Temperament

Theory And Practice

Stella Chess, Alexander Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780876308356
  9781138180994
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135062521
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In 1956 Stella Chess and Alexander Thomas launched the pioneering New York Longitudinal Study, a systematic investigation into the concept of temperament that has been pursued to the present decade. The findings from this study - that temperamental profiles of infants, children, adolescents, and adults show specific individual behavioral characteristics - are accepted as basic to the psychological mechanism of behavioral functioning. Now, these two preeminent authorities and teaches in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry present an essential introduction to their internationally recognized work. This volume takes the reader from concept - including the definition of temperament and the studies that support and expand upon that definition - to specific explorations of temperament and its impact across various practice settings and special populations.

Part I

Basic Concepts of Theory and Practice of Temperament

1

Introduction

The concept of temperament has by now been widely recognized as one of the basic aspects of the psychological mechanism of behavioral functioning. The temperamental profiles of infants, children, adolescents, and adults show specific individual behavioral characteristics. These formulations have been accepted as a result of the reports of the findings of the systematic study by Chess and Thomas in their long-term investigation, the New York Longitudinal Study, begun in 1956, and pursued to the present decade.

A number of researchers and clinicians had earlier commented on their own observations of the individual behavioral characteristics of children. In the 1930s two pioneer workers in child development, Shirley (1933) and Gesell and Ames (1937) reported specific differences in individual infants. Freud (1937,1950) asserted that “each individual ego is endowed from the beginning with its own peculiar dispositions and tendencies” (vol. 5, p. 316). Pavlov (1927) postulated the existence of congenitally determined types of nervous system as basic to the course of subsequent behavioral development.

In the 1940s and 1950s a number of studies appeared that reported observations of individual differences in infants and young children in specific, discrete areas of functioning, such as perceptual responses (Bergman & Escalona, 1949), motility (Fries & Woolf, 1953), drive endowment (Alpert, Neubauer, & Wiel, 1956), and mildness and intensity of emotional tone (Meili, 1959). David Levy (1943), the director of one of the earliest mental health clinics for children, reported his pioneering study of boys whose behavior disorders appeared to be related to maternal overprotection. These two major outcomes were due to the children’s own behavioral characteristics. The passive boys became “obedient automatons”, and the assertive and combatant boys became family tyrants.

These various reports emphasized that individual differences appeared to be present at birth and were influenced, but not determined, by postnatal experience.

In addition, the need for anterospective longitudinal studies in the investigation of the origins and evolution of behavioral disorders in children has been recognized by a number of workers the University of California at Berkeley (McFarlane, Allen, & Honzig, 1962), the Fels Institute (Kagan & Moss, 1962), and the Meninger Clinic (Murphy, 1962). Longitudinal studies at these centers have made a number of contributions to our knowledge of normal and aberrant behavioral development. The possible significance of the temperamental characteristics of the child in interaction with parental functioning has been indicated. However, each of these studies has been militated against either by small sample size or by the absence of systematic psychiatric evaluation of the children, which has not permitted generalization of the findings.

Beyond these specific professional reports, experienced parents, baby nurses, and pediatricians have often observed, in the course of their caretaking activities, that different infants showed even strikingly unique behaviors from the first weeks of birth onward. But no one had recorded this in any serious or systematic study.

As to the professional report of those years, they were too narrow and limited to provide a basis for any systematic and comprehensive understanding of behavioral individuality in early childhood, or the significance of such individuality for psychological development.

2

The Initial Concept of Temperament

In past centuries the explanations for individuality in behavioral development have basically advocated one of two views—nature or nurture. The first theory considered the newborn to be an homunculus, literally an adult in miniature. The opposite view, nurture, held that the newborn was a tabulu rasa, as the 17th century British philosopher John Locke put it—a clean slate on which the environment would inscribe its influence until the adult personality was etched to completion. This debate of nature versus nurture, heredity versus environment, was dominated by the intrinsic hereditary argument until the 19th century. Starting in the 20th century with the extensive studies of Freud, Pavlov, and many students of child development, the concept of nurture began to influence this viewpoint. This approach strengthened and from the 1920s on began to dominate the field of child development.

By the early 1950s the environmentalist view was accepted, with a few exceptions. Any organic contribution to any explanation of a child’s function was almost universally considered to be antithetical to psychological development.

This is how we were taught in the 1940s—behavioral differences in children were always due to the environment, usually the mother, although sometimes some special extrafamilial event was also implicated. However, as we went into clinical practice with new patients, the standard concepts, whether psychoanalysis, behaviorism or learning theory, or attachment theory, just didn’t make sense. Many young mothers tortured themselves with unnecessary guilt and self-reproach because those authoritative experts had proclaimed that one or another of these theories necessarily blamed the mother for any presumed abnormality in the child.

One mother, Mrs. T., who came to see me (S.C.) was a horrendous example, even a caricature, of those who suffered the uncompromising verdict of “bad mother.” She was in a state of anguish and guilt and believed her son, Peter, 8 years old, to be in “deep psychological trouble,” with his future in jeopardy. She believed this had to be due to her faulty mothering. She was familiar with psychoanalytic theory and reported that Peter had a serious problem in expressing anger and hostility. While she was prepared to deal with the “terrible twos,” this early period had gone by in serenity. He had rarely had a tantrum, and he was a reasonable child as to behavioral limits and doing his assigned chores. When he had an argument, it was with quiet logic and without anger. She had herself suffered from constant criticism in her boisterous, contentious tomboy childhood and had been determined to avoid such repressive maternal behavior. But here was her quiet, well-behaved son failing to express the normal stages of wrestling with authority so well described by Anna Freud. There were no other “symptoms.” Peter had friends with whom he played some active games, but he preferred reading, learning in school, and long discussions with his father. He had no nightmares, learning problems, fears, phobias. He was not afraid of new experiences. His father did not consider him a problem and found few faults with Mrs. T.’s attitudes toward either Peter or his more rambunctious younger brother.

A play session during which he entered freely into discussion showed a normal 8-year-old with wide-ranging intellectual interests in keeping with his age and a high intellectual status: Why did dinosaurs come to an end? What was the big bang theory of the universe? Why did his mother always tell him to go out and play when he was busy playing checkers with a friend?

The real problem was to convince Mrs. T. that a normal child comes in a variety of behavioral styles. Peter was quiet in expressiveness, motorically middle of the spectrum, persistent in his expression of interests, and rarely forgot to take out the garbage when it was his turn. He was as normal as the more active and forgetful brother, Dennis, who loved roughhouse play. The importance of convincing Mrs. T. to accept and appreciate Peter’s style extended beyond merely providing her with reassurance. She had, in fact, begun to make Peter feel that she disapproved of him. Having interpreted her psychological reading as giving a template of the active, argumentative child as a norm, I realized that, in her campaign to free his presumed repressed aggression, she was really undercutting his confidence in being his own kind of individual.

The discussion had a favorable outcome. The mother, a bit doubtful at first, after several sessions and with her husband’s support, did relax and began to enjoy her quiet and stimulating child.

Of course, in some cases, a child’s behavioral problem is due to some abnormal maternal handling, or some other pathogenic environmental circumstance. At other times, a child’s development pursues a consistently healthy direction, in the face of severe parental disturbance, family disorganization, and social stress. One case was particularly striking. The parents had consulted one of us (A.T.) because of severe marital disharmony. Almost any small disagreement escalated into shouting and denigrating name-calling. Both parents agreed that their two children were often present on those occasions.

I had many therapeutic sessions with each parent separately and also jointly. But all my efforts were completely unsuccessful. Inevitably, a contentious divorce ensued. Despite statements by each parent that the psychological well-being of the children was of primary importance, there were bitter legal battles over child support and visitation. And after the legalities had been settled, fighting involved the children. During the children’s visit to the father, he would inquire into the mother’s social life; on their return home the mother would criticize the father’s laxity as to bedtime, eating arrangements, and prodigality with gifts.

Both parents tried to enlist me as a partisan in the battles over their children’s lives. I did my best, as a neutral ally for the welfare of the children. I only succeeded in modestly mitigating the severity of the parents’ battles over the children. My deepening concern was over the effect of the severe stress imposed on the children by this parental disturbance and family dysfunction. The parents did agree to refer the children to S.C. for her evaluation, advice, and, if necessary, treatment.

To our surprise, S.C.’s careful clinical evaluation showed that the two children, Gabrielle, age 7, and Greg, age 9, were functioning well in all areas. They each had friends with whom visits were exchanged and school functioning was satisfactory in both the academic and the social spheres. There were no symptoms of either anxiety or aggression, and both were quite outspoken and accurate in their assessment of the family situation. Prior to the divorce, each time their parents started fighting the children had been in the habit of going off to play elsewhere in peace. They reported they enjoyed any time spent separately with each parent. Although they wished their parents would stop fighting, they accepted this as a given—that’s the way life went. Since each was outgoing, enjoyed new experiences and new people, adapted quickly to new circumstances, and had a predominantly cheerful demeanor, they easily became involved in pleasant activities with other children and adults. Since friends of theirs also had divorced parents, they shared similar stories. They were quite open about their willingness to take advantage of their father’s overindulgence but in fact were relieved to return home to their mother’s regular schedule. Our conclusion was that their individual behavioral qualities, which brought so many positive responses from both the larger environment and each parent individually, had given them distance and protection from the unpleasantness of the parental battle. It simply wasn’t their problem and they made sure to avoid becoming pawns in the parental wars.

S.C. decided that the children had no need for psychotherapy. Both were coping effectively on their own with this severe parental dysfunction, and she only reassured the children that their attitudes and activities were splendid. At a follow-up 2 years later, the evaluation showed them to be continuing to develop and mature positively, and her prognosis was very favorable.

Finally, we saw many, many instances in which a child’s psychopathology occurred even with good parents. For example, there was Carla, 4 years old, brought to my (S.C.) office by her parents, with a rather serious behavioral problem at nursery school and at social occasions. She had been having a hard time each morning when getting ready for school. She refused breakfast, made a fuss about dressing, and cried when her mother left her at school. The teacher reported that Carla spent the day on the fringe of the various activities, with no participation in them and an unhappy look. In addition, Carla demonstrated this similar distressing behavior in many new situations. When invited to a birthday party, she raised objections, became whiny, and hid behind her mother.

With these problems, the mother sought advice and was recommended to a good psychoanalyst. The therapist judged Carla’s problem to be separation anxiety due to insecure attachment to the mother. The recommended treatment was for the mother to search into her unconscious reasons for wishing to maintain Carla’s dependency on her. After some months of psychoanalytic sessions, no significant insights had been achieved, and the mother was dissatisfied with the therapist’s theory and treatment. Then a friend recommended that she consult me and she did.

In my clinical interview, I could find no evidence of any unhealthy psychological attitudes or behavior in the mother. She had done all the sensible things to encourage Carla’s growing independence and maturity, and there was no evidence of any attitudes or behavior to tie Carla with undesirable dependency to her. Beyond that, the detailed descriptions of Carla’s behavior difficulties revealed clearly that her disturbances always occurred with new situations. Whenever she visited familiar friends and/or playgrounds she was completely at ease, and participated quickly and happily in the group’s activities.

For a test, I advised the mother not to abruptly leave her at nursery school—up to now her first different new situation. Rather, the mother should remain at the school for several weeks, sitting at the back, but visible to Carla in the room. The teacher agreed, and reported to the mother that gradually day after day, Carla began to participate more with the group. After 2 weeks she was fully involved cheerfully with the group, and the teacher, the mother, and I all agreed that the mother could discontinue sitting in the school. She did and Carla ignored the change. After that, in the mornings she dressed and had breakfast quickly and was ready eagerly to get to school.

With this successful test, I advised the mother that Carla was a perfectly normal child and that she was an adequate parent. Carla had only the problem of not adjusting quickly to any new situation; she should be called shy. I told the mother to expect that Carla would probably show this same behavioral pattern at any new setting—distressed at first, but with time she would adjust and cheerfully participate. Any special therapy was certainly unnecessary.

Sadly, I have seen all too many cases when a normal child’s behavior that was different from the average was labeled pathological in accordance with one of the standard theories, which routinely blamed the parent as being at fault. The child suffered without proper help, the parent was tortured with guilt, and a prolonged expensive therapy was completely wasteful.

3

The Initial Hypothesis

The standard theories were insufficient explanations in so many of our cases. Something must have been missing in those concepts. We puzzled over this problem for many months in the early 1950s.

Then, one day, as we puzzled, we came up with a brand new insight. Maybe the standard theories didn’t make sense because many individual differences in the children themselves played an important role in their healthy or deviant development—and not merely the mother’s influence. Many references in the professional literature had observations of such differences, but those comments were usually only casual, and no one had attempted to study such individual differences with any serious and systematic effort.

But this new idea was only the first step. Yes, we agreed that individual differences were important in development. But the next question was how. How did these differences explain how they were important? We were faced with this unanswered question, and somehow had to find the answer. Suddenly, totally unexpectedly, the answer came from a report of one of my (S.C.) clinical cases.

One evening in 1952 we attended a monthly local professional meeting, and I was scheduled to present an interesting case description. I picked a case that was rather unusual.

A Case Presentation

The boy, Allen, had a troubling behavior problem. Upon meeting the parents at my office, I was struck by how tall they both were. Allen was quite tall also. While he read quietly in the waiting room, his parents sat in my office and poured out their anguish and helplessness at Allen’s behavior. In response to my questions, I found out there had been normal pregnancy, birth, and early childhood development. Allen was bright, cooperative, friendly with the neighborhood children, athletic, behaved well in school, and enjoyed learning. But as he grew older he became extraordinarily sensitive to any minor error, mistake, or criticism. If he missed a basketball shot, he immediately considered himself a failure and quit his team. If he engaged in a special academic project, he would be absorbed in the activity until the teacher pointed out a minor error in his work. Then he immediately dropped the project. And so, over and over again, such incidents occurred. Each time the parents and teachers reassured Allen that the minor error was insignificant and that he was actually functioning in his game or project at a high level. But this didn’t help; Allen always insisted that he had made a terrible mistake.

As they related this story, the parents, especially the mother, kept repeating to me that they must have been responsible for Allen’s behavior. “It must have been our fault,” the mother repeated. “Please help us find our mistake.”

I questioned them in detail, but couldn’t find evidence of the parents’ unhealthy behavior or attitudes toward Allen. They were thoughtful, intelligent, and deeply attached to him. There was no evidence of their responsibility for any of Allen’s disturbances. In addition, his younger brother showed no evidence of any of his abnormal behavior. By the end of my intensive inquiry, I was still puzzled. My next step was to ask Allen to engage with me in play and discuss his various interests in my playroom. I invited him in. Quickly and quiet...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table Of Contents
• Part 1 Basic Concepts of Theory and Practice of Temperament
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Initial Concept of Temperament
• 3. The Initial Hypothesis
• 4. The First Research Effort
• 5. The New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS)
• 6. Analysis of Data and the Definition and Rating of Temperament and Categories
• 7. The Clinical Interview for Temperament
• 8. The Concept of Goodness of Fit
• 9. Parent Guidance
• Part 2 New Applications to the Theory and Practioe of Temperament
• 10. The Rapid Expansion of Temperament Practice and Theory Since 1970
• 11. Parent and Child Education About Temperament
• 12. Prevention and Early Intervention in Temperament Programs
• 13. The Kaiser Permanente Temperament Program
• 14. A New Mental Health Profession
• 15. Temperament and School Functioning
• 16. Temperament and Pediatric Practice
• 17. Temperament and Nursing Practice
• 18. Temperament and Psychotherapy of Children
• 19. Temperament and Psychotherapy of Adolescents
• 20. Temperament and Psychotherapy of Adults
• 21. Temperament and the Handicapped Child
• 22. Biological Research on Temperament
• 23. Temperament and Culture
• 24. Temperament in Consistency and Change
• 25. A Look to the Future
• References
• Name Index
• Subject Index