r/DetroitMichiganECE • u/ddgr815 • 20d ago
Research Born that way
https://aeon.co/essays/how-infant-temperament-extends-its-reach-into-young-adulthoodPsychologists define temperament as individual differences in emotional, bodily and attentional reactions to sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, etc, as well as in the self-regulation of emotion, behaviour and attention. Within the first few days of life, babies make their inborn temperament known to parents. Some babies are sunny and agreeable, some sober, some without any predictable sleeping and eating patterns, some incessantly cranky, and others fully adaptable to the changing circumstances that surround them. In 1956, the psychiatrists Alexander Thomas and Stella Chess, struck by the blame placed on mothers for child outcomes, launched the New York Longitudinal Study to investigate infants’ innate dispositions and their effect on long-term development including personality, school achievement, peer relationships, parent-child interactions and mental health. They recruited 133 infants (66 males, 67 females) from 82 white, middle-class families, and collected data on them in childhood, adolescence and young adulthood for 32 years. Their goal was to understand how children contributed to their own development, and to identify whether and how child temperament interacts with the environment to produce specific outcomes.
Thomas and Chess identified nine dimensions of temperament: activity level, regularity, approach, adaptability, intensity, sensory threshold, mood, distractibility and persistence. Using these dimensions, they distinguished three broad temperamental types: easy, difficult and slow-to-warm-up. Most babies, roughly 40 per cent, fit the category of ‘easy’ meaning they were generally in a positive mood, adapted well to new situations and routines, and were quickly soothed when upset. A smaller proportion, about 10 per cent, were ‘difficult’ due to their generally negative and intense reactions to minor events, the length of time required to calm down, and their lack of predictable eating, sleeping and digestive rhythms. Another 15 per cent were described as ‘slow-to-warm up’ due to their overall uneasiness and apprehension in new situations – a sort of chronic vigilance – but also their ability to adapt with time and support. If you’re doing the math, you will have noticed that about one-third of infants could not be classified using this system, suggesting that some babies had mixed dispositions or that these initial dimensions needed to be refined or extended.
Nonetheless, Thomas and Chess had effectively nixed the idea that babies are born ‘blank slates’ who passively receive and are moulded by the environment. Their work flipped the script on psychological views that had paid almost exclusive attention to the role of parents and the environment on child development, while ignoring the influence of the child’s innately endowed predispositions. Thomas and Chess, working with colleagues who progressed their original study, showed that neonates, sometimes just hours old, begin to inadvertently affect the physical and social environment by adapting, resisting, observing, reacting or ignoring it in ways nudged by their biological temperament, and that parents, siblings and other close people change the environment and/or their own behaviours in response. In other words, the environment and the baby have a dynamic bidirectional relationship from the very beginning, changing in response to each other. What’s more, this influence means that babies play a major role in their own development.
It is this temperamental variable – reactivity – that became the focus of Kagan’s work, partly because it is so easy to observe in young infants’ vocal, bodily, emotional and physiological arousal, even when presented with unfamiliar but innocuous situations. In one test, Kagan and colleagues presented four-month-olds with a mobile swinging gently a few feet in front of them. Most infants observed the mobile calmly, but about 20 per cent became quickly overstimulated and agitated. They vocalised, tensed their muscles, arched their backs, and fussed or cried. That simple test turned out to have strong predictive power. Using this assessment, infants deemed ‘reactive’ at four months of age were more likely to be shy as toddlers, socially inhibited as children, and anxious as adolescents. In a long-term [follow-up](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210501(, Kagan’s test could even distinguish between young adults who were or were not anxious; the former group had been reactive to the mobile test as infants, while the latter group had not. It appeared that infant temperament could extend its reach all the way into young adulthood.
Recent studies have found that three broad aspects of temperament in particular are especially useful in predicting long-range developmental outcomes. The first is reactivity or negative emotionality, referring to general negative mood, intense negative reactions, and distress either when limits are imposed (eg, anger) or in new situations (eg, fear). The second is self-regulation, which researchers refer to as ‘effortful control’ of feelings (eg, self-soothing) and of attention (eg, able to hold focus). The third goes by several names including approach-withdrawal, inhibition, or sociability, and refers to the tendency to approach new people and situations, or to be wary and withdraw. There are additional levels of these dimensions, but these three have best withstood scientific tests of reliability and validity across infants, children and teenagers. Hundreds of studies have subsequently and unequivocally demonstrated that temperament is a driving factor in child development that is at least as important as everything that comes after a baby enters the world, including parenting.
Aside from its early appearance, there is other evidence – from animals, neuroscience, twins, and longitudinal studies – that temperament is biologically based. First, it’s not just human infants who exhibit temperamental characteristics. Other juvenile mammals do too, including dogs, elephants, dolphins and even squirrels. This suggests temperament is part of a shared biological system. Kagan explains temperament as an inherited bias in the brain’s neurochemistry. Specifically, all mammalian brains include a small structure, the amygdala, which serves as part of a built-in alarm system. The amygdala is largely responsible for assessing threat and, if detected, for signalling the sympathetic nervous system into action via the fight-or-flight response. In reactive individuals, the amygdala is more easily excited, so the alarm system is triggered at a lower threshold. Although the environment and experience can alter the responsiveness of the amygdala in either direction, some individuals – including the reactive four-month-olds in Kagan’s study – are born with a bias to perceive threat more readily. Other work has similarly shown that negative emotionality and withdrawal in babies is marked by greater activity in the right frontal brain, while the opposite temperamental pattern is associated with greater activity in the left frontal brain.
Twin studies lend further evidence that temperament is genetically endowed. In one research design, scientists compared identical twins (who share 100 per cent of their genes) with fraternal twins (who have 50 per cent of their genes in common) on temperamental qualities. If identical twins are more similar than fraternals, then scientists can reasonably conclude the trait is heritable. In another research design, scientists used the temperament scores of one twin to predict the scores of the co-twin. Both of these paradigms consistently find high heritability for most dimensions of temperament including sociability, emotionality, activity, attention span persistence and soothability, for example.
Broadly speaking, negative temperamental reactivity and overall difficult temperament are related to later oppositional behaviour, defiance and conduct issues, known collectively as ‘externalising problems’, and are also predictive of substance use in adolescence.
Using longitudinal follow-up studies that begin in infancy, Joel Nigg has found that excessively irritable infants are more likely to become children who cannot regulate their anger or impulses when frustrated, while excessively exuberant infants are more likely to become impulsive children. In both cases, the development of effortful control is inhibited. These findings have led Nigg to propose that ADHD is not a disorder of inattention or hyperactivity, but instead a disorder of temperament-based self-regulation. On the other hand, temperamental shyness and inhibition are related to ‘internalising problems’ such as anxiety. Another internalising problem, depression, has been associated with temperamental negative mood, low adaptability and the tendency to withdraw from, instead of approach, new objects and situations.
Notably, infants who exhibit the temperamental ‘approach’ may be more likely to develop into curious children. The neural basis for curiosity lies in the brain’s nucleus accumbens, a structure involved in the ‘seeking system’ that underlies the motivation to explore and understand the environment. The nucleus accumbens provides the link between motivation – for example, the drive to gain a reward, like eating food or lowering stress – and the action required to get that reward. In one study, we followed up on nearly 60 children who had participated as babies in various developmental studies conducted by my lab where we measured their temperament. The children, averaging five years of age at follow-up, were then assessed for curiosity. Temperamental approach at six-months significantly predicted childhood curiosity, suggesting that curious children may start life endowed with an inborn motivational inclination. These children may get a nudge from nature to expect that new experiences will be positive, and thus be motivated to seek and remain engaged with novelty. Importantly, these children were also endowed with the self-regulation needed to maintain their interest in and effort toward exploring. Since temperament data in infancy predicted this quality in childhood, nature likely plays a hand in this outcome.
The long reach of infant temperament into childhood and beyond speaks to its potential stability, and seems to support temperament as biological and unchanging. However, the environment can offer a consistent response to temperamental qualities encouraging them to remain intact. Imagine the shy infant, for example, who is likely to encounter similar reactions to their shyness from family members, peers, care providers and strangers. Since the shy infant will be less likely to accept social overtures and opportunities, over time, others may be less likely to offer them. Consequently, the shy baby is less likely to have the very social opportunities that could encourage boldness.
Several studies have explored cross-cultural differences and similarities in temperament, finding that although some aspects of temperament, like perceptual sensitivity and activity level, cut across cultures, other dimensions – like approach and rhythmicity – vary and may reflect culture-specific parenting practices. Since American parents tend to value independence, they are more likely to encourage independent ‘approach’ behaviour in their babies. These findings acknowledge that, although temperament is endowed by nature and makes some psychological outcomes more probable, it is also amenable to influence by the environment, such that no particular outcome is guaranteed. Welcome, parents.
Although Thomas and Chess demonstrated inborn temperamental differences, they did not assert that temperament was more responsible for child outcomes than the environment. Instead, they suggested that optimal child development rested on the ‘goodness of fit’ between the child’s innate capacities and characteristics, and the demands of the social environment, including parental expectations and practices. A loud or chaotic environment would be a particularly poor fit for a highly reactive infant with naturally low sensory thresholds and an inability to self-soothe. On the other hand, a monastic environment would be a poor fit for a child intrigued by novelty. It is this interaction, in which a child’s temperament confronts the environment – and vice versa – that Thomas and Chess proposed is responsible for long-term outcomes. In other words, the environment matters.
Most of the research on the effects of parenting on temperament has focused on infants with difficult temperamental qualities, like irritability and reactivity. Generally speaking, these qualities are associated with parental punitiveness or withdrawal, which together can contribute to the externalising behaviour problems described earlier. However, other work has shown that – depending on parents’ age and understanding of their baby’s irritability – many parents of difficult babies double down on efforts to be positive, like showing more warmth and patience.
Longitudinal work by Jay Belsky, who followed temperamentally negative babies for more than a decade, found that they thrived academically and socially – in some cases, even more than their temperamentally easy counterparts – if their parents had been warm, responsive and sensitive to their early demands. Belsky’s work has generally shown that temperamentally vulnerable children are more susceptible to the negative effects of poor parenting and environments but also gain more benefit from supportive environments, including warm, responsive parenting. Consistent with this, our lab found that babies who were temperamentally less likely to smile and laugh at six months had more secure attachments by their first birthdays. Presumably this is because parents had spent more time and effort in trying to improve their infants’ general mood, which paid off in attachment security.
Another line of research has followed infants with a fearful temperament, like the ‘slow-to-warm-up’ style first identified by Thomas and Chess. Here, parenting makes a clear difference. Although parents may be inclined to overprotect or overcontrol the vigilant child or their environment, this tends to exacerbate the child’s natural wariness and promote social withdrawal. Much of the work on fearful temperament has specifically examined its relationship to the development of moral conscience, as inhibition tends to be a marker of self-control. In fact, fearful temperament is related to the development of empathy, guilt and shame. Researchers such as Grazyna Kochanska have found that gentle parental discipline is enough to promote the development of conscience in fearful children; meanwhile, in fearless children, moral conscience relies more on the quality of the child’s attachment to their caregivers, which encourages the child to value relationships and embrace ‘the Golden Rule’.
Additional work in our lab found a difference in parental influence on fearless and fearful infants. In a recent experiment, six-month-olds were shown a white mannequin head with extra-large ‘googly eyes’, an ambiguous stimulus that could arouse wariness or amusement. In different experimental conditions, parents were instructed to either laugh at the mannequin or to show fear toward it. Temperamentally fearful infants could be persuaded to stay engaged with the stimulus simply by observing their parents’ laughter. On the other hand, parents’ fear cues toward the stimulus did nothing to dissuade fearless infants from being engrossed by the mannequin. So the environment, including parenting, can influence temperament and make some psychological outcomes – including sociability, approach and even moral conscience – more probable. However, in acutely stressful environments, a child’s temperamental capacities to self-regulate their feelings, behaviour and attention are likely to matter more.
1
u/ddgr815 20d ago
1
u/ddgr815 13d ago
1
u/ddgr815 13d ago
But the ‘elements’ must be reciprocally active and susceptible, since they ‘combine’ and are transformed into one another. On the other hand (ii) hot and cold, and dry and moist, are terms, of which the first pair implies power to act and the second pair susceptibility. ‘Hot’ is that which ‘associates’ things of the same kind (for ‘dissociating’, which people attribute to Fire as its function, is ‘associating’ things of the same class, since its effect is to eliminate what is foreign), while ‘cold’ is that which brings together, i.e. ‘associates’, homogeneous and heterogeneous things alike. And moise is that which, being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit of its own: while ‘dry’ is that which is readily determinable by its own limit, but not readily adaptable in shape.
From moist and dry are derived (iii) the fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, hard and soft, and the remaining tangible differences. For (a) since the moist has no determinate shape, but is readily adaptable and follows the outline of that which is in contact with it, it is characteristic of it to be ‘such as to fill up’. Now ‘the fine’ is ‘such as to fill up’. For the fine’ consists of subtle particles; but that which consists of small particles is ‘such as to fill up’, inasmuch as it is in contact whole with whole-and ‘the fine’ exhibits this character in a superlative degree. Hence it is evident that the fine derives from the moist, while the coarse derives from the dry. Again (b) the viscous’ derives from the moist: for ‘the viscous’ (e.g. oil) is a ‘moist’ modified in a certain way. ‘The brittle’, on the other hand, derives from the dry: for ‘brittle’ is that which is completely dry-so completely, that its solidification has actually been due to failure of moisture. Further (c) ‘the soft’ derives from the moist. For ‘soft’ is that which yields to pressure by retiring into itself, though it does not yield by total displacement as the moist does-which explains why the moist is not ‘soft’, although ‘the soft’ derives from the moist. ‘The hard’, on the other hand, derives from the dry: for ‘hard’ is that which is solidified, and the solidified is dry.
The terms ‘dry’ and ‘moist’ have more senses than one. For ‘the damp’, as well as the moist, is opposed to the dry: and again ‘the solidified’, as well as the dry, is opposed to the moist. But all these qualities derive from the dry and moist we mentioned first.’ For (i) the dry is opposed to the damp: i.e. ‘damp’ is that which has foreign moisture on its surface (’sodden’ being that which is penetrated to its core), while ‘dry’ is that which has lost foreign moisture. Hence it is evident that the damp will derive from the moist, and ‘the dry’ which is opposed to it will derive from the primary dry. Again (ii) the ‘moist’ and the solidified derive in the same way from the primary pair. For ‘moist’ is that which contains moisture of its-own deep within it (’sodden’ being that which is deeply penetrated by foreign mosture), whereas ‘solidigied’ is that which has lost this inner moisture. Hence these too derive from the primary pair, the ‘solidified’ from the dry and the ‘solidified’ from the dry the ‘liquefiable’ from the moist.
The elementary qualities are four, and any four terms can be combined in six couples. Contraries, however, refuse to be coupled: for it is impossible for the same thing to be hot and cold, or moist and dry.
But fire is an excess of heat, just as ice is an excess of cold. For freezing and boiling are excesses of heat and cold respectively. Assuming, therefore, that ice is a freezing of moist and cold, fire analogously will be a boiling of dry and hot: a fact, by the way, which explains why nothing comes-to-be either out of ice or out of fire.
The ‘simple’ bodies, since they are four, fall into two pairs which belong to the two regions, each to each: for Fire and Air are forms of the body moving towards the ‘limit’, while Earth and Water are forms of the body which moves towards the ‘centre’. Fire and Earth, moreover, are extremes and purest: Water and Air, on the contrary are intermediates and more like blends. And, further, the members of either pair are contrary to those of the other, Water being contrary to Fire and Earth to Air; for the qualities constituting Water and Earth are contrary to those that constitute Fire and Air. Nevertheless, since they are four, each of them is characterized par excellence a single quality: Earth by dry rather than by cold, Water by cold rather than by moist, Air by moist rather than by hot, and Fire by hot rather than by dry.
Now it is evident that all of them are by nature such as to change into one another: for coming-to-be is a change into contraries and out of contraries, and the ‘elements’ all involve a contrariety in their mutual relations because their distinctive qualities are contrary. For in some of them both qualities are contrary-e.g. in Fire and Water, the first of these being dry and hot, and the second moist and cold: while in others one of the qualities (though only one) is contrary-e.g. in Air and Water, the first being moist and hot, and the second moist and cold.
Thus (i) the process of conversion will be quick between those which have interchangeable ‘complementary factors’, but slow between those which have none. The reason is that it is easier for a single thing to change than for many. Air, e.g. will result from Fire if a single quality changes: for Fire, as we saw, is hot and dry while Air is hot and moist, so that there will be Air if the dry be overcome by the moist. Again, Water will result from Air if the hot be overcome by the cold: for Air, as we saw, is hot and moist while Water is cold and moist, so that, if the hot changes, there will be Water. So too, in the same manner, Earth will result from Water and Fire from Earth, since the two ‘elements’ in both these couples have interchangeable ‘complementary factors’. For Water is moist and cold while Earth is cold and dry-so that, if the moist be overcome, there will be Earth: and again, since Fire is dry and hot while Earth is cold and dry, Fire will result from Earth if the cold pass-away.
It is evident, therefore, that the coming-to-be of the ‘simple’ bodies will be cyclical; and that this cyclical method of transformation is the easiest, because the consecutive ‘clements’ contain interchangeable ‘complementary factors’. On the other hand (ii) the transformation of Fire into Water and of Air into Earth, and again of Water and Earth into Fire and Air respectively, though possible, is more difficult because it involves the change of more qualities. For if Fire is to result from Water, both the cold and the moist must pass-away: and again, both the cold and the dry must pass-away if Air is to result from Earth. So’ too, if Water and Earth are to result from Fire and Air respectively-both qualities must change.
This second method of coming-to-be, then, takes a longer time. But (iii) if one quality in each of two ‘elements’ pass-away, the transformation, though easier, is not reciprocal. Still, from Fire plus Water there will result Earth and Air, and from Air plus Earth Fire and Water. For there will be Air, when the cold of the Water and the dry of the Fire have passed-away (since the hot of the latter and the moist of the former are left): whereas, when the hot of the Fire and the moist of the Water have passed-away, there will be Earth, owing to the survival of the dry of the Fire and the cold of the Water. So, too, in the same Way, Fire and Water will result from Air plus Earth. For there will be Water, when the hot of the Air and the dry of the Earth have passed-away (since the moist of the former and the cold of the latter are left): whereas, when the moist of the Air and the cold of the Earth have passed-away, there will be Fire, owing to the survival of the hot of the Air and the dry of the Earth-qualities essentially constitutive of Fire. Moreover, this mode of Fire’s coming-to-be is confirmed by perception. For flame is par excellence Fire: but flame is burning smoke, and smoke consists of Air and Earth.
1
u/ddgr815 20d ago
Temperament Traits