Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Social–emotional competencies
make the grade: Predicting academic
success in early adolescence
Kim Schonert-Reichl

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Teaching Adolescent s t o Become Learners CCSR

Jenny Nagaoka, Camille Farringt on

Teaching Adolescent s To Become Learners T he Role of Noncognit ive Fact ors in Shaping School Perf…
ageet h hup

Behavioral Skills Training in Port uguese Children wit h School Failure Problems
Edgar Galindo
 Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Social–emotional competencies make the grade: Predicting academic

success in early adolescence☆
Eva Oberle ⁎, Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl, Clyde Hertzman, Bruno D. Zumbo
University of British Columbia, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The goals of this study were to longitudinally examine the association between social and emotional competence
Received 23 May 2013 (SEC) and academic achievement in early adolescence, exploring the moderating role of gender in this relation.
Received in revised form 1 February 2014 Using a short-term longitudinal design, self- and teacher-reported indicators of SEC were used to predict early
Accepted 25 February 2014
adolescents' (N = 461, Mean age = 12.02 years, SD = 0.41, 47% female) achievement in math and reading on
Available online xxxx
a standardized achievement test in grade 7. As hypothesized, teacher-reported SEC in sixth grade significantly
Keywords:
predicted higher scores in math and reading on the standardized test in seventh grade. A significant
Social and emotional competence interaction between self-reported SEC and gender in predicting reading scores indicated that SEC was a
Academic success significant positive predictor for reading outcomes in boys only. Self-reported SEC was not significantly related
Early adolescence to math achievement. Results are discussed in line with the literature and practical implications of the findings
are discussed.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Understanding the factors that predict academic success in adoles-
cence has been a central priority for parents, educators, and societal
agencies interested in promoting positive development and deterring
school failure in young people (Aronson, 2002; Caprara, Barabaranelli,
Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000). In fact, academic success in
school is an important indicator for overall positive development in
early adolescence, and sets youth on a promising academic trajectory
into late adolescence as well as predicting college attendance in early
adulthood (Bond et al., 2007; Eccles, Vida, & Barber, 2004; Shim, Ryan,
& Anderson, 2008). Although recent research suggests that academic
success and social and emotional aspects of development are inextrica-
bly linked (e.g., Elias & Haynes, 2008; Elliott, Malecki, & Demaray, 2001),
social and emotional competence (SEC) as it relates to academic
development is still underrepresented in both empirical research and
practice (Cohen, 2001, 2006).
A common public perception is that investing time into fostering
social and emotional skills in the classroom will unnecessarily take
☆ This research was supported by grants from the United Way of the Lower Mainland and
the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) at the University of British Columbia to the
second author. The authors wish to thank Denise Buote and Angela Jaramillo for their assis-
tance with data collection. The authors also wish to express their thanks to the numerous
school staff and administrators who helped make this project possible; and especially to
the students and their teachers for their enthusiastic participation in this project.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and
Special Education, 2125 Main Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,
Canada.
E-mail address: Oberle.eva@gmail.com (E. Oberle).
time away from what is perceived to be the main goal of schooling —
academic competence (Malecki & Elliot, 2002). This opinion has been
widely criticized by researchers in the field of education and child devel-
opment (e.g., DiPerna & Elliott, 2000; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,
Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Elias & Haynes, 2008; Zins, Weissberg,
Wang, & Walberg, 2004). Instead, based on growing evidence that
students' SEC and academic success are interrelated, researchers have
urged that monitoring and ultimately fostering positive social and
emotional development may be key to enhancing academic growth
(see Greenberg et al., 2003; Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, &
Abbott, 2008; Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2011; Zins et al., 2004). However,
for this goal to be achieved, more high quality research – including
longitudinal designs that investigate the role of social and emotional
aspects of development in predicting academic outcomes for specific
developmental periods – needs to be conducted (Hawkins et al., 2008;
Malecki & Elliot, 2002; National Research Council, 2012; Welsh, Parke,
Widaman, & O'Neil, 2001).
Although a number of previous studies have found a link between
indicators of students' SEC in the classroom and academic success
(e.g., Jones et al., 2011; Malecki & Elliot, 2002; Welsh et al., 2001;
Wentzel, 1991a, 1991b), several gaps remain in the literature. First,
past research has predominately been based on single-informant
designs, highlighting students' own perceptions of their social and
emotional skills rather than considering multiple informants (e.g.,
Gil-Olarte Marquez, Palomera Martin, & Brackett, 2006; Izard et al.,
2001; Jones et al., 2011; Seider, Gilbert, Novick, & Gomez, 2013). Sec-
ond, a large number of previous studies have used grades assigned by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.02.004
0193-3973/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
teachers as an indicator of academic achievement rather than more
objective achievement indices obtained via standardized tests (e.g.,
Elias & Haynes, 2008; Welsh et al., 2001; Wentzel, 1991a). Whereas
grades are a measure of academic achievement that can be obtained
through teachers and school records fairly easily, their reliability
may be limited given that grading criteria tend to differ among
teachers (McMillan, 2001, 2003). Third, little research is available
to address whether SEC relates to academic outcomes for boys and
girls in similar ways.
Exploring the role of gender is critical because previous research has
revealed overall gender differences in SEC among boys and girls. For in-
stance, Elias and Haynes (2008) found that girls in third grade had sig-
nificantly higher SEC scores as assessed with the Social Skills Rating
System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) than boys. Further research
has indicated that adolescent girls tend to score higher on measures of
social and emotional understanding in contrast to boys (e.g., Bosacki &
Astington, 1999; Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004; Jaffee & Hide,
2000; Welsh et al., 2001), and respond more prosocially than boys to
hypothetical conflict scenarios (Rose & Asher, 1999). Moreover, adoles-
cent girls have been rated by their peers as behaving in more socially
and emotionally competent ways compared to boys (Sandstrom &
Cillessen, 2003). Similarly, a number of studies have found that girls
score higher on self-report measures of perspective taking and empath-
ic concern than boys (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; see Eisenberg, Fabes,
& Spinrad, 2006, for a review). Finally, previous research has indicated
that teachers typically report higher levels of social competence for
girls in contrast to boys (Ladd & Profilet, 1996). Taken together, it is crit-
ical to explicate the role of gender in more detail when investigating the
manner in which social and emotional skills are associated with aca-
demic competence in order to gain further understanding as to how
SEC may function in similar or different ways for adolescent boys and
girls in predicting their academic achievement.
Addressing the outlined limitations, the goal of the present re-
search was to assess the relation between early adolescents' SEC
and academic outcomes longitudinally, utilizing a multi-informant
design that included self- as well as teacher-reports of SEC. Academic
outcomes in two domains – reading and math, drawn from standard-
ized achievement assessments – were included to provide an objec-
tive measure of academic success. Last, we explored differences
between boys and girls to determine the extent to which gender
moderated the relation between SEC and academic achievement.
Our study focused on the developmental period of early adolescence
— a time during which a multitude of changes occur on social, cogni-
tive, physiological levels (Steinberg, 2005; Stroud et al., 2009). It is
during early adolescence that young people begin to shift their social
focus away from the family and toward the peer group and other
contexts in which they develop, such as the school context (Eccles
& Roeser, 2009). Social and emotional skills are critical during this
time because they contribute to positive functioning in the school
and classroom context, help young people to form healthy relation-
ships with peers and teachers, and can thus foster positive develop-
mental pathways throughout adolescence (Graber & Brooks-Gunn,
1996; McLaughlin & Clarke, 2010; Wentzel, 2009).
Overall, although competencies in social and emotional domains
provide a critical foundation for early adolescents' life skills, these com-
petencies have traditionally received relatively little attention in re-
search and practice in education (Zins et al., 2004). Researchers today
emphasize that SEC is a separate core domain that students need to suc-
cessfully master in order to graduate from high school and succeed in
life (Durlak et al., 2011). A lack of SEC has been found to be negatively
related to several indicators of success, including lower connectedness
to school, less engagement, lower academic achievement, and a higher
risk for school drop out (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Elias
& Haynes, 2008; Libbey, 2004; Wentzel, 1991b; Whitted, 2011;
Zsolnai, 2002). Understanding the role of SEC in the school context is
paramount because it can provide researchers and educators with
139
important indictors of students' social characteristics and functioning
and may serve as a key to jointly promote social, emotional, and aca-
demic competencies in young people (Greenberg et al., 2003).
Defining school-related SEC
Defining important characteristics of SEC throughout development,
we draw from theoretical and empirical research conducted by the Col-
laborative of Academic and Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL; see
www.casel.org). CASEL is a leading collaborative of researchers and ed-
ucators that advances theory, research, and practice in the field of social
and emotional learning (SEL) and development. According to CASEL,
SEL can be defined as “…the process of acquiring and effectively apply-
ing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to recognize and man-
age emotions; developing caring and concern for others; making
responsible decisions; establishing positive relationships; and handling
challenging situations adaptively” (Elias et al., 1997, p. 1). In the present
study, we use the term SEC to refer to social and emotional competen-
cies and skills that have been acquired in the past and can be assessed
in early adolescents. We do not focus on the process of learning and ac-
quiring SEC in the present study (for a review of studies conducted to
evaluate SEL processes in intervention programs, see Durlak et al.,
2011). We consider SEC closely related to SEL as it describes the out-
come of the processes that foster SEL.
In general, socially and emotionally competent children and adoles-
cents are commonly characterized as being able to understand, reflect
on, and manage their own emotions and behaviors, solve problems suc-
cessfully, and act appropriately in social situations at home, school, and
in the community (e.g., Durlak et al., 2011; Elias et al., 1997). In the
school context in particular, SEC relates to indicators of a positive learn-
ing context, such as cooperation with peers and social functioning in the
classroom setting (January, Casey, & Paulson, 2011; Roseth, Johnson, &
Johnson, 2008; Wentzel, 1993).
In the present study, we used two indicators of school-related SEC:
Students' self-reports of social responsibility goals, and teachers' reports
of students' social–emotional skills in the classroom. As suggested by
Wentzel (1991a), socially responsible behavior reflects adherence to
rules and norms in the classroom, and helps create an environment
conducive to learning and instruction. Given that goals are a powerful
motivator for behavior (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), social responsibility
goals – defined here as the degree to which students try to keep prom-
ises and commitments made to peers and to follow classroom rules –
have been considered an important indicator for students' intentions
to act in responsible, cooperative, and compliant ways that facilitate
social acceptance and promote academic learning (Wentzel, 1991b,
1994). According to Eccles and Midgely (1989), goals to behave appro-
priately and responsibly are especially important during early ado-
lescent development when teachers tend to spend much time with
student behavior and classroom management challenges.
Pursuing social responsibility goals requires self-regulatory and self-
management abilities, such as setting, planning, and pursuing goals, and
can therefore be assumed to relate to academic learning and, ultimately,
learning outcomes (Wentzel, 1991a). Self-management and self-
regulation both have been considered critical markers of SEC
(Buckner, Mezzacappa, & Beardslee, 2009; Garner, 2010). Given that
self-management and self-regulation are involved in the regulation of
emotions as well as behaviors, they are important for forming positive
social interactions in the classroom as well as using effective learning
strategies, and can thus be considered critical for academic achievement
(Buckner et al., 2009; Garner, 2010; Garner & Waajid, 2012; Trentacosta
& Shaw, 2009).
Social responsibility goals are based on students' intentions to act in
socially responsible ways (Wentzel, 1994). However, students' own
perspective of their SEC and their goals to be compliant and responsible
in the classroom context may differ from how their goals manifest in be-
havior, and from how peers or teachers may perceive them. In fact, it is
140 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
possible that students are biased in reporting their social responsibility
goals, describing intentions that exceed or do not meet their actual so-
cial behavior. Among others, biases in self-reports of SEC could be due
to social norms within students' peer groups, and how students wish
others perceived them. Therefore, in addition to students' self-reports
of social responsibility goals, we included teachers' observations of
students' social and emotional skills in the present study to provide a
further independent perspective of early adolescents' SEC that includes
critical behaviors in the classroom context (Gardner, Dishion, & Connell,
2008; Hightower et al., 1986; Ryan, Jamison, Shin, & Thompson, 2012).
Elementary school students spend a large portion of their school day
with the classroom-teacher, allowing teachers to obtain valuable
insights with regard to students' social–emotional skills, behaviors,
and characteristics across multiple situations both in- and outside of
the classroom (e.g., Pepler & Craig, 1998; Ryan, Patrick, & Shim, 2005).
Specifically, teachers have the opportunity to witness a wide range of
students' SEC that is critical for school success, including peer in-
teractions, cooperation in groups, interaction with adults, and self-
regulatory abilities while working on classroom-specific academic and
non-academic tasks (e.g., Gardner et al., 2008; Oberle & Schonert-
Reichl, 2013; Pepler & Craig, 1998; Ryan et al., 2012). Teachers' perspec-
tives are therefore crucial and need to be considered when understand-
ing early adolescents' social and emotional functioning in the school
setting, and how such functioning relates to further school outcomes
(Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler, 2010; Merrell, Bradley, & Karalyn,
2011).
The importance of SEC for school success
There is a general consensus among parents and educators in North
America that teaching children how to read, write, and calculate is not
sufficient to become mature future workers, leaders, and citizens of
the world (Cohen, 2006; Public Agenda, 2002). In fact, Greenberg et al.
(2003) have put forward that the broader mission of 21st century
schools needs to be educating students to become academically knowl-
edgeable as well as responsible, caring, mature, and healthy members of
society. Understanding the role of SEC in the school context, Elias and
Haynes (2008) have argued that being “fluent” in social and emotional
understanding and competence helps children and adolescents to en-
gage in positive relationships in the classroom, and to self-regulate
their emotions and behaviors more effectively which consequently
helps them to increase their focus on the academic curriculum. Accord-
ingly, Blum and Libbey (2004) suggest that early adolescents who lack
SEC tend to experience more challenges in social interactions with
teachers and peers, leading to decreased classroom connectedness
that in turn can contribute to negative academic performance.
A number of studies provide empirical support for the social and
emotional foundations of academic success and indicate that failure to
develop such competencies can result in a variety of personal, social,
and academic difficulties (Durlak et al., 2011; Malecki & Elliot, 2002;
Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998; Welsh et al., 2001; Wentzel, 1991b). Spe-
cifically, Wentzel (1991a), in her classic study conducted with children
in middle school, found that socially responsible behaviors, such as
sharing, cooperating, and helping others, were important positive corre-
lates of academic achievement assessed via end-of year school grade
point averages (GPA), whereas problem behaviors, such as starting
fights and breaking rules were negatively related to success on academ-
ic development tasks. In another study examining the link between so-
cial behaviors and academic outcomes, Malecki and Elliot (2002) found
that among third and fourth grade students, problem behaviors in the
beginning of the school year were negatively related to concurrent
levels of academic achievement, whereas social–emotional skills were
positively predictive of both concurrent academic achievement and
achievement at the end of the school year. Finally, in a sample of
urban and disadvantaged third grade students, Elias and Haynes
(2008) found that SEC in the beginning of the school year as well as
improvement in SEC throughout the year positively predicted academic
achievement in the end of the school year.
Further support for the importance of social–emotional skills to
school success stems from intervention research with programs de-
signed to teach SEC in the school setting. In fact, findings from a
large meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal SEL programs in
kindergartens, elementary schools, and high schools indicated that
participation in SEL-programs significantly improved students' social,
emotional, and academic competencies (see Durlak et al., 2011). Specif-
ically, compared to controls, students who participated in SEL programs
demonstrated better social and emotional skills (e.g., social goal setting,
interpersonal problem solving, conflict resolution), more prosocial atti-
tudes (e.g., attitudes toward self, school, and social topics), and behavior
(e.g., getting along with peers and teachers), as well as an 11-percentile-
point improvement in academic achievement (i.e., grades, GPA, or
achievement on standardized tests). Effects remained stable for up to
six months after SEL programs had completed. Overall Durlak et al.
(2011) are critical because they emphasize that social–emotional skills
and academic achievement are inextricably linked, and that academic
growth can be fostered through programs that target the promotion of
social and emotional development.
In conclusion, recent research supports the contention that social
and emotional competence is fundamental for positive academic devel-
opment (Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007). Support comes from studies
investigating the relation among social and academic aspects of devel-
opment, as well as program evaluations of school-based interventions.
The existing evidence hence strongly suggests that the foundations of
positive academic growth include social and emotional aspects of devel-
opment (Caprara et al., 2000; Gil-Olarte Marquez et al., 2006; Seider
et al., 2013). Still, although investigations of the connection between
the social–emotional and academic dimensions of development have
increased over the past years, more high-quality longitudinal research
is needed to further explicate the precise nature of the relation
between SEC and academic success (National Research Council, 2012).
Summary and hypotheses
Theory and research are in accordance with suggesting that social
and emotional and academic growth are inextricably connected and
that both need to promoted in educational settings to achieve school
goals including academic competence (Durlak et al., 2011; Jones &
Bouffard, 2012; Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007; Zins et al., 2004). Based on a
number of empirical studies that have investigated the connection be-
tween social, emotional and academic aspects of development, there
is increasing evidence that earlier SEC predicts later academic success
(e.g., Caprara et al., 2000; Elias & Haynes, 2008; Hawkins et al., 2008;
Izard et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2011). In addition, the scientific evaluation
of interventions that are aimed at enhancing social–emotional skills has
suggested that participation in programs that successfully enhance SEC
also lead to improvements in academic skills and achievement (e.g.,
Durlak et al., 2011). Yet, more research is needed to investigate the pre-
dictive properties of SEC for academic competence in early adolescence
(Malecki & Elliot, 2002; National Research Council, 2012; Welsh et al.,
2001), including multiple indicators of SEC and academic success.
The present study was conducted longitudinally and included data
from three time points. We used fourth-grade academic achievement
from standardized tests in reading and math as a baseline measure;
self-reports and teacher-reports of social and emotional skills were
assessed at the end of grade 6; academic achievement in math and read-
ing was assessed mid-way through grade 7 and used as the two out-
come measures. Focusing on students' social, emotional, and academic
development as they move from sixth to seventh grade allows us to in-
vestigate SEC in relation to achievement at a stage in which students are
transitioning out of middle childhood and entering early adolescence
(Eccles & Roeser, 2009). This transition is a critical time in development
due to the myriad of changes that occur in self-awareness, as well as
 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
social, cognitive, and physiological changes (Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles,
2006) that likely relate to students' development of SEC.
First, we hypothesized that self-reported social responsibility goals
and teachers' reports of students' social and emotional skills at the
end of sixth grade would significantly and positively predict the change
in standardized reading and math test scores between fourth and sev-
enth grade. Second, we explored whether gender moderated the rela-
tion between each indicator of SEC, and academic outcomes in the
two domains.
Method
Participants
The current study was based on a sub-sample of sixth-grade stu-
dents who were part of a larger study on the psychological and social
well-being of children in grades 4 to 7. A stratified random sampling
procedure was employed across seven school districts located in
urban and suburban areas in Western Canada. Stratification was done
according to the neighborhood level vulnerability rates for children's
development, as reported by the Human Early Learning Partnership
(Kershaw, Irwin, Trafford, & Hertzman, 2005; www.earlylearning.ubc.
ca). The vulnerability rates were determined according to the Early De-
velopment Instrument (EDI; see Janus & Offord, 2007). Schools were
randomly selected and approached to represent “high,” “medium,”
and “low” vulnerability rates within the eight school districts in order
to obtain a diverse representation of participants. The participants in
the present study were recruited from 33 classrooms in 20 public
schools. Eight of the grade 6 classrooms were located in middle schools,
the remaining classrooms were in elementary schools. Of the 33 class-
rooms, 25 were combined grades, comprised of children from fifth
and/or seventh grades in addition to sixth grade students.
Of those early adolescents invited to participate, 82% gave assent and
received parental/guardian consent to participate, resulting in a total
of 461 participants (47% female) who were on average 12.02 years old
(SD = 0.41). Sixty-three percent of the students reported English as
their first language; the remaining early adolescents reported Chinese
(14%), Punjabi (5%), Vietnamese (3%), or another language. Regarding
family composition, 75% of the early adolescents reported living with
a mother and a father (this includes biological as well as reconstituted
families with stepparents). Seven percent of adolescents reported living
half time with their mother and half time with their father, and the
remaining adolescents reported living with their mother only (7%),
grandparents (3%), or other family configurations. The sub-sample of
grade 6 students was representative of the fourth to seventh grade sam-
ple regarding the background variables first language learned, family
composition, gender, and vulnerability level of the schools students
were attending.
Procedure
Data in the present study were obtained from three separate points
in time. First, students' previous Foundational Skills Assessment (FSA)
scores from the BC Ministry of Education's annual provincial assessment
in grade 4 served as a baseline measure for academic achievement. Sec-
ond, students completed a self-report survey, and teachers completed
student ratings of social–emotional skills at the end of grade 6. Third,
students completed the annual provincial FSA mid-way through
seventh grade. Regarding the survey data collection procedure, early ad-
olescents were told that the study was a survey about students' experi-
ences within and outside of school. After obtaining parent consent and
student assent, research assistants administered the survey to the stu-
dents during two 45-minute sessions. All items were read out loud to
students. Teachers were asked to complete a teacher-report question-
naire for each participating student. FSA scores for fourth and seventh
grade students were obtained through the Ministry of Education in
141
British Columbia, and linked to participants' survey data via Personal
Education Number (PEN; an identifier assigned to each student by the
Ministry of Education, BC) by a data steward.
Measures
Student self-reports, teacher-reports, and measures of students'
academic achievement were the sources of data used in the present
study. Students' self-report survey included basic demographic infor-
mation and a measure of social responsibility goals. Teachers completed
the Teacher Child Rating Survey (T-CRS; Hightower et al., 1986) as an
indicator for students' social–emotional skills. Achievement on the FSA
test in grades 4 and 7 was used as an indicator for present and previous
academic achievement.
Student-reports
Demographics. A demographic questionnaire was administered to each
student to gather information about gender, birth date, grade, first
language learned, and family composition.
Social responsibility goals. Social responsibility goals were assessed with
a subscale of the Social Goals Questionnaire (Wentzel, 1993). The Social
Goals Questionnaire is comprised of two scales measuring Prosocial
Goals and Social Responsibility Goals. In the present study, the 7-item
Social Responsibility Goals subscale was used. The subscale assesses
how often early adolescents try to “…keep promises you have made
to other kids?,” “…be nice to other kids when something bad has hap-
pened to them?,” and “…be quiet when other kids are trying to
study?” Students indicate their answers on a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 = Never to 5 = Always, with higher scores indicating higher so-
cial responsibility goals. The reliability for the social responsibility goals
subscale in the present study was satisfactory (α = .75).
Teacher-reports
Students' social–emotional skills. Teachers rated early adolescents'
social–emotional skills on a subscale of the TCR-S (Hightower et al.,
1986), a measure shown to be reliable and valid with elementary
school-aged children (Hightower et al., 1986). The total social–emotion-
al skills score is a composite of four subscales assessing skills in four dif-
ferent domains: 1. Frustration Tolerance, 2. Assertive Social Skills, 3. Task
Orientation, and 4. Peer Interaction. Each subscale includes five items.
Sample items for the subscales include 1. “Accepts things not going
his/her way,” 2. “Expresses ideas willingly,” 3. “Functions well even
with distractions,” and 4. “Is well-liked by classmates.” Items on these
scales were rated on a scale of 1 = Not at all to 5 = Very well, and scores
were computed by averaging the items across subscale items. Higher
scores indicated better social–emotional skills. The reliability of the sub-
scales was satisfactory in the present study, ranging from α = .92 to
α = .96. The Cronbach's alpha of the teacher-reported social–emotional
skills score was .97, also indicating good satisfactory reliability. These
psychometric properties are comparable to the ones found in previous
research (e.g., Cowen et al., 1997; Hightower et al., 1986; Weissberg
et al., 1987).
Academic achievement
Early adolescents' scores on standardized provincial achievement
tests in fourth and seventh grade (Ministry of Education British
Columbia, 2011) were used as indicators for previous and present aca-
demic achievement. The FSA examinations in fourth and seventh
grade are annual, province-wide assessments of students' foundational
academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. The assessments
test cumulative skills that students are expected to have learned by a
certain grade level, and were designed to inform schools, districts, and
the province about students' academic learning progress at two crucial
142 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
times in development (Lloyd & Hertzman, 2009; Ministry of Education
British Columbia, 2011). According to the Ministry (2011), all students
in grades 4 and 7 are expected to take part in the FSA exam; however,
parents may withhold their children from participating in the assess-
ment, and entire schools may opt out of participation.
Of the 461 participants who completed the self-reports for the
present study and for whom teacher-ratings on social–emotional skills
were obtained, 389 also completed the 7th-grade FSA numeracy assess-
ment, and 399 completed the 7th-grade FSA reading assessment in the
following year.1 Furthermore, a total of 398 had previously completed
the 4th-grade FSA numeracy assessment, and 406 had completed the
4th-grade FSA reading assessment. In both grade 4 and grade 7 assess-
ments, students completed a computerized test version of 35–40 read-
ing comprehension questions, and 40 numeracy questions assessing
math skills in a multiple-choice format (Ministry of Education British
Columbia, 2011). All data were provided to us as z-standardized raw
scores by the Ministry of Education (see Table 1).
Results
Data analytic procedure
First, preliminary analyses were conducted to test whether the as-
sumptions for linear regression analysis were met, to explore intercor-
relations among all variables, and to investigate gender differences for
the predictor and outcome variables. Cohen's d is presented as an indi-
cator for effect size where appropriate. Second, two hierarchical linear
regression analyses were conducted to investigate whether self- and
teacher reported indicators of SEC predict grade 7 reading comprehen-
sion scores and math scores. Control variables (ESL, gender) were en-
tered in Block 1, previous academic achievement on the grade 4
reading or math test was entered in Block 2, self-reported social respon-
sibility goals were entered in Block 3, teacher rated social–emotional
skills were entered in Block 4, and last the interaction between social re-
sponsibility goals and gender was entered in Block 5. The interaction
was composed as the multiplicative product of the two variables. Signif-
icant interactions were analyzed with simple slopes analysis (Aiken &
West, 1991) and interpreted based on graphical illustrations. The signif-
icance of the change in variance explained for each subsequent Block
was calculated. All variables in the analysis were mean centered except
the academic achievement scores that were z-standardized variables.
Semipartial correlation coefficients are presented for the SEC variables
to indicate the unique contribution of a predictor to the outcome (see
Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007).
Preliminary analyses
Preliminary analyses indicated that the assumptions for regression
analysis were not violated. Intercorrelations among the variables are
displayed in Table 1. Students' social responsibility goals and their SEC
as reported by teachers were both positively and significantly related
to grade 4 and grade 7 reading scores, and grade 7 math scores. The
magnitude of the correlations was small to moderate. Furthermore, so-
cial responsibility goals and teacher-rated social–emotional skills were
significantly and positively related to gender; girls tended to score
higher than boys. Gender was also significantly and negatively related
to grade 7 math scores; boys tended to have higher scores than girls.
All the academic achievement variables in grades 4 and 7 were positive-
ly and significantly related. The magnitude of the relation was high. Fur-
1
Students who participated in the FSAs were comparable to students who withheld
participation regarding the variables ESL, age, gender, family composition, and vulnerabil-
ity level of the school attended.
thermore, intercorrelations between the sub-scales of the TCRS and
grade 7 math and reading scores are displayed in Table 2. As can be
seen, all of the four subscales were significantly and positively related
to both achievement scores. Given that the demographic variables gen-
der and ESL were significantly correlated with the outcome variables
they were included as control variables in subsequent analyses.
Gender differences were found in both social and academic compe-
tence. Teachers reported significantly higher scores on SEC for girls,
M = 3.56, SD = 0.85, than for boys, M = 3.34, SD = 0.94, t(450) =
2.12, p b .05. However, the magnitude of the effect was small (d =
.25). In addition, it needs to be noted that both gender groups were
rated above average on social and emotional skills by their teachers.
Both groups scored on average between 3 and 4 on the TCSR, meaning
that the average boy and girl were rated as displaying different social
and emotional skills “sometimes” to “often”. Furthermore, girls (M =
4.09, SD = 0.55) compared to boys (M = 3.93, SD = 0.59) rated them-
selves significantly higher on the social responsibility goals measure,
t(459) = 2.98, p b .01, with small to medium effect (d = .28). However,
again, both gender groups' ratings were in the range of “often” having
the goal to be socially responsible. On the grade 7 math test, girls,
M = 0.03, SD = 0.90, received significantly lower scores than boys,
M = 0.41, SD = 1.01, t(387) = 3.94, p b .001; the magnitude of the
effect was small to medium (d = .40). On the grade 4 math test, girls,
M = .20, SD = .97, received marginally significantly lower scores than
boys, M = .39, SD = .99, t(398) = 1.96, p b .1; the magnitude of the ef-
fect was small (d = .19). There were no significant differences for boys
(M = −.14, SD = .96) and girls (M = −.01, SD = .96) on the grade 7
reading test, t(397) = 1.26, ns. Similarly girls (M = .20, SD = .86) and
boys (M = .04, SD = .94) did not score differently on the grade 4 reading
test, t(394) = 1.72, ns.
Predicting grade 7 reading scores
A hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted to investi-
gate whether perceived social responsibility goals and teacher-rated so-
cial–emotional skills predicted reading comprehension scores in grade
7, controlling for grade 4 reading, gender and ESL (see Table 3). Model
1, including gender and ESL, was not statistically significant, adjusted
R2 b .001, F(2, 347) = 1.014, ns; none of the control variables were sig-
nificant. Adding grade 4 reading scores, Model 2 was statistically signif-
icant, adjusted R2 = .369, F(3, 346) = 69.128, p b .001, and explained
37.5% of the variance in grade 7 reading scores. Grade 4 reading was a
positive and statistically significant predictor in the Model.
Entering social responsibility goals in the next step, Model 3 ex-
plained 39% of the variance in grade 7 reading scores, adjusted R2 =
.383, F(4, 345) = 55.117, p b .001. The change in explained variance be-
tween Models 2 and 3 was statistically significant, R2 change = .015,
Fchange(1, 345) = 8.555, p b .001. In particular, results indicated that
an increase of social responsibility by 1 was associated with an increase
of reading achievement by .302. Table 3 shows that both grade 4 reading
scores and social responsibility goals significantly and positively
predicted grade 7 reading scores in Model 3. Adding teacher-rated
social–emotional skills in the next step, Model 4 explained 41% of the
variance in grade 7 reading scores, adjusted R2 = .398, F(5, 344) =
47.240, p b .001.2 Again, the change in explained variance between
Models 3 and 4 was statistically significant, R2 change = .017,
Fchange(1, 344) = 9.988, p b .001. An increase of teacher-rated so-
cial–emotional skills by 1 was associated with an increase of reading
2
Further analyses were also conducted to investigate which of the 4 TCRS subscales are
predictors of grade 7 reading. Four separate regression analyses (identical to the ones pre-
sented in this study) were conducted in which the TCRS composite was replaced with one
TCRS subscale at a time. Results indicated that all 4 subscales significantly predicted read-
ing outcomes, with Task Orientation and Frustration Tolerance being the strongest
predictors.
 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147 143

Table 1
Means, SDs, and Pearson product–moment correlations among all variables.

Mean (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Gendera –
2. ESL −.043 –
3. Social responsibility goals 4.00 (.58) .138⁎⁎ −.018 –
4. Teacher-rated social–emotional skills 3.44 (.90) .117⁎ −.039 .246⁎⁎⁎ –
5. Gr. 4 math −.30 (.98) −.098 −.023 .088 .265⁎⁎⁎ –
6. Gr. 4 reading −.11 (.90) .086 −.126⁎ .177⁎⁎⁎ .348⁎⁎⁎ .655⁎⁎⁎ –
7. Gr. 7 math −.24 (.98) −.197⁎⁎⁎ .198⁎⁎⁎ .116⁎ .231⁎⁎⁎ .614⁎⁎⁎ .392⁎⁎⁎ –
8. Gr. 7 reading −.08 (.96) .063 .003 .224⁎⁎⁎ .374⁎⁎⁎ .526⁎⁎⁎ .603⁎⁎⁎ .571⁎⁎⁎
a
0 = English, 1= ESL; b 0 = male, 1 = female.
⁎ p b .05; ⁎⁎ p b .01; ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

Table 2 p b .001). For girls, there was no significant association between social
Pearson product–moment correlations between TCRS subscales and grade 7 reading and responsibility goals and reading comprehension (slope lines was b =
math achievement.
−.023, t = −.23, ns).
TCRS subscale Grade 7 reading Grade 7 math

Frustration tolerance .305⁎⁎ .202⁎⁎

Assertive social skills .320⁎⁎ .172⁎
Task orientation .405⁎⁎ .302⁎⁎
Peer social skills .248⁎⁎ .108⁎
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
achievement by .152.3 Last, entering the interaction between gender
and social responsibility goals in the classroom, the full Model explained
42% of the variance in grade 7 reading scores adjusted R2 = .407, F(6,
343) = 40.857, p b .001. The interaction term significantly added to
the explained variance between Models 4 and 5, R2 change = .010,
Fchange(1, 343) = 5.170, p b .001.4 The interaction term was negatively
statistically significant. Grade 4 reading scores, social responsibility
goals, and teacher-rated social–emotional skills also remained as signif-
icant and positive predictors for grade 7 reading scores in the full Model.
The semipartial correlation coefficients indicated the unique contribu-
tion of social responsibility to reading outcomes was 2% (sr = .132),
and the unique contribution of social–emotional skills was 2% (sr =
.129) in the full model. Follow-up analyses were conducted next to un-
derstand the nature of the interaction term.
Simple slopes analysis
Post-hoc analyses of the significant interaction term were conducted
according to the guidelines of Aiken and West (1991) to further decom-
pose the significant interaction between gender and social responsibili-
ty goals. First, reading comprehension at high and low levels of social
responsibility goals was plotted separately for boys and girls. Next, sim-
ple slopes analyses were conducted to determine whether the
slopes of the plotted regression lines were significantly different from
zero (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Fig. 1 and Table 3 indicate that
the association between social responsibility goals in grade 6 and read-
ing comprehension in grade 7 differed for boys and girls. Specifically, a
positive significant relation between grade 6 social responsibility goals
and reading comprehension in grade 7 was found for boys (slope line
was statistically significantly different from zero; b = .302, t = 3.376,
3
Similarly, if teacher-rated social–emotional skills were entered in Block 3 instead of
Block 4 (i.e., before controlling for social-responsibility goals), they added a significant
change in explained variance of 2.4% in grade 7 reading scores, Fchange(1, 345) =
13.572, p b .001. The overall pattern of the results remained the same when subsequently
entering social responsibility goals in Block 4; social responsibility goals contribute a sig-
nificant amount of 1% to the variance explained in grade 7 reading scores, Fchange(1,
344) = 5.035, p b .05.
4
The interaction term between gender and teacher-rated social–emotional skills was
not statistically significant and were therefore not included in the model.
Predicting grade 7 math scores
Similarly, to understand whether perceived social responsibility
goals and teacher-rated social–emotional skills predicted math scores
in grade 7, a hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted
using the same predictive model as reported for reading comprehen-
sion. Model 1, including gender and ESL, was statistically significant,ad-
justed R2 = .062, F(2, 339) = 12.249, p b .001; the model explained 6%
of the variance in grade 7 math scores. Gender was statistically signifi-
cant with boys achieving higher math scores than girls on average,
and ESL was statistically significant with students whose first language
was not English achieving higher scores than native speakers on
average in grade 7. Adding grade 4 math scores in the next step,
Model 2 was statistically significant, adjusted R2 = .260, F(3, 338) =
41.001, p b .001, and explained 27% of the variance in grade 7 math
scores. Grade 4 reading was a positive statistically significant predictor
in the Model, and the predictive pattern of the control variables
remained the same as in the previous model. Adding grade 4 math
scores led to a significant change in the explained variance, R2 change
= .199, Fchange(1, 338) = 91.943, p b .001.
Entering social responsibility goals in the next step, the explained var-
iance in grade 7 math scores did not change significantly, R2 change =
.003, Fchange(1, 337) = 1.396, ns. Adding teacher-rated social–
emotional skills in the next step, Model 4 explained 28% of the variance
in grade 7 math scores, adjusted R2 = .268, F(5, 336) = 17.188, p b .001.
The change in explained variance between Models 3 and 4 was statisti-
cally significant, R2 change = .009, Fchange(1, 336) = 4.197, p b .05.5
Teacher-rated social–emotional skills significantly and positively
predicted grade 7 math scores.6 In particular, an increase in social–
emotional skills by 1 was associated with an increase in math
achievement scores by .113. Grade 4 math scores and the control
variables remained statistically significant with the same predictive
pattern as in the previous models.7 The semipartial correlation
5
Similarly, if teacher-rated social–emotional skills were entered in Block 3 in-
stead of Block 4 (i.e., before controlling for social-responsibility goals), they added
a significant change in explained variance of 1.1% in grade 7 math scores,
Fchange(1, 337) = 5.116, p b .05. The overall pattern of the results remained the
same when subsequently entering social responsibility goals in Block 4; social re-
sponsibility goals did not contribute significantly to the variance explained in
grade 7 math scores.
6
Four further analyses were conducted substituting the overall TCRS composite with
each of the four TCRS subscales. Results indicated that Task Orientation followed by Frus-
tration Tolerance were significant predictors of math outcomes among the four subscales.
7
Neither the interaction term between gender and social responsibility nor the interac-
tion term between gender and teacher-rated social–emotional skills were statistically sig-
nificant and were therefore not included in the model.
144 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147

Table 3
Hierarchical linear regression predicting grade 7 reading comprehension and math scores.

Block Variable name Grade 7 reading Grade 7 math

B SE β t B SE β t

1 ESLa
.044 .107 .022 .413 .313 .105 .156 2.972⁎⁎
Gender .139 .101 .074 1.377 −.387 .100 −.203 −3.878⁎⁎⁎
2 ESL .196 .086 .098 2.288⁎ .435 .094 .216 4.600⁎⁎⁎
Gender .030 .081 .016 .376 −.487 .090 −.256 −5.424⁎⁎⁎
Gr. 4 reading/math .671 .047 .615 14.289⁎⁎⁎ .508 .053 .453 9.588⁎⁎⁎
3 ESL .193 .085 .096 2.374⁎ .431 .094 .215 4.563⁎⁎⁎
Gender .003 .080 .001 .033 −.487 .090 −.256 −5.424⁎⁎⁎
Gr. 4 reading/math .645 .047 .592 13.666⁎⁎⁎ .495 .054 .442 9.162⁎⁎⁎
Self-reported social responsibility goals .204 .070 .126 2.925⁎⁎ .093 .078 .057 1.182
4 ESL .191 .084 .096 2.285⁎ .431 .094 .214 4.583⁎⁎⁎
Gender −.023 .080 −.012 −.290 −.505 .090 −.265 −5.624⁎⁎⁎
Gr. 4 reading/math .597 .049 .547 12.152⁎⁎⁎ .462 .056 .412 8.212⁎⁎⁎
Self-reported social responsibility goals .158 .070 .098 2.244⁎ .056 .080 .034 .705
Teacher-rated social–emotional skills .155 .049 .145 3.160⁎⁎ .113 .055 .104 2.049⁎
5 ESL .199 .083 .099 2.391⁎
Gender −.016 .079 −.008 −.198
Gr. 4 reading/math .590 .049 .541 12.068⁎⁎⁎
Self-reported social responsibility goals .302 .092 .187 3.272⁎⁎
Teacher-rated social–emotional skills .152 .049 .142 3.131⁎⁎
Gender × self-reported social responsibility goals −.325 .136 −.132 −2.390⁎
a
0 = English, 1 = ESL; b 0 = male, 1 = female; c In analyses where grade 7 reading comprehension was the outcome, grade 4 reading comprehension scores were entered as a control
variable; in analyses where grade 7 math achievement scores were the outcome, grade 4 math scores were entered as a control variable.
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

coefficient indicated that the unique contribution of social–emotion-
al skills was 1% (sr = .094).
Discussion
Past theory and research have suggested that social–emotional and
academic competencies are inextricably interconnected (e.g., Durlak
et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003). Given that the research examining
links between social and emotional learning and academic achievement
is still in a nascent stage, researchers have posited a need for more large-
scale empirical research to better understand the relation between so-
cial and emotional skills and academic success (e.g., Hawkins et al.,
2008; Malecki & Elliot, 2002; National Research Council, 2012). The
main goal of the present study was to investigate whether self- and
teacher-reported SECs in early adolescence play a significant role in fu-
ture academic achievement in the domains of math and reading. More-
over, given that previous research has indicated gender differences in
social and emotional, as well as the academic domains (e.g., Bosacki &
Astington, 1999; Brackett et al., 2004; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990;
1
Reading Comprehension Grade 7
Jaffee & Hide, 2000; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2003), a further aim of the
present study was to explore whether differences exist for boys and
girls when predicting academic success from SEC. In the following par-
agraphs, the findings will be discussed in line with the existing litera-
ture as well as considering their practical relevance. Given that the
findings in the present study differed for the two academic subjects of
investigation, we will first discuss the findings for predicting reading
outcomes, followed by math outcomes. Last, we will consider limita-
tions of the study, and provide suggestions for future research.
SEC and reading comprehension
As hypothesized and in accordance with previous findings (e.g., Elias
& Haynes, 2008; Malecki & Elliot, 2002; Welsh et al., 2001), the present
study revealed that reading achievement in grade 7 could be indepen-
dently predicted from early adolescents' perceptions of their own social
responsibility goals, and from teachers' reports of students' SEC at the
end of grade 6, controlling for prior reading scores in grade 4. Although
our analyses revealed that previous achievement in reading accounted
for the largest amount of variance in grade 7 reading scores, we found
that teacher and student reported SEC jointly explained an additional
4% of variability in reading scores. This is important because it adds to

the emerging evidence that has established positive connections be-

0.5 tween social–emotional competence and academic success (Caprara
et al., 2000; Hawkins et al., 2008; Izard et al., 2001; Seider et al.,
2013). Further analyses that took into account the role of gender, indi-
0
cated a significant interaction between social responsibility goals and
Boys
gender when predicting change in reading scores. Specifically, social re-
-0.5 Girls sponsibility goals significantly predicted an increase in reading achieve-
ment in boys, but not in girls.
Differences in the way social responsibility goals predicted reading
-1
outcomes for boys and girls in our study can be understood by consider-
ing gender differences in overall social competencies. In fact, previous
-1.5 research with early adolescents and young adults has indicated that,
Low High on average, girls tend to score higher on measures of social and emo-
Social Responsibility Goals tional understanding, and they also tend to report a stronger orientation
toward behaving in prosocial ways than boys (Bosacki & Astington,
Fig. 1. Interaction effect of gender × social responsibility goals on grade 7 reading. 1999; Brackett et al., 2004; Jaffee & Hide, 2000; Rose & Asher, 1999). A
 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
similar finding emerged in the present study, with girls reporting signif-
icantly higher social responsibility goals on average than boys, and the
variability in those scores was lower for girls than for boys. Despite
this statistically significant difference, it needs to be noted – with re-
spect to practical importance – that for both genders, social responsibil-
ity scores were similarly in the higher range of socially responsibility
goals. It is possible that the higher cohesion in girls' social responsibility
goals and greater variability in boys' social responsibility goals contrib-
uted to finding a positive relation between social responsibility goals
and reading achievement in boys only.
In contrast to the predictive pattern for student's social responsibil-
ity goals, the significant role of teacher-rated social–emotional skills did
not differ for boys and girls. In accordance with previous research in the
field, this finding indicates that teachers' reports of students' social–
emotional skills, and behaviors in the school context are positively relat-
ed to indicators of positive adjustment and achievement in the class-
room (Gardner et al., 2008; Kersting et al., 2010; Merrell et al., 2011;
Ryan et al., 2005, 2012). This finding is important because it indicates
that academic success in reading can be predicted from teachers' obser-
vations of a broad range of skills and behaviors in classroom and school-
specific social and emotional domains (Hightower et al., 1986).
Finally, the two assessments of SEC in the present study captured
critical perspectives (i.e., student, teacher) as well as different domains
(i.e., goals/intentions, observed behaviors/skills) representing social
and emotional development in early adolescents. Combing measures
that assess students' perspectives in addition to teachers' perspectives
is important because they reflect multiple critical voices when reporting
relevant indicators for SEC in early adolescence. Furthermore, the multi-
informant assessment used in the present study also provided an oppor-
tunity to reflect students' intentions in addition to teachers' observed
actions reflecting students' SEC, and to investigate how far they are con-
sistent in predicting academic reading achievement.
SEC and math achievement
Similar to the findings for reading outcomes, and in line with previ-
ous research, SEC in grade 6 played a significant role when predicting
math achievement in grade 7, after controlling for previous achieve-
ment (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2008; Malecki & Elliot, 2002; Welsh et al.,
2001). Previous achievement scores on the grade 4 math test explained
the largest portion of variance in grade 7 math achievement. SEC signif-
icantly predicted math achievement by explaining an additional 1% in
variance in math scores. In contrast to our findings for reading out-
comes, only teacher-ratings of students' social–emotional skills
emerged as a significant predictor when forecasting changes in math
scores; social responsibility goals were not significantly related to
changes in math achievement. Gender significantly predicted math
achievement in grade 7, with boys scoring higher on the math test
than girls; there were no interactions with gender when predicting
math from SEC indicators. Both findings will be discussed in the order
they are presented here.
Considering explanations for why teacher-ratings of students' so-
cial–emotional skills, but not students' social responsibility goals signif-
icantly predicted math achievement, the nature of the two SEC
measures used in this study needs to be discussed. The teacher measure
(see Hightower et al., 1986) captured four different domains of SEC (i.e.,
assertive social skills, frustration tolerance, peer interactions, task orien-
tation). All four domains have been significantly and positively related
to academic achievement on standardized tests in the past (Trickett,
McBride-Chang, & Putman, 1994). Reporting on four different SEC do-
mains, it can be reasoned that this measure reflects a broad range of so-
cial–emotional skills and behaviors observed by teachers in and outside
the classroom setting that are relevant to positive learning processes
and academic success in all students. In comparison, the self-reported
social responsibility goals measure (Wentzel, 1993) only captured one
SEC domain — the intention to act in socially responsible and compliant
145
ways. Hence, the self-report measure reflects early adolescents' percep-
tions of their own social goals and intentions, rather than observed be-
haviors in the school setting. It is possible that students' goals and
intentions to be socially responsible only partially translate into actual
behaviors, and that social responsibility goals are therefore an overall
weaker predictor for math achievement than teacher-rated social–emo-
tional skills which presents an aggregation of several indicators and re-
flects a range of social–emotional skills (Merrell et al., 2011; Ryan et al.,
2005). Last, the teacher-rated social–emotional skills measure captured
skills that are more learning-related than the social responsibility goals
measure. It has been argued that learning-related social–emotional
skills, acting responsibly in group work and staying on task are especial-
ly conducive to learning and may therefore present a stronger predictor
for academic outcomes (Cooper & Farran, 1991; McCleland, Morrison, &
Holmes, 2000).
The present study also revealed overall gender differences in math
achievement, with boys performing significantly better than girls on av-
erage on the grade 7 standardized math test. This finding aligns with
previous research, indicating small differences in math achievement fa-
voring boys with the onset of adolescence, typically found to emerge in
the late elementary or early high-school years (Guiso, Monte, Sapienza,
& Zingales, 2008; Hyde et al., 1990). Similar to the studies reported by
Hyde et al. (1990) in their meta-analytic review, the size of the gender
difference effect for math achievement was small to medium in the
present study. It is also noteworthy to mention that in contrast to
math achievement in grade 7, the gender differences for math achieve-
ment in grade 4 were only marginal in the present study, with the same
trend toward favoring boys. Again, this finding is in line with previous
research indicating that differences in math achievement seem to be
less apparent in the earlier elementary school years and become larger
throughout the later elementary and early high school years (Hyde
et al., 1990). This developmental trend is thought to occur due to a con-
tinuous decline in girls' competence-beliefs and values in math
throughout elementary and high school compared to boys (Jacobs,
Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2004);
this decline in turn has been argued to be a result of gender-role stereo-
typic socialization (Jacobs, 1991; Ruble & Martin, 1998).
Practical contribution
The present study provides further evidence for the importance of
SEC in predicting academic achievement in the two domains of reading
and math (Caprara et al., 2000; DiPerna & Elliott, 2000; Durlak et al.,
2011; Elias & Haynes, 2008; Izard et al., 2001; Malecki & Elliot, 2002;
Welsh et al., 2001). Specifically, they indicate that both social goals in
the classroom as well as behaviors that indicate SEC need to be consid-
ered when examining academic success in reading and math. This find-
ing can inform the design of classroom interventions in that it identifies
areas of social and emotional development that can be targeted in SEL
programs, and that significantly predict academic outcomes. Further-
more, in accordance with previous recommendations (see National
Research Council, 2012), the different relational patterns for social re-
sponsibility goals compared to teacher-rated social–emotional skills in
predicting academic achievement suggest distinguishing among indi-
vidual indicators of SEC, and taking into account multiple perspectives
when assessing and promoting social–emotional skills in educational
contexts.
The benefits of SEL promotion have been established in previous
meta-analytic research. Durlak et al. (2011) found that promoting SEL
through universal interventions boosts academic outcomes by 11 per-
centile points, increases motivation to learn and cooperative behavior
in the classroom, decreases disruptive behavior and non-compliance,
and decreases emotional distress. Hence, SEL promotion benefits not
only academic achievement, but also the well-being and positive devel-
opment of “the whole student.” Considering the cost–benefit ratio of
SEL promotion, Zins et al. (2004) note that in effective SEL programs,
146 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
the benefits have been found to outweigh the costs, with benefits in-
cluding improved educational outcomes, lower substance use, reduced
crime, and decreased mental health problems. Overall, identifying im-
portant indicators of social success that predict academic achievement
in early adolescence, the findings in the present study inform the devel-
opment of potential intervention programs aimed to foster social goals
and skills that may in turn enhance positive academic growth.
Limitations and future directions
A number of limitations need to be considered when interpreting the
results of the present study. First, although the present study predicted
academic achievement longitudinally, self-reports and teachers' reports
of social–emotional skills were only provided at one time point — at the
end of the school year in grade 6. As discussed by Welsh et al. (2001),
studies investigating the relation between social, emotional, and aca-
demic success should ideally obtain indicators of SEC and academic
achievement at several points in the longitudinal data collection in
order to test a circular model in which present SEC may predict future
academic achievement and present academic achievement may also
predict future SEC. Second, the present study was conducted with
early adolescents from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. More re-
search is needed to understand whether the present findings replicate in
specific sub-groups of the population, for instance affluent or socioeco-
nomically disadvantaged early adolescents in particular. Future research
also needs to investigate the role of variables that may influence SEC at a
school or classroom level, such as teachers' experiences with and atti-
tudes toward SEC promotion, teacher mobility, and size of the school.
Furthermore, the study of SEC predicting academic success also needs
to be conducted across several stages of development to allow identify-
ing trajectories in social, emotional, and academic development. Last, fu-
ture research needs to be conducted to further replicate and further
investigate gender differences in SEC related to academic achievement.
In conclusion, the present study provides an important contribution
to the growing field of developmental science that connects social, emo-
tional, and academic growth. Specifically, the present findings provide
empirical evidence that social and emotional development plays a sig-
nificant role in predicting academic success, suggesting that advances
in SEC may be a way to promote academic growth. These findings are
important because they highlight the contention that the focus of
schooling needs to remain on “the whole child” rather than exclusively
on teaching academic subjects (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000; Elias & Haynes,
2008). Both research and practice need to focus on integrating academic
and social–emotional development rather than viewing them as two
separate domains. Adding to the scientific evidence that views SEC
and academic achievement as closely interrelated, the present study
suggests that SEC needs to be a focus of early adolescent development
in both research and practice, and that fostering and promoting social
and emotional growth may be a crucial way to raise responsible and
competent learners and citizens in society (Greenberg et al., 2003).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, London, England: Sage.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the
Schools, 45, 369–386.
Aronson, J. (2002). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on ed-
ucation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). School connectedness—strengthening health and ed-
ucation outcomes for teenagers. Journal of School Health, 74, 229–299.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carli, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., et al. (2007). Social and school
connectedness in early secondary school as predictor of late teenage substance use,
mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40,
357e9–357e18.
Bosacki, S., & Astington, J. W. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations be-
tween social understanding and social competence. Social Development, 8, 237–255.
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation
to everyday behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–1402.
Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2009). Self-regulation and its relations
to adaptive functioning in low income youths. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79,
19–30.
Caprara, C. V., Barabaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000).
Prosocial foundations of children's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11,
302–306.
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in ado-
lescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1101–1113.
Cohen, J. (2001). Social emotional education: Core principles and practices. In J. Cohen
(Ed.), Caring classrooms/intelligent schools: The social emotional education of young
children (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for
learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76,
201–237.
Cooper, D. H., & Farran, D. C. (1991). The Cooper–Farran Behavioral Rating Scales. Brandon,
VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.
Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Work, W. C., Kim, J. Y., Fagen, D. B., & Magnus, K. B. (1997).
Follow-up study of young stress-affected and stress-resilient urban children.
Development and Psychopathology, 9, 565–577.
DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). The academic competence evaluation scales. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgely, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education, Vol. 3. (pp. 139–186). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment
fit. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp.
404–434) (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eccles, J. S., Vida, M. N., & Barber, B. (2004). The relation of early adolescents' college plans
and both academic ability and task-value beliefs to subsequent college enrollment.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 63–77.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Elias, M. J., & Haynes, M. N. (2008). Social competence, social support, and academic
achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, 474–495.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al.
(1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Elliott, S. N., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2001). New directions in social skills assess-
ment and intervention for elementary and middle school students. Exceptionality, 9,
19–32.
Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M. (2008). Adolescent self-regulation as resil-
ience: Resistance to antisocial behavior within the deviant peer context. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 273–284.
Garner, P. W. (2010). Emotional competence and its influences on teaching and learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 22, 297–321.
Garner, P. W., & Waajid, B. (2012). Emotion knowledge and self-regulation as predictors
of preschoolers' cognitive ability, classroom behavior, and social competence. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 330–343.
Gil-Olarte Marquez, P., Palomera Martin, R., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotional
intelligence to social competence and academic achievement in high school students.
Psychothema, 18, 118–223.
Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Transitions and turning points: Navigating the pas-
sage from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 768–776.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al.
(2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordi-
nated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System manual. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science,
320, 1164–1165.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Effects of
social development intervention in childhood 15 years later. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 1133–1141.
Hightower, A. D., Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Lotyczewski, B. S., Spinell, A. P., Guare, J. C.,
et al. (1986). The teacher–child rating scale: A brief objective measure of elementary
children's school problem behaviors and competencies. School Psychology Review, 16,
239–255.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstorm, E. (2001). Emotion
knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at
risk. Psychological Science, 12, 18–23.
Jacobs, J. E. (1991). The influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child math attitudes:
Differences across grade−levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 518–527.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in
children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades
one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527.
 E. Oberle et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35 (2014) 138–147
Jaffee, S., & Hide, S. J. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.
January, A. M., Casey, R. J., & Paulson, D. (2011). A meta-analysis of classroom-wide inter-
ventions to build social skills: Do they work? School Psychology Review, 40, 242–256.
Janus, M., & Offord, D. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the early de-
velopment instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 1–22.
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From pro-
grams to strategies. Social Policy Report, 4, 1–33.
Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based
social–emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in translational develop-
mental research. Child Development, 82, 533–554.
Kershaw, P., Irwin, L., Trafford, K., & Hertzman, C. (2005). (1st ed.)The British Columbia atlas
of child development, Vol. 40, Vancouver, BC: Human Early Learning Partnership/
Western Geographical Press.
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers' analyses of class-
room video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel
measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 172–181.
Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The child behavior scale: A teacher-report measure of
young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 1008–1024.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274–283.
Lloyd, J. E. V., & Hertzman, C. (2009). From kindergarten readiness to fourth-grade assess-
ment: Longitudinal analysis linked with population data. Social Sciences and Medicine,
68, 111–123.
Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic
achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23.
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early aca-
demic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15, 307–329.
McLaughlin, C., & Clarke, B. (2010). Relational matters: A review of the impact of school
experience on mental health in early adolescence. Educational and Child Psychology,
27, 91–103.
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices.
Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 20, 20–32.
McMillan, J. H. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment de-
cision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational measurement: Issues
and practice, 22, 34–43.
Merrell, K. W., Bradley, C. P., & Karalyn, T. M. (2011). Development and validation of a
teacher report measure for assessing social–emotional strengths of children and ad-
olescents. School Psychology Review, 40, 226–241.
Ministry of Education British Columbia (2011). Foundational Skills Assessment (FSA). Re-
trieved from. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/assessment/fsa/
National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable
knowledge and skills in the 21st century. In James W. Pellegrino, & Margaret L.
Hilton (Eds.), Committee on defining deeper learning and 21st century skills, board on
testing and assessment and board on science education, division of behavioral and social
sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2013). Relations among peer acceptance, inhibitory
control, and math grade in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 45–51.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, M. W. (1998). Assessing children's peer relationships. Child
Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 3, 176–182.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interac-
tions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 437–448.
Public, Agenda (2002). A lot easier said than done: Parents talk about raising children in
today's America. New York, NY: Author.
Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children's goals and strategies in response to conflicts
within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 69–79.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achieve-
ment and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individual-
istic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246.
Ruble, D., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender. In & N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
chology (5th ed.)In & W. Damon (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality
development, Vol. 3. (pp. 993–1016). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R. S., Shin, H., & Thompson, G. N. (2012). Social achievement goals
and adjustment at school during early adolescence. In A. M. Ryan, & G. W. Ladd
147
(Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school (pp. 165–186). Charlotte, NC: Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
Ryan, A. M., Patrick, H., & Shim, S. O. (2005). Differential profiles of students identified by
their teacher as having avoidant, appropriate, or dependent help-seeking tendencies
in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 275–285.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Sociometric status and children's peer expe-
riences: Use of the daily diary method. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 427–452.
Seider, S., Gilbert, J., Novick, S., & Gomez, J. (2013). The role of moral and performance
character strengths in predicting achievement and conduct among urban middle
school students. Teachers College Record, 115, 1.18.
Shim, S. S., Ryan, A. M., & Anderson, C. J. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement dur-
ing early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in
growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655–671.
Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept,
performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles, 50, 241–252.
Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in
Cognitive Science, 9, 69–74.
Stroud, L. R., Foster, E., Papandonatos, G. D., Handwerger, K., Granger, D. A., Kivlighan, K. T.,
et al. (2009). Stress response and the adolescent transition: Performance versus peer
rejection stressors. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 47–68.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Taylor, R. D., & Dymnicki, A. B. (2007). Empirical evidence of social and emotional learn-
ing’s influence on school success: A commentary on “Building Academic Success on
Social and Emotional Learning: What does the Research say“. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 17, 2–3.
Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2009). Emotional self-regulation, peer rejection, and an-
tisocial behavior: Development associations from early childhood to early adoles-
cence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 356–365.
Trickett, P. K., McBride-Chang, C., & Putman, F. W. (1994). The classroom performance
and behavior of sexually abused females. Development and Psychopathology, 6,
183–194.
Weissberg, R. P., Cowen, E. L., Loyyczewski, B. S., Boike, M. F., Orara, N. A., Stalonas, P., et al.
(1987). Teacher ratings of children's problem and competence behaviors: Normative
and parametric characteristics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15,
387–401.
Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence—
enhancement and prevention programs. In I. E. Siegel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Hand-
book of child psychology (5th ed.)Child psychology in practice, Vol. 4. (pp. 877–954).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O'Neil, R. (2001). Linkages between children's so-
cial and academic development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology,
39, 463–481.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement
in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066–1078.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relations between social responsibil-
ity and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of mul-
tiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–20.
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom be-
havior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173–182.
Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In K. H. Rubin, W. M.
Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups
(pp. 531–547). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Whitted, K. S. (2011). Understanding how social and emotional skill deficits contribute to
school failure. Preventing school failure: Alternative education for children and youth,
55, 10–16.
Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle ad-
olescence. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychol-
ogy (pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic
success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Zsolnai, A. (2002). Relationship between children's social competence, learning motiva-
tion, and school achievement. Educational Psychology, 22, 317–329.