Topic Review
Connections between Temperament and
Social Development: A Review
Ann Sanson, Australian Institute of Family Studies and The University
of Melbourne, Sheryl A. Hemphill, The University of Melbourne, and
Diana Smart, Australian Institute of Family Studies
Abstract
This paper critically reviews the literature on the links between temperament and
social development in children and adolescents. Social development is broadly defined
to include externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems, prosocial behaviour
and social competence. It concludes that there are clear links between specific dimensions
of temperament and particular aspects of social development. Examples include
the association of negative reactivity with externalizing behaviour problems, inhibition
with internalizing behaviour problems, and attention regulation with school functioning.
Theoretical and methodological issues to be confronted in future research are
identified, including the need to investigate further the interactions between temperament
and social context. Analysis of patterns of change in temperament, in relation to
physiological changes and to such factors as parenting and socio-cultural expectations
of children, promise to refine our understanding of how temperament works in
context. Some practical implications which can be drawn from the research are also
discussed.
Keywords: temperament; behaviour problems; social competence; socio-cultural
context
While ideas about temperament go back to ancient Greco-Roman times, the first major
publication on child temperament in modern times was the report by Thomas, Chess
and colleagues on the New York Longitudinal Study (Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig,
& Korn, 1963). It constituted part of the paradigm shift from a predominantly
environmentalistic, unidirectional perspective on child development, to one which
acknowledged the child’s own active part in the developmental process. Thomas et
al.’s focus on temperament led to the recognition that differences between children in
such qualities as their responsiveness to stimulation and capacity to regulate their emotions
and attention impacted upon the process of social development. This review seeks
to provide an overview of where and how the research has progressed since that time
Correspondence should be addressed to Ann Sanson, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 300
Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000. Email: ann.sanson@aifs.gov.au
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 143
in terms of our understanding of the role of temperament in social development over
childhood and adolescence, and to give some pointers towards future research
directions.
Given that recent authoritative reviews have addressed theoretical and methodological
issues in temperament research more generally (e.g. Rothbart & Bates, 1998;
Sanson & Prior, 1999), the conceptualization and measurement of temperament is
only briefly discussed here in order to provide a framework for the research which
is reviewed. We outline theoretical perspectives on how temperament may impact on
social development, before proceeding to review the research in selected areas of
social development.
1. The Structure, Stability and Measurement of Temperament
Despite long-standing controversy over the definition of temperament, a consensus is
emerging that the term ‘temperament’ refers to constitutionally based differences in
behavioural style that are visible from the child’s earliest years. Specifically, the definition
adopted here is of individual differences in emotional, motor and attentional
reactivity to stimulation, and in patterns of behavioural and attentional self-regulation
(Sanson, Smart, & Hemphill, 2002).
In their pioneering work, Thomas, Chess and colleagues identified nine dimensions
of temperament on which infants and young children could be seen to differ, which
described their characteristic style of response across contexts, and which impacted
on their subsequent psychosocial development (Thomas et al., 1963). These were
approach-withdrawal, adaptability, quality of mood, intensity of reaction, distractibility,
persistence or attention span, rhythmicity, threshold of responsiveness, and
activity level.
These nine dimensions have been widely used in research. However, concerns about
conceptual overlap among scales and low internal consistency have led to empirically
and theoretically based conceptual refinements (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Sanson &
Rothbart, 1995). Three broad aspects of temperament are gaining wide acceptance:
Reactivity or Negative Emotionality, which refers to irritability, negative mood and
high-intensity negative reactions, and can be differentiated into distress to limitations
(irritability, anger) and distress to novelty (fearfulness); Self-Regulation, which
has two subcomponents, the effortful control of attention (e.g. persistence, nondistractibility)
and of emotions (e.g. self-soothing); and a dimension variously labelled
Approach-Withdrawal, Inhibition or Sociability, which describes the tendency to
approach novel situations and people or conversely to withdraw and be wary. Factor
analyses also often reveal narrower band factors such as Rhythmicity and Activity level
(McClowry, 1995; Sanson, Smart, Prior, Oberklaid, & Pedlow, 1994). In this review,
we focus on the three broad-band temperament dimensions described above, but also
include some research on narrower band factors.
A number of researchers have used the ‘easy–difficult’ categorization system
developed by Thomas and Chess (Thomas et al., 1963), which groups children on
the basis of their temperament profiles. ‘Difficult’ children are typically negative in
mood, withdrawing, unadaptable, highly intense and arrhythmic. Failure to replicate
these temperament clusters has led researchers to form their own ‘difficult’ categorizations,
making comparisons across studies problematic. Nevertheless, we include
in this review some influential studies which have used a variant of the ‘difficult’
conceptualization.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
144 Ann Sanson et al.
Definitions of temperament generally emphasize the biological underpinnings of
individual differences in behavioural style (see Rothbart & Bates (1998) for review).
Twin and adoption studies suggest that heritability is generally in the range of .4 to .6
(Braungart, Plomin, DeFries, & Fulker, 1992; Cyphers, Phillips, Fulker, & Mrazek,
1990). Some aspects of temperament, e.g. activity, appear to be more strongly influenced
by heredity than others, e.g. attention span (Schmitz, Saudino, Plomin, Fulker,
& DeFries, 1996). More recently, researchers have also begun to investigate linkages
between DNA profiles and temperament traits (e.g. Jorm et al., 2000).
The incorporation of models from neuroscience and the application of psychobiological
variables to temperament research is expanding with recent technological
advances. These models (e.g., Gray, 1982) have been reviewed in detail elsewhere (see
Rothbart & Bates, 1998). For example, Kagan and colleagues postulate that threshold
to arousal in the amygdala is related to motor activity, reactivity, and inhibition, with
low threshold linked to high levels of these temperament traits and high threshold to
low levels (Kagan, 1998; Kagan & Snidman, 1999). Another line of physiological
research suggests that greater right than left frontal brain activity is associated with
withdrawal tendencies and the expression of negative affect (e.g. fear, sadness), while
greater left than right frontal brain activity is associated with approach tendencies and
the expression of positive affect (Fox & Davidson, 1988).
While elucidation of the biological bases of temperament is still at an early stage,
a range of approaches are promising further advances. Given the complexity of the
human brain and bodily systems, it is likely that interconnections between a range of
systems underlie particular temperament characteristics. The effect of the environment
on developing biological systems and how this impacts on temperament is an important
direction for future research.
Temperament traits are typically moderately stable over time, with correlations in
the range of .2 to .4 (see Slabach, Morrow, & Wachs, 1991), although stability may
be as high as .7 to .8 when measurement error is taken into account (Pedlow, Sanson,
Prior, & Oberklaid, 1993). Even these relatively high stability coefficients imply a considerable
amount of change in children’s temperament over time. At present, the bases
for changes in temperament are poorly understood (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart,
2002).
Temperament has generally been measured via parent-rated questionnaires. While
some have questioned the validity of parental reports, citing the effect on ratings
of characteristics such as depression and stress (Mednick, Hocevar, Schulsinger, &
Baker, 1996), others argue that there is a strong objective component in parental
ratings (Bates & McFayden-Ketchum, 2000), and convergence has been found
between parental ratings and observational assessments of temperament (Allen &
Prior, 1995; Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997). More studies are now adopting naturalistic
or structured observational measures (e.g. Kagan & Snidman, 1999; Rubin,
Hastings, Stewart, Henderson, & Chen, 1997). While the optimal solution appears to
be to use multiple methods of assessing temperament (Rothbart & Bates, 1998),
relatively few studies currently adopt this procedure.
2. Models of the Role of Temperament in Social Development
While traditional socialization research focused on environmental effects on the child
and assumed a unidirectional transmission from parent to child (see Schaffer (1999)
for discussion), temperament research from the outset has been unusual in that its
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 145
focus is explicitly on the child’s own contribution to his/her development. This has
redressed the historical underemphasis on the significance of the child’s individuality,
but ironically temperament research has often erred on the other side and ignored the
influence of the environment. Hence the research literature is dominated by studies
adopting a basically correlational methodology, and implicitly or explicitly interpreting
associations found between child temperament and social development outcomes
as evidence of the unidirectional influence of temperament on outcome.
Various models have been posited to explain the developmental processes through
which temperament exerts its effects on social development. A unidirectional view is
that temperament has direct linear effects on social development (e.g. very high inhibition
is related to social withdrawal). Most research to date has been framed so as to
detect only such direct effects. A second model posits indirect effects, either mediated
effects (a variable impact on outcome through the influence of a third interacting
variable), or moderated effects (the impact of a variable on outcome is affected by the
presence of a third variable).
A third model is interactional. Thomas and Chess (1977) argued that temperament
affects development primarily through its ‘goodness of fit’, or match, with the child’s
environment. Thus, high compatibility between temperament capacities and contextual
requirements facilitates healthy development, whereas a mismatch compromises
development. Interactional influences imply multiplicative effects (i.e., the cooccurrence
of particular temperamental and environmental variables exert an effect
beyond their separate contributions). Temperament-by-temperament interactions may
also occur (Rothbart & Bates, 1998); for example, high self-regulatory capacities
might control the expression of problematic traits such as negative reactivity, facilitating
more positive outcomes. Despite the attractiveness of the interactional model,
this review will document that findings of interactional effects are still relatively scant.
A fourth type of model is a more elaborated, transactional model (e.g. Cicchetti &
Cohen, 1995), which argues that understanding the process of development requires
analysis of the ongoing interaction among intrinsic child characteristics and aspects
of the environment. Thus, children’s temperament, health status and cognitive capacities,
together with parent and family circumstances and the wider sociocultural
context, all interconnect to explain and predict developmental pathways. In this model,
temperament is often seen as a risk or protective factor.
3. Social Development
Many aspects of child functioning and development fall under the mantle of ‘social
development’. Schaffer (1996) has defined social development as ‘the behaviour
patterns, feelings, attitudes, and concepts children manifest in relation to other people
and the way that these various aspects change over age’ (p. 1). In this review, we
examine the aspects of children’s functioning in social contexts that have most drawn
the attention of temperament researchers. These include connections between temperament
and the broad domains of social, behavioural and emotional adjustment that
comprise social competence, internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems, and
more specific aspects of social development such as withdrawal from peers and others,
parent–child relations, and school adjustment. As an organizational device, we make
distinctions between these different types of social development, but acknowledge that
the lines between them are often blurred. Similarly, as will be seen, the lines between
temperament as a predictor, and behaviour as an outcome, are also sometimes fuzzy.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
146 Ann Sanson et al.
Studies which have been concerned with general social functioning, measured most
often by rating scales (e.g. overall levels of social competence or behaviour problems)
with little emphasis on context, are reviewed first in Section 4. This is followed by a
review of studies of social behaviour in specific contexts. The contribution of temperament
to peer relationships, particularly the development of social withdrawal in
early childhood, will be reviewed in Section 5. Section 6 reviews studies investigating
relationships between temperament and parenting, with most attention given to
social development in early to middle childhood. This set of studies includes the majority
of those attempting to find more complex (mediated, moderated and interactive)
relationships between the constructs. Studies examining the contribution of temperament
to aspects of social behaviour in the school context, from school entry to late
secondary school, are reviewed in Section 7. Temperament contributions in broader
environmental contexts, and cultural variations in the expression of temperament and
their relationship to social development outcomes are reviewed in Section 8. In a concluding
section, we pinpoint some critical methodological and theoretical issues currently
facing this field of research, and point to some particularly promising lines for
future research. The review is not intended to be exhaustive but rather illustrative of
important trends and findings in recent research.
4. Relationships between Temperament and General Social
Developmental Outcomes
Many studies have shown direct relationships between temperament and broad
domains of social development such as internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems
(IBPs and EBPs), and social competence. The reader should note that what
appear to be direct effects in much of this work may in fact be more complex, but this
possibility has rarely been examined.
4.1 Temperament and Internalizing Behaviour Problems (IBPs)
Most studies investigating connections between temperament and IBPs have focused
on temperamental inhibition, where associations are frequently reported. For example,
Schwartz, Snidman, and Kagan (1999) followed toddlers who were identified as inhibited
or uninhibited into adolescence and found that 61% of adolescents who had been
classified as inhibited toddlers displayed social anxiety symptoms, whereas only 27%
of adolescents who were uninhibited toddlers showed social anxiety.
There is some evidence to suggest that infant negative reactivity predicts toddler
and preschool inhibition, which subsequently predicts childhood IBPs. Kagan and
colleagues (whose studies are outlined in more detail in Section 4.2) followed a sample
of over 400 4-month-old infants to 7.5 years of age. Infants were classified as high or
low reactive according to levels of distress and activity in response to visual, auditory
and olfactory stimuli. High reactive infants showed distress (crying and fretting) and
vigorous motor activity in response to stimuli, whereas low reactive infants were minimally
distressed and low in motor activity (Kagan & Snidman, 1999). As toddlers,
high reactive infants showed more fear and inhibition to unfamiliar events than low
reactive infants (e.g., entry into the laboratory of an unfamiliar adult); were more likely
to be inhibited and withdrawn at 4 years; and more had developed anxiety symptoms
at 7 years (45% versus 15%). The results of Kagan’s studies suggest that temperament
(especially reactivity and inhibition) is associated with IBPs, although many children
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 147
who are inhibited in early life do not show later IBPs. One limitation of research in
this area is the overlap between the indicators of inhibition and the indicators of
IBPs (e.g., temperamental fearfulness in new situations overlaps with anxiety, an
indicator of IBPs). This overlap may partly account for the associations between
the two, and remains an area in need of further theoretical and methodological
refinement.
Following children from infancy to adolescence, other researchers have found
only modest associations between early reactivity and inhibition and later anxiety. For
example, data from the Australian Temperament Project, a longitudinal multi-wave
study of over 2,000 infants, found that early high reactivity did not increase the risk
for anxiety in adolescence (Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000). Shyness in
infancy and toddlerhood were modest risk factors for later anxiety. Stronger associations
were found when shyness persisted over time, with 42% of children who were
rated shy on multiple time points between infancy and late childhood exhibiting
anxiety problems in adolescence. Looking back in time, only one-fifth of adolescents
with anxiety problems had been persistently shy, suggesting that temperamental
shyness or inhibition was only one of a number of risk factors for the development of
anxiety in adolescence. Kagan and colleagues also report that only some inhibited
children (about one-third) show evidence of ‘serious’ social anxiety in adolescence
(Kagan & Snidman, 1999). Little work has been done to identify the characteristics
distinguishing those inhibited children who do and do not continue to show difficulties
in adolescence, an essential task if at-risk children are to be targeted for early
intervention.
Relatively few studies have investigated links between temperament and depression,
another aspect of IBPs. Katainen, Räeikköenen, and Keltikangas-Järvinen (1999)
investigated pathways from 15-year-old temperament and perceived social support to
depressive tendencies at 20 years of age. Pathways to depression differed for males
and females. After controlling for the effects of depression at 15 years, low sociability
predicted depression for boys, whereas for girls the pathway from low sociability
to later depression was indirect and mediated by social support. These findings emphasize
the importance of investigating both direct and indirect effects of temperament
on social functioning, as well as examining gender differences.
4.2 Temperament and Externalizing Behaviour Problems (EBPs)
A considerable body of research has documented associations between EBPs and a
range of temperamental characteristics. Illustrative examples are presented here (fuller
reviews can be found in Rothbart & Bates, 1998 and Sanson & Prior, 1999). Negative
emotionality has been widely studied for its role in the development of EBPs,
with some authors (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1991; Ledingham, 1991) postulating that
negative emotionality represents a predisposition for angry and aggressive behaviour.
Toddlerhood negative emotionality, impulsivity, and activity predicted 4-year-old
EBPs in a study by Hagekull (1994). Eisenberg, Guthrie et al. (2000) reported that
behavioural dysregulation predicted EBPs for children both high and low in negative
emotionality, whereas attentional control was a significant predictor of EBPs only
for children high in negative emotionality. These results suggest temperamentby-temperament
interactions, and also indicate the importance of differentiating
between behavioural and attentional regulation for the prediction of externalizing
outcomes.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
148 Ann Sanson et al.
Several studies have reported associations between a global measure of ‘difficult’
temperament and EBPs. Maziade et al. (1990) used a longitudinal design to investigate
the influence of temperament on the development of EBPs and found that children
with clinically significant EBPs scored higher on ‘difficult’ temperament (low
adaptability, distractibility, negative mood, high intensity, and approach). These findings
held for both younger (3- to 7-year-old) and older (8- to 12-year-old) children.
In this study, difficult temperament was more strongly related to EBPs than to IBPs.
Similar findings were obtained in a study of the same age group by Guerin, Gottfried,
and Thomas (1997).
Wills and colleagues have investigated the connections between temperament and
adolescent substance use in several large cohort studies (Wills, DuHamel, & Vaccaro,
1995; Wills, Windle, & Cleary, 1998). Findings consistently indicate indirect linkages,
with temperament dimensions such as activity, mood, negative emotionality and sociability
being mediated by other aspects of functioning such as self-control (conceptually
similar to emotion regulation), maladaptive coping styles, novelty seeking, and
academic competence; and by environmental factors such as negative life events and
deviant peer affiliations. Somewhat similarly, examination of the earlier histories of
15- to 16-year-old participants in the Australian Temperament Project showed that high
negative reactivity, high sociability, low persistence (as well as aggression, school
difficulties and deviant peer affiliations) were significant risk factors for later substance
use (Williams, Sanson, Toumbourou, & Smart, 2000).
Temperamental inhibition may be a protective factor against the development of
EBPs. Australian Temperament Project data showed that boys with EBPs at 11 to 12
years were less likely to have been inhibited at 3 to 4 years than boys without later
EBPs (for girls, the relationship was reversed and small; Sanson, Oberklaid, Prior,
Amos, & Smart, 1996). Early childhood inhibition has also been found to be protective
against the development of EBPs in adolescence (e.g., Schwartz, Snidman, &
Kagan, 1996). Other temperamental characteristics which may be protective, leading
to resilience, are low emotional reactivity and high social engagement in childhood
(Smith & Prior, 1995), as well as being affectionate, responsive, and moderately active
as an infant (Werner & Smith, 1982).
Some aspects of temperament seem to be general risk factors for maladjustment.
Rubin, Coplan, Fox, and Calkins (1995) found that a group of poorly regulated, low
sociable preschoolers had more IBPs than children in highly regulated, low sociable
and average groups. Poorly regulated, highly sociable children had more EBPs than
the other groups. These findings suggest that emotional dysregulation may be a
nonspecific risk factor for both IBPs and EBPs, and the type of adjustment difficulty
exhibited may be influenced by other temperament factors, such as sociability.
Some researchers have investigated the associations between temperament (categorized
as problematic or not) and both IBPs and EBPs (categorized as the presence
or absence of disorder). For example, in a sample of adolescents, Windle (1992) categorized
high activity, low rhythmicity, poor task orientation, low approach, negative
mood and inflexibility as problematic. Temperamental risks for depression were
similar for boys and girls and included inflexibility and negative mood (i.e. negative
emotionality), as well as low approach. The most notable risks for delinquency were
high activity and low task orientation (or persistence) for boys and girls, and, for girls
only, inflexibility. As the number of problematic temperament styles increased so did
the incidence of disorder, particularly for depression. Moderational and mediational
models were also investigated and some support for a mediational model was found,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 149
in that temperament difficulty contributed to depression and delinquency both directly,
and indirectly through support from family and friends.
4.3 Temperament and Positive Social Functioning
Among research on the contribution of temperament to positive social functioning,
the series of studies by Eisenberg and colleagues has highlighted the importance of
emotionality and self-regulation for prosocial behaviours and capacities, as well as
gender differences in these relationships. For example, Eisenberg et al. (1993) showed
that self-regulation capacities and negative emotionality were powerfully related to a
composite measure of social skills derived from parent, teacher and observer report,
with self-regulation appearing more salient. High negative emotionality was found
to be a risk factor for low social skills for both boys and girls, while low negative
emotionality was protective, but only for boys. The presence of temperament-bytemperament
interactions was suggested by the finding that children who were both
highly emotional and poorly regulated had the lowest levels of social skills and peer
sociometric status.
The moderating effect of context on connections between temperament and social
competence was revealed by Fabes et al. (1999), using naturalistic observations of
preschoolers. Individual differences in temperament characteristics were more influential
in stressful or intense contexts, with well-regulated children better able to maintain
socially competent behaviour. In more low-key, relaxed contexts, most children
responded in socially competent ways, regardless of their temperament.
The direct contributions of temperament to children’s capacity for sympathy were
investigated by Murphy, Shepard, Eisenberg, Fabes, and Guthrie (1999). High negative
emotionality assessed concurrently and 2 and 4 years previously was related
to low teacher-reported sympathy in preadolescence and concurrently to low parentreported
sympathy. High regulation was related to high teacher- and parent-reported
sympathy. Here, as in Eisenberg et al. (1993), self-regulation capacities appeared
more salient than negative emotionality. Consistent with the North American studies
reviewed above, Australian Temperament Project data have identified attentional
self-regulation, sociability and reactivity as predictors of social skills at 11 to 12 years
assessed concurrently by parent, teacher and child report, explaining almost half of
the variance. Longitudinal predictors of this social skills measure were task orientation
and flexibility (attentional and emotional self-regulation) at 5 to 6 and 7 to 8 years,
with 16 to 20% of the variance explained (Prior, Sanson, Smart, & Oberklaid, 2000).
Girls are consistently found to have higher levels of empathy, sympathy and conscience
development than boys, and numerous sex differences are apparent in the
connections between temperament and these aspects of functioning. In a sample of
toddlers and preschoolers, Kochanska, DeVet, Goldman, Murray, and Putnam (1994)
identified two higher order components of conscience: Affective Discomfort (e.g.,
anxiety, guilt, remorse about wrongdoing) and Moral Regulation/Vigilance (e.g., confession,
reparation following wrongdoing). Consistent with other research, Affective
Discomfort was higher for girls than for boys. For girls, it was predicted by higher
reactivity and focus/effortful control (i.e., attentional regulation), whereas no temperament
dimensions were predictive for boys. High focus/effortful control was associated
with higher Moral Regulation/Vigilance for both boys and girls. Different
temperament dimensions were related to lower levels of Moral Regulation/Vigilance,
with reactivity being prominent for girls, and impulsivity and sensation seeking for
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
150 Ann Sanson et al.
boys. Gender differences in the temperamental predictors of empathy were also found
by Bryant (1987), with emotional intensity and low soothability associated with higher
empathy only for girls. More systematic investigation of gender-specific pathways to
positive outcomes is clearly required.
In summary, there is widespread evidence of the direct effects of child temperament
on a range of social development outcomes. Inhibition and negative reactivity have
links with IBPs; while high reactivity and poor self-regulation are typically predictive
of EBPs, with self-regulation perhaps more salient than negative reactivity. Positive
aspects of temperament (i.e., low reactivity, high self-regulation) tend to be associated
with prosocial behaviour and social competence. Relatively few studies have explored
gender differences in the relationships between temperament and social development,
but when they have done so they have revealed evidence of differential pathways and
predictors and a need for more research in this area. Similarly, the majority of studies
under-represent children from lower socioeconomic status families, although the
observational study of preschoolers from homeless families, conducted in a childcare
setting by Youngblade and Mulvihill (1998), reported findings consistent with those
described above.
The research reviewed so far has generally looked at broad positive and negative
social developmental outcomes—IBPs, EBPs and positive social functioning have
been seen as cross-situational behaviours, with little regard for the context of their
expression. Other studies have more explicitly addressed the question of the influence
of temperament on particular types of social developmental outcomes as displayed in
specific contexts, such as peer relationships, relationships with parents and school
adjustment. These at times allow more insight into how temperament fits into the
complex interplay of factors which drive development than do the studies investigating
acontextual main effects. These three areas of research are now reviewed in turn.
5. Relationships between Temperament and Peer Relationships
A large body of research shows that temperament directly affects peer relationships,
the most common finding being that temperamental inhibition predicts withdrawal
from peers (as well as anxiety and depression as reviewed above). Studies on the associations
between temperament and peer relationships have extended across a wide age
range, beginning in infancy and continuing into adolescence.
Two influential sets of studies on social withdrawal in early childhood have been
conducted by Kagan and colleagues, and Rubin and colleagues, respectively. For these
authors, social withdrawal (or reticence) refers to consistent displays of solitary,
onlooking and unoccupied behaviours when with familiar or unfamiliar peers
(Burgess, Rubin, Cheah, & Nelson, 2001). This work is characterized by careful laboratory
observations (in particular the use of the ‘behavioural inhibition paradigm’).
Typically, children encounter novel events such as entry into the laboratory of a clown,
and their reactions are coded for indicators of inhibition (e.g. proximity to mother,
latency to approach clown). The studies by Kagan and colleagues have largely focused
on ‘high reactive’ infants (high motor activity, fretting and crying) (e.g. Kagan &
Snidman, 1999). As noted above, it is sometimes difficult in these studies to make
clear conceptual and methodological distinctions between the purported temperament
factor (e.g. inhibition) and the outcome measure (e.g. social withdrawal, IBPs), since
some of the indicators of inhibition overlap with those ascribed to social withdrawal
and anxiety.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 151
In attempting to explain the links between temperament and peer relations, some
authors (e.g. Kagan, Rothbart) have referred to the physiological theories described
earlier in Section 1. Others (e.g. Rubin and colleagues) argue that inhibition gives the
child fewer opportunities to interact with others (i.e., peers, adults), particularly if they
receive overprotective parenting. Due to their limited interactions with others, these
children are less likely to learn how to interact effectively with peers. This may lead
to rejection from the peer group and further isolation.
In contrast to inhibited children, temperamentally sociable children tend to have
more positive relationships with friends and are more popular with peers (e.g.
Skarpness & Carson, 1986). Stocker and Dunn (1990) investigated concurrent relationships
between temperament and peer relationships (as well as children’s friendships)
in 5- to 10-year-old children. Children who were rated by their mothers and
teachers as temperamentally more sociable were also rated as more popular with peers
and higher on peer leadership. These results are in contrast to some emerging from
non-Western cultures and described in more detail in Section 6; for example, shy children
in China scored higher on peer leadership than their more sociable counterparts
(Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995).
Associations between peer relationships and other aspects of temperament (e.g.
emotionality and self-regulation) have also been studied. Dunn and Cutting (1999),
using a sample of preschoolers, investigated concurrent relationships between temperament
and the quality of interactions with a friend. Negative emotionality was
positively correlated with several aspects of the interaction, such as ‘coordinated play’
(e.g. agreeing with the other child’s suggestion) and ‘bids’ (unsuccessful attempts to
gain attention). While the latter is clearly a negative outcome, the surprising association
between high reactivity and coordinated play suggests that this type of play may
reflect dependency rather than peer competence.
Using sociometric data and assessing a range of temperament dimensions, Walker
(2001) found that preschoolers who were rejected by their peers scored higher on concurrent
teacher ratings of activity and distractibility and lower on persistence than
popular children. Compared with popular children, preschoolers in both rejected
and neglected groups showed more negative mood and less adaptability at school.
Preschoolers classified as controversial (highly liked by some peers but highly disliked
by others) were less inhibited than rejected, neglected and popular children.
Overall, the more ‘difficult’ temperament characteristics were associated with more
negative sociometric status.
Gender differences in the associations between temperament and peer relationships
have been somewhat under-examined. For example, Sanson, Smart, Prior, and Oberklaid
(1996) examined the preschool temperament characteristics that differentiated
children classified (on the basis of parent, teacher and self-report) as having problematic,
competent or average peer relationships at 11 to 12 years. Low persistence
and poor task orientation (low self-regulation), assessed from 1 to 3 years onwards,
differentiated between problem boys and average or socially skilled boys, but not girls.
Higher irritability and inflexibility (aspects of reactivity) between 1 to 3 and 9 to 10
years discriminated between the problem group and other groups for both sexes, but
more powerfully for boys than for girls.
To summarize this section, the main focus of research in this area has been on the connections
between temperament and social withdrawal. Findings from several research
groups show links between inhibition and later withdrawal from peers. While several
theoretical models have been advanced to explain these links, some measurement
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
152 Ann Sanson et al.
issues remain to be resolved, including clearer differentiation between variables and
constructs. There is also some evidence of links between negative emotionality and
poor peer relationships. Non-inhibited children, on the other hand, tend to have positive
relationships with peers, although there may be some cultural differences in this
association. Gender differences are again under-explored in this area.
6. Temperament and Parenting
In recent decades, it has been increasingly recognized that the child is not a passive
participant in parent–child interactions and that what the child brings to the interaction,
particularly in terms of his/her temperament, may influence parenting and parent–
child interactions (e.g. Bell, 1968; Lytton, 1990). Many models of development also
emphasize the potential influence of parenting on child temperament. In this section,
the impact of temperament on parenting, and of parenting on temperament, along with
some of the pivotal research investigating the interactive effects of child temperament
and parenting on social developmental outcomes, are reviewed. Given that the family
context is highly relevant to social development in young children, studies reviewed
in this section focus on this age group. It is evident that, although empirical data are
increasing, temperament-by-parenting interactions are currently not well understood,
even though they are frequently described in theories of development.
6.1 Impact of Temperament on Parenting and of Parenting on Temperament
While it is frequently postulated that child temperament and parenting are linked (e.g.
Rubin & Stewart, 1996), the exact nature of these associations is often difficult to
specify. In addition, the small amount of empirical evidence of such links which is
available is often difficult to interpret because of four methodological problems. First,
connections between temperament and parenting may be explained by the genetic and
biological similarity of parent and child (likely to be reflected to some extent in the
child’s temperament), rather than the direct influence of temperament on parenting, or
vice versa (Scarr, 1992). Second, the extensive use of parent report data to assess both
child temperament and parenting means that underlying parental characteristics may
influence both sets of data. Third, given that child temperament is likely to be influenced
by parenting from very early in the child’s life, associations between concurrent
parenting and child temperament could be the result of earlier parenting history.
Finally, conclusions about the causal relations between temperament and parenting
often cannot be drawn because studies have used only correlational data. Hence, the
results of studies reporting links between temperament and parenting need to be interpreted
with care (see Putnam et al., 2002, for further discussion).
In general, the focus of studies of links between temperament and parenting has
been on distress-related temperament attributes (e.g., irritability, ‘difficultness’, negative
reactivity), which tend to covary with parental punishment/power assertion, low
levels of positive parenting and general unresponsiveness, and are related to EBPs
(e.g. Hemphill & Sanson, 2000; Hinde, 1989; van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994).
Associations between the child’s positive affect and self-regulation and parental
responsiveness, social interaction and use of rewards have also been reported (e.g.
Hinde, 1989; Kyrios & Prior, 1990). For example, Spangler (1990) found that low
levels of ‘difficult temperament’ at 12 months of age (the sum of approach, adaptability,
intensity, mood and rhythmicity dimensions) were associated with observed
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 153
maternal responsiveness at home during the child’s second year, which in turn was
related to high levels of observed social competence at 2 years of age (e.g., positive
interactions with mother and stranger). Recent investigations have also shown that
child inhibition tends to be associated with parental overcontrol and overprotectiveness
(e.g. Rubin et al., 1997), which is thought to reinforce social wariness, fostering
the development of peer withdrawal (e.g. Rubin & Stewart, 1996).
In contrast to findings that parents withdraw from temperamentally irritable and
demanding children, others have found that parents invest more positive efforts with
their irritable and demanding children. For example, Rubin, Hastings, Chen, Stewart,
and McNichol (1998) reported that very young boys with poor behavioural and emotional
regulation (i.e., low anger/frustration tolerance and low self-control) received
higher levels of both maternal warmth and negative dominance (negative control and
hostile affect). Sanson and Rothbart (1995) argued that age of child and parental attributions
may be critical factors in determining whether parents invest in more or less
positive parenting with their ‘difficult’ children. Initially enhanced parenting may be
difficult to sustain over time, and parents may come to perceive ‘difficultness’ as intentional
rather than intrinsic. The differing ways in which parents respond to their child’s
‘difficult’ temperament are likely in turn to impact on the child’s social developmental
outcomes.
6.2 Temperament-by-Parenting Interactions
While a number of researchers have identified additive effects in which both temperament
and parenting make independent contributions to social development (e.g.
Bates & Bayles, 1988; Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991), fewer studies have
looked at how temperament and parenting may interact with one another to affect
social developmental outcomes. Such multiplicative effects are regularly postulated
but not so frequently detected empirically. An elegant example of both theoretical and
empirical work on temperament-by-parenting interactions is that of Kochanska and
colleagues in the development of conscience. They emphasized the importance of the
interaction between child temperament (especially reactivity and self-regulation) and
parenting (e.g. Kochanska, 1993). For example, Kochanska (1997) found that for
fearful toddlers, a gentle style of maternal discipline facilitated conscience development
at preschool age. For fearless toddlers, the experience of higher attachment security
and higher maternal responsiveness in toddlerhood predicted later conscience.
In a study of multiple social development outcomes (EBPs, IBPs and social skills),
Paterson and Sanson (1999) investigated temperament-by-parenting interactions, as
well as the ‘goodness of fit’ between the characteristics of 5- to 6-year-old children
and their environments. ‘Good fit’ was conceptualized as a child possessing characteristics
which matched the demands of his/her environment (e.g. parental expectations).
Fit was assessed by seeking parent reports of social, behavioural and cognitive
child characteristics that they would find ‘bothersome’, as well as ratings of their own
child on these characteristics. ‘Poor fit’ occurred when a child displayed a high frequency
of behaviours rated as ‘bothersome’ by the parent. Both additive and interactive
effects were found for EBPs, with temperamental inflexibility (including negative
reactivity) and punitive parenting directly predicting EBPs, as did the interaction
between these two variables (i.e., the combination of high inflexibility and high
punitive parenting). For combined parent and teacher reports of social skills, greater
attention regulation (or persistence), higher levels of parental warmth, and better ‘fit’
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
154 Ann Sanson et al.
predicted higher levels of social skills. For aggregated parent–teacher report of IBPs,
only inhibition was predictive.
Two studies used a categorical approach to investigate interactions between temperament,
family environment and child functioning. Groups were formed on the basis
of presence or absence of a problematic temperament characteristic (e.g. reactivity)
and/or a problematic parenting style (e.g. low warmth) or poor parent–child fit. Using
ATP data, Smart and Sanson (2001) investigated children’s social competence at 11
to 12 years, assessed via a composite of parent, child and teacher ratings. While competence
was related to both temperamental difficulty (e.g. high reactivity, low attention
or emotion regulation) and poor parent–child fit from toddlerhood through 7 to
8 years, there were also interaction effects. The group with both problematic temperament
and poor fit had significantly lower social skills at 11 to 12 years than the
groups with only one of these problems, who in turn had lower social skills than the
group with neither problem.
Hemphill and Sanson (2001) followed a group of 112 children from 2 to 4 years in
a study that included detailed laboratory observations as well as parent ratings. High
reactive children who showed significantly higher rates of EBPs at 4 years had experienced
poorer parenting (low parental warmth, high punishment or low inductive
reasoning) at 2 years of age than similarly reactive children who did not show later
behaviour problems. Children who scored low on inhibition (i.e., were highly sociable)
and who exhibited EBPs at 4 years had received higher levels of punishment as
toddlers than highly sociable children who did not show later EBPs. Similar findings
emerged from a study of two cohorts of children (infants followed to 10 years of age
and 5-year-olds followed through mid- to late childhood by Bates, Pettit, Dodge, and
Ridge (1998). They found that temperamental resistance (e.g. continues to play when
told to leave objects alone) was more strongly associated with EBPs in children receiving
low restrictive control from their parents than children who received high restrictive
control from their parents.
Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, and West (2000) also found both direct and interactive
effects of temperament and parenting in a study of children who had experienced
parental divorce. Low positive emotionality and high impulsivity, together with high
parental rejection and high inconsistency, predicted conduct problems, all assessed by
composites of parent and child ratings. For depression, high negative emotionality and
low positive emotionality, as well as parental rejection and inconsistency, were predictive.
There was a stronger relationship between parental rejection and adjustment
difficulties (both conduct problems and depression) for children low in positive emotionality
than for children moderate or high in positive emotionality. Inconsistent
parental discipline had a stronger association with both types of adjustment problems
for children high in impulsivity than for children moderate or low in impulsivity.
Other researchers (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1982) have studied temperament as a
potential resilience factor in an environment characterized by high psychosocial stress
and poor parenting. Positive child temperament characteristics, such as sociability and
adaptability, appeared to protect children from later difficulties by attracting warmth
and responsiveness from adults who guided the children’s development. Thus, the
influence of temperament was mediated through the mentor relationship. Support
for a mediational model was also found by Katainen, Räikkönen, Keskivaara, and
Keltikangas-Järvinen (1999) in a study of almost 400 6- to 15-year-olds. Using structural
equation modelling, low maternal role satisfaction and ratings of the child as difficult
(i.e., high on activity, low on sociability and high on negative emotionality) at
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 155
6 years of age predicted hostile maternal child-rearing attitudes (emotional rejection,
strict discipline and feeling that the child is a burden) at 9 years, which in turn were
significantly related to adolescent-reported depression at 15 years. Although the fact
that mothers provided both the temperament and parenting data limits the confidence
with which mediated effects can be inferred, it appears that temperament affected parenting
which led directly to the social development outcome of depression. Such mediational
models deserve further research attention.
Moderational effects may also be important. Maziade et al. (1990) found evidence
that parenting moderated the relationship between temperament and adolescent adjustment.
They reported that difficult temperament at 7 years of age was associated with
an increased risk of developing a psychiatric disorder at 12 and 16 years of age, but
only when parenting was dysfunctional, with inadequate behavioural control featuring
most prominently. This is one of few studies to examine moderator effects, suggesting
a need for more systematic investigation.
One approach to overcoming some of the methodological difficulties outlined in
Section 6.1 is to use experimental manipulation of parenting to investigate links
between temperament and parenting (clearly child temperament is not open to experimental
manipulation). This approach has been attempted in only a few studies. The
brief, individualized intervention developed by van den Boom (1994) targeted low
SES mothers of 6-month-old irritable infants (classified as such within a few weeks
of birth), and aimed to promote maternal responsiveness and decrease intrusiveness
and uninvolvement. Results of the first year of the intervention showed improved
maternal behaviour (e.g. responsiveness, stimulation), child functioning (e.g. sociability,
sophistication during exploration), and quality of attachment in treated, compared
with control group participants, and follow-up data indicated ongoing effects to
42 months (van den Boom, 1995). In other words, the change in parenting appeared
to improve the social development outcomes of the irritable children in the treatment
group in comparison to the control group, indicating a moderational role for parenting.
Since irritability in neonates may be rather unstable, replication of these findings
is desirable.
In summary, evidence is accumulating which supports the theorized associations
between temperament and parenting, and their interactive effects on social development
outcomes. Temperamental irritability and difficultness are typically associated
with negative parenting, whereas child positivity and self-regulation are associated
with parental responsiveness. Research on interactive effects of temperament and parenting
suggests that the combination of irritable, difficult child temperament with poor,
especially punitive, parenting adds to the prediction of EBPs beyond their independent
effects. Studies on conscience development suggest that fearful children respond
best to gentle maternal discipline and fearless children do best with maternal responsiveness.
However, few studies have fully disentangled the methodological difficulties
noted in Section 6.1, and these should provide a focus for further research. Intervention
studies appear to be one promising avenue for such research.
7. Connections between Temperament and Social Functioning at School
Temperament has been found to contribute to many facets of children’s lives at school.
In the main, researchers have investigated direct effects, although some evidence is
emerging of interactive and mediated effects. There has also been a concerted effort
to examine goodness of fit in the school context (e.g. Lerner et al., 1986).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
156 Ann Sanson et al.
The commencement of formal schooling and the move from elementary to secondary
school are important life transition points requiring substantial adaptations by
the child. Temperament characteristics can influence the ease with which these pivotal
points of change are negotiated, although few studies as yet have provided directly
relevant data, with the measurement of temperament prior to the developmental transition
and the assessment of functioning following it. From available research, it
appears that attention regulation capacities are important; for example, persistence
measured at the start of the first year of school was a strong predictor of school
achievement at the end of the year, after controlling for intelligence (Schoen & Nagle,
1994; see also Paterson & Sanson, 1999).
A number of researchers have investigated the contribution of temperament to children’s
academic achievement, which is outside the purview of this review. In brief,
poor achievement has been found to be related to higher activity, distractibility and
lower persistence, all of which are aspects of self-regulation, and lower adaptability
(Guerin, Gottfried, Oliver, & Thomas, 1994; Martin, 1989), as well as negative reactivity
(Lerner, Lerner, & Zabski, 1985). These relationships held after intelligence was
controlled.
Temperament characteristics may also moderate the effectiveness of different
instructional approaches. Barclay’s (1983) meta-analysis suggested that structured, traditional
classrooms helped children with lower task orientation (attention regulation)
or lower sociability to develop self-control and become more outgoing, whereas less
structured or free classroom environments appeared to be beneficial for children who
were already competent, adaptable and well regulated. These findings suggest the
importance of the ‘fit’ between child and classroom. Similarly, Keogh and Burstein
(1988) showed that temperament characteristics such as high task orientation, high
flexibility (sociability) and low reactivity were significantly related to children’s interactions
with teachers and peers when classroom activities were less structured. It
seemed that these temperament characteristics helped children to stay focused and
on-task in environments where interruptions and distractions were more frequent. An
interesting interaction between temperament and type of instructional method was
reported by Orth and Martin (1994). For children high on task orientation, off-task
behaviour was not affected by mode of instruction (teacher versus computer), whereas
children with lower task orientation displayed more off-task behaviours when receiving
teacher instruction. Thus attention regulation capacities appear to moderate the
effectiveness of different modes of instruction.
Although findings are somewhat mixed, attention regulation capacities appear
important for social functioning at school. For example, the temperament dimension
of persistence, reported by parents at child age of 3 to 4 years and in the year prior to
the start of formal schooling, was strongly related to combined parent–teacher ratings
of social skills during the first year at school (Paterson & Sanson, 1999). The type and
quality of children’s interactions with teachers may also be influenced by temperament.
(Connections between temperament and peer group interactions were reviewed
in Section 5.) Paget, Nagle, and Martin (1984) found that adaptability and task attention
were related to specific aspects of observed teacher–student classroom interactions.
Although children’s responses to teachers were not related to temperament style,
teachers’ propensity to praise or criticize was related to their students’ task attention
capacities, with teachers more likely to criticize low-attention, distractible children.
Preschoolers with high task orientation and low reactivity have been found to display
positive socialization towards teachers, while flexibility (sociability) was related to
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 157
peer socialization (Mobley & Pullis, 1991). Using detailed observations of handicapped
and non-handicapped preschoolers’ interactions with teachers and peers,
Keogh and Burstein (1988) found that frequency of teacher–child interactions was
related to positive temperament profiles among the non-handicapped group, but to
negative temperament profiles for the handicapped group, perhaps pointing to the
salience of other aspects of child functioning, such as ability or behaviour problems,
for teacher–child relationships. A consistent theme throughout these studies is the
relevance of attention regulation to teacher–child social relationships. Inhibition (or
its obverse, sociability), which is a strong contributor to peer relationships (as
described above), appears to have much less relevance for teacher–child relationships.
Adaptive and problematic classroom behaviours have been linked to temperament
style. Martin, Nagle, and Paget (1983) showed that activity, persistence and distractibility
were related in expectable ways to observations of constructive and nonconstructive
classroom behaviour. Guerin et al. (1994) found that between 25% and
30% of variance in classroom behaviour, assessed by teacher ratings of ability to work
hard and appropriateness of behaviour, was explained by temperament style, with persistence
being the most powerful contributor and adaptability and approach also featuring.
Negative emotionality has also been linked to children’s behaviour in the school
context. Teacher-reported EBPs at 8 years of age were strongly predicted by parentreported
negative emotionality at 5 years of age, as were positive social behaviours,
although much less powerfully (Nelson, Martin, Hodge, Havill, & Kamphaus, 1999).
Connections between temperament and school adjustment and achievement have
been viewed as an example of goodness of fit. In this view, children’s functioning at
school is influenced by the congruence between temperament characteristics and contextual
requirements, rather than temperament style by itself. In a series of studies
investigating this issue, Lerner and colleagues found that when there is good fit,
achievement and adjustment are enhanced (Lerner et al., 1986). As one example of
this research, children with high correspondence between self-ratings of temperament
and teacher ratings of desirable temperament characteristics, especially reactivity, were
found to have higher achievement levels and were rated as of higher ability than children
with poorer fit (Lerner et al., 1985). In another study, low fit adolescents, assessed
by comparing self-ratings of actual temperament with parents’ and peers’ ratings of
ideal temperament, had poorer teacher-rated academic competence and more parentrated
externalizing and school problems than high fit adolescents (Talwar, Nitz, &
Lerner, 1990). The fit between self- and ideal ratings on the mood and approachwithdrawal
dimensions was particularly important.
However, methodological difficulties have plagued this area of research, with the
measurement of fit proving to be especially challenging (Windle & Lerner, 1986).
When ‘fit’ is seen as the discrepancy between ideal and actual temperament ratings,
there is commonly little variation in the ratings of ideal temperament characteristics.
Hence the ideal score becomes close to a constant, and the fit, or discrepancy, score
may be almost identical to the actual temperament score. Attempts to define fit by reference
to undesirable behaviours which are conceptually distinct from temperament
or behaviour problem measures are promising. This strategy was used by Feagans,
Merriwether, and Haldane (1991), who showed that lower achievement and fewer
positive classroom behaviours were evident among 6- to 7-year-old children with poor
home fit. As noted earlier, Paterson and Sanson (1999) used a similar measure and
reported that poor fit with parental expectations contributed independently of temperament
to combined parent–teacher ratings of behaviour problems.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
158 Ann Sanson et al.
In summary, temperament has been shown to play a major role in children’s school
functioning, in their responses to the learning environment, in their behaviour in the
classroom and playground, and in the social relationships they develop with teachers
and peers. The fit between a child’s temperament style and the school environment has
also been found to be influential. Attention regulation capacities appear to be of key
importance in the school context, emerging with great consistency as a significant
influence on functioning. Emotionality and negative reactivity also feature, while
inhibition-sociability is an important contributor to peer relationships but not to
teacher relationships.
8. Temperament and the Broader Social Context
While temperament may be biologically based, its expression, social acceptance and
impact on individual functioning and development may be moderated by societal and
cultural conditions and expectations. There has been little research on this topic, but
if bi-directional or interactive models are to be taken seriously, greater attention to
this issue will be necessary. As Wachs (1999) points out, the interweaving of culture,
temperament and social development is likely to be complex and difficult to untangle,
with potentially non-linear linkages.
The research on social class differences in temperament style suggests that children
from lower SES families are over-represented at the ‘problematic’ end of temperament
dimensions, especially those relating to child difficulty (Fullard, Simeonsson, &
Huntington, 1989). Infants in a noisy and crowded home environment (which may be
more typical of lower SES families) have also been found to be less approaching, less
adaptable and more negative in mood (Wachs, 1988). Understanding the processes by
which the family’s socioeconomic circumstances influence temperament is crucial, and
may involve variations between groups in conceptions of what constitutes positive and
difficult behaviour, differing child-rearing values and practices, variations in economic
and social resources, or a combination of these factors (Prior, Sanson, & Oberklaid,
1989). Given the well-established connections between difficult temperament and
behaviour problems, the independent and interactive contributions of SES and temperament
to social development outcomes merit further attention.
Cultural differences may influence the nature and stability of the connections
between temperament and social development. One of the most often-quoted findings
in the temperament field is the unexpected relationship between difficult temperament
and lower infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa during a famine (DeVries,
1984). Difficult temperament was thought to increase chances of survival in this
extreme environment because higher levels of fussing and crying increased the likelihood
of being fed. These findings, although on a small number of children, serve as
a dramatic reminder of the importance of goodness of fit. Similarly, Korn and
Gannon’s (1983) finding that difficult temperament did not lead to the development
of behaviour problems for a sub-sample of children from Puerto Rican families in
New York, unlike the main white American sample, was interpreted as support for the
notion of goodness of fit. It was postulated that the more flexible and relaxed Puerto
Rican home environment facilitated a more accommodating parental response to child
difficulty, and lessened the likelihood of coercive exchanges and processes developing.
However, behaviour problems began to develop among this subgroup once they
encountered the mainstream environment of school.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 159
Further confirmation of the impact of culture on temperament and social development
relationships comes from evidence that temperamental inhibition is associated
with positive developmental outcomes in China, in direct contrast to North American
findings (Chen et al., 1995). Children aged 8 to 10 years who were identified by peers
as inhibited, were also more accepted by peers and rated more positively by teachers
and peers on ‘honourship’ and leadership than were average or aggressive children.
Differing connections between inhibition and parenting style have also emerged in
studies of Chinese and Canadian samples (Chen et al., 1998). Toddler inhibition was
positively related to maternal acceptance and encouragement of achievement in the
Chinese sample, whereas the correlations were negative for the Canadian sample.
Together, these results suggest a higher valuing of inhibition in the Chinese culture
by comparison with the Canadian culture. These findings require replication and are
somewhat inconsistent with more recent work concerning social withdrawal using a
younger sample of Chinese children (Hart et al., 2000). However, they do point to the
cultural relativity of the impact of temperament on social development.
In summary, while there is limited research on this topic as yet, sociocultural context
has been shown to exert a clear effect on the connections between temperament and
social functioning. Cultural variations provide a timely reminder of the complex mix
of factors which combine to impact on social development outcomes. Our understanding
of how temperament works in a broader social context will be enhanced by
closer examination of the role of culture-specific attitudes, expectations and beliefs
about temperament and parenting practices.
Attention to the temperamental characteristics that are valued in particular cultural
settings may reveal differential connections to social development outcomes. For
example, if temperamental shyness is seen as a valued trait, it may elicit parental
warmth rather than overprotectiveness and disapproval, and may lead to later selfconfidence
and social competence. If volatility is seen as a sign of alertness or
intelligence, it may be socially sanctioned and not elicit the parental rejection and
punitiveness found in Anglo-dominated samples. Similarly, cultures may vary in their
beliefs about the extent to which a child can control or moderate the expression of
their temperament proclivities (distractibility, negative mood, etc.), and hence influence
responses to and strategies for managing the child.
Additionally, cross-cultural comparisons may help shed light on the universality and
timing of developmental processes. The question of whether particular temperament
dimensions have greater salience at different ages or stages of development could be
addressed via cross-cultural comparisons. For example, it could be argued that in the
preschool years, attention regulation capacities are less central to social functioning
than traits such as negative reactivity, emotion regulation and inhibition, but that once
children encounter school, attention regulation becomes critical. Comparing cultures
with differing ages of school entry might shed light on this issue.
9. Conclusions
This paper has provided an overview of the sizeable body of research investigating
connections between temperament and social development. There are clear linkages
between temperament and a range of internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems,
socially competent functioning, and the development of prosocial capacities
such as conscience, sympathy and empathy. Furthermore, temperament has been
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
160 Ann Sanson et al.
shown to influence children’s behaviour in specific social contexts such as with
parents, peers and in the school environment.
Considerable consistency and specificity has been revealed in the connections
between temperament dimensions and behavioural outcomes. For example, inhibition
and negative reactivity are important contributors to anxiety. Negative reactivity and
poor self-regulation (particularly of emotions but also of attention) are of prime importance
for the development of EBPs; while inhibition/shyness appears to be protective
against EBPs. High self-regulation and low negative reactivity/emotionality are associated
with the development of good social skills and prosocial capacities, with selfregulation
perhaps of greater salience.
The approach-inhibition temperament dimension appears the most powerful temperamental
contributor to children’s functioning in the peer context. Irritability, an
aspect of negative reactivity, and ‘difficultness’ (usually comprising negative reactivity,
self-regulation especially of emotions, and inhibition) are important contributors
to children’s functioning in the family context. Attention regulation is the most powerful
predictor of children’s functioning in the school context, with smaller roles for
emotionality and negative reactivity. Perhaps more than in any other context, the goodness
of fit between the school environment and temperament style has emerged as a
significant contributor to functioning in that context.
The majority of studies report direct connections from temperament to developmental
outcome. It is noteworthy that most studies only seek and test such direct associations,
hence what appear to be direct links may mask more complex relationships.
The culture-specific findings reviewed are reminders that temperament also operates
indirectly and in interaction with other factors. Only in relation to parenting has there
been a concerted attempt to investigate indirect and interactional pathways between
temperament and social development outcomes, and the evidence emerging is not
clearcut. Nevertheless, a number of studies have found that the interaction of parenting
and temperament does contribute to social developmental outcomes, and intervention
studies also suggest a mediational or moderational role for parenting in the
association between temperament and social development. These findings emphasize
the potential of future research in this area to inform parent-focused prevention and
early intervention efforts.
This review suggests that it is time to move from investigating direct effects, to
examining more complex pathways including indirect, interactive, or transactional
effects. For example, an area worthy of future study is the way in which temperament
contributes to social development through its impact on and interaction with the parenting
styles of both mothers and fathers. Temperament works in large part through
how it is ‘received’ by others. Thus it is likely to vary by sex (for as long as genderbased
cultural expectations prevail), by culture, and by the demands of the situation
(e.g. home or school). Refining designs to illuminate these differential relationships
will lead to a greater understanding of the complex roles of temperament in social
development.
Although we have made the case that it is more the match or mismatch of temperament
characteristics with the social environment, rather than those characteristics
in themselves, which can create difficulties for children’s social development, it is nevertheless
the case that modification of some temperament characteristics such as high
reactivity and inhibition is likely to facilitate social development. Hence, understanding
the processes involved in changes in temperament is clearly an important research
goal. These changes might be stimulated by changes in the child’s environment. For
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 161
example, van den Boom’s research (1994, 1995) showed that changes in parenting led
to changes in child temperament. An alternative mechanism might be through the
child’s moderation of his/her own temperament characteristics; for example, selfregulation
capacities may over time enable children to modify high levels of reactivity.
At the moment, our understanding of both extrinsic and intrinsic mechanisms by
which temperament changes over time is very sketchy and much work remains to be
done.
Sex differences emerge in a number of studies, suggesting the possibility of sexspecific
connections between temperament and social development outcomes. There
has been surprisingly little research addressing this issue, and it provides a clear
avenue for future research. In most of the sections of the review, we note suggestive
evidence of gender differences but with no clear picture emerging. As discussed in
more detail below, investigation of gender differences which goes beyond mere
documenting of differences might be able to shed light on the extent to which
temperament is biologically embedded, culturally defined, and/or shaped through
environmental transactions.
There are other obvious gaps in the existing literature—families from non-English
speaking cultures, ethnic minorities within English-speaking countries, lower SES and
disadvantaged families have received little attention. In the literature on temperament
and parenting, there has been virtually no investigation of the role of fathers. Hence
generalization from existing studies needs to be cautious at best. Further, it is notable
that temperament’s contribution to problematic social development outcomes has
received far greater attention than its contribution to positive outcomes. The role of
temperament in facilitating healthy, competent development warrants closer study.
Similarly, there has been much focus on negative emotionality, while the role of
positive emotionality has been relatively neglected. Positive emotionality (comprising
positive affect, adaptability, agreeableness) may be particularly important in the development
of prosocial behaviours and capacities.
One of the most important and challenging conceptual and methodological issues
in temperament research at this point is the overlap between temperament and social
development constructs. While it is generally assumed that empirical associations
between temperament and social development are due to the contribution of temperament
to developmental outcomes (through direct or indirect developmental
processes), they may also be due to developmental continuity between early temperament
and later child characteristics (i.e., they are in essence the same construct as
manifested at different ages), conceptual fuzziness (the concept of social development
includes aspects of temperament), and/or methodological overlap (measures of temperament
blur over into measures of social development). Apparent methodological
overlap between the indicators used for temperament dimensions and social development
outcomes may be found in many of the studies reviewed here. For example,
fearfulness is commonly used as an indicator of inhibition, and excessive fear as a
symptom of anxiety. Similarly, temperamental traits such as resistance to control may
include indicators of noncompliance, a facet of EBPs.
Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios (1990) investigated the degree of overlap between temperament
and behaviour problems at a measurement level by asking child development
experts to define items taken from standard temperament and behaviour problem
questionnaires as indicators of each of these domains. The study revealed a significant
amount of overlap, especially between temperament and IBPs, with items
designed to assess behaviour problems often being thought to be better measures of
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
162 Ann Sanson et al.
temperament. Overlap between a temperament factor labelled cooperation manageability
and EBPs was also evident.
Several more recent studies have suggested that the effects of such confounding do
not invalidate conclusions regarding the influence of temperament on social development.
For example, when confounding items are removed from temperament and
behaviour problem questionnaires, temperament-adjustment relationships are still
evident (Lemery, Essex, & Smider, 2002; Lengua, Sandler, & West, 1998). Sheeber’s
(1995) intervention study found that parental ratings of child temperament remained
stable after treatment whereas their ratings of behaviour problems improved, suggesting
a significant differentiation between temperament attributes and behaviour
problems. Clearly, the issue of overlap between temperament and social development
indicators is a complex one which should be considered when interpreting data from
any of the studies reviewed here. Some careful theoretical and empirical unpacking
remains to be done in future studies to better understand this issue.
There is a need for greater attention to a number of other measurement issues. One
such issue is the need for independent, multi-source assessments. Reliance on singlesource
data (frequently maternal report) is likely to inflate any associations found due
to shared method variance. The trend for studies to include multiple sources and
to use multi-method modes of assessment is an encouraging recent development.
However, given potentially powerful contextual influences, strong associations
between measures obtained across different situations and by different reporters may
not be found, and should not be simply interpreted as indicating low validity or reliability.
An important consideration in future research will be how to make sense of
these different types of data, both within and across studies.
A further challenge is to develop and refine statistical analysis techniques capable
of detecting complex interrelations between influences on children’s development. To
date, many studies have simply reported correlational data, which do not allow causal
inferences to be drawn. Further, there has been little attempt to investigate nonlinear
associations, although recent models postulate such relationships (e.g. Eisenberg et
al., 2000). Structural equation modelling, latent growth curve modelling and trajectory
analysis are some of the more sophisticated tools which are beginning to be used.
Investigations of interaction effects have generally relied on hierarchical regression
analysis, in which interaction effects are extremely difficult to detect (McClelland &
Judd, 1993). Person-oriented approaches, which cluster participants according to
various attributes, have recently proved very useful in detecting interactions between
temperament, parenting and social development outcomes. Intervention studies can
also identify interaction effects (e.g. by observing the effects of changes in parenting
style for children with similar temperament profiles). Thus, a number of statistical
techniques and creative research methodologies are being employed which offer
promise in attempting to delineate the more complex developmental relationships
between temperament and social development.
This review has documented the importance of self-regulation capacities to social
development. However, more attention needs to be given to deconstructing selfregulation
into sub-components of emotional and attentional self regulation (Miller
& Keating, 1999). It is possible that these two facets of self-regulation contribute
differently to developmental outcomes. Conceptual fuzziness and operational overlap
currently characterize research on self-regulation, with numerous variants of constructs
in use (e.g. effortful control, persistence, attention regulation; positive and
negative emotionality, negativity, reactivity). A further imperative is to disentangle
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 163
negative reactivity/emotionality and emotional self-regulation. This may prove to be
quite complex; for example, emotional regulation may be a more crucial attribute for
highly reactive children for whom there is more to ‘self-regulate’. Devising clearly
differentiated measures of emotional self-regulation and negative reactivity presents a
challenge for the future.
The complex question of biology–environment interactions is a critical one for
future research on the impact of temperament on social development. While it is
widely accepted that there is some underlying biological predisposition towards particular
temperamental characteristics, the strength of associations between physiological
systems and temperament traits remains uncertain (see e.g. Quas, Hong, Alkon,
& Boyce, 2000). Of course, to postulate that temperament has a biological basis
does not imply that temperament is immutable. It is yet to be established
whether changes in observed temperament represent change also in their biological
substrates, or change in the expression of temperament without accompanying biological
changes. The complexity of the relationships between temperament and physiology
is suggested by the findings of Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, and Fox (2002) that,
while physiological measures at 14 months did not predict later temperament (at 2
years), attachment status at infancy did predict later cardiac measures. The recent
research in neuroscience which documents the effect of the environment on the
growing brain (e.g. Cynader & Frost, 1999) opens avenues for research on how
temperamental predispositions may be potentiated or blocked by the social and/or
physical environment.
A basic question impacting on the interpretation of all the research reviewed here
is the nature of temperament itself. The conception of temperament which has guided
this review is of temperament as a relatively stable, biologically based, intrinsic characteristic,
which is nevertheless modifiable through environmental influences. Others
might regard it simply as a social construction whose meaning is derived from the
social context, or as an epiphenomenon generated in the context of interactions
between the child and his/her environment. These alternatives should not be taken to
be mutually exclusive; for example, a child’s initial tendencies towards withdrawal
might lead to the child being labelled as ‘shy’, and this social label can then impact
on the stability of the withdrawal tendencies and on the subsequent response of the
social environment to the child (Caspi, Elder, & Bemm, 1988).
Research which would shed light on the relative weighting of the ‘intrinsic’,
‘learned’ and ‘constructed’ elements in temperament could include close investigation
of changes in temperament across development and across social and cultural settings.
If changes are biologically governed, generally similar changes might be expected
across all children, despite individual differences (e.g. all children may become better
regulated, or less inhibited, over time); if environmentally influenced, changes would
vary according to environmental demands and expectations, for example, across differing
socioeconomic groups and cultures. A close examination of the sex differences
in temperament might also prove informative. As has been noted, boys tend to be more
reactive and more poorly self-regulated than girls. Research could indicate whether
this difference is related to differential social acceptability and expectations regarding
temperament traits for boys and girls, suggesting a role for social construction. Of particular
relevance here might be whether gender differences are similar across cultures
which have different sex stereotypes. Alternatively, gender-specific developmental
patterns might indicate differences in the speed with which the capacity for selfregulation
develops among boys and girls.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
164 Ann Sanson et al.
A further conceptual issue is the relationship between temperament and personality,
both of which clearly refer to basic facets of individual differences. Temperament
has been seen as the biologically based foundation stone for later-developing personality
which emerges through the complex interplay of a person’s learning and experiences,
his/her cognitive development and emerging sense of self (Hagekull & Bohlin,
1998). There is growing interest in the nature and strength of the developmental connections
between temperament dimensions and personality factors, and in the determinants
of continuities and discontinuities.
Several studies have mapped associations between temperament and the five-factor
model of personality (comprising Extraversion, Neuroticism or Emotional Stability,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Intellect or Openness to Experience). Despite
difficulties comparing studies due to the differing temperament dimensions and scales
used, some consistent trends are emerging. Extraversion and agreeableness have each
been linked to activity and inhibition/approach, conscientiousness to persistence,
neuroticism to emotionality/negative reactivity, and intellect/openness to inhibition/
approach (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1994; Hagekull & Bohlin, 1998; Torgersen, 1999).
While generalizations about specific temperament–personality links are clearly premature
at the present time, the existence of paths from temperament to personality
may be regarded, first, as indicating a direct impact of temperament on social development
(if personality is considered a social developmental outcome in itself), and
second, as evidence of the continuing indirect influence of temperament, through
the associations of personality with numerous aspects of social development over the
lifespan.
The research literature reviewed here provides some guidance for how we raise children
with differing temperament styles. This review has documented the importance
of context, has shown that certain temperament attributes ‘matter’ more in some contexts
than others, and that the same environmental characteristics can have differential
impact depending on the child’s temperament. For example, the same parenting
can have differential effects on fearful and bold children, and different modes of school
instruction appear optimal for children with different attention regulation capacities.
This knowledge can guide the way environments are structured so that differences
between children can be accommodated. It is also a reminder that universal prescriptions
are unlikely to be appropriate. ‘Recipe book’ or ‘one size fits all’ approaches to
parenting, for example, which do not take children’s temperamental style into account,
may be counter-productive. As well as furthering our theoretical understanding, intervention
studies have potential for enhancing children’s social development by tailoring
their environments to ‘fit’ their temperament style, potentially most critical at
transition points such as entry into childcare and school.
In sum, understanding of links between temperament and social development has
come a long way and it can be clearly concluded that specific temperament traits
impact on particular aspects of social development, either directly or indirectly. Some
conceptual and methodological limitations will need to be addressed to allow more
confident conclusions about the mechanisms and processes involved. Unexamined
facets of temperament, such as positive emotionality, deserve more research attention,
and more diverse populations need to be foci of research. Future research will also
need to be more sophisticated in examining how temperament interconnects with other
influences to affect social development in different contexts, guided by ecological
and transactional models of development and supported by appropriate statistical
approaches to the data. Studies of change offer particular potential—both research
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 165
examining biological and environmental influences on change in temperament, and
intervention studies which intentionally attempt to induce change. Such research
will not only advance our understanding of developmental processes, but will also
strengthen the evidence base to guide efforts to better provide for each child’s unique
individuality.
References
Allen, K. & Prior, M. (1995). Assessment of the validity of easy and difficult temperament
through observed mother–child behaviours. International Journal of Behavioural Development,
18, 609–630.
Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1994). Temperament and the Big Five Factors of personality.
In C. J. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure
of temperament and personality (pp. 69–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barclay, J. P. (1983). A meta-analysis of temperament—treatment interactions with alternative
learning and counselling treatments. Developmental Review, 3, 41–443.
Bates, J. E. & Bayles, K. (1988). The role of attachment in the development of behavior problems.
In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 253–299).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bates, J. E. & McFayden-Ketchum, S. (2000). Temperament and parent–child relations as interacting
factors in children’s behavioral development. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese (Eds.),
Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 141–176). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of temperamental resistance
to control and restrictive parenting in the development of externalising behaviour.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 982–995.
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialisation. Psychological
Review, 75, 81–95.
Braungart, J. M., Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1992). Genetic influence on testerrated
infant temperament as assessed by Bayley’s Infant Behaviour Record: Nonadoptive and
adoptive siblings and twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 40–47.
Bryant, B. K. (1987). Mental health, temperament, family, and friends: Perspectives on children’s
empathy and social perspective taking. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy
and its development (pp. 245–270). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H., & Nathan A. Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment
and temperament as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac physiology.
Submitted to Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 1–13.
Burgess, K. B., Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Nelson, L. J. (2001). Behavioral inhibition,
social withdrawal, and parenting. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.), International
handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research and interventions (pp. 137–158). New York:
John Wiley.
Cairns, R. B. & Cairns, D. D. (1991). Social cognition and social networks: A developmental
perspective. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 249–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bemm, D. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns
of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831.
Chen, X., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H., Cen, G., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). Childrearing
attitudes and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A crosscultural
study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 677–686.
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, B. (1995). Social and school adjustment of shy and aggressive
children in China. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 337–349.
Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (1995). Perspectives on developmental psychopathology. In D.
Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol 1. Theory and methods
(pp. 3–20). New York: John Wiley.
Cynader, M. S. & Frost, B. J. (1999) Mechanisms of brain development: Neuronal sculpting
by the physical and social environment. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds), Developmental
health and the wealth of nations (pp 153–184). New York: Guilford Press.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
166 Ann Sanson et al.
Cyphers, L. H., Phillips, K., Fulker D. W., & Mrazek, D. A. (1990). Twin temperament during
the transition from infancy to early childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 392–397.
DeVries, M. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1189–1194.
Dunn, J. & Cutting, A. L. (1999). Understanding others, and individual differences in friendship
interactions in young children. Social Development, 8, 201–219.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulon, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). The
relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status.
Child Development, 64, 1418–1438.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, N. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and
regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 136–157.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Sheppard, A., Losoya, S., Murphy, B. C., Jones, S.,
Poulin, R., & Reiser, M. (2000). Prediction of elementary school children’s externalizing
problem behaviors from attentional and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality.
Child Development, 71, 1367–1382.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I. K., Poulin, R., Shepard, S., &
Friedman, J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer
interactions. Child Development, 70, 432–442.
Feagans, L. V., Merriwether, A. M., & Haldane, D. (1991). Goodness of fit in the home: Its
relationship to school behaviour and achievement in children with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 413–420.
Fox, N. A. & Davidson, R. J. (1988). Pattern of brain electrical activity during facial signs of
emotion in ten month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 24, 230–236.
Fullard, W., Simeonsson, R. J., & Huntington, G. S. (1989). Sociocultural factors and temperament.
In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates, & M. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp.
523–536). New York: John Wiley.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal
system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver P. H., & Thomas, C. W. (1994). Temperament and school
functioning during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 200–225.
Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., & Thomas, C. W. (1997). Difficult temperament and behaviour
problems: A longitudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years. International Journal of Behavioural
Development, 21, 71–90.
Hagekull, B. (1994). Infant temperament and early childhood functioning: Possible relations
to the five-factor model. In C. J. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.),
The developing structure of temperament and personality (pp. 227–240). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hagekull, B. & Bohlin, G. (1998). Preschool temperament and environmental factors related
to the five-factor model of personality in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44,
194–215.
Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L.,
Jin, S., Olsen, S. F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of
socially withdrawn behavior in China, Russia and the United States. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 24, 73–81.
Hemphill, S. & Sanson, A. (2000). Relations between toddler and preschooler temperament
and parenting style in an Australian sample. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial
Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Beijing,
China, July.
Hemphill, S. & Sanson, A. (2001). Matching parenting to child temperament. Family Matters,
59, 42–47.
Hinde, R. A. (1989). Temperament as an intervening variable. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates,
& M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 27–34). Chichester: John Wiley.
Jorm, A. F., Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., Zhang, Y. & Easteal, S. (2000). Association of a
functional polymorphism of the serotonin transporter gene with anxiety-related temperament
and behaviour problems in children: A longitudinal study from infancy to the mid-teens.
Molecular Psychiatry, 5, 542–547.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 167
Kagan, J. (1998). Biology and the child. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development
(5th edn) (pp. 177–236). New York: John Wiley.
Kagan, J. & Snidman, N. (1999). Early childhood predictors of adult anxiety disorders. Biological
Psychiatry, 46, 1536–1541.
Katainen, S., Räikkönen, K., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (1999). Adolescent temperament, perceived
social support, and depressive tendencies as predictors of depressive tendencies in
young adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 13, 183–207.
Katainen, S., Räikkönen, K., Keskivaara, P., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (1999). Maternal
child-rearing attitudes and role satisfaction and children’s temperament as antecedents of
adolescent depressive tendencies: Follow-up study of 6- to 15-year-olds. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 139–163.
Keogh, B. K. & Burstein, N. D. (1988). Relationship of temperament to preschoolers’ interactions
with peers and teachers. Exceptional Children, 54, 456–561.
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in
early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325–347.
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments:
From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228–240.
Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S. P. (1994). Maternal reports
of conscience development and temperament in young children. Child Development, 65,
852–868.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T. & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience
in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 67, 490–507.
Korn, S. J. & Gannon, S. (1983). Temperament, cultural variations, and behaviour disorder in
preschool children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 13, 203–212.
Kyrios, M. & Prior, M. (1990). Temperament, stress and family factors in behavioral adjustment
of 3–5-year-old children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13, 67–93.
Ledingham, J. E. (1991). Social cognition and aggression. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin
(Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 279–286). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lemery, K. S., Essex, M. J., & Smider, N. A. (2002). Revealing the relation between temperament
and behavior problem symptoms by eliminating measurement confounding: Expert
ratings and factor analyses. Child Development, 73, 867–882.
Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (1998). Temperament as a predictor of symptomatology
in children: Addressing contamination of measures. Child Development, 69, 164–181.
Lengua, L. J., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (2000). The additive and interactive
effects of parenting and temperament in predicting adjustment problems of children of
divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232–244.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Windle, M., Hooker, K., Lenerz, K., & East P. L. (1986). Children
and adolescents in their contexts: Tests of a goodness of fit model. In R. Plomin & J. Dunn
(Eds.), The study of temperament: Changes, continuities and challenges (pp. 99–114).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary school children’s
actual and rated academic performance: A test of the ‘goodness of fit’ model. Journal
of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 26, 125–136.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 683–697.
Martin, R. P. (1989). Activity level, distractibility and persistence: Critical characteristics in
early schooling. In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates, & M. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood
(pp. 451–461). New York: John Wiley.
Martin, R. P., Nagle, R., & Paget, K. (1983). Relationships between temperament and
classroom behaviour, teacher attitudes, and academic achievement. Journal of PsychoEducational
Assessment, 1, 377–386.
Maziade, M., Caron, C., Cote, R., Merette, C., Bernier, H., Laplante, B., Boutin, P., & Thivierge,
J. (1990). Psychiatric status of adolescents who had extreme temperaments at age seven.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1531–1536.
McClelland, G. H. & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
168 Ann Sanson et al.
McClowry, S. B. (1995). The development of the school-age temperament inventory. MerrillPalmer
Quarterly, 41, 233–252.
Mednick, B. R., Hocevar, D., Schulsinger, C., & Baker, R. L. (1996). Personality and demographic
characteristics of mothers and their ratings of their 3- to 10-year-old children’s temperament.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 397–417.
Miller, F. K. & Keating, D. P. (1999). Individual pathways in competence and coping. In D. P.
Keating & C. Hertzmann, Developmental health and the wealth of nations (pp. 220–233).
New York: Guilford Press.
Mobley, C. E. & Pullis, M. E. (1991). Temperament and behavioural adjustment in preschool
children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 577–586.
Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Contemporaneous
and longitudinal prediction of dispositional sympathy to emotionality, regulation,
and social functioning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 66–97.
Nelson, B., Martin, R. P., Hodge, S., Havill, V., & Kamphaus, R. (1999). Modeling the prediction
of elementary school adjustment from preschool temperament. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 687–700.
Orth, L. C. & Martin, R. P. (1994). Interactive effects of student temperament and instruction
method on classroom behaviour and achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 149–
166.
Paget, K. D., Nagle, R., & Martin, R. P. (1984). Interrelationships between temperament characteristics
and first-grade teacher–student interaction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
12, 547–560.
Paterson, G. & Sanson, A. (1999). The association of behavioural adjustment to temperament,
parenting and family characteristics among 5 year-old children. Social Development, 8,
293–309.
Pedlow, R., Sanson, A., Prior, M., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Stability of maternally reported temperament
from infancy to 8 years. Developmental Psychology, 29, 998–1007.
Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (1989). The Australian Temperament Project. In
G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates & M. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 537–556).
New York: John Wiley.
Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Pathways from infancy to adolescence:
Australian Temperament Project: 1983–2000. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute
of Family Studies.
Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, S., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-inhibited temperament in
childhood lead to anxiety disorder in adolescence? Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 461–468.
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd edn) (pp 255–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Quas, J. A., Hong, M., Alkon, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2000). Dissociations between psychobiologic
reactivity and emotional expression in children. Developmental Psychobiology, 37,
153–175.
Rothbart, M. K. & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol 3: Social, emotional and, personality development
(5th edn) (pp. 105–176). New York: John Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion
regulation, and preschoolers’ social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 49–
62.
Rubin, K. H., Hastings, P., Chen, X., Stewart, S., & McNichol, K. (1998). Intrapersonal and
maternal correlates of aggression, conflict, and externalizing problems in toddlers. Child
Development, 69, 1614–1629.
Rubin, K. H., Hastings, P. D., Stewart, S. L., Henderson, H. A., & Chen, X. (1997). The consistency
and concomitants of inhibition: Some of the children, all of the time. Child Development,
68, 467–483.
Rubin, K. H. & Stewart, S. L. (1996). Social withdrawal. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.),
Child psychopathology (pp. 277–307). New York: Guilford Press.
Sanson, A., Hemphill, S., & Smart, D. (2002). Temperament and social development. In P. K.
Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds), Handbook of childhood social development (pp. 97–116). London,
UK: Blackwell.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
Connections between Temperament and Social Development: A Review 169
Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., Pedlow, R., & Prior, M. (1991). Risk indicators: Assessment of
infancy predictors of preschool behavioural maladjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 32, 609–626.
Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., Prior, M., Amos, D., & Smart, D. (1996). Risk factors for 11–12 year
olds’ internalising and externalising behaviour problems. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Quebec City,
Quebec, Canada, August.
Sanson, A. & Prior, M. (1999). Temperament and behavioural precursors to oppositional defiant
disorder and conduct disorder. In H. C. Quay & A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive
behaviour disorders (pp. 397–417). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Sanson, A., Prior, M., & Kyrios, M. (1990). Contamination of measures in temperament
research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 179–192.
Sanson, A. & Rothbart, M. K. (1995). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.).
Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4) (pp. 299–321). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanson, A., Smart, D., Prior, M., & Oberklaid, F. (1996). Early characteristics of 11–12 year
old children with competent, average and problematic peer relationships. Paper presented at
the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada, August.
Sanson, A., Smart, D., Prior, M., Oberklaid, F., & Pedlow, R. (1994). The structure of
temperament from three to seven years: Age, sex and sociodemographic influences. MerrillPalmer
Quarterly, 40, 233–252.
Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences.
Child Development, 63, 1–19.
Schaffer, H. R. (1996). Social Development. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schaffer, H. R. (1999). Understanding socialization: From unidirectional to bidirectional connections.
In M. Bennett (Ed.), Developmental psychology: Achievements and prospects (pp.
272–288). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Schmidt, L. A. & Fox, N. A. (1999). Conceptual, biological and behavioural distinctions among
different categories of shy children. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear,
shyness and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp.
47–66). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmitz, S., Saudino, K. J., Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., & DeFries, J. C. (1996). Genetic and
environmental influences on temperament in middle childhood:Analyses of teacher and tester
ratings. Child Development, 67, 409–422.
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1996). Early childhood temperament as a determinant
of externalising behaviour in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 8,
527–537.
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of
inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 38, 1008–1015.
Sheeber, L. B. (1995). Empirical dissociations between temperament and behavior problems:
A response to the Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 554–561.
Skarpness, L. R. & Carson, D. K. (1986). Temperament, communicative competence and the
psychological adjustment of kindergarten children. Psychological Reports, 59, 1299–
1306.
Slabach, E. H., Morrow, J., & Wachs, T. D. (1991). Questionnaire measurement of infant and
child temperament: Current status and future directions. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.),
Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement (pp.
205–234). New York: Plenum.
Smart, D. & Sanson, A. (2001). Children’s social competence. Family Matters, 59, 10–15.
Smith, J. & Prior, M. (1995). Temperament and stress resilience in school-age children: A
within-families study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
34, 168–179.
Spangler, G. (1990). Toddlers’ everyday experiences as related to preceding mental and emotional
disposition and their relationship to subsequent mental and motivational development:
A short-term longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12,
285–303.
Stocker, C. & Dunn, J. (1990). Sibling relationships in childhood: Links with friendships and
peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 227–244.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004
170 Ann Sanson et al.
Talwar, R., Nitz, K., & Lerner, R. M. (1990). Relations among early adolescent temperament,
parent and peer demands, and adjustment: A test of the goodness of fit model. Journal of
Adolescence, 13, 279–298.
Teerikangas, O. M., Aronen, E. T., Martin, R. P., & Huttunen, M. O. (1998). Effects of infant
temperament and early intervention on the psychiatric symptoms of adolescents. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 1070–1076.
Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H. G., Hertzig, M. E., & Korn, S. (1963). Behavioural individuality
in early childhood. New York: New York University Press.
Torgersen, A. M. (1999). Relations between childhood temperament and adult personality: Preliminary
data from a longitudinal study from infancy to young adulthood. Paper presented
at the IXth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Greece, September 1–5.
van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and
exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class
mothers with irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 1457–1477.
van den Boom, D. C. (1995). Do first-year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood
of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child Development, 66, 1798–1816.
van den Boom, D. C. & Hoeksma, J. B. (1994). The effect of infant irritability on mother–infant
interaction: A growth-curve analysis. Developmental Psychology, 30, 581–590.
Wachs, T. D. (1988). Relevance of physical environmental influences for toddler temperament.
Infant Behaviour & Development, 11, 431–445.
Wachs, T. D. (1999). The what, why, and how of temperament: A piece of the action. In
L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary
issues (pp. 23–44). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Walker, S. (2001). Temperament and peer acceptance in early childhood: Sex and social status
differences. Child Study Journal, 31, 177–192.
Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, B., Sanson, A., Toumbourou, J., & Smart, D. (2000). Patterns and predictors of
teenagers’ use of licit and illicit substances in the Australian Temperament Project cohort.
Report commissioned by the Ross Trust, Melbourne, Australia.
Wills, T. A., DuHamel, K., & Vaccaro, D. (1995). Activity and mood temperament as predictors
of adolescent substance use: Tests of a self-regulation mediational model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 901–916.
Wills, T. A., Windle, M., & Cleary, S. D. (1998). Temperament and novelty seeking in adolescent
substance use: Convergence of dimensions of temperament with constructs from
Cloninger’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 387–406.
Windle, M. (1992). Temperament and social support in adolescence: Interrelations with depressive
symptoms and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 1–21.
Windle, M. & Lerner, R. M. (1986). The ‘goodness of fit’ model of temperament–context relations:
Interaction or correlation? In J. V. Lerner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), New directions for
child development, vol. 31: Temperament and social interaction during infancy and childhood
(pp. 109–119). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Youngblade, L. M. & Mulvihill, B. A. (1998). Individual differences in homeless preschoolers’
social behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 593–614.
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this paper was partially supported by Australian Research Council grant
A79930720 to Ann Sanson and Ken Rubin, and National Health and Medical Research Council
Grants 980627 and 9937433 to Ann Sanson and John Toumbourou. Direct inquiries to: Ann
Sanson, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 300 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000,
Australia.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004 Social Development, 13, 1, 2004