Holder, M. D., & Klassen, A. (2010). Temperament and happiness in children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 419-439. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9149-2
The article under discussion focuses on personality traits as predictors for happiness levels in children: the authors seek to clarify the correlation between the EAS model of temperament and happiness in childhood. The primary large-scale purpose of the research is to clarify relations between temperament and happiness following the pattern of similar researches in adulthood, identify personality traits, which are especially important for happiness and, by this, contribute to efficiency of programs improving children’s wellbeing. The findings illustrated in the article are consistent with the general tendencies from research in adults: traits related to neuroticism inform lower levels of happiness, while traits related to extraversion increase its level.
Critique: Purpose & Research Focus
Is the objective of the experiment appropriate, relevant and important for psychology and/or personality theory?
Critique: Methods
Are the experimental methods adequately described? Were the experimental design and methods appropriate for the research question?
The research question is rather concrete and implies the need for high generalizability of results. Therefore, quantitative approach selected by the authors is rather appropriate and reasonable. Moreover, the quantitative research design involves appropriate data collection methods, i.e., questionnaires. An especially objective-appropriate aspect of research design is the type of questionnaires that are more understandable for children. At the same time, the authors collected data both from children themselves and from parental reports reflected in several questionnaires (including EAS Temperament Survey and Faces Scale). Parents as the primary source of information about children’s temperament appear to be rather reliable, because they are the primary observers of children’s behavior.
The experimental methods of the study are described carefully and adequately: the authors describe the study sample, general design of the qualitative research and specific scales used to measure predictor and criterion variables. In addition, research procedures are described succinctly and informatively.
Was the target sample population appropriate for this study? Does the sample of this study allow for generalizability of results?
The sample selected for the research is completely consistent with the research objective: the authors focus their attention on children’s temperament as a predictor of happiness. The sample size is 320 children aged 9-12 years and their parents, which is a rather appropriate size allowing for generalizability of the research findings. The method of sampling is described in a rather detailed way; it is consistent with general ethical guidelines. However, it is not quite clear what are justification for selection of the age range: the authors provide no background on this aspect. It would have been more convincing if the authors had justified criteria for age range selection with some developmental or personality theories, for the EAS temperament theory does in involve clearly defined age divisions in temperament development.
What measures were used to assess personality? Are the measurements valid and reliable? What other measures would you have liked to see included in the study?
The research employs a range of scales and measurement inventories targeting the selected personality traits and aspects, that is, three main traits of the temperament theory and happiness level. The primary measurement instrument used to assess temperament is, beyond all doubt, appropriate and reliable as it is the scale developed by the theorists – the EAS Temperament Survey assessing emotionality, activity and sociability. Other measures used by the researchers include Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, Faces Scale and Subjective Happiness Scale for children. For parents, the Faces Scale and the Emotionality Activity and Sociability Temperament Survey scales were used. A significant achievement in measurement design of this research is an attempt to adapt the EAS scale for children’s self-report. Given that the authors applied quite a few reliable measurement instruments including the original EAS scale related to the temperament theory (both its basic version and a version adjusted for children’s self-report), it is reasonable to suggest that no other measures are needed in this research. Are the procedures relevant, clear and appropriate? Is there enough detail in the procedures to enable replication?
Research procedures used by the authors are relevant and appropriate; moreover, there is a detailed description of steps taken by the authors, from stages of sampling to data collection and analysis. Given that there are certain adjustments of measurement instruments made for this study, for instance, adaptation of the EAS Survey and application of Likert-type scales in children’s questionnaires; the authors provide enough details about these adjustments. Therefore, the procedures are adequate, properly described and could be replicated in further studies in the field.
Critique: Results & Conclusions
Are the statistical methods appropriate for the data and research design?
In this study, the data collected with help of several measurement tools turned out to be multidimensional and required detailed analysis. Therefore, the authors applied a number of statistical methods to process the data and reveal correlations between criterion and predictor variables: e.g., structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis for self-reported and parent happiness ratings, descriptive analysis, correlational analysis and multiple regression analysis. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in order to prove reliability of the child version of the EAS Temperament Survey. Using this method, the authors proved reliability and efficiency of this measurement tool in the given area of research and complemented the findings on reliability of the survey’s French version by confirming that the survey’s English version is also understood well by children starting with 9 years of age. Overall, one might conclude that the statistical methods of data processing were designed accurately and described in detail by the authors. Are the findings generalizable? To whom? What limitations exist in generalizing the findings?
The findings fill in the gaps existing in studies of temperament and happiness and are consistent with findings of similar studies focused on correlations between happiness and temperament measures in adults. Another important aspect of the study results is that they prove significance of temperament for wellbeing not just in adulthood but also in childhood when temperament is still in the process of development and is somewhat malleable and susceptible to environmental influences. Generalizability of these findings is ensured by the size of the sample, use of multiple authoritative measurement tools and validity of children’s self-report supported by confirmatory analysis. However, there are limitations in generalizability of the research findings that are explained by involvement of a rather homogeneous population sample: the sample does not take cultural and socioeconomic factors into account.
Were there important points, issues or ideas that were left out? Are there issues that you believe deserved greater attention?
As the researchers themselves note, lack of attention to cultural factors in research of relations between temperament and happiness is a significant limitation of the study. The population for research was rather homogeneous and cultural, social and economic factors were virtually left out. However, these factors deserve greater attention in further research in the field as they tend to produce a significant impact on wellbeing of families and – as a result – of children.
Are the conclusions of the study appropriate? Has the author overemphasized or under-emphasized any findings?
Conclusion: Overall Value
What are the key strengths and weaknesses of this study?
The research under discussion possesses multiple strengths, while its main advantage is, beyond all doubt, discovery of relations between temperament and happiness in a previously understudied age group. Moreover, the authors managed to prove validity of the adjusted EAS Survey and Face Scales versions and demonstrate children’s ability for self-report. At the same time, reliability of the findings is supported by the methodology used in the study, that is, by use of more than one sources of data. While parental reports can be biased and parent cannot be fully aware of children’s inner psychological states, children’s reports make the picture complete and allow the authors to draw more comprehensive and unbiased conclusions. Speaking about weaknesses, one should not overlook lack of attention to external factors affecting happiness and temperament such as culture, socioeconomic status or family background.
How does this research add to our understanding of personality or personality theory?
Focusing on the theory of temperament, the study helps us form a deeper understanding of temperament’s effect on development and wellbeing of a personality. The findings show how inherent personality traits, i.e., dimensions of temperament, can affect one’s psychological and overall wellbeing even at a rather early age. Respectively, we can see that these inherent traits could maintain their influence even in such a turbulent and ‘malleable’ period as late childhood and, in fact, predict later developments of personality and the multitude of its traits. What is your opinion of the value of this study? Support your position.
Reference List
Holder, M. D., & Klassen, A. (2010). Temperament and happiness in children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 419-439. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9149-2
