Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents

Significance

There is increasing concern about rising discipline citations in K–12 schooling and a lack of means to reduce them. Predominant theories characterize this problem as the result of punitive discipline policies (e.g., zero-tolerance policies), teachers’ lack of interpersonal skills, or students’ lack of self-control or social–emotional skills. By contrast, the present research examined teachers’ mindsets about discipline. A brief intervention aimed at encouraging an empathic mindset about discipline halved student suspension rates over an academic year. This intervention, an online exercise, can be delivered at near-zero marginal cost to large samples of teachers and students. These findings could mark a paradigm shift in society’s understanding of the origins of and remedies for discipline problems.

Abstract

Growing suspension rates predict major negative life outcomes, including adult incarceration and unemployment. Experiment 1 tested whether teachers (n = 39) could be encouraged to adopt an empathic rather than punitive mindset about discipline—to value students’ perspectives and sustain positive relationships while encouraging better behavior. Experiment 2 tested whether an empathic response to misbehavior would sustain students’ (n = 302) respect for teachers and motivation to behave well in class. These hypotheses were confirmed. Finally, a randomized field experiment tested a brief, online intervention to encourage teachers to adopt an empathic mindset about discipline. Evaluated at five middle schools in three districts (N_teachers = 31; N_students = 1,682), this intervention halved year-long student suspension rates from 9.6% to 4.8%. It also bolstered respect the most at-risk students, previously suspended students, perceived from teachers. Teachers’ mindsets about discipline directly affect the quality of teacher–student relationships and student suspensions and, moreover, can be changed through scalable intervention.

Removal from mainstream education settings for discipline problems denies children opportunities to learn and thus predicts major negative life outcomes such as adult unemployment and incarceration (1). However, in the United States, the number of students suspended for misbehavior nearly tripled from 1.7 million in 1974 to more than 5 million in 2011 (3.7–11% of all students) (2, 3). Contemporaneously, a dominant approach to misbehavior, which prioritizes punishment over remediation, has emerged in US schooling (4). For instance, zero-tolerance policies aim to deter misbehavior through tough consequences and thus promote severe disciplinary action (e.g., suspensions) for even minor misbehavior (5).

Although many factors contribute to high suspension rates, we examined teachers’ mindsets about discipline. We hypothesized that a punitive response to misbehavior can, ironically, alienate disaffected students and thus incite the destructive, oppositional behaviors it aims to prevent. A response that values students’ perspectives and maintains high-quality relationships in disciplinary interactions may improve outcomes. Much research shows that feeling respect for and being respected by authority figures can motivate people to follow rules enforced by those figures, especially in conflicts (6). If teachers convey this respect while disciplining students, this may improve students’ behavior.

Consistent with this hypothesis, the quality of students’ relationships with teachers is one of the strongest predictors of classroom behavior (7). Relationships of trust and respect may be especially important in adolescence. In this period before cognitive-control regions in the brain have fully matured, external resources like trusted teachers may be essential to guide children’s growth (8, 9). Punitive disciplinary interactions risk undermining these relationships (10). If students feel disrespected and subsequently misbehave, this may confirm in teachers’ minds that the student is a “troublemaker,” facilitating harsh responses to future misbehavior (11). Thus, a punitive approach to discipline may give rise to a self-perpetuating cycle of punishment and misbehavior (12).

Three experiments tested whether teachers can be encouraged to adopt an empathic mindset about discipline and examined its impact on students. This mindset prioritizes valuing and understanding students’ experiences and negative feelings that give rise to misbehavior, sustaining positive relationships with misbehaving students, and working with students within trusting relationships to improve behavior (9). For example, perspective-taking, the cognitive component of empathy, may help teachers understand students’ experiences and internal states (13) and thus respond more appropriately to misbehavior (e.g., with greater concern for the needs of the student) (12, 14). Notably, even as many teachers are exposed to a default punitive approach to discipline (5), teachers also have, as a central plank of their profession, the goal to build and sustain positive relationships with students, especially struggling students (15). The existence of this alternative mindset suggests that it may be possible through relatively modest means to encourage a different approach to student misbehavior. We thus test whether an empathic mindset can change teachers’ practices, whether this improves students’ responses to discipline, and whether encouraging an empathic mindset in teachers can reduce suspension rates among students.

Experiment 1 tested whether a targeted message about empathic discipline would change teachers’ approach to discipline. Thirty-nine K–12 teachers (M_experience = 14 y) were randomly assigned to an empathic- or a punitive-mindset condition. Teachers read a brief article, which reminded them either that “good teacher–student relationships are critical for students to learn self-control” (empathic mindset) or that “punishment is critical for teachers to take control of the classroom” (punitive mindset). Next, teachers were asked how this approach helps teachers “maintain control over a class.” Teachers then reviewed three counterbalanced incidents of minor misbehavior drawn from middle-school referral records (e.g., disrupting class by throwing away trash). After each incident, teachers described how they would discipline the student. Last, they reported the likelihood they would consider the student a troublemaker (1, not at all; 7, extremely).

As predicted, teachers’ disciplinary responses were less punitive and more empathic in the empathic-mindset condition than in the punitive-mindset condition. Teachers were also less likely to label the student a troublemaker in the empathic-mindset condition (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Teacher responses to minor student misbehavior as a function of condition (experiment 1) (n = 39)

Response or theme	Punitive-mindset condition	Empathic-mindset condition
Discipline response	“He would be given one warning. Once he left his seat the second time, he would be sent to the hall. If he continues to disrupt from the hall, he would be sent to the office.”	“I would give the class some work to do and then I would talk to [the student] privately. He has a need that is not being met. I would try to understand the need and try to meet it.”
Coded theme(s)	Threaten student; involve administrator	Talk with student
Discipline response	“Sit down with the disruptive student and the assistant principal to discuss why the behavior is disruptive. ... If the behavior continued, then another meeting with the Assistant Principal and the parents/guardians would take place.”	“I would establish or re-affirm a policy and procedure regarding appropriate times to get up. I would see if rearranging desks … would help. I would discuss the issue with the student to work together on an equitable solution.”
Coded theme(s)	Involve administrator	Rearrange classroom; talk with student

Table 2.

Coded disciplinary responses and teacher judgments (experiment 1) (n = 39)

Outcomes	Punitive-mindset condition	Empathic-mindset condition	t	P
Coded disciplinary responses: Punitive themes
Assign detention (proportion per incident)	0.18 (0.22)	0.08 (0.17)	−1.64	0.11
Threaten to punish student (proportion per incident)	0.65 (0.31)	0.47 (0.31)	−1.79	0.082
Involve an administrator (proportion per incident)	0.44 (0.34)	0.24 (0.24)	−2.16	0.038
Average number of punitive responses/incident	1.28 (0.64)	0.79 (0.48)	−2.67	0.011
Coded disciplinary responses: Empathic themes
Rearrange classroom to accommodate student (proportion per incident)	0.20 (0.23)	0.35 (0.02)	2.10	0.043
Talk with the student about his or her behavior (proportion per incident)	0.37 (0.24)	0.52 (0.24)	1.99	0.055
Average number of empathic responses per incident	0.57 (0.35)	0.87 (0.36)	2.64	0.012
Teachers’ judgment of the student
Likelihood would consider the student “a troublemaker” (1–7)	4.25 (1.45)	3.11 (1.29)	−2.61	0.013

SDs are shown in parentheses.

How do students respond to empathic discipline? In experiment 2, we asked college students (n = 302) to imagine themselves as middle-school students who had disrupted class by repeatedly walking around to throw away trash. Their teacher, Mrs. Smith, responded in a manner reflective of each condition in experiment 1: by assigning detention and referring them to the principal’s office (punitive-discipline condition) or by asking them about their misbehavior and moving the wastebasket closer to their desk (empathic-discipline condition). Next, participants reported the respect they would have for the teacher (six items; e.g., “I think Mrs. Smith deserves my respect”; α = 0.85) and the motivation they would have to behave well in the future (two items; e.g., “It is important to me that I follow rules in this class”; α = 0.83) (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree).

As predicted, college students reported that, as middle-school students, they would respect the teacher far more in the empathic-mindset than in the punitive-discipline condition (M = 5.23, SD = 1.14 versus M = 2.47, SD = 1.09), t(300) = 20.98, P < 0.001, d = 2.42. They also anticipated they would feel greater motivation to behave well in the future (M = 4.38, SD = 1.41 versus M = 3.79, SD = 1.56), t(300) = 3.43, P < 0.001, d = 0.40 (see Fig. 1). Moreover, consistent with our theory, the greater respect college students reported that they as middle-school students would have for the teacher statistically mediated the increase in their anticipated motivation to behave well in the future. Using mediation procedures with model 4 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) macro mediation analysis package (PROCESS) (16) and 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap resamples, we tested a model with “condition → respect (mediator) → behave well.” As noted, the total effect of condition on students’ anticipated motivation to behave well was significant (b = 0.59, SE = 0.17, P = 0.001). In step 1, the total effect of condition on the mediator (respect) was significant (b = 2.02, SE = 0.11, P < 0.001). In step 2, we regressed the dependent variable (behave well) on the mediator and condition. The effect of respect was significant (b = 0.59, SE = 0.08, P < 0.001), and the effect of condition was reduced (b = –0.60, SE = 0.23, P = 0.011). In step 4, the predicted mediation (indirect path from condition → respect for teacher → motivation to behave well) was significant [b = 1.19, SE = 0.19, confidence interval (CI) = 0.82, 1.58].

Fig. 1.

College students (n = 302) who imagined themselves as middle-school students being disciplined in an empathic rather than a punitive manner reported that they would respect the teacher more and be more motivated to behave well in the future (experiment 2). The y axes represent the full range of the scales. Error bars represent 95% CIs after 10,000 bootstraps.

Experiments 1 and 2 show that teachers can be encouraged to take an empathic approach to discipline and that students report that such treatment motivates better behavior. Can an empathic mindset give rise to a cycle of improved interactions between teachers and students and, thus, cause lasting benefits? Experiment 3, a longitudinal randomized placebo-controlled field experiment, tested whether encouraging an empathic mindset about discipline in teachers would reduce student suspension rates over an academic year.

Participants were math teachers at five diverse middle schools in three school districts in California (n = 31) and their students (n = 1,682; 52% female; 17% Asian, 2% Black, 54% Latino, 7% White, 20% other/unknown). This sample represents 91.12% of recruited faculty, 83% of math faculty, and 55.57% of students at these schools. For school characteristics, see Table S1. The intervention comprised one 45-min and one 25-min online module. Teachers were told that the purpose of the exercise was to review common but sometimes neglected wisdom about teaching and to collect their perspectives as experienced teachers on how best to handle difficult interactions with students, especially disciplinary encounters. Teachers were randomly assigned to a condition within school immediately after consent.

Table S1.

Demographics of participating schools (experiment 3)

School	District	Number of student participants	Total school enrollment	Math faculty recruited, %	Students on free or reduced-price lunch, %	Students at or above math proficiency, %	Racial composition of school, %
							Asian	Black	Latino	White	Other
1	A	561	672	100	70	31	15	3	75	3	4
2	B	559	790	100	68	31	25	3	61	9	2
3	C	175	598	50	61	49	11	4	61	18	6
4	C	212	793	67	37	63	16	1	41	33	9
5	A	175	174	100	62	34	10	2	77	4	7

Number of student participants is the number of students taught by a math teacher randomized to a treatment or control condition for whom prior- and current-year school suspension data were available. Total school enrollment is based on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) survey for the first day of the 2012–2013 school year. This number can be lower than the number of student participants, as students can transfer into the school over the course of the year. We received school-record data for 2,069 students, 1,682 of whom were taught by a randomized math teacher and had intervention-year and prior-year suspension records. Percent students on free/reduced lunch and racial composition are also based on the NCES CCD survey for the first day of the 2012–2013 school year. Percent students at or above math proficiency is based on students’ Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program scores through the California Department of Education Analysis, Measurement, & Accountability Reporting Division’s school reports for 2012–2013.

The first module was completed midway through the Fall semester. First, teachers read an article that described nonpejorative reasons why students sometimes misbehave in class and how positive relationships with teachers can facilitate students’ growth (e.g., “[the] social and biological changes of adolescence can make middle school students insecure … worries [about unfair treatment] can cause students to experience stress, to overreact, and sometimes to disengage from school”). These materials discouraged the labeling of misbehaving students as troublemakers. Instead, they encouraged teachers to understand and value students’ experiences and negative feelings that can cause misbehavior and to sustain positive relationships when students misbehave. Teachers were reminded that “a teacher who makes his or her students feel heard, valued, and respected shows them that school is fair and they can grow and succeed there.” These ideas were reinforced through stories from students (e.g., “One day I got detention, and instead of just sitting there, my teacher talked with me about what happened. He really listened to me. … It felt good to know I had someone I could trust in school. …”). Teachers then wrote how they incorporate or could incorporate these ideas in their own practice. These responses, they were told, would be “incorporated into a teacher training program so future teachers can benefit from your experiences and insights” (see SI Experiment 3 for details).

This representation of the exercise and interactive elements draws on other successful social–psychological interventions (17–20). Teachers were treated as experts and agents of positive change for others, not as recipients of remediation. They were exposed to powerful stories on which they elaborated in guided writing exercises, allowing them to take ownership of the intervention message, to connect it to their own practice, and to advocate for it to others (21) (see SI Experiment 3 for details). (Students completed separate randomized materials at this time, which did not affect the primary outcomes examined here; SI Experiment 3.)

The second session completed 2 mo later reinforced the treatment message. Teachers were reminded that “students’ feelings about and behavior in school can and do improve when teachers successfully convey the care and respect students crave.” They reviewed a story from a teacher who described a teacher of hers who had eased her worries about mistreatment by showing her respect and how she tried to convey the same respect to her students. Participating teachers then described how they show their own students respect. Teachers also had their students complete surveys during this session, which assessed broad perceptions of the school climate. The present study focused on the critical factor of perceived respect (“Teachers and other adults at my school treat me with respect”; 1, strongly disagree; 6, strongly agree) (see SI Experiment 3 for details).

It is important to note what the empathic-mindset intervention does not do. Even as this intervention encourages teachers to understand and value students’ perspectives, it does not ask teachers to share students’ perspective or to think that that perspective is reasonable, which it may not be. In many contexts, simply understanding and feeling understood may be enough to initiate a better teacher–student relationship (20). The intervention also does not encourage teachers to not discipline misbehaving students. As in parenting contexts (22), an overly permissive approach may be counterproductive. It may cause teachers to lose control of the class and deny misbehaving children the understanding and supportive feedback they need to improve. Instead, the intervention encourages teachers to discipline students in a context of mutual understanding and trust.

The control exercise was similar in form and interactivity but discussed ways to use technology to promote learning (see SI Experiment 3 for details). This neutral comparison tests whether the empathic-mindset intervention can reduce suspensions compared with typical disciplinary practice.

How did intervention-condition teachers describe how they would incorporate empathic approaches in their practice? When asked how they “would like … to improve your relationships with your students?” teachers powerfully echoed the intervention themes: For example, “[I] greet every student at the door with a smile every day no matter what has occurred the day before”; “[I] answer their questions thoughtfully and respectfully no matter what their academic history with me has been”; and “I NEVER hold grudges. I try to remember that they are all the son or daughter of someone who loves them more than anything in the world. They are the light of someone’s life!” (see SI Experiment 3 for details).

The primary outcome was students’ year-long suspension rates. (Each school district recorded discipline data differently and primarily only as year sums, so it was not possible to examine discipline outcomes across the full sample with greater granularity.) Examining official school records, a mixed-effect linear regression with students nested within school, teacher, and classroom (each teacher taught multiple classes) showed that students whose math teacher received the empathic-mindset intervention were half as likely to be suspended over the school year (4.6%) as students of control teachers (9.8%) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, z = –3.33, P = 0.001; see Fig. 2). The effect remained significant controlling for student race, gender, and prior-year suspension status (OR = 0.49, z = –2.37, P = 0.018). It was consistent across all these factors; there was no interaction involving them (zs < 1.85, Ps > 0.05). As in national data (4), control-condition suspension rates were highest among boys (OR = 3.21, z = 4.16, P < 0.001), African American and Latino students (OR = 2.48, z = 2.30, P = 0.021), and students with a history of suspensions (OR = 17.34, z = 1,420.00, P < 0.001). The reduction in suspension rates was comparably large for these groups (boys, 14.6–8.4%; African Americans and Latinos, 12.3–6.3%; previously suspended students, 51.2–29.4%).

Fig. 2.

Middle-school students (n = 1,682) whose math teacher (n = 31) completed the empathic-mindset intervention compared with randomized control materials were half as likely to be suspended over the school year (experiment 3). Error bars represent 95% CIs after 10,000 bootstraps.

Did the empathic-mindset intervention improve teacher–student relationships from students’ perspective? It did for the most at-risk students, those with a history of suspensions. An initial mixed-effect linear regression on students’ reports of respect from teachers with students nested within school, teacher, and classroom revealed a main effect of prior suspension status, t(1,440) = –2.01, P = 0.045, and no main effect of condition (t < 1.25). (We used Satterthwaite approximations to estimate degrees of freedom with the lmerTest package in R.) However, a subsequent model revealed a significant Prior Suspension × Treatment interaction, t(1,438) = 2.57, P = 0.010 (see Fig. 3). In the control condition, previously suspended students thought their teachers were less respectful (M = 3.85) than did students with no history of suspension (M = 4.53), t(1,434) = –3.20, P = 0.001, d = 0.56. This effect was eliminated by the intervention, t(1,430) < 1. Students with a history of suspension felt more respected by their teachers when their math teacher had been treated (M = 4.70) than when the teacher had not (M = 3.85), t(1,439) = 2.68, P = 0.008, d = 0.77.

Fig. 3.

Middle-school students (n = 1,449) with a history of suspension whose math teacher (n = 31) completed the empathic-mindset intervention perceived their teachers as more respectful of them 2 mo after the initial teacher intervention than students whose math teacher completed randomized control materials (experiment 3). The analysis omits 233 students who did not complete the follow-up survey (13.85%). Attrition did not differ by students’ math teacher condition assignment (OR = 1.24, z < 1, nonsignificant). Error bars represent 95% CIs after 10,000 bootstraps.

The present research demonstrates how a punitive climate can create in teachers a punitive approach to discipline and how this approach undermines students’ feelings of respect for teachers and motivation to behave well in class (experiments 1 and 2). A brief, online intervention to encourage an empathic mindset in teachers about discipline halved year-long suspension rates among 1,682 students in five diverse middle schools (experiment 3). Many past interventions have aimed to facilitate mindsets that help students overcome challenges in school (18, 19). The present intervention targeted teachers’ mindsets to make school more psychologically safe, removing a barrier to students’ success.

Importantly, the empathic-mindset intervention did not attempt to teach teachers new skills for interacting with students or introduce new policies for how to discipline students (23). Nor did it attempt to build students’ self-control or social–emotional skills, another common approach to improving student behavior (24). Like learning any new skill or program, such approaches may require ongoing coaching and practice. Instead, we assumed that teachers were capable of building better relationships with students and that students could behave more positively with more supportive treatment. The intervention simply encouraged teachers to view discipline as an opportunity to facilitate mutual understanding and better relationships and empowered teachers to do so in a manner effective for them and their students. The findings suggest that, at least in the school contexts examined here, punitive mindsets about discipline serve as a critical barrier to better teacher–student relationships. Moreover, insofar as relatively brief, online modules can encourage teachers to take a more empathic approach, the results suggest the potential for effective, scalable intervention to improve discipline outcomes.

However, our emphasis on teachers’ mindsets does not diminish the importance of punitive discipline policies; rather, it illustrates one reason why such policies matter. They create a context that discourages teachers from prioritizing building strong relationships with students at critical junctures. Efforts to change discipline policies and to encourage empathic mindsets about discipline thus go hand-in-hand.

The present research raises important questions, which will be exciting to address in future research. First, a notable finding was that the randomization of a single teacher to treatment versus control condition caused a reduction in suspensions that arise from misbehavior in all school settings; indeed, supplementary analyses provide evidence that the intervention effect extended beyond a reduction in suspensions referred by math teachers (SI Experiment 3). Although striking, this finding is consistent with research suggesting the importance for children of having at least one teacher in school whom they trust (20). It will be important to further understand how, when, and why improvement in a single teacher–student relationship causes reverberating benefits for students. Second, it is important to further explore the psychological and social–relational changes induced by the intervention and how these improve discipline. Using a chain of experiments, the present research identified key causal relationships (25) linking an empathic mindset and treatment to greater feelings and perceptions of respect and reduced suspensions. An important next step is to include periodic assessments of teachers’ and students’ attitudes and developing relationships and observations of their interactions in future trials. Such measures may further clarify how and when an empathic approach to discipline can become enduring in teachers’ minds and embedded in teacher–student interactions and support statistical tests of mediation (26). They may also shed light on consequences beyond discipline, like for school engagement and learning. Ideally, these assessments will be unobtrusive so as not to lead teachers to feel scrutinized or to undercut the honorific representation of the exercise, which could undermine intervention effectiveness.

In changing teachers’ mindsets to improve a social system, the present research suggests a new frontier for psychological intervention. Many past interventions help students navigate the social world of school more effectively (18–20, 27). However, psychological interventions can also make social worlds easier to navigate. Racial-minority students can be held back by teachers’ feelings of dissimilarity to them (28). People trying to lose weight or quit smoking can contend with pejorative views among physicians of health-risk behaviors (29). In circumstances like these, the mindsets of a few can undermine the outcomes of many. Where else can we alter the mindsets of powerful social actors to improve the functioning of systems as a whole?

SI Experiment 3

Empathic Discipline Session 1: Sample Materials.

Empathic discipline session 1: Introduction of the activity (excerpt).

“Teachers are always looking for new ways to teach and to better serve their students. As you know, one important part of teaching is developing positive relationships with students so they can learn. Our own research team has been studying the role of teacher–student relationships in students’ motivation, learning, and behavior. This research suggests that how teachers and students interact, especially during the critical period of adolescence, can have long-lasting effects on students’ motivation and success. The relationships students build with their middle-school teachers can influence students’ motivation and behavior in class and their attitudes and success beyond.

In this web module, we will share with you some of this research. Then, we will ask you for your input as a professional educator. We are especially interested in your thoughts about how teachers like you can and do use these ideas to have better interactions with students and to improve their lives. Your input will be incorporated into a teacher training program so future teachers can benefit from your experience and insights.

Thank you for your time and help.”

Empathic discipline session 1: Empathic-mindset article (excerpt).

“Almost everyone has a personal story about a great teacher who influenced his or her life. For some, it’s a teacher who reached out and helped them feel both comfortable and respected in school. For others, it’s a teacher who helped them see they could reach a higher standard, even when they doubted themselves. As teachers, these stories warm our hearts. They inspire us to create a positive setting that brings out the best in our students.

Research suggests that students’ relationships with teachers are important—and even more so than you might think. Children who experience caring relationships with adults grow up to be more respectful and caring people. At home, a kind and responsive parent shows a child that their family is good and trustworthy. In school, a teacher who makes his or her students feel heard, valued, and respected shows them that school is fair and they can grow and succeed there.

Of course, creating positive relationships is not always easy—especially with middle-school students. The social and biological changes of adolescence can make middle-school students insecure and sensitive. Yet students’ attitudes about school and behavior can and do improve when teachers successfully convey the caring and respect students crave.

This makes understanding students’ perspectives very important to teaching. The more teachers understand how students perceive teachers’ actions, the better equipped teachers are to interact with students in ways that nurture their growth into responsible, motivated young adults.

Many teachers worry about students disengaging from school during middle school and seek out a variety of strategies to help their students. Adolescence is a time of new worries and pressures. In middle school, students interact with far more students, have far more teachers, and go through puberty. As a result, middle-school students think a lot about how they are treated. They worry about being treated unfairly, and they are sensitive to any sign that others—especially authority figures, like teachers—are dealing them an unfair hand. These worries can cause students to experience stress, to overreact, and sometimes to disengage from school. Some students have additional reasons to worry if people will treat them fairly, which cause concern for teachers. For instance, students from poor families or from ethnic minority backgrounds may hear discouraging stories from friends, parents, or the media about how their group is treated.

So it’s reasonable for these students to be especially worried about how they will be treated in middle school. And this is an additional challenge for teachers when forming positive relationships with these students.”

Empathic discipline session 1: Sample student stories.

“In middle school, I didn’t feel like I belonged. It seemed like the teachers always called on the other students. So I didn’t pay attention in class and sometimes I got in trouble. One day I got detention, and instead of just sitting there, my teacher talked with me about what happened. He really listened to me. And then he told me that he had trouble sometimes in middle school but that it gets better. It felt good to know I had someone I could trust in school.”

“One time, after I got in trouble in seventh grade, I still remember how my teacher took me aside later and listened to my side of the story. She repeated what I said back to me to be sure she understood what I was saying. Then she explained why she still had to give me a detention because I was disrupting class. Even though I still got a detention, I was glad that she didn’t just dismiss what I had to say, like other teachers sometimes did. After that, I actually felt better in school because I knew I had someone to talk to.”

Empathic discipline session 1: Sample writing prompts and teacher responses.

“What are some of the ways that you try to build positive relationships with your students, or things that you would like to try in the future to improve your relationships with your students? Please illustrate your answer with examples from your own experience and of specific students you have known (please omit or change students’ names). Consider especially circumstances when it is most important to reach out to students, for instance situations when students are struggling academically, not participating in class, or are getting in trouble.”

The following are sample participating teacher responses:

“Answer their questions thoughtfully and respectfully no matter what their academic history with me has been.”

“Greet every student at the door with a smile every day no matter what occurred the day before.”

“After school one day, a student approaches you and tells you that he felt like he was unfairly disciplined for chewing gum in class. Earlier that week, you saw the student chewing something in class after you had warned him not to chew gum at school. You sent the student to the office for disrupting the class. Now he tells you that he feels that he was not treated fairly. How would you respond to this student? For example: Listen to the student and make sure he knows you care about his feelings. Explain to him why you had to enforce the rule.”

The following is a sample participating teacher response:

“In this situation I would ask the student to sit down and we would have a conversation both sitting down. I would ask him why exactly he felt he was unfairly treated. I would repeat this back to him and say I was sorry he felt this way. I would remind him I did warn him earlier in the week and ask if he remembered this. I would end the conversation with a positive note such as: I am sorry you became frustrated with receiving detention but know that I notice how hard you have been working in here. Keep up that positive work habit.”

Control Session 1: Sample Materials.

Control session 1: Control article (excerpt).

“Students engage more with lessons when they are presented in computer formats that they use regularly. Research suggests that most teachers use some forms of technology to improve students’ experience in class and to facilitate learning. Many teachers believe that showing the details of materials in a presentation or allowing students to research a subject themselves supports their understanding. Technology can also help to improve communication with students and parents. Some small changes in the way technology is used in the classroom can prove to be very useful to keep students interested and help them to learn class materials.”

Control session 1: Sample student stories.

“I liked when the teacher used the projector in my class. It was more fun than just a lecture. The work was more clear and I think my teacher made more sense. It was easier to focus in class. And being able to email my homework to my teachers is great. I think it saves everyone a lot of time. It also helps me keep track of my stuff for when tests come around.”

“We get to search the net to get information for homework. We also get to see images about the subjects we discuss in class. It helps. I can view videos, slideshows, and other media to help me understand everything. And one of my teachers has a website which helps a lot. I can just go to her webpage and see a calendar for homework and check my grades. Of course we use email a lot too.”

Control session 1: Sample writing prompts and teacher responses.

“What are some of the ways that you try to use technology in your classes or things that you would like to try in the future to make more use of technology? Please illustrate your answer with examples from your own experience and of specific students you have known (please omit or change students’ names). Consider especially circumstances when it is most important to keep students interested, for instance when students spend a lot of time on the internet or students have a hard time understanding difficult lessons.”

The following is a sample participating teacher response:

“I use technology every day to plan, teach, and to keep students motivated and engaged. Teacher planning: 1. Lesson plans, 2. Power Point presentations, 3. Document camera/overhead projector. Student Engagement: 1. Interactive websites, 2. Homework tutorials on internet, 3. Online textbook, 4. Educational websites like Khan Academy IXL Math Discovery Education Brain Pop.”

“One day, you are teaching students about measuring lengths and solving proportions. You want to show visual examples and give students the opportunity to exercise with the new materials. Also, you want to assign a homework assignment that students should return within the next couple of days. What do you do?”

The following is a sample participating teacher response:

“After explaining concepts with my document camera and drawings I would have students use computers to design their own related math problems and then require each student to explain its solution. Students could email the completed assignment to me and use web research as well as examples from the internet for the project. Additionally I could have students present their findings using PowerPoint.”

Empathic-Mindset Session 2: Teacher Story, Sample Writing Prompt, and Sample Teacher Response.

“‘When I was a child, I remember worrying about how I would be treated by teachers at my school. But I will always remember Ms. McBride, who treated me with respect and trust. She showed me that teachers could make all the difference in how students feel about school. Now, I make a point of treating my students with respect and I find that they respect me more in return.’

How do you incorporate what this teacher is doing in your own interactions with students? Please explain in detail.”

The following are sample participating teacher responses:

“I am always doing this with my students. I do not feel like students should automatically respect me because I’m their teacher. I feel I need to earn my students’ respect and trust. I know many of them have had poor experiences with past teachers so I need to prove to my students that I am there for them and will not let them fail.”

“Respect is the most important thing in creating positive relationships with people, especially students. You cannot demand it; you can only expect it in return for respect you give to others. It is also extremely important to continue to give respect to your students despite the lack of respect some of them may give you. This allows for a conversation with them about how you treat them on a daily basis and ask them to look at how they treat you. Overall respect runs my classroom. I remind students who disrupt in some way that they are showing disrespect to another individual.”

Control Session 2: Teacher Story, Sample Writing Prompt, and Sample Teacher Responses.

“‘When I was a child, I remember having to stay after school to get extra help and lessons were only taught on chalk boards. But now technology allows us to teach students more effectively. For example, I can contact students outside of class through email. Now, I also use web-based math games to enhance their learning.’

How do you incorporate what this teacher is doing in your own use of technology with students? Please explain in detail.”

The following are sample participating teacher responses:

“I use web-based math games to enhance their learning. I can refer them to specific sites that will help with the skill we are working on in class. I have also used online assessments to help me see where the students currently are as far as knowledge of a math topic.”

“I use edmodo to communicate the homework with my students as well as the school website to post the homeworks.”

Student Intervention (Session 1).

During session 1, all students completed randomized materials. These focused on the importance of understanding teachers’ perspectives about disciplinary action or on practicing good study skills. There was no effect of student condition on suspension rates (OR = 1.43, z = 1.70, P = 0.09) and no interaction with teacher condition (OR = 1.03, z < 1). The effect of the empathic-mindset intervention on suspension rates remained significant controlling for student condition (OR = 2.23, z = –3.02, P = 0.003).

Student Survey (Session 2).

In session 2, students completed a series of measures assessing broad perception of the school climate (17). These included six items assessing trust in school (e.g., “Teachers at my school give out fair grades” and “Students in my racial group are treated fairly by the teachers and other adults at [school name] Middle School”) (1, very much disagree; 6, very much agree) (α = 0.80). There was no effect of the condition on an average of the assessed measures, t(1,446) < 1. For the purpose of the present study, we focused on the one item that directly assessed the critical construct of respect: the extent to which students reported feeling respected by teachers (“Teachers and other adults at my school treat me with respect”; 1, strongly disagree; 6, strongly agree).

Supplementary Analyses of Student Suspension Rates.

The primary analyses focused on student suspension rates that arose from misbehavior across school settings. Could the reduction in student suspension rates have arisen from a change only in math class where the teacher was randomized to condition, for instance as a result of improved behavior or reduced discipline restricted to this class?

To address this question, we examined data from the only school that identified the faculty member who referred a student for a given suspension: school 2 (Table S1), the second largest school in the study, accounting for 33% of the full student sample. In this school, students whose math teacher was treated versus not were 55% less likely to be suspended from any class (treatment, 5.4%; control, 12.1%; OR = 0.41, logit = –0.88, z = –2.10, P = 0.035), controlling for demographics (OR = 0.50, logit = –0.69, z = –2.38, P = 0.017). This effect was not due to a change only in math class. Only 7.4% of suspensions were referred by math teachers. Furthermore, all students referred for suspension by a math teacher were also referred for suspension by other faculty. Thus, running the analysis in school 2 even excluding suspensions referred by math teachers yields an identical reduction in suspension rates. This analysis suggests that, at least in this school, the intervention led to a broad improvement in student behavior across diverse school contexts, not to either an improvement in behavior restricted to math class or to more permissive discipline practices among treated math teachers.

Methods

All ethical protocols, including informed consent from all participants, were followed in conducting the three experiments, and approval was obtained from Stanford University’s Institutional Review Board and a principal at each school (experiment 3).

Experiment 1.

Participants and design.

A total of 39 K–12 teachers (M_experience = 14 y; M_age = 41; 73% male; 92% White, 3% Asian, 8% Black, 3% unknown) recruited from the websites of school districts across the country took part and were randomized to a two-cell (punitive mindset vs. empathic mindset) design.

Procedure and stimuli.

All teachers read that “misbehavior can disrupt the flow of the class and distract other students … teachers can work best when students behave properly and pay attention in class.” Next, teachers in the empathic-mindset condition read the following: “Good teacher–student relationships help students learn how to appropriately conduct themselves in the classroom … [they] help students understand self-control at the time of a disruption, which can improve interactions with the student that day.” Teachers in the punitive-mindset condition read the following: “Consequences lead students to appropriately conduct themselves in the classroom … punishment allows teachers to take control of the class at the time of a disruption, which can help to get the class back on track that day.” Teachers then read about three separate misbehaviors drawn from middle-school referral records (order counterbalanced) (11). After each incident, teachers described how they would respond to the incident:

• – “Darnell is consistently disrupting the class environment by strolling around the classroom at random intervals, getting tissues from the tissue box multiple times during a 50-minute class, throwing items away constantly; in general, Darnell circulates around the room and up and down the rows to see what other students are doing, the students have eyes on him, and he disrupts the flow of the lecture or activity the class was participating in.”

• – “Darnell is sleeping in class. You tell him to pick his head up and get to work. He only picks his head up. He chooses to rest it on his hand and continue to sleep. So you ask him one more time, and again, Darnell refuses to do work. You ask him to leave class and go to the office to tell them that he won’t do his work and chose to sleep instead. He refuses to do this as well.”

• – “Darnell is sitting in the back of the classroom. He is not paying attention to the lessons that you are teaching in class. Instead, Darnell is talking to other students. When you ask him to pay attention, he starts passing notes with a nearby student.”

Coding teacher responses from pilot study.

Two coders blind to the condition reviewed teachers’ responses and recorded whether or not each disciplinary action involved (i) each of three punitive responses: (a) assigning detention, (b) threatening to punish the student, or (c) involving an administrator (e.g., principal); and (ii) each of two empathic responses: (d) talking with the student about why he or she was misbehaving or (e) rearranging the classroom to accommodate the student (for sample responses, see Table 1). There was moderate agreement among raters (κs = 0.54–0.81; see Table S2). Thus, we averaged the two judges’ ratings of each response category. We then averaged across the three incidents to provide the likelihood the student received a given response per disciplinary incident. Finally, we summed the likelihood of the three punitive responses and the two empathic responses to provide the average number of punitive and empathic responses a student received per incident. We then submitted the data to t tests (see Table 2).

Table S2.

Interrater reliability (experiment 1)

Themes	Kappa	SE
Punitive themes
Detain student	0.67	0.10
Threaten student	0.62	0.07
Involve administrator	0.81	0.06
Empathic themes
Rearrange classroom	0.54	0.08
Talk with student	0.60	0.07

Experiment 2.

Infraction manipulation.

To examine how students would respond to teachers who used an empathic compared with a punitive approach to discipline, we asked college students (n = 302; 51% female; 48% White, 13% Black, 13% Asian, 19% Latino, 6% Other, 1% unknown) to imagine having committed a single infraction as a middle-school student and having received either an empathic or a punitive teacher response, based on the responses provided in experiment 1. The infraction and teacher responses by condition were as follows:

(For the punitive condition) “You leave your seat to get tissues from the tissue box multiple times during a 50-minute class. Mrs. Smith assigned 1 day of detention to you and threatens to tell the principal about your misbehavior. Later, you get up and throw items away in the wastebasket on the other side of the room. Mrs. Smith has the principal talk to you about your misbehavior.”

(For the empathic-discipline condition) “You leave your seat to get tissues from the tissue box multiple times during a 50-minute class. Mrs. Smith asks you why you are moving around the class so much. Later, you get up and throw items away in the wastebasket on the other side of the room. Mrs. Smith rearranges the room so that the wastebasket and tissue box are closer to your desk.”

Measures.

Students completed six items assessing the extent to which they respected the teacher: “I think Mrs. Smith deserves my respect”; “I think Mrs. Smith is a fair teacher”; and “I get along with Mrs. Smith” (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree); and “Mrs. Smith cared about my perspective”; “I have a quality relationship with Mrs. Smith”; and “Mrs. Smith is biased against me” (reverse-coded) (1, not at all; 7, extremely) (α = 0.85). Next, participants completed two items assessing their motivation to behave well in class in the future: “It is important to me that I follow rules in this class” and “I want to behave in this class” (1, not at all; 7, extremely) (α = 0.83).

Experiment 3.

Participants.

We recruited all math faculty at three participating middle schools and, at the request of the principals, 67% and 50% of math faculty at the remaining two schools (34 in total). Three recruited teachers did not begin the module and thus were not assigned to a condition or exposed to experimental materials, leaving a sample of 31 teachers (77% female; 39% sixth grade, 29% seventh grade, 32% eighth grade). This represents a teacher participation rate of 91.12% and 83.4% of all math faculty at the five schools. Schools provided data for 2,069 students. Data from 387 students were not included in the analyses: 172 were not taught by a teacher randomized to a condition, and 215 could not be matched to school discipline records for the year before or the year of the intervention (they likely transferred to or from the school district within the 2-y period). The lack of matches to discipline records did not differ by teachers’ condition assignment (χ² < 1.75, nonsignificant). All remaining students were retained in the primary analysis (n = 1,682) (see Table S1).

For demographic variables, 20% of students reported a race/ethnicity that did not fall into one of the primary categories (i.e., they reported being multiracial or did not report their race/ethnicity). They were treated as a category in analyses including student race. Three students did not report their gender. They were omitted from analyses including student gender. Thus, 1,679 students were included in analyses controlling for student race, student gender, and prior suspension status.

Missing data.

A total of 233 students did not complete the follow-up survey assessing respect perceived from teachers (13.85% of participating students). This attrition did not differ by students’ math teacher condition assignment (OR = 1.24, z < 1, nonsignificant). Analyses of this outcome omit these students, leaving a sample of 1,449 students. This approach to missing data maximizes the transparency of our analyses and keeps it as close as possible to our experimental design.

Procedure.

Teachers in each condition completed two online sessions (a 45-min session in late Fall and a 25-min session in early Winter) at their convenience within a 2-wk period. In the first session, teachers read an introduction to the activity, an article including stories from students describing their experience in school and relationships with teachers, and responded to several writing prompts. In the second session, teachers in both conditions read another article about the same topic that included a story from a teacher’s perspective. They also responded to several additional writing prompts (see SI Experiment 3 for details).