Information Resource

Teacher Bias and Its Impact on Teacher-Student Relationships:

The Example of Favoritism
Student-teacher relationships develop over the course of the school year through
a complex intersection of student and teacher beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and
interactions with one another. Forming strong and supportive relationships with
teachers allows students to feel safer and more secure in the school setting, feel
more competent, make more positive connections with peers, and make greater
academic gains. In contrast, conflict with teachers may place students on a
trajectory of school failure in which they are unable to connect to academic and
social resources offered within classrooms and schools.
Hamre, Pianta, Bear, & Minke

t is easy to list out a set of ideals related to what students and school staff would like their
I experiences in the classroom and school-wide to be. Such a list encompasses being welcome,
safe, included, respected, cared for, guided and supported in learning, and treated fairly. These
qualitative features are seen as enabling openness, trust, engagement, participation, and enhancing
the “fit” for effective learning and positive growth. Pursuing these ideals in an equitable manner
requires that teachers develop effective working relationships with all their students.
Relationships at school exert a powerful influence on student and staff perceptions of each other and
on engagement in learning and on outcomes. Teachers and students are human beings and it should
surprise no one that unintentional and intentional biases affect their relationships with each other.
Such biases contribute to favoritism for some and neglectful and prejudicial actions toward others.
Biases can become barriers to effectively working together. Such barriers arise from negative
attitudes related to sociocultural and economic background, current lifestyle, primary language
spoken, skin color, gender, power, status, intervention orientation, and on and on.
In addition, interfering dynamics often arise as teachers and students interact. Examples include
excessive dependency and approval seeking, competition, stereotypical thinking and judgmental
bias, transference and counter-transference, rescue-persecution cycles, resistance, reluctance, and
psychological withdrawal and psychological reactance.
All this can have significant impact on what happens in the classroom and beyond. As an example,
this resource briefly highlights the matter of teacher favoritism.
Teacher Favoritism
Teacher favoritism can be defined as the act of giving preferential treatment to someone or
something; the tendency to favor a person or group for factors “such as a characteristic they possess,
or their personal contacts, or merely out of personal preferences” (Aydogan, 2008). At school, think
about a “teacher’s pet.”

*The material in this document reflects work done by Emily Cheng as part of her involvement
with the national Center for MH in Schools & Student/Learning Supports at UCLA.
The center is co-directed by Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor and operates under the auspices
of the School Mental Health Project, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA,
Website: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu Send comments to [email protected]
Feel free to share and reproduce this document.

1
Teacher Favoritism
For the most part, research suggests that teacher favoritism is not manifested as blatant and obvious
favors. Subtle cues include nonverbal behavior that conveys a preference (or dislike) toward another
person (e.g., facial expressions, length of eye contact, body movements). A teacher may not even
be aware of giving preferences or investing more in one student and slighting others. A sad example
that researchers have highlighted is that teachers often favor some students (intentionally or
unintentionally) when punishing misbehavior (Brown & Dobbins, 2004; Tirri & Puolimatka, 2000).
A widely recognized type of favoritism is seen in “teacher pet” relationships. Badad (2009) defines
such relationships as “a phenomenon of a special emotional relationship (often a love relationship)
between the teacher and a particular student (or two) in the classroom”). Trusz (2017) defines pets
as “students favoured by teachers because they have actual and/or alleged characteristics that are
highly valued by teachers, but not necessarily by classmates.”
Factors that Cultivate Teacher Favoritism
According to Urhahne (2015), teacher expectations and judgments related to student achievements
can play a huge role in whether or not a teacher favors a student. He defines teacher expectations
as “inferences that teachers make about students’ future academic achievement” while teacher
judgments are defined as “estimates of students’ current academic achievement.”
As we noted in our introduction, many factors can influence such expectations and judgments (e.g.,
sociocultural and economic background, current lifestyle, primary language spoken, skin color,
gender, and on and on). However, as intersectionality research highlights, delineating the impact of
these variables is complex. For example, some studies suggest that teachers’ perceptions of students’
academic achievements are generally independent of student demographic characteristics – with the
exception that teachers tend to overestimate some academic abilities of girls, especially in terms of
language abilities (Sorhagen, 2013).
Multiple studies have shown that teacher expectations are more likely to be influenced by student
behavior in classrooms as opposed to student demographic characteristics (Sorhagen, 2013). For
example, teachers may develop expectations that a socially competent student is also an
academically competent student and view troublesome students as less competent (Hinnant,
O’Brien, & Ghazarian, 2009).

Correlational Studies of Teacher Favoratism

Aydogan (2008) studied teacher favoritism in Turkish classrooms. The variety of correlates with teacher
favoritism were: student success, student’s socioeconomic status, gender, physical appearance,
familiarity between teacher and student or student’s family, and parallelism between political or
religious ideology of the student and the teacher. Examples: Teachers tended to favor students who
they perceived as more successful, from middle class as contrasted to lower class backgrounds, and
those who came from a similar background to themselves. Physically attractive students also tended
to be more favored. In terms of student gender, both male and female teachers tended to give special
attention to boys.
Earlier, Tal & Babad (1990) studied teachers’ pets in Israeli classrooms. They reported that: Pets
tended to be girls rather than boys, of Ashkenazi rather than Sephardi origin, very good (but not
necessarily the best) students academically, and perceived as charming, socially skilled, and
compliant. Teachers who had pets were found to hold somewhat more authoritarian attitudes than
teachers who did not have pets, and the rate of occurrence of the pet phenomenon was higher in
religious than in secular schools. Students' affective reactions to their teachers were more positive in
classrooms without pets, and most negative in exclusive-pet classrooms. Potential favoritism in
assigning teacher grades to exclusive pets was also investigated: No overall favoritism was found, but
a trace of favoritism by more authoritarian teachers was discovered

2
 Some of the Negative Effects of Teacher Favoritism
Besides direct studies of teacher favoritism, the negative effects of such favoritism have been
extrapolated from a larger body of research focused on the impact of inaccuracies and bias in teacher
expectations and judgments. Possible negative effects have been discussed for students and teachers
and for classroom climate. Concerns also have raised about the potential impact at home As can
readily be seen from an internet search, the following concerns are widely mentioned:
• Favoritism in the classroom is seen as fundamentally unfair and contributes to inequities
that affect student success and failure.
• Such favoritism can have a negative impact on a teacher’s reputation; students who are
not favored are likely to develop negative attitudes toward the teacher and perhaps
toward the school. Trust between the teacher and these students declines, with obvious
implications for relationship building.
• Favored students may be resented. They may become targets for hostile acts by peers,
including rejection and isolation.
• Students who are not favored may perceive the teacher’s attitude toward them as a
negative judgment and develop negative attitudes about themselves related to classroom
learning. And the situation may exacerbate the problems of those with already negative
attitudes. Students may become angry and act out or withdraw.
• All this can undermine a teacher’s effectiveness and runs counter to developing a positive
classroom climate.
• Beyond school, negative effects at home can arise when those who are favored adopt a
sense of privilege, and those who are not favored internalize the negative image they
perceive from the teacher’s behavior toward them.
Although preferential treatment and favoritism may not be conspicuous, the existence of a teacher’s
pet in a classroom is enough to produce negative effects

A Couple of Studies Discussing Negative Effects

Babad, E. (1995). The “teacher’s pet” phenomenon, students’ perceptions of teachers’ differential behaviour
and students’ morale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 361–374. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ517160
Reports finding that the intensity of the teacher's pet phenomenon was related to perceived teachers'
differential behavior, which, in turn, was negatively related to student morale. Stronger perceptions
of teacher differential treatment were directly related to assumed favoritism, preferential treatment,
and unfairness and less overall satisfaction, more negative reactions to the teacher, and a more
negative classroom climate. The findings were strongest when the pets were unpopular with other
students. Implications for the negative attitudes expressed by students include students ignoring or
resisting teacher leadership and developing negative or angry attitudes towards the teacher’s pet and
the teacher himself/herself because of the perceived preferential treatment.
Chiu, S.-I., Lee, J., & Liang, T. (2013). Does the teacher’s pet phenomenon inevitably cause classroom
conflict? Comparative viewpoints of three pet-student groups. School Psychology International, 34, 3–16.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143034311421270
Article abstract: Although most studies reveal a relationship between the teacher’s pet phenomenon
with classroom conflict, it does not necessarily cause classroom conflict. This study confirms the
model fit for teacher authority, the existence of the teacher’’s pet phenomenon and its relationship
to classroom conflict and students’’ self-adjustment, as well as testing the different viewpoints of
three pet-student groups. Participants in the study comprised 407 5th through 8th grade students
from 12 schools in Taiwan. The findings indicate that the estimated model fits the observed data;
teacher authority directly affects the teacher’’s pet phenomenon and indirectly affects classroom
conflict and students’’ self-adjustment. Non-pet students, popular-pet students, and unpopular pet
students have different viewpoints of the variables. Three sub-models reveal different path effects;
the inclusion of popular-pet students does not lead to classroom conflict.

3
 Concluding Comments
As McGrath & Van Bergin (2015) suggest:
a positive relationship with a teacher can protect against numerous other negative influences
including maladaptive behaviour, negative life events, poor quality child–parent relationships,
and referral to special education settings. It can also predict a range of behavioural and
academic outcomes: not just within the school years, but perhaps also in adulthood. For
example, those with negative student–teacher relationships may be more likely to be
unemployed in adulthood, whereas those with positive relationships may experience a
higher degree of success. The predictive and protective functions of the student–teacher
relationship suggests that one positive relationship may be sufficient to alter the trajectory
of a student at risk of negative outcomes.
In extolling the virtues of positive teacher-student relationships, few doubt that teacher biases can
lead to some profound negative effects. Clearly, countering bias and facilitating establishment of
positive teacher-student working relationships for all is an essential facet of school improvement
efforts. In addition to what can be done through a direct focus on reducing bias as part of the agenda
for continuing professional education, the matter can be addressed in developing a personalized
approach to both instruction and special assistance (see Improving School Improvement –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/improving_school_improvement.html .

Some References Used in Preparing this Information Resource

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2017). Addressing barriers to learning: In the classroom and schoolwide.
Los Angeles: Center for MH in Schools.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/improving_school_improvement.html
Anderson, G. J., Walberg, H. J., & Welch, W. W. (1969). Curriculum effects on the social climate of
learning: A new representation of discriminant functions. American Educational Research Journal, 6,
315-328. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1161855
Aydogan, Ý. (2008). Favoritism in the classroom: A study on turkish schools. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 35, 159-168.
https://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1537215/favoritism_in_the_classroom_a_study_on_turkis
h_schools/
Blase, J. J. (1988). The politics of favoritism: A qualitative analysis of the teachers perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 152-177. doi:10.1177/0013161x88024002005
Brantlinger, E. (1985). Low-income parents'' perceptions of favoritism in the schools. Urban Education,
20, 82-102. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/004208598502000106
Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 631-661. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.5.631
Brown, L. M., & Dobbins, H. (2004). Students of color and European American students stigma-relevant
perceptions of university instructors. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 157-174.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00104.x
Bucak, P. (2007). Teacher's pet. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53. Online
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Teachers-Pet/46542
.
Butterman, E. (2007). Playing Favorites? Instructor, 116, 39-41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ792935
Center for Mental Health in Schools (2012). Improving working relationships inside the classroom. Los
Angeles: Author (at UCLA). http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/relations.pdf
de Boer, H., Bosker, R.J., & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2010). Sustainability of teacher expectation bias
effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 168-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017289

4
Gregory, A., & Ripski, M.B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high
school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37, 337–353.
http://www.oalib.com/references/13822255
Hinnant, J.B., O'Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S.R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations
to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 662-670.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014306
Jussim, L., & Harber, K.D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and
unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,
131-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
Kazemi, A. (2016). Examining the interplay of justice perceptions, motivation, and school achievement a
mong secondary school students. Social Justice Research, 29, 103-118.
doi:10.1007/s11211-016-0261-2
Linsin, M. (2011). Why playing favorites is bad for classroom management. Online
https://www.smartclassroommanagement.com/2011/10/29/teacher-favoritism-is-bad-for-classroom-m
anagement/
Marshall, H., & Weinstein, R. (1986). Classroom context of student-perceived differential teacher
treatment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 441-453.
Mcgrath, K.F., & Bergen, P.V. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative
student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1-17.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001
Newman, C.J., & Licata, J.W. (1987). Teacher leadership and classroom climate as predictors of student
brinkmanship. The High School Journal, 70, 102-110.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/617398936?accountid=14512
Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory,
ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77, 4-27. doi:10.3102/003465430298489
Perlmutter, D.D. (2008). The teacher’s pet phenomenon: From dysfunction to learning model. In O.
Ogede (Ed), Teacher commentary on student papers: Conventions, beliefs, and practices. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., & Allen, J.P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement:
Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S.L.
Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement. New
York: Springer Science Business Media, LLC.
Richey, H.W., & Richey, M.H. (1978). Nonverbal behavior in the classroom. Psychology in the Schools,
15, 571-576. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(197810)15:43.0.co;2-u
Rubie-Davies, C., Weinstein, R.S., Huang, F.L., Gregory, A., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P.(2014).
Successive teacher expectation effects across the early school years. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 35, 181-191. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.03.006
Smead, V.S. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Dead end or promising beginning?
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 30, 145-156.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/617007385?accountid=14512
Smith, E, & Gourd, S. (2006). Pupils’ views on equity in schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative
Education, 36, 41-56. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ721737
Sorhagen, N.S. (2013). Early teacher expectations disproportionately affect poor children's high school
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 465-477.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031754
Stasio, M.R., Savage, R., & Burgos, G. (2016). Social comparison, competition and teacher–student
relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts bullying and victimization. Journal of
Adolescence, 53, 207-216. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002

5
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). The teachers pet phenomenon: Rate of occurrence, correlates, and
psychological costs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 637-645.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.82.4.637
Tirri, K., & Puolimatka, T. (2000). Teacher Authority in schools: A case study from Finland. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 26, 157-165. doi:10.1080/02607470050127072
Trusz, S. (2017). The teacher’s pet phenomenon 25 years on. Social Psychology of Education, 20,
707-730. doi:10.1007/s11218-017-9388-8
Urhahne, D. (2015). Teacher behavior as a mediator of the relationship between teacher judgment and
students motivation and emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 73-82.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.006
WikiHow. (2018). How to become a teacher's pet. https://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Teacher's-Pet

For a Few Other Center Resources

See the Center Online Clearinghouse Quick Finds –

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/quicksearch.htm

For Example:
Classroom Climate/Culture and School Climate/Culture and Environments that Support
Learning – http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/environments.htm
Classroom Focused Enabling – http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/classenable.htm
Classroom Management – http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/clssroom.htm
Social and Emotional Development and Social Skills –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/p2102_05.htm