Demographic factors, temperament and the quality of the preschool environment as predictors of daily cortisol changes among Finnish six-year-old children

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 02 November 2014, At: 15:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Early Childhood EducationResearch JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Demographic factors, temperamentand the quality of the preschoolenvironment as predictors of dailycortisol changes among Finnish six-year-old childrenNina Sajaniemia, Eira Suhonen, Risto Hotulainen, Minna Tormanen,Alisa Alijoki, Mari Nislin & Elina Kontua Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Department of TeacherEducation, University of Helsinki, FinlandPublished online: 04 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Nina Sajaniemi, Eira Suhonen, Risto Hotulainen, Minna Tormanen, AlisaAlijoki, Mari Nislin & Elina Kontu (2014) Demographic factors, temperament and the qualityof the preschool environment as predictors of daily cortisol changes among Finnish six-year-old children, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22:2, 286-306, DOI:10.1080/1350293X.2013.783303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.783303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1350293X.2013.783303

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.783303

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Demographic factors, temperament and the quality of thepreschool environment as predictors of daily cortisol changesamong Finnish six-year-old children

Nina Sajaniemi*, Eira Suhonen, Risto Hotulainen, Minna Tormanen, Alisa Alijoki,Mari Nislin and Elina Kontu

Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki,Finland

ABSTRACT: A young child’s stress-sensitive neurobiological system is immatureand open to being shaped by experience. When children enter preschool, externaldemands on them to adjust are different from the demands they experience at daycare. In Finland, the last year before children transfer to the comprehensive schoolis called preschool. The preschool year is far more academically demanding thanearlier day care years, emphasizing school-like activities along with age-appropriate social and cognitive challenges. The first aim of the present studywas to study whether the preschool year (six-year-old children) has an effect onthe children’s cortisol reactivity. To examine the changes in stress regulation,cortisol reactivity was investigated both in the autumn and in the spring. Thesecond aim of the study was to explore whether demographic factors,temperament and the quality of preschool environment have an effect on thedaily variation of the cortisol level among the participants of the study. Five daycare centres in metropolitan Helsinki, Finland, participated in this study and 91six-year-old preschool children served as participants. Our results showed thatthe children displayed typical cortisol reactivity during the autumn as expected,whereas their cortisol values were significantly higher in the spring. The autumnmeasurements revealed a significant relationship between the cortisol effects andthe temperament characteristics of sadness, anger/frustration and perceptualsensitivity. These characteristics were not as evident when measured during thespring. Additionally, the results indicated that quality of learning environmentaffects changes in children’s cortisol reactivity.

RÉSUMÉ: Le système neurobiologique sensible au stress d’un jeune enfant estimmature et ouvert à être formé par l’expérience. Lorsque les enfants entrent àl’école maternelle, les demandes externes auxquelles ils doivent s’ajuster sontdifférentes de celles de la crèche. En Finlande, la dernière année avant que lesenfants n’entrent à l’école primaire s’appelle la maternelle. L’année de maternelleexige beaucoup plus en matière d’enseignement que les années de crècheprécédentes, mettant l’accent sur des activités similaires aux activités scolairesainsi que des défis cognitifs et sociaux adaptés à l’âge. Le premier objectif de cetteétude était d’examiner si l’année de maternelle (enfants de six ans) a un effet surla réactivité du cortisol des enfants. Afin d’examiner les modifications dans larégulation du stress, la réactivité du cortisol a été étudiée à l’automne et auprintemps. Le second objectif de l’étude était d’explorer si les facteursdémographiques, le tempérament et la qualité de l’environnement de maternelleont un effet sur la variation quotidienne du niveau de cortisol chez les participants.Cinq garderies dans la métropole d’Helsinki en Finlande et 91 enfants de

© 2013 EECERA

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2014Vol. 22, No. 2, 286–306, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.783303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

maternelle de 6 ans ont participé à cette étude . Nos résultats indiquent que les enfantsavaient une réactivité de cortisol habituelle au cours de l’automne, tandis que leursniveaux de cortisol étaient beaucoup plus importantes au printemps. Les résultatsde l’automne ont révélé une relation significative entre les effets du cortisol et lescaractéristiques de tempérament de tristesse, colère/frustration et de sensibilitéperceptive. Ces caractéristiques n’étaient pas aussi évidentes pour les résultats duprintemps. En outre, les résultats ont indiqué que la qualité de l’environnementd’enseignement influence les modifications dans la réactivité du cortisol des enfants.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Das stressempfindliche neurobiologische System einesKleinkindes ist unreif und wird durch Erfahrungen geprägt. Im Unterschied zurKindertagesstätte sehen sich Kinder in der Vorschule mit den äußerenAnforderungen konfrontiert, sich anzupassen zu müssen. Das Jahr vor Eintritt indie Gesamtschule wird in Finnland als das Vorschuljahr bezeichnet. DasVorschuljahr ist akademisch weit anspruchsvoller als die Jahre in derKindertagesstätte und konzentriert sich auf Schulaktivitäten mit altersgerechtensozialen und kognitiven Herausforderungen. Als erstes Ziel der vorliegendenStudie sollte untersucht werden, ob das Vorschuljahr (Alter der Kinder: sechsJahre) eine Wirkung auf die Cortisol-Reaktivität der Kinder hat. Um dieÄnderungen in der Stressregulation zu untersuchen, wurde die Cortisol-Reaktivität sowohl im Herbst als auch im Frühjahr untersucht. Als zweites Zielder Studie sollte untersucht werden, ob demographische Faktoren, Temperamentund die Qualität des vorschulischen Umfelds einen Einfluss auf die täglicheSchwankung des Cortisol-Spiegels der teilnehmenden Kinder haben. FünfKindertagesstätten in Finnlands Hauptstadt Helsinki und 91 sechsjährige Kindernahmen an dieser Studie teil. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigten, dass die Kinder - wieerwartet - eine typische Cortisol-Reaktivität im Herbst aufwiesen, während ihreCortisol-Werte im Frühjahr signifikant höher ausfielen. Die Messungen imHerbst ergaben eine signifikante Beziehung zwischen den Cortisol-Effekten undden Gemütscharakteristika von Traurigkeit, Ärger/Frustration undWahrnehmungsempfindlichkeit. Diese Charakteristika waren bei den Messungenim Frühling weniger offensichtlich. Darüber hinaus zeigten die Ergebnisse, dassdie Qualität der Lernumgebung die Cortisol-Reaktivität der Kinder verändert.

RESUMEN: El sistema neurobiológico de un niño pequeño sensible al estrés, esinmaduro y susceptible de ser moldeado por la experiencia. Cuando los niñosentran a preescolar, las exigencias externas sobre ellos para que se adapten sondiferentes de las que han experimentado en la guardería. En Finlandia, el últimoaño antes de que los niños pasan a la escuela comprensiva se llama pre-escolar. Elaño en pre-escolar es académicamente mucho más exigente que los años anterioresen la guardería enfatizando junto con las actividades escolares desafíos sociales ycognoscitivos adecuados a la edad. El primer objetivo del presente estudio fueinvestigar si el año pre-escolar (niños de seis años de edad) tenía un efecto sobrela reactividad del cortisol de los niños. Para examinar los cambios en la regulacióndel estrés, la reactividad del cortisol fue investigado tanto en otoño como enprimavera. El segundo objetivo del estudio fue explorar si los factoresdemográficos, el temperamento y la calidad del medio ambiente pre-escolar tienenefecto en la variación diaria del nivel de cortisol entre los participantes del estudio.Cinco guarderías en el área metropolitana de Helsinki, Finlandia, participaron eneste estudio y 91 niños de seis años de edad fueron elegidos como participantes.Nuestros resultados indicaron que los niños mostraban la reactividad típica delcortisol durante otoño, como se esperaba, mientras que valores de cortisol eranconsiderablemente más altos en primavera. La medida del otoño revelaba unarelación importante entre los efectos de cortisol y las características deltemperamento de la tristeza, enojo/frustración y sensibilidad perceptiva. Estascarasterícticas no eran tan evidentes cuando fueron medidas durante la primavera.Además los resultados indicaron que la calidad del ambiente de aprendizaje afectaa los cambios en la reactividad del cortisol de los niños.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Keywords: stress regulation; quality of day care; temperament; preschool;adaptation; cortisol

Introduction

In every human society, children are exposed daily to challenging or stressful eventsfrom multiple sources. These events range from potentially positive learning challengesto adverse events such as abuse and neglect. Children respond to any kind of stressorswith a set of highly integrated, neurobiological stress responses. Furthermore, the chil-dren’s stress-sensitive neurobiological systems are immature and open to being shapedby experience during their early childhood years (Gunnar and Quevedo 2007).

In normative samples, children are not often confronted with severe environmentaladversity. However, there are manifold loads on their stress-sensitive systems even innormative samples. For example, learning new things is a challenging task for childrenand practically everything has to be learned. The children’s every day challengesbecome even more complicated when they attend preschool. Children have to learnto communicate their feelings, intentions and thoughts in various social contexts. Inaddition, they have to learn facts, rules and behavioural strategies to navigatethrough numerous social relationships, adjust to various routines and rules, and reactto rough play and occasional conflicts with peers. Moreover, they are learning self-help skills, as well as various cognitive skills, such as literacy and numerical reasoning.These challenges set in motion complex psycho-physiological, emotional, cognitiveand behavioural processes that all serve to promote a child’s optimal adaptation.

Two physiological systems manage the stress responses: the sympathetic adreno-medullary (SAM) system originating in the locus coeruleus (brain stem) and the hypo-thalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) system (see Gunnar and Cheatham 2003, forreview). The SAM system is a part of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system; itsactivation leads to a release of adrenaline from the adrenal glands. Increases in the cir-culating adrenaline orchestrate a fight or flight response. The HPA system, in contrast,helps contain or shut down activation of the sympathetic reaction by producing gluco-corticoids (GC); in humans, the glucocorticoid is cortisol. The adrenaline does not crossthe blood–brain barrier to a significant degree, whereas the brain is the major target ofcortisol (Gunnar and Quevedo 2007).

Cortisol is easily and non-invasively assessed in saliva. Cortisol measurements arewidely used in recent studies focusing on various environmental effects on children’sdevelopment and well-being (Gunnar and Quevedo 2007). In the absence of acutestress, cortisol follows a circadian rhythm. In other words, the highest values are typi-cally seen 30 minutes after awakening (morning peak), followed first by a sharp declineand then by a more gradual decline throughout the day, ending at an evening nadir(Price, Close, and Fielding 1983; Larson et al. 1998; Davis et al. 1999; Dettling,Gunnar, and Donzella 1999; Bruce, Davis, and Gunnar 2002; Watamura et al. 2004).Elevated or suppressed cortisol levels across the day indicate unbalanced regulationof stress; an atypical diurnal pattern is usually considered as a sign of developmentalrisk (Gunnar and Vazquez 2006).

Brain develops in response to the cortisol and other neurochemicals. An atypicalamount of cortisol impacts the integrative and controlling areas of the brain, includingthe hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex (Lupien et al. 2009). These areas are funda-mentally important to an individual’s learning, memory and executive functions. Chil-dren’s brains are developing rapidly and incorporating experiences. The proper

288 N. Sajaniemi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

regulation of the HPA axis might be decisive for realizing children’s optimal cognitive,social and emotional development (Gunnar and Barr 1998; Gunnar and Vazquez 2006;van Goozen et al. 2007).

The development of the ability to regulate the HPA axis and adaptively cope withstress is directly linked to protective interaction (Schore 2001; Gunnar and Quevedo2008). Numerous studies have demonstrated that sensitive care-giving buffers theeffects of early stressors and promotes brain development (Levine and Wiener 1988;Liu et al. 2000; Sanchez, Ladd, and Plotsky 2001). On the contrary, unbalancedstress regulation is known to pose long-lasting negative consequences for wellbeingand development (Lupien et al. 2009). Indeed, researchers in the field of early educationare becoming ever more concerned about the children whose cortisol levels are elevatedor suppressed all day long (Gunnar et al. 1998; Dettling et al. 2000; Sajaniemi et al.2011).

Insensitive day care might be overwhelmingly stressful for some children, increas-ing their risk of socio-emotional problems and jeopardizing the possibilities for them tolearn how to learn (Constantino and Olesh 1999; Cassiba, van Ijzendoorn, andD’Odorico 2000; Sajaniemi et al. 2011). On the other hand, it is known that some chil-dren from low-stress homes are not affected negatively even when the quality of theirday care environment is poor (NICDH Early Childhood Care Research Network 1997).However, just as quality day care might counteract successfully the cumulative disad-vantages of an insensitive home environment, such quality day care might simul-taneously empower children from low risk homes. Consequently, quality care mighthelp every child to find his or her full developmental potential, regardless of thehome environment.

Most of the previous studies investigating the effects of day care on regulating stresshave focused on children younger than six-years-old. Previous results clearly show thatchildren typically experience an increase during the day while they are attending daycare, but experience a decrease in cortisol levels during the day when they are athome (Dettling, Gunnar, and Donzella 1999; Dettling et al. 2000; Watamura et al.2003; Sims, Guilfoyle, and Parry 2006; Watamura, Kryzer, and Robertson 2009).Especially low-quality day care has been associated strongly with elevated cortisollevels (Dettling et al. 2000; Sims, Guilfoyle, and Parry 2006). In US day carecentres, over 60% of the children experienced increased cortisol levels from mid-morning to mid-afternoon at day care, although all the centres had been assessed byprofessionals as good or excellent (Tout et al. 1998; Dettling, Gunnar, and Donzella1999; Dettling et al. 2000; Watamura, Sebanc, and Gunnar 2002). Factors that havebeen linked especially to elevated or atypical salivary cortisol secretions are thechild–adult ratio, the hours spent in day care and insufficient adult staffing (Vermeerand van Ijzendoorn 2006).

While it seems evident that quality care minimises the difference between cortisollevels in young children at day care, little is known about the diurnal cortisol fluctu-ations in children during their transition from day care to comprehensive school. Ithas been argued that differences between home and day care cortisol levels fade asthe children grow older (Gunnar and Quevedo 2007) and that the school environmentno longer causes the elevation of cortisol levels in children. However, one can find bothvulnerable and tolerant children in every school setting, and every child needs pedago-gical sensitivity in order to learn as well as they are capable. Learning challenges, addedto other strains in a complex social environment at school can be at least momentarilyunbearably stressful. These stresses may affect some children’s stress regulative system


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

more than other children’s. Thus, the quality of the learning environment might matter.The teachers and other professionals should be prepared to recognize the needs andinitiatives of every child and be able to response to each child adequately andindividually.

In our present study, we focus on how and how well children’s HPA axis regulatesstress in various preschool environments, at both the beginning and the end of the pre-school year. In Finland, children attend preschool when they are six-years-old. Pre-school in the Finnish education system refers to the transition year beforecomprehensive school, a year aimed at enhancing the children’s learning-to-learn abil-ities, including their attention and executive functions. In addition, preschool educationtargets the child’s readiness to read, write and count. During the preschool year, edu-cational goals move toward becoming more essential than the aspects of protection.The growing demands of learning intensify the moments when children are functioningin their zone of proximal development. Children’s stress-regulation systems might bechallenged and their need for sensitive interaction might be more obvious thanexpected.

Factors other than quality of care might affect cortisol fluctuations during the hourschildren spend in preschool environment. Children vary behaviourally in theirresponses to stressors. They might regulate stress, for example, by avoiding and with-drawing from an activity, by acting out in order to reduce discomfort, or by adjusting bydistracting attention to other issues (Compas 2006). The differences in behaviour arepartly due to individual temperament; some children are more attuned than others toreact when confronted with the strains and challenges of full-time day care in agroup setting. Only a few researchers have addressed the question of whether tempera-ment-related characteristics are linked to children’s reaction to stress while attendingfull-time day care and their findings have conflicted (Vermeer and van Ijzendoorn2006). For example, some studies have documented a relationship between inhibitedbehaviour and high cortisol levels (Tout et al. 1998; Dettling, Gunnar, and Donzella1999), whereas other studies have linked inhibition to low cortisol levels (de Haanet al. 1998). In addition, some studies report that children with poor self-control,social fearfulness and aggression display a tendency to increased cortisol levelsduring the hours spent in day care (Dettling, Gunnar, and Donzella 1999; Talge,Donzella, and Gunnar 2008). However, some studies have failed to find any associ-ations between day care cortisol reactivity and temperament (Watamura, Sebanc, andGunnar 2002; Ahnert et al. 2004).

It has been suggested that cortisol activity is prone to social regulation and thatassociations between temperament and cortisol might be sensitive to variations incontext. Nonetheless, few studies have provided evidence that temperament interactingwith the quality of learning environment predicts changes in children’s cortisol levelsduring the day. Increases in cortisol were observed when young children were exposedto less-sensitive and less-responsible interaction in a day care environment. This heldparticularly true for children who tended to be easily angered and frustrated, as wellas for those children who were fearful and anxious (Gunnar et al. 2001).

To sum up the theoretical review: earlier findings showed that children’s daily cor-tisol changes reached a certain degree of stability by the time the children reached sixyears of age (Gunnar, Fisher, and The Early Experience, Stress, and PreventionNetwork 2006). However, some other studies (Russ et al. 2011) have stated that enter-ing school may affect the diurnal cortisol pattern of school-aged children.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In Finland, the last year in day care, before school entrance, is called a preschoolyear. This year is far more academically demanding than earlier day care years andemphasizes school-like activities along with age-appropriate social and cognitive chal-lenges. Because there were no earlier studies about how the preschool year might affectcortisol variation/changes, we collected cortisol samples both in autumn (at the begin-ning of the preschool year) and spring (at the end of the preschool term). Furthermore,we were interested in knowing how three other variables – demographic factors, tem-perament and quality of learning environment – might affect the variation of cortisol inautumn and spring.

Methods

Participants

The study sample included 91 children (42 girls, 49 boys) attending preschool groups infive day care centres in metropolitan Helsinki, Finland. The number of children in eachgroup varied from 18 to 22. There were no other preschool groups in these day carecentres. The day care centres served predominantly middle-class white families; theaverage annual family income was categorized as medium or high in 86% of thecases. The majority of mothers (65.2%) and fathers (66.7%) were educated either invocational high school or at university. Most of the children came from familieswith two parents (83%) and 17% of the children came from single-parent families.The average number of children in the each family was 2.3 (range 1–6, median 2).The mean age of the children in the study was six years and five months (range =5.8–7.1). The children had no major developmental disabilities or chronic illnesses,and they were not taking any medication regularly. According to the background infor-mation the parents provided, the children slept an average of nine hours per night. Allthe children were enrolled in the preschool programmes for a minimum of 30 hours perweek. Because one of the aims of this study was to evaluate the stress load of the pre-school year, we also took into account as a background factor the time each child spentregularly on activities outside the home. The time spend on activities outside the homewas, on average, 1.6 hours per week.

Procedure

The day care centres participated in this study on a voluntary basis. All procedures werecarried out with the written understanding and consent of the children’s parents. All buttwo parents consented to having the children’s temperament and cortisol measured. InSeptember 2008, parents completed a temperament questionnaire and a backgroundquestionnaire. The assessments of the quality of the learning environments were con-ducted during the period from September 2008 through December 2008. The qualitydata were collected by trained professionals who were not staff members for ourstudy but who acted as supervisors in the research groups.

All children followed the same protocol during the days when we acquired salivasamples. No other extra activities or deviations from the daily routines were scheduledduring the sampling days. The parents did not report anything unusual in the children’ssleep during the nights before we took the cortisol samples. On the sampling days, allchildren went to day care within one hour after awakening. At that stage, the childrenwere not napping during the day. If a child was ill on the sampling day, the sampling


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

from that child was delayed until he or she was well again. The children did not take anymedication in the sampling day or the day before sampling day. The autumn salivasamples were collected during a single day in October 2008. The spring salivasamples were collected during a single day in April 2009.

Quality assessments and individual assessments

Quality of the learning environment

Trained professionals assessed the quality of the learning environment by using TheLearning Environment Assessment (Strain and Joseph 2004). This wide-ranging evalu-ation includes classroom arrangement, schedules and transitions, classroom activities,team planning and behaviour plans. The quality of the learning environment is ratedon a three-degree Likert scale, with low scores indicating low quality.

Classroom arrangements includes, for example, the quality of specific learningcentres, the organization of materials, the variety of materials available to the childrenat all skill levels, and the accessibility to toys that promote social play. Schedules andtransitions indicates the stability and predictability of activity schedules, the alternationof active and less active experiences and the utilization of a zone approach to supervis-ing the children. Classroom activities includes modifications in group sizes, timing,directions, and feedback. Team work includes, for instance, the teachers’ co-operation,the integration of individualized goals into daily activities, and the educators’ sharedphilosophy about classrooms. Furthermore, behaviour plans points to specific behav-iour plans, observation and documentation. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) inthe Learning Environment Assessment’s scale categories varies from 0.63 to 0.82.

Temperament assessment

The parents of all the participating children were asked to complete the Children’s Be-haviour Questionnaire (CBQ), an extensive parent-report measure of temperamentdesigned for children from three to seven years of age (Rothbart et al. 2001). TheCBQ assesses the following 15 dimensions of temperament:

Activity level Falling Reactivity and Soothability Low Intensity PleasureAnger/Frustration Fear Perceptual SensitivityApproach High Intensity Pleasure SadnessAttentional Focusing Impulsivity ShynessDiscomfort Inhibitory Control Smiling and Laughter

Parents rated their children on each item using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from‘1 – extremely untrue of your child’ to ‘7 – extremely true of your child’. The CBQ alsoprovided a ‘not applicable’ response to use when the parent had not observed the childin the situation described. Factor analyses of the reliably of the CBQ scales’ recovered athree-factor solution indicating three broad dimensions of temperament: Extraversion/Surgency, Negative Affectivity, and Effortful Control. The CBQ is known to be a validand reliable instrument (Rothbart et al. 2001) and is widely used currently in develop-mental research. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in the CBQ dimensions variesfrom 0.93 to 0.69 (Putnam and Rothbart 2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Cortisol samples

Due to the diurnal fluctuation of cortisol levels in humans, a total of five samples werecollected from each subject on each sampling day. These samples were collected at thefollowing times: (1) upon waking; (2) half an hour after waking; (3) one hour afterwaking; (4) in the afternoon between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.; and (5) before going tosleep. Samples 1, 2 and 5 were taken at home; samples 3 and 4 were taken at theday care centres. The parents collected the samples at home and the educators collectedthe samples at the day care centres. The principal investigators of this study trained bothparents and educators in the sampling procedure. The principal investigators met withthe parents and educators twice, in group meetings before each of the sampling days.The members of the audience were instructed about the sampling details. Bothparents and educators were asked to write down if there were any abnormalities intheir children’s behaviour around sampling times (restless the previous night, crying,tantrums, etc.). The investigators delivered cotton wads and Salivette tubes to theparents and educators during the meetings.

The children were not allowed to eat or drink for at least 30 minutes before thesampling. The saliva sampling procedure was simple and easy for most of the children.The children mouthed two-inch thick cotton wads until they were wet. These cottonwads were then placed in Salivette tubes according to written instructions and storedin a refrigerator until they could be sent to the laboratory for measurement of thesaliva cortisol levels. When the tubes arrived at the laboratory, technicians separatedthe saliva from the wad of cotton by centrifugation (1000G, 5 min.) and stored itat −20°C until testing.

Analysis procedures

Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package PASW Statistics 18 forWindows. Pursuant to the research protocol, cortisol samples were collected in theautumn and spring. For analysing the differences between autumn and spring cortisolsamples for each child, paired sample t-tests were used. Standard deviations of each thetwo consecutive cortisol samples were computed to produce an indicator for the differ-ent time effects during the day (e.g. for the Awakening Effect; the SD of the AutumnCortisol 1 and Autumn Cortisol 2 was labelled ‘AC12’ in Table 1). The result was fourseparate effect (deviation) values (see Table 1). Additionally, the standard deviationwas computed for the entire sequence of the saliva measures (AC1–5) to create an indi-cator for the overall deviation during the day. The same protocol was repeated for the

Table 1. Predicted daily effects and the corresponding cortisol deviations.

Awakening Value (7 a.m.) The first cortisol value in the morningAwakening Effect (7:30 a.m.) The standard deviation of the 1st and 2nd measurements

(AC12)*Morning Effect (8:30 a.m.) The standard deviation of the 2nd and 3rd measurements

(AC23)Preschool Effect (2:30 p.m.) The standard deviation of the 3rd and 4th measurements (AC34)Home Effect (8 p.m.) The standard deviation of the 4th and 5th measurement (AC45)

*Note: Autumn Cortisol (AC).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

samples collected in the spring (Spring Cortisol = SC). Table 1 shows the proposedeffects and the related measurements.

The Pearson method was used to demonstrate any correlation between the com-puted cortisol deviations and the demographic factors, temperament and quality ofthe learning environment. The results of the correlation analyses were used toperform regression (linear stepwise) analyses. Those variables which had a statisticallysignificant (p < 0.05) correlation to the computed deviations were included in theregression analyses. To avoid the collinearity effect that emerged when we analysedthe effects of the learning environment quality sub-scale scales for deviations of the cor-tisol samples, the condition index was used to exclude distorting variables (Belsley,Kuh, and Welsch 1980). In practice, this meant that only the sub-scale having thehighest standardized beta coefficient was chosen as a predictor of the learning environ-ment quality for the analysis in question.

Temperament dispositions were examined, both as a factor level and as tempera-ment characteristics. The possibly-significant temperament–cortisol findings in theregression analyses were analysed more closely. Explanatory temperament character-istics were grouped on the basis of cut-off scores (low, moderate, high: mean±1 SD)and mean cortisol values I were considered.

Results

Diurnal cortisol patterns in the autumn and in the spring

The children in the present study exhibited a typical diurnal cortisol pattern across theautumn measurements. As expected, there was a significant increase in salivary cortisollevels during the first 30 minutes after awakening. Corresponding to earlier findings,the pattern of cortisol production decreased during the day, with the lowest valuesfound in the evening samples (Figure 1).

However, the cortisol values in the spring showed a slightly different pattern. Bothautumn and spring had a typical evening nadir, but in spring the cortisol values werestatistically significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the autumn values at every measure-ment point except in the afternoon. (Table 2). A similar statistically significant

Figure 1. The diurnal cortisol pattern in the autumn and in the spring (n = 91).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

change (p < 0.05) was detected in the morning effect, day care effect and overall valueswhen comparing cortisol deviations between autumn and spring.

Table 2 shows the standard deviations for the cortisol values both autumn andspring and between every pair of measurement points (12, 23, 34, and 45), alongwith the respective t-tests.

Demographic factors and cortisol changes

The following demographic factors and cortisol changes were tested for correlations:gender, father’s education, mother’s education, number of the children in the family,sleeping hours, annual income level of the family, living style, hobby, and regularityof pursuing the weekly hobby.

In the autumn sample, the only connection between the cortisol changes and demo-graphic factors was the father’s education (see Table 3). The findings showed that thefather’s education correlated to the third (AC34) change in cortisol levels and to theoverall variance.

In the spring sample, the findings showed that number of the children in family cor-related to the first (SC12) change in cortisol levels. No other connections were found.

Temperament and cortisol changes

Temperament factors Extraversion/Surgency, Negative Affectivity and EffortfulControl did not predict cortisol changes either in autumn or in spring. However,when different temperament characteristics were under consideration, a few relation-ships with cortisol changes were found.

The autumn correlation analyses showed the following relationships: the Sad scalehad a correlation to the third (AC34) cortisol measurement; the High Intensity

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the cortisol measures (raw and deviations) in autumn andspring, along with paired sample t-test.

Autumn M SD Spring M SD t-value sig.

AC1 13.29 6.18 SC1 16.47 11.37 −2.32 0.020AC2 15.73 6.59 SC2 18.27 7.27 −2.67 0.010AC3 9.08 4.58 SC3 10.20 4.26 −1.96 0.050AC4 4.37 2.27 SC4 4.27 2.03 0.36 nsAC5 1.55 1.36 SC5 2.77 4.09 −2.75 0.010Overall deviation 6.67 2.67 8.16 4.12Summed deviations SD Min Max SD Min Max t-value sig.AC12 3.18 0.14 12.42 SC12 5.06 0.08 25.41 −2.65 0.009AC23 2.92 0.33 17.90 SC23 3.92 0.13 18.84 −1.67 nsAC34 2.79 0.03 11.07 SC34 2.99 0.04 13.79 −1.91 0.048AC45 1.39 0.21 6.57 SC45 1.79 0.00 8.24 −1.50 nsOverall deviation 2.67 1.19 13.85 4.12 2.16 23.22 3.10 0.003

Note: AC – autumn cortisol; SC – spring cortisol; SD – Standard Deviation; ns – not significant. 1: uponwaking; 2: half an hour after waking; 3: one hour after waking; 4: in the afternoon between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.; 5: before going to sleep.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

characteristic correlated to the first (AC12), second (AC23) and overall cortisol devi-ation (Table 3).

The spring correlation analyses showed that the following relationships: the Dis-comfort scale correlated to the second (SC23) and third (SC34) changes; the FallingReactivity correlated to the 3rd (SC34).

Quality of learning environment and cortisol changes

In the autumn, Classroom Arrangements correlated to the first change (AC12) and theoverall variance (Table 3). Activities and Transitions correlated to the third change incortisol value (AC34) and overall cortisol deviation. Classroom Activities correlated tothe third change in cortisol levels (AC34) and overall variance. Team Work correlatedto the third change in the cortisol level (AC34), the fourth change in the cortisol level

Table 3. Correlations between cortisol deviations and studied variables.

AC12 AC23 AC34 AC45 AOD SC12 SC23 SC34 SC45 SOD

Demographicfactors

Fathers’seducation

0.24* 0.35***

Number ofchildren

0.21*

TemperamentSad 0.21*High Intensity 0.25* 0.22* 0.24*Discomfort 0.24* 0.22*Falling

reactivity0.21*

Learningenvironmentquality

Classroomarrangements

0.23* 0.23* 0.24* 0.24*

Schedules andtransitions

0.22* 0.22*

Activities andtransitions

0.33** 0.38***

Classroomactivities

0.43*** 0.45*** 0.22* 0.27**

Teamwork 0.31** 0.23* 0.29** 0.22* 0.22* 0.22*Behavioural

guidance0.30** 0.24* 0.24*

Total quality oflearningenvironment

0.34** 0.22* 0.35** 0.22*

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Note: AOD – autumn overall deviation; SOD – spring overall deviation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(AC45) and to the overall cortisol deviation. Behaviour Guidance correlated to the thirdchange (AC34) and overall cortisol deviation. The total quality of learning environmentcorrelated to the third change (AC34), the fourth change (AC45) and overall cortisoldeviation.

In the spring, the findings showed that Classroom Arrangements correlated to thefirst change of cortisol levels (SC12) and the overall cortisol deviation. Schedulesand Transitions correlated to the fourth change (SC45) and the overall deviation. Class-room Activities correlated to the third change (AC34) and fourth (SC45) cortisolmeasures. Teamwork correlated to the first change (SC12), second change (SC23)and overall cortisol deviation. Behaviour Guidance correlated to the fourth cortisoldeviation (AC45). Total quality of the learning environment correlated to the overallcortisol deviation.

Modelling the relationship between cortisol deviations and predictive variables ofthe study

We applied linear regression analysis to quantify the strength of the relationshipbetween consecutive cortisol deviations (effects) and predictive variables of thestudy (Table 4). This is performed for those deviations (effects) which had multiplecorrelations.

Our findings show that in most cases, analyses result in only simple linearregression having one statistically significant independent variable. Demographicfactors of this study had very limited strength to predict cortisol deviations. TheFather’s Education had a relationship to the autumn preschool effect and to overalldeviation. Temperament effects were very low and inconsistent. In autumn, High Inten-sity had a relationship to awakening and morning effects, and in spring, Discomfort hada relationship to the preschool effect.

Table 4. Linear regression analysis to quantify the strength of the relationship betweenconsecutive cortisol deviations (effects) and the predictive variables in the study.

Deviations R2 Predictive variables B t-value Beta sig.

Autumn AC12 0.24 High Intensity 0.66 2.26 0.24 0.026AC34 0.43 Classroom activities −6.09 −3.08 0.32 0.003

Father’s education −0.57 −2.10 0.22 0.023AC45 0.22 Team work −0.96 −2.06 0.22 0.042AC1-5 0.50 Classroom activities −6.02 −3.21 0.32 0.002

Father’s education −0.82 −3.16 0.31 0.002Spring SC12 0.25 Number of the children in family −1.34 −2.37 0.25 0.020SC23 0.21 Team work −2.55 −2.00 −0.21 0.049SC34 0.32 Discomfort −0.63 −2.33 −0.24 0.022

Classroom activities −4.59 −2.02 −0.21 0.049SC45 0.27 Classroom activities −3.61 −2.66 −0.27 0.009SC1-5 0.22 Schedules and transitions −2.05 −2.15 −0.22 0.034

Note: AC – autumn cortisol; SC – spring cortisol; sig – statistical significance. 1: upon waking; 2: half anhour after waking; 3: one hour after waking; 4: in the afternoon between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.; 5: before goingto sleep.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

When focusing on the quality of the learning environment, the Classroom Activitieshad the highest relationships to cortisol deviations in this study. In the autumn, Class-room Activities predicts both the preschool effect and the overall deviation, in thespring, Classroom Activities predicts both the preschool effect and the home effect.Furthermore, Teamwork had a relationship to deviations both in the autumn (homeeffect) and in the spring (morning effect). Activities and Transitions were connectedto overall cortisol deviation in the spring.

The subscales in the quality assessment of the Learning Environment could havemore simultaneous relationships to the cortisol deviations, but to avoid multicollinear-ity, we reduced the number of the predictive Learning Environment quality subscales toone per regression model.

In general, the explanatory level of the models remained low, and so the results fromthose models should be interpreted cautiously.

Cortisol changes in children with high-intensity pleasure and discomfort

We examined more closely the temperament characteristics which had predictive valuein relation to cortisol values. Autumn morning cortisol values (awakening effect andmorning effect) in children with low, average or high scores on the subscale for

Table 5. The differences in cortisol values for the awakening affect and morning effect.

Measuring Points level Mean SD

A1 1 13.90 6.40A1 2 12.65 6.05A1 3 15.11 7.72A2 1 14.73 6.18A2 2 16,60 7,97A2 3 15.59 6.45A3 1 8.84 4.86A3 2 8.89 4.53A3 3 10.54 6.29

Note: level 1 = low scores on the subscale for high-intensity pleasure, level 2 = average scores on thesubscale for high-intensity pleasure, level 3 = high scores on the subscale for high-intensity pleasure.

Table 6. The differences in Cortisol Values in preschool effect.

Measuring Points Level Mean SD

A3 1 10.07 6.70A3 2 9.12 4.59A3 3 8.26 4.22A4 1 4.79 4.29A4 2 4.30 2.17A4 3 4.44 2.30

Note: level 1 = law scores on the discomfort subscale; level 2 = average scores on the discomfort subscale;level 3 = high scores on the discomfort subscale.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

high-intensity pleasure are presented in Table 5. Children who scored either low or highon the high-intensity pleasure subscale had unusually high cortisol values in the firstand second measurements, followed by a decrease at the third measurement.

Table 6 illustrates the third differences between the morning and afternoon cortisolvalues (preschool effect) in spring measured for children with low, moderate or highscores on the discomfort subscale. As can be seen, cortisol values decreased lesssharply in children with high scores on the discomfort subscale.

Discussion

Our objective in the present study was to examine whether demographic factors andtemperament relate to cortisol reactivity and further, whether cortisol reactivitychanges over the course of the preschool year from autumn to spring. We hypothesizedthat the months the children spent in full-time preschool would load the children’sstress-sensitive system and that some children are temperamentally more sensitive tothese stressors than their fellow preschool students. We hypothesized further that cor-tisol levels are higher in the spring than in the autumn and that a child’s temperament isrelated to these cortisol patterns. In addition, we hypothesized that even small variationsin quality of learning environment have effects on cortisol reactivity.

In accordance with our hypotheses, all of the cortisol values except one were sig-nificantly higher in the spring than in the autumn. One explanation for this differencecould be seasonal variation in cortisol concentrations and a slight tendency to havehigher values towards spring, as has been suggested in some studies (Persson et al.2008). However, there is no consensus as to the reasons for such seasonal variations.The difference in the amount of light at the two seasons has been proposed as one poss-ible explanation, but the proponents of that theory suggest that the amount of lightwould decrease cortisol values, rather than increase those levels (Persson et al.2008). In addition, some studies have failed to observe any seasonal change in thediurnal pattern of cortisol secretion by healthy participants (Thorn et al. 2011). Itmight be that long winter months have been straining at least to some of our study chil-dren, thus challenging their stress regulative systems.

In our study, besides the average higher spring cortisol values, the evening rise inspring cortisol was exceptional. High evening values might reflect the children’sinability to down-regulate arousal possibly caused by overstimulation during the day.Further, high evening values indicate slightly aberrant circadian rhythm in at leastsome of our study children. Aberrant circadian rhythm is linked to increased risk forphysical, psychological and developmental disorders (Yehuda 2002; Linkowski2003; Chida and Steptoe 2009). It could be that there were children in study whoseneeds have been unrecognized partly and that the year before formal schooling wasnot as supportive and activating as it could have been.

For the children in the present study, the preschool year constitutes the year beforethey make their transition to regular school. In Finland, the preschool year is excep-tional in early education. During that year, the curriculum strongly emphasizes ready-ing the children for school and helping them learn how to acquire abilities. Children areexpected to work independently and to learn academic skills such as mathematics andreading. The preschool instructors evaluate the children’s readiness for school throughformal tests, and encourage the preschoolers to think of themselves as already school-children. Parents, relatives and friends also emphasize the transition to school (Rusanen2008).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Toward spring, children might strongly anticipate the upcoming school transition.Anticipatory expectations focused on the unknown future can load the children’sstress-regulative system, as was indicated by the children’s presenting higher cortisolvalues in the spring than in the autumn. Other studies have associated higher-than-expected cortisol values with the anticipation of starting school (Turner-Cobb,Rixon, and Jessop 2008). These authors also argued that parental stress in anticipationof their children’s school transition might also attune children to increase their ownstress (Turner-Cobb et al. 2008). The spring cortisol values, with their unexpectedrise in the evening, suggest a possible effect of parental anticipation. However, therole of anticipation and the role of parents in transmitting stress can be consideredonly tentatively; additional research is needed to clarify the effects of anticipation.

Interestingly, our study found that the only measurement with no differencesbetween autumn and spring cortisol values was detected in the afternoon samples.There are several possible reasons for this phenomenon. First, the familiar routinesand structures during a preschool day can keep down the children’s levels of anticipat-ory excitement. Second, the pressure created by lessons, organized activities and tightschedules occurs more frequently before lunch. In other words, the morning hours aremore school-like, while the afternoon hours are more relaxing and playful. Third, in theafternoon, children can orientate themselves more according to their own interests, andchallenges to the stress-regulative system tend not to be exceedingly demanding.

We were also interested in the contribution individual characteristics make to reg-ulating stress. In our study, we found only weak and inconsistent connections betweentemperament and diurnal changes in cortisol; they can be interpreted only asspeculative.

However, our findings seemed to reveal that high-intensity pleasure explained theawakening and morning effects in the autumn. Interestingly, children who scoredlow or high in the subscale of high-intensity pleasure tended to have high cortisolvalues upon awakening and no decrease towards the second measurement one halfhour later. Aberrant awakening effect and high morning values have been linked tounbalanced stress regulation and to increased risk for socio-emotional disorders(Gunnar and Vazquez, 2006). According to some previous studies, high cortisolvalues in the morning have been associated with distress and anticipation of a busyand potentially stressful day (Kunz-Ebrecht et al. 2008; Thorn et al. 2011). It hasalso been suggested that higher than average morning cortisol values predict an increas-ing pattern of negative affect throughout the day (Daly et al. 2011). On the other hand,the absence of a morning effect has been linked to long-term overload of the systemregulating stress and to increased developmental risk (Gunnar 2001; Chida andSteptoe 2009). High-intensity pleasure describes children’s attitude to adventurousactivities, to rough and rowdy games, and to wild and reckless play among others. Chil-dren are disposed to these activities in various ways, and a tendency to react in extremeways might trigger anticipatory hyper-activation of the stress regulative system in themorning.

In the spring measurements, discomfort was connected to changes in cortisolvalues. Children who score high in discomfort are perceptually sensitive to pain. Inour study, their afternoon cortisol decreased less sharply than others. The relationshipof cortisol levels and increased or decreased pain tolerance in healthy children has alsobeen observed (Allen et al. 2009). During a preschool day, there might be manyoccasions for children to experience uncomfortable perceptual sensations. Aiming toenhance environmental quality, teachers should be sensitive to each child’s individual


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

emotional expressions and help them to adapt to any coincidental unpleasantsensations.

Neither demographic factors nor temperamental dispositions had any strong powerto predict cortisol reactivity in our study. Few connections between temperament andcortisol values might mean that children have adapted successfully to the preschoolenvironment and that the staff has recognized their individuality sufficiently. We didnot anticipate the lack of connections between gender and cortisol, since many cortisolstudies have emphasized the importance of gender issues in regulating stress throughHPA mechanisms (e.g. Allen et al. 2009). Interestingly, our findings showed that achild’s cortisol deviations were more likely to be influenced by the father’s socio-economic status (SES) than by the mother’s SES. This finding is somewhat surprisingwhen compared against earlier studies (cf. Sammons et al. 2004) and the issue deservesto be studied more thoroughly.

In our study, the quality of the learning environment was most significant inexplaining daily cortisol changes, in both the autumn and the spring measurements.These findings could have a substantial practical impact. On average, the quality ofFinnish preschools is generally rather good; the differences between day care centresare minor (Rantala, Uotinen, and McWilliam 2009; Sajaniemi et al. 2011). Theseminor differences are due to the requirement that all preschools satisfy the samelegally-defined child–adult ratios and minimum number of square metres per child.Moreover, under Finnish law, every adult in a preschool must have attained a statuto-rily-defined minimum level of education in her/his profession (Rantala, Uotinen, andMcWilliam 2009).

Teacher-education in Finland emphasizes the importance of each child’s individual-ity, so it is probable that the adult staff in Finnish preschools generally deal with chil-dren as individuals. As the results of our study have suggested, each Finnishpreschooler can adapt to the educational environment according to his or her own tem-peramental disposition. Nonetheless, despite there being only minor general differencesamong preschools, some apparent variations in the quality of some Finnish preschoolshave been found (Sajaniemi et al. 2011). The low quality observed in previous studieswas indicated by rather poor co-operation between professionals and in weakly orga-nized transitions between daily activities. In addition, the learning environment inlow-quality preschools was described as unstructured and not supportive of the chil-dren’s self-organized activities (Sajaniemi et al. 2011).

Most importantly, even within the relatively narrow variation of quality, we foundsignificant connections between preschool practices and the children’s cortisol reactiv-ity. This research confirms the findings of numerous previous studies which highlightedthe effects that the quality of the learning environment has on children’s success in reg-ulating stress (Sims, Guilfoyle, and Parry 2006; Watamura et al. 2009; Groenveld et al.2010; Vermeer et al. 2010). The most common finding in children attending low-quality day care is that they exhibit high cortisol values throughout the day (Sims,Guilfoyle, and Parry 2006). However, most existing studies have been conducted inchildren younger than six years of age. Generally, an individual’s cortisol pattern isestablished in early childhood, so some researchers have argued that preschool childrenare old enough that the environment no longer affects their cortisol levels (Gunnar andDonzella 2002). On the other hand, some studies have pointed out that time-specificrange for the normal salivary cortisol levels in older children have not yet been wellestablished (Gröschl, Rauh, and Dörr 2003).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

It is worth highlighting that the six-year-old children in our study exhibited signifi-cant variations between individuals in their daily cortisol values and that the variationcorrelated to even minor quality differences. It is interesting that the learning environ-ment effect on cortisol variations was more evident than the children’s individualcharacteristics or their demographic factors.

In the autumn, classroom activities predicted both overall cortisol deviation and thepreschool effect. In addition, the classroom activity persisted in affecting the cortisolvariation (both the preschool effect and the home effect) across the preschool year.Classroom activities include modifications in the size of groups, timing, directionsand feedback from teachers. Vermeer and van Ijzendoorn (2006) have documentedthe importance role that classroom activities play in affecting young children’s cortisolvariation during their time at day care. Our results suggest that the staff’s sensitivity tomodifying the size of groups and scaffolding children during their activities might beimportant to older children, too.

Team work proved to be another factor that influenced the variations in children’scortisol, in both the autumn and the spring. Team work includes a teacher’sco-operation with school staff and other teachers, integration of individualized goalsfor the children into their daily activities, and the educators’ shared philosophy aboutthe practices and goals of education at the preschool level. Establishing an allianceamong team members is an important step in creating a physically, psychologicallyand socially safe preschool environment.

Our study also suggests the importance of involving the working community in thechildren’s well-being. Further, firm but flexible schedules and smooth transitions pre-dicted overall cortisol variation in spring. Schedules and transitions indicate the stab-ility and predictability of learning activities through the alternation of experiencesand the use of a zone approach in supervising the children. These topics might be fun-damental if the preschool desires to experiment with intent participation learning,which stresses regulative abilities (Trevarthen 2009).

Our results indicate that the stress-regulatory system of some children was possiblychallenged by even minor shortcomings in the quality of learning environment. Unba-lanced stress regulation can have harmful and permanent effects on the development ofa child’s brain (Gunnar and Cheatham 2003). Current findings in neuroscience stronglysuggest that balanced stress regulation is at the core of developing attention, memoryand executive functions (Haley, Weinberg, and Grunau 2006; Meaney 2010).

It is extremely important to recognize that children reflect their need to regulatestress through their emotional expressions. Attuned feedback from adults can help chil-dren tolerate the variations they encounter during their preschool activities. One perti-nent way to provide this support is to increase the adults’ awareness of the meaning andtechniques of intent participation and protection that increase human quality and boostdevelopment. Enhancing pedagogical sensitivity can be a powerful, simple and econ-omical way to boost children’s adaptation to their ever-changing environment.

Our study has several limitations, some of which are severe. Two one-day assess-ments per child were definitely not sufficient to acquire data for an adequate analysis. Infuture studies, we will provide for consecutive measurements. We also lacked detailedinformation about how well the children slept the nights before the cortisol samplingdays. In addition, the group size was rather small, so the results should be consideredwith caution.

Further, although cortisol is a widely-used and sensitive indicator of the HPA func-tion, it is not a sufficient tool to illustrate the complex phenomenon of regulating stress.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

We need additional behavioural and emotional evaluations to attain more sophisticatedknowledge about the variations in how the children regulate their stress. Finally,follow-up studies are essential to determine the significance of cortisol reactivity inchildren’s physical, psychological and emotional development.

Conclusion

To summarize, our study confirmed the findings of numerous other studies showingthat quality matters. In addition, our results suggested strongly that pedagogical prac-tices moderate the effect of temperament on cortisol reactivity. All children have a ten-dency to react on the basis of their temperament and biological attributes. In aiming toenhance the quality of early learning environments, it is fundamental to focus onenvironmental features that resonate according to an individual child’s nature. Themost effective way to improve quality might be to hone the teachers’ ability to recog-nize children’s individual styles of participating in group social activities. A skilfulteacher has the ability and knowledge to scaffold children in the zone of proximalstress regulation and to activate those mechanisms when the children need them.

ReferencesAhnert, L., M. G. Gunnar, M. E. Lamb, and M. Barthel. 2004. “Transition to Child Care:

Associations with Infant-Mother Attachment, Infant Negative Emotion, and CortisolElevations.” Child Development 75 (3): 639–650.

Allen, L. B., Q. Lu, J. C. I. Tsao, C. M. Worthmann, and L. K. Zeltzer. 2009. “Sex Differences inthe Association Between Cortisol Concentrations and Laboratory Pain Responses in HealthyChildren.” Gender Medicine 6: 193–207.

Belsley, D. A., E. Kuh, and R. E. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying InfluentialData and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bruce, J., E. P. Davis, and M. R. Gunnar. 2002. “Individual Differences in Children’s CortisolResponse to the Beginning of a New School Year.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 27 (6):635–650.

Cassiba, R., M. van Ijzendoorn, and L. D’Odorico. 2000. “Attachment and Play in Child CareCentres: Reliability and Validity of the Attachment Q-Sort for Mothers and ProfessionalCaregivers in Italy.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 24 (2): 241–255.

Chida, Y., and A. Steptoe. 2009. “Cortisol Awakening Response and Psychosocial Factors:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Biological Psychology 80: 265–278.

Compas, B. E. 2006. “Psychobiological Processes of Stress and Coping: Implications forResilience in Children and Adolescents – Comments on the Papers of Romeo andMcEwen and Fisher et al.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1094: 226–234.

Constantino, J. N., and H. Olesh. 1999. “Mental Representations of Attachment in Day-CareProviders.” Infant Mental Health Journal 20 (2): 138–147.

Daly, M., P. P. Dora, L. Delaney, and M. MacLachlan. 2011. “The Role of Awakening Cortisoland Psychological Distress in Diurnal Variations in Affect: A Day Reconstruction Study.”Emotion 11 (3): 524–532.

Davis, E. P., B. Donzella, W. K. Krueger, and M. R. Gunnar. 1999. “The Start of a New SchoolYear: Individual Differences in Salivary Cortisol Response in Relation to ChildTemperament.” Developmental Psychobiology 35 (3): 188–196.

Dettling, A. C., M. R. Gunnar, and B. Donzella. 1999. “Cortisol Levels of Young Children inFull-Day Childcare Centers: Relations with Age and Temperament.”Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (5): 519–536.

Dettling, A. C., S. W. Parker, S. Lane, A. Sebanc, and M. R. Gunnar. 2000. “Quality of Care andTemperament Determine Changes in Cortisol Concentrations Over the Day for YoungChildren in Childcare.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 25 (8): 819–836.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

van Goozen, S. H. M., H. F. Snoek, H. Graeme, and T. Gordon. 2007. “The Evidence for aNeurobiological Model of Childhood Antisocial Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 133(1): 149–182.

Groenveld, M. G., H. J. Vermeer, M. H. Ijzendoorn, and M. Linting. 2010. “Children`sWellbeing and Cortisol Levels in Home-Based and Center-Based Childcare.” EarlyChildhood Quarterly 25: 502–514.

Gröschl, M., M. Rauh, and H.-G. Dörr. 2003. “Circadian Rhythm of Salivary Cortisol, 17α-Hydroxyprogestrone, and Progesterone in Healthy Children.” Clinical chemistry 49(10): 1688–1691.

Gunnar, M. 2001. “Low Cortisol and a Flattening of Expected Daytime Rhythm: PotentialIndices of Risk in Human Development.” Development and Psychopathology 13 (3):515–538.

Gunnar, M., and R. Barr. 1998. “Stress, Early Brain Development, and Behaviour.” Infants andYoung Children 11: 1–14.

Gunnar, M., and K. Quevedo. 2007. “The Neurobiology of Stress and Development.” AnnualReview of Psychology 58 (1): 145–173.

Gunnar, M., and K. Quevedo. 2008. “Early Care Experiences and HPA Axis Regulation inChildren: A Mechanism for Later Trauma Vulnerability.” Progress in Brain Research167: 137–149.

Gunnar, M., and D. Vazquez. 2006. “Stress Neurobiology and DevelopmentalPsychopathology.” Developmental Psychopathology: Developmental Neuroscience,edited by D. Cicchetti and D. Cohen, 533–577. New York, NY: Wiley.

Gunnar, M. R., and C. L. Cheatham. 2003. “Brain and Behavior Interface: Stress and theDeveloping Brain.” Infant Mental Health Journal 24 (3): 195–211.

Gunnar, M. R., and B. Donzella. 2002. “Social Regulation of the Cortisol Levels in EarlyHuman Development.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 27 (1–2): 199–220.

Gunnar, M. R., P. A. Fisher, and The early experience, stress, and prevention network. 2006.“Bringing Basic Research on Early Experience and Stress Neurobiology to Bear onPreventive Interventions for Neglected and Maltreated Children.” Development andPsychopathology 18: 651–677.

de Haan, M., M. R. Gunnar, K. Tout, J. Hart, and K. Stansbury. 1998. “Familiar and NovelContexts Yield Different Associations Between Cortisol and Behavior Among 2-Year-Olds.” Developmental Psychobiology 33 (1): 93–101.

Haley, D. W., J. Weinberg, and R. E. Grunau. 2006. “Cortisol, Contingency Learning, andMemory in Preterm and Full-Term Infants.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 31 (1): 108–117.

Kunz-Ebrecht, S. R., C. Kirschbaum, M. Marmot, and A. Steptoe. 2008. “Differences in CortisolAwakening Response on Work Days and Weekends in Women and Men from the WhitehallCohort.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 29: 516–528.

Larson, M. C., B. P. White, A. Cochran, B. Donzella, and M. Gunnar. 1998. “Dampening of theCortisol Response to Handling at 3 Months in Human Infants and its Relation to Sleep,Circadian Cortisol Activity, and Behavioral Distress.” Developmental Psychobiology 33:327–337.

Levine, S., and S. G. Wiener. 1988. “Psychoendocrine Aspects of Mother-Infant Relationshipsin Nonhuman Primates.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 13: 143–154.

Linkowski, P. 2003. “Neuroendocrine Profiles in Mood Disorder.” International Journal ofNeuropsychopharmacology 6: 191–197.

Liu, D., J. Diorio, J. C. Day, D. D. Francis, and M. J. Meaney. 2000. “Maternal Care,Hippocampal Synaptogenesis and Cognitive Development in Rats.” Nature Neuroscience3 (8): 799–806.

Lupien, S. J., B. S. McEven, M. R. Gunnar, and C. Heim. 2009. “Effects of Stress Throughoutthe Lifespan on the Brain, Behaviour and Cognition.” Nature Neuroscience 10: 434–445.

Meaney, M. 2010. “Epigenetics and the Biological Definition of Gene × EnvironmentInteractions.” Child Development 81 (1): 41–79.

NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Development) Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. 1997. “The Effects of Infant Child Care on Infant-Mother Attachment: Resultsfrom the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” Child Development 68 (5): 860–879.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Persson, R., A. H. Garde, Å. M. Hansen, K. Österberg, B. Larsson, P. Ørbæk, and B. Karlson.2008. “Seasonal Variation in Human Salivary Cortisol Concentration.” ChronobiologyInternational 25 (6): 923–937.

Price, D. A., G. C. Close, and B. A. Fielding. 1983. “Age of Appearance of Circadian Rhythm inSalivary Cortisol Values in Infancy.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 58 (6): 454–456.

Putnam, S. P., and M. K. Rothbart. 2006. “Development of Short and Very Short Forms of theChildren`s Behavior Questionnaire.” Journal of Personality Assessment 87 (1): 103–113.

Rantala, A., S. Uotinen, and R. A. McWilliam. 2009. “Providing Early Intervention withinNatural Environments.” Infants and Young Children 22 (2): 119–131.

Rothbart, M. K., S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, and P. Fisher. 2001. “Investigations ofTemperament at Three to Seven Years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire.” ChildDevelopment 72 (5): 1394–1408.

Rusanen, E. 2008. Esiopetus lapsen silmin: tutkimus kokemuksesta, tiedon transferoitumisestaja metatietoisuudesta. Helsinki: Palmenia Helsinki University Press.

Russ, S. J., J. Herbert, P. Cooper, M. Gunnar, I. Goodyer, T. Croudace, and L. Murray. 2011.“Cortisol Levels in Response to Starting School in Children at Increased Risk for SocialPhobia.” Psychoneuroendocrinology, in press.

Sajaniemi, N., E. Suhonen, E. Kontu, P. Rantanen, H. Lindholm, S. Hyttinen, and A. Hirvonen.2011. “Children`s Cortisol Patterns and the Quality of the Early Learning Environment.”European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (1): 45–62.

Sammons, P., K. Elliot, K. Sylva, E. Melhuish, I. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 2004. “TheImpact of Preschool on Young Children’s Cognitive Attainments at Entry to Reception.”British Educational Research Journal 30 (5): 691–712.

Sanchez, M. M., C. O. Ladd, and P. M. Plotsky. 2001. “Early Adverse Experience as aDevelopmental Risk Factor for Later Psychopathology: Evidence from Rodent andPrimate Models.” Developmental Psychopathology 13: 419–450.

Schore, A. N. 2001. “Effects of a Secure Attachment Relationship on Right Brain Development,Affect Regulation, and Infant Mental Health.” Infant Mental Health Journal 22 (1–2): 7–66.

Sims, M., A. Guilfoyle, and T. S. Parry. 2006. “Children’s Cortisol Levels and Quality of ChildCare Provision.” Child Care, Health and Development 32 (4): 453–466.

Strain, P. S., and G. E. Joseph. 2004. “Engaged Supervision to Support Recommended Practicesfor Young Children with Challenging Behavior.” Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation 24 (1;1): 39–50.

Talge, N., B. Donzella, and M. R. Gunnar. 2008. “Fearful Temperament and Stress ReactivityAmong Pre-School-Aged Children.” Infant and Child Development 17 (4): 427–445.

Thorn, L., P. Evans, A. Cannon, F. Hucklebridge, and A. Clow. 2011. “Seasonal Differences inthe Diurnal Pattern of Cortisol Secretion in Healthy Participants and Those with Self-Assessed Seasonal Affective Disorder.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 36: 816–823.

Tout, K., M. de Haan, E. Kipp Campbell, and M. R. Gunnar. 1998. “Social Behavior Correlatesof Cortisol Activity in Child Care: Gender Differences and Time-of-Day Effects.” ChildDevelopment 69 (5): 1247–1262.

Trevarthen, C. 2009. “The Intersubjective Psychobiology of Human Meaning: Learning ofCulture Depends on Interest for Co-Operative Practical Work— and Affection for theJoyful Art of Good Company.” Psychoanalytic Dialogues 19: 507–518.

Turner-Cobb, J. M., L. Rixon, and D. S. Jessop. 2008. “A Prospective Study of Diurnal CortisolResponses to the Social Experience of School Transition in Four-Year-Old Children:Anticipation, Exposure, and Adaptation.” Developmental Psychology 50 (4): 377–389.

Vermeer, H. J., M. G. Groenveld, I. Larrea, M. H. van Ijzendoorn, A. Barandiaran, andM. Linting. 2010. “Child Care Quality and Children`s Cortisol in Basque Country andthe Netherlands.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31: 339–347.

Vermeer, H. J., and M. H. van IJzendoorn. 2006. “Children’s Elevated Cortisol Levels at Day-Care: A Review and Meta-Analysis.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (3): 390–401.

Watamura, S., B. Donzella, J. Alwin, and M. Gunnar. 2003. “Morning-to-Afternoon Increases inCortisol Concentrations for Infants and Toddlers at Child care: Age Differences andBehavioral Correlates.” Child Development 74 (4): 1006–1020.

Watamura, S. E., B. Donzella, D. A. Kertes, and M. R. Gunnar. 2004. “Developmental Changesin Baseline Cortisol Activity in Early Childhood: Relations with Napping and EffortfulControl.” Developmental Psychobiology 45 (3): 125–133.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Watamura, S. E., E. M. Kryzer, and S. S. Robertson. 2009. “Cortisol Patterns at Home and ChildCare: Afternoon Differences and Evening Recovery in Children Attending Very HighQuality Full-Day Center-Based Child Care.” Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology 30 (4): 475–485.

Watamura, S. E., A. M. Sebanc, and M. R. Gunnar. 2002. “Rising Cortisol at Childcare:Relations with Nap, Rest, and Temperament.” Developmental Psychobiology 40: 33–42.

Yehuda, R. 2002. “Current Status of Cortisol Findings in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”Psychiatric Clinics of North America 25: 341–368.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:21

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Demographic factors, temperament and the quality of the preschool environment as predictors of daily cortisol changes among Finnish six-year-old children