The relationship between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits

1.333

.77

Deprivation Scale

2.2440

.87993

.573

-.429

.91

Nutrition Status

4.1282

.65264

-1.153

4.031

.84

Parenting Style

Parenting Style

Parenting Style

Authoritative

3.4778

.98941

-.443

-.621

.89

Caring

3.6544

.87944

-.493

-.355

.85

Authoritarian

2.5747

.96734

.340

-.744

.79

Extraversion

2.9454

1.01359

.006

-1.045

.83

Agreeableness

3.9684

.74468

-.639

-.195

.71

Conscientiousness

3.5301

.87621

-.303

-.355

.69

Neuroticism

3.1930

.88770

-.372

-.312

.71

Openness to experience

3.7777

.86936

-.714

.159

.76

Canonical correlational analysis (CCA) was used to maximize coefficient of interrelation between two sets of variables, such as Conditions in childhood set with seven predictor variables and Personality traits set with five criterion variables in order to test the hypotheses H1. It allowed to assess the combination of variance of two sets step by step in order that correlation between sets was maximized. Hierarchical regression analysis was used for testing unique predictions in hypotheses H2, H3 and H4, by each component of Conditions in childhood and Personality traits.

Results

No outliers or missing values were in our data. Descriptive statistics and reliability of the scales are shown in Table 2. Canonical correlational analysis (CCA) was used to maximize coefficient of interrelation between two sets of variables, such as Conditions in childhood set with seven predictor variables and Personality traits set with five criterion variables in order to test the hypotheses H1. It allowed to assess the combination of variance of two sets step by step in order that correlation between sets was maximized. Only two functions were significant (see Table 3). As significant level is p <.05, only first and second functions out of five were statistically significant.

Table 3. Dimension Reduction Analysis

Roots	Wilks	F	Hypothesis DF	Error DF	Significance of F
1 to 5	.771	2.338	35	1281	<.001
2 to 5	.874	1.744	24	1065	.015
3 to 5	.950	1.055	15	845.13	.396
4 to 5	.981	.753	8	614.00	.645
5 to 5	.997	.283	3	308.00	.838

The results of the correlational analysis are presented in Table 4. Function 1 and Function 2 were two variants of a canonical correlational analysis with seven predictors of conditions in childhood and five personality traits variables. These functions had reasonable amount of variance between the variable sets and they explained 12% and 8% of the variance within their functions.



Table 4. Canonical Solution for Attachment Predicting Personality for Functions 1 and 2

			Function 1		Function 2	h2 (%)
			Coef.	Cross-л	rs	rs2 (%)		Coef.	Cross-л	rs	rs2 (%)
Personality traits
	Extraversion		-.649	-.28	-.81	65.61		.759	.15	.53	28.09	93.7
	Agreeableness		-.308	-.21	-.60	36		-.727	-.16	.56	31.36	67.36
	Conscientiousness		-.216	-.14	-.40	16		-.043	-.08	-.27	7.29	23.29
	Neuroticism		.155	.08	.24	5.76		.433	.10	.37	13.69	19.45
	Openness to experience		-.327	-.18	-.51	26.01		-.123	-.05	-.17	2.89	28.9
	Rc2			.34	.12				.28	.08
Conditions in childhood
	HomeEnvironment		-.243	-.24	-.71	50.41		.769	.14	.48	23.04	73.45
	Learning resources		-.280	-.24	-.69	47.61		-.421	.01	.05	0.25	47.86
	DeprivationScale		-.045	.16	.45	20.25		-.178	-.06	-.21	4.41	24.66
	NutritionStatus		-.052	-.12	-.36	12.96		-.275	.12	.44	19.36	32.32
	Parenting Style	Authoritative		-.720	-.31	-.90	0.81		-.239	-.06	-.22	4.84	5.65
		Caring		.006	-.27	-.79	62.41		.232	.00	-.01	0.01	62.41
		Authoritarian		-.017	.19	.55	30.25		.719	.17	.61	37.21	67.46
Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater than 45% are underlined. Coef = standardized canonical function coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared structure coefficient; h2 = communality coefficient; Cross-л - cross-loadings

We chose relevant criterion variables in Function 1 and Function 2 with structure coefficient above .45 (following a rule of thumb). In the Function 1 relevant criterion variables in Personality traits set were extraversion (rs = .81), agreeableness (rs = .60), and openness to experience (rs = -.51). Openness to experience made the secondary contribution to the Personality traits set. They had the greatest amount of variance they can contribute to Personality traits set and all were negatively related. Cross-loading coefficients for extraversion (rs = -.28), agreeableness (rs = -.21) and openness to experience (rs = -.18) were the amounts of relation to Conditions in childhood in the Function 1 (see Table 4).

Figure 1. Illustration of the Function 1 in a canonical correlation analysis with seven predictors of conditions in childhood and five personality traits variables

Relevant predictor variables in Conditions in childhood set with the greatest amount of variance to contribute to the whole set in the Function 1 are home environment (rs = -.71), learning resources scale (rs = -.69), deprivation scale (rs = .45), authoritative parenting style scale (rs = -.90), caring parenting style scale (rs = -.79), and authoritarian parenting style scale (rs = .55). All of them are with the greatest amount of variance and all, except deprivation scale and authoritarian parenting style scale, are negatively related. Cross-loading coefficients for home environment scale (-.24), learning resources scale (-.24), deprivation scale (.16), authoritative parenting style (-.31), caring parenting style (-.27), and authoritarian parenting style (.19) are the amounts of contribution they make to Personality traits set in the Function 1 (see Table 4).

Relevant variables in the Function 2 are extraversion (rs = .53) and agreeableness (rs = .56). They have the greatest amount of variance, which demonstrates how they are connected with Personality traits set in overall and all of them are positively related. Cross-loadings coefficients for extraversion (.15) and agreeableness (-.16) are the amounts of contribution they make to Conditions in childhood in the Function 2 (see Table 4).

Figure 2. Illustration of the Function 2 in a canonical correlation analysis with seven predictors of dconditions in childhood and five personality traits variables.

Relevant predictor variables with the greatest amount of variance to contribute to the Conditions in childhood set in the Function 2 are home environment scale (rs = .48) and authoritarian parenting style scale (rs = .61). Both of them are with the greatest amount of variance and all are positively related. Cross-loading coefficients for home environment scale (.14) and authoritarian parenting style scale (.17) are the amounts of contribution they make to Personality traits set in the Function 2 (see Table 4).

The strength of the relationships between pairs of variables is reflected by Rc. The common variance between two sets of variables in the Function 1 (Rc = .34) is higher, than in the Function 2 (Rc = .28). We conсlude, that composite variables are better interrelated in the Function 1.

In the Function 1 all variables from Conditions in childhood set, except authoritarian parenting style and deprivation scale, are negatively associated with Personality traits set. In the Function 2 deprivation scale, authoritative parenting style and caring parenting style are negatively associated with Personality traits set, home environment, learning resources, nutrition status and authoritarian parenting style are positively associated with Personality traits set. This provides confirmation for the main hypothesis (H1) about existing association between socioeconomic conditions in childhood and personality traits from five-factor model. childhood adult poverty education

Regression analysis was used to test the unique predictions in hypotheses H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7 and to analyze the effect of each scale from Conditions in childhood set on personality traits (see Appendix C).

Table 5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression

	Extraversion	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
					в		rp2				в		rp2				в		rp2
Parenting Style	Authoritative				.209	*	.02				.302	**	.03				.221	*	.02
	Authoritarian				.136	*	.01				-.035						-.025
Home Environment				.190	**	.02				-.142	*	.01				-.002
Learning resources				.034						.156	*	.01				-.019
Note. ** p < .01; * p < .05. в - regression coefficient; rp2-squared partial correlation

Authoritarian parenting style had no significant correlations with neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience, but was positively associated with extraversion. Assumption of positive association between authoritarian parenting style and neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion can be partially confirmed (H2). authoritative parenting style was positively related to extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, but no significant associations were obtained with openness to experience and neuroticism. These results provide the ground for only partial confirmation of the 2nd unique hypothesis about positive association between authoritative parenting style and extraversion. openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and negative association with neuroticism (H3). Home environment was positively associated with extraversion and negatively with agreeableness, but no significant associations with openness to experience and conscientiousness were obtained. This way, hypothesis (H4) about positive association between home environment and extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience can only be partially confirmed. No significant associations were obtained between nutrition status scale and any of personality traits (H5). No significant associations were obtained also between deprivation scale and any of personality traits (H6). Learning resources were positively associated with agreeableness (H7). The indirect effects of gender, age and income in adulthood were significant (see Appendix C).

Discussion

In this study we examined the effect of socioeconomic environment in childhood on personality traits in adulthood. Although the surroundings of low-income children contain more singular psychosocial and physical environmental risk factors with known adverse developmental outcomes, the confluence of multiple psychosocial and physical risk factors may be a key, unique feature of childhood poverty (Mayer & Jencks, 1989). So, our approach for studying socioeconomic environment in childhood considered not only financial aspect of poverty, but predominantly emphasized combination of psychosocial and physical factors, such as a lack of physical security, increased levels of stress, deprivation of resources, and bad education. We followed findings of Brooks-Gunn & Duncan (1997) and Adler and colleagues (1993), who offered similar division of spheres, which are influenced by poor conditions of life (e. g. home environment, child health and nutrition, stimulating home environment, neighborhood conditions and etc.). This division formed the basis for Childhood conditions of life questionnaire, which incorporated many aspects of environment in childhood influential for personality (learning resources, home environment, parenting styles, nutrition status and Deprivation status). The approach allowed to obtain understanding of how conditions of life in childhood are associated with personality.

Canonical correlational analysis allowed to explore the relationships between a set of conditions of life in childhood and five-factor model personality traits set. This type of analysis allowed to evaluate overall relationship between conditions of life in childhood and personality. Most important finding was that conditions in childhood were influential for personality traits in adulthood. These findings are consistent with past studies devoted to interrelation between factors of poor childhood conditions of life and different aspects of personality (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Duncan et. al., 1994; Evans, 2004; Griskevicius et. al., 2013). Obtained findings demonstrate that childhood conditions of life are associated with personality traits in adulthood. Regression analysis allowed to analyze the effect of conditions in childhood on personality, formulated in hypotheses H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7. The results showed that a number of socioeconomic factors impacted personality. Most influential findings was that authoritative parenting style strongly related to three personality traits, such as conscientiousness, consistent with previous studies (Krevans & Gibbs 1996; Knafo & Plomin 2006), agreeableness, and extraversion. No significant associations with neuroticism and openness to experience were obtained. Authoritarian parenting style also had significant correlation with extraversion, consistent with findings of Maddahi and colleagues (2012). No significant correlations between authoritarian parenting style and openness to experience and neuroticism were obtained.

It appears, that positive relation was obtained between each of parenting styles (authoritarian & authoritative) and extraversion. Consistent with findings of Maddahi and colleagues (2012), positive association between authoritarian parenting style and extraversion was found. At the same time, finding of the positive association between extraversion and authoritative parenting style is consistent with past findings (Savitha & Venkatachalam, 2016). Obtained results confirm past findings where ambivalence in relations between authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles with extraversion were found. So, findings of the hypotheses concerning different parenting styles and personality traits (H2 & H3) can be partially confirmed, because significant associations were still obtained. Nevertheless, past findings (e. g. Maddahi et. al., 2012; Savitha & Venkatachalam, 2016) found associations between parenting styles and parental personality traits, while results of the current study make a contribution in studying of parenting practices' role in formation of child personality. Moreover, retrospective method allowed to investigate the relation between perceived parenting style in families of the participants in childhood and personality traits of the participants in adult age.

At the same time no significant associations between caring parenting style with any of personality traits were obtained. Caring parenting style scale incorporated author's developed questions, expected to fulfill parenting style, characterized as warm, nurturing and considerate. Despite the fact, that questions for caring parenting style were mentioned to be crucial for personality development in past studies (e. g. «My parents could always find time to read books with me», Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), obtained results do not let us affirm significant role of caring parenting style for personality.

Home environment was positively associated with extraversion and unexpectedly negatively associated with agreeableness. No expected associations with conscientiousness and openness to experience were obtained. It follows, that favorable home environment with absence of constant noise, or presence of own sleeping or working place, which are measured in the questionnaire by specific questions, serve the ground for people low on agreeableness to be distant, unfriendly, uncooperative and putting their own interests above those of others. On a one hand, agreeable people are more likeable than disagreeable. On the other hand, agreeableness may not be useful in some occupational situations, where difficult or objective decisions are required. People, who score low on agreeableness often make excellent critics, scientists, or soldiers. Positive association with extraversion can be explained as contribution of early childhood conditions with lack of privacy and irritating external factors to features of extraverted person, who derives energy from external means (Olsen, 2002), and is assertive and gregarious (Matthews, et. al., 2009).

We tried to come to understanding of goods distribution specificity and alimentation in low-income families. We did not obtain any significant associations between nutrition status and personality traits, inconsistent with past findings (MacNicol et. al., 2003; Vollrath, et. al., 2012). We assume that our sample had quite good level of nutrition in childhood, than we could have expected. Additionally, possible explanation is that theoretical background on poor nutrition status in childhood and personality was based on sample with children of 11-15 years old (MacNicol et. al., 2003), who were already quite mature. Another reason of such results may be priorities families of our participants had, such as always keeping children well nourished and not letting them starve, despite the lack of financial for other family needs. We also did not obtain significant associations between deprivation scale and personality traits. It appears, that our sample included people with low deprivation, and what provided no significant associations between level of deprivation and personality traits. We assume, that in case of sample with strong deprivation, significant associations between deprivation scale and personality traits would occur. In overall, the retrospective way of measurement of childhood conditions may be the most significant explanation for absence of associations between nutrition status and personality traits, and deprivation level and personality traits, because deprivation factors and nutrition could have been mitigated by overall situation in childhood, such as family relationship, home environment and etc., what eventually leaded to probably better perception of childhood conditions nowadays.

Regression analysis also revealed correlation between learning resources in childhood and agreeableness, where presence of educational opportunities, books and toys, own room and working place were associated with such characteristics as cooperativeness, compassion, trust and willingness to be helpful. We suppose, that opportunity to learn already in early life period develops communication skills, altruism and amiability. Starting already in early childhood education contributes to better cognitive abilities, what makes people more literate and accepting environment without prejudice. Despite the absence of expected associations between learning resources scale and openness to experience, our findings provide the evidence for significant role of educational tools and opportunities in childhood for future personality, consistent with past studies (Brooks-Gunn, et. al., 1997; Coley, 2002; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Duncan, et. al., 1994).

In overall, all obtained associations between factors of socioeconomic environment and personality traits in our retrospective study demonstrate important role of socioeconomic environment for personality development. Retrospective study may be the main important factor not only for absent associations between personality traits and such scales as deprivation and nutrition status, but also for all other obtained results.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our study tried to understand how financial situation in family in childhood affects personality traits of people grown up in such families. We applied socioeconomic environment definition, which incorporated most influential for personality development spheres, according to past findings. It helped us to elaborate The childhood conditions of life questionnaire, which contributed to better understanding the relation between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits. Obtained results provide the evidence for our questionnaire to be non-exhaustive, because not all environmental factors were possible to be reflected. This fact leads to necessity of future investigations and consideration of other factors, which were not controlled in our work. Nevertheless, current study has a great advantage in comparison with past studies. This advantage is expressed through consideration of many spheres of childhood period (e. g. home environment, learning resources, nutrition status, deprivation, parenting styles) for personality in overall while past studies investigated impact of childhood period on different aspects of personality only, such as cognitive abilities problems (Brooks Gunn & Duncan, 1997), brain structures development (Hair et. al., 2015), self-regulation (e. g., Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1997; Duncan et. al., 1994; Evans, 2004), and developmental delays and learning disabilities (Dawson, 1991).

Additionally, retrospective research was the only possible and useful in the context of studying the impact of socioeconomic environment in childhood on personality traits. It allowed to obtain more knowledge about early life period impact on personality. Nevertheless, we realize the shortages of retrospective method and can not underestimate arising outcomes. The retrospective method used to study conditions of life in childhood could provoke incompletely objective perception of environmental aspects, which accompanied life of participants many years ago. We relied only on subjective perception of childhood conditions of life, what in fact could be misrepresented by many different factors, which were not under the research control. In order to improve findings in sphere of studying childhood and as maximum as possible to avoid factor of subjectivity, longitudinal study can help researchers in further investigations.

As concerns participants, our sample appeared to be specific the way it was non-deprived. The specificity of sample may be the reason for different from expected overall picture of associations between socioeconomic factors in childhood and personality traits. We expected, that along with high neuroticism the rates of nutrition status and deprivation would be same low as rates of learning resources, home environment and authoritarian parenting style. Despite our expectations, no significant associations were obtained with nutrition status scale and deprivation scale. This shortage of associations provide the ground for future investigations, where great emphasis worthy to be made on such factors of socioeconomic environment in childhood as nutrition status and deprivation of resources.



Conclusion

The main aim of the study was to find out how conditions of life in childhood affect personality in adulthood. According to the results, we demonstrated that socioeconomic conditions in childhood are associated with personality traits from five-factor model. We conclude that such factors as parenting styles, home environment and learning resources are the most influential for personality.

Current study allowed to shed light on relations between childhood conditions of life and personality traits of people coming from different socioeconomic environments. Important finding is concerned with parenting styles and personality traits. Inconsistencies in findings provide the ground for speculations about the reasons for obtained results. One may come from the perspective of sample type (non-deprived), which can be the main explanation for ambiguous results. Authoritative parenting style, same as authoritarian parenting style both were positively correlated with extraversion, what served the ground for confirmation of already existing ambivalence in results, concerned with extraversion and two opposite parenting styles, such as authoritative and authoritarian. We conclude, that studying parenting practices in Russia deserves much more attention and speculations, because results of the study provide the evidence for parenting style to be one of the most influential factors for personality.

Following existing scarcity in obtained results, it is possible that different findings could have been revealed in case of pronounced factors. One of notable factors appeared to be non-deprived sample. Inconsistent with researcher's expectations, prevail of other factors of unfavorable childhood conditions (e. g. authoritarian parenting style, poor learning resources) was not accompanied by bad alimentation or deprivation of resources. We suppose, that in case of well-expressed deprivation and bad alimentation our findings could have been less ambiguous and providing supportive results for past findings. Additionally, longitudinal study could be much more objective and valuable for researching early life periods in order to obtain scientifically proven findings for widening sphere of studying childhood role for personality.



References

1. Adler, N. E., Boyce, W. T., Chesney, M. A., Folkman, S., Syme, L. (1993). Socioeconomic inequalities in health: no easy solution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 69: 3140-3145.

2. Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. D. (2011). Personality psychology and economics (No. w16822). National Bureau of Economic Research.

3. Almond, D., & Currie, J. (2011). Human capital development before age five. Handbook of labor economics, 4B, 1315-1486. doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02413-0

4. Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. Harcourt College Pub. ISBN 0030108101. 28.

5. Angell, R. C. (1936). The family encounters the depression. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

6. Asendorpf, J. B. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544.

7. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

8. Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation Failure: An Overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1): 1-15;

9. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: how and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic press.

10. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: an evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647-670.

11. Bennett F. (1997). The LBW, premature infant. In: R. Gross, D. Spiker, C. Haynes, (Ed.), Helping low birth weight, premature babies: The infant health and development program. (pp. 3-16). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

12. Behrman, J., & Rosenzweig, M. (2004). Returns to birthweight. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 586-601.

13. Blair, C. (2010). Stress and the development of self?regulation in context. Child Development Perspectives, 4(3), 181-188. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00145.x

14. Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills, K., R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M. T., ... & Fortunato, C. K. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development, 82(6), 1970-1984.

15. Blau, D. M. (2006). The effect of income on child development. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(2), 261-276. doi.org/10.1162/003465399558067

16. Bolger, K. E., Patterson, J., Thompson, W. W., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1995). Psychosocial adjustment among children experiencing persistent and intermittent family economic hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107-1129. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00926.x

17. Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Monographs in parenting series. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18. Bosma, H., Van De Mheen, H.D.,  & Mackenbach, J.P. (1999). Social class in childhood and general health in adulthood: questionnaire study of contribution of psychological attributes. British Medical Journal, 318, 18-22.

19. Bradley, R. L., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. J., & Pope, S. K. (1994). Early indications of resilience and their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight, premature children living in poverty. Child Development, 65, 346-360.

20. Bradley R.H., Corwyn R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399.

21. Brody, D. J., Pirkle, J., Kramer, R., Flegal, K., Matte, T. D., Gunter, E., & Pascal, D. (1994). Blood lead levels in the U.S. population: phase I of the third national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES III, 1988-1991). Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 277-283.

22. Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P., & Liaw, F. (1995). The learning-physical, and emotional environment of the home in the context of poverty: the infant health and development program. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 251-276.

23. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 55-71.

24. Brown, L., Cowen, E., Hightower, A. D., & Lotyczewski, B. (1986). Demographic differences among children in judging and experiencing specific stressful life events. Journal of Special Education, 20, 339-346.

25. Brown J.L., & Pollitt E. (1996). Malnutrition, poverty and intellectual development. Scientific American, 274(2), 38-43.

26. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: a new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-31.

27. Cashen, M. B. (2015). Psychopatic personality traits, intelligence, and economic success. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 551-569.

28. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. (2005). Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.

29. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: an explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95-144.

30. Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R. B., Alper, C. M., & Skoner, D. P. (2004). Childhood socioeconomic status and host resistance to infectious illness in ddulthood. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 553-558. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000126200.05189.d

31. Coleman, M., & L. H. Ganong. (1990). Remarriage and stepfamily research in the 1980's: increased interest in an old family form. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 925-940.

32. Coley, R. J. (2002) An uneven start: Indicators of inequality in school readiness. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. NJ.

33. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. J Marriage Fam, 72(3), 685-704.

34. Corr, P. J., & Matthews, G. (2009). The Cambridge Handboook of Personality Psychology (1. Publ. ed.) Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86218-9

35. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual differences, 13(6), 653-665.

36. Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, doi: 10.1016/S1574-0692(06)01012-9

37. Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and children's health: United States, 1988. Vital Health Stat 10, 178, 1-47.

38. Deck, C., Lee, J., & Reyes, J. (2008). Risk attitudes in large stake gambles: evidence from a game show. Applied Economics, 40(1), 41-52.

39. Deckers, T., Falk, A., Kosse, F., & Schildberg-Hцrisch, H. (2015). How does socio-economic status shape a child's personality? IZA Discussion Paper No. ?8977???

40. DeNavas-Walt C. (2010). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States (2005). Diane Publishing.

41. Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., Lopez, I., & Reimers, F. (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77-113.

42. Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580-592.

43. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57, 119-169.

44. Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203.

45. Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child development, 65(2), 296-318.

46. Eisenberg, N, Duckworth, A.L., Spinrad, T.L. & Valiente, C. (2014). Conscientiousness: origins in childhood? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1331-1349.

47. Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 920-958. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.920

48. Emery, R. E., & Laumann-Billings, L. (1998). An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships. Towards differentiating maltreatment and violence. Am Psychol., 53 (2), 121-35.

49. Ensminger, M. E., Fothergill, K., Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). A decade of measuring SES: what it tells us and where to go from here. Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development, 13-27.

50. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 147-66.

51. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59 (2), 77-92. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77

52. Evans, G. W., & Fuller-Rowell, T. E. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and young adult working memory: the protective role of self?regulatory capacity. Developmental Science, 16(5), 688-696.

53. Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2007). Childhood poverty and health: cumulative risk exposure and stress disregulation. Psychol Sci., 18 (11), 953-7.

54. Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self?regulation, and coping. Child Development Perspectives, 7 (1), 43-48.

55. Evans, G. W., & Schamberg, M. A. (2009). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(16), 6545-6549.

56. FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome, UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

57. Farah, M. J., Shera, D. M., Savage, J. H., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, J. M., Brodsky, N. L., & Hurt, H. (2006). Childhood poverty: specific associations with neurocognitive development. Brain research, 1110 (1), 166-174.

58. Filer, R. K. (1986). The role of personality and tastes in determining occupational structure. Industrial Labor Relations Review XX, 412-424.

59. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402-435.

60. Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D.A., Lynch, J. W., & Davey Smith, G. (2006). Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2). J Epidemiol Community Health, 60 (2): 95-101.

61. Galobardes, B., Smith, G. D., & Lynch, J.W. (2006). Systematic review of the influence of childhood socioeconomic circumstances on risk for cardiovascular disease in adulthood. Ann Epidemiol, 16(2), 91-104.

62. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

63. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835;

64. Griskevicius, V., Delton, A.W., Robertson, T.E., & Tybur, J.M. (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 241-54. doi: 10.1037/a0021082

65. Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantъ, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environment. Psychological Science, 24, 197-205. doi: 10.1177/0956797612451471

66. Griskevicius, V., & Mittal, C., (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people's childhood environment: a life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107 (4), 621-637.

67. Gunnar, M. R., & Quevedo, K. M. (2007). Early care experiences and HPA axis regulation in children: a mechanism for later trauma vulnerability. Progress in Brain Research, 167, 137-149.

68. Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2006). Forty years on: teacher's assessments of children's personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. Health Psychology, 25, 57-64.

69. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

70. Hauser, R.M., & Warren, J.R. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: a review, update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 177-298.

71. Herrenkohl, E. C., & Herrenkohl, R. C. (1981). Some antecedents and developmental consequences of child maltreatment. New Directions for Child Development, 11, 57-76.

72. Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of Parenting, 231-252. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

73. Hoffman L., Marquis J. G., Poston D. J., Sum-mers J. A., & Turnbull A. P. (2006). Assessing family outcomes: psychometric evaluation of the family quality of life scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1069-1083. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00314.x

74. Howes, C., & Eldredge, R. (1985). Responses of abused, neglected, and non-maltreated children to the behaviors of their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6: 261-270.

75. Jeronimus, B. F., Ormel, J., Alerman, A., Penninx, B. W., & Riese, H. (2013). Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism. Psychological Medicine, 43 (11), 2403-15. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713000159

76. Jeronimus, B. F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., & Ormel. J. (2014). Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experience: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107 (4), 751-64. doi: 10.1037/a0037009

77. John, O.P. (1990). The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and in Questionnaires. Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, 66-100

78. Jokela, M., Keltikangas-Jдrvinen, L. (2011). The association between low socioeconomic status and depressive symptoms depends on temperament and personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 302-308.

79. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personality Psychology, 56, 621-652.

80. Kim, P., Evans, G. W., Angstadt, M., Ho, S. S., Sripada, C. S., Swain, J. E., ... Phan, K. L. (2013). Effects of childhood poverty and chronic stress on emotion regulatory brain function in adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(46), 18442-18447. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1308240110

81. Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 771-786.

82. Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: relations to children's empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Dev., 67 (6), 3263-77.

83. Lecic-Tosevski, D., Vukovic, O., Stepanovic, J. (2011). Stress and personality. Psychiatriki, 22(4): 290-7.

84. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn J. (2002). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological bulletin, 126(2), 309.

85. Lewis, O. (1966). The Culture of Poverty. American, 215(4), 19-25.

86. Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in six year-olds from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123.

87. Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: links to children's cognitive development across the first 3 years. Child development, 79(4), 1065-1085.

88. Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children's adjustment. Developmental Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, 41. CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

89. MacNicol, S., Murray, S., & Austin, E. (2003). Relationships between personality, attitudes and dietary behavior in a group of scottish adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 35 (8), 1753-1764.

90. Maddahi, M. E., Javidi, N., Samadzadeh, M., &Amini, M. (2012). The study of relationship between parenting styles and personality dimensions in sample of college students. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 5(9), 3332-3336.

91. Magnuson, K. A., & Duncan, G. J. (2002). Parents in poverty. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Social Conditions and Applied Parenting, 95-121.

92. Manning, W. J., Cohen, A., & Smock, P. (2011). The role of romantic partners, family, and peer networks in dating couples' views about cohabitation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26 (1), 115-149.

93. Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C. (2009). Personality Traits. Cambridge University Press.

94. Mayer, S. E., & Jencks, C. (1989). Growing up in poor neighborhoods: how much does it matter? Science, 243(4897), 1441-5. doi: 10.1126/science.243.4897.1441

95. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

96. McCulloch, A., & Joshi, H. E. (2001). Neighborhood and family influences on the cognitive ability of children in the British national child development study. Social Science and Medicine, 53 (5), 579-91.

97. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

98. Miller P. J., Cho G. E., & Bracey J. R. (2005). Working- class children's experience through the prism of personal storytelling. Human Development, 48(3), 115-135.

99. Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Parker, K. J. (2011). Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological bulletin, 137 (6), 959.

100. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk factors for learning-related behavior problems at 24 months of age: population-based estimates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 401-413.

101. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: why having too little means so much. Time Books, Henry Holt & Company LLC, NY.

102. Murray, C.B. (1996). Estimating achievement performance: a confirmation bias. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(1), 67-85.

103. Narayan, D., & Petesch, P. (2002). Voices of the poor: from many lands. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press. World Bank.

104. Poluektova, O. V., Efremova, M. V., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Poverty and Psychology;

105. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the Five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338.

106. Poverty in Russia. Public Policy and Private Responses / Edited by Jeni Klugman (1997), Economic Development Institute of The World Bank.

107. Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early childhood antecedents of aggressive and passive withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality, 57, 257-282.

108. Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull, 128 (2), 330-66.

109. Robert, T. M., & Betson, D. M. (1997). Why so many children are poor. The Future of children. Children and Poverty, 7(2), 25-39.

110. Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 137-145.

111. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: the comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspect Psychol Sci., 2(4), 313-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

112. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSQD). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques, 3, (p.p. 319-321). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

113. Saegert S. C., Adler N. E., Bullock H. E., Ca-uce A. M., Ming Liu W., & Wyche K. F. (2006). Report of the APA task force on socioeconomic status. American Psychological Association;

114. Savitha, K., & Venkatachalam, J. (2016). Percieved parenting styles and personality factors - a study. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(4).

115. Seguin, L., Potvin, L., St-Denis, M., & Loiselle, J. (1995). Chronic stressors, social support, and depression during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol., 85, 583-9.

116. Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35, 153-169.

117. Shipler, D. (2005). The working poor: invisible in America. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. ISBN #0375408908

118. Slack, K. S., Holl, J. L., McDaniel, M., Yoo, J., & Bolger, K. (2004). Understanding the risks of child neglect: an exploration of poverty and parenting characteristics. Child maltreatment, 9(4), 395-408.

119. Slopen, N., Fitzmaurice, G., Williams, D. R., & Gilman, S. E. (2010). Poverty, food insecurity, and the behavior for childhood internalizing and externalizing disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49 (5), 444-452.

120. Soubelet, A. & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Personality-cognition relations across adulthood. Dev. Psychol., 47(2), 303-10. doi: 10.1037/a0021816

121. Sulik, M. J., Blair, C., Mills?Koonce, R., Berry, D., & Greenberg, M. (2015). Early parenting and the development of externalizing behavior problems: longitudinal mediation through children's executive function. Child development, 86 (5), 1588-1603.

122. Toegel, G., & Barsoux, J. L. (2012). How to become a better leader. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53 (3), 51-60.

123. Viinikainen, J., Kokko, K., Pulkkinen, L., & Pehkonen, J. (2010). Personality and labour market income: evidence from longitudinal data. Labour, 24(2), 201-220.

124. Vollrath, M. E., Hampson, S. E., & Juliussond, P. B. (2012). Children and eating: personality and gender are associated with obesogenic food consumption and overweight in 6- to 12-years-olds. Appetite, 58(3), 1113-1117.

125. Wagmiller, R., Lennon, M. C., Kuan, L., Alberti, P. M., & Lawrence A. J. (2006). The dynamics of economic disadvantage and children's life chances. Ameican Sociological Review, 71, 847-866.

126. White, A. E., Li, Y. J., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Putting all your eggs in one basket: life history strategies, bet-hedging, and diversification. Psychological Science, 24, 715-722. doi:10.1177/0956797612461919

127. World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2014.

128. Young, E. S., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Huelsnitz, C. O. & Fleck, C. (2017). Childhood attachment and adult personality: a life history perspective. Self and Identity, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2017.1353540



Abstract

This study examined the relation between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits in adulthood. Based on past findings (Adler et. al., 1993; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), socioeconomic environment incorporated important for child development factors, such as learning resources, home environment, nutrition status, deprivation of resources and parenting styles. Data included Russian participants from 16-65 years-olds. Using canonical correlational analysis (CCA), the author found that socioeconomic conditions in childhood do affect personality in adulthood. Hierarchical regression analysis showed, that such factors as authoritative, authoritarian parenting styles, home environment and learning resources were particularly important for personality. Authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles were both associated with extraversion. Authoritative was also positively associated with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Home environment was positively associated with extraversion and negatively with agreeableness. Learning resources were also found to be influential for personality and were positively associated with agreeableness.

Key words: socioeconomic environment, SES, poverty, personality traits, childhood, aspects of personality



Appendix

Conditions of life in childhood questionnaire







Regression Multivariate Tests of Significance (S = 5, M = -1/2, N = 151)

Test Name	Value	Approximate F	Hypothesis DF	Error DF	Significance of F
Pillais's	.249	2.304	35	1540	.000
Hotellings's	.273	2.356	35	1512	.000
Wilks's	.771	2.338	35	1281	<.0...

Подобные документы

• Education System In Honduras

  State of the Honduran education system. Structure of the Honduran education system: Pre-school, Primary and Secondary education. Higher education - University and National School. Adult education and professional training. Current trends in education.
  
  реферат [23,1 K], добавлен 15.05.2008
  

• Most striking traits of peoples character

  Character is the most important thing in a person which attracts or repulses other people. Each of us has his or hers good and bad features of character.
  
  реферат [17,7 K], добавлен 11.06.2007
  

• Personality and his socialization

  Understanding of personality and his structure. In sociology the focus is on social types. There are homo faber, homo consumer, homo universalis, homo soveticus. Classification includes types of personality defined due to value orientations people.
  
  реферат [18,9 K], добавлен 18.01.2009
  

• School education in the USA

  About basic education in the USA today. Public, private schools in the USA. Course content and teaching methods in educating students. Early childhood education, elementary school and high school. Criticism of American education, problems and solutions.
  
  реферат [22,5 K], добавлен 26.11.2010
  

• Topics about our life

  Traditions and customs of different nations. Story of The Beatles. Things of importance in our life: money, health, science. Personality of Abraham Lincoln, Peter the Great, A. Pushkin. Mass media in my life. The ways of spending time. Freedom of choice.
  
  топик [26,7 K], добавлен 17.01.2010
  

• Children's theatres

  The children's theatre, puppet shows and an important role in the ideological and aesthetic education of children, appreciation of literature's classical heritage. The thematic plan of the theatre. The Moscow Central Children's Theatre's repertoire.
  
  контрольная работа [12,1 K], добавлен 18.07.2009
  

• Живое значение слов "личность" и "personality" в языковом сознании русских и англичан

  Основы идеи личностно-ориентированного обучения в современных условиях. Глобальный характер перехода на новую образовательную парадигму. Описание ассоциативных полей и его этапы. Распределение ассоциатов на основе обобщающих семантических признаков.
  
  реферат [96,5 K], добавлен 06.09.2009
  

• Ecology

  Factors threatening the environment. Habitat destruction and species extinction. Depletion of the ozone layer. The living portion of an ecosystem. The environment in the new millennium: the way of the world. The crisis of ecology in the developing world.
  
  статья [47,8 K], добавлен 21.11.2009
  

• The formation of the foreign language teacher's general competence in the context of the Common European Framework

  Development of harmonious and competent personality - one of main tasks in the process of teaching of future teachers. Theoretical aspects of education and competence of teacher of foreign language are in the context of General European Structure.
  
  контрольная работа [12,2 K], добавлен 16.05.2009
  

• Influences that affect the business environment of Hydrolife Bottlers Company in Uzbekistan

  Estimation of influence of economic growth, level of incomes of the population, the interest rate, inflation and exchange rate on company Hydrolife activity. Hydrolife Company the company which makes potable water and water with useful minerals.
  
  реферат [15,8 K], добавлен 31.01.2012
  

• Education

  Education is important in our life. For educated people it is easier to stand up all difficulties and they have a purpose in life. If you know English, you can talk to people of any nationality, and can get necessary information anywhere in the world.
  
  топик [4,8 K], добавлен 04.02.2009
  

• Significance of translation in contemporary life

  Translation is mean of interlingual communication. Translations services industry. Importance of translation in culture life. Importance of translation in business life. Translation services in such areas as: economic, ecological, education, humanitarian.
  
  доклад [64,2 K], добавлен 02.12.2010
  

• Teaching English speaking at the beginning stage

  Principles of learning and language learning. Components of communicative competence. Differences between children and adults in language learning. The Direct Method as an important method of teaching speaking. Giving motivation to learn a language.
  
  курсовая работа [66,2 K], добавлен 22.12.2011
  

• Economic bases of innovative activity in public health services

  Theoretical bases of the economic and legal substantiation of realization of innovative activity. The technique of the estimation of the innovative project in public health services. Personnel management in scientific organizations, and life safety.
  
  дипломная работа [70,4 K], добавлен 21.06.2010
  

• The British education system

  The education in Great Britain. The three stages of schooling with children: primary school, secondary school and higher education, technical college of higher education and universities. The classification of the universities in England and Wales.
  
  презентация [422,5 K], добавлен 18.04.2011
  

• Peter the Great reforms

  Biography of life of Peter Great, his childhood and late years. The reasons and preconditions of reforms of Peter in different spheres of the state. The characteristic of reforms, their value for history of Russia. Estimation of efficiency of reforms.
  
  курсовая работа [40,4 K], добавлен 14.12.2011
  

• Base and Superstructure

  General characteristics of mechanical materialism and its consequences. Analysis of base and superstructure, under capitalism, their relationship to ideology. Features of the division operation and the exploited classes. The essence of class struggle.
  
  эссе [142,3 K], добавлен 22.06.2010
  

• John Davison Rockefeller

  Main stages of the biography of John Davison Rockefeller: parentage, childhood, early life and business career, marriage and family, beliefs. Standard oil company: the history of creation and development, structure monetary turnover. Death and legacy.
  
  презентация [358,8 K], добавлен 21.03.2014
  

• Education, its role in increase of economic potential

  Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed wisdom. Systems education. Process. Teaching. Technology. Economics.
  
  реферат [19,0 K], добавлен 14.05.2008
  

• Топики по английскому языку

  The United Nations. The NATO. The Court system of the USA. The court system of England. The British Education System. Political system of the USA. Political system of Great Britain. Mass media (newspapers). Education in the USA.
  
  топик [11,0 K], добавлен 26.03.2006
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам