1. Examining Theory: The Temperament Roundtable
Sasha Albrecht
Wisconsin Twin Project
University of Wisconsin- Madison

2. The Buss and Plomin Approach:
In “Roundtable: What is Temperament? Four Approaches,” which involved
several of the leading temperament researchers at the time, four methods of
understanding temperament were explored (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Two of these
researchers, Buss and Plomin, conceptualized temperament as “…a set of inherited
personality traits that appear early in life,” which are genetic and emerge in infancy
(Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 508). Excluded from their definition are individual
characteristics that are not linked to personality, such as intelligence, as well as
personality traits that are a result of environmental events. Attributes that are
included in the researchers’ definition of temperament are emotionality, activity,
and sociability, which are more heritable than other personality traits. These three
characteristics are also considered the foundation for adolescent and adult
personality later in life. If these traits correspond with the infant’s environment,
his/her temperament and the environment are considered a “match.” Conversely, if
the child’s temperament causes stress and tension with the environment, they are
considered “mismatches.” Children, who in general, are challenging for parents to
care for are deemed “difficult.” This label includes especially emotional and
troublesome children (Goldsmith et al., 1987).
Assessing Progress on the Buss and Plomin Approach:
Twenty-five years following the original Goldsmith et al. (1987) piece,
progenies of the original four theorists outlined contemporary advancements in
temperament theory in an article titled “What is Temperament Now? Assessing
Progress in Temperament Research on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Goldsmith

3. et al. (1987),” (Shiner et al., 2012). Buss and Plomin’s original theory, evaluated by
Saudino, was expanded by adding a fourth personality dimension, impulsivity.
Impulsivity was originally considered to not be genetically based; however, recent
research has demonstrated that it is heritable, which allows it to be included to Buss
and Plomin’s definition. Saudino also explores the theory that the common genetic
influences underlying the personality characteristics of temperament may also be
linked to behavioral problems. Thus, further evaluation of these temperament
dimensions may contribute to the understanding of clinical and developmental
disorders. By exploring the genetic underpinnings of temperament, researchers
have also identified specific genes with dopaminergic and serotonergic functions,
which are linked to the development of these personality traits.
In Defense of the Buss and Plomin Approach:
Contemporary research has validated many of the concepts introduced by
Buss and Plomin in the original Goldsmith et al. (1987) piece. In their research
examining mother-infant interactions, Kiel and Buss (2011) evaluated infants and
toddlers on a scale measuring fearfulness, which was a component of the
emotionality trait in Buss and Plomin’s original temperament definition. In a similar
piece by the same authors, fearfulness was examined in relation to protective
behavior initiated by the mother (Kiel & Buss, 2012). Nearly two decades after the
original Goldsmith et al. (1987) piece, Buss and Plomin’s definition of temperament
and emotionality is still applicable. Both Kiel and Buss (2011, 2012) pieces found
emotionality to be a significant component of infant temperament. Moreover, the
researchers observed how a mother responded to her infant’s fearful behavior and

4. evaluated how well the maternal response correspondedwith the infant’s
temperament. This relates to Buss and Plomin’s idea of the infant’s environment
either being a “match” or a “mismatch” for the infant’s temperament. For example,
mothers who responded with protective behavior (i.e. shielding the baby from the
threat) were seen as matches for the infant when the infant was comforted. On the
other hand, mothers who did not respond with any protective behavior or were
overprotective of their infants were seen as mismatches because they were not
providing an environment that responded to the infants’ needs (Kiel & Buss, 2011).
A Challenge to the Buss and Plomin Approach:
One of the key critiques of Buss and Plomin is the lack of explanation of how
heritability and genetic influences of temperament operate (Shiner et al., 2012). As
stated previously, recent research has located certain genetic markers, such as those
genes linked to dopaminergic and serotonergic functioning that contribute to the
development of temperament. However, little is understood about how these genes
actually affect temperament and what the mechanisms are, which accomplish the
genetic influence on temperament (Shiner et al., 2012).
Other researchers debate the validity of a personality based temperament
theory. Pervin (1994) attests that a personality theory of temperament excludes
important, but inconsistent, evidence. Personality theory focuses on the relative
stability of certain traits over the course of development- or at least how certain
early personality traits are transformed into similar adult traits. According to
Pervin, this excludes seemingly random, but potentially significant, behavior. For
example, a violent outburst by an individual otherwise relatively stable in

5. emotionality could be dismissed as a result of the environment. Pervin warns that
this may be imprudent; this ostensibly insignificant occurrence could provide
considerable information demonstrating the complexity and diversity of
temperament. Despite the objections Pervin provides in his research, he does not
completely dismiss the trait theory of personality and temperament. However, he
does warn researchers against unreservedly accepting trait theory without
evaluating other possible explanations of temperament (Pervin, 1994).
Unifying Theory of Temperament:
Integrating the four approaches of the Shiner et al. (2012) piece is no simple
feat. However, there are some features upon which all the researchers could
presumably agree. Temperament is the compilation and interaction of early
appearing traits related to activity, emotionality, attention, and self-regulation,
which are influenced by genetic and environmental factors, as well as the
interaction of the two. Attempting to unify all four approaches to temperament
research can be beneficial for conceptualizing temperament and for suggesting
future avenues of research. Nonetheless, a unifying theory presents its share of
challenges. First, researchers may have slightly different operational definitions of
the concepts involved, such as what emotionality is. Second, they utilize a wide
variety of research methods when investigating temperament. It is worth
examining how different instruments contribute to differences – or similarities – in
results. Lastly, each researcher has an individual theoretical preference: some may
prefer functionalism, whereas others may approach temperament from a purely
genetic perspective. Integrating multiple perspectives into one definition presents a

6. multitude of challenges in and of itself. Further research in the field of temperament
will hopefully provide insights as to how to incorporate the perspectives and
researchers of myriad researchers.
Important contributions from the WTRP in advancing a theory of temperament:
As the Wisconsin Twin Research Project is headed by one of the original
contributing authors, Hill Goldsmith, it is logical that this research informs theories
of temperament. In the Schmidt et al. (2012) piece, the Wisconsin Twin Research
Project collaborators describe how the research on the genetics of emotional
ontogeny contributes empirical evidence informing the emotionality aspect of
temperament. Schmidt et al. expanded the conceptualization of emotionality,
specifically that of social fear, to include four dimensions: “…slow increases in
stranger fear, steep increases in stranger fear, stable high levels of fear, and initially
high but decreasing levels of stranger fear between 6 and 36 months of age,”
(Schmidt et al., 2012,p. 7). In my own work at the Wisconsin Twin Research Project,
I have coded two child temperament assessments: the transparent box and
storytelling episodes. Each episode requires me to score the behavior along the
dimensions of: anger, sadness, frustration, etc. While the research on these
assessments has not yet been published, the data will contribute to Goldsmith’s
original theory on how individual differences in emotional expression and arousal
relate to temperament.

7. References
Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., et al.
(1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child
development, 58, 505-529.
Kiel, E. J., & Buss, K. A. (2011). Prospective relations among fearful temperament,
protective parenting, and social withdrawal: The role of maternal accuracy in
a moderated mediation framework. Journal Of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 39(7), 953-966. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9516-4
Kiel, E. J., & Buss, K. A. (2012). Associations among context‐specific maternal
protective behavior, toddlers' fearful temperament, and maternal accuracy
and goals. Social Development, 21(4), 742-760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2011.00645.x
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological
Inquiry, 5(2), 103-113. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0502_1
Schmidt, N. L., Van Hulle, C. A., Brooker, R. J., Meyer, L.R., Lemery-Chalfant, L., et al.
(in press). Wisconsin Twin Research: Early Development, Childhood
Psychopathology, Autism, and Sensory Over-responsivity. Twin Research and
Human Genetics.
Shiner, R. L., Buss, K. A., McClowry, S. G., Putnam, S. P., Saudino, K. J. et al. (2012).
What is temperament Now? Assessing progress in temperament research on
the twenty-fifth anniversary of Goldsmith et al. (1987). Child development
perspectives. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00254.x