Social and emotional competencies in elementary school: a systematic review

Brantes, Carolina dos Anjos Almeida; Gondim, Sônia Maria Guedes

doi:10.1590/S1413-24782025300092

Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte

Sumário

Article • Rev. Bras. Educ. 30 • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782025300093 linkcopy

Social and emotional competencies in elementary school: a systematic review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

The objective of this literature review was to map and characterize the scientific production of studies on social and emotional competencies, and related concepts regarding elementary school, between 2010 and 2019. After carrying out the steps recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) group for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 66 studies were analyzed. Most were empirical studies, with a sample of students and included interventions. The most frequent social and emotional competencies were emotional regulation, emotional perception and social interaction. The results pointed to positive associations between social and emotional competencies and health, well-being, students’ academic performance and functional social interactions, and negative associations with anxiety, stress and burnout. The focus on elementary education may have left some studies out of this review given the diversity of terms to refer to the same educational stage in the countries where the studies were carried out.

Keywords:
Education; Elementary School; Emotional Intelligence; Literature Review; Social Skills

Theoretical Model	Authors (year)	Main Results and Conclusions DOI or SITE
SEC (Bisquerra Alzina and Péres-Escoda, 2007)	(Ambrona Benito, López-Pérez and Márquez-González, 2012) * ** (A)	Post-intervention and follow-up SEC (>) in the EG. Effective training for SEC and with a prolonged effect. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.23.num.1.2012.11392
SEC (unidentified)	(Law and Lee, 2011) (A)	SEC highlighted as pivotal to adolescent development and an effective curriculum in the fight against drugs. https://doi.org/10.1100/2011/127894
SEC (unidentified)	(Hosotani and Imai-Matsumura, 2011) (PR)	Teachers reported feeling more love, surprise and anger in the classroom and were aware of the regulatory strategies they use and what elicits each feeling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.010
SEC (SEL)	(Brackett et al., 2012) * (PR) (A)	Academic performance post-intervention (grades) (>) in the EG. SEC significant differences in the interaction "time and experimental condition". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.10.002
SS (Gresham and Elliot, 1990)	(Rickard, Bambrick and Gill, 2012) * (A)	The changes in the students’ SS could not be attributed to music lessons in any of the studies. SS (+) doing some arts activity. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411431399
SS (unidentified)	(Rubin-Vaughan et al., 2011) * (A)	Students were able to identify bullying attitudes, definitions and some coping strategies. Knowledge about safety, SS in coping (>) after each module. Intervention considered effective. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.009
SS (unidentified)	(Ebrahim, 2012) * (PR)(A)	SS (>) post-intervention and academic performance (grades) (>) in the EG (collaborative teaching method). Effective intervention for SS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9293-0
SS (Kellis et al., 2010)	(Christodoulides et al., 2012) (A)	SS: gender (↑) girls, age (↑) younger more tolerant and welcoming to foreign students. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2012.03055
EI (skills — perceived EI)	(Augusto-Landa, López-Zafra and Pulido-Martos, 2011) (PR)	EI (+) and predictor of coping strategies. Higher EI scores related to active coping strategies. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411797361310
EI (skills — perceived EI)	(Garrido and Pacheco, 2012) (PR)	EI: (-) burnout, (+) commitment. EI, age and gender predict burnout and commitment. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-359-109
EI (traits)	(Esturgó-Deu and Sala-Roca, 2010) (PR)(A)	Disruptive behavior: (-) EI, (-) stress management, type of school (↑) public, gender (↑) boys and (↑) female teachers report more. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.020

Theoretical Model	Authors (year)	Main Results and Conclusions
SEC (Bisquerra Alzina and Péres-Escoda, 2007)	(Pérez Escoda et al., 2013) * (PR)	SEC scale (0), institutional climate (>), stress (<) post-intervention in the EG. Qualitative analysis: greater emotional awareness, use of regulation strategies and reduction of dysfunctional regulatory thoughts after the EG training. Effective training for SEC. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.16.1.725
SEC (CASEL)	(Coelho, Sousa and Marchante, 2016) (PR)	The instrument has been validated with 30 items and 6 factors: self-control, social awareness, relational skills, social isolation, social anxiety, and responsible decision-making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116656617
SEC (FRIENDS)	(Iizuka et al., 2014) * (PR) (A)	Two groups of students: low X high scores in strengths and weaknesses, with post-intervention migration to the group with the highest score. Post-intervention and follow-up: socioemotional strengths and weaknesses (0) between groups; anxiety (<) in both groups. Effective training for SEC. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2014.12
SEC (SEL)	(Chong et al., 2014) (PR) (A)	Emotional regulation (-) cognitive and behavioral aspects related to Generalized problematic Internet use (PIU). Emotional regulation -[stress due to parental and teacher expectations]-> PIU: managing such stress can provide an alternative self-regulation channel to curb the frequency of Internet use. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.023
SS (Social Competence)	(Akgun and Araz, 2014) * (PR) (A)	Post-intervention: conflict resolution (>) and social competence (>) in the EG. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2013.777898
SS (Social Competence)	(McQuade et al., 2016) (PR) (A)	Social competence -[peer rejection, social dominance, gender]-> aggression. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21645
SS (Del Prette and Del Prette, 2005)	(Da Silva et al., 2016) * (A)	Post-intervention: victimization (<) for CG and EG. Training could not be considered effective in reducing bullying. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111042
SS (Del Prette and Del Prette, 2005)	(Pizato, Mauritano and Fontaine, 2014) ** (PR) (A)	SS: (+) Family socioeconomic ranking; (+) Time; (-) Behavior problems; (-) Did not attend early childhood education. Access to early childhood education helps in SS and in reducing behavior problems over the years. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722014000100021
SS (Epstein, 2004)	(Sanchez et al., 2014) * (A)	Post-intervention: psychological stress (<), behavioral and emotional strengths (>) in the EG. The game proved to be effective for SS and was well accepted by the participants. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.013
SS (Gil-Madrona et al., 2016)	(Gil-Madrona et al., 2016) * (PR)(A)(PA)	Post-intervention: - physical education teachers perceived SS of students in the EG (>). Other participants (0). Effective training for SS in physical education, but no repercussions on family, school and self-perception. https://doi.org/10.6063/MOTRICIDADE.6502
SS (Gresham and Elliott, 1990)	(Akelaitis and Malinauskas, 2016) * (A)	Post-intervention SS (>). Training deemed effective for SS. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2016.18.381
SS (Kellis, 2010)	(Derri et al., 2014) * (PR)(A)	Post-intervention and follow-up: SS (>), sport-appropriate behaviors (>) in the EG. Foreign students: post-intervention interpersonal relationship (>) in the EG. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2014.91.10
SS (unidentified)	(Tan et al., 2013) (A)	Children analyzed the usability and content of the Socialdorm game. They considered the learning of SS important, the content relevant and that it portrayed the interpersonal problems they experience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006
SS (unidentified)	(Zorza et al., 2016) (A)	Pro-social behavior (+) and school year. Executive functions (+) performance (grades). Both predictors of prosocial behavior. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.23
SS (Rabbani, Hameed and Ul Haq, 2014)	(Rabbani, Hameed and Ul Haq, 2014) (A)	SS (0) for those who do and do not receive a scholarship. SS gender (↑) girls. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.30.10.147
SS (uses the term "protective factors")	(Leadbeater, Thompson and Sukhawathanakul, 2016) * ** (PR)(A)(PA)	Protective factors: (-) aggression, (-) peer victimization (-) emotional problems. Promoting protective factors related to children's skills and teachers’ expectations can improve the effectiveness of programs on peer victimization prevention. The program proved to be effective. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12092
SS (Zorofi, 2013)	(Zorofi, 2013) (A)	SS (+) schools’ use of media (cell phones, internet, TV), schools with fewer students strengthens the correlation affected by the subject taught. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.4724
SS (Monjas, 2006)	(Saiz Panadero et al., 2016) (PR)(A)	Based on the teachers’ responses about the students’ SS, a training program was proposed for the development of physical education-related SS. https://doi.org/10.6018/249131
EI (skills - perceived EI)	(Pulido-Martos et al., 2016) (PR)	EI (+) perception of sources of occupational stress. EI (-) mental health. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.8
EI (skills)	(Hen and Sharabi-Nov, 2014) * (PR)	Post-intervention: EI (>), empathy (0). Reflective diary: initial expectation of tools to deal with challenging students; by the end, enhanced emotional awareness and understanding of the effectiveness of the tools they received. Follow-up — participants still had the course in their minds, there was transfer of learning and more positive evaluations of challenging students. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.908838
EI (skills)	(Curci, Lanciano and Soleti, 2014) (PR)(A)	Students’ performance (grades) is explained by their own factors (motivation and beliefs) and not by teacher characteristics (EI, self-efficacy and emotional states). Only EI influenced grades. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.4.0431
EI (unidentified)	(Kim and Chung, 2014) * (A)	EI (>) sensory post-intervention in the 3 EG: basic, cultural and with the food activity. The sensory activity was considered effective for the development of EI. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2014.8.1.112
EI (traits)	(Ju et al., 2015) (PR)	EI and social support with a protective function in relation to burnout. {Social support}-> EI (-) burnout: high EI, stronger perception of support, less burnout. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.001
EI (traits)	(Karimzadeh et al., 2014) * (PR)	Post-intervention: socioemotional intelligence (>) and effective teaching (>) in the EG. Socioemotional intelligence (+) effective teaching. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p106

Theoretical Model	Authors (year)	Main Results and Conclusions
EC (Doudin and Curchod-Ruedi, 2010)	(Fiorilli et al., 2017) (PR)	Social support -[burnout]-> SEC in teachers: less SEC, more dissatisfaction with social support in face of higher levels of burnout. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1119722
SEC (Bisquerra Alzina and Péres-Escoda, 2007)	(Morente et al., 2017) (A)	SEC predicts self-esteem, performance, social climate in the classroom and anxiety. Self-esteem predicts performance. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.28.num.1.2017.19355
	(Sánchez Calleja, Rodríguez Gómez and García Jiménez, 2018) * (A)	SEC (>) in the post-training observations, supported by the interviews. Effective training for SEC. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.54402
	(Rodríguez-Ledo et al., 2018) * (PR) (A)	SEC without differences; EI (>), empathy (>), social adjustment (>) post-intervention in EG. Effective training for EI and preventive effect regarding SEC decline. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v16i46.2241
	(Márquez-Cervantes and Gaeta-González, 2018) (PR) (A) (PA)	SEC (+) decision-making. Parents work more on: emotional awareness, collaborative work with school, emotional regulation and control. Teachers: awareness, decision-making, communication and discipline. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-1.9
	(Fernández-García and Fernández-Río, 2019) (A) ^(t)	The WonderWall project aims to develop emotional awareness followed by emotional regulation. It consists of a wall for students to identify their emotions or ask questions. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i35.63259
SEC (SEL)	(Lee, Yang and Zuilkowski, 2019) (PR)	Adaptation with similar distribution of items in 3 factors on social emotional learning (SEL). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12247
SEC (SEL)	(Portnow, Downer and Brown, 2018) * (PR) (A)	SEC and an emotionally supportive environment predicted significant reductions in aggression and behavior problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.12.004
SS (Social Competence)	(Morrow, Hubbard and Sharp, 2019) (PR) (A)	Victimization predicts significant reductions in social skills. Victimization -[aggressiveness]-> social competence. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1416618
SS (Del Prette and Del Prette, 2005)	(Cintra and Del Prette, 2019) * (PR)	Post-intervention SS (>) and knowledge about SS (>). Teacher characteristics (+) outcome and process variables. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712019240409
	(Da Silva et al., 2018) * (A)	Bullying (<) in the EG and CG, SS (>) in EG post-intervention and follow-up. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0151
	(Jovarini et al., 2018) (A)	SS (+) academic results (grades). SS (-) stress. The variability in academic results could be explained by the triad of stress, the student role, and SS. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e2819
SS (Elliott and Gresham, 2007)	(Wollersheim Shervey et al., 2017) * ** (PR)	The program showed social validity, teachers considered it relevant and easy to apply, but those in the 1^st year reduced this perception over the course of the study, while those in the second year increased it. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000203
SS (Gutiérrez-Marín et al., 2017)	(Gil-Madrona et al., 2019) * (A)	Post-intervention SS and behaviors related to physical activity (>). SS gender and age: (↑) girls and younger students. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01998
SS (Gutiérrez-Marín et al., 2017)	(Navarro-Patón et al., 2019) * (A)	Post-intervention SS (>), girls (+) SS. Effective intervention for SS. https://doi.org/10.6018/sportk.401081
SS (Gutman and Schoon, 2013)	(Siddiqui and Ventista, 2018) (A)^(t)	Ten training programs were found in the articles reviewed. The inclusion of parents and CG was associated with higher quality and more reliable results. "Sense of community" and "feelings" were the most common SS. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.06.003
SS (Ladd, Herald-Brown, and Andrews, 2009)	(Miller et al., 2017) * (PR) (A)	Post-intervention connection with school and performance (grades) (>). No significant effect on social behaviors. Effective training. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.01.002
SS (Monjas, 2012)	(Cañabate et al., 2018) * (A)	Post-intervention positive emotions (>). Smaller groups (+) positive emotions. No significant differences for SS. Training not effective for SS. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051585
SS (unidentified)	(Nelson et al., 2018) * (PR) (A)	Post-intervention appropriate classroom behavior (>), praise from the teacher (>), reprimands (<). Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718762744
	(Prino et al., 2018) (PR) (A)	Six clusters established based on popularity and pro-social behavior. All (+) conflicts in the teacher-student relationship. Clusters predictive of some pro-social behaviors. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01421
	(Tillman and Prazak, 2019) * (PR) (A) (PA)	Post-intervention SS (>). More SS and positive emotions reported, fewer negative reactions to post-intervention social situations. Effective training for SS. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12213
EI (skills)	(Valenzuela-Santoyo and Portillo-Peñuelas, 2018) (A)	EI -(+)-> students’ academic performance https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-3.11
EI (skills)	(Postigo-Zegarra et al., 2019) * (A)	Report of more SEC, pro-social, cooperation, awareness of influencers of decision-making post-training. SEC (>), positive affect (>), aggression (<) post-training. Effective training to develop SEC. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2019.1578925
EI (Multiple Intelligences)	(Rebollo Goñi, 2017) * (A)	EI (-) errors made in the tasks (executive functions). EI gender (↑) girls. Executive functions gender (↑) boys. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.44253
EI (traits)	(Alharbi, 2018) (A)	EI predictors: student's age, living with both parents, parents’ educational level, mother working, father's working conditions (+), frequency of school failures and physical health problems (-). https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2018.6.22141
	(Cejudo, 2017) * (A)	EI, adaptive skills, academic performance and positive affect (>), behavioral symptoms (<) in the EG post-intervention. Effective training for IE. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1341099
	(Luna, Guerrero and Cejudo, 2019) * (A)	Negative affect (<) and EI (>) in the EG post-intervention. Effective training for IE. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101821
	(Susanto, Asmi Rozali and Agustina, 2019) (PR)	EI is part of the proposed model of pedagogical competence and correlates positively with it. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071010
	(Amado-Alonso et al., 2019) (A)	EI (>) in those who play sports, girls and younger students. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061615
	(Alonso Ferres et al., 2018) (A)	EI (+) family income, number of books in the house, not as family climate. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.36.1.281441
	(García et al., 2018) * ** (A)	Post-intervention EI, academic performance (grade), communication (>), disrespect toward peers and teachers (<). Effective training for IE. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7146581

location_on

ANPEd - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação Rua Visconde de Santa Isabel, 20 - Conjunto 206-208 Vila Isabel - 20560-120, Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil, Tel.: (21) 2576 1447, (21) 2265 5521, Fax: (21) 3879 5511 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: rbe@anped.org.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN16] ^*
intervention research;

[TFN17] ^**
longitudinal studies; t: theoretical study;

[TFN18] ^PR
teacher;

[TFN19] ^A
student;

[TFN20] ^PA
parent; >: significant increase; <: significant decrease; +: significant and positive correlation; -: significant and negative correlation; ↑: major significant difference; 0: no significant differences/correlations; -[ ]->: moderating variable; { }->: moderating variable; p≤0.05 or p≤0.01; SEC: socioemotional competencies; EI: emotional intelligence; SS: social skills; SEL: social emotional learning; EG: experimental group; CG: control group; unidentified: the theoretical model adopted in the article could not be identified or defined, as the authors of the scales or the construct assessed were not clearly defined.