Editorial Perspective: Whatever happened to temperament?

A recent editorial in this journal supported our need to be 'mindful of the field's strict adherence to the disease model of psychopathology, and wondered (not for the first time) whether our total allegiance to this model has obscured important information.' Dr. Burt pointed to studies in which normal behavioral style traits such as activity and resilience may have been significant factors in the outcome. These traits bear a close relationship to two of the nine normal temperament traits described by Chess and Thomas in their New York Longitudinal Study starting in 1956. Despite past acceptance, their important contribution to outcomes has been largely ignored for some time. However, lately there has been an unexpected revival of them. All nine of the NYLS traits have individually been shown to matter sometimes in mental health outcomes. It is not just activity and resilience or adaptability but all the rest: irregularity, inhibition, intensity, irritability, persistence, distractibility, and sensitivity. Should we not consider all normal temperamental predispositions as possible risk or protective factors in appraisals of behavioral outcomes and not just pathological nature and/or nurture contributions?