Skip to main content
Download PDF

Multiple attachment perspectives: the relationship between interpersonal attachment from family and school environments and children’s learning engagement

BMC Psychology volume 13, Article number: 314 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

Abundant evidence has demonstrated that positive interpersonal relationships promote children’s learning engagement. However, most existing studies only focus on the role of one or two attachment relationships, and few studies examine the relationship between multiple positive interpersonal relationships from family and school environments and children’s learning engagement. The purpose of this study is to simultaneously examine the effects of father-child and mother–child attachment from the family environment and teacher-student relationship and peer attachment from the school environment on learning engagement of Chinese boys and girls.

Methods

Participants (N = 702; 51.6% male, Mage = 10.39, SDage = 0.49) were recruited from seven primary schools in Guizhou province, China. Participants completed five self-report questionnaires assessing children’s learning engagement, father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment.

Results

The results displayed that only mother–child attachment and teacher-student relationship significantly predicted boys’ learning engagement. In addition, we also found that only teacher-student relationship and peer attachment positively predicted girls’ learning engagement.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight that teacher-student relationship promotes learning engagement in both boys and girls, and in addition, mother–child attachment from the family environment enhances boys’ learning engagement and peer attachment from the school environment promotes girls’ learning engagement. This study’s results suggest that future attachment-based interventions aimed at contributing to children’s academic development should focus on teacher-student relationships for both boys and girls, on mother–child relationships for boys, and on peer relationships for girls.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Learning engagement, an important indicator to measure students’ learning process, refers to an active and fulfilling state of learning, which includes three components: behavioral, affective and cognitive engagement [1, 2]. Early learning engagement is strongly associated not only with academic achievement [3], subjective well-being [4] and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors [5, 6], but also with an individual’s personal achievement later in life [7]. Unsurprisingly because learning engagement is a prerequisite for individuals to achieve academic success [8], it has been highly valued worldwide, especially in China, which is rooted in Confucianism, where academic success has become a focus of public attention, as high academic achievement is the key to admission to top universities [9, 10]. Even among primary school students, academic achievement is seen as the main way to obtain a higher social status, which is closely related to future development [11]. Therefore, it is essential to focus on the learning engagement of Chinese elementary school students.

To date, a growing number of researchers have attempted to identify the key factors that promote children’s engagement in learning, and some of them have concluded that schools can have an impact on students’ academic development by providing interpersonal relationships that meet their basic psychological needs. Among these, teacher-student relationships and peer attachment play an important role in promoting children’s learning engagement [12]. Meanwhile, farther afield in the family environment than in the microsystemic school setting, some researchers have also found that warm parent–child attachments provide an emotional harbor for children and motivate students to learn [13, 14]. Notably, most of the existing studies focus solely on the role of one or two of these relationships, and few studies examine children’s learning engagement from the perspective of multiple attachment relationships.

In addition, Skinner et al. (2022) expanded on ecosystem theory by suggesting that multiple micro-systems (especially parents, teachers, and peers) have collective effects on individual’s learning engagement, and that cumulative coaction and differentiated coaction are two forms of collective effects [15]. Cumulative coaction refers to multiple micro-systems working together to produce the same developmental outcomes; Differentiated Coaction refers to the unique effects of each micro-system on individual development [15, 16]. Researchers have proposed that positive protective factors from the home and school environments cumulatively enhance children’s learning engagement [17], but few studies have explored the unique effects of parent–child attachment, teacher-student relationships, and peer attachment on children’s learning engagement from a “differentiated coaction”. Finally, children’s gender should also be considered in exploring the differential effects of multiple attachment relationships on children’s learning engagement. At home, fathers and mothers may treat their children differently because of their gender [18]; at school, teacher-student and peer attachment can have different impacts on the development of boys and girls [19]. Therefore, based on the perspective of multiple interpersonal attachment, this study aims to explore the differential effects of father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment on boys’ and girls’ learning engagement, and then to make accurate and practical suggestions for improving children’s engagement in learning.

Father-child and mother–child attachment and learning engagement

Attachment is a deep and continuous emotional connection between an individual and significant others in the process of growth [20]. In the family environment, children tend to develop father-child and mother–child attachments with their fathers and mothers, which may affect children’s learning engagement [8]. Self-determination theory (SDT) emphasizes the importance of a sense of connectedness, belongingness, and relatedness as basic psychological needs required to initiate and sustain motivation and engagement [21, 22]. According to SDT, a close and sensitive relationship with fathers and mothers fosters a sense of relatedness that in turn supports feelings of self-worth, motivation, and learning engagement [23]. This sense of relatedness is hypothesized to trigger effort, persistence, and participation; to foster interest and enthusiasm; to promote confidence in one’s skills [24]. Alternatively, relationships that are characterized by conflict can inhibit engagement and lead to disaffection, diminished self-esteem, and lower amounts of motivation. Previous studies have shown that elementary school students with warmer and more supportive fathers and mothers are more behaviorally engaged and academically motivated [13, 25]. They also perceive themselves as more competent and feel more supported and connected to school than children who have less positive relationships with parents [24].

In addition, father-child and mother–child attachments may have different effects on children’s learning engagement. From a developmental perspective of attachment theory, three key points emerge: First, children’s attachment relationships with their mothers and their father can be different and complementary, thus being specific to the parent [26, 27]. Second, attachment theory indicates that security and exploration represent two sides of the same attachment coin – parents may serve as a haven of safety and a trusted companion during exploration. However, subsequent researchers have consistently suggested that mothers and fathers have distinct and complementary attachment roles [28,29,30]. Finally, mothers are often viewed as safe haven attachment figures [31, 32], whereas fathers are considered as facilitators of children’s exploration system [33, 34].

Consistent with attachment theory, in traditional Chinese culture, where “men take care of things outside the family whereas women take care of things inside the family” (nan zhu wai, nv zhu nei), the roles of mothers and fathers as attachment figures are different [35, 36]. Chinese fathers often play the role of playmates in their interactions with their children, encouraging and guiding their children to explore the outside world, cultivating their children’s ability to concentrate, and building close father-child attachments with their children [27, 33, 36]. In contrast, Chinese mothers play a more caring role in child rearing; they sensitively take care of their children’s daily life and provide an “emotional harbor” to accept and smooth over their children’s negative emotions [35, 37]. Furthermore, recent researchers have consistently believed that father-child attachments and mother–child attachment have different effects on children’s social-emotional competence [28]. However, it remains to be seen whether father-child attachment and mother–child attachment may have different effects on children’s learning engagement.

Teacher-student relationship and peer attachment and learning engagement

According to the ecological model, proximal environmental factors have a direct impact on children’s growth and development [38]. Since children’s learning engagement mainly occurs in the school environment, the teacher-student relationship and peer attachment in the school environment may affect children’s learning engagement. Teacher-student relationship refers to the meaningful emotional connection between teachers and students formed in the long-term interaction [39]. Peer attachment is a stable emotional connection that develops over time as an individual interacts with peers [40]. At present, a large number of studies have confirmed the significant correlation between teacher-student relationship and children’s learning engagement respectively [41, 42]. For example, a meta-analysis by Roorda et al. (2017) found that teacher-student relationships have a direct impact on children’s engagement in learning [41]. In addition, the positive predictive effect of peer relationship on learning engagement has been gradually verified [43, 44]. For example, Yang et al. (2018) found that peer attachment has a persistent positive predictive effect on children’s learning engagement, and compared with other educational stages, peer attachment in primary school is more closely related to students’ learning engagement [44]. However, few studies have simultaneously examined the effects of father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship, and peer attachment on children’s learning engagement, and further explored which relationship has a greater impact on children’s engagement in learning under the multiple attachment perspective.

Importantly, child gender, as an immutable factor, may affect the relationship between multiple positive relationships and learning engagement. Gender role theory suggests that parents treat sons and daughters differently and tend to form differentiated parenting patterns [45]. For example, parents predominantly adopt play-based approaches with sons, encouraging exploratory behaviors and autonomy development through structured play activities, while simultaneously emphasizing achievement motivation [46]. In contrast, parents tend to employ emotion-focused socialization strategies with daughters, fostering emotional competence through affective communication and encouraging emotional expression [47], 18]. These differential interaction patterns are theorized to engender variations in parent–child attachment quality, which may subsequently exert gender-specific influences on children’s learning engagement. Recent research has found that father-adolescent conflict was negatively related to boys’ academic engagement and mother-adolescent conflict was negatively related to girls’ academic engagement [48]. Similarly, the importance and supportive role of teacher-student relationships and peer attachment differ for boys’ and girls’ engagement in learning. According to the ethics of care theory, girls have higher role differentiation ability, that is, the cognitive-emotional ability to adaptively transform behavior scripts in the social environment [49], which may strengthen the link between positive interpersonal relationships in the school environment and girls’ learning engagement. Previous research has shown that teacher-student relationships are more likely to promote girls’ rather than boys’ school engagement and sustain academic success [50, 51]. Therefore, father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment may have gender differences in children’s learning engagement.

Current study

Using structural equation modeling (SEM), this study aimed to simultaneously explore the relationships between father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship, and peer attachment and Chinese children’s learning engagement. Considering that child’s age and SES may affect the relationship between the above variables [32], we controlled for child’s age and SES in the model. We hypothesized that father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship, and peer attachment can significantly positively predict children’s learning engagement. In addition, given the higher role differentiation ability of girls [49], we further hypothesize that teacher-student relationships and peer attachment in the school environment may be more strongly associated with girls’ learning engagement.

Methods

Participants

A total of 702 children aged 10–12 years were recruited from seven primary schools in Guizhou Province, China. The average age of the children was 10.39 (SD = 0.49; 362 boys and 340 girls). We tested the socioeconomic status with a question: “Please assess your family’s socioeconomic status from 1 (very poor) to 10 (very rich) based on your province’s economic situation”. The majority (62.5%) had a middle or higher socioeconomic status. Missing values were handled through the SPSS Missing Values Analysis. Items from the questionnaires had no missing values or had less than 1% of missing values. Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test was conducted to test whether the data were MCAR. A non-significant result was obtained (χ2/df = 1.01, p = 0.44), indicating that MCAR may be inferred.

Procedures

All children participated voluntarily and with the school’s consent, the teacher and the participant’s guardian. At the beginning of the experiment, the children completed a set of questionnaires under the guidance of a research assistant in a quiet classroom (two research assistants per classroom). Upon completion, the participants were given small gifts for their participation. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Approval No. 2014USTS060).

Measures

Student learning engagement

Student learning engagement was assessed by using the Student Learning Engagement Questionnaire [52]. It has been previously adapted to the student population in a Chinese cultural context [53]. This 16 items scale comprises three dimensions: emotional engagement, behavior engagement and cognitive engagement. Participants were asked to assess the agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Scores were summed across items, and higher scores indicated more learning engagement. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for these 16 items were 0.84.

Father-child and mother–child attachment

The father-child and mother–child attachment were assessed using the parent subscales of the “Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachments” (IPPA) [40]. The IPPA has been demonstrated to be a valid measure of father-child and mother–child attachment quality for Chinese children and have high test–retest reliability and internal consistency [54]. It consists of 15 items assessing the extent of trust, communication and alienation from each of the attachment figures, with parallel wordings of items for assessing relationships with mothers and fathers. All items are rated on a five-point frequency response scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Add up the scores of “trust” and “communication” then subtract the “alienation” to get the total score of individual attachment quality. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for father-child attachment was 0.88, and the Cronbach’s alpha (α) for mother–child attachment was 0.80.

Peer attachment

The peer attachment was assessed using the peer subscale of the “Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachments” (IPPA) [40]. Previous research indicates the IPPA has proven to be a reliable and valid measurement peer attachment quality in Mainland China [19]. The questionnaire contains 25 items divided into three dimensions: trust, communication and alienation. All items are rated on a five-point frequency response scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Add up the scores of “trust” and “communication” then subtract the “alienation” to get the total score of peer attachment quality. Cronbach’s alphas (α) for peer attachment was 0.85.

Teacher-student relationship

Teacher-student relationship quality was measured using the Teacher-Student Relationship Instrument (TSRI), which was originally developed by Pianta [55]. Previous research indicates the TSRI has proven to be a reliable and valid measurement in Mainland China [19]. This 18-item instrument assesses students’ perceptions of three features of their relationships with their teachers: closeness, positive reactivity and conflict. Participants rated items in terms of how applicable each statement was to their relationships with their current teachers. Responses ranged from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). Scores were computed by averaging items. The conflict subscales were reversed so that high scores represent a positive relationship characterised by trust, warmth and low conflict. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for these 18 items were 0.75.

Control of common method variance

Considering that all questionnaire measures in this study were self-reported by the children, we minimized the effects of common method variance through procedural remedies, such as using well-established scales and setting some polygraph items [56]. Additionally, we employed Harman’s single-factor test, a widely used method, to detect the threat of common method variance [57]. We performed factor analysis on all items, and found that 18 factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted, with the first factor accounting for 25.00% of the variance (less than 40%). These results suggest that common method variance did not appear to be a problem in this study.

Analysis

All analyses were performed using SPSS Version 25.0 and Mplus Version 8.0. The Mean (M) means, Standard Deviation (SD) standard deviations and Pearson’s correlations of key variables were conducted with SPSS 25.0 and Mplus 8.0 was used to verify the hypothesized model by building a structural equation modeling (SEM). Missing data were handled using Expectation Maximization (EM) [58]. The fit of the model was analyzed according to the ratio of chi-square (χ2) and the degrees of freedom, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Indicators of good fit were considered values of χ2/df of less than 3.0, values of CFI and TLI greater than 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR lower than 0.08 [59].

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations and the results of the independent sample t-test for all variables. Correlation analysis showed that apart from age, father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship, peer attachment, family socioeconomic status and learning engagement were significantly correlated in both boys and girls. In addition, the results of the independent samples t-test indicated that girls scored significantly higher than boys on all variables except father-child attachment.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of study variables
Full size table

Multiple attachment relationships and children’s learning engagement

Firstly, we examined the impact of father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment on boys’ learning engagement, after controlling for child’s age and SES. The model (see Fig. 1) was a saturated model provided a good fit for the data, χ2(8) = 3.01; CFI = 0.911; TLI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.07. As Fig. 1 shows, mother–child attachment and teacher-student relationship positively predicted boys’ learning engagement (β = 0.24, p < 0.001, a medium effect size; β = 0.40, p < 0.001, a large effect size); However, there was no significant correlation between father-child attachment/peer attachment and boys’ learning engagement (β = 0.02, p > 0.05, a small effect size; β = 0.10, p > 0.05, a small effect size).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The model to evaluate the relationship between interpersonal attachment from family and school environments and children’s learning engagement in boys, after controlling for child’s age and SES. Note. All the coefficients are standardized estimates. ***p < 0.001

Full size image

Second, we also examined the impact of father-child attachment, mother–child attachment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment on girls’ learning engagement, after controlling for child’s age and SES. The model (see Fig. 2) was a saturated model provided a good fit for the data, χ2(8) = 2.33; CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.06. Results revealed that mother–child attachment and father-child attachment were not significantly related to girls’ learning engagement (β = 0.11, p > 0.05, a small effect size; β = 0.07, p > 0.05, a small effect size); However, the teacher-student relationship and peer attachment positively predicted girls’ learning engagement (β = 0.19, p < 0.01, a small effect size; β = 0.40, p < 0.001, a large effect size).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The model to evaluate the relationship between interpersonal attachment from family and school environments and children’s learning engagement in girls, after controlling for child’s age and SES. Note. All the coefficients are standardized estimates. ***p < 0.001

Full size image

Besides, we further employed multi-group structural equation modeling and examined group differences using Wald chi-square tests. Results indicated no significant gender differences in the association between teacher-student relationships and learning engagement (Wald χ2 = 0.31, df = 1, p > 0.05) or between father-child attachment and learning engagement (Wald χ2 = 0.38, df = 1, p > 0.05) when comparing boys and girls. However, significant gender differences were observed in the associations of mother–child attachment (Wald χ2 = 4.31, df = 1, p < 0.05) and peer attachment (Wald χ2 = 3.92, df = 1, p < 0.05) with learning engagement.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to simultaneously explore the relationship between father-child attachment, mother–child attachment from the family environment and teacher-student relationship and peer attachment from the school environment with Chinese children’s learning engagement. The results showed that mother–child attachment from the family environment and teacher-student relationships in the school environment were found to be associated with boys’ learning engagement, while only teacher-student relationships and peer attachment in the school environment were associated with girls’ learning engagement. These gender-specific patterns offer novel empirical evidence regarding the ecological mechanisms of attachment relationships, though their causal pathways require rigorous validation through longitudinal designs. By constructing a dual-context analytical framework encompassing familial and scholastic environments, this research revealing the different effects of multiple interpersonal attachment relationships on children’s learning engagement, thus expanding the prior research. In addition, we identified notable differences between Chinese boys and girls in how multiple interpersonal relationships relate to their learning engagement, a finding that represents another key contribution of this study. Notably, the external validity of these results needs to be confirmed and expanded by cross-cultural studies.

Multiple attachment relationships and children’s learning engagement

Our study found that mother–child attachment and teacher-student relationship positively are positively associated with boys’ learning engagement. Although this result was found only in boys, it is still partially consistent with previous research that close relationships established between children and significant adults contribute to children’s academic development [25]. Our results also partially supported the self-determination theory [21, 23]. Boys’ close and sensitive relationships with their mothers and teachers fostered a sense of belonging, which in turn supported a sense of self-worth, confidence and persistence, elevated motivation and engagement in learning [24, 25]. Specifically, good mother–child attachments promote the development of boys’ sense of security [60], which are associated with greater engagement and interest in learning [61]. In contrast, strained, conflicted, or rejecting mother–child relationships are associated with disengagement and maladaptive attitudes toward school [62]. Similarly, children with good teacher-student relationships are more motivated to learn, promote participation in the classroom, and are more engaged in learning-related activities [13, 63].

We also found that only teacher-student relationship and peer attachment are positively associated with girls’ learning engagement. This result partially supports the ecological model that proximal environmental factors have a direct impact on children’s—particularly girls’—growth and development [38]. After entering the school, the school life is more than the family life, the emotional connection between children and peers is increasingly profound, and the attachment focus is gradually shifting from parents to teachers. Children who have a positive teacher-student relationship feel supported and cared for by their teachers, resulting in a sense of belonging to the school, which helps to motivate them to learn, promotes classroom participation, and is more likely to engage in learning-related activities [13, 63]. On the other hand, children with good peer attachment are more likely to receive help from their peers during the learning process, especially when facing learning difficulties, and support from peers may alleviate negative academic emotions and maintain a high level of engagement in learning [14]. Also, when students have friends and feel socially connected and supported at school, this can motivate students to get involved in school work and extracurricular activities [14, 64]. However, we found the positive association between peer relationships and learning engagement exclusively among girls. More crucially, we observed gender differences in how multiple attachment relationships within family and school environments correlate with children’s learning engagement. Specifically, while boys’ engagement was predominantly associated with adult–child relationships, girls’ engagement demonstrated stronger ties to teacher-student and peer dynamics within school-based relational contexts. The following section systematically examines these gender-specific mechanisms.

Gender differences in multiple attachment relationships and learning engagement

We noted that girls’ learning engagement was influenced only by teacher-student relationships and peer attachments in the school environment, and father-child and mother–child attachments in the family environment are minimally affected. Comparatively, boys’ learning engagement was influenced by mother–child attachment in the family environment and teacher-student relationships in the school environment, while father-child attachment and peer attachment had negligible effects. The results partially support the previous theoretical hypothesis that positive interpersonal relationships from home and school environments have a unique role in children’s engagement in learning [15, 16]. The results also support the ethics of care theory, which suggests that girls are more capable than boys of distinguishing the multiple roles they play and demonstrating role-appropriate behavior [49]. This ability contributes to their positive interpersonal relationships within the school environment, which in turn promotes their engagement in learning as students. However, for boys, who are less able to distinguish roles—with fathers acting as playmates at home and peers serving as playmates at school—good father-child attachment or peer attachment can promote school adjustment and mental health but has little effect on academic engagement [18, 32].

Importantly, this study found that the father-child attachment had little effect on children’s learning engagement in either boys or girls. This may be because under the traditional Chinese culture, Chinese fathers are more providers of family economy [32], less involved in raising children, and rarely communicate and interact with their children in academic development. In contrast, the teacher-student relationship has the greatest impact on children’s engagement in learning among both boys and girls. This result is consistent with the fact that China, which is rooted in Confucianism and emphasizes “Zun shi zhong dao”, teaches children to respect their teachers from an early age, and that children consciously obey teachers’ instructions in the school environment [65, 66]. It is not surprising that the teacher-student relationship has the strongest effect on children’s learning engagement. This result reminds us that teachers should show warm, sensitive, caring and other positive characteristics, and actively interact with children, and establish a strong warm teacher-student relationship in this process, which is an effective measure to promote children’s learning engagement.

Besides, Chinese boy’ learning engagement may be more dependent on mother–child attachment, while girls’ learning engagement may be more dependent on peer attachment, which may be because boys and girls will form different attachment strategies in different socialization processes with the development of gender cognition [67]. Boys may be more likely to draw on a strong bond with their mother for security and learning support, while girls may develop social skills and motivation to learn through interaction with peers [68]. Such patterns are culturally embedded in China’s Confucian-informed family role divisions: within an academic achievement-oriented cultural context, mothers assume primary caregiving responsibilities as “academic supervisors” for sons, whereas fathers predominantly provide financial support [32, 68]. Coupled with residual son-preference cultural norms, mothers exhibit significantly higher academic involvement with sons than daughters, fostering boys’ rather than girls’ dependency on maternal guidance [69]. For girls, socialized earlier into relational interdependence [70], peer attachment relationships are often viewed as another important source of social and emotional support, and peer attachment in the school environment has a positive impact on girls’, rather than boys’, engagement in learning, such as increasing their motivation, effort and cooperation in learning [8]. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at improving students’ learning engagement should consider the potential differences in attachment dynamics between boys and girls. While improving the quality of teacher-student relationships remains a universal goal, targeted approaches may also be beneficial. For instance, interventions for boys could focus on enhancing the quality of mother–child attachment, given its apparent significance for their learning engagement. For girls, fostering positive peer relationships may be particularly impactful.

Limitations and implications

Some limitations of this study must be mentioned. First, all measures in this study were based on children’s self-reports. Although the use of same-child self-reports is generally associated with a high degree of reliability, there may be a consistency bias in the reports of the same observer (child) across different questionnaires, which may also lead to some of the correlations being overstated. In further research, using multiple data collection methods (e.g., parent report or teacher report) to minimize these potential biases. Furthermore, this study only used a single SES measure, which might be subjective. Future studies could incorporate more objective indicators, such as parents’ education level and income level, to enable a more comprehensive investigation. In addition, all samples were from Chinese families, and the findings were specific to the Chinese educational context and cultural environment. Future research could explore the relationship between multiple attachment relationships and children’s learning engagement in different cultural contexts. Finally, our design was cross-sectional, which limits the causal interpretation of the directionality of the findings. Future research could employ a mixed-methods approach to further explore these relationships. On the one hand, longitudinal or cross-lagged research designs could help clarify the temporal and causal dynamics between variables. On the other hand, qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews with teachers, parents, and students, could provide richer insights into the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors that influence learning engagement and attachment relationships.

Despite these limitations, the present study was based on multiple attachment perspectives and simultaneously explored the unique effects of father-child and mother–child attachment from the family environment, teacher-student relationship and peer attachment from the school environment on Chinese boys’ and girls’ learning engagement. These findings support and extend self-determination theory and ecosystem theory. In addition, the study found that teacher-student relationships from the school environment had a greater impact on boys’ and girls’ learning engagement than other positive interpersonal relationships, which extends the limitations of previous research. Finally, our findings emphasize that mother–child attachment from the family environment promotes boys’ learning engagement and peer attachment from the school environment promotes girls’ learning engagement, which provides actionable recommendations for precise interventions and promotion of children’s engagement in learning.

Data availability

The dataset used in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Schaufeli WB, Martinez IM, Pinto AM, Salanova M, Bakker AB. Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2002;33(5):464–81. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0022022102033005003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Skinner EA, Kindermann TA, Furrer CJ. A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educ Psychol Meas. 2009;69(3):493–525. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0013164408323233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Estévez I, Rodríguez-Llorente C, Piñeiro I, González-Suárez R, Valle A. School engagement, academic achievement, and self-regulated learning. Sustainability. 2021;13(6):3011. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/su13063011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu X, Tian L, Zhou J, Huebner ES. The developmental trajectory of behavioral school engagement and its reciprocal relations with subjective well-being in school among Chinese elementary school students. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019;99:286–95. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Olivier E, Morin AJ, Langlois J, Tardif-Grenier K, Archambault I. Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and student engagement in elementary and secondary school students. J Youth Adolesc. 2020;49(11):2327–46. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10964-020-01295-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Plamondon A, Martinussen R. Inattention symptoms are associated with academic achievement mostly through variance shared with intrinsic motivation and behavioral engagement. J Atten Disord. 2019;23(14):1816–28. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/1087054715587098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen J, Huebner ES, Tian L. Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learn Individ Differ. 2020;78:101824. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Li J, Sun Z, Wang X, Li W, Ding W, Xie R. Parental involvement and Chinese children’s learning engagement: Promotion and arousal. Learn Individ Differ. 2023;106:102325. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang H, Cai T. Parental involvement, adolescents’ self-determined learning and academic achievement in urban China. Int J Psychol. 2017;52(1):58–66. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/ijop.12188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xiong Y, Qin X, Wang Q, Ren P. Parental involvement in adolescents’ learning and academic achievement: Cross-lagged effect and mediation of academic engagement. J Youth Adolesc. 2021;8. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10964-021-01460-w

  11. Zhang F, Jiang Y, Ming H, Ren Y, Wang L, Huang S. Family socioeconomic status and children’s academic achievement: The different roles of parental academic involvement and subjective social mobility. Br J Educ Psychol. 2020;90(3):561–79. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/bjep.12374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moreira PA, Lee VE. School social organization influences adolescents’ cognitive engagement with school: the role of school support for learning and of autonomy support. Learn Individ Differ. 2020;80:101885. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heatly MC, Votruba-Drzal E. Parent-and teacher-child relationships and engagement at school entry: mediating, interactive, and transactional associations across contexts. Dev Psychol. 2017;53(6):1042. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/dev0000310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Juvonen J, Espinoza G, Knifsend C. The role of peer relationships in student academic and extracurricular engagement. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, editors. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York (NY): Springer; 2012. p. 387–401.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Skinner EA, Rickert NP, Vollet JW, Kindermann TA. The complex social ecology of academic development: a bioecological framework and illustration examining the collective effects of parents, teachers, and peers on student engagement. Educ Psychol. 2022;57(2):87–113. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/00461520.2022.2038603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mammadov S, Schroeder K. A meta-analytic review of the relationships between autonomy support and positive learning outcomes. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2023;102235. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102235.

  17. Yang J, Yu X, Zhang J, Lu L, Yang Z. The transition of latent classes of children’s learning engagement in primary school against the background of the “double reduction” policy. Acta Psychol Sin. 2024;56(3):295–310 (https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.1911.B.20231211.1542.012).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Xie R, Wang D, Wu W, Yuan Z, Lin X, Li W, Ding W. Bidirectional longitudinal relationship between Chinese children’s paternal and maternal attachment and self-compassion. Mindfulness. 2022;13(11):2857–67. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12671-022-02001-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tan D, Xie R, Song S, Ding W, Wu W, Li W. How does parent-child attachment influence left-behind children’s loneliness and depression: The mediating roles of peer attachment and teacher-student relationship. Child Care Health Dev. 2023;49(6):1076–86. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/cch.13118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bowlby J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Tavistock; 1979.

  21. Connell JP, Wellborn JG. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In: Gunnar MR, Sroufe LA, editors. Self processes and development. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1991. p. 43–77.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25:54–67. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Martin AJ, Dowson M. Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79:327–65. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3102/0034654308325583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Furrer C, Skinner E. Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. J Educ Psychol. 2003;95:148–62. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heatly MC, Votruba-Drzal E. Developmental precursors of engagement and motivation in fifth grade: Linkages with parent-and teacher-child relationships. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2019;60:144–56.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ainsworth MS. Attachments beyond infancy. Am Psychol. 1989;44(4):709–16. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bretherton I. Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Dev Care. 2010;180(1–2):9–23. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/03004430903414661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bureau JF, Deneault AA, Yurkowski K. Preschool father-child attachment and its relation to self-reported child socioemotional adaptation in middle childhood. Attach Hum Dev. 2020;22(1):90–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fernandes C, Monteiro L, Santos AJ, Fernandes M, Antunes M, Vaughn BE, et al. Early father-child and mother-child attachment relationships: Contributions to preschoolers’ social competence. Attach Hum Dev. 2020;22(6):687–704. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/14616734.2019.1692045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grossmann K, Grossmann KE. Essentials when studying child-father attachment: A fundamental view on safe haven and secure base phenomena. Attach Hum Dev. 2020;22(1):9–14. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/14616734.2019.1589056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Di Folco S, Messina S, Zavattini GC, Psouni E. Attachment to mother and father at transition to middle childhood. J Child Fam Stud. 2017;26(3):721–33. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-016-0602-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang D, Ding W, Xie R, Wu W, Wang Z, Li X, Li W. The longitudinal influence of mothers’ co-parenting on school adjustment of left-behind children with absent fathers in China: The mediating role of parent-child attachment. J Child Fam Stud. 2023;32(9):2588–97. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-022-02273-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lamb ME, Lewis C. The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In: Lamb ME, editor. The Role of the Father in Child Development. 5th ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 2010. p. 94–153.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Paquette D, Dumont C. Is father-child rough-and-tumble play associated with attachment or activation relationships? Early Child Dev Care. 2013;183(6):760–73. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/03004430.2012.723440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cui N, Xue J, Connolly CA, Liu J. Does the gender of parent or child matter in child maltreatment in China? Child Abuse Negl. 2016;54:1–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pan Y, Zhang D, Liu Y, Ran G, Teng Z. Different effects of paternal and maternal attachment on psychological health among Chinese secondary school students. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25(10):2998–3008. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-016-0463-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramchandani PG, Domoney J, Sethna V, Psychogiou L, Vlachos H, Murray L. Do early father-infant interactions predict the onset of externalizing behaviors in young children? Findings from a longitudinal cohort study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(1):56–64. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02583.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(4):568–86. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Longobardi C, Prino LE, Marengo D, Settanni M. Student−teacher relationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high school. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1988. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01988.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Armsden GC, Greenberg MT. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 1987;16(5):427–54. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/bf02202939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roorda DL, Jak S, Zee M, Oort FJ, Koomen HM. Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. Sch Psychol Rev. 2017;46(3):239–61. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhen R, Liu RD, Ding Y, Jiang R, Jiang S, Hong W. Gratitude and academic engagement among primary students: Examining a multiple mediating model. Curr Psychol. 2021;40(5):2543–51. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12144-019-00202-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fredricks JA, Hofkens T, Wang MT, Mortenson E, Scott P. Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: a mixed methods study. J Res Sci Teach. 2018;55(2):271–98. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/tea.21419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yang C, Bear GG, May H. Multilevel associations between school−wide social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. Sch Psychol Rev. 2018;47(1):45–61. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Huston AC. Sex-typing. In: Mussen PH, Hetherington EM, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development. 4th ed. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1983. p. 387–468.

  46. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kenny ME, Gallagher LA. Instrumental and social/relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal attachment in adolescence. J Adolesc. 2002;25(2):203–19. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1006/jado.2002.0461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Liu S, Ying J, Wang X, Shi J, Wu X. Parent-child gender effect in the associations among problematic internet use, parent-adolescent conflict, and academic engagement. Fam Relat. 2024;73(3):1536–49. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/fare.12958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gilligan C. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Thompson RA, Goodman MG. Development of self, relationships, and socioemotional competence: Foundations for early school success. In: Barbarin OA, Wasik BH, editors. Handbook of Child Development and Early Education: Research to Practice. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2009. p. 147–71.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wentzel K. Part III commentary: Socio-cultural contexts, social competence, and engagement at school. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, editors. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. London (GB): Springer; 2012. p. 479–88. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_23.

  52. Lam SF, Jimerson S, Kikas E, et al. Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The results of an international study from 12 countries. J Sch Psychol. 2012;50(1):77–94. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Liu H, Yao M, Li J. Chinese adolescents’ achievement goal profiles and their relation to academic burnout, learning engagement, and test anxiety. Learn Individ Differ. 2020;83–84:10194. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jin CC, Zou H, Zeng R, Dou DH. The trait of attachment and the effect of attachment on social adjustment of middle school students: Parents intimacy as a moderator. Psychol Dev Educ. 2010;26(6):577–83 ((in Chinese)).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pianta RC. Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. J Sch Psychol. 1994;32(1):15–31. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/0022-4405(94)90026-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J Manag. 1986;12:531–44. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/014920638601200408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gold MS, Bentler PM. Treatments of missing data: A Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization. Struct Equ Modeling. 2000;7(3):319–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1207/S15328007SEM0703_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Campbell SB. Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental issues. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Coleman PK, Karraker KH. Maternal self-efficacy beliefs, competence in parenting, and toddlers’ behavior and developmental status. Inf Ment Health J. 2003;24(2):126–48. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/imhj.10048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Furlong MJ. Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychol Sch. 2008;45:369–86. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/pits.20303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pianta RC, Stuhlman MW. Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. Sch Psychol Rev. 2004;33:444–58. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Perdue NH, Manzeske DP, Estell DB. Early predictors of school engagement: Exploring the role of peer relationships. Psychol Sch. 2009;46(10):1084–97. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/pits.20446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Guo N, Huebner ES, Tian L. Co-developmental trajectories of parental involvement: Relations to academic achievement and externalizing and internalizing problems among Chinese elementary schoolchildren. Br J Educ Psychol. 2022;92(4):1422–43. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/bjep.12508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Han Y, Ji X, Han J. Transformation of Chinese as a foreign language teachers’ relationship with their students in the Australian context. Int J Contemp Educ. 2019;2(2):27–37. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.11114/ijce.v2i2.4393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Leaper C. Gender and social-cognitive development. In: Lerner RM, Liben LS, Müller U, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Vol 2: Cognitive Processes. 7th ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 2015. p. 806–53.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Yang J, Zhao X. Parenting styles and children’s academic performance: evidence from middle schools in China. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;113:105017. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang W, Liu X, Dong Y, Bai Y, Wang S, Zhang L. Son preference, eldest son preference, and educational attainment: Evidence from Chinese families. J Fam Issues. 2020;41(5):636–66. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0192513X19874091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Blakemore SJ, Mills KL. Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65(1):187–207. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are appreciative of the parents and children who participated in our study and the people who assisted in data collection.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou, 215600, China

    Guihua Qin

  2. School of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, 321004, China

    Qi Li

  3. Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, 400799, China

    Die Wang

Authors
  1. Qi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Die Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guihua Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Guihua Qin collected and analyzed the date. Qi LI and Die Wang wrote the main manuscript text. Qi Li prepared all figures in the manuscript. all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guihua Qin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Approval No. 2014USTS060). Since all participants were minors (under the age of 16), written informed consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians before their participation in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Q., Wang, D. & Qin, G. Multiple attachment perspectives: the relationship between interpersonal attachment from family and school environments and children’s learning engagement. BMC Psychol 13, 314 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02633-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02633-z

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us