A Meta‐Analytic Review of Personality and Teacher–Student Relationships

ABSTRACT

Objective

This meta‐analysis provides the first comprehensive synthesis of associations between student and teacher personality traits and the quality of teacher–student relationships.

Method

Fifty‐five studies met the eligibility criteria, contributing a total of 238 effect sizes. We used multivariate meta‐analysis with robust variance estimation (RVE) to model the dependency of effect sizes.

Results

Student prosocial behavior (ρ = 0.59) and proactive personality (ρ = 0.48) were the strongest predictors of positive teacher–student relationship quality. All Big Five traits of students, except neuroticism, showed significant positive associations, with all correlations exceeding 0.4 when holding constant with all other moderators. Teacher agreeableness (ρ = 0.31) and conscientiousness (ρ = 0.29) yielded modest associations. Students with less emotional stability or aggressive behaviors were more likely to experience negative teacher–student relationships, such as conflict and dependency.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the critical role of student personality in explaining the quality of teacher–student interactions. Multiple traits appear equally important, as indicated by comparable effect sizes. The literature is relatively limited when it comes to teacher personality. We were unable to examine teacher traits in relation to teacher–student conflict and dependency, but, overall, agreeable and conscientious teacher behaviors appeared to be important for favorable interactions, whereas teacher neuroticism may undermine the quality of such interactions.

Students who have strong and supportive relationships with their teachers tend to perform better academically and experience enhanced behavioral adjustment (Hamre and Pianta 2006). Research consistently demonstrates positive associations between the quality of teacher–student relationships and various learning and social–emotional outcomes, including a greater sense of school belonging (Furrer and Skinner 2003), improved peer relations (Hughes, Cavell, and Willson 2001; Hughes and Kwok 2006), higher academic achievement (McCormick and O'Connor 2015; Zee, Koomen, and Van der Veen 2013), and increased classroom engagement (O'Connor and McCartney 2007; Roorda et al. 2011). These benefits extend across a broad spectrum of age groups, from preschool and kindergarten (Ladd, Birch, and Buhs 1999) through middle and high school (Crosnoe, Johnson, and Elder 2004; Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch 1994). Teacher–student relationships, however, may not be uniform across all students. Individual students may experience or perceive these dynamics differently.

Similar to other interpersonal phenomena, the quality of teacher–student relationships is likely to be influenced by individual‐difference factors, particularly personality traits and behavioral tendencies. This begs two crucial questions: What specific personality traits in both students and teachers contribute to the development of strong and supportive relationships? Conversely, understanding the other side of the coin is equally valuable. What specific personality traits in students and teachers might contribute to teacher–student conflict or negative relations? Because an important and substantial part of classroom practices involves student–teacher relationships, understanding and optimizing learning outcomes depend significantly on investigating the relationship between teacher and student personalities and the quality of these relationships. A number of recent studies have explored the contributions of teacher and student personalities to the quality of the student–teacher relationship (e.g., Pancorbo et al. 2022; Tan and Wang 2013). These explorations are relevant and help us understand the variations in teacher–student relationship quality. In this meta‐analytic review ¹ , we systematically evaluated the associations of student and teacher personalities with measures of teacher–student relationship quality and investigated potential moderating factors, including personality traits, educational level, age, gender, and study quality.

1. The Quality of Teacher–Student Relationships

The quality of the teacher–student relationship extends beyond the mere exchange of knowledge. It depends on various factors within the dyadic relationship and interaction, such as closeness, support, warmth, and conflict. Research on the quality of teacher–student relationships draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks and traditions (Davis 2003; Hughes 2012; Sabol and Pianta 2012). A comprehensive review of all these theories is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus on two of the most prominent theories that are consistently used in the overwhelming majority of studies reporting effect sizes on the links between personality and teacher–student relationship quality: attachment theory (Bowlby 1982) and self‐determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Attachment theory provides a cross‐cultural framework for understanding the dynamics of teacher–student relationships (Verschueren and Koomen 2012). According to attachment theory, early emotional bonds formed with primary caregivers significantly shape an individual's subsequent social interactions and relationships. Warm and consistent responsiveness contributes to healthy social and emotional development, while harsh and erratic responses may precipitate emotional and behavioral challenges (Fearon et al. 2010). From an attachment‐based perspective, teachers can be regarded as secondary caregivers. Students who form secure attachments to their teachers through positive affect and warm interactions experience a supportive and nurturing teacher–student relationship. Conversely, students exposed to frequent negative interactions (e.g., coercion, punitiveness, and hostility) may find it challenging to establish such a relationship (Pianta 1999).

Attachment research has typically identified three dimensions in teacher–student relationships: closeness, conflict, and dependency (Birch and Ladd 1997; Pianta, Steinberg, and Rollins 1995). Closeness refers to the extent to which students and teachers experience mutual warmth and open communication, and the student feels confident in seeking and receiving emotional support from the teacher (Thijs and Fleischmann 2015). Conflict characterizes the experience of mutually negative feelings and discordant interactions, and dependency describes the student's excessive reliance on and need for constant reassurance from the teacher. Closeness is a positive dimension. The sense of closeness mirrors the concept of a “secure base” in attachment theory, where children feel safe to explore their surroundings knowing they can return to the teacher for comfort and support (Bowlby 1982). Conflict and dependency, by contrast, represent the negative dimensions of teacher–student relationships. A conflictual teacher–student relationship may lead students to feel insecure and distressed, which in turn can limit the extent to which they can rely on their relationship with their teacher as a source of support (Pianta 1999; Pianta, Nimetz, and Bennett 1997). While some degree of dependency is developmentally appropriate, particularly for younger students, excessive reliance on the teacher for reassurance can be detrimental (Verschueren and Koomen 2021).

Some scholars argue that the nurturing elements of attachment security become less salient for understanding teacher–student relationships among older students in middle grades and beyond as school‐based contextual factors start playing a more prominent role (Davis 2003; Hughes 2012). Therefore, researchers often rely on social‐motivational frameworks (Poling et al. 2022), specifically self‐determination theory. Self‐determination theory centers around the fundamental psychological needs of autonomy (i.e., desire to feel choiceful and experience “ownership” of one's actions), competence (i.e., desire to seek out and master challenges and interact effectively with the environment), and relatedness (i.e., desire to form and maintain strong bonds with others). Teachers who support students' autonomy by allowing them to make choices and decisions within the classroom context are more likely to cultivate positive teacher–student relationships (PTSRs). When students perceive a degree of control and can express their individuality in the learning process, they are more engaged and motivated (Mammadov and Tozoglu 2023). Despite important conceptual distinctions between attachment theory and self‐determination theory, both converge on the notion of an emotional connection between teachers and students (Davis 2003; Sabol and Pianta 2012).

2. Personality and Its Relevance for Teacher–Student Relationship Quality

This section provides an overview of the well‐studied link between specific personality traits and the quality of teacher–student relationships. Most research on this relation has focused on the Big Five, proactive personality, prosocial personality, shyness, and aggression.

2.1. Big Five Personality Traits

Personality can be broadly defined as the dynamic organization of psychological traits within an individual that influences their interactions with and adaptations to their environment (Allport 1961; Larsen and Buss 2014). The trait approach to personality has been helpful for researchers in studying the inner workings of human behavior across diverse situations. One prominent and widely used framework that has greatly contributed to our understanding of personality traits is the Big Five or the five‐factor model (Goldberg 1981; John and Srivastava 1999; McCrae and Costa 1996). The Big Five consist of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability (or neuroticism). These traits are regarded as both parsimonious and meaningful to capture individual difference variations in patterns of thoughts and behaviors.

Two of these traits, extraversion and agreeableness, are interpersonal traits that are particularly relevant in understanding the quality of teacher–student relationships. Extraverted individuals, for instance, are often viewed as effective in social interactions. Students with higher levels of extraversion are more likely to seek help from teachers when needed, actively participate in group activities, and experience positive affect during their interactions with teachers (Bidjerano and Dai 2007). Similarly, a teacher's extraversion can significantly reduce negative emotional reactions in students stemming from poor test results or conflicts with classmates through active communication, understanding, and caring (Huang et al. 2023), which, in turn, may contribute to a more PTSR. Both agreeable teachers and students tend to build harmonious relationships with one another and with others (Cano‐García, Padilla‐Muñoz, and Carrasco‐Ortiz 2005; Li et al. 2023).

Intrapersonal traits, such as emotional stability, openness, and conscientiousness, may enhance or hinder the quality of teacher–student relationships. Several lower‐order temperamental traits associated with neuroticism (e.g., anxiety, fear, and anger) have been linked to poor student–teacher interactions (Howes, Phillipsen, and Peisner Feinberg 2000; Zee, Koomen, and Van der Veen 2013). Graziano et al. (2007) reported that emotionally unstable students were more likely to be perceived by their teachers as challenging to manage and as demanding greater effort to control their behavior. Openness is associated with seeking novel academic experiences, autonomy, originality, and intelligence (McCrae and Costa 1987). Verschueren, Buyck, and Marcoen (2001) reported that open students tend to initiate positive, conflict‐free student–teacher relationships. Their readiness for change and the transfer of new skills and behaviors across domains enhances their creative problem‐solving abilities that may help reduce classroom conflicts and lead to better student–teacher relationships (e.g., Laidra, Pullmann, and Allik 2007; Paunonen and Ashton 2001). While direct links between conscientiousness and teacher–student relationship quality have not been extensively explored, there is evidence suggesting its positive role. Highly conscientious individuals are often more caring, sociable, and adaptable to social norms (Zee, Koomen, and Van der Veen 2013). They also tend to invest more in long‐term relationships compared to their less conscientious peers (Asendorpf and Wilpers 1998; Noftle and Shaver 2006). This pattern is likely to result in enhanced self‐esteem, motivation, and appreciation by teachers and peers, which can lead to reciprocal positive relationships (Laidra, Pullmann, and Allik 2007; Steinmayr and Spinath 2008).

2.2. Proactive Personality

Proactive personality refers to individual differences in the propensity to initiate action and influence their environment across a broad range of activities and situations (Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant 2001). This emphasis on motivation and action is directed toward improving current conditions (Crant 2000). Although proactive personality is positively associated with the Big Five traits of conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness and negatively associated with neuroticism (Major, Turner, and Fletcher 2006), these specific links, although helpful in understanding its nature, do not fully capture its complexity. It extends beyond the Big Five. Some argue that proactive personality is a compound trait, meaning it is composed of several basic personality traits that may not all covary (Hough 2003). The predictive power of these individual traits, in relation to a specific outcome, is likely to be exceeded by a compound trait such as proactive personality, which is more specifically tailored to that outcome (Hough and Schneider 1996).

Proactive personality is relevant for understanding how students interact and perform in the classroom. Numerous studies have explored the role of student proactivity in educational settings (e.g., Chen, Bao, and Gao 2021; Lin et al. 2014; Major, Holland, and Oborn 2012; Su et al. 2024). For example, Lin et al. (2014), in their longitudinal study, found that proactive personality was a positive predictor of changes in students' academic self‐efficacy. Similarly, Chen, Bao, and Gao (2021) reported a sequential relationship between proactive personality and academic engagement, mediated by teacher–student relationships and academic self‐efficacy. Students with proactive personalities were more likely to develop positive relationships with their teachers, which in turn led to greater academic engagement. Studies have also shown positive associations of proactive personality with social adjustment and academic adjustment (Hu et al. 2020). Students who are highly proactive are likely to engage in knowledge sharing, especially when teacher–student relationships are strong (Su et al. 2024). These findings collectively suggest that proactive personality plays a key role in both teacher–student relationships and the overall academic process.

2.3. Prosocial Personality

The concept of a prosocial personality has been explored for a long time, but there is as yet no convincing systematic basis to substantiate it as a single, unified trait. Most studies exploring prosocial actions within the teacher–student relationship context have focused on prosocial behaviors as a behavioral tendency rather than considering it as a single personality characteristic. Defining prosocial personality is too complex than identifying individual prosocial behaviors based on separate components such as prosocial feelings or prosocial cognition (Habashi, Graziano, and Hoover 2016; Penner et al. 1995). Inferences about personality require systematic patterns across responses and over time, rather than relying on isolated instances at a single point in time (Carlo et al. 2009; Eisenberg et al. 2002).

Research examining prosociality within the personality space has reported agreeableness as the single best predictor of prosocial tendencies and behaviors (Graziano and Habashi 2015; Habashi, Graziano, and Hoover 2016). For example, Habashi, Graziano, and Hoover (2016) examined the links between the Big Five personality dimensions, prosocial emotions, and helping behavior through systematic patterns that could implicate the prosocial personality. Agreeableness was found to be connected to prosocial emotions such as empathic concern, and through these emotions to prosocial behavior. Neuroticism too was a significant predictor of prosocial emotions, but its role in determining reactions in helping situations was related to self‐focused negative responses such as personal distress rather than empathic concern. The honesty–humility dimension of the HEXACO model, which represents the tendency to be fair and genuine in dealing with others, in the sense of cooperating with others even when one might exploit them without suffering retaliation (Ashton and Lee 2008, 156), explicitly contrasts prosocial and antisocial tendencies. Although there are other traits (e.g., the Dark Triad traits such as Machiavellianism and narcissism) that are consistently reported to be related to being less likely to engage in helping behavior (Bereczkei, Birkas, and Kerekes 2010; White 2014), these links should be interpreted cautiously. The relations between prosocial and antisocial behaviors are complex; they are not necessarily always simply inverses of each other (McGinley and Carlo 2007).

Teachers are likely to respond more positively to students who consistently exhibit prosocial behaviors in the classroom. This aligns with our natural tendency to build stronger relationships with those who demonstrate kindness and helpfulness. Research supports this notion. Previous studies have reported positive associations between prosocial behaviors and closeness in teacher–student relationships (Coulombe and Yates 2018; Prewett, Bergin, and Huang 2019). However, the relationship between prosocial personality and conflictual teacher–student relationships remains less clear. Some studies reported negative associations (Roorda et al. 2014), but others did not find such connections (de Jong et al. 2018). These inconsistencies might stem from differences in the education levels or other characteristics of the study samples. In addition, studies based on an attachment perspective have primarily focused on younger students in kindergarten or elementary school settings. When examining student behaviors at this stage, some research incorporates prosociality as part of a broader spectrum of externalizing and internalizing behaviors (e.g., Myers and Morris 2009; Roorda et al. 2014). These studies suggest the possibility of a reversed flow, where PTSR might actually lead to increased prosocial behaviors among students.

2.4. Shyness

Shyness is a personality trait characterized by a tendency to withdraw from unfamiliar social situations or people due to feelings of anxiety, unease, and self‐consciousness (Rudasill 2011; Coplan et al. 2017). Shy students are likely to experience apprehension in novel situations and a heightened awareness of how they are perceived by others, leading them to retreat or avoid these situations altogether (Rubin, Coplan, and Bowker 2009). Zee and Roorda (2018) suggest that this creates a so‐called approach–avoidance conflict, where a desire for connection is overshadowed by anxieties about judgment and rejection. As a result, shy students may interact less with teachers and peers, thereby hindering the development of positive and supportive teacher–student relationships, which are crucial for positive learning experiences (Coplan and Prakash 2003; Rudasill 2011). Empirical studies, primarily longitudinal ones with large samples of early elementary school students, reported negative associations between shyness and teacher–student closeness (Arbeau, Coplan, and Weeks 2010; Justice et al. 2008). Research also suggests a link to dependency; shy students, on average, show a higher tendency to be overly reliant on their teachers compared to peers (Ladd and Burgess 1999; Nurmi 2012). These findings highlight that shyness contributes to less closeness and high dependency in teacher–student relationships. Further investigation is needed to explore its association with conflict.

2.5. Aggression

Studies examining the link between aggression and teacher–student relationships have primarily focused on early childhood aggression, which is viewed as a potential risk factor that may place children on a negative developmental trajectory, increasing their likelihood of later maladjustment (Ladd and Profilet 1996). Defined in the literature as the intentional behavior to harm peers, aggression often begins with overt physical acts that become less common during early and middle childhood. These overt acts are then partially replaced by more subtle and covert forms, such as verbal and relational aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen 1992; Krahé et al. 2014). In personality psychology, aggression is typically conceptualized as a trait and commonly appears as an independent dimension in many psychobiological personality models (Gray and McNaughton 2000; Zuckerman 1991), except for the Eysenck's PEN model, where it is considered a subtrait of psychoticism (Eysenck 1998). In the Alternative Five Factor Model (Zuckerman 2002), aggression specifically represents the trait aggression–hostility. Previous meta‐analytic evidence on peer aggression and conflictual teacher–student relationships suggests that both students who perpetrate bullying and those who experience higher rates of victimization from their peers tend to experience greater conflict with their teachers (Krause and Smith 2022).

3. Current Meta‐Analysis

To date, no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted to examine the links between personality traits and the quality of teacher–student relationships. Prior meta‐analyses studying teacher–student relationships have primarily focused on the outcomes resulting from these relationships, such as students' academic achievements (Lei et al. 2023), student engagement (Roorda et al. 2017), school adjustment (Roorda, Zee, and Koomen 2021), and various student behaviors (Endedijk, Breeman, and van Lissa 2022; tenBokkel et al. 2023). Despite a growing body of primary research, a meta‐analytically robust understanding of the relationship between personality and teacher–student relationship quality has not yet been realized. Our goal was to address this gap by examining one of the potential factors that can provide insights into the variations in the quality of teacher–student relationships. We sought to identify all studies reporting effect sizes on the relationship between personality traits and measures of teacher–student relationship quality. In addition, we examined several moderators, including personality traits, education level, age, gender, and the quality of primary studies.

Relational closeness, conflict, support, communication, and involvement are highlighted as fundamental aspects of teacher–student relationships in the literature (Pianta 2001; Roorda et al. 2011). Individual personalities, both of teachers and students, can influence these aspects of the relationship. For example, a teacher with high extraversion may tend to create open and communicative relationships with their students, whereas a student with less emotional stability might interpret even minor conflicts with their teachers as highly distressing. We will create separate multivariate random effects models to examine the associations of teacher personality and student personality with the quality of the teacher–student relationship.

Education level is one of the candidate moderators in our analysis. Education levels, ranging from preschool to postsecondary, represent unique stages of learning and development, each with its own set of academic expectations and classroom dynamics. The extent to which personality traits come into play may vary based on the developmental stages of students (Heaven, Leeson, and Ciarrochi 2009), thus potentially being associated with teacher–student relationships differently across education levels. For example, in an elementary school, the nurturing and supportive aspects of teacher personalities may play a more important role in building positive relationships, given the greater need for empathy and cooperation among young students. Age, both of teachers and students, may also have a moderating effect in the relationship between their personalities and the quality of teacher–student relationships. The age and developmental stage of students may influence how they perceive and respond to the personality traits of their teachers.

Several studies have reported gender differences in teacher–student relationships, with teachers reporting closer and less conflictual relationships with girls than with boys (Birch and Ladd 1998; Sadker, Sadker, and Klein 1991). Girls tend to receive more teacher support and closeness, attributed to their cooperative, nonassertive behaviors compared to boys, who are perceived as more likely to engage in conflictual interactions with their teachers (Hughes, Cavell, and Willson 2001). While these findings suggest gender‐based distinctions in teacher–student relationships, they do not necessarily explain how gender might uniquely affect the links between student personalities and teacher–student relationship quality. For exploratory purposes, we will examine the potential role of gender distribution in primary study samples as a candidate moderator.

4. Method

4.1. Search Strategy

We used three search strategies to identify relevant studies reporting correlations between personality traits and the quality of student–teacher relationships. The first and most comprehensive strategy involved online database searches using a combination of key terms. The specific databases used included Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycINFO, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Education Research Complete, and ERIC. The primary criterion for database searches involved applying various combinations of a relevant personality keyword (e.g., “Big Five,” “Five Factor,” “personality,” “Openness,” “Conscientiousness,” “Extraversion,” “Introversion,” “Agreeableness,” “Neuroticism,” or a common measure name such as NEO and BFI) along with a keyword related to affective aspects of the teacher–student relationship or interaction (e.g., “teacher attachment,” “closeness,” “support,” “warmth,” “involvement,” “trust,” and “conflict”) within titles, abstracts, and search headings. The search was limited to articles published in English. Second, key journals in the fields of education and psychology, including Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychology Review, School Psychology Review, and Personality and Individual Differences, were manually searched, as well as the reference lists of included articles with a primary focus on our meta‐analysis topic and of previous meta‐analysis on teacher–student relationship (e.g., Magro et al. 2023). Lastly, we conducted a gray literature search using ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Google Scholar, and the System of Information on Gray Literature. In total, the search identified 723 studies, which were initially screened at the title and abstract levels. Following this screening, 76 studies were subjected to full‐text assessment for eligibility, with 55 included in the meta‐analysis. The remaining 21 studies were excluded as they did not meet one or more of the inclusion criteria outlined below. A summary of the included studies is presented in Table 1. Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis) diagram.

TABLE 1.

Summary of the included studies.

	Study	N	Female %	Education level	Country	T/S	Personality traits	Teacher–student relationship	Publication status
1	Acar et al. (2020)	94	40.4	Elementary	Turkey	S	Conscientiousness Shyness	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
2	Aldrup et al. (2020)	107	68.22		Germany	T	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Positive TSRQ	P
3	Ang, Ong, and Li (2020)	6578	51.5	Elementary	Singapore	S	Aggression	Positive TSRQ Teacher support Conflict	P
4	Arbeau, Coplan, and Weeks (2010)	169	50	Elementary	Canada	S	Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
5	Baker, Grant, and Morlock (2008)	423	45	Elementary	US	S	Conscientiousness	Closeness Conflict	P
6	Birch and Ladd (1998)	199	52	Elementary	US	S	Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
7	Charalampous and Kokkinos (2014)	317	53	Elementary	Cyprus	S	Extraversion Neuroticism	Closeness	P
8	Chen, Bao, and Gao (2021)	519	47.2	Elementary	China	S	Proactive personality	Positive TSRQ	P
9	Clem et al. (2021)	854	45.67	Elementary	Finland	S	Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism	Closeness Conflict	P
10	Coplan et al. (2017)	1275	50.03	Elementary	China	S	Shyness	Closeness	P
11	Coulombe and Yates (2018)	228	49.6	Elementary	US	S	Prosocial behavior	Closeness	P
12	de Jong et al. (2014)	120	40.8	High	The Netherlands	T	Agreeableness Extraversion	Positive TSRQ	P
13	Demirtaş‐Zorbaz and Ergene (2019)	517	54.6	Elementary	Turkey	S	Aggression	Closeness Conflict	P
14	Dhillon and Kaur (2023)	250	48	Postsecondary	India	T	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion	Positive TSRQ	P
15	Embacher, Zöggeler‐Burkhardt, and Smidt (2023)	163	51.53	Preschool	Austria	S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Closeness Conflict	P
16	Ferreira et al. (2016)	168	46	Preschool	Portugal	S	Prosocial behavior	Positive TSRQ	P
17	Gao et al. (2020)	603	47.6	Elementary	China	S	Proactive personality	Teacher support	P
18	Gower et al. (2014)	190	47.89	Preschool	US	S	Aggression	Closeness Conflict	P
19	Gürbüz (2022)	102	65	Postsecondary	Turkey	S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Teacher support	NP
20	Halder and Dutta (2014)	450		Postsecondary	India	T	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Positive TSRQ	P
21	Hoferichter and Raufelder (2015) s1	301	100	Middle	Germany	S	Neuroticism	Positive TSRQ	P
22	Hoferichter and Raufelder (2015) s2	212	0	Middle	Germany	S	Neuroticism	Positive TSRQ	P
23	Howes (2000)	793	50.06	Preschool	US	S	Aggression Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict	P
24	Hughes, Cavell, and Willson (2001)	993	50	Elementary	US	S	Agreeableness Aggression	Teacher support Conflict	P
25	Hughes, Bullock, and Coplan (2014)	202	48.51	Preschool	Canada	S	Aggression Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
26	Justice et al. (2008)	133	44.36	Preschool	US	S	Aggression Shyness	Closeness Conflict	P
27	Kim, Dar‐Nimrod, and MacCann (2018)	2008	53.5	Middle	Australia	T/S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Teacher support	P
28	Koles, O'Connor, and Collins (2013)	43		Preschool	Hungary	T	Agreeableness Extraversion Neuroticism	Closeness Conflict	P
29	König and Pflanzl (2016)	246	40.7	High	Austria	T	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Positive TSRQ	P
30	Lan and Mastrotheodoros (2022) s1	235	66.3	High	China	S	Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Teacher support	P
31	Lan and Mastrotheodoros (2022) s2	2521	55.1	High	China	S	Aggression Neuroticism	Teacher support	P
32	Lan and Moscardino (2019) s1	143	43.4	Elementary	China	S	Conscientiousness	Teacher support	P
33	Lan and Moscardino (2019) s2	297	52.9	Elementary	China	S	Conscientiousness	Teacher support	P
34	Li et al. (2022)	904	46.4	Middle	China	S	Conscientiousness	Conflict Teacher support	P
35	Liew, Chen, and Hughes (2010)	761	48	Elementary	US	S	Conscientiousness	Positive TSRQ	P
36	Ma, Ma, and Lan (2022)	1741	54.1	Middle	China	S	Openness Prosocial behavior	Teacher support	P
37	Madil et al. (2014)	628	48	Elementary	US	S	Aggression	Closeness	P
38	Mammadov and Tozoglu (2023)	234	48	Middle	US	S	Openness Conscientiousness	Teacher support	P
39	Metin Aslan and Boz (2022)	211	44.54	Preschool	Turkey	S	Extraversion Shyness	Closeness Conflict	P
40	Michou et al. (2023)	257	52.3	Middle	Turkey	S	Proactive personality	Teacher support	P
41	Mohamed (2018)	160	57.5	Preschool	Oman	S	Agreeableness	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
42	Myers and Morris (2009)	140	45	Preschool	US	S	Conscientiousness Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict	P
43	Palermo et al. (2007)	95	48	Preschool	US	S	Prosocial behavior Aggression	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
44	Pancorbo et al. (2022)	634	59	High	Brazil	T/S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism	Positive TSRQ	P
45	Rudasill and Rimm‐Kaufman (2009)	819	50.42	Elementary	US	S	Conscientiousness Shyness	Closeness Conflict	P
46	Saeed et al. (2023)	2581	45.22	Middle	China	S	Conscientiousness	Teacher support	P
47	Sette, Baumgartner, and Schneider (2014)	129	51.16	Preschool	Italy	S	Shyness Aggression Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
48	Sette, Spinrad and Baumgartner (2013)	88	47.72	Preschool	Italy	S	Aggression Neuroticism	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
49	Sette et al. (2022)	212	48.11	Preschool	Italy	S	Shyness	Closeness Dependency	P
50	Shin and Kim (2008)	297	44.1	Preschool	Korea	S	Aggression Neuroticism	Closeness Conflict	P
51	Tan and Wang (2013)	487		Middle	China	S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Openness	Positive TSRQ	NP
52	Troop‐Gordon and Kopp (2011)	410	52.92	Elementary	US	S	Aggression	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P
53	Valiente et al. (2008)	264	53.78	Elementary	US	S	Prosocial behavior	Positive TSRQ	P
54	Valiente, Swanson, and Lemery‐Chalfant (2012)	291	15.8	Elementary	US	S	Aggression Shyness	Closeness	P
55	Vansteenkiste et al. (2012)	1036	50	High	Belgium	S	Conscientiousness	Teacher support	P
56	Varghese, Vernon‐Feagans, and Bratsch‐Hines (2019)	503	50	Elementary	US	S	Prosocial behavior	Closeness Conflict	P
57	Wan et al. (2023)	352	46.59	Elementary	China	S	Openness	Positive TSRQ	P
58	Zee, Koomen, and Van der Veen (2013)	8545	49.3	Elementary	The Netherlands	S	Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness	Closeness Conflict Dependency	P

Note: TSRQ = Teacher–student relationship quality; The “T/S” column indicates whether the data pertains teacher personality or student personality; P = Published, NP = Not published (e.g., unpublished dissertations); “s1” and “s2” are used to denote multiple samples from the same citation.

FIGURE 1.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis (PRISMA) diagram. k = number of independent samples, n = number of records.

4.2. Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included in this meta‐analysis if they met the following criteria: (a) reported at least one effect size measure of the relations between student or teacher personality and teacher–student relationship; (b) included measures of personality traits, domains, or facets, regardless of the personality model used; (c) included measures of affective aspects of the teacher–student relationship or interactions, such as support, closeness, and conflict; (d) the study samples consisted of students at all education levels from preschool to postsecondary; (e) were written in English; and (f) were published in peer‐reviewed journal articles, unpublished dissertation/theses, conference papers, published (nonpeer‐reviewed) reports, newsletters, or summary data published on websites.

4.3. Data Coding and Extraction

The following information was systematically coded and extracted from each study using a coding spreadsheet: authors, publication year, number of reported effect sizes, sample size, country of the sample, percentage of female participants, average age, publication status, contextual information, education level, details on personality (teacher or student), the personality construct used, the personality measurement instrument, the aspect of teacher–student relationship, the theory underpinning the teacher–student relationship assessment in the primary study, the instrument used to measure teacher–student relationship, Cronbach's alpha coefficients for both personality and teacher–student relationship measures, effect sizes, and any additional notes. The authors independently double‐coded a randomly selected subset of studies (25%). High agreement between coders was observed (Cohen's kappa = 0.96, McHugh 2012), and any coding discrepancies were resolved. The remaining 75% of studies were coded by the first author alone. To evaluate the primary study quality, the STROBE checklist (von Elm et al. 2008) was adapted. Both authors independently assessed the study quality for all included studies.

The Big Five model was used most often in the included primary studies and was therefore chosen as the primary basis for categorizing personality traits in this meta‐analysis. The Big Five model shares significant conceptual overlap with other widely used personality frameworks (Ashton and Lee 2008; Lambros, Marcus, and Nagel 2023). For example, Eysenck's (1991) model comprises three dimensions, with two of them (neuroticism and extraversion) conceptually similar to their corresponding Big Five traits. Similarly, the HEXACO model (Lee and Ashton 2004) includes six dimensions, five of which (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotionality) are similar to the respective Big Five traits. In addition, numerous studies have documented strong empirical connections between the Big Five traits and various other personality constructs originating from alternative theories. For example, in their meta‐analysis, Credé, Tynan, and Harms's (2017) reported high degrees of association (p = 0.84) between grit and conscientiousness. Ponnock et al. (2020) found that the factor structures of grit and conscientiousness strongly overlap, suggesting that grit may essentially represent a different label for conscientiousness that is already well‐established in the literature. Another example is that mindfulness was repeatedly found to provide little or no incremental utility above and beyond the Big Five traits (Altgassen, Geiger, and Wilhelm 2023; Fischer, Voracek, and Tran 2023). By considering these conceptual and empirical connections, we systematically categorized specific personality traits within the Big Five framework. We categorized several other personality traits and behavioral tendencies (e.g., proactive personality, prosocial personality, shyness, and aggression) as distinct categories in our analysis. These traits were not categorized under any single Big Five trait because they often cut across multiple Big Five dimensions. For instance, individuals with proactive personalities typically demonstrate a combination of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness (Major, Turner, and Fletcher 2006).

We categorized teacher–student relationship quality into two distinct categories: PTSR and negative teacher–student relationship (NTSR). Closeness, teacher support, teacher autonomy support, teacher proximity, communication effectiveness, and teacher liking that reflect positive aspects of teacher–student interactions were coded under PTSR. Conflict and dependency were the only variables in primary studies representing the negative aspects of teacher–student relationships. Table 2 presents a glossary of personality and teacher–student relationship constructs that we used in our analysis.

TABLE 2.

Glossary of personality and teacher–student relationship constructs in the meta‐analysis.

Construct	Definition	Citations/References
Personality traits
Openness	The degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and preference for novelty, variety, and change	McCrae and Costa (1996)
Conscientiousness	The tendency to demonstrate self‐discipline, planning, and organization, thinking before acting, and adhering to rules and norms	John and Srivastava (1999), McCrae and Costa (1996)
Extraversion	Positive emotionality, assertiveness, activity, sociability, and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others	John and Srivastava (1999) McCrae and Costa (1996)
Agreeableness	The tendency to be prosocial and cooperative toward others rather than antagonistic	John and Srivastava (1999)
Neuroticism	Vulnerability to unpleasant emotions, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense	John and Srivastava (1999)
Aggression	The tendency to engage in behavior likely to harm others (e.g., peers) through various means such as verbal or physical aggression	Ladd and Profilet (1996)
Prosocial personality	The tendency to be empathic, cooperative, and self‐sacrificing with others, to think about the welfare and right of other people, and to engage in behaviors in a way that benefits them	Ladd and Profilet (1996), Penner and Finkelstein (1998)
Proactive personality	A stable disposition toward taking personal initiative in a broad range of activities and situations to influence one's environment, actively solve problems, create new environments, and achieve individual innovations	Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant (2001), Gao et al. (2020)
Shyness	The tendency to retreat or withdraw from unfamiliar people or other environmental stimuli, often accompanied by excessive wariness, unease, and self‐consciousness, and discomfort in situations involving social novelty or perceived social evaluation	Rudasill (2011), Coplan et al. (2017)
Teacher–student relationship constructs
Closeness	The degree of warmth and positive affect between an individual in an instructional role (such as a teacher) and the student, as well as the level of comfort and ease the student feels in approaching the teachers	Sabol and Pianta (2012)
Conflict	The presence of negativity or lack of rapport between the teacher and the student; negative and conflictual relationship	Sabol and Pianta (2012), Pianta (2001)
Dependency	The extent in which the child displays clinginess or possessiveness toward the teacher, and seeks excessive support, guidance, or reassurance from them	Sabol and Pianta (2012)
Teacher support	The extent to which students believe that they can rely on their teacher; the help, care, and support teachers provide in various forms, ranging from emotional support to providing choices, acknowledging students' feelings, and nurturing their motivational resources	Kim, Dar‐Nimrod, and MacCann (2018), Lan and Mastrotheodoros (2022), Merritt et al. (2012)

5. Data Analysis

We conducted a multilevel meta‐analysis using robust variance estimation (RVE) to accommodate multiple effect sizes nested within studies (Hedges, Tipton, and Johnson 2010). The analyses were based on Fisher's z scale. The results were then converted back to correlation coefficients. The observed correlations in primary studies were corrected for measurement errors using alpha estimates reported in those studies when available. For studies that did not report reliability measures, we referred to original validation studies to obtain these estimates. For the few remaining studies, reliabilities were estimated as the average reliability for measures in the database with similar numbers of items per factor. We used the metafor package to construct the multilevel model and the clubSandwich package to estimate the standard errors and for hypothesis testing (Pustejovsky 2017; Viechtbauer 2010). We assumed that multiple effect sizes (level 1) were nested within samples (level 2), which were nested within studies (level 3). We also assumed that estimates from different samples were independent, but those from the same sample were correlated with r = 0.60, based on the literature and the assumptions, to develop the correlated and hierarchical effects (“CHE”) working model as described in Pustejovsky and Tipton (2022).

Two moderators, age and gender distribution, contained missing data. The missing age values for students were replaced with the average age within the respective education level in the study. The gender distribution refers to the percentage of female participants in the sample. As there were no indications that this proportion varied by education level or other variables in the data, we performed multiple imputation using predictive mean matching through the mice package (Van Buuren 2018).

Effect sizes were considered significant if their 95% confidence intervals did not include zero. The comparison of effect sizes between personality traits was based on the confidence interval method proposed by Cumming and Finch (2005). When assessing the overlap between confidence intervals, more than 50% overlap was considered to indicate approximate equivalence between personality traits in terms of their associations with teacher–student relationship quality. A lack of overlap was interpreted as a statistically significant difference equivalent to a probability of approximately 0.01. Confidence intervals demonstrating overlap but less than 50% suggested a statistical difference with a probability of 0.05.

We conducted homogeneity tests to assess whether variabilities among the effect size calculations exceeded chance expectations. The residual heterogeneity of the weighted mean effect sizes (QE) and the heterogeneity explained by the moderators (QM) were calculated. Heterogeneity was also assessed by calculating the proportion of the observed variance that reflects real differences in effect sizes (I ²; Higgins et al. 2003). The Begg's funnel plot (Begg and Mazumdar 1994) and the Egger's regression intercept test (Egger et al. 1997) were used to test publication bias.

6. Results

6.1. Study Characteristics

As a result of an extensive search and screening procedures a total of 55 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta‐analytic synthesis. These studies comprised a total of 38,963 students and 1216 teachers. The sample sizes varied from 43 to 8545. The majority of observed sample sizes (k = 32, 58%) were between 101 and 500. Two study samples consisted of more than 5000 subjects. Forty‐nine studies provided 186 effect sizes on the relations between student personality and teacher–student relationship quality, and six studies contributed 52 effect sizes related to teacher personality. Three studies (5.5%) were conducted with postsecondary samples, five studies (9%) with high school students, nine studies (16%) with middle school students, 22 studies (40%) with elementary school students, and 15 studies (27%) involved preschool‐aged participants. Average student ages ranged from 4 to 39.5. The studies represented 19 different countries, with the majority being conducted in the United States (31%), Europe (25%), and China (18%). Twenty‐nine studies (53%) were published between 2011 and 2020, and 15 studies (27%) over the last three years.

Twenty‐nine studies (53%) used various versions of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta 2001) to assess teacher–student relationship quality. The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Black and Deci 2000) was employed in six studies (11%). Studies with preschool and elementary samples (k = 20, 36%) primarily relied on teacher–reported measures for both teacher–student relationship quality and student personality. Conversely, studies with older students predominantly used self‐report measures. A range of different measures were used for personality traits. Studies with younger samples (k = 12, 22%) used the Child Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, and Hershey 1994), the Child Behavior Scale (CBS; Ladd and Profilet 1996), and similar teacher–reported measures to assess student personality and behavioral tendencies. Self‐report measures developed based on the Big Five and HEXACO models (k = 12, 24%) were among the widely used instruments to measure student and teacher personality in studies with older participants.

6.2. Personality Traits as a Moderator

We created several distinct multivariate random effects models using Fisher's Z transformation of correlation coefficients to explore the associations between student personality, teacher personality, and the quality of positive and NTSRs. Our initial models introduced personality traits as the sole moderator and tested student personality in relation to PTSR and NTSR, as well as teacher personality and PTSR. We excluded the model examining teacher personality in relation to NTSR because there were only three effect sizes contributing to this model, all originating from the same study.

Proactive personality and prosocial personality, along with all Big Five traits (except neuroticism), demonstrated significant positive associations with PTSR (see Table 3), whereas neuroticism had a weaker negative association (ρ = −0.12, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.04]). Neuroticism also showed a significant positive association with NTSR (ρ = 0.19, 95% CI [0.07, 0.30]), but this correlation was again weak. In contrast, student aggression showed a much stronger positive association with NTSR (ρ = 0.62, 95% CI [0.43, 0.74]), suggesting its importance in predicting unfavorable interactions between teachers and students, such as conflict.

TABLE 3.

Meta‐regression results.

	Estimate	SE	95% CI	t	df	p
Student personality and PTSR
Aggression	−0.29	0.06	[−0.41, −0.17]	−4.67	11.47	< 0.001
Agreeableness	0.28	0.09	[0.10, 0.45]	2.96	5.24	0.03
Conscientiousness	0.27	0.04	[0.20, 0.34]	7.18	11.97	< 0.001
Extraversion	0.25	0.06	[0.13, 0.36]	3.97	5.82	0.008
Neuroticism	−0.12	0.04	[−0.18, −0.04]	−3.29	9.51	0.008
Openness	0.20	0.07	[0.06, 0.33]	2.72	5.98	0.03
Proactive personality	0.31	0.03	[0.25, 0.37]	9.37	1.79	0.02
Prosocial behavior	0.48	0.05	[0.38, 0.58]	7.67	10.97	< 0.001
Shyness	−0.15	0.07	[−0.30, 0.01]	−1.82	6.98	0.11
Teacher personality and PTSR
Agreeableness	0.28	0.12	[0.03, 0.51]	2.15	6.65	0.07
Conscientiousness	0.28	0.12	[0.04, 0.49]	2.30	5.26	0.06
Extraversion	0.17	0.09	[−0.02, 0.35]	1.74	6.65	0.12
Neuroticism	−0.32	0.15	[−0.58, −0.00]	−1.97	5.24	0.10
Openness	0.29	0.12	[0.04, 0.50]	2.30	3.48	0.09
Student personality and NTSR
Aggression	0.62	0.09	[0.43, 0.74]	5.47	10.04	< 0.001
Agreeableness	−0.73	0.12	[−0.89, −0.41]	−3.72	5.54	0.01
Conscientiousness	−0.15	0.12	[−0.37, 0.09]	−1.22	6.82	0.26
Neuroticism	0.19	0.06	[0.07, 0.30]	3.14	3.57	0.04
Openness	−0.15	0.17	[−0.47, 0.20]	−0.84	1.01	0.56
Prosocial behavior	−0.39	0.08	[−0.53, −0.23]	−4.44	6.48	0.003
Shyness	−0.01	0.09	[−0.18, 0.19]	−0.06	4.51	0.96
Student personality and PTSR, holding education level, age, and gender constant
Age	−0.03	0.02	[−0.07, 0.02]	−1.11	15.40	0.28
Gender	0.00	0.01	[−0.01, 0.01]	0.07	1.74	0.95
Preschool	−0.31	0.15	[−0.58, 0.01]	−1.88	16.56	0.08
Elementary	−0.20	0.11	[−0.40, 0.02]	−1.81	10.24	0.10
Middle	−0.16	0.11	[−0.37, 0.07]	−1.34	12.49	0.20
High	−0.10	0.12	[−0.34, 0.14]	−0.83	9.93	0.42
Aggression	−0.14	0.10	[−0.33, 0.06]	−1.37	11.57	0.20
Agreeableness	0.47	0.14	[0.16, 0.70]	2.88	11.58	0.01
Conscientiousness	0.46	0.11	[0.22, 0.64]	3.64	11.45	0.004
Extraversion	0.45	0.11	[0.20, 0.64]	3.41	11.17	0.006
Neuroticism	0.09	0.12	[−0.16, 0.32]	0.69	14.74	0.50
Openness	0.42	0.09	[0.16, 0.62]	3.11	13.05	0.008
Proactive personality	0.48	0.09	[0.29, 0.64]	4.50	5.42	0.005
Prosocial behavior	0.59	0.08	[0.44, 0.71]	6.35	14.13	< 0.001
Teacher personality and PTSR, holding age, and gender constant a
Age	−0.02	0.01	[−0.03, −0.01]	−3.71	1.95	0.07
Gender	0.01	0.01	[−0.01, 0.03]	1.24	2.30	0.33
Agreeableness	0.31	0.15	[0.04, 0.54]	2.21	4.41	0.09
Conscientiousness	0.29	0.12	[0.07, 0.49]	2.51	4.19	0.06
Extraversion	0.19	0.13	[−0.07, 0.41]	1.39	4.41	0.23
Neuroticism	−0.41	0.22	[−0.70, −0.01]	−2.01	3.56	0.12
Openness	0.27	0.16	[−0.04, 0.52]	1.73	2.63	0.19
Student personality and NTSR, holding age, and gender constant a
Age	−0.00	0.03	[−0.06, 0.06]	−0.10	8.80	0.92
Gender	0.02	0.03	[−0.04, 0.07]	0.51	5.84	0.63
Aggression	0.62	0.11	[0.30, 0.81]	3.41	8.25	0.009
Agreeableness	−0.72	0.10	[−0.88, −0.41]	−3.76	4.92	0.01
Conscientiousness	−0.13	0.15	[−0.42, 0.19]	−0.78	5.45	0.47
Neuroticism	0.22	0.10	[0.04, 0.38]	2.36	3.91	0.08
Openness	−0.14	0.23	[−0.51, 0.27]	−0.67	1.13	0.61
Prosocial behavior	−0.39	0.15	[−0.67, −0.03]	−2.10	13.38	0.06
Shyness	0.05	0.21	[−0.36, 0.45]	0.25	8.57	0.81

^a Education level was not included because there were not sufficient numbers of effect sizes contributing to various educational levels.

Only the Big Five personality traits were tested in the model examining teacher personality and PTSR. Other personality traits had few or no effect sizes. Teacher agreeableness (ρ = 0.28, 95% CI [0.03, 0.51]), conscientiousness (ρ = 0.28, 95% CI [0.04, 0.49]), and openness (ρ = 0.29, 95% CI [0.04, 0.50]) showed positive associations with PTSR, whereas neuroticism (ρ = −0.32, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.00]) yielded a negative correlation.

6.3. Introducing Other Moderators

In the next set of analyses, we introduced education level, age, and gender as moderators. In the first model testing student personality in relation to PTSR, the between‐study and within‐study variations (tau‐squared) were 0.00 and 0.05, respectively. The omnibus test of moderators was significant, suggesting that the examined factors influenced the association between student personality and PTSR (QM = 184.64, p < 0.001). Meta‐regression results are detailed in Table 3. Aggression (ρ = −0.14, 95% CI [−0.33, 0.06]) and neuroticism (ρ = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.32]) became nonsignificant predictors of PTSR when holding constant all other moderators. The other personality traits remained significant, although their effect sizes changed when additional controls were introduced.

In the model testing student personality in relation to NTSR, the between‐study and within study variations (tau‐squared) were 0.01 and 0.17, respectively. The omnibus test of moderators was significant (QM = 514.36, p < 0.001). In this model, significant personality traits showed only small changes in effect sizes. Student aggression (ρ = 0.62, 95% CI [0.30, 0.81]) and neuroticism (ρ = 0.22, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38]) were positively associated with NTSR, while agreeableness (ρ = −0.72, 95% CI [−0.88, −0.41]) and prosocial personality (ρ = −0.39, 95% CI [−0.67, −0.03]) had negative associations with NTSR when holding age and gender constant.

The model on the relationship between teacher personality and PTSR yielded the between‐study and within study variations (tau‐squared) of 0.04 and 0.06, respectively. The omnibus test of moderators was significant (QM = 45.87, p < 0.001). Teacher agreeableness (ρ = 0.31, 95% CI [0.04, 0.54]), conscientiousness (ρ = 0.29, 95% CI [0.07, 0.49]), and neuroticism (ρ = −0.41, 95% CI [−0.70, −0.01]) were significant predictors of PTSR, holding constant all other moderators. Average age of the study samples was found to have a small moderating effect. On average, for every 1‐year increase in student age, the effect size changed −0.02 (0.01) SD (t = −3.71, df = 1.95, p = 0.07), holding constant all other moderators. However, the effect size appeared to be negligible, and the p‐value indicates a lack of statistical significance at the convention significance level of 0.05, suggesting that the effect size, in fact, might not be reliably different from zero.

We also tested the study quality as a methodological moderator. We did not include publication status as a moderator since the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of included studies were published. The study quality did not yield a significant moderating effect.

6.4. Publication Bias

The Egger's regression intercept test (Egger et al. 1997) for the model testing student personality in relation to PTSR yielded a bias estimate of 1.14 with 95% CI [−0.80, 3.08], t (125) = 1.17, and p = 0.245, indicating no significant asymmetry in the funnel plot (see Figure 2). Conversely, the other two models (i.e., student personality and NTSR, and teacher personality and PTSR) demonstrated funnel plot asymmetry. Among the 55 studies included, only two were unpublished, which minimizes the likelihood that the observed asymmetries for these models solely stem from publication bias. For the model testing teacher personality in relation to PTSR, a bias estimate of −16.01 with a 95% CI [−26.38, −5.64], t (31) = −3.15, and p = 0.004, suggests pronounced asymmetry, potentially attributable to factors beyond publication bias (see Sterne et al. 2011). The funnel plot reflects some of this asymmetry, with more large residual values toward the right‐hand side of the plot than the left. Similarly, the model on student personality and NTSR demonstrated significant asymmetry with a bias estimate of −5.11 and a 95% CI [−9.58, −0.64], t (47) = −2.29, and p = 0.03. These findings suggest that factors other than publication bias might contribute to the observed asymmetry in the funnel plots for both models, indicating a need for cautious interpretation.

FIGURE 2.

Funnel plots.

7. Discussion

The present meta‐analysis sought to provide the first synthesis of associations between student and teacher personality traits and the quality of teacher–student relationships. A total of 55 research studies met the inclusion criteria for the present meta‐analysis. Multivariate random effects models were used to explore these associations.

Overall, our findings align with prior research on the links between personality and relational constructs in a broader context. Personality expresses much of who we are as individuals, and our interactions with others provides a platform for its expression, whether in academic, professional, or family settings. Both attachment theory and self‐determination theory highlight the fundamental human need for attachment and connection in relationships. It is thus not surprising that positive personality traits generally enhance relationship satisfaction, while negative traits can thwart it. Our meta‐analysis sought to extend understanding of the links between student and teacher personality and the quality of their relationships.

All Big Five traits, except neuroticism, showed strong positive associations with PTSR. Interestingly, education level and age did not have any significant effect on these relationships. Students' progression through schooling might contribute to certain aspects of their educational experiences. They have different needs at different developmental stages (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, and Harris 2012), and the nature of their relations with teachers changes over the course of their school years (Eccles et al. 1993). However, our findings suggest that the direct impact of age and education level on the quality of teacher–student relations is relatively less important in comparison to the influence of their individual personality traits.

Student proactive personality too had a strong predictive validity for PTSR. Proactive personality can be described as a relatively stable tendency to proactively initiate change or influence their environment and persist until meaningful changes are achieved (Crant 2000). Students with a highly proactive personality are likely to be self‐motivated (Major, Turner, and Fletcher 2006). Teachers may find these students more engaging, driven, and likely to actively participate in learning, which may lead to stronger teacher–student relationships. Given that proactive personality is something more than a combination of the Big Five, and that research on this personality trait among students is relatively limited, further research could yield novel insights for educational practice.

Although we did not model different individual differences concurrently, it might be worth comparing the effect sizes we observed for personality traits in relation to the quality of teacher–student relationship. Prosocial personality had the strongest association and a relatively narrow confidence interval, suggesting highly consistent results across primary studies. It is plausible to expect that some teachers may be more supportive of children with high prosocial personalities and tend to establish closer and more affectionate relationships with them (Birch and Ladd 1998; Caprara et al. 2000). This preferential treatment could be a natural consequence of teachers gravitating toward students who exhibit positive social behaviors.

The relationship between prosocial personality and the teacher–student relationship quality may be bidirectional. Ma, Ma, and Lan's (2022) person‐centered analysis showed that students with high levels of perceived teacher autonomy support were more likely to belong to a well‐adjusted profile with strong prosocial traits. This suggests that PTSRs, fostered perhaps by autonomy support, may promote prosocial behaviors among students and contribute to a positive overall classroom climate (Longobardi et al. 2021). In early schooling, supportive interactions can create a safe space for children to practice and express prosocial behaviors such as empathy and cooperation. Note that our meta‐analysis summarizes correlational effect sizes, so causal inferences about the direction of the relationship are not conclusive.

Our results suggest that agreeable students tend to build positive relationships with teachers, but their role is even more noticeable in avoiding conflict. Their friendly and courteous nature contributes to building rapport with teachers, leading to slightly more positive relationships (Zee, Koomen, and Van der Veen 2013). Moreover, they are less likely to engage in behaviors that might cause conflict with teachers. They might be more willing to cooperate, follow instructions, and resolve issues peacefully. Personality research provides robust evidence that agreeable individuals tend to have higher quality interpersonal relationships due to their ability to minimize interpersonal conflict through reduced hostility and a cooperative nature (Asendorpf and Wilpers 1998; Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski 2002; Graziano, Jensen‐Campbell, and Hair 1996). These findings may extend beyond teacher–student interactions, suggesting that agreeableness has a direction implication for positive interpersonal relationships in various social contexts.

Student aggression was found to be a strong predictor of NTSR. The magnitude of this relation did not change when age and gender were introduced into the model as moderators. Previous research highlights a bidirectional link between aggression and negative teacher–student interactions (Holfeld and Leadbeater 2017; Serdiouk, Berry, and Gest 2016). All studies included in our meta‐analysis examining this relationship focused on preschool and elementary school samples. Early aggression stands out as a particularly harmful aspect of behavior problems and holds the potential to escalate into future disruptive behaviors if left unaddressed during the early schooling years (Gallagher 2015; Hughes, Cavell, and Jackson 1999). Aggression among young students might be better understood as a behavioral trait rather than strictly being classified as a personality trait, because it can be quite malleable during this developmental phase. From the attachment theory, we know that the early relationships formed with teachers lead the child to develop an internal working model of relationships that divide between models of secure and insecure attachment (Krause and Smith 2023). Teachers and early caregivers play significant roles in shaping and revising children's internal relational models (Davis 2003). Positive teacher–student interactions may help reduce aggressive and antisocial behaviors in children. But this link we draw here remains speculative without longitudinal evidence, despite our findings report a significant negative correlation of PTSR with aggression.

Teacher agreeableness and conscientiousness appeared to be important positive predictors of favorable teacher–student interactions, whereas neuroticism was a negative predictor. The role of neuroticism is somewhat expectable. Neuroticism involves tendencies toward negative emotions (Widiger 2009). However, the specific reasons for this negative association can vary by context. Neuroticism has many facets, such as angry hostility, anxiety, vulnerability, self‐consciousness, impulsiveness, and depression (Renshaw, Blais, and Smith 2010). In the classroom, the role of teacher emotional state is more immediate. Teachers with higher neuroticism may be more reactive to classroom disruptions and experience difficulty in managing stress (John, Naumann, and Soto 2008), which can affect their interactions with students and the overall quality of teacher–student relationships. In other contexts, neuroticism might influence relationships through different mechanisms. For example, in the context of romantic relationships, individuals with high neuroticism perceive life events more negatively, which in turn affects their relationship satisfaction (intrapersonal mechanism; Cote and Moskowitz 1998), or they experience low relationship satisfaction because they create negative events and engage in negative behaviors (interpersonal mechanism; Caughlin, Huston, and Houts 2000). Both mechanisms undermine the quality of the romantic relationship. Specific facets may enhance the precision of findings.

Teacher conscientiousness may have important implications for educational practice. Conscientiousness, despite not typically considered an interpersonal trait like agreeableness and extraversion, is a predictor of good relationships (Kern et al. 2014). The model tested in the present meta‐analysis hints that teachers high on conscientiousness are more likely to be organized and exhibit responsible and goal‐oriented behaviors, which may reflect in their ability to create structured classroom environments, offer timely feedback, and provide reliable support for students. These teacher behaviors could significantly enhance PTSRs.

We should not ignore the fact that personality traits do not operate in isolation within teacher–student interactions in real‐life contexts. Instead, it is a complex interaction where multiple traits manifest together in individuals, which ultimately determines their effect on the quality of teacher–student relationships. A typological approach to personality could be a strong alternative to the traditional variable‐centered approach used in the teacher–student relationship literature. Studying personality types could allow us to explore unique ways in which multiple traits interact within students or teachers that form coherent patterns of behaviors and experiences in the classroom environment.

No significant asymmetry was observed in the funnel plot for the model examining the relationship between student personality and PTSR. However, the other two models had funnel plot asymmetry. Although we conducted a comprehensive search of the sources and included both published and unpublished records to minimize bias, out of the 55 studies included in our analysis, only two were unpublished. We believe our approach reduces the likelihood that the observed asymmetries are solely attributable to publication bias. Factors other than publication bias might contribute to the observed asymmetry in the funnel plots for both models, indicating a need for cautious interpretation.

As with most meta‐analytic reviews, this study has several limitations that the reader should bear in mind when considering results. One limitation is the current state of literature on the relations, specifically, between teacher personality and teacher–student interactions. We did not test the model examining relations of teacher personality traits with NTSR because only a few effect sizes were available, all coming from the same study. Another limitation is the reliance on different measurement methods for younger and older students. Studies with younger students often used teacher–report measures, whereas those with older students primarily used self‐report measures. This variation introduces potential biases, such as the possibility that teachers' ratings of student personalities may be influenced by social desirability bias. In addition, the confounding between student age and measurement method posed challenges for our analysis. Therefore, we did not include measurement method as a moderator, but this decision may have limited our ability to fully examine how different measurement approaches affect the relationship between personality and teacher–student relationships. Lastly, our meta‐analysis primarily focused on concurrent relations. It was not possible for us to investigate the direction of the association between personality traits and teacher–student relationships or potential bidirectional associations. Personality is malleable, especially during childhood and adolescence (Roberts and DelVecchio 2000). Student personality traits might be related to student–teacher relationships because personality traits by definition are enduring characteristics that shape how individuals engage, react, and interact within social contexts. Student personalities are likely to have an impact on how they interact with their peers and teachers and how they interpret and cope with outcomes of these interactions. Students' experiences within these relationships in turn could play a role in shaping and refining their personality traits over time. To draw sound conclusions regarding causal relations and directionalities, we need more longitudinal studies that measure these constructs at multiple time points.

Author Contributions

Sakhavat Mammadov: Writing – Review & Editing, Writing – Original Draft, Conceptualization, Methodology, Search, Data Coding and Extraction, Validation, Data Analysis, Supervision.

Ayse Hilal Avci: Writing – Review & Editing, Writing – Original Draft, Conceptualization, Search, Data Coding and Extraction, Validation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.