does child temperament moderate

8/13/2019 Does Child Temperament Moderate

1/21

Does child temperament moderatethe influence of parenting on adjustment?q

Kathleen Cranley Gallagher

Department of Educational Psychology, University of WisconsinMadison,

Education Sciences Building, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA

Received 26 March 2001; received in revised form 3 January 2002

Abstract

Parental socialization and child temperament are modestly associated with child

adjustment outcomes. Main-effects models have yielded valuable information, but fail

to explicate mechanisms via which child adjustment occurs. A conditional model of

influence is suggested, in which parenting effects on child adjustment are moderated

by child temperament characteristics. Theoretical support for such a model is out-

lined, integrating bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)

and a corollary differential susceptibility hypothesis (Belsky, 1997). Empirical work

compatible with the moderated model is reviewed, and research that more fully inte-

grates the theoretical model and allows direct testing of the propositions is presented.

2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parenting; Temperament; Child adjustment; Moderator; Ecological systems theory;

Differential susceptibility

Research linking parenting and child temperament to adjustment has re-

lied primarily upon main-effects models, in which socialization (parenting)or

biological predisposition (temperament) directly predicts child adjustment

Developmental Review 22 (2002) 623643www.academicpress.com

qAn earlier version of this paper was presented as part of preliminary examination

requirements for completion of studies in the Ph.D. program in Human Development. I am

most grateful to Deborah Lowe Vandell, Leonard Abbeduto, and B. Bradford Brown for their

generous comments and assistance.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0273-2297/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 2 7 3 - 2 2 9 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 5 0 3 - 8
http://mail%20to:%[email protected]/http://mail%20to:%[email protected]/


2/21

outcomes. It has been suggested that research emphasizing the interaction

effects of parenting and child temperament might more precisely consider

the complexity of development and its processes (Hinde, 1989; Kochanska,1997; Lerner, 1998; Magnusson & Stattin, 1998; Thomas, 1984). A condi-

tional model, in which the relationship between a predictor and dependent

variable is moderated by the presence of a third variable, may be used to ex-

amine parenting influences on child adjustment as moderated by child tem-

perament.

In this review, I summarize the work linking parenting and temperament

to adjustment in main-effects models. A theoretical framework and ancillary

hypothesis are then examined. Bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbren-

ner & Morris, 1998) proposes how specific qualities of parenting have theirmost conspicuous effects on adjustment in the presence of distinct child tem-

perament characteristics over time. A differential susceptibility hypothesis

(Belsky, 1997) is proposed as a means for interpreting temperamental insta-

bility. A survey of the empirical literature investigating the interaction of

parenting and child temperament will follow. I conclude by suggesting

strategies for future study of parentingtemperament interaction, informed

by bioecological systems theory.

Main-effects models

Adjustment in childhood

Adjustment in childhood refers to the characteristics of the childs social

functioning within constraints of the environment (Rothbart & Bates, 1998).

Positive adjustment is reflected in general positive emotion, compliant and

self-regulated behavior, and harmonious interpersonal interactions (Bron-

fenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Negative adjustment outcomes are reflected

in the converse: negative emotion, disruptive behavior and conflicted social

relationships. What manifests as adjustment in childhood varies with devel-

opmental period and with the environmental and social demands placed

upon the child (Sanson & Rothbart, 1995).

Parenting and child adjustment

Parenting is thought to influence adjustment via processes commonlyknown as socialization, . . .whereby children acquire the habits, values,

goals, and knowledge that will enable them to function satisfactorily when

they become adult members of society (Maccoby, 1980b, p. v). The re-

search linking parenting and child adjustment has generated the study of

two primary dimensions of parenting. Parental warmth incorporates behav-

iors that convey acceptance, positive affect, sensitivity and responsiveness

624 K.C. Gallagher / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 623643


3/21

toward the child. Parental controlconsists of sufficient and developmentally

appropriate involvement, discipline and monitoring (Baumrind, 1979; Mac-

coby, 1980b), manifest in enforcing demands and rules, high expectations,and restriction of the childs behavior. Negative aspects of parental control

have also been considered, including the effects of intrusiveness and harsh

discipline (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1984).

While operational definitions of parental warmth and control vary across

studies, general findings associating parenting with child adjustment can be

summarized as follows. High maternal warmth and nonintrusive responding

are related to secure attachment in infancy (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &

Wall, 1978). In early childhood, parental high warmth and responsiveness

have been associated with superior child prosocial skills (Sroufe, 1985), few-er behavior problems, and better peer relations (Baumrind, 1979). In later

childhood and adolescence, these same parenting characteristics predict few-

er behavior problems and more harmonious peer relationships (Baumrind,

1991).

Profoundly negative parenting, manifested in child abuse and neglect, is

also related to maladjustment in childhood and adulthood (Egeland &

Sroufe, 1981). Maltreatment aside, however, predictions of child adjustment

outcomes from parenting behaviors have been modest (Chamberlain & Patt-

erson, 1995; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000;

Maccoby, 1980a; Vandell, 2000; Wachs, 1991). Additionally, links between

parenting styles and child adjustment outcomes have sometimes been equiv-

ocal. For example, high parental power, arbitrarily administered, was asso-

ciated with divergent child outcomes: obedient, passive behavior in some

children and aggressive cruel behavior in others (Maccoby, 1980a). Modest

relations and equivocal findings have led to reflection on what alternative

influences might be playing a role in the childs developing social compe-

tence (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Sanson & Rothbart, 1995).

Child temperament and adjustment

Child temperament, defined as constitutionally based individual differ-

ences in emotional, motor, and attentional reactivity and self-regulation

(Rothbart & Bates, 1998), is modestly related to concurrent and later child

adjustment. In a direct linkage model, temperamental extremes may reflect

either positive adjustment on one end of the continuum, or pathology on the

other (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). For example, extreme fearfulness may man-ifest as anxiety disorder, while very low attention may manifest as attention

deficit disorder.

In early studies of child temperament, Chess and Thomas (1989) defined

clusters of temperament characteristics they hypothesized were most clini-

cally salient for adjustment. Children with an easy temperament typically

exhibited moderate to high positive emotion, moderate activity level, high

K.C. Gallagher / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 623643 625


4/21

adaptability and high emotional regulation. Children with difficult tem-

perament typically exhibited high negative emotion, low adaptability, high

activity level, and low emotional regulation. Children with the difficult char-acteristics were found to challenge parents, caregivers, and teachers, more

than children with easy or average temperament (Thomas, 1984).

Contemporary research in the area of temperament postulates a model

that considers three global dimensions: surgency, negative emotion, and reg-

ulation (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Surgency involves activity level and the

tendency to approach or withdraw from novel situations. Regulation in-

cludes systems of attention and behavioral inhibition, and negative emotion

refers to sadness, distress to limitation and soothability. While similar to the

original dimensions of Thomas and Chess, the contemporary structure issupported by biological, behavioral genetic and social science research

(Rothbart & Bates, 1998).

Regardless of the model employed, characteristics associated with diffi-

cult temperament are modestly related to later behavior problems (Bates,

1989; Chess & Thomas, 1989; Martin, 1989). High negative emotion in in-

fancy is associated with later internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Inhi-

bition, or fearful withdrawal, is associated with later social inhibition or

shyness (Kagan, 1994), and internalizing problems (Bates, Maslin, & Fran-

kel, 1985). Irritability and distress to limitations is associated with later ag-

gressive behavior (Bates et al., 1985). However, modest relations among

variables, inconsistent findings, and limited theoretical support have ren-

dered main-effects-models of parenting or temperament influence obsolete.

Evidence that parenting influences children (Belsky, Fish, & Isabella,

1991) and that children affect parents (Bell, 1968), persuades us to consider

an alternative model that reflects this underlying bidirectionality and reci-

procity. A conditional model, focusing on interactive effects of parenting

and temperament, is one such model.

A conditional model

There has been little theoretical delineation of the synergistic processes of

parenting and temperament, though interactions are often assumed to re-

flect the bi-directional and reciprocal interchanges between the organism

and environment over time (Hershberger, 1994; Magnusson & Stattin,

1998; Thomas, 1984; Wachs & Plomin, 1991). Thomas and Chess hypothe-sized that temperament conveyed its influence in interaction with the de-

mands of the environment, including parenting. Positive adjustment was

seen as a product of goodness-of-fit between the childs temperament

and the environment: Simply defined, goodness of fit results when the

childs capacities, motivations and temperament are adequate to master

the demands, expectations and opportunities of the environment (Chess



5/21

& Thomas, 1989, p. 380). Unfortunately, theoretical and methodological

limitations (see Plomin & Daniels, 1984) have forced goodness-of-fit ap-

proaches to remain under-utilized.The hypothesis of organismic specificity (Wachs, 1991) suggests that in-

dividuals may respond differently to the environment according to qualities

of their own reactivity. In other words, the environment influences different

people differently. Wachs outlined the need for a theoretically based study of

organismenvironment interactions, including systems, longitudinal, and in-

teraction components, in which the interaction component examines either

differential vulnerability, utilization of environmental opportunities, or dif-

ferences in response patterns to the environment.

However, joint effects of parenting and temperament are not simply in-stances of organismenvironment interaction. While temperament can be

considered a characteristic of the person, or organism, parenting is more

than a feature of the environment. Parenting is bi-directional and reciprocal

by design; the child is an active participant in the parenting process. Chil-

dren elicit parenting behavior, and respond in ways that shape parenting

(Bell, 1968). Therefore, the interaction of parenting and child temperament

is a synergism ofprocess (parenting) and person(temperament), as outlined

by bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

A conditional model aims to uncover and meaningfully interpret interac-

tions, or the nonlinear association between two variables. In the proposed

conditional model, interaction tests the prediction of child adjustment from

parenting characteristics, moderated by child temperament characteristics.

Baron and Kennys (1986) influential work on moderator and mediator vari-

ables sets forth considerations for exploring the role of third or intervening

variables. Where child temperament moderates the effects of parenting, a

childs temperament characteristics increase or decrease the strength of the re-

lationship between parenting (the independent variable) and child adjust-

ment (the dependent variable). Specifically, qualities of parenting may

predict different outcomes for children with different temperament character-

istics (Sanson & Rothbart, 1995). Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) elabo-

rate on how conditional effects might be explored, posing hypotheses for

child outcomes of dysfunction and competence.

The bioecological systems model

Expanding on the ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983), Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) ad-

vance a bioecologicalmodel, a theoretical basis for understanding how par-

ticular processes, in combination with child characteristics, might

differentially influence development. This model is referred to as the Pro-

cessPersonContextTime model (PPCT), and sets forth implications for

how research might consider the interaction of parenting and temperament.



6/21

Parenting proximal processes

The core of the bioecological model isproximal processes (Bronfenbrenner

& Morris, 1998), activities in which the child interacts with persons, objectsor symbols on a regular basis, such as participating in mealtime, listening to

storybooks, and visiting relatives. The influence of proximal processes on de-

velopmental outcomes is expected to vary with characteristics of the Person

(child or other), characteristics of the Context (the broader environment),

and elements of Time (duration and historical setting). The quality of prox-

imal processes is theorized to influence child development outcomes more

than any single measure of Person, Context, or Time alone, Proximal pro-

cesses are posited as the primary engines of development (Bronfenbrenner

& Morris, 1998, p. 996). Competent and increasingly complex participa-tion in these proximal processes is necessary for optimal developmental

outcomes.

Parenting is a proximal process in which parental influence on child ad-

justment varies as a function of the childs characteristics, such as tempera-

ment. Responsive parenting may reduce the likelihood of social withdrawal

in school in the case of an inhibited child, but not in the case of an uninhib-

ited child. Harsh parenting may be associated with increased child aggres-

sion in general, but with even more aggression in the case of children who

express more negative emotion. An example of parenting as a proximal pro-

cess is found in the socialization of a young childs mealtime behaviors. The

parents efforts involve encouraging manners, having the child be healthily

nourished, and somehow avoiding catastrophic messes. The childs activity

level, fearfulness regarding novelty (new food), and emotions regarding re-

strictions (e.g., high chair, bib) influence the parents efforts. The process is

the parent-led reciprocal interchange of the meal activity, constantly influ-

enced by the Person characteristics of the child.

Temperament person characteristics

Person characteristics that moderate the influence of proximal processes

includeforceand demandcharacteristics. Force characteristics are the childs

active behavioral dispositions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1009).

Force characteristics such as impulsiveness, angriness, and shyness can en-

courage or impede development in the context of proximal processes. De-

mand characteristics evoke or hinder social reactions and behaviors from

others involved in proximal processes. According to Bronfenbrenner and

Morris (1998), temperament can act as force or demand characteristics.The degree to which a temperament characteristic impedes or facilitates

productive engagement in proximal processes indicates its positive or nega-

tive value for the childs development. Fearfulness, a force characteristic,

may hinder a childs participation with the parent in playgroup activities, re-

ducing the quality and time spent in parentchild proximal processes. In-

fants high in irritability or activity level, demand characteristics, may



7/21

evoke more negative emotional expression from parents in the case of the

former, or more parental restriction in the latter case. The child contributes

to the process through these Person characteristics, moderating the associa-tion of parenting and child outcomes.

A conditional model of influence

Bronfenbrenner and Morris theorize that Proximal Processes and Per-

son characteristics synergistically predict developmental outcomes. Proxi-

mal Processes become more elaborate over time. Parenting and child

temperament interact such that the total effect is greater than the addition

of their separate contributions (see Fig. 1). Distressful emotion, inhibitory

fearfulness, and high activity level render a child less able to engage in in-creasingly complex proximal processes, and make negative adjustment

outcomes more likely. Questions this model can begin to address are plen-

tiful. Are there situations in which typically negative processes or negative

temperament are associated with positive outcomes? Might it be adaptive

for parents to be less sensitive to childrens need for autonomy in danger-

ous contexts, such as urban settings or political conflict? Do certain tem-

perament characteristics interact with aspects of parenting more than

others?

The bioecological theory of development is consistent with Wachs and

Plomins (1991) requirements for a theoretical model of organismenviron-

ment interaction. The systems components, outlined in detail in earlier

works by Bronfenbrenner (i.e., microsystems, mesosystems), help to account

for the complexity of the environmental influences in a childs life (see Bron-

fenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983). A longitudinal compo-

nent, inherent in Bronfenbrenners concept of Time, considers

developmental progress within and over periods of time. An interactive

Fig. 1. Expected child adjustment outcomes as predicted by the interaction of child temperament

and parenting.



8/21

component is also included. Over 20 years ago, Bronfenbrenner (1979) sta-

ted, . . .the principal main effects are likely to be interactions (p. 38).

An ancillary hypothesis

An additional perspective for examining the associations among parent-

ing, child temperament and child adjustment is a hypothesis ofdifferential

susceptibility (Belsky, 1997, 2001), which incorporates evolutionary consid-

erations into study of the ProcessPersonContext framework of ecological

systems theory. According to the evolutionary perspective, variation among

individuals behavioral characteristics occurs to enhance individual repro-

ductive fitness. Variation in individual characteristics increases the likeli-hood that the most adaptive characteristics advance into the next

generation, with consistently maladaptive characteristics extinguishing over

time. Since the future remains uncertain, and with it the human character-

istics that may adapt best to future contexts, it makes sense, contends Bel-

sky, that the offspring of individuals vary in the degree to which they

exhibit certain characteristics. This is particularly valuable within families,

in which parentsbest interest for promoting their genes into this uncertain

future is having offspring who vary in their characteristics, or as Belsky

(2001) depicts it, a reproductive hedging of bets (p. 7).

Belsky (1997) suggests that what plausibly follows is variation among in-

dividuals in the characteristic of susceptibility to environmental influence

(p. 184). Just as there is variation among characteristics such as athletic abil-

ity, or body type, individualstraits may vary in their susceptibility to social-

ization influences, including parenting. Thus, some offspring are expected to

be affected by socialization experiencesin positive and/or negative ways,

depending on the nature of their experienceswhereas others are expected

to be affected to a far less degree, if at all.

The differential susceptibility hypothesis complements bioecological the-

ory in its consideration of conditional effects (Belsky, 1997). Mounting evi-

dence suggests that infants high in negative reactivity may be more

susceptible to variations in parenting than their non-reactive peers (see

Fig. 2), particularly in relation to outcomes of behavioral adjustment and

regulation.

As an example of how this might manifest, highly reactive, or negative,

infants might be more susceptible to parents socialization pressures than

their less reactive peers. Parentsefforts to encourage or discourage this re-activity may be associated with child outcomes of social inhibition or social

facility, respectively. Conversely, children who are less reactive and negative

may be more prone to resist parental socialization, and may develop social

competence with or without parental facilitation. Whether this susceptibility

to influences is specific to characteristics or global, within the organism, re-

mains uninvestigated.



9/21

Empirical work employing a conditional model

There is a small body of literature exploring the interactive effects of par-

enting and child temperament as related to adjustment, possibly due to dif-

ficulty in obtaining and interpreting significant interaction terms (Sanson &

Rothbart, 1995). The literature reviewed spans the developmental periods of

childhood, with child adjustment manifested differently at each developmen-

tal stage: attachment security in infancy, prosocial and antisocial skills in

early childhood, and aggression and depression in middle and late child-

hood.

Adjustment in infancy: Attachment security

Findings linking attachment to later positive adjustment indicate that a

secure attachment relationship between caregiver and child is a hallmark

of positive adjustment in infancy (Rutter, 1997; Suess, Grossman, & Sroufe,

1992). In a short-term longitudinal study of 48 infants and their mothers,Crockenberg (1981) found that newborn irritability interacted with mothers

social support, predicting attachment security in the Strange Situation at one

year. Mothers who reported low levels of social support were more likely to

have infants who were insecurely attached, but only when those infants were

irritable as newborns. Crockenbergs instrumental study paved the way for

how we might think about the complexity of parenting characteristics, child

Fig. 2. Expected differential susceptibility of negative temperament to the influence of parenting

on child adjustment outcomes.



10/21

temperament and adjustment in infancy. Particularly remarkable is the influ-

ential nature of negative temperament on the association between parenting

processes and child adjustment.Mangelsdorf, Gunnar, Kestenbaum, Lang, and Andreas (1990) explored

similar issues in a multi-measure study of temperament, parenting and at-

tachment security. The researchers observed 66 nine-month old infants

and their mothers at home, assessing infant temperament and maternal per-

sonality. Attachment security in the Strange Situation was assessed when

the infants were thirteen months old. Neither child temperament nor mater-

nal behavior predicted later emotional expressiveness or attachment secu-

rity. However, maternal constraint, a personality type reflecting rigidity,

traditionalism and low risk-taking (p. 824) interacted with temperamentto predict attachment. Low maternal constraint predicted secure attach-

ment for infants prone to distress; whereas maternal constraint, whether

high or low, was unrelated to attachment security for infants not prone

to distress.

In both of these studies, features of parenting interacted with tempera-

ment, predicting child adjustment outcomes; however, parenting proximal

processes did not interact with temperament. Robust measurement of parent-

ing in infancy may be difficult, as the proximal processes of motherinfant in-

teraction may be insufficiently established (Kochanska, 1998). Irritable

infants were more susceptible to parenting influences than non-irritable

infants, however, supporting the differential susceptibility hypothesis.

Adjustment in early childhood: Prosocial and antisocial behavior

Research with preschoolers has more wholly documented parenting

temperament interaction. For children 25 years old, opportunities for

social interaction outside of the home increase in the contexts of play-

group, neighborhood, and preschool. Prosocial behavior is reflected in

positive behaviors that advance relationships, such as helpfulness, shar-

ing, and empathy. Social inhibition reflects the converse: failure to engage

relationships with others, and in the extreme, social withdrawal (Rutter,

1997).

Prosocial behavior

Kochanskas model (1995, 1997) tests the joint influences of parental so-

cialization and child temperamental inhibition in relation to childrens mor-al development. Kochanska (1997) explored how parental socialization

behaviors, such as responsiveness and discipline, interacted with child fear-

fulness to predict childrens conscience-related behaviors. With a sample of

90 toddlers and their mothers, child fearfulness was measured using parent

report and a laboratory observation, including a risky events activity.

Maternal responsiveness (sensitivity, acceptance, and cooperation) and



11/21

gentle discipline (reasoning and low-power guidance) were observed in a

separate series of motherchild laboratory activities: a cooperative play

kitchen scene, a toy clean-up and a prohibited toy situation. Child con-science was measured at 4- and 5-years old in the laboratory, where the child

was challenged to not cheat in two rigged games, and enact moral dilemmas

with dolls and props.

Maternal gentle discipline predicted higher conscience scores only for

children high in fearfulness. Maternal responsiveness was also related to

higher conscience scores, but only for children rated low in fearfulness. Ko-

chanska asserted that the pathways to internalization are different for chil-

dren who differ on fearfulness, and that strong parental power interferes

with the internalization of social morals. Thus, for fearful children, capital-ization on their fearfulness, in the use of gentle, psychological discipline was

sufficient for positive moral development. For fearless children, characteris-

tics of the motherchild relationship itself, such as maternal responsiveness,

provided support needed for children to internalize morals.

Stanhope (1999) also investigated interaction of child temperament and

parent discipline in relation to prosocial behavior. With a sample of 56 pre-

schoolers and their parents (49 mothers and 8 fathers), Stanhope measured

parent report of child negative emotionality and parent-reported discipline.

Child sharing behavior was observed for 20 min during free play in the nurs-

ery school setting. Low-power parental discipline was related to higher shar-

ing in the nursery school, but only for children high in negative

emotionality. Like Kochanska, Stanhope posited that low power parenting

helped fearful children to develop prosocial behavior with peers.

These two studies provide evidence that gentle or low power disci-

pline is associated with both internalized (conscience) and externalized

(sharing) prosocial behavior, for children who demonstrate high negative

emotion or fearfulness. Parenting processes exerted influence on childrens

development in interaction with temperament characteristics of the Person

(child). Additionally, temperament characteristics were differentially suscep-

tible to parental influences, in that highly inhibited children were more likely

to be affected by variation in parental discipline.

Social inhibition

Preschool children face increasing demands of social interaction. Social

inhibition, or shyness, may put a child at risk for social withdrawal and poor

peer relations (Rubin, Stewart, & Chen, 1995). Park, Belsky, Putnam, andCrnic (1997) observed the emotional expression of 125 firstborn males when

the children were 10 months old. Infant positive temperament (laughter/

smiling and orientation) and negative temperament (fear and distress-to-

limitations) were derived from a parent report and laboratory observation.

Parenting processes were observed in the home, when the children were 15,

21, 27, and 33 months old; mothers and fathers were rated on positive affect,



12/21

negative affect, sensitivity, and intrusiveness. When the children were 3-years

old, they participated in a series of activities in the laboratory, which were

coded for social wariness: facial expression of fear or shyness, bodily ten-sion, hesitation to respond or interact, and proximity-seeking with parent.

Interaction of parenting processes and child temperament predicted child

wariness in the lab. When mothers were intrusive, asserting their own objec-

tives over those of the child, only highly negative infants were more wary at

3 years. Similarly, when fathers were highly intrusive, negative, less sensitive

and less affectionate, negative infants were less wary at 3-years. These find-

ings contradicted the authorsexpectation that intrusive, affectively negative

parenting would lead to negative adjustment outcomes. However, Kagan

(1997) has suggested that parentsintrusiveness might be necessary for fear-ful children, in order to encourage interaction with people.

Early, Rimm-Kaufman, Cox, and Saluja (1999) reported contradictory

findings in their examination of interaction between maternal sensitivity

and child wariness in relation to social adjustment in the first week of kin-

dergarten. Child behavioral inhibition was evaluated at 15 months in the

Strange Situation with 235 children and their mothers. Maternal sensitivity

was observed in three structured motherchild activities. When the children

completed their first week of kindergarten, teachers reported child levels of

active engagement and withdrawal in the classroom. Maternal sensitivity in-

teracted with wariness in prediction of kindergarten adjustment. Sensitive

mothering was related to more active engagement with other children and

less inactive (passive) withdrawal in kindergarten, but only for children

who were highly fearful at 15 months. According to the investigators, moth-

ering that was affectively warm and responsive to the infant provided a base

of emotional support for the fearful child, which could be generalized to

prosocial behavior with peers.

The findings in the two social inhibition studies differ dramatically. In one

case (Park et al., 1997) less sensitive, negative parentingprocesses predicted

less social inhibition for children who were more negative in infancy, while

in the other (Early et al. (1999)) positive parentingprocesses predicted less

social inhibition for children who were negative as infants. While the studies

varied on several dimensions (i.e., age and gender of child), an explanation

drawn from Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) suggests that proximal pro-

cesses function differently in relation to distinct outcomes. Differences in the

parenting predictors of social inhibition between the two samples may have

been due to differences in the outcome contexts.When parenting was less solicitous, fearful infants may have clung less to

parents and demonstrated less fearfulness in social situations with parents

present. When parented sensitively, children who were fearful as infants

may have later been less inhibited in the presence of novel peers and situa-

tions. Alternatively, child adjustment outcomes may reflect some aspect of

the attachment working model. When parents were intrusive with fearful



13/21

infants, lack of inhibition in the lab with parents present may have indicated

an avoidant attachment relationship. For inhibited children who were pa-

rented sensitively, less inhibition in a novel environment may have indicateda secure attachment relationship (Suess et al., 1992). Clearly, more research,

including replication, is needed to sort through these discrepancies.

Adjustment in the school years: Externalizing and internalizing pathology

In middle childhood and adolescence the child spends substantial

amounts of time in non-family environments, increasing expectations on

the childs ability to interact socially. Maladjustment in this developmental

period is made manifest by externalizing (e.g., aggression) and internalizingbehaviors (e.g., withdrawal and depression) (Sanson & Rothbart, 1995). Pa-

rental socialization research often focuses on discipline, measured by parent

involvement, monitoring consistency, and rigidity (Chamberlain & Patter-

son, 1995).

Blackson, Tarter, and Mezzich (1996) explored the concurrent interaction

of parental discipline and temperament in a sample of 152 pre-adolescent

boys. The 1012-year old boys reported their own temperament and their

parentsdiscipline. Childdifficulttemperament was characterized by high ac-

tivity, high fearful withdrawal, high negative emotion and low adaptability.

Parental discipline incorporated consistency and severity, with high ratings

of both indicating negative discipline. Mothers reported child internalizing

and externalizing behaviors.

Parental discipline and child temperament interacted, predicting both

internalizing and externalizing behaviors. When parents used negative dis-

cipline, externalizing behavior was more prevalent in children with diffi-

cult temperament than in non-difficult children. The interaction of

discipline and temperament also predicted internalizing problems, with

negative parenting predicting depression only for difficult children. The

authors posited that children with difficult temperament were more likely

to elicit harsh parenting, such that difficult temperament served as a de-

mand characteristic, eliciting negative parenting and perpetuating negative

adjustment outcomes for the child. The data were also consistent with the

hypothesis of differential susceptibility, in that difficult children were more

susceptible to the influence of parental discipline than were their non-

difficult peers.

In another concurrent study of pre-adolescent boys, Colder, Lockman,and Wells (1997) reported numerous interactions between parenting and

child temperament. Sixty-four 4th and 5th grade boys and their parent com-

pleted questionnaires. Child activity level was rated by the parent and child

fearfulness was rated by the parent and child. Parents reported their own in-

volvement, monitoring and harsh discipline. Child aggression was reported

by the childs teacher and child depression was reported by the child.



14/21

Parenting was related to child pathology in interaction with distinct char-

acteristics of child temperament. Poor parental monitoring was related to

child aggression for children high in activity level, but not for children withlow and moderate activity level. Parental harsh discipline predicted child ag-

gression in children moderate or high in fearfulness, but not in children low

in fearfulness. Harsh discipline also predicted child depression, but only

when children were highly fearful. Both high and low levels of parental in-

volvement predicted child depression when children were moderately fear-

ful, but not when children were low or high in fearfulness, suggesting that

high involvement may be intrusive for children who are average in their tem-

peramental fearfulness.

While the findings of both Blackson et al. (1996) and Colder et al. (1997)were complex, their specificity regarding temperament and parenting char-

acteristics render a pattern consistent with bioecological theory. Parenting

processes characterized as highly controlling and harsh predicted negative

adjustment outcomes, but only for boys who exhibited temperament charac-

teristics associated with risk. Additionally, temperamentally negative boys

were more susceptible to parenting processes in relation to adjustment out-

comes, supporting the differential susceptibility hypothesis.

In research drawing on data from two longitudinal samples, Bates, Pettit,

Dodge, and Ridge (1998) explored the interaction of maternal parenting and

child temperament in relation to externalizing problems. Bates and col-

leagues examined temperamental resistance to control, defined as child be-

havior that is typically impulsive and uncontrollable, ignoring or reacting

angrily to outside guidance (Bates et al., 1998). Mothers of Sample I chil-

dren (N 90) completed temperament questionnaires when the children

were 13- and 24-months old, while mothers of Sample II children

(N 156) completed retrospective versions of the same temperament mea-

sure when the children were 5-years old. Maternal restrictive control was ob-

served in the home, when infants were 6-, 13-, and 24-months old with

Sample I and at 5-years old with Sample II. High ratings of restrictive con-

trol described maternal attempts to manage difficult child behavior using re-

strictions, threats and correction. Mothers and teachers reported child

externalizing behaviors several times between 7- and 11-years old.

Maternal restrictive control interacted with temperament in prediction of

later externalizing problems. Low maternal restrictive control predicted

more externalizing behavior, but only for children high in resistance to con-

trol. High parental restrictive control predicted low externalizing for chil-dren high in resistance, but not for children low in resistance to control.

In both cases, negative temperament was more amenable to socialization in-

fluences of parenting than non-negative temperament. Mothering that was

higher in power predicted better adjustment for children who were more re-

sistant to control. Bates et al. (1998) posited that more controlling maternal

care helped resistant children develop internal controls.



15/21

The findings of Bates et al. (1998) converge with those of Park et al.

(1997), providing support for the differential susceptibility hypothesis.

Children with negative temperament characteristics were more susceptibleparental control in relation to adjustment outcomes. Parental control inter-

acted with negative characteristics of child temperament to constrain the

potential expression of negative behavior at later points of development.

Unlike the findings of Blackson et al. (1996) and Colder et al. (1997), high-

er parental control was related to more positive child outcomes. Bates

et al. (1998) examined parental control as distinct from harshness, and ex-

amined change over time, differences that may have accounted for the dis-

crepancy.

Conclusions: A conditional model of parenting influence

Despite contentions to the contrary (see Harris, 1995), there is evidence

that parenting bears considerable import for childrens adjustment (Collins

et al., 2000; Vandell, 2000), and emerging research suggests that parental so-

cialization plays a distinct role for children of different temperaments. One

of the primary goals of this review was to identify an appropriate theoretical

foundation for this emergent line of research. Several considerations provide

guidance for ongoing research.

Developmental considerations

Positive parenting varies in relation to the childs developmental level, as

well as in relation to the childs temperament. In early childhood, respon-

sive, low-power mothering predicted positive adjustment only when children

demonstrated more negative emotionality. Both intrusive andsensitive par-

enting were associated with less shyness in the preschool years, for children

that were highly fearful as infants. While Kagan (1997) suggested that more

socially demanding parental control decreases later shyness for fearful chil-

dren, attachment theorists posit that all children, including fearful ones,

demonstrate better social and peer skills as a result of a caregiverchild re-

lationship based on sensitive and responsive parenting (Bretherton, Birin-

gen, & Ridgeway, 1991; Sroufe, 1985).

In middle childhood and adolescence, harsh parenting had deleterious ef-

fects for children who demonstrated negative temperament characteristics;however, high parental control that was not harsh had positive effects on ad-

justment when children were temperamentally negative. Higher parental

control than previously posited may facilitate adjustment in school-age chil-

dren who are fearful or resistant to control.

Parenting proximal processes did not interact with child temperament in

studies limited to infancy. Kochanska (1997) suggested that main effects of



16/21

parenting and temperament are more visible in earlier development, and

that interactions are more common as development proceeds. This hypoth-

esis is consistent with bioecological theory, in that processes and interactionsare posited to grow more complex over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,

1998). More longitudinal data will be necessary to test this position. It is

clear that the socialization needs of children change as development pro-

gresses; further research is needed to examine parenting and temperament

interaction at different developmental periods.

Methodological considerations

Several methodological considerations could be incorporated into on-going research, involving variable specificity, research design and analyti-

cal strategies. One strategy would be to test the different aspects of harsh

parenting in interaction with qualities of temperament as related to adjust-

ment. Parental high control may predict positive adjustment when chil-

dren are highly resistant to control, but predict negative adjustment

when children are highly fearful. Another strategy might examine different

levels and types of parental monitoring in interaction with temperament.

High parental monitoring may not be important for fearful children

who are less likely to take risks. However, it could be expected to interact

with high activity or low fearfulness to constrain dangerous risk-taking

behavior. A fine-grained approach to the examination of interaction of

temperament and parenting could provide insight beyond consideration

of global constructs such as difficult temperament and negative par-

enting.

The interaction of parenting and temperament could also be investigated

using experiments. Different parenting techniques could be taught and em-

phasized to groups of parents, with groups randomly assigned, balanced in

terms of child temperament characteristics, and including control groups.

Other factors could include child gender, father and mother, and remote

variables of parenting, such as social support and parent personality. Using

pre- and post-measures of child adjustment, the researcher could tease out

the processes via which children with particular temperament characteristics

are parented most effectively.

Intervention was a powerful factor in experimental work of van den

Boom (1994). Low-SES mothers of highly negative infants participated in

a skill-based program focusing on improving perception, interpretation,and responsiveness to their infants cues. When the children were 9-months

old, the mothers of the intervention groups were more responsive, stimulat-

ing and attentive than the control mothers, and their children were more so-

ciable and less negative than the controls. When the children were a year

old, the intervention infant infants were more likely to be securely at-

tached than the controls. Experimental research implementing intervention



17/21

strategies with both negative and non-negative infants could test both the

bioecological framework and differential susceptibility hypothesis.

A moderator model tests hypotheses of conditional influence; however,statistical interactions allow us to look at the effects only superficially (Rut-

ter & Pickles, 1991), and to speculate regarding causal mechanisms. Baron

and Kenny (1986) suggested using mediated moderation, a combined ap-

proach of investigation, to address this limitation. Using a path analytic

framework, moderators of an association are identified, and causal paths

are explored to identify variables influencing the moderators effect on the

predictor.

Attachment security, differential susceptibility, parental attitudes or ex-

perience, and developmental stage, are factors that may mediate the inter-action of parenting and child temperament. As an example, a childs

internal working model of self and parent could facilitate the interactive in-

fluence of parenting and temperament on adjustment. A parent might exert

control by encouraging a fearful child to approach playmates, respond po-

litely to adults, and even defend play territory from aggressive children. If

the child is securely attached to the parent, and has a working model that

provides a sense of security and self-worth, the child may not exhibit

poorer social adjustment, typically associated with fearfulness. A mediated

moderator approach could enrich the study of parentingtemperament in-

teraction.

Theoretical considerations

Under the umbrella of the ProcessPersonContextTime model, we can

begin to evaluate the structure of the childs developmental milieu. Parent-

ing, viewed as a process involving the child and parent reciprocally, com-

bined with elements of Context, and observed over Time, may provide a

richer understanding of the ecology of developmental processes (Bronfen-

brenner & Morris, 1998). This review focused on the Process and Person as-

pects of the PPCT model; however, Context and Time should also be

considered. Culture, economic status, family structure and neighborhood

are all elements of Context that interact with parenting Processes, Person

and Time to sculpt the course of a childs life. In some cultures (e.g., some

Asian) child inhibition, or shyness, is not considered a negative tempera-

ment characteristic. For children raised in such cultural contexts, parenting

processes may not influence the course of inhibition. The child might dem-onstrate shyness in school, but would not necessarily exhibit negative adjust-

ment. Research authentic to bioecological systems theory must consider

appropriate elements of Context.

Other elements of Context that may interact with processes of parenting

and child temperament include political conditions, social policy, and socie-

tal attitudes. In extreme contexts (e.g., war, famine) different parenting and



18/21

temperament characteristics may be associated with child adjustment. More

parental control may be necessary in dangerous environments. Negative

temperament characteristics may not be amenable to change when theyare adaptive, as in a famine (see DeVries, 1984). The interaction of parenting

processes and child temperament need to be explored in extreme contexts.

Time also needs to be considered in research that examines the interac-

tion of parenting and temperament. Research should be longitudinal when

possible (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Lerner, 1998; Wachs, 1991), in

order to address changes over time in children and parents behavior. The

historical milieu in which children develop should also be considered.

The differential susceptibility hypothesis (Belsky, 1997) is supported in

the literature reviewed, as children with different temperament profiles var-ied in their sensitivity to parental influence. Children who were more nega-

tive in their affect and/or withdrew from stimuli were more vulnerable to the

effects of parenting. Children higher in negative emotion, fearfulness or ac-

tivity level were more susceptible to parental control and responsiveness

than children who were less fearful, active or negative. Effects were evident

in prosocial behavior and behavior problems, beyond the influences of tem-

perament and parenting alone. Belsky suggested that heritability estimates

could help to test this hypothesis further. If high or low levels of some

behavioral style were shown to be less heritable than traits at other levels,

more environmental contribution to the high and low levels could be as-

sumed, indicating greater amenability to influences, such as parenting prox-

imal processes.

Ultimately, a model should advance understanding of developmental

processes (Wachs, 1991). Exploring the interactive effects of Person (temper-

ament) and Process (parenting) as related to child adjustment, and extend-

ing research to include elements of Context and Time, we pursue the

ultimate goal: better understanding of the characteristics and circumstances

of parenting that promote positive child adjustment for children of different

temperaments.

References

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:

Assessed in the strange situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.

Bates, J. E. (1989). Applications of temperament concepts. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, &

M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood(pp. 321355). New York: Wiley.

Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment security, motherchild

interaction and temperament as predictors of behavior-problem ratings at age three years.

In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),Growing points of attachment theory and research (Vol.

50, pp. 167193). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.



19/21

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 externalizing behavior.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 982995.

Baumrind, D. (1979). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. Paper

presented at the Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Minneapolis, MN.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan

& E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 111163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization.

Psychological Review, 75, 8195.

Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influence: An evolutionary

argument.Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 230235.

Belsky, J. (2001). Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary

hypothesis and some evidence. Unpublished manuscript, Birkbeck College, Universityof London.

Belsky, J., Fish, M., & Isabella, R. (1991). Continuity and discontinuity in infant negative and

positive emotionality: Family antecedents and attachment consequences. Developmental

Psychology, 27(3), 421431.

Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as

antecedents of boys externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3: Differential suscepti-

bility to rearing influence? Development and Psychopathology, 10, 301319.

Blackson, T. C., Tarter, R. E., & Mezzich, A. C. (1996). Interaction between childhood

temperament and parental discipline practices on behavioral adjustment in preadolescent

sons of substance abuse and normal fathers. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,

22(3), 335348.

Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., & Ridgeway, D. (1991). The parental side of attachment. In K.

Pillemer & K. McCartney (Eds.),Parentchild relations throughout life(pp. 124). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in

developmental research. InP. H. Mussen (Ed.), History, theory and methods (Vol. 1, (4th

ed.., pp. 357414). New York: Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.), & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.Theoretical models of human development(5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 9931028). New York: Wiley.

Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). Discipline and child compliance in parenting. In

M. Bornstein (Ed.), Applied and practical parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 205225). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1989). Issues in the clinical application of temperament. In G. A.

Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 377

403). New York: Wiley.

Colder, C. R., Lockman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of childrens fear

and activity level on relations between parenting practices and childhood symptomatology.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(3), 251263.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. (2000).Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American

Psychologist, 55(2), 218232.

Crockenberg, S. B. (1981). Infant irritability, mother responsiveness, and social support

influences on the security of infantmother attachment. Child Development, 52, 857865.

DeVries, M. W. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 14(10), 11891194.



20/21

Early, D. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cox, M. J., & Saluja, G. (1999, April). Predicting

childrens wariness in the transition to kindergarten. Poster session presented at the Society

for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In R.

Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in child maltreatment (pp. 7792).

San Francisco: Joffey-Bass.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the childs environment? A group socialization theory of

development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458489.

Hershberger, S. L. (1994). Genotypeenvironment interaction and correlation. In J. C. DeFries,

R. Plomin, & D. W. Fulker (Eds.), Nature and nurture during middle childhood (pp. 281

294). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Hinde, R. A. (1989). Temperament as an intervening variable. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E.

Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 2733). New York:

Wiley.Kagan, J. (1994). Galens prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Harper Collins.

Kagan, J. (1997). Temperament and reactions to unfamiliarity. Child Development, 68(1), 139

143.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Childrens temperament, mothersdiscipline, and security of attachment:

Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597615.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different tempera-

ments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 228240.

Kochanska, G. (1998). Motherchild relationship, child fearfulness, and emerging attachment:

A short-term longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 480490.

Lerner, R. M. (1998). Theories of human development: Contemporary perspectives. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.), & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.

Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 124). New York: Wiley.

Maccoby, E. M. (1980a). Child rearing practices and their effects. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Social

development: Psychological growth and the parentchild relationship (pp. 367410). New

York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. M. (1980b). Social development: Psychological growth and the parentchild

relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Magnusson, D. & Stattin, H. (1998). Personcontext interaction theories. In W. Damon (Series

Ed.), & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of

human development (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 685759). New York: Wiley.

Mangelsdorf, S., Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R., Lang, S., & Andreas, D. (1990). Infantproneness-to-distress temperament, maternal personality, and mother-infant attachment:

Associations and goodness-of-fit. Child Development, 61, 820831.

Martin, R. P. (1989). Activity level, distractibility, and persistence: Critical characteristics in

early schooling. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament

in childhood(pp. 451461). New York: Wiley.

Park, S.-Y., Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1997). Infant emotionality, parenting, and

3-year inhibition: Exploring stability and lawful discontinuity in a male sample. Develop-

mental Psychology, 33(2), 218227.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Family interaction: A process model of

deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253257.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1984). The interaction between temperament and environment:Methodological considerations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30(2), 149162.

Prior, M. R., Sanson, A. V., & Oberklaid, F. (1989). The Australian temperament project. In G.

A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood(pp. 537


Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, &

M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood(pp. 247287). New York: Wiley.



21/21

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),Social, emotional

and personality development (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 105176). New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Stewart, S. L., & Chen, X. (1995). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children.

In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Children and parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 255284). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rutter, M. (1997). Clinical implications of attachment concepts. In L. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker

(Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 1746). New York: Guilford.

Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (1991). Personenvironment interactions: Concepts, mechanisms, and

implications for data analysis. In T. D. Wachs & R. Plomin (Eds.), Conceptualization and

measurement of organismenvironment interactions (pp. 105141). Washington, DC: Amer-

ican Psychological Association.

Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1995). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bornstein

(Ed.), Applied and practical parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 299321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infantcaregiver

relationships and infant temperament. Child Development, 56, 114.

Stanhope, L. N. (1999, April). Preschoolers sharing as related to birth order, temperament, and

parenting styles. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society of Research

in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Suess, G. J., Grossman, K. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother

and father on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization of

self. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 4365.

Thomas, A. (1984). Temperament research: Where we are, where we are going. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 30(2), 103109.

Vandell, D. L. (2000). Parents, peer groups, and other socializing influences. Developmental

Psychology, 36(6), 699710.

van den Boom, D. C. (1989). Neonatal irritability and the development of attachment. In G. A.

Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 299


van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and

explorations: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class

mothers and irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 14571477.

Wachs, T. D. (1991). Synthesis: Promising research designs, measures and strategies. In T. D.

Wachs & R. Plomin (Eds.), Conceptualization and measurement of organismenvironment

interaction (pp. 162182). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Wachs, T. D., & Plomin, R. (1991). Overview of current models and research. In T. D. Wachs &

R. Plomin (Eds.), Conceptualization and measurement of organismenvironment interaction

(pp. 18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


does child temperament moderate

Documents