Table 2

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 34–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Explaining teacher–student interactions in early childhood: An interpersonal theoretical approach Jochem Thijs a,⁎, Helma Koomen b, Debora Roorda b, Judith ten Hagen b a b

ERCOMER, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Science, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 October 2009 Received in revised form 7 October 2010 Accepted 22 October 2010 Available online 9 December 2010 Keywords: Interpersonal theory Teacher–child interactions Control Affiliation Shyness Micro-observations

a b s t r a c t The present study used an interpersonal theoretical perspective to examine the interactions between Dutch teachers and kindergartners. Interpersonal theory provides explanations for dyadic interaction behaviors by stating that complementary behaviors (dissimilar in terms of control, and similar in terms of affiliation) elicit and sustain each other. We observed 69 kindergarten children (Mage = 5.79 years) and their 37 regular teachers during a dyadic interaction task. Every 5 s, independent observers rated teachers' and children's behaviors along the interpersonal dimensions of control and affiliation. Teachers reported on children's shyness and the quality of the teacher–child relationship. Multilevel modeling provided correlational evidence for complementarity within and between dyads. Cross-lagged analyses revealed that teachers showed complementarity for control and that children showed complementarity for affiliation. Children also reacted complementarily with respect to control but only if they were shy or shared positive relationships with their teachers. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Early teacher–child relationships have been increasingly recognized as developmental micro-systems (see Lerner, 1998) that are crucial for children's social, emotional, and academic functioning (Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003). The quality of these relationships is often assessed through the global perceptions by one of the relationship partners (typically the teacher) and examined as the outcome of structural child- or teacher characteristics. Even though the actual reciprocal interactions between teachers and children are considered to be one of the cornerstones of their relationships (Pianta et al., 2003) far less is known about how they respond to each other in concrete daily situations. In the present study, we adopted an interpersonal theoretical approach to meticulously observe and analyze the dyadic interactions between kindergarten children and their teachers. Interpersonal theory can be used to describe and predict people's interaction behaviors in dyadic relationships, and it offers suggestions for breaking maladaptive interaction cycles (Kiesler, 1996). Interpersonal theory Interpersonal theory is a collective term for different models that have two features in common (cf., Sadler & Woody, 2003). First, they ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 5560; fax: +31 30 253 4733. E-mail addresses: j.t.thijs@uu.nl (J. Thijs), h.m.y.koomen@uva.nl (H. Koomen), d.l.roorda@uva.nl (D. Roorda), judith.tenhagen@tiscali.nl (J. ten Hagen). 0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.10.002

hold that most interpersonal behaviors and interaction styles can be described on a limited set of dimensions. These are usually two orthogonal axes forming a so-called interpersonal circumplex. One of the most influential versions is Leary's (1957), which contains a dimension for control – power, dominance, or agency – and a dimension for affiliation — love, friendliness, or communion (Gurtman, 2001; Kiesler, 1996). The second feature of interpersonal models is their contention that interpersonal behaviors tend to elicit particular kinds of behaviors while inhibiting others. This is articulated in the principle of interpersonal complementarity, which states that people's reactions to the behaviors of others can be predicted from the positions of these behaviors along the interpersonal dimensions (Kiesler, 1996). Carson's (1969) is the most common conceptualization of complementarity. In his approach, two behaviors are complementary when located reciprocally (i.e., in opposition to each other) on the dimension of control, and correspondingly on the dimension of affiliation (Gurtman, 2001; Kiesler, 1996). For instance, leading behaviors (assumed to have a strong control- and a moderately strong affiliation component) tend to elicit docile behaviors (assumed to have a weak control- and a moderately strong affiliation component) whereas distrustful behaviors (assumed to have a moderately weak control- and a weak affiliation component) tend to elicit critical behaviors (assumed to have a moderately strong control- and a weak affiliation component). The central explanation for complementarity is that it is directly rewarding for both relationship partners. One's interpersonal behavior communicates to others how one defines oneself and how one wants to be responded to by others. Interactions that are

J. Thijs et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 34–43

characterized by complementarity provide self-affirmation, and thus they are associated with satisfaction, positive feelings, and positive evaluations of interactions partners (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Locke & Sadler, 2007; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tracey, 2004). By contrast, when others do not react in a complementary fashion this can create anxiety and discomfort (Kiesler, 1996). This should not be taken to mean, however, that the long term consequences of continuing interactional complementary are always positive. When characterized by little affiliation (e.g., hostility) complementarity might lead to frustration and disappointment. Moreover, ongoing complementary interactions may lead to fixed expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies (Kiesler, 1996), and interpersonal rigidity can cause behavioral inflexibility and distress in new interactions (Tracey, 2005). The complementarity principle is potentially very powerful. It can be used to understand and predict people's interaction behaviors during specific interactions as well as their interpersonal styles in ongoing relationships (Sadler & Woody, 2003). Yet it may also provide starting points for breaking maladaptive interaction cycles and improving others' interpersonal behaviors or styles (Kiesler, 1996). In the educational context, for instance, teachers could deliberately alter their own interpersonal behaviors toward children they share unfavorable relationships with, and thus elicit and corroborate more desired responses from these children. In the long run, this might result in smoother and more satisfying teacher–child interactions. The two features of interpersonal theory have received different amounts of empirical confirmation in different kinds of dyadic relationships (see for reviews, Horowitz et al., 2006; Kiesler, 1996; Orford, 1994; Sadler & Woody, 2003). There has been considerable support for the two-dimensional organization of interpersonal behaviors showing that they can be described as combinations of (varying degrees of) affiliation and control but evidence for the complementary principle has not always been straightforward. The somewhat mixed evidence has led some authors to argue for a modification of (parts of) the theory (e.g., Horowitz et al., 2006; Orford, 1994) but the most common response has been to identify methodological or contextual factors that might obscure the working of the complementarity principle. One important limitation of previous research is that little explicit attention has been paid to the constraining role of social context (see Moskowitz, Ho, & Turcotte-Tremblay, 2007; Orford, 1994). According to Kiesler (1996), the complementarity principle predominantly applies to interactions in relatively unstructured situations. Because behavior norms, roles, and expectations are clearer in structured situations, people may be less likely to attune to the behaviors of their interaction partners and react complementarily in those circumstances. Another limiting factor is that many studies have relied on self-reports (see Sadler & Woody, 2003). Self-reports are probably adequate to assess people's behavior tendencies or desired reactions to others but they are also sensitive to bias. It may be difficult to be accurate about one's interpersonal behaviors and reactions, and, thus, correlations between the self-reports of different interaction partners may be distorted (see Sadler & Woody, 2003). There have been some studies relying on observations rather than self-reports, and typically they involved the experimental manipulation of the behaviors of one (confederate) interaction partner (e.g., Strong et al., 1988; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Although informative, the external validity of these studies may be limited as they did not allow for reciprocal influences between interaction partners (see also, Markey, Funder, & Ozer, 2003). In addition to the previous, most studies on interpersonal complementarity have analyzed cross-sectional data. This is quite unfortunate, as the complementarity principle implies that both interaction partners attune to each other's behaviors throughout their interactions. A strict test of the principle should examine influences over time or action–reaction sequences within single interactions (see Sadler, Ethier, Gunn, Duong, & Woody, 2009; Sadler & Woody, 2003;

35

Tracey, 1994;2004). By using cross-lagged analysis the question of who influences whom can be addressed (see Horowitz et al., 2006). In the present study, we relied on detailed independent observations to examine complementarity in the dyadic interactions between Dutch kindergarten children and their teachers. In the Netherlands, kindergarten starts at the age of four and lasts two years, and kindergarten children learn basic social-behavioral and academic skills in preparation for the transition to formal schooling that starts in Grade 1. To allow for the separate examination of complementary responding in each relationship partner, children's and teachers' behaviors were continuously rated during 5-second time frames. Following other researchers (Moskowitz et al., 2007; Sadler & Woody, 2003) we conducted separate assessments of control and affiliation. Complementarity in the teacher–child relationship Despite its potential to provide concrete suggestions to improve maladaptive interactions no studies we know of have examined interpersonal complementarity in the interactions between individual children and their teachers. To be sure, there have been several studies applying interpersonal theory to student–teacher interactions in secondary school. These studies have convincingly shown that teachers' interpersonal behaviors can be adequately described in terms of control and affiliation, and also that students' perceptions of these behaviors are related to cognitive and affective student outcomes (see for a review, Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005). Yet, this research has relied on students' aggregated (rather than individual) perceptions of their teachers' behaviors, and, to our knowledge, both individual students' interpersonal behaviors and interpersonal complementarity have not been examined in them. There is evidence that the interpersonal behaviors or goals of early adolescent children (aged 9–13) can be described in terms of the circumplex model (Markey, Markey, & Tinsley, 2005; Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005; Sodano & Tracey, 2006) and this appears to hold for five-year olds as well (Becker & Krug, 1964). Whether kindergartners show complementarity in the interactions with their teachers remains to be investigated. Critics might argue that this is unlikely because young children lack the self-awareness and cognitive skills necessary for the self-presentation involved in interpersonal complementarity. Yet, there are arguments against this view. First, although cognitions may be important, the complementarity principle chiefly pertains to unpremeditated or spontaneous behavior. As stated by Kiesler (1996, p. 5) ‘a significant notion in interpersonal theory is that, in a predominantly automatic and unaware manner, we individuals communicate important self-definitional bids through our verbal and nonverbal behavior’ (italics added). Next, leading theoretical perspectives including attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) posit that (even very) young children have a sense of self (see also Harter, 1999). Still, young children's interactions with their teachers are partly structured by norms and role divisions, and probably more so than their interactions with others such as parents and peers. This might constrain the likelihood of observing complementary responses (see Kiesler, 1996). However, this would hold more for teachers than for children, as teachers' interpersonal behaviors are more clearly prescribed. Teachers are professional educators who are expected and trained to act in the best interest of the child. As negative teacher–child interactions are generally undesirable, it can be assumed that teachers are motivated to sometimes inhibit their tendency to react complementarily to the interpersonal behaviors of their students. In line with this reasoning, it has been found that teachers report more rather than less intentional support for kindergarten children with whom they share reportedly unfavorable relationships (Thijs, Koomen, & van der Leij, 2008). This suggests that teachers are aware that complementary responses are not always appropriate. Still, they may be susceptible to the interpersonal pulls or invitations from their students in daily and

36


spontaneous situations. There is evidence, for instance, that the quality of the early teacher–child relationship is positively associated with teachers' observed emotional support (Hamre & Pianta, 2005) and positive interaction behaviors in the classroom (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). In the present study, we observed teachers and children in arranged dyadic task interactions outside the classroom. However, as in the classroom these interactions were semi-structured. On the one hand, there was the regular role division between teachers and children, and the task was pre-selected by the researchers. On the other hand, teachers and children were relatively free in carrying out the task, which allowed them to express different levels of affiliation and control. Consistent with the theory, we anticipated finding complementary relations between the behaviors of teachers and children (positive for affiliation and negative for control) but we also expected that complementarity tendencies would be weaker for the former given their roles as professionals. In addition, we examined the moderating role of two characteristics: the quality of the teacher– child relationship and children's shyness. Relationship quality and shyness Many studies have relied on teacher perceptions to assess the quality of the (early) teacher–child relationship, and these perceptions are typically assessed along the dimensions of closeness, conflict, and dependency (see Pianta et al., 2003; Thijs et al., 2008). Unlike dependency, which entails teachers' perceptions of children's behaviors in the context of the teacher–child relationship, closeness and conflict involve teachers' perceptions of the mutual communication and behaviors of both relationship partners. Closeness refers to the extent to which teachers and children are perceived to interact and communicate in a warm, open, and effective manner, and conflict entails the degree to which student–teacher interactions are experienced as negative and stressful (Koomen, Verschueren, & Pianta, 2007; Pianta, 2001; Pianta et al., 2003). As close and unconflicted teacher– child relationships are characterized by more successful and satisfying interactions it is reasonable to expect a stronger level of interpersonal complementarity in them. However, it can also be predicted that this complementarity is particularly evident in children's responses when teachers' relationship perceptions are relied on (as in the present study). The reason is that people's satisfaction with their interpersonal interactions predominantly depends on the complementary responses of their interaction partners (cf., Kiesler, 1996). Another factor that may influence children's complementary responses toward their teachers is children's shyness. Shyness, or social inhibition, refers to the trait-like propensity to be fearful and wary in challenging social situations (Asendorpf, 1993; Crozier, 1999; Kagan, 1997; Thijs, Koomen, de Jong, van der Leij, & van Leeuwen, 2004). Shyness in young children has been related to social anxiety, i.e. the fear of negative evaluations (Rothbart & Mauro, 1990; Weeks, Coplan, & Kingsbury, 2009) and emotional insecurity in interactions with teachers (Thijs & Koomen, 2008). Two competing hypotheses can be formulated for this child characteristic. Because shy children tend to be preoccupied with others' potentially negative evaluations of them they may be more attentive and receptive to their teachers' interpersonal behaviors. On the other hand, the inhibited and withdrawn behaviors of shy children may reflect an interpersonal style that is relatively rigid and nonresponsive to the interpersonal pulls and invitations from their teachers (see Tracey, 2005). These behaviors figure prominently in different versions of the interpersonal circumplex, expressing low levels of control, and low to intermediate levels of affiliation (see e.g., Kiesler, 1996) and may in themselves be regarded as at least partly complementary responses to early experiences with overcontrolled socialization (e.g., overinvolved or authoritarian parenting; see Coplan, Prakash, O'Neil, & Armer, 2004; Mills & Rubin, 1998; Rapee, 1997; Rubin & Burgess, 2001).

Research goal and hypotheses The goal of the present research was to examine the mutual interactions between teachers and kindergartners from an interpersonal theoretical perspective. Children and teachers were observed in arranged dyadic task situations, and a newly developed instrument was used to rate their behaviors along dimensions of control and affiliation during 5-second episodes. Five hypotheses were addressed. Our first hypothesis pertained to the overall relations between teachers' and children's behaviors displayed during the same time frame. Consistent with the complementarity hypothesis, we expected positive relations between children's and teachers' displays of affiliation, and negative relations between their respective displays of control. The sequential structure of our observations and the possibility of cross-lagged analyses permitted the examination of interpersonal responses in each interaction partner. Our second hypothesis was that complementarity tendencies would be weaker for teachers than for children. Thus, we expected that the influences of children's interpersonal behaviors (respectively, affiliation and control) on those of their teachers would be weaker than the impact of teachers' interpersonal behaviors on those of the children. Third, we hypothesized that children's complementarity tendencies would be stronger in relationships regarded as positive (close, unconflicted) by their teachers. Finally, we evaluated two competing hypotheses about the role of children's shyness: Shyness might increase children's complementary responding due to increased interpersonal sensitivity but it might also decrease it as shy children might be relatively rigid in their interpersonal behaviors. Method Participants and procedure Participants were 69 kindergarten children (31 girls and 38 boys; Mage = 5.79 years, SD = .71) and their 37 regular teachers (two men; Mage = 39.87 years, SD = 11.12, age available for n = 30). No information was available on students or teachers' ethnic or racial background but most of them could be identified as members of the dominant Dutch ethnic group and all spoke Dutch (the official language in regular schools in the Netherlands). Teachers and children took part in a small scale intervention study for which they were observed at two or three different occasions. This intervention focused on children with varying degrees of shyness. In the present study, observations during the first occasion (pre-intervention) were analyzed. The 69 children were selected from a total pool of 587 children attending 37 kindergarten classes in 25 regular schools in the west of the Netherlands. We did not know for how long children had been with their present teachers. However, to ensure that the relationships between them had sufficiently developed, the study was conducted in the spring. In the Dutch school system, kindergarten has two grades (K1 and K2) and starts on a child's fourth birthday. Twelve children were four years old, which indicates that the majority had at least one year of experience in kindergarten, and knew their teachers for more than six months. Childhood shyness tends to have skewed distributions in normal populations (see Thijs & Koomen, 2008). Hence, to ensure normal variation in the shyness ratings for the participating children we aimed to select the two children in each classroom who scored the highest on the social inhibition (or shyness) subscale of the Behavior Questionnaire for Two- to Six-Year-Olds-Modified (BQTSYO-M; Thijs et al., 2004). Teachers completed this instrument (see below) for all children over five years old and if willing for all children in their classes, totalling 587 children.1 Originally, 74 children (two children

1 We asked teachers to complete behavior ratings for at least all children over fiveyears old, to ensure that most participating children had spent at least one year in kindergarten.


per teacher/class) were selected based on their behavior scores relative to their classmates. Teachers were not informed about the selection guidelines. Children were selected if, in their class, they scored highest on the BQTSYO-M scale for social inhibition and relatively low on hyperactivity and externalizing behavior (preferably close to but below the class means). The latter measures were included to avoid problems of comorbidity. To facilitate the selection, children's BQTSYO-M scores were standardized relative to those of their classmates. Of the initially selected children (n = 74) four were not included because their faces were not clearly visible during the video-taped interactions. In addition, due to practical circumstances (e.g., child absence or lack of parental permission) selection guidelines could not always be fully adhered to, and three children did not have high enough scores on social inhibition (b.5 SD above their class means). Still, it was decided to include two of these children as they had low standardized scores on hyperactivity and externalizing behavior in their classrooms. This increased the power of our analyses and the full scale range of social inhibition (1–4) was now present in the data. Moreover, as social inhibition was differently distributed across children's classrooms, the distribution of its absolute scores approached normality in the final sample of 69 children (skewness = .67, kurtosis = −.20). On average, the 69 children scored low on hyperactivity and externalizing behavior relative to their classmates (respectively, M = −.50, SD = .58, and M = −.54, SD = .59). Video recordings were made of the teachers and children, while they were engaged in a dyadic interaction task at a table and outside the classroom. Children were presented with different sets of three pictures on separate cards (e.g., a picture of a child in bed sleeping, a picture of an alarm clock, and a picture of the child awake and out of bed). They had to place these pictures in a logical chronological order, and tell a corresponding story. Teachers were instructed to have children explain their stories, and also encouraged to remove the last picture of a sequence and have children come up with an alternative ending to the story. However, teachers were also informed that we were interested in mutual interactions as they usually occur, and they were encouraged to do the task in their own way. As a consequence, video recordings varied in length from 3.08 to 21.83 min (M = 7.11, SD = 2.88).2 As will be described, the 69 recordings, henceforth labeled as fragments, were divided into 5534 5-second intervals, henceforth labeled as episodes. Approximately two weeks prior to the observations teachers provided behavior ratings (i.e., shyness, hyperactivity, externalizing behavior) for each of the children, and after the observations they rated the quality of their relationships with them.3 Observations were deliberately planned prior to the relationship ratings. Previous research has shown that teachers who report relatively unfavorable relationships with children also report more intentions to alter children's behavior (Thijs et al., 2008). We did not want to draw teachers' attention to the quality of the relationships with their students as this could influence their interaction behaviors toward them. Measures Shyness Teachers rated children's shyness by completing the social inhibition subscale from the Behavior Questionnaire for 2- to 62 Additional analyses revealed that fragment length (the number of 5-second episodes analyzed in each fragment) was unrelated to all dependent variables except child affiliation. However, this positive relation was weak, b = .003, p b .05, and controlling for the number of episodes hardly affected the results. 3 For most children (n = 64) relationship measures were completed within approximately two weeks after the observations. For the remaining children (7%) we analyzed relationships measures completed some five weeks later, i.e., after a second observation. These children and their teachers were in the control condition of our small-scale intervention study.

37

year-olds (BQTSYO-M; Thijs et al., 2004). The BQTSYO-M is a short screening instrument containing small- and broad-band scales for internalizing and externalizing behaviors. It has a four point response format ranging from 1 (absolutely not characteristic) to 4 (very characteristic). The social inhibition subscale consists of five items including ‘Tries to avoid attention’, ‘Rather quiet does not say anything spontaneously’, and ‘Easily withdraws’. Cronbach's alpha was .83 for this scale. Children had a mean score of 2.29 (SD = .73) and the whole range of the scale (1–4) was represented. The BQTSYOM also contains a 4-item subscale for hyperactivity (sample items: ‘Has poor concentration’ and ‘Restless’) and broad-band scale for externalizing behavior (13 items including ‘Hits or kicks other children’ and ‘Disobedient’). These scales were not included in the present study, but children were selected to have low scores on them. Cronbach's alphas for social inhibition, hyperactivity, and externalizing behavior exceeded .84 in the total pool from which the children were selected (N = 587). Teacher–child relationship quality Teachers' reports of the quality of their relationships with each of the children were assessed with preliminary and abbreviated versions of the Closeness and Conflict subscales from the authorized Dutch adaptation of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (Koomen et al., 2007). Like its original (STRS; Pianta, 2001), sufficient to good psychometric properties have been reported for this Dutch adaptation, including satisfactory internal consistency and validity in relation to observed relationship quality, teacher stress indices, children's social-emotional functioning, and behavioral engagement (Doumen, Verschueren, Koomen, & Buyse, submitted for publication; Koomen, Verschueren, van Schooten, Jak, & Pianta, submitted for publication; Koomen et al., 2007). Closeness consisted of six items such as ‘I share a warm relationship with this child’ and ‘This child trusts me’, and conflict contained six items including ‘This child easily becomes angry with me’ and ‘Dealing with this pupil drains my energy’. Items were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (no, certainly not!) to 5 (yes, certainly!). Cronbach's alpha was .84 for Closeness and .83 for Conflict, and the respective mean scores were 3.98 and 1.69 (SD = .59 and SD = .48). There was a strong negative correlation between both relationship measures (r = −.57, p b .01). Following other researchers (Baker, 2006; Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, & Reiser, 2008), we recoded the conflict scale, and averaged both measures into one measure for relationship quality. Cronbach's alpha for this composite measure (conflict items recoded) was .88. Observed interpersonal behaviors (micro-scales) Teachers' and children's interpersonal behaviors (control and affiliation) were observed and rated with four six-point micro-scales that were developed for this study. As interpersonal behaviors can take many different forms (e.g., utterances, glances, smiles, or postures) we preferred interval to event ratings. The micro-scales pertained to intervals of 5 s. Typically, larger intervals (e.g., 10 or 15 s) are used in ‘time-triggered’ observation research, but these have the disadvantage that several codes may occur within an interval (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997). Instead, recording frames of 5 s can be considered brief enough to retain the microsocial qualities of the interactions (Dishion & Granic, 2004). Teacher control ranged from very low (1) ‘shows a passive attitude toward the child, and does not try to influence his/her behavior at all — e.g., does not give clues and lets the child determine the situation’ to very high (6) ‘tries to have a strong influence on the child, has (or takes) complete control over the situation without acknowledging and permitting any independent contribution from the child’. Teacher affiliation ranged from very low (1) ‘is defensive, morose, or unfriendly to the child — e.g., shows verbal and nonverbal angry or clearly irritated reactions’ to very high (6) ‘is strongly positive, clearly supportive, companionable, or warm, both verbally and nonverbally — e.g., is truly

38


Table 1 Intercorrelations, means, standard-deviations, and variance distributions. 1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Teacher affiliation Teacher control Child affiliation Child control

– .25** .15** .03*

2 .32** – −.04** −.15**

3

4

.35** .20

−.18 −.26* .46** –

– .41**

M (SD) 4.58 3.61 3.40 2.67

(.63) (.93) (.65) (.76)

Proportion of Level 2 variance .26** .09** .22** .38**

Note. Level 1 correlations are below the diagonal (n = 5534, total number of 5-second episodes) and Level 2 correlations are above the diagonal (n = 69, number of dyads). *p b .05. **p b .01.

interested, encouraging, reassuring, or companionable, praises the child, smiles at it, or jokes with it. No ambiguity is observed.’ Child control ranged from very low (1) ‘is totally passive and shows no initiative, acts only when explicitly or repeatedly asked by the teacher, does not appear to behave like this on purpose, but as a result of large uncertainty or strong dependency’ to very high (6) ‘adopts an active self-assured attitude toward the teacher — e.g., indicates its wishes, tries to convince the teacher, or openly protests with her’. Child affiliation ranged from very low (1) ‘is indifferent, defensive, morose, unfriendly, or cheeky to the teacher — e.g., reacts angrily or not at all, or is clearly turned away from the teacher’ to very high (6) ‘is very pleasant, companionable, spontaneous, or warm to the teacher — e.g., smiles at the teacher, or tells jokes or something personal. No ambiguity is observed.’ Scale means and standard-deviations are shown in Table 1. The interpersonal behavior ratings were provided by 19 (graduate or undergraduate) students, who had been trained on a subset of video fragments taken from another study (pilot). We employed this large group of raters to ensure independent assessment of the different measures for each interaction. By using independent ratings of actors and behaviors in the same fragment, the possibility of spurious relations due to shared method variance could be ruled out. During the training raters scored several fragments on one specific micro-scale (e.g., child affiliation) and they discussed their scores with the other raters and the authors. The use of the scales was practiced on episodes of different lengths (starting with 30 s and ending with 5 s) and training stopped when agreement within one scale point was achieved. For the actual scoring, raters were asked to watch the first two minutes of each fragment without interruption to get a first impression of both interactants. Next, they were instructed to stop the video-tape at each 5-second boundary and give a score for each episode on the one micro-scale they were trained for. Raters were encouraged to rewind the tape if necessary but also explicitly instructed to give independent judgments on each separate episode. Unlike in the training, these judgments were not discussed among raters. Eventually, ratings were available for 5764 episodes. However, for 230 of them (4%) at least one scale score was missing and these episodes were not included in the analyses.4 Most measures in most fragments were scored by only one rater but several randomly selected fragments were judged by more raters to examine interrater reliability at the episode level. Unlike in the training, divergent ratings were not discussed, and single (rather than average) ratings were used in the eventual analyses. Interrater reliability was assessed by calculating Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC's) for absolute agreement. The ICC can be conceptualized as the proportion of total variance that can be attributed to variation between the objects of measurement (McGraw & Wong, 1996). ICC values from .40 to .59 indicate fair agreement, values from .60 to .74

4 Most of these episodes (80%) were situated either at the beginning or the end of each fragment which is probably due to our instruction. Raters were told to start scoring when the interactions began and to finish scoring when the interactions ended. Apparently, there was slight disagreement about the exact boundaries of each interaction. For other episodes scores were missing due to temporal intrusions (e.g., cards falling from the table).

indicate good agreement, and values from .75 to 1.00 indicate excellent agreement (Cicchetti et al., 2006). For teacher affiliation ICC was .52 (3 raters coded the same 1734 episodes, 17 fragments), for teacher control ICC = .79 (3 raters coded the same 1088 episodes, 11 fragments) and .70 (3 raters coded the same 282 episodes, 3 fragments), for child affiliation ICC = .60 (4 raters coded the same 483 episodes, 5 fragments), and for child control ICC = .64 (6 raters coded the same 398 episodes, 4 fragments). Thus, though not perfect, interrater agreement could be considered as acceptable (fair–good; see Cicchetti et al., 2006).5

Validation measures In order to examine the microscales' validity, we related them to global ratings of teachers and children in each interaction. These ratings were made by eight other trained independent observers (graduate and undergraduate students) who watched and judged the entire fragments. They either rated teachers on a scale for autonomy support (2 raters), children on a scale for positive affect (3 raters), or children on scales for dependency and emotional insecurity (2 raters). As with the microscales, each measure was scored by single raters most of the time. However, 19% to 46% of the fragments (randomly selected) were double- or triple-coded to assess interrater reliability. The global rating scales were derived from Erickson, Sroufe, and Egeland (1985) and adjusted for use within a school setting (Koomen, van Leeuwen, & van der Leij, 2004; Thijs & Koomen, 2008). Autonomy support ranged from very low (1) ‘denying child's individuality, very intrusive, physical and forceful’ to very high (7) ‘acknowledging child's perspective and encouraging child to negotiate events’. ICC was .77 for this scale (32 fragments, 2 raters). Positive affect ranged from very low (1) ‘clearly does not try to share experiences with teacher, e.g., does not make eye contact or does not react to teacher’ to very high (7) ‘demonstrates having a very positive, approaching, and sharing relationship with teacher throughout the session’. ICC was .85 (13 fragments, 3 raters). Dependency ranged from very low (1) ‘has strong self-confidence, may ask for information or help but this always expresses own initiative, does not copy advice indiscriminately but integrates it in own initiatives’ to very high (7) ‘seems preoccupied with obtaining help, may deliberately make an incorrect contribution to have teacher perform the task, displays little own initiative without assistance. Obtaining help appears to be the dominant strategy throughout the session’. Emotional insecurity ranged from very low (1) ‘feels totally comfortable, does not show indications of shyness or stress, open and spontaneous in his/her reactions’ to very high (7) ‘feels insecure during the entire session and taken up by it completely, does not, or very softly, answer questions, may pluck at his/her clothes or may display other nervous gestures, makes an overall very passive, stressed, timid or shy impression’. ICC was .91 for dependency and .81 for emotional insecurity (14 fragments, 3 raters). For our validation purposes, dependency and emotional insecurity were averaged into one measure for submissiveness. These measures could be combined because they reflected the extent to which 5 Interrater reliability was computed using all 184 observations available for the 69 children in the larger intervention study (2 to 3 observations per child).


children showed passivity relative to, respectively, the task and the teacher, and because they were strongly related, r = .63. Results Preliminary analyses We first examined the validity of our four micro-scales by computing their average scores in each dyadic interaction (N = 69), and correlating these averages with the scores on the macro-scales. We reasoned that if the teacher microscales for affiliation and control were valid, their relations with global ratings of teachers' autonomy support should be, respectively, positive and negative. Given the relatively small number of dyads we used one-sided testing to test this directional hypothesis. The obtained correlations were consistent with it: Teachers who showed support for children's autonomy were rated as higher on the microscale for affiliation (r = .21), and lower on the microscale for control (r = −.23, p's b .05). Next, we tested the relations between the child affiliation and control microscales, and the global ratings of child positive affect and child submissiveness. Consistent with their intended meaning, the affiliation microscale was positively related to positive affect (r = .45), and the control microscale was negatively related to submissiveness (r = −.66, p's b .01). However, the relations between child affiliation (microscale) and child submissiveness, and child control (microscale) and child positive affect were significant as well (respectively, r = −.27, p b .05, and r = .40, p b .01). To simultaneously examine the scales' convergent and discriminant validity we conducted a principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on the four child measures. This PCA yielded two orthogonal components reflecting either control (microscale) and submissiveness, or affiliation (microscale) and positive affect. They explained 78.7% of the variance, and they had main loadings over |.80| and cross-loadings below |.38|. Multilevel analyses Data analytic strategy Our analyses included 69 teacher–child dyads. As the behaviors of each child and teacher were repeatedly rated within each interaction, scores on the micro-scales were clearly not independent. Analyzing dependent data with conventional statistical tests can lead to biased results (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). To prevent this, all hypotheses were tested by means of multivariate multilevel regression analyses. Our data structure had three levels: Level 1 pertaining to separate observations within interactions (n = 5534), Level 2 pertaining to different interactions (n = 69), and Level 3 pertaining to different individual teachers (n = 37). Five teachers participated in one dyad only. Hence, to prevent a confound between levels, the teacher level (Level 3) was not included in the models. To conduct multivariate analyses an additional level was specified (Level 0). This level was included only to define the multivariate structure (Goldstein, 1995). For the time-series analyses, a time-lagged version of each micro-variable was constructed representing its value one episode earlier (t − 1). To ease interpretation of results each continuous measure was standardized (z-scores) at its own level in our analyses. Model improvement was tested by comparing deviance statistics for nested models. Differences between these statistics follow a χ2 distribution with degrees of freedom given by the differences in numbers of parameters (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Correlations (Hypothesis 1) To test our first hypothesis concerning the simultaneous relations between the four interpersonal scales, we tested a multivariate model with intercepts only. This model yielded estimates of the variance and the intercorrelation of the four variables across Levels 1 (withindyad) and 2 (between-dyad). Results are shown in Table 1. For each observation measure, the proportion of variance at Level 2 was

39

significant. This implied that there were significant differences in the means of each observed interpersonal behavior across the different dyads (n = 69). Yet these differences appeared to be weaker for teacher control than for the other variables. Next, the correlations at Level 1 indicated that there was a positive relation between teacher affiliation and child affiliation, and a negative relation between teacher control and child control within each dyad. To a stronger extent the same two relations emerged at Level 2. Thus, regardless of the level of analysis, teachers and children seemed to interact in a manner consistent with the complementarity principle. Next, there were positive correlations between affiliation and control of the same actor (teacher or child) at both levels (i.e., 2-1, 4-3, 1-2, and 3-4 in Table 1). Hence and unlike posited by interpersonal theory, the two interpersonal dimensions were not orthogonal in the present sample. Finally, there were very small correlations between teacher affiliation and child control, and teacher control and child affiliation (respectively, r = .03, and r = −.04). Teachers' and children's complementarity tendencies (Hypothesis 2) To examine the extent to which teachers and children responded complementarily to each other, two sets of multivariate regression models were specified. Both affiliation and control were included as predictors in these models, because they were positively related within each actor (teacher and child) and we wanted to test their unique contributions. Teacher affiliation and teacher control were the dependent variables in Model 1, and child affiliation and child control were the dependent variables in Model 2. Results are shown in the middle part of Table 2. The first version of each model (1a and 2a) contained the so-called autoregressive components. That is to say, the two dependent variables were regressed on the same variables measured in the same actor 5 s earlier. These predictor variables were labeled ‘affiliation selft − 1’ and ‘control selft − 1’. As shown in Table 2, all autoregressive components were positive indicating stability across time. In addition, only for the child, control selft − 1 was a (positive) predictor of affiliation self (b = .053) and affiliation selft − 1 was a (positive) predictor of control self (b = .094). In the second version of each model (Models 1b and 2b) the partners' earlier interaction behaviors were added as predictors. They were labeled ‘affiliation othert − 1’ and ‘control othert − 1’. The inclusion of these cross-lagged components led to significant model improvement in both cases, χ2(4) = 36.41 for teachers, and χ2(4) = 63.72 for children, p's b .01. Thus, as a whole the behaviors of both actors were significantly explained by the previous behaviors (t − 1) of their interaction partners. Inspection of the regression coefficients revealed several cross-lagged effects, and these differed significantly for teachers compared to children (p b .01).6 There was a negative effect of child controlt − 1 (b control othert − 1 = −.068) on teacher control, and a positive effect of teacher affiliationt − 1 (b affiliation othert − 1 = .087) on child affiliation. Thus, teachers responded complementarily with respect to control, and children responded complementarily with respect to affiliation. In addition to this, child controlt − 1 and child affiliationt − 1 had negative effects on, respectively, teacher affiliation (b = −.041) and teacher control (b = −.033), and teacher affiliationt − 1 and teacher controlt − 1 had positive effects on, respectively, child control (b = .041) and child affiliation (b = .030). Hence, both partners showed additional reactions not predicted by interpersonal theory. We anticipated that two of these additional effects, i.e., the cross-lagged relations between child control and teacher affiliation, might be statistically explained by the positive concurrent relations between control and affiliation in each relationship partner. To test this possibility, we added control self as a predictor of the affiliation part of Model 2a (the teacher 6 To test this, we analyzed teachers and children's behaviors in one and the same model (for affiliation self and control self) and we examined interactions with a contrast for child compared to teacher.

40


Table 2 Cross-lagged analyses for the prediction of teachers' and children's interpersonal behaviors.

Dependent variables Predictors Affiliation selft − 1 Control selft − 1 Affiliation othert − Control othert − 1

1

Variance Level 1 within dyads Level 2 between dyads Deviance

Model 1a

Model 2a

Model 1b

Model 2b

Teacher

Child

Teacher

Child

Affiliation self

Control self

Affiliation self

Control self

Affiliation self

Control self

Affiliation self

Control self

.337** .018

.008 .174** – –

.316** .053**

.094** .291**

.336** .014 .024 −.041**

.018 .162** −.033* −.068**

.302** .062** .087** .030*

.088** .290** .041** −.011

– –

.656 .107 27,875.47

– –

.890 .056

– –

.683 .089 24,876.84

.522 .161

.655 .102 27,839.07

.885 .055

.676 .082 24,813.12

.521 .166

Note. The subscript t − 1 indicates that predictors were measured one episode (five seconds) earlier than the dependent variables. **p b .01.

model) and affiliation self as predictor of the control part of Model 2b (the child model). Results indicated that child controlt − 1 no longer affected teacher affiliation, and that teacher affiliationt − 1 no longer affected child control when the impact of the concurrent behavior dimensions was partialled out. Relationship quality and shyness (Hypotheses 3, 4a, and 4b) In a last set of models we examined whether and to what extent teachers' ratings of relationship quality and children's shyness affected the complementary responding of both relationship partners. To this aim we added six predictors to the previous regression equations: relationship quality, shyness, as well as the cross-level interactions relationship quality * affiliation othert − 1, relationship quality * control othert − 1, shyness * affiliation othert − 1, and shyness * control othert − 1. For the teacher model, no effects were significant and there was no overall model improvement (p N .25). This means that neither relationship quality nor shyness added to the prediction of teachers' interpersonal behaviors. There were no main effects of relationship quality and shyness on children's behavior, but both variables interacted with teacher control in the prediction of child control, b = −.021, p b .01 for both relationship quality and shyness. Although the overall fit of the child model did not improve after the six predictors were added, additional analyses revealed (marginally) increased fit for the separate prediction of control, χ2(6) = 12.36, p = .054. To specify the nature of the interactions, we conducted simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991). First, we calculated the effects of teacher control on child control for reportedly high-quality (1 SD N M) compared to reportedly low-quality relationships (1 SD b M). Only for the former, teacher control had a significant (negative) effect, b = −.032, p b .05,

compared to b = .011, ns. These effects are illustrated in Fig. 1. Next, we calculated the same effects for relatively shy compared to nonshy children (respectively, 1 SD N M compared to 1 SD b M). As shown in Fig. 2, teacher control had a negative effect on the controlling behaviors of relatively shy children, b = −.031, p b .05, but not for nonshy children, b = .010, ns. Discussion There is a growing literature attesting to the developmental significance of early teacher–child relationships (see Pianta et al., 2003; Thijs et al., 2008) but much remains to be learned about how teachers and children interact in concrete daily situations. The present research makes a unique contribution to the literature by applying interpersonal theory to the observed, reciprocal interactions between kindergarten children and their teachers. The observed interactions took place outside the classroom which may have limited the ecological validity of our observations. Yet, resembling many classroom situations these interactions were semi-structured. Interpersonal theory claims that interpersonal behaviors can be measured along dimensions of control and affiliation, and that these measurements can be used to make successful predictions for the behaviors of dyadic interaction partners. To examine these claims, we developed a micro-instrument that was based on the literature and suited to the particulars of the interaction setting under examination. The instrument had moderate but acceptable interrater reliability, and its validity was supported by meaningful relations to independent global ratings of children's and teachers' behaviors. Consistent with the complementarity principle and our first hypothesis, there was a positive correlation between the level of

Child Control t+1 0.12 (z-values) 0.1 0.08 0.06 Relationship Quality High

0.04 0.02

Relationship Quality Low

0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 Low (- 1 SD)

High (+ 1 SD)

Teacher Control Fig. 1. Interaction effect of relationship quality and teacher control on child controlt

+ 1.


41

Child Control t+1 0.15 (z-values) 0.1 0.05 Shyness High

0

Shyness Low

-0.05 -0.1 -0.15 Low (- 1 SD)

High (+ 1 SD)

Teacher Control Fig. 2. Interaction effect of shyness and teacher control on child controlt

affiliation displayed by both relationship partners, and a negative correlation between their displays of control. These correlations were observed within and between dyads which means that there was interpersonal complementarity not only at the level of concrete interpersonal behaviors but also the level of the interaction as a whole (see Tracey, 2004). This suggests that the complementary principle may also explain teachers' and children's interpersonal styles in their ongoing relationships (Sadler & Woody, 2003), although we did not measure these styles in the present study. The complementarity principle implies that both interactants respond to each other during the course of interactions but most empirical tests of interpersonal theory have relied on correlational analyses (see Horowitz et al., 2006). In contrast, the present study relied on cross-lagged analyses to examine complementarity in the responses of teachers and children separately. Assuming that teachers are constrained by their professional obligation to act in the best interest of the child (Thijs et al., 2008), we expected to find stronger evidence for complementarity from teacher to child than from child to teacher. This expectation was only partly upheld, as children but not their teachers showed complementarity for affiliation. Unlike the children, however, teachers showed complementarity for control (although children did respond complementarily with respect to control if they shared reportedly positive relationships with their teachers and if they were shy; see below). Thus, kindergarten teachers do not appear to be overall more constrained in their interpersonal reactions than their students. Still, the lack of affiliative, complementary responding among teachers indicates that they are ‘professionals enough’ to not return children's aloofness with detached behaviors. Teachers and children also displayed other interpersonal reactions. Two of these (teachers showing decreased affiliation when children showed more control, and children showing increased control when teachers showed more affiliation) could be explained by the positive concurrent relations between control and affiliation in each relationship partner. In addition, teachers showed decreased control when children showed more affiliation, and children showed increased affiliation when their teachers showed more control. We do not have a clear cut account for the former. However as suggested by an anonymous reviewer, it could be that teachers tended to be more permissive as children showed more companionship. The second additional finding might be explained by the possibility that teachers who showed more controlling behaviors also provided the children with a better structure and more clues about how to proceed (see Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Children might have welcomed this structure and shown their appreciation to their teacher by means of more or stronger affiliative behaviors. Note, however, that this positive effect should predominantly apply to intermediate degrees of teacher control because higher scores on our teacher control scale also entail

+ 1.

a lack of appreciation for children's own contributions. Hence, if this interpretation were to be correct the relation between teacher control and child affiliation should be curvilinear. As a posthoc test of this interpretation we added a quadratic term for teacher control (control othert − 1) to Model 2 b (Table 2). This additional test (not in the text) showed that teacher control tended to have an inverse U-shaped effect on child affiliation: Children showed more affiliation following low to intermediate levels of teacher control but less affiliation following intermediate to high levels of teacher control.7 Our last three hypotheses pertained to the moderating roles of teacher-reported relationship quality and children's shyness. We expected that teachers' reports of positive relationship quality would be associated with stronger complementarity from teacher to child and this expectation was confirmed for control: The more teachers characterized the relationship as warm and unconflicted, the more children reciprocated teachers' controlling (rather than passive) behaviors with passive (rather than controlling) behaviors. This finding fits with the notion that interactions within close and unconflicted relationships are experienced as smooth and effective by the teacher (see Koomen et al., 2007). In line with their professional role, teachers' own (complementary) reactions were not affected by their experience of the teacher–child relationship. However, such moderating effects of relationship quality might have been found if children's relationship perceptions were relied on. Teachers and children may have differing views on the quality of their relationship (Pianta et al., 2003), and a recent study among kindergartners and their teachers found their relationship reports to be virtually unrelated (Murray, Murray, & Waas, 2008). For shyness, two conflicting expectations were examined. Among shyer children we anticipated more complementarity due to stronger interpersonal sensitivity but also less complementarity due to less behavioral flexibility. Our analyses favored the former expectation. Unlike nonshy children, shy children responded in a complementary fashion in that they reacted with increased (or decreased) control when their teacher displayed less (or more) of it. Childhood shyness may entail a fear of negative evaluations (see Rothbart & Mauro, 1990; Weeks et al., 2009) and this can explain why shyer children were more attentive and receptive to their teachers' controlling behaviors. It should be noted, however, that all participating children were selected from a ‘normal’ sample. Thus, interpersonal rigidity could still be observed in extremely socially anxious children from clinical populations. The present findings have important implications for theory and practice. First, they indicate that interpersonal theory provides a useful framework to study young children's interactions with their 7 b = −.018, p b .05 (one-sided). Calculation of the quadratic term was based upon the standardized variable.

42


teachers. Relationships between children and adults are generally characterized by an imbalance of power. Power imbalances may constrain the likelihood of complementary reactions (Moskowitz et al., 2007), and this is probably one of the reasons why most interpersonal research has focused on adult dyads. Still, our findings indicate that children did show complementarity, especially when they were shy. Hence, the interpersonal approach appears to provide a fruitful avenue for understanding interpersonal teacher influences in early childhood. Future studies could use less time-consuming methods to further examine these influences (see, for example, Sadler et al., 2009) as well as the consequences of teacher–child relational complementarity for children's socioemotional well-being and academic functioning. Our findings also encourage the study of complementarity in children's relationships with other important adults such as their parents. Parents are probably less constrained in their interpersonal behaviors than teachers, and children's behaviors toward them can be described in interpersonal terms (Markey et al., 2005). On a practical level, our findings suggest that early childhood teachers might use insights from interpersonal theory to improve potentially problematic interactions with their students. Unlike the children, teachers did not respond complementarily on the affiliation dimension, and we speculate that this makes them appropriate candidates for utilizing the complementarity principle in order to elicit more approaching and companionable behaviors from their students. For instance, teachers who worry about a student's hostile behavior might discourage those by consistently showing more friendly behavior (its complement) even if this behavior is not reciprocated initially. However, to successfully use the complementarity principle in their daily interactions teachers should be trained in at least two respects. First, they should learn to recognize and classify their own and their students' interpersonal behaviors and reaction. We presume that analyzing videotapes of their own interactions would be helpful here (see also, Fukkink & Tavecchio, 2010; Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008). Next, it is crucially important that teachers have a full understanding of the main propositions of interpersonal theory. They should be taught, for instance, that so-called anticomplementarity responses to children should be avoided. Such responses are noncorresponding on affiliation and nonreciprocal on control, and they may be experienced as unpleasant and threatening as they call for a radical change in children's original behavior. Gradual behavior change is probably more effective, and this might be accomplished by displaying socalled acomplementary behaviors, i.e. responses that are complementary with respect to one dimension only (Kiesler, 1996). Yet, further research is needed to test the usefulness of the interpersonal approach before applying it in educational practice. To evaluate the present study four aspects should be considered. To begin with, the correlations between children's and teachers' behaviors were relatively small, whereas the correlation between control and affiliation within each interaction partner was generally larger. The former is probably partly due to measurement error, but the latter indicates that the two interpersonal dimensions were not measured independently. We suspect that the within-person correlations between control and affiliation can, in part, be attributed to the nature of the interaction task which required that children and engaged in a social activity, i.e. telling stories (child) and commenting upon them (teacher). Still, we corrected for the dependencies between the interpersonal dimensions by using multivariate analyses in the present study. Second, we studied a limited number of teacher– child dyads (n = 69). Whereas this number was high enough to study main effects (Level 2) of relationship quality and shyness (see Cohen, 1992), observing more dyads would have increased the power to obtain significant cross-level interactions. Third, the children in our sample were selected to obtain a normal distribution in shyness, and in order to avoid ‘co-morbidity’ we did

not include children who scored relatively high on externalizing behavior. Although high scores on externalizing behavior are the exception rather than the rule, it remains to be investigated whether and to what extent there is complementarity in the interactions between randomly selected children and their teachers. Finally, as noted, the ecological validity of our observations may be somewhat limited because teachers and children interacted outside the classroom without other children present. In daily classroom situations, children may be hesitant to initiate interactions with their teachers especially when they are shy (Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Rimm Kaufman et al., 2002). The arranged nature of the observations made it possible to examine all dyads under comparable circumstances which added to the study's internal validity. Yet, future research should also examine complementarity during more naturally occurring teacher– child interactions (cf., Sadler & Woody, 2003). These studies could use (adapted versions) of the present scales, as recent evidence suggest that they are appropriate for measuring teacher–child interactions during small-group situations in the classroom (Roorda, Koomen, & Oort, 2010). In conclusion, we used an interpersonal theoretical approach to examine the observed interactions between kindergarten children and their teachers. Although they need to be substantiated by further research, our findings suggest that this approach is promising. Interpersonal theory can provide explanations and expectations for the behaviors of both partners in the teacher–child relationship, and it clearly has the potential to further our understanding of teacher influences on young children. Acknowledgements This study was supported by grant 41103011 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/PROO) assigned to Helma Koomen. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Beyond temperament: A two-factorial coping model of the development of inhibition during childhood. In K. H. Rubin & J.B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 265−289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interactions: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211−229. Becker, W. C., & Krug, R. S. (1964). A circumplex model for social behavior in children. Child Development, 35, 371−396. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Cicchetti, D., Bronen, R., Spencer, S., Haut, S., Berg, A., Oliver, P., & Tyrer, P. (2006). Rating scales, scales of measurement, issues of reliability: Resolving some critical issues for clinicians and researchers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 557−564. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155−159. Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 143−158. Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O'Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 244−258. Crozier, W. R. (1999). Individual differences in childhood shyness: Distinguishing fearful and self-conscious shyness. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp. 14−29). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dishion, T. J., & Granic, I. (2004). Naturalistic observation of relationship process. In M. Hersen, S.N. Haynes and E. M. Heiby (Eds.), The comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 3): Behavioral assessment (pp. 394−446). New York: Jossey-Bass. Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Koomen, H., & Buyse, E. (submitted for publication). Teacher and observer views on student–teacher relationships: Convergence across kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592−603.

J. Thijs et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32 (2011) 34–43 Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (pp. 147–166). Fukkink, R. G., & Tavecchio, L. W. C. (2010). Effects of video interaction guidance on early childhood teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1652−1659. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London, England: Oxford University Press. Gurtman, M. B. (2001). Interpersonal complementarity: Integrating interpersonal measurement with interpersonal models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(1), 97−110. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the firstgrade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949−967. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY: Guilford. Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher–child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 50, 111−138. Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67−86. Kagan, J. (1997). Temperament and the reactions to unfamiliarity. Child Development, 68, 139−143. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Oxford, England: Wiley. Koomen, H. M. Y., van Leeuwen, M. G. P., & van der Leij, A. (2004). Does well-being contribute to performance? Emotional security, teacher support and learning behaviour in kindergarten. Infant and Child Development, 13, 253−275. Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Leerling-Leraar Relatie Vragenlijst. Handleiding [Student–Teacher Relationship Questionnaire. Manual]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum. Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., and Pianta, R. C. (submitted for publication). Validating the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch normative sample. Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY: Ronald Press Company. Lerner, R. M. (1998). Theories of human development: Contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon and R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1–24). New York: Wiley. Locke, K. D., & Sadler, P. (2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 94−109. Markey, P. M., Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2003). Complementarity of interpersonal behaviors in dyadic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1082−1090. Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & Tinsley, B. (2005). Applying the interpersonal circumplex to children's behavior: Parent–child interactions and risk behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 549−559. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30−46. Mills, R. S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural and psychological control both differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30, 132−136. Moskowitz, D. S., Ho, M. R., & Turcotte-Tremblay, A. (2007). Contextual influences on interpersonal complementarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1051−1063. Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher– student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 49−61. Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children's social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699−710. Orford, J. (1994). The interpersonal circumplex: A theory and method for applied psychology. Human Relations, 47, 1347−1375. Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

43

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. In W. M. Reynolds and G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology, Vol. 7. (pp. 199−234). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431−451. Rapee, R. M. (1997). Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 47−67. Rimm Kaufman, S. E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., & Payne, C. (2002). Early behavioral attributes and teachers' sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 451−470. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Oort, F. J. (2010, April). An observational study of teachers' affiliation and control behaviors towards kindergarten children: Associations with teacher–child relationship quality. Presented at the 1st International Conference on Interpersonal Relationships in Education. Boulder, Colorado, USA. Rothbart, M. K., & Mauro, J. A. (1990). Temperament, behavioral inhibition, and shyness in childhood. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 139−160). New York, NY: Plenum. Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Social withdrawal and anxiety. In M. W. Vasey & M. R. Dadds (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 407−434). London, England: Oxford University Press. Sadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & Woody, E. (2009). Are we on the same wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1005−1020. Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you're talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarily in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80−95. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational & Psychology, 85, 571−581. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage. Sodano, S. M., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2006). Interpersonal traits in childhood: Development of the child and adolescent interpersonal survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 317−329. Strong, S. R., Hills, H., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lamer, K., Nelson, B. N., & Meyers, C. W. (1988). The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 798−810. Thijs, J. T., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2008). Task-related interactions between kindergarten children and their teachers: The role of emotional security. Infant and Child Development, 17, 181−197. Thijs, J. T., Koomen, H. M. Y., de Jong, P. F., van der Leij, A., & van Leeuwen, M. G. P. (2004). Internalizing behaviors among kindergarten children: Measuring dimensions of social withdrawal with a checklist. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 802−812. Thijs, J. T., Koomen, H. M. Y., & van der Leij, A. (2008). Teacher–child relationships and pedagogical practices: Considering the teacher's perspective. School Psychology Review, 37, 244−260. Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558−568. Tracey, T. J. (1994). An examination of the complementarity of interpersonal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 864−878. Tracey, T. J. G. (2004). Levels of interpersonal complementarity: A simplex representation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1211−1225. Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). Interpersonal rigidity and complementarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 592−614. Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children's academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Education & Psychology, 100, 67−77. Weeks, M., Coplan, R. J., & Kingsbury, A. (2009). The correlates and consequences of early appearing social anxiety in young children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 965−972. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6−24.