Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology Copyright 2004 by

2004, Vol. 33, No. 1, 8287 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Commentary: Differentiated Measures of Temperament

and Multiple Pathways to Childhood Disorders
Mary K. Rothbart
University of Oregon

Provided is a commentary on articles written for a special section on temperament

and childhood disorders. Temperaments contributions to the development of child-
hood disorders are considered both generally and specifically. Questions are raised
about the use of terminology in the field, particularly the term difficult. Differentiation
of outcomes and predictors is discussed, with a view to identifying multiple pathways
to adaptation or disorder.

At the 1978 International Conference on Infant 1. Individual differences in temperament that in

Studies, Jack Bates posed a set of questions to charac-
terize the early state of our work: Infant temperament:
How shall we define the concept, measure it, and apply
it in practice? In the 25 years since that meeting, con-
siderable progress has been made in measures, con-
structs, and communication of information about tem-
perament, although major issues in measurement
remain. With the publication of the articles in this spe-
cial section, it is clear that new and more refined ques-
tions have now been posed, further integrating temper-
ament with the development of behavior problems.
Temperament identifies variations in affective-
motivational and attentional adaptations that are both
genetically inherited and shaped by experience (Der-
ryberry & Rothbart, 1997). We have defined tempera-
ment as constitutionally based individual differences
in reactivity and self-regulation, observed in the do-
mains of emotionality, motor activity, and attention
(Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). By reactivity, we mean
characteristics of the individuals responsivity to
changes in stimulation shown at multiple levels (e.g.,
behavioral, autonomic, neuroendocrine) and through
parameters of latency, rise time, peak intensity, and re-
covery time of reaction. By self-regulation, we mean
processes modulating this reactivity, including ap-
proach, avoidance, inhibition, and attentional self-reg-
ulation. As children develop, initially more reactive
systems become increasingly regulated, as systems
like fearful inhibition and attentional effortful control
develop.
In an earlier attempt to summarize research on de-
velopment and psychopathology (Rothbart, Posner, &
Hershey, 1995), we speculated about ways in which
temperament might be involved in development of risk
for psychopathology. The list included
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mary K. Rothbart, 1227
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 974031227. E-mail: maryroth@
darkwing.uoregon.edu
the extreme may constitute the psychopathol-
ogy or a disposition toward it.
2. Temperament characteristics evoking reactions
in others that can increase or buffer the risk of
psychopathology.
3. Characteristics influencing the persons choice
of settings and relationships that may create
greater or lesser risk for psychopathology.
4. Temperamental differences influencing the
form of a disorder, its course, the likelihood of
its recurrence, or a combination of these.
5. Temperamental biases in information process-
ing that can influence cognitions about the
world, self, and others.
6. Temperamental regulation or buffering against
the effects of risk factors or stress.
7. Heightened or lower responsiveness to envi-
ronmental events.
8. Interaction among temperamental characteris-
tics that can influence outcomes as tempera-
ment develops.
9. Different temperamental dispositions that may
shape different developmental pathways to a
given outcome, and individual dispositions that
may influence multiple outcomes (Cicchetti &
Cohen, 1995).
10. Temperament characteristics and caregiving
environments that may make independent con-
tributions to outcomes, or may interact in in-
creasing or decreasing risk of disorder.
11. Dysfunctional states themselves that may change
aspects of temperament and create further risk.
At the time of the 1995 review, only a very few of
these possibilities had been a topic of research, and
what is striking about the reviews in this special section
is the number of these possibilities that have now been
explored. To make links between these general topics
and some of the research and ideas in this section, I re-

82
 COMMENTARY: DIFFERENTIATED MEASURES OF TEMPERAMENT
fer to items in the list by number in the following. In
addition to these topics, the articles in this section
stress issues of emotional regulation and dysregulation
that I believe will be basic to future advances in the
field. A focus on emotion regulation suggests these
kinds of questions: When fear and avoidance are elic-
ited, how may their expression be reinforced or regu-
lated? How can soothing of negative affect occur from
others (Harman, Rothbart, & Posner, 1997) or from the
self (Rothbart, Ziaie, OBoyle, 1992)? What kinds of
coping can modulate or enhance emotional reactions?
When does the coping itself become maladaptive?
Difficult Temperament:
Confusion in Terminology
Before discussing the articles in this section indi-
vidually, I would like to comment on the use of the
difficult child construct in several of the articles.
Please consider these concerns along with the excellent
ones voiced by Frick and Morris in their article (this is-
sue). Thomas, Chess, and associates (Thomas, Chess,
& Birch, 1968; Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, &
Korn, 1963), in their groundbreaking work on temper-
ament, identified nine dimensions of temperament
along with three categories of infants, designated as
easy, difficult, and slow to warm up. The difficult old, approachwithdrawal, attention spanpersistence,
and easy categories were based on a factor analysis of
data from the original New York Longitudinal Study,
which identified a cluster of five temperament dimen-
sions: (a) approachwithdrawal, (b) mood, (c) inten-
sity, (d) adaptability, and (e) rhythmicity, that they la-
beled difficult (Thomas et al., 1963). In algorithms for
assessing difficulty developed by Carey and McDevitt
(1978), Fullard, McDevitt, and Carey (1984), and oth-
ers, difficult and easy are derived from extreme marily by scales assessing positive emotionality and
scores on all of these five dimensions.
There are a number of problems in the use of the diffi-
culty construct in temperament research (see also
Plomin, 1982; Rothbart, 1982). One is the wide variabil-
ity of operationalizations of the construct. For example,
factor analyses of data collected on the New York Longi-
tudinal Study dimensions have frequently failed to rep-
licate loadings of rhythmicity on the difficulty factor
(Bates, 1980). As a result, studies often delete rhythm-
icity measurements or use varying composites to assess
a difficult temperament, depending on the outcome of
their own factor analysis. This inconsistency in the use
of difficulty creates serious problems for knowing what
is meant by the term in any given study.
Bates (1980) argued that the core variable of mea-
sures of difficulty is the presence of negative emotion-
ality, and his work utilized measures assessing this
variable. Factor-analytic work by Bates and others also
identified two kinds of negative emotionality in in-
fancy: (a) negative affect related to childrens re-
sponses to novelty and (b) more general irritability or
distress proneness (Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury,
1979). General irritability predicted later externalizing
and internalizing problems; fear of novelty predicted
internalizing problems to a greater degree than ex-
ternalizing problems (see review by Rothbart & Bates,
1998). Batess research indicated that the two varieties
of negative emotionality are differentially related to
specific behavior problems that develop later, and this
important distinction is lost in the more general con-
struct of difficultness as often operationalized.
Another way of looking at difficulty is to say that
some children are labeled by their caregivers as prob-
lem children at an early age, and this labeling is likely
influenced by the childs temperament. The terms easy
and difficult may be also used by parents of more than
one child to compare children (i.e., the first was easy,
but the second was difficult). The terms may be ap-
plied in an endearing way, or in an attempt to identify
the source of problems in family relationships. In addi-
tion, however, labels communicated to the child may
contribute to the quality of the childs adaptation. The
study of social attributions, values, and labeling is im-
portant, but it takes us to a level of analysis beyond the
simple measurement of temperament.
Over recent years, the list of nine dimensions of
temperament (activity level, mood, intensity, thresh-
distractibility, adaptability, and rhythmicity) proposed
by Thomas, Chess, and their associates has undergone
revision (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Recent research,
for example, has identified a general structure of tem-
perament in childhood that includes broad factors of
surgencyextraversion, negative affectivity, and effort-
ful control (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).
In our research, surgencyextraversion is defined pri-
approach, including positive anticipation, high-in-
tensity pleasure (sensation-seeking), activity level,
impulsivity, smiling and laughter, and a negative load-
ing from shyness. A negative affectivity factor includes
positive loadings for shyness, discomfort, fear, an-
gerfrustration, and sadness, and a negative loading
from soothability-falling reactivity. The effortful con-
trol factor is defined by positive loadings from in-
hibitory control, attentional focusing, low intensity
(nonrisk-taking) pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity.
These broader factors suggest a hierarchical structure
to temperament, with more specific characteristics re-
lated to each other at a higher level in the hierarchy.
A Comment on the Articles
in this Special Section
Lonigan, Vasey, Phillips, and Hazen (this issue)
have reported extraction of similar factors to those de-
83
 ROTHBART
scribed previously, from childhood self-reported items
assessing emotionality and attention. In turn, Lonigan
et al. have found that measures of temperament show
differential relations to measures of depression and
anxiety, with negative affectivity predicting both de-
pression and anxiety and effortful control predicting
lower levels of both problems. Surgencypositive af-
fectivity predicts unique variance of depression only,
with lower levels of surgency predicting more likeli-
hood of depression. Like other studies with adults re-
viewed in Lonigan et al.s article, their research indi-
cates that both reactive (positive and negative affect)
and regulative (effortful control) temperament charac-
teristics are related to psychopathology (1 and 8 in the
previous list). Lonigan et al. also bring up the auto-
matic attentional biases linked to negative affectivity,
which may influence both the daily experiences of
children and their proneness to future negative experi-
ences (5 and 7). Lonigan et al.s important findings fur-
ther raise the question of how these dispositions may
interact in influencing development of internalizing
outcomes. It also will be of interest to link problem
outcomes to affect at lower levels of the hierarchy (e.g.,
fear, anger, sadness, soothability) and to specific expe-
riences of the child and related cognitions.
Compas, Connor-Smith, and Jaser (this issue) begin
to fill in possible developmental pathways to depres-
sion by examining basic links between stress, coping,
and adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. They demon-
strate relations between negative affectivity and rela-
tively automatic avoidance coping (3 and 5) and sug-
gest that attentional control may be related to the use of
secondary coping, such as cognitively reframing a situ-
ation or intentionally buffering more automatic stress
reactions (6). Their work brings up basic issues of
emotion regulation that are also discussed in other arti-
cles in the section. Compas et al. also point out that
temperament can directly influence the experiences of
children, with stronger dispositions to negative affect
mapping onto dysphoric symptoms and low positive
affectivity mapping onto anhedonic symptoms (1).
Children prone to negative affect, for example, will ex-
perience stronger stress reactions than less highly dis-
tress-prone children, given the same environmental
stressor (7). These observations are related to an im-
portant point made by Escalona (1968) about effec-
tive experience: measuring an environmental stressor
is not sufficient for us to understand what a child is ex-
periencing, given temperamental variability and vari-
ability in the use of coping. Future research is likely to
make more direct links between affectivity, coping,
and the cognitive appraisals that have been linked to
depression (Beck, 1976). Issues of emotion regulation
and dysregulation thus appear to be of major impor-
tance for the development of psychopathology, and in-
formation about coping at all stages of reactivity (prior
to aspects of the reaction, at peak, and in relation to du-
84
ration) is basic to our understanding. These studies also
have much to offer to our general understanding of de-
velopment.
It is likely that differential predictions of psycho-
pathology using the two kinds of negative affect found
by Bates et al. (1979) will add further understanding
(9). For example, research increasingly suggests that
one kind of negative affectfearcan act as a protec-
tive factor for development of the externalizing disor-
ders (Rothbart & Bates, 1998), and Frick and Morris
(this issue) present data to suggest this is the case (8).
In addition, links between conduct disorder and de-
pression suggest that a developmental analysis of the
order of appearance of symptoms will be important.
The article by Frick and Morris (this issue) makes
excellent use of what is currently known about temper-
ament, demonstrating the effectiveness of considering
differentiated outcomes as well as differentiated tem-
peramental predictors to describe possible multiple
pathways to conduct problems (4 and 9). They distin-
guish between reactive and more instrumental aggres-
sion, suggesting that emotional reactivity and lack of
emotional regulation are likely to be closely tied to the
reactive symptoms. They also note that the develop-
ment of conscience is linked to regulation of instru-
mental aggression and that Kochanskas (1995) dem-
onstration of connections between temperamental fear,
effortful control, and the development of conscience
has identified important links between temperament
and the development of morality. Frick and Morris ob-
servation that affective aspects of conscience can coun-
teract callous and unemotional responses to others is
very helpful. Although temperamental building blocks
like effortful control can provide the capacity to regu-
late action, the direction of that regulation is not speci-
fied: It will depend on the values and goals of the per-
son, one of which is the desire not to hurt others. The
values and goals of the child will also be influenced by
the culture (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002) and by
the set of experiences and relationships the child has
had.
Nigg, Goldsmith, and Sachek (this issue) also con-
sider more differentiated outcomes as well as more dif-
ferentiated negative affectivity predictors of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These authors
make important strides in identifying possible multiple
pathways (9), stressing the importance of development
in shaping both temperament and psychopathology
(8). Their brief review of genetics findings suggests
that shared environment may be relatively unimportant
in the development of ADHD, but important for
ADHD with conduct disorder. This is an intriguing
finding, suggesting socialization studies comparing
the two outcomes.
If we put together the analysis of Frick and Morris
(this issue) with the review of Nigg et al. (this issue),
we can see that studies on the development of conduct
 COMMENTARY: DIFFERENTIATED MEASURES OF TEMPERAMENT
disorder in relation to the attentional capacities of the
child will be of great interest. Differentiating anger and
irritability from fear will also lead to interesting ques-
tions about fear as a control mechanism: Is fear control
mainly inhibitory, or is avoidance also involved? What
is the role of punishment in fear control? Kochanska
(1995) and Asendorpf (1990) have already made im-
portant advances in looking at fear in the development
of conscience and the possibility of two kinds of shy-
ness, one more temperamental and one likely related to
social punishment. Thinking of fear as a control system
does not neatly fit within our heuristic distinction be-
tween reactivity and self-regulation (Rothbart &
Derryberry, 1981). Fear is a reactive system, but it in-
cludes regulatory aspects. Effortful control, on the
other hand, is chiefly self-regulatory, and the inhibition
or avoidance of fear and surgency reactions is often ac-
complished through effortful control.
Elsewhere (Rothbart, 1999), I have commented that
one of the most confusing aspects of applying tempera-
ment constructs has been the tendency for different re-
searchers to use different names for the same process.
In a volume on fear, shyness, and social phobia, I found
that five different chapters used five different terms de-
scribing individual differences in fear (Rothbart,
1999). Nigg et al.s negative approach term is an exam-
ple of this phenomenon. There are important con-
current and longitudinal links between anger and
surgencyextraversion (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Her-
shey, 2000), but combining approaching aspects of
surgency with the kind of affect (anger) that occurs
when our goals are blocked is not very helpful. I
strongly believe, however, that if we address the kinds
of differentiating questions suggested by Nigg et al.,
and those listed previously, we will be better able to as-
sign terms to our constructs so that we can know what
they mean when we use them.
Wills and Dishion (this issue) put forward a differen-
tiated model specifying temperament and self-control
as moderators for the relations between parenting, peer
groups, and substance use (3, 10). They have found tem-
peramental positive mood and task orientation to be re-
lated to supportive relationships with parents and low
substance abuse, whereas negative emotionality and ac-
tivity level are related to parentchild conflict and sub-
stance abuse, and inversely related to parent support (2).
Wills and Dishion differentiate between self-control
and poor self-control and further differentiate those con-
structs from extraversionsurgency and effortful con-
trol. Nevertheless, there appear to be overlap among
these constructs. Wills and Dishion define self-control
as involving self-monitoring, planning, future orienta-
tion, delay of gratification, and emotional regulation.
We (Posner & Rothbart, 1998) have proposed that
effortful control is supported by the executive attention
system, and both executive attention and effortful con-
trol are involved in planning, self-monitoring, future
orientation, emotional regulation, and delay of gratifi-
cation. Thus, it is not clear whether the differences
between Wills and Dishions self-control and tempera-
mental effortful control are more than terminological.
Their construct of poor self-control, however, is defined
by aspects of impatience, impulsiveness, orientation
toward the present, inability to delay gratification, and
coping with problems through anger. This is clearly
a more complex personality construct, although sur-
gentextraverted characteristics and low effortful con-
trol may serve as developmental building blocks for it.
This construct appears to be linked to low emotional and
behavioral regulation and is likely related to the expres-
sive aspects of conduct disorder described by Frick and
Morris.
Questions about relations between temperament
and attachment have been considered for many years
(see review by Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Zeanah and
Fox (this issue) raise a new set of issues about the pos-
sible relation between temperament and reactive at-
tachment disorder. Reactive attachment disorder is an
unusual disorder, in that a history of pathogenic care is
criterial to diagnosis and is evidently assumed to be
causal. An added criterion is the presence of one of two
types of symptoms: (a) highly inhibited behavior, am-
bivalent or contradictory behavior to the caregiver; and
(b) indiscriminate sociability to a wide range of adults
and lack of selectivity to attachment figures. Zeanah
and Fox suggest that the first set of syndromes maps
onto negative affectivity, and the second set possibly
onto surgencyextraversion (4). They suggest that in-
dividual differences in irritability may be the basic mo-
tivator of avoidance. However, the symptoms de-
scribed seem closer to individual differences in fearful
inhibition. They make the point that empirical research
in this area will be valuable, and this research may well
profit from a differentiated approach to assessing nega-
tive affect. Zeanah and Fox note that temperament it-
self may be affected by pathogenic rearing environ-
ments (11), citing studies of institutionalized children
described as higher in negative affect, more shy, and
less active and sociable than home-reared children. In
addition, they note attentional problems that appear to
be associated with neglect in caregiving (2).
Summary of Critical Issues
and Future Directions
1. By differentiating within broad temperament di-
mensions, or even within more narrow temperament
dimensions such as fear, we may advance our under-
standing of the development of psychopathology.
2. Temperament may be linked to multiple path-
ways to childhood disorders, and differentiating symp-
toms of the disorders facilitates this effort.
85
 ROTHBART
3. Further study of emotional regulation, dysreg-
ulation, and coping will benefit our understanding of
disorder and adaptation.
4. Effortful control, a broad temperament dimen-
sion based on the development of executive attention,
is a key to adaptive and maladaptive development and
to the design of prevention and intervention strategies.
5. Goals of empathy and caring for the self and oth-
ers can set the motivational framework for the applica-
tion of effortful control.
Developing Attention-Training
Interventions
Given the importance of executive attention and
effortful control in so many developmental processes,
attention-based interventions may prove helpful in pre-
venting or helping to treat childhood disorders. Mi-
chael Posner and I have now completed a trial of an at-
tention-training program with normal 4-year-olds. We
developed a computerized joystick-controlled program
based on primate attention training originally devel-
oped by Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992). In our first
test of the approach with a small sample of children,
we found that training was related to increases in chil-
drens IQ, especially their matrix performance, not
found for controls (Rothbart & Rueda, 2003). There
were further indications that childrens performance
on conflict tasks had improved. Future research will in-
vestigate whether these results replicate and whether
they are helpful for children whose attentional func-
tioning has been compromised. One feature of this ap-
proach is that it is based on a neuroscience analysis of
the processes involved in executive attention, and this
approach may prove helpful for others in the area of di-
agnosis and treatment.
References
Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Development of inhibition during child-
hood: Evidence for situational specificity and a two-factor
model. Developmental Psychology, 26, 721730.
Bates, J. E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament.
MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 26, 299319.
Bates, J. E., Freeland, C. A. B., & Lounsbury, M. L. (1979). Mea-
surement of infant difficultness. Child Development, 50,
794803.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.
New York: International Universities Press.
Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1978). Revision of the Infant Tem-
perament Questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61, 375379.
Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (1995). Perspectives on developmental
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Devel-
opmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and methods (pp.
320). New York: Wiley.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J., & Jaser, S. S. (2004/this issue).
Temperament, stress reactivity, and coping: Implications for
86
depression in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 2131.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful
processes in the organization of temperament. Development
and Psychopathology, 9, 633652.
Escalona, S. K. (1968). The roots of individuality: Normal patterns
of development in infancy. Chicago: Aldine.
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004/this issue). Temperament and de-
velopmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 5468.
Fullard, W., McDevitt, S. C., & Carey, W. B. (1984). Assessing tem-
perament in one- to three-year-old children. Journal of Pediat-
ric Psychology, 9, 205217.
Harman, C., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (1997). Distress and at-
tention interactions in early infancy. Motivation and Emotion,
21, 2743.
Kochanska, G. (1995). Childrens temperament, mothers discipline,
and security of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging in-
ternalization. Child Development, 66, 597615.
Lonigan, C. J., Vasey, M. W., Phillips, B. M., & Hazen, R. A.
(2004/this issue). Temperament, anxiety, and the processing of
threat-relevant stimuli. Journal of Clinical Child and Adoles-
cent Psychology, 33, 820.
Nigg, J. T., Goldsmith, H. H., & Sachek, J. (2004/this issue). Tem-
perament and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The de-
velopment of a multiple pathway model. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 4253.
Plomin, R. (1982). The difficult concept of temperament: A response
to Thomas, Chess, and Korn. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 28,
2533.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Attention, self-regulation,
and consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So-
ciety of London, B(353), 19151927.
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child tem-
perament and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp.
255277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rothbart, M. K. (1982). The concept of difficult temperament: A
critical analysis of Thomas, Chess, & Korn. MerrillPalmer
Quarterly, 28, 3540.
Rothbart, M. K. (1999). Temperament, fear, and shyness. In L. A.
Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social
phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes
(pp. 8893). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K., & Fisher, P. (2001). Inves-
tigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Childrens
Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 13941408.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality develop-
ment (5th ed., pp. 105176). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individ-
ual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown
(Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
3786). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, K. (2000). Stability of
temperament in childhood: Laboratory infant assessment to
parent report at seven years. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese
(Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the
life span (pp. 85119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, Inc.
Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Hershey, K. (1995). Temperament,
attention, and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti
& J. D. Cohen (Eds.), Manual of developmental psychopa-
thology (Vol. 1, pp. 315340). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (in press). The development of
effortful control. Festschrift in honor of Michael I. Posner.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 COMMENTARY: DIFFERENTIATED MEASURES OF TEMPERAMENT
Rothbart, M. K., Ziaie, H., & OBoyle, C. G. (1992). Self-regulation
and emotion in infancy. In N. Eisenberg & R. A. Fabes (Eds.),
Emotion and its regulation in early development: New direc-
tions for child development (pp. 723). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and be-
havior disorders in children. New York: New York University
Press.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H. G., Hertzig, M. E., & Korn, S.
(1963). Behavioral individuality in early childhood. New York:
New York University Press.
Washburn, D. A., & Rumbaugh, D. M. (1992). Testing primates with
joystick-based automated apparatus: Lessons from the Lan-
guage Research Centers Computerized Test System. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 24, 157164.
Wills, T. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2004/this issue). Temperament and ad-
olescent substance use: A transactional analysis of emerging
self-control. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol-
ogy, 33, 6981.
Zeanah, C. H., & Fox, N. A. (2004/this issue). Temperament and at-
tachment disorders. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 33, 3241.
Received April 20, 2003
Accepted August 26, 2003
87