Sec. Educational Psychology
Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.599411
Temperament and School Readiness – A Literature Review
- 1Department of Christian Education, Sts Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Theology, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czechia
- 2The Center of Evidence-Based Education and Arts Therapies, Faculty of Education, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czechia
This review study was conducted to describe how temperament is related to school readiness. The basic research question was whether there is any relationship between later school success and temperament in children and, if so, what characterizes it. A systematic search of databases and journals identified 27 papers that met the two criteria: temperament and school readiness. The analytical strategy followed the PRISMA method. The research confirmed the direct relationship between temperament and school readiness. There is a statistically significant relationship between temperament and school readiness. Both positive and negative emotionality influence behavior (especially concentration), which is reflected in the approach to learning and school success.
Temperament, as a cluster of mental attributes that are presented in the form of experiencing and reacting to stimuli with an effect on emotional expressions and behavior, has an effect on school results amongst children (Keogh, 2003). For school education, therefore, what is important is how the child is able to manage its temperament and project it into activity, perseverance, and balance in response to stimuli (McClelland and Wanless, 2012).
The aim of this review study was to identify the relationship between the temperament of the child and school readiness presented in the scientific literature and how the research activities were constructed.
The definitions of temperament are not uniform in their conception and differ with different authors. Three basic theories have been put forward in relation to temperament in human life during its historical development: physiological theories Hippocrates or Galen (Ashton, 2013), bio-ecological theories (e.g., Thomas and Chess, 1977), and behaviorally oriented theories (e.g., Thomas and Chess, 1977). In the context of temperament research, current studies indicate terms that refine temperament and its manifestations, such as executive functions, effortful control, and self-regulation. Two basic research questions were identified in the context of the objective.
1. Are there studies that describe the relationship between temperament and school readiness and subsequent success rates in children?
2. If so, how can this relationship be characterized?
Temperament is the focus of scientists’ interest in psychology. Perhaps the most prevalent are theoretical approaches to temperament as defined by Buss and Plomin (1975), Thomas and Chess (1977), Rothbart and Derryberry (1981), Goldsmith and Campos (1982), and Kagan (1984).
The Kagan approach (Kagan, 1984) is constructed based on biological factors that he considered congenital and may affect behavior. Goldsmith and Campos (1982) provide a definition of temperament as an individual difference in the ability to experience and express primal emotions. Differences in temperament are observable in the intensity of behavioral expressions, facial expressions, gestures, and movements. The definition, which is constructed on the basis of nine dimensions of behavioral styles – activity level, regularity, approach withdrawal, adaptability, threshold of responsiveness, intensity of reaction, quality of mood, attention span/persistence, and distractibility – was used by Thomas and Chess (as cited in Pharis, 1978). The model that was designed by Buss and Plomin (1975) was behavior-genetics oriented. It is assumed that early manifestations of temperamental features are hereditary and adapt evolutionally in a child, as responses to its living conditions, and are also relatively stable. Three core dimensions were identified: emotionality (E), activity (A), and sociability (S). The above-mentioned authors represent the primary sources to which most later studies relate. The approach to temperament by Rothbart (Rothbart and Derryberry, 1981) defines temperament as biologically ingrained individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation in emotional, activation, and attention-based processes. Reactivity refers to levels of biological arousal caused by changes in internal and external stimulation, which are captured as dimensions of negative influence and surgency. Self-regulation applies to processes that modulate reactivity and are reflected in a temperamental dimension that requires effortful control.
Temperament is accompanied by relatively permanent individual differences in reactivity and self-control that can be influenced in the course of the child’s development by maturation and experience (Rothbart and Bates, 1998). Differences in temperament are apparent from early childhood, with some children tending toward negativity and bad moods, while others have difficulties adapting to a new environment and people (Thomas et al., 1963; Putnam and Rothbart, 2006).
Children’s temperament has been described as a source of multiple categories of behavioral manifestations. The result is the concept of temperament as a three-component structure, which is represented by Surgency/Extraversion, Negative Affectivity, and Effortful Control (Rothbart, 1988; Rothbart and Bates, 1998, 2006; Rothbart and Putnam, 2002). In a more detailed concept, the Surgency/Extraversion category is described as impulsive, exhibiting a high degree of activity and courage and, at the same time, a need for satisfaction.
Negative Affectivity is characterized by manifestations of sadness, frustration, and being difficult to calm down. Effortful Control is characterized by the need for control and ability to concentrate (Rothbart and Putnam, 2002). In relation to school readiness and the subsequent success of children, Negative Affectivity is characterized by the above-mentioned authors as a possible source of problems with controlling emotions and thus as a possible source of problems in children’s behavior.
Executive functions as a term can be described as a collective name for a complex and diverse set of mental processes, the content and scope of which are differently defined. Most often, higher-order cognitive abilities are described using this term, allowing people to use psychological and physical resources effectively in an unknown or under-structured situation. Executive functioning, cognitive functioning, and affectivity can be considered as three fundamental dimensions of human behavior. Executive functions provide “know-how” on how to handle cognitive and affective processes. There is empirical evidence suggesting a strong relationship between temperamental characteristics and executive functions (Sudikoff et al., 2015). Affrunti and Woodruff-Borden (2015) state that the expression of temperament can be influenced by executive functioning. Temperament also includes behavioral aspects, as well as attention-seeking processes, including maintaining orientation and executive control. These skills form the basis for the development of self-regulation (Rothbart and Hwang, 2002).
The interaction of effortful control and emotion or stress is characterized by Zelazo et al. (2016) using the expressions “hot” effortful control and “cool” effortful control. These are based on the results of behavioral and neuroimaging research. Both types of effortful control are involved in the problem-solving function and varying degrees of motivation and emotion. For a “hot” approach, important situations involve the predominance of motivation and emotion. The “cool” approach works in affectively neutral contexts (Zelazo and Carlson, 2012).
The current theoretical basis emphasizes the importance of self-regulation in relation to school readiness. Self-regulation in a broader sense involves the ability to control emotions (Blair and Raver, 2015). Self-regulation offers an important addition to the conceptualization of school readiness because it addresses children’s ability to attend to information, use it appropriately, and inhibit behavior that interferes with learning. However, like the broader concept of school readiness, theories and perspectives on self-regulation have focused on various priorities (Pan et al., 2019).
The level of reactivity is related to the characteristics of the reactions to changes in stimuli that are reflected on several levels (behavioral, autonomous, and neuroendocrine) and display different periods of observable parameters from latency and an increase and then a peak of intensity until relaxation. Self-control influences these processes and influences reactivity (Rothbart et al., 2004).
School readiness is understood as the state when a child enters school adequately prepared to engage in school activities and benefit from the educational situations so that he/she can experience success regarding his/her potential. Kagan (1990) speaks about readiness for learning, which is a state in which the child, thanks to his/her development, is able to learn the individual subjects. Janus (2007) describe school readiness as a level of maturity of the nervous system which allows the child to process specific “school” stimuli and develop his/her skills and knowledge without mental suffering.
Regarding mental development, school readiness is a child’s state when the child’s skills necessary for meeting his/her cognitive, physical, and social needs on entry to school can be employed (Mashburn and Pianta, 2006; Pianta et al., 2007; Janus and Gaskin, 2013). The developmental level of the child provides the opportunity to safely reflect the needs of schooling in a wider context in terms of cognitive, social, and emotional functions (Lemelin et al., 2007).
In relation to the above, one can also include maturity and physical health, emotional maturity, and the necessary communication skills (Kagan, 1992; Doherty, 2007).
Janus and Offord (2000) named the basic domains that are important in relation to a child’s functioning at school, which can at the same time be used as areas for evaluation or in the event of a need for diagnostics of particular functions. These are physical health and well-being, including the necessary development of fine and coarse motor skills. It is also a domain that includes the social skills of responsibility and respect, approach to education, and readiness to explore new things. Attention also needs to be paid to emotional maturity, which includes pro-social behavior and the ability to function in a group. Being able to deal with anxiety and fear and the ability to manage one’s behavior regarding concentration and activity are associated with emotional maturity. According to these authors, the other domains on the list are the level of language skills and the overall level of cognitive functioning in the areas of literacy, mathematical imagination, and motivation to learn. Communication skills and their adequate development as an essential factor for effective schoolwork can be emphasized.
The research scope of the study is focused on the school readiness of children in relation to their temperament. The given age category of the children and their temperament are considered essential with regard to their readiness for, and subsequent success in, school education, as is stated by other expert studies. Vágnerová (2012) considers preschool age to be a period during which the child should be mentally and physically sufficiently mature to begin school attendance, while Al-Hendawi (2013) argues that temperament is a significant parameter of school adaptation and success. Al-Hendawi (2013) also states that the authors of expert studies view temperament from different perspectives.
The aim of the research was to determine whether there are studies that deal with the relationship between temperament, its dimensions, and school readiness.
For this review study, a design was applied that is based on the PRISMA method (Moher et al., 2015) in the context of the theory of Paré and Kitsiou (2017). Four stages of the work process were created based on this method.
Stage 1– Strategy
The study, and therefore the search for the primary source texts, focused on the period from 1 January 2000 to 29 February 2020, with the selection including articles in scientific journals in English. The search keywords were represented by the following expressions: School readiness; Temperament; Preschool age; School success; Effortful control; Self control; Mood.
The following elements were used for the search strategy: (school N1 readiness) OR (school N1 success); (school N1 readiness) OR (school N1 success) AND mood; (school N1 readiness) OR (school N1 success) AND Effortful control; (school AND readiness) OR (school AND success); (school AND readiness) OR (school AND success) AND Effortful control; (school AND readiness) OR (school AND success) AND mood; (school N/3 readiness) OR (school N/3 success) AND mood AND preschool.
This time span was chosen because the largest number of texts for further analysis was searched for in the databases during this period. The choice of a shorter time span of the margin did not offer sufficient saturation in searching.
Stage 2 – The Selection of Databases for the Search
The MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Proquest databases were used for the search. The EBSCO Discovery Service was used. A total of 1092 articles were found.
Abstracts were analyzed for all 1092 articles. On the basis of this analysis, those articles that did not match the specified criteria were gradually eliminated. Figure 1 shows what the procedure for the selection of suitable articles looked like.
In the last stage a detailed analysis of 142 articles was performed. In all these articles, the key categories “Temperament”, “Executive functions” “Effortful control”, “Self-regulation”, and “School readiness” were used.
On the basis of the analysis of 142 articles, specific groups based on the topics were created. School readiness was related to different variables with an indirect relationship to temperament – ADHD (25 articles), autism (one article), illness and health problems (19 articles), different age categories (28 articles), a conflict between the parents’ and teachers’ expectations of preschool-age children (five articles), and the topic of preschool children and disability (one article). In addition, there was the theory of mind and executive functions (eight articles), language skills (two articles), and the environment of the family and school (eight articles), parents’ temperament (nine articles), and teacher temperament (nine articles).
The narrow selection included 26 or 27 articles whose topics matched the requirements of the relationship between school readiness and temperament, i.e., both the essential categories – school readiness and temperament – appeared in them simultaneously. Only the 27th article (Miller and Goldsmith, 2017) is rather specific because the authors wanted to create an ideal pupil who would be successful at school.
The articles were analyzed qualitatively using a set of qualitative indicators. The indicators were determined in compliance with the research questions as the basis for the research and a more detailed description of the relationship between the child’s temperament and school readiness. On the basis of these criteria, three qualitative indicators were determined: methods, target group, and research results. These indicators were then divided into the sub-groups shown in Table 1.
The stated qualitative indicators were determined as the basis for further examination and a more detailed description of the relationship between the child’s temperament and school readiness or success in the selected articles.
Qualitative Indicator – Methods
The focus of the selected studies was divided into three fundamental domains: temperament (A), cognitive abilities (B), and social skills (C) (see Table 2). In twelve studies (Schoen and Nagle, 1994; Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Stacks and Oshio, 2009; Zhou et al., 2010; Gartstein et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2017; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; VanSchyndel et al., 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Beceren and Özdemir, 2019; Johnson et al., 2019) the authors directly use the term ‘temperament’, while in 15 (Bramlett et al., 2000; Valiente et al., 2008, 2010; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Iyer et al., 2010; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Valiente et al., 2011; Willoughby et al., 2011; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Razza et al., 2012; Morris et al., 2013; Gaias et al., 2016; Sawyer et al., 2019; Fung et al., 2020) they use the term ‘regulation of emotions’, which they perceive as part of temperament. In all the research focused on school readiness, however, the concept of readiness differed, and it was possible to divide it into two basic categories of social skills (Bramlett et al., 2000; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Stacks and Oshio, 2009; Valiente et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Silva, 2011; Valiente et al., 2011; Willoughby et al., 2011; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Morris et al., 2013; Gaias et al., 2016; Gartstein et al., 2016; VanSchyndel et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2019; Beceren and Özdemir, 2019) and cognitive skills (Schoen and Nagle, 1994; Rhoades et al., 2011; Valiente et al., 2011; Razza et al., 2012; Morris et al., 2013; Collings et al., 2017; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2019; Sawyer et al., 2019; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Valiente et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Willoughby et al., 2011; Gaias et al., 2016; Gartstein et al., 2016; VanSchyndel et al., 2017). In the area of cognitive skills, the authors observed reading and mathematical concepts (Valiente et al., 2010; Morris et al., 2013; Gaias et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2019), language skills (Schoen and Nagle, 1994; Rhoades et al., 2011), and in two cases both the skills (Razza et al., 2012; Sawyer et al., 2019).
To characterize temperament, different tools were used, in eleven cases the CBQ questionnaire (Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Iyer et al., 2010; Valiente et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Silva, 2011; Valiente et al., 2011; Morris et al., 2013; Gaias et al., 2016; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; Bryce et al., 2018), which will also be used in our case. In order to assess the level of cognitive and social skills, certified tools were mainly used, in one case (Johnson et al., 2019) a tool that the researchers developed themselves, and in two cases, observation was used (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009).
The definition of temperament is then adapted for the purpose of the studies. In eight cases, the authors put an emphasis on individual differences in their definitions (Bramlett et al., 2000; Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Valiente et al., 2010; Gartstein et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2019), in eleven cases they emphasized self-control (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Valiente et al., 2010, 2011; Willoughby et al., 2011; Gaias et al., 2016; Gartstein et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2017; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2019; Sawyer et al., 2019), and in five cases they stressed the biological basis (Bramlett et al., 2000; Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Sawyer et al., 2019). Morris et al. (2013), Beceren and Özdemir (2019), Johnson et al. (2019), and Fung et al. (2020) stress the influence of temperament on emotions in their definition and the influence on children’s social skills is emphasized in nine studies (Schoen and Nagle, 1994; Valiente et al., 2008; Stacks and Oshio, 2009; Iyer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Razza et al., 2012; VanSchyndel et al., 2017).
Qualitative Indicator – Target Group
The numbers of respondents were representative in relation to the research that was analyzed. In longitudinal studies, there were research studies with large numbers of respondents (more than 1000) (Razza et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2019; Sawyer et al., 2019), but also one research study involving 31 respondents (Gartstein et al., 2016). For most other research studies, the number of respondents ranged between 100 and 1000 (Schoen and Nagle, 1994; Bramlett et al., 2000; Valiente et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Iyer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Willoughby et al., 2011; Gaias et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2017; VanSchyndel et al., 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Beceren and Özdemir, 2019; Fung et al., 2020). The exceptions consisted of some studies (Stacks and Oshio, 2009; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Morris et al., 2013) in which there were fewer than 100 respondents and one case with 1364 respondents (Rudasill and Konold, 2008). In one study (Miller and Goldsmith, 2017) the respondents were teachers whose task was to create basic categories which they could use to assess a child’s school readiness.
In four cases (Bramlett et al., 2000; Silva, 2011; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; Johnson et al., 2019) the authors of the study do not state the results regarding gender. In the studies by Schoen and Nagle (1994), Stacks and Oshio (2009), Valiente et al. (2010), and VanSchyndel et al. (2017) the gender ratio between boys and girls was 40% to 60% and in the remaining studies the ratio was around 50% in all cases.
The age span of the respondents was between 0 and 12 years of age. The age of the respondents was associated with the research aim (see Table 2 and the glossary accompanying the table). The information about the respondents was in all cases (except in one case, Gartstein et al., 2016), obtained from the responses of teachers or trained researchers and in 14 cases (Bramlett et al., 2000; Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Valiente et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Zhou et al., 2010; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Collings et al., 2017; VanSchyndel et al., 2017; Beceren and Özdemir, 2019; Fung et al., 2020) also from parents. In three cases, information was also obtained from children (Iyer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Valiente et al., 2011).
Schoen and Nagle (1994), Miller and Goldsmith (2017), and Beceren and Özdemir (2019) do not state ethnicity in their studies. Sawyer et al. (2019) state that the research was carried out on a representative sample of the Australian population, similarly to Bramlett et al. (2000), who state that 98% of their sample was Caucasian. In the case of these two studies, the aim was not to compare the influence of temperament on school success with regard to ethnicity, but primarily a description of the given relationship in a representative sample of the given population. Silva (2011) cites ethnicity, but not the percentual distribution. Rudasill and Konold (2008), Zhou et al. (2010), and Fung et al. (2020) presented mono-ethnic samples; in the first case they were Caucasians, the second study involved children from Hong Kong, and in the third article the respondents were from China. In the other studies the percentages of the ethnic groups are presented.
Schoen and Nagle (1994), Bramlett et al. (2000), Rudasill and Konold (2008), Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman (2009), Valiente et al. (2010), Gartstein et al. (2016), Beceren and Özdemir (2019), Sawyer et al. (2019), and Fung et al. (2020) do not state any specifics in relation to their respondents or state that it was a representative sample. Miller and Goldsmith (2017) aimed their research at creating a profile of the most successful child who enters school prepared to the maximum extent. Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2009) reported that their respondents were exclusively children from villages, while in contrast Gaias et al. (2016) chose children from cities. In other cases, the authors studied children who came from a socially or economically endangered environment. They were specifically children who were born to single mothers (Razza et al., 2012), children who were included in the “Head Start” program (Stacks and Oshio, 2009; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Willoughby et al., 2011; Bryce et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2019), and children who were included in the free lunch program (Silva, 2011; Collings et al., 2017). Iyer et al. (2010), Zhou et al. (2010), Valiente et al. (2011), Al-Hendawi and Reed (2012), and Morris et al. (2013) were interested in children who displayed specific requirements for education as a result of increased risk of adverse circumstances (economic disadvantage, developmental delay, or a combination of both).
Qualitative Indicator – Conclusion
In the case of the study by Bryce et al. (2018), it was not possible to confirm a hypothetical chain process: child’s positive emotionality → emotional engagement in kindergarten → behavioral expressions in kindergarten → educational results in kindergarten. In other cases, the link between temperament and school readiness or subsequent school success was confirmed.
In some cases (Rudasill and Konold, 2008; Valiente et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Iyer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Rhoades et al., 2011; Silva, 2011; Al-Hendawi and Reed, 2012; Morris et al., 2013; Gaias et al., 2016; Gartstein et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2017; Miller and Goldsmith, 2017; VanSchyndel et al., 2017; Bryce et al., 2018; Beceren and Özdemir, 2019; Johnson et al., 2019; Fung et al., 2020) the authors were further interested in whether temperament can be seen as a risk or protective factor. In most cases, it was found that higher Effortful Control has a positive relationship to greater school readiness – the success rate and lower Effortful Control can predict behavioral problems and thus problems at school (Valiente et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Iyer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Morris et al., 2013; Gartstein et al., 2016; VanSchyndel et al., 2017). Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman (2009), Silva (2011), and Gaias et al. (2016) add that the value of Effortful Control can influence the teacher’s relationship with the child and thus the child’s school readiness and also later school success. Al-Hendawi and Reed (2012) found that negative emotionality has a significant effect on adaptivity and schoolwork and can become a predictor of inappropriate behavior. In contrast, Johnson et al. (2019) did not confirm that problems in the area of a child’s temperament can be perceived as a significant predictor of prosocial behavior. There is a statistically significant relationship between temperament and school readiness. Both positive and negative emotionality influence behavior (especially concentration), which is reflected in the approach to learning and school success.
Collings et al. (2017) suggest that there was a positive effect of a previous intervention on temperament, confirmed in the individual items of school performance. Their results for the boys who participated in the intervention program were better in the areas of literacy and mathematics than was the case in boys who did not participate. Bryce et al. (2018) state that positive emotionality significantly influenced behavior in children in kindergarten. Rudasill and Konold (2008), Rhoades et al. (2011), Beceren and Özdemir (2019), and Fung et al. (2020) characterized the child’s maturity in the context of how he/she is able to control his/her temperament so that it can function as a supportive factor in education. Similar conclusions were also reached by Miller and Goldsmith (2017). In their view, children who were able to regulate their emotions were able to react better in socially appropriate ways and focus their attention, which facilitates learning and provides higher chances of success in school education.
In addition, difficult temperament at an early age can lead to low parental involvement at age three. The role of difficult temperament, poor maternal involvement, and externalizing behavior may be partially responsible for the continuity that has been observed in antisocial behavior over time (Walters, 2014).
The last thing that the authors state is the more detailed characteristics of the relationship identified between temperament and school readiness or school success. Bramlett et al. (2000) admit that there might be differences between what can be termed the home and school temperaments, which can explain the differences between the parents’ and children’s answers. Beceren and Özdemir (2019) stress the importance to social-emotional adjustment of family involvement. Schoen and Nagle (1994), Al-Hendawi and Reed (2012), Collings et al. (2017), and Miller and Goldsmith (2017) state that here there are differences between the temperaments of boys and girls; the last two argue that boys show higher activity. Razza et al. (2012), Collings et al. (2017), and also Gartstein et al. (2016) suggest that there is a positive effect of intervention programs on school readiness. These are programs that focus on exerting control over one’s temperament during preschool age. Similarly, Sawyer et al. (2019) state that if there is an increase in the ability to exert self-control at the ages of 2-3 and 6-7, this can have a positive influence on school readiness. The ability to self-regulate is considered an essential factor in school readiness by Rudasill and Konold (2008), Valiente et al. (2010), Willoughby et al. (2011), and VanSchyndel et al. (2017), and Valiente et al. (2008), Zhou et al. (2010), Valiente et al. (2011), Morris et al. (2013), and Fung et al. (2020) attribute great importance to effortful control for school readiness. Another important factor that can affect a child’s school readiness is his/her relationships with peers (Iyer et al., 2010) and teachers (Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Silva, 2011; Gaias et al., 2016). Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2009) state that the quality of the preschool classroom affects the child’s behavior, and this can then affect school readiness. Miller and Goldsmith (2017) argue that the model of “an ideal child” was created separately for boys and girls who will be successful at school.
The analysis of literary sources showed that in the period under consideration, there are expert studies dealing with the relationship between temperament and school readiness. In total 27 articles were included in the narrowest selection, in which the authors sought and examined this relationship or perceived it as the default setting for further examination.
From selected studies it is clear that when working with the phenomenon of temperament, as a factor that can influence other phenomena from the point of view of psychology, there is a big problem with the definition of temperament. In the introduction to the rewiev study, the individual definitions and views of their authors on temperament are given. The following are terms that are used by other authors instead of temperament. Table 3 lists the concepts of temperament as presented by the authors of selected 27 studies. In the analyzed studies, the authors used either the term temperament or the concept of regulation of emotions directly. Temperament or regulation of emotions were then characterized from different points of view using terms: self-control, individual differences, biological basis and social skills. These concepts of temperament in selected articles confirm the high degree of difference of approaches to the concept of temperament.
Out of 27 relevant studies, 26 confirmed a statistically significant relationship between temperament and school readiness; see Table 4. In one case (Bryce et al., 2018), the authors did not confirm the relationship between temperament and school readiness, but at the same time they stated that the results support the hypothesis about the indirect influence of positive emotional adjustment in the child on his/her behavior and afterwards on his/her school results. The results of the selected studies indicate that there are differences between boys and girls in the area of temperament, which is then reflected in the level of school readiness; see Table 2. We should therefore consider this fact in the child-raising/educational process. Another thing that needs to be taken into account in the educational process is the relationship between children’s temperament and the temperament of teachers. This relationship can have an impact on school readiness and success at school. Apart from the confirmation of the relationship between temperament and school readiness, the authors of the studies also dealt with the description of this relationship. The authors agree that the inability to manage one’s emotions has a significant influence on one’s behavior, such as the ability to concentrate or intentional attention, and afterwards one’s readiness for school. If an individual is able to manage his/her emotions, he/she is able to react in a socially appropriate manner and is able to focus, and this can facilitate his/her learning, which is a prerequisite for school success.
In 14 out of the 27 cases, there were respondents from a socio-economically disadvantaged environment; see Table 2. The authors do not confirm the direct influence of a socio-economic disadvantage on school readiness or success but characterize the temperament of these children in relation to searching for appropriate upbringing and educational procedures. They also show the success of these procedures, which does not comply, however, with the theories of temperament, which are based on the fact that temperament is inborn and relatively stable (e.g., Orth and Martin, 1994).
In searching for specialized texts focused on the relationship of temperament and school readiness, we repeatedly encountered the concept of the relationship of temperament to cognitive functions. Specifically, temperament is part of effortful control directly related to executive attention (Rothbart et al., 2007). Frick et al. (2018) described the relationship between temperament and cognitive function in their research. Their work focuses on cognitive self-regulation as a set of constructive behaviors that influence cognitive abilities to integrate learning processes. These processes are planned and customized to support the tracking of personal goals in a changing environment. This function already develops when the child is at an early age. When the child is of school age, temperament is associated with cognitive abilities. With regard to the part of the study by Chong et al. (2019) in which they focused on preschool age, the authors report that temperament was less related to cognitive and academic outcomes after parenting and family confusion had been taken into account.
Temperament is considered a predictor of functional attention influenced by individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation in emotion and activity (Rothbart et al., 2006; similarly, Guarnera et al., 2019). Outside the topic of research, but as a critical problem area, there appears the relationship of temperament (especially its projection into the attention) and learning difficulties and the connection with the possibility of special intervention (Commodari, 2012). Gan et al. (2016) draw attention to the possible influence of the environment (rural – city) on temperament and subsequently on children’s school readiness. The quality of the teacher-child relationship or direct teacher intervention can have a positive influence on the relation between emotional regulation and cognitive skills (Commodari, 2013; Guarnera et al., 2017). The relationship of individual components of temperament and cognitive function in school-age children – especially reading, writing, and mathematics – is evidenced in their study (Guarnera et al., 2017).
Discussion and Possible Application in Practice
By analyzing the selected articles, the basis for creating answers to the key questions was obtained.
1. There is a significant relation between temperament and its major dimensions and school readiness.
2. Temperament and its dimensions can affect school success in both directions, positively and negatively.
Children whose Effortful Control is the dominant feature can be assumed to possess the ability to exert control and self-regulate in the field of behavior (Olson et al., 2005).
If the level of Surgency/Extraversion is higher in the context of the child’s behavior, it can be considered a risk factor that affects hyperactivity. To a lesser extent, it can be an inhibitor of the “research approach” but irrespective of the school’s instructions and rules. The presence of the above options can be a source of problems in children’s behavior and thus have a negative effect on school readiness outcomes (Fox et al., 2001). However, manifestations of children’s behavior, as an important element of school readiness, are always the result of the relationship between temperament and its interaction with the environment. For more on this see Rothbart and Putnam (2002).
School attendance and the child’s subsequent success in education can be influenced by more factors. The major factors that experts (Janus, 2007; Merrell and Tymms, 2007; Vágnerová, 2012) list include cognitive functions, motivation, experience, and the child’s temperament. Temperament can influence a child’s functioning during school performance and therefore to some extent either enhance or limit the child’s performance. In mathematics, reading, or other school activities which require the child to calm down, concentrate on the task, and resist stimuli from the surroundings, temperament can be a very important factor (Collings et al., 2017; Ato et al., 2020). Therefore, it can have a negative influence on the performance of a child who is functioning cognitively quite well, but is unable to concentrate, calm down, and detach him- or herself from disturbing stimuli from outside. On the other hand, it can enhance a child’s performance, which might be weaker from the school evaluation perspective. They can, to an adequate extent, reduce their physical activity, calm down, concentrate, and carry out a task to its end.
Al-Hendawi and Reed (2012) argue that the negative emotionality associated with a low level of ability to control expressions of temperament can be a source of problems in social situations in class. In their study, these authors point out the possibility of the overstimulation of children with stimuli from the outside, with a negative effect on their engagement in schoolwork and the quality of their results. Dependency in the teacher-child relationship has a strong correlation with school adjustment difficulties, including poorer academic performance, more negative attitudes to school, and less positive engagement with the school environment (Birch and Ladd, 1997).
In terms of temperament and its introduction into the school environment, there is one potentially conflicting area (Keogh and Prokopcová, 2007). These are situations where the child’s temperament and the temperament of the teacher do not meet in a mutually satisfactory constellation, but are mismatched with each other, creating clashes and having a negative effect on their mutual functioning.
The quality of first-grade classroom environments is based on three domains: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. A high-quality classroom environment may ameliorate the academic and social risks associated with having a difficult temperament (Curby et al., 2011).
Some teachers are active and react quickly, while some are slower and react upon consideration. These differences are reflected in the activities which take place in the classroom, especially in the pace of teaching and in the form of personal interactions and emotional charge. If there is a child in the group with a significantly different temperament to that of the teacher, this difference may be a source of misunderstandings and consequently of failure and demotivation in the child. The child will experience more stressful situations when entering school. Apart from the encounter with the teacher’s temperament, there is also the encounter with the temperaments of the child’s classmates. If it is important to deal with temperament and success at school, it is not on the basis of a construct, but on the actual situation in each classroom and the need to work effectively with these factors. In conclusion, it should be noted regarding the school or class environment that they appear explicitly in only two articles as one of the parameters linked to the temperament of children. In the first case, Al-Hendawi and Reed (2012) are inclined to the concept of the school environment in terms of the creation and functioning of social relations. They work with relationships between children and children and the teacher. In the second article, Bramlett et al. (2000) used the term ‘school environment’ for the social environment and focused on the area of problematic behavior, which is related to the reduced ability of the child to control his or her temperament.
The preschool period of the child is a very important period in which the basics of socio-emotional competence are laid. Their influence on future success in education and in the development of socialization is indisputable. Teachers can use specific programs – such as Head Start or their own active approach – to help children successfully develop self-regulatory behavioral control skills and thus help prepare them for school success (McBryde et al., 2004; McClelland and Wanless, 2012; Brophy-Herb et al., 2018; Booth et al., 2019). In conclusion, the authors cited above agree on temperament as an innate individual reactivity to stimuli that can affect the school success rate of children.
The analysis of the articles also showed that even if the temperament is innate, it can be affected by appropriate interventions, so that it can be used in a positive direction in school success. Methodologically, this study will be used to process a similar study that will focus on the areas of children with visual handicaps.
The focus on texts written in English can thus be a weakness. It is possible that this topic might be covered in other languages, but the results of such studies are not presented here. The authors are aware of possible terminological differences that can occur in the texts, as was the case, for example, with the term ‘temperament’, for which some authors used the term ‘mood’.
PP and MP contributed to the design and implementation of the review, to the analysis of the results, and to the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This work was supported by grant: Palacký University Olomouc: IGA CMTF_2019_006.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Affrunti, N. W., and Woodruff-Borden, J. (2015). The associations of executive function and temperament in a model of risk for childhood anxiety. J. Child Fam. Stud. 24, 715–724. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9881-4
Al-Hendawi, M. (2013). Temperament, school adjustment, and academic achievement: existing research and future directions. Educ. Rev. 65, 177–205. doi: 10.1080/00.131911.2011.648371
Al-Hendawi, M., and Reed, E. (2012). Educational outcomes for children at-risk: the influence of individual differences in children’s temperaments. Int. J. Special Educ. 27, 64–74.
Ashton, M. C. (2013). Biological Bases of Personality. Individual Differences and Personality. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 101–121.
Ato, E., Fernández-Vilar, M. Á, and Galián, M. D. (2020). Relation between temperament and school adjustment in spanish children: a person-centered approach. Front. Psychol. 11:250. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00250
Beceren, B. Ö, and Özdemir, A. A. (2019). Role of temperament traits and empathy skills of preschool children in predicting emotional adjustment. Int. J. Progr. Educ. 15, 91–107. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.7
Belsky, J., and Fearon, R. M. P. (2002). Early attachment security, subsequent maternal sensitivity, and later child development: does continuity in development depend on continuity of caregiving? Attach. Hum. Dev. 4, 361–387. doi: 10.1080/14616730210167267
Birch, S. H., and Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. J. Sch. Psychol. 35, 61–79. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4405(96)00029-5
Blair, C., and Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: a developmental psychobiological approach. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 711–731. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221
Booth, A., O’Farrelly, C., Hennessy, E., and Doyle, O. (2019). Be good, know the rules’: children’s perspectives on starting school and self-regulation. Childhood 26, 090756821984039. doi: 10.1177/0907568219840397
Bramlett, R. K., Scott, P., and Rowell, R. K. (2000). A comparison of temperament and social skills in predicting academic performance in first graders. Special Serv. Sch. 16, 147–158. doi: 10.1300/j008v16n01_10
Brophy-Herb, H. E., Miller, A. L., Martoccio, T. L., Horodynski, M., Senehi, N., Contreras, D., et al. (2018). Do child gender and temperament moderate associations between head start classroom social-emotional climate and children’s social-emotional competencies? Early Child. Res. Q. 47, 518–530. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.001
Bryce, C. I., Goble, P., Swanson, J., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., and Martin, C. L. (2018). Kindergarten school engagement: linking early temperament and academic achievement at the transition to school. Early Educ. Dev. 29, 780–796. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2017.1404275
Buss, A. H., and Plomin, R. (1975). A Temperament Theory of Personality Development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Cole, P., Martin, S., and Dennis, T. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Dev. 75, 317–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004
Collings, A., O’Connor, E., and McClowry, S. (2017). The role of a temperament intervention in kindergarten children’s standardized academic achievement. J. Educ. Training Stud. 5, 120–139. doi: 10.11114/jets.v5i2.2138
Commodari, E. (2013). Preschool teacher attachment, school readiness and risk of learning difficulties. Early Child. Res. Q. 28, 123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.004
Commodari, E. (2012). Attention skills and risk of developing learning difficulties. Curr. Psychol. J. Diver. Perspect. Diver. Psychol. Issues 31, 17–34. doi: 10.1007/s12144-012-9128-3
Curby, T. W., Rudasill, K. M., Edwards, T., and Pérez-Edgar, K. (2011). The role of classroom quality in ameliorating the academic and social risks associated with difficult temperament. Sch. Psychol. Q. 26, 175–188. doi: 10.1037/a0023042
Derryberry, D., and Reed, M. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 111, 225–236. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.225
Derryberry, D., and Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Dev. Psychopathol. 9, 633–652. doi: 10.1017/S0954579497001375
Doherty, G. (2007). Conception to Age Six: The Foundation of School Readiness. Toronto, ON: Learning Partnership.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Guthrie, I., and Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotional and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 138–157. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206
Eisenberg, N., and Morris, A. S. (2002). “Children’s emotion-related regulation,” in Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 30, ed. R. V. Kail (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 189–229.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., and Schmidt, L. A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of life. Child Dev. 72, 1–21. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00262
Frick, M. A., Forslund, T., Fransson, M., Johansson, M., Bohlin, G., and Brocki, K. C. (2018). The role of sustained attention, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament in the development of early self-regulation. Br. J. Psychol. 109, 277–298. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12266
Fung, W. K., Chung, K. K. H., Lam, I. C. B., and Li, N. X. (2020). Bidirectionality in kindergarten children’s school readiness and emotional regulation. Soc. Dev. 00, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/sode.12434
Gaias, L. M., Abry, T., Swanson, J., and Fabes, R. A. (2016). Considering child effortful control in the context of teacher effortful control: implications for kindergarten success. Learn. Individ. Differ. 45, 199–207. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.016
Gan, Y., Meng, L., and Xie, L. (2016). Comparison of school readiness between rural and urban chinese preschool children. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 44, 1429–1442. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.9.1429
Gartstein, M. A., Putnam, S. P., and Kliewe, R. (2016). Do infant temperament characteristics predict core academic abilities in preschool-aged children? Learn. Individ. Differ. 45, 299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.022
Gartstein, M. A., and Rothbart, M. K. (2003). Studying infant temperament via the revised infant behavior questionnaire. Infant Behav. Dev. 26, 64–86. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00169-8
Goldsmith, H. H., and Campos, J. J. (1982). “Toward a theory of infant temperament,” in The Development of Attachment and Affiliative Systems, eds A. N. Emde and R. J. Harmon (New York, NY: Plenum), 161–193. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-4076-8_13
Goldsmith, H. H., and Harman, C. (1994). Temperament and attachment, individuals and relationships. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 3, 53–57. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10769948G
Guarnera, M., Faraci, P., Commodari, E., and Buccheri, S. L. (2017). Mental imagery and school readiness. Psychol. Rep. 120, 1058–1077. doi: 10.1177/0033294117717262
Guarnera, M., Pellerone, M., Commodari, E., Valenti, G. D., and Buccheri, S. L. (2019). Mental images and school learning: a longitudinal study on children. Front. Psychol. 10:2034. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02034
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., and Shelton, T. L. (2003). Regulatory contributors to children’s kindergarten achievement. Early Educ. Dev. 14, 101–119. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1401_7
Chong, S. Y., Chittleborough, C. R., Gregory, T., Lynch, J., Mittinty, M., and Smithers, L. G. (2019). The controlled direct effect of temperament at 2-3 years on cognitive and academic outcomes at 6-7 years. PLoS One 14:e0204189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204189
Iyer, R. V., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eisenberg, N., and Thompson, M. (2010). Peer victimization and effortful control: relations to school engagement and academic achievement. Merrill Palmer Q. (Wayne State Univ. Press) 56, 361–387. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0058
Janus, M. (2007). “The early development instrument: a tool for monitoring children’s development and readiness for school,” in Early Child Development from Measurement to Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity, ed. M. E. Young (Washington, D.C: World Bank), 141–155.
Janus, M., and Gaskin, A. (2013). “School readiness,” in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research, ed. A. C. Michalos (New York, NY: Springer).
Janus, M., and Offord, D. (2000). Reporting on readiness to learn at school in Canada. ISUMA: Can. J. Policy Res. 1, 71–75.
Johnson, A. D., Finch, J. E., and Phillips, D. A. (2019). Associations between publicly funded preschool and low-income children’s kindergarten readiness: the moderating role of child temperament. Dev. Psychol. 55, 623–636. doi: 10.1037/dev0000651
Kagan, J., and Fox, N. A. (2006). “Biology, culture, and temperamental biases,” in Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6 Edn, Vol. 3, eds N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 167–225.
Kagan, J. (1984). Behavioral inhibition in the early years. Infant Behav. Dev. 7:182. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80244-1
Kagan, S. L. (1990). Readiness 2000: rethinking rhetoric and responsibility. Phi Delta Kappan 72, 272–279.
Kagan, S. L. (1992). The Readiness Goal. G.A.O. J. Q. Spons. U.S. Gen. Account. Office, 16, 12–18.
Keogh, B. K. (2003). Temperament in the Classroom: Understanding Individual Differences. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Keogh, B. K., and Prokopcová, L. (2007). Temperament ve tøídì. Grada. Available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=cat03959a&AN=upol.0142569&lang=cs&site=eds-live
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: a developmental perspective. Dev. Psychol. 18, 199–214. doi: 10.1037/0012-16220.127.116.11
Lemelin, J. P., Boivin, M., Forget-Dubois, N., Dionne, G., Séguin, J. R., Brendgen, M., et al. (2007). The genetic-environmental etiology of cognitive school readiness and later academic achievement in early childhood. Child Dev. 78, 1855–1869. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01103.x
Martin, R. P., Drew, K. D., Gaddis, L. R., and Moseley, M. (1988). Prediction of elementary school achievement from preschool temperament: three studies. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 17, 125–137. doi: 10.1080/02796015.1988.12085331
Mashburn, A. J., and Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Educ. Dev. 17, 151–176. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7
McBryde, C., Ziviani, J., and Cuskelly, M. (2004). School readiness and factors that influence decision making. Occup. Ther. Int. 11, 193–208. doi: 10.1002/oti.211
McClelland, M., and Wanless, S. B. (2012). Growing up with assets and risks: the importance of self-regulation for academic achievement. Res. Hum. Dev. 9, 278–297. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2012.729907
Merrell, C., and Tymms, P. (2007). What children know and can do when they start school and how this varies between countries. J. Early Child. Res. 5, 115–134. doi: 10.1177/1476718X07076679
Miller, M. M., and Goldsmith, H. H. (2017). Profiles of social-emotional readiness for 4-year-old kindergarten. Front. Psychol. 8:132. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00132
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Morris, A. S., John, A., Halliburton, A. L., Morris, M. D., Robinson, L. R., Myers, S. S., et al. (2013). Effortful control, behavior problems, and peer relations: what predicts academic adjustment in kindergartners from low-income families? Early Educ. Dev. 24, 813–828. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.744682
Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J., Kerr, D. C. R., Lopez, N. L., and Wellman, H. M. (2005). Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children: The role of effortful control. Dev. Psychopathol. 17:25.
Orth, L., and Martin, R. (1994). Interactive effects of student temperament and instruction method on classroom behavior and achievement. J. Sch. Psychol. 32, 149–166. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(94)90008-6
Pan, Q., Trang, K. T., Love, H. R., and Templin, J. (2019). School readiness profiles and growth in academic achievement. Front. Educ. 4:127. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00127
Paré, G., and Kitsiou, S. (2017). “Methods for literature reviews,” in Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Online], eds F. Lau and C. Kuziemsky (Victoria (BC): University of Victoria).
Pharis, M. E. (1978). Temperament and development. Clin. Soc. Work J. 6, 162–164.
Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., and Snow, K. L. (eds) (2007). School Readiness and the Transition to Kindergarten in the Era of Accountability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Putnam, S. P., and Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the children’s behavior questionnaire. J. Pers. Assess. 87, 102–112. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09
Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., and Rothbart, M. K. (2001). “The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence,” in Advances/Proceedings in Research on Temperament, eds A. Eliasz and A. Angleitner (Lengerich: Pabst Scientist Publisher), 165–182.
Razza, R. A., Martin, A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). The implications of early attentional regulation for school success among low-income children. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 33, 311–319. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev
Rhoades, B. L., Warren, H. K., Domitrovich, C. E., and Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Examining the link between preschool social-emotional competence and first grade academic achievement: the role of attention skills. Early Child. Res. Q. 26, 182–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.003
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., and Brock, L. L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Dev. Psychol. 45, 958–972. doi: 10.1037/a0015861
Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Temperament and the development of inhibited approach. Child Dev. 59, 1241–1250. doi: 10.2307/1130487
Rothbart, M. K., and Bates, J. E. (1998). “Temperament,” in Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Edn, Vol. 3, ed. W. Damon (New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers), 105–176.
Rothbart, M. K., and Bates, J. E. (2006). “Temperament,” in Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, eds N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 99–166.
Rothbart, M. K., and Derryberry, D. (1981). “Development of individual differences in temperament,” in Advances in Developmental Psychology, Vol. 1, eds M. E. Lamb and A. L. Brown (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 37–86.
Rothbart, M. K., and Hwang, J. (2002). Measuring infant temperament. Inf. Behav. Dev. 25, 113–116. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00109-1
Rothbart, M. K., and Putnam, S. P. (2002). “Temperament and socialization,” in Paths to Successful Development, eds L. Pulkkinen and A. Caspi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 19–45. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511489761.002
Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., and Posner, M. I. (2004). “Temperament and self-regulation,” in Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, eds R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (New York, NY: Guilford), 441–460.
Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., and Kieras, J. (2006). “Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation,” in Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development, eds K. McCartney and D. Phillips (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing), 338–357. doi: 10.1002/9780470757703.ch17
Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., and Posner, M. I. (2007). Executive attention and effortful control: Linking temperament, brain networks, and genes. Child Dev. Perspect. 1, 2–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00002.x
Rothbart, M., Ahadi, S., and Evans, D. (2000). Temperament and personality: origins and outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 122–135. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168
Rothbart, M. K., and Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 103, 55–66. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.103.1.55
Rudasill, K. M., and Konold, T. R. (2008). Contributions of children’s temperament to teachers’ judgments of social competence from kindergarten through second grade. Educ. Psychol. Papers Publ. 19, 643–666. doi: 10.1080/10409280802231096
Rudasill, K. M., and Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher–child relationship quality: The roles of child temperament and teacher–child interactions. Educ. Psychol. Papers Publ. 24, 107–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.003
Sawyer, A. C. P., Chittleborough, C. R., Mittinty, M. N., Sullivan, T., Lynch, J. W., Miller-Lewis, L. R., et al. (2019). Are trajectories of self-regulation abilities from ages 2-3 to 6-7 associated with academic achievement in the early school years? Child Care Health Dev. 41, 744–754. doi: 10.1111/cch.12208
Schoen, M. J., and Nagle, R. J. (1994). Prediction of school readiness from kindergarten temperament scores. J. Sch. Psychol. 32, 135–147. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(94)90007-8
Shonkoff, J. P., and Phillips, D. A. (eds). (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Silva, K. M. (2011). Relations of children’s effortful control and teacher–child relationship quality to school attitudes in a low-income sample. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 434–460. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.578046
Spieker, S. J., Nelson, D. C., Petras, A., Jolley, A., and Barnard, C. (2003). Joint influence of child care and infant attachment security for cognitive and language outcomes of low-income toddlers. Inf. Behav. Dev. 26, 326–344. doi: 10.1016/s0163-6383(03)00034-1
Stacks, A., and Oshio, T. (2009). Disorganized attachment and social skills as indicators of Head Start children’s school readiness skills. Attach. Hum. Dev. 11, 143–164. doi: 10.1080/14616730802625250
Sudikoff, E. L., Bertolin, M., Lordo, D. N., and Kaufman, D. A. S. (2015). Relationships between executive function and emotional regulation in healthy children. J. Neurol. Psychol. 1–8.
Thomas, A., and Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and Development. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H. G., Hertzig, M. E., and Korn, S. (1963). Behavioral Individuality in Early Childhood. New York, NY: New York University Press, doi: 10.1037/14328-000
Vágnerová, M. (2012). Psychickı vıvoj dítìte v náhradní rodinné péèi. Praha: Støedisko náhradní rodinné péèe.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., and Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children’s academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 67–77. doi: 10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.124
Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Haugen, R., Spinrad, T. L., Hofer, C., Liew, J., et al. (2011). Children’s effortful control and academic achievement: mediation through social functioning. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 411–433. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2010.505259
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., and Swanson, J. (2010). Prediction of kindergartners’ academic achievement from their effortful control and emotionality: Evidence for direct and moderated relations. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 550–560. doi: 10.1037/a0018992
VanSchyndel, S. K., Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., and Spinrad, T. L. (2017). Relations from temperamental approach reactivity and effortful control to academic achievement and peer relations in early elementary school. J. Res. Pers. 67, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.12.001
Walters, G. (2014). Pathways to early delinquency: exploring the individual and collective contributions of difficult temperament, low maternal involvement, and externalizing behavior. J. Crim. Justice 42, 321–326. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.04.003
Willoughby, M., Kupersmidt, J., Voegler-Lee, M., and Bryant, D. (2011). Contributions of hot and cool self-regulation to preschool disruptive behavior and academic achievement. Dev. Neuropsychol. 36, 162–180. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2010.549980
Zelazo, P. D., and Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool executive function in childhood and adolescence: development and plasticity. Child Dev. Perspect. 6, 354–360.
Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., and Willoughby, M. T. (2016). Executive Function: Implications for Education (NCER 2017-2000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, U.S. Department of Education.
Zentner, M., and Shiner, R. (2012). Handbook of Temperament. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Zhou, Q., Main, A., and Wang, Y. (2010). The relations of temperamental effortful control and anger/frustration to Chinese children’s academic achievement and social adjustment: a longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 180–196. doi: 10.1037/a0015908
Keywords: school readiness, temperament, self-control, preschool age, school success, effortful control
Citation: Potmesilova P and Potmesil M (2021) Temperament and School Readiness – A Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 12:599411. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.599411
Received: 27 August 2020; Accepted: 22 April 2021;
Published: 20 May 2021.
Edited by:Angela Jocelyn Fawcett, Swansea University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:Juan De Dios Benítez Sillero, University of Córdoba, Spain
Elena Commodari, University of Catania, Italy
Copyright © 2021 Potmesilova and Potmesil. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Milon Potmesil, email@example.com