Educational Psychologist

ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

RULER: A Theory-Driven, Systemic Approach to

Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning

Marc A. Brackett, Craig S. Bailey, Jessica D. Hoffmann & Dena N. Simmons

To cite this article: Marc A. Brackett, Craig S. Bailey, Jessica D. Hoffmann & Dena N. Simmons
(2019) RULER: A Theory-Driven, Systemic Approach to Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning,
Educational Psychologist, 54:3, 144-161, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1614447

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1614447

Published online: 17 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 773

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 54(3), 144–161, 2019
Copyright # 2019 Division 15, American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1614447

RULER: A Theory-Driven, Systemic Approach to

Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning
Marc A. Brackett, Craig S. Bailey, Jessica D. Hoffmann, and
Dena N. Simmons
Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and Yale Child Study Center, Yale University
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process of integrating cognition, emotion, and
behavior in our lives. In school settings, it involves systemic practices to incorporate SEL
into leading, teaching, learning such that adults and children build self- and social aware-
ness, learn to manage their own and other’s emotions and behavior, make responsible deci-
sions, and build positive relationships. Here, we describe RULER, a systemic evidence-
based approach to SEL, including its Theory of Change, and key theories that are founda-
tional to the approach. RULER’s implementation model also is described, which involves
training for school leaders, educators, and staff; integrating SEL into the curriculum across
grade levels; infusing SEL into schoolwide practices and policies; and engaging families
and the broader community. RULER’s current and expected outcomes for children
and adults are reviewed, including both proximal (e.g., more developed emotion skills and
enhanced classroom climate) and distal (e.g., reduced teacher stress and burnout
and greater academic performance) outcomes. RULER’s future directions also
are discussed.

Twenty-five years ago, the Fetzer Institute hosted a con-
ference that focused on the various disjointed school-
based efforts that had surfaced over the years to support
children’s healthy social and emotional development.
Researchers, educators, and advocates with diverse inter-
ests related to meeting the psychological, developmental,
educational, and overall health needs of children con-
vened. Soon thereafter, the term social and emotional
learning (SEL) was introduced, and a framework for pro-
viding opportunities for young people and adults to
acquire the skills necessary for attaining and maintaining
personal well-being and positive relationships across the
life span began to emerge. As a result of this meeting, the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL) was formed with the goal of establish-
ing high-quality, evidence-based SEL as an essential part
of preschool through high school education (Elias et al.,
1997; Greenberg et al., 2003). Today, SEL refers to the
process of integrating cognition, emotion, and behavior
Correspondence should be addressed to Marc A. Brackett, Yale Center
for Emotional Intelligence, Yale Child Study Center, 340 Edwards Street,
New Haven, CT 06520. E-mail: marc.brackett@yale.edu
into teaching and learning such that adults and children
build self- and social awareness skills, learn to manage
their own and others’ emotions and behavior, make
responsible decisions, and build positive relationships,
also known as CASEL’s five SEL competencies (www.
casel.org).
Research over the past two decades on various school-
based interventions has demonstrated that SEL is central
to positive development in terms of physical and mental
health, moral judgment, citizenship, academics, and
achievement motivation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Recent
meta-analyses focused on SEL interventions have demon-
strated that a systemic process for promoting students’
social and emotional development is the common element
among schools that report an increase in academic suc-
cess, enriched relationships between teachers and students,
and a decrease in untoward behavior (Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Taylor, Oberle,
Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017). A cost–benefit analysis of
SEL interventions conducted in 2015 showed measurable
benefits that exceed their costs; among multiple
interventions, the aggregate results showed an average
benefit–cost ratio of about 11 to 1 (for every dollar

invested equally across the SEL interventions, there is a
return of $11; Belfield et al., 2015).
Although the benefits of SEL are clear, high-quality
implementation is a challenge for many schools because
of a reported lack of financial resources to support SEL
programing, a paucity of time to dedicate to its infusion
and instruction, and insufficient preservice training for
educators (e.g., Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). For these
reasons, among others, a wide range of methods for
integrating SEL into classrooms and schools have been
established. These include evidence-based kernels or prac-
tices; programs or kits; and whole-school, systemic
approaches (Osher et al., 2016). Kernels or targeted
strategies represent the “active ingredients” in more com-
prehensive interventions, often targeting a specific behav-
ior that can be taught quickly. Kernels, however, are
mostly unmoored from a scientifically based underlying
developmental framework and are difficult to implement
across an entire school. A second method for delivering
SEL consists of classroom programs or kits for each grade
level, which include age-appropriate lessons on specific
SEL topics and classroom practices that encourage
positive classroom behavior. Such approaches often have
the highest adoption because of their convenience. But
they also tend to be overly scripted and lack contextual
and cultural relevance. Finally, systemic, whole-school
approaches to SEL are designed to involve all stakehold-
ers in a school and include ongoing adult professional
learning, classroom curricula, family engagement, and
strategies to infuse SEL into schoolwide practices and
policies. Although the most comprehensive, these
approaches often are hard to embed into a school or
district given how much coordination is necessary across
grade levels and the need for administrator support and
buy-in. A more detailed review of these different models
and approaches can be found elsewhere (Osher
et al., 2016).
This paper describes the theoretical underpinnings,
implementation model, and outcomes of RULER (www.
rulerapproach.org), a pre-K through high school systemic
approach to SEL developed by researchers and practi-
tioners at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence.
RULER incorporates emotional intelligence theory,
applied developmental emotion science, positive youth
development, and ecological systems theory into its
Theory of Change (ToC), content, methods of implemen-
tation, evaluation, and sustainability (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009; Denham, Bassett, & Zinsser, 2012;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Sluyter & Salovey, 1997; see
Brackett, Elbertson, & Rivers, 2016, for an overview of
theories that have been applied to SEL).
How social and emotional skills are defined and opera-
tionalized often delineates the benchmarks determining
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 145
whether SEL programing is effective. At the heart of our
operationalization of SEL is emotion because emotional
experience is not only important outright but also contex-
tualized by thinking about and interacting with others
(Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001; Lemerise &
Arsenio, 2000). Emotions involve multiple processes
spanning physiological, cognitive, and social domains
(Izard, 2009). Emotional experience is fundamental to
how we relate to others, and social success is often con-
tingent upon how we think about, use, and manage emo-
tions in social settings (Halberstadt et al., 2001; Lemerise
& Arsenio, 2000). For these reasons, the principles of
social, emotional, and cognitive development inform
RULER’s ToC.
RULER is as much about developing a growth mind-
set about emotions (e.g., emotions matter for learning and
decision making) as it is a set of organized skills that can
be learned. These skills, based in emotional intelligence
theory (Brackett, 2019; Mayer & Salovey, 1997), are
referred to as the “RULER skills.” They include our abil-
ity to (a) recognize our own emotions and those of others,
not just in the things we think, feel, and say but in facial
expressions, body language, vocal tones, and other non-
verbal signals; (b) understand those feelings and deter-
mine what experiences actually caused them; (c) label our
emotions with a nuanced vocabulary; (d) express our feel-
ings in accordance with cultural norms and social con-
texts; and (e) regulate our emotions by using helpful
strategies for dealing with what we feel and why. These
skills are described in greater detail in the section called
RULER’s Aims.
RULER also includes an array of practices and routines
designed to enhance children’s and adults’ lives and posi-
tively influence classroom and school climate. For these
reasons, we characterize RULER as an approach (i.e., a
set of guidelines, principles, and practices to guide SEL
implementation and behavior) rather than just a program
(i.e., planned activities) although sequenced and structured
programing is one key component (see School-Wide
Tools and Pre-K-to-12 Classroom and Out-of-school Time
Resources section).
Fifteen years of implementing RULER in urban, subur-
ban, and rural schools have revealed the need for specific
tools, strategies, and pedagogy to be embedded into
school leadership and climate, teaching and learning, and
parenting in an effort to make SEL a prominent and
enduring part of children’s education. Accumulating evi-
dence shows that RULER enhances individual- and set-
ting-level outcomes that align with its ToC, including
student outcomes such as academic performance
(Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey, 2012) and the qual-
ity of learning environments (Hagelskamp, Brackett,
Rivers, & Salovey, 2013; Rivers, Brackett, Reyes,
Elbertson, & Salovey, 2013).
146 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
Strategy
Stakeholders
Adult personal &
professional learning
Administration
Schoolwide tools & Pre-K & school board
to 12 classroom content &
OST resources Educators &
staff
Online platform & coaching
support Families
Students
Monitoring & evaluation
tools
FIGURE 1 RULER Theory of Change.
RULER’S THEORY OF CHANGE
RULER’s ToC (see Figure 1) articulates the theoretically
supported processes of change, including RULER’s pro-
grammatic components (“Strategy”), the individuals who
benefit (“Stakeholders”), and expected proximal (“Aims”)
and distal (“Impact”) outcomes. The model that best syn-
thesizes and organizes RULER’s ToC is Bronfenbrenner’s
Process–Person–Context–Time model (Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 2006). RULER operationalizes the
Process–Person–Context–Time model to explain how edu-
cators change the proximal processes of SEL through
RULER’s implementation, impacting people (i.e., educa-
tors and students) within contexts (i.e., school and
classroom) over time (i.e., phases of implementation),
leading to RULER’s individual- and setting-level Aims
and Impacts.
RULER’s ToC synthesizes theories of development,
learning, and education (Brackett et al., 2016) and factors
in the role of key Stakeholders (i.e., administrators and
school board, educators and staff, families, and students).
The proximal processes or targets of learning, referred to
as RULER’s Aims, include individual-level variables
(e.g., enhanced mindsets about emotion) and the develop-
ment of key social and emotion skills (Mayer & Salovey,
1997) as well as setting-level variables including healthy
emotional climates in classrooms, schools, and homes and
the adoption of SEL-infused school-wide policies and
practices (e.g., school discipline policies informed by
emotion science) that foster positive youth development.
Finally, embedding SEL into a school is an ongoing jour-
ney, which is the reason that RULER promotes a phased
approach for deep and lasting effects and long-term sus-
tainability. In sum, RULER is as much about adult SEL
Aims
Individual-level
Impact
Enhanced mindset
(“emotions matter”) Increased engagement &
performance
Deepened social &
emotional skills Better-quality relationships &
less bullying
Seng-level
More responsible decisions &
Healthier emotional behavior
climates in schools
and homes Better stress management &
greater well-being
SEL-infused
pedagogy, practices &
schoolwide policies
as it is student SEL, as much about the individual as it is
about the setting, and as much about the short term as it
is about the long term.
RULER’s Strategy
RULER’s Strategy includes ongoing opportunities for
adult personal and professional learning, school-wide
tools to both build a common language and infuse the
principles of emotion science into leading, teaching, and
learning; pre-K–12 classroom curricula; resources for
families and Outside of School Time providers; an online
platform to support the dissemination of content and to
provide schools with analytics to monitor progress; and
measurement tools to support high-quality implementation
and evaluation.
Adult Personal and Professional Learning
A systemic approach depends on all stakeholders becom-
ing agents of change, including the supports they need to
implement SEL. If we expect students to learn about and
value emotions, develop social and emotion skills, acquire
positive behavioral patterns through their experiences with
teachers and peers, and become contributing citizens, then
adults must be factored into how SEL is integrated into
a school.
RULER focuses on skill building for adults so they can
be agents of change for students (Jennings & Greenberg,
2009). Research shows that learning in an emotionally
safe and supportive environment is optimal for develop-
ment and future success (Darling-Hammond & Cook-
Harvey, 2018). Moreover, systemic SEL implementation
requires strong leaders as the agents of change (Durlak &

DuPre, 2008). Evaluations of RULER (Rivers, Brackett,
Reyes, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2013) and other approaches
to SEL (Jennings et al., 2017; Kam, Greenberg, & Walls,
2003) have shown that school administrator support
and adult SEL skill development not only improve
teacher stress and well-being but also enhance class-
room practices.
School-Wide Tools and Pre-K-to-12 Classroom
and Out-of-School Time Resources
To support the practice, development, and teaching of
emotion skills, RULER uses four foundational “Anchor”
tools. These tools were designed to enhance people’s
mindsets about emotion, teach specific skills, build a posi-
tive school climate, and foster a common language among
students, educators, and families.
Tools for individual and setting-level change and
sustainability. The first Anchor tool is the Charter.
Guided by two questions—“How do we want to feel?”
and “How will we ensure everyone has these feelings?”—
the Charter is an aspirational document with the goal of
creating emotionally safe climates (i.e., Setting-level Aim)
across settings: classrooms, schools, and homes. An
important component of the Charter is the social processes
involved in its actual construction. By exploring the ques-
tions, individuals engage in conversations about their
needs, values, and desires for their school, classroom,
community, or family, as well as create a sense of
accountability for everyone to realize agreed-upon goals
and norms. Through daily use of the Charter, individuals
are asked to be mindful of one another’s emotions and
work collaboratively to hold one another accountable to
the agreements that were made jointly. The process of
building, living, and revisiting the Charter provides indi-
viduals with the opportunity to use and develop their emo-
tion skills, including greater self-awareness, social
awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and
responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2017).
The second Anchor tool, the Mood Meter (Brackett,
Caruso, & Stern, 2006; Caruso & Salovey, 2004), is
RULER’s signature tool, which is based on the circum-
plex model of affect (Russell, 1980). The four-quadrant
grid of the Mood Meter represents two dimensions of core
affect: valence (unpleasant to pleasant, represented by the
x axis) and arousal (low to high energy, represented by
the y axis; Russell & Barrett, 1999). The Mood Meter
allows for individuals to explore and develop the emotion
skills concretely by providing a physical object and colors
that adults and students can see, interact with, and
manipulate to facilitate their learning.
One of the challenges of teaching social and
emotional skills is the often-abstract nature of emotions
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 147
and feelings. For example, characteristics of emotional
experience (e.g., bodily sensations, thoughts, behavior,
facial expressions, and voice), as well as knowledge about
emotion (e.g., recognition, causes and consequences,
vocabulary, appropriate expression, and regulation), tend
to be more subjective and abstract than objective and con-
crete (Brenner & Salovey, 1997; Campos, Mumme,
Kermoian, & Campos, 1994; Katja Wiemer-Hastings &
Xu, 2005). Using pedagogical tools as a way to teach
abstract concepts and to enhance student self-efficacy dur-
ing problem solving has been employed in other peda-
gogical frameworks, including the Montessori Method
(Montessori, 2013; Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache, 1997).
For very young children, the Mood Meter allows them to
begin differentiating and labeling emotions using familiar
colors that correspond to basic emotions (i.e., yellow-
¼ happy, blue ¼ sad, red ¼ angry, green ¼ calm) and
learning about different dimensions of emotional experi-
ence (e.g., we have many emotions; we can change our
emotions) using simple concepts that most children by
age 3 readily understand.
When educators and students engage in a Mood Meter
Check-In, one of RULER’s Core Routines, they are devel-
oping each of the five RULER skills, exploring and
reflecting upon the quadrant they are in (recognizing emo-
tions in their thoughts and body), what is causing their
feelings (understanding the causes and consequences of
their emotions), naming their feeling (labeling emotions),
reflecting on how they are expressing or might express
their feeling (expressing emotions with different people
across contexts), and what emotion regulation strategies
they will use to manage their feelings (regulating emo-
tions with helpful strategies).
The Mood Meter is especially helpful for students who
(a) are experiencing new or confusing emotions and have
yet to connect the label to the recognition or understand-
ing; (b) are nonverbal as a result of being shy or with-
drawn, too upset to speak, or lacking vocabulary as an
English Language Learner; (c) do not fully understand
what another adult or child is feeling and why they may
be feeling that way; (d) have only a limited knowledge of
emotion; or (e) are faced with challenging situations that
are emotionally taxing such as peer conflict. Children as
young as 3 have demonstrated knowledge and efficacy
using the Mood Meter, both associated with enhanced
emotional intelligence (Bailey et al., 2019).
The Meta-Moment is RULER’s third Anchor tool,
which focuses on emotion regulation. Its four concrete
steps guide educators and students to respond to difficult
emotions and situations. It simplifies an otherwise com-
plex process for individuals by helping them to (1) deploy
their attention and notice shifts in their cognition, physi-
ology, and behavior (self-awareness, including recogniz-
ing, understanding, and labeling emotions); (2) inhibit
148 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
their dominate response to activate nondominate responses
by way of pausing and engaging in a breathing exercise
(expressing and regulating emotions); (3) activate an
image of their “best self,” the person they aspire to be for
themselves and others; and (4) choose and use a relevant
and helpful strategy to regulate their emotion and behav-
ioral response (expressing and regulating emotions, rela-
tionship skills, and responsible decision making). The
Meta-Moment provides a framework to support skill
building by systematizing the process of emotion regula-
tion as well as leverage points for teaching emotion regu-
lation (e.g., recognizing intense emotional experience,
stopping and taking a deep breath, activating ones’ best
self, engaging in regulation strategies).
The last Anchor tool, the Blueprint, builds empathy
and both perspective-taking and conflict resolution skills
for managing past, present, and future conflicts. The
Blueprint is guided by a series of questions, based on the
RULER skills, that require students and educators to
reflect and analyze the causes and consequences of their
own and another person’s (or group’s) emotions and
behavior with regard to a particular conflict. As a result,
along with using and developing RULER skills, the
Blueprint builds (1) self-awareness when individuals are
asked to reflect and consider their emotional response and
behavior during a conflict, (2) social awareness through
reflecting on another’s potential emotional response and
behavior during a conflict, and (3) responsible decision-
making when individuals evaluate the consequences of
various actions and consider the well-being of self and
others. The last step of the Blueprint includes reflecting
on a more effective way to respond to conflict by calling
to mind one’s best self. During this step, individuals
engage in deep introspection and learn effective ways to
resolve conflict. Finally, the Blueprint provides opportuni-
ties for stakeholders to reflect on how conflict impacts
their learning communities as well as on ways they can
work collaboratively to restore communities. With prac-
tice, the Blueprint contributes to greater perspective taking
and empathy and a more emotionally supportive and safe
school climate.
In addition, for each Anchor tool, there are routines
(i.e., “Core Routines”) implemented to sustain continuous
opportunities to practice, learn, and use the RULER skills.
Some routines include weekly reflections about the cli-
mate of their classroom and activities for continuous
improvement (Charter) and reflections using the Mood
Meter to build greater self-awareness and connections
between emotions and learning.
Pre-K through grade 12 curricula and pedagogy
for classroom-based SEL infusion. The classroom
components of RULER were designed with student’s
social, emotional, and cognitive developmental needs at
the center. All grade levels have units based on the
Understanding by Design framework (Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005), and are aligned to SEL standards,
CASEL’s core competencies (CASEL, 2017), and the
Common Core State Standards (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010) to facilitate academic inte-
gration. In addition, RULER uses a spiral design
(Johnston, 2012) such that each year students develop a
more advanced understanding of emotion concepts and
their application. RULER also is guided by the tenets of
trauma-informed practices and culturally responsive peda-
gogy (Simmons, Brackett, & Adler, 2018; Walkley &
Cox, 2013) and, as such, encourages that its implementa-
tion is learner centered and accounts for the diverse expe-
riences and cultures of all stakeholders.
RULER’s Pre-K–5 Curriculum. Beginning in pre-
school, there are lessons devoted to introducing the Mood
Meter and Charter as well as foundational activities to
support key aspects of the Meta-Moment and Blueprint.
Use of these tools are reinforced through daily and weekly
Core Routines. Starting in kindergarten, there are two
lessons for each of the four Anchor tools per year. From
pre-K–5, there is the Feeling Words Curriculum, which
provides teachers with 12 feeling word units per grade.
Each unit focuses on exploring one feeling through a ser-
ies of lessons that were designed to deepen social and
emotional skills through RULER’s framework (i.e., recog-
nizing, undersanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating
emotions; Brackett, 2019; Brackett et al., 2011). This
approach advocates the pivotal role that language plays in
social and emotional development; acquiring a nuanced
feelings vocabulary helps children become consciously
aware of their own and others’ emotions, communicate
effectively about emotions, and better regulate emotions
and their behavior (e.g., Feldman Barrett, Lindquist, &
Gendron, 2007; Harre, 1986; Hesse & Cicchetti, 1982;
Lieberman et al., 2007; Russell, 1990). The units are cali-
brated for each grade level and are designed to integrate
seamlessly into and across the core curriculum. Units
emphasize using educator, peer, and family personal sto-
ries and storybooks to ground emotion knowledge to
authentic narratives, effectively giving teachers intention-
ality in their socialization of students’ emotional intelli-
gence (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Fivush,
Berlin, Sales, Mennuti-Washburn, & Cassidy, 2003).
Also present in the curriculum is explicit guidance on
ways to infuse content and experiences with other aspects
of students’ learning throughout the day (e.g., understand-
ing what a character was feeling and why to better under-
stand and plot character development and character arcs).
Units culminate in students’ learning helpful strategies to

self- and coregulate their emotions through critical think-
ing exercises and social problem solving.
The Feeling Words Curriculum was designed to be
interactive and engage students in a creative, multifaceted
approach (e.g., art, music and movement, reading and
writing) to learning that incorporates personalized deeper
learning, divergent thinking, both teacher–student and
parent–child bonding, creative writing, and collaborative
problem solving to develop effective emotion regulation
strategies. Core Routines dovetail feeling word units by
providing consistent experiences and practice, often using
RULER’s Anchor tools (e.g., Mood Meter check-ins sup-
porting self-reflection), while offering new emotion know-
ledge, ideas, and perspectives (e.g., What does it mean to
feel disappointed? How can we support ourselves and
others when we feel this way?). In these ways, RULER
provides discrete content knowledge and opportunities for
students to learn emotion skills and practice the skills at
school and beyond.
RULER’s 6–12 Curriculum. RULER at the secondary
school level takes on a new form to match the unique
development of adolescents. Although the Anchor tools
are still crucial to the teaching and learning of emotion
skills, students begin to explore emotion-laden topics that
are relevant to their lives and realities as adolescents,
including identity, civic engagement, relationships, deci-
sion-making, and agency.
RULER Middle School comprises instructional units,
guided by project-based learning. Project-based learning
units of study allow for students to take an active role in
their classrooms, solve problems, participate in group dis-
cussions, and conduct real-world experiments while learn-
ing emotion themes and concepts. The middle school
approach continues to leverage the Anchor tools and pro-
vides numerous opportunities for using them to engage in
self-reflection and classroom projects to hone their emo-
tion skills and build a positive classroom climate. In add-
ition, RULER Middle School allows for interdisciplinary
study and ensures that learning is student centered and
inquiry based, as each unit positions students to gain
knowledge and skills by working for an extended period
to investigate and respond to a driving question. The
themes of each unit are consistent across grade levels, but
the focus in each grade varies, addressing students’ under-
standing of self, including their habits, qualities, and char-
acteristics. Also, as students develop, they build a deeper
understanding of their best self by examining it in the con-
text of relationships, identity and personal values, civic
engagement, goal setting, conflict resolution, and
well-being.
RULER High School continues to explore topics that
are relevant to students’ lives and their realities as adoles-
cents. Here, students partake in a set of advanced courses
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 149
that support their development of greater self- and social
awareness through more nuanced reflections and assess-
ments. The high school approach consists of twenty 45-
min lessons for each grade level (80 lessons in total). The
lessons cover a range of topics relevant to adolescence,
including building a vision for their secondary and postse-
condary careers; identifying their motivational needs and
personality profiles; engaging in self-reflective practices;
setting goals for their well-being, relationships, and aca-
demics; and learning how to create communities in which
all students can achieve to their full potential. In addition
to the courses, which build explicit skills in students,
RULER continues to be a whole-school approach, such
that grade-level or school-wide Charters are created and
routines of checking in on the Mood Meter, taking a
Meta-Moment as needed, and engaging with the Blueprint
process all continue. In addition, content teachers continue
to apply emotionally intelligent teaching practices both
implicitly and explicitly into their work. For example, a
math teacher might encourage students to do a breathing
exercise before an anxiety-provoking test or do a week-
long analysis of their mood, including time of day and
day of week, leading to an exploration of the unhelpful
and helpful strategies used to manage emotions through-
out the week.
RULER’s SEL Infusion of Tools and Curricula Into
Routines, Policies, and Pedagogy
A central tenet of RULER is the infusion of SEL princi-
ples and emotional intelligence skill-building, including a
focus on building a positive school climate into all aspects
of leading, teaching, and learning, such as classroom man-
agement and school discipline procedures. By way of
example, in many districts, the units (12 feeling words per
grade level) in the Feeling Words Curriculum are mapped
out across the entire elementary English language arts cur-
riculum to ensure they are embedded into instruction
across all grade levels. Many schools and districts also
create policies that ensure RULER tools, like the
Blueprint, are used to manage incidents related to peer
conflict to ensure continuity across school contexts and
continuous skill-building opportunities for children. Many
schools make RULER part of their new teacher induction
program and ongoing professional development, which
guarantees all educators in a school have a common
understanding of RULER and are prepared to teach its
strategies and tools. This also includes ongoing self-
evaluation frameworks for teachers and principals to
ensure SEL principles and RULER tools, in particular, are
everlasting in regard to their integration into leading,
teaching and learning. Ultimately, sustainability happens
when RULER is embedded into a school’s or district’s
vision and mission, which leads to emotional intelligence
150 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
becoming a permanent part of each individual school’s or
district’s improvement plan. It is in these ways that
RULER becomes long-lasting beyond initial training
and support.
Online Platform and Coaching Support
RULER was designed to integrate seamlessly into aca-
demic content, school practices and policies, and family
engagement activities to ensure that emotional intelligence
is infused into the fabric of how leaders lead, teachers
teach, students learn, and families parent. For these rea-
sons, RULER provides educators with online modules and
resources to support their own personal and professional
development. The platform also incorporates all classroom
content from preschool to high school. In addition, there
are tools to empower the RULER Implementation Teams,
those school members that are trained to support the
implementation of RULER in their school. That way,
schools can own the process of bringing RULER to their
school and implement the approach in a contextually
responsive manner to support their local communities.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring the progress and impact of RULER is an inte-
gral part of the implementation process. This can be done
informally or formally, depending on the goals of the
school or district. Formal evaluations are generally done
in partnership with a university or research and evaluation
organization to obtain empirical evidence that RULER is
having the intended impact. RULER has been evaluated
formally using a multimethod approach as described next.
However, because formal evaluations are often cost pro-
hibitive, we have designed numerous tools for schools to
conduct their own informal evaluations, including feed-
back forms on program delivery and content, online
quizzes to support learning, data analytics on the use of
the online platform, and self-evaluative rubrics for both
classroom- and school-level integration of RULER.
Ongoing feedback from administrators, teachers, staff,
families, and students, as well as outside observers, pro-
vides important information to assess each stakeholders’
attitudes, knowledge, skills, and the quality of implemen-
tation; it is also useful for modifications to ensure con-
tinuous improvement and positive effects.
Phases of implementation. Change, especially with
systemic approaches, takes time; it requires dedication
and buy-in, and it happens when stakeholders have neces-
sary resources and supports. From adult personal and pro-
fessional learning opportunities, to school-wide tools and
pre-K–12 classroom curriculum, to out-of-school time
resources, RULER is implemented over a series of four
phases that set up and reinforce implementation and sus-
tainability at all levels.
Rogers’s (2003) diffusion of innovation theory eluci-
dates RULER’s suggested implementation in a school
over time. Through its train-the-trainer model, RULER
Implementation Team members, the Innovators, are those
who are the first within a school to begin implementing
RULER. One of the goals for this team is to identify the
Early Adopters, those within a school who are excited and
comfortable applying RULER for the first time. Early
Adopters often help make decisions about RULER imple-
mentation and become resident experts at intentionally
modeling emotional intelligence for school leaders and
staff. As momentum builds and awareness of RULER
grows, the Early Majority begins to form, roughly one
third of the faculty in a school. As their enthusiasm grows
and shifts in attitudes, behavior, and climate become
noticeable, the Late Majority, hopefully come on board. It
is at this point that RULER is mostly infused into leading,
teaching, and learning in a school. Although conclusive
research on how RULER implementation maps onto this
theory is not yet available, unsurprisingly most coaching
sessions with RULER Implementation Teams focus on
how to shift the views of the resistors, especially the
Laggards for whom change comes slowly. Overall,
RULER’s phased approach supports “trialability” or the
gradual rollout over time to support testing and
experimenting.
The first phase of implementation is the Readiness/
Planning Phase. This is when school leaders examine the
necessary resources, including the financial commitments,
personnel needs, and time needed to allocation for profes-
sional development to implement RULER in a way that
promotes the greatest buy-in from all stakeholders. This
phase supports the type of organizational readiness to
implement change that has been described as vital across
disciplines, including education, the medical field, and the
private sector (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011;
Wanless & Domitrovich, 2015; Weiner, Amick, & Lee,
2008). In this phase, key stakeholders, including district
and school leadership learn about RULER’s ToC, the sci-
ence behind RULER, including research on emotions in
education settings, the benefits of emotional intelligence,
as well as RULER’s implementation model. School-based
teams to support implementation, referred to as RULER
Implementation Teams, also are selected in this phase.
The second phase is the Adult Personal and
Professional Learning Phase. Here, RULER uses a train-
the-trainer model where school-based Implementation
Teams are trained in RULER principles, Anchor tools,
and pedagogy (see the School-wide Tools and Pre-K–12
Classroom and Out-of-School Time Resources section),
and the science of emotions and emotional intelligence so
they can lead the professional learning opportunities at

their school over the course of a full academic year. The
team generally comprises the principal or assistant princi-
pal and two or more educators, including a classroom
teacher and a counselor, social worker, or school psych-
ologist. In the 2-day institute, RULER Implementation
Team members also learn how to use the online platform,
where all interactive resources live (e.g., videos, faculty
meeting resources, grade-level curricula), so they can
onboard their colleagues using a blended learning
approach (e.g., online learning modules and in-person
activities). Posttraining at the 2-day institute, RULER
Implementation Team members receive coaching to help
them tailor implementation to their school’s unique needs
and context. A primary goal of this phase is to support
adult educators in developing the mindsets and skills they
need to support their own health and well-being, foster a
positive school climate, and become positive role models
for students. Research supports that a well-designed train-
the-trainer approach is a cost-effective way to empower
school leaders to drive school-wide implementation, and
research shows little loss in fidelity (Yarber et al., 2015).
Phase 3 is referred to as the Student Implementation
and Family Engagement Phase. This phase generally
occurs after all adult stakeholders in a school have partici-
pated in the year-long phase on adult learning. The focus
here is on implementing RULER at the classroom level
and engaging families (see School-Wide Tools and Pre-
K–12 Classroom and Out-of-School Time Resources sec-
tion). Like the adults, students learn about the science of
emotions, emotion skills, and the RULER tools in devel-
opmentally appropriate ways. Schools also engage fami-
lies in the same learning opportunities that the students
experienced to build a common language and understand-
ing of RULER concepts across contexts. This also helps
to ensure that families are partnering with the school to
support children’s healthy social and emotional develop-
ment. Family components include mini workshops and
student-led activities in which children teach their families
RULER tools and concepts.
Phase 4, the Innovation and Sustainability Phase, gen-
erally comes into play around the 3rd year of RULER
implementation. This is when the approach is fully
embedded into school-wide policies and practices, includ-
ing the mission, vision, curriculum, ongoing faculty and
staff professional learning, and behavior support systems.
Schools in this phase have incorporated the principles of
emotion science and SEL, more broadly, into the fabric of
the school to make SEL a seamless part of the culture and
an integrated component of leading, teaching, learning,
and family engagement. To support these efforts, early
RULER implementation conferences foster innovation
through collaboration between and among schools and
districts on advanced topics including site-specific integra-
tion of RULER into trauma-informed practices, restorative
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 151
practices, equity, culturally responsive pedagogy, different
subject areas from English Language Arts to robotics, and
community partnerships.
It is worth mentioning that some schools and districts
navigate implementation across the multiple phases simul-
taneously. That is, a school can choose to complete the
Adult Personal and Professional Learning Phase and then
implement with students via the Student Implementation
and Family Engagement Phase afterward, or they can
decide to use a staggered rollout, introducing different
components of RULER to teachers (A) and then students
(B) in an A-B-A-B fashion throughout the year. It also is
possible for schools to make immediate shifts in school-
wide policies and practices to ensure RULER is a central
component of the school or districts climate and culture
and pedagogical practices. In these ways, RULER is
designed to be flexible to each context’s unique needs.
A case study of a large urban school district in
Connecticut lends support for RULER’s adult-first,
phased approach to SEL. This district, serving approxi-
mately 22,000 students across 38 schools, had teams from
all schools receive training to support the approximately
3,000 educators and staff in the district. Surveys com-
pleted by classroom teachers approximately one year after
RULER training showed that 98% of teachers had intro-
duced two or more Anchor tools to their students; 86%
had used the Mood Meter at least once in class during the
previous week; and 63% reported feeling comfortable,
quite comfortable, or extremely comfortable teaching
RULER Lessons. Moreover, 72% of teachers, staff, and
school administrators reported that RULER had been use-
ful, quite useful, or extremely useful in terms of teaching
practical SEL skills (Meyer & Stambler, 2016).
A 2018 follow-up report in the same district linked
fidelity of implementation to a host of student outcomes
(Strambler & Meyer, 2018). Although the school-level
sample size would only allow for statistical detection of
large effects, the report provides promising information
about the direction of some important correlations.
Implementation fidelity was measured by how many
Anchor tools a teacher presented to their students, how
comfortable teachers reported feeling with these tools,
how effectively teachers reported they could deliver
RULER lessons, and teacher reports on how often in the
past week the students had used tools like the Mood
Meter in class. Higher implementation fidelity was associ-
ated with greater student emotion regulation skills, and
five of seven domains of school climate (student–teacher
trust, rules and norms, emotional climate, personality
safety, and classroom behavior). There were also lower
rates of absenteeism for students at schools with stronger
implementation support (i.e., schools that actively encour-
aged teachers to use RULER and provided effective
training, useful feedback, and ongoing support).
152 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
Implementation quality was not correlated with student
academic outcomes, which warrants further research.
In a separate study, implementation fidelity of RULER
was examined with 28 classrooms and 812 students in a
large urban Catholic school district in Brooklyn and Queens,
New York, as part of a randomized controlled trial (Reyes
et al., 2012). Researchers collected data from the schools at
three time points: baseline (prior to random assignment), 6
months after RULER was introduced, and 13 months after
baseline. Student outcomes were associated with a combin-
ation of the number of trainings teachers attended, the num-
ber of lessons they taught, and the quality with which
lessons were taught based on surveys and observations. A
cluster analysis revealed three categories: low-, medium-,
and high-implementers based on (a) the amount of training
teachers received, (b) dosage of RULER they provided to
their students, and (c) implementation fidelity measured by
coaches’ ratings of teachers’ attitudes toward RULER and
quality of RULER lesson delivery. Although no main effects
were found for the training, dosage, or quality of implemen-
tation variables, among high-quality implementers, both
those who taught more units and those who attended more
trainings had students with higher scores on all three student
outcomes: social competence, social problem solving, and
emotional intelligence. Moderate-quality implementers who
attended more trainings had students with higher emotional
intelligence scores only. Moderate-quality implementers
who taught more units had students with higher scores on
both the social competence and social problem-solving
assessments.
Educators in the low-quality implementation category
had both a resistant attitude toward RULER in the begin-
ning and lower implementation fidelity in regard to teach-
ing the lessons. Low-quality implementers who attended
more training ended up having students with lower scores
on social problem solving and emotional intelligence, and
those who taught more units had students with lower
scores on all outcomes: social competence, social problem
solving, and emotional intelligence. Reyes et al. (2012)
suggested that these unfavorable effects may be partly
explained by the teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy or
lack thereof in general teaching practices. This study
speaks to the possible importance of assessing and shifting
educators’ attitudes toward SEL work as a precursor to
high-quality implementation. It also elucidates why
RULER’s implementation has shifted over time to begin
with supporting educators in learning about value and
importance of emotions prior to implementing RULER in
their classrooms.
RULER’s Stakeholders
RULER started as a classroom middle school curricu-
lum (Maurer, Brackett, & Plain, 2004). However, early
on we observed that when the focus was solely on
educators teaching SEL lessons to students, adoption
was uneven at best. The interactions through which
children learn about emotions are bidirectional and flow
through time—adults and peers react to children’s
expressions, and children react to adults and peers’ sub-
sequent reactions. Today, RULER is a preschool to
high school systemic approach involving all stakehold-
ers. Applying a bioecological systems approach
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) to RULER ensured
that the proximal processes (i.e., interactions with the
key adults and peers in children’s lives) driving devel-
opmental change were exposed to RULER’s resources
and routines to enhance their thinking about emotion,
develop their emotional intelligence, and learn strategies
to cocreate positive school climates.
Social-cognitive learning theory posits that children
learn through observation (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer,
1977), which emphasizes adults’ intentions, beliefs, val-
ues, knowledge, and skills. Children observe adults’ and
peers’ expressive patterns, including the antecedents and
consequences of their behavior (Dunsmore & Halberstadt,
1997; Hyson, 2004) and often adopt expressive patterns to
which they are exposed (Denham, 1989; Denham &
Grout, 1992; Denham, Mitchell-Copeland, Strandberg,
Auerbach, & Blair, 1997). In addition to expressive pat-
terns, caregivers model strategies to regulate emotions
(Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007).
Adults’ patterns of negative affect relate to young child-
ren’s externalizing and challenging behaviors as well as
internalizing behaviors (Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill,
2006; Mirabile, 2014; Newland & Crnic, 2011). Adults
who express more negative emotions tend to punish child-
ren’s negative expressivity more and to a greater degree
(Mirabile, 2014). With regard to positive behavior, a
child’s kindness toward others is associated with the
degree to which the adults in their lives model that pro-
social behavior (see Denham et al., 1997). Similarly, chil-
dren observe the social rules and norms for emotion
expression as well as what happens when those rules and
norms are violated (Denham, 1998; Halberstadt, 1991). In
this way, children are exposed to others’ emotion beliefs,
attitudes, and values, which is how children become
immersed in their culture (Gottman, Katz, &
Hooven, 1996).
Stakeholders’ Planned Behavior and Stages
of Competence
At the core of change during RULER’s implementation is
getting stakeholders to be intentional about their thinking
and behavior around SEL at the school and classroom lev-
els. Two theoretical perspectives organize and guide
stakeholders’ acquisition of RULER’s individual- and

setting-level proximal outcomes: Ajzen’s (1991) theory of
planned behavior and Howell’s (1982) stages
of competence.
According to Ajzen (1991), intentional behavior is part
attitude about the behavior, part perception of social
norms, and part perceived control of the behavior, all
related to well-established constructs like self-efficacy
(Bandura et al., 1977) and locus of control (Rotter, 1966;
see also, Ajzen, 2002). RULER operationalizes the theory
of planned behavior through enhancement of stakeholders’
attitudes and beliefs about emotion, teaching emotional
intelligence skills, promoting safe and supportive school
and classroom climates, and providing opportunities to
practice social and emotional skills (see RULER’s SEL
infusion of tools and curricula into routines, policies,
and pedagogy).
RULER is based on the idea that emotional intelligence
is a set of specific skills that are malleable and can be
taught (Brackett & Katulak, 2006). The four stages of
competence learning model relates to the psychological
states implicated in the process of advancing from incom-
petence to competence in a skill (see Howell, 1982). A
primary goal of RULER is to move people through these
stages, though research specifically examining how
RULER achieves this is yet to be conducted. Some educa-
tors begin at the unconscious incompetence stage (i.e.,
unskilled in applying emotional intelligence to teaching
and learning and unaware of the deficit). Others are at the
conscious incompetence stage. These educators do not
understand or know how to apply emotional intelligence,
but they recognize the deficit and value acquiring the new
skill. Over time, educators can transition to the conscious
competence stage where they now possess or are moti-
vated to acquire the emotion knowledge and skills that
characterize emotionally intelligent thinking and behavior.
Important in this stage, people still must consciously pro-
cess their thinking and behavior. Ultimately, the educators
may reach the level of unconscious competence. This is
when emotionally intelligent thinking, teaching, leading,
and interacting with others is simply part of who they are
as individuals. It is also when the tenets of emotional
intelligence become infused into school policies and class-
room practices and routines.
RULER’s Aims
RULER Buy-In and the “Emotions Matter” Mindset
According to Rogers (2003), an approach to SEL like
RULER must be compatible with the beliefs and values of
the school staff for it to be implemented with quality and
sustainability. Fundamental to all school-based SEL pro-
graming—including RULER—is leader and educator
belief that social and emotional skills are malleable, are
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 153
supported organizationally, and can be taught using spe-
cific pedagogy (Brackett, 2019; Sluyter & Salovey, 1997).
Another key is the motivation to change or dissatisfaction
with the status quo (Wanless & Domitrovich, 2015).
Rogers (2003) noted that an innovation must have a
“relative advantage” over existing practice for it to stick.
For RULER, the key is providing people with knowledge
in the science of emotions, especially the research that
demonstrates how emotions influence attention, memory,
and learning; relationship quality, decision-making, and
physical and mental health; and performance (Brackett,
2019; Brackett, Rivers, Bertoli, & Salovey, 2016).
Teaching people this science of emotion helps to promote
a growth mindset about emotions and the skills of emo-
tional intelligence. In sum, acquiring an “emotions matter”
mindset is the impetus for implementing RULER—it
answers the question “If emotions matter, what can I actu-
ally do?”
Deepening Social and Emotional Skills
RULER provides learners with tools for learning about
emotion (e.g., Mood Meter), Core Routines to support
skill development and promote sound decision making
and positive relationships, and pedagogy and programing
(i.e., pre-K–12 curricular components). Using these tools
and experiences enhance the second key aim of
RULER—the five skills of emotional intelligence (i.e.,
Recognizing, Understanding, Labeling, Expressing,
Regulating emotion).
Emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997) is at the intersection of cogni-
tion and affect, and extant research over the last century
has shown that emotions are intertwined with thinking
and behavior and are at the heart of learning, judgment,
decision-making, relationships, and health (Angie,
Connelly, Waples, & Kligyte, 2011; Barrett, 2017; Clore
& Huntsinger, 2007; Fitness, 2015; Lench, Flores, &
Bench, 2011; Meyer & Turner, 2002; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz,
& Perry, 2002). Emotional intelligence represents how
emotion-laden information is perceived and processed,
thought about, and used and regulated to modulate think-
ing and behavior to achieve goals. Emotional intelligence
also encompasses the skills needed to align with social
rules and norms, and in this regard, it closely resembles
other constructs and frameworks, including Affective
Social Competence and Emotional Competence
(Halberstadt et al., 2001; Saarni, 1999).
For more than 30 years, our team at the Yale Center
for Emotional Intelligence has synthesized research in
psychology, education, and neuroscience to build a
framework for five key emotion skills. These skills repre-
sent the principle aspects of emotion knowledge,
154 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
competencies, and processes found in the psychological
literature on emotional development and intelligence.
Here we provide a brief introduction. To our primary
audience—educators and families—these skills are social,
and emotional skills are known and remembered by the
acronym RULER. Although a handy mnemonic, we do
not imply a hierarchy in which one skill always precedes
the other in a progressive chain (Brackett, 2019).
The first skill, Recognizing emotion, pertains to the
accurate perception of emotion—by noticing a change in
one’s own thoughts, energy, or body, or in someone else’s
facial expression, body language, or voice. That’s the first
clue that something important is happening—whether
pleasant or unpleasant.
The second skill, Understanding emotion, refers to the
knowledge of the causes of emotions and how they influ-
ence our thoughts, decisions, and behavior. This helps us
make better predictions about our own and others’ behav-
ior. For example, understanding that a child’s angry out-
burst is related to unfair treatment by a friend versus the
divorce of his parents can help to empathize and support
the child.
The third skill, Labeling emotion, concerns the connec-
tions between an emotional experience and the precise
terms to describe it. People with a more nuanced “feelings
vocabulary” can differentiate among related emotions like
pleased, happy, elated, and ecstatic. Labeling emotions
accurately increases self-awareness and helps us to com-
municate emotions effectively, reducing misunderstanding
in social interactions.
The fourth skill, Expressing emotion, means knowing
how and when to express emotions, depending on the situ-
ation, the people we are with, and the larger context,
including culture. People who are skilled in this area
understand that unspoken rules for emotional expression,
also called “display rules,” often direct the best way to
express emotions, and modify their behaviors accordingly.
The fifth skill, Regulating emotion, involves monitor-
ing and modifying emotional reactions in helpful ways to
reach personal and professional goals. Emotion regulation
doesn’t mean ignoring inconvenient emotions—rather, it
is learning to accept and deal with them. People with this
skill employ strategies to manage their own emotions and
help others with theirs.
In the RULER framework, the first three skills—
Recognizing, Understanding, and Labeling—help us to
accurately identify and decode what we and others are
feeling. Then, the two remaining skills—Expressing and
Regulating emotion—tell us how we can manage those
emotions to achieve desired outcomes, often our ultim-
ate goal.
Empathy and emotional intelligence are intertwined.
Research shows that we are more likely to help others if
we empathize with them, and we are often motivated
during instances of shared emotional experience (Telle &
Pfister, 2016; Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, 2009). That
is, empathy begets compassion. Indeed, embedded within
many social skills, such as cooperation, turn-taking, and
sharing, are the underlying skills of emotional intelligence
(Denham et al., 2003; Izard, Fine, Schultz, Mostow,
Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001).
Effective emotion expression and regulation also are in
part a prerequisite for healthy social interaction. For
instance, a barrier to sharing successfully may be an
inability to communicate feelings effectively (Brownell,
Svetlova, Anderson, Nichols, & Drummond, 2013).
Considered fundamental to self-regulation, language is
vital to children’s effectiveness in expressing and under-
standing their needs and ultimately regulating their emo-
tions, especially in social settings like classrooms
(Bodrova & Leong, 2006; Cole, Armstrong, &
Pemberton, 2010). Furthermore, social skills are facili-
tated by children’s emotion skills and hampered when
children lack them. For example, classroom interactions
can quickly break down when children struggle to effect-
ively regulate their emotions. A recent meta-analysis
affirmed that aggressive behavior is associated with lower
scores on emotional intelligence assessments (Garcıa-
Sancho, Salguero, & Fernandez-Berrocal, 2017).
Functionally, the key to emotional intelligence is how
emotional experience and emotion knowledge are used to
achieve personal and social goals. For example, a child
who hugs a crying peer likely used her emotional intelli-
gence to identify that her peer was feeling sad and then
used that information in combination with a coregulative
strategy (e.g., hugging) to achieve a social goal (e.g.,
helping her friend feel better).
Healthier Emotional Climates in Schools
and Homes
School climate. Schools that serve as professional
learning communities reflect a climate where educators
maintain a shared standard of heightened professionalism
and where everyone contributes to a positive and profes-
sional climate (Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Educators’ per-
ceptions of school climate, including the cultural
atmosphere of the school, the supports available for teach-
ers, and the relationships between and among adults and
students, may influence teachers’ emotional states and
how they interact with children (Reffett, 2009). Educators
in negative work environments are more likely to feel the
consequences of stress (Hargreaves, 1998; Reffett, 2009).
Just as teachers work to establish the climate of a
classroom, school leaders have the power to drive and
shift the norms, culture, and climate of their school
(Tschannen-Moran, 2009). According to Adler and Borys
(1996; see also Tschannen-Moran, 2009), school leaders

either embrace and support teachers’ emotion skills and
promote policies of professional development or use bur-
eaucratic control to minimize differences among teachers
by increasing rigid standardization. RULER tools like the
Charter are designed to support faculty and staff in
achieving the best possible emotional climate.
Classroom climate. RULER encourages teacher–stu-
dent relationships that are supportive, cooperative, and
respectful—fundamental pillars of warm, sensitive, and
child-centered classroom climates. Positive classroom cli-
mates foster attachment relationships between teachers
and children, where children receive the emotional sup-
port they need (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Denham &
Burton, 2012). Classroom climate is critical for learning,
as evidenced by positive associations with student behav-
ior and academic engagement (Brackett, Reyes, et al.,
2011; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012).
Young children with behavioral and emotional challenges
fair especially well in classrooms with a positive climate
(Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Positive classroom climates are
associated with decreased internalizing behaviors and
increased autonomy in kindergarten and first grade as
well as increased preschoolers’ social and emotional skills
(Mashburn et al., 2008; National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network [NICHD ECCRN], 2003). As with faculty and
staff, RULER’s classroom Charter is designed to support
a healthy emotional climate between and among students
and their teacher.
RULER has been shown to effectively shift classroom
emotional climate. The most rigorous study to date of
RULER was a 2-year randomized controlled trial with 62
schools assigned to either implement RULER in their
fifth- and sixth-grade English language arts (ELA) class-
rooms or to be control schools doing business as usual
(Rivers et al., 2013). The study included 155 classrooms,
105 teachers, and 3,824 students. Outcomes were meas-
ured using an observational coding rubric applied to
video footage of ELA classrooms. After 1 year of
RULER implementation, classrooms in the RULER con-
dition were rated by independent observers as having
greater warmth and connectedness between and among
teachers and students (p ¼ .048, g ¼ 0.50), more positive
climates (p ¼ .007, g ¼ 0.55), and higher regard for stu-
dents’ perspectives (p ¼ .030, g ¼ 0.60). Teacher reports
also indicated that RULER classrooms had more emo-
tion-focused interactions between teachers and students
(p ¼ .038, g ¼ 0.52), and cooperative learning strategies
(p ¼ .021, g ¼ 0.53), compared to teachers in con-
trol schools.
A follow-up study was completed at the end of the
2nd year. Fifty-seven of the original 62 schools
remained, including 144 fifth- and sixth-grade classrooms
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 155
taught by 96 teachers. Outcomes were measured by
observational coding of additional videotapes submitted
by teachers in the study. RULER schools continued to be
rated significantly higher on emotional support (p ¼
.043, g ¼ 0.48), instructional support (p ¼ .005, g ¼ 0.71),
and classroom organization (p ¼ .026, g ¼ 0.56), com-
pared to the control condition schools. Moreover,
RULER’s impact in Year 1 on classroom emotional sup-
port mediated RULER’s impact on more distal outcomes
of instructional support, v2(4) ¼ 3.21, p ¼ .524, compara-
tive fit index ¼ 1.00, root mean square error of approx-
imation ¼ .000, and classroom organization, v2(3) ¼ .78,
p ¼ .854, comparative fit index ¼ 1.00, root mean square
error of approximation ¼ .000). These longitudinal find-
ings align with RULER’s ToC such that shifts in class-
room emotional support facilitate positive changes in
instructional support and classroom organization
(Hagelskamp et al., 2013).
Teacher-Level Impact
Evidence is accumulating that more takes place during the
Adult Personal and Professional Learning Phase of
RULER than merely preparing educators to implement in
their classrooms. Several studies have shown that after
this phase, which generally lasts 1 academic year, educa-
tors benefit both personally and professionally. In one
study, 47 teachers in Spain volunteered to receive either
30 hr of RULER training or to be in a comparison
eLearning group. All teachers completed surveys before
and after training. After controlling for gender, age, trait
affect, and personality, results showed that teachers in the
RULER group reported significantly higher ratings of
work engagement, Wilks’s k (3, 31) ¼ 5.68, p ¼ .003,
g2 ¼ .35, specifically with regards to vigor, F(1,
33) ¼ 8.11, p ¼ .008, g2 ¼ .20, and absorption, F(1,
33) ¼ 7.10, p ¼ .002, g2 ¼ .18. Furthermore, they reported
higher ratings of positive teacher–student interactions,
Wilks’s k (3, 31) ¼ 6.18, p ¼ .002, g2 ¼ .37, with signifi-
cantly higher scores on all three dimensions: personalized
interactions, F(1, 33) ¼ 12.60, p ¼ .001, g2 ¼ .28;
responses to emotions, F(1, 33) ¼ 7.29, p ¼ .011, g2 ¼ .18;
and caring beyond the classroom, F(1, 33) ¼ 14.36,
p ¼ .001, g2 ¼ .30. Finally, educators reported signifi-
cantly lower scores on one dimension of teacher burnout:
personal accomplishment, F(1, 33) ¼ 5.19, p ¼ .03,
g2 ¼ .14 (Castillo, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2013).
Although educators were not randomly assigned to condi-
tions, and thus results should be interpreted with caution,
these findings do lend additional support for the impact of
RULER training on educator development.
A second study in Spain compared the impact of
RULER training with 54 teachers (32 experimental, 22
control) in two private schools. Educators in the
156 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
intervention group received 24 hr of RULER training over
3 months. Following training, teachers in the RULER
group reported higher vigor, dedication, and absorption in
their work engagement, Wilks’s k (3, 46) ¼ 6.85, p ¼ .00,
g2 ¼ 0.31, and less burnout, Wilks’s k (3, 47) ¼ 3.60,
p ¼ .02, g2 ¼ .19. They also had higher emotional intelli-
gence scores, Wilks’s k (4, 43) ¼ 7.95, p ¼ .00, g2 ¼ .42
(Castillo-Gualda, Garcıa, Pena, Galan, & Brackett, 2017).
Student-Level Impact
In one quasi-experimental study with 273 fifth- and sixth-
grade students across 15 classrooms in three elementary
schools, classrooms implemented RULER in their fifth- or
sixth-grade classrooms with the other grade within each
school serving as the comparison group. Social and emo-
tional competence was measured by teacher reports of stu-
dent behavior using a standardized assessment, and
academic performance was assessed by students’ grades in
ELA, math, and work habits/social development. At the end
of 1 school year, students in RULER classrooms compared
to comparison classrooms showed significantly higher
grades in ELA and work habits/social development than
students, Fs(1, 221) ¼ 12.65 and 10.04, ps < .002, partial
g2 ¼ .05 and .04, respectively. In addition, students in the
RULER condition compared to comparison classrooms had
significantly higher subscale scores on Adaptive Skills, F(1,
244) ¼ 7.66, p ¼ .016, partial g2 ¼ .03, and significantly
lower scores on School Problems, F(1, 244) ¼ 9.34,
p ¼ .002, partial g2 ¼ .04, although no differences were
detected between the groups for Externalizing Problems nor
Internalizing Problems (Brackett et al., 2012).
As part of a pilot study, one suburban high school in
Connecticut with an implementation team composed of
six teacher-leaders and two administrators adapted four of
the high school lessons to fit into 20-minute advisory peri-
ods (NoVo Foundation & Education First, 2018). Half of
the ninth-grade class received RULER advisory (n ¼ 99
students), and the other half served as the comparison
group (n ¼ 73 students). The four lessons were chosen to
focus on the RULER skills of recognizing, understanding,
labeling, expressing, and regulating emotions. All students
completed an ability measure of Emotion Understanding
before and after the RULER advisory lessons were imple-
mented, and students’ academic achievement was meas-
ured based on their grade point averages in the first and
third quarters of the academic year. Although grade point
averages increased for both groups from the first to the
third quarter, those students who received the RULER les-
sons showed a 10% greater improvement in grades than
those who did not receive RULER instruction.
Furthermore, for the group who received RULER lessons,
mean scores on Emotion Understanding increased from
115.81 in the fall to 117.64 in the spring—a small but
statistically significant change, t(72) ¼ 2.42, p ¼ .02.
RULER also has been evaluated after students receive
both explicit instruction in RULER skills and through the
integration of RULER into core content areas. In one
study comparing three early childhood centers serving
families from low-income backgrounds, children in
RULER classrooms demonstrated greater end-of-year per-
formance on two emotion-related tasks: making fewer
errors in emotion recognition (z ¼ 2.01, p < .05,
ES ¼ 0.052), and increased ability to label emotions
(z ¼ 4.46, p < .001, ES ¼ 1.39). In addition, compared to
children at the comparison site, children exposed to
RULER for 2 years scored significantly lower on emotion
recognition errors (z ¼ 2.04, p < .05, ES ¼ 0.45) and sig-
nificantly higher on emotion labeling at the end of the
year (z ¼ 2.35, p < .05, ES ¼ 0.55; Bailey et al., 2019).
More research is needed on student-level impact
of RULER.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
RULER is recognized by CASEL as an effective SEL
program and was designated as a 2013 CASEL SELect
program for elementary schools (www.casel.org). More
research is needed to confirm RULER’s impact in the pre-
school, middle school, and high school levels. This
research must include studies focused on the impact of
RULER on educator outcomes, student outcomes, and
school-level variables. Moreover, understanding the medi-
ating role of emotion skills development on attendance,
academic performance, relationship quality, and healthy
decision making is a critical next phase of research.
Several large evaluations of RULER are currently under-
way toward these aims, including a longitudinal study in
dozens of New York City and Connecticut public schools,
and two external evaluations of RULER, funded by the
Institute of Education Science. The first is an RCT in 60
elementary schools in Virginia, and the second is an RCT
in 72 preschools in Connecticut.
Much of the research on RULER’s impact has been
restricted because of the lack of valid, performance-based
SEL assessments (Nathanson, Rivers, Flynn, & Brackett,
2016). Toward this end, we are taking steps to develop a
full suite of emotion skill assessments for both children
and adults. For example, in collaboration with researchers
at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania,
our team is building a dynamic video-based test of emo-
tional intelligence for adults. Important to note, the stimuli
for the test have been carefully developed to ensure meas-
urement equivalence across gender and race. In addition,
we are developing a battery of assessment tools for chil-
dren and youth. These will include (a) a web-based school

climate walk-through for students that asks them to mark
as “observed/not observed” for a series of statements
about their school (e.g., there were multiple students
absent from class today) that are based on the domains of
school climate outlined by the National School Climate
Center (e.g., Physical Safety, Quality of Teaching,
Student–Teacher Relationships), producing a snapshot of
their school climate; (b) an emotion assessment tool that
can measure how students are feeling using experience
sampling methodology and offers relevant strategies for
emotion regulation; and (c) an emotion regulation bench-
marks tool to support teachers in helping preschool to
high school students learn helpful emotion regulation
strategies for their developmental level.
At the time of this publication, RULER will have been
adopted by more than 2,000 schools in 26 states in the
United States, as well as a host of international locations,
including Australia, Italy, Spain, England, Mexico, and
China. Over the last decade, RULER has shifted from a
boutique model to a sustainable, scalable approach that has
been integrated into many large urban and suburban school
districts, charter networks, and private schools. RULER’s
implementation into the largest district in the United States
has led to new solutions for training and coaching, includ-
ing “umbrella” coaching in which district-level employees
serve as coaches to schools and liaise with RULER coach-
ing staff. This model, which still needs to be evaluated,
was developed in collaboration with one district in
Washington state serving 60 schools and has been used
with a cohort of five high schools in Virginia and a net-
work of 37 private high schools in Mexico.
We also have launched a statewide initiative in our own state
of Connecticut, known as “Making Connecticut the first emo-
tionally intelligent education state.” This project, generously
supported by numerous foundations, is in partnership with a
wide range of organizations that support SEL in Connecticut,
including the Connecticut Association of Schools; the
Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents; the
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education; the
Connecticut Department of Education; the Commission on
Women, Children, and Seniors; and Connecticut Regional
Education Services, among others. To date, we have reached
more than 150 schools serving more than 100,000 students in
the state. Evaluations are currently underway.
In 2018, we released RULER Online, a platform that
houses all RULER content, including courses to support
educators’ own skill development, training videos, cur-
riculum across all grade levels, and online versions of our
tools (e.g., a Charter building tool and a Mood Meter
App). The platform allows for widespread dissemination
of RULER content and analytics so that researchers and
practitioners can track and evaluate RULER implementa-
tion. Our goal is to answer more advanced questions
regarding the effectiveness of RULER, as we gather
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 157
implementation fidelity data (e.g., usage statistics) from a
larger pool of schools and districts across the nation. For
example, what level of implementation fidelity is neces-
sary to see significant effects on student outcomes? What
proportion of educators must participate in rollout for a
school to experience a shift in their school climate? We
also plan to introduce an online-only version of the
RULER Institute training, which will allow us to scale
more broadly by reducing costs for schools and reaching
rural schools for which travel is prohibitive for both the
educators and our training team. Offering an online-only
version of the RULER Institute training introduces yet
another set of research questions: most basically, a com-
parison of the traditional in-person train-the-trainer model
to the online model.
Over the last 25 years, the field of SEL has grown
considerably. In addition to CASEL’s critical role in
guiding the field, in 2016 the National Commission on
Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (www.
ncsead.com) was formed under the auspices of the
Aspen Institute to advance the policy, practice, and
research agendas for the field. The commission was
formed, in part, because of the demand for SEL. A
broad research agenda on SEL programing, and on
RULER specifically, which demonstrates longitudinal
impacts across a wide range of theoretically relevant
outcomes such as teacher and student stress and well-
ness, sound decision making, relationship quality,
aggression and violence, and academic engagement and
achievement, will ensure that SEL remains a critical
component of children’s education.
DISCLOSURE
The first author, Marc Brackett, has a conflict of interest
management plan in place with Yale University to ensure
that his involvement in the development of RULER does
not compromise research endeavors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We express our gratitude to the faculty and staff at the
Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence for their thought-
ful feedback on early drafts of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a con-
ceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public
service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4–23. doi:10.1007/s10488-
010-0327-7
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling
and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89. doi:
10.2307/2393986
158 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:
10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of
control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2002.tb00236.x
Angie, A. D., Connelly, S., Waples, E. P., & Kligyte, V. (2011). The
influence of discrete emotions on judgement and decision-making: A
meta-analytic review. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 1393–1422. doi:
10.1080/02699931.2010.550751
Bailey, C. S., Rivers, S. E., Tominey, S. L., O’Bryon, E. C., Olsen,
S. G., Sneeden, C. K., … Brackett, M. A. (2019). Promoting early
childhood social and emotional learning with Preschool RULER.
Unpublished manuscript, Child Study Center, Yale University, New
Haven, CT.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes
mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35(3), 125–139. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.125
Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active infer-
ence account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 1–23. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx060
Bayer, J. K., Sanson, A. V., & Hemphill, S. A. (2006). Children’s
moods, fears, and worries: Development of an Early Childhood
Parent Questionnaire. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 14(1), 41–49. doi:10.1177/10634266060140010401
Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander,
S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning.
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(3), 508–544. doi:10.1017/
bca.2015.55
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom.
Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 141–170. doi:10.1007/
s10648-009-9104-0
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2006). Vygotskian perspectives on teaching
and learning early literacy. In D. Dickenson & S. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of research in early literacy development: Vol. 2
(pp. 243–256). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brackett, M. (2019). Permission to feel: Unlocking the power of emo-
tions to help our kids, ourselves, and our society thrive. New York,
NY: Celadon Books.
Brackett, M. A., Caruso, D. R., & Stern, R. (2006). Anchors of emo-
tional intelligence. New Haven, CT: Emotionally Intelligent Schools,
LLC.
Brackett, M. A., Elbertson, N. A., & Rivers, S. E. (2016). Applying the-
ory to the development of approaches to SEL. In J. A. Durlak, C. E.
Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of
social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 20–32).
New York: Guilford.
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the
classroom: Skill-based training for teachers and students. In J.
Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Improving emotional intelligence: A
practitioner's guide (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Psychology Press/
Taylor & Francis.
Brackett, M. A., Maurer, M., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., Carpenter,
M. D., Kremenitzer, J. P., … Bauer, J. (2011). The feeling words
curriculum. In M. A. Brackett, J. P. Kremenitzer, M. Maurer, S. E.
Rivers, N. A. Elbertson & M. D. Carpenter (Eds.), Creating emotion-
ally literate classrooms: An introduction to the RULER Approach to
social and emotional learning (pp. 23–48). Port Chester, NY:
National Professional Resources, Inc.
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., &
Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation,
and student conduct. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46,
27–36.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Bertoli, M. C., & Salovey, P. (2016).
Emotional intelligence. In L. Feldman Barrett, M. Lewis, & J.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 513–531).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012).
Enhancing academic performance and social and emotional compe-
tence with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learning and
Individual Differences, 22(2), 218–224. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.
10.002
Brenner, E. M., & Salovey, P. (1997). Emotional regulation during child-
hood: Developmental, interpersonal, and individual considerations. In
P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emo-
tional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 168–195). New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of
human development. In W. Damon & B. J. Richards (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human develop-
ment (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Brownell, C. A., Svetlova, M., Anderson, R., Nichols, S. R., &
Drummond, J. (2013). Socialization of early prosocial behavior:
Parents’ talk about emotions is associated with sharing and helping in
toddlers. Infancy, 18(1), 91–119. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.
00125.x
Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. G. (1994).
A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3), 284–303.
doi:10.2307/1166150
Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent man-
ager: How to develop the four key emotional skills of leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Castillo, R., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2013).
Enhancing teacher effectiveness in Spain: A pilot Study of the
RULER Approach to social and emotional learning. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 1, 263–272. doi:10.11114/
jets.v1i2.203
Castillo-Gualda, R., Garcıa, V., Pena, M., Galan, A., & Brackett, M. A.
(2017). Preliminary findings from the RULER approach in Spanish
teachers’ emotional intelligence and work engagement. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 15(3), 641–664. doi:
10.14204/ejrep.43.17068
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judg-
ment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9),
393–399. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005
Cole, P. M., Armstrong, L. M., & Pemberton, C. K. (2010). The role of
language in the development of emotion regulation. In S. D. Calkins
& M. A. Bell (Eds.), Human brain development. Child development
at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 59–77). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Collaborative for Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. (2017).
Core SEL competencies. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Social,
Emotional, and Academic Learning.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate prac-
tice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through
age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the
whole child: Improving school climate to support student success.
Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Denham, S. A. (1989). Maternal affect and toddlers’ social-emotional
competence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), 368–376.
doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1989.tb01672.x

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (2012). Social and emotional prevention
and intervention programming for preschoolers. Berlin, Germany:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1992). Mothers’ emotional expressiveness
and coping: Relations with preschoolers’ social-emotional compe-
tence. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 118,
73–101.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Zinsser, K. (2012). Early childhood
teachers as socializers of Young children’s emotional competence.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 137–143. doi:10.1007/
s10643-012-0504-2
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K.,
Auerbach-Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool emotional
competence: pathway to social competence? Child Development,
74(1), 238–256. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00533
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., &
Blair, K. (1997). Parental contributions to preschoolers’ emotional
competence: Direct and indirect effects. Motivation and Emotion,
21(1), 65–86. doi:10.1023/A:1024426431247
Dunsmore, J. C., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1997). How does family emo-
tional expressiveness affect children’s schemas? New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 1997(77), 45–68. doi:10.1002/
cd.23219977704
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review
of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes
and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-
9165-0
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., &
Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social
and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental social-
ization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T.,
Haynes, N. M., … Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emo-
tional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Feldman Barrett, L., Lindquist, K. A., & Gendron, M. (2007). Language
as context for the perception of emotion. TRENDS in Cognitive
Science, 11(8), 327–332. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003
Fitness, J. (2015). Emotions in relationships. In M. Mikulincer, P. R.
Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of per-
sonality and social psychology,: Volume 3: Interpersonal relations
(Vol. 3, pp. 297–318). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fivush, R., Berlin, L., Sales, J. M., Mennuti-Washburn, J., & Cassidy, J.
(2003). Functions of parent-child reminiscing about emotionally nega-
tive events. Memory, 11(2), 179–192. doi:10.1080/741938209
Garcıa-Sancho, E., Salguero, J. M., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2017).
Ability emotional intelligence and its relation to aggression across
time and age groups. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(1),
43–51. doi:10.1111/sjop.12331
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emo-
tion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models
and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E.,
Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-
based prevention and youth development through coordinated social,
emotional, and academic learning. The American Psychologist,
58(6–7), 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 159
Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013).
Improving classroom quality with the RULER Approach to social
and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 530–543. doi:10.1007/
s10464-013-9570-x
Halberstadt, A. G. (1991). Toward an ecology of expressiveness: Family
socialization in particular and a model in general. In R. S. Feldman &
B. Rime (Eds.), Studies in emotion & social interaction.
Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 106–160). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective
social competence. Social Development, 10(1), 79–119. doi:10.1111/
1467-9507.00150
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional
support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at
risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(98)00025-0
Harre, R. (1986). The social construction of emotions. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Hesse, P., & Cicchetti, D. (1982). Perspectives on an integrated theory
of emotional development. New Directions for Child Development,
1982(16), 3–48. doi:10.1002/cd.23219821603
Howell, W. S. (1982). The empathic communicator. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Pub Co.
Hyson, M. (2004). The emotional development of young children:
Building an emotion-centered curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights,
unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60(1), 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.
163539
Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., &
Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social
behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psychological
Science, 12(1), 18–23. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00304
Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R.,
… Greenberg, M. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for Teachers pro-
gram on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom
interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 1010–1028.
doi:10.1037/edu0000187
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom:
Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and
classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1),
491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693
Johnston, H. (2012). The spiral curriculum. Research into practice.
Education Partnerships, Inc. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=
ED538282
Kam, C.-M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the
role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the
PATHS curriculum. Promoting Alternative THinking Skills
Curriculum. Prevention Science, 4(1), 55–63. doi:10.1023/A:
1021786811186
Katja Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for
abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(5), 719–736.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emo-
tion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child
Development, 71(1), 107–118. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00124
Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., & Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions
predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and
physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 834–855. doi:10.1037/a0024244
160 BRACKETT, BAILEY, HOFFMANN, SIMMONS
Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M.,
Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words:
Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective
stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.01916.x
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin,
O. A., Bryant, D., … Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom
quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic,
language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
Maurer, M., Brackett, M. A., & Plain, F. (2004). Emotional literacy in
the middle school: A 6-step program to promote social emotional and
academic learning. Naples, FL: National Professional Resources Inc./
Dude Publishing.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In
P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emo-
tional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom
motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107–114. doi:
10.1207/S15326985EP3702_5
Meyer, J. L., & Stambler, M. J. (2016). Social and emotional learning in
the Bridgeport Public Schools: An initial report to the community.
Retrieved from https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/consultationcen-
ter/Bridgeport_Public_Schools_Report_281651_1095_5_v1.pdf
Mirabile, S. P. (2014). Parents’ inconsistent emotion socialization and
children’s socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 392–400. doi:10.1016/
j.appdev.2014.06.003
Montessori, M. (2013). The Montessori method. Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R.
(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion
regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2007.00389.x
Nathanson, L., Rivers, S. E., Flynn, L. M., & Brackett, M. A. (2016).
Creating emotionally intelligent schools with RULER. Emotion
Review, 8(4), 305–310. doi:10.1177/1754073916650495
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of
Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards.
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, Council of
Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://
www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child
Care Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child
care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kin-
dergarten? Child Development, 74, 976–1005. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00582
Newland, R. P., & Crnic, K. A. (2011). Mother–child affect and emotion
socialization processes across the late preschool period: predictions of
emerging behaviour problems. Infant and Child Development, 20(6),
371–388. doi:10.1002/icd.729
NoVo Foundation & Education First. (2018). SEL in Action: The 2017-
2018 Social and Emotional Learning Innovation Awards for Teachers
[Electronic Book]. Retrieved from http://selforteachers.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/Social-and-Emotional-Learning-Teacher-Awards-2018-
Digital.pdf
Osher, D., Kidron, Y., Brackett, M., Dymnicki, A., Jones, S., &
Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Advancing the science and practice of social
and emotional learning: looking back and moving forward. Review of
Research in Education, 40(1), 644–681. doi:10.3102/
0091732X16673595
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emo-
tions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program
of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist,
37(2), 91–105. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Reffett, A. D. (2009). Exploring sources of teacher stress in Head Start
(Doctoral dissertation). Wheaton College, IL. Retrieved from https://
search.proquest.com/docview/305135181/abstract/
2DBF560A396F4D7CPQ/1
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.
(2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and aca-
demic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
700–712. doi:10.1037/a0027268
Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Elbertson, N. A., &
Salovey, P. (2013). Improving the social and emotional climate of
classrooms: A clustered randomized controlled trial testing the
RULER Approach. Prevention Science, 14(1), 77–87. doi:10.1007/
s11121-012-0305-2
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-
nal control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General
and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. doi:10.1037/
h0077714
Russell, J. A. (1990). The preschooler’s understanding of the causes and
consequences of emotion. Child Development, 61(6), 1872–1881. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03571.x
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emo-
tional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the ele-
phant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 805–819.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thomson,
K., Oberlander, T. F., & Diamond, A. (2015). Enhancing cognitive
and social-emotional development through a simple-to-administer
mindfulness-based school program. Developmental Psychology,
51(1), 52–66. doi:10.1037/a0038454
Simmons, D. N., Brackett, M. A., & Adler, N. (2018). Applying an
equity lens to social, emotional, and academic development. Edna
Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State
University.
Sluyter, D., & Salovey, P. (1997). Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: Implications for educators. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Strambler, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2018). Bridgeport Public Schools
social and emotional learning (SEL) partnership May 2018 commu-
nity update. Retrieved from http://www.tauckfamilyfoundation.org/
images/uploads/main/BPS_SEL_Partnership_2018_Community_
Report_final.pdf
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017).
Promoting positive youth development through school-based social
and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up
effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. doi:10.1111/cdev.
12864
Telle, N.-T., & Pfister, H.-R. (2016). Positive empathy and prosocial
behavior: A neglected link. Emotion Review, 8(2), 154–163. doi:
10.1177/1754073915586817
Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Aligning identities,
emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and
political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3),
194–218. doi:10.1177/1088868309341563
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in
schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247. doi:10.1177/0013161X
08330501

Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives
as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach
mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1),
37–54. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7
Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools
and communities. Children & Schools, 35, 123–126. doi:10.1093/cs/
cdt007
Wanless, S. B., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2015). Readiness to implement
school-based social-emotional learning interventions: Using research
on factors related to implementation to maximize quality. Prevention
Science, 16(8), 1037–1043. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0612-5
RULER: A THEORY-DRIVEN, SYSTEMIC APPROACH 161
Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Lee, S. Y. D. (2008). Review:
Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for
change. A review of the literature in health services. Medical Care
Research and Review, 65(4), 379–436. doi:10.1177/1077558708317802
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Yarber, L., Brownson, C. A., Jacob, R. R., Baker, E. A., Jones, E.,
Baumann, C., … Brownson, R. C. (2015). Evaluating a train-the-
trainer approach for improving capacity for evidence-based decision
making in public health. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 547.
doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1224-2