It Is Not Just Stress: Parent Personality in Raising a Deaf Child

Abstract

This study examined the impact and predictive ability of parental personality and perceived stress on behavior problems of their deaf child. One hundred and fourteen parents with a deaf child completed measures of personality, parenting stress, and child behavioral functioning. Higher parental neuroticism, which reflects a susceptibility to emotional and psychological distress, significantly predicted greater internalizing behaviors in younger deaf children, whereas higher levels of parenting stress and lower levels of parental conscientiousness were strongest predictors for externalizing behaviors. For older deaf children, higher levels of parental openness to experience predicted higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Results suggest a complicated interaction between parent personality and stress related to child adjustment, with implications for professionals working with parents of deaf children.

Theoretical Background

Within the general population, parenting stress has repeatedly been found to relate to an increase in children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems by way of parents’ more negative and coercive interactions with their children and more authoritarian and power-assertive discipline strategies (Jennings & Dietz, 2010). Previous research indicates that parents of children with disabilities of any type experience stress associated with the disability that distinguishes them from the parents of children without disabilities (Haveman, Van Berkum, Reijnders, & Heller, 1997). Hearing parents of deaf children in particular report and observe increased behavior problems and context-specific stress compared with parents of children who are hearing (Quittner et al., 2010).

The identification of a child’s hearing loss is a critical life event for parents and a high stress experience. Parents of newly identified deaf children have endorsed a persistent feeling of being overwhelmed and inadequate for the task of raising a deaf child (Kurtzer-White & Luterman, 2003). At the time of identification, or closely following, parents are presented with technical information and the need to make decisions about a broad range of options: sensory devices, early intervention, and communication choices (Fitzpatrick, Angus, Durieux-Smith, Graham, & Coyle, 2008). The decision-making process can be emotional, challenging, and stressful for parents (Calderon & Greenberg, 1993; Quittner et al., 2010). The extensive body of literature that has focused on stress in parents who have deaf children varies in results, with some studies showing higher ratings of stress levels for parents of deaf children, whereas other studies show no differences. The overwhelming majority of parents included in these studies are hearing parents of deaf children and considerably less is known regarding the stress experience of deaf parents with deaf children. For a review of these issues, see Pipp-Siegal, Seday, & Yoshinaga-Itano (2002) and Quittner et al., (2010). Variation in parent stress related to raising a deaf child may be explained by the way parents cope with stressors associated with their caregiving role. Stress is described as the ongoing relationship between a person and environmental factors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). It refers to the emotion experienced when a situation is perceived as more threatening or demanding than the person’s resources can manage. In relation to parents of deaf children, any of the challenges with caregiving may potentially be perceived as threatening or demanding.

The majority of research looking at the general population has shown that stressful life circumstances and individual differences can operate to constrain parents’ opportunities to be effective in their caregiving role. Most studies suggest that parents who report higher levels of stress in the parenting role are more likely to be more authoritarian in their parenting behavior and to feel less involved in their children’s lives (Jennings & Dietz, 2010). Distressed parents also are less likely to provide the necessary stimulation that promotes their children’s optimal social–emotional development (Crnic & Low, 2002). Parenting stress has previously been examined as a risk factor for children’s behavior problems. Webster-Stratton and Hammond (1988) found that higher levels of maternal parenting stress were correlated with higher levels of both internalizing and externalizing child behavior problems. Deater-Deckard (1998) tested the link between parenting stress and child adjustment and found a causal relationship with a multitude of adverse outcomes associated with parenting stress, including increased child behavior problems and less involved parenting.

Based on the parenting literature, intrapersonal resources play an important role in parenting and determining levels of parenting stress. Coping has been described as “personality in action under stress” (Bolger, 1990, p. 525), and theorists have suggested that “coping ought to be redefined as a personality process” (Vollrath, 2001, p. 341). Belsky and colleagues have argued that parent personality is the most important determinant of parenting behavior (Belsky & Barends, 2002; Vondra, Sysko, & Belsky, 2005). Several studies have provided empirical support for their assertion, showing that personality traits play an important role in parent’s perceptions and experience of parenting stress (Belsky & Barends, 2002). Personality is known to influence the frequency of exposure to stressors, the type of stressors experienced, and appraisals (Vollrath, 2001).

Allport (1961) defined personality as the dynamic organization within the person of the psychological and physical systems that underlie that person’s patterns of actions, thoughts, and feelings. Personality also involves individual differences that can be found along any dimension; however, the most widely adopted framework is the five-factor model. The big five-factor model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 2003)—neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—was first identified by Tupes and Christal (1961), who found through factor analytic techniques that long lists of personality variables compiled by Cattell (1943) could be reduced to five broad personality factors. Neuroticism concerns the ease and frequency with which a person becomes upset and distressed. Anxiety and sensitivity to threat is its emotional core (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Extraversion, based on factors of assertiveness, spontaneity, energy, confidence, agency, and happiness (Depue & Collins, 1999), is often thought of as implying sociability (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). Extraverts have a propensity to experience positive emotions and tend to be sociable, warm, cheerful, energetic, and assertive (McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1985) involves curiosity, flexibility, imaginativeness, and willingness to immerse oneself in atypical experiences. Agreeable people are friendly and helpful, empathic (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007), and able to inhibit their negative feelings (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1999). Conscientiousness reflects the qualities of planning, persistence, and purposeful striving toward goals. Those who are conscientious tend to be organized, reliable, hard working, determined, and self-disciplined (McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987).

The unique challenges for parents of deaf children, including communication difficulties, increased medical/audiological care, and educational challenges (Lederberg & Golbach, 2002), may contribute to high levels of parenting stress, though the results of numerous studies with parents of deaf children have been mixed. Parenting is believed to have important systematic implications for children’s development (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000). Parents of deaf children have previously been shown to have stressors related to parenting, though the influence of parent personality on those stressors has not been examined to date. The current investigation contributes to understanding the nature of risk and protective factors in child development generally and to deaf children specifically. The purpose of this study was to examine how parental personality and experience of stress predict child behavior problems in deaf children.

Methods

Participants

Demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. The sample was comprised of 114 hearing parents (74 mothers and 40 fathers) of 3- to 10-year-old children with confirmed moderate-to-profound hearing loss. Forty-one households in the study had both parents complete their own rating forms. The majority of the parents self-identified as Caucasian. The mean age of parents was 38 years. Approximately 92% of parents had completed schooling beyond a high school education. The majority of these families had two children, with one hearing child and one deaf child. Geographic location of the participants varied, with participants from the U.S. northeast, southwest and mid-west well represented in the study. The most common cause of hearing loss was unknown. Of the known causes, hereditary nonsyndromic hearing loss was most prevalent. Communication between parents and deaf children was most commonly reported to be oral/spoken language, and almost half (45%) of the children in the sample used a cochlear implant (CI).

Table 1

Characteristics of respondents and their families (n = 114)

Variable	Mean (SD)
Parent age	38.88 (6.14)
Child age	5.90 (1.99)
	% (N)
Relationship
Biological mother	55.3 (63)
Biological father	28.1 (32)
Adoptive mother	9.6 (11)
Adoptive father	7.0 (8)
Number of deaf children in household
1	82.5 (94)
2	14.9 (17)
3	2.6 (3)
Child gender
Male	56.1 (64)
Female	43.9 (50)
Degree of hearing loss
Moderate (40–55 dB)	6.1 (7)
Moderate–severe (55–70 dB)	27.2 (31)
Severe (70–90 dB)	19.3 (22)
Profound (>90 dB)	47.4 (54)
Cause of deafness
Hereditary nonsyndromic	27.2 (31)
Hereditary syndromic	8.8 (10)
Prematurity	6.1 (7)
Postnatal infection	1.8 (2)
Hypoxia	0.9 (1)
Enlarged vestibular aqueducts	2.6 (3)
Unknown	52.6 (60)
Home communication
Oral/spoken	81.6 (93)
American Sign Language	8.8 (10)
Simultaneous communication	7.9 (9)
Gestures	1.8 (1)
Hearing aid use
Yes	61.4 (70)
No	38.6 (44)
Cochlear implant use
Yes	44.7 (51)
No	55.3 (63)
Additional disability
Yes	24.6 (28)
No	75.4 (86)

Materials

Family Demographics

A background questionnaire that included age, educational level, family income, and number of children in the home was completed. Information about the child and the child’s hearing loss, including their age, degree of hearing loss, etiology of hearing loss, primary mode of communication used in the home between parents and child, use of sensory devices, and type of schooling, was obtained.

Parenting Stress

The Family Stress Scale (FSS; Quittner, Glueckauf, & Jackson 1990; Quittner, Steck, & Rouiller, 1991) is a context-specific measure of perceived parenting stress for use with parents of deaf children. The FSS consists of 16 items with both general and context-specific stressors. Eleven items address general family stressors (e.g., finances, discipline) and five items address stressors specific to early childhood deafness (e.g., communication, managing hearing aids/CIs, being the child’s teacher of language). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all stressful) to 5 (extremely stressful). Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.86, indicating strong reliability. The internal reliability coefficient for this scale in this study was 0.88.

Parents’ Personality

The NEO five-factor inventory (FFI)-3 (Costa & McCrae, 2010) was used to assess parents’ personality. This questionnaire consists of 60 unipolar markers with a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). It assessed the big five personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness. The NEO-FFI-3 has internal consistency with coefficients ranging from 0.72 to 0.88, and test–retest reliability reported at 0.92.

Children’s Behavior

The child behavior checklist (CBCL) 1.5–5 and 6–18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000, 2001) is a well-validated behavior questionnaire for obtaining parents’ reports of the intensity of various child behavior problems and has been utilized in previous studies as a measure of behavior problems in deaf children (see Quittner et al., 2010; van Eldik, Treffers, Veerman, & Verhulst, 2004). The CBCL yields a total score that can be divided into two empirically derived composite scales—internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Externalizing behavior problems, as defined by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1978), are characterized by an undercontrol of emotions and include difficulties with interpersonal relationships and rule breaking as well as displays of irritability and belligerence. Conversely, internalizing behavior problems are defined as an overcontrol of emotions and include social withdrawal, demand for attention, feelings of worthlessness or inferiority, and dependency. All subscales have demonstrated good internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.87, and test–retest reliability reported at 0.85. For this study, the internal reliability coefficient was 0.91 (CBCL 1.5–5) and 0.95 (CBCL 6–18).

Procedure

Local and national organizations for parents of deaf children within the United States were contacted to assist with advertisement of the study and recruitment of families. E-mail notices were used to recruit eligible parents. Each parent was asked to complete all measures independently of their spouse if both parents chose to participate. Responses received were all complete, with no missing data in this sample. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple comparison procedures using SPSS 20 (IBM Corp, 2011). Relationships between parenting stress, parental personality traits, and child behavior problems were examined by using Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient. In order to examine the contributions that parenting stress and parental personality made to the prediction of child behavior problems, standard multiple regression analysis was employed.

Results

Parenting Stress and Parental Personality

The relationship between parenting stressors and parental personality was initially examined (see Table 2) and revealed that neuroticism was significantly related to higher levels of everyday stressors (p < .01), including going on outings (p < .05), discipline (p < .01), marital relations (p < .01), routines (p < .01), behavior problems (p < .01), and finances (p < .05). The only deaf-specific factor significantly related to parental neuroticism was being responsible for having to teach their children language (p < .01). On the other hand, some personality factors appeared to function as protective factors, that is, they predispose an individual to greater potential for resilience. Specifically, higher levels of extraversion were associated significantly with lower levels of stress from everyday activities (p < .001) including going on outings (p < .05), extended family relationships (p < .05), education (p < .01), finances (p < .05), and behavior problems (p < .05). Higher levels of extraversion were also significantly associated with lower levels of stress related to hearing aid/CI understanding (p < .05), communication (p < .05), being the child’s teacher of language (p < .01), and audiological care (p < .05). Higher levels of openness to experience were also associated significantly with less stress from hearing aid/CI understanding (p < .01). Greater agreeableness was associated significantly with lower levels of stress concerning education (p < .01), being the child’s language teacher (p < .01), and audiological care (p < .01). No significant correlations were found between conscientiousness and measures of parenting stress.

Table 2

Correlations of parenting stress and NEO scale scores

Stressor	NEO scale
	N	E	O	A	C
Aids/CI working	0.055	−0.169	−0.063	−0.165	0.111
Outings	0.226*	−0.234*	0.028	−0.140	−0.059
Extended family relationships	0.155	−0.193*	0.028	−0.141	−0.073
Discipline	0.262**	−0.175	0.075	−0.102	−0.014
Marital relationship	0.254**	−0.144	−0.033	−0.096	0.084
Routines	0.258**	−0.169	−0.073	0.003	−0.117
Education	0.157	−0.261**	−0.058	−0.282**	0.107
Aids/CI understanding	0.071	−0.185*	−0.267**	−0.156	0.111
Safety	0.047	−0.083	−0.146	−0.135	0.115
Communication	0.108	−0.222*	−0.023	−0.157	0.145
Relationship with other children	0.095	−0.169	−0.054	−0.169	−0.020
Behavior problems	0.285**	−0.199*	0.120	−0.099	−0.128
Teaching language	0.243**	−0.276**	−0.017	−0.278**	0.022
Audiological care	0.074	−0.223*	0.015	−0.264**	0.028
Other people’s curiosity	0.144	−0.108	−0.091	0.091	0.063
Finances	0.201*	−0.229*	−0.074	0.008	0.022
Total	0.281**	−0.318***	−0.057	−0.217*	0.037

Note. N = neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness to experience; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; CI = cochlear implant.

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

Parenting Stress and Child Behavior Problems

The relationships between stress and child behavior problems were analyzed separately by age group due to the use of age-specific rating scales. Correlations between parenting stress and child behavior problems for children aged 5 years and younger are shown in Table 3. Higher levels of parenting stress on multiple indices were associated significantly with higher levels of child internalizing problems such as emotional reactivity (p < .01) and social withdrawal (p < .05), as well as overall externalizing behavior problems (p < .001) and total overall behavior problems (p < .01; CBCL/1.5–5). Multiple significant associations were found between specific child behavior patterns on the CBCL/1.5–5 syndrome scales and parenting stress and are detailed further in Table 4.

Table 3

Correlations of parenting stress and child behavior checklist (CBCL)/1.5–5 ratings (age 5 and younger; n = 49)

Stressor	CBCL (1.5–5)—syndrome scale scores
	Emotionally reactive	Anxious/ depressed	Withdrawn	Attention problems	Aggression problems
Aids/CI working	0.456***	0.237	0.154	0.243	0.147
Outings	0.275	0.163	0.069	0.104	0.483***
Extended family	0.077	−0.147	0.187	0.017	0.236
Discipline	0.235	0.024	0.025	0.144	0.527***
Marital relationship	0.176	0.029	0.157	0.023	−0.083
Routines	0.279	0.223	−0.104	0.116	0.328*
Education	0.205	−0.044	0.428**	0.370**	0.272
Aids/CI understanding	0.275	0.073	0.167	0.045	0.019
Safety	−0.159	−0.075	0.193	0.021	0.020
Communication	0.155	0.157	0.219	0.106	0.236
Relationships: children	0.353*	−0.043	−0.016	−0.046	0.408**
Behavior problems	0.410**	0.032	0.220	0.145	0.669***
Teaching language	0.211	0.026	0.095	0.068	0.155
Audiological care	0.101	−0.008	0.319*	0.386**	0.089
Other people’s curiosity	0.233	0.100	0.332*	−0.010	0.035
Finances	0.140	0.151	0.133	−0.017	0.116
Total	0.391**	0.095	0.318*	0.205	0.446***

Note. CI = cochlear implant.

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

Table 4

Correlations of parenting stress and child behavior checklist (CBCL)/6–18 ratings (age 6 and older; n = 65)

Stressor	CBCL/6–18—syndrome scores
	Withdrawn/ depressed	Social problems	Thought problems	Attention problems	Rule-breaking behavior	Aggressive behavior
Aids/CI working	0.303*	0.331*	0.284*	0.160	0.014	0.095
Outings	0.227	0.259*	0.450***	0.330**	0.309*	0.357**
Extended family	0.204	0.275*	0.147	0.282*	0.237	0.118
Discipline	0.231	0.372**	0.474***	0.612***	0.420***	0.476**
Marital relationship	0.281*	0.390***	0.200	0.326**	0.152	0.138
Routines	0.216	0.128	0.309*	0.372**	0.288*	0.274*
Education	0.273*	0.385**	0.277*	0.458***	0.112	0.075
Aids/CI understanding	−0.077	0.159	0.174	0.191	0.101	0.058
Safety	0.170	0.266*	0.251*	0.278*	0.127	0.007
Communication	0.230	0.306*	0.384**	0.394***	0.152	0.100
Relationships: children	0.350**	0.457***	0.366**	0.357**	0.205	0.175
Behavior problems	0.367**	0.418***	0.489***	0.568***	0.477***	0.613***
Teaching language	0.053	0.276*	0.243	0.333**	0.211	0.247*
Audiological care	0.171	0.338**	0.152	0.267*	0.007	0.086
Other people’s curiosity	0.216	0.117	0.117	0.057	−0.214	−0.153
Finances	0.141	0.342**	0.346**	0.315**	0.149	0.141
Total	0.339**	0.480***	0.464***	0.531***	0.276*	0.282*

Note. CI = cochlear implant.

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

Correlations between stress and child behavior problems for children aged 6 years and older are shown in Table 4. Higher levels of parenting stress on multiple indices were associated significantly with greater child problems with overall externalizing behavior (p < .05) and CBCL/6–18 total problems (p < .001).

Parental Personality and Child Behavior Problems

Among both the younger and older groups of children, parental personality traits were associated significantly with child behavior problems, as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Higher levels of parental neuroticism were associated significantly with increased internalizing, externalizing, and behavioral problems in children (p < .05). Other aspects of parental personality were associated with more positive behavior in younger children. Greater parental extraversion was associated significantly with lower levels of child internalizing problems (p < .05), externalizing problems (p < .05), and overall behavior problems (p < .05). Higher levels of parental conscientiousness were associated with lower levels of child internalizing (p < .01), externalizing (p < .001), and overall behavior problems (p < .001) for the children aged 6 years and older.

Table 5

Correlations of child behavior checklist (CBCL)/1.5–5 and NEO scale scores (age 5 years and younger)

CBCL/1.5–5 scales combined	NEO scale
	N	E	O	A	C
Emotionally reactive	0.398**	−0.280	−0.174	−0.127	−0.063
Anxious/depressed	0.164	−0.189	−0.009	−0.092	0.039
Somatic complaints	0.200	−0.187	−0.014	−0.325*	−0.028
Withdrawn	0.153	−0.057	−0.033	−0.045	0.094
Sleep problems	0.147	−0.044	0.233	0.116	−0.029
Attention problems	0.294*	−0.288*	−0.140	−0.225	−0.162
Aggressive behavior	0.290*	−0.197	−0.174	−0.269	−0.178
Affective	0.397**	−0.263	0.103	−0.208	0.007
Anxiety	0.147	−0.105	−0.103	−0.030	−0.142
Developmental delay	0.257	−0.109	0.025	−0.380**	0.058
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder	0.277	−0.336*	−0.183	−0.299*	−0.195
Oppositional	0.442***	−0.285*	−0.150	−0.350*	−0.123
Internalizing	0.381**	−0.254*	−0.014	−0.204	−0.054
Externalizing	0.379**	−0.302*	−0.078	−0.275	−0.176
Total	0.392**	−0.313*	−0.029	−0.242	−0.144

Note. N = neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness to experience; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness.

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

Table 6

Correlations of child behavior checklist (CBCL)/6–18 and NEO scale scores (age 6 and older)

CBCL/6–18 scales combined	NEO scale
	N	E	O	A	C
Anxious/depressed	0.352**	−0.052	0.351**	0.071	−0.172
Withdrawn/depressed	0.175	−0.067	0.293*	0.151	−0.246*
Somatic complaints	0.140	0.024	0.223	0.116	−0.242
Social problems	0.252*	0.006	0.279*	0.124	−0.125
Thought problems	0.280*	−0.088	0.135	0.004	−0.262*
Attention problems	0.365*	−0.004	0.104	0.019	−0.255*
Rule breaking	0.264*	−0.013	0.114	0.038	−0.278*
Aggressive behavior	0.330**	0.009	0.366**	0.031	−0.396***
Affective	0.353**	−0.297*	0.267*	−0.145	−0.360**
Anxiety	0.387***	−0.016	0.290*	0.060	−0.147
Somatic	0.005	0.083	0.170	0.171	−0.116
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder	0.345**	−0.076	0.090	−0.022	−0.348**
Oppositional	0.258*	0.115	0.383**	0.087	−0.312*
Conduct	0.324**	−0.015	0.246*	0.060	−0.358**
Internalizing	0.315*	0.009	0.393***	0.111	−0.347**
Externalizing	0.359**	0.038	0.373**	0.139	−0.391***
Total	0.405***	0.016	0.329**	0.202	−0.401***

Note. N = neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness to experience; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness.

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

Prediction of Child Behavior Problems

Total parenting stress and the parental traits that were most closely associated with child behavior (i.e., neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness) were entered simultaneously into regression equations predicting child behavior problems. The results of the regression analyses varied by age group and type of behavior problem, as shown in Table 7. Among children aged 5 years or younger, parental neuroticism made a significant unique contribution to the prediction of child internalizing behavior in that higher neuroticism was related to greater child internalizing problems (p < .05). However, for externalizing behavior, both parenting stress and parental personality contributed significantly to the regression equation. In this age group, higher levels of externalizing behavior were associated significantly with higher levels of parenting stress (p < .001) and less conscientiousness (p < .05). For children aged 6 years or older, the regression analyses indicate that parental Openness makes a significant and unique contribution to the prediction of both child internalizing and externalizing behavior. Specifically, higher levels of parental openness are associated significantly with higher levels of internalizing (p < .01) and externalizing behavior (p < .01).

Table 7

Regression of child behavior checklist (CBCL) internalizing and externalizing problems onto selected parenting stress and parental personality variables

Dependent variable	Predictor	Beta	T	R-squared (Model)
CBCL/1.5–5 internalizing	Parenting stress	0.213	1.342	0.180
	Parental neuroticism	0.314	2.098*
	Parental openness	0.069	0.471
	Parental conscientiousness	−0.085	−0.525
CBCL/1.5–5 externalizing	Parenting stress	0.537	3.848***	0.367 ***
	Parental neuroticism	0.175	1.330
	Parental openness	0.097	0.752
	Parental conscientiousness	−0.349	−2.455*
CBCL/6–18 internalizing	Parenting stress	0.163	1.406	0.275***
	Parental neuroticism	0.154	1.204
	Parental openness	0.339	2.961 **
	Parental conscientiousness	−0.168	−1.328
CBCL/6–18 externalizing	Parenting stress	0.221	1.963	0.273***
	Parental neuroticism	0.166	1.344
	Parental openness	0.309	2.787 **
	Parental conscientiousness	−0.206	−1.683

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

Discussion

The identification of a child’s hearing loss is a significant life event for parents with normal hearing (Burger et al., 2005). Many studies have described the occurrence of stress in parents who have deaf or hard-of-hearing children (Hintermair, 2004; Lederberg & Golbach, 2002; Pipp-Siegal et al., 2002; Quittner et al., 1991). Because of the unique circumstances of raising a child with hearing loss, it has been thought that high stress experience must arise from it. However, the results from many studies comparing stress of parents who have children with hearing loss and parents of children with no hearing loss are conflicting. Some studies have shown that parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children experience higher levels of stress than parents of hearing children, whereas other studies have shown no difference between the two. Despite the difference, parenting stress is a process that develops and changes over time within a parent–child relationship. Studies about the determinants of parenting behavior often conclude that parents who experience more stress are likely to be less effective in their parenting behavior (Jennings & Dietz, 2010), which tends to lead to problems in children’s emotional and behavioral development (Deater-Deckard, 1998). Parental personality, which is said to be a long-standing and more stable state than the experience of stress, has been given far less attention in its impact on child outcomes, particularly as it relates to parents of deaf children. In order to explore what may primarily be responsible for higher levels of stress in some parents of children with hearing loss, this study sought to explore parents’ personality attributes that are closely linked to stress.

In this study, neuroticism was significantly related to greater levels of parenting stress in everyday activities including finances, marriage, and daily routines and, unexpectedly, only associated with one deaf-specific factor, which was stress about having to be their child’s teacher of language. This finding suggests that their child’s hearing loss is a relatively insignificant factor in terms of their appraisal of stress. This may explain why there have been conflicting reports in the study of parenting stress in parents raising deaf children as it appears that stress is not simply manifesting due to the specific challenges of raising a child with hearing loss. In fact, the greatest extent of parenting stress appears not to be related to the presence of hearing loss itself, but rather is attributable to the parents’ long-standing personality features, which may or may not predispose them to feeling and reporting greater stress.

These findings should not discount parenting concerns of real life struggles when raising a deaf child, such as communication and educational barriers. Rather, this finding sheds light on the equivocal results regarding the impact of childhood disability on parenting by illustrating the critical role of parental personality style. It is likely that deaf-specific challenges are present within each family; however, it appears that parental personality is capable of magnifying or minimizing the intensity of that challenge, in unique ways depending on the personality characteristics of the individual parent.

A number of studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of extraversion tend to experience lower levels of parenting stress (Vermaes, Janssens, Mullaart, Vinck, & Gerris, 2008). Parents in this study who rated themselves as more extraverted reported lower levels of stress in activities that were deaf-specific (e.g., understanding assistive listening devices, performing audiological care) and daily stressors related to going on outings and their child’s education. This finding is not surprising as it was anticipated that parents who were more extraverted would perceive situations, such as going on outings with their children as pleasurable.

Links between stress and other aspects of personality are less clear, in part because they have not been studied nearly as often (Costa, Somerfield & McCrae, 1996). Results of this study support the notion of Costa et al. (1996) that parents who are high in openness and agreeableness are willing to try new coping strategies and view deaf-specific activities as less stressful. These findings support the notion that intrapersonal resources regarding being socially inclined and being open to experience have strong potential as a protective factor for parents. In a clinical setting, supporting parents so that protective factors such as these can be fortified within the individual will serve them with the resources for managing stressors.

Results of this study are consistent with Hintermair’s (2006) previous study examining the relationship between parenting stress and child adjustment, with higher levels of parenting stress associated with higher levels of child externalizing behavior problems (i.e., aggression, oppositional behavior, and attention problems). Due to methodological limitations of this study, it would not be possible to draw implications about the direction of causation between parental stress and child behavior problems.

Present results support the notion that parental personality is related to child outcomes through both direct and indirect processes. In this study, parents who reported higher levels of neuroticism were more likely to rate their children as displaying greater externalizing, internalizing, and overall behavioral difficulties. This finding is consistent with the notion that high levels of parental neuroticism are related to more negative, intrusive, and overcontrolling parenting behavior patterns (Luster & Okagaki, 2005), which in turn is believed to lead to poorer child adjustment. In contrast, parents of young children who perceive themselves as extraverted rated their children as demonstrating low levels of externalizing, internalizing, and overall behavioral difficulties.

Results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the age of child plays an important role. Present findings suggest that parental neuroticism significantly predicts internalizing problems in children aged 3–5 years, indicating a strong relationship between parental expression of emotional distress and early child development of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints. The finding of low ratings of conscientiousness predicting externalizing problems corroborates prior research linking externalizing problems to parenting stress and offers new insight into how parenting personality can play a significant role in the development of emerging behavioral regulation skills. Lower conscientiousness has been related to laxness, which describes a parent who is permissive and inconsistent when enforcing discipline; this consistently has been associated with externalizing behaviors (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).

The present findings suggest that professionals working in the field of child development would be well-served by examining interventions aimed at reducing parenting stress and taking a further step to examine the individual and personality factors likely to contribute to a parent’s appraisal of their own stress and personality factors that may be protective. Parents raising deaf children who themselves are less extraverted and open to experience may be less likely to find support groups or activities that require socialization outside of the home useful at reducing their stress. Results from this study suggest that parents raising a deaf child, based in part on their personality, experience stress quite differently. In addition, parental personality appears to play a significant role in child outcomes.

Study Limitations

Generalizability of findings from this sample may be limited in a number of ways. Data were collected at only one time point, from one informant. Validity and reliability would be increased and strengthened by the use of multiagent and multimeasurement constructs (by the inclusion of observational measures). Survey data also lend itself to be subject to response bias as participants were self-selected. The results of this study should also be interpreted with caution given the particular demographic characteristics of this sample tending to represent two-parent families where parents had relatively high educational level and socioeconomic status. This sample represented a subset of families where communication primarily used was oral and spoken language. Future replication of the results is needed with a more diverse sample within this population. Future research could include a matched sample of hearing children in order to compare parent stress and personality factors in families with deaf children and children without hearing loss.

Conclusion

It has been thought that parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children experience greater levels of stress due to the unique circumstances of raising a child with hearing loss. Although an extensive amount of research has investigated whether stress is elevated in this group of parents, the results have been equivocal. In this study, parental personality had significant predictive power for parents’ experience of stress and their deaf child’s overall adjustment. Based on the study’s results, it appears that enduring personality traits have an impact on child outcomes but not a consistent impact across the developmental periods. It seems that there are impressionable and critical periods during which parent personality characteristics have a more significant impact on the socioemotional development of children. The clinical application of this study’s findings should be carefully considered by practicing clinicians. Communicating clinical information and designing supports for parents should be delivered in a manner that recognizes the importance of individual personality factors, particularly if increased parental stress is apparent.

Funding

Gallaudet Research Institute’s Small Research Grant Program, Gallaudet University.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were reported.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the families for their time and participation in this study. We also thank Drs. Irene Leigh, Marilyn Sass-Lehrer and Elizabeth Gibbons for their comments on and assistance with the manuscript.