Formations of Attachment Relationships towards Teachers Lead to Conclusions for Public Child Care

1 Attachment to Parents and Child Development: Results from Longitudinal Studies

Central to attachment theory is the notion that relational experiences with primary caregivers during the first years of life lay an important foundation for later development. As young children are not able to regulate their feelings autonomously, they rely on the external regulation by a familiar adult. Repeated experiences of external regulation become internalized and lead to the development of an internal working model of attachment that guides child’s perception and behavior in future situations. Moreover, these internalized experiences seem to lay the foundation for an inner organization of the child, which is reflected in characteristic ways in how children approach new situations and deal with challenging or stressful situations in and outside the family (Bowlby, 1988).

Results from major longitudinal studies on attachment that have followed children from birth into young adulthood demonstrate that the child’s cumulative history of sensitive parenting and quality of attachment during the first years of life is a strong predictor for later adjustment and development (see Grossmann, Grossmann, & Waters, 2005). However, development is best understood if we take into account attachment experiences with different caregivers at different times and how all these experiences merge together (e.g., Suess & Sroufe, 2005).

During infancy and toddlerhood, security of attachment is a predominantly dyadic construct. Consequently, quality of the child’s relationship to the parents is strongly related to their physical presence. During the preschool years, however, individual differences in the child’s attachment behavior can be observed, even in the absence of both parents (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). This suggests that these differences cannot be explained exclusively by characteristics of the parent-child relationship, but they seem to reflect the inner organization of the child to some extent (see Ainsworth, 1985; Suess & Sroufe, 2005). Attachment related differences have been observed in many domains, e.g., in patterns of behavior and self-regulation, in the formation of peer relationships, and levels of social perception and social understanding (e.g., Grossmann et al., 2005; Sroufe et al., 2005). In the Regensburg Longitudinal Study (Grossmann et al., 1997; Suess, Grossmann, & Sroufe, 1992), for example, when five-year-old children were observed in kindergarten and play groups with familiar peers, children with a secure history of attachment showed longer periods of concentrated play, fewer social conflicts and more autonomous conflict resolution. They showed less withdrawal, had a higher level of impulse control and less hostility than children with an anxious history of attachment. In addition, results from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study (Sroufe et al., 2005) demonstrated that during the preschool period, children who were securely attached to their mothers exhibited higher self-esteem, greater flexibility and ability to act, higher levels of involvement and positive affect, and low frustration scores as a well as more flexibility when dealing with frustrations. Moreover, in both studies, children with a secure attachment history not only exhibited more competent behavior; they were also rated higher in ego-resiliency by their preschool teachers than children with insecure histories (Grossmann & Grossmann, 2004; Sroufe et al., 2005). As ego resiliency refers to the capacity for self-regulation, this link provides support for the assumption that experiences of dyadic regulation in primary attachment relationships might be an important foundation for self-regulation later in life. In sum, the reported findings demonstrate how an inner organization emerges from early patterns of dyadic regulation in the relationship with primary caregivers. While changes in the child’s behavior and adjustment are closely linked to changes in the caregiver’s behavior during the first years of life, beginning with the preschool years, the child’s own contribution to the formation of relationships becomes increasingly important. In addition, corrective relational experiences with parents, non-parental caregivers, teachers or other adults may become gradually more difficult (e.g., Suess & Sroufe, 2005). Nonetheless, change remains possible at all stages of attachment development and experiences of social support are believed to be one of the strongest factors in explaining change. Moreover, if children spend a lot of time in early childhood settings outside the home, these relationships are considered to be an important context for consolidating or changing relational models formed earlier in life.

2 Attachment and Teacher-Child Relationships

Although relationships between children and their preschool teachers might usually not meet all criteria for a full-blown attachment relationship, children might develop close relationships with non-parental caregivers who, at least for young children, serve attachment needs when the parent is not present. Toddlers in center-based child care or in the care of a child-minder can show the same patterns of attachment and exploration behavior that were described for parental attachments. In order to engage actively and joyfully in exploration, play and learning while enjoying the stimulating environment, young children need to feel confident about their relationships with non-parental caregivers. Thus, the provision of a secure base for exploration and a haven of safety to which the children can return when needed is assumed to be a crucial task in public child care.

During the preschool years, attachment behavior seems to shift from the need for continual guidance, direction, and emotional support towards instrumental support (Sroufe et al., 2005). Specifically, the role of preschool teachers changes gradually towards stimulation and instruction, guidance and limit setting, encouragement of mastery and achievement, and support in interactions with other children (e.g., helping children to deal appropriately with conflict). Nonetheless, close relationships with preschool teachers continue to play an important role for development and learning, which may perhaps be best characterized by a sense of supportiveness and trust which promotes self-regulation, autonomy and secure exploration in older children.

Moreover, research demonstrates significant associations between the quality of mother-child and teacher-child relationships (e.g., Ahnert, Pinquart, & Lamb, 2006; Buyse, Verschueren, & Doumen, 2011; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997). However, associations are generally modest in size and not necessarily concordant (e.g., Howes, Hamilton, & Philipsen, 1998), suggesting various influences on the co-existence of parental and non-parental relationships. In particular, teacher’s sensitivity seems to play an important role in the formation of positive teacher-child relationships (e.g., Ahnert et al., 2006; Buyse et al., 2011). Younger children and children in small groups seem to be more likely to develop secure attachments. This has proved to be more difficult for boys (e.g., Ahnert et al., 2006; Saft & Pianta, 2001), as for children with a minority or migration background (e.g., Howes & Shiver, 2006; Saft & Pianta, 2001) or children with high levels of internalizing or externalizing problem behaviors (e.g., O’Connor, Collins, & Supplee, 2012; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005). Moreover, children’s perceptions of the relationships with teachers in middle childhood could be predicted by the quality of the attachment relationship with the first teachers in early childhood.

In general, research on teacher-child relationships has demonstrated that closeness was found to be predictive for children’s functioning and subsequent development across multiple domains, including socio-emotional development (e.g., Van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004; Verschueren, Doumen, & Buyse, 2012), emotion regulation, coping with stress (e.g., Ahnert, Harwardt-Heinecke, Kappler, Eckstein-Madry, & Milatz, 2012; Little & Kobak, 2003), and behavioral adjustment (e.g., Doumen et al., 2008; O’Connor et al., 2012) or academic performance (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012; see also Sabol & Pianta, 2012 for a review). Moreover, studies that have assessed both mother-child and teacher-child relationships suggest that for most outcomes, the impact of mother-child relationships has generally proved to be stronger than that of teacher-child relationships.

Effects of teacher-child relationships could be observed at the level of physiological regulation (e.g., Ahnert et al., 2012; Lisonbee, Mize, Payne, & Granger, 2008; Hatfield, Hestenes, Kintner-Duffy, & O’Brien, 2013), as well as of self-integration reflected by perceptions of themselves (e.g., Little & Kobak, 2003; Verschueren et al., 2012). These results imply that not only parents but also teachers seem to contribute significantly to the development of an inner organization of the child. Moreover, close teacher-child relationships appear to have the potential to buffer behaviorally at-risk children against more serious behavior problems (e.g., Buyse et al., 2011; Meehan, Hughes, & Cavell, 2003; Silver et al., 2005). On the other hand, relationships between teachers and behaviorally at-risk children are often difficult and characterized by low closeness and high levels of conflict. Behaviorally challenging children “whose early experiences have predisposed them to consider adult caregivers as unavailable and untrustworthy” (Howes & Speaker, 2008, p. 321) often elicit feelings of anger and helplessness in teachers (Spilt & Koomen, 2009). Not surprisingly, even well-trained preschool teachers proved to be less sensitive and more controlling towards these children (Sroufe et al., 2005).

3 Selected Results from the NUBBEK Study

Aim of NUBBEK (the German National Study of Child Care in Early Childhood; Tietze et al., 2013) has been to examine the links between the quality of care in the family as well as in out-of-home care settings to child development. In total, 1,956 children and their families participated in the study. The sample comprises N = 1,277 four-year-old preschool children and N = 734 two-year-old children who were cared for either exclusively in the family or in out-of-home care for at least 15 hours per week (48.7% boys); 29.8 percent had a Turkish or Russian family background. Data collection in the family included interviews with mothers, self-reports based on questionnaires, natural observations of the home environment, videotaped mother-child interactions, and assessments of children’s cognitive and verbal skills. The quality of the out-of-home care settings were rated by trained observers during a two to three hour visit (using the German version of the ECERS-R, Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998; Tietze, Schuster, Grenner, & Rosbach, 2007).

We analyzed the NUBBEK data in order to examine the links between relationship quality to mothers and childcare teachers, and children’s outcomes, taking into account effects of gender and migration background (see Mayer, Beckh, Berkic, & Becker-Stoll, 2013). Mother’s and teacher’s perception of relationship quality was assessed using a German short version of the STRS (Pianta, 1992). Positive relationships were characterized by high levels of closeness and low levels of conflict. Relationship quality with mothers and teachers showed modest positive correlations, which suggests that relational models with parents are partially carried over to teacher-child relationships. While there were no gender differences regarding the mother-child relationship, teacher-child relationships were less positive for boys, confirming previous studies on the role of gender in the formation of teacher-child relationships (e.g., Ahnert et al., 2006). Moreover, relationship quality with the mother as well as the teacher proved to be slightly less positive for children with a migration background, even if socioeconomic status and maternal education were controlled for. As expected, relationship quality with the mother proved to be the stronger predictor for child outcome. However, teacher-child relationship quality had a unique effect on predicting child outcomes across multiple domains, such as high levels in social, language and receptive vocabulary skills and low levels in problem behaviors. Interestingly, the quality of the teacher-child relationship proved to be more important for boys and for children with a migration background than for all other children. For boys, the association between teacher-child relationship quality and social-emotional skills was significantly stronger than for girls. For migrant children, quality of the teacher-child relationship predicted perceptive language competencies, while communication skills were predictive for these boys (but not for migrant girls).

In general, positive relationships with preschool teachers predicted children’s functioning over and above the effects of the mother-child relationship and other variables of the family environment, such as maternal education, socio-economic status or mother’s migration background. This underscores the significance of teacher-child relationships as an important developmental context. The beneficial effects of teacher-child relationships proved to be stronger for boys and children with a migration background, i.e., for those children who were least likely to form positive relationships with their teacher. In addition, the differential effects of teacher-child relationships were strongest for outcomes that refer to typical “group-specific” weaknesses or vulnerabilities, like social-emotional skills for boys or language skills for children with a migration background.

4 The Role of Teacher Sensitivity in Promoting Secure Teacher-Child Relationships

The idea that the development of secure adult-child relationships is associated with adults’ sensitivity is well documented for the development of mother-child attachments (e.g., van IJzendoorn, 1995). Regarding the development of relationships between children and childcare providers or teachers, empirical evidence on the role of teacher sensitivity in promoting secure child-teacher relationships is mixed. Results from a meta-analysis (Ahnert et al., 2006) have shown that “dyadic sensitivity” of teachers only predicted secure attachment in small groups in home-based care. For larger groups of children in center-based care, only “group-oriented sensitivity” of teachers was revealed to be a significant predictor. Moreover, this effect of group oriented sensitivity has not been found in studies with preschool children (e.g., Buyse et al., 2011; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Mantzicopoulos, 2005) and may thus be limited to young children in home-based daycare.

Despite these somewhat inconsistent effects, we hold that teacher sensitivity is one of the most important predictors of teacher-child relationships, even if the associations are more complex than for early infant-parent dyads. In our view, there are some possible explanations for the lack of consistent effects of teacher sensitivity:

First, observed sensitivity alone may not be a sufficiently good predictor in groups of children, in particular when observation is limited to a short period of time. Especially in groups with a large number of children, it may often be impossible for teachers to react promptly and adequately to all children’s attachment signals and other physiological and emotional needs. Consequently, they continuously have to make decisions about which children’s needs they direct their attention to while at the same time, other children may have to wait or will possibly be ignored.

Second, teacher sensitivity may be more important for children with a history of insecure attachment, as well as behaviorally challenging children, than for secure children. While it may be comparatively easy for teachers to establish warm and supportive relationships with children with a secure history of attachment, a much higher degree of sensitivity may be required in relation to children with a history of insecure attachment. Mentalizing capacities of the teachers, i.e. their capacity to reflect on their own behavior and to take into account the relational causes underlying children’s behavior, may be important determinants of sensitivity in teachers, which possibly prevents them from behaving in a way consistent with children’s relational models (e.g., Zajac & Kobak, 2006).

Third, children themselves behave in a way that elicits reactions from their teacher that are consistent with the relational models they have formed in earlier relationships. For example, children with secure histories were treated in a respectful and age-appropriate way by their teachers, and this supports and expands the child’s autonomy and competence (see Sroufe et al., 2005). In contrast, teachers initiated much more contact with children with insecure histories for discipline and for care. Children with insecure-ambivalent histories were treated in a way that consolidated their immaturity, i.e. they encountered very low expectations regarding acceptable behavior and they received more nurturance from their teachers than all other children. Children with insecure-avoidant backgrounds were observed to behave in a way that elicited anger in the teachers and experiences of rejection were most likely (Sroufe et al., 2005).

To date, only one study has explicitly tested the role of teacher sensitivity as a protective factor in moderating the relation between maternal attachment quality and the relationship with the teacher. Buyse et al. (2011) demonstrated that children who are less securely attached to their mothers were nevertheless capable of forming close relationships with their preschool teachers if teachers were highly sensitive to the children’s needs. Contrary to the meta-analytic results, however, they did not find a general main effect of teachers’ group-oriented sensitivity. When teacher sensitivity was low, children with less secure attachments to their mothers had a higher risk for low closeness in relation to the teacher than children who were more securely attached towards their mothers. When looking more carefully at this interaction effect of mother-child attachment and teacher sensitivity, it becomes apparent that for teachers who were high in observed sensitivity, perceived closeness in the relationship to the child was independent of the quality of mother-child attachment. Teachers with low observed sensitivity, however, reported particularly high closeness with more securely attached children (strikingly higher than more sensitive teachers), and low closeness with less securely attached children. Moreover, teachers’ ratings of aggressive behavior were related to their perceptions of closeness in the relationship but only for children with insecure mother-child attachments. In contrast, highly sensitive teachers may be more able or willing to “see things from the child’s point of view” (Ainsworth, 1969) and were ready to reflect on their feelings toward different children. This eventually leads to a more adequate understanding of the relational causes of problematic behavior and may enable the teacher to support the child in engaging in a relationship that offers the chance of a corrective experience.

5 Teacher Sensitivity, Gender Differences, and Ethnic Diversity

Gender and ethnic mismatches between children and their teachers have proven to be further risk factors for the development of poor teacher-child relationships. Turner (1991, 1993) showed that gender differences in the behavior of children at preschool are restricted to children with an insecure mother-child attachment. Boys with insecure attachments to their mothers displayed significantly more aggressive, disruptive, assertive, controlling, and attention seeking behaviors, as well as fewer positive behaviors than their secure age-mates. They received less guidance, instruction, or help from their preschool teachers, but elicited most discipline and were least compliant with teachers’ discipline. Girls with insecure attachments to their mothers, on the other hand, were well-adjusted, unassertive and compliant, and showed more positive expressions. As a consequence, they received more help, guidance, and instruction from their teachers. From this perspective, it seems plausible that gender differences in teacher-child relationships can be traced back to maternal attachment experience.

Furthermore, an ethnic match between caregiver and child also has an influence on the quality of teacher-child relationships. When teachers were asked to describe their relationships with the children, children who were ethnically mismatched with the teacher evoked negative emotions from these teachers, and the teachers were more likely to report conflictual teacher-child relationships (e.g., Howes & Shivers, 2006; Saft & Pianta, 2001). Children who shared an ethnic heritage with their caregivers, as well as children who did not share an ethnic heritage and experienced low conflict at entry and half a year later, were similar in security. These findings imply that it is more difficult for caregivers to form positive relationships with children when they lack a common cultural background, which may make it more difficult to establish a shared understanding of ways of doing things. Teachers’ sensitivity along with teachers’ capacity to reflect on the meaning of behavior might be particularly important to enable teachers to engage more positively with children who, because of their cultural background, seem unlikethemselves.

6 Promoting Teachers’ Sensitivity

Being sensitive and supportive can be challenging with special children, including, for example, children (boys in particular) with a history of adverse caregiving, with serious behavior problems or with a minority or migration background. To date, we do not know much about the characteristics of professional caregivers and teachers which allow them to deal successfully with difficult children.

As Steele et al. (2014) recapitulate, however, the use of videotaped interactions seems to be effective because “to view one’s own behavior in association with the child’s behavior, to understand the motivational roots of behavior, and to update one’s thinking, permitting new, more flexible ways of engagement” (p. 404). So far, attachment-based trainings and interventions aimed at increasing the sensitivity of teachers are only rarely applied in public child care. Groeneveld, Vermeer, van IJzendoorn, and Linting (2011) reported that slightly modified family-based video-feedback intervention can be applied in professional group settings as well. The effectiveness of the program was tested in home-based child care and proved to be successful in improving global child care quality. In addition, caregivers’ attitudes changed towards a more positive perception of sensitive caregiving; however, the program did not change observed caregiver sensitivity.

Moreover, Spilt, Koomen, Thijs, and van der Leij (2012) provide initial evidence for the effectiveness of an interview-based intervention in promoting teachers’ sensitivity and supportive teacher-child relationships. The relationship-focused reflection program (RFRP) was evaluated in comparison to the interpersonal skills training (IST) that more directly targeted teacher behavior. While the IST proved to be effective in reducing perceived conflict, the RFRP affected both teachers’ relationship perceptions of closeness and conflict and observer-rated sensitivity. Thus, the focus on the representational level rather than on the behavioral level may enable teachers to reorganize their mental representations and obtain new insights that guide their actual responsiveness to children’s needs. Given the difficulties teachers have with forming close and supportive relationships with disruptive children, interventions that focus on teachers’ affective experiences with individual children and that help teachers to develop more flexible and differentiated representations of the relationship with a child through a reflective process seem to be promising approaches to improve teacher’sensitivity.

As a consequence, the education of teachers in public childcare should not only focus on the behavior, but also on teachers’ perception and interpretation of the meaning of children’s behavior. Teachers should be informed about children’s basic psychological needs for relatedness and autonomous exploration and how they manifest themselves at different ages, the relational causes of challenging behavior, as well as about the importance of teacher-child relationships in protecting children against the risk of maladaptation and behavior problems (Zajak & Kobak, 2006). Moreover, teachers should be aware of the fact that, at least from the preschool years onwards, children tend to behave in a way that consolidates their inner organization by eliciting reactions from their relational partners which are consistent with their relational history. In order to prevent this process, teachers should be encouraged to reflect on their feelings and behavioral reactions toward different children, including possible influences of their own personality, and this process should be supported by offering supervision and team consultations on a regular basis.