What Is Temperament Now? Assessing Progress in Temperament Research on the TwentyFifth Anniversary of Goldsmith etal. ()

The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of research on the fundamentals of temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time. KEYWORDS—childhood development; temperament change; personality traits; environmental effects; genes At the 1985 meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, H. Hill Goldsmith convened a roundtable conversation among leading temperament researchers to address foundational questions about the nature of temperament. Following the roundtable, many of the panelists summarized the discussion in a now-classic 1987 article, “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches.” This seminal article highlighted four compelling temperament theories—those of Goldsmith, Mary Rothbart, Alexander Thomas and Stella Chess, and Arnold Buss and Robert Plomin—and articulated the key questions to be addressed by this burgeoning field: How should temperament be defined and distinguished from related individual differences? What are its key elements? How does it develop? In this article, we reflect on what has been learned about the nature of child temperament in the 25 years since the publication of this important paper. We begin by updating the 1987 consensus definition of temperament in light of new research. Next, four “progeny” trained in each of the original temperament traditions assess progress in key aspects of their respective theories. Finally, we pose essential questions for the next generation of research on temperament. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE DEFINITION OF