Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappdp

Teacher-student relationships across the first seven years of education and T

adolescent outcomes☆
Arya Ansaria,b, , Tara L. Hofkensc, Robert C. Piantac
⁎

a
Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, United States of America
b
Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University, United States of America
c
Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, University of Virginia, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Despite the significance of teacher–student relationships during the early years of school, questions remain about
Teacher-student relationships its long-term importance and whether the timing and variability of relationship quality matter. To address these
Closeness gaps, data from the NICHD SECCYD were used to determine whether teacher-student relationships between
Conflict kindergarten and sixth grade were associated with the achievement, social-behavior, and educational beliefs and
NICHD SECCYD
aspirations of 1364 ninth graders (52% male, 80% White). Multivariate regression analyses revealed that when
teachers reported closer relationships with students, in turn, students demonstrated modestly stronger outcomes
across all domains. In contrast, more conflictual relationships were largely associated with underachievement
and variability in relationship quality was not consistently associated with adolescent outcomes. Finally, al­
though the benefits of teacher-student closeness were largely cumulative, teacher-student conflict in the later
years was more strongly associated with student outcomes than earlier conflict. Collectively, results affirm the
importance of teacher-student relationships for students' long-term development.

Introduction optimal outcomes. Notwithstanding this evidence we know less about

Educational and developmental research has shown that the social
and relational aspects of the classroom setting particularly qualities of
relationships between teachers and students are a modest but robust
predictor of students’ academic achievement (Hamre & Pianta, 2001;
Lippard, La Paro, Rouse, & Crosby, 2018; McCormick & O'Connor,
2015; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and socioemotional development
(Heatly & Votruba-Drzal, 2017; Howes, 2000; Lippard et al., 2018;
Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012). Indeed
students whose relationships with their teacher are characterized by
higher levels of closeness and lower levels of conflict demonstrate more
the long-term and cumulative trends in teacher-student relationships
across grades and possible implications for optimizing learning en­
vironments for students across the K-12 educational pipeline. For ex­
ample we do not know whether the benefits of earlier relationships
documented in the extant literature have persisting benefits for students
or whether those benefits fade over time
Given the potential importance of teacher-student relationships as
an educational and developmental asset, we consider the longer-term
ramifications of these relationships between kindergarten and sixth
grade for students' academic achievement, educational beliefs and as­
pirations, and social-behavior in ninth grade, which represents: (a) a

☆
This study was directed by a steering committee and supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) through a cooperative
agreement (U10), which calls for scientific collaboration between the grantees and the NICHD staff. Participating investigators, listed in alphabetical order, are: Jay
Belsky, Birkbeck University of London; Cathryn Booth-LaForce, University of Washington; Robert Bradley, University of Arkansas, Little Rock; Celia A. Brownell,
University of Pittsburgh; Margaret Burchinal, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Susan B. Campbell, University of Pittsburgh; K. Alison Clarke-Stewart,
University of California, Irvine; Sarah L. Friedman, CNA Corp., Alexandria, Virginia; Kathyrn Hirsh-Pasek, Temple University; Renate Houts, Research Triangle
Institute; Aletha Huston, University of Texas, Austin; Jean F. Kelly, University of Washington; Bonnie Knoke, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle, NC;
Nancy Marshall, Wellesley College; Kathleen McCartney, Harvard University; Fred Morrison, University of Michigan; Marion O’Brien, University of North Carolina at
Greensboro; Margaret Tresch Owen, University of Texas, Dallas; Robert Pianta, University of Virginia; Wendy Robeson, Wellesley College; Susan Spieker, University
of Washington; Deborah Lowe Vandell, University of California, Irvine; Marsha Weinraub, Temple University. We express our appreciation to the study coordinators
at each site who supervised the data collection, the research assistants who collected the data, and especially to the families and child-care providers who welcomed
us into their homes and workplaces and cooperated willingly with our repeated requests for information.
⁎
Corresponding author at: The Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, United States of America.
E-mail address: ansari.81@osu.edu (A. Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101200
Received 21 February 2020; Received in revised form 1 September 2020; Accepted 28 September 2020
Available online 07 October 2020
0193-3973/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Ansari, et al.
critical period for students' long-term educational success
(McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010) and (b) outcomes that are predictive
of long-term life success and well-being (Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley,
2015; Magnuson, Duncan, Lee, & Metzger, 2016; Susperreguy, Davis-
Kean, Duckworth, & Chen, 2018). As part of this effort, we consider
teacher-student relationships from both cumulative and timing specific
perspectives. We also examine whether variability in relationships
across grade-levels, above and beyond the average levels of teacher-
student relationships, matters for students' later learning and develop­
ment.
Teacher-student relationships from a theoretical perspective
The average student in the United States spends approximately one-
sixth (or 1000 h) of their waking hours in school. Moreover, even
though classrooms and schools are often thought of as academic in­
stitutions, there is a longstanding recognition of the fact that the re­
lationships that students develop in this context are of consequence to
their development personally, academically, and socially (Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Longobardi, Prino, Marengo, & Settanni, 2016; McGrath
& Van Bergen, 2015; Pakarinen et al., 2018). In fact, once children
begin their educational careers, the relationships they develop with
their teachers become increasingly important for their success in school
(Heatly & Votruba-Drzal, 2017).
Teacher student relationships in the early years of school appear to
be particularly salient for student success because they engage with
multiple developmental processes that influence long-term outcomes.
During these early years, children need to develop foundational cog­
nitive, social, and self-regulatory skills that they will need to be suc­
cessful throughout their educational careers and abundant evidence
demonstrates that features of adult-child relationships – sensitivity,
responsivity, warmth, perspective-taking – shape children's develop­
ment of these skills through moment-to-moment interactions that take
place daily. Such findings confirm the that adult-child relationships and
interactions represent critical proximal processes that cumulate to
shape development over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Aside
from the time children spend at home with their parents, interactions
with teachers form the next largest share of the day spent with an adult.
Thus, a focus on relationships between teachers and students is war­
ranted, and can be informed by research and theory on parent-child
relationships.
More specific theoretical support for examining the role of teacher-
student relationships as proximal process supports for students' devel­
opment can be drawn from attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1989). At­
tachment theory posits that adult-child relationships support cognition
and self-regulation in part through providing children with a sense of
security that enables them to explore the object world and establishes
an “internal working model” for engaging in interactions with an at­
tachment figure, or caregiver/teacher that have consequences for ac­
quiring information and learning skills (Ainsworth, 1989). Thus at­
tachment theory, and by extension theories of teacher-student
relationships (Pianta, 1999), predicts that students who experience
positive relationships with their teachers are better able to rely on them
as a secure base and developmental asset and, as such, more likely to
cooperate and engage with the teacher in the types of learning and
developmental activities provided in the classroom and to persist in
opportunities to learn and master challenging tasks. In fact, such pre­
dictions have garnered considerable empirical support (Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Lippard et al., 2018; Heatly & Votruba-Drzal, 2017).
Conversely, students who do not feel a sense of safety with their teacher
may withdraw and disengage from learning or engage in emotional or
behavioral conflict with the teacher. Moreover, a close relationship
with a warm and caring teacher can buffer students from the negative
effects of poor attachment with primary caregivers (Yan, Zhou, &
Ansari, 2016), indicating the unique promise of such relationships.
Thus, from a theoretical perspective, teacher-student relationships in
2
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
elementary school can be a promotive, protective, or a risk factor for
students to develop the foundational skills and resources they need to
succeed and thrive in school.
Teacher-student relationships and student outcomes
Guided by these conceptual frameworks, Pianta (1999, 2006, 2016)
has outlined and summarized the growth of scientific inquiry in­
vestigating the qualities, features, and theoretical advances in the study
of teacher-student relationships. As with the a focus on any social re­
lationship (Ainsworth, 1989), teacher-student relationships are con­
ceptualized as coordinated systems of transacting components, such
that both teacher and student behaviors and characteristics inform
these relationships. Pianta (1999) posited that teacher-student re­
lationships are composed of: (1) teacher and student beliefs and ex­
pectations about self, other, and the relationship; (2) behavioral ex­
changes that give rise to experience and beliefs; and (3) individual
characteristics (e.g., temperament) and experiences (e.g., prior attach­
ments) that shape other components. Based on this conceptualization, a
large body of research has been devoted to describing the nature and
consequences of teacher and student beliefs as a marker of relationship
quality (e.g., Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; McCormick & O'Connor,
2015). In the context of this focus on participants' beliefs, teachers are
of particular importance, given the asymmetric nature of these re­
lationships and their role as both attachment figure and educator
(Pianta, 2006).
In this context, a large and growing correlational literature has
shown that two particularly salient dimensions of teacher-student re­
lationship beliefs (assessed through teacher report) are closeness (i.e.,
high levels of warmth, positive affect, and approachability between
student and teacher) and conflict (i.e., negativity and lack of rapport
between student and teacher), both of which modestly predict students'
academic test scores (e.g., math, literacy; Hamre & Pianta, 2001;
Lippard et al., 2018; McCormick & O'Connor, 2015; Pianta & Stuhlman,
2004; Spilt et al., 2012), which may also extend to other academic
benchmarks, such as the rigor of students' coursework and their school
grades. There is also evidence that student-teacher relationships are
associated with students' social-behavioral development, including
their sociability, internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, and
their engagement in risky behavior (Heatly & Votruba-Drzal, 2017;
Howes, 2000; Kobak, Herres, Gaskins, & Laurenceau, 2012; Lippard
et al., 2018; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Spilt et al., 2012). Other studies
have shown that teachers' reports of their relationships with students
are also correlated with students' educational beliefs (e.g., self-con­
cepts) and aspirations (Clem, Rudasill, Hirvonen, Aunola, & Kiuru,
2020; McFarland, Murray, & Phillipson, 2016; Verschueren, Doumen, &
Buyse, 2012). A meta-analysis by Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, and Oort
(2011) suggests that teacher-student relationship quality in the early
years of school is associated with higher levels of engagement and
achievement outcomes (with effect sizes of 0.15–0.30), with conflict
serving as a stronger predictor of suboptimal outcomes such as elevated
problem behaviors and internalizing problems (O'Connor, Collins, &
Supplee, 2012), associations that appear stronger among boys, lower
income children, and ethnic minority students (Roorda et al., 2011).
Although the literature on teacher-student relationships has largely
focused on the early years (Roorda et al., 2011), investigations on the
nature and developmental salience of students' relationships with tea­
chers extends through adolescence (Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, &
Lun, 2011) and confirms findings from the early grades, that relation­
ships characterized by closeness support the development of academic,
social-behavioral, and aspirational outcomes, while conflictual re­
lationships undermine adolescent success (Pianta, 2016). This general
pattern of results, across the K-12 years, is evident when relationships
are assessed through teacher report, observation, and as children reach
adolescence, student report (Pianta, 2006). Accordingly, teachers' per­
ceptions of their conflict and closeness represents an important, albeit
A. Ansari, et al.
modest, gauge of the health of students' relationships with their tea­
chers, and as some have suggested, a lasting indicator of the value of
the classroom setting for a specific child (Howes et al., 2008).
The long-term outcomes of teacher-student relationships and student
outcomes
Despite theoretical and empirical support for the importance of
teacher-student relationships in the early years of school, we know little
about their cumulative and long-term effects, especially as students
transition to ninth grade and start their high school education. Students'
academic achievement, social-behavioral functioning, and educational
aspirations during this period can support or impair students' ability to
successfully complete and benefit from their formal education
(Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Li & Lerner, 2011; Wang
& Peck, 2013). Yet, student engagement bottoms out in the high school
years (e.g. Martin & Dowson, 2009), with one- to two-thirds of high
school students reporting that they feel disengaged, with qualities of
teacher-student relationships described as a factor in (dis) engagement
(National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004). Ninth
grade in particular represents a critical point in students' educational
careers, with many researchers and educators considering it to be a
turning point for whether students will drop out of school
(McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010). Although evidence does support the
importance of concurrent teacher-student relationships with outcomes
for youth (Allen et al., 2011; Granot, 2014), there are few, if any,
studies of longitudinal patterns of students' relationships with teachers
across the first several years of school with student behavior and per­
formance after the transition to high school. This is a significant over­
sight because these earlier relationships may represent fundamental
supports for students and represent salient markers for students' adap­
tation to high school.
Reflecting the above, both bioecological and attachment theory
imply that a history of positive relationships with teachers across the
early grades could be an enduring resource that supports students
across different developmental epochs, such as when they begin high
school. Bioecological theory suggests, for example, that teacher-student
interactions build developmental skills that then form the basis for later
skill development. In this way, performance when student enter high
school could be influenced by relationships with teachers in the early
years because students developed relevant foundational skills in the
context of relationships with their teachers in prior years of school
(Heckman, 2006). In one of the only known studies that considered this
question, Hamre and Pianta (2000) found that these relationships not
only matter for students' concurrent functioning in the early years, but
these relationships with children as early as kindergarten were linked
with students' academic performance, classroom engagement, and dis­
ciplinary infractions through eighth grade. Similarly, attachment theory
posits and there is evidence that early attachment figures and styles can
have long-term effects on development in school (O'Connor et al.,
2012). Although there is evidence that teachers can function as sec­
ondary attachment figures (Van Ryzin, 2010), we have not yet studied
the enduring effects of closeness (or conflict) with teachers across the
elementary school years as students transition into high school.
Given the above and given the recent attention to the value of the
classroom as a social and emotional resource for students (The ASPEN
Institute, 2019), examining associations between earlier relationships
and outcomes in the first year of high school could illuminate pathways
toward promoting success from the first to the last years of students'
formal education. In particular, studying long-term associations of
closeness and conflict with the high school transition year could inform
the design, implementation, and expansion of social-emotional learning
interventions throughout schooling, while testing tenets of develop­
mental theories underlying teacher student relationships.
3
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
Variability in relationships characterized by conflict and closeness
In addition to the cumulative nature of teacher-student relationships,
the present study also investigates whether variability in conflict and
closeness with students matters for students' long-term adjustment and
well-being. In other words, in addition to the accumulation of close or
conflictual interactions with teachers over time, the variability in the
affective quality of each relationship could also be consequential for
student learning. The above is of note because, even though it is gen­
erally accepted that early relationships are a developmental and edu­
cational resource across the K-12 school years, developmental theory
suggests that children's characteristics and experiences can be described
both in terms of continuity (e.g., stability of early experiences and ef­
fects across time) and discontinuity (e.g., such as when later experi­
ences reverse early experiences and effects; Lerner, 2006; Schulenberg
& Maslowsky, 2015). Thus, even though studies show that students'
long-term educational and life trajectories are established in the early
years (e.g., Duncan et al., 2007; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001), early experi­
ences and trajectories are not deterministic. Reflecting the above, stu­
dies have found that some students' experience stability in the types of
relationships they develop with teachers over time, whereas others
experience variability (Jerome et al., 2009).
Because students change teachers from year to year it is plausible
that children experience discontinuities and variability in relationship
quality over time and these discontinuities may cause challenges (and
opportunities) for students. Students who experience variability in re­
lationship quality may face not only the immediate lack of social re­
sources but also the disruption in expectations and beliefs about the
stability of relationships, which may add to challenges in the classroom.
Moreover, a high degree of inconsistency in relational quality year to
year may further erode students' trust and confidence in teachers as a
resource. Given that the extant literature has not considered rigorously
the potential drawbacks of variability in relationship quality over time,
there is little empirical evidence to guide our understanding. The above
is particularly problematic because the average quality reported in the
extant literature may conflate students who have middle of the road
experiences with all of their teachers with students who have extreme
experiences (e.g., some high and some low) with their teachers.
Accordingly, as part of this study, we also consider whether the varia­
tion in closeness or conflict in the first seven years of education matters
for students through secondary school.
Timing of teacher-student relationships
In addition to the cumulative nature and variability of teacher-
student relationships, it has long been known that developmental
timing is critical in understanding how environments are experienced.
Given the above, another important consideration is whether there are
specific times in students' educational careers during which certain
aspects of development are more strongly influenced by the quality of
interactions and relationships with teachers. In other words, to the
extent that teachers serve as key sources that affect students' develop­
mental trajectories, then these influences may be stronger at some
stages than others. As part of the present investigation, we focus on
teacher-student relationships developed in the early grades (i.e., kin­
dergarten through second grade) and relationships developed in the
later grades (i.e., third through sixth grade). We consider these epochs
because an increasing focus in third grade and beyond is test prepara­
tion, which some studies suggest may be at the expense of building high
quality and strong relationships (Blazar & Pollard, 2017).
To this end, prior studies have revealed that teachers' perceptions of
conflict with a student is moderately stable across grade levels, whereas
closeness is somewhat more variable and specific to a particular tea­
cher-student dyad (Jerome et al., 2009; O'Connor & McCartney, 2007;
A. Ansari, et al.
Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). More specifically, in the early years,
students usually experience close and positive relationships with their
teachers, which declines over time. In contrast, conflict appears to be
somewhat more stable in part because, even though teachers change
from year to year, students' characteristics and dispositions appear to
play a larger role in the development of conflict (Jerome et al., 2009;
McKinnon et al., 2018). Even with the modest stability in conflict and
variability in closeness, there has been little exploration of the im­
portance of the timing of teacher-student relationships across the K-12
school years.
Two studies are of note, however. First, Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg,
Pianta, and Howes (2002) found that teachers perceptions of relation­
ships in the early years were more important for student learning in the
immediate term as compared with the later elementary school years.
Second, Pianta and Stuhlman (2004) found that concurrent teacher-
student relationships mattered more than past relationships for stu­
dents' academic and socioemotional functioning in first grade. Although
both studies highlight the importance of teachers' perceptions of re­
lationships, both also provide only a narrow view of development early
in children's educational trajectories. One study focuses on relation­
ships at a single point in time as a predictor of development across time
(i.e., Burchinal et al., 2002), whereas the other focuses on relationships
across a three-year window in predicting development in first grade
(i.e., Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). As such, the scope of these studies
limits our understanding of the role of relationships as part of long-term
developmental cycles that start early in students' educational careers
and that could have long-term ramifications. Thus, an additional area of
interest that has yet to be methodically examined is how the timing of
relationships influences the links between teacher-student conflict and
closeness in elementary school and longer-term functioning.
Specifically, teacher-student relationships early in elementary
school could have different ramifications for development than re­
lationships the older grades. In the early school years, children are
oriented toward their teachers in the classroom and seek teachers out
for comfort and security (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). As children
get older, they become increasingly oriented toward interactions with
their peers (Eccles, 1999). In the older years, teachers also tend to focus
more on academic curriculum and programming, and students are more
likely to have different teachers for core content areas. Therefore, some
decline in children's closeness with their teacher and increase in conflict
throughout elementary school may be developmentally normative as
children expand their network of social resources by seeking closer
relationships with peers and spend time with more teachers at school
(e.g. Jerome et al., 2009; Spilt et al., 2012). These elevated levels of
conflict may also be more problematic because, as children get older,
they begin to value autonomy and teachers may focus on controlling
aspects of their relationship, which leads to conflict and disengagement
(Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). Given students'
expanding social networks, children's relationships with their teachers
in the early grades may play a more powerful role in development than
their relationships with teachers in subsequent grades (Bergin & Bergin,
2009). With that said, children's need to feel socially connected and
accepted in school continues to be important throughout childhood and
adolescence (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) and, as such, teacher-student
closeness and conflict may continue to be equally important regardless
of timing.
The current study
The purpose of the present investigation is to address key gaps in
knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of teacher-student clo­
seness and conflict. We addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent are teacher-student conflict and closeness between
kindergarten and sixth grade cumulatively associated with students'
academic achievement, educational beliefs and aspirations, and
4
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
social-behavior?
2. To what extent is variability in teacher-student conflict and closeness
between kindergarten and sixth grade predictive of students' aca­
demic achievement, educational beliefs and aspirations, and social-
behavior?
3. With respect to students' academic achievement, educational beliefs
and aspirations, and social-behavior, does the timing of teacher-
student conflict and closeness matter?
To address these research questions, we used data from the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). Even
though the NICHD SECCYD constituted primarily White, middle class
participants, the data are one of the few that include annual reports of
teacher-student relationships between kindergarten and sixth grade and
that have a comprehensive set of student outcomes assessed in ado­
lescence. As such, the NICHD SECCYD provides the breadth and depth
necessary to answer our research questions. When taken together, re­
sults obtained related to these questions have implications for educa­
tional and developmental conceptualizations of the classroom setting as
well as for efforts to improve the value and impact of educational ex­
periences on students' outcomes. Given the focus on the long-term
outcomes of teacher-student relationships, existing evidence in the
education and developmental literature more generally regarding the
fadeout of education effects (e.g., Ansari, 2018; Bailey, Duncan, Odgers,
& Yu, 2017), and exploratory nature of our work, we did not make
directional hypotheses.
Method
Participants were drawn from the NICHD SECCYD (for other studies
published with these data see: Belsky et al., 2007; Vandell, Belsky,
Burchinal, Steinberg, & Vandergrift, 2010; Vandell, Burchinal, & Pierce,
2016), which sampled mothers who gave birth in 1991 across ten dif­
ferent sites in the U.S. (Little Rock, AR; Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS;
Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Charlottesville, VA;
Morganton, NC; Seattle, WA; and Madison, WI). As part of the data
collection, healthy newborns of English-speaking mothers discharged
within one week of birth were contacted. Attempts were made to
contact 3015 families who met eligibility criteria. Contact was un­
successful for 512 families and 151 families were deemed ineligible
because the child remained in the hospital more than seven days or the
family planned to move. An additional 641 families refused to partici­
pate and 1-month interviews could not be scheduled for 185 families for
other reasons. Out of 1526 families scheduled, 1364 families completed
the 1-month home visit and became study participants (for sample
descriptives, see Table 1). Although there were no significant differ­
ences between these 1364 families and the U.S. population based on
ethnicity (80% White in U.S. population vs. 80% in cohort) and
household income ($36,520 in U.S. population and $37,781 in cohort),
the children in the NICHD SECCYD had a somewhat higher percentage
of parents who were married than the U.S. population (77% vs. 74%,
p < .05).
Of the 1364 individuals who participated at the beginning of the
study, 1226 participated in Phase II (through first grade; 1995 through
1999), 1061 participated in Phase III (through sixth grade; 2000
through 2004), and 1009 participated in Phase IV (through ninth grade;
2005 through 2007). To ensure that our sample is representative of the
full study sample, we use missing data procedures (more details below)
to retain the full sample of 1364 children. The data are not publicly
available, but are accessible for download at the Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) upon signing a
restricted data use agreement.
Procedures
Information on participating families and their children were
A. Ansari, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200

Table 1 Table 1 (continued)

Sample descriptives for study participants.
Variable Mean (SD) or proportion
Variable Mean (SD) or proportion
Sexual risk taking 0.07 (0.19)
Child characteristics and experiences Risky behavior 0.19 (0.16)
Preschool functioning
Language and literacy Notes. Estimates in brackets correspond to standard deviations. Proportions may
Letter word identification 369.36 (21.41)
not sum to 1.00 due to rounding.
Picture vocabulary 459.54 (14.09) a
Although math and science coursework is treated as a continuous variable
Math 424.72 (19.27)
Externalizing behavior 51.69 (9.39) in all analyses, the breakdown of courses is provided to illustrate the dis­
Internalizing behavior 47.29 (8.88) tribution.
Social skills 98.27 (13.53)
Health 3.39 (0.65) collected when children were 1 month of age through age 15. More
Race
specifically, as part of the larger study, data were gathered from par­
White 0.80
Black/other 0.20
ticipants at home, in the laboratory, at school, and via regular phone
Male 0.52 calls by trained personnel. All scientific decisions about the larger study
Birth weight (pounds) 7.69 (1.12) were reviewed and approved by the NICHD SECCYD steering com­
Birth order 1.83 (0.95) mittee. All assessment and data collection procedures were also piloted
Temperament 3.18 (0.40)
extensively before use in the field. Data collectors from all study sites
Proportion of time in center care 0.21 (0.26)
Proportion of time in maternal care 0.30 (0.27) followed detailed data collection procedures. Centralized training was
Child care quality 2.92 (0.42) conducted on all data collection procedures and, as part of the data
Family characteristics during early childhood training, all data collectors were required to pass a videotaped certifi­
Mothers age 28.11 (5.63)
cation test on the corresponding procedures to which they were as­
Mothers psychological adjustment 59.00 (13.95)
Maternal education 14.23 (2.51)
signed. The following sections describe the specific measures used in
Maternal vocabulary 99.01 (18.35) the present analyses and the time points of administration. However,
Parenting quality −0.03 (0.73) additional details about all data collection procedures can be found in
Income to needs ratio 3.60 (2.85) the study's Manuals of Operation and Instrument Documentation
Proportion employed 0.66 (0.37)
(http://secc.rti.org).
Maternal depression 9.36 (6.76)
Proportion two parent household 0.84 (0.32)
Mother-child relationship
Closeness 50.04 (3.67) Measures
Conflict 27.35 (7.63)
Father-child relationship Teacher-student relationships
Closeness 47.93 (4.31) We used the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta,
Conflict 26.33 (6.87)
Neighborhood characteristics during early childhood
1992) to assess teacher perceptions of the quality of their relationship
% of households in poverty 10.29 (10.03) with students for each year between kindergarten and sixth grade. The
% of single parent households 8.90 (8.21) STRS was included as part of the yearly teacher surveys, whereby
% of households receiving assistance 5.94 (6.55) children's primary teacher in each grade rated the extent to which 15
% of individuals unemployed 4.96 (4.20)
statements characterized their current relationship with the study child
% of adults with less than a high school education 20.16 (13.79)
% of adults White 82.91 (21.06) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = definitely does not apply to 5 = definitely
Ninth grade outcomes applies). The STRS includes sub-dimensions of closeness and conflict (the
Academic achievement average within time correlation across subscales within the study
Math 524.57 (16.77) sample = 0.33). The closeness subscale consists of eight items and
Language and literacy
Verbal analogies 525.55 (14.18)
measures the warmth and communication of the relationship, whereas
Passage comprehension 520.36 (12.47) the conflict subscale consists of seven items and measures the extent to
Picture vocabulary 518.60 (13.15) which the relationship is marked by negative interactions. In terms of
Grade point average 3.03 (0.71) reliability, prior studies have established the test-retest reliability over a
Math course levela 2.33 (0.90)
four-week period, and high internal consistency for both conflict and
No math course (0) 0.05
Below algebra I (1) 0.04 closeness subscales has been demonstrated (Pianta, 2001). Moreover,
Algebra I (2) 0.51 the Cronbach's alphas for the current study sample were strong for both
Geometry (3) 0.31 the closeness (α = 0.86, 0.85, 0.85, 0.85, 0.94, 0.85, 0.86, kinder­
Algebra II (4) 0.08 garten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade, respectively)
Advanced math (5) 0.00
Science course levela 2.05 (1.24)
and conflict subscales (α = 0.90 0.88, 0.89, 0.91, 0.91, 0.90, 0.91,
No science course (0) 0.08 kindergarten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade, re­
Survey Science (1) 0.31 spectively).
Earth Science (2) 0.21 For the purposes of the present study, we use these teacher-student
Biology (3) 0.34
relationship subscales in several different ways (presented in the order
Chemistry (4) 0.01
Physics (5) 0.05 of our research questions). First, we considered the consequences of
Advanced Science (6) 0.00 cumulative closeness and conflict between kindergarten and sixth grade
Educational beliefs and aspirations as associated with adolescent outcomes. In these analyses we took the
Educational aspirations 4.60 (0.69) average of conflict between kindergarten and sixth grade and the
Mathematics self-concepts 5.64 (1.07)
Literacy self-concepts 5.14 (1.18)
average of closeness between kindergarten and sixth grade as the
Social behavior parameterization of our cumulative index (for similar approaches to
Externalizing behavior problems 45.51 (10.46) cumulative effect analyses see: Coley & Kull, 2016). The second way in
Internalizing behavior problems 46.64 (9.86) which we conceptualized teacher-student relationships is in terms of the
Social skills 103.89 (14.80)
variability in closeness and conflict. For this benchmark, we used the
standard deviation of students' closeness and conflict scores between

5
A. Ansari, et al.
kindergarten and sixth grade. The correlation between the cumulative
and variability indicators were − 0.55 for closeness (variance inflation
factor [VIF] =1.47) and 0.75 for conflict (VIF = 2.51). Then, for the
series of analyses that considered the importance of timing, the average
of closeness and conflict were separated into epochs: (a) the early
grades (i.e., kindergarten through second grade) and (b) the later
grades (third through sixth grade). The correlation between early and
later grade closeness and conflict were 0.44 (VIF = 1.24) and 0.63
(VIF = 1.66), respectively. It is important to note that we examined
grade-specific associations as well, and in the main, they support the
general patterns reported below (results available from authors).
Ninth grade outcomes
In total, 13 dimensions of adolescents' functioning and well-being
that were assessed at age 15 toward the end of the ninth grade (see
Table 1 for descriptive statistics). These 13 dimensions fell under three
broader domains, namely: (1) academic achievement, (2) educational
beliefs and aspirations, and (3) social behavior. We discuss these three
domains and the specific dimensions in more detail below.
Academic achievement. To begin, adolescents' math (Applied Problems,
70 items, α = 0.87) and language and literacy (Verbal Analogies [35
items, α = 0.86], Passage Comprehension [43 items, α = 0.81], and
Picture Vocabulary [58 items, α = 0.81]; composite α = 0.86) skills
were assessed with the Woodcock-Johnson (Woodcock & Johnson,
1989). The math battery captured adolescents' skill and ability in
analyzing and solving practical problems in mathematics, whereas the
language and literacy battery captured students' ability to recognize
pictured objects, complete phrases, and ability in reading short
passages. For the purposes of the present study, we use the W scores.
In addition to these direct assessments of children's achievement and
cognition, records of student's overall grade point average at the end of
ninth grade and their math (0 = no math, 1 = below algebra I,
2 = algebra I, 3 = geometry, 4 = algebra II, 5 = advanced math) and
science coursework (0 = no science course, 1 = survey science,
2 = earth science, 3 = biology, 4 = chemistry, 5 = physics,
6 = advanced science) were also available through administrative
records.
Educational beliefs and aspirations. As part of the data collection,
students reported on the likelihood they would complete high school,
attend college, and complete college (1 = not sure at all to 5 = very sure).
We used students' responses to these three questions to create an
indicator for educational aspirations (α = 0.83). As part of these
surveys, adolescents also reported on their mathematics (α = 0.84, 5
items) and literacy self-concepts (α = 0.83, 5 items) with items derived
from the Self and Task Perception Questionnaire (1 = not at all good to
7 = very good; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002).
Sample items from this questionnaire include “How good at SUBJECT
are you?” and “How well do you expect to do in SUBJECT this year?”
Social behavior. In addition to the above outcomes, study mothers also
reported on their children's externalizing (33 items, α = 0.91) and
internalizing behavior problems (31 items, α = 0.86) with the Child
Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991; 0 = not true [as far as you know]
to 2 = very true or often true). The externalizing scale measure consisted
of information related to youths' delinquent and aggressive behavior,
whereas the internalizing scale consisted of information from the
syndrome scales designated as withdrawn, somatic complaints, and
anxious/depressed. As part of the parent surveys, mothers also reported
on adolescent's social skills (40 items, 0 = never to 2 = very often,
α = 0.91) with the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott,
1990). This measure captured cooperation, assertiveness, and self-
control.
Finally, a series of audio-recorded questions were asked of adoles­
cents about their risk taking during the past year (0 = never, 1 = once
6
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
or twice, 2 = more than twice). This instrument was adapted from
Conger and Elder (1994), the Fast Track project (McMahon et al.,
1999), and the New Hope project (Bos et al., 1999). Items captured two
dimensions of risk taking: sexual risk taking (e.g., vaginal and oral sexual
behavior; 4 items, α = 0. 58) and other risky behavior (e.g., gotten into
fights, drank, smoked, 36 items; α = 0.87). Given the distribution of
responses, we top-coded the top 2–3% of responses so that outliers do
not unduly influence our estimates.
Covariates
To isolate the unique associations between teacher-student re­
lationships and adolescents' functioning and well-being, we adjusted for
a rich set of covariates from the period before children entered kin­
dergarten. Although many of these variables were time invariant, a
handful were measured at multiple points in time before kindergarten
entry. For variables assessed on multiple occasions, we followed past
protocol (e.g., Belsky et al., 2007; Vandell et al., 2010, 2016) and took
the average of children's and families' experiences when children were
6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months of age. Moreover, although not shown, we
also estimated additional models with time varying family, neighbor­
hood, and teacher/school covariates from the elementary school years
and adolescences and all results were the same as those presented
below (results available from authors). Thus, the findings reported
below were not sensitive to factors such as teacher experience, educa­
tion, and changes in family income and circumstance.
Child characteristics. At the child-level, we included indicators of:
gender, minority status, birthweight, birth order, temperament at
6 months of age (measured with the Infant Temperament
Questionnaire, α = 0.81; Medoff-Cooper, Carey, & McDevitt, 1993),
maternal report of child health at 54 months of age, the proportion of
time spent in center care and maternal between birth and 54 months of
age, and child care quality (as measured with Observational Record of
the Caregiving Environment; α's > 0.80). We also adjusted for
children's skills and functioning at 54 months of age, which were
measured with the age appropriate versions of the same tools used at
age 15. In doing so, we account for any confound between teachers who
report better relationships with students who do better in school.
Family characteristics. In terms of family factors, we included indicators
of: mothers age at birth of child, mothers years of education at birth of
child, a composite of mothers' psychological adjustment at 6 months of
age (measured with the NEO Personality Inventory; Costa & McCrae,
1985), mothers' vocabulary skills at 36 months of age (measured with
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised; Dunn & Dunn, 1981),
household income-to-needs, maternal employment, maternal
depressive symptoms (measured with the Center for Epidemiological
Studies Depression Scale; Radloff, 1977), mother closeness and conflict
with child at 54 months of age, father closeness and conflict with child
at 54 months of age, an indicator of whether children lived in a two
parent home, and parenting quality (a composite of scores on the Home
Observation for Measurement of the Environment Scale [Caldwell &
Bradley, 1984] and videotaped interactions of maternal sensitivity).
Neighborhood characteristics. In addition to the above child and family
covariates, we also adjusted for site fixed effects (i.e., dummy indicators
for Little Rock, Irvine, Lawrence etc.) and neighborhood characteristics
as measured by the census, namely the percent of: households in
poverty, single parent households, households receiving government
assistance, unemployed adults, adults with less than a high school
education, and non-minority adults.
Analytic strategy
All analyses were estimated in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-
2013) within a multivariate regression framework in which all
A. Ansari, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200

outcomes were modeled simultaneously. These models included robust As can be seen in Table 2, results from these analyses revealed that, on
standard errors to safeguard against violations of normality. Similar to average, teacher-student closeness ranged from 30.31 to 34.23, which
past studies that have used the ninth grade outcomes from the NICHD on the STRS 1 to 5 scale corresponds to scores of roughly 3.79 to 4.28.
SECCYD (e.g., Burchinal, Lowe Vandell, & Belsky, 2014; Martin-Storey Despite these moderate to moderately high scores on teacher-student
& Benner, 2019; Vandell et al., 2010) missing data (mean of 20%; range closeness, a series of t-tests revealed that there was a significant de­
of 0–47%) were accounted for with full information maximum like­ crease between kindergarten and sixth grade: Children in sixth grade
lihood estimation, which utilizes all available data points from each were reported to have a less close relationships with their teachers than
individual in estimating model parameters. In the main, missing data children in kindergarten, with an effect size (ES) difference of ap­
were highest for the high school transcript data (e.g., coursework and proximately 0.67 (p < .001). In terms of teacher-student conflict, there
GPA). And even though it is not possible to determine whether data are appeared to be somewhat greater stability over time, with average
missing at random or missing not at random, prior studies show that the conflict scores ranging from 10.60 to 11.62, which on the STRS scale
inclusion of background variables (e.g., child and family demographics) corresponds to scores of 1.51 to 1.66. Although statistically significant
that may help explain the variation in missingness yields unbiased es­ differences also emerged across grade levels, these differences were
timates (Kline, 2010). It is also important to acknowledge that our two- considerably smaller, with the largest difference (kindergarten versus
coursework outcomes are ordinal categorical variables, such that each third grade) corresponding to roughly an ES of 0.17.
unit increase links to a more difficult course. Because studies show that
ordinal scales can be treated as continuous as long as they have four or Teacher-student closeness and conflict and adolescent outcomes
more categories (Bentler & Chou, 1987), we modeled these variables as
continuous. However, as a robustness check, we estimated models with Having established the descriptive patterns of teacher-student re­
coursework specified as an ordinal variable and all conclusions were lationships between kindergarten and sixth grade, the next set of ana­
the same. Finally, it is also important to note that all models included lyses considered outcomes of these relationships in ninth grade. Results
all covariates outlined above and, given the study design (i.e., there indicated that students who experienced closer relationships with their
were rarely multiple children per classroom/school), nesting of chil­ K-6 teachers, in turn, demonstrated better academic outcomes and
dren in classrooms/schools was not an issue. educational beliefs and aspirations. Specifically, these children earned a
With the above analytic framework in mind, our analyses proceeded higher GPA (ES = 0.12, p < .01), enrolled in a higher level science
in several steps. Given the acceptable VIF values reported above (VIF course (ES = 0.12, p < .05), held higher educational expectations of
values ranged from roughly1.25–2.5; values over 5 indicates issues of themselves (ES = 0.17, p < .001), and demonstrated greater math
multicollinearity that are problematic), our first set of analyses used the (ES = 0.14, p < .01) and English (ES = 0.09, p < .05) self-concepts
cumulative indicator of teacher-student closeness and conflict as a relative to students with less close relationships (see Table 3). More­
predictor of adolescent outcomes in addition to indicators for the over, students with closer relationships with their teachers exhibited
variability in teacher-student closeness and conflict. To determine stronger social skills (ES = 0.08, p < .05) and engaged in fewer risky
whether the timing of closeness and conflict mattered, we estimated behavior (ES = −0.11, p < .05). In contrast, students who were
additional models that separated teacher-student relationships into the perceived to have more conflict with their teachers between kinder­
early grades (i.e., K-G2) and the later grades (i.e., G3-G6) while con­ garten and sixth grade performed worse academically, including on
trolling for variability in closeness and conflict. To determine whether direct assessments of math (ES = −0.16, p < .001), language and
the magnitude of associations were statistically different from one an­ literacy (ES = −0.09, p < .05),and their GPA (ES = −0.15,
other across these two periods, we used a post hoc coefficient com­ p < .05).
parison (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998). If the post
hoc coefficient comparison was significant, we would conclude that the Variability in relationship closeness and conflict
associations between teacher-student relationships were significantly
different across time. Above, we presented the cumulative associations between teacher-
student relationships and adolescent outcomes. When examining the
coefficients for variability in relationships (see Table 3), we found that
Results variability in closeness was not predictive of student outcomes, above
and beyond than the mean-level of closeness. In contrast, students who
Although not a focal study objective, we begin by discussing the experienced greater variability in conflict from year to year demon­
descriptive patterns of teacher-student closeness and conflict between strated less optimal educational beliefs and social behavior. More spe­
kindergarten and sixth grade to provide context for our study findings. cifically, these students demonstrated less optimal self-concepts (both
math [ES = −0.12, p < .05] and literacy [ES = −0.11, p < .05])
Table 2 and social skills (ES = −0.11, p < .05) along with elevated levels of
Descriptive statistics for teacher-student closeness and conflict between kin­ externalizing behavior (ES = 0.11, p < .05) than those who experi­
dergarten and sixth grade.
enced less variability. In the main, however, the cumulative levels of
Teacher-student Teacher-student relationship quality were more consistently associated with student
closeness conflict outcomes than the variability in relationship quality.
Grade level
Kindergarten 34.23 (5.34) 10.60 (5.36) Timing of closeness and conflict and adolescent outcomes
First grade 33.96 (5.04) 10.92 (5.17)
Second grade 33.67 (5.17) 10.94 (5.41) Our final set of analyses considered whether the timing of re­
Third grade 33.08 (5.15) 11.62 (6.03)
lationships mattered. As can be seen in Table 3, results from these
Fourth grade 32.52 (5.11) 11.14 (5.73)
Fifth grade 31.85 (5.36) 11.44 (5.74) timing-specific models indicated that the associations between re­
Sixth grade 30.31 (5.74) 11.07 (5.64) lationship closeness and outcomes were largely cumulative: Teacher-
Relationship quality in early 33.95 (4.04) 10.94 (4.39) student closeness did not matter more in the early versus later grades.
elementary school (K-G2) The sole exception was for math self-concepts, where there was a
Relationship quality in late elementary 31.95 (3.98) 11.46 (4.83)
stronger association between teacher-student closeness in the later
school (G3-G6)
Overall relationship quality (K-G6) 32.91 (3.53) 11.25 (4.26) grades (ES = 0.19, p < .001) than the early grades (ES = −0.00, ns).
In contrast, conflict with teachers in the later grades appeared to be

7
 A. Ansari, et al.

Table 3
Multivariate regression results for the links between teacher-child relationships and ninth grade outcomes.
Model 1 Model 2

Cumulative closeness K-G6 Cumulative conflict K-G6 Variability in closeness K- Variability in conflict K-G6 K-G2 closeness G3-G6 closeness K-G2 conflict G3-G6 conflict
G6

Academic outcomes
⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Math 0.03 (0.03) −0.16 (0.05) −0.01 (0.03) 0.05 (0.04) −0.00 (0.03) 0.04 (0.04) −0.04 (0.04) −0.13 (0.04)
⁎ ⁎⁎
Language and literacy −0.01 (0.03) −0.09 (0.05) −0.03 (0.03) 0.05 (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) −0.04 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03) −0.12 (0.05)
⁎⁎ ⁎ ⁎ ⁎⁎⁎
Grade point average 0.12 (0.04) −0.15 (0.06) −0.04 (0.04) −0.00 (0.05) 0.09 (0.04) 0.05 (0.04) 0.06 (0.05) −0.23 (0.05)
⁎⁎
Math class 0.07 (0.04) −0.07 (0.05) 0.03 (0.04) −0.03 (0.05) 0.06 0.03 (0.04) 0.07 (0.05) −0.16 (0.05)
(0.04)
⁎
Science class 0.12 (0.06) −0.01 (0.07) 0.07 (0.04) −0.01 (0.06) 0.05 (0.04) 0.09 (0.05) 0.06 (0.05) −0.08 (0.06)
Educational beliefs and aspirations
⁎⁎⁎ ⁎ ⁎
Educational aspirations 0.17 0.08 0.06 −0.06 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.08

8
(0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.06) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06)
⁎⁎ ⁎ ⁎⁎⁎
Self-concepts Math 0.14 (0.05) 0.09 (0.06) 0.05 (0.45) −0.12 (0.05) 0.00 (0.04) 0.19 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) 0.07 (0.06)
⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎ ⁎
Self-concepts English 0.09 (0.04) 0.14 (0.05) 0.03 (0.04) −0.11 (0.05) 0.07 (0.04) 0.01 (0.05) 0.11 (0.05) 0.01 (0.06)
Social-behavior outcomes
Internalizing −0.07 (0.04) −0.04 (0.05) 0.04 (0.04) 0.06 (0.05) −0.02 (0.04) −0.07 (0.04) 0.01 (0.05) −0.05 (0.05)
⁎ ⁎⁎
Externalizing 0.02 (0.04) 0.09 (0.05) 0.05 (0.03) 0.11 (0.04) 0.00 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) −0.03 (0.05) 0.13 (0.05)
⁎ ⁎
Social skills 0.08 (0.04) −0.03 (0.05) −0.04 (0.04) −0.11 (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) 0.08 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) −0.06 (0.05)
⁎
Sexual behavior −0.05 (0.05) −0.04 (0.06) 0.01 (0.04) 0.07 (0.06) −0.05 (0.04) 0.00 (0.05) −0.11 (0.05) 0.06 (0.07)
⁎
Risky behavior −0.11 (0.05) 0.03 (0.06) −0.05 (0.04) 0.08 (0.05) −0.06 (0.04) −0.06 (0.05) −0.02 (0.05) 0.07 (0.06)

Notes. All models controlled for the covariates listed in Table 1. Bolded coefficients in each row indicate significant differences in the associations between relationship quality in the early and late elementary school years
at p < .05 when using a post hoc coefficient comparison (Paternoster et al., 1998). All continuous predictors and outcomes have been standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 and, thus, estimates
correspond to effect sizes. All estimates in parentheses correspond to standard errors.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎
p < .05.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
A. Ansari, et al.
more strongly associated with less optimal adolescent outcomes than
conflict in the early grades, especially for assessments of academic
achievement (i.e., language and literacy, grade point average, math
coursework) and externalizing behavior (for specific estimates, see
Table 3). In these cases, the “effects” of conflict in the later years were
roughly 20% of a standard deviation greater than earlier conflict.
Discussion
The results of the present study support the general premise that
teacher-student relationships are consequential for student success and
well-being (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes, 2000; Howes et al., 2008;
McCormick & O'Connor, 2015; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Sabol &
Pianta, 2012). The results also address gaps in understanding of the
long-term educational, social, and behavioral outcomes of teacher-
student relationships across students' educational careers by leveraging
a prospective longitudinal sample of 1364 American children. The
study examines relational closeness and conflict, as reported by stu­
dents' primary teachers, across the first seven years of school, as related
to students' outcomes at the end of their first year in high school, ninth
grade. Three important themes emerged from the analyses presented.
To begin, even though prior studies have focused on teacher-student
relationships and young children's concurrent functioning (Burchinal
et al., 2002; Heatly & Votruba-Drzal, 2017; Howes, 2000; Lippard et al.,
2018; McCormick & O'Connor, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2020; Pianta &
Stuhlman, 2004), the results reported herein add to the literature by
highlighting longer-term associations of these early relationships. More
specifically, teachers' reports of closeness and conflict with students
between kindergarten and sixth grade were both uniquely and cumu­
latively associated with students' academic outcomes, educational as­
pirations, and social behavioral skills in ninth grade. These associations
were above and beyond the contributions of students' characteristics,
skills and dispositions, and their relationships with their mothers and
fathers. Importantly, however, there were important nuances related to
the prediction of closeness and conflict for students' outcomes. Teacher-
student closeness between kindergarten and sixth grade had cumula­
tive, albeit modest, benefits for students' coursework placement, GPA,
educational beliefs and aspirations, and social-behavior in ninth grade,
whereas conflict was only cumulatively associated with direct assess­
ments of achievement and students' GPA. In the main, these results
suggest that teacher-student closeness has a more differentiated effect,
in the sense of span of influence, on student development (i.e., aca­
demic achievement, educational beliefs and aspirations, and social
behavior), than does teacher-student conflict. Thus, the outcomes of
teacher-student closeness are not domain specific and not limited to
social/motivational processes but also to achievement. In this context
one might hypothesize that closeness promotes student engagement,
which has consequences for attention and particularly in instructional
activities (hence the achievement effect), perhaps as a consequence of
beliefs and motivation.
The above pattern of findings has several implications relevant for
research, theory, and practice. First, it appears that teacher-student
closeness and conflict are not two sides of the same coin. This is im­
portant for educators and practitioners because what it would suggest is
that monitoring or implementing interventions aimed at improving
teachers' closeness and conflict with students is a valuable endeavor
that may result in improvements in different domains of student de­
velopment. With respect to theory, these findings lend support for at­
tachment theory (Ainsworth, 1989), which predicts that students who
experience positive relationships with adults are better able to rely on
them as a developmental asset. Our work adds to this theory by high­
lighting the importance of relationship's students develop with different
teachers over time. Put another way, even though teachers are transient
figures in students' lives, the strength and influence of these relation­
ships can (and do) have lasting consequences. Thus, from a theoretical
perspective, it is critical to view students' experiences in the classroom
9
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
from a longitudinal perspective. Third, even though schooling is most
often assumed to produce academic outcomes as a function of in­
struction, it is clear that the qualities of students' relationships, in­
dicative of the value of the classroom as a social and relational setting,
have unique influences on students' school success and well-being in the
long-term, including academic achievement (The ASPEN Institute,
2019). Accordingly, in light of large-scale investments in teacher pro­
fessional development in an effort to improve student achievement
(Allen et al., 2011; Egert, Fukkink, & Eckhardt, 2018; Pianta et al.,
2017), the results reported herein suggest that targeting such invest­
ments to improve teachers' relationship capacity and interaction skills
across grade levels could be a valuable path toward addressing
achievement shortfalls and gaps (see Allen et al., 2011 for an example).
Such findings also suggest that the development, implementation, and
expansion across the K-12 years of social-emotional learning interven­
tions, that focus on both students' and teachers' relational skills can
have persisting benefits.
Students form relationships with different teachers each year, and
each of these relationships is unique. Given this dynamic, we also
considered the importance variability of closeness and conflict between
kindergarten and sixth grade. In general, our results revealed that
variability in closeness was not predictive of students' academic
achievement, educational beliefs and aspirations, nor their social-be­
havioral outcomes, but variability in conflict (unlike cumulative con­
flict) was predictive of students' educational aspirations and social be­
havior. Put another way, when students experienced different levels of
conflict from year to year, this had negative consequences for their
beliefs about themselves and their behavior. These results regarding
conflict underscore the salience of discontinuity in students' experi­
ences, and in particular, the importance of shifts in the levels of teacher-
student conflict (e.g., Emde & Harmon, 2012; Schulenberg &
Maslowsky, 2015). Thus, with respect to child and adolescent devel­
opment, what these results suggest is that experiencing variability in
relationships characterized as more (or less) conflictual may have in­
terrupted students' overall schema of relationships with their teachers
as supportive and predictable, which in turn had consequences for their
beliefs and behavior. The above could be particularly harmful if the
change in conflictual relationships was preceded by acute or chronic
life stressors that impact children's emotional wellbeing and their be­
havior and relationships at school (Kim, Conger, Elder Jr, & Lorenz,
2003). Thus, this set of results highlight the need for future research to
more carefully consider shifts and variability in relationship quality
over time, especially with regards to students' educational beliefs and
social behavior. Such work might provide important insight for inter­
vention and prevention efforts aimed at ensuring that students have
continuous high quality experiences.
Finally, the findings from this study suggest that the benefits of
teacher-student closeness were largely cumulative, whereas teacher-
student conflict in the later school years was more strongly predictive of
students' academic achievement and externalizing behavior than earlier
conflict. Such findings related to closeness are consistent with other
results that teacher-student relationships predict student academic en­
gagement and acceptance by peers the following year (Hughes & Kwok,
2006), a pattern that could stabilize and lead to improved performance
in later grades. However, as academic and peer demands intensify in
the later years of school, conflict with teachers may more readily
emerge and could initiate a cycle of disengagement from classroom
learning and increasing engagement in interactions and relationships
with peers who are similarly disengaged, which can contribute to
feelings and behaviors that perpetuate conflict with teachers (Howes,
2000; Hughes, Cavell, & Willson, 2001). There could also be a recency
effect of conflict on transitions into and through secondary school; for
example, prior studies have shown that children's relationships with
their teachers in fifth grade is linked with the subsequent relationship
quality and school adjustment over the transition to secondary school
(Davidson, Gest, & Welsh, 2010). These associations could persist
A. Ansari, et al.
throughout secondary school, and/or be exacerbated at subsequent
transitions, such as the transition from middle to high school when the
outcome data was collected for study students. As such, more research
is needed to understand the emergence and consequences of teacher-
student conflict in the later years and the complex links with other
relational and developmental processes.
Despite these contributions to the literature, the present study in­
cluded a number of limitations. First, although the statistical models
included a wide range of covariates, the interpretation of results re­
quires caution given the potential for omitted variables; that is, the
results are correlational and not causal. At the same time, however, the
models included a robust set of child, family, and neighborhood cov­
ariates and replicated across different specifications, which lends
greater confidence to our conclusions. Second, the investigation in­
cluded only a modest number of children from minority and very low-
income homes, which limits the range of experiences reflected in the
assessments and the analytic sample included only students who com­
pleted ninth grade in 2007, which may reflect classroom settings and
teacher capabilities that are not consistent with the focus of present-day
education. We note these aspects of the sampling design and period of
data collection as it limits the generalizability of our findings. With that
said, the patterns of closeness and conflict reported here (both within
grades and across time) resemble those of children who participated in
the ECLS-K between 2010 (kindergarten) and 2014 (third grade). Thus,
despite the potential changes in the school context (e.g., the increasing
academic demands of school), it seems like the trends in relationships
are somewhat similar.
The fact that we did not have indicators of teacher-student re­
lationships after sixth grade and that we only had one assessment of
teacher-student relationship each grade are also important limitations.
Indeed, despite the test-retest reliability of the STRS, it is possible that
student's relationship changes substantially over the course of the
school year. Nonetheless, the findings regarding the nature and out­
comes of teacher-student relationships provide an important long­
itudinal snapshot that has been largely absent in the literature. Indeed,
longitudinal studies that include seven years of data on teacher-student
relationships and that have such rich information on numerous long-
term outcomes are uncommon. It is also important to note that teacher-
student relationships are inherently dyadic in nature and involve both
the perspective of the teacher and the student and, thus, our reliance on
only teacher-reports is a limitation. Future studies should also consider
the mechanism by which positive teacher-student relationships may
contribute to positive outcomes among students. Next, this study was
exploratory and, thus, we explored a large number of outcomes; hence,
confirmation and replication with different samples and methods are
necessary. Finally, even though we used state of the art techniques to
address missing data and included a wide set of variables to improve
the precision of our estimation strategy (see Kline, 2010), the rates of
missing data for some variables were high, which is limitation of our
study.
With these limitations and future directions in mind, the present
study adds to the extant literature that has considered the concurrent
and short-term outcomes of student- teacher relationships (Baker,
Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Heatly & Votruba-
Drzal, 2017; Howes, 2000; Lippard et al., 2018; McCormick &
O'Connor, 2015; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Spilt et al., 2012), by
highlighting the high school outcomes of teacher-student closeness and
conflict in the first seven years of education. Collectively, the results
revealed that teachers' perceptions of closeness and conflict with stu­
dents were predictive of a range of outcomes in ninth grade, but in
nuanced ways. Furthermore, there was evidence to suggest that the
“effects” of closeness were largely cumulative, whereas conflict was
more problematic in the older grades. These results reinforce recent
policy initiatives that call attention to the importance of the classroom
as a relational setting (The ASPEN Institute, 2019), including the need
for more focus on socioemotional learning and the preparation and
10
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
support of teachers' capacities to form positive relationships with their
students.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist. Burlington, VT:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4),
709–716.
Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-
based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement.
Science, 333, 1034–1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207998.
Ansari, A. (2018). The persistence of preschool effects from early childhood through
adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 952–973.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive
and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.
002.
Bailey, D., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the
impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 10, 7–39.
Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a de­
velopmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior pro­
blems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.
23.1.3.
Belsky, J., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., McCartney, K., Owen, M.
T., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2007). Are there long-term effects
of early child care? Child Development, 78, 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01021.x.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research, 16, 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004.
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology
Review, 21(2), 141–170.
Blazar, D., & Pollard, C. (2017). Does test preparation mean low-quality instruction?
Educational Researcher, 46, 420–433.
Bos, J. M., Huston, A. C., Granger, R. C., Duncan, G. J., Brock, T. W., & McLoyd, V. C.
(1999). New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program to reduce
poverty and reform welfare. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human devel­
opment. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1:
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Burchinal, M. R., Lowe Vandell, D., & Belsky, J. (2014). Is the prediction of adolescent
outcomes from early child care moderated by later maternal sensitivity? Results from
the nichd study of early child care and youth development. Developmental Psychology,
50, 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033709.
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002). Development of
academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom pre­
dictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 415–436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00107-3.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the en­
vironment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at little Rock.
Clem, A. L., Rudasill, K. M., Hirvonen, R., Aunola, K., & Kiuru, N. (2020). The roles of
teacher–student relationship quality and self-concept of ability in adolescents’
achievement emotions: Temperament as a moderator. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 1–24.
Coley, R. L., & Kull, M. (2016). Cumulative, timing‐specific, and interactive models of
residential mobility and children's cognitive and psychosocial skills. Child
Development, 87, 1204–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12535.
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural
America. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davidson, A. J., Gest, S. D., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Relatedness with teachers and peers
during early adolescence: An integrated variable-oriented and person-oriented ap­
proach. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2010.08.002.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., ...
Sexton, H. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology,
43, 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test– Revised. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Service.
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9,
30–44.
Egert, F., Fukkink, R. G., & Eckhardt, A. G. (2018). Impact of in-service professional
development programs for early childhood teachers on quality ratings and child
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88, 401–433. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654317751918.
Emde, R. N., & Harmon, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). Continuities and discontinuities in development.
A. Ansari, et al.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.
Granot, D. (2014). Teacher-student attachment and student school adaptation: A variable
centered and person centered analytical approaches. American Journal of Educational
Research, 2, 1005–1014.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory
of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301.
Heatly, M. C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017). Parent-and teacher-child relationships and
engagement at school entry: Mediating, interactive, and transactional associations
across contexts. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1042–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000310.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged
children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.
Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher re­
lationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9,
191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00119.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O.
(2008). Ready to learn? Children's pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten
programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2007.05.002.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental
significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship (3rd ed.). Journal of School
Psychology39, 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7.
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of
teacher–student support on elementary students’ peer acceptance: A prospective
analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2005.10.001.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in
children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades
one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8624.00421.
Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher–child relationships from
kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict
and closeness. Social Development, 18, 915–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2008.00508.x.
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning
and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and
future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 2283–2290.
Kim, K. J., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Lorenz, F. O. (2003). Reciprocal influences
between stressful life events and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems.
Child Development, 74, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00525.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kobak, R., Herres, J., Gaskins, C., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2012). Teacher–student interac­
tions and attachment states of mind as predictors of early romantic involvement and
risky sexual behaviors. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 289–303.
Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary
theories of human development. Handbook of child psychology.
Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Developmental trajectories of school engagement across
adolescence: Implications for academic achievement, substance use, depression, and
delinquency. Developmental Psychology, 47, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0021307.
Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018). A closer look at
teacher-child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool. Child &
Youth Care Forum, 47, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9414-1.
Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2016). Student-teacher re­
lationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from
middle to high school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.01988.
Magnuson, K., Duncan, G. J., Lee, K. T., & Metzger, M. W. (2016). Early school adjustment
and educational attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1198–1228.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review
of Educational Research, 79, 327–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583.
Martin-Storey, A., & Benner, A. (2019). Externalizing behaviors exacerbate the link be­
tween discrimination and adolescent health risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 48, 1724–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01020-3.
McCallumore, K. M., & Sparapani, E. F. (2010). The importance of the ninth grade on high
school graduation rates and student success in high school. Education, 130(3),
447–456.
McCormick, M. P., & O’Connor, E. E. (2015). Teacher–child relationship quality and
academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107, 502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037457.
McFarland, L., Murray, E., & Phillipson, S. (2016). Student–teacher relationships and
student self-concept: Relations with teacher and student gender. Australian Journal of
Education, 60, 5–25.
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at
risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational
Research Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001.
McKinnon, R. D., Blair, C., & The Family Life Project Investigators (2018). Does early
executive function predict teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to second
11
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
grade? Developmental Psychology, 54, 2053–2066. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000584.
McMahon, R. J., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J.
E., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (1999). Initial impact of the fast track prevention trial for
conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 67, 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.631.
Medoff-Cooper, B., Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. (1993). The Early infancy temperament
questionnaire. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 14, 230–235.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-199308010-00004.
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent
and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development
and Psychopathology, 13, 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002097.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2013). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering
high school students' motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Presshttps://doi.org/10.17226/10421.
Nguyen, T., Ansari, A., Pianta, R. C., Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V. E., & Ruzek, E. (2020).
The classroom relational environment and children’s early development in preschool.
Social Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12447 in press.
O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and
achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational
Research Journal, 44, 340–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172.
O’Connor, E. E., Collins, B. A., & Supplee, L. (2012). Behavior problems in late childhood:
The roles of early maternal attachment and teacher–child relationship trajectories.
Attachment & Human Development, 14, 265–288.
Pakarinen, E., Silinskas, G., Hamre, B. K., Metsäpelto, R. L., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus,
A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2018). Cross-lagged associations between problem behaviors
and teacher-student relationships in early adolescence. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 38, 1100–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617714328.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statis­
tical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x.
Pianta, R., Hamre, B., Downer, J., Burchinal, M., Williford, A., LoCasale-Crouch, J., ...
Scott-Little, C. (2017). Early childhood professional development: Coaching and
coursework effects on indicators of children’s school readiness. Early Education and
Development, 28, 956–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1319783.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, D.
C: American Psychological Associationhttps://doi.org/10.1037/10314-000.
Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Schools, schooling, and developmental psychopathology.
Developmental psychopathology, volume 1: Theory and method (pp. 494–529). (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pianta, R. C. (2016). Classroom processes and teacher-student interaction: Integrations
with a developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.).
Developmental psychopathology: Risk, resilience, and intervention (pp. 770–814).
Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.
devpsy415.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school:
Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579400006519.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s
success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444–459.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CESD scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. https://doi.org/
10.1177/014662167700100306.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective
teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A
meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529.
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relation­
ships. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14616734.2012.672262.
Schulenberg, J., & Maslowsky, J. (2015). Contribution of adolescence to the life course:
What matters most in the long run? Research in Human Development, 12, 319–326.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2015.1068039.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and dis­
affection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.
Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., & Kwok, O. M. (2012). Dynamics of teacher–student
relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on
children’s academic success. Child Development, 83, 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x.
Susperreguy, M. I., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., & Chen, M. (2018). Self-concept
predicts academic achievement across levels of the achievement distribution: Domain
specificity for math and reading. Child Development, 89, 2196–2214.
The Aspen Institute (2019). From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope: Recommendations
from the National Commission on Social, Emotional, & Academic Development. Retrieved
fromhttp://nationathope.org/report-from-the-nation/.
Van Ryzin, M. (2010). Secondary school advisors as mentors and secondary attachment
figures. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 131–154.
Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., & Vandergrift, N. (2010). Do effects
of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early
child care and youth development. Child Development, 81, 737–756. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01431.x.
A. Ansari, et al.
Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., & Pierce, K. M. (2016). Early child care and adolescent
functioning at the end of high school: Results from the NICHD study of Early child
care and youth development. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1634. https://doi.org/10.
1037/dev0000169.
Verschueren, K., Doumen, S., & Buyse, E. (2012). Relationships with mother, teacher, and
peers: Unique and joint effects on young children's self-concept. Attachment & Human
Development, 14(3), 233–248.
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attach­
ment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205–211. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14616734.2012.672260.
12
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 (2020) 101200
Wang, M.-T., & Peck, S. C. (2013). Adolescent educational success and mental health vary
across school engagement profiles. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1266–1276. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0030028.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery-
revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
Yan, N., Zhou, N., & Ansari, A. (2016). Maternal depression and children’s cognitive and
socio-emotional development at first grade: The moderating role of classroom emo­
tional climate. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1247–1256. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10826-015-0301-9.