Rethinking the Work of Early Childhood Educators: What Are the Links Between the Quality of the Teacher–Child Relationship and the Child’s Executive Functions?

Abstract

Positive relationships with teachers in early childhood are important for many areas of child development and achievement. This article aims to explore the links between teacher–child relationships and children’s executive functions. The study was conducted in one preschool, with a sample of 99 children aged 2 to 6 years. Six teachers assessed the quality of their relationships with the children using the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) and the children’s executive functions using the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI). The results of the study show that the quality of the teacher–child relationship is closely related to the teacher’s perception of the child’s executive function difficulties: a closer, less conflictual relationship is associated with fewer working memory and inhibition difficulties, while a conflictual relationship is associated with greater difficulties in the child’s executive functions. There is no statistically significant difference between boys and girls in terms of the relationship with the teacher and the expression of children’s executive functions, and in both groups, the quality of the relationship with the teacher can predict the child’s executive functions. Age is statistically significant in only one relationship parameter: older children are perceived as closer to the teacher and more likely to seek help. The data obtained from the study encourage further research and add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the importance of teacher interaction for children’s development and education.

1. Introduction

According to researchers (Eadie et al., 2024), the goal of early childhood education programs is to promote the development and learning of young children, particularly by creating conditions for high-quality learning experiences and sensitive interactions between children and educators. It is precisely the relationship between the teacher and the child that is recognized as one of the cornerstones that helps young children feel safe and explore the world. A sensitive and caring teacher–child relationship provides the child with emotional security and clear boundaries, allowing the child to interact more confidently and engage in play. Thus, the interaction between teacher and child is the foundation of early learning, which is determined by the quality of the teacher–child relationship.

For more than three decades, scientists have been researching various aspects of the child-teacher relationship (Spilt & Koomen, 2022). Their research shows that positive relationships with teachers in early childhood are significant for many areas of child development and achievement. For example, Elia G. Ramirez and co-authors (Ramirez et al., 2025) argue that the quality of the teacher–child relationship predicts children’s academic and social-emotional outcomes. A positive response to children, especially avoiding conflict with them, can be very important in motivating children to persistently pursue their goals, even when performing difficult tasks (Hiltunen et al., 2025). Early positive teacher–child relationships can also reduce children’s social difficulties later (Baardstu et al., 2022). In classes with young children (toddlers), sensitive teacher behavior is associated with fewer instances of problematic behavior (Xue et al., 2022).

Positive, sensitive adult–child relationships, a warm emotional environment, and a predictable, consistent routine are associated with faster development of executive functions in young children. Executive functions are a regulatory system of cognitive processes that include behavioral inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility; they are related to a child’s concentration, behavior regulation, planning, and adaptation to unexpected situations. According to Blair (2016), executive functions are an important factor in school readiness and early success in school. However, there are other studies that indicate that positive teacher–child relationships are not always associated with a child’s executive functions. For example, research findings (Koşkulu-Sancar et al., 2024) indicate that teachers’ emotional and behavioral support did not predict the growth of executive functions in 2–3-year-old children, although instructional support positively predicted the increase in selective attention. Researchers (Madanipour et al., 2025) also emphasize that while there are links between these two phenomena (interpersonal relationships and children’s executive functions), there is still a lack of research analyzing them and the role of teachers in promoting the development of children’s executive functions in educational practice. Therefore, this article aims to clarify the links between teacher–child relationships and children’s executive functions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. The Expression of Executive Functions in Early Childhood

Executive functions are higher-level cognitive abilities that allow a child to control behavior, plan activities, memorize information, adapt to changing circumstances, and achieve set goals. These functions begin to develop in infancy, but their development is particularly rapid in early childhood, between the ages of 2 and 6 (Best & Miller, 2010; Blair, 2016; Schröer et al., 2023). Some scientists even refer to this period as a “sensitive window” in the development of executive functions (Best & Miller, 2010).

Three main areas of executive functions are most commonly distinguished: working memory—the ability to retain and manipulate information for a short period of time; inhibitory control (self-control)—the ability to suppress impulsive actions and concentrate on a task, and cognitive flexibility—the ability to adapt to new rules or points of view, change one’s strategy or approach (Blair, 2016; Diamond, 2013; Schröer et al., 2023). Sometimes discussed as a separate indicator or prerequisite for executive functioning—attention control (Garon et al., 2008; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). In early childhood (ages 2–6), executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility) overlap much more and are less differentiated, but as the child grows, they become increasingly differentiated (Best & Miller, 2010; Garon et al., 2008; Miyake & Friedman, 2012).

The first signs of basic executive functions can be seen in the behavior of 2–3-year-old children. At this age, they can briefly focus their attention on a particular activity, are able to recognize and usually follow clear rules, and undertake simple planning tasks, such as arranging objects in order or following two-step instructions (e.g., “Hey, pick up the ball and put it in the box”). Although they are already able to delay some impulses, their self-control is usually short-lived and limited to specific situations—children often still need verbal or physical encouragement from adults to refrain from desirable but inappropriate actions (e.g., not touching a forbidden object). They are also prone to rapid shifts in attention and a tendency to interrupt an activity if it is interrupted by an external stimulus or a strong emotional impulse (Best & Miller, 2010; Garon et al., 2008; Schröer et al., 2023). During play, a 2–3-year-old child may try to wait for their turn, but usually only manages to do so for a short time. More complex tasks or those requiring more actions are also difficult for them, as their working memory capacity and ability to maintain attention are still very limited at this age. At the same time, the first signs of problem-solving begin to emerge—children may try to reach the desired toy in various ways or change the sequence of attempts although they often still need adult guidance.

The executive functions of children aged 3–5 improve significantly: children of this age are able to maintain their attention for longer periods of time, follow the rules of games or social rules more consistently, and begin to control their behavior in various situations more consistently and independently, for example, playing “waiting” games (such as the “marshmallow test”) (Best & Miller, 2010; Mischel et al., 1989). During this period, their working memory strengthens, allowing them to “process information in their minds” and retain short-term information, plan sequences of two or three actions (e.g., “first I wash my hands, then I take a spoon, then I start eating”), organize more complex games with friends, and become more creative in problem-solving tasks (Diamond, 2013). Children of this age are better at performing tasks that require several steps to be performed in sequence, and their ability to inhibit impulses and stick to agreements is increasingly evident even without constant reminders from adults (Garon et al., 2008; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). For example, in the classic marshmallow test, neurotypical 4- to 5-year-olds are able to wait longer for the desired reward than younger children—this ability reflects increasing self-control and behavioral planning skills (Diamond, 2013; Mischel et al., 1989). They are able to describe their plan of action, choose which toys or play strategies to use, try to negotiate with their peers, and look for new solutions when faced with difficulties.

Until school age (6 years old), there is continuous improvement in executive functions: children’s ability to maintain attention gradually increases, working memory capacity increases, and impulse control and cognitive flexibility become more reliable. By the end of preschool 6–7 years old children are not only able to focus on a task for longer periods of time but also change their activity strategies more effectively and are able to adapt more flexibly when faced with new task rules or unfamiliar situations (Best & Miller, 2010; Blair, 2016). They begin to see different ways of solving problems, and start to recognize alternative approaches in both playful and social situations, and their behavior becomes increasingly independent—the need for constant adult guidance or control decreases (Schröer et al., 2023). Progressively, children are increasingly able to regulate their own activities, plan ahead, and adapt to changing circumstances without constant adult involvement/intervention, indicating a mature or rapidly maturing level of self-control and independent behavior (Vidal Carulla et al., 2021; Wiebe et al., 2011).

2.2. The Links Between Executive Functions and Teacher–Child Relationships

Executive function, like other neuropsychological functions, does not appear suddenly—it develops gradually through social interactions, interaction with the environment, games, and everyday challenges (Vidal Carulla et al., 2021). Research shows (Diamond, 2013; Garon et al., 2008) that early executive function development is closely linked to active communication, clear daily routines, and consistent adult support. It is precisely in early childhood that executive functions initially develop as general self-regulation (the executive functions are not differentiated), but as the child grows, it gradually improves and separates into distinct areas (Best & Miller, 2010).

Of course, first and foremost, the immediate family environment (parental behavior) has a significant impact on the multifaceted development of children. According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), the tendency to form close emotional bonds with specific individuals is a fundamental component of human nature, present from the moment of birth and continuing throughout adulthood into old age. At the beginning of life, a baby creates an Internal Working Model, which depicts “him” and “the other”, as well as the model of his and the other’s relationship, which helps him to see and evaluate the world (Bowlby, 1988). Although attachment theory cannot be primarily identified as a cognitive theory, Bowlby sees links between attachment and cognitive development (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Children who experience caring and sensitive relationships and have secure attachments are more likely to explore their environment more boldly and form relationships with their peers more easily, which is associated with more favorable conditions for cognitive development. However, if a child’s relationship with the adult raising them is less sensitive, dismissive, or inconsistent, and an insecure attachment develops, the child may show less spontaneous interest in their environment, more often avoid social contact or exploratory situations, and rely more on adult instructions. Such conditions are associated with less favorable conditions for self-regulation and cognitive development. It should be noted that this is not a predetermined developmental trajectory—consistent, supportive adult involvement can mitigate the disadvantages of early experiences.

We believe that attachment theory can be used to explain the link between the quality of parental relationships and children’s executive function development. Parental sensitivity to children’s needs, emotional availability, support, and consistent behavior are associated with better executive function indicators in children. Long-term studies reveal that children whose mothers demonstrated greater sensitivity and support at an early age later achieved higher executive function scores (e.g., they were better able to inhibit impulses, plan their behavior, and consistently change task strategies) (Werchan et al., 2023; Ramos et al., 2023). Children who experience constant stress or do not have a stable relationship with adults develop executive functions more slowly (Madanipour et al., 2025; Mokhele-Ramulumo et al., 2025; Schröer et al., 2023; Zysset et al., 2018).

Therefore, the quality of teacher relationships in early childhood education institutions also has an undeniable impact on executive functions in young children. Frequent positive, warm, and structured communication with children not only strengthens emotional security but also creates conditions for learning self-regulation. Safe, trust-based relationships allow children to more firmly grasp social norms and rules, understand the logic of consequences, and develop the ability to delay gratification (Finch et al., 2015). Early childhood education teachers who are able to establish warm, sincere relationships and respond individually to children’s emotional and cognitive needs help children develop self-regulation, patience, impulse control, and cognitive flexibility skills (Williford et al., 2013). Social and emotional support reduces stress in children and leads to higher scores on self-control and planning tasks (Hamre et al., 2014). Furthermore, Brooks-Gunn and Markman (2005) emphasize that the social and emotional support provided by educators helps children develop long-term skills related to attention and emotion regulation, which are essential components of executive functions. Other studies show that sensitive and responsive behavior by teachers strengthens children’s ability to cope with everyday tasks and stressful situations, and increases their self-confidence and willingness to cooperate (Domitrovich et al., 2007).

According to researchers (Blair & McKinnon, 2016), positive relationships with teachers, executive function skills, and academic readiness are uniquely important for school readiness and success in early grades. For example, a 5-year-old child’s executive functions and better relationships with teachers moderated the effect of preschool math skills on math skills at the end of preschool, while the lowest math skills were observed among children with weak math skills and weak executive functions or less positive relationships with their early childhood education teacher (Blair & McKinnon, 2016). Therefore, the relationships between early childhood educators and children are significant for the child’s various abilities, including executive functions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The study was conducted in February 2025 at an early childhood education (ECEC) institution in a major Lithuanian city. This school is a public institution. The study sample consisted of 99 children from 6 groups. Of these, 51 were boys and 48 were girls. The children’s ages ranged from 28 to 72 months. The average age was 52 months.

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the ethics committee (No. SA-EK-25-57). The children’s parents or guardians were informed about the purpose of the study and gave their written consent. Six early childhood educators (all women) became co-researchers and completed a paper-pencil based questionnaire. Using the research instrument, the teachers assessed the teacher–child relationship and the child’s executive functions.

3.2. Assessment Tools

The statements used in the study were translated into Lithuanian by the second and fourth authors of the article following a translation and back-translation procedure.

3.2.1. Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS)

In order to evaluate the teacher–child relationship, the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale was used (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta, 2001). The scale consists of 28 statements, divided into three subscales: closeness (11 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.831), conflict (12 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.874), and dependence (5 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.611). The Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales demonstrated good or acceptable reliability, respectively. The items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). A subscale total score is calculated by summing the individual items. A higher score indicates a higher level of closeness, dependence, and conflict with teachers.

3.2.2. Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI)

The Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (Thorell & Nyberg, 2008) was used to assess the expression of executive functions. This instrument consists of 24 statements. The statements in the questionnaire form two subscales: working memory (13 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.922) and inhibition (11 items; Cronbach’s α = 0.919). The Cronbach’s alpha values for subscales demonstrated excellent reliability. A five-point scale was used for the responses: 1 = definitely not true, 2 = not true, 3 = partially true, 4 = true, 5 = definitely true. A sum of the individual items was calculated for each subscale. The higher scores indicate greater executive function deficits.

3.3. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 26. First, research data were tested for normal distribution using skewness and kurtosis values. If the coefficients values are ±1, the research data is considered to be close to a normal distribution (Cohen et al., 2018). After performing calculations, it was found that the study variables—closeness, conflict, dependence, working memory, and inhibition—are close to the normal distribution. Cronbach’s α were calculated to describe the internal consistency of the assessment tools. If Cronbach’s α = 0.7 or higher, the internal consistency of the scale is good (Cohen et al., 2018).

Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the sample characteristics and distribution of variables, including mean and standard deviation, and frequency. A Pearson’s Chi-Square Test was used to compare the distribution of the number of children by quartiles according to teacher–child ratios. The parametric Student t-test was used to measure differences between two groups (boys and girls). In contrast, the parametric One-way ANOVA was used to compare three groups (by age).

Pearson correlation analysis was performed to determine the correlation between teacher–child relationships, children’s executive functions, and age. Based on the correlation coefficient values obtained, the strength of the relationship was interpreted as follows: when r < 0.19—the relationship is very weak, r = 0.20–0.39—weak correlation, r = 0.40–0.59—moderate correlation, r = 0.60–0.79—strong correlation, and r ≥ 0.8—very strong correlation (Cohen et al., 2018).

Multiple linear regression analyses were used to assess the predictive effect of teacher–child relationships on children’s executive functions. The suitability of the linear regression model was determined based on the coefficient of determination R² = 0.20 or higher and the results of the ANOVA test. The strength of the predictive effect was described based on the obtained values of standardized β coefficients: β = 0–0.1—weak effect, β = 0.1–0.3—modest effect, β = 0.3–0.5—moderate effect, and β > 0.5—strong effect (Cohen et al., 2018).

Statistical significance was accepted when p < 0.05.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation of the Study Variables

Descriptive statistics for the data set are presented in

Table 1. Correlation between relationship’s subscales, child’s executive functions and age.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Closeness	43.06	7.68	-
2. Conflict	21.09	9.72	−0.183	-
3. Dependence	10.69	4.42	0.369 **	0.578 **	-
4. Working memory	35.01	13.80	−0.640 **	0.468 **	−0.022	-
5. Inhibition	32.62	10.27	−0.301 *	0.690 **	0.276 *	0.666 **	-
6. Age (months)	52	12.35	0.419 **	0.144	0.436 **	−0.187	0.142

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.0001.

. Closeness subscale scores range from 11 to 55. In our study, the average score for this subscale is quite high—M = 43.06. The average falls within the fourth quartile (scores range from 50 to 55). This shows that the teachers who participated in the study describe their relationship with children as close and warm. Conflict subscale scores range from 12 to 60. After calculating the sum, the average score for this subscale, M = 21.09, falls within the third quartile (scores range from 21 to 28). The average indicates that teachers describe their relationships with children as more conflictual than non-conflictual. Dependence subscale scores range from 5 to 25. In our study, the average score for this subscale was M = 10.69. It falls within the second quartile (scores range from 9 to 11), so it can be said that teachers view children as more dependent on them than independent. Total scale scores range from 28 to 140. The average obtained in the study is M = 113.28 (SD = 14.99). This result falls within the second quartile (scores range from 103 to 119), so it can be assumed that not all children in the groups studied have higher quality relationships.

Pearson correlations among all variables included in the analyses are presented in Table 1. Teacher–child closeness was found to be significantly negatively associated with child working memory (r = −0.640, p < 0.0001) and inhibition (r = −0.301, p < 0.01). These correlations indicate that as a child’s and teacher’s level of closeness increases, poor executive functioning decreases. Teacher–child conflict was found to be significantly associated with child dependence (r = 0.578, p < 0.0001) and children’s executive functions: working memory (r = 0.468, p < 0.0001), inhibition (r = 0.690, p < 0.0001). These results show that the more conflictual the relationship between the teacher and the child, the more teachers describe the child’s executive functions as lower level and less developed. Teacher–child dependence was significantly but weakly correlated with inhibition (r = 0.276, p < 0.01). This indicates a tendency that as a child’s dependence on the teacher increases, the child is less able to inhibit their impulses. Child’s age significantly positively correlated only with closeness (r = 0.419, p < 0.0001) and dependence (r = 0.436, p < 0.0001). This indicates that the older the child, the warmer and closer the relationship between the child and the teacher, but at the same time, the teacher perceives the child as more dependent and requiring more attention.

It should be noted that correlations between relationship subscales and children’s executive functions indicate a reciprocal relationship (Figure 1).

This means that a closer relationship with the teacher is associated with higher working memory performance in children, but at the same time, higher working memory performance indicators may also suggest (become a prerequisite for) a closer relationship. The same trend can be seen between the closeness of the relationship and the child’s other executive function area (inhibition).

When analyzing the conflict between the teacher–child relationship and the child’s executive functions, a certain trend can also be seen. There is a mutual relationship—the lower the level of conflict, the better the child’s executive functions and, at the same time, the lower the child’s executive functions, the greater the conflict. We would like to point out that the child’s second executive function (inhibition) has a very strong correlation with the conflict and closeness scales (0.669 and 0.666, respectively).

Finally, the third relationship scale (Dependence) has weaker connections. It is worth noting that the connections with the child’s executive functions are weak or non-existent. However, the connections between the relationship scales themselves are clearly visible. The results of the study suggest that as the child’s dependence on the teacher increases, so does the conflict with the teacher (and vice versa). There is also a fairly strong link between the child’s dependence and emotional closeness, i.e., as dependence increases, so does emotional closeness. Thus, summarizing the results, we can see that as a child’s dependence increases, so does emotional connection and conflict.

In order to analyze teacher–child relationships in more detail, we looked at the number of children and the quartile they fall into according to relationship indicators. The results are presented in

Table 2. Distribution of boys and girls by quartiles according to teacher–child ratios.

		Quartile I (0–25%)	Quartile II (26–50%)	Quartile III (51–75%)	Quartile IV (76–100%)
Closeness	Boys	14	13	16	8
	Girls	16	12	13	7
Conflict	Boys	16	12	10	13
	Girls	19	12	8	9
Dependence	Boys	15	7	14	15
	Girls	21	11	5	11
Total scale	Boys	18	8	18	7
	Girls	9	16	12	11

and

Table 3. Distribution of children by quartiles according to age and teacher–child ratios.

		Quartile I (0–25%)	Quartile II (26–50%)	Quartile III (51–75%)	Quartile IV (76–100%)
Closeness	Up to 42 months old	16	3	8	1
	43–54 months old	10	18	17	9
	Over 54 months old	4	4	4	5
Conflict	Up to 42 months old	11	8	6	3
	43–54 months old	18	12	10	14
	Over 54 months old	6	4	2	5
Dependence	Up to 42 months old	13	2	11	2
	43–54 months old	22	9	7	16
	Over 54 months old	1	7	1	8
Total scale	Up to 42 months old	8	9	10	1
	43–54 months old	13	13	14	14
	Over 54 months old	6	2	6	3

. As shown in Table 2, a significant number of boys and girls fall into Quartile I or II. This means that when teachers assess their relationships with these children, their closeness, conflict, and dependence scores are the lowest. Knowing that a lower score means a lower value of the variable, we can say that the results show that this is a good result on the conflict and dependence scales, but not on the closeness scale. It can be said that with 27 boys (out of 51) and 28 girls (out of 48), the relationship with teachers is not warm, and it is likely that children do not use teachers as sources of support. Also, quite a few boys and girls fall into the fourth quartile on the conflict and dependence scales. Looking at the results of the entire scale, it can be seen that there are almost as many boys and girls in the first two quartiles (I and II) as in the latter two (III and IV). This means that the quality of the relationship in the groups studied is not favorable for all children.

Table 3 shows the number of children of different ages in quartiles according to how teachers assessed their relationships with them. It can be seen that Quartile I includes a statistically significantly higher number of younger children (up to 54 months old) on the closeness scale (χ² = 18.276; p = 0.006) and on the dependence scale (χ² = 27.778; p < 0.0001).

4.2. Teacher–Child Relationships Differences According to Sex and Age

Table 4. Teacher–child relationship differences according to sex and age.

		M	SD	t-Test/ANOVA
Closeness	Boys	42.10	7.59	t = −1.290; p = 0.200
	Girls	44.08	7.73
	Up to 42 months old	38.71	8.21	F = 7.205; p = 0.001
	43–54 months old	44.50	6.80
	Over 54 months old	45.65	6.73
Conflict	Boys	22.53	10.15	t = 1.529; p = 0.130
	Girls	19.56	9.09
	Up to 42 months old	19.21	7.76	F = 0.860; p = 0.426
	43–54 months old	22.17	10.87
	Over 54 months old	20.76	8.65
Dependence	Boys	10.94	4.02	t = 0.589; p = 0.557
	Girls	10.42	4.83
	Up to 42 months old	9.43	3.07	F = 3.807; p = 0.026
	43–54 months old	10.59	4.89
	Over 54 months old	13.06	3.96
Total scale	Boys	110.63	15.50	t = −1.838; p = 0.069
	Girls	116.10	14.04
	Up to 42 months old	112.07	12.25	F = 0.125; p = 0.882
	43–54 months old	113.74	16.62
	Over 54 months old	113.82	14.31

presents closeness, conflict, dependence, and total scale scores separately for boys and girls. Statistical analysis using Student’s t-test indicates that there is no statistically significant difference. This means that the teacher’s assessment did not depend on the child’s sex. Teachers described their relationships with both boys and girls in a similar way. The table also shows the subscale and total scale scores for three age groups of children. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test helped to identify statistically significant differences. It was found that the closeness scores of the youngest children (up to 42 months old) were statistically significantly lower (M = 38.71) than those of older children: M = 44.50 in the 43–54 month old group and M = 45.65 in the over 54 month old group (F = 7.205; p = 0.001). The situation is similar with dependence scores. They are also lower (M = 9.43) in the youngest children’s group (F = 3.807; p = 0.026).

4.3. Children’s Executive Functions Differences According to Sex and Age

The results of children’s executive function performance are presented in

Table 5. Children’s executive functions differences according to sex and age.

		M	SD	t-Test/ANOVA
Working memory	Boys	36.12	13.28	t = 0.545; p = 0.587
	Girls	33.83	14.37
	Up to 42 months old	38.50	11.47	F = 1.30; p = 0.277
	43–54 months old	33.91	13.06
	Over 54 months old	32.76	18.66
Inhibition	Boys	33.80	11.31	t = 1.396; p = 0.166
	Girls	31.35	8.97
	Up to 42 months old	30.39	8.34	F = 0.918; p = 0.403
	43–54 months old	33.56	11.30
	Over 54 months old	33.29	9.65

. It can be seen that Student’s t-test and ANOVA did not show statistically significant differences. The working memory scale averages are close to the average scale score (maximum score—65). The averages for the inhibition scale are higher than the average score on the scale (maximum score—55). Based on these results, it can be concluded that the children’s working memory is not yet sufficiently developed, and they also experience difficulties with the second executive function (inhibition).

4.4. Teacher–Child Relationships as a Predictor of Children’s Executive Functioning

Simple linear regression analyses were conducted to explore how quality of teacher–child relationship predicts children’s executive functions. First, we aim to determine how boys’ executive functions can be predicted by their relationships with their teachers. The results are presented in

Table 6. Simple linear regression between teacher-boys’ relationships and boys’ executive functions.

	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients β	t	p
	Β	Std. Error
Working Memory (R2 = 0.454; F = 40.687, p < 0.0001)
Constant	99.943	10.102		9.893	0.0001
Teacher–child relationship	−0.577	0.090	−0.674	−6.379	0.0001
Inhibition (R2 = 0.511; F = 51.135, p < 0.0001)
Constant	91.481	8.143		11.234	0.0001
Teacher–child relationship	−0.521	0.073	−0.715	−7.151	0.0001

. It was found that the independent variable (teacher–child relationship) explains 45.4% of the dependent variable (working memory of boys). The results of the regression analyses show that a teacher–child relationship (β = −0.674) was negatively predicted for working memory. This effect is strong. The model evaluation suggests that higher relationship quality predicts lower working memory difficulties in boys.

The second regression model yielded the following results: teacher–child relationship explains 51.1% of the inhibition. In this case, the relationship is also a significantly strong predictor (β = −0.715). Therefore, it can be concluded that as the relationship between the child and the teacher improves, boys may exhibit better control of their emotions and behavior (impulse control).

Table 7. Simple linear regression between teacher-girls’ relationships and girls’ executive functions.

	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients β	t	p
	Β	Std. Error
Working memory (R2 = 0.327; F = 22.330, p < 0.0001)
Constant	101.770	14.480		7.029	0.0001
Teacher–child relationship	−0.585	0.124	−0.572	−4.725	0.0001
Inhibition (R2 = 0.389; F = 29.313, p < 0.0001)
Constant	77.635	8.609		9.018	0.0001
Teacher–child relationship	−0.399	0.074	−0.624	−5.414	0.0001

presents the results explaining how girls’ executive functions can be predicted by their relationships with their teacher. It turned out that in the first regression model, teacher–child relationship explains 32.7% of the working memory of girls (less than in the sample of boys). Based on the results of the second regression model, it can be stated that girls’ relationships with teachers explain 38.9% of the inhibition (also less than in the sample of boys). It was found that in both models, the teacher–child relationship is a significant strong predictor (β = −0.572 and β = −0.624, respectively). Based on the results obtained, it can be noted that a better relationship between girls and their teachers can reduce the difficulties they experience in working memory and controlling their emotions or behavior.

5. Discussion

The results of the study reveal some very important findings.

First, they confirm the data of other researchers that close and sensitive relationships between teachers and children are important for their functioning. For example, Williford and co-authors (Williford et al., 2013) indicate that positive, sensitive, and supportive relationships with early childhood teachers are closely related to better cognitive development in children. Sabol and Pianta (2012) also argue that teachers contribute significantly to the development of these skills in everyday activities, as children spend a large part of their active time in educational institutions, where both playful, social, and cognitive behavior is formed. Our study found strong correlations between conflict and executive functions, strong correlations between closeness and working memory, and moderate correlations between closeness and inhibition. Therefore, we can conclude that the closer and less conflictual the relationship between the teacher and the child is, the less likely the child is to experience difficulties with executive functions (working memory and response inhibition).

Secondly, it should be noted that the correlations found do not indicate a one-way relationship, but rather a two-way relationship. This means that the expression of a child’s executive functions is also linked to the quality of the teacher–child relationship. That is, if a child’s executive functions are more developed (e.g., they can concentrate for longer, regulate their emotions better, and resist sudden impulses), it is more likely that the teacher’s relationship with them will be closer and less conflictual. However, the opposite trend is also possible: children with less developed executive functions will experience difficulties, e.g., in inhibiting reactions, maintaining and shifting attention, or following rules. Therefore, in educational activities, they may behave impulsively, raise their voices, not wait their turn when performing a certain action, often ask for help, and so on. Such impulsive behavior in children can increase tension and create less sensitive and more conflictual interactions between the child and the teacher. According to Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1988), such a relationship may discourage the child from exploring their environment, actively engaging in play, or choosing activities that require more cognitive abilities. This means that with lower executive functions and a less sensitive and more conflictual relationship between the child and the teacher, the child’s executive functions will have fewer opportunities to develop.

In this study, we did not analyze the research data according to the socioeconomic status of children, but we would like to point out that this particular group of children may experience more difficulties in concentrating, regulating their emotions and behavior, planning activities, or interacting with their peers. Most scientific studies (Blair & Raver, 2014; Cuartas et al., 2022; Ursache & Noble, 2016; Vrantsidis et al., 2020) indicate that children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds have lower executive functioning abilities, which can lead to more problematic behavior in educational settings or social situations. However, teachers spend more time interacting with children whom they perceive as more emotionally positive and less negative or difficult to manage (Blair & Raver, 2015), even though it is precisely the latter who are in great need of sensitive and close relationships. This means that teachers need to rethink their teaching practices, consciously observe their behavior, and reflect on it with each child, especially those who are experiencing difficulties (paying attention to children from low SES). Thirdly, our research data does not show any differences between sex, Regarding age, although younger children displayed higher mean scores for executive function difficulties (consistent with developmental theory), these differences did not reach statistical significance in the ANOVA test, likely due to the reduced statistical power when dividing the small sample into age subgroups. According to teachers, older children have a closer relationship with them but are also more dependent on the teacher. It is worth emphasizing here that “dependence” is not a “bad thing” at an early age, as during this period, a child’s greater reliance on the teacher may be a normal way of regulating their emotions and behavior. However, the balance between dependence and independence is very important: the teacher must assess whether the child’s request for help is appropriate, i.e., whether they were unable to solve the problem themselves, or whether this is becoming a pattern of behavior, without the child making any effort to overcome difficulties, find solutions, and so on.

Fourth, the results obtained from linear regressions show that the quality of teacher-student relationships can predict the executive functions of both boys and girls. This means that greater closeness and less conflict between the teacher and the child are associated with fewer working memory and inhibition difficulties. This finding is confirmed by the research data presented in the theoretical part of this article (e.g., Diamond, 2013; Garon et al., 2008), which indicates that warm, predictable interactions are associated with better executive functions development. In our opinion, this relationship can also be explained neurobiologically. An appropriate, sensitive teacher–child relationship does not create threatening situations for the child so it reduces the child’s stress level, and the child does not need to expend a lot of cognitive resources to cope with stress or regulate themselves. Such children have more resources left to behave “appropriately” in the educational environment—to follow the rules, maintain attention, and control impulsivity. However, conflictual or stressful interactions can activate the child’s neurophysiological stress response, associated with the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which prepares the child to respond to threats even when they are subjective (Smith & Pollak, 2022). This state usually leads to a redistribution of a person’s cognitive resources: as stress response systems are activated, working memory and attention capacity decrease (Almarzouki, 2024). In educational settings, this is associated with a child’s reduced ability to concentrate, remember information, or control impulses, which may outwardly appear as a lack of focus or impatience in various activities (Fernandes et al., 2023; Törmänen et al., 2025). It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that prolonged or frequently recurring stress in early childhood is associated with negative effects on the plasticity and executive functions of the nervous system, making it particularly important to create an emotionally safe and supportive educational environment (Becker & Börnert-Ringleb, 2025; Kong et al., 2025). We acknowledge several methodological limitations of this study that restrict the generalizability and interpretation of the findings. First, the sample size was small (N = 99) and drawn from a single preschool institution in one city, with all participating teachers being female. This specific cultural and gender context limits the applicability of the results to broader populations. Second, the data were nested within only six classrooms/teachers, violating the assumption of independence of observations. Future research should employ multilevel modeling with a larger number of classrooms to account for this clustering. Third, the study relied on a single source of information (teacher reports) for assessing both relationship quality and children’s executive functions, without the use of objective, standardized cognitive tasks. This introduces a risk of common method bias and the “halo effect,” where a teacher’s general perception of a child may influence ratings across domains. Fourth, the cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences; while we discuss reciprocal links, we cannot determine the directionality of the effects. Finally, the “Dependence” subscale of the STRS demonstrated lower internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.611) compared to other scales, and its results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should aim for longitudinal designs, larger and more diverse samples, and a combination of teacher reports and direct cognitive assessments.

6. Recommendations

Based on our results, we would like to offer some recommendations to early childhood teachers. Different authors point to various pedagogical practices aimed at promoting the development of executive functions. For example, Madanipour and co-authors (Madanipour et al., 2025) identify five types: structuring the environment and activities, supporting autonomous behavior, implementing purposeful classroom organization, promoting sustained shared thinking, and developing activities that support executive functions. Another group of researchers (Muir et al., 2023) specifically identifies four possible types of intervention that, in our view, would reflect activities that promote the development of a child’s executive functions at an early age. These are game-based methods, social-emotional methods, teaching programs (e.g., “Mind Tools”), and non-routine activities. According to these researchers (Muir et al., 2023), all intervention methods have some evidence of potential effectiveness.

In conjunction with the early education practices mentioned above, we would like to emphasize once again those aspects of early education teachers’ work that are closely related to interaction:

-

Teachers should pay attention to certain aspects of the classroom climate. Clear routines, reinforcement, and the language of emotional recognition are likely to reduce conflicts with and between children and facilitate the development of self-regulation in young children;

-

Short preliminary “reminder” instructions, visual cues, and structured transitions can be helpful for children with lower working memory capacities. Such pedagogical tools would help them participate in the activity (without falling behind), remind them of the most important aspects, and, hopefully, enable them to experience educational success;

-

Our research results showed that teachers provide a lot of help to older children. Therefore, we would recommend that teachers carefully consider the strategy of “proximity with measured assistance”. This means that teachers should strive to create a close, sensitive, supportive relationship, while providing space for the child’s active participation and action. Proper “dosing” of help—waiting (perhaps the child can solve the challenge themselves), a single hint, and creating conditions for the child to act independently, etc.—reduces unnecessary dependence.

7. Conclusions

The results of the study show that the quality of the teacher–child relationship is closely related to the teacher’s perception of the child’s executive function difficulties: a closer, less conflictual relationship is associated with fewer working memory and inhibition difficulties, while a conflictual relationship is associated with greater difficulties in the child’s executive functions. There is no statistically significant difference between boys and girls in terms of the relationship with the teacher and the expression of children’s executive functions, and in both groups, the quality of the relationship with the teacher can predict the child’s executive functions. Age is statistically significant in only one relationship parameter: older children are perceived as closer to the teacher and more likely to seek help. The data obtained from the study encourage further research and add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the importance of teacher interaction for children’s development and education.