The labeling theory, grounded in a symbolic interactionist perspective, posits that social reactions to deviant behavior are crucial in perpetuating such behavior. Empirical studies affirm that labeling can amplify deviance and foster deviant careers (e.g., Liberman et al., 2014; Wiley & Esbensen, 2016). The internalisation of deviant labels often reshapes self-perception, leading individuals to view themselves as non-conforming (Matsueda 1992). Labeling may also result in social withdrawal from conforming peers and institutions (Laub & Sampson 1993) or increased association with deviant groups (Bernburg et al. 2006). In school contexts, advanced labeling processes influence teachers’ perceptions and actions, often leading to stricter evaluations of labeled pupils' behavior and harsher sanctions (Caprara & Zimbardo 1996; Amemiya et al. 2020).

Research demonstrates that repeated rule-breaking does not necessarily lead to labeling children as problematic (Hargreaves et al. 2011). Instead, deviant labels emerge from social interactions between children and teachers. These labels are not based solely on the frequency or intensity of behavior but are socially constructed through dynamic and iterative interpretation processes (Lanas & Brunila 2019; Waterhouse 2004). Following Rochelau and Chavez (2015), it can be assumed that informal labeling in schools has the potential to influence decisions and measures that extend beyond individual interactions, thereby potentially institutionalizing deviant labels. Such labels, including special educational diagnoses, have been shown to significantly impact teachers', parents', and peers' expectations and interactions with labeled pupils (Lauchlan & Boyle 2020). Notably, behavioral-based diagnoses increase the likelihood of exclusionary practices, as shown by Zhang et al. (2004). For example, children diagnosed with emotional and social development needs are more frequently sanctioned or excluded from activities, undermining their school participation and potentially affecting the academic performance and behaviour of the labeled pupils. Consequently, the utilisation of special educational diagnoses functions as a norming process that constructs deviation within social interactions, with regular schoolteachers often playing a central role in collaboration with special educators (Blasse & Haas 2024).

A review of preceding studies indicates a tendency for retrospective reconstruction of problematic developments. However, significant research gaps remain. First, there is a lack of longitudinal studies systematically examining labeling processes over time. Second, existing research has largely overlooked the primary school context, where early interactions between teachers and pupils may shape long-term labeling trajectories. Third, while prior studies have explored labeling mechanisms, they have not adequately addressed the interactive nature of how special educational diagnoses emerge within teacher-pupil interactions. These gaps highlight the need for research that systematically investigates how deviant labels develop over time in primary school settings.

In light of these considerations, the present study explores the development of deviant labels from the beginning of primary school to the end of the third school year. It investigates the following research question: What patterns can be identified in the informal construction of deviant labels by primary school pupils? In order to address this question, it is first necessary to categorize how primary school teachers perceive pupils who have received a behavioral-based diagnosis. In a subsequent step, the evolution of these perceptions over the initial three years of schooling is examined. By analysing longitudinal data, this study offers insights into the social construction of deviant labels and its implications for teacher-pupil interactions, contributing to the understanding of how informal labeling shapes educational trajectories and reinforces deviation.

In order to provide a response to the presented question, it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study. At the core of this study is the survey of teachers' perceptions of individual pupils at several points in their school career, starting at the beginning of the first school year up to the special educational diagnosis. The present study's overall sample comprises 11 classes from 10 German primary schools. Surveys were conducted at least twice per school year over a period of three school years. As part of these observations, a standardised procedure was used to record verbal, motor, passive and aggressive deviant behaviour of the pupils. After each observation, semi-structured interviews with teachers were conducted, focusing on the behavior of selected pupils, the teachers’ reactions, and their perceived development. Pupils displaying above-average disruptive behavior formed the core cases, while contrasting cases included pupils with lower or average disruption levels. This approach resulted in 74 interviews with 12 teachers, covering 81 pupils. The cases were further narrowed to include only pupils diagnosed with special educational needs during the three observed school years and including a minimum of four interviews with the pupils' teacher across the three years. The final subsample comprised 12 pupils from 7 classes, who were observed during 45 lessons. Teacher interviews followed a problem-centred approach (Witzel & Reiter 2012), using a brief interview guide. Teachers were first asked about their perceptions of specific pupils’ disruptive behavior observed in class. Follow-up questions addressed their reactions to these situations and their broader reflections on the pupils’ development. Open-ended prompts and probing questions ensured the focus remained on the study’s central aims while fostering in-depth narratives. Interviews were conducted shortly after the observations and lasted 20–60 minutes. The data analysis was conducted using content-structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker 2024). All interview segments discussing the selected pupils formed the analysis units. Main categories relating to teacher perceptions and responses were identified through inductive coding. In a second analytical phase, the longitudinal development of the perceptions in these categories was examined, with a focus on informal labeling processes preceding formal special needs diagnoses.

Following the coding of the interviews through content analysis, key categories and characteristics of the longitudinal development relating to the teacher's perception of individual pupils and how they deal with their behaviour over the three school years analysed can be identified. This shows that certain informal labeling processes precede the formal diagnosis of special educational needs and in some cases become apparent shortly after starting school. The present findings demonstrate that it is not the diagnostic label itself, but the development of mutual interaction long before a formal diagnosis that decisively shapes teachers' perceptions and their actions in dealing with the pupils concerned. As the analysed case studies illustrate, recurring patterns can be identified in the pre-diagnostic construction of informal labels. At the level of teacher perception, there is a remarkable persistence in the description of symptoms marked as problematic and in the attribution of causes for children's deviant behaviour, even when alternative diagnoses are suggested. For example, in instances where psychological diagnosis did not align with the teacher's perception of pupils having a psychological disorder, they persisted in their initial assessments, asserting the inaccuracy of the diagnostic findings. At the same time, an increasing intensity of the symptoms described is evident. Concurrently, the prognosis for the children's development gradually worsens, while teachers increasingly perceive their own actions as ineffective. At the level of teachers' practices, a significant increase in institutions and professionals dealing with pupils' behaviour is evident. This is accompanied by a significant intensification of sanctions for deviant behavior, which initially take the form of short-term exclusions in response to acute disruptions and gradually escalate into long-term exclusions as a disciplinary measure. The findings of this study can support teachers in critically reflecting on attribution processes, raising awareness of how early informal labeling influences their perception and interactions.

Amemiya, J., Mortenson, E., and Wang, M.-T. (2020). Minor infractions are not minor: School infractions for minor misconduct may increase adolescents’ defiant behavior and contribute to racial disparities in school discipline. American Psychologist, 75(1), 23–36. Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 43(1), 67–88. Blasse, N., & Haas, B. (2024). Intersektionale Inklusionsforschung: Zum Verhältnis von race, class, gender mit der Differenzkategorie dis*ability. Empirische Pädagogik, 38(2), 251–266. Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1996). Aggregation and amplification of marginal deviations in the social construction of personality and maladjustment. European Journal of Personality, 10(2), 79–110. Hargreaves, D. H., Hester, S., Mellor, F. J., Hargreaves, D. H., Hester, S. K., & Hargreaves, D. H. (1981). Abweichendes Verhalten im Unterricht. Beltz. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz. Juventa Verlag. Lanas, M., & Brunila, K. (2019). Bad behaviour in school: A discursive approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(5), 682–695. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325. Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2020). Labelling and inclusive education. Oxford University Press. Liberman, A. M., Kirk, D. S., & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling effects of first juvenile arrests: Secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology, 52(3), 345–370. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577–1611. Rocheleau, G. C., & Chavez, J. M. (2015). Guilt by Association: The Relationship between Deviant Peers and Deviant Labels. Deviant Behavior, 36(3), 167–186. Waterhouse, S. (2004). Deviant and non-deviant identities in the classroom: Patrolling the boundaries of the normal social world. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(1), 69–84. Wiley, S. A., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2016). The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification? Crime & Delinquency, 62(3), 283–307. Witzel, A., & Reiter, H. (2012). The problem-centred interview. Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Herbst, M. (2004). Disciplinary exclusions in special education: A 4-year analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 29(4), 337-347.