The learning of social skills and socially acceptable behaviours is one of the most important tasks of childhood. The authors look at how child characteristics, and the “fit”between parent and child from early in life, might influence social competence in latechildhood, at eleven to twelve years of age.

10 Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001 Australian Institute of Family Studies

are two of the child factors that have been linked tolater social competence and wellbeing.

Temperament refers to a person’s style, how heor she reacts and responds – for example, whetherintensely or mildly. Temperament is thought to bebiologically based, and is visible from early in life. Itrefers to how a child acts, not what a child does.Thus, it is not that one child eats his dinner andanother doesn’t, but rather that one eats it very fastand another dawdles, that one is cheerful at meal-times and another is grumpy, or that one enjoystrying new foods whereas another is reluctant to tryanything different (Sanson et al. 1999).

ood social skills enable children to inter-act effectively with peers and adults, toform close and supportive relationships,and to build a repertoire of sociallyacceptable responses and behaviours

(Gresham and Elliott 1984). On the other hand,poor childhood social skills can become ingrained,and have been linked to long-term adjustment andacademic problems (Parker and Asher 1987).

Children’s social competence is the outcome of acomplex mix of child, family and environmentalinfluences, although the distinct contribution ofeach is not yet clear. Temperament and behaviour

GGD I A N A S M A R T A N D A N N S A N S O N

T h e r o l e o f t e m p e r a m e n t a n d b e h a v i o u r ,

11Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001

Temperament has been shown to predict manyaspects of children’s development, such as their per-sonal adjustment, school achievement and socialbehaviour (Rothbart and Bates 1998). However, byitself, temperament is not a very powerful predictor,and seems to have greatest impact when other riskfactors, such as poor parenting or economic hard-ship, are also present (Sanson et al. 1991).

Certain temperament traits are often considered“difficult”. For example, children who show theirlikes and dislikes very negatively and intensely, orwho are inflexible and non-adaptable, tend to bemore difficult to live with than those who are easy-going and can regulate their behaviour toaccommodate the demands and constraints of theirsocial world. However, our views of what constitutes“difficult” behaviour are influenced by environmen-tal factors and cultural norms and beliefs. Traits thatare “difficult” in one environment may not be inanother – for example, high activity levels that cre-ate stress and conflict in a cramped apartment maynot be a problem on a quarter-acre block. Culturalnorms and beliefs may influence what is seen as “dif-ficult” – for example, in China, shy children are

perceived to be mature and self-controlled, but inCanada shyness in children is perceived as a prob-lem (Chen et al. 1998; Chen et al. 1995).

Children’s early developing behaviour problemscan become entrenched and adversely affect laterfunctioning (Patterson et al. 1992). Commonadjustment problems in the early years are exter-nalising problems such as aggressive, acting-out andhyperactive-distractible behaviours; and internal-ising problems such as anxious and withdrawnbehaviours (Achenbach 1982). These behavioursmay also impact on family life, affect the style ofparenting used by parents, and place strain on par-ent-child relationships.

Some parents find it easy to adjust to theirchild’s temperament and behaviour, and this results in a good “fit” or “match” between a parent’sexpectations and responses and their child’s char-acteristics. Other parents find it harder. Thus, someparents find an “easy” child difficult to live with,while others find a “difficult” child easy to live with.

Parents’ expectations about appropriate childbehaviour, and the way parents and childrenaccommodate to each other, determine the degree

a n d t h e i r “ f i t ” w i t h p a r e n t s ’ e x p e c t a t i o n s

Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001 Australian Institute of Family Studies

Australian Temperament Project

The present study is one aspect of the Aus-tralian Temperament Project, a large-scalelongitudinal study of children’s development.The study is a collaboration betweenresearchers from the Australian Institute ofFamily Studies; the Royal Children’s Hospital,Melbourne; and the University of Melbourne.

The Australian Temperament Projectbegan in 1983 with the recruitment of a rep-resentative sample of 2443 infants andfamilies from urban and rural areas of Victo-ria. There have been 12 data collection wavesspanning the child’s first 18 years of life, andapproximately two-thirds of the families arestill involved in the study. While a number offamilies have dropped out over the years, andthese include more from lower socio-eco-nomic or ethnic backgrounds, the remaininggroup of children closely resembles the origi-nal sample on all facets of infant functioning(see Prior et al. 2000 for further details).Hence, on the domains investigated in thisstudy, sample attrition is unlikely to be a sig-nificant influence on the results. All datacollections have been by mail surveys. Here,data collected from infancy to twelve years of

age is used. The child’s temperament was assessed via

detailed questions about his/her characteristic styleof response across a variety of situations. Behaviourproblems were assessed by ratings of the occur-rence of a range of common behaviour problems.Parent-child fit was assessed via parents’ global rating of how easy or difficult the child was. Socialcompetence was assessed at 11-12 years and tappedaspects such as the child’s cooperativeness,assertiveness, responsibility, self-control and empathy.

Parents rated their children’s functioning at agesfour to eight months, one to three years, five to sixyears, and seven to eight years, using standard tem-perament and behaviour problem scales. The childcharacteristics included here are three aspects oftemperament: Reactivity, the intensity of the child’sreactions, irritability or negativity; Attention

of “fit” between them. Although it has been suggested that the parent-child fit might have moreimpact on children’s development and wellbeingthan temperament or behavioural style itself(Thomas and Chess 1977), it has been hard to findconvincing empirical evidence to support this(Paterson and Sanson 1999).

How, then, might child characteristics and the fitbetween parent and child from early in life, singlyand together, influence social competence in latechildhood, at eleven to twelve years of age?

This paper examines children’s temperamentfrom infancy onwards, their behaviour problemsfrom toddlerhood, and the fit with their parentsfrom infancy on. It investigates the age from whichconnections between early child functioning, par-ent-child fit, and later social competence may bedetected, and the strength of these connections atvarious ages.

12

Reactivity, parent-child fit and later social competenceFigure 1

010203040506070

Seven to eight yearsFive to six yearsOne to three yearsReactivity

Neither problemChild difficulty

Poor parent-child fitBoth problems

Grou

p pe

rcen

tile

scor

e on

soci

al c

ompe

tenc

e at

11-

12 y

rs

Attention regulation, parent-child fit and later social competence

Figure 2

010203040506070

Seven to eight yearsFive to six yearsOne to three yearsAttention regulation

Neither problemChild difficulty

Poor parent-child fitBoth problems

Grou

p pe

rcen

tile

scor

e on

soci

al c

ompe

tenc

e at

11-

12 y

rs

Perhaps parents say to themselves “that’s just how s/he is –kids come in all shapes and sizes, it’s not a big deal”.

13Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001

regulation, the capacity to maintain attention andcarry tasks through to completion; and Emotionregulation, the ability to control emotions. Theother domain of child functioning investigated wasBehaviour problems, comprising ratings of aggres-sive, acting-out, impulsive, hyperactive and anxiousbehaviours.

The degree of fit between parent and child andthe quality of the parent-child relationship wasassessed by a question asking parents to rate howeasy or difficult their child was compared to otherchildren of the same age on a five-point scale rang-ing from “much easier than average” to “muchmore difficult than average”. This rating indicatedhow comfortable it was for the parent and child toget along together.

Social skills were assessed by ratings of behav-iours such as: sharing and helping; compliance withrules and directions; social confidence and initia-tive; communication, concern and respect forothers; and ability to respond appropriately in con-flict situations. Parent, teacher and the child’s ownratings of social skills were combined to give anoverall Social Competence Score. The norms pro-vided by the test yielded percentile scores rangingfrom 1 to 100, with a high score indicating highsocial competence. Details of all measures can befound in Prior et al. (2000).

Four types of problematic child functioning wereidentified at each age – high reactivity, low atten-tion regulation, low emotion regulation, and highlevels of behaviour problems. If the child was in themost problematic 20 per cent of the sample on aparticular aspect of temperament or behaviour, thiswas taken as an indication of problems in that areaof functioning.

Good and poor parent-child fit were identified at each age, by applying the following categorisa-tion. If parents described their child overall as“more difficult” or “much more difficult” than aver-age, this was seen as an indication of poor fitbetween child and parent, and of difficulties in the parent-child relationship. Interestingly, thetrend was for most parents to rate their child as“easier” or “much easier”, but a small proportion(generally less than 10 per cent) rated their child asdifficult.

These two categories – problematic functioningand poor parent-child fit – were used to divide thechildren into groups for each child characteristicand at each age period. The groups thus formedwere as follows (note that group sizes varied acrossthe different aspects of child functioning and thedifferent ages):

• Neither problem group – no child difficulty andgood fit (78-83 per cent of children)

• Child difficulty group – child difficulty but goodfit (10-14 per cent of children)

• Poor fit group – no child difficulty but poor fit (2-4 per cent of children)

• Both problems group – child difficulty and poorfit (3-4 per cent of children)

As would be expected for a representative sample ofchildren, around four-fifths were in the “neitherproblem” group, and around 10 per cent in the“child difficulty” group; the “poor parent-child fit”and “both problems” groups were quite small and ofsimilar size. The four groups were compared onsocial competence in late childhood. Four separateanalyses were carried out at each age level.

FindingsThe groups identified at infancy did not differ onsocial skills at 11-12 years of age; however, consis-tent differences across groups were evident fromthe toddler age onwards. The group trends areshown in Figures 1-4. A large amount of informationis contained in these figures, hence the resultsshown in Figure 1 are described in some detail, as aguide to the interpretation of all the Figures.

Figure 1 presents the relationships between thetemperament reactivity dimension and parent-childfit in the earlier years, with social competenance at11-12 years of age.

Within each of the age periods, the four combina-tions of child difficulty and/or poor parent-child fit are shown. Children who were not highly reactive and who had good fit (the “neither prob-lem” group) at each age period had the highestsubsequent social skills. Children who were

Behaviour problems, parent-child fit and later socialcompetence

Figure 4

010203040506070

Seven to eight yearsFive to six yearsOne to three yearsBehaviour problems

Neither problemChild difficulty

Poor parent-child fitBoth problems

Grou

p pe

rcen

tile

scor

e on

soci

al c

ompe

tenc

e at

11-

12 y

rs

Emotion regulation, parent-child fit and later social competence

Figure 3

010203040506070

Seven to eight yearsFive to six yearsOne to three yearsEmotion regulation

Neither problemChild difficulty

Poor parent-child fitBoth problems

Grou

p pe

rcen

tile

scor

e on

soci

al c

ompe

tenc

e at

11-

12 y

rs

Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001 Australian Institute of Family Studies

The picture was more complex for children withone type of problem, which was either problematicchild functioning (10-14 per cent) or poor parent-child fit (2-4 per cent). Groups with either of theseproblems at 1-3 years were similar to each other intheir levels of social skills at 11-12 years. Hence thepresence of either problem at 1-3 years of age had asimilar impact on later social skills.

This pattern continued at the two school-ageperiods in the area of behaviour problems (Figure4), with the groups having similar profiles that wererelatively distinct from the “neither problem” and“both problems” groups. However, the trends werea little different when the impact of temperament(high reactivity, low attention regulation, or lowemotion regulation, as shown in Figures 1-3) wasexamined. Overall, it seemed that temperamentwas related to later social competence, but lesspowerfully than poor parent-child fit at 5-6 and 7-8years.

While these results have been presented as grouptrends, it is important to note that there was con-siderable variability within each group, and that alllevels of social skills were found in each group.Summarising trends across all age periods anddomains, it was found that around 16 per cent of“no problem” children had below average socialskills, 28 per cent were average, and 56 per centwere above average. Of the “both problem” chil-dren, 40 per cent had below average, 40 per centaverage, and 20 per cent had above average socialskills. Of children with problematic functioning orpoor parent-child fit, similar proportions (around33 per cent) had below average, average, and aboveaverage social skills.

These findings are a reminder that a complexmix of factors that combine to influence an individ-ual’s development, and that there is flexibility in

highly reactive but who had good parent-child fitwere midway between the“nei ther problem” and“both problems” groups.Children who were nothighly reactive but who hadpoor parent-child fit weresimilar to the “child diffi-culty only” group at 1-3 years and similar to the“both problems” group at the two later age periods.Children with high reactivity and poor fit (the “bothproblems” group) generally had the lowest levels oflater social skills.

It should be noted that while high reactivity orpoor parent-child fit at age 1-3 years was related tolower subsequent social skills, all groups had aver-age or better than average later social skills (at orabove the 50th percentile) when compared withgeneral population norms. Of the groups identifiedat the two later age periods, the “neither problems”group continued to have considerably above aver-age later social skills, the “high reactivity, good fit”group was about average (although declining overthe two time points), and both of the poor parent-child fit groups had considerably below averagesubsequent social skills.

Figures 2-4 show similar trends for the two otherfacets of temperament – attention regulation andemotion regulation – and for the measure of behav-iour problems. Over all aspects of functioning,children with neither problem had the best out-comes, while children with both types of problemshad the worst outcomes. Children with one type ofproblem tended to be mid-way between the “nei-ther problem” and “both problems” groups. Hence,problematic child functioning, poor fit, or both, hadnegative consequences for later development. Prob-lems at 5-6 years and 7-8 years appeared moresalient for later social competence than problems at1-3 years.

The profiles for each of the four groups were nextexamined.

As noted earlier, the majority of children were inthe “neither problem” group. Figures 1-4 show thatthese children were consistently the most sociallyskilled at 11-12 years of age, with a group trend forabove average social skill levels (consistentlyaround the 60th percentile). They were signifi-cantly more socially skilled than children with bothtypes of problems at 1-3 years of age, and than all other groups at 5-6 and 7-8 years of age. Thesegroup differences grew stronger from toddlerhoodto childhood.

As illustrated by Figures 1-4, the “both prob-lems” group of children were generally lowest onsocial skills in late childhood. This group was quitea small one, comprising around 3-4 per cent of children. The toddler group had average levels ofsocial skills at age 11-12 when compared to the gen-eral population (with the group averaging aroundthe 50th percentile). However, if both types of problems were present in the early school years,children were likely to have below average socialskills at 11-12 years (a group average around the40th percentile), and significantly lower than the“neither” or “child difficulty only” groups.

14

Significant connections were found between earlier childand family functioning and later social competence.

15Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No.59 Winter 2001

developmental pathways – they are not “set” orimmutable, and change is always possible.

Conclusions and implications This study has demonstrated that early childhood“matters” developmentally. Significant connectionswere found between earlier child and family func-tioning and later social competence. As expected,the links were stronger as the time interval betweenthe “predictor” and “outcome” measures narrowed,but were identifiable from toddlerhood onwards.

All domains of children’s functioning included inthe study (that is, the three facets of underlyingtemperament, and behaviour problems) wererelated to social competence. Thus the extent towhich children showed intense and negative reac-tions, and their capacity to regulate their attentionand emotions all appear to play an important part in pathways to social competence. Additionally,their early emerging behavioural and emotionalproblems impacted on later competence.

Also important was the match between children’sparticular temperament and behaviour characteris-tics and their parents’ expectations. When therewere co-occurring difficulties – that is, if childrenhad problems which led to difficult interactions withtheir environment, and their parents were not ableto find ways of working positively with these char-acteristics – then lower social competence was morelikely to result. If neither difficulty was present, itwas very likely that children would be socially adept.Furthermore, parents’ capacity to come to termswith their child’s temperament, resulting in goodparent-child fit, mattered more than the child’s tem-perament per se.

The variability in the number of children in thefour groups is interesting and carries implications

about parents’ ability to adjust positively to theirchildren. The fact the “child difficulty only” groupwas much larger than both poor parent-child fitgroups suggests that most parents find ways of cop-ing with their children and developing goodrelationships with them, even when their child maybe more difficult than average. Perhaps they aresaying “that’s just how s/he is, kids come in allshapes and sizes, it’s not a big deal”.

Developmentally, social competence lays thegroundwork for a successful transition to adoles-cence, and provides a strong foundation for healthyadjustment. It was noteworthy that the majority ofchildren were well functioning at this pre-adoles-cent stage of development. However, some showedsigns of having entered on a pathway likely to leadto patterns of maladjustment, such as antisocialbehaviour, substance use, or depression.

This study clearly suggests that intervening early– by helping parents find effective ways of dealingwith children’s difficult temperament or behaviour,and helping children to learn to manage their tem-peramental proclivities – is likley to have long-termbenefits in terms of increased child wellbeing andadjustment.

ReferencesAchenbach, T. (1982), Developmental Psychopathology (2nd

edn), Wiley, New York.

Chen, X., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H., Cen, G. & Stewart, S. L. (1998), “Child-rearing attitudes and behavioural inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: across-cultural study”, Developmental Psychology, vol. 34,pp. 677-686.

Chen, X., Rubin, K. H. & Li, B. (1995), “Social and schooladjustment of shy and aggressive children in China,”Development and Psychopathology, vol. 7, pp. 337-349.

Gresham, F.M. & Elliott, S.N. (19984), “Assessment and classi-fication of children’s social skills: a review of methods andissues”, School Psychology Review, vol. 13, pp. 292-301.

Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987), “Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?”,Psychological Bulletin, vol. 102, pp. 357-389.

Paterson, G. & Sanson, A. (1999), “The association of behav-ioural adjustment to temperament, parenting and familycharacteristics among five-year-old children”, SocialDevelopment, vol. 8, pp. 293-309.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B. & Dishion, T.J. (1992), AntisocialBoys, Castalia, Eugene, Oregon, USA.

Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D. & Oberklaid, F. (2000),Pathways from Infancy to Adolescence: AustralianTemperament Project 1983-2000, Australian Institute ofFamily Studies, Melbourne.

Rothbart, M.K. & Bates, J.E. (1998), “Temperament”, in W.Damon (ed.) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social,Emotional and Personality Development, (5th edn), Wiley,New York.

Sanson, A., Prior, M., Oberklaid, F., & Smart, D. (1999).Temperamental influences on psychosocial adjustment:From infancy to adolescence. Australian Educational andDevelopmental Psychologist, vol. 15, pp. 7-38.

Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., Pedlow, R. & Prior, M. (1991), “Riskindicators: assessment of infancy predictors of preschoolbehavioural maladjustment”, Journal of Child Psychology& Psychiatry, vol. 32, pp. 609-626.

Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1977), Temperament andDevelopment, Brunner/Mazel, New York.

Diana Smart is a Senior Research Officer, and Ann Sansonis Deputy Director (Research), at the Australian Institute ofFamily Studies. Both have had an close and continuinginvolvement in the Australian Temperament Project.

Picture: Rhonda Milner