Teacher Away? Kids Will Play!
Why Kids Act Out When They Have a Substitute
The other day I found myself walking into school very, very slowly with a pit in my stomach. You see, I had been out the day before and I was dreading seeing the state of my classroom and reading the note left behind by the substitute. I didn’t recognize the name on our online system, but I was fairly certain I knew how it went. Many of the notes left for me have read something like, “Dear teacher, your class was very chatty and disrespectful today. I had to speak to several students multiple times and we did not get through what you left.” Ugh!
It seems like no matter how many times I talk to my kids, how much expectation setting I do, or even how much I bribe them, my students’ behavior is horrendous when I am not there. What’s worse? When I ask about it the next day, it is not often I can get them to spill. There seems to be an unspoken rule about not ratting each other out!
I know I am not alone in this, I am sure many teachers can relate. That said, what can evolutionary thinking tell us about what is going on? Why do kids act out when their teacher is gone and, more importantly, what can we do about it?
The Halloween Study
A classic study that I believe relates to bad sub behavior was conducted on trick-or-treaters in Seattle in the 1970’s. Researchers were studying a concept known as deindividuation (Diener et al., 1976). Deindividuation refers to a perceived loss of identity and responsibility when acting anonymously, such as in a group. Deindividuation is often found to lead to transgressions of norms or antisocial behavior. In the case of the Halloween study, the researchers wanted to see what factors impacting deindividuation led to increased negative behavior in kids.
So what was this targeted behavior? Well it was Halloween, so the identified bad behavior was stealing extra candy! The experiment started with an unfamiliar adult greeting trick-or-treaters at the door and saying something like “Happy Halloween! I am going to get back to work in the back room. The candy is over there, but make sure you only take one each!” The experimenter would then leave and the children were secretly observed to see if they took extra candy or money that was left out on a table. In some of the trials, the experimenter would ask the kids about their names and where they lived prior to leaving (thereby breaking anonymity).
What the researchers found was that children who were anonymous and in a group were significantly more likely to steal extra candy or money than children in any other condition. When alone, 7.4% of nonanonymous individuals transgressed (stole extra candy or money) and 21.4% of anonymous individuals transgressed. When coming in a group, 20.8% of the nonanonymous groups transgressed. However when children were in a group and were anonymous, the transgressions rose to 57.2% (Diener et. al., 1976). Overall, the researchers concluded that deindividuation—in this case, being an anonymous member of a group—led to a significant decrease in inhibition and increased antisocial behaviors.
Under ancestral conditions, deindividuation was rare. Hunter-gatherer groups were small and often consisted of related individuals. As a result, our ancestors knew pretty much everyone they regularly interacted with. Low inhibition and antisocial behaviors would have had serious consequences for one’s relationships and therefore success. Only in our modern cultures do we have so many opportunities for anonymity and deindividuation. In other words, this is an instance of evolutionary mismatch (see Geher, 2014).
Back to School!
So what does the stealing of Halloween candy have to do with how children treat their substitute teachers? Consider what happens when the teacher is away. The kids show up and there is an adult that they don’t know in their classroom. She (or he) doesn’t know their names, doesn’t know their families, and often doesn’t even know their teacher. Additionally, children are in a group of their peers. It is unlikely that over the course of a day the substitute will really get to know all of them. Just like in the Halloween study, the kids perceive themselves as an anonymous group.
Since teachers spend so much time with their students, we don’t often think of deindividuation as one of the evolutionary mismatches inherent in schools (see this prior post for more common examples). That said, deindividuation becomes an issue with substitute teachers when children perceive they are anonymous.
Under the deindividuized conditions, Deiner and colleagues showed that inhibition decreases. In school, kids are not stealing candy or money, but they may act out more and in ways they wouldn’t when they are with their teacher who knows them. These negative behaviors have implications for safety, retention of substitutes, and loss of instructional time when teachers are absent.
Takeaways
While evolutionary reasoning helps to explain this behavior, it does not excuse it. Kids need to be held accountable for expectations and their actions. However, evolutionary thinking can help explain what is going on and give some guidance on how to improve our schools. The following are ideas to address (and reduce) deindividuation when a teacher is absent and a substitute is in the classroom:
Teachers:
When planning for a sub, build time in the morning plans for them to get to know the kids. This idea could be as simple as having everyone play a game during a morning meeting where the sub can start to learn student names.
Make sure names are visible and obvious. This may mean leaving out sticker nametags or providing a seating chart with photos.
Make it clear that subs and teachers share information. If students know their sub and their teacher will talk, it breaks the illusion of anonymity.
Administrators:
Check in on classes when you know a teacher is out. Kids may not behave for the substitute who does not know them, but knowing the principal is coming by can be game changing.
Create a culture of belonging for substitutes. The more they are in the building, the better kids will get to know them. Having substitutes as part of the building culture removes anonymity. This can help make the case for having a permanent building substitute.
I don’t think that there is a silver bullet for student behavior with substitutes, it is a complex issue. In addition, this particular idea needs to be backed up with empirical evidence in the future (I am not aware of any deindividuation studies supporting these ideas). However, I do think addressing instances of deindividuation can help reduce the behaviors that teachers dread reading about in their substitute reports and help to preserve instruction when teachers are absent. Hopefully more work on this area in the future will help teachers walk back into their classrooms without the fear of a bad sub report!
References:
Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.178
Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.