Teacher-Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child Care and Socioemotional Development

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/276242229
Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child Care and

Socioemotional Development
Article in Early Education and Development · November 2014

DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.985878
CITATIONS READS
23 845
2 authors:
Jennifer Mortensen Melissa A Barnett

University of Nevada, Reno The University of Arizona
12 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 814 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Mortensen on 19 July 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]
On: 22 January 2015, At: 12:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Education and Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/

Toddler Child Care and Socioemotional
Development
a a
Jennifer A. Mortensen & Melissa A. Barnett
a
Family Studies and Human Development, The University of Arizona
Published online: 22 Dec 2014.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Jennifer A. Mortensen & Melissa A. Barnett (2015) Teacher–Child Interactions in
Infant/Toddler Child Care and Socioemotional Development, Early Education and Development, 26:2,
209-229, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.985878
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.985878
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:37 22 January 2015
Early Education and Development, 26: 209–229
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.985878
Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child

Care and Socioemotional Development
Jennifer A. Mortensen and Melissa A. Barnett

Family Studies and Human Development, The University of Arizona
Research Findings: The teacher–child relationships that develop in infant/toddler child care provide
a critical caregiving context for young children’s socioemotional development. However, gaps
remain in researchers’ understanding of the individual-level processes that facilitate socioemotional
development, specifically in center-based child care programs. Guided by ecological theory, this arti-
cle offers a review of the current literature on this topic, including influential factors and develop-
mental outcomes associated with teacher–child interaction quality, the teacher–child relationship
as a compensatory mechanism for children facing risk, and differential susceptibility to caregiving
experiences. Practice or Policy: Within the context of infant/toddler child care, many opportunities
exist for researchers to refine the measurement of individual teacher–child interactions, test young
children’s self-regulation as an outcome variable, and develop understanding of compensatory and
differential susceptibility mechanisms. Clarifying these processes will inform early childhood edu-
cation teacher training in terms of how teachers can best facilitate healthy socioemotional outcomes,
especially for the most vulnerable children.
More than 6 million children younger than age 5 participate in formal child care programs
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Of infants and toddlers with employed mothers, 34% participate
in center- and home-based programs, representing nearly 2 million young children in formal
child care (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). For these children, the teacher–child relationships
that develop within this setting constitute a critical caregiving context for socioemotional
development (McCartney, 2006; Phillips & Lowenstein, 2011). Teacher–child relationships
in preschool and elementary school, and their connection to socioemotional development and
school success, have been the subject of much research (Mashburn & Pianta, 2010; Rudasill
& Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Sabol & Pianta, 2012); however, for infants and toddlers in child
care, these teacher–child relationships develop long before preschool.
National research initiatives have played a major role in experts’ understanding of teacher–
child interaction quality and infant/toddler development (e.g., Love et al., 2005; National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network [NICHD
ECCRN], 1998, 2001); however, some gaps remain. For example, the definition of child care is
often expanded to include all nonmaternal caregivers (e.g., NICHD ECCRN, 1998, 2001), and
classroom-level measures of teacher behavior are often used to assess teacher–child interaction
quality (Halle, Anderson, Blasberg, Chrisler, & Simkin, 2011). Both of these approaches limit
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jennifer A. Mortensen, Family Studies and Human
Development, Norton School of Family & Consumer Sciences, The University of Arizona, 650 North Park Avenue,
P.O. Box 210078, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: jenmort@email.arizona.edu
210 MORTENSEN AND BARNETT
researchers’ understanding of child-level teacher interaction quality in center-based infant/toddler

child care settings. In addition, teachers’ perceptions of teacher–child relationship quality and
associations between teacher–child interactions and young children’s self-regulatory skills are
largely unexplored in infant/toddler child care research (Blair, Berry, & Friedman, 2012;
Mashburn & Pianta, 2010). New research initiatives focusing on teacher–child relationships as
compensatory mechanisms for children facing risk (e.g., Sabol & Pianta, 2012) and children’s dif-
ferential susceptibility to child care experiences (Phillips, Fox, & Gunnar, 2011) are also critical
to understanding the nuances of these processes. To clarify understanding of existing research on
teacher-child interactions in infant/toddler child care and their role in self-regulatory and socio-
emotional skills, we present a review of current research on this topic, focusing on measurement
issues in assessing teacher–child interactions, gaps in the literature, and implications for early
childhood teacher training. To gather literature for the review, we used academic search engines
(e.g., PsycINFO, EBSCO) to locate empirical research that examined associations between tea-
cher–child interactions and young children’s socioemotional development and self-regulatory
outcomes in infant/toddler (birth to age 3) child care settings. We also gathered literature on fac-
tors that affect the nature of teacher–child interactions and teacher quality.
The period of infancy to early childhood is a time of rapid change in social and emotional
capabilities. One foundational component to all socioemotional behaviors is emotional self-
regulation (Calkins & Hill, 2006; Eisenberg, Hofer, & Vaughan, 2006; Liew, 2012; Rosenblum,
Dayton, & Muzik, 2009; Ursache, Blair, & Raver, 2012). Emotional self-regulation involves
“processes used to manage and change if, when, and how (e.g., how intensely) one experiences
emotions … as well as how emotions are expressed behaviorally” (Eisenberg et al., 2006,
p. 288). This definition implies that well-regulated children are able to manage and adjust their
emotional experiences and behaviors in ways adaptive to a given situation. In comparison to
children with poor emotional self-regulation, children with better self-regulation skills demon-
strate increased social competence, emotional understanding, empathy, internalization of rules,
and peer relations (Blair et al., 2012; Calkins & Hill, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2006; Liew, 2012).
Self-regulatory skills are also an essential component of school readiness (Blair et al., 2012).
Children who can effectively regulate their emotions and display socioemotional competence
up on entering kindergarten are more engaged in the classroom, have better peer relationships,
and demonstrate increased literacy and math achievement trajectories across elementary school
(Eisenberg, Valiente, & Eggum, 2010; Liew, 2012; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006).
Emotional self-regulation during infancy and toddlerhood is facilitated within the context of
caregiver–child interactions (Cole, 2003) and is a foundational component for the more com-
plex social and emotional skills of early childhood (Blair et al., 2012; Calkins & Hill, 2006;
Eisenberg et al., 2006; Liew, 2012). Newborn infants are almost entirely reliant on caregivers
to manage their emotional states; thus, a major developmental task of infancy is to gain the
skills necessary to engage in adaptive emotional self-regulation (Rosenblum et al., 2009).
In this review, we conceptualize teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care as key
relationships that contribute to the development of emotional self-regulation and other socioe-
motional skills. First we outline an integrated ecological model (see Figure 1) of emotional self-
regulation that focuses on proximal processes with teachers in the child care microsystem as a
critical component of children’s networks of care that facilitate the development of emotional
self-regulation (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Next we
review current research specific to teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care,
RELATIONSHIPS IN CHILD CARE 211
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model depicting the role of teacher–child (TC) interactions in infant/toddler child care in the
development of emotional self-regulation and socioemotional well-being. SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
including (a) socioemotional developmental outcomes associated with teacher–child

interactions, (b) factors that influence the nature and quality of teacher–child interactions,
(c) the compensatory role of teacher–child interactions for children experiencing contextual
risks and for children with emotional self-regulation difficulties, and (d) children’s differential
susceptibility to teacher–child caregiving interactions. Finally, we consider implications and
future directions for research in this area.
AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
An ecological framework is often used to support child care, and the processes that occur within
this setting, as a critical developmental context for young children (e.g., Halle et al., 2011;
Mashburn & Pianta, 2010; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). This
framework allows for the conceptualization of both home and child care as settings that are
influential in the development of emotional self-regulation and socioemotional well-being.
Bioecological theory positions the child at the center of a series of nested systems (micro-,
meso-, exo-, and macrosystems) with which the child interacts via proximal processes, which
are the regular interactions that occur between the child and the environment producing
development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Our understanding of the nuances of these processes across home and child care contexts
is enriched with the incorporation of the ecological and dynamic model of transition (Rimm-
Kaufman & Pianta, 2000), which conceptualizes children’s experiences in various settings
(e.g., home, school) as a series of dynamic interactions between the child, parent, and teacher
that, across time, develop into complex networks of care. Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta (2000)
described this model in terms of children transitioning from preschool to kindergarten, with
the transition to formal schooling serving as a critical milestone for children and their families,
but this perspective can be applied to younger children in child care as well. Infants and tod-
dlers in child care are actively involved in transitions between home and child care, and the
caregiving experiences that occur within and between these settings over time have a substan-
tial impact on children’s development (McCartney, 2006; Phillips & Lowenstein, 2011).
Focusing specifically on socioemotional development, these ecological perspectives provide

the theoretical foundation for conceptualizing (a) home and child care as a network of care
composed of independently and interactively influential settings in which (b) caregiver–child
interactions with multiple caregivers (parents and teachers) serve as the proximal processes
that influence the development of emotional self-regulation and later socioemotional
outcomes.
To illustrate these processes, in Figure 1 we focus on home and child care as independent
microsystems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The bidirectional arrows connecting home–
child and child care–child illustrate the independent processes that occur within each caregiving
setting. Parent–child interactions have a profound influence on children’s socioemotional well-
being (Bocknek, Brophy-Herb, & Banerjee, 2009; Cole, 2003; Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004;
Grolnick & Farkas, 2002; Ispa et al., 2004; Kim & Kochanska, 2012), as do the interactions
within child care (Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, 2001; Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes & Hamilton, 1992a, 1992b; Love et al., 2005; McCartney, 2006; Phillips &
Lowenstein, 2011). In Figure 1, we also highlight the interaction between these settings as the
home–child care mesosystem (McCartney, 2006), represented by the bidirectional arrow between
home and child care. Interactions between teachers and parents within the child care center (e.g.,
parent classroom participation, discussion of the child’s needs at drop-off or pick-up times) or
home (e.g., home visiting) are an important component of early care and education programs
(e.g., Castro, Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Skinner, 2004) and exert their own interactive influ-
ence on children’s well-being (e.g., Love et al., 2005; Owen, Ware, & Barfoot, 2000).
As illustrated in Figure 1, the proximal processes that occur between children, parents, and
teachers in their respective microsystems, and the interactive mesosystem, drive development
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The majority of research in this area has focused on
parent–child interactions. Observational research consistently demonstrates that emotional
self-regulation and socioemotional well-being is supported in the context of sensitive, respon-
sive, stimulating, synchronous parent–child interactions, whereas overly harsh, detached, and
intrusive interactions undermine development in these areas (Bocknek et al., 2009; Grolnick
& Farkas, 2002; Ispa et al., 2004; Kim & Kochanska, 2012). Just as parent–child interactions
are the proximal processes within the home, teacher–child interactions are the proximal pro-
cesses within the classroom (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Pianta et al., 2005). The caregiving
tasks involved in infant/toddler child care are intimate in nature (e.g., bottle feeding, soothing,
diapering), and thus ample opportunities exist for sensitive, stimulating, and synchronous
teacher–child interactions to facilitate development (Howes & Hamilton, 1992b). High-quality
teachers are sensitive, responsive, and verbal and provide high levels of cognitive stimulation,
attention, and support (Halle et al., 2011; Phillips & Lowenstein, 2011; Pianta et al., 2005).
In sum, bioecological theory and the ecological and dynamic model of transition provide
a framework for conceptualizing emotional self-regulation as developing from the proximal
interactions within children’s networks of care, which for children enrolled in early care and
education programs include both parents and teachers in their respective home and child care
microsystems as well as the mesosystem-level interaction between these two settings. In the
remaining sections of this article we review empirical literature that has focused on teacher–
child interactions in infant/toddler child care and consider the implications and future directions
of this research.
TEACHER–CHILD INTERACTIONS IN INFANT/TODDLER CHILD CARE
Teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care are associated with the development of
emotional self-regulation and socioemotional skills in a variety of ways. In accordance with
the pathways specified in Figure 1, it is essential to consider child emotional self-regulation
and socioemotional outcomes associated with teacher–child interactions; factors that influence
the nature and quality of teacher–child interactions; and when teacher–child interactions interact
with contextual and child characteristics to moderate developmental outcomes, including
differential susceptibility to caregiving experiences.
Socioemotional Development
As illustrated in Figure 1, teacher–child interactions influence the development of emotional self-

regulation and other more complex socioemotional behaviors (Liew, 2012). Evidence from large-
scale child care and preschool research initiatives (e.g., Early Head Start Research and Evaluation
[EHSRE]; Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes [CQO]; and NICHD Study of Early Child Care and
Youth Development [SECCYD]) has found that overall teacher interaction quality observationally
assessed at the classroom level has positive associations with socioemotional development (e.g.,
Burchinal & Cryer, 2003; Love et al., 2005; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Vogel, Xue, Moiduddin,
Kisker, & Carlson, 2010). For example, using the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale
(ITERS; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1990) and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
(ECERS; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998), the EHSRE research team determined that children
who participated in Early Head Start programs received good-quality care throughout infancy
and toddlerhood, which was associated with modest but significantly higher observed emotional
engagement with parents and lower aggression at 36 months (Love et al., 2005) and improved
socioemotional functioning in preschool, with modest evidence of positive impacts out to fifth
grade (Vogel et al., 2010). Data from the NICHD and CQO studies indicated that high teacher sen-
sitivity in child care supports healthy development for children (Burchinal & Cryer, 2003), with
ratings of positive teacher–child interaction quality during child care especially influential for
social development in elementary school (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001).
In contrast to using classroom-level measures of teacher interaction quality, the NICHD
SECCYD assessed caregiver–child interaction quality for individual children with the
Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment (ORCE), which was developed to observe
infants and toddlers in all nonmaternal caregiving settings. The ORCE focused on caregiver
sensitivity, responsiveness, cognitive stimulation, positive regard, detachment, flatness of affect,
fostering exploration, and intrusiveness (NICHD ECCRN, 1996). Results from the NICHD
SECCYD with this instrument indicated that higher quality nonmaternal caregiver–child
interactions observed across infancy were associated with increased self-control and compliance
and reduced problem behaviors at 24 and 36 months (NICHD ECCRN, 1998) and with more
positive and skilled peer interactions (NICHD ECCRN, 2001). The results from these studies
included children in all nonmaternal child care arrangements, including the care of fathers,
grandparents, babysitters, and formal centers, and thus their application to teacher–child interac-
tions in formal child care is limited. A more recent report using the NICHD SECCYD data
specifically examined nonrelative care (all child care arrangements except the care of fathers
and grandparents), finding that sensitive-responsive caregiver–child relationships (as measured

by the ORCE) across infancy to 48 months were associated with reduced externalizing behaviors
at age 15 (Vandell, Belsky, Burchinal, Steinberg, & Vandergrift, 2010).
Research in preschool classrooms has also examined teacher–child interaction quality with
teacher reports (e.g., Mashburn & Pianta, 2010; Sabol & Pianta, 2012), a perspective that has
not been captured in the infant/toddler child care literature. The Student–Teacher Relationship
Scale (Pianta, 1992) assesses teacher-perceived levels of closeness, conflict, and dependency
with individual children. Relationships viewed as high in closeness (i.e., warm and positive),
low in conflict (i.e., negative, lack of rapport), and low in dependency (i.e., clinginess) are asso-
ciated with a variety of prosocial outcomes throughout elementary school (Mashburn & Pianta,
2010; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). The CQO study, a longitudinal examination of children in
community preschool programs, indicated that children who were rated by teachers as having
close teacher relationships in preschool showed increased sociability through kindergarten and
fewer behavior problems through second grade; however, in both cases, the magnitude of the
association tended to decline over time (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). Also using CQO data,
Howes (2000) determined that after global characteristics (specifically the preschool classroom
socioemotional climate, which included classroom-level estimates of teacher–child closeness)
were controlled, individual reports of high teacher–child closeness in preschool were associated
with teacher reports of decreased peer aggression, decreased disruption, and increased prosocial
behaviors in second grade. In a sample of children in Head Start preschool classrooms, teacher
reports of teacher–child conflict were found to be a stronger predictor of aggressive behavior for
boys than girls, whereas girls’ social competence was more strongly associated with teacher–
child closeness than boys’ (Ewing & Taylor, 2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships
with individual children have not been captured in infant/toddler child care and may provide
important insight into understanding factors that affect teacher–child interaction quality.
Emotional Self-Regulation
Although considerable research has examined associations between teacher–child interactions

and a range of socioemotional outcomes, the focus on emotional self-regulation as a specific
outcome is relatively new, as emotional self-regulation has only recently been highlighted as
a critical component of children’s socioemotional school readiness (Blair et al., 2012; Liew,
2012; Ursache, Blair, & Raver, 2012). The extensive literature demonstrating correlational
and longitudinal associations between teacher–child interactions and other socioemotional

outcomes, however, is evidence that teachers play a role in the development of self-regulatory
skills, as these skills are presumed to be the foundation for more complex socioemotional
behaviors (Blair et al., 2012). Empirical research in related areas also provides evidence for
the importance of teacher–child relationships in the developmental processes that facilitate
self-regulatory skills. For example, preschool children’s cortisol levels have been shown to fluc-
tuate with teachers’ reports of relationship quality (Lisonbee, Mize, Payne, & Granger, 2008).
When child temperament and other classroom quality variables were controlled, relationships
marked by conflict predicted increases in children’s salivary cortisol during teacher–child inter-
actions, and relationships marked by dependency predicted cortisol increases throughout the day.
In addition, in research with toddlers and their child care teachers, Feldman and Klein (2003)
utilized observations of semistructured play and clean-up tasks to examine toddlers’ self-regu-
lated compliance (one behavioral component of emotional self-regulation) to the demands of
teachers. Teacher–child interactions were coded for sensitivity, limit setting, and child social
involvement. Toddler self-regulated compliance was assessed by the toddlers’ enthusiasm,
positive affect, and continuation of play when teachers asked them to clean up toys. Toddlers’
self-regulated compliance was associated with teachers’ use of warm limit setting (i.e., firm yet
gentle behavior guidance) independent of children’s own regulatory abilities. Results such as this
suggest that children’s physiological stress response system and self-regulated compliance (both
related to emotional self-regulation) are sensitive to variations in teacher–child experiences.
Qualitative case studies provide further evidence of the types of teacher–child emotional
exchanges that provide a relational context for the development of emotional self-regulation.
In a qualitative examination of six infant–teacher relationships in a university-affiliated child
care center, Lee (2006) documented teacher–infant relationships developing through four stages:
first encounter, adjusting to each other, strengthening the relationship, and stabilizing the
relationship. At the third stage, strengthening the relationship, teachers became more in tune with
infant cues, and infant behavior made dramatic changes: infants began to initiate interactions and
bids for emotional reactions (e.g., smiles, touches), and more synchrony was observed. Ahn
(2005) analyzed observations of 12 child care teachers and documented the strategies they used
to socialize toddlers’ emotional expressions. The teachers used verbal reinforcement to encour-
age positive emotional expressions. When children expressed negative emotions, teachers used a
variety of strategies, such as providing physical comfort, showing empathy, and redirecting their
attention. Moreover, teachers also guided children in constructive ways of expressing negative
emotion, such as providing help with verbalizing their emotions instead of acting out physically
(e.g., “use your words”), and aided them in solving the problem that prompted the negative
emotions. Rich descriptions from qualitative research demonstrate the synchrony and interplay
of emotional exchanges between teachers and infants, as teachers work to facilitate appropriate
emotional self-regulation. However, multiple factors, including child, teacher, and family char-
acteristics, may influence the quality of these teacher–child interactions.
Factors That Influence Teacher–Child Interactions
Child characteristics. Development is not something that passively happens to children;

instead, children’s own person characteristics influence the nature and quality of proximal
processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Biologically
based characteristics such as sex and temperament influence teacher–child interactions. In terms
of establishing close, secure relationships with teachers, boys tend to fare worse than girls. A
meta-analytic review of 40 studies determined that toddler boys are less likely than girls to form
secure attachment relationships with their child care teachers (Ahnert, Pinquart, & Lamb, 2006).
Evidence from preschool and early elementary school grades suggests that teachers typically
report more conflict and less closeness with boys than girls (Saft & Pianta, 2001; Spilt, Hughes,
Wu, & Kwok, 2012). In addition, teachers may use their own stereotypes about appropriate
emotional expression for boys and girls to guide their interactions (for a full review, see Brody,
2000). For example, despite no significant sex differences in assertive or communicative beha-
viors during infancy, observations of teacher–infant interactions showed teachers responding
more to assertive behaviors in boys and communicative behaviors in girls (Fagot, Hagan,
Leinbach, & Kronsberg, 1985).
Child temperament, defined as dispositional variation in self-regulation and emotional
reactivity (Eisenberg et al., 2010; Rothbart & Sheese, 2006), also contributes to the nature of
teacher–child interactions. Temperamentally reactive children may display intense levels of
emotional arousal and negativity, posing distinct caregiving challenges (Crockenberg &
Leerkes, 2003). Given the demands of attending to multiple children at once, it is no surprise
that emotionally expressive children tend to receive the most attention from teachers (Fein,
Gariboldi, & Boni, 1993). Research with kindergarten children has demonstrated that children
who display high levels of anger and impulsivity, combined with poor effortful control (the self-
regulating mechanism of temperament), are at risk for teacher–child relationships that teachers
perceive as conflicted and lacking in closeness (Valiente, Swanson, & Lemery-Chalfant, 2012).
Thus, a difficult temperament is often conceptualized as a risk factor for poor caregiver–child
interactions; however (as we address later in this article), recent evidence suggests more com-
plexity in the interplay between child temperament and caregiving experiences, with tempera-
ment serving as a biological marker of differential susceptibility to both negative and positive
caregiving experiences in child care (Phillips et al., 2011, 2012; Pluess & Belsky, 2009, 2010).
Child ethnicity may also play a role in teacher–child interactions. Some research suggests that
the positive association between quality teacher–child relationships and children’s social skills is
strongest when teachers and children are the same ethnicity, perhaps indicating some benefit to
social development when caregivers share similar cultural beliefs and practices (Burchinal &
Cryer, 2003); however, evidence in this area is mixed (e.g., Ewing & Taylor, 2009).
Teacher characteristics. Within the child care microsystem, the personal and professional
qualities of teachers are also critical to the nature of proximal processes. The ability of teachers to
read and interpret children’s social and emotional cues is a fundamental aspect of sensitive or
high-quality teacher–child interactions and is largely driven by teachers’ personal characteristics
and interpersonal skills (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). For example, Degotardi (2010) assessed child
care teachers’ interpretations of videotaped interactions with the infants and toddlers in their
classroom. Teachers who were able to provide rich, complex interpretations of their interactions
were observed as using more sensitive and stimulating behaviors in the classroom. Moreover, in
child care environments that offered little professional support, teachers who were able to engage
in complex cognitive thinking about children’s behaviors (e.g., consider that behavior is the
result of many interacting child and environmental factors) continued to demonstrate sensitive
interactions in the classroom, whereas the sensitive behaviors of teachers who did not engage in
complex thinking suffered without professional support (Manlove, Vazquez, & Vernon-Feagans,
2008). Research from preschool and elementary school classrooms also suggests that teachers’
reports of relationship quality are based not only on child attributes (e.g., sex, language
ability, aggression, compliance) but also on teachers’ perceptions of child behaviors (Rudasill
& Rimm-Kaufman, 2009).
The nature and quality of teacher–child interactions also largely depend on teacher education
and training and a feeling of efficacy as an educator. Teachers with a professional understanding
of early childhood pedagogy and child development are skilled in adapting their own behavior to
meet the needs of the child in a way that creates effective learning experiences (Howes, James, &
Ritchie, 2003). In an examination of 553 infant, toddler, and preschool classrooms, when child–
adult ratios and previous work experience were controlled, teachers with formal education in
early childhood education or development provided more sensitive caregiving experiences in
the classroom (Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, & Howes, 2002). Other professional indicators of
commitment to the field of early childhood education, such as a long-term commitment to early
childhood education as a career, job satisfaction, and membership in a professional organization,
also predict the quality of observed teacher–child interactions (Thomason & La Paro, 2013).
Research in preschool also indicates that teachers’ degree of self-efficacy is directly related to
teachers’ perceptions of conflict in the classroom, with teachers reporting higher self-efficacy
perceiving less conflict in their classrooms (compared to the level of conflict expected based
on reports of problem behaviors) than teachers reporting lower self-efficacy (Hamre, Pianta,
Downer, & Mashburn, 2008).
Family characteristics. Family characteristics affect teacher–child interactions via the

home–child care mesosystem (McCartney, 2006). For example, family characteristics drive
the selection of a child care facility, with certain children tending to receive higher quality tea-
cher–child interactions than others (McCartney, 2006). Mothers with more years of education
and more sensitive, authoritative child-rearing beliefs are more likely to select high-quality
centers that are characterized by well-trained, sensitive-responsive teachers, whereas mothers
with more authoritarian child-rearing beliefs are more likely to select low-quality centers (Bolger
& Scarr, 1995). Family income also drives the selection process, dictating how much a family is
able to pay for formal child care (McCartney, 2006). In general, family income is positively
associated with child care quality; however, low-income families may qualify for subsidized
early care and education programs, such as Early Head Start, of which sensitive-responsive,
high-quality teachers are a vital program component (Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families, 2001; Love et al., 2005). To further complicate this issue, ethnicity is often intertwined
with economic disadvantage, with ethnic minority families tending to face more economic dis-
advantage, making it difficult to disentangle the direct role each factor plays in these processes
(Raver, 2004).
Teacher–Child Interactions as Compensatory
Examining teacher–child interaction quality as a moderator of the association between risk

factors and socioemotional well-being is the subject of much investigation (for a review, see
Sabol & Pianta, 2012). As illustrated in Figure 1, teacher–child interactions may serve as a
compensatory mechanism for children whose development may otherwise be compromised

because of stressful, unsupportive home environments or poor self-regulatory skills that place
children at risk for poor socioemotional and academic adjustment.
High-risk environments. Children living in economic disadvantage are at particular risk for
poor socioemotional development (Raver, 2004). Teacher–child interactions in child care may
serve as an important buffer for these children. Illustrated in Figure 1 by the moderation arrow
pointing to the connection between the home context and emotional self-regulation, these inter-
actions provide high-risk children with a potential source of warm, sensitive, responsive caregiv-
ing. Recent evidence from the NICHD SECCYD highlights the double jeopardy young children
face when they experience both home and nonmaternal child care environments that confer risk
(Watamura, Phillips, Morrissey, McCartney, & Bub, 2011). Watamura and colleagues (2011)
examined nonmaternal caregiver–child interactions across infancy (observationally measured

by the ORCE), observations of the home learning environment, and maternal sensitivity to
predict children’s socioemotional adjustment at 24, 36, and 54 months. Children with poor home
and poor nonmaternal child care experiences were rated as having the highest behavior problems
and lowest prosocial behaviors. However, children in poor home environments but quality
nonmaternal child care experiences showed improved socioemotional outcomes. The national
evaluation of Early Head Start, which included home-visiting programs as well as center-based
care, demonstrated that program impacts (in which children in Early Head Start programs
received higher quality teacher experiences as assessed by the ITERS compared to children
enrolled in child care in the control group) were particularly strong for African American
children and families with a medium level of demographic risk factors (Vogel et al., 2010).
Research in preschool classrooms provides further support that the effect of high-quality
preschool on socioemotional development may be especially strong for socioeconomically
disadvantaged boys, African American children (Votruba-Drzal, Coley, Maldonado-Carreño,
Li-Grining, & Chase-Lansdale, 2010), and children who have mothers with low levels of
education (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001).
This body of research provides evidence that quality teacher–child interactions in quality
child care environments can serve as protective factors for children who may be at risk for poor
development outcomes. It is critical that these moderating associations continue to be explored in
infant/toddler child care research to understand the mechanisms at play in order to maximize
compensatory processes in this setting. In line with ecological theories, this research provides
support for the importance of considering multiple caregiving contexts as influential in child
development, including the need to examine dynamic links between economic disadvantage,
parent–child relationships, and teacher–child relationships. The interactive effects of multiple
microsystems and mesosystem influences are further complicated by the role of children’s
individual characteristics in contributing to the effects of proximal processes on development.
Poor self-regulatory skills. One important component of emotional self-regulation is dispo-

sitional differences in attentional and inhibitory mechanisms, referred to as effortful control
(Eisenberg et al., 2010; Posner & Rothbart, 2000). Poor effortful control is a serious risk factor
for low academic achievement; however, research with preschool and elementary school-age
children suggests that positive teacher–child interaction quality buffers this association (for a
complete review, see Liew, 2012). For example, in a sample of low-income and ethnic minority
children, the interaction between effortful control and teacher–child relationship quality in first
grade significantly influenced reading and math achievement in second grade (Liew, Chen, &
Hughes, 2010). When children with poor effortful control had positive teacher–child relation-
ships, they showed reading and math scores equivalent to those of children with high effortful
control. Therefore, the teacher–child relationship serves as an important caregiving context that
can help children compensate for difficulties with poor self-regulatory skills, perhaps boosting
academic outcomes. These associations are illustrated in Figure 1 by the moderation arrow point-
ing to the connection between self-regulatory skills and socioemotional/academic outcomes.
Research to date, however, has rarely considered these processes among infants and toddlers
enrolled in formal child care, leaving a gap in experts’ understanding of how quality teacher–
child interactions in this setting play a protective role for children with self-regulatory deficits
and thus may indirectly impact academic school readiness. Given the considerable research dem-
onstrating the benefit of quality teacher–child interactions for infants and toddlers in facilitating
other regulatory and socioemotional skills needed to be successful in the classroom (Blair et al.,
2012; Burchinal & Cryer, 2003; Love et al., 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 1998, 2001; Peisner-
Feinberg et al., 2001; Pluess & Belsky, 2009; Vogel et al., 2010), it seems likely that child care
teachers are in a unique position to help infants and toddlers manage inhibitory and attentional
processes, as these processes are just developing at this very young age.
Differential Susceptibility to Teacher–Child Interactions
Instead of conceptualizing temperamental reactivity as simply a risk factor for poor caregiving
experiences and subsequent poor socioemotional well-being (i.e., a diathesis-stress or dual risk
framework; Sameroff, 1983; Zuckerman, 1999), current research focuses on the interaction
between temperament and caregiving experiences and how these interactive processes influence
socioemotional development (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2008; Phillips et al., 2012; Pluess &
Belsky, 2009, 2010). From this perspective, temperamental reactivity (i.e., difficult tempera-
ment) is a marker of differential susceptibility to both negative and positive caregiving
experiences, with more reactive children showing especially favorable outcomes in positive car-
egiving contexts and especially poor outcomes in negative caregiving contexts (Pluess & Belsky,
2010). For example, highly reactive infants are at risk for poor self-regulation as toddlers and
increased externalizing behaviors in first grade, but only in the context of poor-quality mother–
child interactions, with highly reactive infants showing favorable outcomes when mother–child
interactions are sensitive and responsive (Bradley & Corwyn, 2008; Kim & Kochanska, 2012).
Consistent with the parenting literature, evidence of differential susceptibility was found in the
NICHD SECCYD in the context of nonmaternal child care arrangements (Pluess & Belsky,
2009). Observations of caregiver sensitivity across 6 to 54 months (as measured by the ORCE)
were combined and tested as predictors of teacher-reported behavior problems and social com-
petence in kindergarten. Regression analyses included child gender, ethnicity, temperament,
maternal education, maternal depression, parenting quality, income-to-needs ratio, type of child
care, child care quantity, and teacher sensitivity. Caregiver sensitivity was initially unrelated to
all outcome variables; however, these associations were qualified by a significant interaction
with temperamental reactivity. Kindergarten teachers rated highly reactive children from highly
sensitive caregiving environments as having few behavior problems and increased social
competence, whereas teachers rated highly reactive children in low sensitive caregiving
environments as having more behavior problems and poorer social competence. Using a modi-
fied version of the ORCE, Phillips and colleagues (2012) also tested for differential susceptibility
in various nonmaternal infant/toddler child care arrangements. Highly reactive children demon-
strated less peer isolation as toddlers when they had experienced high-quality caregiving across
infancy and more peer isolation when they were from poor-quality caregiving environments.
Research with elementary school-age children has also examined the moderating effects of
physiological and behavioral stress reactivity (physiological markers of differential suscepti-
bility) on the effect of teacher–child conflict and closeness in first grade on mental health symp-
toms in seventh grade, finding that highly reactive children were more sensitive to variation in
teacher conflict and closeness, differentially impacting their later severity of psychopathology
symptoms (Essex, Armstrong, Burk, Goldsmith, & Boyce, 2011). Taken together, the research
in this area highlights critical individual variation in caregiving experiences with teachers and
other caregivers, and the differential effect of caregiver quality for certain children, with the need
to continue to refine understanding of these processes for infants and toddlers in child care
(Phillips et al., 2012).
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In sum, an application of ecological theories of human development provides an effective frame-

work for considering the importance of teacher–child relationships for the youngest children in
child care. Considering the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) and the eco-
logical and dynamic model of transition (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000) in order to understand
children’s interactions with multiple caregiving contexts (i.e., microsystems and the home–child
care mesosystem) is critical for a complete understanding of the network of care for young chil-
dren in child care. The proximal processes that drive development occur in multiple caregiving
contexts, and research on proximal interactions between parents and their children provides a
framework for considering the interplay of various dimensions of caregiving behaviors and
adult–infant synchrony that facilitate emotional self-regulation and socioemotional develop-
ment. Compared to teacher–child relationships in preschool and elementary school, teacher–
child relationships in child care are unique in that the caregiving context is more intimate in
nature (feeding, soothing, diapering, etc.), providing ample opportunities to engage in sensi-
tive-responsive, synchronous behaviors (Howes & Hamilton, 1992a). Moreover, children’s per-
sonal and family characteristics and teachers’ personal and educational characteristics influence
the nature and quality of the proximal interactions that facilitate healthy outcomes and the pro-
cesses that lead teacher–child relationships to be more influential for some children than others.
From this perspective, we outline implications and future directions for measuring teacher–child
interactions, gaps in knowledge about teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care, and
opportunities for early childhood teacher training.
Measuring Teacher–Child Interactions
One limitation of research in this area is that many of the measures used to assess teacher–child
interactions in infant/toddler child care do not capture proximal processes between teachers and
individual children, leaving a gap in researchers’ understanding of exactly how the nature and
quality of individual teacher–child interactions in infant/toddler child care play a role in
development. Teacher–child interactions may be assessed globally (i.e., overall teacher
interaction quality) or individually (i.e., the quality of teacher interactions with individual chil-
dren). According to a systematic review conducted by the Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation of the Administration for Children and Families, global assessments are most
commonly used to assess the caregiving experiences of infants and toddlers in child care (Halle
et al., 2011). Measures that assess global interaction quality involve observations of teacher
interactions with a variety of children. For example, the ITERS (Harms et al., 1990) evaluates
teacher–child interaction quality as one component of overall classroom quality, and the
Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1989) evaluates teachers’ positive, detached, permissive,
and punitive behaviors. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) is currently in
development for use in infant and toddler child care classrooms, evaluating observations of
the classroom relational climate, teacher sensitivity, facilitated exploration, and early language
support, creating a composite measure of teacher–infant/toddler interaction quality (Hamre, La
Paro, Pianta, LoCasale-Crouch, 2011; La Paro, Hamre, & Pianta, 2012).
As reviewed earlier, these measures capture an important aspect of children’s child care
experiences. One critique of global assessments, however, is that they may misrepresent
children’s individual experiences (Katz, 1994; Melhuish, 2001). A pilot study in a toddler child
care classroom found that although the classroom was considered to be of good quality (as
assessed by the ITERS), observations of selected toddlers revealed that these children actually
engaged in very few quality teacher–child interactions (Hallam, Fouts, Bargreen, & Caudle,
2009). In a more rigorous study, Jeon and colleagues (2010) tracked preschool children’s individ-
ual experiences with specific global indicators of classroom quality (adapted from the ECERS),
finding that, despite being in good-quality classrooms, only a fraction of children were having
good-quality individual experiences in their interactions with teachers. These results suggest a
mismatch between global assessments and individual experiences, which may have important
implications for understanding how teacher–child interactions facilitate development of emotional
self-regulation and socioemotional outcomes. The unique interactions of each teacher–child dyad
may not be captured with measures of global teacher interaction quality. In order to break down
the specific teacher–child interactions that facilitate socioemotional development, researchers
need to utilize individual assessments of teacher–child relationships.
In the parenting literature, links between parent–child interactions and young children’s self-
regulatory skills are typically based on observations of live parent–child dyadic interactions (e.g.,
Bocknek et al., 2009; Halle et al., 2011; Kim & Kochanska, 2012; Ursache, Blair, Stifter, &
Voegtline, 2012). Similar undertakings need to be conducted with teachers in infant/toddler child
care settings, as this type of rich observational dyadic data is more representative of the individ-
ual teacher–child proximal processes that facilitate emotional self-regulation and socioemotional
development. For example, observed parent–child interactions that are characterized as warm,
sensitive, and stimulating are positively associated with toddlers’ self-regulatory development
over time (Bocknek et al., 2009). Observed parent–child synchrony (a dyadic construct that
includes coordination, mutual cooperation, connectedness, and harmonious communication)
during infancy also positively influences children’s self-regulation as toddlers, especially for
temperamentally reactive infants (Kim & Kochanska, 2012). In terms of differential
susceptibility, observed positive parenting behaviors such as sensitivity, positive regard,
stimulation, and animation and low instances of negative behaviors such as intrusiveness,
detachment, and negative regard may also be one mechanism that helps highly temperamentally
reactive infants develop emotion regulation (Ursache, Blair, Stifter, et al., 2012). To understand
the role of positive teacher–child interactions, experts need to conduct similar analyses in the
child care microsystem, to understand how proximal processes in this setting are similar to
and different from proximal processes at home. For example, Feldman and Klein (2003)
observed mother–toddler and teacher–toddler dyads utilizing the same semistructured play tasks
and behavioral coding scheme but found varying results. They examined associations among
observed adult sensitivity, limit setting, and toddler social involvement and self-regulated com-
pliance. Warm limit setting was associated with toddler self-regulated compliance in both mother
and teacher observations. Adult sensitivity was related to toddler self-regulated compliance for
mothers only; moreover, observed maternal sensitivity and warm limit setting was associated
with children’s behavior in the teacher–child interactions, but not vice versa. Work such as this
helps break down the unique nature of teacher–child interactions in formal infant/toddler child
care settings. One caveat to this, of course, is that the caregiving settings of parents and teachers
are not equivalent. Opportunities for teachers to engage with individual children are greatly lim-
ited by structural features of child care centers, such as teacher–child ratios and class size. In
moving forward with this work, it will be important to consider how to conduct teacher–child
observations in a way that accounts for the realities of multiple adults caring for multiple infants
at one time. Another consideration is observing teacher–child interactions in the classroom,
rather than in isolation, as this is a more valid representation of typical teacher–child interactions.
Gaps in Infant/Toddler Child Care Research
Empirical understanding of the nature and quality of teacher–child interactions in child care is
extensive in some areas but lacking in others. Current research provides extensive evidence for
the importance of quality teacher–child interactions in the development of healthy socioemotional
outcomes, such as self-control, compliance, few behavior problems, peer interactions, and
emotional engagement (Love et al., 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 1998, 2001; Peisner-Feinberg
et al., 2001; Vogel et al., 2010), but, as reviewed, the association between teacher–child interac-
tion quality and specific emotional self-regulation outcomes needs more attention (Blair et al.,
2012). Moreover, much of experts’ understanding of teacher–child interactions is based on
research in preschool and elementary school classrooms. Teachers’ perceptions of closeness
and conflict within individual teacher–child relationships are a critical predictor of preschool
and elementary school success (Mashburn & Pianta, 2010; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Sabol
& Pianta, 2012; Spilt et al., 2012), but how these perceptions influence infant/toddler well-being
is largely unexplored. In addition, testing of teacher–child interactions as moderators of the
associations between self-regulatory difficulties and school readiness has only been carried out
in preschool and elementary school research (Liew, 2012; Liew et al., 2010). Moreover, research-
ers are also examining related issues, such as the consistency of teacher–child interactions in
preschool, finding that stable levels of emotional support from teachers across preschool benefit
school readiness outcomes in preschool as well as social competence in kindergarten (Curby,
Brock, & Hamre, 2013). Given the unique self-regulatory and socioemotional needs of infants
and toddlers, it is important to explore these types of processes in this age group as well.
Another related and pressing issue is that the term child care is sometimes used to refer to all
nonmaternal caregiving settings. The NICHD SECCYD is one of the only national studies of
child care to utilize an individual measure of teacher–child interactions (the ORCE; NICHD
ECCRN, 1996); however, one limitation of these results is that home-based child care
providers, grandparents, babysitters, and sometimes fathers were included as caregivers in
addition to child care teachers in formal settings, limiting understanding of links between child
care provider relationships and socioemotional development (e.g., NICHD ECCRN, 1998,
2001), the compensatory role of caregiver sensitivity (e.g., Watamura et al., 2011), and
differential susceptibility (e.g., Pluess & Belsky, 2009) in formal child care settings. Although
all of these caregivers undoubtedly play an important role in children’s development, formal
child care teachers are unique in that they are specially trained caregivers in regulated settings.
Therefore, in order to maximize efforts to understand how teacher–child interactions are

involved in emotional self-regulation and socioemotional processes, how these interactions
are involved in differential susceptibility to caregiving experiences, and how relationships
within formal child care can be utilized as a developmental asset, it is imperative that research
focus on the processes specific to this setting. It is also critical to continue to explore teacher–
child interaction processes in infant/toddler child care settings that serve children who are most
at risk for poor socioemotional and regulatory outcomes. Furthermore, Sabol and Pianta (2012)
suggested that the next step is to identify “the exact intervening mechanisms that [explain] the
protective role of teacher-child relationships for different types of at-risk children” (p. 222).
Therefore, it will be important to consider the various sociocultural and socioeconomic charac-
teristics that contribute to the differences seen in the developmental outcomes of certain chil-
dren. For example, what intervening mechanisms are involved when the teacher–child
relationship is compensating for an unsupportive home environment? Alternatively, what is it
about the teacher–child relationship that seems to be particularly influential in the development
of children from certain groups, such as African American boys? What are the cultural factors
that influence the nature of these processes, and how do they relate to children’s experiences at
home? An ever-expanding literature points toward emotional self-regulation and socioemo-
tional development as a critical component of school readiness, and there is a need to under-
stand the role that infant/
toddler child care teachers play in these processes, especially for those children most at risk.
Finally, existing research on children’s differential susceptibility to caregiving experiences is
compelling, highlighting the critical impact that individual differences in child temperamental
reactivity (and physiological stress reactivity) have on children’s responses to caregiving experi-
ences in child care (Phillips et al., 2011; Pluess & Belsky, 2009). In their call to endorse the study
of individual differences as the next wave of child care research, Phillips and colleagues (2011)
recommended that researchers refine understanding of which aspects of temperamental reactivity
are involved in shaping socioemotional development, integrating biological markers of stress
reactivity with measures of temperament and examining how markers of differential suscepti-
bility interact with environmental risk as well (e.g., poverty), furthering understanding of those
for whom quality child care experiences are most beneficial (and those for whom poor-quality
child care experiences are most detrimental). Moving forward with this research, it will be criti-
cal to examine differential susceptibility not only with global indicators of child care quality but
also by focusing specifically on individual observational measures of the proximal processes
between teachers (in formal child care settings) and children that interact with temperamental
reactivity and other markers of differential susceptibility, impacting emotional self-regulation

and socioemotional development.
Implications for Early Childhood Teacher Training
Improving early childhood teacher training is one of the most pressing reasons for exploring
these processes. Unfortunately, in child care centers across the United States there exists a wide
range of process quality (i.e., the quality of adult–child interactions within the center), with the
average described as mediocre (Phillips & Lowenstein, 2011). Teacher training that focuses
specifically on teachers’ role in facilitating infant and toddler emotional self-regulation should
be promoted, especially for teachers working with temperamentally difficult children, children
from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, or other children who stand to benefit
the most from positive teacher–child relationships. More research on the exact nature of the role
of teacher–child interaction quality in the development of self-regulatory processes in the child
care context will help identify opportunities for intervention and training. As reviewed in this
article, many characteristics of the child contribute to the nature and quality of the teacher–child
proximal processes; however, it is the expectation that the emotionally and cognitively mature
adult will adapt his or her behavior to meet the demands of the child (Cole, 2003). This has parti-
cular relevance to early childhood teachers, given that they are the “central agent of change”
(Sabol & Pianta, 2012, p. 222) in the classroom, and can be specifically trained in adapting their
behaviors to meet a myriad of challenging demands from children. For example, parents may not
be naturally equipped to effectively handle a child with poor self-regulatory skills, but child care
teachers can be well prepared to recognize and deal with these issues as well as provide
assistance to parents.
Teacher training that focuses on relationship-based practices has been suggested for all tea-
chers, given that “fundamental to any adult-child interaction, is the ability of an adult to accurately
read a child’s social and emotional cues, respond to a child’s signals appropriately, and offer
emotional support of limits when needed” (Sabol & Pianta, 2012, p. 222). Children benefit when
teachers are reflective and engage in complex thinking about children’s interactions in the class-
room (Degotardi, 2010; Manlove et al., 2008). Sabol and Pianta (2012) suggested that teacher
training should focus on teachers’ perceptions of children’s behavior, as well as relational and
interpersonal coaching. For example, the concept of mind-mindedness in infant child care tea-
chers has been examined, such that teachers’ ability to “ascribe mental states and processes when
describing and interpreting children’s behavior” is associated with teacher sensitivity and stimu-
lation (Degotardi & Sweller, 2012, p. 253). Teacher training that focuses on these concepts could
prove to be an effective way to foster healthy socioemotional development. Empirical research
that focuses on identifying the processes by which socioemotional and self-regulatory skills
develop within the teacher–child relationship can inform these types of teacher trainings and
reinforce the important role child care teachers can play in facilitating the socioemotional skills
children need to be ready for school. For children at risk for school failure because of living in
poverty or other high-stress conditions, emotional self-regulation skills are key targets as
important opportunities for intervention (Ursache, Blair, & Raver, 2012), again underscoring
the importance of training teachers in this area of child development and the possible compensa-
tory role they can play.
CONCLUSION
The child care microsystem is a critical context for socioemotional well-being, with the proximal
processes between teachers and children driving this development. It is widely acknowledged
that quality caregiver interactions within child care and preschool play an important role in
children’s socioemotional well-being; however, there is still great opportunity to expand
understanding of the individual teacher–child interactions that facilitate development within
formal infant/toddler child care settings, especially in terms of young children’s emotional
self-regulatory skills, the potential compensatory role of infant/toddler child care teachers, and
differential susceptibility processes. This research can make a substantial impact on early
childhood teacher training and maximize the effects of early care and education programs that
aim to increase socioemotional well-being for children most at risk.
REFERENCES
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2001). Building their future: How Early Head Start programs are
enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Ahn, H. J. (2005). Child care teachers’ strategies in children’s socialization of emotion. Early Child Development and
Care, 175(1), 49–61. doi:10.1080/0300443042000230320
Ahnert, L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2006). Security of children’s relationships with nonparental care providers: A
meta-analysis. Child Development, 77, 664–679. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00896.x
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
10(4), 541–552. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(89)90026-9
Blair, C., Berry, D., & Friedman, A. H. (2012). The development of self-regulation in infancy and early childhood. In
S. L. Odom E. P. Pungello & N. Gardner-Neblett (Eds.), Infants, toddlers and families in poverty (pp. 127–152).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., & Banerjee, M. (2009). Effects of parental supportiveness on toddlers’ emotion
regulation over the first three years of life in a low-income African American sample. Infant Mental Health Journal,
30, 452–476. doi:10.1002/imhj
Bolger, K., & Scarr, S. (1995). Not so far from home: How family characteristics predict child care quality. Early
Development and Parenting, 4(3), 103–112. doi:10.1002/edp.2430040303
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and externalizing behavior in first grade: A test
of the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,
49(2), 124–131. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01829.x
Brody, L. R., & Morris, P. A. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules,
infant temperament, and differentiation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological
perspectives (pp. 24–47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.,
pp. 793–828). New York, NY: Wiley.
Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 18, 401–426. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.003
Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care
centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2–11. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0601_01
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Predicting child
outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten teacher-child interactions and instruction.
Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 140–153. doi:10.1080/10888690802199418
Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2006). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological and environmental
transactions in early development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 229–248). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004). Parent involvement in Head Start
programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
413–430. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005
Cole, P. M. (2003). The developmental course from child effects to child effectiveness. In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth
(Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 109–118). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological
challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2004.00673.x
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2003). Infant negative emotionality, caregiving, and family relationships. In
A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relation-
ships (pp. 57–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Curby, T. W., Brock, L. L., & Hamre, B. K. (2013). Teachers’ emotional support consistency predicts children’s
achievement gains and social skills. Early Education & Development, 24, 292–309. doi:10.1080/10409289.2012.
665760
Degotardi, S. (2010). High‐quality interactions with infants: Relationships with early‐childhood practitioners’
interpretations and qualification levels in play and routine contexts. International Journal of Early Years Education,
18(1), 27–41. doi:10.1080/09669761003661253
Degotardi, S., & Sweller, N. (2012). Mind-mindedness in infant child-care: Associations with early childhood
practitioner sensitivity and stimulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 253–265. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2011.09.002
Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., & Vaughan, J. (2006). Effortful control and its socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 287–306). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Self-regulation and school readiness. Early Education &
Development, 21, 681–698. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.497451
Essex, M. J., Armstrong, J. M., Burk, L. R., Goldsmith, H. H. & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Biological sensitivity to context
moderates the effects of the early teacher-child relationship on the development of mental health by adolescence.
Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 149–161. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000702
Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and
children’s behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 92–105. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2008.09.002
Fagot, B. I., Hagan, R., Leinbach, M. D., & Kronsberg, S. (1985). Differential reactions to assertive and communicative
acts of toddler boys and girls. Child Development, 56, 1499–1505. doi:10.2307/1130468
Fein, G. G., Gariboldi, A., & Boni, R. (1993). The adjustment of infants and toddlers to group care: The first 6 months.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80095-X
Feldman, R., & Klein, P. S. (2003). Toddlers’ self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implica-
tions for theories of socialization. Developmental Psychology, 39, 680–692. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.680
Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-regulation. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (pp. 89–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hallam, R., Fouts, H., Bargreen, K., & Caudle, L. (2009). Quality from a toddler’s perspective: A bottom-up
examination of classroom experiences. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(2) Retrieved from http://ecrp.
uiuc.edu/v11n2/hallam.html.
Halle, T., Anderson, R., Blasberg, A., Chrisler, A., & Simkin, S. (2011, August). Quality of caregiver-child interactions
for infants and toddlers (Q-CCIIT): A review of the literature (OPRE 2011–25). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
Hamre, B. K., La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & LoCasale-Crouch, J. (2011). Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS) manual: Infant. Charlottesville, VA: Teachstone.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young
students: Looking beyond problems behaviors. Social Development, 17(1), 115–136.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1990). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships and children’s second
grade peer relations. Social Development, 9(2), 191–204. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00119
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992a). Children’s relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child care teachers. Child
Development, 63, 859–866. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01666.x
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992b). Children’s relationships with child care teachers: Stability and concordance with
parental attachments. Child Development, 63, 867–878. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01667.x
Howes, C., James, J., & Ritchie, S. (2003). Pathways to effective teaching. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 104–120.
Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S., Robinson, J., Boyce, L., … Brady-Smith, C. (2004). Maternal
intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother-toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low-income ethnic and
acculturation groups. Child Development, 75, 1613–1631. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00806.x
Jeon, H., Langill, C. C., Carla, A., Luze, G. J., Carta, J. J., & Atwater, J. B. (2010). Children’s individual experiences in
early care and education: Relations with overall classroom quality and children’s school readiness. Early Education
& Development, 21, 912–939. doi:10.1080/10409280903292500
Katz, L. G. (1994). Perspectives on the quality of early childhood programs. Phi Delta Kappa International, 76(3), 200–205.
Kim, S., & Kochanska, G. (2012). Child temperament moderates effects of parent-child mutuality on self-regulation:
A relationship-based path for emotionally negative infants. Child Development, 83, 1275–1289. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2012.01778.x
La Paro, K. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) manual: Tod-
dler. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Lee, S. Y. (2006). A journey to a close, secure, and synchronous relationship: Infant-caregiver relationship development
in a childcare context. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), 133–151. doi:10.1177/1476718 × 06063533
Liew, J. (2012). Effortful control, executive functions, and education: Bringing self-regulatory and social-emotional
competencies to the table. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 105–111. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00196.x
Liew, J., Chen, Q., & Hughes, J. N. (2010). Child effortful control, teacher-student relationships, and achievement
in academically at-risk children: Additive and interactive effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1),
51–64. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.005
Lisonbee, J. A., Mize, J., Payne, A. L., & Granger, D. A. (2008). Children’s cortisol and the quality of teacher-child
relationships in child care. Child Development, 79, 1818–1832. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01228.x
Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., … Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness
of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental
Psychology, 41, 885–901. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885
Manlove, E. E., Vazquez, A., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2008). The quality of caregiving in child care: Relations to teacher
complexity of thinking and perceived supportiveness of the work environment. Infant and Child Development, 17,
203–222. doi:10.1002/icd
Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Education & Development, 17,
151–176. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7
McCartney, K. (2006). The family-child-care mesosystem. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count:
Effects on child and adolescent development, (pp. 155–175). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on aca-
demic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 471–490. doi:10.1016/
j.ecresq.2006.09.003
Melhuish, E. C. (2001). The quest for quality in early day care and preschool experience continues. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/01650250042000492
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics
of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(3), 269–306.
doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90009-5
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1998). Early child
care and self-control, compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development,
69, 1145–1170. doi:10.2307/1132367
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Child care and
children’s peer interactions at 24 and 36 months: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 72,
1478–1500. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00361
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(2), 340–369. doi:10.3102/0002831207302172
Owen, M. T., Ware, A. M., & Barfoot, B. (2000). Caregiver-mother partnership behavior and the quality of caregiver-child
and mother-child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 413–428. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00073-9
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N.
(2001). The relation of preschool child‐care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories
through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00364
Phillips, D., Crowell, N. A., Sussman, A. L., Gunnar, M., Fox, N., Hane, A. A., & Bisgaier, J. (2012). Reactive tempera-
ment and sensitivity to context in childcare. Social Development, 21, 628–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00649.x
Phillips, D., Fox, N., & Gunnar, M. (2011). Same place, different experiences: Bringing individual differences to
research in child care. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 44–49. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00155.x
Phillips, D. A., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2011). Early care, education, and child development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 483–500. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.031809.130707
Pianta, R. C. (1992). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R. M., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of
pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher
interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing experience: The case of childcare. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 396–404. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01992.x
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Children’s differential susceptibility to effects of parenting. Family Science, 1(1), 14–25.
doi:10.1080/19424620903388554
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development and Psychopath-
ology, 12, 427–441. doi:10.1017/S0954579400003096
Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development,
75, 346–353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00676.x
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical
framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 491–511. doi:10.1016/
s0193-3973(00)00051-4
Rosenblum, K. L., Dayton, C. J., & Muzik, M. (2009). Infant social and emotional development. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.),
Handbook of infant mental health, (pp. 80–103). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Sheese, B. E. (2006). Temperament and emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of
emotion regulation, (pp. 331–350). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher–child relationship quality: The roles of child temperament
and teacher–child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(2), 107–120. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.
12.003
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment and Human
Development, 14(3), 213–231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age,
gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125–141. doi:10.1016/
S0885-2006(05)80070-5
Sameroff, A. J. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 237–294). New York, NY: Wiley.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x
Thomason, A. C., & La Paro, K. M. (2013). Teachers’ commitment to the field of teacher-child interactions in center-
based child care for toddlers and three-year-olds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 227–234.
Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self-regulation as a means of enhancing school
readiness and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2),
122–128. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x
Ursache, A., Blair, C., Stifter, C., & Voegtline, K. (2012). Emotional reactivity and regulation in infancy interact to
predict executive functioning in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 127–137. doi:10.1037/
a0027728
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf
Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2012). Kindergartners’ temperament, classroom engagement, and
student-teacher relationship: Moderation by effortful control. Social Development, 21, 558–576. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2011.00640.x
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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01431.x
Vogel, C. A., Xue, Y., Moiduddin, E. M., Kisker, E. E., Carlson, B. L.. (2010). Early Head Start children in grade 5:
Long-term follow-up of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study sample (OPRE Report# 2011-8).
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., Maldonado-Carreño, C., Li-Grining, C. P., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2010). Child care
and the development of behavior problems among economically disadvantaged children in middle childhood. Child
Development, 81, 1460–1474. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01485.x
Watamura, S. E., Phillips, D. A., Morrissey, T. W., McCartney, K., & Bub, K. (2011). Double jeopardy: Poorer social-
emotional outcomes for children in the NICHD SECCYD experiencing home and child-care environments that
confer risk. Child Development, 82, 48–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01540.x
Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A bio-social model. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
View publication stats

Teacher-Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child Care and Socioemotional Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teacher-Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child Care and Socioemotional Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child Care and

Article in Early Education and Development · November 2014

Jennifer Mortensen Melissa A Barnett

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Early Education and Development

Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.985878

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Teacher–Child Interactions in Infant/Toddler Child

Jennifer A. Mortensen and Melissa A. Barnett

researchers’ understanding of child-level teacher interaction quality in center-based infant/toddler

including (a) socioemotional developmental outcomes associated with teacher–child

Focusing specifically on socioemotional development, these ecological perspectives provide

TEACHER–CHILD INTERACTIONS IN INFANT/TODDLER CHILD CARE

As illustrated in Figure 1, teacher–child interactions influence the development of emotional self-

and grandparents), finding that sensitive-responsive caregiver–child relationships (as measured

Although considerable research has examined associations between teacher–child interactions

and longitudinal associations between teacher–child interactions and other socioemotional

Factors That Influence Teacher–Child Interactions

Child characteristics. Development is not something that passively happens to children;

Family characteristics. Family characteristics affect teacher–child interactions via the

Teacher–Child Interactions as Compensatory

Examining teacher–child interaction quality as a moderator of the association between risk

compensatory mechanism for children whose development may otherwise be compromised

examined nonmaternal caregiver–child interactions across infancy (observationally measured

Poor self-regulatory skills. One important component of emotional self-regulation is dispo-

Differential Susceptibility to Teacher–Child Interactions

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In sum, an application of ecological theories of human development provides an effective frame-

Measuring Teacher–Child Interactions

Gaps in Infant/Toddler Child Care Research

Therefore, in order to maximize efforts to understand how teacher–child interactions are

reactivity and other markers of differential susceptibility, impacting emotional self-regulation

Implications for Early Childhood Teacher Training

aim to increase socioemotional well-being for children most at risk.

ships (pp. 57–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Department of Health and Human Services.

View publication stats

You might also like