Each child and a parent (95.0% mothers) visited the laboratory for a 2-hour observational assessment of temperament that included a standardized set of 12 episodes selected to elicit a range of temperament-relevant behaviors. Eleven episodes were from the Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery (Lab-TAB; Goldsmith, Reilly, Lemery, Longley, & Prescott, 1995 ) and one was adapted from a Lab-TAB episode. Using an independent sample, we previously reported moderate stability of laboratory ratings of temperament from ages 3 to 7 (r=.46 and .45 for PE and NE, respectively), and moderate concurrent and longitudinal associations between Lab-TAB ratings and home observations (Durbin, Hayden, Klein, & Olino, 2007 (link)). Each task was videotaped through a one-way mirror and later coded. To prevent carry-over effects, no episodes presumed to evoke similar affective responses occurred consecutively and each episode was followed by a brief play break to allow the child to return to a baseline affective state. The parent remained in the room with the child for all episodes except Stranger and Box Empty (see below), but was instructed not to interact with the child (except in Pop-Up Snakes), and was seated facing at a right angle from the experimenter and child and given questionnaires to complete.
The episodes, in order of presentation, were: (1) Risk Room. Child explored a set of novel and ambiguous stimuli, including a Halloween mask, balance beam, and black box; (2) Tower of Patience. Child and experimenter alternated turns in building a tower. The experimenter took increasing amounts of time before placing her block on the tower during each turn; (3) Arc of Toys. Child played independently with toys for five minutes before the experimenter asked the child to clean up the toys; (4) Stranger Approach. Child was left alone briefly in the room before a male accomplice entered, speaking to the child while slowly walking closer; (5) Make that Car Go. Child and experimenter raced remote-controlled cars; (6) Transparent Box. Experimenter locked an attractive toy in a transparent box, leaving the child alone with a set of non-working keys. After a few minutes, the experimenter returned and told the child that she had left the wrong set of keys. The child used the new keys to open the box and play with the toy; (7) Exploring New Objects. Child was given the opportunity to explore a set of novel and ambiguous stimuli, including a mechanical spider, a mechanical bird, and sticky soft gel balls; (8) Pop-up Snakes. Child and experimenter surprised the parent with a can of potato chips that actually contained coiled snakes; (9) Impossibly Perfect Green Circles. Experimenter repeatedly asked the child to draw a circle on a large piece of paper, mildly criticizing each attempt; (10) Popping Bubbles. Child and experimenter played with a bubble-shooting toy; (11) Snack Delay. Child was instructed to wait for the experimenter to ring a bell before eating a snack. The experimenter systematically increased the delay before ringing the bell; and (12) Box Empty. Child was given an elaborately wrapped box to open under the impression that a toy was inside. After the child discovered the box was empty, the experimenter returned with several toys for the child to keep.
The episodes, in order of presentation, were: (1) Risk Room. Child explored a set of novel and ambiguous stimuli, including a Halloween mask, balance beam, and black box; (2) Tower of Patience. Child and experimenter alternated turns in building a tower. The experimenter took increasing amounts of time before placing her block on the tower during each turn; (3) Arc of Toys. Child played independently with toys for five minutes before the experimenter asked the child to clean up the toys; (4) Stranger Approach. Child was left alone briefly in the room before a male accomplice entered, speaking to the child while slowly walking closer; (5) Make that Car Go. Child and experimenter raced remote-controlled cars; (6) Transparent Box. Experimenter locked an attractive toy in a transparent box, leaving the child alone with a set of non-working keys. After a few minutes, the experimenter returned and told the child that she had left the wrong set of keys. The child used the new keys to open the box and play with the toy; (7) Exploring New Objects. Child was given the opportunity to explore a set of novel and ambiguous stimuli, including a mechanical spider, a mechanical bird, and sticky soft gel balls; (8) Pop-up Snakes. Child and experimenter surprised the parent with a can of potato chips that actually contained coiled snakes; (9) Impossibly Perfect Green Circles. Experimenter repeatedly asked the child to draw a circle on a large piece of paper, mildly criticizing each attempt; (10) Popping Bubbles. Child and experimenter played with a bubble-shooting toy; (11) Snack Delay. Child was instructed to wait for the experimenter to ring a bell before eating a snack. The experimenter systematically increased the delay before ringing the bell; and (12) Box Empty. Child was given an elaborately wrapped box to open under the impression that a toy was inside. After the child discovered the box was empty, the experimenter returned with several toys for the child to keep.
