Ruminations on the rebound. In R. S. Wyer, Jr.(Ed.), Ruminative thoughts. Advances in social cognition (pp. 73–79). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Erskine, J. A. K., Kvavilashvili, L., & Kornbrot, D. E. (2007). The predictors of thoughtsuppression in young and old adults: Effects of rumination, anxiety, and othervariables. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1047–1057.

Ettelt, S., Grabe, H. J., Ruhrmann, S., Buhtz, F., Hochrein, A., Kraft, S., et al. (2008).Harm avoidance in subjects with obsessive–compulsive disorder and theirfamilies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 107, 265–269.

Fresco, D. M., Mennin, D. S., Heimberg, R. G., & Turk, C. (2003). Using the Penn StateWorry Questionnaire to identify individuals with generalized anxiety disorder:A receiver operating characteristic analysis. Journal of Behaviour Therapy andExperimental Psychiatry, 34, 283–291.

Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P. M., & Arrindell, W. A. (1990). Anxiety, depression andperception of early parenting: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 10,251–277.

Grüner, K., Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). The relationship between anxiousrearing behaviours and anxiety disorders symptomatology in normal children.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 27–35.

Just, N., & Alloy, L. B. (1997). The response styles theory of depression: Tests and anextension of the theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 221–229.

Maremmani, I., Akiskal, H. S., Signoretta, S., Liguori, A., Perugi, G., & Cloninger, R.(2005). The relationship of Kraepelian affective temperaments (as measured byTEMPS-I) to the tridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ). Journal ofAffective Disorders, 85, 17–27.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.).Advances in social cognition (Vol. 9, pp. 1–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Messer, S. C., & Beidel, D. C. (1994). Psychosocial correlates of childhood anxietydisorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33,975–983.

Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development andvalidation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 28, 487–495.

Molina, S., & Borkovec, T. D. (1994). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire:Psychometric properties and associated characteristics. In G. C. L. Davey & F.Tallis (Eds.), Worrying, perspectives on theory, assessment, and treatment(pp. 265–283). New York, USA: Wiley.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., Merckelbach, H., & Hülsenbeck, P. (2000). Worry in childrenis related to perceived parental rearing and attachment. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 38, 487–497.

Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1998). Perceived parental rearing behaviour andanxiety disorders symptoms in normal children. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 25, 1199–1206.

Muris, P., & Ollendick, T. H. (2005). The role of temperament in the etiology of childpsychopathology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 271–290.

Nolan, S. A., Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Neuroticism and ruminativeresponse style as predictors of change in depressive symptomatology. CognitiveTherapy and Research, 22, 445–455.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders andmixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109,504–511.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G. (1999). Thanks for sharing that: Ruminators andtheir social support networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,801–814.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression andpost-traumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 115–121.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wolfson, A., Mumme, G., & Guskin, K. (1995). Helplessness inchildren of depressed and nondepressed mothers. Developmental Psychology, 31,377–387.

Oakley-Browne, M. A., Joyce, P. R., Wells, J. E., Bushnell, J. A., & Horneblow, A. R.(1995). Adverse parenting and other childhood experience as risk factors fordepression in women aged 18–44 years. Journal of Affective Disorders, 34, 13–23.

Overbeek, G., Ten Have, M., Vollebergh, W., & De Graaf, R. (2007). Parental lack ofcare and overprotection. Longitudinal associations with DSM-III R disorders.Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 87–93.

Papageorgiou, C., & Wells, A. (2001). Positive beliefs about depressive rumination:Development and preliminary validation of a self-report scale. Behavior Therapy,32, 13–26.

Parker, G., Barrett, E. A., & Hickie, I. A. (1992). From nurture to network: Examininglinks between perceptions of parenting received in childhood and social bondsin adulthood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 877–885.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. (1979). Parental bonding instrument. BritishJournal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.

C. Manfredi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 186–191 191

Rankin, P., Bentall, R., Hill, J., & Kinderman, P. (2005). Perceived relationships withparents and paranoid delusions: Comparisons of current ill, remitted andnormal participants. Psychopathology, 38, 16–25.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament (6th ed.. In W. Damon, R. Lerner,& N. Eisenberg (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, andpersonality development (Vol. 3, pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.

Spasojevic, J., & Alloy, L. B. (2002). Who becomes a depressive ruminator?Developmental antecedents of ruminative response style. Journal of CognitivePsychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 16, 405–419.

Starcevic, V., Uhlenhuth, E. H., Fallon, S., & Pathak, D. (1996). Personality dimensionsin panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders,37, 75–79.

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered:A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 247–259.

Verstraeten, K., Vasey, M. W., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2009). Temperament and riskfor depressive symptoms in adolescence: Mediation by rumination andmoderation by effortful control. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37,349–361.