The developmental cascades of prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems for early adolescence in China: A within-person analysis

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00813

Abstract

Abstract:

Understanding the developmental cascades of prosocial behavior, internalizing and externalizing problems is of great value in promoting adolescent mental health. The 3-year longitudinal data of 894 junior school students were analyzed at the within-person level, and compared with the traditional cross-lagged panel model. The results showed that: (1) at the within-person level, prosocial behavior tendency had moderate or weak co-variation with internalizing and externalizing problems, and T1 prosocial behavior tendency negatively predicted T2 internalizing problems, T2 prosocial behavior tendency negatively predicted T3 externalizing problems, which has a weak effect. (2) for girls, T2 internalizing problems positively predicted T3 externalizing problems, while for boys, internalizing problems and externalizing problems did not predict each other; (3) four factors of prosocial behavior tendency (public, compliant, emotional and altruistic) negatively predicted internalizing problems in T2, which have a weak effect. (4) the results obtained by within-person analysis are different from those by traditional cross-lagged analysis, and different models have different results. Conclusion: the development of prosocial behavior tendency in early adolescence reduces internalizing and externalizing problems, which has gender difference. The analysis at the within-person level has great value in the research of adolescent psychopathology development.

Key words: prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems, random-intercept cross-lagged panel model, general cross-lagged panel model, developmental cascades

DUAN Wenting, SUN Qiwu, WANG Ming, WU Caizhi, CHEN Zhenzhen. (2022). The developmental cascades of prosocial behavior tendency, internalizing and externalizing problems for early adolescence in China: A within-person analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(7), 813-827.

Figures/Tables 5

References 55

[1]	Allison, P. D., Williams, R., & Moral-Benito, E. (2017). Maximum likelihood for cross-lagged panel models with fixed effects. Socius, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117710578
[2]	Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Robust chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Matrix, 1(5), 1-6.
[3]	Berry, D., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). On the practical interpretability of cross-lagged panel models: Rethinking a developmental workhorse. Child Development, 88(4), 1186-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12660 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12660 URL
[4]	Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., Lahey, B. B., & Rathouz, P. J. (2005). Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral disorders in adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11), 1200-1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00422 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00422.x URL
[5]	Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440 doi: 10.1023/A:1014033032440 URL
[6]	Carlson, G. A., & Cantwell, D. P. (1980). Unmasking masked depression in children and adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(4), 445-449. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.137.4.445 doi: 10.1176/ajp.137.4.445 URL
[7]	Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (Third Edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
[8]	Chen, B.-B., Qu, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Chinese parents' comparisons of siblings and adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology, 33(3), 914-921. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457942000022X doi: 10.1017/S095457942000022X URL
[9]	Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 URL
[10]	Chen, J., Yu, J., Zhang, J., Li, X., & McGue, M. (2015). Investigating genetic and environmental contributions to adolescent externalizing behavior in a collectivistic culture: A multi-informant twin study. Psychological Medicine, 45(9), 1989-1997. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714003109 doi: 10.1017/S0033291714003109 URL pmid: 25572795
[11]	Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 53(2), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.221 URL pmid: 9491749
[12]	Cohen, J. R., Andrews, A. R., Davis, M. M., & Rudolph, K. D. (2018). Anxiety and depression during childhood and adolescence: Testing theoretical models of continuity and discontinuity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(6), 1295-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0370-x doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0370-x URL
[13]	Crittenden, P. M., & Landini, A. (2011). Assessing adult attachment: A dynamic-maturational approach to discourse analysis. New York: Norton & Company.
[14]	Davidov, M., Vaish, A., Knafo-Noam, A., & Hastings, P. D. (2016). The motivational foundations of prosocial behavior from a developmental perspective-evolutionary roots and key psychological mechanisms: Introduction to the special section. Child Development, 87(6), 1655-1667. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12639 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12639 URL pmid: 28262938
[15]	Flouri, E., & Sarmadi, Z. (2016). Prosocial behavior and childhood trajectories of internalizing and externalizing problems: The role of neighborhood and school contexts. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 253-258. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000076 doi: 10.1037/dev0000076 URL
[16]	Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2015). Prosocial behavior: Long-term trajectories and psychosocial outcomes. Social Development, 24(3), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12100 doi: 10.1111/sode.12100 URL
[17]	Gao, X., Liang, J., Wang, S-F., Zhai, Y., Lu, Y.-B, Shi, W.-H., & Shi, X.-M. (2013). Analysis on pupils' current mental health situation and their guardians' attitude in eight provinces in China. Chinese Journal of Disease Control & Prevention, 17(7), 592-595. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:JBKZ.0 2013-07-014
[18]	Graber, J. A., & Sontag, L. M. (2009). Internalizing problems during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Individual bases of adolescent development, Vol. 1, 3rd ed. . (pp642-682). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy001020
[19]	Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889 doi: 10.1037/a0038889 URL pmid: 25822208
[20]	Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 279-309. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 URL
[21]	Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 URL
[22]	Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48(2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.127 URL pmid: 8442568
[23]	Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82(6), 887-903. https://doi.org/ 10. 1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 URL
[24]	Kokko, K., Tremblay, R. E., Lacourse, E., Nagin, D. S., & Vitaro, F. (2006). Trajectories of prosocial behavior and physical aggression in middle childhood: Links to adolescent school dropout and physical violence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500.x doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00500.x URL
[25]	Kou, Y., Hong, H.-F., Tan, C., & Li, L. (2007). Revisioning prosocial tendencies measure for adolescent. Psychological Development and Education, 23(1), 112-117.
[26]	Kou, Y., & Zhang, Q. P. (2006). Conceptual representation of early adolescents' prosocial behavior. Sociological Studies, 21(5), 169- 187. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:SHXJ.0 2006-05-008
[27]	Lai, F. H. Y., Siu, A. M. H., & Shek, D. T. L. (2015). Individual and social predictors of prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3, 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2015.00039
[28]	Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1268-1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1268 URL pmid: 10493653
[29]	Lee, E. J., & Stone, S. I. (2012). Co-occurring internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems: The mediating effect of negative self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(6), 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9700-4 doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9700-4 URL
[30]	Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 URL
[31]	Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 URL
[32]	Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491-495. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1017/S0954579410000222 doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000222 URL pmid: 20576173
[33]	Maxwell, J. P. (2008). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Buss-Warren aggression questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 943-953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.037 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.037 URL
[34]	McNeish, D., & Kelley, K. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods, 24(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000182 doi: 10.1037/met0000182 URL pmid: 29863377
[35]	Memmott-Elison, M. K., Holmgren, H. G., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (2020). Associations between prosocial behavior, externalizing behaviors, and internalizing symptoms during adolescence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.012 doi: S0140-1971(20)30012-9 URL pmid: 32087386
[36]	Mesurado, B., Guerra, P., Richaud, M. C., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2019). Effectiveness of prosocial behavior interventions:A meta-analysis. In P. Gargiulo, H. Mesones Arroyo (Ed.), Psychiatry and neuroscience update. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_21
[37]	Moilanen, K. L., Shaw, D. S., & Maxwell, K. L. (2010). Developmental cascades: Externalizing, internalizing, and academic competence from middle childhood to early adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000337 doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000337 URL pmid: 20576184
[38]	Murray, A. L., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2020). Within-person analysis of developmental cascades between externalising and internalising problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(6), 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13150 doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13150 URL
[39]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User's Guide (Eighth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[40]	Nantel-Vivier, A., Pihl, R. O., Côté, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2014). Developmental association of prosocial behaviour with aggression, anxiety and depression from infancy to preadolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(10), 1135-1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12235 doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12235 URL
[41]	Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 1759-1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12411 doi: 10.1111/cdev.12411 URL pmid: 26511897
[42]	Padilla-Walker, L. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Coyne, S. M. (2017). Associations between prosocial and problem behavior from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 961-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0736-y doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0736-y URL
[43]	Paulus, M. (2018). The multidimensional nature of early prosocial behavior: A motivational perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.003 URL
[44]	Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295 doi: 10.1037/dev0000295 URL pmid: 28459276
[45]	Reitz, E., Dekovic, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2005). The structure and stability of externalizing and internalizing problem behavior during early adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 34(6), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8947-z
[46]	Sharp, C. (2020). Adolescent personality pathology and the alternative model for personality disorders: Self development as nexus. Psychopathology, 53(3), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507588
[47]	StataCorp. (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC.
[48]	Usami, S. (2020). On the differences between general cross-lagged panel model and random-intercept cross-lagged panel model: Interpretation of cross-lagged parameters and model choice. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1821690 doi: 10.1080/10705511.2020.1764360 URL
[49]	van Lier, P. A. C., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., Brendgen, M., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivin, M. (2012). Peer victimization, poor academic achievement, and the link between childhood externalizing and internalizing problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1775-1788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802.x URL pmid: 22716904
[50]	Wang, K., Shi, H.-S., Geng, F.-L., Zou, L.-Q., Tan, S.-P., Wang, Y., … Chan, R. C. K. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the depression anxiety stress scale-21 in China. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), e88-e100. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000207
[51]	Weeks, M., Ploubidis, G. B., Cairney, J., Wild, T. C., Naicker, K., & Colman, I. (2016). Developmental pathways linking childhood and adolescent internalizing, externalizing, academic competence, and adolescent depression. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.009 doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.009 URL
[52]	Xie, X., Chen, W., Lei, L., Xing, C., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The relationship between personality types and prosocial behavior and aggression in Chinese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.002 URL
[53]	Zhou, H., & Long, L. R. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
[54]	Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(4), 421-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431605279841 doi: 10.1177/0272431605279841 URL
[55]	Zyphur, M. J., Allison, P. D., Tay, L., Voelkle, M. C., Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., … Diener, E. (2020). From data to causes I: Building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 651-687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119847278 doi: 10.1177/1094428119847278 URL

Variables	Model	χ²	df	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Prosocial tendencies	M1: configural equivalence	478.02	114	0.964	0.032	0.060
	M2: weak equivalence	490.82	124	0.963	0.036	0.058	M2-M1	12.80	10	>0.05	-0.001	-0.002
	M3: strong equivalence	562.06	134	0.957	0.035	0.060	M3-M2	71.24	10	<0.05	-0.006	0.002
	M4: strict equivalence	618.75	146	0.953	0.045	0.060	M4-M3	56.69	12	<0.05	-0.004	0.000
Internalizing problem	M1: configural equivalence	29.72	15	0.998	0.014	0.028
	M2: weak equivalence	34.60	19	0.998	0.016	0.026	M2-M1	4.88	4	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
	M3: strong equivalence	65.90	23	0.994	0.019	0.039	M3-M2	31.3	4	<0.05	-0.004	0.013
	M3.1: Strong equivalence ^a	36.59	21	0.998	0.017	0.024	M3.1-M2	1.99	2	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
Externalizing problem	M1: configural equivalence	224.09	72	0.985	0.022	0.041
	M2: weak equivalence	240.39	80	0.984	0.027	0.040	M2-M1	16.3	8	<0.05	-0.001	-0.001
	M3: strong equivalence	313.15	88	0.978	0.032	0.045	M3-M2	72.76	8	<0.05	-0.006	0.005
	M4: strict equivalence	348.34	98	0.975	0.031	0.045	M4-M3	35.19	10	<0.05	-0.003	0.000

Variables	Model	χ²	df	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ²	Δdf	p	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Prosocial tendencies	M1: configural equivalence	478.02	114	0.964	0.032	0.060
	M2: weak equivalence	490.82	124	0.963	0.036	0.058	M2-M1	12.80	10	>0.05	-0.001	-0.002
	M3: strong equivalence	562.06	134	0.957	0.035	0.060	M3-M2	71.24	10	<0.05	-0.006	0.002
	M4: strict equivalence	618.75	146	0.953	0.045	0.060	M4-M3	56.69	12	<0.05	-0.004	0.000
Internalizing problem	M1: configural equivalence	29.72	15	0.998	0.014	0.028
	M2: weak equivalence	34.60	19	0.998	0.016	0.026	M2-M1	4.88	4	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
	M3: strong equivalence	65.90	23	0.994	0.019	0.039	M3-M2	31.3	4	<0.05	-0.004	0.013
	M3.1: Strong equivalence ^a	36.59	21	0.998	0.017	0.024	M3.1-M2	1.99	2	>0.05	0.000	-0.002
Externalizing problem	M1: configural equivalence	224.09	72	0.985	0.022	0.041
	M2: weak equivalence	240.39	80	0.984	0.027	0.040	M2-M1	16.3	8	<0.05	-0.001	-0.001
	M3: strong equivalence	313.15	88	0.978	0.032	0.045	M3-M2	72.76	8	<0.05	-0.006	0.005
	M4: strict equivalence	348.34	98	0.975	0.031	0.045	M4-M3	35.19	10	<0.05	-0.003	0.000

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD
1 internalizing problems T1	-								0.77	0.56
2 internalizing problems T2	0.45^a	-							0.78	0.60
3 internalizing problems T3	0.38	0.59	-						0.76	0.61
4 externalizing problemsT1	0.66	0.40	0.30	-					2.26	0.66
5 externalizing problemsT2	0.33	0.68	0.41	0.47	-				2.36	0.69
6 externalizing problemsT3	0.36	0.48	0.67	0.44	0.56	-			2.30	0.65
7 Prosocial Behavior Tendency T1	-0.11	-0.07	-0.05	-0.09	-0.02	-0.04	-		3.62	0.67
8 prosocial behavior tendency T2	-0.09	-0.15	-0.12	-0.11	-0.14	-0.11	0.41	-	3.68	0.68
9 prosocial behavior tendency T3	-0.08	-0.10	-0.22	-0.06	-0.08	-0.11	0.29	0.43	3.65	0.68

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD
1 internalizing problems T1	-								0.77	0.56
2 internalizing problems T2	0.45^a	-							0.78	0.60
3 internalizing problems T3	0.38	0.59	-						0.76	0.61
4 externalizing problemsT1	0.66	0.40	0.30	-					2.26	0.66
5 externalizing problemsT2	0.33	0.68	0.41	0.47	-				2.36	0.69
6 externalizing problemsT3	0.36	0.48	0.67	0.44	0.56	-			2.30	0.65
7 Prosocial Behavior Tendency T1	-0.11	-0.07	-0.05	-0.09	-0.02	-0.04	-		3.62	0.67
8 prosocial behavior tendency T2	-0.09	-0.15	-0.12	-0.11	-0.14	-0.11	0.41	-	3.68	0.68
9 prosocial behavior tendency T3	-0.08	-0.10	-0.22	-0.06	-0.08	-0.11	0.29	0.43	3.65	0.68

Effect	CLPM			RI-CLPM			GCLM
Effect	β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Autoregressive effect				at the within-person level
PSO1→PSO2	0.41	0.03	<0.001	0.21	0.07	0.002	0.11	0.03	<0.001
PSO2→PSO3	0.42	0.04	<0.001	0.23	0.07	0.002	0.07	0.03	0.008
EXT1→EXT2	0.45	0.04	<0.001	0.13	0.08	0.09	0.12	0.05	0.007
EXT2→EXT3	0.44	0.04	<0.001	0.14	0.07	0.036	0.08	0.05	0.089
INT1→INT2	0.33	0.05	<0.001	0.04	0.10	0.669	0.11	0.06	0.074
INT2→INT3	0.56	0.04	<0.001	0.38	0.07	<0.001	0.31	0.07	<0.001
Cross-lagged effect
INT1→EXT2	0.04	0.04	0.392	-0.07	0.08	0.404	-0.02	0.05	0.651
PSO1→EXT2	0.01	0.03	0.660	0.002	0.06	0.974	-0.05	0.02	0.057
INT2→EXT3	0.18	0.04	<0.001	0.16	0.07	0.017	0.09	0.05	0.079
PSO2→EXT3	-0.02	0.03	0.651	-0.06	0.05	0.302	-0.06	0.03	0.015
EXT1→INT2	0.18	0.05	<0.001	0.12	0.08	0.117	0.06	0.05	0.214
PSO1→INT2	-0.03	0.04	0.497	-0.02	0.07	0.726	-0.07	0.02	0.004
EXT2→INT3	0.03	0.04	0.458	-0.03	0.05	0.554	-0.07	0.05	0.158
PSO2→INT3	-0.03	0.03	0.363	-0.05	0.05	0.318	-0.03	0.02	0.143
EXT1→PSO2	-0.07	0.05	0.119	-0.12	0.07	0.092	-0.15	0.05	0.008
EXT2→PSO3	0.002	0.04	0.957	-0.03	0.06	0.639	-0.09	0.05	0.081
INT1→PSO2	0.007	0.04	0.880	0.04	0.07	0.569	0.04	0.05	0.499
INT2→PSO3	-0.04	0.05	0.441	-0.009	0.08	0.899	-0.001	0.05	0.979
Covariant correlation effect
INT1↔EXT1	0.66	0.03	<0.001	0.55	0.06	<0.001	0.58	0.05	<0.001
INT1↔PSO1	-0.11	0.04	0.003	-0.09	0.07	0.194	-0.13	0.05	0.014
EXT1↔PSO1	-0.09	0.04	0.021	-0.08	0.06	0.177	-0.14	0.05	0.005
INT2↔EXT2	0.61	0.03	<0.001	0.58	0.05	<0.001	0.56	0.05	<0.001
INT2↔PSO2	-0.12	0.04	0.007	-0.12	0.06	0.050	-0.13	0.06	0.04
EXT2↔PSO2	-0.12	0.04	0.002	-0.14	0.06	0.025	-0.18	0.06	0.002
INT3↔EXT3	0.58	0.03	<0.001	0.57	0.04	<0.001	0.53	0.04	<0.001
INT3↔PSO3	-0.19	0.04	<0.001	-0.22	0.05	<0.001	-0.22	0.06	<0.001
EXT3↔PSO3	-0.07	0.04	0.095	-0.09	0.05	0.074	-0.07	0.05	0.147
				at the between-person level
INT↔EXT				0.80	0.04	<0.001	0.80	0.05	<0.001
INT↔PSO				-0.18	0.13	0.146	-0.06	0.09	0.559
EXT↔PSO				-0.11	0.11	0.314	0.05	0.09	0.595