The impact of teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and care on trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness

The impact of teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and care on trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The impact of teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and care on trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness Zhen Zhang, Wenqing Deng, Yuxin Wang, Chunhui Qi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background In the realm of organizational management, managers are adept at leveraging rewards and punitive measures to foster positive behaviors and mitigate negative ones, with a particular emphasis on the educational sector. To enhance teacher professional development, this study devises a moderation model, informed by two empirical investigations, which examines the impact of appropriate teacher discipline on teacher trust and explores the moderating role of teacher caring within this context. Methods Two questionnaires were conducted among 463 junior high school students in China. Results The findings show that: (1) proper teacher discipline significantly predicts teacher trustworthiness and trust; (2) teacher care significantly predicts teacher trustworthiness; and (3) for rural children, teacher care has a significant moderating effect on teacher trustworthiness. Conclusions The proper use of teacher punishment has a good impact on middle school students' faith in teachers, and gradually increasing the amount of teacher care may become a strategy to compensate for the losses produced by ineffective teacher discipline. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Disciplinary appropriateness Teacher care Trust Trustworthiness Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Background In interpersonal relationships, trust is the cornerstone for making connections. In social interactions, people assess the trustworthiness of others by examining a variety of cues before determining whether to trust them [ 1 ]. According to research, the intensity of third-party punishment can influence observers' trustworthiness judgments and trust behavior toward the punisher [ 2 ]. Punishment is not the only method for restoring justice [ 3 ]. When society has already reached a point of cooperation, placing too much focus on punishment can result in higher societal losses [ 4 ]. However, this viewpoint fails to adequately address deservedness as a key component of signal content, limiting the potential range of punishment harshness [ 5 ]. The trustworthiness of teachers, as a precursor variable to student trust, is an important factor influencing the quality of the teacher-student relationship. However, research on how trust emerges remains limited [ 6 ]. Existing literature often emphasizes that teachers are a key factor influencing student satisfaction and retention rates [ 7 , 8 ]. As significant figures in students' educational journeys, teachers play an essential role in fostering students' positive development. Moreover, teachers are widely regarded as the most crucial component of any educational system [ 9 ]. Abusive punishment can undermine the effectiveness of altruistic punishment in maintaining social norms [ 10 ], whereas non-deterrent restorative interventions may have unexpectedly positive effects on maintaining these norms [ 11 ]. As key stakeholders in the education system, teachers have been found to significantly influence both the effectiveness of the system and students' academic performance [ 12 ]. Most teachers strive to be perceived as fair by their students, as this perception can prevent negative reactions and foster a more positive learning environment. Teacher punishment appropriateness and trust In daily teaching, educators often face the challenging task of delivering negative messages or critical feedback to students, a necessity for effective education [ 13 ]. Additionally, teachers must enforce school regulations by punishing violators in a manner that reflects the severity of the infraction, all while maintaining effective classroom management. The severity of punishment should be proportionate to the wrongdoing [ 14 ], however, punitive interventions, which serve as external motivators, can have a dual effect: they may promote short-term compliance with norms, but they can also erode interpersonal trust and supplant individuals' internal motivation to adhere to norms, potentially leading to a swift resurgence of undesirable behavior once the punitive measures are removed [ 15 ]. Teachers who exhibit unprofessional behavior in the classroom [ 16 ] and display high levels of verbal aggression are often perceived as less credible by their students [ 17 ]. When students view their course grades, course procedures, or teacher communication as unfair, they are more likely to engage in indirect attacks on the teacher [ 18 ]. Consequently, it is hypothesized that appropriate punishment can foster trust, whereas inappropriate punishment can erode it (Hypothesis 1). The mediating role of trustworthiness Trustworthiness is assessed based on the presence or absence of motivation to deceive. According to Mayer et al. [ 19 ], the comprehensive ABI model distinguishes the structural components of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) from the perceived factors that contribute to trust. The fairness heuristic theory suggests that fairness plays a significant role in the formation of trustworthiness [ 20 ], and the appropriateness of a punishment indirectly reflects whether the punisher possesses fair traits. Third-party punishment enables punishers to signal qualities such as trustworthiness, and imposing sanctions in response to violations can enhance the punisher's reputation, indicating that they are fair and trustworthy [ 21 ]. In comparison to non-punishers, third-party punishers are more trusted and exhibit more trustworthy behavior. Trustworthiness is a strong predictor of an individual's trust in leaders, teachers, or managers [ 22 ]. Research in higher education has shown that competence, kindness, and integrity directly influence students' trust in professors, rather than serving as prerequisites for such trust [ 23 ]. In this process, individuals form trust in authority based on their perceptions of the authority's trustworthiness, which provides a clearer explanation for why one person might trust another. It is proposed that trustworthiness mediates the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher discipline and students' trust in teachers, suggesting that a teacher's trustworthiness plays a crucial role in fostering trust (Hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of teacher care A positive correlation exists between teacher trustworthiness and students' behavioral tendencies, encompassing out-of-class interactions, participation in class discussions [ 24 ], teacher evaluations, and cognitive-emotional learning outcomes [ 25 ]. The constructs of teacher resilience, buoyancy, and care have been found to significantly influence student engagement [ 26 ]. However, the predictive potential of "teacher care" as a variable in fostering positive interpersonal relationships has been relatively underexamined [ 27 ]. To establish strong relationships, teachers must understand their learners, demonstrate care for their needs, and respect their perspectives. In addition to teaching and learning issues, teachers bring their own value systems, beliefs, mindsets, and behaviors into the classroom, which can indirectly influence learners. Teachers who prioritize students' well-being can instill trust, encouraging enthusiastic engagement in the classroom environment [ 28 ]. By establishing close connections with students, teachers can create a comfortable and supportive learning environment, facilitating safe communication within the classroom [ 29 ]. Caring teachers can foster a trustworthy learning atmosphere, making students more inclined to participate in learning activities. A warm and friendly teacher-learner relationship can significantly enhance learners' willingness to communicate [ 30 ], reduce dropout rates [ 31 ], and foster positive teacher-student rapport, encouraging active interaction with teachers and classmates [ 32 ]. Therefore, we propose that teacher care plays a moderating role in the relationship between the appropriateness of discipline and teacher trustworthiness (Hypothesis 3). This study, grounded in prior research, investigates the relationship between teacher punishment appropriateness and student trust among adolescents, employing a moderated mediation model to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Method Study 1 Participant A junior high school in Henan Province, China, was selected for this study, and 243 questionnaires were distributed using cluster sampling, yielding 224 valid responses (92.2% response rate). The sample consisted of 111 males (49.55%) and 113 females (50.45%). Among them, the proportion of poor grades is 6.25%, the proportion of below-average grades is 20.09%, the proportion of average grades is 32.59%, the proportion of above-average grades is 29.91%, and the proportion of excellent grades is 11.16%. Experimental Design and Procedure Participants completed paper questionnaires, which included measures of personal basic information (grade, age, and academic performance), followed by scales assessing teacher care, disciplinary appropriateness, trustworthiness, and trust. The independent variable was teacher discipline appropriateness, the moderating variable was teacher care, the mediating variable was trustworthiness, and the dependent variable was trust. Experimental Materials and Tools Disciplinary Appropriateness Scale This scale, adapted from [ 33 ], assessed adolescents' perceptions of teacher disciplinary appropriateness. The 3-item scale utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = complete disagreement, 5 = complete agreement), with higher scores indicating greater perceived appropriateness. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.81. Trustworthiness Scale Based on Brockner et al. [ 34 ], this 3-item scale measured teacher trustworthiness using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong agreement). Higher scores indicated greater trustworthiness. The Cronbach's α for this subscale was 0.72. Trust Scale The 6-item trust scale, developed by Jing et al.[ 35 ], employed a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong agreement). Higher scores reflected greater trust in teachers. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.77. Care Scale The Teacher Care Scale, developed by Teven and McCroskey [ 36 ], consisted of 10 items assessing teacher care. Representative items included "values my interests" and "understands my feelings." The 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree) was used, with higher scores indicating greater teacher care. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.80. Results Common Method Bias Test To mitigate common method bias, participants were assured of questionnaire anonymity and confidentiality, and informed that data would be used exclusively for research purposes. Furthermore, Harman's single-factor test was conducted to assess common method bias. The results yielded six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the first factor accounting for 31.88% of the variance, below the 40% critical threshold. This suggests that common method bias is unlikely to be a significant concern. Correlation Analysis Between Variables Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for each variable. The results reveal significant positive correlations between pairs of variables, including teacher discipline appropriateness, care, trustworthiness, and trust. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Results ( N = 224) Variables M ± SD 1 2 3 4 Discipline appropriateness 4.14 ± 0.90 1 Teacher care 4.99 ± 0.88 0.47 *** 1 Trustworthiness 3.52 ± 0.57 0.40 *** 0.41 *** 1 Trust 4.12 ± 0.73 0.46 *** 0.57 *** 0.57 *** 1 Note: Disciplinary appropriateness = 1, Teacher care = 2, Trustworthiness = 3, Trust = 4; * represents p < 0.05, ** represents p < 0.01, *** represents p < 0.001. similarly hereinafter. The mediating role of trustworthiness and the moderating role of teacher care Using Model 4 in the PROCESS macro, we examined the mediating effect of trustworthiness on the relationship between discipline appropriateness and trust, controlling for students' gender, age, and grades. The results indicate that discipline appropriateness significantly and positively predicts trust ( β = 0.40, p < 0.001). Furthermore, discipline appropriateness positively predicts trustworthiness ( β = 0.41, p < 0.001), which in turn positively predicts trust ( β = 0.41, p < 0.001). The bias-corrected percentile Bootstrap method test revealed a significant direct effect (0.40, 95% CI = [0.29, 0.51]) and a significant mediating effect of trustworthiness (0.17, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.26]), accounting for 29.83% of the total effect. Table 2 Moderated Mediation Model Test Regression equation Fits index Significance of the regression coefficient Outcome variable Predictor variable R R 2 F β SE T Trustworthiness 0.49 0.24 11.45 *** Gender 0.10 0.06 1.65 Age -0.01 0.06 -0.1 Grade 0.08 0.06 1.28 Disciplinary appropriateness 0.26 0.07 3.62 *** Teacher care × Disciplinary appropriateness -0.06 0.05 -0.08 Trust 0.68 0.47 38.23 *** Gender -0.09 0.05 -1.74 Age 0.02 0.05 0.41 Grade 0.00 0.05 0.01 Disciplinary appropriateness 0.40 0.05 7.38 *** Trustworthiness 0.41 0.06 7.52 *** Using Model 7 in the PROCESS program, we tested the moderating effect of teacher care on the relationship between discipline appropriateness and trustworthiness, controlling for students' gender, age, and grades. The results (Table 2 ) show that teacher care significantly predicts trustworthiness ( β = 0.26, p < 0.001). However, the interaction term between discipline appropriateness and teacher care does not significantly predict trustworthiness ( β = -0.06, p = 0.28), the model diagram is shown in Fig. 1 . Brief summary This exploratory study provides a foundational framework for examining the impact of teacher disciplinary appropriateness on trust. However, several limitations warrant further investigation. The reliance on self-reported data from subjects introduces potential subjective bias and social desirability bias, which may compromise the objectivity and generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the non-significant moderating effect of teacher care on the relationships between variables suggests that this factor may not play a crucial role in this context. This outcome may be attributed to various factors, including sample characteristics, measurement tools, and cultural background. To address this, follow-up studies should investigate the regulatory role of teacher care in greater depth. Additionally, the study's sample is limited to urban middle school students, whereas the education of rural left-behind children has significant implications for human capital accumulation and economic growth. Therefore, it is essential to replicate and extend the research to rural middle school students to enhance the generalizability and applicability of the findings. Study 2 Participant To reach 80% (1-β) statistical power, the study required at least 159 subjects, as assessed by G*Power 3.1.The experiment chose a township middle school in Henan Province, China, and utilized a cluster sampling approach to disseminate 260 surveys, yielding 239 valid questionnaires and a recovery rate of 91.92%. Among the respondents, 124 were male (51.88%), while 115 were female (48.12%).There are 15.90% of students with poor grades, 23.85% with below-average grades, 36.40% with average grades, 19.25% with above-average ratings, and 4.60% with excellent marks. Research Design and Procedures First, the participants need to complete the demographic variables, including gender, age, and academic performance. Secondly, the subjects need to undergo manipulation of the appropriateness of teacher care and discipline. For example, in the group with appropriate care and discipline, the subjects will read the following description: " The homeroom teacher is a kind teacher who often smiles in class, He frequently takes the initiative to ask students if they need help and can remembers all the students' names. When students are having a class discussion, he joins the discussions with the students. One afternoon, the homeroom teacher was teaching a class, and A was either whispering with others or deliberately interrupting the teacher, making other students laugh and disrupting the normal class. So, the homeroom teacher asked A to clean the blackboard for the class after the lesson. Next, the participants need to answer four questions to test whether they have successfully understood the situation, such as "Did A violate class discipline?" This serves as a screening criterion, and questionnaires that do not correctly understand the situation or are not answered seriously will be eliminated. Finally, the participants need to complete the measurement of teacher trustworthiness and trust. All participants completed the experiment through paper questionnaires. Study Materials and Tools Educational punishment and care situation Referring to the scenario questionnaire designed by Teven [ 37 ], we constructed scenarios with differences in the appropriateness of teacher discipline and teacher care. To control the impact of information volume, the experimental materials were balanced, with equivalent words, sentences, and structures under different conditions. The specific context is as follows: The homeroom teacher is a kind/serious teacher who often wears a smile/doesn't smile in class. He frequently takes the initiative/doesn't take the initiative to ask students if they need help and can remember all the students' names/can't remember some students' names well . When students are having class discussions, he joins the discussions with the students/he doesn't join the discussions with the students . One afternoon, the homeroom teacher was teaching a class and A was either whispering with others or deliberately interrupting the teacher, making other students laugh and disrupting the normal class. So, the homeroom teacher asked A to clean the blackboard for the class after the lesson/call the parents in for a talk . Trustworthiness Scale The trustworthiness of teachers was assessed using Hiatt's [ 38 ] trustworthiness scale, which comprises 14 items. This scale employs a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). A higher score on this scale indicates greater perceived trustworthiness of the teacher. The internal consistency of this scale, as measured by Cronbach's α, was found to be 0.85 in the present study, suggesting good reliability. Trust Scale Trust towards teachers was evaluated using the trust scale developed by Zhang and Qi [ 39 ], which consists of 3 items. This scale utilizes a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Higher scores on this scale reflect greater trust in the teacher. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.66, indicating moderate reliability in the context of this study. Research Results Manipulation Check In this study, four questions were set up to test the validity of the test questions. The four questions are respectively: What kind of person do you think the homeroom teacher is? Do you think the homeroom teacher will care about the students? Did A violate the class discipline? Do you think the homeroom teacher's punishment is appropriate? As used as a screening criterion, questionnaires that did not correctly understand the situation or did not answer carefully were removed. Correlation analysis among the variables Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients of each variable, and the results showed a significant positive correlation between all variables except for teacher care and disciplinary appropriateness. Table 3 Correlations among the various variables Variable M ± SD 1 2 3 4 Disciplinary appropriateness 0.50 ± 0.50 1 Teacher care 0.49 ± 0.50 -0.02 1 Trustworthiness 3.74 ± 0.64 0.36 *** 0.47 *** 1 Trust 2.44 ± 0.96 0.30 *** 0.20 ** 0.45 *** 1 Moderating Effects and Variance Analysis First, look at the direct impacts of appropriate punishment on trust and trustworthiness. After adjusting for age, gender, and academic performance, the study found that appropriate punishment has a substantial direct influence on trustworthiness ( β = 0.37, p < 0.001) and trust ( β = 0.17, p < 0.01).Then, using the direct effects, trustworthiness was introduced as a mediating variable while controlling for age, gender, and grades. The direct effects of appropriate punishment on trustworthiness and trust continue to be important; appropriate punishment can strongly predict trustworthiness. Trustworthiness also greatly predicts trust. The bootstrap test findings suggest that the mediating effect of trustworthiness is 0.14, 95%CI = [0.08, 0.20]. The mediating effect accounts for 47% of total effect, the model diagram is shown in Fig. 2 . Conducting a 2×2 multifactorial ANOVA with trustworthiness as the dependent variable, the results show that the main effect of the appropriateness of teacher discipline is significant, F (1, 234) = 36.05, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13, Middle school students rated the trustworthiness of teachers who administered inappropriate discipline ( M = 3.51, SD = 0.65) significantly lower than that of teachers who administered appropriate discipline ( M = 3.96, SD = 0.55); the main effect of teacher care was significant, F (1, 234) = 65.81, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.22, middle school students' trust ratings for low-care teachers ( M = 3.45, SD = 0.67) were significantly lower than those for high-care teachers ( M = 4.04, SD = 0.45).The interaction between the appropriateness of educational discipline and teacher care on trustworthiness is significant, F (1, 232) = 22.75, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.09. Further simple effects analysis results show that teachers with low care and inappropriate discipline have lower trustworthiness than teachers with high care and inappropriate discipline. F (1, 232) = 73.75, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.24, 95%CI = [-0.95, -0.59] (see Fig. 2 ); however, this effect does not exist under the high care condition, F (1, 232) = 2.66, p = 0.10. Figure 3 displays the results. Further simple slope analysis( Fig. 4 ) indicates that among teachers with lower levels of care, the appropriateness of discipline has a significant predictive effect on trustworthiness, with middle school students giving higher trustworthiness ratings; however, for teachers with higher levels of care, the predictive effect of discipline appropriateness is not significant, the detailed information is shown in Table 4 . Table 4 Moderating Effect Test Regression equation Fits index Significance of the regression coefficient Outcome variable Predictor variable R R 2 F β SE T Trustworthiness 0.65 0.42 28.09 *** Gender 0.01 0.05 0.27 Age 0.05 0.05 0.96 Grade 0.12 0.05 2.32 * Disciplinary appropriateness 0.73 0.10 7.26 *** Teacher care 0.95 0.10 9.41 *** Teacher care × Disciplinary appropriateness -0.96 0.20 -4.77 *** Trust 0.49 0.24 14.89 *** Gender -0.06 0.06 -0.96 Age 0.06 0.06 1.06 Grade 0.13 0.06 2.16 * Disciplinary appropriateness 0.34 0.12 2.72 ** Trustworthiness 0.37 0.06 6.04 *** Brief summary Building upon Study 1, Study 2 employed a scenario-based experimental approach to further investigate the relationship between teacher care and the appropriateness and trustworthiness of punishment. The results of Study 2 confirmed the moderating role of teacher care between the appropriateness and trustworthiness of punishment, indicating that teacher care indeed influences students' perception and acceptance of punishment. This finding holds significant implications for educational practice, emphasizing that teachers need to consider students' feelings and needs when maintaining classroom order and implementing punitive measures, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of punishment through the demonstration of teacher care. Moreover, Study 2 specifically focused on a sample of rural middle school students for further exploration. This approach helps to address the shortcomings in sample representativeness of previous studies, as rural students may face different educational environments and challenges compared to urban students. Discussion This study investigated the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher punishment for adolescents and their trust in teachers, as well as the potential mechanisms underlying this relationship. The results indicated that the appropriateness of teacher punishment can positively predict teacher trustworthiness and trust, with trustworthiness acting as a mediator. Specifically for rural children, teacher care can exert a highly effective influence. Teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and the trust of teachers The study's findings revealed that the more appropriate the teacher's punishment, the more students perceived the teacher as trustworthy. Adolescent students are also concerned with the fairness of teacher punishment and accordingly adjust their trust in the punisher. This is consistent with previous research, which indicates that punishment not only has a direct impact on the responsible party and those affected but also has a ripple effect on observers. The effectiveness of punitive interventions depends on their legitimacy. When punishment is misused, it not only fails to effectively maintain norms but also undermines the positive effects of legitimate punishment, leading to a decline in the level of group cooperation [ 40 , 41 ]. The mediating role of trustworthiness The present study found that trustworthiness plays a mediating role in the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher punishment and students' trust in teachers. The more appropriate the teacher's punishment, the more likely junior high school students are to perceive the teacher as trustworthy, thereby eliciting a higher level of trust. Conversely, compared to appropriate punishment, inappropriate punishment has a detrimental impact on junior high school students' perception of trustworthiness, ultimately leading to a decrease in trust. Therefore, teachers' appropriate use of punishment can enhance their trustworthiness and foster trust, while inappropriate punishment can diminish their trustworthiness and undermine students' trust in them. The Moderating Role of Teacher Care This study elucidates the moderating effect of teacher care in constructing the relationship between teacher trustworthiness and the appropriateness of teacher punishment. When punitive measures are inappropriate, caring behaviors by teachers can effectively mitigate the negative impacts arising from such misjudged punishment, thereby safeguarding the teachers' trustworthy image in the eyes of students. The presence of emotional support from teachers can assist students in establishing positive teacher-student relationships, enhancing students' sense of security and belonging, and consequently boosting their trust in teachers. However, as the appropriateness of teacher punishment increases, the mitigating effect of teacher care on students' sense of trust gradually diminishes. This suggests that when teachers' punitive actions are just, reasonable, and in line with students' expectations, students' trust in teachers relies on the teachers' integrity rather than excessively on their care. Therefore, when implementing punishment, a just and upright image of teachers is more capable of enhancing students' evaluation of their trustworthiness. It is noteworthy that a higher level of teacher care is not always better. There exists a threshold for the level of teacher care; once this threshold is exceeded, the growth in perceived trustworthiness of teachers will become sluggish. In contrast, for urban children, high care has a positive effect on rural children, with teachers who are punitive but caring receiving higher ratings than those who are appropriately punitive but less caring. For rural children, who often live apart from their parents and are primarily cared for by grandparents or other elderly relatives, intergenerational care constitutes the predominant parenting model in left-behind children's families. The grandparents or other elderly caregivers of these rural left-behind children generally have lower levels of education, with many being illiterate, leading to a relative lack of parental love and education. This results in most left-behind children developing sensitive, introverted, and even inferior personality traits, lacking familial affection in their emotional and psychological well-being. Meanwhile, the implementation of effective emotional care strategies by homeroom teachers can yield immediate and highly efficient outcomes. Thus, it is evident that the level of teacher care and the manner of punishment have complex impacts on their perceived trustworthiness. Teachers need to strike a balance between an appropriate level of care and proper punitive methods to foster students' trust and respect towards them. Educational advice Punishment, as a means of behavioral correction and discipline maintenance, plays a vital role in the educational process. However, the implementation of punishment must be founded on the principle of justice to ensure the protection of students' rights and dignity. To achieve a well-ordered and benevolent governance in educational justice, a just and virtuous "good system" is inevitably required. Educational punishment is an educational method and an expression of teachers' care for students' development and growth. Yet, whether teachers truly care for students depends not only on the teachers' willingness and actions to care but also on students' perception of these caring behaviors. In the realm of educational practice, educational justice should be embodied in an educational system with the spirit of good values as its soul, serving as an effective tool for educational governance. Schools should establish and publicize clear behavioral norms and standards of punishment, ensuring that students understand which behaviors are permitted and which are prohibited. The implementation of punishment should follow a reasonable procedure, including informing students in advance of the impropriety of their actions, listening to their defenses, and making fair decisions based on evidence and circumstances. During the punishment process, students' rights and dignity should be fully respected, and the use of corporal punishment, humiliation, or other inhumane punitive measures should be avoided. For students who exhibit inappropriate behavior, teachers should provide appropriate guidance and support to help them recognize their mistakes, correct their behavior, and get back on track. Schools should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of punishment, checking whether it has achieved the intended goals and adjusting as necessary. Teachers and administrators should maintain open communication with students, parents, and other educators, collecting their feedback and suggestions on punishment and educational care. Based on the evaluation results and feedback, schools should continuously improve their punitive mechanisms and educational care strategies to ensure that they are just, effective, and supportive. Conclusions and Limitations Conclusion This paper explores the role of teacher care between the appropriateness of teacher punishment and teacher credibility, as well as the mediating effect of credibility, through two studies. The results indicate that the appropriateness of teacher punishment significantly impacts teacher credibility and trust; the level of teacher care and the manner of punishment have complex effects on credibility, with teacher care having boundary constraints. When these constraints are exceeded, the interactive effect of appropriateness of punishment and care disappears. For rural children, teacher care demonstrates a more significant role. Limitations The current study has several limitations. Firstly, the data collected are cross-sectional. The impact of the appropriateness of teacher punishment and care on teacher trust occurs over the course of long-term interactions. A longitudinal tracking design would more accurately depict this process. Secondly, the participants in this study were Chinese middle school students. Future research could expand the participant pool to examine differences among students of various age groups and from different provinces and cultural contexts. Lastly, the influence of social norms on individual behavior is a complex cognitive processing mechanism. This paper primarily investigates the significance of the appropriateness of teacher punishment and care for student misconduct, as well as the development of trust. It does not examine the many influencing factors in this process. Identifying and controlling these factors is an important direction for future research. Declarations Data availability The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Funding This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China, grant number 24BSH105, the Teacher Education Reform Project of Henan Province , grant number 2025-JSJYZD-007, and Henan Province Higher Education Youth Backbone Teacher Training Project , grant number 2023GGJS039. Author information Authors and Affiliations Faculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China Faculty of Education, Henan University, Kaifeng, China Zhen Zhang, Wenqing Deng, Yuxin Wang & Chunhun Qi Zhen Zhang Contributions Z. Z.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Formal analysis, Project administration. W. D.: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, original draft, Formal analysis. Y. W.: Data curation, original draft, Software, Formal analysis. C. Q.: Software, Visualization, review and editing. Corresponding authors Correspondence to Chunhui Qi. Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The ethical approval committee of Henan Normal University approved this study and confirmed that the study has no side effects on the participants of the study. All of the procedures were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant policies in China. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all the participants. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Siddique S, Jeffery L, Palermo R, Collova JR, & Sutherland CA. Children’s dynamic use of face-and behavior-based cues in an economic trust game. Dev Psychol. 2022; 58(12), 2275. Doi: 10.1037/dev0001438 Salcedo JC, & Jimenez‐Leal W. Severity and deservedness determine signalled trustworthiness in third party punishment. Br J Soc Psychol. 2024; 63(1), 453-471. Doi: 10.1111/bjso.12687 Chavez AK, & Bicchieri C. Third-party sanctioning and compensation behavior: Findings from the ultimatum game. J Econ Psychol. 2013; 39, 268–277. Doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.004 Yu T, Chen SH, & Li H. Social norms, costly punishment and the evolution of cooperation. J Econ Interact Coord. 2016; 11(2), 313–343. Doi: 10.1007/s11403-015-0146-8 Jordan JJ, Hoffman M, Bloom P, & Rand DG. Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature. 530(7591), 2016; 473-476. Doi: 10.1038/nature16981 Kosonen P, & Ikonen M. Trust building through discursive leadership: A communicative engagement perspective in higher education management. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022; 25(3), 412–428. Doi: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1673903 Douglas JA, Douglas A, McClelland RJ, & Davies J. Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Stud High Educ. 2015; 40(2), 329–349. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842217 Luque Martínez T, & Do˜na Toledo L. Yes, I can (get satisfaction): An artificial neuronal network analysis of satisfaction with a university. Stud High Educ. 2019; 44(12), 2249–2264. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1483911 Derakhshan A, Coombe C, Arabmofrad A, & Taghizadeh M. Investigating the Effects of English Language Teachers’ Professional Identity and Autonomy in Their Success. Issues Lang Teach. 2020; 9(1), 1-28. Doi: 10.22054/ilt.2020.52263.496 Pleasant A, & Barclay P. Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychol Sci. 2018; 29(6), 868–876. Doi: 10.1177/0956797617752642 Wiessner P. The role of third parties in norm enforcement in customary courts among the Enga of Papua New Guinea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020; 117(51), 32320–32328. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.2014759117 Pishghadam R, Derakhshan A, Zhaleh K, & Al-Obaydi LH. Students’ willingness to attend EFL classes with respect to teachers’ credibility, stroke, and success: a cross-cultural study of Iranian and Iraqi students’ perceptions. Curr Psychol. 2023; 42(5), 4065-4079. Doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01738-z Levine EE, Roberts AR, & Cohen TR. Difficult conversations: Navigating the tension between honesty and benevolence. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020; 31, 38-43. Doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.034 Mooijman M, & Graham J. Unjust punishment in organizations. Res Organ Behav.2018; 38, 95-106. Doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2018.10.001 Mulder LB, Van Dijk E, De Cremer D, & Wilke HA.Undermining trust and cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. J Exp Soc Psychol.2006; 42(2), 147–162. Doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.002 Thweatt KS, & McCroskey, JC. The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Commun Educ. 1998; 47, 348 358. Doi: 10.1080/03634529809379141 Schrodt P. Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Commun Educ. 2003; 52, 106 121. Doi: 10.1080/03634520302468 Chory RM. Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Commun Educ. 2007; 56(1), 89-105. Doi: 10.1080/03634520600994300 Mayer RC, Davis JH, & Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev. 1995; 20(3), 709-734. Doi: 10.2307/258792 Lind EA. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Adv Organ Justice. 2001; 56(8), 56-88. Barclay P. Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evol Hum Behav. 2006; 27(5), 325-344. Doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.003 Tomlinson EC, Schnackenberg AK, Dawley D, & Ash SR. Revisiting the trustworthiness–trust relationship: Exploring the differential predictors of cognition‐and affect‐based trust. J Organ Behav. 2020; 41(6), 535-550. Doi: 10.1002/job.2448 Hiatt MS, Lowman GH, Maloni M, Swaim J, & Veliyath R. Ability, benevolence, and integrity: The strong link between student trust in their professors and satisfaction. Int J Manag Educ. 2023; 21(2), 100768. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100768 Myers SA, & Bryant LE. College students’ perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qual Res Rep Commun. 2004; 5,22 27. Doi: 10.1080/17459435.2024.2341066 Teven JJ, & McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069 Zhang M. EFL/ESL teacher’s resilience, academic buoyancy, care, and their impact on students’ engagement: a theoretical review. Front Psychol. 2021; 12, 731859. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731859 Song L, Luo R, & Zhan Q. Toward the role of teacher caring and teacher-student rapport in predicting English as a foreign language learners’ willingness to communicate in second language. Front Psychol. 2022; 13, 874522. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874522 Lavy S, & Naama-Ghanayim E. Why care about caring? Linking teachers’ caring and sense of meaning at work with students’ self-esteem, well-being, and school engagement. Teach Teach Educ. 2020; 91, 103046. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103046 Tan D, Yough M, & Wang C. . International students in higher education: Promoting their willingness to communicate in classrooms. J Appl Res High Educ. 2018; 10(4), 430-442. Doi: 10.1108/jarhe-01-2018-0008 Maloney T, & Matthews JS. Teacher care and students’ sense of connectedness in the urban mathematics classroom. J Res Math Educ. 2020; 51(4), 399-432. Doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0044 Ma L, Du X, Hau KT, & Liu J. The association between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement in Chinese EFL context: A serial multiple mediation model. Educ Psychol. 2018; 38(5), 687-707. Doi: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1412400 Martin AJ, & Collie RJ. Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement in high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter?. J Educ Psychol. 2019; 111(5), 861. Doi: 10.1037/edu0000317 Markowitz FE. Attitudes and family violence: linking intergenerational and cultural theories. J Fam Violence. 2001; 16, 205–218. Doi: 10.1023/a:1011115104282 Brockner J, Siegel PA, Daly JP, Tyler T, & Martin C. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Adm Sci Q. 1997; 558-583. Doi: 10.2307/2393738 Jing Y, Cai H, Bond MH, Li Y, Stivers AW, & Tan Q. Levels of interpersonal trust across different types of environment: The micro–macro interplay between relational distance and human ecology. J Exp Psychol. Gen.150(7), 2021; 1438. Doi: 10.1037/xge0000997 Teven JJ, & McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069 Teven JJ, & McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069 Hiatt MS, Lowman GH, Maloni M, Swaim J, & Veliyath R. Ability, benevolence, and integrity: The strong link between student trust in their professors and satisfaction. Int J Manag Educ. 2023; 21(2), 100768. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100768 Zhang Z, & Qi C. Teachers’ Punishment Intensity and Student Observer Trust: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav Sci. 14(6), 2024; 471. Doi: 10.3390/bs14060471 Herrmann B, Thoni C, & Gachter S. Antisocial punishment across societies. Sci. 2008; 319, 1362–1367. Doi: 10.1126/science.1153808 Fatas E, & Mateu G. Antisocial punishment in two social dilemmas. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015; 9, 107. Doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00107 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6836463","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":474401247,"identity":"9a163959-23fc-4c0e-b18b-3e3e4b130f38","order_by":0,"name":"Zhen Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhen","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":474401248,"identity":"a65d96a3-40aa-4017-b088-b38674fae491","order_by":1,"name":"Wenqing Deng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenqing","middleName":"","lastName":"Deng","suffix":""},{"id":474401249,"identity":"1651117c-fba4-43e7-96ef-24ecc8b1d749","order_by":2,"name":"Yuxin Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuxin","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":474401250,"identity":"2b5506e9-41d7-4bcc-9d2f-3a4b27b9aa1c","order_by":3,"name":"Chunhui Qi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chunhui","middleName":"","lastName":"Qi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-06 11:08:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85279646,"identity":"8919c8dc-f5b3-4db3-9d56-f510d0d70b19","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-24 07:54:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":20491,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Mediating Role of Trustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6836463/v1/d0ae35bb64cc93502908b7c7.png"},{"id":85278480,"identity":"93896cac-a64c-444f-aaca-e8b5dfdb9bb0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-24 07:46:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":20029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Moderating Role of Teacher Care\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6836463/v1/d98f6bf4ff6ec063beb27d0a.png"},{"id":85278481,"identity":"94fbe545-ca0b-45e8-89af-79a513fb6445","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-24 07:46:22","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14294,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInteraction plot\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6836463/v1/53957c40d7abe6846c21ab84.png"},{"id":85279925,"identity":"08648b3d-ee56-4ae2-92f5-2aebbb40b390","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-24 08:02:22","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSimple slope analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6836463/v1/ee075905723e9aedc77259c1.png"},{"id":85453136,"identity":"dddedb44-7782-4d0f-aa49-bf1a73ae38f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-26 05:33:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1381186,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6836463/v1/3d608006-e7e2-4849-84dc-071b095133b7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The impact of teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and care on trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn interpersonal relationships, trust is the cornerstone for making connections. In social interactions, people assess the trustworthiness of others by examining a variety of cues before determining whether to trust them [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. According to research, the intensity of third-party punishment can influence observers' trustworthiness judgments and trust behavior toward the punisher [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Punishment is not the only method for restoring justice [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. When society has already reached a point of cooperation, placing too much focus on punishment can result in higher societal losses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. However, this viewpoint fails to adequately address deservedness as a key component of signal content, limiting the potential range of punishment harshness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. The trustworthiness of teachers, as a precursor variable to student trust, is an important factor influencing the quality of the teacher-student relationship. However, research on how trust emerges remains limited [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting literature often emphasizes that teachers are a key factor influencing student satisfaction and retention rates [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. As significant figures in students' educational journeys, teachers play an essential role in fostering students' positive development. Moreover, teachers are widely regarded as the most crucial component of any educational system [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Abusive punishment can undermine the effectiveness of altruistic punishment in maintaining social norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e], whereas non-deterrent restorative interventions may have unexpectedly positive effects on maintaining these norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. As key stakeholders in the education system, teachers have been found to significantly influence both the effectiveness of the system and students' academic performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Most teachers strive to be perceived as fair by their students, as this perception can prevent negative reactions and foster a more positive learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTeacher punishment appropriateness and trust\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn daily teaching, educators often face the challenging task of delivering negative messages or critical feedback to students, a necessity for effective education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, teachers must enforce school regulations by punishing violators in a manner that reflects the severity of the infraction, all while maintaining effective classroom management. The severity of punishment should be proportionate to the wrongdoing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], however, punitive interventions, which serve as external motivators, can have a dual effect: they may promote short-term compliance with norms, but they can also erode interpersonal trust and supplant individuals' internal motivation to adhere to norms, potentially leading to a swift resurgence of undesirable behavior once the punitive measures are removed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Teachers who exhibit unprofessional behavior in the classroom [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] and display high levels of verbal aggression are often perceived as less credible by their students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. When students view their course grades, course procedures, or teacher communication as unfair, they are more likely to engage in indirect attacks on the teacher [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, it is hypothesized that appropriate punishment can foster trust, whereas inappropriate punishment can erode it (Hypothesis 1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe mediating role of trustworthiness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness is assessed based on the presence or absence of motivation to deceive. According to Mayer et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], the comprehensive ABI model distinguishes the structural components of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) from the perceived factors that contribute to trust. The fairness heuristic theory suggests that fairness plays a significant role in the formation of trustworthiness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], and the appropriateness of a punishment indirectly reflects whether the punisher possesses fair traits. Third-party punishment enables punishers to signal qualities such as trustworthiness, and imposing sanctions in response to violations can enhance the punisher's reputation, indicating that they are fair and trustworthy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. In comparison to non-punishers, third-party punishers are more trusted and exhibit more trustworthy behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness is a strong predictor of an individual's trust in leaders, teachers, or managers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Research in higher education has shown that competence, kindness, and integrity directly influence students' trust in professors, rather than serving as prerequisites for such trust [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. In this process, individuals form trust in authority based on their perceptions of the authority's trustworthiness, which provides a clearer explanation for why one person might trust another. It is proposed that trustworthiness mediates the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher discipline and students' trust in teachers, suggesting that a teacher's trustworthiness plays a crucial role in fostering trust (Hypothesis 2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe moderating effect of teacher care\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA positive correlation exists between teacher trustworthiness and students' behavioral tendencies, encompassing out-of-class interactions, participation in class discussions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], teacher evaluations, and cognitive-emotional learning outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The constructs of teacher resilience, buoyancy, and care have been found to significantly influence student engagement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the predictive potential of \"teacher care\" as a variable in fostering positive interpersonal relationships has been relatively underexamined [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. To establish strong relationships, teachers must understand their learners, demonstrate care for their needs, and respect their perspectives. In addition to teaching and learning issues, teachers bring their own value systems, beliefs, mindsets, and behaviors into the classroom, which can indirectly influence learners. Teachers who prioritize students' well-being can instill trust, encouraging enthusiastic engagement in the classroom environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. By establishing close connections with students, teachers can create a comfortable and supportive learning environment, facilitating safe communication within the classroom [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Caring teachers can foster a trustworthy learning atmosphere, making students more inclined to participate in learning activities. A warm and friendly teacher-learner relationship can significantly enhance learners' willingness to communicate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], reduce dropout rates [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], and foster positive teacher-student rapport, encouraging active interaction with teachers and classmates [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, we propose that teacher care plays a moderating role in the relationship between the appropriateness of discipline and teacher trustworthiness (Hypothesis 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study, grounded in prior research, investigates the relationship between teacher punishment appropriateness and student trust among adolescents, employing a moderated mediation model to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy 1\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipant\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA junior high school in Henan Province, China, was selected for this study, and 243 questionnaires were distributed using cluster sampling, yielding 224 valid responses (92.2% response rate). The sample consisted of 111 males (49.55%) and 113 females (50.45%). Among them, the proportion of poor grades is 6.25%, the proportion of below-average grades is 20.09%, the proportion of average grades is 32.59%, the proportion of above-average grades is 29.91%, and the proportion of excellent grades is 11.16%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Design and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants completed paper questionnaires, which included measures of personal basic information (grade, age, and academic performance), followed by scales assessing teacher care, disciplinary appropriateness, trustworthiness, and trust. The independent variable was teacher discipline appropriateness, the moderating variable was teacher care, the mediating variable was trustworthiness, and the dependent variable was trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperimental Materials and Tools\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDisciplinary Appropriateness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale, adapted from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], assessed adolescents' perceptions of teacher disciplinary appropriateness. The 3-item scale utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = complete disagreement, 5 = complete agreement), with higher scores indicating greater perceived appropriateness. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.81.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrustworthiness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on Brockner et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], this 3-item scale measured teacher trustworthiness using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong agreement). Higher scores indicated greater trustworthiness. The Cronbach's α for this subscale was 0.72.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrust Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 6-item trust scale, developed by Jing et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], employed a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong agreement). Higher scores reflected greater trust in teachers. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.77.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCare Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Teacher Care Scale, developed by Teven and McCroskey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], consisted of 10 items assessing teacher care. Representative items included \"values my interests\" and \"understands my feelings.\" The 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree) was used, with higher scores indicating greater teacher care. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.80.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommon Method Bias Test\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo mitigate common method bias, participants were assured of questionnaire anonymity and confidentiality, and informed that data would be used exclusively for research purposes. Furthermore, Harman's single-factor test was conducted to assess common method bias. The results yielded six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the first factor accounting for 31.88% of the variance, below the 40% critical threshold. This suggests that common method bias is unlikely to be a significant concern.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCorrelation Analysis Between Variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for each variable. The results reveal significant positive correlations between pairs of variables, including teacher discipline appropriateness, care, trustworthiness, and trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"±\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Results (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 224)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM ± SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscipline appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.14 ± 0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.99 ± 0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.52 ± 0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.12 ± 0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote: Disciplinary appropriateness = 1, Teacher care = 2, Trustworthiness = 3, Trust = 4; * represents p \u0026lt; 0.05, ** represents p \u0026lt; 0.01, *** represents p \u0026lt; 0.001. similarly hereinafter.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe mediating role of trustworthiness and the moderating role of teacher care\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing Model 4 in the PROCESS macro, we examined the mediating effect of trustworthiness on the relationship between discipline appropriateness and trust, controlling for students' gender, age, and grades. The results indicate that discipline appropriateness significantly and positively predicts trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Furthermore, discipline appropriateness positively predicts trustworthiness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), which in turn positively predicts trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). The bias-corrected percentile Bootstrap method test revealed a significant direct effect (0.40, 95% CI = [0.29, 0.51]) and a significant mediating effect of trustworthiness (0.17, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.26]), accounting for 29.83% of the total effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerated Mediation Model Test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression equation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFits index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificance of the regression coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.45\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.62\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher care × Disciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.23\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.38\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.52\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Using Model 7 in the PROCESS program, we tested the moderating effect of teacher care on the relationship between discipline appropriateness and trustworthiness, controlling for students' gender, age, and grades. The results (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) show that teacher care significantly predicts trustworthiness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). However, the interaction term between discipline appropriateness and teacher care does not significantly predict trustworthiness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.28), the model diagram is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBrief summary\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis exploratory study provides a foundational framework for examining the impact of teacher disciplinary appropriateness on trust. However, several limitations warrant further investigation. The reliance on self-reported data from subjects introduces potential subjective bias and social desirability bias, which may compromise the objectivity and generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the non-significant moderating effect of teacher care on the relationships between variables suggests that this factor may not play a crucial role in this context. This outcome may be attributed to various factors, including sample characteristics, measurement tools, and cultural background. To address this, follow-up studies should investigate the regulatory role of teacher care in greater depth. Additionally, the study's sample is limited to urban middle school students, whereas the education of rural left-behind children has significant implications for human capital accumulation and economic growth. Therefore, it is essential to replicate and extend the research to rural middle school students to enhance the generalizability and applicability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy 2\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipant\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo reach 80% (1-β) statistical power, the study required at least 159 subjects, as assessed by G*Power 3.1.The experiment chose a township middle school in Henan Province, China, and utilized a cluster sampling approach to disseminate 260 surveys, yielding 239 valid questionnaires and a recovery rate of 91.92%. Among the respondents, 124 were male (51.88%), while 115 were female (48.12%).There are 15.90% of students with poor grades, 23.85% with below-average grades, 36.40% with average grades, 19.25% with above-average ratings, and 4.60% with excellent marks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design and Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the participants need to complete the demographic variables, including gender, age, and academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the subjects need to undergo manipulation of the appropriateness of teacher care and discipline. For example, in the group with appropriate care and discipline, the subjects will read the following description: \"\u003cem\u003eThe homeroom teacher is a kind teacher who often smiles in class, He frequently takes the initiative to ask students if they need help and can remembers all the students' names. When students are having a class discussion, he joins the discussions with the students. One afternoon, the homeroom teacher was teaching a class, and A was either whispering with others or deliberately interrupting the teacher, making other students laugh and disrupting the normal class. So, the homeroom teacher asked A to clean the blackboard for the class after the lesson.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, the participants need to answer four questions to test whether they have successfully understood the situation, such as \"Did A violate class discipline?\" This serves as a screening criterion, and questionnaires that do not correctly understand the situation or are not answered seriously will be eliminated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the participants need to complete the measurement of teacher trustworthiness and trust. All participants completed the experiment through paper questionnaires.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Materials and Tools\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEducational punishment and care situation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferring to the scenario questionnaire designed by Teven [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], we constructed scenarios with differences in the appropriateness of teacher discipline and teacher care. To control the impact of information volume, the experimental materials were balanced, with equivalent words, sentences, and structures under different conditions. The specific context is as follows: \u003cem\u003eThe homeroom teacher is a\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003ekind/serious\u003c/b\u003e\u003cem\u003eteacher who often wears a smile/doesn't smile in class. He\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003efrequently takes the initiative/doesn't take the initiative\u003c/b\u003e\u003cem\u003eto ask students if they need help and\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003ecan remember all the students' names/can't remember some students' names well\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eWhen students are having class discussions, he\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003ejoins the discussions with the students/he doesn't join the discussions with the students\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eOne afternoon, the homeroom teacher was teaching a class and A was either whispering with others or deliberately interrupting the teacher, making other students laugh and disrupting the normal class. So, the homeroom teacher asked A to\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003eclean the blackboard for the class after the lesson/call the parents in for a talk\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrustworthiness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trustworthiness of teachers was assessed using Hiatt's [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] trustworthiness scale, which comprises 14 items. This scale employs a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). A higher score on this scale indicates greater perceived trustworthiness of the teacher. The internal consistency of this scale, as measured by Cronbach's α, was found to be 0.85 in the present study, suggesting good reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrust Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust towards teachers was evaluated using the trust scale developed by Zhang and Qi [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e], which consists of 3 items. This scale utilizes a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Higher scores on this scale reflect greater trust in the teacher. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.66, indicating moderate reliability in the context of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Research Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eManipulation Check\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, four questions were set up to test the validity of the test questions. The four questions are respectively: What kind of person do you think the homeroom teacher is? Do you think the homeroom teacher will care about the students? Did A violate the class discipline? Do you think the homeroom teacher's punishment is appropriate? As used as a screening criterion, questionnaires that did not correctly understand the situation or did not answer carefully were removed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCorrelation analysis among the variables\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients of each variable, and the results showed a significant positive correlation between all variables except for teacher care and disciplinary appropriateness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"±\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations among the various variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM ± SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50 ± 0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49 ± 0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.74 ± 0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"±\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.44 ± 0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ch2\u003eModerating Effects and Variance Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, look at the direct impacts of appropriate punishment on trust and trustworthiness. After adjusting for age, gender, and academic performance, the study found that appropriate punishment has a substantial direct influence on trustworthiness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) and trust (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = 0.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).Then, using the direct effects, trustworthiness was introduced as a mediating variable while controlling for age, gender, and grades. The direct effects of appropriate punishment on trustworthiness and trust continue to be important; appropriate punishment can strongly predict trustworthiness. Trustworthiness also greatly predicts trust. The bootstrap test findings suggest that the mediating effect of trustworthiness is 0.14, 95%CI = [0.08, 0.20]. The mediating effect accounts for 47% of total effect, the model diagram is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConducting a 2×2 multifactorial ANOVA with trustworthiness as the dependent variable, the results show that the main effect of the appropriateness of teacher discipline is significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 234) = 36.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.13, Middle school students rated the trustworthiness of teachers who administered inappropriate discipline (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 3.51, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.65) significantly lower than that of teachers who administered appropriate discipline (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 3.96, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.55); the main effect of teacher care was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 234) = 65.81, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.22, middle school students' trust ratings for low-care teachers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 3.45, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.67) were significantly lower than those for high-care teachers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.04, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.45).The interaction between the appropriateness of educational discipline and teacher care on trustworthiness is significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 232) = 22.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.09. Further simple effects analysis results show that teachers with low care and inappropriate discipline have lower trustworthiness than teachers with high care and inappropriate discipline. \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 232) = 73.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.24, 95%CI = [-0.95, -0.59] (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e); however, this effect does not exist under the high care condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 232) = 2.66, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.10. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e displays the results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther simple slope analysis( Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that among teachers with lower levels of care, the appropriateness of discipline has a significant predictive effect on trustworthiness, with middle school students giving higher trustworthiness ratings; however, for teachers with higher levels of care, the predictive effect of discipline appropriateness is not significant, the detailed information is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerating Effect Test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression equation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFits index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificance of the regression coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.09\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.26\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.41\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher care ×\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-4.77\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.89\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.16\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisciplinary appropriateness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.72\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.04\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ch3\u003eBrief summary\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding upon Study 1, Study 2 employed a scenario-based experimental approach to further investigate the relationship between teacher care and the appropriateness and trustworthiness of punishment. The results of Study 2 confirmed the moderating role of teacher care between the appropriateness and trustworthiness of punishment, indicating that teacher care indeed influences students' perception and acceptance of punishment. This finding holds significant implications for educational practice, emphasizing that teachers need to consider students' feelings and needs when maintaining classroom order and implementing punitive measures, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of punishment through the demonstration of teacher care. Moreover, Study 2 specifically focused on a sample of rural middle school students for further exploration. This approach helps to address the shortcomings in sample representativeness of previous studies, as rural students may face different educational environments and challenges compared to urban students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher punishment for adolescents and their trust in teachers, as well as the potential mechanisms underlying this relationship. The results indicated that the appropriateness of teacher punishment can positively predict teacher trustworthiness and trust, with trustworthiness acting as a mediator. Specifically for rural children, teacher care can exert a highly effective influence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTeachers' disciplinary appropriateness and the trust of teachers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study's findings revealed that the more appropriate the teacher's punishment, the more students perceived the teacher as trustworthy. Adolescent students are also concerned with the fairness of teacher punishment and accordingly adjust their trust in the punisher. This is consistent with previous research, which indicates that punishment not only has a direct impact on the responsible party and those affected but also has a ripple effect on observers. The effectiveness of punitive interventions depends on their legitimacy. When punishment is misused, it not only fails to effectively maintain norms but also undermines the positive effects of legitimate punishment, leading to a decline in the level of group cooperation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe mediating role of trustworthiness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study found that trustworthiness plays a mediating role in the relationship between the appropriateness of teacher punishment and students' trust in teachers. The more appropriate the teacher's punishment, the more likely junior high school students are to perceive the teacher as trustworthy, thereby eliciting a higher level of trust. Conversely, compared to appropriate punishment, inappropriate punishment has a detrimental impact on junior high school students' perception of trustworthiness, ultimately leading to a decrease in trust. Therefore, teachers' appropriate use of punishment can enhance their trustworthiness and foster trust, while inappropriate punishment can diminish their trustworthiness and undermine students' trust in them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Moderating Role of Teacher Care\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study elucidates the moderating effect of teacher care in constructing the relationship between teacher trustworthiness and the appropriateness of teacher punishment. When punitive measures are inappropriate, caring behaviors by teachers can effectively mitigate the negative impacts arising from such misjudged punishment, thereby safeguarding the teachers' trustworthy image in the eyes of students. The presence of emotional support from teachers can assist students in establishing positive teacher-student relationships, enhancing students' sense of security and belonging, and consequently boosting their trust in teachers. However, as the appropriateness of teacher punishment increases, the mitigating effect of teacher care on students' sense of trust gradually diminishes. This suggests that when teachers' punitive actions are just, reasonable, and in line with students' expectations, students' trust in teachers relies on the teachers' integrity rather than excessively on their care. Therefore, when implementing punishment, a just and upright image of teachers is more capable of enhancing students' evaluation of their trustworthiness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is noteworthy that a higher level of teacher care is not always better. There exists a threshold for the level of teacher care; once this threshold is exceeded, the growth in perceived trustworthiness of teachers will become sluggish. In contrast, for urban children, high care has a positive effect on rural children, with teachers who are punitive but caring receiving higher ratings than those who are appropriately punitive but less caring. For rural children, who often live apart from their parents and are primarily cared for by grandparents or other elderly relatives, intergenerational care constitutes the predominant parenting model in left-behind children's families. The grandparents or other elderly caregivers of these rural left-behind children generally have lower levels of education, with many being illiterate, leading to a relative lack of parental love and education. This results in most left-behind children developing sensitive, introverted, and even inferior personality traits, lacking familial affection in their emotional and psychological well-being. Meanwhile, the implementation of effective emotional care strategies by homeroom teachers can yield immediate and highly efficient outcomes. Thus, it is evident that the level of teacher care and the manner of punishment have complex impacts on their perceived trustworthiness. Teachers need to strike a balance between an appropriate level of care and proper punitive methods to foster students' trust and respect towards them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEducational advice\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePunishment, as a means of behavioral correction and discipline maintenance, plays a vital role in the educational process. However, the implementation of punishment must be founded on the principle of justice to ensure the protection of students' rights and dignity. To achieve a well-ordered and benevolent governance in educational justice, a just and virtuous \"good system\" is inevitably required. Educational punishment is an educational method and an expression of teachers' care for students' development and growth. Yet, whether teachers truly care for students depends not only on the teachers' willingness and actions to care but also on students' perception of these caring behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the realm of educational practice, educational justice should be embodied in an educational system with the spirit of good values as its soul, serving as an effective tool for educational governance. Schools should establish and publicize clear behavioral norms and standards of punishment, ensuring that students understand which behaviors are permitted and which are prohibited. The implementation of punishment should follow a reasonable procedure, including informing students in advance of the impropriety of their actions, listening to their defenses, and making fair decisions based on evidence and circumstances. During the punishment process, students' rights and dignity should be fully respected, and the use of corporal punishment, humiliation, or other inhumane punitive measures should be avoided. For students who exhibit inappropriate behavior, teachers should provide appropriate guidance and support to help them recognize their mistakes, correct their behavior, and get back on track. Schools should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of punishment, checking whether it has achieved the intended goals and adjusting as necessary. Teachers and administrators should maintain open communication with students, parents, and other educators, collecting their feedback and suggestions on punishment and educational care. Based on the evaluation results and feedback, schools should continuously improve their punitive mechanisms and educational care strategies to ensure that they are just, effective, and supportive.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"Conclusions and Limitations","content":"\n\u003ch3\u003eConclusion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper explores the role of teacher care between the appropriateness of teacher punishment and teacher credibility, as well as the mediating effect of credibility, through two studies. The results indicate that the appropriateness of teacher punishment significantly impacts teacher credibility and trust; the level of teacher care and the manner of punishment have complex effects on credibility, with teacher care having boundary constraints. When these constraints are exceeded, the interactive effect of appropriateness of punishment and care disappears. For rural children, teacher care demonstrates a more significant role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study has several limitations. Firstly, the data collected are cross-sectional. The impact of the appropriateness of teacher punishment and care on teacher trust occurs over the course of long-term interactions. A longitudinal tracking design would more accurately depict this process. Secondly, the participants in this study were Chinese middle school students. Future research could expand the participant pool to examine differences among students of various age groups and from different provinces and cultural contexts. Lastly, the influence of social norms on individual behavior is a complex cognitive processing mechanism. This paper primarily investigates the significance of the appropriateness of teacher punishment and care for student misconduct, as well as the development of trust. It does not examine the many influencing factors in this process. Identifying and controlling these factors is an important direction for future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China, grant number 24BSH105, the Teacher Education Reform Project of Henan Province , grant number 2025-JSJYZD-007, and Henan Province Higher Education Youth Backbone Teacher Training Project , grant number 2023GGJS039.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors and Affiliations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFaculty of Education, Henan University, Kaifeng, China\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZhen Zhang, Wenqing Deng, Yuxin Wang\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;Chunhun Qi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZhen Zhang\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eZ. Z.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Formal analysis, Project administration. \u003cstrong\u003eW. D.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eData curation, Investigation, Methodology, original draft, Formal analysis. \u003cstrong\u003eY. W.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eData curation, original draft, Software, Formal analysis.\u003cstrong\u003eC. Q.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSoftware, Visualization, review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorresponding authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondence to Chunhui Qi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical approval committee of Henan Normal University approved this study and confirmed that the study has no side effects on the participants of the study. All of the procedures were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant policies in China. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiddique S, Jeffery L, Palermo R, Collova JR, \u0026amp; Sutherland CA. Children\u0026rsquo;s dynamic use of face-and behavior-based cues in an economic trust game. Dev Psychol. 2022; 58(12), 2275. Doi: 10.1037/dev0001438\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalcedo JC, \u0026amp; Jimenez‐Leal W. Severity and deservedness determine signalled trustworthiness in third party punishment. Br J Soc Psychol. 2024; 63(1), 453-471. Doi: 10.1111/bjso.12687\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChavez AK, \u0026amp; Bicchieri C. Third-party sanctioning and compensation behavior: Findings from the ultimatum game. J Econ Psychol. 2013; 39, 268\u0026ndash;277. Doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.09.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu T, Chen SH, \u0026amp; Li H. Social norms, costly punishment and the evolution of cooperation. J Econ Interact Coord. 2016; 11(2), 313\u0026ndash;343. Doi: 10.1007/s11403-015-0146-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJordan JJ, Hoffman M, Bloom P, \u0026amp; Rand DG. Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature. 530(7591), 2016; 473-476. Doi: 10.1038/nature16981\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKosonen P, \u0026amp; Ikonen M. Trust building through discursive leadership: A communicative engagement perspective in higher education management. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022; 25(3), 412\u0026ndash;428. Doi: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1673903\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglas JA, Douglas A, McClelland RJ, \u0026amp; Davies J. Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Stud High Educ. 2015; 40(2), 329\u0026ndash;349. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuque Mart\u0026iacute;nez T, \u0026amp; Do\u0026tilde;na Toledo L. Yes, I can (get satisfaction): An artificial neuronal network analysis of satisfaction with a university. Stud High Educ. 2019; 44(12), 2249\u0026ndash;2264. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1483911\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDerakhshan A, Coombe C, Arabmofrad A, \u0026amp; Taghizadeh M. Investigating the Effects of English Language Teachers\u0026rsquo; Professional Identity and Autonomy in Their Success. Issues Lang Teach. 2020; 9(1), 1-28. Doi: 10.22054/ilt.2020.52263.496\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePleasant A, \u0026amp; Barclay P. Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychol Sci. 2018; 29(6), 868\u0026ndash;876. Doi: 10.1177/0956797617752642\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiessner P. The role of third parties in norm enforcement in customary courts among the Enga of Papua New Guinea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020; 117(51), 32320\u0026ndash;32328. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.2014759117\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePishghadam R, Derakhshan A, Zhaleh K, \u0026amp; Al-Obaydi LH. Students\u0026rsquo; willingness to attend EFL classes with respect to teachers\u0026rsquo; credibility, stroke, and success: a cross-cultural study of Iranian and Iraqi students\u0026rsquo; perceptions. Curr Psychol. 2023; 42(5), 4065-4079. Doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01738-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevine EE, Roberts AR, \u0026amp; Cohen TR. Difficult conversations: Navigating the tension between honesty and benevolence. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020; 31, 38-43. Doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMooijman M, \u0026amp; Graham J. Unjust punishment in organizations. Res Organ Behav.2018; 38, 95-106. Doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2018.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulder LB, Van Dijk E, De Cremer D, \u0026amp; Wilke HA.Undermining trust and cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. J Exp Soc Psychol.2006; 42(2), 147\u0026ndash;162. Doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThweatt KS, \u0026amp; McCroskey, JC. The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Commun Educ. 1998; 47, 348 358. Doi: 10.1080/03634529809379141\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchrodt P. Students\u0026rsquo; appraisals of instructors as a function of students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of instructors\u0026rsquo; aggressive communication. Commun Educ. 2003; 52, 106 121. Doi: 10.1080/03634520302468\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChory RM. Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Commun Educ. 2007; 56(1), 89-105. Doi: 10.1080/03634520600994300\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMayer RC, Davis JH, \u0026amp; Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev. 1995; 20(3), 709-734. Doi: 10.2307/258792 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLind EA. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Adv Organ Justice. 2001; 56(8), 56-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarclay P. Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evol Hum Behav. 2006; 27(5), 325-344. Doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson EC, Schnackenberg AK, Dawley D, \u0026amp; Ash SR. Revisiting the trustworthiness\u0026ndash;trust relationship: Exploring the differential predictors of cognition‐and affect‐based trust. J Organ Behav. 2020; 41(6), 535-550. Doi: 10.1002/job.2448\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiatt MS, Lowman GH, Maloni M, Swaim J, \u0026amp; Veliyath R. Ability, benevolence, and integrity: The strong link between student trust in their professors and satisfaction. Int J Manag Educ. 2023; 21(2), 100768. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100768\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMyers SA, \u0026amp; Bryant LE. College students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of how instructors convey credibility. Qual Res Rep Commun. 2004; 5,22 27. Doi: 10.1080/17459435.2024.2341066\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeven JJ, \u0026amp; McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang M. EFL/ESL teacher\u0026rsquo;s resilience, academic buoyancy, care, and their impact on students\u0026rsquo; engagement: a theoretical review. Front Psychol. 2021; 12, 731859. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731859\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong L, Luo R, \u0026amp; Zhan Q. Toward the role of teacher caring and teacher-student rapport in predicting English as a foreign language learners\u0026rsquo; willingness to communicate in second language. Front Psychol. 2022; 13, 874522. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLavy S, \u0026amp; Naama-Ghanayim E. Why care about caring? Linking teachers\u0026rsquo; caring and sense of meaning at work with students\u0026rsquo; self-esteem, well-being, and school engagement. Teach Teach Educ. 2020; 91, 103046. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan D, Yough M, \u0026amp; Wang C. . International students in higher education: Promoting their willingness to communicate in classrooms. J Appl Res High Educ. 2018; 10(4), 430-442. Doi: 10.1108/jarhe-01-2018-0008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaloney T, \u0026amp; Matthews JS. Teacher care and students\u0026rsquo; sense of connectedness in the urban mathematics classroom. J Res Math Educ. 2020; 51(4), 399-432. Doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0044\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa L, Du X, Hau KT, \u0026amp; Liu J. The association between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement in Chinese EFL context: A serial multiple mediation model. Educ Psychol. 2018; 38(5), 687-707. Doi: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1412400\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin AJ, \u0026amp; Collie RJ. Teacher\u0026ndash;student relationships and students\u0026rsquo; engagement in high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter?. J Educ Psychol. 2019; 111(5), 861. Doi: 10.1037/edu0000317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarkowitz FE. Attitudes and family violence: linking intergenerational and cultural theories. J Fam Violence. 2001; 16, 205\u0026ndash;218. Doi: 10.1023/a:1011115104282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrockner J, Siegel PA, Daly JP, Tyler T, \u0026amp; Martin C. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Adm Sci Q. 1997; 558-583. Doi: 10.2307/2393738\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJing Y, Cai H, Bond MH, Li Y, Stivers AW, \u0026amp; Tan Q. Levels of interpersonal trust across different types of environment: The micro\u0026ndash;macro interplay between relational distance and human ecology. J Exp Psychol. Gen.150(7), 2021; 1438. Doi: 10.1037/xge0000997\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeven JJ, \u0026amp; McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeven JJ, \u0026amp; McCroskey JC. The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Commun Educ. 1997; 46(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1080/03634529709379069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiatt MS, Lowman GH, Maloni M, Swaim J, \u0026amp; Veliyath R. Ability, benevolence, and integrity: The strong link between student trust in their professors and satisfaction. Int J Manag Educ. 2023; 21(2), 100768. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100768\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang Z, \u0026amp; Qi C. Teachers\u0026rsquo; Punishment Intensity and Student Observer Trust: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav Sci. 14(6), 2024; 471. Doi: 10.3390/bs14060471\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrmann B, Thoni C, \u0026amp; Gachter S. Antisocial punishment across societies. Sci. 2008; 319, 1362\u0026ndash;1367. Doi: 10.1126/science.1153808\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFatas E, \u0026amp; Mateu G. Antisocial punishment in two social dilemmas. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015; 9, 107. Doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Disciplinary appropriateness, Teacher care, Trust, Trustworthiness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the realm of organizational management, managers are adept at leveraging rewards and punitive measures to foster positive behaviors and mitigate negative ones, with a particular emphasis on the educational sector. To enhance teacher professional development, this study devises a moderation model, informed by two empirical investigations, which examines the impact of appropriate teacher discipline on teacher trust and explores the moderating role of teacher caring within this context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo questionnaires were conducted among 463 junior high school students in China.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings show that: (1) proper teacher discipline significantly predicts teacher trustworthiness and trust; (2) teacher care significantly predicts teacher trustworthiness; and (3) for rural children, teacher care has a significant moderating effect on teacher trustworthiness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proper use of teacher punishment has a good impact on middle school students' faith in teachers, and gradually increasing the amount of teacher care may become a strategy to compensate for the losses produced by ineffective teacher discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The impact of teachers' disciplinary appropriateness and care on trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-24 07:46:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6836463/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4f8ed24a-58fb-4e43-913d-744f3dfb56fc","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 24th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-26T05:09:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-24 07:46:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6836463","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6836463","identity":"rs-6836463","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}