Fear and positive affectivity in infancy: Convergence/discrepancy between parent-report and laboratory-based indicators

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.10.012Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examined convergence between indicators of infant temperament derived via parent-report and those obtained in the context of structured laboratory observations. Discrepancies between scores resulting from these methodological approaches were examined in an attempt to explain these differences by considering multiple reporter (i.e., parent) characteristics. Convergence between the two sources of information was hypothesized; however, discrepancies were also expected. This study was aimed at examining whether increased maternal depression and low parenting self-efficacy were related to higher levels of infant fear and decreased positive affectivity, as reported by mothers, relative to the scores derived from the laboratory procedure. Results indicated that the fear scores based on parent-report and structured observations, respectively, were significantly correlated; however, the correlation for smiling and laughter scores did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, parents higher in negative affect reported a higher level of fear for their infants, relative to the results of the laboratory observation.

Introduction

Although the construct of temperament has a long-standing history, the study of temperament in children, focusing on its developmental course, represents a relatively recent endeavor. Multiple approaches to understanding temperament exist, with some variability in the views of what temperament truly represents, and what traits constitute temperament. Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) define temperament as “constitutional differences in reactivity and self-regulation” (p. 37). Their view encompasses the behavioral, as well as the biological elements of temperament (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Reactivity, in this definition, is reflected by an individual's autonomic nervous system reactions to modifications in the environment. Self-regulation is defined as the “processes functioning to modulate this reactivity, e.g., attentional and behavioral patterns of approach and avoidance” (p. 37). The notion of “constitutional basis” of temperament refers to the relatively enduring biological make-up of the individual, influenced by heredity, maturation, and experience (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981).

To assess the different aspects of temperament in infancy, several methods have been widely utilized, including parent-report questionnaires and laboratory observations. Parent-report is beneficial because parents are able to observe their children in a variety of situations and different times of the day. Hence, parents can provide a vast amount of information regarding their child's behavior. Laboratory observations, on the other hand, allow researchers to control the environment, allowing them to compare children's behavior in similar situations, and considerably reducing potential external influences on child behavior (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).

However, each of these approaches is associated with certain limitations. Kagan (1998), for example, criticized the use of parent-report, noting that parents tend to form a consistent disposition toward their child, although parents’ prior experiences with the child may not have been that consistent. Another limiting factor of parent-report, according to Kagan (1998), is that parents unwittingly make comparisons when judging characteristics of their child, which are subject to the influence of prior experiences not related to their child's temperament. Fortunately, a number of concerns raised by Kagan (1998) can be addressed by careful construction and presentation of items, asking about only recently occurring events, and inquiring about concrete infant behaviors rather than asking the parents to make abstract or comparative judgments (Rothbart & Goldsmith, 1985). Rothbart (1981) also cautioned that parent-report measures of temperament were not independent of the home environment of the child. Although methodological concerns related to potential sources of error have been often raised in relation to caregiver report questionnaires (e.g., Kagan, 1994, Kagan, 1998), these also extend to the laboratory observation measures (Goldsmith & Rothbart, 1991; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Sources of observational error include those related to the characteristics of the rater, effects of the measure on child behaviors, and interactions between rater characteristics and child behavior (Rothbart & Goldsmith, 1985).

Laboratory observations could also be problematic because only a limited set of behaviors may be evoked in this artificial setting, primarily due to the necessarily short time frame of the assessment. Additionally, carryover effects represent a significant threat when repeated testing is required (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Carryover effects could be reduced by including alternative methods for assessing temperament constructs, and combining scores derived from these alternative techniques in multimethod composites. The novelty of the new environment could also affect the infant's behavior because the novelty may make the child wary/fearful, making the behavior exhibited in the laboratory not representative of the behavior in the home environment (Rothbart & Goldsmith, 1985). Thus, the child could be less likely to display positive affect in the laboratory relative to more familiar settings (e.g., home). In addition, thus far no single laboratory observation protocol has been established as the “gold standard” on the basis of research addressing reliability and validity of this methodological approach. Rather, multiple structured observation procedures have been developed, and their use has varied widely across different laboratories (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).

Upon considering these methodological issues, it has become apparent that neither parental report nor laboratory observations alone represent infallible assessment tools for the evaluation of infant temperament. However, a more comprehensive and representative picture of the infant's behavior can be obtained by utilizing both methodological approaches in tandem, having demonstrated their convergence (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). This construct-building approach has enabled researchers to study convergence between different sources of information, presumably reflecting temperament “true scores.” Inclusion of the structured laboratory observations and the parent-report measures has also enabled researchers to evaluate temperament from a multitrait-multimethod matrix perspective (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). This framework could be utilized to ensure that consistent indicators of each trait are provided by the different methodological approaches, and/or discern that a given temperament score is sufficiently different from the other attribute scores. More recently, a number of important investigations addressing temperament have relied on multimethod temperament assessments (e.g., Goldsmith & Campos, 1990; Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997), having demonstrated convergence between caregiver report and laboratory observations. For example, Kochanska, Murray, et al. (1997) found significant correlations (r = .35) between parent-report and laboratory observations of inhibitory control, a regulation-related domain of temperament. However, relatively little attention has been devoted to understanding discrepancies that regularly arise between indices reflecting parents’ perceptions and laboratory-based measures.

Convergence between these two sets of measures could be at least in part explained by parental depression. Results of multiple studies have indicated that higher levels of depressive symptoms may lead to parental over-reporting of child behavior problems and subsequent increase in disagreement with other sources of information (Fergusson, Lynskey, & Horwood, 1993; Richters & Pellegrini, 1989). Additionally, research has shown that maternal perception of the child as temperamentally “difficult” was related to maternal depression (Whiffen, 1990), with more depressed mothers reporting greater levels of “difficult” temperament. Whiffen (1990) also found that parental disagreement concerning their child's temperament increased when the mother reported higher levels of depression. Other researchers found that both depressed mothers as well as their partners reported their child as having a more “difficult” temperament (Edhborg, Seimyr, Lundh, & Widström, 2000). Neither of these studies used measures of child temperament that did not rely on parental report, which is noteworthy because it is not possible to determine whether the children of depressed mothers truly possess more “difficult” temperament characteristics, or whether there is maternal bias associated with elevated levels of depression, leading to over-reporting of the challenging child temperament attributes. The author of a meta-analysis of 17 studies examining the relationship between infant temperament and postpartum depression reported a moderate relationship between these two factors (Beck, 1996). However, Beck (1996) also warned readers that the results should be interpreted with caution given that most studies only used maternal reports of infant temperament, which is problematic because these reports may have been distorted due to the mothers’ depressive symptoms, and additional sources of information (e.g., observations) are necessary in order to distinguish potential “distortion” effects of parental depression (Beck, 1996).

To our knowledge, Leerkes and Crockenberg (2003) conducted the only study examining the influence of maternal depression on the divergence between laboratory-based and parent-report measures of infant temperament. Specifically, the effect of depressive symptoms on caregiver-reported and observed infant negative emotionality was studied. The participating mothers completed a depression rating scale, and infant negative emotionality was measured utilizing two subscales of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ; Rothbart, 1981): Distress to Limitations and the Distress and Latency to Approach Sudden or Novel Stimuli. Infant negative emotionality was also measured in the laboratory via novelty and limitation tasks (Leerkes & Crockenberg, 2003). It was found that the report of highly depressed mothers was less concordant with laboratory-based observations of distress to novelty, compared to the information provided of less depressed caregivers.

The study by Leerkes and Crockenberg (2003) represents an important step in explaining factors contributing to the discrepancy between different sources of information regarding infant temperament, but a number of questions remain. First, parent and parent–child interaction characteristics other than those addressed in the study (e.g., parent temperament and self-efficacy) may contribute to these disagreements. Second, discrepancies between parent-report and observation-based indicators related to infant temperament characteristics associated with positive emotionality represent another important area for research to examine.

For example, it is of interest to study whether maternal temperament, particularly negative emotionality/neuroticism, is related to over- or under-reporting of infant temperament characteristics, relative to observational indicators, given that higher maternal prenatal depression has been linked to increased incongruence between caregiver-report and observational measures of temperament (Leerkes & Crockenberg, 2003). Maternal negative emotionality was related to child problem behaviors, measured through observational techniques and maternal report (Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman, 1997). A maternal negative emotionality composite, constructed across multiple self-report indices (e.g., neuroticism, physiological sensitivity to stress, etc.) was negatively related with mother-reported child outcomes, such as attachment security and internalization of family rules, and positively correlated with mother-reported behavioral problems (Kochanska, Clark, et al., 1997). The contribution of this negative affectivity personality constellation to discrepancies between parent-report and observation-based indicators of child problem behaviors was not examined in the context of this study, but is of interest, given the reported associations with increased problem behaviors and decreased attachment security and internalization.

Maternal self-efficacy represents another factor that may influence the discrepancy between parental report and laboratory measures of infant temperament. Previous research has found that maternal self-efficacy, assessed through a self-report measure, was negatively related to infant difficulty, also evaluated through maternal report (Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Unfortunately, due to this study's reliance on maternal-report it is unclear whether low caregiver self-efficacy was indeed associated with more difficult infant temperament or whether mothers low in self-efficacy tended to perceive their infants as more difficult, even though the children may not be observed to behave in this manner by others. It is conceivable that mothers of children with more challenging temperament presentations (e.g., irritable, easily frustrated, etc.) do not perceive their self-efficacy to be at the same levels as the caregivers of less demanding infants. On the other hand, maternal perceived self-competence may act in a manner similar to depression, leading to inaccurate perceptions of child behavior that accentuate the negative aspects of his/her presentation.

The purpose of this study was to explore potential explanations for the discrepant findings based on parent-report and structured laboratory observations of infant temperament. Previous research has demonstrated low to moderate agreement between parent-report and other sources of information addressing infant temperament (e.g. Carter, Little, Briggs-Gowan, & Kogan, 1999; Field & Greenberg, 1982), making it important to address factors contributing to discrepancies, along with formulating composite scores based on convergent information provided by the different sources. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that infant temperament data collected in the context of structured laboratory observations and information based on parent-report questionnaires would converge to a significant extent. That is, significant correlations were expected among parent-report derived measures of infant temperament and laboratory observation indicators. Second, it was anticipated that maternal depression would be related to increased reports of infant fearfulness, compared to fearfulness measured in the laboratory.

Additional analyses were aimed at exploring factors potentially contributing to the discrepancies between laboratory observation and parent-report based temperament score. Specifically, a question of whether maternal depression would be associated with decreased reporting of positive affectivity (i.e., smiling/laughter), thus leading to another area of discrepancy between the two methodological approaches in addition to the already identified negative emotionality, was addressed. The relationship between perceived maternal efficacy and potential discrepancies between parent-report and laboratory observations of infant temperament was also examined, in order to determine if lower levels of parenting efficacy would be related to increased reports of Fear and decreased reporting of smiling/laughter, as compared to laboratory measurements. The relationship between maternal temperament and discrepancies observed between the two sources of information regarding infant temperament was also explored. Specifically, the contributions of maternal positive and negative affectivity to discrepancies between parental reports of infant fear and smiling/laughter, respectively, relative to observation-based indicators, were examined.

Section snippets

Participants

The sample consists of 68 families with infants (19 infants were 6 months, 25 were 9 months, and 24 were 12 months of age), who completed the laboratory assessment, as well as the questionnaires. This group of families was recruited to ensure an approximately equivalent age and gender distribution (36 of the infants were male and 32 were female). Eight additional families completed the laboratory assessment only due to time constraints (i.e., they did not complete the questionnaire portion of

Development of construct

First, Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were examined for fear and smiling/laughter laboratory-based indicators. Indices associated with significant correlations were subsequently subjected to a factor analytic examination and an evaluation of internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach's alphas were computed). Exploratory factor analysis (Principal Axis extraction) was conducted to develop the laboratory-based fear composite, using the previously coded fear-related behavioral indices

Discussion

This study was designed to address two inter-related goals: (1) establish convergence between the laboratory-based temperament composites and parent-report ratings of temperament; (2) determine which factors influenced discrepancies between these two approaches to the measurement of infant temperament. As anticipated, fear assessed in the laboratory was significantly correlated with the fear indicator derived from parental report on the IBQ-R. However, contrary to our hypothesis, the laboratory

References (40)

  • A.S. Carter et al.

    The infant-toddler social and emotional assessment (ITSEA): Comparing parent ratings to laboratory observations of task mastery, emotion regulation, coping behaviors, and attachment status

    Infant Mental Health Journal

    (1999)
  • A.M. Duhig et al.

    Interparental agreement on internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems: A meta-analysis

    Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

    (2000)
  • M. Edhborg et al.

    Fussy child-difficult parenthood? Comparisons between families with a “depressed” mother and non-depressed mother 2 months postpartum

    Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology

    (2000)
  • J.R. Edwards

    Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology

  • Evans, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (2003). A hierarchical model of temperament and the Big Five. Manuscript in...
  • D.M. Fergusson et al.

    The effect of maternal depression on maternal ratings of child behavior

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1993)
  • T. Field et al.

    Temperament ratings by parents and teachers of infants, toddlers, and preschool children

    Child Development

    (1982)
  • M.A. Gartstein et al.

    Maternal dysphoria and child behavior problems: A mediational model

    Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing

    (2004)
  • M.A. Gartstein et al.

    Cross-cultural differences in the first year of life: United States of America (U.S.) and Russia

    International Journal of Behavioural Development

    (2003)
  • H.H. Goldsmith et al.

    The structure of temperamental fear and pleasure in infants: A psychometric perspective

    Child Development

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    Acknowledgement: This work was funded by the United States of America National Institute of Mental Health Behavioral Science Track Award for Rapid Transition (R3MH61831A) to the first author.

    View full text