J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
DOI 10.1007/s10862-006-9037-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Relations of Neuroticism and Attentional Control with Symptoms
of Anxiety and Aggression in Non-Clinical Children
Cor Meesters · Peter Muris · Bernadette van Rooijen
Published online: 25 October 2006

C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006
Abstract The present study examined the associations
between neuroticism and attentional control and the oc-
currence of symptoms of psychopathology in children. A
large sample of non-clinical children aged 9 to 17 years
(N = 409) completed questionnaires measuring neuroti-
cism, attentional control, and symptoms of anxiety and ag-
gression. Results demonstrated that neuroticism was posi-
tively associated with symptoms of anxiety and aggression,
whereas attentional control was negatively linked to such
symptoms. Regression analyses showed that both neuroti-
cism and attentional control accounted for an independent
and significant proportion of the variance in children’s anxi-
ety and aggression symptoms. Further, tentative support was
found for the notion that neuroticism and attentional control
have an interactive effect on symptoms of anxiety and ag-
gression. Results did not show that age had an influence on
the emergence of this interaction.
Keywords Neuroticism . Attentional control .
Temperament . Anxiety . Aggression . Children
Epidemiological research has shown that a substantial pro-
portion of children and adolescents come to suffer from
at least one psychiatric disorder (e.g., Costello, Mustillo,
Erkanli, Keeler, & Angold, 2003; Ford, Goodman, &
Meltzer, 2003; Verhulst, Van Der Ende, Ferdinand, &
C. Meesters (
) · B. van Rooijen
Department of Medical, Clinical, and Experimental Psychology,
Maastricht University,
P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
e-mail: c.meesters@dep.unimaas.nl
P. Muris
Institute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Kasius, 1997). The most frequently diagnosed disorders can
be roughly categorized in two domains: internalising prob-
lems (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalising problems
(e.g., disruptive behaviour; Achenbach, 1991). Research has
made clear that childhood disorders do not have their origins
in a single factor, but originate from the dynamic interplay
of multiple predisposing and protective influences. This has
led to the formulation of testable multi-factorial models for
the origins of the most common childhood psychiatric disor-
ders (e.g., Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002; Vasey & Dadds,
2001).
While acknowledging the complexity of the aetiology
of psychiatric disorders, it is also clear that temperamental
factors play an important role in the formation of child
psychopathology. Earlier theories of temperament have
stressed the relevance of the reactive personality trait of
neuroticism, which can be defined as general emotional
instability (Eysenck, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999). Neu-
roticism consists of lower-order traits such as susceptibility
to fear and sadness and proneness to anger/frustration (see
Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Research has demonstrated that
neuroticism is clearly associated with internalising and
externalising problems in youths (Barbaranelli, Caprara,
Rabasca, & Pastorelli, 2003; Ehrler, Evans, & McGhee,
1999; Huey & Weisz, 1997; John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt,
& Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994; Muris, Winands, & Horselen-
berg, 2003). More current approaches adopt the notion that,
besides neuroticism, regulative temperament factors are also
involved in the pathogenesis of childhood psychopathology.
In particular, the regulative trait labelled as effortful control
would be relevant in this context. Effortful control can be
defined as the ability to inhibit a dominant response and
activate a subdominant response (Rothbart & Bates, 1998),
and involves both attentional control (i.e., the ability to focus
and shift attention as needed) and inhibitory control (i.e., the
Springer
150
ability to inhibit behaviour as appropriate). Effortful control
is understood as a temperament trait that emerges at the end
of the first year and functions to regulate the more reactive
aspects of temperament (Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Ahadi,
1994; Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994). Low levels of
effortful control have frequently been found to be associated
with both internalizing behaviors such as anxiety and social
withdrawal (e.g., Calkins & Fox, 2002; Derryberry &
Rothbart, 1997; Murray & Kochanska, 2002) and externaliz-
ing behaviors such as aggression, inattention, and hyperac-
tivity (e.g., Barkley, 1997; Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, White, &
Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996; Olson, Schilling, & Bates, 1999).
Studies examining the contributions of both reactive and
regulative temperament factors to child psychopathology
are sparse. One exception is a study by Eisenberg et al.
(2001) who investigated levels of different types of negative
temperament, such as fear, sadness, and anger/frustration
(which can also be considered as elements of neuroticism),
and effortful control in 4- to 8-year-old children with either
externalizing problem behaviour, internalizing problem
behaviour, or no problem behaviour. Results showed that
children with internalizing problems and children with
externalizing problems both scored high on emotionality
and in particular on the lower-order traits that are relevant
for both types of problems, respectively, fear/sadness and
anger/frustration. This confirms the notion that childhood
psychopathology is associated with high levels of neuroti-
cism and low levels of effortful control, and indicating that a
temperamental vulnerability to childhood psychopathology
consists of a combination of reactive and regulative traits.
The observation that neuroticism and effortful control
have additive effects on the manifestation of psychopatho-
logical symptoms in youths, was taken even one step further
by Lonigan and Phillips (2001) in their innovative theory
which suggests an interactive effect of reactive and regula-
tive temperament traits on childhood anxiety. These authors
argue that while neuroticism makes children prone to dis-
play anxiety in response to potentially threatening stimuli
and situations, effortful control may allow them to regulate
this negative emotion by orienting away from distressing
stimuli and situations. Thus, high neuroticism is accompa-
nied by strong emotional reactivity, which increases the vul-
nerability to anxiety. However, high effortful control may
function as a buffer through employment of self-regulative
processes in the form of attention and coping behaviors. On
the other hand, when effortful control is low, the individual
is at the mercy of the negative impact of his/her neurotic
temperament.
Few studies have tested the interactive effect of neuroti-
cism and effortful control on psychopathological symptoms
in youths. In the aforementioned study by Eisenberg et al.
(2001), the power for studying interactive effects was rather
modest and as a result these authors reached the conclusion
Springer
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
that although some findings were as predicted, they should
not be considered as reliable. In a recent investigation by
Muris, De Jong, and Engelen (2004), the relationships be-
tween neuroticism and attentional control (which is a key
feature of effortful control; see supra) and anxiety disorders
symptoms were examined in a sample of non-clinical chil-
dren aged 8 to 13 years (N = 303). Results demonstrated
the expected links between neuroticism and attentional con-
trol, on the one hand, and anxiety disorders symptoms, on
the other hand. That is, the correlation between neuroticism
and anxiety symptoms was positive (r = .73, p < .001),
whereas that between attentional control and anxiety symp-
toms was negative (r = − .40, p < .001). Furthermore,
neuroticism and attentional control both appeared to explain
a unique and significant proportion of the variance in anx-
iety disorders symptoms, together explaining up to 55% of
the total variance. This finding is in keeping with the idea
that these temperamental factors have an additive influence
on child psychopathology. However, Muris et al. found no
support for the notion that in particular the interaction of
neuroticism and effortful control predicts high levels of anx-
iety symptoms. It may well be the case that developmental
aspects accounted for the absence of the expected interac-
tion effect. That is, the children in the Muris et al. study were
relatively young (with a mean age of 10 years), and it can
be argued that the regulative temperament factor of atten-
tional control is still in the process of maturation at this age.
Support for this notion comes from a study by Kindt, Van
Den Hout, De Jong, and Hoekzema (2000) who examined
information processing bias in 8- to 11-year-old spider fear-
ful and non-fearful children. These authors found a pattern
of data suggesting that attentional control was limited in the
younger children of their sample, but gradually increased as
children became older.
With this issue in mind, the current study further exam-
ined the relationships between the reactive and regulative
temperament factors of respectively neuroticism and effort-
ful control, on the one hand, and psychopathological symp-
toms, on the other hand. For this purpose, a large sample of
non-clinical children (N = 409) completed questionnaires
measuring neuroticism, attentional control (as an index of
effortful control), and symptoms of anxiety and aggression.
To test the developmental hypothesis as described above,
the study included primary school children aged 9 to 12
years (n = 198) as well as secondary school children aged
13 to 17 years (n = 211). Based on previous research, it
was hypothesized that (1) the reactive temperament factor
of neuroticism is positively related to symptoms of anxiety
and aggression, (2) the regulative temperament trait of at-
tentional control is negatively associated with symptoms of
anxiety and aggression, (3) neuroticism and attentional con-
trol both account for a significant and unique proportion in
the variance of symptoms of anxiety and aggression, and (4)
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
neuroticism and attentional control have an interactive effect
on symptoms of anxiety and aggression, and that this effect
is predominantly present in the older (i.e., 13- to 17-year-old)
children. Finally, as the scale used to assess aggression differ-
entiated between reactive (i.e., emotion-based) and proactive
(i.e., goal-oriented) aggression, it became possible to study
the links between neuroticism and attentional control and
both types of aggression symptoms. It can be expected that
(5) the temperamental vulnerability of high neuroticism and
low attentional control is more relevant for symptoms of re-
active aggression than for symptoms of proactive aggression.
Method
Participants
Thse present sample consisted of 409 children (215 boys
and 194 girls) recruited from regular primary and secondary
schools in Southern and Eastern parts of The Netherlands.
Mean age of the children was 12.7 years (SD = 1.9; range:
9–17 years): 1.7% were 9 years old, 14.9% were 10 years old,
12.5% were 11 years old, 19.3% were 12 years old, 17.4%
were 13 years old, 12.7% were 14 years old, 14.4% were
15 years old, 6.4% were 16 years old, whereas the remaining
.7% were 17 years old. The vast majority of the children
in this sample were Caucasian (i.e., > 95%). Due to school
constraints, no further information about the socioeconomic
and family background of the children was available. Ap-
proval to conduct the study was obtained from the institu-
tional review committee. Parents first received information
about the study and after both parents and children had given
their informed consent, children completed a set of ques-
tionnaires (see below) anonymously during regular classes.
Ninety-three percent of the children agreed to participate. A
teacher and a research assistant were always available to en-
sure independent and confidential responding and to provide
clarification when necessary.
Questionnaires
The short Junior version of the Eysenck Personality Ques-
tionnaire (JEPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) was used to as-
sess neuroticism. This scale consists of 12 dichotomous (i.e.,
yes/no) items (e.g., “Are you moody?”, “Is it easy to make
you feel sad or angry?”, “Are you often tired for no apparent
reason?”). A total score can be computed by summing the
yes-responses on all items (range 0–12), with higher scores
reflecting higher levels of neuroticism. The short version of
the JEPQ was originally developed by Corulla (1990). Sub-
sequent research has reported adequate internal consistency
with Cronbach’s alpha values well above .70 (De Bruyn,
Delsing, & Welten, 1995). Further, the concurrent validity
151
of the short version was supported, that is, high correlations
(rs > .87) were found between corresponding short version
and the full-length JEPQ scales (Scholte & De Bruyn, 2001).
The child version of the Attentional Control Scale (ACS-
C; see Derryberry & Reed, 2002) is a self-report question-
naire measuring two types of attentional control, viz. atten-
tional focusing (9 items; e.g., “When concentrating, I do not
notice what happens around me”) and attentional shifting
(11 items; e.g., “I can easily write or read, while I am talk-
ing on the phone”). The scale can be used in children from
age 8 on, and consists of 20 items that have to be scored
on a 4-point scale with 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 =
often, and 3 = always. After recoding inversely formulated
items, a total score and subscale scores can be computed by
summing across relevant items. In all cases, higher scores
reflect higher levels of attentional control. In a pilot-study
of 167 8–13 years-old children, it was found that the total
scale was internally consistent (α = .72; see also Muris
et al., 2004) and positively correlated with perceived control
(r = .22) and negatively with trait anxiety (r = − .38).
Another recently completed study with 201 children aged
between 9 and 13 years and their parents again showed that
the reliability of the ACS was good (with αs of .75 and .87
for the child and parent version, respectively). In addition,
the parent-child agreement of the ACS also appeared sat-
isfactory (ICC = .72; Muris, Meesters, & Rompelberg, in
press). Finally, ACS scores of 113 school children aged 9 to
12 years were positively correlated with teacher ratings of
school performance: r = .23, p < .05 in the case of child
report and r = .42, p < .001 in the case of parent report
(Muris, 2006).
The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disor-
ders (SCARED; Birmaher et al., 1999) is a questionnaire
for measuring symptoms of childhood anxiety disorders in
terms of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric
Association, 1994). The scale consists of 41 items that can
be allocated to five subscales, namely panic/somatic (e.g.,
“When frightened, my heart beats fast”), generalized anxi-
ety (e.g., “I am a worrier”), separation anxiety (e.g., “I don’t
like being away from my family”), social phobia (e.g., “I
don’t like to be with unfamiliar people”), and school phobia
(e.g., “I am scared to go to school”). Children are asked to
rate the frequency with which they experience each symp-
tom on 3-point scales (0 = almost never, 1 = sometimes,
2 = often). In the current study, a total anxiety score was
obtained by summing the ratings on all items. Several studies
have shown that the SCARED is a reliable and valid measure
of anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents. Birmaher
and his colleagues (1997, 1999) have reported good internal
consistency with alphas ranging between .70 and .90, ade-
quate test-retest reliability (rho’s between .60 and .90), and
good discriminant validity. In addition, the SCARED was
Springer
152
found to have a clear-cut 5-factor structure that is in keeping
with the intended subscales, and also exhibited good psycho-
metric characteristics in a large community sample of Dutch
children and adolescents (Muris, Schmidt, & Merckelbach,
2000).
The Child Rating scale for Aggression (CRA) is a self-
report version of the Teacher Rating scale for Aggression
(Brown, Atkins, Osborne, & Milnamow, 1996), which con-
sists of 21 items referring to aggressive feelings and behav-
iors of children: 6 items reflect reactive aggression (e.g., “I
get angry for no reason”), 10 items represent proactive ag-
gression (e.g., “I am mean”), whereas 5 items can not be clas-
sified in these two categories. Each item has to be scored on a
5-point scale with 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes,
4 = often, and 5 = almost always. There is clear support for
the psychometric qualities of the TRA. That is, the scale is
reliable in terms of internal consistency, has a clear-cut factor
structure with reactive aggression and proactive aggression
items loading on two separate but related factors, and sat-
isfactorily discriminates between normal children and clini-
cally referred aggressive youths (Brown et al., 1996; Dodge,
Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). Furthermore, re-
cent studies have demonstrated that the self-report version of
the TRA is reliable in terms of internal consistency (α = .84;
Roelofs, Meesters, ter Huurne, Bamelis & Muris, 2006), and
correlates significantly with other measures of self-reported
disruptive behaviour problems such as the Youth Self Report
externalizing scale (r = .50, p < .001; Vincken, 2003).
All questionnaires were translated with permission by
a native Dutch speaker and independently translated back
into English. This procedure demonstrated that the trans-
lated items closely resembled the meaning of the original
English items.
Statistical analysis
SPSS (2003) was used to compute descriptive statistics, re-
liability coefficients, and to perform t-tests and correlational
analysis. Tests for comparing correlated correlation coeffi-
cients were carried out following the procedure as described
by Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin (1992). Furthermore, hi-
erarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine
unique and interactive effects of neuroticism and attentional
control on symptoms of anxiety and (reactive, proactive, and
total) aggression. In these analyses, neuroticism and atten-
tional control variables were entered simultaneously in or-
der to investigate their relative contribution to both types of
symptoms. Interaction effects were tested on a further step of
the regression analyses by forcing the normalized product of
neuroticism and attentional control (according to the proce-
dure as described by Aiken & West, 1991) into the equation.
If this product significantly contributes to the equation, this
would indicate that there is an interaction effect of neuroti-
Springer
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
cism and attentional control. In all these analyses gender and
age were controlled for. An additional series of regression
analyses was carried out, in which the contributions of the
normalized products of age group (9- to 12-year-olds vs.
13- to 17-year-olds) and other predictor variables were ex-
amined. In particular, a significant higher-order interaction
of neuroticism × attentional control × age group would be
interesting, as it was hypothesized that the interactive ef-
fect of neuroticism and attentional control on symptoms of
anxiety and aggression would be especially present in the
older children of the sample (i.e., the 13- to 17-year-olds).
As a final note, it should be mentioned that separate analyses
performed on the data of boys and girls yielded highly com-
parable results, and therefore only the results for the total
group are reported. As the absolute scores on some of the
measures differed between both sexes (see Table 1), it was
nevertheless decided to control for this demographic variable
in correlation and regression analyses.
Results
General findings
Before addressing the main research topics of the present
study, a number of general remarks are in order. First of
all, all questionnaires were reliable in terms of internal con-
sistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between .67
and .92. Second, as the self-report version of the TRA only
has been developed recently, the psychometric properties of
this scale were examined in more detail. Results revealed
that the scale had acceptable internal consistency as evi-
denced by Cronbach’s alphas of .82 for the total aggression
score, .68 for reactive aggression, and .77 for proactive ag-
gression, and item-total correlations ranging between .35
and .52 for the total score, .30 and .47 for reactive aggres-
sion, and .38 and .57 for proactive aggression. Further, ex-
ploratory factor analysis (with oblimin rotation) performed
on the CRA items clearly revealed the hypothesized two-
factor solution with reactive aggression and proactive ag-
gression items loading convincingly ( ≥ .40) on separate fac-
tors, which can be taken as support for the construct validity
of this scale. Third, significant gender differences emerged
for a number of measures. More specifically, girls scored
higher on JEPQ neuroticism [t(407) = 4.75, p < .001] and
SCARED total anxiety [t(407) = 6.70, p < .001] than boys.
In contrast, boys displayed higher levels of attentional con-
trol [t(407) = 3.18, p < .005] and in particular attentional
shifting [t(407) = 3.39, p < .005], and (proactive) aggres-
sion [t(407)s ≥ 3.30, ps < .005] as compared to girls (see
Table 1). Fourth and finally, no significant correlations were
found between age and any of the variables.
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158 153

Table 1 General statistics

(means, standard deviations, Total group Boys Girls
gender differences, Cronbach’s (N = 409) (n = 215) (n = 194) α
alphas) of the questionnaires
that were used in the current JEPQ
study Neuroticism 4.29 (2.72) 3.70 (2.50)a 4.95 (2.80)b .70
ACS-C
Attentional control 54.45 (7.92) 55.61 (7.69)a 53.15 (7.98)b .81
Attentional focusing 24.44 (3.86) 24.80 (3.68)a 24.04 (4.02)a .67
Attentional shifting 30.01 (5.15) 30.82 (5.12)a 29.11 (5.05)b .74
SCARED
Total anxiety 18.51 (11.51) 15.07 (9.51)a 22.32 (12.33)b .92
CRA
Total aggression 27.97 (6.38) 28.95 (6.62)a 26.89 (5.94)b .82
Reactive aggression 11.87 (3.36) 12.02 (3.37)a 11.70 (3.34)a .68
Proactive aggression 16.10 (3.84) 16.93 (4.11)a 15.19 (3.20)b .77

Notes. JEPQ = Junior version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, ACS-C = Attentional Control
Scale for Children, SCARED = Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, CRA = Child
Rating scale for Aggression. Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts differ at p < .05/8
(i.e., Bonferroni correction).

Neuroticism and symptoms of anxiety and aggression
Neuroticism was significantly linked to symptoms of both
anxiety and aggression (rs being .63 and .39 (both ps < .001;
Table 2), although it is clear that this reactive temperamental
factor was stronger associated with anxiety than with aggres-
sion (Z = 5.07, p < .001). Further, as expected, neuroti-
cism was more convincingly related to reactive aggression
(r = .39) than to proactive aggression (r = .31; Z = 2.12,
p < .05).
p < .05). Note also that this differential pattern was only
present for attentional shifting (rs being − .45 vs. − .25,
Z = 3.69, p < .001) and not for attentional focusing (rs
being − .43 vs. − .43, Z = .00). Finally, the negative cor-
relations between attentional control variables and reactive
aggression were comparable to those between attentional
control scales and proactive aggression (all Zs ≤ 1.64).
Unique effects of neuroticism and attentional control on
symptoms of anxiety and aggression

Attentional control and symptoms of anxiety and aggression
Correlations between attentional control and symptoms of
anxiety and aggression were all negative and significant (rs
between − .19 and − .50, all ps < .001; Table 2), indicating
that lower levels of regulative temperament were associated
with higher levels of these psychopathological symptoms.
Interestingly, the negative correlation between attentional
control and anxiety (r = − .50) was larger than that between
attentional control and aggression (r = − .37; Z = 2.54,
The above described analyses confirm the notion that
neuroticism is positively related to symptoms of anxiety
and aggression, whereas attentional control is negatively
associated with such symptoms. Furthermore, it should
be mentioned that both temperament factors were also
connected to each other. More precisely, neuroticism was
negatively related to attentional control (r = − .45,
p < .001), and this appeared to be true for both attentional
focusing (r = − .45, p < .001) and attentional shifting
(r = − .36, p < .001; see Table 2). Thus, higher levels of

Table 2 Correlations
(corrected for gender ad age) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
between neuroticism, attentional
(1) JEPQ Neuroticism
control, and symptoms of
anxiety and aggression (2) ACS-C Attentional control −.45
(3) ACS-C Attentional focusing −.45 .84
(4) ACS-C Attentional shifting −.36 .91 .54
(5) SCARED Total anxiety .63 −.50 −.43 −.45
(6) CRA Total aggression .39 −.37 −.43 −.25 .28
(7) CRA Reactive aggression .39 −.37 −.41 −.26 .30 .87
(8) CRA Proactive aggression .31 −.30 −.35 −.19 .23 .90 .57

Notes. N = 409. JEPQ = Junior version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, ACS-C = Attentional
Control Scale for Children, SCARED = Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, CRA =
Child Rating scale for Aggression. All correlations were significant at p < .05/28 (i.e., Bonferroni correction).

Springer
154 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158

neuroticism were associated with lower levels of attentional
control.
To examine whether neuroticism and attentional control
each make a unique contribution to symptoms of anxiety and
aggression, regression analyses were carried out in which
both temperament factors were entered simultaneously. As
can be seen in Table 3, in all regression equations, both
temperament factors accounted for a significant proportion
of the variance in anxiety and aggression symptoms (all
Fs ≥ 40.86, ps < .001), with percentages of explained
variance between 16 and 40%. Most importantly, both neu-
roticism and attentional control appeared to make indepen-
dent contributions to children’s symptoms of anxiety and
aggression (all ts ≥ ± 2.64, all ps < .01). As predicted, βs
and partial rs were positive for neuroticism and negative for
attentional control variables.
In order to provide a more rigorous test of the hy-
pothesized temperament model of child psychopathologi-
cal symptoms, additional regression analyses were carried
out in which different types of psychopathological prob-
lems were predicted from neuroticism and attentional con-
trol while controlling for concurrent symptoms. So, anxiety
was predicted from temperament factors while controlling
for aggression, whereas aggression was predicted from tem-
perament factors while holding levels of anxiety constant.
These analyses generally yielded a similar pattern of re-
sults, that is, even when controlling for concurrent symp-
toms, both anxiety and aggression remained significantly
linked to neuroticism and attentional control (anxiety: βs
being .49, p < .001 and − .26, p < .001, respectively;
aggression: βs being .28, p < .001 and − .25, p < .001,
respectively).

Table 3 Results of
hierarchical regression analyses Partial r β t p Partial η2
testing unique and interactive
Neuroticism and attentional control → anxiety
effects of neuroticism and
attentional control on symptoms Step 1: R2 = .40, F(2,404) = 166.33, p < .001
of anxiety and aggression Neuroticism .52 .49 12.21 <.001 .27
Attentional control −.31 −.26 −6.53 <.001 .10
Step 2: R2 = .01, F(1,403) = 6.76, p < .01
Neuroticism × attentional control −.13 −.57 −2.60 <.01 .02
Neuroticism and attentional focusing → anxiety
Step 1: R2 = .37, F(2,404) = 147.38, p < .001
Neuroticism .54 .53 12.80 <.001 .29
Attentional focusing −.22 −.18 −4.44 <.001 .05
Step 2: R2 = .00, F(1,403) = 1.61, p = .21
Neuroticism x attentional focusing −.06 −.27 −1.27 ns .00
Neuroticism and attentional shifting → anxiety
Step 1: R2 = .40, F(2,404) = 164.10, p < .001
Neuroticism .56 .52 13.57 <.001 .31
Attentional shifting −.30 −.24 −6.32 <.001 .09
Step 2: R2 = .01, F(1,403) = 8.46, p < .01
Neuroticism x attentional shifting −.14 −.55 −2.91 <.01 .02
Neuroticism and attentional control → aggression
Step 1: R2 = .19, F(2,404) = 51.11, p < .001
Neuroticism .27 .28 5.63 <.001 .07
Attentional control −.24 −.24 −4.93 <.001 .06
Step 2: R2 = .00, F(1,403) = .39, p = .54
Neuroticism x attentional control .03 .17 .62 ns .00
Neuroticism and attentional focusing → aggression
Step 1: R2 = .22, F(2,404) = 61.39, p < .001
Neuroticism .25 .25 5.12 <.001 .06
Attentional focusing −.31 −.31 −6.46 <.001 .10
Step 2: R2 = .00, F(1,403) = .52, p = .47
Notes. In all regression analyses, Neuroticism × attentional focusing .04 .18 .72 ns .00
gender and age were forced into Neuroticism and attentional shifting → aggression
the equation on step 0. R2 and F Step 1: R2 = .16, F(2,404) = 40.86, p < .001
statistics pertain to the step on Neuroticism .33 .35 7.12 <.001 .11
which the shown predictor Attentional shifting −.13 −.13 −2.64 <.01 .02
variables were entered (i.e.,
Step 2: R2 = .00, F(1,403) = .65, p = .42
change statistics). ns =
Neuroticism × attentional shifting .04 .20 .81 ns .00
non-significant.

Springer
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
35
SCARED Total anxiety
30
25
Low neuroticism
20
High neuroticism
15
10
5
Low attentional High attentional
control control
Fig. 1 Interactive effect of neuroticism and attentional regulation on
symptoms of anxiety
Interaction effects and test of the developmental hypothesis
Interaction effects of reactive and regulative temperament
factors on child psychopathology were tested on a further
step of the regression analyses (i.e., Step 2, Table 3). Only in
the case of anxiety symptoms, the interaction of neuroticism
and attentional control accounted for a small but significant
proportion of the variance [1%, t = 2.60, p < .01]. This
interaction effect is visualized in Fig. 1. As shown in this
figure, the presence of high neuroticism and low attentional
control was associated with higher levels of anxiety symp-
toms, with the highest levels occurring when high neuroti-
cism and low attentional control were combined. Regression
analyses predicting children’s anxiety symptoms from neu-
roticism and ACS-C subscales (i.e., attentional focusing and
attentional shifting) revealed that the interaction effect was
predominantly carried by the interaction of neuroticism and
attentional shifting.
To examine whether the interaction effect of neuroticism
and attentional control on symptoms of anxiety and aggres-
sion was particularly present in older children (i.e., the de-
velopmental hypothesis), an additional series of regression
analyses were carried out, in which the contributions of the
normalized products of age group (9- to 12-year-olds vs. 13-
to 17-year-olds) and other predictor variables were exam-
ined. Results did not yield any developmental effects. That
is, neither the interaction effects of neuroticism × age group
and attentional control × age group, nor the higher-order
effect of neuroticism × attentional control x age group made
a significant contribution to children’s symptoms, and this
appeared true for both anxiety and aggression symptoms (all
ts ≤ 1.37, ps ≥ .17).
Effects on reactive and proactive aggression
Separate regression analyses were also conducted to inves-
tigate the effects of temperament factors on reactive and
proactive aggression. Results showed that neuroticism and
attentional control both accounted for a significant and in-
dependent proportion of the variance in reactive aggression
155
scores (partial r = .27, β = .28, t = 5.53, p < .001 and
partial r = − .24, β = − .25, t = − 4.91, p < .001,
respectively). Together these temperament factors explained
20% of the variance in reactive aggression scores. Simi-
lar findings were obtained for proactive aggression (partial
r = .21, β = .22, t = 4.30, p < .001 for neuroticism
and partial r = − .18, β = − .19, t = − 3.71, p < .001
for attentional control), although it should be mentioned that
temperament factors covered considerably less of the vari-
ance (12%). No significant interaction effects of neuroticism
and attentional control on either reactive or proactive aggres-
sion were found.
As there was considerable overlap between both types
of aggression (r = .57, p < .001), the regression analy-
ses predicting reactive and proactive aggression were con-
ducted again, this time while holding the influence of the
other aggression variable constant. Thus, reactive aggression
was predicted from neuroticism and attentional control while
controlling for proactive aggression, whereas proactive ag-
gression was predicted from these temperament factors while
holding reactive aggression constant. Results of these anal-
yses indicated that neuroticism and attentional control still
made significant contributions to reactive aggression (par-
tial r = .19, β = .17, t = 3.82, p < .001 and partial
r = − .17, β = − .16, t = − 3.48, p < .01, respec-
tively), but were no longer significant predictors of proac-
tive aggression. Interestingly, the interaction of neuroticism
and attentional control was significant for both types of ag-
gression (t = − 2.11, p < .05 for reactive aggression and
t = 2.62, p < .01 for proactive aggression), although the
pattern of effects was quite different. As can be seen in Fig. 2,
high neuroticism and low attentional control were associated
with higher levels of reactive aggression, with a combination
of both temperament factors yielding the highest scores. In
the case of proactive aggression, the interaction effect could
be attributed to low neuroticism and high attentional control
yielding relatively low aggression scores.
Discussion
The present study examined the relationships between re-
active and regulative temperament factors with symptoms
of anxiety and aggression in a large sample of non-clinical
children with a broad age range (i.e., 9 to 17 years). The
results of the study can be catalogued as follows. First, the
reactive temperament factor of neuroticism was positively as-
sociated with symptoms of anxiety and aggression. Second,
the regulative temperament factor of attentional control was
negatively linked to such symptoms. Third, both neuroticism
and attentional control accounted for an independent and sig-
nificant proportion of the variance in children’s anxiety and
aggression symptoms. Fourth, some support was found for
Springer
156
14
CRA Reactive aggression
13
Low neuroticism
12
High neuroticism
11
10
Low attentional High attentional
control control
17,5
CRA Proactive aggression
Low neuroticism
16,5
High neuroticism
15,5
Low attentional High attentional
control control
Fig. 2 Interactive effect of neuroticism and attentional regulation on
symptoms of reactive aggression (upper graph) and proactive aggres-
sion (lower graph)
the suggestion that neuroticism and attentional control have
an interactive effect on symptoms of anxiety and aggression,
although results did not show that age had an influence on the
emergence of this interaction. Fifth and finally, the present
data seem to indicate that the temperamental vulnerability of
high neuroticism and low attentional control is more relevant
for symptoms of reactive aggression than for symptoms of
proactive aggression.
Taken together, the results seem to underline the idea
that both reactive and regulative factors are important when
studying temperamental vulnerability to child psychopathol-
ogy. In keeping with previous work by Eisenberg et al. (2001;
see also Eisenberg et al., 2000) and Muris et al. (2004), these
findings indicate that neuroticism and effortful control (or
a derivate such as attentional control) have supplementary
effects on behavioral and emotional symptoms in youths.
Whereas the broadening of focus on regulative temperament
factors such as effortful control certainly is an improvement
in comparison to previous reactive temperament accounts of
child psychopathology, it should be mentioned that the cur-
rent study still neglects a number of other temperament fac-
tors that may certainly be relevant. Extraversion, inhibitory
control, psychoticism, and impulsivity seem to be impor-
tant candidates in this respect. Previous research has demon-
strated that low levels of extraversion contribute to symptoms
of various anxiety disorders (Muris et al., 2003), whereas low
levels of inhibitory control and high levels of psychoticism
and impulsivity seem particularly relevant in the formation
Springer
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
of externalizing behavior problems (Eisenberg et al., 2001;
Muris et al., 2003). Further, as mentioned before, effortful
control is not only comprised of attentional control but also
of inhibitory control. Obviously, the latter temperament fac-
tor was not included in the current study, and exploration of
its link to psychopathological symptoms in youths remains
a target of future research.
Regression analysis yielded a significant interaction effect
of neuroticism and attentional control on childhood anxiety
symptoms. Closer inspection of this effect showed that high
levels of neuroticism and low levels of attentional control
were associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms.
Although this finding is in line with Lonigan and Phillips’
(2001) theory on temperamental vulnerability to childhood
anxiety, it remains unclear why the previous study by Muris
et al. (2004) did not obtain such an interaction effect. At the
very least, the current study demonstrated that developmen-
tal issues do not play a role in this regard as no evidence was
obtained that the interaction effect of neuroticism and at-
tentional control on anxiety symptoms was more prominent
among older (i.e., 13- to 17-year-old) than among younger
(9- to 12-year-old) children. Admittedly, it should be men-
tioned that the observed interaction effect in the present study
was rather small, and so it is clear that such a slight effect
is prone to the influence of confounding variables. The pos-
sibility that this finding was due to the large sample size
of the present study or merely a result of chance has to be
borne in mind. On the other hand, it may well be the case
that the interaction effect of neuroticism and attentional con-
trol on childhood anxiety is relevant, and is more clear-cut
when studying samples of clinically referred children. Al-
ternatively, it is also possible that the interaction effect only
becomes really manifest when children are confronted with a
threatening stimulus or situation. Future studies clearly need
to address these possibilities.
The influence of neuroticism and attentional control on
childhood aggression was remarkably smaller than the effect
of these temperament factors on childhood anxiety. Several
explanations for this finding suggest themselves. First of all,
the current study solely relied on children’s self-report. It is a
well-known fact that this type of assessment is more suitable
for studying internalizing symptoms such as anxiety than
for investigating externalizing symptoms such as aggression
(Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Second, rela-
tively little is known about whether high scores on self-report
measures like the SCARED and the CRA actually reflect seri-
ous psychopathology. Third, the temperamental factors that
were studied (i.e., neuroticism and attentional control) are
perhaps more relevant for childhood anxiety than for child-
hood aggression (see supra). Despite this unintended bias
in favour of anxiety symptoms, the positive relation with
neuroticism and the negative link to attentional control were
also observed for symptoms of aggression. Further, an inter-
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
esting difference between reactive and proactive aggression
was found, although this pattern only emerged when control-
ling for comorbid aggression symptoms. Reactive aggression
was predicted by neuroticism and attentional control and by
the interaction term of both temperament factors. More pre-
cisely, high neuroticism and low attentional control were re-
lated to higher levels of reactive aggression symptoms, with a
combination of high neuroticism and low attentional control
yielding the highest aggression scores. In contrast, proactive
aggression was only predicted by the interaction of neu-
roticism and attentional control. Closer examination of this
interaction effect indicated that a combination of low neu-
roticism and high attentional control yielded relatively low
proactive aggression scores. Apart from the aforementioned
limitations that the present study relied on a sample of non-
clinical children, solely employed child self-report, and only
assessed a limited set of temperament factors, two important
additional shortcomings should be admitted. First, the var-
ious measures of neuroticism, attentional control, anxiety,
and aggression are to some degree interrelated. As a con-
sequence, the possibility of shared method variance cannot
be ruled out. In future research, a multi-trait multi-method
approach is needed to deal with this issue. Second, the cur-
rent investigation was correlational in nature and so it is not
possible to draw conclusions on cause-effect relationships
between neuroticism, attentional control, and symptoms of
anxiety and aggression. Clearly, longitudinal studies, prefer-
ably including multiple informants and assessing a broad
range of temperament factors, are needed in order to get
more insight in the exact nature of the relationships between
these phenomena. In addition, it is important to investigate
the role of both reactive and regulative temperament factors
in clinical samples, as it remains to be seen whether similar
findings can be obtained in children with clinical diagnoses.
In spite of these drawbacks, the present study provides fur-
ther evidence for the notion that both reactive and regulative
temperament factors seem to be involved in the development
of child psychopathology.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist
4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implica-
tions of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C.
(2003). A questionnaire for measuring the big five in late
157
childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 645–
664.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and
executive function: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.
Birmaher, B., Brent, D., Chiappetta, L., Bridge, J., Monga, S., &
Baugher, M. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Screen for
Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): A repli-
cation study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado-
lescent Psychiatry, 38, 1230–1236.
Birmaher, B., Khetarpal, S., Brent, D., Cully, M., Balach, L., Kaufman,
J., & Neer, S. M. (1997). The Screen for Child Anxiety Related
Emotional Disorders (SCARED): scale construction and psycho-
metric characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 545–553.
Brown, K., Atkins, M. S., Osborne, M. L., & Milnamow, M. (1996). A
revised teacher rating scale for reactive and proactive aggression.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 473–480.
Calkins, S. D., & Fox, N. A. (2002). Self-regulatory processes in early
personality development: A multilevel approach to the study of
childhood social withdrawal and aggression. Development and
Psychopathology, 14, 477–498.
Corulla, W. J. (1990). A revised version of the psychoticism scale for
children. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 65–76.
Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A.
(2003). Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in
childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60,
837–844.
De Bruyn, E., Delsing, M., & Welten, M. (1995). The EPQ-R (junior):
A Dutch replication study. Personality and Individual Differences,
18, 405–411.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional bi-
ases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 111, 225–236.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful pro-
cesses in the organization of temperament. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 9, 633–652.
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit,
G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children
and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37–51.
Ehrler, D. J., Evans, J. G., & McGhee, R. L. (1999). Extending the
Big Five theory into childhood: A preliminary investigation into
the relationship between Big Five personality traits and behav-
ior problems in children. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 451–
458.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard,
S. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., Losoya, S. H., & Guthrie, I.
K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to chil-
dren’s externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems. Child
Development, 72, 1112–1134.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., Losoya, S.,
Murphy, B. C., Jones, S., Poulin, R., & Reiser, M. (2000). Pre-
diction of elementary school children’s externalising problem be-
haviors from attention and behavioural regulation and negative
emotionality. Child Development, 71, 1367–1382.
Eysenck, H. J. (1999). Biological dimensions of personality. In L.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (pp. 244–276). New York: Guilford Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire (adult and junior). London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Ford, T., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. (2003). The British child and
adolescent mental health survey 1999: The prevalence of DSM-
IV disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1203–1211.
Springer
158
Huey, S., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). Ego control, ego resilience, and the
Five-Factor model as predictors of behavioral and emotional prob-
lems in clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 106, 404–415.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (1994). The “Little Five”: Exploring the nomological
network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys.
Child Development, 65, 160–178.
Kindt, M., Van Den Hout, M., De Jong, P. J., & Hoekzema, B. (2000).
Cognitive bias for pictorial and linguistic threat cues in children.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 22, 201–
219.
Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., White, J. L., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (1996). Delay of gratification, psychopathology, and
personality: Is low self-control specific to externalizing problems?
Journal of Personality, 64, 107–129.
Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. (2001). Temperamental influences on
the development of anxiety disorders. In M. W. Vasey & M. R.
Dadds (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp.
60–91). New York: Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality.
In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press.
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing cor-
related correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–
175.
Muris, P. (2006). Relations of attention control and school performance
in normal children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 78–80.
Muris, P., De Jong, P. J., & Engelen, S. (2004). Relationships between
neuroticism, attentional control, and anxiety disorders symptoms
in non-clinical children. Personality and Individual Differences,
37, 789–797.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Rompelberg, L. (in press). Attention control
in middle childhood: Relations to psychopathological symptoms,
threat perception distortions, and school performance. Behaviour
Research and Therapy.
Muris, P., Schmidt, H., & Merckelbach, H. (2000). Correlations among
two self-report questionnaires for measuring DSM-defined anxiety
disorder symptoms in children: The Screen for Child Anxiety
Related Emotional Disorders and the Spence Children’s Anxiety
Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 333–346.
Muris, P., Winands, D., & Horselenberg, R. (2003). Defense style, per-
sonality traits, and psychopathological symptoms in non-clinical
adolescents. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 771–
780.
Springer
J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2007) 29:149–158
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor struc-
ture and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–514.
Olson, S. L., Schilling, E. M., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Measurement
of impulsivity: Construct coherence, longitudinal stability, and
relationship with externalizing problems in middle childhood and
adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 151–
165.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in
children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for
intervention. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Roelofs, J., Meesters, C., ter Huurne, M., Bamelis, L., & Muris, P.
(2006). On the links between attachment, parental rearing style,
and internalizing and externalizing problems in normal children.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 331–344.
Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. A.
Kohnstamm, J. A. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament
in childhood (pp. 187–247). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. (1994). Temperament and the develop-
ment of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55–
66.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In N. Eisen-
berg (Ed.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-
ogy: Volume 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Posner, M. I. (1994). A psychobi-
ological approach to the development of temperament. In J. E.
Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences
in biology and behavior (pp. 83–116). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Scholte, R., & De Bruyn, E. (2001). The Revised Junior Eysenck Per-
sonality Questionnaire (JEPQ-R): Dutch replications of the full-
length, short, and abbreviated forms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 615–625.
SPSS (2003). Version 12.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Vasey, M. W., & Dadds, M. R. (2001). The developmental psychopathol-
ogy of anxiety. New York: Oxford University Press.
Verhulst, F. C., Van Der Ende, J., Ferdinand, R. F., & Kasius, M. C.
(1997). The prevalence of DSM-III-R diagnoses in a national
sample of Dutch adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54,
329–336.
Vincken, M. (2003). The effectiveness of a social-cognitive interven-
tion program for reducing aggressive and oppositional behaviors
of primary school children. Maastricht: Maastricht University, Un-
published Master Thesis.