Temperament and childhood group care adjustment: A cross-cultural comparison

Early

Childhood

Research

Quarterly,

6, 211-224

(1991)

Temperament and Childhood Group Care Adjustment: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Helen Altman Wright

State

Klein

University

The context of childhood group care is important for adjustment becauseit can provide a good or a poor fit with individual temperament dimensions. This research investigated “ideals” for temperament dimensions, actual temperament scores, and temperament-adjustment relationships in two cultural contexts: Israel and American early childhood group care. American (22) and Israeli (18) caregivers first provided descriptions of their ideal for a young child’s temperament and then provided temperament and adjustment descriptions for each of six children actually in their care (132 and 108, respectively). The two groups of caregivers held different ideals for children’s temperament and also judged actual children differently. The relationship of temperament to adjustment differed between the groups. The usefulness of the “fit” concept in understanding adjustment is suggested and the potential of contextual manipulations for extending good fit to a wider range of children is explored.

Visits to most good quality early childhood group care facilities in the United States would reveal considerable commonality. Expect to find cubbies for coats and other possessions, a rug for group time, a quiet reading corner, and so on. Rules, routines, and activities would be similar. This sameness is even more striking when American facilities are contrasted with those of other cultures. A line of shoes would greet you as you entered a Japanese nursery school and children would wear distinctive uniforms, often including hats; procedures and play spaces would show differences. Each culture’s child care reflects its values and ideals. We are concerned with how these cultural differences affect the pattern of adjustment shown by individual The author acknowledges the important contributions of Esther Esan and Uri Last. Thanks are also due to the administrators and teachers of cooperating child care centers. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Helen Altman Klein, Department of Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435.

n Received

December

16, 1989;

Revision

received

June

22, 1990;

Accepted

July 3, 1990.

211

212

Klein

children in early childhood group care. Cultural differences that separate caregivers from the families whom they serve are of particular importance in contemporary American early childhood group care. Cross-cultural comparisons allow an assessment of universal as well as particular components of development (KagitQbaSi & Berry, 1989). We can learn what is characteristic of all children as well as what patterns are particular to specific cultures. Cross-cultural comparisons also provide clues for understanding how individual biological variables find expression in different ecological and social settings (Pepitone & Triandis, 1987). Mead’s (1928) work with adolescents, for example, was important because it suggested that the universal biological changes of puberty found expression that varied with socio-cultural environment. Children are exposed to and adjust to culturally varying physical and social settings, child care and rearing practices, and caregiver styles (Harkness & Super, 1987; Super & Harkness, 1986). The present research examined the role of individual temperament dimensions on adjustment to early childhood group care in two cultural contexts. The goal was to learn about the function of context so that contextual features might, potentially, be varied to better serve children with a full range of temperaments. The concept of temperament has been used to describe a rich array of long-term and enduring features of behavior shown by the individual (e.g., Buss & Plomin, 1975; Eysenck, 1967; Goldsmith et al., 1987; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Individual patterns of behavioral responding are seen from birth (Brazelton, 1973). Within an interactive view of adjustment, the individual’s temperament is seen as providing the basis for active involvement with the world (Bell, 1968; Belsky & Tolan, 1981). The child’s temperament influences first the parent’s and then the teacher’s behavior. It also alters the physical world and modulates the experiences that the child will have (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989; Lerner & Busch-Rossnagel, 1981; Starr & McCartney, 1983). A baby who sleeps long and regularly at night, for example, will tend to have a well-rested mother, whereas a baby who wakes frequently at night and screams will be more likely to have a sleep-deprived, irritable mother. A preschooler who is shy and initially withdrawing in new situations will elicit different teacher behaviors than one who is outgoing and approaching in new situations and to new people. The goodness-of-fit model provides a framework for including context in considerations of temperament and adjustment relationships (Gordon, 1981; Keogh & Pullis,1980; Lerner & Lerner, 1983; Thomas & Chess, 1977, 1984). The model suggests that the match between temperament dimensions and features/demands of the context is related to the child’s adjustment. These contextual demands can be attitudes, behavioral attributes, or physical characteristics (Lerner, 1984). If there is a good fit between contextual demands and the child’s temperament, then the child will be viewed posi-

Temperament

and Group

Care

Adjustment

213

tively. A highly active toddler may be viewed positively in a “childproofed” home where spunk is prized, but he or she may be viewed as destructive and disobedient in a home where quiet and order are desired. The persistent child might be viewed positively in a loosely structured, task-oriented kindergarten but negatively where rapid compliance to activity changes are expected. Culturally derived features of context may contribute to the goodness-offit of the individual. Cultures differ in the demands, standards, and values held for children (de Vries & Sameroff, 1984; Hold-Cavell, Attili, & Schlerdt, 1986; Super & Harkness, 1981). The concept of ecological niche proposes that some contexts are particularly suitable or unsuitable for the development of children with particular temperaments (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Super & Harkness, 1986). In a culture where social interdependence is valued, the social introvert may be judged as poorly adjusted in school. In an isolated farming community, however, introversion may be more adaptive than gregariousness. Children whose temperament conforms to the culturally driven demands and features of group care may be judged as higher in adjustment. The present research was concerned with Israeli and American early childhood group care. These countries are similar in that both have heterogeneous populations. For reasons related to ideology, history, and pragmatics, however, the context of development in Israel shows some differences from that of the United States. Research with Israeli subjects has reported differences in individual characteristics and adjustment (e.g., Madsen & Shapiro, 1977; Rim, 1975/1976). Amir and Sharon (1987) replicated six major American journal studies with Israeli samples and reported both similarities and differences in results. Because of these differences, Israeli-American comparisons may be useful in beginning a delineation of the universal versus particular impacts of temperament on adjustment patterns. The present research investigated the differences in ideal temperaments expressed by child caregivers of the two cultures as reflective of culturally different views of children. The study also looked at actual temperament and adjustment scores assigned to American and Israeli children. It was expected that the relationships between measures of temperament and measures of adjustment would differ to the extent that cultural ideals required different “fits.” Eight dimensions of temperament were defined in terms of the New York Longitudinal Study dimensions (Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzog, & Korn, 1963) using the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire developed by Keogh, Pullis, and Cadwell (1982). The temperaments were activity level, adaptability, approach/withdrawal, distractibility, intensity, persistence, mood, and threshold of responsiveness. The adjustment score included relationships with peers and adult caregivers as well as fit with the group care program.

214

Klein

METHOD Site

This study was undertaken in five (5) child care centers in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Israel, and in seven (7) child care centers in a metropolitan area of southwestern Ohio. At least two caregivers participated at each center. All centers provided full day care for participating children and had similar programs of preschool activities. Preschool centers in Israel have been strongly influenced by American educators and this is reflected in the programs. The participating programs were representative of the range of centers available to children in the region. In each sample country there were both urban and suburban centers. The two samples were selected from centers serving families who were mainstream within their culture with regard to social, educational, and occupational levels. The Israeli centers included ones sponsored by civic organizations, a community center, a religious group, and a university. Children served by the programs were from a wide range of Jerusalem Jewish families in terms of national origin. Kibbutz centers were not included nor were so called “ultra orthodox” centers. The American centers were sponsored by churches, civic organizations, a cooperative group, and private enterprises. The children served by the centers were from a range of area families. The Israeli sample, mirroring national differences, had greater diversity than did the midwestern American sample. Israeli families had economic levels reflecting the lower economic levels of the country. Participants

Participants in this study were female caregivers in preschool programs. All caregivers had been employed at least 3 months as a head teacher in their center, and all had undergone training in human development as mandated by their respective governmental regulations. The ages of caregivers in both settings ranged from the early 20s to the late 50s. The teachers worked with toddlers and preschool-aged children; some centers grouped children by age and some had mixed-age groupings. The 18 Israeli caregivers were primarily of Asian and Northern African cultural background, the remaining were from Eastern European or English-speaking backgrounds. They were predominantly Israeli born and each had received all of her education in Israel. The 22 American caregivers were predominantly white (n = 20) with two African-Americans, and all were American born and educated. Although there was considerable variability within each sample of caregivers, the focus of the sudy was on differences between groups. Each caregiver contributed a temperament rating for a hypothetical “ideal” child, as well as temperament and adjustment ratings for six children in their care. Overall, ratings from 132 American children and 108

Temperament

Israeli in this judged logical

and Group

Care

Adjustment

215

children were included in the analysis. Each of the children included study had spent at least 3 months in the care of the rater and each was by the Program Director to be free of severe emotional or psychoproblems.

Materials

Materials for this study consisted of two versions of an Adjustment Ranking Scale and four versions of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire. Material development followed procedures standard in cross-cultural research. All material was translated from English to Hebrew and then independently back to English by fully bilingual translators. The Adjustment Ranking Scales provided the mechanism for caregivers to assess the adjustment of children. Instructions were provided for the completion of the scale. The names of 10 children in their care were listed. Three columns were provided for rankings of Peer Adjustment, Program Adjustment and Adjustment to Adults. One version of the scale was in English and one was in Hebrew. The Keogh et al. (1982) Short Form of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire was the basis for temperament assessment. A complete description of the development and psychometric analysis of the tool is given in Keogh et al. The instructions for two forms asked for a description of an ideal child for a group care setting, and the other two forms asked for assessments of actual children in their group. One ideal and one actual form was in English and the others were in Hebrew. The 23-item Teacher Temperament Questionnaire included between two and four questions for each temperament. Activity items queried the child’s difficulty or ease in sitting still during activities or story time. Adaptability examined the child’s pattern of becoming comfortable in new and unfamiliar situations such as different classrooms, new games or activities. Approach/ withdrawal focused on the child’s immediate response to new activities or new children. Distractibility was concerned with the child’s pattern of maintaining attention with the challenge of noise and classroom activity. Intensity tapped the magnitude of the child’s reactions to environmental stressors. Persistence dealt with the child’s pattern of keeping with ongoing activity or returning to interrupted activities. Mood tapped the child’s affective response to activities and people in the classroom. Finally, threshold examined sensitivity to environmental factors such as light and temperature. Intensity was excluded from final analysis because it showed low internal consistency. The questionnaire presented the items and provided a format for responses. Each of the items described a behavior such as “If child’s activity is interrupted, he/she tries to go back to the activity.” The participant was asked to circle 6 if this was very descriptive of the child, 1 if this was not at all descriptive of the child, and intermediate numbers to show weaker posi-

216

Klein

tive or negative descriptive levels. The direction of the statements varied to avoid response bias. Procedures

Permission to undertake this research came from the administration of the sponsoring organization or from the program site director. Informal as well as semistructured observation preceded data collection. At each site, data were collected with some flexibility to serve the convenience and needs of the center. For example, some of the data were collected during group meetings, whereas the rest was collected in sessions with one or two caregivers. Some data were collected during the work day, primarily during nap time, and some was collected before or after the work day. When group data were collected, care was taken that each teacher work independently. The Teacher Temperament Questionnaire was first used by caregivers to describe an ideal child. The caregiver was instructed to complete each item on the scale for a hypothetical ideal child: a child whom they believe would make the best possible adjustment to their preschool center taking into account peers, program, and adults. The Adjustment Ranking Scale was the next part of the study. Each caregiver was given the scale listing the names of 10 children in her group. There were 5 girls and 5 boys who were selected randomly from among children who met study criteria. Each caregiver was asked to use her professional judgment to rank the children in three ways: peer, program, and adult/caregiver adjustment. They were first asked to rank each of the 10 children according to the adjustment that he or she showed with peers: forming good, healthy, age-appropriate relationships. The child on the list whom they believed showed the best peer adjustment was designated 10, whereas the child with the worst was designated 1, other children were to be assigned ranks 2 to 9. In a parallel way, the caregivers then ranked program adjustment: adjusting to curriculum, routines, and schedules of the program. Finally, each caregiver ranked adjustment to adults developing healthy and age-appropriate relationships with adult staff members in the center. Rankings were used because pilot work found Israeli caregivers and educators reluctant to rate children less than highly adjusted. This reflected cultural ideology about children and may well be consistent with other aspects of child care. Finally, the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire was used to collect actual temperament scores for 6 of the children whose names had appeared on each of the caregivers adjustment scales. The 6 were selected to include 3 mates and 3 females such that the 6 children would have an overall mean adjustment close to 5.5, the mean of the 10 rankings. In this way, each caregiver rated children who were similar in relative adjustment. Temperament

Temperament

and Group

Care

Adjustment

217

scores were collected from only 6 subjects because the time required fit the constraints of many of the centers. RESULTS Questionnaire responses from each participant were used to determine a score for each temperament dimension for the “ideal” and scores for each temperament dimension for each of six children. The “6” end of the scale was associated with low activity, positive mood, high persistence, low distractibility, an approaching and adaptive style, and a high threshold. SAS programs were used for all data analysis. Group Differences in Ideal Characteristics of Children’s Temperament Differences in ideal temperament scores reported by the American and Israeli child caregivers were assessed with a multivariate analysis of variance computed with the seven temperament dimensions as within-subject factors. The results of the MANOVA showed a significant Country effect, F(7,32) = 5.13, p = .0005, with the F statistic approximation using Wilks’ Lambda. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the seven ideal temperament dimensions for the Israelis and Americans along with the F values from a comparison of each temperament dimension between countries. There were three dimensions for which significant differences were found. The American ideal was lower on activity, more positive in mood, and higher in adaptability. Group Differences in Actual Temperament Dimensions of Children To assess actual temperament differences between countries, a MANOVA was computed with the seven temperament dimensions as within-subject factors. The results of the MANOVA showed a significant Country effect, F(7,232) = 8.06, p = .CKKIl, with the F statistic approximation using Wilks’ Lambda. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for temperament scores for each group along with the F values for the comparisons for each temperament dimension between countries. Three of the temperament dimensions showed significant differences. American caregivers judged children to be more positive in mood, lower in distractibility, and higher in adaptability than did Israeli caregivers. Gender differences in the actual temperament scores and adjustment scores for the two countries were examined by using a MANOVA for the seven temperament dimensions and the three adjustment dimensions. The results of the MANOVA did not show an overall significant effect, F(10,228) = 1.77, p = .067 1, with the F statistic approximation using Wilks’ Lambda. Table 2 provides a comparison of actual temperament scores and adjustment ratings by gender for the Israeli and the American samples as well as for the groups

Table 1. A Comparison of Ideal Temperament Scores and Actual Temperament Scores for Israeli and American Samples: Means and Standard Deviations lsrneli Temperament’

American

M

SD

M

SD

F Ratio

4.7 4.2 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.3 3.5

0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.6

5.4 5.3 4.8 4.7 4.9 5.1 3.9

0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.3

10.10** 29.56+* 0.31 I .44 2.72 6.77’+ 1.04

3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 4.0

I .6 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 I.2 I.4

3.8 4.3 3.5 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.1

1.4 0.7 1.2 I.2 I .4 I.2 I.1

0.04 22.99++ 0.32 7.92+* 0.12 13.55++ 0.65

Ideal Activity Mood Persistence Distractibility Approach/withdrawal Adaptability Threshold

Actual Activity Mood Persistence Distractibility Approach/withdrawal Adaptability Threshold

B The high (6) end of the scale denotes /o)ver activity, tractibility, approach, adaptability, and low threshold. l p< .05. l *p