J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
DOI 10.1007/s10896-016-9825-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Big Five Personality Traits and Physical Aggression
between Siblings in South Korea: an Actor-Partner
Interdependence Analysis
Jeong Jin Yu 1 & Gum Ok Lim 2 & Wendy C. Gamble 3
Published online: 19 May 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract The present study examined actor and partner ef-
fects of the Big Five personality traits, assessed by the NEO
Five-Factor Inventory, on physical aggression within sibling
dyadic interactions. Data were collected from 86 target ado-
lescents receiving counseling services, their mothers, and
closest-age siblings in South Korea. Mothers rated their chil-
dren’s personalities. Target adolescents and siblings reported
their own personalities, as well as their sibling’s and their own
perpetration of physical aggression against one another.
Substantial self-other (i.e., mother and sibling) agreement
was found for personality traits. Both actor and partner effects
were found for the negative associations between extraver-
sion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness and phys-
ical aggression among siblings. The current findings increase
our understanding of personality traits implicated in physical
aggression in general, and specifically aggression among
siblings.
Keywords Big Five personality traits . Physical aggression .
Siblings . Actor-partner interdependence model
Strong evidence has accumulated in the last decade linking
personality traits with physical aggression. Most of this work
has focused on either aggressiveness with peers (Asendorpf
* Jeong Jin Yu
yjj72@daum.net
1
Department of Psychology, Umeå University,
SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
2
Gyeonggi Youth Counseling and Welfare Center, Suwon, Gyeonggi,
South Korea
3
Fun Science for Kids, Tucson, AZ, USA
and van Aken 2003; Gleason et al. 2004; Pursell et al. 2008;
Tani et al. 2003) or general aggression (Barlett and Anderson
2012; Heaven 1996; Miller et al. 2003; Sharpe and Desai
2001; Tremblay and Ewart 2005). Yet, to our knowledge no
research has been conducted to determine whether personality
traits are related to physical aggression between siblings. This
issue is worth exploring given that biological siblings share,
on average, 50 % of their genes and family environmental
influences that can result in similar attitudes, values, and per-
sonality traits. Siblings exert influence on one another in their
everyday social exchanges and share considerable physical
aggression (Caffaro 2014; Yu and Gamble 2008, 2012).
Thus, the main purpose of this research was to examine the
association between personality traits and physical aggression
among siblings in order to advance our understanding of the
underlying etiology of sibling aggression from a dyadic
perspective.
The Big Five Personality Traits
Personality can be defined as relatively consistent and stable
characteristics that determine how people think, feel, act, and
behave (McCrae and Costa 1990). Although the last several
decades have seen the development of a substantial number of
measures of personality traits, the most popular and widely
accepted model of classifying personality traits is the Big Five
(McCrae and Costa 1997; McCrae et al. 2005). Big-Five the-
ory identifies five broad but distinct dimensions of personality
traits that include: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa
and McCrae 1992). Neuroticism refers to an individual’s pro-
pensity to experience psychological distress and irrational
thinking. Extraversion is concerned with an individual’s
proneness to positive emotions, excitement, stimulation, and
258
sociability. Openness to experience reflects an individual’s
willingness to consider different ideas, values, attitudes, and
experiences. Agreeableness is defined as an individual’s incli-
nation towards interpersonal relationships. Conscientiousness
denotes an individual’s ability to exercise control over im-
pulses and delay gratification. Researchers have established
strong reliability and validity of the Big Five personality traits
in the child and adolescent age range, gender, as well as across
cultures (McCrae and Costa 1997; McCrae et al. 2005, 2010;
Mervielde et al. 1995; Piedmont and Chae 1997; Yoon et al.
2002). This evidence has been extended to Korean samples,
where a five-factor model (FFM) of personality similar to that
of U.S. samples has been found (Piedmont and Chae 1997;
Yoon et al. 2002). The FFM also has been successfully repli-
cated in six other countries, including South Korea (McCrae
and Costa 1997). Given the array of evidence, all these authors
convincingly argue that personality structures are universal
across cultures.
Agreement on Personality Traits among Siblings
and Parents
While most research on personality traits relies on self-report
measures, exploring the extent to which self-ratings of person-
ality converge with those provided by significant others par-
tially addresses the issue of reliability and validity on person-
ality traits. Although self-reported personality traits may show
correspondence with individual behaviors and attitudes (e.g.,
Barlett and Anderson 2012; Sharpe and Desai 2001), other
family members’ perceptions could be at least equally predic-
tive of aggression in the context of family dynamics (Yu and
Gamble 2008, 2009). Ratings from a sibling may serve as a
valuable source of personality assessment because siblings
spend a great deal of time with each other, witness a wide
range of behavior, and judge each other on a daily basis
(Gamble and Yu 2008; Gamble et al. 2011; Lanthier 2000;
Yu and Gamble 2012). While there is still very scant evidence
for interjudge agreement between siblings on personality
traits, Lanthier (2000, p. 404) reported moderate agreement
(mean r = .41; rs = .31 [agreeableness] to .54 [extraversion])
across five personality traits between young adult siblings.
Sibling Physical Aggression
Physical aggression among siblings can be defined as any
deliberate physical acts or harm directed against siblings,
and this is a pervasive and widespread phenomenon (Caffaro
2014; Straus et al. 1996; Tippett and Wolke 2015; Yu and
Gamble 2012). For example, in one study, approximately
65 % of high school students engaged in physically aggressive
behavior against siblings during the last 12 months (Goodwin
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
and Roscoe 1990). Similarly, 48 % of undergraduate students
reported being victims of physical aggression by siblings, and
41 % reported being perpetrators of such behaviors during
childhood (Hardy 2001). Albeit to a lesser degree, adolescents
reported that they frequently hit or pushed around (24 %) or
beat up (11 %) their siblings (Duncan 1999). A recent survey
of high school students also reported that 16 % engaged in a
physical fight with siblings over the past 30 days (Johnson et
al. 2015). While these are all findings based on U.S. samples,
those from other countries are scarce. Tippett and Wolke’s
(2015) study is one of the limited studies focusing upon
sibling aggression among young adolescents in the United
Kingdom, and they found that 20 % of the respondents
perpetrated physical aggression toward siblings and 28 %
were victimized physically by siblings. Using a sample of
university students in Portugal, Relva et al. (2013) docu-
mented that 73 % reported physical assault toward siblings,
and 71 % were physically assaulted by siblings in the pre-
vious 12 months of this study. However, no known studies
exist on sibling physical aggression during adolescence in
South Korea.
There is some literature that reports that physical aggres-
sion between siblings is linked to a variety of maladaptive
outcomes. Characteristics of sibling relationships may carry
over into other relationships, as evidenced in associations be-
tween sibling physical aggression and peer bullying, while
physical sibling victimization is linked to peer victimization
(Bowes et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2015; Tippett and Wolke
2015; Yu and Gamble 2009). Physical aggression between
siblings during childhood is also predictive of later maladjust-
ment, such as delinquency, antisocial behavior, depression,
self-harm, and anxiety during adolescence (Bank et al. 1996;
Bowes et al. 2014; Button and Gealt 2010; Stocker et al.
2002). Thus, these findings call attention to the importance
of sibling physical aggression. By extension, an investigation
into adolescent sibling aggression in South Korea would be
fruitful, given the literature reviewed and the cultural evidence
that there is a hierarchical relation among siblings, whereby
older siblings are responsible for the care and support for
younger siblings and younger siblings respect older siblings,
heavily influenced by Confucian values (Barr 2016).
Association between the Big Five Personality Traits
and Physical Aggression
Investigators have demonstrated some interest in identifying
the Big Five personality traits associated with physical aggres-
sion, and they seem to have much to offer in this regard. As a
start, personality traits represent general tendencies to act or
react in certain ways and offer some clues to ways of coping
with stress (Penley and Tomaka 2002; McCrae and Costa
1997). Indeed, empirical evidence has accumulated over the
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
past decades suggesting that both agreeableness and consci-
entiousness are negatively associated with physical aggression
among children (Asendorpf and van Aken 2003; Book, Volk,
& Hosker, 2012), adolescents (Fossati et al. 2012; Gleason et
al. 2004; Miller et al. 2003; Pursell et al. 2008), or undergrad-
uate students (Sharpe and Desai 2001; Tremblay and Ewart
2005). Some studies show that extraversion is negatively as-
sociated with physical aggression among undergraduate stu-
dents (Sharpe and Desai 2001), while others show the oppo-
site association (Barlett and Anderson 2012; Fossati et al.
2012). The results of analysis looking for associations be-
tween neuroticism and physical aggression have similarly
been inconsistent, with some studies showing that neuroticism
is positively associated with physical aggression among ado-
lescents (Book et al., 2012; Fossati et al. 2012; Miller et al.
2003; Pursell et al. 2008) or undergraduate students (Sharpe
and Desai 2001), and others reporting the opposite (Barlett
and Anderson 2012). Openness, although the least studied
trait, has positively predicted physical aggression among un-
dergraduate students (Barlett and Anderson 2012).
Even aside from the fact that all of the above studies have
only examined samples from Western industrialized countries,
it is not yet clear whether or to what extent these results are
applicable to the sibling context. This warrants attention given
that most siblings share the same parents, grow up in the same
household, and compete for parental resources, or possess
characteristics that can amplify personalities and conflict. Of
particular importance is the fact that physical aggression
among siblings is widespread but has been less studied than
any other type of family violence (Caffaro 2014; Yu and
Gamble 2008, 2012), and this holds true in South Korea as
well. Taking all of these things together, exploring how the
Big Five personality constructs operate with regards to sibling
physical aggression among Korean adolescents would, thus,
make a unique contribution to the literature.
Current Study
Despite ongoing efforts to investigate the relations between
the Big Five personality traits and physically aggressive be-
havior in other relationships, sibling relationships have largely
been ignored. To what extent do the Big Five personality traits
relate to physical aggression against siblings in a sample of
youth? In attempting to answer this question in the context of
sibling dyads, it is important to bear in mind that each sibling
within the dyad is in an interdependent relationship that
should be considered simultaneously within a single model
(Greer et al. 2015; Kenny et al. 2006; Yu and Gamble 2008,
2012). With such issues in mind, the Actor-Partner
Interdependence Model (APIM: Kenny et al. 2006; Kashy
and Kenny 2000) was used to investigate the extent to which
target adolescents’ scores on each of the five dimensions of
259
personality are associated with their own (actor effects) and
sibling’s physical assault (partner effects) using structural
equation modeling (SEM). In the same manner, we estimated
how much the siblings’ scores on each of the Big Five dimen-
sions are associated with their own (actor effects) and target
adolescent’s physical assault (partner effects).
Because researchers in this area often rely on respondents’
self-reported data as the only source of information on person-
ality traits, we know too little about how personality traits
rated by well-acquainted observers, such as siblings and par-
ents, may be related to physical aggression in sibling relation-
ships. Therefore, both self- and informant reports of personal-
ity were employed to provide more objective and integrated
information. More specifically, the present study utilized six
sets of personality trait ratings: (a) the target’s self-rated per-
sonality, (b) the target’s sibling-rated personality, (c) the tar-
get’s mother-rated personality, (d) the sibling’s self-rated per-
sonality, (e) the sibling’s target-rated personality, and (f) the
sibling’s mother-rated personality.
Method
Participants
Target adolescents were recruited from Gyeonggi Youth
Counseling and Welfare Center, Suwon, South Korea where-
by counselors provide support and advice on various issues
that youth are struggling with or facing. Target adolescents
were receiving counseling services there because of their emo-
tional and behavioral problems. Target adolescents, their
mother, and sibling closest in age participated in this study.
A total of 86 families participated with each member of the
triad successfully completing the surveys. The target adoles-
cents (41 male) ranged in age from 12 to 20 years
(M = 16.1 years, SD = 1.72), whereas their siblings (45 male)
ranged in age from 12 to 22 years (M = 17.3 years, SD = 3.10).
Thirty-one target adolescents (36 %) were older than their
siblings. Sixteen of the target adolescents had dropped out of
school. There was, however, no statistically significant differ-
ence was found between the target adolescents who had
dropped out and those who were attending school with respect
to personality traits or physical assault toward siblings. The
sibling gender composition (older-younger) was 21 male-
male, 21 female-female, 20 male-female, and 24 female-
male pairs. Mothers’ ages ranged from 35 to 55 years
(M = 44.4 years, SD = 4.04). Most were married (n = 59,
69 %), remarried (n = 2, 2 %), or cohabitating (n = 1, 1 %),
whereas the remaining were separated or divorced (n = 20,
23 %) or widowed (n = 4, 5 %). Sixty-six percent of the
mothers (n = 57) were high school graduates, 19 % (n = 16)
college graduates, 2 % (n = 2) some college education, and
13 % (n = 11) less than a high school education. Most of the
260
participants came from low- to lower-middle income families.
Specifically, the majority (n = 54, 63 %) reported annual
household incomes of less than ₩30,000,000 (equivalent to
approximately $27,100 U.S. dollars), 23 % (n = 20) reported
incomes between ₩30,000,000–₩39,990,000 (between ap-
proximately 27,100 and 36,124 U.S. dollars), 4 % (n = 3)
reported incomes between ₩40,000,000–₩49,990,000 (be-
tween approximately 36,134 and 45,158 U.S. dollars), and
11 % (n = 9) reported incomes greater than ₩50,000,000
(equivalent to approximately $45,167 U.S. dollars).1
Measures
Personality Personality traits were measured by the NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae 1992)
designed to assess the Big-Five dimensions: neuroticism,
extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeable-
ness. Mothers completed ratings of their children’s person-
alities using the Korean version of the NEO-FFI (Ahn and
Lee 1996), which consists of 60 items rated on a 5-point
Likert format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). This is a well-validated and widely used
Korean version of the scale that has been shown to be
appropriate for use with adolescents (Kim et al. 2006).
Both target adolescents and siblings completed the ques-
tionnaires on their own and their siblings’ personalities.
Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .70 to .96 for mothers,
from .69 to .96 for target adolescents, and from .72 to .95
for siblings.
Sibling Physical Aggression The Physical Assault scale of
the revised Conflict Tactics Scales-sibling version or
CTS2-SP (Straus et al. 1996) was used to measure physical
aggression between siblings. The CTS2, consisting of 12
items, distinguishes between minor (e.g., grabbing, throw-
ing; five items) and severe (e.g., kicking, choking; seven
items) assaults (Straus et al. 1996). Straus et al. (1996)
suggest that the CTS2 can be used for siblings after modi-
fying the wording slightly, which produces the CTS2-SP. It
has been translated into Korean and has been adequately
validated (e.g., Cha and Sohn 2006). The target adolescents
and their siblings were asked to disclose perpetrating phys-
ical aggression towards each other on a scale of 1 (this has
never happened) to 6 (more than 20 times in the past year).
Cronbach’s alphas for the target adolescents and siblings
were .71 (minor), .58 (severe) and .84 (minor), .78 (severe),
respectively.
1
According to the Statistics Korea (2012), average monthly household
income was ₩3,842,000 in 2011 (annual income of approximately ₩46,
104,000). Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/portal/english/news/1/7/
index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=254308&pageNo=
1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
Results
Cross-Informant Correlations
We first calculated the correlations between the study variables
(see Table 1). The cross-informant correlations ranged from .51
to .85 for personality traits, all p < .001. Target adolescent-
mother agreement for the target adolescent’s personality traits
ranged from .64 (conscientiousness and openness to experi-
ence) to .82 (neuroticism and extraversion), target adolescent-
sibling ranged from .51 (openness to experience) to .85 (extra-
version), and mother-sibling ranged from .53 (openness to ex-
perience) to .82 (extraversion). Similarly, sibling-mother agree-
ment on the sibling’s personality traits ranged from .70
(agreeableness) to .85 (conscientiousness), sibling-target ado-
lescent ranged from .65 (agreeableness) to .85 (extraversion),
and mother-target adolescent ranged from .56 (openness to ex-
perience) to .83 (extraversion). Correlations between the two
different informants’ ratings of minor and severe forms of phys-
ical violence ranged from .57 to .68, all p < .001.
Paired Samples T-Tests
Paired-samples t-tests were calculated to compare personality
traits or sibling physical aggression in target adolescents with
closest-age siblings. Target adolescents self-reported signifi-
cantly higher neuroticism and significantly lower extraver-
sion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than siblings did.
Target adolescents scored significantly higher on mothers’
ratings of neuroticism and significantly lower on mothers’
ratings of extraversion, openness to experience, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness than siblings. In the same manner,
target adolescents scored significantly higher on sibling’s rat-
ings of neuroticism and significantly lower on sibling’s ratings
of extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness than they rated siblings. With regard to per-
petration, siblings were more likely than target adolescents to
report a higher frequency of severe physical assault (see Table
2). However, in terms of prevalence rates, neither target ado-
lescents nor siblings were more likely to engage in minor
(χ2(1) = .75, ns) or severe (χ2(1) = .43, ns) physical assaults.
In addition, 66 (76.7 %; 19 were older than their siblings) and
61 (70.9 %; 22 were older than their siblings) target adoles-
cents reported perpetrating minor and severe physical assaults
on their siblings, respectively, while 61 (70.9 %; 44 were older
than target adolescents) and 57 siblings (66.3 %; 40 were older
than target adolescents) did so in the past 12 months. Chi-
square analyses revealed that among both target adolescents
(χ2(1) = 4.06, p < .05 ) and siblings (χ2(1) = 6.09, p < .05 ),
older siblings were more likely than younger siblings to per-
petrate minor physical aggression, whereas there were no such
differences in severe physical aggression among target ado-
lescents (χ2(1) = .00, ns) or siblings (χ2(1) = 2.84, p < .10).
Table 1 Intercorrelations for the NEO-FFI and sibling physical aggression

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. mtN
2. mtE −.66***
3. mtO −.03 .12
4. mtA −.11 −.02 .54***
5. mtC −.17*** −.11 .58*** .61***
6. mnN −.35** .43*** −.19† −.38*** −.33**
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267

7. mnE .13 −.29** .27* .50*** .44*** −.86***

8. mnO .10 −.19† .25* .44*** .34** −.65*** .69***
9. mnA .02 −.07 .22* .40*** .14 −.42*** .43*** .64***
10. mnC .14 −.15 .11 .24* .19† −.62*** .48*** .75*** .58***
11. tN .82*** −.57*** .20† .08 .06 −.38*** .23* .15 .10 .12
12. tE −.71*** .82*** .09 .06 −.08 .29** −.15 −.06 .09 −.03 −.71***
13. tO .02 .01 .64*** .29** .43*** −.16 .21† −.19† .19† .11 .21† .10
14. tA −.24* .14 .41*** .76*** .34** −.13 .32*** .27* .31** .18 −.14 .30** .31**
15. tC −.35** .14 .45*** .41*** .64*** −.12 .26* .25* .21† .09 −.29** .32** .50*** .46***
16. tsN −.34** .37*** −.15 −.30** −.21† .79*** −.72*** −.51*** −.25* −.52*** −.31** .32** −.02 −.17 −.10
17. tsE .17 −.30** .16 .44*** .35** −.71*** .83*** .50*** .19 .31** .16 −.19† .13 .37*** .29** .77***
18. tsO .02 −.15 .17 .22* .36** −.34** .39*** .56*** .31** .45*** .02 −.09 .22* .17 .29** −.37*** .48***
19. tsA −.11 .11 .14 .41*** .19† −.19† .32** .54*** .65*** .39*** −.07 .22* .12 .43*** .33** −.24* .33** .56***
20. tsC .09 −.10 .10 .21† .20† −.45*** .40*** .62*** .38*** .78*** −.05 .04 .06 .20† .25* −.57*** .46*** .71***
21. sN −.40*** .42*** −.25* −.30** −.21† .80*** −.66*** −.44*** −.20† −.45 −.37*** .32** −.13 −.18† −.08 .82*** −.72*** −.31**
22. sE .16 −.32** .25* .44*** .34** −.77*** .82*** .57*** .26* .43*** .18 −.16 .14 .35** .22* −.74*** .85*** .42***
23. sO .12 −.31** .23* .25* .35** −.48*** .45*** .71*** .39*** .64*** .09 −.13 .23* .14 .29* −.48*** .41*** .69***
24. sA .07 −.13 .28** .27* .21† −.33** .31** .66*** .70*** .59*** .08 .06 .24* .29** .28** −.31** .21† .53***
25. sC .16 −.19† .09 .09 .13 −.49 .35** .60*** .42*** .85*** .10 −.07 .12 .09 .11 −.51*** .30** .53***
26. stN .72*** −.54*** .07 −.15 −.03 −.32** .08 .08 −.05 .17 .69*** −.67*** .11 −.29** −.25* −.38*** .18 .20†
27. stE −.70*** .82*** .03 .05 −.10 .41*** −.21 −.13 .01 −.10 −.64*** .85*** −.00 .27* .15 .39*** −.31** −.20†
28. stO −.07 −.08 .53*** .34** .45*** −.10 .14 .06 .11 −.05 .16 −.04 .51*** .26* .28** .01 .02 .03
29. stA −.22* −.00 .44*** .81*** .48*** −.31** .50*** .32** .31** .10 −.08 .17 .31** .77*** .44*** −.21† .44*** .13
30. stC −.21† −.02 .46*** .60*** .69*** −.30** .51*** .34** .33** .04 .05 .07 .42*** .45*** .60*** −.16 .36** .14
31. tM .63 .20† −.19 −.37** −.34** .27* −.36** −.29** −.29** −.15 −.08 .10 −.23* −.33** −.26* .23* −.33** −.25*
32. tS −.00 .21† −.15 −.28* −.32** −.31** −.35** −.29** −.21† −.20† −.12 .10 −.31** −.25* −.26* .24* −.32** −.24*
33. sM −.02 .24* −.33** −.26* −.40*** .24* −.31** −.41*** −.38*** −.18 −.20† .12 −.32** −.12 −.27* .12 −.24* −.42***
34. sS −.02 .19† −.35** −.32** −.36** .25* −.32** −.48*** −.50*** −.26* −.18 .10 −.34** −.20† −.31** .14 −.22* −.43***

Variable 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

1. mtN
2. mtE
3. mtO
4. mtA
5. mtC
6. mnN
261
Table 1 (continued)
262

Variable 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

7. mnE
8. mnO
9. mnA
10. mnC
11. tN
12. tE
13. tO
14. tA
15. tC
16. tsN
17. tsE
18. tsO
19. tsA
20. tsC .53***
21. sN −.07 −.41***
22. sE .23* .45*** −.83***
23. sO .40*** .70*** −.46*** .56***
24. sA .65*** .59*** −.25* .35** .69***
25. sC .31** .80*** −.48*** .43*** .68*** .58***
26. stN −.11† .17 −.43*** .14 .23* .10 .31**
27. stE .23* −.10 .47*** −.29** −.25* −.06 −.23* −.76***
28. stO .05 −.11 .01 .00 .13 .13 −.10 .05 .02
29. stA .36** .11 −.23* .45*** .11 .17 −.08 −.39*** .22* .44***
30. stC .32** −.01 −.12 .34** .13 .15 −.11 −.34** .14 .50*** .74***
31. tM −.24* −.20† .18 −.31** −.27* −.28* −.12 .08 .12 −.25* −.41*** −.44***
32. tS −.11 −.24* .22* −.27* −.28** −.22* −.19† −.04 .19† −.22 −.30** −.35** .86***
33. sM −.26* −.21† .13 −.30** −.48*** −.44*** −.17 −.02 .20† −.23* −.22** −.42*** .63*** .57***
34. sS −.34** −.28** .12 −.26* −.51*** −.53*** −.23* −.06 .18† −.26* −.24* −.38*** .68*** .57*** .89***

mt mother’s ratings for target child, mn mother’s ratings for nontarget child, t target child’s self-report, ts target child’s ratings for sibling, s sibling’s self-report, st sibling’s ratings for target child, N
neuroticism, E extraversion, O openness, A agreeableness, C conscientiousness, M ratings of minor forms of physical violence, S ratings of severe forms of physical violence
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267 263

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the Big Five personality traits and .071; Openness for Experience, χ2(30) = 50.47, p < .05,
physical assault (N = 86 dyads)
CFI = .96, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .090; Agreeableness,
Measure Target Sibling Paired t χ2(31) = 42.46, p < .10, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA =
adolescent tests .066; Conscientiousness, χ2(30) = 57.28, p < .01, CFI = .96,
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) TLI = .94, RMSEA = .103).
Mother report Neuroticism 3.56 (.56) 2.75 (.61) 7.84***
We then proceeded to separately estimate the five structural
Extraversion 2.80 (.69) 3.18 (.67) −3.24**
models. Because the number of parameters in the structural
models is the same as that in the measurement models, all fit
Openness 2.84 (.39) 3.07 (.38) −4.64***
indices for the structural models remain the same as those for
Agreeableness 2.71 (.59) 3.37 (.56) −9.62***
the measurement models. The unstandardized path coeffi-
Conscientiousness 2.18 (.66) 3.18 (.74) −10.42***
cients are presented in Table 3. Results revealed that neuroti-
Self-report Neuroticism 3.66 (.69) 2.74 (.64) 7.76***
cism had no actor effects on physical assault between siblings.
Extraversion 2.79 (.80) 3.27 (.61) −4.13***
While target adolescents’ neuroticism was not significantly
Openness 3.10 (.40) 3.19 (.43) −1.53
associated with their siblings’ physical assault, siblings’ neu-
Agreeableness 3.03 (.40) 3.37 (.35) −7.12***
roticism was significantly positively associated with target
Conscientiousness 2.75 (.53) 3.37 (.65) −7.23***
adolescents’ physical assault. Siblings’ extraversion was sig-
Sibling report Neuroticism 3.57 (.63) 2.66 (.63) 8.06***
nificantly negatively related to their own physical assault,
Extraversion 2.74 (.80) 3.15 (.64) −3.27**
while no such actor effect was found for target adolescents.
Openness 2.82 (.42) 3.00 (.39) −2.81**
Siblings’ extraversion was negatively associated with target
Agreeableness 2.47 (.65) 3.06 (.60) −7.67**
adolescents’ physical assault, whereas no significant partner
Conscientiousness 2.18 (.69) 3.09 (.75) −8.22***
effect was discovered for siblings’ physical assault. Whereas
Minor physical assault 1.65 (.65) 1.78 (1.00) −1.58 siblings’ openness to experience was significantly negatively
Severe physical assault 1.39 (.42) 1.53 (.71) −2.23* related to their own physical assault, target adolescents’ open-
df = 85. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 ness to experience was not significantly related to their own
physical assault. Target adolescents’ openness to experience
was significantly negatively related to siblings’ physical as-
Measurement and Structural Models sault, and siblings’ openness to experience was also signifi-
cantly negatively related to target adolescents’ physical as-
The general SEM model comprises two parts, a measurement sault. Actor effects were found for both target adolescents
model and a structural model. Measurement models that de- and siblings, as their agreeableness was significantly negative-
scribe the relations between the observed measures and the ly associated with their own physical assault. However, no
underlying latent constructs were first developed via confir- partner effects were found between one partner’s agreeable-
matory factor analysis and then structural models that test the ness and the other partner’s physical assault. Similarly, two
hypothesized relationships among the latent variables shown significant actor effects were found for both target adolescents
in Fig. 1 were tested using AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle 2009). and siblings as their conscientiousness was found to be nega-
Multiple fit indices were used to evaluate overall model fit: tively associated with their own physical assault. Whereas
the χ2 statistic, the comparative fit indices (CFI), Tucker- target adolescents’ conscientiousness was negatively associat-
Lewis Index (TLI), and the root mean squared error approxi- ed with their siblings’ physical assault, no significant partner
mation (RMSEA). Models with CFI and TLI values greater effect was found for siblings’ physical assault.
than .95 and RMSEA values less than .06 are deemed accept-
able (Hu and Bentler 1999).
We estimated the five separate measurement models; how- Discussion
ever, we found negative residual variances for the target ado-
lescents’ minor physical aggression or siblings’ serious phys- The current work fills a void in the literature by examining
ical aggression variables. To overcome this problem, we re- actor and partner effects of the Big Five personality traits on
estimated the model with this variance fixed to zero. Because physical aggression between sibling pairs based on a sample
the magnitude of the negative variance estimate was small, our of Korean youth utilizing the APIM analytical technique.
results remained essentially the same. All factor loadings (in- Multiple sources (i.e., self, sibling, and mother) of information
cluding personality traits and physical aggression) were great- on personality traits lend greater credibility to the findings. As
er than .65 (all ps < .001). Each of the five models fitted the such, our findings provide important new insights into under-
data adequately (Neuroticism, χ2(30) = 41.17, p < .10, standing physical aggression between siblings from a dyadic
CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .066; Extraversion, perspective by explicitly taking into account both younger and
χ2(30) = 42.96, p < .10, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = older siblings’ personality traits. In a broad sense, we found
264
e e e e
Mother Self- Sibling
report report report
Target adolescent’s
personality
p
p
Sibling’s
personality
Mother Self- Target adoles-
report cent report
report
e e e e
Fig. 1 Illustration of relations between personality traits and physical aggression among siblings using APIM. Paths a represent actor effects, while paths
p indicate partner effects. Structural path coefficients and critical ratios are presented in Table 2. e = error, d = disturbance term
significant actor and partner effects of personality on sibling
physical aggression.
There was moderate to high interrater consistency for the
target’s personality factors, consistent with previous reports
(Connolly et al. 2007). More specifically, the self-other corre-
lation tended to be highest for extraversion and lowest for
openness to experience. Similarly, interrater agreement for
the sibling’s personality factors was found to be moderate to
high. The self-other correlation tended to be highest for extra-
version or conscientiousness and lowest for agreeableness or
openness to experience. Our results are partially consistent
with the results of a meta-analysis reporting highest agreement
for extraversion and lowest agreement for agreeableness based
on 36 studies of adult samples (Connolly et al. 2007). In the
same vein, college students and their nearest-age sibling have
reported highest agreement for extraversion and lowest agree-
ment for agreeableness (Lanthier 2000). In other words, the
present study adds to the literature by showing that extraver-
sion is more easily observable and identifiable than other per-
sonality traits, such as openness to experience and agreeable-
ness within the family context (e.g., Funder and Dobroth
1987). Thus, the present study shows that not only mothers
but also adolescent siblings can serve as reliable informants on
personality traits.
Target adolescents receiving counseling services differed
from their siblings closest in age in having a significantly
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
e
Minor Serious
a Target adolescent’s
physical assault
d
d
a Sibling’s
physical assault
Minor Serious
e
higher mean neuroticism score, but significantly lower mean
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and con-
scientiousness scores. It has been well documented that per-
sonality traits exert direct and indirect effects on the develop-
ment of maladjustment (DeNeve and Cooper 1998). For ex-
ample, high neuroticism and low extraversion are associated
with maladaptive coping strategies, hopelessness, anxiety, and
depression (DeNeve and Cooper 1998; Vreeke and Muris
2012). Adding to prior work, current findings suggest that
further attention to personality traits is warranted to screen
potential clients for appropriateness for therapy.
Although no differences between target adolescents and
their closest-age siblings were found in prevalence rates of
minor or severe forms of physical aggression, siblings report-
ed higher levels of severe physical aggression towards target
adolescents than vice versa. This is somewhat contrary to our
expectation because siblings in the present study were per-
ceived as having more favorable personalities. Although the
CTS2 used in the present study differentiates between minor
and severe acts of physical aggression, measures of other
types (e.g., reactive vs. proactive) or aspects (e.g., duration)
of physical aggression between siblings would shed light on
the bigger picture. In terms of sibling birth order, it is worth
noting that although no significant differences were observed
in severe forms of physical assault, older siblings, whether
they were target adolescents or not, were more likely than
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267 265

Table 3 Parameter estimates from the APIM (N = 86 dyads) neuroticism were positively related to target adolescents’
APIM parameters Estimate Z physical aggression, in line with data obtained from several
studies (Book et al., 2012; Fossati et al. 2012; Miller et al.
Actor effects 2003; Pursell et al. 2008; Sharpe and Desai 2001).
Neuroticismt → Physical assaultt .21 1.34 Neuroticism is the general tendency toward negative affective
Neuroticisms → Physical assaults .30 1.39 states, irrational thinking, and impulsive behavior (DeNeve
Partner effects and Cooper 1998; Vreeke and Muris 2012). Thus, those high
Neuroticismt → Physical assaults −.02 −.10 on trait neuroticism may be more prone to psychological dis-
Neuroticisms → Physical assaultt .39** 2.60 tress and impulsiveness. The significant actor and partner ef-
Actor effects fects indicated that siblings higher in extraversion were less
Extraversiont → Physical assaultt .05 .44 likely to perpetrate physical aggression and to elicit target
Extraversions → Physical assaults −.41* −2.32 adolescents’ physical assault in line with a previous study
Partner effects (Sharpe and Desai 2001). An extraverted person is likely to
Extraversiont → Physical assaults .15 .86 seek and enjoy the company of others and be sociable and
Extraversions → Physical assaultt −.37** −3.10 upbeat in general; thus, youth with high extraversion may
Actor effects create fewer physically conflictual situations in the sibling
Opennesst → Physical assaultt −.36 −1.57 context too. While there are few studies that have found a
Opennesss → Physical assaults −1.56*** −4.37 significant association between openness to experience and
Partner effects physical aggression, the current findings revealed that sib-
Opennesst → Physical assaults −.70* −2.37 lings’ openness was significantly and negatively linked to
Opennesss → Physical assaultt −.57* −2.18 their own physical aggression against target adolescents. In
Actor effects addition, target adolescents’ and siblings’ openness was sig-
Agreeablenesst → Physical assaultt −.42** −2.92
nificantly and negatively related to each others’ physical ag-
Agreeablenesss → Physical assaults −1.05*** −4.50
gression. Thus, the actor effect was found for siblings and
Partner effects
partner effects were found for both target adolescents and
siblings. It appears that openness to experience characterized
Agreeablenesst → Physical assaults −.08 −.45
by greater tolerance for different behavior, attitudes, or dispo-
Agreeablenesss → Physical assaultt −.25 −1.54
sitions, particularly, may serve as a significant deterrent to
Actor effects
physical aggression between siblings. The significant actor
Conscientiousnesst → Physical assaultt −.50*** −3.79
effects indicated that target adolescents and siblings higher
Conscientiousnesss → Physical assaults −.32* −2.18
in agreeableness were less likely to exhibit physical aggres-
Partner effects
sion toward each other. Indeed, agreeableness has been found
Conscientiousnesst → Physical assaults −.70*** −3.75
to be closely linked to motivation to maintain harmonious
Conscientiousnesss → Physical assaultt −.11 −1.07
interpersonal relations and to seek a constructive resolution
t target adolescent, s sibling. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (Jensen-Campbell et al. 2003). Conscientiousness may predis-
Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented pose youth to act less impulsively toward their siblings by
controlling themselves, and both actor and partner effects sup-
ported this. That is, significant actor effects were found for
younger siblings to perpetrate minor forms of physical assault. both target adolescents and siblings, such that those high in
Because Confucianism that endorses older siblings’ control conscientiousness were less likely to perpetrate physical ag-
and leadership over younger siblings still remains a fairly gression against their sibling. In addition, significant partner
substantial cultural tradition in South Korea, a rigid hierarchi- effects were found for siblings such that target adolescents
cal power structure between older and younger siblings might high in conscientiousness were less likely to elicit their sib-
contribute to the greater aggressiveness of older siblings. ling’s physical aggression.
Alternatively, older siblings, whose physical development The results taken as a whole suggest that not only the
was more advanced than that of younger siblings, might ex- target adolescent’s own personality traits but also the sib-
ploit their physical advantage. Future researchers might want ling’s personality traits have a sizeable impact on one’s
to explore this issue with a scale that measures adherence to physical aggression toward siblings. Given the fact that
Confucianism. sibling relationships are interdependent in nature, the pres-
The present study examined actor and partner effects of ent study echoes the importance of dyadic research ap-
each sibling’s personality traits on both target adolescent’s proaches to understanding the dynamics of sibling interac-
own and his/her sibling’s physical aggression in a single tions, including physical aggression (Kenny et al. 2006; Yu
APIM analysis. Results showed that sibling’s levels of and Gamble 2008, 2012).
266
Our findings should be interpreted with caution due to
some limitations; limitations that nevertheless draw attention
to avenues for future research. First, data collected at a single
point in time precluded causality or directionality and thus
future longitudinal research is needed to lend further credence
to our findings. Second, the fact that the sample size in our
study was small and target adolescents were recipients of
counseling services may impose limits on the generalizability
of our findings to other clinically ascertained samples or more
diverse community samples. Therefore, our findings await
replication with a larger sample of sibling dyads. By further
extension, cultural values (e.g., Confucianism) may moderate
the association between personality traits and physical aggres-
sion among siblings. Thus, it would be interesting for future
research to examine whether the present findings are moder-
ated by cultural values. Finally, self-reported aggression mea-
sures are prone to social desirability bias, which might com-
promise the results of the study. Researchers will need to ame-
liorate these effects through careful methodological consider-
ations, such as sibling ratings of aggressiveness, self-ratings of
victimization, and controlling for social desirability (Tan and
Grace 2008).
Conclusion
The present study is the first, to our knowledge, to evaluate
actor and partner effects for relations between the Big Five
personality traits obtained from multiple informants related to
physical aggression among sibling dyads. Self- and other-
ratings of the target’s personality produced very similar results
and thus, the present study shows that mothers and adolescent
siblings can serve as reliable reporters of personality. Of par-
ticular importance are the significant associations between
personality traits and physical aggression between siblings
from a dyadic perspective, including actor and partner effects.
It is not only an adolescent’s own personality but also a sib-
ling’s personality that serve as possible correlates of physical
aggression between siblings. Our findings have direct links to
practical implications to prevent or reduce physical aggression
between siblings. At the most basic level, it will be more
efficient to have both younger and older siblings in various
interventions to regulate physical aggression against siblings
and to further enhance their well-being. The next recommen-
dation is to rigorously assess both siblings’ personality traits at
the outset of therapy or counseling for screening purposes to
identify their own strengths and weaknesses and further help
them capitalize on their strengths and bolster their weak-
nesses. Generally, not only can extreme levels of personality
traits be identified early in life, but they can also be amelio-
rated at a younger age through proper parenting. It is our hope
that future research will delve further into personality traits
and their associations with not only physical but also other
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
types of aggression between siblings and the present study
may serve as a springboard for future investigations on these
issues.
References
Ahn, C., & Lee, K. (1996). Clinical application of NEO personality in-
ventory. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 8,
65–75.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user’s guide. Crawfordville: Amos
Development Corporation.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Validity of big five
personality judgments in childhood: a 9 year longitudinal study.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 1–17.
Bank, L., Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. B. (1996). Negative sibling inter-
action patterns as predictors of later adjustment problems in adoles-
cent and young adult males. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relation-
ships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 197–229). Norwood:
Ablex.
Barlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). Direct and indirect relations
between the Big 5 personality traits and aggressive and violent be-
havior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 870–875.
Barr, M. D. (2016). Confucianism: Classical, neo- and Bnew^. In J.
Haynes (Ed.), Routledge handbook of religion and politics (2nd
ed., pp. 55–69). New York: Routledge.
Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and
personality: An adative approach. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 218–223.
Bowes, L., Wolke, D., Joinson, C., Lereya, S. T., & Lewis, G. (2014).
Sibling bullying and risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm: a
prospective cohort study. Pediatrics, 134, e1032–e1039.
Button, D. M., & Gealt, R. (2010). High risk behaviors among victims of
sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 131–140.
Caffaro, J. V. (2014). Sibling abuse trauma: Assessment and intervention
strategies for children, families, and adults (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Cha, B. K., & Sohn, J. N. (2006). Stress, anger, anger expression, and
depression between battered women and non-battered women.
Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing, 15, 187–196.
Connolly, J. E., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The conver-
gent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: a
meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 15, 110–117.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised
NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inven-
tory (NEO-FFI). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-
analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: an investigation of
intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14, 871–886.
Fossati, A., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (2012). Bullying as a style of
personal relating: personality characteristics and interpersonal as-
pects of self-reports of bullying behaviours among Italian adolescent
high school students. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 325–339.
Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits:
properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409–418.
J Fam Viol (2017) 32:257–267
Gamble, W. C., & Yu, J. J. (2008). Adolescent siblings’ looking glass
self-orientations: patterns of liabilities and associations with parent-
ing. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 860–874.
Gamble, W. C., Yu, J. J., & Kuehn, E. D. (2011). Adolescent sibling
relationship quality and adjustment: sibling trustworthiness and
modeling, as factors directly and indirectly influencing these asso-
ciations. Social Development, 20, 605–623.
Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. S. (2004).
Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in adolescence.
Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43–61.
Goodwin, M. P., & Roscoe, B. (1990). Sibling violence and agonistic
interactions among middle adolescents. Adolescence, 25, 451–467.
Greer, K. B., Campione-Barr, N., & Lindell, A. K. (2015). Body talk:
siblings’ use of positive and negative body self-disclosure and asso-
ciations with sibling relationship quality and body-esteem. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1567–1579.
Hardy, M. S. (2001). Physical aggression and sexual behavior among sib-
lings: a retrospective study. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 255–268.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency: anal-
ysis of the BBig Five^ personality dimensions. Personality and
Individual Differences, 20, 47–54.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covari-
ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K. T.
(2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality devel-
opment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085.
Johnson, R. M., Duncan, D. T., Rothman, E. F., Gilreath, T. D.,
Hemenway, D., Molnar, B. E., et al. (2015). Fighting with siblings
and with peers among urban high school students. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2221–2237.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads
and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of re-
search methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kim, D.-I., Hong, S., & In, H.-Y. (2006). A validation study of personality
assessment inventory based on Big Five factors for adolescents in
Korea. Journal of Yeolin Education, 14, 289–305.
Lanthier, R. L. (2000). Intersibling agreement for Golderberg’s big five
adjective markers. Psychological Reports, 86, 400–406.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New
York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a
human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles
of Cultures Project (2005). Personality profiles of cultures:
Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 407–425.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., Gelfand, M.
J., Costa Jr., P. T., et al. (2010). The validity and structure of culture-
level personality scores: data from ratings of young adolescents.
Journal of Personality, 78, 815–838.
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big-
Five as a model for teachers’ ratings of individual differences among
children aged 4–22 years. Personality and Individual Differences,
18, 525–534.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Examining antisocial
behavior through the lens of the five factor model of personality.
Aggressive Behavior, 29, 497–514.
267
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five,
emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228.
Piedmont, R. L., & Chae, J.-H. (1997). Cross-cultural generalizability of
the five-factor model of personality: development and validation of
the NEO PI-R for Koreans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
28, 131–155.
Pursell, G. R., Laursen, B., Rubin, K. H., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-
Krasnor, L. (2008). Gender differences in patterns of association
between prosocial behavior, personality, and externalizing prob-
lems. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 472–481.
Relva, I. C., Fernandes, O. M., & Costa, R. (2013). Psychometric prop-
erties of revised conflict tactics scales: Portuguese sibling version
(CTS2-SP). Journal of Family Violence, 27, 577–585.
Sharpe, J. P., & Desai, S. (2001). The revised NEO personality inventory
and the MMPI-2 psychopathology five in the prediction of aggres-
sion. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 505–518.
Statistics Korea. (2012). Household Income & Expenditure. Retrieved
from http://kostat.go.kr/portal/english/news/1/7/index.board?
bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=254308&pageNo=1&rowNum=
10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=.
Stocker, C. M., Burwell, R. A., & Briggs, M. L. (2002). Sibling conflict in
middle childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adoles-
cence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 50–57.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): development
and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,
283–316.
Tan, L., & Grace, R. C. (2008). Social desirability and sexual offenders: a
review. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 61–
87.
Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003).
Bullying and the big five: a study of childhood personality and
participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology
International, 24, 131–146.
Tippett, N., & Wolke, D. (2015). Aggression between siblings: associa-
tions with home environment and peer bullying. Aggressive
Behavior, 41, 14–24.
Tremblay, P. F., & Ewart, L. A. (2005). The Buss and Perry aggression
questionnaire and its relation to values, the Big Five, provoking
hypothetical situations, alcohol consumption patterns, and alcohol
expectancies. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 337–346.
Vreeke, L. J., & Muris, P. (2012). Relations between behavioral inhibi-
tion, Big Five personality factors, and anxiety disorder symptoms in
non-clinical and clinically anxious children. Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 43, 884–894.
Yoon, K., Schmidt, F., & Ilies, R. (2002). Cross-cultural construct validity
of the five-factor model of personality among Korean employees.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 217–235.
Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2008). Familial correlates of overt and rela-
tional aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655–673.
Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2009). Adolescent relations with their
mothers, siblings, and peers: an exploration of the roles of maternal
and adolescent self-criticism. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 38, 672–683.
Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2012). Sibling maltreatment. In R. J.
Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 2717–2725).
New York: Springer.