View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Linking Parent-Child, Teacher-Child, and Peer Relationship Quality to Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Linking Parent-Child, Teacher-Child, and Peer Relationship Quality to Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Xiang Niu, Li-Xing Gou, Xi Shen, Jin-Liang Wang
Source: Early Education and Development. 2025 36(6):1408-1437.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 30
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Shyness, Children, Adolescents, Parent Child Relationship, Teacher Student Relationship, Peer Relationship, Correlation, Affective Behavior, Conflict, Age Differences, Gender Differences, Cultural Influences, Cultural Differences, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Asia, North America, Europe
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2025.2505831
ISSN: 1040-9289
1556-6935
Abstract: Research Findings: Shyness in children and adolescents is closely related to relationship quality, but integrated quantitative research remains limited. To address this gap, three independent meta-analyses were conducted to examine the associations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness. This meta-analysis included 76 studies, 303 effect sizes, and a total of 39,289 participants. Results showed significant negative correlations between all three types of relationship quality and shyness. Specifically, positive dimensions of relationship quality (e.g., warmth, support) were negatively associated with shyness, while negative dimensions (e.g., conflict, rejection) were positively associated. Further, multivariate moderator analyses based on bivariate results revealed that the parent-child relationship variable and the informant of shyness significantly influenced the association between parent-child relationship quality and shyness. Similarly, the specific type of teacher-child and peer relationships moderated their respective links with shyness. Practice or Policy: The study shows that key relationships (parent-child, teacher-child, and peer) not only directly relate to shyness but also moderate its underlying mechanisms, offering important insights for understanding and improving the mental health of children and adolescents.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1501446
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEeQJJsLBV9dTKES1mUCV4GAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLRHYYqVdbA4zk17dwIBEICBmnwbeS_mNsTDCMFYnZGlQOYAcA1Q4MNxhyDLKfBP-o7JI0ss44zu99LnjOKJHfhxpzToHdLphdGV0E_AAtUmy0i6rHfTLVQH0-WeQnjkPaLUvwW2vPUkQK7wKM9iFvxpC5DyyOnfOs-O3X24vrEX6me74XjVnDjII2nKiQlR7vWyo_YPZT3w-w4IYwK6aGSV_2qB0jlTnJjpj3g=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187565011;h4j01aug.25;2025Aug29.05:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187565011-1">Linking Parent-Child, Teacher-Child, and Peer Relationship Quality to Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis </title> <sbt id="AN0187565011-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Research Findings: Shyness in children and adolescents is closely related to relationship quality, but integrated quantitative research remains limited. To address this gap, three independent meta-analyses were conducted to examine the associations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness. This meta-analysis included 76 studies, 303 effect sizes, and a total of 39,289 participants. Results showed significant negative correlations between all three types of relationship quality and shyness. Specifically, positive dimensions of relationship quality (e.g., warmth, support) were negatively associated with shyness, while negative dimensions (e.g., conflict, rejection) were positively associated. Further, multivariate moderator analyses based on bivariate results revealed that the parent-child relationship variable and the informant of shyness significantly influenced the association between parent-child relationship quality and shyness. Similarly, the specific type of teacher-child and peer relationships moderated their respective links with shyness. Practice or Policy: The study shows that key relationships (parent-child, teacher-child, and peer) not only directly relate to shyness but also moderate its underlying mechanisms, offering important insights for understanding and improving the mental health of children and adolescents.</p> <p>Shyness seems to be a topic worth paying close attention to considering that an individual's survival depends on a wide range of social interactions and connections. Shyness refers to children's fear, tension, the feeling of awkwardness, and social behavioral inhibition in unfamiliar social situations or social interactions, and an uneasy reaction to received evaluation (Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref1">110</reflink>]). Researchers have studied shyness from different perspectives, including regarding it as a situational variable, an emotional state, a self-handicapping strategy, and a style of self-presentation (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref2">75</reflink>]). In other words, shyness can manifest as both a temporary state influenced by occasional situational experiences and a persistent trait that remains stable across various situations (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref3">74</reflink>]). Nonetheless, despite the proposition of positive/adaptive shyness by Schmidt and Poole ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref4">115</reflink>]), the majority of research literature has traditionally approached shyness from a "negative" trait perspective, given the prevalent societal perception of shyness as an enduring and negative personal characteristic (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref5">74</reflink>]). A great deal of evidence has suggested that shyness in childhood and adolescence is prone to cause such problems as low self-esteem, difficulty in intimacy, poor academic achievement, and internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Karevold et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref6">77</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref7">87</reflink>]; Zdebik et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref8">141</reflink>]), as well as delays in adult life events such as work-related achievements, marriage, and parenthood (Caspi et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]). In addition, the results of a recent meta-analysis have shown that shyness is positively related to negative social-emotional development among Chinese children (e.g., internalizing problems, externalizing problems, asocial behaviors, and peer victimization) (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref10">145</reflink>]). Therefore, it is worthwhile to further invest in understanding the factors closely associated with shyness.</p> <p>Given that the family and school environment play an important role in the psychological development of children and adolescents, it is a matter of concern whether and to what extent the quality of parent-child relationship, teacher-student relationship, and peer relationship is interrelated with child and adolescent shyness. This study employs a three-level meta-analysis approach to address this issue, as this method better compensates for the shortcomings of traditional meta-analytic methods. More specifically, the three-level meta-analysis addresses the issue of data dependency among effect sizes from the same study. As a result, it can avoid inflated type I errors and offer more accurate confidence intervals (Assink & Wibbelink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Becker, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]). In the present study, three multilevel meta-analyses were employed to separately evaluate the strength of overall correlations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents, as well as to examine the potential moderating factors.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-3">Associations between relationship quality and shyness in childhood and adolescence</hd> <p>Social contact and social interaction are the core of ontogenetic development and have long been noted in the history of epistemology. In other words, interpersonal relationships formed through meaningful social contact with the family or other group structures (such as peers) are closely linked to an individual's development. From the perspective of ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>]), the family and school environments form the direct microsystem of an individual's social interactions and engage in complex and dynamic interactions with an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. This interactive relationship persists throughout the entire process of an individual's growth and development. Therefore, this study aims to explore the relationship between school and family-related factors (i.e., parent-child, teacher-child, and peer relationship quality) and shyness.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-4">Parent-child relationship quality and shyness</hd> <p>According to the family systems theory, the home is a structured network of relationships and behaviors, where all elements within the family are interconnected and influence one another (Cox & Paley, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>]). This means that the parent-child relationship, as the child's first interpersonal relationship, shapes the child's personality (e.g., shyness), and in turn, child's traits can likewise be stimuli for parental responses and create opportunities for socialization. More specifically, positive parent-child relationships, such as warm support, close intimacy, and the formation of secure attachment, help children build self-confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of security, allowing them to feel more relaxed and at ease in social situations. This positive emotional foundation can promote the development of more positive personality traits, cognitive patterns, emotional responses, and behavioral styles in children (Chen & Santo, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref15">21</reflink>]; Hane et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref16">63</reflink>]; Wu & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref17">131</reflink>]). In contrast, negative parent-child relationships (e.g., conflict, insecure attachment) may make it difficult for children to establish a sense of trust with others, and they are more likely to develop defensive or aggressive behaviors, as well as exhibit anxiety and withdrawal in social situations. Children who are in such relationships over the long term may be at a higher risk of psychological stress and emotional problems (Masoumeh et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref18">96</reflink>]). One the other hand, the shy personality of children and adolescents is not completely passively affected by the parent-child relationship, but also has a feedback and moderating effect on the parent-child relationship (Hastings et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref19">65</reflink>]). Shy children tend to be more reserved and reserved when it comes to expressing their emotions and needs, which can make it difficult for parents to understand their inner world accurately. Parents may be confused and worried about their children's reticenity and don't know how to communicate and interact effectively with them. This communication barrier may lead to misunderstandings and conflicts between parents and children, affecting the quality of the parent-child relationship (Hastings et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref20">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some empirical studies have also found a relationship between the quality of parent-child relationships and shyness in children and adolescents a suitable distance between. For example, secure attachment has been proven to be associated with positive social interactions, while insecure attachment may be related to a higher degree of shyness (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref22">147</reflink>]). Similarly, parent-child conflict has been positively correlated with shyness (Chen, Peng, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]; Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref24">134</reflink>]), while parent-child closeness has been negatively linked to shyness (Chen, Peng, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]; Wang & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref26">128</reflink>]). However, there are also findings indicating no significant association between parent-child relationships (e.g., warmth, security, and conflict) and shyness in childhood and adolescence (Booth LaForce & Oxford, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]; Bullock et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]; Zhu & [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref30">148</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-5">Teacher-child relationship quality and shyness</hd> <p>The development of children is not solely related to family factors. As children continue to grow, they increasingly interact with external factors beyond the family, such as teachers and peers. Indeed, according to the extended attachment theory, teachers, much like responsive parents, can establish warm, sensitive, caring, and intimate relationships with children. These relationships enable children to confidently explore their social environment, fostering their emotional safety and facilitating social adjustment (Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref31">12</reflink>]; Zee & Roorda, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref32">142</reflink>]). However, in an insecure teacher-student relationship, there may be situations where teachers fail to be sensitive to and/or responsive to children's needs. Previous studies have indicated that secure relationships with teachers are associated with enhanced behavioral engagement and academic achievement in children (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref33">81</reflink>], Nauman et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref34">99</reflink>]). However, feelings of insecurity and negative relationships with teachers may trigger both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, including antisocial actions, aggression, and symptoms of depression and anxiety (Neaverson et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref35">100</reflink>]; Zatto & Hoglund, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref36">140</reflink>]). On the other hand, according to the bidirectional and interactional perspectives of socialization, children's personalities also influence the teacher-child relationship (Hastings et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref37">65</reflink>]). Specifically, shy children may not be very good at establishing warm, close, and trusting relationships with teachers. Alternatively, shy children may avoid anxiety-provoking situations in new environments, which may lead to their excessive dependence on teachers (Rydell et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref38">113</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teacher-child relationship quality is usually described through three dimensions: closeness, conflict, and dependency (Verschueren & Koomen, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref39">126</reflink>]; Zee & Roorda, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref40">142</reflink>]). Closeness is a positive, attachment-related dimension. It provides a safe support system for children and adolescents, highlighting relationships based on mutual respect, trust, care, warmth, and safety. In contrast, conflict and dependency are negative, attachment-related dimensions that reflect insecurity, tension, hostility, discord, and dependence between teachers and children (Chen, Zee, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]; Verschueren & Koomen, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref42">126</reflink>]). The empirical results regarding the relationship between teacher-student relationships and shyness are inconsistent. Some studies have found that shy children have a lower level of closeness with teachers compared to non-shy children (Rudasill, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref43">111</reflink>]), suggesting that a close and supportive relationship with teachers may provide a unique buffering function for shy children (Arbeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]; Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]). Similarly, evidence shows that shyness is negatively correlated with teacher-student closeness and positively correlated with teacher-student conflict and dependence (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref46">60</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref47">89</reflink>]; Sette et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref48">120</reflink>]). However, other studies have reported that there is no significant relationship between children's shyness and the overall measures of teacher-student relationships, including both closeness and conflict reported by teachers (Chen, Zee, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]; Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref50">37</reflink>]). Taken together, to address this gap, the current meta-analysis aggregates empirical research on the associations between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-6">Peer relationship quality and shyness</hd> <p>As children enter early adolescence, the influence of peers becomes increasingly significant, and negative experiences with peers (such as lower acceptance and higher rejection) may be directly linked to shyness (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref51">87</reflink>]; Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref52">108</reflink>]). Two theoretical models consistently describe the strong relationship between peer relationships and shyness. The diathesis-stress model focuses on risk or adversity situations, positing that an individual's underlying vulnerability (e.g., tendencies toward anxiety or social withdrawal) combined with negative interpersonal adversities (such as peer exclusion, peer rejection, or victimization) may be associated with increased shyness in childhood and adolescence (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref53">114</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref54">137</reflink>]). If these negative interactions persist, the feeling of shyness may be reinforced, becoming more pronounced and enduring. From a different perspective, the resource potentiating model emphasizes environments with low risk or high resources (e.g., peer acceptance, peer popularity), suggesting that favorable conditions are associated with better social adjustment in children, while adverse conditions are linked to maladjustment (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref55">137</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, some empirical studies on peer relationships and shyness have produced inconsistent results. For example, studies have indicated that peer rejection and peer victimization are positively related to shyness in childhood and adolescence (Bullock et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]; Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>]), whereas others have found that peer difficulties are unrelated to preschooler's shyness (Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]; Sette et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref59">116</reflink>]). However, Buhs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]) found an effective negative association between peer rejection and shyness in early adolescence. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated a significant inverse relationship between positive peer relationships (e.g., peer preference, peer acceptance) and shyness (An & Eggum-Wilkens, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]; Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref62">37</reflink>]), while others have failed to find a significant association between the two variables (Cheung & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]; Coplan & Weeks, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref65">87</reflink>]). Therefore, to clarify these inconsistent results, a three-level meta-analysis approach will be used to examine the overall relationship between peer relationships and shyness in children and adolescents.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-7">Impact of moderator variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187565011-8">Age</hd> <p>According to the characteristics of children's development, young children require more care from parents and teachers than adolescents. Similarly, research has indicated that the value of parent-child and teacher-child relationships typically declines with age, as the different needs of adolescents are more effectively met by peers or friends (Furman & Buhrmester, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref66">53</reflink>]).The research suggests that shyness and its development are hypothesized to exhibit different age-sensitive stages (Baardstu et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]). Specifically, influenced by social environments and self-related cognitions, shyness levels may increase during the preschool stage. In contrast, during middle and late childhood, shyness tends to remain relatively stable and may show a declining trend as children develop strategies for responding to new social environments (Baardstu et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]). Therefore, age was incorporated into the moderation analysis to examine whether it plays a moderating role in the relationship between different types of relationship quality and shyness.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-9">Gender</hd> <p>Gender may play a considerable role in the association between parent-child, teacher-child, and peer relationship and shyness. Gender role stereotype theory suggests that shy boys may be less socially acceptable than shy girls because boys are conventionally seen as more dominant and confident, while girls are viewed as more passive and submissive (Doey et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref69">46</reflink>]; Rubin & Coplan, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref70">109</reflink>]). In addition, empirical research has found that girls exhibit higher levels of shyness than boys (Baardstu et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]). Other studies have found that gender can predict initial levels of shyness, but its influence on the rate of shyness development remains uncertain (Hassan et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref72">64</reflink>]). In general, both parents and teachers, as well as peers, tend to view behavior that violates gender stereotypes more negatively (Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>]; Eggum et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref74">49</reflink>]; Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref75">103</reflink>]). Thus, gender was included as a moderating variable to test its role in the relationship between key variables.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-10">Culture</hd> <p>Cultural values may influence the strength of the correlation between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents. Eastern, collectivistic cultures (e.g., in Asia) emphasize social order, group harmony, and high levels of interpersonal connection (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref76">27</reflink>]). In contrast, Western individualistic cultures (e.g., in Europe and North America) promote characteristics such as autonomy, self-independence, social initiatives, and a suitable distance between individuals (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref77">24</reflink>]). Furthermore, cultural norms and values provide guidance on how individuals express certain temperamental characteristics (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref78">23</reflink>]). Traditionally, shyness has been viewed as a positive trait in collectivistic cultures, particularly in China, whereas it is often regarded as a sign of social immaturity and psychological maladjustment in individualistic cultures (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref79">24</reflink>]; Hofstede et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref80">68</reflink>]). Additionally, numerous studies have confirmed that teacher-child relationship quality is higher in collectivistic context than in individualistic ones (Beyazkurk & Kesner, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]; Jia et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref82">72</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref83">136</reflink>]). Peers in Eastern societies have a more constructive view of shyness than their counterparts in Western cultures (Heinrichs et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref84">66</reflink>]; Rapee et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref85">105</reflink>]). From these perspectives, the relationships between parent-child, peer, and teacher-student relationship quality and shyness may vary across cultures. Therefore, this study will explore the moderating role of culture.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-11">Dimension of relationship quality</hd> <p>The dimension of relationship quality is divided into positive and negative aspects, a classification that has been recognized in previous research (Boele et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref86">10</reflink>]; Erel & Burman, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref87">51</reflink>]). Based on the theories and empirical studies mentioned earlier, positive relationship quality (e.g., parent-child warmth, parent-child secure attachment, peer acceptance, teacher-child closeness) is generally negatively correlated with shyness (Acar et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]; De Schipper et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref89">43</reflink>]; Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref90">108</reflink>]), while negative relationship quality (e.g., parent-child conflict, parent-child insecure attachment, peer rejection, peer victimization, teacher-child conflict, teacher-child dependency) is positively correlated with shyness (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref91">19</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]; Coplan & Prakash, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]; Coplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref94">34</reflink>]; Sette et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref95">116</reflink>]; Stephen et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref96">122</reflink>]; Zee & Roorda, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref97">142</reflink>]). Therefore, the dimension of relationship quality may be an important moderating variable.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-12">Publication characteristics, assessment characteristics, and study design</hd> <p>Aside from the aforementioned moderating variables, similar to previous meta-analyses (Gao et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]; Ran et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref99">104</reflink>]), factors such as publication year, publication status, the informant of shyness and relationship quality, and study design are examined as potential moderators, without explicit assumptions.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-13">The present study</hd> <p>This study first aimed to investigate the overall relationship between parent-child, peer, and teacher-student relationship quality and shyness using three independent multilevel meta-analysis models (RQ1). The second objective was to examine which moderators can uniquely explain the heterogeneity of study findings on the association between relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (RQ2). Based on relevant theoretical frameworks and previous findings, primary moderators in this study included child age, gender, culture, dimension of relationship quality, publication characteristics, assessment characteristics, and study design.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-14">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187565011-15">Data sources and study selection</hd> <p>In conformity with the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref100">97</reflink>]), the literature information retrieval included studies published before December 2021 on the association between parent-child, peer, or teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents. Eligible articles were retrieved from five electronic databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The selected studies had to include at least one core concept in the title, abstract, or keywords related to the following three aspects: (a) relationship quality (parent-child, teacher-child, peer), (b) shyness, and (c) children or adolescents (see Table 1). In addition to peer-reviewed journals, the search also checked other accessible dissertations and relevant reference lists.</p> <p>Table 1. Systematic search terms.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Search aspects</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(a) Parent-child relationship quality: parent-child relationship or mother-child relationship or father-child relationship or parent-child warmth or closeness or support or attachment or interaction or parent-child conflict or disagreement or argue</td></tr><tr><td>(b) Teacher-child relationship quality: teacher-child relationship or teacher-student relationship or teacher-child interaction or teacher-child closeness or teacher-child dependence or teacher-child conflict</td></tr><tr><td>(c) Peer relationship quality: peer relationship or peer acceptance or peer rejection or peer likability or peer victimization or friend quality or help or support</td></tr><tr><td>(d) Shyness: shyness or shy or bashful or social withdraw or social inhibition or behavioral inhibition or temperament or social avoidance or social fear fearful shyness or self-conscious shyness or conflicted shyness or avoidant shyness or positive shyness or negative shyness or regulated shyness</td></tr><tr><td>(e) Children/Adolescents: child or infant or preschooler or kid or toddler or adolescent or teenager or youth or middle school or high school or young people</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) studies that examined parent-child, teacher-child, or peer relationship quality; (b) studies that investigated shyness in childhood or adolescence; (c) studies that reported correlation coefficients (<emph>r</emph>) between parent-child, teacher-child, or peer relationship quality and shyness; (d) studies were edited in Chinese or English; (e) studies that contained preschoolers, children or adolescents (aged 0 to 18 years); and (f) studies that were cross-sectional or longitudinal. Additionally, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (a) studies measured non-normative samples, such as clinical samples or youth with specific disabilities; (b) qualitative articles and case reports. Finally, no restrictions were imposed on the minimum sample size. A total of 76 reports meeting these inclusion criteria were included in the current meta-analysis. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA diagram of the published studies.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Flow chart of the search procedure.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-16">Coding of studies</hd> <p>Based on the handbooks of Lipsey and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref101">85</reflink>]), each study was coded using a detailed coding system. More specifically, sample, publication, assessment, study design, and outcome characteristics are summarized as follows:</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-17">Sample characteristics</hd> <p>(a) first author and year of publication; (b) sample size; (c) gender (percentage of boys); (d) age group (preschooler: 3.5 to 6.4 years vs. children: 7.05 to 11.91 years vs. adolescent: 12.5 to 17 years); (e) effect size and number of effect sizes; (f) culture (<emph>parent-child relationship</emph>: China vs. North America, <emph>teacher-child relationship</emph>: Eastern vs. Western, <emph>peer relationship</emph>: Asia vs. North America vs. Europe).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-18">Publication characteristics</hd> <p>(a) publication year (continuous variables); (b) publication status (publication vs. dissertation).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-19">Assessment characteristics</hd> <p>(a) informant of relationship quality (<emph>parent-child relationship</emph>: self-report vs. parent-report, <emph>peer relationship</emph>: self-report vs. teacher-report vs. peer nomination vs. parent-report); (b) informant of shyness (<emph>parent-child relationship</emph>: self-report vs. peer-report vs. mother-report vs. parent-report, <emph>teacher-child relationship</emph>: parent-report vs. self-report vs. teacher-report, <emph>peer relationship</emph>: teacher-report vs. peer-report vs. self-report vs. parent-report).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-20">Study design and outcome characteristics</hd> <p>(a) study design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal); (b) relationship quality dimension (positive vs. negative vs. composite (i.e., the total score of relationship quality)); (c) relationship quality variable (<emph>parent-child relationship</emph>: insecure attachment vs. secure attachment vs. warmth vs. conflict, <emph>teacher-child relationship</emph>: closeness vs. dependence vs. conflict vs. composite (i.e., total score of teacher-child relationship), <emph>peer relationship</emph>: acceptance vs. rejection vs. victimization vs. composite (teacher-child relationship)). It was noteworthy that the correlations of the positive dimensions of three relationship qualities were reversely encoded to allow for overall association analysis and moderating analysis of the whole data (Boele et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, three criteria were implemented in the coding: (a) the effect sizes for each sample were included if studies reported plural independent samples; (b) the effect size should be comprised respectively if studies covered effect sizes of subgroups (e.g., boys and girls); (c) for longitudinal studies, the results of each time baseline measurement were coded. Finally, the first and second authors coded the effect sizes, and the interrater reliability was computed by Cohen's kappa coefficient (<emph>k</emph>) and intraclass correlation coefficient (<emph>ICC</emph>). Firstly, interrater reliability was computed for correlation coefficients (<emph>rs</emph>) (<emph>ICC</emph> = 0.997). In terms of sample characteristics, interrater reliability was computed for child gender (<emph>ICC</emph> = 1), age group (<emph>k</emph> = 0.928), and culture (<emph>k</emph> = 0.928). In terms of publication characteristics, interrater reliability was computed for publication year (<emph>ICC</emph> = 1.0), and publication status (<emph>k</emph> = 1.0). In terms of assessment characteristics, interrater reliability was computed for informant of relationship quality (<emph>k</emph> = 0.916), and informant of shyness (<emph>k</emph> = 0.936). In terms of study design and outcome characteristics, interrater reliability was computed for study design (<emph>k</emph> = 0.935), relationship quality dimension (<emph>k</emph> = 0.928), and relationship quality variable (<emph>k</emph> = 0.916). Therefore, there was high consistency between the coders.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-21">Data analysis</hd> <p>The effect size of interest was the Pearson correlation coefficient (<emph>r</emph>) between relationship quality and shyness because it has been widely used and easily interpreted. All reported correlation coefficients (<emph>rs</emph>) were converted to Fisher's <emph>Z</emph>-scores due to better distribution characteristics (Lipsey & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref103">85</reflink>]). In the reports on the overall association between relationship quality and shyness and in the intercepts of the moderator analyses, Fisher's <emph>z</emph>-values were retransformed into Pearson's correlation coefficients for the purpose of interpretation.</p> <p>In general, traditional two-level meta-analytic approaches have averaged these effect sizes from the same study that provides multiple effect sizes or have used a"shifting unit of analysis" approach. However, this method has considerable shortcomings that bias meta-analytic results (Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>]; van Eldik et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref105">125</reflink>]). In contrast, the multiple three-level meta-analytic approaches conquered dependency on the effect sizes of each study by taking into account three diverse variance components among studies: the sampling variance of the gathered effect sizes (level 1), the within-study variance of the extracted effect sizes (level 2), and the between-study variance (level 3) (Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]; Ran et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref107">104</reflink>]). Additionally, it can assess heterogeneity sources in effect sizes between and within studies. Based on these requirements, the R statistical software Version 3.5.3-win and the metafor package were employed to carry out the three-level meta-analysis (Assink & Wibbelink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>]; Viechtbauer, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref109">127</reflink>]). In short, the overall effects and moderator analyses were estimated on the association between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents by using multilevel random effects models.</p> <p>The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0 (CMA 3.0) software was performed for data transformation and publication bias tests. For data transformation, the correlations (<emph>r</emph>) were first converted to the Fisher's <emph>z</emph> that was used in the three-level meta-analysis models, as well as its variance. Next, the pooled Fisher's <emph>z</emph> values were reconverted to correlation coefficients (<emph>r</emph>) for the purpose of interpretation (van Eldik et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref110">125</reflink>]). In terms of publication bias tests, a funnel plot and Egger's linear regression test were relied on to evaluate whether there was a significant publication bias in the included primary studies (Egger et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref111">48</reflink>]; Madigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref112">94</reflink>]). More specifically, each study was represented by circles that were approximately evenly scattered among the average effect size. Furthermore, the results of Egger's two-tail test were <emph>p</emph> >.05, indicating no significant publication bias (Yap & Jorm, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref113">139</reflink>]). In contrast, the results demonstrated that there was publication bias. If this was the case, researchers would conduct the trim-and-fill method to estimate the publication bias problem (Duval & Tweedie, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref114">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-22">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187565011-23">Study characteristics</hd> <p>As displayed in Table 2, the current meta-analysis included 76 studies, 303 effect sizes, with a total of 39,289 participants. The size of samples ranged from 36 to 2431 (<emph>M</emph> = 506), and the mean age of participants was from 3.5 to 17 years (<emph>M</emph> = 8.81). Across the 76 studies, 12 studies examined parent-child relationship quality across 79 effect sizes and 5556 participants, 27 studies assessed teacher-child relationship quality across 105 effect sizes and 14,141 participants, and 50 studies evaluated peer relationship quality across 119 effect sizes and 28,299 participants (3 studies on both peer and parent-child relationship quality, 9 studies on both peer and teacher-child relationship quality). In one study, the maximum number of effect sizes was 36 and the minimum was 1.</p> <p>Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>First Author and Year</td><td>K</td><td>N</td><td>Gender</td><td>Age</td><td>Culture</td><td>Relationship person (s)</td><td>RQ dimension</td><td>Informant of shyness</td><td>Study design</td><td>Publication status</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Acar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2020</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>94</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.05</td><td>Turkey</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>An and Eggum-Wilkens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2021</xref>)</td><td>6</td><td>492</td><td>0.55</td><td>13.85</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>AArbeau et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2010</xref>)</td><td>7</td><td>169</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.4</td><td>Canada</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Bayram Özdemir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2017</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>599</td><td>0.52</td><td>10.11</td><td>Turkey</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Booth LaForce and Oxford (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2008</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>1092</td><td>0.51</td><td>9.5</td><td>America</td><td>parents</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Buhs et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2015</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>960</td><td>0.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>America</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Bullock et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2018</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>462</td><td>0.53</td><td>13.42</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Bullock et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2021</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>215</td><td>0.63</td><td>10.68</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>peer</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2012</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>487</td><td>0.51</td><td>9.56</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen and Santo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2016</xref>)</td><td>8</td><td>487</td><td>0.51</td><td>9.79</td><td>China</td><td>parents/peer</td><td>negative</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2021</xref>)</td><td>12</td><td>150</td><td>0.43</td><td>12.84</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>positive</td><td>peer</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2021</xref>)</td><td>8</td><td>587</td><td>0.47</td><td>11.49</td><td>China/Dutch</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2001</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>323</td><td>0.52</td><td>12.5</td><td>China</td><td>Peer</td><td>positive</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2005</xref>)</td><td>6</td><td>1085</td><td>0.5</td><td>10</td><td>China</td><td>Peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>peer</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen, Peng, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2019</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>642</td><td>0.52</td><td>4.5</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2018</xref>)</td><td>6</td><td>538</td><td>0.46</td><td>16</td><td>China</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>positive/negative/composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Chen, Xiao, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2019</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>555</td><td>0.52</td><td>13.56</td><td>China</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>positive/negative/composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Cheung and Elliott (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2017</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>164</td><td>0.44</td><td>5.59</td><td>Singapore</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Coplan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2004</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>119</td><td>0.46</td><td>4.05</td><td>Canada</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Coplan and Armer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2005</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>82</td><td>0.48</td><td>4.9</td><td>Canada</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Coplan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2008</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>197</td><td>0.52</td><td>5.34</td><td>Canada</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>teacher</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Coplan and Weeks (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2009</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>167</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.4</td><td>Canada</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Cheung and Elliott (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2017</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>1275</td><td>0.5</td><td>10.78</td><td>China</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>positive/composite</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Ding et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2014</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>580</td><td>0.54</td><td>11.14</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Ding et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2018</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>660</td><td>0.53</td><td>11.37</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Eggum-Wilkens et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2014</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>291</td><td>0.54</td><td>5.66</td><td>America</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>parents/teacher</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Fordham and Stevenson-Hinde (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">1999</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>50</td><td>0.52</td><td>9.5</td><td>Europe</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Gao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2011</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>684</td><td>0.51</td><td>11</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Graham and Coplan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2012</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>79</td><td>0.56</td><td>4.74</td><td>Canada</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Guo and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2017</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>1252</td><td>0.48</td><td>10.5</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Hane et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2008</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>80</td><td>0.41</td><td>4.57</td><td>America</td><td>parents</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Han et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2016</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>463</td><td>0.52</td><td>4.37</td><td>China</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Han et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2018</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>285</td><td>0.56</td><td>3.5</td><td>China</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Han (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2017</xref>)</td><td>12</td><td>1770</td><td>0.47</td><td>16</td><td>China</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Jahng and Kim (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2021</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>171</td><td>0.54</td><td>6.1</td><td>Korean</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive</td><td>teacher</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Jiang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2014</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>2431</td><td>0.51</td><td>11.5</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Justice et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2008</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>133</td><td>0.56</td><td>4.38</td><td>—</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>teacher</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Koles et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2009</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>36</td><td>—</td><td>3.25</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Li et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2021</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>1036</td><td>0.52</td><td>12.97</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Lisonbee et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2008</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>191</td><td>0.53</td><td>4.4</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Liu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2017</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>564/462</td><td>0.48/0.53</td><td>9.35/13.35</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Liu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr89">2018</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>1154</td><td>0.49</td><td>10.78</td><td>China</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Liu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr87">2019</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>547</td><td>0.46</td><td>10.35</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Liu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2012</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>609</td><td>0.49</td><td>14</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Lu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2020</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>725</td><td>0.51</td><td>11</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Lv (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2021</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>648</td><td>0.53</td><td>4.5</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Ma (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr93">2016</xref>)</td><td>27</td><td>544</td><td>0.54</td><td>4.25</td><td>China</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>teacher</td><td>long</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Chen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2015</xref>)</td><td>36</td><td>689</td><td>0.47</td><td>17</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Moritz Rudasill et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98">2006</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>99</td><td>0.51</td><td>5.2</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr112">2009</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>819</td><td>0.5</td><td>—</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Rudasill (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr111">2011</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>994</td><td>0.5</td><td>—</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Sette et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr118">2014</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>129</td><td>0.49</td><td>4.92</td><td>Italian</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Sette et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2016</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>163</td><td>0.5</td><td>4.44</td><td>Italian</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Sette et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2017</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>112</td><td>0.48</td><td>4.74</td><td>Italian</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Sette et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116">2019</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>131</td><td>0.49</td><td>9.93</td><td>Italian</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Sette et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120">2021</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>212</td><td>0.52</td><td>4.86</td><td>Italian</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Stockli (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2002</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>247/227</td><td>0.5</td><td>10</td><td>China/Swiss</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Valiente et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr124">2012</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>291</td><td>0.58</td><td>5</td><td>America</td><td>teacher</td><td>composite</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Wang and Chen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2020</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>235</td><td>0.52</td><td>14.37</td><td>China</td><td>parents/peer</td><td>positive/composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Wang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2017</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>472</td><td>0.51</td><td>11.07</td><td>China</td><td>teacher/peer</td><td>composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr130">2021</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>787</td><td>0.56</td><td>12.69</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>peer</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Wu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr132">2015</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>524</td><td>0.56</td><td>4.27</td><td>China</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Xu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr134">2021</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>595</td><td>0.5</td><td>11.91</td><td>China</td><td>parents</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Xu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133">2014</xref>)</td><td>5</td><td>544</td><td>0.54</td><td>11.38</td><td>Korea</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>peer/teacher/parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Yan and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr135">2020</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>194</td><td>0.53</td><td>5.9</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Yang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr137">2015</xref>)</td><td>4</td><td>1171</td><td>0.5</td><td>10.9</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>positive</td><td>peer</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Yang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr138">2012</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>378</td><td>0.57</td><td>—</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Zee and Roorda (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr142">2018</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>269</td><td>0.49</td><td>9.93</td><td>Dutch</td><td>teacher</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zeng (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr143">2010</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>575</td><td>0.55</td><td>13.7</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Zhang and Eggum-Wilkens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr144">2018</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>93/229</td><td>0.52</td><td>13.92</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr146">2013</xref>)</td><td>1</td><td>737</td><td>0.47</td><td>13.69</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>composite</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zhao et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr147">2020</xref>)</td><td>3</td><td>689</td><td>0.51</td><td>11.32</td><td>China</td><td>parents/peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>self</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr149">2018</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>360</td><td>0.56</td><td>4.73</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr148">2018</xref>)</td><td>32</td><td>195</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.28</td><td>China</td><td>parents/teacher/peer</td><td>positive/negative</td><td>parents</td><td>long</td><td>Dissertation</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu, Yang, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr151">2020</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>211</td><td>0.53</td><td>4.9</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu, Wu, et al.(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr150">2020</xref>)</td><td>2</td><td>487</td><td>0.58</td><td>4.9</td><td>China</td><td>peer</td><td>negative</td><td>parents</td><td>cross</td><td>Publication</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 K = number of effect sizes; <emph>N</emph> = number of participants; Gender = percentage of boys; Age = Mean age of child; RQ = relationship quality; Cross = cross-sectional design; Long = longitudinal design.</p> <p>In addition, of the 76 studies involved in this meta-analysis, 73.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 57) were conducted in Asia, 20.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 16) in North America, and 6.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 5) in Europe Of these studies, 81.6% (<emph>n</emph> = 62) employed cross-sectional designs, and 18.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 14) used longitudinal designs. 85.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 65) of the studies were open-published, and 14.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 11) of the studies were dissertations. 43.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 33) of the studies examined both positive and negative relationship quality, 19.7% (<emph>n</emph> = 15) and 22.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 17) of the studies reported positive and negative relationship quality, respectively, and only 7.9% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) of the studies presented compositive relationship quality. The studies included in the meta-analysis were published between 1999 and 2021, with an average publication year of 2015.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-24">Publication bias and overall relation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187565011-25">Publication bias</hd> <p>Roughly symmetrical funnel plots were revealed of correlations between parent-child and peer relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents by visual inspection (see Figures 2 and 4). Moreover, the Egger's linear regression test results indicated that the P-value was more than 0.05 in parent-child (<emph>t</emph> = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> =.832) and peer relationship quality (<emph>t</emph> = 1.19, <emph>p</emph> =.238), respectively. That is, the current meta-analyses failed to find evidence of potential publication bias in both tests. However, publication bias was detected in the teacher-child relationship quality on the basis of the funnel plot (see Figure 3) and Egger's linear regression test (<emph>t</emph> = 2.16, <emph>p</emph> =.033). Therefore, Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis was performed to further assess the publication bias by utilizing the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0 (CMA 3.0) software. The results suggested that a symmetry funnel plot could be gained if the 27 articles to the left of the average effect size were assessed. The adjusted values were inflated when these articles were imputed.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Funnel plot of effect sizes of the correlation between parent-child relationship quality and shyness in childhood and adolescence.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Funnel plot of effect sizes of the correlation between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in childhood and adolescence.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Funnel plot of effect sizes of the correlation between peer relationship quality and shyness in childhood and adolescence.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-26">Overall relation between relationship quality and shyness</hd> <p>A summarization of the overall correlations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents was presented in Table 3. Specifically, significant inverse correlations were found between parent-child, teacher-child, and peer relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents, as well as the correlation coefficients were −0.139 (95% <emph>CI</emph> [−0.182; −0.097], <emph>p</emph> <.001), −0.193 (95% <emph>CI</emph> [−0.259; −0.131], <emph>p</emph> <.001) and −0.206 (95% <emph>CI</emph> [−0.255; −0.163], <emph>p</emph> <.001), respectively. The results of independent relationship quality dimensions showed that the positive dimensions of teacher-child (<emph>r</emph> = −0.148, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and peer relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.112, <emph>p</emph> <.01) were negatively correlated with shyness. Meanwhile, significant positive correlations were found between the negative dimensions of parent-child (<emph>r</emph> = 0.171, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and peer relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = 0.213, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and shyness. Finally, both the within-study and between-study levels were significant (<emph>p</emph> <.001) except for the between-study variance (level 3) of the parent-child relationship, indicating that moderator analyses were warranted.</p> <p>Table 3. The overall results of the association between relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Domain of RQ</td><td># ES</td><td>Mean <italic>z</italic> (95% <italic>CI</italic>)</td><td><italic>t</italic> value (Sig)</td><td>Mean <italic>r</italic></td><td>Level 1 (%)</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 2 (%)</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Level 3 (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Parent-child RQ</td><td>79</td><td>−0.140 (−0.182; −0.097)</td><td>−6.536***</td><td>−0.139</td><td>19.14%</td><td>0.007***</td><td>60.93%</td><td>0.002</td><td>19.93%</td></tr><tr><td>Positive parent-child RQ</td><td>48</td><td>−0.034 (−0.100; 0.031)</td><td>−1.052</td><td>−0.034</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Negative parent-child RQ</td><td>31</td><td>0.173 (0.114; 0.231)</td><td>6.069***</td><td>0.171</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Teacher-child RQ</td><td>105</td><td>−0.195 (−0.259; −0.131)</td><td>−6.047***</td><td>−0.193</td><td>5.80%</td><td>0.010***</td><td>28.90%</td><td>0.022***</td><td>65.30%</td></tr><tr><td>Positive teacher-child RQ</td><td>40</td><td>−0.149 (−0.197; −0.101)</td><td>−6.296***</td><td>−0.148</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Negative teacher-child RQ</td><td>54</td><td>0.032 (−0.035; 0.098)</td><td>0.956</td><td>0.032</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Peer RQ</td><td>119</td><td>−0.209 (−0.255; −0.163)</td><td>−8.952***</td><td>−0.206</td><td>5.01%</td><td>0.022***</td><td>58.59%</td><td>0.014***</td><td>36.40%</td></tr><tr><td>Positive peer RQ</td><td>49</td><td>−0.112 (−0.179; −0.045)</td><td>−3.377**</td><td>−0.112</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Negative peer RQ</td><td>58</td><td>0.216 (0.145; 0.287)</td><td>6.115***</td><td>0.213</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 RQ = relationship quality; #ES = number of effect sizes; Mean z = Mean effect size (Fisher's z); CI = confidence interval; Sig = significance; Mean <emph>r</emph> = Mean effect size expressed as a Pearson's correlation; Level 1 = sampling variance of observed effect sizes; Level 2 = variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Level 3 = variance between studies.</item> <item>3 **<emph>p</emph> <.01 and ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187565011-27">Moderator analyses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187565011-28">Parent-child relationship quality</hd> <p>Six significant moderators were detected in the relationship between parent-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (see Table 4). Specifically, gender was a significant predictor (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref115">1</reflink>, 77) = 5.373, <emph>p</emph> =.023), indicating that the association between the two variables was stronger in boys than in girls. Child age also had a significant influence on the moderator (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>, 76) = 4.347, <emph>p</emph> =.016), suggesting the effect sizes were larger for preschoolers (<emph>r</emph> = −0.201) compared to children (<emph>r</emph> = −0.114) and adolescents (<emph>r</emph> = −0.116). Both the informant of shyness (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref117">3</reflink>, 75) = 5.636, <emph>p</emph> =.002) and the informant of parent-child relationship (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>, 77) = 6.451, <emph>p</emph> =.013) significantly moderated the overall effect sizes between parent-child relationship quality and shyness. More specifically, the association was stronger in parent-reported (<emph>r</emph> = −0.293; <emph>r</emph> = −0.184) than in self-reported (<emph>r</emph> = −0.127; <emph>r</emph> = −0.116). For the relationship quality dimension (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>, 77) = 26.111, <emph>p</emph> <.001), a stronger association was found for negative relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.196) than for positive relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.093). In addition, the parent-child relationship variable was a significant moderator of the relationship between parent-child relationship quality and shyness (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref120">3</reflink>, 75) = 10.059, <emph>p</emph> <.001). This correlation was found to be weaker in parent-child secure attachment (<emph>r</emph> = −0.078) than in parent-child insecure attachment (<emph>r</emph> = −0.196). Culture, publication year and status, and study design did not significantly moderate the link between parent-child relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p>Table 4. Results of categorical and continuous moderators for the association between parent-child relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Moderator variables</td><td># ES</td><td>Intercept/mean <italic>z</italic> (95%CI)</td><td><italic>β</italic> (95%CI)</td><td>Mean r</td><td><italic>F</italic> (df1, df2)<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>p</italic><sup>b</sup></td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 Sample characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Gender</td><td>79</td><td>−0.131 (−0.154; −0.108)***</td><td>−0.515 (−958; −0.073)*</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 5.373</td><td>.023</td><td>0.008***</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>b. Age</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Preschooler</italic></td><td>17</td><td>−0.203 (−0.256; −0.150)***</td><td /><td>−0.201</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 76) = 4.347</td><td>.016</td><td>0.007***</td><td>0.000*</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Children</italic></td><td>13</td><td>−0.115 (−0.169; −0.060)***</td><td>0.088 (0.012; 0.164)*</td><td>−0.114</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Adolescents</italic></td><td>49</td><td>−0.117 (−0.145; −0.090)***</td><td>0.086 (0.026; 0.145)**</td><td>−0.116</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Culture</td></tr><tr><td><italic>China</italic></td><td>76</td><td>−0.148 (−0.191; −0.105)***</td><td /><td>−0.147</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 2.046</td><td>.157</td><td>0.007***</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td><italic>America</italic></td><td>3</td><td>−0.039 (−0.185; 0.107)</td><td>0.109 (−0.043; 0.261)</td><td>−0.039</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2 Publication characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Publication year</td><td>79</td><td>−0.137 (−0.180; −0.094)***</td><td>−0.007 (−0.018; 0.004)</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 1.731</td><td>.192</td><td>0.007***</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>b. Publication status</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Publication</italic></td><td>67</td><td>−0.131 (−0.172; −0.090)***</td><td /><td>−0.130</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 0.983</td><td>.325</td><td>0.007***</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Dissertation</italic></td><td>12</td><td>−0.184 (−0.282; −0.085)***</td><td>−0.053 (−0.159; 0.053)</td><td>−0.182</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3 Assessment characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Informant of shyness</td></tr><tr><td> Self-report</td><td>14</td><td>−0.128 (−0.256; −0.151)***</td><td /><td>−0.127</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 75) = 5.636</td><td>.002</td><td>0.006***</td><td>0.000**</td></tr><tr><td> Peer-report</td><td>41</td><td>−0.086 (−0.132; −0.039)***</td><td>0.042 (−0.012; 0.096)</td><td>−0.086</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mother-report</td><td>21</td><td>−0.172 (−0.230; −0.113)***</td><td>−0.043 (−0.108; 0.021)</td><td>−0.170</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Parent-report</td><td>3</td><td>−0.302 (−0.404; −0.200)***</td><td>−0.174 (−0.280; −0.069)**</td><td>−0.293</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b. Informant of parent-child relationship</td></tr><tr><td> Self-report</td><td>58</td><td>−0.117 (−0.143; −0.091)***</td><td /><td>−0.116</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 6.451</td><td>.013</td><td>0.017***</td><td>0.000*</td></tr><tr><td> Parent-report</td><td>21</td><td>−0.186 (−0.234; −0.138)***</td><td>−0.069 (−0.124; −0.015)*</td><td>−0.184</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4 Study design and outcome characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Study design</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Cross-sectional</italic></td><td>50</td><td>−0.166 (−0.221; −0.111)***</td><td /><td>−0.164</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 2.184</td><td>.143</td><td>0.007***</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Longitudinal</italic></td><td>29</td><td>−0.102 (−0.168; −0.036)**</td><td>0.064 (−0.022; 0.150)</td><td>−0.102</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b. Relationship quality dimension</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Positive</italic></td><td>48</td><td>−0.093 (−0.134; −0.052)***</td><td /><td>−0.093</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 77) = 26.111</td><td><.001</td><td>0.004***</td><td>0.002***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Negative</italic></td><td>31</td><td>−0.199 (−0.243; −0.156)***</td><td>−0.106 (−0.148; −0.065)***</td><td>−0.196</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Parent-child relationship variable</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Parent-child insecure attachment</italic></td><td>22</td><td>−0.199 (−0.263; −0.135)***</td><td /><td>−0.196</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 75) = 10.059</td><td><.001</td><td>0.004***</td><td>0.003***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Parent-child secure attachment</italic></td><td>32</td><td>−0.078 (−0.139; −0.018)*</td><td>0.121 (0.076; 0.165)***</td><td>−0.078</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Parent-child warmth</italic></td><td>16</td><td>−0.143 (−0.221; −0.065)***</td><td>0.056 (−0.045; 0.157)</td><td>−0.142</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Parent-child conflict</italic></td><td>9</td><td>−0.172 (−0.248; −0.096)***</td><td>0.027 (−0.072; 0.126)</td><td>−0.170</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 # ES = number of effect sizes; mean <emph>z</emph> = mean effect size (Fisher's z); CI = confidence interval; β = estimated regression coefficient; Mean <emph>r</emph> = mean effect size expressed as a Pearson's correlation; df = degrees of freedom; Level 2 = variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Level 3 = variance between studies.</item> <item>5 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01and ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>6 <sups>a</sups>Omnibus test of all regression coefficients in the model.</item> <item>7 <sups>b</sups><emph>p</emph>-Value of the omnibus test.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187565011-29">Teacher-child relationship quality</hd> <p>Four significant moderators were detected in the connection between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (see Table 5). Specifically, culture was found to be an important moderator (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>, 103) = 5.192, <emph>p</emph> =.025). Stronger effect sizes were observed in Eastern countries (<emph>r</emph> = −0.230) compared to Western countries (<emph>r</emph> = −0.121). Publication status significantly moderated the strength of the association between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>, 103) = 6.986, <emph>p</emph> =.009). Studies published in journals (<emph>r</emph> = −0.153) yielded smaller effect sizes than those published as dissertations (<emph>r</emph> = −0.328). The relationship quality dimension significantly influenced the magnitudes of the association (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>, 102) = 7.030, <emph>p</emph> =.001). Positive relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.163) reported smaller effect sizes compared to composite relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.351). Moreover, the teacher-child relationship variable played an important moderating role (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>, 101) = 6.067, <emph>p</emph> <.001). The average effect size for teacher-child closeness (<emph>r</emph> = −0.163) was significantly larger than the average effect size for teacher-child dependence (<emph>r</emph> = −0.086). Gender, age, publication year, informant of shyness, and study design did not significantly moderate the association between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p>Table 5. Results of categorical and continuous moderators for the association between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Moderator variables</td><td># ES</td><td>Intercept/mean <italic>z</italic> (95%CI)</td><td><italic>β</italic> (95%CI)</td><td>Mean r</td><td><italic>F</italic> (df1, df2)<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>p</italic><sup>b</sup></td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 Sample characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Gender</td><td>103</td><td>−0.197 (−0.260; −0.133)***</td><td>1.225 (−0.408; 2.858)</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 101) = 2.214</td><td>.140</td><td>0.009***</td><td>0.021***</td></tr><tr><td>b. Age</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Preschooler</italic></td><td>70</td><td>−0.168 (−0.248; −0.087)***</td><td /><td>−0.166</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 102) = 1.115</td><td>.332</td><td>0.010***</td><td>0.018***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Children</italic></td><td>27</td><td>−0.196 (−0.298; −0.094)***</td><td>−0.029 (−0.159; 0.101)</td><td>−0.194</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Adolescents</italic></td><td>8</td><td>−0.318 (−0.500; −0.135)***</td><td>−0.150 (−0.350; 0.049)</td><td>−0.308</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Culture</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Eastern</italic></td><td>76</td><td>−0.234 (−0.304; −0.164)***</td><td /><td>−0.230</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 103) = 5.192</td><td>.025</td><td>0.009***</td><td>0.019***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Western</italic></td><td>29</td><td>−0.122 (−0.210; −0.035)**</td><td>0.112 (0.014; 0.209)*</td><td>−0.121</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2 Publication characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Publication year</td><td>105</td><td>−0.198 (−0.261; −0.134)***</td><td>−0.007 (−0.022; 0.007)</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 103) = 1.017</td><td>.316</td><td>0.010***</td><td>0.021***</td></tr><tr><td>b. Publication status</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Publication</italic></td><td>58</td><td>−0.154 (−0.218; −0.091)***</td><td /><td>−0.153</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 103) = 6.986</td><td>.009</td><td>0.010***</td><td>0.016***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Dissertation</italic></td><td>47</td><td>−0.341 (−0.467; −0.216)**</td><td>−0.187 (−0.327; −0.047)**</td><td>−0.328</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3 Assessment characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Informant of shyness</td></tr><tr><td> Parent-report</td><td>48</td><td>−0.134 (−0.212; −0.055)**</td><td /><td>−0.133</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 102) = 2.696</td><td>.072</td><td>0.009***</td><td>0.018***</td></tr><tr><td> Self-report</td><td>26</td><td>−0.259 (−0.362; −0.157)***</td><td>−0.126 (−0.255; 0.003)</td><td>−0.253</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Teacher-report</td><td>31</td><td>−0.276 (−0.428; −0.125)***</td><td>−0.143 (−0.307; 0.022)</td><td>−0.269</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4 Study design and outcome characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Study design</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Cross-sectional</italic></td><td>56</td><td>−0.220 (−0.288; −0.151)***</td><td /><td>−0.217</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 103) = 2.565</td><td>.112</td><td>0.010***</td><td>0.019***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Longitudinal</italic></td><td>49</td><td>−0.102 (−0.231; 0.027)</td><td>0.118 (−0.028; 0.264)</td><td>−0.102</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b. Relationship quality dimension</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Positive</italic></td><td>39</td><td>−0.164 (−0.226; −0.103)***</td><td /><td>−0.163</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 102) = 7.030</td><td>.001</td><td>0.010***</td><td>0.011***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Negative</italic></td><td>54</td><td>−0.130 (−0.191; −0.069)***</td><td>0.034 (−0.016; 0.085)</td><td>−0.129</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Composite</italic></td><td>12</td><td>−0.367 (−0.479; −0.255)***</td><td>−0.203 (−0.330; −0.075)**</td><td>−0.351</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Teacher-child relationship variable</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Teacher-child closeness</italic></td><td>39</td><td>−0.164 (−0.228; −0.101)***</td><td /><td>−0.163</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 101) = 6.067</td><td><.001</td><td>0.009***</td><td>0.016***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Teacher-child dependence</italic></td><td>22</td><td>−0.086 (−0.161; −0.012)*</td><td>0.078 (0.015.; 0.141)*</td><td>−0.086</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Teacher-child conflict</italic></td><td>32</td><td>−0.157 (−0.224; −0.089)***</td><td>0.008 (−0.046; 0.062)</td><td>−0.156</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Composite</italic></td><td>12</td><td>−0.368 (−0.484; −0.253)***</td><td>−0.204 (−0.335; −0.072)**</td><td>−0.352</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 #ES = number of effect sizes; mean <emph>z</emph> = mean effect size (Fisher's z); CI = confidence interval; β = estimated regression coefficient; Mean <emph>r</emph> = mean effect size expressed as a Pearson's correlation; df = degrees of freedom; Level 2 = variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Level 3 = variance between studies; Composite = combination of teacher-child relationship variable.</item> <item>9 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01and ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>10 <sups>a</sups>Omnibus test of all regression coefficients in the model.</item> <item>11 <sups>b</sups><emph>p</emph>-Value of the omnibus test.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187565011-30">Peer relationship quality</hd> <p>Two important moderators were identified in the relationship between peer relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (see Table 6). Specifically, the findings of the omnibus test revealed that the relationship quality dimension was an effective predictor (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref125">2</reflink>, 116) = 3.663, <emph>p</emph> =.029). The mean effect size for negative relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.232) was larger than the mean effect for positive relationship quality (<emph>r</emph> = −0.150). Furthermore, the peer relationship variable was a significant moderator (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref126">3</reflink>, 115) = 2.873, <emph>p</emph> =.039), indicating that the association with shyness was significantly stronger for peer victimization (<emph>r</emph> = −0.278) compared to peer acceptance (<emph>r</emph> = −0.150). Gender, age, culture, publication year and status, informant of peer relationship and shyness, and study design were not effective moderators of the link between peer relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p>Table 6. Results of categorical and continuous moderators for the association between peer relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Moderator variables</td><td># ES</td><td>Intercept/mean <italic>z</italic> (95%CI)</td><td><italic>β</italic> (95%CI)</td><td>Mean r</td><td><italic>F</italic> (df1, df2)<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>p</italic><sup>b</sup></td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 Sample characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Gender</td><td>119</td><td>−0.210 (−0.257; −0.163)***</td><td>−0.293 (−1.626; 1.040)</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 117) = 0.189</td><td>.664</td><td>0.022***</td><td>0.014***</td></tr><tr><td>b. Age</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Preschooler</italic></td><td>41</td><td>−0.183 (−0.261; −0.105)***</td><td /><td>−0.181</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 116) = 0.819</td><td>.443</td><td>0.021***</td><td>0.013**</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Children</italic></td><td>37</td><td>−0.198 (−0.268; −0.121)***</td><td>−0.015 (−0.123; 0.093)</td><td>−0.195</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Adolescents</italic></td><td>41</td><td>−0.252 (−0.333; −0.170)***</td><td>−0.069 (−0.182; 0.044)</td><td>−0.247</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Culture</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Asia</italic></td><td>97</td><td>−0.201 (−0.251; −0.151)***</td><td /><td>−0.198</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 116) = 2.937</td><td>.057</td><td>0.020***</td><td>0.013***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>North America</italic></td><td>16</td><td>−0.186 (−0.310; −0.063)**</td><td>0.015 (−0.119; 0.148)</td><td>−0.184</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Europe</italic></td><td>6</td><td>−0.440 (−0.634; −0.246)***</td><td>−0.240 (−0.437; −0.043)*</td><td>−0.414</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2 Publication characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Publication year</td><td>119</td><td>−0.209 (−0.25; −0.163)***</td><td>0.002 (−0.007; 0.010)</td><td>—</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 117) = 0.154</td><td>.695</td><td>0.022***</td><td>0.013**</td></tr><tr><td>b. Publication status</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Publication</italic></td><td>85</td><td>−0.199 (−0.250; −0.147)***</td><td /><td>−0.196</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 117) = 0.713</td><td>.400</td><td>0.022***</td><td>0.013***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Dissertation</italic></td><td>26</td><td>−0.247 (−0.347; −0.146)***</td><td>−0.048 (−0.161; 0.065)</td><td>−0.242</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3 Assessment characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Informant of peer relationship</td></tr><tr><td> Self-report</td><td>46</td><td>−0.234 (−0.306; −0.162)***</td><td /><td>−0.230</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 115) = 0.312</td><td>.817</td><td>0.021***</td><td>0.014*</td></tr><tr><td> Teacher-report</td><td>24</td><td>−0.204 (−0.301; −0.108)***</td><td>0.030 (−0.091; 0.150)</td><td>−0.201</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Peer-nomination</td><td>46</td><td>−0.186 (−0.261; −0.110)***</td><td>0.048 (−0.054; 0.151)</td><td>−0.184</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Parent-report</td><td>3</td><td>−0.183 (−0.410; 0.045)</td><td>0.051 (−0.188; 0.290)</td><td>−0.181</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b. Informant of shyness</td></tr><tr><td> Teacher-report</td><td>5</td><td>−0.188 (−0.359; −0.017)*</td><td /><td>−0.186</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 115) = 0.519</td><td>.670</td><td>0.022***</td><td>0.013*</td></tr><tr><td> Peer-nomination</td><td>26</td><td>−0.208 (−0.304; −0.112)***</td><td>−0.020 (−0.207; 0.167)</td><td>−0.205</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self-report</td><td>47</td><td>−0.238 (−0.306; −0.170)***</td><td>−0.050 (−0.233; 0.134)</td><td>−0.234</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Parent-report</td><td>41</td><td>−0.174 (−0.250; −0.098)***</td><td>0.014 (−0.164; 0.192)</td><td>−0.172</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4 Study design and outcome characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>a. Study design</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Cross-sectional</italic></td><td>84</td><td>−0.221 (−0.272; −0.170)***</td><td /><td>−0.217</td><td><italic>F</italic> (1, 117) = 1.094</td><td>.298</td><td>0.022***</td><td>0.012***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Longitudinal</italic></td><td>35</td><td>−0.163 (−0.261; −0.066)**</td><td>0.058 (−0.052; 0.168)</td><td>−0.162</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b. Relationship quality dimension</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Positive</italic></td><td>48</td><td>−0.151 (−0.213; −0.090)***</td><td /><td>−0.150</td><td><italic>F</italic> (2, 116) = 3.663</td><td>.029</td><td>0.021***</td><td>0.012***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Negative</italic></td><td>58</td><td>−0.236 (−0.292; −0.180)***</td><td>−0.085 (−0.156; −0.014)*</td><td>−0.232</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Composite</italic></td><td>13</td><td>−0.279 (−0.400; −0.159)***</td><td>−0.128 (−0.260; 0.004)</td><td>−0.272</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c. Peer relationship variable</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Peer acceptance</italic></td><td>48</td><td>−0.151 (−0.212; −0.089)***</td><td /><td>−0.150</td><td><italic>F</italic> (3, 115) = 2.873</td><td>.039</td><td>0.020***</td><td>0.013***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Peer rejection</italic></td><td>45</td><td>−0.220 (−0.283; −0.158)***</td><td>−0.070 (−0.145; 0.005)</td><td>−0.217</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>peer victimization</italic></td><td>13</td><td>−0.285 (−0.389; −0.181)***</td><td>−0.135 (−0.248; −0.021)*</td><td>−0.278</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Composite</italic></td><td>13</td><td>−0.278 (−0.399; −0.157)***</td><td>−0.127 (−0.260; 0.005)</td><td>−0.271</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 #ES = number of effect sizes; mean <emph>z</emph> = mean effect size (Fisher's z); CI = confidence interval; β = estimated regression coefficient; Mean <emph>r</emph> = mean effect size expressed as a Pearson's correlation; df = degrees of freedom; Level 2 = variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Level 3 = variance between studies; Composite = combination of peer relationship variable.</item> <item>13 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01and ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>14 <sups>a</sups>Omnibus test of all regression coefficients in the model.</item> <item>15 <sups>b</sups><emph>p</emph>-Value of the omnibus test.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187565011-31">Multivariate Model</hd> <p>To avoid substantial multicollinearity in a single moderating analysis, Hox ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref127">70</reflink>]) recommended testing multiple moderators to determine which moderator effect was of greatest concern. In light of this, the current study included all significant moderators in bivariate models, except for the dimension of relationship quality in all models and the child's age in the parent-child relationship quality model, due to overlap with other constructs (Spruit et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref128">121</reflink>]). The only caveat was that, since there was only one significant moderator (peer relationship variable) in the peer relationship model, multiple moderator analyses were not conducted.</p> <p>As demonstrated in Table 7, the multiple moderator analysis of the parent-child relationship quality model showed that both the informant of shyness and the parent-child relationship variable were significant moderators, even when all other moderators were accounted for. Multiple moderator analysis models of the teacher-child relationship quality revealed no significant effects of culture and publication status after controlling for all other moderators. The results indicate that the informant of shyness and the parent-child relationship variable were uniquely influential in explaining the variance in the relationship between parent-child relationship and shyness in children and adolescents. Similarly, the teacher-child relationship variable played a specific role in accounting for the variance in the connection between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness.</p> <p>Table 7. Results of the multivariate model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Moderator variable (parent-child relationship quality)</td><td>k</td><td><italic>β</italic> (95%CI)</td><td><italic>F</italic> (df1, df2)</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td /><td>Intercept</td><td /><td>−0.220 (−0.260; −0.180)***</td><td><italic>F</italic> (8, 70) = 7.209***</td><td>0.004***</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Gender</td><td>79</td><td>−0.442 (−1.032; 0.148)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Informant of shyness</td><td>Peer-report</td><td>41</td><td>0.106 (0.027; 0.184)**</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Mother-report</td><td>21</td><td>0.080 (−0.082; 0.243)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Parent-report</td><td>3</td><td>−0.069 (−0.228; 0.089)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Informant of parent-child relationship</td><td>Parent-report</td><td>21</td><td>−0.032 (−0.167; 0.103)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Parent-child relationship variable</td><td>Parent-child secure attachment</td><td>32</td><td>0.127 (0.082; 0.172)***</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Parent-child warmth</td><td>16</td><td>0.025 (−0.064; 0.114)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Parent-child conflict</td><td>9</td><td>0.037 (−0.066; 0.139)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Moderator variable (teacher-child relationship quality)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Intercept</td><td /><td>−0.184 (−0.265; −0.104)***</td><td><italic>F</italic> (5, 99) = 4.578**</td><td>0.009***</td><td>0.015***</td></tr><tr><td>Culture</td><td>Western</td><td>29</td><td>0.077 (−0.017; 0.172)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Publication status</td><td>Dissertation</td><td>47</td><td>−0.093 (−0.247; 0.061)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Teacher-child relationship variable</td><td>Teacher-child dependence</td><td>22</td><td>0.080 (0.018; 0.142)*</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Teacher-child conflict</td><td>32</td><td>0.006 (−0.048; 0.060)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Composite</td><td>12</td><td>−0.150 (−0.300; 0.001)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>16 K = number of effect sizes; β = estimated regression coefficient; df = degrees of freedom; Level 2 = variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Level 3 = variance between studies.</item> <item>17 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01and ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187565011-32">Discussion</hd> <p>Although extensive empirical research has found that relationship quality (parent-child, teacher-child, peer) is related to shyness in children and adolescents (e.g., An & Eggum-Wilkens, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref129">2</reflink>]; Verschueren & Koomen, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref130">126</reflink>]; Wu & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref131">131</reflink>]; Zee & Roorda, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref132">142</reflink>]), inconsistent findings persist. Therefore, this study provides the first quantification integration of results on the relation between relationship quality (parent-child, teacher-child, peer) and shyness in children and adolescents, using multiple three-level meta-analyses. In particular, the research explored various factors contributing to the uncertainty of the correlation between relationship quality and shyness, including age, gender, culture, dimension of relationship quality, publication characteristics, assessment characteristics, and study design. The study revealed significant negative correlations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents. In addition, the moderator analyses in the multivariate models indicated that relationship quality variables and informant of shyness were particularly influential in explaining these correlations.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-33">Associations between relationship quality and shyness</hd> <p>The current meta-analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between relationship quality (parent-child, teacher-child, peer) and shyness in children and adolescents. Specifically, high levels of parent-child, teacher-child, and peer relationship quality were associated with low levels of shyness in children and adolescents. This finding is consistent with the majority of findings in the literature (e.g., Chen, Peng, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref133">29</reflink>]; Han, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref134">62</reflink>]; Valiente et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref135">124</reflink>]; Wang & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref136">128</reflink>]). This may be because positive interpersonal relationships can enhance social skills by strengthening an individual's positive psychological capital, such as hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, all of which are associated with lower levels of shyness (Caprara et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref137">17</reflink>]). Moreover, this finding suggests that highly shy children may experience low-quality interpersonal relationships. This could be because shy children are more likely to fall into a negative cycle: in social interactions, they tend to be less engaged, less proactive, and less prosocial, making it harder for them to form close relationships (Rydell et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref138">113</reflink>]). As a result, they are more likely to face rejection in social interactions, which makes it difficult for them to receive high-quality social support.</p> <p>The results of the relationship quality dimension showed that positive teacher-child and peer relationships were negatively associated with shyness in children and adolescents, whereas negative parent-child and peer relationships were significantly positively linked to shyness. It should also be noted that positive parent-child relationships and negative teacher-child relationship showed no significant association with shyness in children and adolescents. Attachment theory provides a robust framework for understanding the aforementioned findings (Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]). It posits that secure attachment to teachers and peers can establish a positive behavioral pattern that fosters social competence. Children who experience secure attachment are more likely to trust in their interpersonal relationships and less likely to perceive social evaluation as a threat (Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref140">12</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref141">31</reflink>]). This trust and reduced anxiety are associated with high levels of social interaction and low levels of shyness. Moreover, this aligns with the diathesis-stress model, which emphasizes that parent – child conflicts and peer difficulties are closely related to children's maladaptive behaviors and emotional difficulties (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref142">114</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref143">137</reflink>]). Therefore, this holistic perspective highlights the important relationship between supportive interpersonal relationships and the mental health development of children and adolescents.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-34">Explaining heterogeneity with moderators</hd> <p>Moderator analyses were conducted to investigate potential variables that could explain within-study and/or between-study variance in the current meta-analysis. In summary, gender, age of the child, informant of shyness and parent-child relationship, relationship quality dimension, and parent-child relationship variable were found to significantly moderate the overall associations between parent-child relationship and shyness in children and adolescents. Culture, publication status, relationship quality dimension, and teacher-child relationship variable significantly moderated the overall relation between teacher-child relationship and shyness in children and adolescents. In addition, the overall association between peer relationship and shyness was moderated by culture, relationship quality dimension, and teacher-child relationship variable. Furthermore, multivariate analyses were conducted to identify which predictors could uniquely explain the variances. The results showed that the informant of shyness, parent-child relationship variable, teacher-child relationship variable, and peer relationship variable were substantial moderators.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-35">Parent-child relationship quality</hd> <p>For the informant of shyness (which includes self-report, peer-report, mother-report, and parent-report), the effect sizes for parent-report were notably larger compared to those for self-report. It's crucial to highlight that parent-report was predominantly used in studies involving preschoolers, while self-report was more common in studies with school-age children and adolescents. The stronger correlation observed between parent-child relationship quality and shyness in younger samples may be due to the social expectation effect (Marlow & Crowne, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref144">95</reflink>]). Specifically, preschool children generally have relatively weaker language skills and self-awareness, which may hinder their ability to accurately express their emotional states and behavioral manifestations (Kushnir et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref145">80</reflink>]). Consequently, when parents serve as external observers, they may be more attuned to their children's behavior due to societal expectations and concerns about their future development. This focus on behavior resulting from societal expectations could potentially lead to higher reported effect size in parental reports. Additionally, the results were inconsistent with the concept of common method bias, which suggests that identical raters may be associated with higher correlations (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref146">102</reflink>]). In contrast, a meta-analysis by Hoeve et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref147">67</reflink>]), which examined the relationship between parenting and adolescent delinquency, found weaker associations using parent reports compared to self-reports. This may be because self-reports from adolescents are more common and tend to highlight negative characteristics of the family, while parents are more likely to report positive attributes (Hoeve et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref148">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of the moderating effect of the parent-child relationship variable (which includes parent-child insecure attachment, parent-child secure attachment, parent-child warmth, and parent-child conflict), the finding that parent-child insecure attachment was more strongly related to shyness than parent-child secure attachment can be elucidated by attachment theory. More specifically, children who experience long-term insecure attachment may develop more negative self-perceptions, encounter more unstable emotional support, and engage in interactions lacking a sense of security during their growth. This may be associated with subsequent shy reactions (Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref149">12</reflink>]). Some studies have suggested that the impact of negative events, such as insecure attachment relationships, is greater than that of positive events, like secure attachment relationships, on outcomes and interactions within close relationship (Baumeister et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref150">6</reflink>]; Spruit et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref151">121</reflink>]). Additionally, The results are consistent with a large body of empirical evidence indicating that exposure to impaired parent – child relationships is closely associated with a wide variety of adverse outcomes (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref152">19</reflink>]; Zhu & [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref153">148</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-36">Teacher-child relationship quality</hd> <p>The association between the teacher-child relationship and shyness in children and adolescents was moderated by the teacher-child relationship variable (categorized as teacher-child closeness, teacher-child dependence, teacher-child conflict, and composite). Specifically, the correlation between teacher-student closeness and shyness is greater than that between teacher-student dependency and shyness. This could be because teacher-student closeness can provide emotional support, enhance self-perception, increase the frequency and quality of social interactions, and offer personalized emotional feedback and coping strategies (Goetz et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref154">57</reflink>]; Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref155">84</reflink>]), all of which are associated with lower levels of shyness among students. For instance, through frequent interactions with close teachers, students have the opportunity to continuously practice and improve their social skills, which may contribute to more positive self-perception and higher self-expectations (Goetz et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref156">57</reflink>]). These are associated with the enhancement of social confidence and the reduction of shyness. The results were supported by attachment theory and previous empirical studies (Acar et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>]; Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref158">12</reflink>]; Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref159">60</reflink>]; Sette et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref160">120</reflink>]). In addition, the finding is consistent with Nurmi's ([<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref161">101</reflink>]) meta-analysis, which found that children's shyness was more strongly associated with teacher-child closeness than with teacher-child dependence.</p> <p>In addition, shyness in children and adolescents was more strongly related to the composite teacher-child relationship than to teacher-child closeness. A possible explanation is that the composite teacher-child relationship measure consisted of more items, which may have overstated the link between teacher-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (Boele et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref162">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-37">Peer relationship quality</hd> <p>The results were consistent with the moderating analyses of parent-child and teacher-child relationship quality. Peer relationship variables (categorized as peer acceptance, peer rejection, peer victimization, and composite) were significant moderators of the correlation between peer relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents. More specifically, peer victimization yielded greater effect sizes than peer acceptance in this association. This could be because peer victimization involves more direct negative social experiences and emotional impacts (Reijntjes et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref163">107</reflink>]). In other words, peer victimization creates a perceived social threat environment where individuals constantly feel scrutinized and under threat (Reijntjes et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref164">107</reflink>]). This continuous state of vigilance is associated with increased shyness and heightened social anxiety. Moreover, the social-cognitive theory demonstrates that an individual's behavior is influenced by their cognitive patterns. Peer victimization may create or reinforce negative self-perceptions in children and adolescents, which can weaken their social abilities. For example, thoughts such as "I am not accepted" or "I cannot fit in" are associated with increased anxiety and shyness in social interactions (Hoglund & Leadbeater, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref165">69</reflink>]). Meanwhile, this finding supported the social process models that peer adversity generally damaged the self-systems of early adolescents, thus getting along well with peers and averting peer victimization or rejection were considerable social goals (Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref166">108</reflink>]). On the other hand, prior empirical research has indicated that bashful children and adolescents may be incomparably vulnerable to the passive influence of peer difficulties (e.g., peer rejection, peer victimization) because they may avoid interacting with peers in anxious ways (Gazelle & Ladd, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref167">56</reflink>]; Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref168">110</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-38">Theoretical and practical implications</hd> <p>The current study has significant theoretical and practical implications. On one hand, it is the first to systematically integrate and clarify the associations between three core interpersonal relationship qualities in children and adolescent development (parent-child, teacher-child, and peer) and shyness, generally indicating an inverse correlation between relationship quality and shyness. Additionally, the study identified moderating variables with unique contributions, including the informant of shyness, parent-child relationship variables, teacher-child relationship variables, and peer relationship variables. The study not only enriches our understanding of the complex relationship between interpersonal relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescent development but also provides new perspectives and methods for subsequent research in this field, thus advancing its development. In addition, these results further support attachment theory (Bowlby, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref169">12</reflink>]), ecological system theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref170">13</reflink>]), the resource-potentiating model (Kupersmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref171">79</reflink>]), and the diathesis-stress model (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref172">114</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, the findings also have practical implications. Specifically, within the dimension of negative relationship quality, insecure parent-child attachment and peer victimization should be particularly emphasized, as they exhibit the strongest correlation with shyness. This suggests that parents should recognize that insecure parent-child attachment may affect the development of a child's socio-emotional well-being and functioning. It is important for parents to strengthen emotional bonds with their children and provide a secure, supportive, and nurturing home environment. At the same time, educators and mental health professionals should enhance the prevention and intervention of peer victimization. By designing relevant curricula and providing psychological support, they can mitigate the negative impact of peer victimization on adolescents. Additionally, they should guide students in establishing and maintaining positive peer relationships. Within the dimension of positive relationship quality, teacher-student closeness shows the strongest correlation with shyness. This implies that maintaining a close relationship with teachers may be associated with a low level of shyness. Therefore, teachers should maintain close and constructive relationships with students through positive and loving interactions. In summary, this study not only deepens the theoretical understanding of the relationship between adolescent relationship quality and shyness but also provides specific intervention measures and recommendations for practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-39">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Several limitations and future directions of this meta-analysis should be noted. Firstly, although the study used an extensive set of search terms, it inevitably left out some studies. Specifically, the relatively small amount of empirical research was surprising given the close theoretical connection between parent-child relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents. Hence, it is suggested that more prospective studies focus on the association between parent-child relationship quality and shyness during childhood and adolescence. Secondly, the current meta-analysis does not imply causation, as the data included in the analysis are based on correlational and nonexperimental studies. To date, the limited availability of longitudinal studies examining the link between relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents has hindered the ability of meta-analyses to focus on the temporal dynamics within these relationships. Thus, future studies should track the trajectories of these variables to provide insights into the direction of the association. Additionally, attention should be given to experimental studies (e.g., interventions) on relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents to explore causation, as demonstrated by a meta-analysis conducted by Cordier et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref173">41</reflink>]). Thirdly, socioeconomic status and parents' education were not included as moderators in the current meta-analysis. However, as noted in many studies, these background characteristics are important for a comprehensive examination of the correlation between relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents (Boele et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref174">10</reflink>]; Ran et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref175">104</reflink>]). In addition, shyness was not considered as a categorical variable to determine whether it moderates the relationship between core variables. This omission occurred because such information was not systematically collected or reported in the included studies. Based on this, future studies should more extensively report background characteristics and subtypes of shyness. Finally, following previous meta-analyses and relevant theories (Assink & Wibbelink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref176">4</reflink>]; Li, Ran, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref177">83</reflink>]; Spruit et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref178">121</reflink>]), the current study only discussed potential moderators with significant and unique contributions in the multivariate models, but not in the bivariate models.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-40">Conclusion</hd> <p>To clarify the inconsistent result of the correlations between parent-child, teacher-child, peer relationship quality and shyness in children and adolescents, this study is the first to quantitatively synthesize these associations using three-level meta-analyses. The results demonstrated that the three relationship qualities were negatively correlated with shyness in children and adolescents. In general, the positive dimensions of relationship quality were negatively correlated with shyness, whereas the negative dimensions were positively correlated with it. The moderator analyses in the multivariate models indicated that relationship quality variables and informants of shyness can particularly contribute on these associations. Taken together, this study highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between different relationship qualities and shyness, which not only enriches the knowledge system of related fields but also provides scientific references and bases for important entities such as parents and teachers in practical applications, carrying profound theoretical and practical significance.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-41">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank all of the participants who dedicated their time to completing this study.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-42">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-43">Ethical approval</hd> <p>This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0187565011-44">Informed consent</hd> <p>No informed consent was obtained because no human participants were included in this study.</p> <ref id="AN0187565011-45"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref45" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> These authors contributed equally to this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187565011-46"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> *Acar, I. H., Kutaka, T. S., Rudasill, K. M., Torquati, J. C., Coplan, R. J., & Yıldız, S. (2020). Examining the roles of child temperament and teacher-child relationships as predictors of Turkish children's social competence and antisocial behavior. Current Psychology, 39 (6), 2231 – 2245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9901-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref61" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> *An, D., & Eggum-Wilkens, N. D. (2021). Situation-specific shyness among Chinese adolescents: Measurement and associations with adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 74, 101278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> *Arbeau, K. A., Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Shyness, teacher-child relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment in grade 1. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34 (3), 259 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12 (3), 154 – 174. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref67" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baardstu, S., Coplan, R. J., Karevold, E. B., Laceulle, O. M., & von Soest, T. (2020). Longitudinal pathways from shyness in early childhood to personality in adolescence: Do peers matter? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30 (S2), 362 – 379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref150" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> *Bayram Özdemir, S., Cheah, C. S., & Coplan, R. J. (2017). Processes and conditions underlying the link between shyness and school adjustment among Turkish children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35 (2), 218 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, B. J. (2000). Multivariate meta-analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 499 – 525). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref81" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beyazkurk, D., & Kesner, J. E. (2005). Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United States schools: A cross-cultural study. International Education Journal, 6 (5), 547 – 554.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boele, S., Van der Graaff, J., De Wied, M., Van der Valk, I. E., Crocetti, E., & Branje, S. (2019). Linking parent–child and peer relationship quality to empathy in adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 48 (6), 1033 – 1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Booth LaForce, C., & Oxford, M. L. (2008). Trajectories of social withdrawal from grades 1 to 6: Prediction from early parenting, attachment, and temperament. Developmental Psychology, 44 (5), 1298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss attachment. vol. 1. Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series (Eds.)) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. (Ed.)), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed. pp. 793 – 828). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Buhs, E. S., Rudasill, K. M., Kalutskaya, I. N., & Griese, E. R. (2015). Shyness and engagement: Contributions of peer rejection and teacher sensitivity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 12 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.07.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bullock, A., Liu, J., Cheah, C. S., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., & Li, D. (2018). The role of adolescents' perceived parental psychological control in the links between shyness and socio-emotional adjustment among youth. Journal of Adolescence, 68 (1), 117 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bullock, A., Xiao, B., Liu, J., Coplan, R., & Chen, X. (2021). Shyness, parent–child relationships, and peer difficulties during the middle school transition. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 31 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01979-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Cervone, D., & Artistico, D. (2003). The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to dispositional shyness: On social-cognitive systems and the development of personality dispositions. Journal of Personality, 71 (6), 943 – 970. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24 (6), 824 – 831. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, B. B. (2012). The association between self-reported mother–child attachment and social initiative and withdrawal in Chinese school-aged children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 173 (3), 279 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2011.609847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, B. B., Chen, X., & Wang, X. (2021). Siblings versus parents: Warm relationships and shyness among Chinese adolescents. Social Development, 30 (3), 883 – 896. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, B. B., & Santo, J. B. (2016). The relationships between shyness and unsociability and peer difficulties: The moderating role of insecure attachment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40 (4), 346 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415587726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, M., Zee, M., & Roorda, D. L. (2021). Students' shyness and affective teacher-student relationships in upper elementary schools: A cross-cultural comparison. Learning & Individual Differences, 86, 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.101979</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X. (2018). Culture, temperament, and social and psychological adjustment. Developmental Review, 50, 42 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.03.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X. (2019). Culture and shyness in childhood and adolescence. New Ideas in Psychology, 53, 58 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.04.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76 (1), 182 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00838.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Chen, H., & Kaspar, V. (2001). Group social functioning and individual socioemotional and school adjustment in Chinese children. Merrill-Palmer quarterly, 47 (2), 264 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Wang, L., & DeSouza, A. (2006). Temperament, socioemotional functioning, and peer relationships in chinese and north american children. In X. Chen, D. C. French, & B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 123–147). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, Y., Liu, M., X, M., Yu, L., Peng, Y., & Han, X. (2015). Parenting style and shyness of late adolescence students in China: The mediating effect of parent-child attachment. Psychology Research, 5 (7), 404 – 412.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, Y., Peng, X. T., Zhou, X. Y., & Fu, Y. Q. (2019). The impact of mindful parenting on children's shyness and social indifference: The mediating role of parent-child relationship. Studies in Preschool Education, 5, 72 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, Y., Xiao, M., Li, S., Y, L., Deng, Q., Gao, Y., Y, J., & Gao, F.Q. (2019). Relationship between shyness and middle school students' adjustment: A mediated moderation model. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27 (4), 790 – 794+799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chen, Y., Zhang, M., R, J., Feng, J., Han, R., L, & Gao, F.Q. (2018). The relationship between shyness, peer attachment and school adjustment among senior high school students. Psychological Exploration, 38 (5), 464 – 468.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cheung, H. S., & Elliott, J. M. (2017). Child shyness and peer likeability: The moderating role of pragmatics and vocabulary. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35 (4), 531 – 545. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19 (2), 211 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Coplan, R. J., Arbeau, K. A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don't fret, be supportive! Maternal characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36 (3), 359 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9183-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2005 (1982). Talking yourself out of being shy: Shyness, expressive vocabulary, and socioemotional adjustment in preschool. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51 (1), 20 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coplan, R. J., Hughes, K., Bosacki, S., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2011). Is silence golden? Elementary school teachers' strategies and beliefs regarding hypothetical shy/quiet and exuberant/talkative children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (4), 939 – 951. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024551</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Coplan, R. J., Liu, J., Cao, J., Chen, X., & Li, D. (2017). Shyness and school adjustment in Chinese children: The roles of teachers and peers. School Psychology Quarterly, 32 (1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (1), 143 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00009-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O'Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you "want" to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40 (2), 244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2009). Shy and soft-spoken: Shyness, pragmatic language, and socio-emotional adjustment in early childhood. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 18 (3), 238 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cordier, R., Speyer, R., Mahoney, N., Arnesen, A., Mjelve, L. H., Nyborg, G., & Olino, T. M. (2021). Effects of interventions for social anxiety and shyness in school-aged children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 16 (7), e0254117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (5), 193 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Schipper, J. C., Oosterman, M., & Schuengel, C. (2012). Temperament, disordered attachment, and parental sensitivity in foster care: Differential findings on attachment security for shy children. Attachment & Human Development, 14 (4), 349 – 365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ding, X., Deng, C., X, M., Sang, B., & Li, D. (2018). Relations between social avoidance and peer problems in Chinese early adolescents: A moderated-mediation Model. Psychological Development & Education, 34 (2), 137 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ding, X., Liu, J., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., Li, D., & Sang, B. (2014). Self-reported shyness in Chinese children: Validation of the Children's shyness questionnaire and exploration of its links with adjustment and the role of coping. Personality & Individual Differences, 68, 183 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doey, L., Coplan, R. J., & Kingsbury, M. (2014). Bashful boys and coy girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness. Sex Roles, 70 (7–8), 255 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0317-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-Plot–Based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56 (2), 455 – 463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. The British Medical Journal, 315 (7109), 629 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eggum, N. D., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Reiser, M., Gaertner, B. M., Sallquist, J., & Smith, C. L. (2009). Development of shyness: Relations with children's fearfulness, sex, and maternal behavior. Infancy, 14 (3), 325 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000902839971</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Eggum-Wilkens, N. D., Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2014). *children's shyness, popularity, school liking, cooperative participation, and internalizing problems in the early school years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 85 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Fordham, K., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1999). Shyness, friendship quality, and adjustment during middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 40 (5), 757 – 768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2017). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Interpersonal development (pp. 189–201). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gao, F., Gong, R. Y., Qi, D.Y., & Wang, P. (2011). The relationship between shyness, loneliness, peer acceptance and self-perceived social competence of pupils. Psychological Research, 4 (1), 69 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao, S., Assink, M., Cipriani, A., & Lin, K. (2017). Associations between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 59 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis–stress Model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74 (1), 257 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goetz, T., Bieleke, M., Gogol, K., van Tartwijk, J., Mainhard, T., Lipnevich, A. A., & Pekrun, R. (2021). Getting along and feeling good: Reciprocal associations between student-teacher relationship quality and students' emotions. Learning & Instruction, 71, 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Graham, A. A., & Coplan, R. J. (2012). Shyness, sibling relationships, and young children's socioemotional adjustment at preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26 (4), 435 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.711802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Guo, L. L. (2017). The relationship between pupils' shyness, class environment and school adjustment: An analysis based on multilevel linear model [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Han, P. G., Wu, Y. P., Yu, T., Xia, X. M., & Gao, F. Q. (2016). The relationship between shyness and externalizing problem in Chinese preschoolers: The moderating effect of teacher-child relationship. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4 (3), 167 – 173. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i3.1295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Han, P., Lin, G., Q, N., Bian, Y., Tian, L., Liu, Y., C, J., & Gao, F.Q. (2018). Shyness and internalizing problem: The moderating effect of teacher-child relationship. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26 (6), 1191 – 1195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Han, X. (2017). The shyness and school adjustment of high school students: Variable-centered and person-centered perspectives [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hane, A. A., Cheah, C., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2008). The role of maternal behavior in the relation between shyness and social reticence in early childhood and social withdrawal in middle childhood. Social Development, 17 (4), 795 – 811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00481.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hassan, R., Willoughby, T., & Schmidt, L. A. (2021). Development of shyness across adolescence: Reactivity, regulation, or both? Developmental Psychology, 57 (3), 421. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastings, P. D., Nuselovici, J. N., Rubin, K. H., & Cheah, C. S. (2010). Shyness, parenting, and parent-child relationships. In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The Development of Shyness and Social Withdrawal (pp. 107–130). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinrichs, N., Rapee, R. M., Alden, L. A., Bogels, S., Hofman, S. G., Oh, K. J., & Sakano, Y. (2006). Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44 (8), 1187 – 1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37 (6), 749 – 775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. Cultures and Organizations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2007). Managing threat: Do social-cognitive processes mediate the link between peer victimization and adjustment problems in early adolescence? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 (3), 525 – 540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00533.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jahng, K. E., & Kim, Y. (2021). Relationships between children's shyness, play disconnection, and loneliness: Moderating effect of children's perceived child-teacher intimate relationship. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 52 (5), 829 – 840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01069-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, Y., Chen, G., Ling, X., Lu, X., Way, N., Hughes, D., & Ke, Z. (2009). The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development, 80 (5), 1514 – 1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01348.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jiang, L. (2014). Adjustment of the subtype of social withdrawal and neural mechanism research [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shanghai Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, W. H., Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). Shyness: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51 (3), 629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, W. H., Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment. Springer Science & Business Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Justice, L. M., Cottone, E. A., Mashburn, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Relationships between teachers and preschoolers who are at risk: Contribution of children's language skills, temperamentally based attributes, and gender. Early Education & Development, 19 (4), 600 – 621. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802231021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karevold, E., Coplan, R., Stoolmiller, M., & Mathiesen, K. S. (2011). A longitudinal study of the links between temperamental shyness, activity, and trajectories of internalising problems from infancy to middle childhood. Australian Journal of Psychology, 63 (1), 36 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00005.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koles, B., O'Connor, E., & Mccartney, K. (2009). Teacher–child relationships in prekindergarten: The influences of child and Teacher characteristics. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30 (1), 3 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802667672</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupersmidt, J. B., Griesler, P. C., DeRosier, M. E., Patterson, C. J., & Davis, P. W. (1995). Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development, 66, 360 – 375.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kushnir, T., Gopnik, A., Chernyak, N., Seiver, E., & Wellman, H. M. (2015). Developing intuitions about free will between ages four and six. Cognition, 138, 79 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, L., Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Johns, S. K., Berger, R. H., Gal-Szabo, D. E., Southworth, J., Pina, A. A., Hernández, M. M., & Gal-Szabo, D. E. (2022). Longitudinal associations among teacher–child relationship quality, behavioral engagement, and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 61, 25 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Li, S., Chen, X., Ran, G.M., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Moderating effects of self-construals on the associations between shyness and internalizing problems among Chinese early adolescents. Journal of Psychological Science, 44 (4), 822 – 828.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, S., Ran, G., & Chen, X. (2021). Linking attachment to empathy in childhood and adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 38 (11), 3350 – 3377. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211031006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, S., Fabris, M. A., & Longobardi, C. (2022). Closeness in Student–Teacher relationships and students' psychological well-being: The mediating role of hope. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 30 (1), 44 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266211013756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lisonbee, J. A., Mize, J., Payne, A. L., & Granger, D. A. (2008). Children's cortisol and the quality of Teacher–child relationships in child care. Child Development, 79 (6), 1818 – 1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01228.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Liu, J., Bowker, J. C., Coplan, R. J., Yang, P., Li, D., & Chen, X. (2019). Evaluating links among shyness, peer relations, and internalizing problems in Chinese young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29 (3), 696 – 709. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, J., Chen, X., Zhou, Y., Li, D., Fu, R., & Coplan, R. J. (2017). Relations of shyness–sensitivity and unsociability with adjustment in middle childhood and early adolescence in suburban Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 (6), 681 – 687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416664195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Liu, J., Xiao, B., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., & Li, D. (2018). Cross-lagged panel analyses of child shyness, maternal and paternal authoritarian parenting, and teacher-child relationships in mainland China. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 27 (12), 4116 – 4125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1229-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Liu, Y. B. (2012). A study on junior middle school students' relationship of shyness, impression management and peer relation [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lu, Z. C. (2020). The relationship between shyness and self-concept in elementary school students in grades 4-6. Chain mediating role of self-esteem and peer relationship [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Hebei University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lv, S. Y. (2021). Shyness and peer relations in preschoolers: The moderating role of sibling relations [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ma, L. G. (2016). Bidirectional relations between early teacher-child relationship and children's social adjustment among preschoolers: A longitudinal study [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Southeast University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madigan, S., Brumariu, L. E., Villani, V., Atkinson, L., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2016). Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (4), 367. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlow, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25 (2), 109. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masoumeh, H., Mansor, M., Yaacob, S. N., & Abu-Talib, M. (2014). Parent-child relationship and aggression among adolescents in Tehran, Iran. Life Science Journal, 11 (9), 766 – 770.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6 (7), 1 – 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Moritz Rudasill, K., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Justice, L. M., & Pence, K. (2006). Temperament and language skills as predictors of teacher-child relationship quality in preschool. Early Education & Development, 17 (2), 271 – 291. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1702_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nauman, C., Goble, P., Alfaro, E. C., & Weimer, A. A. (2022). Adolescent academic success: Teacher-child interactions as a Buffer for early childhood relational adversity. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 32 (7), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02496-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neaverson, A., Murray, A. L., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2022). Disrupting the link between corporal punishment exposure and adolescent aggression: The role of teacher-child relationships. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 51 (12), 2265 – 2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01666-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nurmi, J. E. (2012). Students' characteristics and teacher–child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7 (3), 177 – 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pronk, R. E., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2010). It's "Mean," but what does it mean to adolescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25 (2), 175 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558409350504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ran, G., Niu, X., Zhang, Q., Li, S., Liu, J., Chen, X., & Wu, J. (2021). The association between interparental conflict and youth anxiety: A three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 50 (4), 599 – 612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01388-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapee, R. M., Kim, J., Wang, J., Liu, X., Hofmann, S. G., Chen, J., Oh, K. Y., Bögels, S. M., Arman, S., Heinrichs, N., & Alden, L. E. (2011). Perceived impact of socially anxious behaviors on individuals' lives in Western and East Asian countries. Behavior Therapy, 42 (3), 485 – 492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34 (4), 244 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In R. M. Lerner, M. H. Bornstein, & T. Leventhal (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, vol. 4: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems (pp. 175 – 222). Wiley-Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50 (4), 506 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1), 141 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudasill, K. M. (2011). Child temperament, teacher–child interactions, and teacher–child relationships: A longitudinal investigation from first to third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 147 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher–child relationship quality: The roles of child temperament and teacher–child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 107 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rydell, A. M., Bohlin, G., & Thorell, L. B. (2005). Representations of attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children's relationships with teachers and peer competence in preschool. Attachment & Human Development, 7 (2), 187 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500134282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, L. A., Polak, C. P., & Spooner, A. L. (2005). Biological and Environmental Contributions to Childhood Shyness: A Diathesis-Stress Model. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.), The essential handbook of social anxiety for clinicians (pp. 33–55). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, L. A., & Poole, K. L. (Eds.). (2020). Adaptive shyness: Multiple perspectives on behavior and development. Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sette, S., Baldwin, D., Zava, F., Baumgartner, E., & Coplan, R. J. (2019). Shame on me? Shyness, social experiences at preschool, and young children's self-conscious emotions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 229 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sette, S., Baumgartner, E., Laghi, F., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). The role of emotion knowledge in the links between shyness and children's socio-emotional functioning at preschool. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34 (4), 471 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sette, S., Baumgartner, E., & Schneider, B. H. (2014). Shyness, child–Teacher relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment in a sample of Italian preschool-aged children. Infant and Child Development, 23 (3), 323 – 332. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sette, S., Zava, F., Baumgartner, E., Baiocco, R., & Coplan, R. J. (2017). Shyness, unsociability, and socio-emotional functioning at preschool: The protective role of peer acceptance. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 26 (4), 1196 – 1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0638-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sette, S., Zava, F., Baumgartner, E., Laghi, F., & Coplan, R. J. (2021). Exploring the role of play behaviors in the links between preschoolers' shyness and teacher-child relationships. Early Education & Development, 33 (2), 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1885237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spruit, A., Goos, L., Weenink, N., Rodenburg, R., Niemeyer, H., Stams, G. J., & Colonnesi, C. (2020). The relation between attachment and depression in children and adolescents: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 23 (1), 54 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00299-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephen, S., Jacqueline, B., Matthew, W., Sajid, H., & Thomas, G. (2011). Attachment in adolescence: Overlap with parenting and unique prediction of behavioral adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52 (10), 1052 – 1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02453.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Stockli, G. (2002). Shyness in cultural context: A comparative study of correlates of shyness in school children in Switzerland and China. Psychologie in Erziehung Und Unterricht, 49 (2), 151 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2012). Kindergartners' temperament, classroom engagement, and Student–teacher relationship: Moderation by effortful control. Social Development, 21 (3), 558 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00640.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Eldik, W. M., de Haan, A. D., Parry, L. Q., Davies, P. T., Luijk, M. P., Arends, L. R., & Prinzie, P. (2020). The interparental relationship: Meta-analytic associations with children's maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 146 (7), 553. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14 (3), 205 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36 (3), 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wang, G., & Chen, M. (2020, September). Social media using frequency and the quality of social relationships among adolescents: The moderating effect of shyness. In 2020 International Conference on Modern Education and Information Management (ICMEIM) (pp. 711–715).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wang, Y. (2017). The relationship between the shyness of senior primary school students and school adaption: The role of teacher's leadership [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wang, Z., Bowker, J. C., Liu, J., Li, D., & Chen, X. (2021). Relations between shyness and psychological adjustment in Chinese children: The role of friendship quality. Infant and Child Development, 30 (2), e2209. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, C. Y., & Lee, T. S. H. (2020). Impact of parent–child relationship and sex on trajectories of children internalizing symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 167 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.09.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Y., Wu, J., Chen, Y., Han, L., Han, P., Wang, P., & Gao, F. (2015). Shyness and school adjustment among Chinese preschool children: Examining the moderating effect of gender and Teacher–child relationship. Early Education & Development, 26 (2), 149 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.970503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Xu, Y., Farver, J. A. M., & Shin, Y. (2014). Shyness and psychosocial functioning in South Korean children. European Journal of Personality, 28 (2), 147 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Xu, Y., Zhou, Y., Zhao, J., Xuan, Z., Li, W., Han, L., & Liu, H. (2021). The relationship between shyness and aggression in late childhood: The multiple mediation effects of parent-child conflict and self-control. Personality & Individual Differences, 182, 111058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yan, C. Y. (2020). Social withdrawn and social adjustment in preschoolers: The moderating role of emotional regulation ability [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shanghai Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, C., Bear, G. G., Chen, F. F., Zhang, W., Blank, J. C., & Huang, X. (2013). Students' perceptions of school climate in the U.S. and China. School Psychology Quarterly, 28 (1), 7 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yang, F., Chen, X., & Wang, L. (2015). Shyness-sensitivity and social, school, and psychological adjustment in urban Chinese children: A four-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 86 (6), 1848 – 1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yang, Y., Zhang, Q., M, L., & Han, L. (2012). The relationship between shyness and hostility of adolescents: The mediating role of peer victimization. Journal of Shandong Academy of Governance, (4), 139 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yap, M. B. H., & Jorm, A. F. (2015). Parental factors associated with childhood anxiety, depression, and internalizing problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 424 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zatto, B. R., & Hoglund, W. L. (2022). Depressive and anxious symptoms and teacher-child dependency and conflict in early childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 91, 129 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zdebik, M. A., Boivin, M., Battaglia, M., Tremblay, R. E., Falissard, B., & Cote, S. M. (2019). Childhood multi-trajectories of shyness, anxiety and depression: Associations with adolescent internalizing problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 64, 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., & Roorda, D. L. (2018). Student–teacher relationships in elementary school: The unique role of shyness, anxiety, and emotional problems. Learning & Individual Differences, 67, 156 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zeng, Y. (2010). Social behaviors and academic achievement as correlates of peer victimization among Chinese adolescents: Peer relationships as mediators and moderators [ Unpublished master dissertation ]. Shandong Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhang, L., & Eggum-Wilkens, N. D. (2018). Correlates of shyness and unsociability during early adolescence in urban and rural China. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38 (3), 408 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616670993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X., Lau, C., & Yang, Y. (2021). Shyness and social–emotional development among Chinese children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 30 (6), e2265. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhao, C., Liu, C., Chen, L., Y, M., Wang, P., Gao, & F. Q. (2013). The relationship between friendly quality and shyness of adolescents: The mediating role of self-esteem. Youth & Juvenile Study, 4, 19 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, J., Gao, F., Xu, Y., Sun, Y., & Han, L. (2020). The relationship between shyness and aggression: The multiple mediation of peer victimization and security and the moderation of parent–child attachment. Personality & Individual Differences, 156, 109733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhu, J. J. (2018). Trajectories of preschooler's shyness and the mechanism of shyness social adjustment [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation ]. Shanghai Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhu, J., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Coplan, Y., R, J., Liu, T. T., (2018). Shyness and social adjustment among Chinese preschoolers: The moderating role of student-teacher relationship. Journal of Psychological Science, 41 (5), 1130 – 1137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhu, J., Wu, J. M., & Li, Y. (2020). Shyness and social adjustment among Chinese preschoolers: The moderating role of maternal parenting styles. Journal of Psychological Science, 43 (2), 347 – 354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Zhu, J., Yang, J., T, T., Weng, W.J, & Li, Y. (2020). Social avoidance and social adjustment among young children: The moderating role of maternal psychological control. Studies in Preschool Education, 10, 17 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xiang Niu; Li-Xing Gou; Xi Shen and Jin-Liang Wang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref177"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1501446
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Linking Parent-Child, Teacher-Child, and Peer Relationship Quality to Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xiang+Niu%22">Xiang Niu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li-Xing+Gou%22">Li-Xing Gou</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xi+Shen%22">Xi Shen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jin-Liang+Wang%22">Jin-Liang Wang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Education+and+Development%22"><i>Early Education and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 36(6):1408-1437.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 30
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shyness%22">Shyness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conflict%22">Conflict</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Influences%22">Cultural Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Asia%22">Asia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22North+America%22">North America</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Europe%22">Europe</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10409289.2025.2505831
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-9289<br />1556-6935
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research Findings: Shyness in children and adolescents is closely related to relationship quality, but integrated quantitative research remains limited. To address this gap, three independent meta-analyses were conducted to examine the associations between parent-child, peer, and teacher-child relationship quality and shyness. This meta-analysis included 76 studies, 303 effect sizes, and a total of 39,289 participants. Results showed significant negative correlations between all three types of relationship quality and shyness. Specifically, positive dimensions of relationship quality (e.g., warmth, support) were negatively associated with shyness, while negative dimensions (e.g., conflict, rejection) were positively associated. Further, multivariate moderator analyses based on bivariate results revealed that the parent-child relationship variable and the informant of shyness significantly influenced the association between parent-child relationship quality and shyness. Similarly, the specific type of teacher-child and peer relationships moderated their respective links with shyness. Practice or Policy: The study shows that key relationships (parent-child, teacher-child, and peer) not only directly relate to shyness but also moderate its underlying mechanisms, offering important insights for understanding and improving the mental health of children and adolescents.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1501446
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1501446
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10409289.2025.2505831
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 30
        StartPage: 1408
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Shyness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conflict
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Asia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: North America
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Europe
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Linking Parent-Child, Teacher-Child, and Peer Relationship Quality to Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xiang Niu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li-Xing Gou
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xi Shen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jin-Liang Wang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-9289
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6935
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Education and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1