Relationships between Caregivers and Children: Do Gender and Siblings Influence the
(Dis)continuity of Relationship Dimensions?
Masterscriptie Preventieve Jeugdhulp en Opvoeding
Pedagogische Wetenschappen en Onderwijskunde
Universiteit van Amsterdam
R. van Dalen
10333460
Begeleider: Ruben Fukkink
Tweede beoordelaar: Hend Eltanamly
1 Abstract
This study examined the differences between parents, teachers and care providers in
their relationship with a child, and whether these differences are influenced by child’s gender
and whether or not the child has siblings. It aimed at gaining insight in the broader scope of a
child’s life by being one of the first studies to include respondents from three different environments within a child’s life. The caregivers were compared on three dimensions of
relationship quality measured by the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS): conflict,
dependency and closeness. The sample consisted of 39 parents, 16 teachers and 15 care
providers. The 39 children (48.7% girls and 51.3% boys) reported on were in primary school
and attended an afterschool care facility. Most of these children had siblings (82.1%). The
results, firstly, showed significant differences on all three dimensions, with parents reporting
higher levels of conflict, dependency and closeness compared to the professional educators
(teachers and care providers), but without significant differences between the two professional
educators. There was no significant interaction-effect of either child’s gender or the presence
of siblings. These results provide evidence for the fact that parents and professional educators play different roles in a child’s life and that the relationships with caregivers are not similar.
2 Introduction
More than 500.000 Dutch children spend half of their day outside of their house, at school and
at an afterschool care facility (Central Bureau for Statistics, 2020). Whilst children are
primarily raised by their parents, during their childhood, most children encounter various
nonparental caregivers and by middle childhood, most children are cared for by teachers, care
providers and parents (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997).
The child’s ability to interact and form significant relationships with these figures
outside of the child’s home is founded on the first relationship that children have with their
parents. The quality of the relationships with significant adults is of great importance to both
the social, cognitive and the academic development of children (Prins & Braet, 2014).
When studying children’s social interactions and attachment, most pedagogical and psychological research focusses on either the parent-child attachment relationship or the
teacher-child relationship. A broader scope which combines the different micro-systems has
been missing in the academic field, research that zooms out and includes different key persons
in the life of a child. This scope incorporates the multiple key figures the child interacts with
during the day: from waking up at home, to going to school, an afterschool care facility, and
finishing their day off at home. This study therefore aims at examining and comparing the
multiple worlds in which a child operates and forms relationships.
Attachment Theory: Parents First
According to the classical attachment perspective, children need to develop
relationships with at least one caregiver to ensure that social and emotional development can
occur normally (Bowlby, 1982). Children become attached to parents who are consistently
sensitive and responsive to the child’s behavior, especially in times of distress when the child
seeks proximity and comfort. Their parents function as a safe haven. toddlers use their parents
3 Whilst most children indeed have this secure base and safe haven with a secure attachment to
their parents, some children are insecurely attached. As a result of unpredictable caregiving or
unavailability of parents, children show dismissive or anxious behavior, which shows in
displays of anger or clinginess and helplessness. They learn to ask for attention and safety in a
different way than securely attached children (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978).
This attachment theory sprung from parent-child attachment, but has since been used to
study teacher-child relationships as well (Pianta, 2011). Although parents and nonparental care
providers have unique roles and responsibilities, with nonparental care providers being
responsible for supervising children in groups, the similarities between the features of the care
provided are prevalent (Howes, 1999). Teachers and other significant adults are important
figures in the lives of children and have been shown to be able to provide a safe haven and
secure base just like parents, but this is not completely concurrent with parental attachment
(Verschueren & Koomen, 2012; Verschueren, 2015; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Although there are
differences between a parent-child and a teacher-child relationship, three overarching
dimensions, extracted from attachment theory, can be used to study and compare attachment
and relationship quality in both parents and other significant adults: closeness, conflict and
dependency (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015; Pianta, 2001). Closeness is both the degree of warmth
and positive affect between the child and caregiver, and how comfortable the child is in
approaching the caregiver. Conflict refers to negative interactions and the lack of affinity
between the child and the caregiver (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Dependency reflects the extent in
which a child is possessive or clingy toward the caregiver (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006).
These dimensions were developed to measure adult-child relationships in an
attachment context (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991) and can therefore be used to compare multiple
4 Relationship Development with Significant Adults
Following attachment theory, it is important to examine the relationships of children.
Children have a relationship with their parents first and based on that relationship form mental
representations of interactions and emotions. Mental representations are internal working
models, containing emotions, feelings and ideas about themselves and their significant
relationships (Pianta, Hamre & Stuhlman, 2003). These mental representations influence how
a child responds in a new relationship and what the nature of that relationship will be.
Children with a warm relationship with their parents (in this study, their mother) will more
likely develop an intimate relationship with their teachers as well (Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb,
2006; O’Connor & McCartney, 2006); while children with a more conflictual relationship with their parents, and mother specifically, are more likely to have a difficult relationship with
a teacher (Caputi, Lecce & Pagnin, 2017; Howes, Hamilton & Philipsen, 1998). Some
research suggests, that children are just as likely to develop secure attachments to care
providers as they are to parents, and that the security of these relationships is similar
(Goossens & van IJzendoorn, 1990),
These studies suggest similarity and continuity of relationship quality across micro
systems, but a counterview has been provided. Mental representations can be classified
according to a hierarchical model (Overall, Fletcher & Friesen, 2003). This model provides a
structure, with an encompassing global working model for relationships with people in
general at the top, followed by working models for specific ‘domains’ (i.e. parents, friendship,
romantic relationship), and lastly, working models for specific individuals. Care providers and
teachers are classified within the same domain, whilst parents form their own separate
domain. Following the hierarchical model, children built a global working model from which
they activate certain characteristics. Since the care provider and teacher fall within the same
5 relationship characteristics. The relationship with parents falls within a different domain, and
the representations activated by the child could therefore differ, resulting in other
characteristics and levels of conflict, closeness and dependency (Pianta, 2001).
Others evidence for discontinuity is that 60% of children were securely attached to
their mothers, whilst only 42% were securely attached to their care provider (Ahnert, Pinquart
& Lamb, 2006; Ahnert & Lamb, 2000; Ahnert, Lamb & Seltenheim, 2000). Care providers
need to divide their attention in group care settings and their dyadic sensitivity to a child
therefore diminishes (Goossens & Melhuish, 1996). Sensitivity is an important predictor of
care and attachment and whilst care providers and teachers are trained to be sensitive, the
level of sensitivity is lower in group-settings (De Wolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997). Another
feature that influences the level of sensitivity in a child-care provider relationship is the
discontinuity of the care provider. In the context of a classroom or afterschool care facility,
children are cared for in groups by changing care providers. The time spent together by a
child and a care provider is therefore limited (De Wolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997).
Gendered Relationships: The Risk of Being a Boy
The quality of parent-child-, care provider-child- and teacher-child relationships has
been shown to be depended on child’s gender. The parent-child attachment relationship seems
to be influenced by child’s gender. Gender differences in attachment patterns are found starting from middle childhood, in children from about 6 years of age (Del Giudice, 2008; Del
Giudice, 2009). Whilst studies focusing on early childhood found little to no
gender-differences in attachment, studies focusing on middle and late childhood showed significant
differences. Insecure attached boys were more likely to be classified as avoidant (27% to 2%
ambivalent), showing in low levels of dependency and closeness, whilst insecure attached
girls were mostly ambivalent (25% to 4% avoidant), showing in high levels of dependency,
6 Multiple studies have shown that both students and teachers report child gender
differences in relationship quality as well (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; McCormick & O’Connor,
2015). In general, teachers report more closeness and less conflict in their relationship with
girls compared to boys. In the higher years of primary school, teachers specifically report
more conflict with boys compared to girls and more closeness with girls compared to boys.
This remains when students are asked to report about their relationship with their teacher
(Koomen & Jellesma, 2015).
Child-care provider attachment security was found to significantly vary based on child
gender as well (Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb, 2006). Girls more often developed secure
relationship with their care provider than boys. This difference can be explained by the fact
that most care providers are female, causing them to perform gender-biased behavior which is more in line with girls’ expectations of interactions (Leaper, 2002). This gives girls more grounds for secure attachments to their care provider.
Siblings as a Possible Protective Factor
When looking at a child’s entire day, we potentially overlook an important, constant factor in a child’s life: their siblings. Having siblings could potentially moderate the gendered relationship. The majority of the Western population has one or more siblings (Milevsky,
2011). In most Western countries, siblings live together for most of their childhood, during
which they have daily interactions and often share emotional experiences (Dunn, 2000). In
these daily interactions, children expand their capabilities (Bandura, 1991). Siblings play
many different roles in a child’s lifetime: they can be attachment figures, as well as playmates, protectors and socializers (Davies, 2002). In that capacity, they are uniquely
equipped to provide support and guidance. Sibling relationships are characterized by
closeness and conflict, just like relationships with parents and other significant adults, but due
7 relationships with adults (Noller, 2005). Within a sibling relationship, children learn to
regulate emotions and other social-cognitive skills (Bedford & Volling, 2014; Brown &
Dunn, 1992).
According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), development is facilitated through interactions
with people in a variety of roles. In learning and practicing a role, a child learns its own role,
but also the roles of others that might be complementary. The psychosocial skills that are
attained through sibling interactions are used throughout life in a variety of other social
relationships (Brown & Dunn, 1992).
A positive relationship with a sibling can function as a protective factor in later
relationships (Buist, Dekovic & Prinzie, 2013; Stauffacher & DeHart, 2006). The sibling
relationship influences the cognitive, social and emotional development of a child’s mental representations (Buist, Dekovic & Prinzie, 2013; Stauffacher & DeHart, 2006; Brody, 1998).
A warm and supportive sibling relationship has positive effects on the adaptability of children
(Noller, 2005; Stormshak, Bellanti & Bierman, 1996) and social competency of boys and girls
(Kim et al., 2007). It can also be a protective factor against the development of internalising
problem behaviour after stressful life events (Gass, Jenkins & Dunn, 2007). Sibling affection
is reported to be protective regardless of the gender composition of the sibling dyad (Gass,
Jenkins & Dunn, 2007). A more nuanced impact of siblings is described in comparison: whilst
siblings can promote positive development in children, siblings can also undermine the
individual’s development of emotional self-regulation (Bedford & Volling, 2004).
The Present Study
The scope of research in the individual fields, whether is be the individual parent-child
relationship or the impact of a sibling on a child, is fast. However, as far as we know, little to
no research has focussed on the three worlds in which children grow up: home, school and
8 relationship quality, on the relationship dimensions conflict, closeness and dependency
(Pianta, 2001), between a parent, teacher and care provider of a child. The study furthermore
explores if there is an interaction with child’s gender and having siblings on the potential
differences between the three caregivers.
Research Questions of the Present Study
The study aims to answer the following research questions:
1. To what extent are there differences in the relationship quality of parents, teachers and
care providers with a child?
For this first question, two opposing hypotheses are posed.
Hypothesis 1: A child forms internal working models during childhoods and through these
mental representations is able to build similar relationships with its professional educators as
with its parents. This continuity means that differences in relationship quality will be absent
(Caputi, Lecce & Pagnin, 2017; Howes, Hamilton & Philipsen, 1998; Goossens & van
IJzendoorn, 1990).
Hypothesis 2: Mental representations can be classified in a hierarchical model in which
parents form a separate and different domain than professional educators (Overall, Fletcher &
Friesen, 2003). Children are furthermore less likely to develop secure attachment to their care
providers than their parents (Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb, 2006). Therefore, differences in the
relationship quality between parents and the two types of professional educators are to be
expected.
2. To what extent is there an interaction between gender and caregivers on differences in
relationship quality?
From middle childhood, all caregivers are shown to report differences in their
relationships with boys and girls. For parents, whilst most children are securely attached, the
9 which shows in different levels on the three dimensions (Del Giudice, 2008). Teachers and
care providers generally report more closeness with girls, who are also more likely to develop
secure attachments to them. More conflict is reported with boys, especially in the higher years
of primary school (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015; Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb, 2006). Since these
studies report on the relation of child’s gender with an independent relationship of a care
provider with a child and not on the interdependence of the different relationships, these
studies do not allow for a specific hypothesis in the present study.
3. To what extent is there an interaction between having siblings, gender and caregivers
on differences in relationship quality?
The sibling relationship can influence the development of a child’s mental representations (Buist, Dekovic & Prinzie, 2013; Stauffacher & DeHart, 2006) and the psychosocial skills a
child attains through the interactions with a sibling can be implemented in different
relationships (Brown & Dunn, 1992). That would mean that a child with siblings would be
more likely to develop new positive relationships with caregivers than a child without
siblings. However, the sibling relationship might also undermine a child’s development,
resulting is less positive relationships (Bedford & Volling, 2004). Because of this
differentiation, no specific hypothesis is formulated.
Method
Sample
The sample included 39 children (48.7% girls and 51.3% boys) attending afterschool
care facilities in primary school ages. The respondents were from 23 different afterschool care
facilities throughout the Netherlands. Most children (46,2%) were in group 4 and 5 of primary
school, and 28,2% were toddlers (in groups 1 and 2). Most of the children had siblings (69.2%
10 The 39 parents of the children (97.4% mothers) were between 30 and 53 years old (M
= 39.77, SD = 4.90). The parents are mostly higher educated (82.1% hbo or university degree,
17.9% mbo) and of Dutch origin (92.3%).
The 16 teachers who participated in this study were mostly female and between 23 and
66 years old (M = 38.63, SD = 16.76). Their experience differed from 1 to 46years of
experience as a teacher (M = 14.00, SD = 15.72). They worked 3 to 5 days (M = 4.38, SD =
0.89) as a teacher.
The 15 afterschool care provider who participated in this study were mostly female
(85.7% women and 14.3% men) and between 22 and 54 years old (M = 35.27, SD = 10.38).
Their experience differed from 1 to 13 years of experience as a care provider (M = 6.67, SD =
4.29). They worked 3 to 5 days (M = 3.87, SD = 0.83) as a care provider.
Of the 39 children, 6 cases provided complete data with responses from a parent, a
teacher and a care provider for the same child. For 19 children either a parent and a teacher or
a parent and a care provider participated in the study for the same child. In 14 cases, only data
from a parent was gathered.
Procedure
This study is a continuation and extension of a previously approved study by the
ethical commission of the Research Institute Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam (dossier: 2017-CDE-8657). The continuation was approved in
December 2019 and the study spanned from February 2020 until June 2020. During this
period, schools and care facilities closed and reopened as a result of the COVID-19-pandemic.
The pandemic has had influence on this study, since this was a busy time for location
managers from whom cooperation was required to get access to parents, care providers and
11 In cooperation with two large afterschool care organisations, we contacted Integrale
Kind Centra (IKC’s) and brede scholen throughout the Netherlands. IKC’s and brede scholen have a form of cooperation between school and afterschool care and would therefore enable
us to access the care provider and teacher more easily. The location managers of the
afterschool care facilities were contacted by the managing directors of the afterschool care
organisations first, to ensure trust in and knowledge of the study. We then contacted the
location managers via email and phone to ask them for participation in the research. Location
managers were first asked to forward the online questionnaire in an email or on an online
platform to all parents of children in primary school who attend afterschool care. Location
managers who did not respond or did not participate yet were contacted twice via phone and
three times via email within a period of 6 weeks. Location managers who did participate were
asked to send out a reminder to parents once. Every reminder resulted in a small peak in
responses. All responses were tracked and for each response we contacted the school for
contact information of the teacher, or the teacher directly, and the location manager for
contact information of the specific care provider. Parents provided us with the name of the
teacher and for the specific care provider we consulted the location manager. The teacher and
care provider were then asked to fill in the questionnaire for a maximum of 4 children of
whom a parent had completed the questionnaire. On average, parents spent 10 minutes on the
questionnaire, care providers and teachers spent between 10 and 20 minutes, depending on the
number of children they needed to complete the questionnaire for. Care providers and
teachers completed the questionnaire for a maximum of 4 students in their group. We aimed
to reach as much complete data as possible. A complete data-set would consist of data from a
parent, a teacher and a care provider of one child.
During the data collection, the data was not yet anonymous since it was necessary to
12 permission to contact the care provider and teacher asking them to complete the questionnaire
about their child. The teacher and care provider-questionnaires were only accessed by the
primary researcher who anonymized the data set for analysis. We did have access to the
names of the respondents, since we needed to remind the other locations to complete the
questionnaire. Finally, the data was anonymously stored by deleting all personal info, only
linking the data to each other by using numbers for all children.
Measures
Parents, teachers and care providers were asked to complete the 15-item, Dutch
adaptation of the shortened Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Koomen,
Verschueren & Pianta, 2007) online using Qualtrics. The STRS is used to measure
relationship quality and is widely used as such worldwide. It has three scales, corresponding
with three dimensions of relationships: conflict (eg. ‘Dealing with this child drains my
energy’), closeness (eg. ‘If upset, this child will seek comfort from me’), and dependency (eg. ‘This child is overly dependent on me’). The 15 items are posed in the form of a 5-point Likertscale, from Definitely does not apply (1) until Definitely applies (5).
Its reliability has been tested in previous studies (α = .91 en .90; Koomen et al., 2012).
The STRS has been shown to have sufficient predictive and convergent validity (Koomen et
al., 2007; Koomen et al., 2012; Spilt, Koomen & Jak, 2012). The current study had three
different uses of the measure, one for the parent-child relationship, one for the teacher-child
relationship and one for the care provider-child relationship. For the parent-child relationship
the measure showed moderate reliability, except for closeness which shows low reliability (α
= .41 for closeness, α = .68 for conflict, α = .77 for dependency). For the teacher-child
relationship the measure showed high reliability on closeness (α = .89) and conflict (α = .88)
and moderate reliability on dependency (α = .70). For the care provider-child relationships the
13 conflict, α = .61 for dependency). The measure showed inconsistent reliability. The low
reliability scores can be an effect of small variance between respondents and few items within
the scale (Field, 2013), however this is also likely the effect of ceiling and flooring effects
(Cramer & Howitt, 2005), as 35,9% of parents reported 5 (Definitely applies) on all items of
closeness and 33,3% of care providers reported 1 (Definitely does not apply) on all items of
conflict.
Background. For parents, 5 questions regarding family structure and siblings were added. These questions were used to classify children within a correct group (with or without
siblings) to be able to test for the interaction-effect of siblings.
Analysis
An ANOVA was performed with the three types of respondents (parents, teachers and
care providers) as independent variable and the three dimensions of relationship quality
(conflict, dependency and closeness) as the dependent variable to test possible differences
between the parent-child, teacher-child and care provider-child relationships.
Both gender and having one or more siblings were added as dichotomous factors to
test the interaction between these factors and the differences between respondents on the three
dimensions of relationship quality. Due to the small sample size, the statistical analysis was
complemented with explanatory tables of means and standard deviations to allow for more
insight in the differences. To avoid potential bias, it was decided a priori to employ a
significance level of 0.05.
Results
14 Table 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and range for STRS variables
Parents Care providers Teachers
M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range
Closeness 4.74 (0.28) 4.00 – 5.00 4.11 (0.69) 2.00 – 5.00 4.48 (0.60) 3.00 - 5.00
Dependency 2.23 (0.73) 1.00 – 4.00 1.99 (0.64) 1.00 – 3.00 1.68 (0.52) 1.00 - 3.00
Conflict 2.04 (0.70) 1.00 – 4.00 1.39 (0.42) 1.00 – 2.00 1.18 (0.41) 1.00 - 3.00
Note. Nparents = 39, Nteachers = 16, Ncare providers = 15
Closeness is a positive variable and scores were higher than the negative variables
dependency and conflict. In general, all caregivers reported low levels of conflict with the
child. Parents comparatively reported highest on all three dimensions, with a large range in
levels of dependency and conflict as well. On levels of closeness, parents report with a
smaller range than care providers and teachers.
Differences in Relationship Quality with Parent, Teacher and Care Provider
Three separate ANOVA’s were performed to compare the three respondents on three dimensions of relationship quality. Parents report highest on all three dimensions. The mean
scores per dimension are portrayed in Figure 1. Levene’s test was significant for both conflict
and closeness, meaning that the variances were different and violating the assumption of
homogeneity of variance, therefore Welch’s F was reported instead of the F-ratio and
estimated Omega squared (est. ω2) was used as effect size in these cases since it has shown to
be a less biased effect size than eta-squared with small sample sizes (η²) (Skidmore &
Thompson, 2013). Gabriel’s pairwise test procedure was chosen as post-hoc analysis because
15 Figure 1. Differences in mean scores of relationship quality dimensions per educator
Differences in levels of conflict. Firstly, an ANOVA was performed on the conflict dimension. There was a significant difference in reported levels of conflict in the relationship
with the child between parents, teachers and care providers, Welch’s F(2, 37.14) = 16.732, p =
.000, est. ω2 = .31. Thus, approximately 31% of the total variance in levels of conflict is
attributable to the type of respondent. Post-hoc analysis revealed that parents differ
significantly from both teacher, mean difference = .861, p =.000, and care provider, mean
difference = .649, p =.001, whilst teachers and care providers did not differ significantly from each other in their report on conflict, mean difference = .212, p =.686. Parents reported higher
levels of conflict than teachers and care providers, which means that parents experience the
relationship with their child as more conflictual than teachers and care providers do with that
same child.
Differences in levels of dependency. The second ANOVA was performed on the dependency dimension. There was a significant difference in reported levels of dependency
16 between parents, teachers and care providers, F(2, 67) = 4.02, p = .023, η² = .11. Post-hoc analysis revealed that parents differ significantly from teachers, mean difference = .556, p
=.016, but not from care providers, mean difference = .244, p =.524. Parents report higher
levels of dependency than teachers. Teachers and care providers did not differ significantly
from each other in their report on dependency, mean difference = .312, p =.482. This is in line
with the hypothesis that parents differ from professional educators, although parents do not
differ from care providers significantly, nor do teachers and care providers from each other.
Differences in levels of closeness. An ANOVA was performed on the closeness-dimension. There was a significant difference in reported levels of closeness between parents,
teachers and care providers, Welch’s F(2, 22.10) = 6.854, p = .005, est. ω2 = 0.14. Thus, approximately 14% of the total variance in levels of closeness is attributable to the type of
respondent. Post-hoc analysis revealed that parents differ significantly from care providers,
mean difference = .637, p =.000, but not from teachers, mean difference = .269, p =.155. Parents report higher levels of closeness than care providers. Teachers and care providers did
not differ significantly from each other in their report on dependency, mean difference = .368,
p =.099. This is in line with the hypothesis that parents differ from professional educators, although parents do not differ from teachers significantly, nor do teachers and care providers
from each other.
Interaction with Child’s Gender
Three separate two-way ANOVA’s were performed for all three dimensions of
relationship quality, with child’s gender as added independent variable. On all three
dimensions, there was no significant interaction of child’s gender on the differences between
caregivers. On all dimensions, parents reported little differences between boys and girls. For
17 closeness, although following a similar pattern, the estimated means do show a larger
difference with the care provider reporting on boys compared to girls.
Conflict. For conflict, there was no significant interaction between child’s gender and the different caregivers on levels of reported conflict, F(2, 58) = 0.052, p = .949. This
indicates that the differences between the caregivers in their reporting on conflict, are not
different for boys and girls. However, the estimated means show that the level of conflict
reported by all three caregivers is slightly higher for boys than for girls (see Table 2).
Table 2
Estimated means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of conflict
Girl Boy
M SD M SD
Parents 2.00 0.20 2.02 0.17
Teachers 1.08 0.34 1.13 0.25
Care providers 1.33 0.33 1.51 0.26
Note. Nparents = 39, Nteachers = 16, Ncare providers = 15
Dependency. For dependency, there was no significant interaction between child’s gender and the different caregivers on levels of reported closeness, F(2, 58) = 0.062, p = .939.
This indicates that the differences between the caregivers in their reporting on dependency,
are not different for boys and girls. The estimated means show that teachers reported the
18 Table 3
Estimated means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of dependency
Girl Boy
M SD M SD
Parents 2.27 0.22 2.05 0.19
Teachers 1.66 0.38 1.48 0.27
Care providers 2.14 0.37 1.75 0.29
Note. Nparents = 39, Nteachers = 16, Ncare providers = 15
Closeness. For closeness, there was no significant interaction between child’s gender and the different caregivers on levels of reported closeness, F(2, 58) = 1.075, p = .348. This
indicates that the differences between the caregivers in their reporting on closeness, are not
different for boys and girls. The estimated means show that care providers reported lowest on
levels of closeness with boys (see Table 4).
Table 4
Estimated means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of closeness
Girl Boy
M SD M SD
Parents 4.76 0.15 4.71 0.13
Teachers 4.34 0.26 4.56 0.19
Care providers 4.19 0.25 3.75 0.20
Note. Nparents = 39, Nteachers = 16, Ncare providers = 15
Interaction of Siblings with Differences in Relationship Quality
For each dimension of relationship quality, a three-way ANOVA was performed to test for the interaction of child’s gender, having siblings and the differences between caregivers. There was no significant interaction for all dimensions.
Conflict. The three-way ANOVA for conflict showed no significant interaction
19 of reported conflict, F(2, 58) = 0.101, p = .904. This indicates that the differences between
caregivers on reported levels of conflict remain the same, regardless of child’s gender and
absence or presence of siblings for the child.
Dependency. There was no significant interaction between child’s gender, whether or not they had siblings and the different caregivers on levels of reported dependency, F(2, 58) =
0.228, p = .797. This indicates that the differences between caregivers on reported levels of dependency remain the same, regardless of child’s gender and absence or presence of siblings for the child.
Closeness. There was no significant interaction between child’s gender, whether or not they had siblings and the different caregivers on levels of reported closeness, F(2, 58) =
1.320, p = .275. This indicates that the differences between caregivers on reported levels of closeness remain the same, regardless of child’s gender and absence or presence of siblings for the child.
Table 5 gives more insight in the data on all three dimensions, including all variables.
Divided into four groups, boys and girls with and without siblings have been grouped. The
scores of these four groups have been portrayed in relation to the three caregivers on the three
dimensions of relationship quality. The number of children reported on, is noted as well. The
20 Table 5
Estimated means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of all variables in relation to each other Girl w/o siblings Girl with siblings Boy w/o siblings Boy with siblings N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) Conflict Parents 3 2.07 (0.31) 16 1.93 (0.69) 4 1.85 (0.66) 16 2.19 (0.79) Teachers 1 1.00 (-)* 5 1.16 (0.26) 2 1.00 (0.00)** 8 1.25 (0.55) Care providers 1 1.40 (-)* 7 1.26 (0.32) 2 1.50 (0.71) 5 1.52 (0.52) Dependency Parents 3 2.13 (1.10) 16 2.40 (0.76) 4 1.95 (0.41) 16 2.15 (0.71) Teachers 1 1.40 (-)* 5 1.92 (0.52) 2 1.30 (0.14) 8 1.65 (0.57) Care providers 1 2.20 (-)* 7 2.09 (0.75) 2 1.50 (0.14) 5 2.00 (0.68) Closeness Parents 3 4.73 (0.31) 16 4.79 (0.27) 4 4.70 (0.26) 16 4.71 (0.32) Teachers 1 4.00 (-)* 5 4.68 (0.50) 2 4.80 (0.00)** 8 4.33 (0.71) Care providers 1 4.00 (-)* 7 4.37 (0.48) 2 3.50 (1.84) 5 4.00 (0.40) w/o = without; *No standard deviation, N = 1 **Small standard deviation, N = 2
Discussion
The goal of the study was to examine the differences in relationship quality between
parents, teachers and care providers. Overall, this study supports the hypothesis that children
develop mental representations within a hierarchical model (Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen,
2003), since the parent-child relationship differs from the teacher-child and care
provider-child relationship on all dimensions. Teachers and care providers do not differ significantly
from each other, indicating that children have a similar relationship with both professional
educators. It does not support the hypothesis that children have similar relationships with their
parents and professional educators (Goossens & van IJzendoorn, 1990). These differences
21 gender and the absence of siblings for a child. Children of a particular gender or with or
without siblings do not develop worse or better relationships with professional educators than
with their parents, since the differences between all caregivers do not interact with these
factors. This finding does not conclude whether or not there are gender or sibling differences
within the independent relationships.
Differences in Relationship Quality
Within the different dimensions, teachers and care provider report lower and therefore
more positive than parents on the dimensions of dependency and conflict. Parents report
higher levels of closeness than teachers and care providers. The significant difference between
parents and care provider on levels of closeness in their relationship with the child can be
explained by the fact that children spent the least time with their care provider and might
therefore seek less comfort and closeness with their care provider. Furthermore, afterschool
care in the Netherlands is characterized by recreation and relaxation, without a structured
curriculum, whilst afterschool care and programs in other countries such as the United States
are characterized by more school-structured programmes (Fukkink & Boogaard, 2020;
Riksen-Walraven, 2004). Afterschool care in the Netherlands primarily focuses on creating a
feeling of safety, enhancing personal competences, social competency and socialisation. In
this setting children are challenged to develop into independent, social human beings
(Fukkink & Boogaard, 2020). The items corresponding to closeness (eg. ‘This child reacts
strongly to situations in which they cannot be with me’) therefore might not reflect the Dutch
setting of an afterschool care facility and the relationship that children have with their care
provider. Children might seek more closeness with their peers in the context of the more free
care facility (Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb, 2006).
The significant difference between parents and both professional educators on levels
22 los Reyes, 2013). Parents are more likely to classify certain behaviours as conflictual than
professional educators, because they lack the reference groups that teachers and care
providers do have (Rescorla et al., 2014). The significant difference between parents and
teachers on levels of dependency can be explained by the same threshold (Rescorla et al.,
2014), as well as the fact that children are less individually dependent on their teacher.
Lack of Gendered Interaction
The results showed no significant interaction on the three levels of relationship quality
with child’s gender, leading to the conclusion that differences in relationship quality between caregivers do not interact with child’s gender. Since previous studies have mostly focussed on
individual relationships, no specific hypothesis was formulated. Based on previous research it
was to be expected that girls compared to boys would be more likely to have a secure
attachment with a care provider as well as with their mother, resulting is more continuity in
relationship quality (Ahnert, Pinquart & Lamb, 2006). Although the estimated means do show
a larger difference between boys and girls on the closeness dimension as reported by care
providers, which would support this statement, the significant difference between parents and
care providers on this dimensions is present for both boys and girls.
Whilst this study first aimed to include children in middle childhood, and therefore
expected a gendered interaction, it finally included children in early childhood as well, in
which gender differences are almost never found (Del Giudice, 2008). Due to the small
complete sample, differences between the caregivers were based on group means and do not
specifically show the differences on a subject-level of an individual child.
Relationship with Having Siblings
The results showed no significant interaction with differences in the three dimensions
of relationship quality as reported by the caregivers with child’s gender and whether or not
23 few children without siblings in this study, not reflecting the distribution of children with or
without siblings in the Netherlands, where 42% of families has one child (Central Bureau for
Statistics, 2019). A bigger sample should include more children without siblings, allowing for
more equal groups and better comparisons. However, the skewed comparison might be a
symptom of the population as well, since parents of multiple children .
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
This study is one of the first of its kind to combine both parents, teachers and care
providers and also takes into account the relationship children have with siblings. This area of
research gives many opportunities for further examination. The limitations of this study can
be taken into account. small sample of this study impacts the study is multiple ways. This
sample is largely homogenous and WEIRD and its external validity is therefore low. Whilst
we strived towards complete data, from the collected data only a very small proportion is
complete (parent, teacher and caregiver). Therefore, the analysis does not fully reflect the
individual differences on a child-level. The lower reliability for some of the scales might have
been impacted by the smaller sample as well (Field, 2013).
The STRS might not be the best measure to compare caregivers on levels of
relationship quality. Whilst the measure has shown to be reliable for both teachers, for whom
the STRS was developed, as well as care providers and parents, this does not automatically
entail that the STRS is the best comparison measure. Other instruments for measuring
attachment relationships have been developed throughout the last decades (Spruit et al. 2018;
Waters & Deane, 1985), and it is advisable to examine these instruments as potential future
measures for comparison of attachment relationships.
Due to the low number of complete data (parent, teacher, care provider), it was
decided to conduct separate ANOVA’s instead of MANOVA’s. Although MANOVA would
24 available complete subjects in this study would not have offered sufficient output for analysis.
Future research should include more complete data, making MANOVA analysis and therefore
within-subjects analysis, possible.
Furthermore, what is missing in this study is the relationship quality of siblings.
Whilst we tested for the presence or absence of siblings, the individual relationship quality of
a child with its siblings will gain even more insight into the transference of attachment. Future
research should aim to include relationship quality of siblings as well.
For this study, relationship quality was tested based on adult perspectives. The child’s
perspective on the relationship was not taken into account, although it has been shown that
perceptions on relationships differ between children and adults (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015).
Conclusion
Taking into account the limitations of this study, this study has opened up possibilities
to study the different contexts in which a young child operates. Whilst a child navigates
through the day, via parents, teachers and afterschool care providers, its relationship with
these adults differs in these different contexts. Since the quality of relationships with
significant adults is important for the development of children, and the parent-child
relationship is not replicated to the teacher-child- and care provider-child- relationship, this
study clarifies that more insight is needed into the reasons behind this differentiation and how
these relationships can be improved. Interventions for families and parents could focus on
improving and therefore diminishing levels of conflict and dependency, whilst interventions
25 References
Ahnert, L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. (2006). Security of children’s relationships with
nonparental care providers: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 77, 664–679.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00896.x
Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Child–care provider attachments in contrasting German
child care settings II: Individual oriented care after German reunification. Infant
Behavior and Development, 23, 211-222. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00042-X Ahnert, L., Lamb, M. E., & Seltenheim, K. (2000). Infant –care provider attachments in
contrasting German childcare settings I: Group-oriented care before German
re-unification. Infant Behavior and Development, 23, 197-209.
doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00036-4
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-child relationship as a
developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior
problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 3-15. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive
mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Current Theory and Research in Motivation,
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Perspectives on Motivation (Vol. 38, p. 69-164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Barnas, M. V., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Caregiver stability and toddlers’
attachment-related behavior towards caregivers in day care. Infant Behavior Development, 17,
26 Bedford, V., & Volling, B. (2004). A dynamic ecological systems perspective on emotion
regulation development within the sibling relationship. In F. Lang & K. Fingerman
(Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the lifespan (pp. 76–101).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664-678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759 Brody, G. H. (1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and consequences. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 1-24. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.1
Brown, J. R., & Dunn. J. (1992). Talk with your mother or your sibling? Developmental
changes in early family conversations about feelings. Child Development, 63, 336–
349.
Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., & Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and
psychopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 33, 97-106. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.007
Caputi, M., Lecce, S., & Pagnin, A. (2017). The role of mother–child and teacher–child
relationship on academic achievement. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 14, 141-158. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1173538
Central Bureau for Statistics (2020, June 8). Formele kinderopvang; kinderen, uren, soort
opvang, vorm opvang, regio [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://jmopendata.cbs.nl/#/JM/nl/dataset/20214NED/table?fromstatweb
Central Bureau for Statistics (2019, August 20). Huishoudens; kindertal, leeftijdsklasse kind,
regio, 1 januari [Data file]. Retrieved from
27 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2005). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource
for students in the social sciences (3rd ed.). London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Davies, B. (2002). The grief of siblings. In N. B. Webb (Ed.), Helping bereaved children: A
handbook for practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 94–127). New York: Guilford.
Del Giudice, M. (2008). Sex-biased ratio of avoidant/ambivalent attachment in middle
childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 369-379.
doi:10.1348/026151007X243289
Del Giudice, M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 1-67. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000016
De Los Reyes, A., Thomas, S., Goodman, K., & Kundey, S. (2013). Principles underlying the
use of multiple informants’ reports. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 123–
149. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185617
De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta‐
analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child development, 68(4),
571-591.
Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks throughout
the adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 469-488.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00093.x
Dunn, J. (2000). State of the art: Siblings. The Psychologist, 13, 244–248.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
28 Fukkink, R. G., & Boogaard, M. (2020). Pedagogical quality of after-school care: Relaxation
and/or enrichment. Children and Youth Services Review, 112, Article 104903.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104903
Gass, K., Jenkins, J. & Dunn, J. (2007). Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal
study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 167-175.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01699.x
Goossens, F. A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants’ attachments to
professional caregivers: Relation to infant – parent attachment and day-care
characteristics. Child Development, 61, 832 – 837.
Goossens, F. A., & Melhuish, E. C. (1996). On the ecological validity of measuring
sensitivity of professional caregivers: The laboratory versus the nursery. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 169-176.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638. Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications (pp. 671 – 687). New York: Guilford
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Philipsen, L. C. (1998). Stability and continuity of child–
caregiver and child-peer relationships. Child Development, 69, 418–426.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06199.x
Kim, J., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Osgood, D.W. (2007). Longitudinal linkages
between sibling relationships and adjustment from middle childhood through
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 960-973.
29 Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jellesma, F. C. (2015). Can closeness, conflict, and dependency be
used to characterize students’ perceptions of the affective relationship with their teacher? Testing a new child measure in middle childhood. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 479-497. doi:10.1111/bjep.12094
Koomen, H. M., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2012).
Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and
measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of
School Psychology, 50, 215-234. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.001
Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Leerling Leerkracht
Relatie Vragenlijst: Handleiding. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:
Children and parenting (pp. 189 – 225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early
Education & Development, 17, 151–176. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1701_7 McCormick, M. P., & O’Connor, E. E. (2015). Teacher-student relationship quality and
academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107, 502-516. doi:10.1037/a0037457
Milevsky, A. (2011). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence: Predictors and
outcomes. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.
Noller, P. (2005). Sibling relationships in adolescence: Learning and growing together.
Personal Relationships, 12, 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00099.x
O’Connor, E. O., & McCartney, K. (2006). Testing associations between young children’s relationships with mothers and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 87–
30 Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship
mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479-1493. doi:10.1177/0146167203251519 Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-teacher relationship scale: Professional manual. Lutz,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and
children. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, volume
7 (pp. 199-234). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers:
Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 12, 379-393. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(91)90007-Q
Prins, P., & Braet, C. (Eds.). (2014). Handboek klinische ontwikkelingspsychologie. Houten:
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Rescorla, L. A., Bochicchio, L., Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Almqvist, F., Begovac, I.,
... & Fombonne, E. (2014). Parent–teacher agreement on children's problems in 21
societies. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43, 627-642.
doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.900719
Riksen-Walraven, M. (2004). Pedagogische kwaliteit in de kinderopvang: doelstellingen en
kwaliteitscriteria. In R. van IJzendoorn, L. Tavecchio & M. Riksen-Walraven (eds.),
De kwaliteit van de Nederlandse kinderopvang (p. 100-123). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Boom.
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships.
Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213–231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
31 Skidmore, S., Thompson, B. (2013). Bias and precision of some classical ANOVA effect
sizes when assumptions are violated. Behaviour Research Methods, 45, 536–546.
doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0257-2
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M., & Jak, S. (2012). Are boys better off with male and girls with
female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender
match in teacher–student relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50,
363-378. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002
Spruit, A., Wissink, I., Noom, M. J., Colonnesi, C., Polderman, N., Willems, L., ... & Stams,
G. J. J. (2018). Internal structure and reliability of the Attachment Insecurity Screening
Inventory (AISI) for children age 6 to 12. BMC Psychiatry, 18, 30.
doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1608-z
Stauffacher, K., & DeHart, G. B. (2006). Crossing social contexts: Relational aggression
between siblings and friends during early and middle childhood. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 27, 228-240. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.02.004 Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sibling
relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in
aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 79-89.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Moran, G., Belsky, J., Pederson, D., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.,
& Kneppers, K. (2000). The similarity of siblings’ attachments to their mother. Child
Development, 71, 1086-1098.
Verschueren, K. (2015). Middle childhood teacher–child relationships: Insights from an
attachment perspective and remaining challenges. New Directions for Child and
32 Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an
attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205-211.
doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672260
Waters, E., & Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment
relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early
childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 41-65.
