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

net/publication/333519258

How do Children and Teachers Demonstrate Love, Kindness and Forgiveness?

Findings from an Early Childhood Strength-Spotting Intervention

Article in Early Childhood Education Journal · September 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s10643-019-00951-7

CITATIONS READS

37 3,340

3 authors, including:

Michael J. Haslip
Drexel University
14 PUBLICATIONS 204 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael J. Haslip on 28 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

How do Children and Teachers
Demonstrate Love, Kindness and
Forgiveness? Findings from an Early
Childhood Strength-Spotting Intervention

Michael J. Haslip, Ayana Allen-Handy &

Leona Donaldson

Early Childhood Education Journal

ISSN 1082-3301

Early Childhood Educ J

DOI 10.1007/s10643-019-00951-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00951-7

How do Children and Teachers Demonstrate Love, Kindness

and Forgiveness? Findings from an Early Childhood Strength‑Spotting
Intervention
Michael J. Haslip1 · Ayana Allen‑Handy2 · Leona Donaldson2

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Character strengths such as love, kindness and forgiveness promote emotional health, positive relationships and enhanced
well-being for children and adults. Yet little research has investigated how early childhood educators practice love, kindness
and forgiveness at work, or how they observe these virtues in children. A strength-spotting intervention was adapted from
positive psychology to collect 216 written examples of teacher and child love, kindness and forgiveness from 16 early child-
hood educators while they attended professional development in a large northeastern city in the United States. Behaviors
associated with these character strengths were then coded using content and thematic analysis. Teacher and child love were
most frequently associated with empathy and spontaneous affection. Teacher and child kindness were frequently associated
with helpfulness and friendship. Teacher and child forgiveness were characterized by giving someone another chance, letting
go, responding with kindness and speaking positively. Empathy, generosity, helpfulness and courtesy emerged as interrelated
expressions of love, kindness and forgiveness. These traits are discussed in relation to goals of social-emotional learning,
such as promoting secure attachment relationships.

Keywords Early childhood · Social-emotional learning · Positive psychology · Character education · Love · Kindness ·
Forgiveness · Teacher education

Introduction and forgiveness, is an important area of study (Park and

Character strength development is a necessary process
underpinning children’s well-being and success in school
and social life (FitzSimons 2015; Gradišek 2012; Han and
Kemple 2006; Park et al. 2004, 2006; Peterson and Selig-
man 2004; Wiley 2000; Zeece 2009). The development of
character strengths within children, such as love, kindness,
* Michael J. Haslip
Haslip@drexel.edu
Ayana Allen‑Handy
ayana.allen@drexel.edu
Leona Donaldson
ld579@drexel.edu
1 (“protecting against excess”), associated with emotional
Department of Teaching, Learning & Curriculum, School
of Education, Drexel University, 3401 Market St., Room
3228, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2
School of Education, Drexel University, Philadelphia,
PA 19104, USA
Peterson 2006b) related to moral development and social-
emotional learning (Epstein 2009). Love and kindness are
among the highest reported character strengths present in the
personalities of primary school teachers and student teachers
(Gradišek 2012), as measured by the Values in Action Inven-
tory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson and Seligman 2004).
When parents have been asked for a narrative description of
their children’s (age 3–9) character strengths, love and kind-
ness are the two most prevalently mentioned traits (Park and
Peterson 2006b; Lottman et al. 2017).
Love and kindness, along with social intelligence, make
up the virtue of humanity, the “interpersonal strengths that
involve tending and befriending others” (VIA Institute on
Character as quoted in Niemiec 2014, p. 25). Forgiveness
(mercy), meanwhile, is a strength related to temperance
stability, lower levels of anxiety, hostility and depression,
and greater agreeableness and prosocial behavior (Peterson
and Seligman 2004).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
The character strength of love is related to happiness, life
satisfaction, less anxiety, and success in school and future
work (Onwuegbuzie 1999; Park and Peterson 2006a, b,
2009; Weber et al. 2016). The character strength of kind-
ness is related to being accepted by one’s peers (Cillessen
and Mayeux 2004). Children who have been rejected by
their peers tend not to be as kind compared to their socially
accepted agemates (Asher 1983; Yeates et al. 1991). The
character strength of forgiveness is related to higher self-
esteem, subjective well-being, empathy, friendliness, and
low anxiety (Berry et al. 2001; Kaplan, 1992; McCullough
et al. 2001). Infusing educational settings with these and
similar traits promotes human dignity and creates commu-
nity as an ethos of caring grows (Näsman 2018).
For children to develop values and character strengths,
adults need to model and demonstrate them (Berkowitz
and Bier 2007; Nolte 1998). Adult modeling is an essen-
tial process for young children to learn and develop their
own character strengths (Kokoszka and Smith 2016; Park
2004; Steen et al. 2003), especially because early childhood
educators are often the first or only non-family adults who
regularly interact with them (Smith 2013). Early childhood
educators regularly practice socialization with young chil-
dren and are competent at engaging with them which in
turn nurtures character strengths (FitzSimons 2015). When
early childhood educators create a warm environment and
model welcoming behavior this also supports children’s
spiritual development (Wilson and Schein 2017). By prac-
ticing deep listening, for example, children feel respected
and welcomed.
Much of young children’s character strength and proso-
cial competency development depends on the quality of
the teacher–child relationship, which can encourage or dis-
courage related traits and skills (Hyson and Taylor 2011;
Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Pianta 1997). Preschool-age
children’s character strength development (e.g. love, kind-
ness, forgiveness) is highly influenced by their secure attach-
ment relationships with teachers. Attachment theory (Ains-
worth 1989; Bowlby 1982, 1988) suggests that children’s
early experiences of secure attachment with other human
beings influences their later relationships and developmental
pathways (Snyder et al. 2012). Preschool children who have
developed secure attachment/relationships tend to be more
self-confident in the preschool setting and more successful
at learning in the environment (Bergin and Bergin 2009).
Moreover, they tend to have more enhanced cognitive activi-
ties (Birch and Ladd 1997; Commodari 2013; Pianta 1999).
Improved relationships between preschool teachers and
children also facilitate school readiness with increased aca-
demic, language, and social competencies among 4-year olds
(Howes et al. 1998; Mashburn et al. 2008). Thus, it is impor-
tant for early childhood educators to build secure relation-
ships with children, create a caring classroom community,
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
model prosocial behavior, and focus on children’s strengths
because children learn the act of care in a caring environ-
ment (Beaty 1999; Flynn and Schachter 2017; Hyson and
Taylor 2011; Priest 2007).
Caring behavior among children does not spontaneously
appear without living in an environment where adults who
care for them demonstrate and practice positive values
(Berkowitch and Grych 1998). The importance of modeling
relational virtues (e.g. care, love, forgiveness) is being rec-
ognized as essential for educational leaders and administra-
tors who shape school culture, as demonstrated by the theory
of caritative leadership (Bondas 2003; Näsman 2018). Eth-
ics of care in the field of moral education aim to enhance
students’ caring relations with others and meeting others’
needs morally (Noddings 2010, 1984). The theory of care
ethics also recognizes that teachers play an important role
for children to develop their caring skills (Noddings 1984).
In order to develop a caring relationship between children
and teachers, they need to establish trust with one other.
When they have built trust, they are able to build a caring
classroom community (Noddings 2005). Teachers can estab-
lish trusting relationships with children by communicating
high standards for moral behavior with children, carefully
listening to them, and showing appreciation for their per-
spectives (Weissbourd 2003).
Developing empathy and caring skills among chil-
dren plays an important role not only in the maintenance
of healthy social relationships, but also in school success
(Denham 2005; Masterson and Kersey 2013; McKown and
Gumbiner 2009). Developing empathy and caring skills
helps children be more responsive, enjoy closer friendships
with their peers, and work more collaboratively with others
to solve problems (Griggs et al. 2009). Empathetic children
can understand the feelings of others and therefore respond
more readily to help them (Marshall and Marshall 2011).
By the age of four children can understand that others have
different ideas and viewpoints, as well as different feelings
about them (Swick 2005). However, being able to under-
stand different perspectives does not always lead to empa-
thetic behavior (Hinnant and O’Brien 2007). Adults can help
children develop more empathetic skills by consciously and
intentionally monitoring their personal feelings, modeling
empathetic behavior, responding to others with sensitivity,
and by using positive guidance strategies (Bergin and Ber-
gin 2009; Dykas and Cassidy 2011; Halberstadt et al. 2001;
Schofield and Beck 2005). Adults can also become more
conscious and intentional in their interactions with children,
and promote kindness, by helping children become more
aware of the needs and feelings of others (Barry 2011).
Learning to express love, kindness, and forgiveness are
ongoing developmental processes, crucial to young chil-
dren’s current social competence (Zeece 2009; Han and
Kemple 2006) and future leadership skills (Caldwell and
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
Dixon 2010). Early childhood is a formative period for
developing character strengths because young children
internalize societal values and related behaviors in preschool
(Dereli-İman 2014; Miller 2016; Ülavere 2017). Preschool
is one of the first places where young children learn proso-
cial skills (Hemmeter et al. 2006) and where mental health
issues can be prevented using interventions that facilitate
the development of subjective well-being, self-actualization
and a sense of happiness among young children (Rones and
Hoagwood 2000; Shoshani and Slone 2013).
There is less research investigating positive psychology
interventions with young children compared to adolescents
(Mashford-Scott et al. 2012; Shoshani and Slone 2017).
Many studies related to young children’s character strength
development have focused on parent–child relationships
rather than teacher–child relationships (Hyson and Taylor
2011). Nevertheless, researchers are increasingly examin-
ing how to foster character strengths and prosocial compe-
tencies among young children in educational settings. For
example, Shoshani and Slone (2017) examined the efficacy
of a positive psychology intervention among preschool chil-
dren that found positive outcomes on subjective well-being,
mental health, emotional well-being and positive learning
behaviors.
When young children are faced with fairness dilemmas
and feel personally committed to the scenario, they tend to
be fair (Leimgruber et al. 2012) but there is a gap between
what they think about fairness and what they actually do
(Smith 2013). For example, research shows that young chil-
dren often proclaim that they will distribute resources fairly
among peers, but they often fail to do so once they realize
that they may lose something they love (Hod-Shemer et al.
2018). Young children also tend to behave more generously
when they know they are being watched by someone who is
conscious of their actions (Leimgruber et al. 2012). Efforts
to compare child and adult character strength behaviors, and
to promote children’s prosocial and moral behavior, must
keep in mind that children’s moral thought processes are dif-
ferent from adults and that mature moral judgment develops
through stages (Selman 1971).
Teachers who wish to foster moral and prosocial behavior
in children can engage in many classroom activities, such as
morning meetings, and the use positive behavior guidance
systems focused on teaching prosocial skills, while reinforc-
ing acts of kindness and cooperation (Kersey and Masterson
2013). Reading storybooks to young children to exemplify
moral and prosocial behavior is another a valuable tradi-
tion in early childhood classrooms, but this was recently
shown to be more effective when the characters portrayed
are human rather than anthropomorphized animals (Larsen
et al. 2018).
Researchers have called for the observation of teacher
and child demonstration of character strengths, pointing out
that little empirical research of this nature has been con-
ducted (Spinrad and Eisenberg 2009). It seems necessary to
understand how early childhood educators practice character
strengths like love, kindness and forgiveness, as a prelude
to supporting their modeling and teaching of these traits
to children. Yet research on the use of character strengths
by early childhood educators themselves is scant (Shoshani
and Slone 2017; Carter and Dasson 2017; Kokoszka and
Smith 2016). One study has examined how early childhood
educators report using character strengths to help them
resolve challenges when working with children, cowork-
ers and parents (Haslip and Donaldson 2019). Over a two-
month period, 40 different character strengths were reported
as helpful to early educators when addressing their specific
challenges, with kindness being the most frequenty among
them. Among workplace challenges reported, 71% were
fully or mostly resolved by teachers with the aid of a char-
acter strength application intervention. The study also found
that kindness and forgiveness were frequently being modeled
to children by the teachers while they addressed classroom
challenges.
Despite some emerging research on character strength
usage with early childhood educators (Haslip and Donald-
son 2019; Lottman et al. 2017), little empirical work has
investigated how they report practicing specific strengths
themselves, such as love, kindness, and forgiveness, how
they observe these characteristics in children’s behavior,
or how their own loving, kind or forgiving behavior com-
pares to children’s. These questions are investigated in the
current study using a positive psychology intervention called
strength-spotting (Niemiec 2014) applied with early child-
hood educators.
Theoretical Framework
This study was guided by a theoretical framework informed
by positive psychology, within which character strengths are
studied. Positive psychology studies the development and
application of qualities and actions associated with well-
being and optimal mental and physical health, and seeks the
flourishing of human beings, their community and society
(Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Because of posi-
tive psychology’s association with happiness, achievement,
contentment, and other indicators of well-being, it promotes
the understanding and practice of character strengths such
as love, courage, hope, gratitude, perseverance and others
(Peterson and Seligman 2004). Positive psychology inter-
ventions include mindfulness practices and applying charac-
ter strengths to life circumstances (Niemiec 2014). One key
way in which individuals can actualize positive psychology
is to more consistently use the character strengths already
present in their personality. Positive psychology has been
applied in education using a framework called ‘positive
13
 Author's personal copy
education’ that focuses on the development of charac-
ter strengths in children and their experience of purpose,
engagement, accomplishment, positive relationships, posi-
tive emotions and health (Norrish et al. 2013). We applied
positive psychology using a strength-building exercise with
early childhood educators (described in the intervention
section) emphasizing their own use of love, kindness and
forgiveness and their observation of children’s use of these
same traits.
Character Strengths
Character strengths are positive psychological traits, com-
monly known as virtues, that individuals demonstrate
through behavior, emotion and thought (Anez-Moronta
2018; Park and Peterson 2006b; Peterson and Seligman
2004). The book Character strengths and virtues: A hand-
book and classification (Peterson and Seligman 2004)
reports the results of a three-year project during which 55
scientists reviewed historical documents dating back to
approximately 500 B.C. to identify which virtues were val-
ued within various cultures and religions, and to identify
their current scientific basis. The purpose of the project was
to identify virtues that were measurable and cross-cultural,
organize them, and review existing scientific evidence
about their importance. Twenty-four virtues (e.g. creativ-
ity, bravery, love, fairness, gratitude) were identified and
further categorized into one of six virtue areas1: wisdom,
courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence.
These six virtue areas emerged as valued by Athenian phi-
losophy, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism and Taoism. Substantial convergence with,
and endorsement of, these 24 virtues has been found in 75
countries to date (Park et al. 2006; McGrath 2015).
In addition to having cross-cultural value (Weber et al.
2016), the 24 character strengths and six virtue areas, iden-
tified in the study above, also represent values and traits
that parents desire their children to develop (Lottman et al.
2017). However, character strengths are recognized as vol-
untary in nature (Eisenberg et al. 2006). For example, if
children are forced to be kind to their peers their behavior
is not voluntary and as such it cannot be determined if the
child has internally developed related character strengths or
prosocial competencies (Hyson and Taylor 2011).
Love, kindness and forgiveness are three of the 24 char-
acter strengths identified as having historical, cross-cultural
and measurable characteristics. There are many definitions
1
To view the 24 character strengths and their categorization into
six key virtue areas, see the Values in Action (VIA) Classification of
Strengths. Online: http://www.viach​aract​er.org/www/Chara​cter-Stren​
gths
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
for the terms love, kindness and forgiveness. We use the
definitions presented in Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook and classification, which seminally reviews these
virtues and grounds the field of positive psychology.
Love as a Character Strength
Love as a character strength shares aid, comfort, and accept-
ance and involves strong positive feelings, commitment,
and sacrifice. Love animates diverse types of relationships.
Examples include the love between parents and children,
between mentors and mentees, and among friends (Peter-
son and Seligman 2004). The most developed form of love
occurs within a reciprocated relationship with another per-
son. Thus, certain feelings that run in only one direction,
such as crushes, stalking, and being a fan of celebrities are
excluded from the conception of love as a character strength.
Kindness as a Character Strength
Kindness as a character strength means prevalent “niceness.”
It describes the tendency to be nice to other people, to be
compassionate about their welfare, to do favors for them and
to take care of them. There are two kinds of kindness: (1) a
brief action for strangers (e.g. giving up your seat on the bus
for a mother with her infant; smiling at someone you pass in
the hallway) and (2) a profound gift to family members and
friends (e.g. donating your bone marrow or kidney; shelter-
ing victims of persecution at great personal risk) (Peterson
and Seligman 2004).
Forgiveness as a Character Strength
Forgiveness as a character strength represents a set of
prosocial/psychological changes that occur within an indi-
vidual who has been offended or damaged by a transgres-
sor (McCullough et al. 2000). When an individual forgives,
his/her basic tendencies regarding the transgressor become
more benevolent and less vengeful. The following statements
are examples of individuals who possess strong character
strengths of forgiveness. “I don’t hold a grudge for very
long,” “Seeking revenge doesn’t help people to solve their
problems,” and “I am not the type of person to harm some-
one simply because he or she harmed me” (Peterson and
Seligman 2004).
Purpose
The present study had three related purposes: (1) to
understand how early childhood educators practice three
character strengths associated with adult well-being and
children’s character development (love, kindness, forgive-
ness), (2) to understand how teachers describe children’s
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
demonstration of love, kindness and forgiveness, and (3) to
examine inter-relationships between how educators report
practicing love, kindness and forgiveness and how they
observe these traits in children’s behavior.
Background
In 2017, twenty-four in-service early childhood educa-
tors in a large northeastern U.S. city enrolled in a 12-week
professional development course about social-emotional
learning (SEL) taught by the first author. Course activities
included educators’ practice of positive guidance principles
and weekly monitoring of their teacher–child relationships.
A previous study investigated the value of these activities
(Haslip et al. 2018). Another course activity, designed to
increase awareness of the importance of moral/character
development associated with SEL, was the completion of a
positive psychology intervention in which educators identi-
fied their personal character strength profile using the VIA
classification of strengths online survey (VIA Institute on
Character). After discussing the 24 strengths used in the
VIA classification (e.g. perseverance, honesty, hope) educa-
tors practiced applying these character strengths to personal
workplace challenges and reflecting on the results using a
planning, action and reflection template (Haslip and Donald-
son 2019). Knowing that character strengths can be deliber-
ately developed (Biswas-Diener et al. 2011), and to prepare
educators to increasingly focus on the character strength
development of young children, three traits commonly asso-
ciated with children’s character development (love, kindness,
forgiveness) were selected for further investigation using an
activity called strength-spotting, described below.
The professional development provided was also guided
by adult learning theory (Knowles 1984) which describes
how adult learning must be relevant to learners’ lived expe-
riences. We operationalized adult learning theory by using
practice-targeted professional development that is effective
for early childhood educators (Pianta et al. 2014).
Intervention
We applied a positive psychology intervention called
strength-spotting during the early childhood professional
development course introduced above. “There are two lev-
els of strength-spotting: (1) Spotting strengths in the actions
of others and (2) spotting strengths in the actions of one-
self” (Niemiec 2014, p. 33). The practice of strength-spot-
ting involves intentionally looking for character strengths
in one’s own behavior and the behavior of others and is
“one of the best initial activities to help clients engage their
strengths” (Niemiec 2014, p. 33). This activity involves
monitoring oneself and others throughout the day to learn
more about the trait and to strengthen one’s utilization of it.
Strength-spotting is believed to assist adults to become more
conscious of the trait being observed, helping adults better
appreciate its value and thereby reinforcing its future use.
We asked educators to spot the strengths of love, kind-
ness and forgiveness at work, as practiced by themselves
and the children under their care. In this way, we addressed
both levels of strength-spotting. By asking educators to
practice spotting the strengths of love, kindness and for-
giveness at work, both in themselves and in children, we
reinforced modeling as a core principle of character edu-
cation (Berkowitz and Bier 2007), essential in urban early
childhood settings (Kokoszka and Smith 2016). We chose
to focus on these virtues because previous research sug-
gests that they are prevalent in the personalities of teach-
ers (Gradišek 2012), parents observe them most frequently
when describing their children’s traits (Park and Peterson
2006b; Lottman et al. 2017), and they relate to important
social-emotional skills such as empathy, care and develop-
ing positive relationships (Berry et al. 2001; Cillessen and
Mayeux 2004; Epstein 2009; Noddings 2010).
Once a week, we collected teacher descriptions of the
three strengths they had recently practiced and observed
using a researcher created template (see data collection).
During professional development, we did not impose a defi-
nition of love, kindness or forgiveness on the teachers, which
might affect their observations and reflections. Instead, we
welcomed all teacher observations about the operationaliza-
tion of these strengths.
Coaching early childhood educators to use character
strengths, and to recognize them in children, is a relatively
new as a line of inquiry within positive psychology and early
childhood education (Lottman et al. 2017). Lottman et al.
(2017) emphasized helping early childhood educators rec-
ognize their own character strengths, as a bridge to nurturing
the same strengths in young children, using a four phase
intervention: (1) teachers learn their own character strengths,
(2) teachers recognize character strengths among young chil-
dren, (3) teachers nurture those character strengths among
young children, and (4) teachers support parents’ develop-
ment of the strengths. The professional development we pro-
vided to in-service teachers attended to the first three phases
of the intervention model proposed by Lottman et al. (2017).
Research Questions
1. How do early childhood educators practice love, kind-
ness and forgiveness in the workplace?
2. When practicing strength-spotting, how do early child-
hood educators observe love, kindness and forgiveness
in children’s behavior?
3. What inter-relationships exist between early childhood
educators’ and children’s practice of love, kindness and
forgiveness?
13
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal

Methods Table 1  Participant characteristics (N = 16)

Characteristic n %
Participants
Age at time of survey (years)
Participants were 16 early childhood educators (Table 1) 25 or younger 2 12.5
drawn from a larger class of 24 in-service teachers com- 26–32 2 12.5
pleting a professional development course in social-emo- 33–39 1 6
tional learning. These 16 participants were included in 40–46 3 19
this study because they completed the two activities that 47–53 2 12.5
permitted data collection, namely, documenting how they 54–60 4 25
practiced love, kindness and forgiveness themselves and 61–67 2 12.5
documenting how they observed children practicing the Gender
same traits. Female 16 100
Participants of the course were recruited by meeting Male 0 0
with 10 local childcare center directors about the need to Race/ethnicity
Black or African-American 11 69
support children’s social-emotional learning with related
White 3 19
teacher training. Directors then invited their own teachers
Asian or Asian-American 1 6
to attend the SEL course. A flyer about the course was
Hispanic or latino/a 0 0
also distributed by email to other directors in the city, who
Other 1 6
forwarded the information to their teachers. The study was
Highest education level completed
approved by an institutional review board and participant
High school diploma/GED 0 0
consent was obtained during the first class. Participants
Some community college 0 0
were free to decline study participation while still attend-
Completed CDA or other certificate (not 2-year 2 12.5
ing the course. Three students elected not to participate by
degree)
declining to submit a signed consent form.
Associates degree 2 12.5
Bachelor’s degree 8 50
Master’s degree 4 25
Data Collection and Instrumentation Job title/type of teacher
Lead teacher 5 31
We collected data using a researcher-created template enti-
Assistant teacher 6 38
tled Character Examples in Practice (CEP). The template
Director of early learning center 2 12.5
was divided into two sections, representing two types of
Family care provider (at-home child care) 2 12.5
data: teacher-reported descriptions of their own work-
Coach/mentor 1 6
place behavior and observations of children’s behavior.
Years of teaching or child care experience
Each section was further divided into three categories. In
0–5 1 6
section one, teachers described 3 unique scenarios about
6–9 4 25
how they practiced love, kindness and forgiveness. In sec-
10 or more 11 69
tion two, teachers described recent examples of children’s
Hours per week teaching children
behavior that was loving, kind or forgiving. The template
30 or more (full-time) 12 75
was structured using a table with 2 columns and 3 rows,
10–29 (part-time) 2 12.5
creating 6 open boxes for teachers to write how they prac-
9 h or less 2 12.5
ticed and observed love, kindness and forgiveness. There
Age(s) of children you t­eacha
was a cell in the table for each trait to be described sepa-
0–1 years old 5
rately. Column one had three cells for teachers to describe
1–2 6
their own use of the three traits. Column two also had 3 2–3 8
cells where teachers described their observations of the 3–4 12
same traits in children’s behavior. One complete template 4–5 11
included 6 hand-written scenarios. We collected 36 tem- 5–6 6
plates containing a total of 216 (36 * 6) unique scenarios Other (school aged) 3
(108 teacher-related and 108 child-related) for analysis. Number of age groups you t­eachb
We were careful not to impose definitions of love, 1 2 12.5
kindness and forgiveness on the teachers prior to data 2 6 37.5

13
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
Table 1  (continued)
Characteristic n %
3 2 12.5
4 2 12.5
5 1 6 researcher reflexivity concurrent with first and second cycle
6 3 19
7 (ages 0–6 and school aged children) 0 0
a
14 teachers taught more than one age group
b
An age group is comparable to a grade level (i.e. 3–4 year olds;
5–6 year olds)
collection. Previously, teachers had discussed their own
perspectives of these traits as part of the curriculum pro-
vided during professional development, and they were
asked to document any behavior they felt represented love,
kindness and forgiveness on a data collection template.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis process was rooted in a constructivist/
interpretive paradigm, reflective of a phenomenological
strategy, with inquiry centered on the lived experiences and
perspectives of participants. We believed that their inter-
nalizations and perceptions of love, kindness, and forgive-
ness were individually constructed and thus salient to better
understand the nuances of how these character strengths are
operationalized in early classrooms. Thus, we engaged in a
reflexive iterative data analysis approach, not executed repet-
itively or mechanically, but rather as a reflexive process that
supported our insight into the data and our meaning making
processes (Srivastava and Hopwood 2009). Our analysis was
a multilayered qualitative process that combined content and
thematic analysis approaches (Braun and Clarke 2006; Dey
1993; Gray 2018) to analyze the CEP data.
First, we transcribed hand-written templates into a table.
After carefully reading and re-reading the data, we used
open coding to identify emergent concepts, patterns and
descriptions. This process of first cycle coding allowed us
to “initially summarize segments of data” (Saldaña 2016, p.
236). We created a code book, matching raw data to initial
codes. We then engaged in second cycle coding, synthesiz-
ing initial codes into “a more unified scheme” represent-
ing a “smaller and more select list of broader categories,
themes, concepts, and/or assertions” (Saldaña 2016, p.
234). This process was followed for each of the six pre-
set categories of data, namely, teacher love, kindness and
forgiveness and child love, kindness and forgiveness. We
used focused coding (Charmaz 2014) as a second cycle
analytic process, examining inter-relationships between
codes to identify common categories, for example, between
expressions of teacher forgiveness and child forgiveness. We
assessed intercoder reliability and engaged in the process of
intercoder negotiated agreement (Campbell et al. 2013) by
comparing codes and reconciling any of the coding discrep-
ancies that emerged amongst the team (Campbell et al. 2013)
after our second round of individual coding. We practiced
coding processes by using analytic memo writing (Saldaña
2016), helping us to better understand the phenomena (Wes-
ton et al. 2001) and transition to the formal write-up of the
study. Validity of the findings is supported by providing
thick descriptions (Altheide and Johnson 1994) and quotes
from the data. Pseudonyms were assigned to each partic-
ipant to provide a level of confidentiality by the primary
researcher.
Findings
RQ 1: How Early childhood Educators Practice Love,
Kindness and Forgiveness in the Workplace
Findings indicate that early childhood educators naturally
and frequently draw upon the character strengths of love,
kindness, and forgiveness in their daily practice.
Teacher Love
We analyzed thirty-one examples of teacher’s loving behav-
ior in the classroom. Teachers described how they expressed
love towards children (27/31 instances) and parents (4/31
instances) but provided no examples for how they may have
expressed love to coworkers. Findings reveal that teacher
love was most often actualized through physical affection
expressed towards children through hugging, patting, high-
fives, and hand-holding. Hugging was mentioned in 18 of
the 31 examples, making it the most frequent loving behav-
ior used by educators. Liz shared:
I gave a student a big bear hug after he explained how
he had missed me over the weekend. I thought that
was so sweet. I often think of my students over the
weekend as well.
Likewise, Catherine discussed how she shows love to stu-
dents who are misbehaving:
I practice love when I give hugs to children that are
usually singled out for misbehaving. I hug them and
talk to them to see how they feel about things, then I
leave them with hugs.
Other examples of teacher love were expressed through smil-
ing and listening to children, by using loving verbal words
of affirmation, and by providing joyful activities to engage
them.
13
 Author's personal copy
Speaking and listening behaviors included the follow-
ing: “I greet each of my students each morning and give
them a hug or high five. I ask them how are you feeling
today.” And, “I get down on the child’s level and listen to
their conversation.”
Our analysis identified a variety of reasons for educators
demonstrating loving behavior. The most common reason
was to provide affection and comfort to a child in distress
(empathy). Three examples follow, from Danica, Teresa and
April: (1) “A child was away for 2 weeks and coming back to
school was hard for him. He was hugged a lot throughout the
day.” (2) “Another child needed a hug when his feelings were
hurt.” (3) “When my student with severe separation anxiety
from her parents was so upset that I held her hand and let her
sit close to me during morning meeting.”
The next most common reason for providing love to chil-
dren was out of routine, or as a spontaneous action, where
the child’s behavior was not a triggering cause. Beverly
stated, “I hug children for no reason, except that they are
there.” Erica added, “Children received hugs upon arrival. I
think it is important for children to see adults practice love
through gestures and words.” Several educators described
morning routines of welcoming children into the facility
“with a smile and a warm hug.” Educators also reported
practicing love to respond appropriately to child misbehav-
ior. Sometimes affection was used in response to misbehav-
ior, for example, by hugging a child who was disrespectful
and mad. In other cases, love helped an educator regulate her
own response to child behavior, for example, by not engag-
ing in an argument with a child. Educators also reported
expressing love by using activities to create happiness in
children. Shawna reported creating “delight” in her children
by allowing them to create sounds and music using an app
on her smartphone, while Tanesa reported singing songs for
the children as a demonstration of her love.
Educators also reported showing love to parents by being
generous with them. Kayla said, “I cooked breakfast for all
of the parents in my daycare.” And Tiffany added, “a family
was in need of food and I bought food for them.” Shannel
reported showing love by speaking with a parent about her
child’s depression following parental divorce. Finally, love
was shown to a parent by helping her separate from her child
during drop-off time, by redirecting the child into an activity.
Teacher Forgiveness
Teachers practiced forgiveness with children, coworkers
and parents. Seventy-two percent of forgiveness expressions
were directed at children (18 of 25 scenarios), followed by
coworkers (5) and parents (2).
Following open coding, we identified five types of cir-
cumstances with children that were forgiven by teachers: (1)
negative physical events impacting the teacher, (2) general
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
misbehavior, (3) children damaging materials, (4) children’s
negative language, and (5) mistakes. Teachers reported for-
giving physical events directed at them, such having paint
splashed on them, being kicked and bumped, having toys
dropped on them, having one’s foot run over with a bike
or one’s lunch knocked off the table by a child. “A child
was upset and threw his paintbrush at me getting paint all
over me,” said Kayla. Amanda practiced forgiveness “when
a 3-year-old kicked me because he was mad. I told him I
know you’re mad and it’s okay to be upset, but kicking hurts
and not to kick teachers.” Teachers also reported forgiving
general misbehavior. For example, “The students didn’t do
what I expected at the time.” Teachers practiced forgiveness
when children damaged materials. For example, Zina shared,
“children broke a teaching toy in the classroom. They were
playing aggressively with the toy and broke the handle.”
Finally, teachers forgave mistakes (e.g. child spilled a drink)
and children’s negative speech (e.g. “A child says to me you
are not my mother.”).
Teachers also forgave coworkers through a variety of cir-
cumstances, such as accepting a ride to work from a previ-
ously estranged coworker, forgiving a fellow teacher who
was showing favoritism in the classroom by “only calling on
the smart student” during a lesson, by not gossiping about a
“disrespectful” coworker, by avoiding a confrontation with
a coworker and by greeting a coworker in the morning who
would not greet the teacher. Teachers also reported forgiving
parents who were late picking up their children.
Methods of Teacher Forgiveness
We were interested in how forgiveness was practiced by
early childhood educators, and coded the data again looking
for methods of forgiveness. We identified eight methods of
teacher forgiveness, presented below with examples.
(1) By letting go of the situation. Lakyta shared:
My coworker tried to start a confrontation over
something silly in front of the children. I had to
ask her to leave the room because we were not
going to do this in front of children. I was very
upset. The next morning she came in all bubbly
like nothing happened. I let it go.
  Teachers also described letting go of children’s
behavior. As Samantha added, “They have a tantrum
and I have to forget all about it because I know that is
their way of communicating.”
(2) By giving children another chance. For example, allow-
ing children to use materials again after breaking them
previously or allowing children to play again after mis-
behaving. “The child broke the shovel in the sandbox
and I just handed them another and said be careful.”
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
And, “I allowed a child that had hit and kicked me to
go back to play with peers.”
(3) By positively speaking and listening to children. For
example,
A child is very mean to his classmate (hitting or
snatching). I don’t holler at him, I tell him nicely I
know why you did that, but I want you to talk with
your friend. “I’ll listen.”
(4) By understanding parents’ circumstances. Shawna
shared, “sympathizing with a single parent” who was
late picking up her child.
(5) By engaging with coworkers despite challenges.
Tamara added, “My co-worker doesn’t greet me when
I come into work early in the morning. So I greet her
instead.” Ciara described how she accepted a ride to
work from an estranged coworker. “We had refused to
speak to each other for a year.”
(6) By praising the positive and overlooking the negative.
Trinity said she “Praised child’s positive academic
skills about shapes rather than being frustrated with
her negative behavior.”
(7) By fixing children’s mistakes. For example, by cleaning
up a child’s spilled drink at lunchtime.
(8) By not retaliating. As Deborah reported, “I forgave
a co-worker for being very disrespectful towards me
because of hearsay. I don’t gossip!!”
Teacher Kindness
We analyzed 23 instances of teacher reported kindness,
organized by the emergent categories of kindness towards
children (12 of 23), coworkers (8) and parents (3). Kindness
behaviors towards children included paying special attention
to children, giving out treats, offering assistance and help,
speaking courteously, greeting and hugging children when
they enter the room and hugging children who seemed sad
or upset. A few examples follow. “I paid special attention to
a child who was going to move to another city by speaking
with him about the move, setting up a tent for him to play
in and reading books together.” “I greet the children in the
morning and help them come in the door.” “I bring in a
special treat for the children in my class to share at morning
meeting. They have to name its color or shape and pass it
to a friend. They love it!” “I got a toy that had rolled out of
reach for a child.”
After examining kindness behaviors towards children,
two subcategories emerged, (a) kindness expressed by the
teacher to a single child, and (b) kindness towards the whole
class. Kindness expressed to a single child included paying
special attention to a child or helping with a specific task
(putting a coat away, retrieving a toy). Kindness expressed
to the whole class including behaviors such as giving out
treats and greeting all children in the morning.
Kindness behavior toward coworkers (n = 8) primarily
consisted of tangible acts (lending art supplies, lending an
umbrella in the rain, cleaning up another teachers’ mess,
buying pretzels for the whole center, giving a coworker a
ride home). There was also one example of providing emo-
tional support (hugging a distressed coworker) and volun-
teering (by helping another teacher facilitate a game with
five children). Amanda said, “I cleaned up a mess made by
another teacher without her knowledge.” April added, “A
co-worker was going through a rough time at home. I gave
her a hug and offered to make myself available if she needed
to talk.”
Finally, teachers reported three examples of kindness
towards parents. These included “planning a luncheon for
the families,” thanking a parent for joining the class during
an outing while also inviting her to attend future outings, and
giving a “genuine complement” to a parent on her hairstyle.
RQ 2: How Early Childhood Educators Observe Love,
Kindness and Forgiveness in Children’s Behavior
Child Love
After analyzing 32 scenarios, we identified four concepts
which capture the range of loving child behavior reported
by early childhood educators. These are empathy (demon-
strating concern and comfort for a hurt or upset peer), help-
fulness (e.g. helping one another with a challenging task
or need), friendship (showing general warmth and affection
towards one’s peers) and love for teachers. Empathy was the
most frequently described loving behavior in children (16
of 32 scenarios), followed by helpfulness (6/32), friendship
(6/32) and love for teachers (4/32).
Child empathy primarily took the form of comforting
and hugging another hurt or crying child. Two examples
follow. “A child fell and hurt himself on the playground.
An older child helped him get up and gave him a hug to
help calm himself.” “When Jake hugs Amy when she gets
upset or starts to cry, Amy gave Jake a hug back and said
thank you!” Empathy was also expressed when “the children
bought canned goods to donate to needy families.” Help-
fulness, meanwhile, was exhibited by returning toys to one
another, helping each other put on or hang up coats, close
snack bags, tie shoes, or help with a “scary or difficult task.”
Friendship included such behaviors as holding hands in the
classroom, greeting one another, giving high-fives, giving
unexpected hugs, sharing toys and using kind words like
“thank you” and “you’re welcome.” Finally, love for teachers
was demonstrated when a child called her former teacher on
the phone “to tell me how much she missed me,” apologiz-
ing to a teacher, asking the teacher “for a hug when I was
leaving,” and hugging a teacher after previously yelling at
her.
13
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal

Child Forgiveness behaving a certain way. For example, a child refused to pass
her personal toy around the circle during show and tell and
We analyzed 29 acts of child forgiveness, as observed the “children understood when she did not want to share
and reported by teachers. These acts could be categorized her doll.”
as child-initiated (23 instances) or teacher mediated (6
instances), representing if children spontaneously engaged
Child Kindness
in forgiveness or did so with the help of a teacher. It is likely
that more of the child-initiated acts of forgiveness were
Thirty-three examples of child kindness were examined.
teacher mediated because the reflective template used for
Most were peer-to-peer acts of kindness, but there were
data collection only asked teachers to report observed acts
also examples of kindness toward teachers, the classroom
of child forgiveness and did not specifically request that the
environment, a class pet and a bus driver. How was kind-
role of the teacher be explained. Nevertheless, six of the
ness practiced? Kindness behaviors were grouped into six
scenarios describe a teacher’s involvement in children’s acts
categories, (1) showing empathy (e.g. gave a tissue to a cry-
of forgiveness. For example, “A child’s tower was knocked
ing child; giving a personal toy away to a sad child; pick-
down. The teacher helped children process feelings, includ-
ing up a student who fell), (2) sharing and being generous
ing forgiveness.”
(e.g. bringing cookies from home for the class, sharing toys,
We found that children were observed forgiving each
sharing snacks and taking turns), (3) helping someone with
other (coded as peer-to-peer forgiveness) in 26 instances and
a task (e.g. one child helps another to mold clay into the
forgiving their teacher (coded as child-to-teacher forgive-
shape of a turtle, helping classmates put on coats and zip
ness) in three instances. For example, children were seen
them up, serving food to a child at lunchtime), (4) practic-
forgiving their teacher(s) when they were “overlooked again
ing courtesy and consideration (e.g. speaking courteously,
and again” after holding up their hands to answer a question
“may I have more milk please,” saying thank you to each
and not being called upon, or after a teacher bumped into
other, thanking the bus driver for safe driving, encourag-
them or disciplined them.
ing peers to use manners, and older children making room
What behaviors do young children forgive? We identified
for younger children), (5) being friendly (e.g. letting some-
11 behaviors that prompted children to forgive. Three of
one play with them, accepting a new child into the group,
these behaviors, related to children forgiving their teachers,
engaging in friendly conversation with each other during
were just stated. The other eight behaviors, listed by fre-
lunch), and (6) cleaning up (e.g. putting toys away, cleaning
quency, included being physically hurt by someone (e.g. a
up during transition time). In one unique example, children
child threw a toy at another child; a child ran a tricycle over
brought mulberry leaves from home to feed pet silkworms.
another’s foot; a child hit another child on the head), having
This behavior combined empathy, generosity and helping.
ones’ tower knocked down, having ones’ toy(s) taken, being
Three quotations follow, illustrating children’s kindness
hurt emotionally by someone’s unkind words (e.g. a child’s
behaviors. “A student of mine brought in a container of
feelings were hurt by another child who said, “don’t speak
homemade chocolate chip cookies for the entire class (they
to me ever again”), being in an argument, having one’s play
were delicious).” “During family-style lunchtime, a child
disrupted by an aggressive child, being excluded from play,
had difficulty serving herself and another friend at the table
and refusal to share a toy. We also coded all incidents as
helped her.” “They accepted a new child into their group.
accidental or non-accidental. Teachers explicitly mentioned
They took the child under their wing and showed her how
that three of the incidents were accidental, for example, acci-
to put away the board games.”
dentally bumping into each other.
How do young children forgive? The most frequently
reported type of child forgiveness was accepting an apol- RQ 3: Comparing Love, Kindness and Forgiveness
ogy from another child (10 instances out of 30 reported). Behaviors Between Educators and Children
This was followed by acceptance of the situation (e.g. having
one’s tower knocked down) and moving on (e.g. rebuilding Empathy emerged as a repeating theme across the catego-
it without negative feelings). Closely related to accepting a ries of teacher love, child love and child kindness. When
situation was reengaging in play with the perpetrator. For empathy was documented as teacher or child love, it usually
example, “A little boy hit a girl on the head. She cried, but involved the act of hugging a distressed child or peer. While
still wanted to play with him.” Another method of forgive- the purpose of love was often related to being empathetic,
ness used among children was to let go of hurt feelings, for to provide care, concern and affection in response to dis-
example, after talking together or by resolving an argument. tress, love was also offered spontaneously by both educa-
Other forgiveness behaviors included hugging each other, tors and children. Spontaneous love on the part of teachers
shaking hands, or simply “understanding” why a peer was often involved hugging children for “no reason.” Children’s

13
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
spontaneous love (coded as acts of friendship) also included
giving “each other hugs unexpectedly.”
Helping was another repeating theme, found in teacher
kindness, child love and child kindness. Children’s helping
behaviors (e.g. helping a peer tie their shoe or put on their
coat) were categorized by educators as child love (6 exam-
ples) and child kindness (5 examples). When looking for
patterns across all coded data, we also found that acts of
generosity were documented under the pre-set categories of
teacher love, teacher kindness, child love and child kindness.
The theme of courtesy also emerged in relation to love, kind-
ness and forgiveness expressed through language.
We discovered significant overlap in how teachers
described child love and child kindness. Children’s empathic
behavior was a theme in both child love and kindness. Help-
fulness and acts of friendship were also common to child
love and kindness. However, sharing behaviors were con-
sistently reported by teachers under child kindness, and not
under child love. Conversely, there was less overlap between
teacher love and teacher kindness. Teachers usually docu-
mented their own acts of empathy and spontaneous affection
towards children under teacher love, rather than kindness.
Furthermore, teachers always categorized their own good
behavior towards coworkers as kindness or forgiveness,
rather than love.
When examining potential interrelationships between
teacher and child expressions of forgiveness, we compared
both the methods of forgiving and the problems being for-
given. Both teachers and children practiced forgiveness by
giving someone else another chance (e.g. reengaging with
coworkers; reengaging in play), letting go of the situation,
responding to a perpetrator with kindness (e.g. hugging or
praising them), by understanding the other (e.g. teachers
understanding parental circumstances or peers understand-
ing each other), and by speaking and listening positively
(e.g. resolving an argument by talking; accepting an apol-
ogy). In terms of the nature of the problems being forgiven,
both teachers and children forgave physical acts (e.g. being
hurt, hit, bumped, splashed). They both forgave behavior
related to disrupting or damaging materials (e.g. child broke
a teaching toy; towers are knocked down, toys are taken).
They also both forgave negative speech (e.g. hurting some-
one emotionally or verbally).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers and
children practice love, kindness and forgiveness in early
childhood settings in the context of a strength-spotting
intervention completed during professional development.
Strength-spotting is a positive psychology intervention used
to help adults consciously activate virtues already present
in their personality through a two-stage observation pro-
cess which involves looking for the specific virtue in other
people, and in oneself (Niemiec 2014). To our knowledge,
this is the first study to apply strength-spotting with early
childhood educators, asking them to observe and document
the target virtues in the children they teach, and in their
own workplace behavior. In addition to helping educators
practice virtue observation to become more conscious of
these traits in visible behavior, we were able to use teachers’
documented observations to complete a detailed qualitative
analysis to better understand how teachers report practicing
these traits, and how teachers observe these traits in children.
This allowed us to identify nuanced and specific insights
into the types of behaviors and skills that teachers associ-
ate with love, kindness and forgiveness. Previous research
showed that primary school teachers and student teachers
rank love and kindness as highly prevalent in their personal-
ity (Gradišek 2012) and parents describe love and kindness
as their children’s most prevalent traits (Park and Peterson
2006b; Lottman et al. 2017). Among young children in
school settings, love, kindness and forgiveness may look
like helping others, sharing toys, playing well with others,
sharing positive feelings about others verbally, and comfort-
ing other children who are upset (Beaty 1999; Honig 2004;
Hyson and Taylor 2011; Lottman et al. 2017; Mei-Ju et al.
2014; Ramaswamy and Bergin 2009; Taylor 2010).
We found that teacher and child expressions of love, kind-
ness and forgiveness manifested themselves in ways indica-
tive of secure attachment relationships (Ainsworth 1989;
Bowlby 1982). Secure attachment is associated with positive
emotions such as hope and self-esteem and reduced negative
emotions such as anger (Armitage and Harris 2006; Shorey
et al. 2003). Securely attached people have high empathetic
skills and emotional awareness (Laible 2007). They build
strong relationships and seek support under stress (Hazan
and Shaver 1987). They are also more resilient in difficult
circumstances (Karaırmak and Güloğlu 2014). Further-
more, Burnette et al. (2007) have suggested that forgiving is
facilitated by secure attachment, as forgiveness transitions
negative emotions to positive emotions. Disproportionately
forgiving people and securely attached people share the
characteristics of empathy, self-regulation and agreeable-
ness (Macaskill et al. 2002; McCullough et al. 2003).
We also found that empathy was often associated with
love and kindness expressed by teachers and children, which
is significant because empathy is a primary prosocial com-
petency, essential for healthy social, emotional and moral
development (Epstein 2009). As the expression of empathy
is an important goal related to social-emotional learning,
it is important to consider how encouraging educators to
practice love and kindness in the classroom may increase
their own modeling of empathetic behavior. Smith (2013)
claims that loving experiences that young children have with
13
 Author's personal copy
their teachers in childcare centers or classroom settings, such
as hugging, smiling, and laughing, help them to care about
themselves and others. When these positive experiences
occur before the age of four children are most likely to have
a hopeful life and to bring happiness to other peoples’ lives.
Many researchers have previously suggested that adults need
to consciously and intentionally observe their own actions
and behavior and model and demonstrate them in order to
promote positive character strengths among young children
(Berkowitz and Bier 2007; Kokoszka and Smith 2016; Park
2004; Lottman et al. 2017; Smith 2013; Steen et al. 2003;
Nolte 1998). By better understanding the behaviors indica-
tive of love, kindness and forgiveness, this study contributes
to efforts to create an ethos of caring (Näsman 2018) in early
childhood settings. We discuss the studies main findings in
more detail below.
Teacher Love
The character strength of love is related to happiness, life
satisfaction, less anxiety, and success in school and future
work (Onwuegbuzie 1999; Park and Peterson 2006a, b,
2009; Weber et al. 2016). Teachers described their loving
behavior primarily in terms of providing affection, expressed
as empathy in response to child distress, as well as sponta-
neous affection, such as hugging each child as they come
into the classroom. What we found is that teachers often
draw upon love without prompting which indicates a sense
of teacher internalization of the salience of love in the early
childhood classroom. Teachers reported recognizing when
their students “need some extra love” and value this trait
highly, as described by one teacher who said “I think it is
important for children to see adults practice love through
gestures and words.”
Teacher Forgiveness
The character strength of forgiveness is related to higher
self-esteem, subjective well-being, empathy, friendli-
ness, and low anxiety (Berry et al. 2001; Kaplan 1992;
McCullough et al. 2001). Forgiveness appears to be an
essential characteristic to express as an early childhood
teacher, given the wide range of mistakes, annoyances, con-
frontations and challenges that teachers address daily with
children, coworkers and parents. Teachers who practiced
forgiveness permitted children to return to play, reengage
with materials, maintained a closer relationship with chil-
dren by letting go of their own frustration, restored closer
relationships with colleagues and practiced understanding
and empathy towards parents. The eight methods of teacher
forgiveness identified in this study, as presented in the find-
ings above, reveal how early childhood educators practice
forgiveness.
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
Teacher Kindness
The character strength of kindness is related to being
accepted by one’s peers (Cillessen and Mayeux 2004).
Teacher kindness was most frequently reported as a tangi-
ble act (hosting a luncheon for parents; giving a coworker
a ride home; putting away a child’s coat) directed towards
children, coworkers and parents. Kindness was expressed
by doing something helpful for someone else (cleaning up
a mess) and by being generous with one’s resources. Being
kind to parents included thanking and complimenting them.
While providing emotional support, such as hugging a dis-
tressed coworker or sad child, was occasionally categorized
by educators as kindness, such behavior was more frequently
categorized as love.
Child Love
Child love was reported by teachers as empathy (comforting
a distressed peer) usually with physical affection in the form
of a hug, in half of the observations. Helping one another
with tasks and challenges, demonstrating friendship and
showing love for teachers made up the other half of loving
child behaviors. Love is related to empathy and caring. In
previous research, early childhood educators recorded chil-
dren’s empathetic and helping behaviors as demonstrations
of love (Marshall and Marshall 2011). Children who have
developed more empathy and caring skills tend to enjoy
friendships with their peers and solve problems more col-
laboratively (Griggs et al. 2009). In this study, child love
and teacher love closely mirrored one another, which might
be expected because values and character strengths regu-
larly demonstrated by adults through socialization impacts
children’s development of the same strengths (Berkowitz
and Bier 2007; FitzSimons 2015; Nolte 1998).
Child Forgiveness
The teacher’s ability to mediate child peer-to-peer forgive-
ness emerged as an important skill. In 29 instances of child
forgiveness described by teachers, 20 appeared to be child-
initiated and nine were teacher mediated. In the context of
improving or supporting teacher–child relationships and
secure attachment, we found it notable that young children
forgave their teachers, and not just their peers. Since for-
giving children tend to have secure attachment with their
teachers, children’s forgiving acts may have been facilitated
by their secure relationships with their teachers (Burnette
et al. 2007). When forgiving each other, young children
most frequently used the apology-acceptance method. One
child would say sorry and the other accepted the apology by
saying okay. This apology method facilitated 33% of chil-
dren’s peer forgiveness scenarios. Accepting the situation
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
and moving on, as well as reengaging in play after an inci-
dent, were also commonly used forgiveness methods among
children.
Child Kindness
Kindness and love are prevalently documented in young chil-
dren, encompassing a wide range of situations and behav-
iors (Lottman et al. 2017; Park and Peterson 2006b). In this
study, children most commonly demonstrated kindness by
helping someone do something that they could not do alone.
Other situations for child kindness included: the room need-
ing to be cleaned up, toys needing to be shared, new children
needing to be accepted, children needing empathy, and by
practicing courteous language, among others.
Interrelationships
We found that behaviors related to teacher and child love,
kindness and forgiveness were sometimes overlapping. For
example, after analyzing how love and kindness were prac-
ticed by both early childhood educators and children, four
common themes emerged: empathy, helpfulness, generosity
and courtesy. Empathy revolved around showing concern
and affection for children in distress. Helpfulness encom-
passed a range of tangible acts. Generosity was often needed
to be kind and loving, such as to be kind to parents by host-
ing a luncheon. Courtesy, meanwhile, emerged as an expres-
sion of kind, loving and forgiving language.
Implications
Practice
Using a strength-spotting intervention with early childhood
educators is an effective method for gathering data about
how teachers report virtue-related behavior in themselves
and children. Teacher educators and teacher preparation pro-
grams interested in supporting children’s social and emo-
tional learning, and related moral and character develop-
ment, may wish to adopt strength-spotting with pre-service
and in-service early childhood educators. Strength-spotting
is the intentional observation of character strengths being
practiced by oneself and by others (Niemiec 2014; Biswas-
Diener 2010). Early childhood center directors who are
responsible for the professional development of their teach-
ers may wish to seek out or create opportunities for posi-
tive psychology interventions such as strength-spotting to
be practiced, particularly if they wish to create the ethos
of love and mercy exemplified by the theory of caritative
leadership (Bondas 2003; Näsman 2018).
While this study investigated love, kindness and forgive-
ness in teachers and children using a template to facilitate
strength-spotting, other virtues (e.g. persistence, courage)
could also be explored and developed using the same tech-
nique. Furthermore, common behaviors associated with
teacher and child love, kindness and forgiveness could be
shared to assist educators in creating a positive classroom
climate, affectionate and secure relationships and prosocial
behavior. For example, educators may benefit from review-
ing the eight methods of teacher forgiveness identified in
this study.
Although we found interrelationships between the behav-
iors associated with love and kindness, both virtues were
described in primarily unique terms, with love emphasizing
emotional support, comfort and affection and kindness rep-
resenting the provision of some tangible help or resource.
Therefore, we recommend that positive psychology interven-
tions directed at the early childhood workforce give equal
attention to the expression of love and kindness. It would be
unwise to over-emphasize teacher kindness because of an
assumption that kindness is the same as love, or to focus too
intently on love assuming it is the same as kindness. Rather,
each character trait studied here (love, kindness, forgive-
ness) was associated with unique behaviors, all of which
need practice if educators are intent on creating a caring
community and modeling these traits for children.
To support the development of children’s loving behavior,
teachers should model and teach empathy (e.g. comforting
someone in distress), helpfulness (e.g. helping someone
with a task or need), and friendship (e.g. general warmth
towards peers). To support the development of children’s
forgiving behavior, teachers can help children process hurt
feelings, offer and accept apologies, reengage in play, talk
to their peers, shake hands, or simply be patient by learning
to understand one another. Kindness in children can be sup-
ported by encouraging peer-to-peer sharing and generosity,
helping with tasks, practicing courtesy and consideration
towards one another, accepting new friends into the group,
and by cleaning up.
In addition to supporting children’s practice of love, kind-
ness and forgiveness, teachers can practice the same traits in
the classroom in many ways. Among the teachers studied,
love was often demonstrated using physical affection such
as hugging, patting, high-fives and hand-holding. Children
who frequently misbehave should also receive regular affec-
tion. Smiling and listening, greeting children in the morning,
asking how children feel, getting on the child’s eye level
and comforting them in distress are other demonstrations of
teacher love. By practicing loving behavior educators better
regulate their own feelings and avoid arguments.
Teachers can practice forgiveness towards negative
physical events, general misbehavior, damaged materi-
als, children’s negative language and basic mistakes.
Teacher forgiveness towards coworkers and parents is also
needed. Among the eight methods of teacher forgiveness
13
 Author's personal copy
we identified, the most common methods were to let go
of the situation, give the person another chance and speak
and listen positively. Teachers who want to strengthen their
practice of kindness may consider paying special attention
to children, giving out healthy treats, offering assistance,
speaking courteously, greeting children affectionately when
they enter the room, and comforting sad or upset children.
Kindness towards coworkers can include tangible acts like
lending out art supplies and providing emotional support.
Research
Future studies may wish to examine the effect of a frequent
and longitudinal strength spotting practice on dimensions
of teacher–child interaction measured by the Classroom
Assessment Scoring ­System® for Pre-K (Pianta et al. 2008),
such as positive and negative classroom climate, teacher sen-
sitivity, regard for student perspectives and behavior man-
agement. Cross-cultural and international research of this
nature is also warranted to compare how teacher’s report
loving, kind and forgiving behavior in different populations.
Limitations
As an exploratory study with a small sample (n = 16) of
mostly experienced early childhood educators in a large city
in the northeastern United States, we cannot assert that the
types of behaviors associated with teacher and child love,
kindness and forgiveness reported in this study are univer-
sally practiced across different cultures. Larger studies in
other locations will likely yield new insights into the class-
room dynamics and interrelationships between love, kind-
ness and forgiveness as practiced by teachers and children.
Conclusion
The more we understand the nuances and varieties of love,
kindness and forgiveness expressed in the early childhood
classroom by teachers and children, the more precisely we
can encourage preservice and in-service teachers to prac-
tice and teach these traits in a variety of appropriate ways,
across cultural contexts and socio-economic circumstances,
whether the situation is routine and habitual (e.g. greeting
children in the morning) or more challenging and infrequent
(preparing a luncheon for parents). Through this study, we
learn more concretely what love, kindness and forgiveness
look like in early childhood settings and can transmit that
understanding to other teachers, assisting them to model
these traits more consciously and consistently for children.
The descriptions of love, kindness and forgiveness reported
in this study may be particularly helpful for preservice or
newer teachers who would benefit from a wide range of
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
examples to understand how to express character strengths
and to learn to recognize, value and facilitate these diverse
expressions of prosocial behavior in children. The practice
of strength-spotting is recommended to focus early child-
hood educators on observing character strengths in them-
selves and in young children as an important component of
social-emotional learning and character education.
Funding Funding was provided by Drexel University School of Educa-
tion (Grant No. SOE04252016 Internal Award).
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachment beyond infancy. American
Psychological Association, 44(4), 709–716.
Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive
validity in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 485–499). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anez-Moronta, M. T. (2018). Assessing Quaker values and character
among young children (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2048175832).
Armitage, C. J., & Harris, P. R. (2006). The influence of adult attach-
ment on symptom reporting: Testing a mediational model in a
sample of the general population. Psychology and Health, 21(3),
351–366.
Asher, S. R. (1983). Social competence and peer status: Recent
advances and future directions. Child Development, 54,
1427–1434.
Barry, M. (2011). The forgiveness project: The startling discovery of
how to overcome cancer, find health, and achieve peace. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Beaty, J. J. (1999). Prosocial guidance for the preschool child. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 21(2), 141–170.
Berkowitch, M. W., & Grych, J. H. (1998). Fostering goodness: Teach-
ing parents to facilitate children’s moral development. Journal of
Moral Education, 27(3), 371–391.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2007). What works in character
education? Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(1),
29–48.
Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Parrott, L., O’Conner, L. E., &
Wade, N. G. (2001). Dispositional forgiveness: Development and
construct validity of the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgive-
ness (TNTF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1277–1290.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and
children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 35(1), 61–79.
Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Practicing positive psychology coaching:
Assessment, activities and strategies for success. Hoboken:
Wiley.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic
approach to psychological strength development and interven-
tion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.
Bondas, T. E. (2003). Caritative leadership. Ministering to the patients.
Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 249–253.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol 1: Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Burnette, J. L., Taylor, K. W., Worthington, E. L., & Forsyth, D. R.
(2007). Attachment and trait forgivingness: The mediating role of
angry rumination. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8),
1585–1596.
Caldwell, C., & Dixon, R. D. (2010). Love, forgiveness, and trust:
Critical values of the modern leader. Journal of Business Ethics,
93(1), 91–101.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013).
Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems and uni-
tization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological
Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.
Carter, M. A., & Dasson, M. (2017). What school leaders are doing
to support a culture of character: An exploratory study with pre-
schools in Singapore. Childhood Education, 93(1), 29–38.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cillessen, A., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:
Developmental changes in the association between aggression
and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660​.x.
Commodari, E. (2013). Preschool teacher attachment and attention
skills. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 1–12.
Denham, S. A. (2005). The emotional basis of learning and develop-
ment in early childhood education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Hand-
book of research in early childhood education (pp. 85–103).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dereli-Iman, E. (2014). The effect of the values education program
on 5.5-6 year old children’s social development: Social skills,
psycho-social development and social problem solving skills.
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 262–268.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge.
Dykas, M., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of
social information across the life span: Theory and evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial devel-
opment. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology, 3, social, emotional, and personality development
(6th ed., pp. 647–702). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Epstein, A. (2009). Me, you, us: Social-emotional learning in pre-
school. Ypsilanti: HighScope Press.
FitzSimons, E. (2015). Character education: A role for literature in
cultivating character strengths in adolescence. Evidence-based
approaches in positive education (pp. 135–150). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Flynn, E. E., & Schachter, R. E. (2017). Teaching for tomorrow:
An exploratory study of prekindergarten teachers’ underlying
assumptions about how children learn. Journal of Early Child-
hood Teacher Education, 38(2), 182–208.
Gradišek, P. (2012). Character strengths and life satisfaction of Slove-
nian in-service and pre-service teachers. Center for Educational
Policy Studies Journal, 2(3), 167–180.
Gray, D. (2018). Doing research in the real world (5th ed.). Los Ange-
les: Sage.
Griggs, M., Gagnon, S., Huelsman, S., Kidder-Ashley, P., & Ballard,
M. (2009). Student-teacher relationships matter: Moderating
influences between temperament and preschool social compe-
tence. Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 553–567.
Halberstadt, A., Denham, S., & Dunsmore, J. (2001). Affective social
competence. Social Evelopment, 10(1), 79–119.
Han, S., & Kemple, K. (2006). Components of social competence and
strategies of support: Considering what to teach and how. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 34(3), 241–246.
Haslip, M. J., Allen-Handy, A., & Donaldson, L. (2018). How urban
early childhood educators used positive guidance principles
and improved teacher-child relationships: A social-emotional
learning intervention study. Early Child Development and
Care. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03004​430.2018.15070​27.
Haslip, M. J., & Donaldson, L. (2019, under review). How early
childhood educators apply character strengths to workplace
challenges: A positive psychology intervention study. Journal
of Early Childhood Teacher Education.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized
as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emo-
tional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for
intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 583.
Hinnant, J., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Cognitive and emotional control
and perspective taking and their relations to empathy in 5-year
old children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(3), 301–322.
Hod-Shemer, O., Zimerman, H., Hassunah-Arafat, S., & Wertheim,
C. (2018). Preschool children’s perceptions of fairness. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 46(2), 179–186.
Honig, A. (2004). How teachers and caregivers can help chil-
dren become more prosocial. In P. Chesebrough, P. King, T.
Gullotta, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprint for the promotion of
pro-social behavior in early childhood (pp. 51–91). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C., & Philipsen, L. (1998). Stability and con-
tinuity of child–caregiver and child–peer relationships. Child
Development, 69(2), 418–426.
Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults
can do to promote young children’s prosocial skills. Young
Children, 66(4), 74.
Kaplan, B. H. (1992). Social health and the forgiving heart: The type
B story. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 3–14.
Karaırmak, Ö., & Güloğlu, B. (2014). The explanation of resilience
within attachment model among adults with earthquake expe-
rience. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal,
43(2), 01–18.
Kersey, K., & Masterson, M. (2013). 101 principles for positive guid-
ance with young children: Creating responsive teachers. Upper
Saddle River: Pearson Higher Ed.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kokoszka, C., & Smith, J. (2016). Fostering character education in
an urban early childhood setting. Journal of Character Educa-
tion, 12(1), 69–74.
Laible, D. (2007). Attachment with parents and peers in late adoles-
cence: Links with emotional competence and social behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1185–1197.
Larsen, N. E., Lee, K., & Ganea, P. A. (2018). Do storybooks with
anthropomorphized animal characters promote prosocial
behaviors in young children? Developmental Science, 21(3),
e12590.
Leimgruber, K. L., Shaw, A., Santos, L. R., & Olson, K. R. (2012).
Young children are more generous when others are aware of their
actions. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e48292.
Lottman, T. J., Zawaly, S., & Niemiec, R. (2017). Well-being and well-
doing: Bringing mindfulness and character strengths to the early
childhood classroom and home. In C. Proctor (Ed.), Positive psy-
chology interventions in practice (pp. 83–105). Berlin: Springer.
Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, J. (2002). Forgiveness of self and
others and emotional empathy. Journal of Social Psychology,
142(4), 663–665.
Marshall, L., & Marshall, W. (2011). Empathy and antisocial behav-
iour. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(5),
742–759.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin,
O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality
13
 Author's personal copy
in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, lan-
guage, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749.
Mashford-Scott, A., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2012). Seeking chil-
dren’s perspectives on their wellbeing in early childhood settings.
International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 231–247.
Masterson, M. L., & Kersey, K. C. (2013). Connecting children to
kindness: Encouraging a culture of empathy. Childhood Educa-
tion, 89(4), 211–216.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L.
(2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumina-
tion, well-being and big five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 1141–1164.
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgive-
ness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgres-
sion-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. T. (Eds.). (2000).
Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford
Press.
McGrath, R. E. (2015). Character strengths in 75 nations: An update.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 41–52.
McKown, C., & Gumbiner, L. (2009). Social-emotional learning skill,
self-regulation, and social competence in typically developing
and clinic referred children. Journal of Clinical Child and Ado-
lescent Psychology, 28(6), 858–871.
Mei-Ju, C., Chen-Hsin, Y., & Pin-Chen, H. (2014). The beauty of char-
acter education on preschool children’s parent-child relationship.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 527–533. https:​ //
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr​o.2014.07.431.
Miller, D. F. (2016). Positive child guidance (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Näsman, Y. (2018). The theory of caritative leadership applied to edu-
cation. International Journal of Leadership In Education, 21(4),
518–529.
Niemiec, R. M. (2014). Mindfulness and character strengths: A practi-
cal guide to flourishing. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral
education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child?
Educational Leadership, 63(1), 8–13. 66.
Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education in an age of globalization. Edu-
cational Philosophy and Theory, 42(4), 390–396.
Nolte, D. L. (1998). Children learn what they live. Retrieved from
www.empow​ermen​treso​urces​.com/info2​/child​renle​arn.html.
Norrish, J. M., Williams, P., O’Connor, M., & Robinson, J. (2013). An
applied framework for positive education. International Journal
of Wellbeing, 3(2), 147–161. https​://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.2.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Relation of hope to self-perception. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 88(2), 535–540.
Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 59(1), 40–54.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006a). Moral competence and character
strengths among adolescents: The development and validation
of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal
of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.adole​
scenc​e.2006.04.011.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006b). Character strengths and happiness
among young children: Content analysis of parental descriptions.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 323–341.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and
practice. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1–10.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of char-
acter and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
23(5), 603–619.
13
Early Childhood Education Journal
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Character strengths
in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Posi-
tive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, Washing-
ton, DC: Oxford University Press, American Psychological
Association.
Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult-child relationship processes and early
schooling. Early Education and Development, 8(1), 11–26.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and
teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assess-
ment scoring system (CLASS) manual, pre-K. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., Jamil, F. M., Sabol, T., Grimm, K., &
Hamre, B. K. et al. (2014). A cross-lag analysis of longitudinal
associations between preschool teachers’ instructional support
identification skills and observed behavior. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 29(2), 144–154.
Priest, C. (2007). Incorporating character education into the early child-
hood degree program: The need, and one department’s response.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 153–161.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/10901​02070​13667​23.
Ramaswamy, V., & Bergin, C. (2009). Do reinforcement and induction
increase prosocial behavior? Results of a teacher-based interven-
tion in preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
23(4), 527–538.
Rones, M., & Hoagwood, K. (2000). School-based mental health ser-
vices: A research review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 3(4), 223–241.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd
ed.). London: Sage.
Schofield, G., & Beck, M. (2005). Risk and resilience in long-term
foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 1283–1301.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-
ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Selman, R. L. (1971). The relation of role taking to the development of
moral judgment in children. Child Development, 42(1), 79–91.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neigh-
borhoods: The science of early childhood development (Report
of the National Research Council). Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Shorey, H. S., Snyder, C. R., Yang, X., & Lewin, M. R. (2003). The role
of hope as a mediator in recollected parenting, adult attachment,
and mental health. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
22(6), 685.
Shoshani, A., & Slone, M. (2013). Middle school transition from the
strengths perspective: Young adolescents’ character strengths,
subjective well-being, and school adjustment. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 14(4), 1163–1181.
Shoshani, A., & Slone, M. (2017). Positive education for young chil-
dren: Effects of a positive psychology intervention for preschool
children on subjective well being and learning behaviors. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 8, 1866.
Smith, C. A. (2013). Beyond “I’m sorry”: The educator’s role in pre-
schoolers’ emergence of conscience. YC Young Children, 68(1),
76–82.
Snyder, R., Shapiro, S., & Treleaven, D. (2012). Attachment theory
and mindfulness. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(5),
709–717.
Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy, prosocial behavior,
and positive development in the schools. In R. Gilman, E. S.
Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychol-
ogy in schools (pp. 119–129). New York: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
 Author's personal copy
Early Childhood Education Journal
Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework
for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 8(1), 76–84.
Steen, T. A., Kachorek, L. V., & Peterson, C. (2003). Character
strengths among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1),
5–16.
Swick, K. (2005). Preventing violence through empathy development
in families. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 53–59.
Taylor, J. L. (2010). Prosocial development survey and interviews with
ECE teachers and directors. Unpublished research.
Ülavere, P. (2017). Value education in estonian preschool child care
institutions. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
19(1), 129–146.
Weber, M., Wagner, L., & Ruch, W. (2016). Positive feelings at school:
On the relationships between students’ character strengths,
school-related affect, and school functioning. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 17(1), 341–355.
Weissbourd, R. (2003). Moral teachers. Educational Leadership, 6(6),
6–11.
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., &
Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The develop-
ment and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology,
24(3), 381–400.
View publication stats
Wiley, J. (2000). Linking character development with academics.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 36(4), 163–167.
Wilson, R. A., & Schein, D. (2017). Supporting the spiritual develop-
ment of young children. Retrieved from https​://www.child​caree​
xchan​ge.com/artic​le/suppo​r ting​-the-spiri​tual-devel​opmen​t-of-
young​-child​ren/50234​26/.
Yeates, K. O., Schultz, L. H., & Selman, R. L. (1991). The development
of interpersonal negotiation strategies in thought and action: A
social-cognitive link to behavioral adjustment and social status.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37(3), 369–405.
Zeece, P. D. (2009). Using current literature selections to nurture the
development of kindness in young children. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 36(5), 447–452. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1064​3-009-0306-3.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13