Temperament and personality describe related forms of individual difference across psychological development. Temperament concerns relatively early-emerging patterns of emotional, motivational, attentional, and behavioral reactivity and regulation. Personality is the broader organization of characteristic tendencies in feeling, thinking, motivation, identity, interpersonal behavior, and adaptation that becomes increasingly articulated through development. Temperament contributes to personality, while experience, learning, relationships, culture, and self-regulation influence how early differences are expressed over time. This developmental relationship is supported by convergent theoretical reviews and longitudinal research. Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, 2000; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
The practical question behind “temperament vs personality” is how a child's early way of responding to novelty, frustration, stimulation, and comfort is related to the more complex patterns observed in adolescence and adulthood. Research gives a coherent answer: early dispositions can foreshadow later functioning, but their expression develops through interactions with environments and progressively expanding psychological capacities. Any particular infancy observation supplies limited information about one person's adult outcome. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994; Caspi et al., 2003.
What Temperament and Personality Mean in Psychology
Temperament as early-emerging reactivity and regulation
In developmental psychology, temperament refers to individual differences that appear early in life and organize characteristic ways of responding to environmental and internal events. Reactivity covers the onset, intensity, duration, and recovery of responses: a baby may approach unfamiliar objects eagerly, become distressed by loud sounds, or take longer to settle after frustration. Regulation concerns processes that modify those responses, including orienting attention, shifting focus, soothing, inhibiting an immediate impulse, and using emerging voluntary control. These are dimensions of variation rather than fixed labels for whole children. Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, 2000.
Biological contributions are central to temperament theories because characteristic variations in arousal, attention, movement, and affect can be observed before advanced language and reflective self-description develop. “Biologically influenced” indicates contributions from multiple developmental systems and genes operating within environments. Caregiving, sleep, illness, stress, cultural routines, and the setting of observation can influence responses throughout infancy and childhood. Temperament is therefore a developmental construct whose measured expression changes as regulation and experience accumulate. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994; Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
Personality as a broader organization of psychological tendencies
Personality refers to relatively enduring differences in people's characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, motivation, behavior, and adaptation. Researchers may study broad trait dimensions, context-dependent personality states, life narratives, goals, interpersonal styles, and the processes that connect dispositions to actual conduct. Adults can describe themselves, anticipate consequences, interpret relationships, pursue chosen roles, and develop values in ways that early-childhood temperament measures are rarely designed to capture. Personality constructs consequently encompass processes and meanings that are more elaborated than an infant's immediate reactions. Shiner and Caspi, 2003; Strelau, 1987.
A personality trait is a probabilistic summary across experiences. A person can generally be sociable yet quiet during a demanding meeting, or generally calm yet distressed under sustained pressure. A trait concerns the distribution and patterned consistency of behavior, while a state identifies the person's expression in a particular moment. The same statistical caution applies to temperament: a frequently wary infant may nevertheless explore confidently in a familiar room. What researchers call a stable difference is a tendency detected over appropriately sampled occasions, not an invariant reaction.
A concise comparison
Temperament is typically investigated from infancy onward through observable activity, emotional responses, attention, and early regulatory capacities; personality is studied through a wider range of enduring tendencies, self-concepts, motives, and interpersonal behavior across childhood and adult life. Temperament assessments depend heavily on caregivers and behavioral observations because infants cannot self-report. Personality studies increasingly use self-reports, informants, and life records as language and self-awareness develop. Both domains examine characteristic differences over time, both use dimensional models, and both are sensitive to environmental context. Their boundaries vary across research traditions rather than following a universal biological dividing line. Strelau, 1987; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Why the Two Concepts Overlap
The same psychological systems develop across the life course
Attention, affect, approach, avoidance, impulsivity, and regulation are relevant to infant temperament as well as to later personality. An early tendency to approach stimulation may contribute to patterns of enthusiasm, assertiveness, or exploration. A propensity for distress or threat vigilance may be expressed later through patterns of worry, sensitivity to uncertainty, or social reserve. These are conceptual bridges rather than one-to-one translations between childhood and adult scales. Observed childhood behaviors become embedded in expanding cognitive abilities, expectations, memories, peer relationships, and social roles. Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, 2000; De Pauw and Mervielde, 2010.
The overlapping vocabulary creates a frequent misunderstanding. When a child's negative emotionality resembles an adult personality dimension, the similarity does not establish that both scales measure an identical invariant entity. Item content, social demands, informants, and developmental capacities differ. Researchers must demonstrate longitudinal and conceptual continuity instead of inferring it from similar labels. Integrative taxonomies of childhood temperament and personality help organize this comparison but remain dependent on their operational definitions. De Pauw and Mervielde, 2010.
Temperament is a foundation, not a complete adult personality
Early dispositions make some experiences more likely and some responses more frequent. A child who eagerly approaches other children may gain repeated practice with social interaction; one who becomes distressed by novelty may experience a different set of encounters and opportunities. Parents, teachers, and peers also respond to children's behavior, helping form cumulative patterns of experience. Over time, motives, habits, interpretations, and learned skills can reinforce, redirect, or modify an early predisposition. This transactional explanation makes development intelligible without assuming that every later characteristic was fully contained in infancy. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Major Scientific Approaches to Temperament
Rothbart's developmental psychobiological model
Mary Rothbart's program describes temperament through individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation. It distinguishes broad tendencies related to positive affect and approach, negative affect, and orienting or effortful regulation, while assessing narrower features such as fear, frustration, activity, pleasure, and attentional control. The emphasis is on processes that can be followed through development rather than on fixed, mutually exclusive child types. Infant measurement research supports multidimensional approaches, while reminding researchers that the structure and observable signs of control change markedly with age. Rothbart, 2007; Gartstein and Rothbart, 200300169-8).
Effortful control is especially important in understanding a developmental transition toward more complex personality. It involves the capacity to direct and sustain attention, inhibit a dominant reaction when appropriate, and perform a less immediately attractive action in pursuit of a goal. It develops gradually and works alongside more automatic reactivity. A young child's difficulty waiting, for instance, should be interpreted in relation to age and task requirements before being treated as evidence about enduring adult conscientiousness. Eisenberg, Spinrad, and Eggum, 2010; Putnam, Gartstein, and Rothbart, 2006.
Behavioral inhibition and responses to novelty
Research associated with Jerome Kagan documented differences in young children's reactions to unfamiliar events and people. Some children showed restrained approach and greater physiological or behavioral signs of arousal in novelty contexts; others approached more spontaneously. Prospective studies contributed evidence that early inhibited and uninhibited patterns can relate to later social behavior. Behavioral inhibition is a specific construct, however, and should not be used as a synonym for introversion, an anxiety disorder, or a child's entire personality. Kagan, Reznick, and Snidman, 1988.
A response to novelty should also be distinguished from generalized fearfulness and from deliberate preference for solitude. A child's hesitation with strangers could reflect novelty, unfamiliar language, fatigue, cultural expectations, or a combination of conditions. A meaningful temperament inference requires repeated observations, relevant comparison groups, and attention to context. A label derived from one socially demanding occasion has low explanatory value.
Historical styles, typologies, and modern dimensions
Older temperament traditions described broad behavioral styles and proposed recognizable child types. Such historical classifications can organize observations, but a small set of categories cannot represent the full continuous variation documented by modern instruments. A type label also conceals the possibility that one child is highly active, low in fear, and moderately attentive in a combination shared with no exact type. Current developmental research generally gains precision by measuring multiple dimensions and by testing their interactions. Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, 2000; Putnam, Gartstein, and Rothbart, 2006.
How Temperament Becomes Elaborated Into Personality
Infancy: reactivity precedes complex self-description
During infancy, research centers on crying and soothability, approach and withdrawal, motor activity, attention, fear responses, frustration, and enjoyment. The meaning of a reaction depends on developmental stage: long orienting to an object in a young infant is not equivalent to adult executive control, and motor activity can reflect emerging mobility as well as dispositional tendencies. Investigators therefore use age-appropriate items and observational settings. Gartstein and Rothbart, 200300169-8).
Caregivers participate in the infant's regulation by responding to signals, setting routines, reducing overwhelming stimulation, and creating occasions for gradual exploration. An infant's observed emotionality combines individual predispositions with momentary conditions and the co-regulation available in the environment. Developmental science treats such relations as ongoing processes that can produce different pathways from apparently similar starting points. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994.
Early childhood: attention, language, and social learning
As children acquire language and inhibitory control, the observable repertoire broadens. They begin to describe their feelings, use rules, compare expectations across settings, cooperate with peers, and plan short sequences of action. A once mostly reactive tendency can then appear as a combination of feeling and learned response. Fearful arousal may coexist with courageous behavior learned through supportive experiences; high activity may be managed through structured tasks and meaningful outlets. These examples illustrate potential developmental processes, not promised outcomes for a particular child. Eisenberg, Spinrad, and Eggum, 2010; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
When researchers compare toddlers or preschoolers, they must consider that self-regulatory abilities emerge unevenly and that adult ratings often incorporate expectations about compliance. A child called “difficult” in one setting may function smoothly in another whose demands match attention span, routine, and sensory needs. The quality of fit is an explanatory hypothesis about person-environment relations, not a fixed diagnosis or proof of defective parenting.
Middle childhood and adolescence: roles, identity, and social ecology
School-age children encounter expectations around persistence, peer cooperation, inhibition, and self-organization. Adolescence adds increasingly differentiated relationships, identity exploration, self-reflection, educational demands, and wider social environments. Personality descriptions may become more complex because the person has more opportunities to display differentiated capacities and because measurement now includes self-report. Temperament-related emotional and motivational patterns continue to matter, but experiences influence their meaning and manifestation. Shiner and Caspi, 2003; De Pauw and Mervielde, 2010.
A teenager's reserve could represent an early inhibited style, current social circumstances, an emerging preference, or strategic behavior. Explaining it requires developmental history and contexts rather than assigning a single cause. In the same way, a socially active child can become a quieter adult without invalidating the fact that early activity was a real characteristic of the child at that time.
Adulthood: continuity alongside reconstruction
Adult personality reflects longer exposure to education, friendships, work, intimate relationships, cultural expectations, and chosen commitments. Longitudinal syntheses show average increases in rank-order stability through childhood and young adulthood as well as mean-level developmental changes across the life span. Stable characteristics remain open to change, and different traits change differently. The evidence supports continuity at a population level while allowing pronounced variation between individuals. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000.
What Longitudinal Studies Actually Show
Childhood behavioral style can predict some adult patterns
In a well-known prospective study, Caspi and colleagues observed behavioral styles in approximately one thousand three-year-old children and later assessed adult personality at age 26 using multiple informants and methods. Their results linked early observed behavioral styles with broad patterns of adult personality. This offers evidence for meaningful developmental continuity across more than two decades; it does not license treating a child's behavioral category as a precise prediction of adult character or life events. Caspi et al., 2003.
The prediction problem is asymmetric. A group with elevated early inhibition may show a higher average probability of later reserve, while many individuals from that group have outcomes overlapping with individuals who were not inhibited. An association may be statistically credible even when an assessment is insufficiently accurate for individual forecasting. Science should report the scale of observed relationships and the populations in which they were studied instead of turning group averages into personal destinies.
Rank-order stability is different from mean-level change
Rank-order stability asks whether people retain approximately their relative positions compared with peers. Mean-level change asks whether a group's average level increases or decreases across time. Both patterns can coexist. Imagine a cohort whose capacity for self-control generally grows during adolescence: many members can improve while those who started relatively higher still rank relatively higher. Confusing these two questions leads to false claims that personality is either wholly fixed or entirely transformed. Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
The broad evidence base is stronger for the existence of rank-order continuity and developmental change than for precise predictions from a single preschool assessment. Meta-analytic studies aggregate diverse measures and ages, which is an advantage for synthesis and a limitation when deciding how a particular infancy construct corresponds to a particular adult outcome. Researchers must consider age intervals, instrument changes, measurement equivalence, sample composition, and attrition. Bleidorn et al., 2022.
The role of prospective observation and multiple informants
Retrospective reports by adults about how they behaved as infants are weak substitutes for observation recorded at the time. Prospective longitudinal studies establish temporal order and can examine developmental pathways, although confounding remains possible. Repeated caregiver reports, teachers' assessments, independent observations, and later self-reports each carry useful information and characteristic biases. Agreement among methods strengthens interpretation; disagreement can also reveal genuine variation across contexts. Shiner and Caspi, 2003; Caspi et al., 2003.
Genetic and Environmental Influences
Heritability is a population statistic
Behavioral genetic studies indicate genetic contributions to individual differences and to aspects of their stability, but heritability represents variation under the conditions of a studied population. It does not measure the genetically predetermined portion of one individual or identify an immutable limit on development. Genetic and environmental pathways also covary and interact. The size and expression of a genetic contribution can differ across ages and environments because opportunities, social expectations, and regulatory abilities change. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
A meta-analysis by Briley and Tucker-Drob drew together longitudinal behavior-genetic designs to assess genetic and environmental continuity across development. Such evidence supports multilevel contributions to the stability of measured dispositions, while the assumptions of twin and family designs must be kept in view. Research on temperament and personality therefore cannot be reduced to a single gene, brain area, neurotransmitter, or simplistic division into nature and nurture. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
Children influence and are influenced by their environments
An infant's distress, attentional style, or eagerness can shape the responses they receive from caregivers, just as caregiving and wider circumstances shape behavioral expression. Later, children select activities and peers, while schools and social institutions reward some behaviors and discourage others. These transactions help explain how initial differences can be amplified, attenuated, or reorganized. Observational studies often show bidirectional associations; determining causation requires stronger designs and careful consideration of unmeasured factors. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Goodness of fit is contextual and developmental
Goodness of fit concerns the relation between a person's characteristics and the demands and supports of their environment. A high-activity child may flourish with movement opportunities and struggle in settings requiring prolonged stillness. A cautious child may engage more readily when transitions are gradual and predictable. These are examples of potentially better-fitting arrangements, not universal prescriptions or proof that one response style is inherently superior. Different cultures and institutions also value behavioral qualities differently.
A sound application assesses both the child's capacities and the actual circumstances. It avoids converting a mismatch into blame toward the child or caregiver. Prospective and experimental research is needed to determine when a particular adaptation improves specific developmental outcomes, and the same approach may work differently at different ages. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994.
Temperament, Personality States, and the Person–Situation Question
A stable disposition does not produce the same behavior in every situation. Daily behavior depends on fatigue, goals, social partners, risk, reward, norms, perceived safety, and competing motives. Temperament refers to characteristic parameters of responsiveness that can be expressed differently depending on these circumstances; later personality integrates broader patterns across contexts. An energetic child may be quiet while deeply engaged in a story, and a reserved adult may speak confidently about a familiar subject. Such variation is part of the phenomenon that personality science seeks to explain.
Between-person research compares individuals' characteristic levels or patterns, whereas within-person research follows fluctuations within an individual across occasions. A correlation obtained across people cannot automatically explain what happens when the same person becomes more fearful, motivated, or attentive in a particular situation. Developmental models benefit from linking early dispositional measurement with repeated observations of actual behavioral episodes. Scientific interpretation requires keeping the unit of analysis clear.
Where Temperament Ends and Personality Begins
There is no single birthday at which temperament turns into personality. A conventional research division assigns temperament measures to infants and young children and trait measures to older participants, yet these instruments often investigate connected systems. Researchers disagree about whether temperament constitutes a subset of personality, an adjacent developmental construct, or a specifically psychobiological level of explanation. Strelau documented these alternative conceptual relationships; newer integrative work finds substantive overlap without eliminating methodological differences. Strelau, 1987; De Pauw and Mervielde, 2010.
One influential distinction separates biologically rooted temperament from acquired character or values. Cloninger's model formalizes temperament and character as components within a particular personality framework. Its conceptual and neurobiological claims should be read as model-specific hypotheses, since they do not establish a universally agreed partition of the human personality or a simple mapping of dimensions to separate neural systems. Cloninger, 1994.
The most defensible operational question is what precisely a study measures. If researchers measure fear and approach in an infant, they can describe an age-specific temperament assessment. If they later measure interpersonal warmth or emotional stability in adults, they can test whether the earlier observations predict those dimensions. Establishing that bridge is an empirical undertaking. It is never guaranteed by calling one measure “temperament” and another “personality.”
How Scientists Measure Temperament and Personality
Infant and toddler questionnaires
Developmentally tailored caregiver instruments ask about repeated behavior under described conditions rather than global impressions alone. The Revised Infant Behavior Questionnaire and Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire sample multiple forms of emotion, activity, attention, and regulation. Validation studies show useful dimensional structures and some agreement across caregivers, while revealing age effects and imperfect cross-informant correspondence. Their scores describe measured tendencies in defined populations, subject to response biases and the opportunities caregivers have had to observe the child. Gartstein and Rothbart, 200300169-8); Putnam, Gartstein, and Rothbart, 2006.
Laboratory observation and natural settings
Researchers also examine responses to unfamiliar objects, social encounters, frustration tasks, separation, and attention demands. Structured settings improve comparability, while natural observations describe how behavior unfolds in familiar contexts. Laboratory novelty may elicit a strong reaction that rarely appears at home, and one caregiver's report may reflect situations other caregivers do not observe. Combining methods reduces dependence on a single perspective. Longitudinal analyses should also test whether the same construct is being measured at each developmental stage. Kagan, Reznick, and Snidman, 1988; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Personality assessments and developmental comparability
Adolescents and adults can usually provide self-reports about tendencies across settings; peers, partners, and coworkers can provide complementary evaluations. Such instruments capture reflective descriptions unavailable in early infancy. Differences between self- and observer-ratings are informative but should not automatically be interpreted as deception or error. Cross-age comparisons require evidence that item meanings and latent dimensions remain sufficiently comparable. A continuous research narrative can connect infant temperament and adult traits only when its bridge measures are appropriately validated. Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Culture, Context, and the Limits of Generalization
Terms such as shy, independent, bold, emotionally expressive, or well-regulated may carry different social expectations across communities. An observed behavior may be shaped by language familiarity, norms governing deference, family composition, educational routines, and the observer's relationship with the child. A measure standardized within one population requires further evidence before its cutoffs or interpretive labels can be exported to another. Cross-cultural invariance, translation quality, and representative sampling are empirical questions.
Comparisons across development are also influenced by historical changes in schools, families, technology, and work. A cohort's apparent personality development might partly reflect opportunities or norms shared by its members. Longitudinal designs help but remain vulnerable to attrition, selection, changing measures, and unmeasured environmental shifts. Conclusions should specify their population, age range, measures, and setting rather than claim universal predictive laws. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Temperament, Personality, and Mental Health
Temperament traits describe normal-range variation. Strong negative emotionality, behavioral inhibition, high activity, caution, or low effortful control are not psychiatric diagnoses. Some of these dimensions correlate with later symptom risk in longitudinal research, but risk factors and diagnostic conditions differ in duration, impairment, context, and clinical criteria. Individuals with the same measured temperament may develop very differently; social support, stress exposure, learning, and developmental stage influence relevant trajectories. De Pauw and Mervielde, 2010; Eisenberg, Spinrad, and Eggum, 2010.
Caregiver descriptions should be precise and behaviorally grounded. Saying that a toddler becomes upset during abrupt transitions identifies an observable pattern and an environmental feature. Calling the child “an anxious personality” imposes an adult-oriented and potentially clinical interpretation that the evidence has not earned. Similarly, an inhibited child may be cautious around unfamiliar people without meeting any clinical definition of social anxiety. Clinical evaluation, when warranted by sustained distress or impairment, belongs to qualified professionals using age-appropriate assessment.
Common Misinterpretations of Temperament Research
“Born this way” does not mean unchangeable
Early emergence and genetic contribution concern the origins and distribution of variation; they do not establish permanent individual outcomes. Changing environments, skills, and relationships alter how dispositions function. People can remain relatively high or low compared with peers on one dimension while everyone changes in average level. Studies of long-term stability should therefore be read in their precise statistical sense. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
A correlation is not a complete developmental mechanism
When early behavior predicts adult traits, potential explanations include shared genetic influences, cumulative experiences, repeated social responses, changes in self-regulation, and overlapping measurement content. Temporal order reduces some ambiguities but does not by itself eliminate confounding. Demonstrating mechanism requires explicit hypotheses and appropriate research designs. Many studies establish associations more securely than the causal pathways presumed in popular interpretations.
Group patterns do not deliver individual verdicts
Personality research often describes a population distribution. A child in a temperament group may develop a wide range of adult profiles. Statistical uncertainty, measurement error, and heterogeneity prevent sound inference from a single childhood label to a predetermined adult personality. Research findings help formulate better questions and environmental supports; they are not verdicts about identity, relationships, or future competence.
Practical Implications for Families, Educators, and Individuals
Developmentally informed practice begins with careful observation: which contexts elicit distress or engagement, how the child recovers, what forms of attention and regulation are available, and how those features change across weeks and months. Predictable transitions, chances for supported exploration, appropriately demanding activities, and respectful accommodation of individual differences can be considered in light of a child's actual behavior. Their effectiveness should be evaluated from outcomes rather than inferred from a universal temperament type.
Educators can distinguish an observed hesitation from a fixed lack of ability and a high activity level from intentional disruption. Parents can describe concrete patterns without constructing a lifelong identity around them. Adults reflecting on their own personalities may identify continuity with childhood stories while acknowledging that memories and family narratives are selective. The aim of developmental insight is to understand patterns and possibilities while preserving individual specificity. Rothbart and Ahadi, 1994; Shiner and Caspi, 2003.
Scientific Questions About Temperament and Personality
Is temperament part of personality?
Many contemporary developmental approaches treat temperament as a set of early-emerging processes that contribute to later personality, and some models conceptualize temperament dimensions as components of the broader personality organization. Other theories preserve a distinct conceptual category. The answer depends partly on the model and the age and processes under investigation; empirical tests of correspondence remain necessary. Strelau, 1987; Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, 2000.
Can temperament change while personality remains stable?
Both temperament-related responses and personality dimensions can show continuity and change. Stability must be specified as rank-order consistency, mean-level change, or a pattern within the same person. Regulation, developmental tasks, and context influence expression. The evidence provides no universal rule under which one category changes and the other stays fixed. Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Does a shy infant become an introverted adult?
Early inhibition is associated with some later social tendencies in prospective research, yet shyness in one context and adult introversion are not identical constructs. Repeated measurement, the child's environment, and other developmental influences matter. A group-level relationship supplies a probability pattern, not a certain adult outcome. Kagan, Reznick, and Snidman, 1988; Caspi et al., 2003.
Are temperament types scientific diagnoses?
Temperament measures are research and developmental assessment tools for describing variation. Typologies simplify continuous characteristics and are not psychiatric classifications. Any clinical diagnosis requires separate age-appropriate evaluation of signs, duration, distress, impairment, context, and recognized criteria.
Are personality traits learned or inherited?
Multiple genetic and environmental mechanisms contribute to personality development, and the relative statistical contributions depend on populations and designs. Heritability does not specify a personal fate, while learning and social relationships operate in interaction with individual predispositions. Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014.
Conclusion: A Developmental Continuum With Distinct Scientific Uses
The strongest synthesis of contemporary research treats temperament as an early-emerging system of differences in reactivity and regulation that participates in the development of personality. Personality is a broader and increasingly organized pattern of psychological functioning, incorporating those processes alongside experience, cognition, relationships, motivations, and social roles. Early temperament predicts some later tendencies, and the evidence also demonstrates substantial developmental modification and heterogeneous outcomes. The central scientific task is to specify which processes show continuity, which change, how measurements connect across ages, and what environments contribute to divergent trajectories. Rothbart, 2007; Shiner and Caspi, 2003; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — An integrated scientific research chapter on dispositional differences, temperament, personality development, and methods for studying individual variation.
Big Five vs Temperament: What Is the Difference? — A model-specific comparison of the Big Five trait framework with temperament research.
Temperament and Neuroticism: Early Emotional Reactivity and Adult Personality — A narrower examination of early emotional reactivity and the adult personality trait of neuroticism.
References
Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., and Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7–8), 588–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365.
Briley, D. A., and Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152379/.
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R. F., and Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Children's behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7104001.
Cloninger, C. R. (1994). Temperament and personality. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4(2), 266–273. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8038587/.
De Pauw, S. S. W., and Mervielde, I. (2010). Temperament, personality and developmental psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions underlying childhood traits. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0171-8.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., and Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children's maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208.
Gartstein, M. A., and Rothbart, M. K. (2003). Studying infant temperament via the Revised Infant Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 26(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00169-800169-8).
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., and Snidman, N. (1988). Biological bases of childhood shyness. Science, 240(4849), 167–171. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3353713/.
Putnam, S. P., Gartstein, M. A., and Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler temperament: The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 29(3), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.01.004.
Roberts, B. W., and DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10668348/.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x.
Rothbart, M. K., and Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 55–66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8040481/.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., and Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 122–135. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10653510/.
Shiner, R., and Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 2–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00101.
Strelau, J. (1987). The concept of temperament in personality research. European Journal of Personality, 1(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010205.