Being involved in social interactions with high-achieving peers can bring academic benefits to students (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005). This can lead to a preference of students to socially interact with high-achieving peers. Students, who have higher grades and perform well in school (e.g., better reading skills), are more likely to be well accepted and preferred for social interactions by peers over low-achieving students (Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2018). On the other hand, low-achieving students are more at risk of experiencing social rejection and exclusion by peers (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010).

Further, extensive research on teacher expectations has shown that teachers usually have higher expectations for high-achieving students than for low-achieving students (Brophy & Good, 1970; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Wang et al., 2018). Usually, teachers base their expectations on classic indicators of academic achievement, such as student grades (Jussim & Harber, 2005). However, studies also show that teachers have lower expectations for students who do not speak the instruction language at home (Meissel et al., 2017). Which means that teacher expectations can also be biased by student social background. These differential expectations are enacted via classroom interactions, for example, when teachers explain concepts more carefully to students for whom they have high expectations than for students for whom they have low expectations and give them more frequent feedback, instructions, and explanations (Rubie-Davies, 2007). This makes teachers a source of information on students’ academic achievement levels, on which peers can rely when they choose suitable classmates (i.e., high-achieving students) for interactions in class.

In sum, there is evidence that teachers are more likely to have high expectations for high-achieving students and that these students are preferred by their peers for social interactions. Conversely, teachers have lower expectations for low-achieving students, and these students are rejected more often as interaction partners by peers.

Social referencing processes explain the role of teachers in providing information about students’ academic achievement levels in class and, thus, of their influence on students’ choice of classmates for interactions in class (Hughes et al., 2001). Social referencing theory states that children tend to base their understanding of a situation on their perception of how adults interpret it (Feinman et al., 1992). Thus, students decide whether to like or dislike a classmate based on the perceived interactions of the teacher with the classmate. Consequently, students’ acceptance by their peer group depends on how their interactions with the teacher are perceived by their peers (Hendrickx et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2014). However, studies on social referencing processes in the classroom are scarce, and there is a lack of studies on the extent to which teacher expectations of students’ academic achievement are associated with student social outcomes. Furthermore, it is not clear whether teachers predominantly have a positive or negative impact on peer relationships. Thus, it should be investigated whether teachers facilitate the positive experiences of students in peer groups (e.g., social acceptance) through their expectations and whether they reinforce negative student social outcomes (e.g., social rejection). In terms of social justice, it is also important to examine the extent to which teacher expectations are not only explained by student grades but also by factors of student social background, such as their language spoken at home.

This study aimed to close these research gaps by bringing together the research strands of the effects of teachers’ expectations and social referencing. The relationships between indicators of students’ academic achievement levels, teacher expectations of students’ academic achievement level, and positive and negative peer nominations were examined.

For the analysis data from a longitudinal study in Switzerland was used. In this study, data from two waves were analysed. In the first wave (t1), students were in Grade 5; in the second wave (t2), they were in Grade 6. The sample comprised of 1,139 students (mean age in first wave: 11.11 years, SD age: 0.54; female: 48.4%) and 74 teachers from 74 classes. Students were asked in Grade 5 (t1) and Grade 6 (t2) to nominate up to two classmates they most liked (positive peer nominations) and disliked (negative peer nominations) sitting next to in class. At t1, they also indicated the language they normally spoke at home and their grades from the prior school year (grade 4). Students’ socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed in a parent questionnaire. At t1, teachers were asked to estimate each student’s academic achievement level in mathematics, the language of instruction (German), and the primary foreign language (French) compared to their classmates. Using structural equation modelling, teacher expectations, students’ grades, and language spoken at home were examined as predictors of positive and negative peer nominations. The hypothesized model fit the data well, χ2(15) = 23.57, p = .073, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = .02 [90% CI: 0, .04, p = .999], SRMR = 0.02.

In line with research on teacher expectations (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Meissel et al., 2017), higher grades and speaking the language of instruction at home predicted teacher expectations. Furthermore, students for whom teachers held high expectations were more likely to receive more peer nominations as seating neighbours. In contrast, there was no significant relationship between teacher expectations and negative peer nominations. This means that the extent to which teacher expectations affected social interactions among peers was positive rather than negative. On the one hand, the results indicate that the social rejection of students by their classmates was not related to teacher expectations. On the other hand, the results suggest that teacher beliefs regarding students in the academic domain were positively related to student experiences in the social domain. Concluding, when students chose classmates as seating neighbours, they seemed to be influenced by their classmates’ academic achievement levels, resulting in a preference for interactions with high-achieving classmates. To determine their classmates’ academic achievement level and choose classmates for interactions in class, students relied on teacher expectations of academic achievement levels. This indicates that teacher beliefs are powerful influential factors that affect student social experiences in peer groups. However, if the bases of teacher expectations are considered, teachers’ influential role can lead to social injustice. Indeed, teacher expectations were not only explained by classic indicators of academic achievement level, such as student grades. Teachers also based their expectations on factors related to students’ social background, such as the language spoken at home. To prevent social injustice in the classroom, teachers need to reflect on the bases of their expectations and avoid differential treatment based on students’ social background.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having high-achieving versus low-achieving friends: A longitudinal analysis. Social Development, 14(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00291.x Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908 Feinman, S., Roberts, D., Hsieh, K.-F., Sawyer, D., & Swanson, D. (1992). A critical review of social referencing in infancy. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social Referencing and the Social Construction of Reality in Infancy (Springer, pp. 15–54). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2462-9_2 Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Mainhard, T., Boor-Klip, H. J., & Brekelmans, M. (2017). Teacher liking as an affective filter for the association between student behavior and peer status. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49(4), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.004 Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher - student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7 Hughes, J. N., Im, M. H., & Wehrly, S. E. (2014). Effect of peer nominations of teacher-student support at individual and classroom levels on social and academic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 52(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371 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(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3 Laninga-Wijnen, L., Ryan, A. M., Harakeh, Z., Shin, H., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2018). The moderating role of popular peers’ achievement goals in 5th- and 6th-graders’ achievement-related friendships: A social network analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000210 Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021 Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x Rubie-Davies, C. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X101601 Wang, S., Rubie-Davies, C., & Meissel, K. (2018). A systematic review of the teacher expectation literature over the past 30 years. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 124–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548798