ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018
Perspectives on two temperamental biases.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Grades: Temperament and Interests, but Not School Grades, Highlight Distinct Polymathic Learning Abilities.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- The centrality of temperament to the research domain criteria (RDoC): The earliest building blocks of psychopathology.Development and psychopathology · 2021Article
- Taxonomies of psychological individual differences: biological perspectives on millennia-long challenges.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Article
- Assessing the continuum between temperament and affective illness: psychiatric and mathematical perspectives.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Review
- Diversity in action: exchange of perspectives and reflections on taxonomies of individual differences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper describes the contribution of two infant temperamental biases to variation in behaviour and biology over the first 18 years in a sample of middle-class Caucasian children. One bias, called high reactive, is defined by frequent display of limb activity and crying in four-month-old infants to unexpected or unfamiliar events. The other, called low reactive, is defined by the opposite pair of behaviours to the same incentives. High reactive infants are likely to display cautious, avoidant responses and signs of an excitable amygdala to unexpected experiences. Low reactives are characterized by a sociable, emotionally spontaneous profile to the same experiences and a minimally excitable amygdala. However, each bias is a better predictor of the future traits that are unlikely to develop than the ones that do. The final pattern of traits is a function of the person's temperaments, life history, and current circumstances.This article is part of the theme issue 'Diverse perspectives on diversity: multi-disciplinary approaches to taxonomies of individual differences'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.