Xinyi Chen
Wenying Huang*
Chang Hu- Physical Education College, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China
Objective: This study employed a person-centered Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to explore adolescents' perceived teacher–student and friendship relationships in the school environment and to examine their association with interest in physical education.
Methods: A survey was conducted among 3,613 adolescents using the Teacher–Student Relationship Scale, the Friendship Quality Scale, and the Interest in Physical Education Scale. LPA was applied to identify relationship quality profiles, and multinomial logistic regression was used to examine gender differences and associations with interest in physical education.
Results: Three profiles emerged from the LPA: the Low Relationship Quality profile (23%, n = 855), the Moderate Relationship Quality profile (60%, n = 2,156), and the High Relationship Quality profile (17%, n = 602). Adolescents with lower levels of physical education interest were significantly more likely to belong to the Low Relationship Quality profile compared with the Moderate Relationship Quality profile [OR = 0.01, 95% CI (0.01, 0.02)]. In contrast, those with higher physical education interest were significantly more likely to belong to the High Relationship Quality profile [OR = 4.29, 95% CI (3.44, 5.35)]. In addition, males had higher odds of being classified into the High Relationship Quality profile than females [OR = 1.93, 95% CI (1.59, 2.35)]. Significant differences were observed across profiles on all dimensions of teacher–student and friendship relationships (all p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Adolescents exhibit heterogeneous experiences of teacher–student and friendship relationship quality, which were significantly associated with differences in interest in physical education. By applying a person-centered approach, the study extends prior research by showing that teacher–student and friendship contexts are linked to adolescents' interest in physical education, underscoring the importance of considering interest as a distinct outcome in relational research.
1 Introduction
Adolescence represents a pivotal stage of physical and psychological development, during which students face academic pressures, transitions in school environments, and major changes in interpersonal relationships. Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory highlights that adolescents' development is embedded within multiple microsystems, among which the classroom and daily interactions serve as immediate contexts shaping their learning motivation and social adjustment (1). Schools, therefore, function not only as institutions for knowledge transmission but also as key contexts for socialization and personality development (2, 3). Within this environment, the quality of adolescents' relationships with teachers and peers profoundly influences their adjustment and development. Physical education, as a core domain of schooling, plays a particularly important role because it connects closely to adolescents' physical health, social competence, and the cultivation of lifelong exercise habits.
As one of the most influential microsystems in adolescents' development, the school and classroom environment play a central role in shaping students' learning motivation and behavioral engagement (4–7). Within this setting, interest in physical education represents a key form of intrinsic motivation that enhances enjoyment, promotes active participation, and supports cognitive and emotional growth (8–10). According to Self-Determination Theory (11), such interest reflects a fundamental element of intrinsic motivation and provides the psychological basis for sustained involvement in physical activity. Conversely, insufficient interest in physical education has been recognized as a major barrier to students' engagement in classes and long-term exercise participation. From the perspective of motivational theories, proactive behavior is primarily driven by internal motivation (12–14). From the perspective of motivational theories, proactive behavior is largely driven by motivation; thus, insufficient interest may lead to reduced participation in physical activities (15–17), highlighting the need to foster students' interest in this domain. Importantly, beyond curriculum design, the interpersonal quality of the school context—particularly supportive teacher–student relationships and high levels of friendship quality—has emerged as a decisive factor for developing and sustaining adolescents' interest in physical education (18–21).
The quality of teacher–student relationships and friendship quality constitutes a fundamental part of adolescents' psychosocial development (22–27). Vygotsky's sociocultural theory emphasizes that learning is inherently social: supportive teacher–student interactions and peer collaborations create a “zone of proximal development,” offering affective support and cognitive scaffolding (28). Within physical education, these relational dynamics are particularly salient. Teacher guidance enhances students' sense of security and belonging, while supportive peer relations foster enjoyment and persistence. Empirical studies further show that high-quality teacher–student relationships increase engagement and strengthen interest in physical education, whereas neglect or conflict undermines motivation and fuels negative attitudes (28–33). From an ecological perspective, friendship quality provides adolescents with emotional support and a sense of belonging, which not only facilitates social adjustment but also fosters greater interest and sustained engagement in learning activities, including physical education (34–36). Although ample evidence supports the positive role of teacher–student relationships and friendship quality in academic domains, their mechanisms in promoting students' interest in physical education remain underexplored. Given the unique social and embodied features of physical education classrooms, they represent a valuable yet insufficiently studied context for examining how the quality of teacher–student relationships and friendship quality specifically shape adolescents' interest in physical education.
Although teacher–student relationships and friendship quality have been widely examined in educational research, most evidence comes from studies on academic achievement or general learning motivation, whereas their role in cultivating students' interest in physical education has received far less attention (37–41). Previous investigations based on questionnaire surveys have primarily employed variable-centered approaches. For example, some studies have explored the associations between teacher–student relationship quality and students' peer relations (42–45), the mediating role of academic achievement or positive attitudes toward school in linking teacher–student relationship quality with prosocial behavior (4, 46, 47), and the correlations between teacher–student relationships, student interactions, and social participation in Dutch primary and secondary schools (48). These findings have been valuable for identifying specific pathways and independent associations. However, variable-centered approaches are limited in capturing the heterogeneity of relational dynamics across different student groups.
In contrast, person-centered approaches such as LPA allow researchers to identify distinct subgroups of students based on their response patterns and examine how these relational profiles differentially relate to motivational outcomes (49, 50). Applying such an approach is particularly relevant for physical education, because although the importance of teacher–student relationships and friendship quality has been well established in academic contexts, their role in shaping students' learning interest in PE remains understudied (4, 51–52). Viewing this issue through the lens of “interest” rather than general “motivation” highlights a gap in the existing literature that the present study seeks to address. Physical education classrooms are characterized by intense social interaction, immediate performance feedback, and strong peer influence, all of which may create distinct relational profiles among students. Person-centered analyses such as LPA can provide a more nuanced understanding of how diverse combinations of teacher–student and peer relations shape adolescents' interest in physical education, offering insights that variable-centered approaches might overlook.
Against this background, the present study addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on adolescents' interest in physical education. Specifically, it has two objectives. First, it seeks to identify distinct subgroups of students based on teacher–student relationship quality and friendship quality patterns, using a person-centered approach. Second, it examines how these relational profiles are associated with differences in students' interest in physical education. By pursuing these objectives, the study contributes to clarifying how interpersonal relationships shape adolescents' subject-specific interest in physical education and provides actionable implications for schools: fostering supportive teacher–student interactions and cultivating positive peer environments may enhance students' interest in physical education and encourage the establishment of lifelong physical activity habits.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants and procedure
Before the main investigation, a pilot survey was conducted with 150 students in Jiangxi Province to evaluate the questionnaire's clarity, readability, and feasibility. Students were asked to report whether any items were confusing, difficult to comprehend, or ambiguous, and whether the response process was smooth and manageable. Feedback demonstrated that the questionnaire was clear and the procedures workable; therefore, no substantial modifications were required before launching the main survey.
A stratified convenience sampling strategy was used. In each of 12 provinces (Guangdong, Hunan, Guizhou, Henan, Guangxi, Yunnan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Shandong, Hubei, Hebei, and Jiangxi), one junior high school and one senior high school were selected, yielding 24 schools. Schools were chosen primarily based on accessibility and feasibility of collaboration, which allowed for broad geographic coverage but does not ensure national representativeness. Thus, the results should be generalized with appropriate caution.
The survey was conducted between September 10 and October 25, 2023. Questionnaires were created and hosted on the WJX online platform (https://www.wjx.cn/). Teachers received detailed training on the study's objectives, ethical principles, confidentiality requirements, and standardized administration procedures before data collection. This training ensured teachers were prepared to guide students through the process without influencing responses. After training, survey links and QR codes were distributed to two junior high school physical education teachers and two senior high school physical education teachers in each province. Under their supervision, students completed the electronic questionnaires independently in school computer laboratories.
To ensure sample rigor, inclusion criteria were: (1) full-time enrollment in junior or senior high school; (2) no history of mental illness, as confirmed via parental report in a health declaration form completed during informed consent; (3) no prior participation in similar studies, to avoid bias from repeated exposure; and (4) voluntary assent from students together with written informed consent from parents or guardians. Given the involvement of minors, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Jiangxi Normal University (IRB-JXNU-PEC-2023129). Students and their guardians were informed about anonymity, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any point without penalty.
Of the 5,898 responses initially collected, 1,050 questionnaires were excluded because more than 10% of items were unanswered. To ensure attentiveness, one non-scored check item—“Please select one option for this question”—was embedded in the survey. Responses not following this instruction were considered invalid, leading to the exclusion of 423 questionnaires. Following prior research practices (53, 54), cases with values that deviated more than ±3 standard deviations from the mean on key continuous variables were considered outliers and therefore removed, resulting in the exclusion of 312 cases. In order to facilitate future longitudinal follow-up, 500 questionnaires from students in terminal grades (junior high year 3 and senior high year 3) were excluded. After all quality-control procedures were applied, the final valid sample comprised 3,613 participants. These steps, combined with the use of validated measurement instruments, contributed to the reliability and validity of the dataset.
2.2 Measures
2.2.1 Teacher–student relationship scale
The study employed the Chinese adolescent version of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale validated by Zhu Xiaolin (55). The scale was originally adapted into Chinese by Wang Yun and Wang Xiaohua (56) for elementary school students and later revised by Zhu Xiaolin to suit adolescents in secondary schools. In the present study, this adolescent-specific Chinese version was explicitly applied to assess students' perceived relationship with their physical education teachers, rather than with teachers in general.
The Teacher–Student Relationship Scale consists of 18 items across four dimensions: Intimacy, Conflict, Attachment, and Avoidance. Responses are given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items from the negatively valenced dimensions (Conflict and Avoidance) were reverse-coded prior to scale construction, while Intimacy and Attachment items retained their original scoring direction. After reverse-coding, higher scores indicate a more positive perceived teacher–student relationship with physical education teachers.
Internal consistency in this study was satisfactory: total Cronbach's α = 0.847; Intimacy Cronbach's α = 0.742, Conflict Cronbach's α = 0.810, Attachment Cronbach's α = 0.785, and Avoidance Cronbach's α = 0.758 (see Section 2.2 for interpretation thresholds).
2.2.2 Friendship quality scale
The Chinese version of the Friendship Quality Scale was administered, originally developed by Parker and Asher (57) and subsequently adapted for use in Chinese adolescent populations (58). The Friendship Quality Scale comprises 18 items measuring six dimensions: companionship and recreation, validation and caring, intimate disclosure and communication, help and guidance, conflict resolution, and conflict and betrayal.
In the original Parker and Asher version, items situate responses within everyday peer interactions (e.g., “How often do you and your friend…?”). In the Chinese adaptation, items are phrased more generally about adolescents' perceptions of their best friend or close friends, without embedding explicit situational vignettes. This adaptation ensures cultural appropriateness while retaining the core constructs.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). For scoring purposes, items from negatively valenced dimensions—i.e., conflict resolution, and conflict and betrayal—were reverse-coded. Higher total and subscale scores represent higher levels of perceived friendship quality.
Internal consistency in this study was good: total Cronbach's α = 0.851; companionship and recreation Cronbach's α = 0.732, validation and caring Cronbach's α = 0.737, intimate disclosure and communication Cronbach's α = 0.764, help and guidance Cronbach's α = 0.707, conflict resolution Cronbach's α = 0.610, and conflict and betrayal Cronbach's α = 0.724 (see Section 2.2 for interpretation thresholds).
2.2.3 Interest in physical education scale
The study employed the Chinese version of the Interest in Physical Education Scale, adapted by Wang Xiaozan for Chinese students (59). The instrument assesses students' interest in learning physical education. It consists of 27 items grouped into four dimensions: level of sports participation, positive interest in physical education learning, degree of autonomous learning, and negative interest in physical education learning.
Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). To maintain a consistent scoring direction, items in the negatively valenced dimension (negative interest in physical education learning) were reverse-coded prior to computing subscale and total scores. Higher scores, therefore, indicate a stronger interest in physical education learning.
Internal consistency in the present study was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.828). Subscale reliability coefficients were: level of sports participation, Cronbach's α = 0.899; positive interest in physical education learning, Cronbach's α = 0.870; degree of autonomous learning, Cronbach's α = 0.815; and negative interest in physical education learning, Cronbach's α = 0.856 (see Section 2.2 for interpretation criteria).
2.2 Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 and Mplus 8.0. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables. For continuous variables that met the normality assumption, results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation; for categorical variables, frequency and percentage were reported.
Group differences in categorical demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, household registration) were examined using chi-square (χ2) tests, with Cramer's V reported as the effect size measure. For continuous variables, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, with η2 coefficients reported as effect sizes.
LPA was conducted in Mplus 8.0 to identify unobserved subgroups of adolescents. LPA is a person-centered approach that identifies latent categorical subgroups based on participants' response patterns across multiple continuous indicators (49, 50). The observed indicators entered into the models included four dimensions of teacher–student relationship (intimacy, conflict, attachment, and avoidance) and six dimensions of friendship quality (companionship and recreation, validation and caring, intimate disclosure and communication, help and guidance, conflict resolution, and conflict and betrayal).
Model comparisons were conducted for one- to five-class solutions. Six fit indices guided model evaluation: Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC), Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMRT), bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT), and entropy (60, 61). Model selection considered lower AIC, BIC, and aBIC values, significant LMRT and BLRT values, higher entropy values, parsimony, and theoretical interpretability.
After identifying the optimal latent profiles, ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to examine differences in interest in physical education among adolescents across latent profiles. ANOVA tested global differences, while post hoc tests specified pairwise contrasts.
Finally, in evaluating internal consistency, Cronbach's α coefficients were interpreted according to widely accepted thresholds: ≥0.70 acceptable, ≥0.80 good, ≥0.90 excellent (62, 63). These criteria were applied to both total scales and subscales.
3 Results
3.1 Common method bias
Since the focal variables of this study—teacher–student relationship, friendship quality, and interest in physical education—were all measured using self-report questionnaires, both procedural and statistical remedies were implemented to reduce potential common method bias.
For statistical verification, Harman's single-factor test was performed on the dataset. The unrotated exploratory factor analysis revealed 14 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, and the largest single factor explained 16.30% of the variance. Because this value was well below the commonly adopted benchmark of 40%, the results indicated that a single factor did not account for most covariance among the measures (64, 65).
To further test common method variance, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which all observed variables were constrained to load on a single latent factor. The model fit was poor (χ2/df = 22.001, CFI = 0.386, TLI = 0.365, RMSEA = 0.074), suggesting no single factor dominated the covariance structure.
These results support the conclusion that common method bias was not a serious concern in the present study.
3.2 Model Fit evaluation and selection of latent profiles
The ten dimensions of the Teacher–Student Relationship Scale and the Friendship Quality Scale were used as observed variables. Potential profile models with 1–5 classes were extracted, and the fit indices for each model are shown in Table 1. Latent profile models with one to five classes were estimated, and the corresponding fit indices are reported in Table 1. The information criteria (AIC, BIC, aBIC) consistently decreased as the number of classes increased. The Lo–Mendell–Rubin (LMR) and bootstrap likelihood ratio (BLRT) tests were significant for all models, suggesting that each additional class improved model fit. However, the four- and five-class models produced entropy values below 0.80 and included very small or theoretically ambiguous groups, limiting their interpretability. The two-class model, though statistically acceptable, yielded overly simplistic profiles and failed to capture nuanced differences in relationship quality. By contrast, the three-class model demonstrated acceptable fit indices, retained an entropy value above 0.80, and showed a relatively balanced distribution of individuals across classes. Importantly, the three profiles could be meaningfully distinguished (i.e., high, moderate, and low quality) and aligned with previous findings on adolescent relationships, thereby offering both theoretical interpretability and practical applicability. On this basis, the three-class model was selected for subsequent analyses.
Table 1. Fit indices for latent profile models of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality.
3.3 Three latent profiles of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality
Figure 1 illustrates the three identified profiles, displaying the mean levels across the four dimensions of Teacher–Student Relationship (intimacy, conflict, attachment, and avoidance) and the six dimensions of Friendship Quality (companionship & recreation, validation & caring, intimate disclosure & communication, help & guidance, conflict resolution, and conflict & betrayal).
Figure 1. The latent profile model of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality.
The first profile, labeled the low relationship quality profile (n = 855, 23% of the sample), was characterized by the lowest scores on both Teacher–Student Relationship and Friendship Quality. The second profile, the high relationship quality profile (n = 602, 17%), achieved the highest scores on both measures. The third profile, labeled the moderate relationship quality profile (n = 2,156, 60%), showed intermediate scores between the low and high groups.
3.4 Distribution characteristics of LPA
Three distinct profiles were identified based on the mean scores for Teacher–Student Relationship and Friendship Quality dimensions (see Table 2). Adolescents in the first profile reported the lowest mean values across most dimensions (e.g., intimacy, attachment, companionship, affirmation, communication, and guidance) and the lowest scores in conflict resolution, conflict, and betrayal. Because the latter dimensions were reverse-coded, lower scores indicate poorer relationship quality. Therefore, this group (n = 855, 23%) was conceptualized as the Low-relationship quality profile.
Table 2. Comparison of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality dimensions across latent profiles.
In contrast, adolescents in the second profile demonstrated the highest average scores on intimacy, attachment, companionship, intimate disclosure, and help and guidance, along with relatively high scores in the remaining dimensions. Their overall relationship indicators revealed consistently stronger quality compared to the other profiles. Accordingly, this profile (n = 602, 17%) was labeled the High-relationship quality profile (see Table 2).
The third profile showed mean scores that fell between the Low- and High-relationship quality profiles across most relationship dimensions, with relatively lower intimacy and attachment levels than the High group. This category (n = 2,156, 60%) was defined as the Moderate-relationship quality profile (see Table 2).
Descriptive analyses further contextualized these profiles (see Table 3). By gender, the Moderate profile included 56.35% of males and 63.36% of females. In the High profile, males constituted 66.8% and females 33.2%. In the Low profile, males accounted for 22.48% and females 24.97%. By household registration, the Moderate profile comprised 58.65% of urban adolescents and 60.75% of rural adolescents. In the High profile, 56.1% were urban and 43.9% rural, while in the Low profile, the proportions were 23.08% (urban) and 24.28% (rural).
Table 3. Distribution of demographic characteristics across latent profiles of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality.
Post hoc Scheffé tests clarified the pairwise differences (see Table 2). All three profiles differed significantly for intimacy, attachment, companionship, intimate disclosure, and help & guidance (High > Moderate > Low). For conflict, avoidance, conflict resolution, affirmation & care, and conflict & betrayal, the Moderate profile scored significantly higher than the High profile, and both were significantly higher than the Low profile (Moderate > High > Low).
These findings confirm that relationship quality profiles can be meaningfully distinguished based on mean levels across specific dimensions and demographic distributions such as gender and household registration.
3.5 Multinomial logistic regression analysis of latent profiles of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality
Multinomial logistic regression is conducted with the three latent profiles of Teacher–Student Relationship and Friendship Quality as the dependent variable. Gender (female as the reference), household registration (rural as the reference), and interest in physical education are included as predictors (see Table 4). The moderate relationship quality profile is used as the reference category.
Table 4. Multinomial logistic regression results predicting profile membership.
First, the likelihood of membership in the low relationship quality profile is compared to membership in the moderate relationship quality profile. Table 3 shows a significant negative effect for interest in physical education (p < 0.001; OR = 0.01). Specifically, adolescents with lower levels of interest in physical education are much more likely to be in the low relationship quality profile rather than the moderate relationship quality group.
Next, the likelihood of membership in the high relationship quality profile is compared to the moderate group. Significant positive effects are observed for gender (male) (p < 0.001; OR = 1.93) and interest in physical education (p < 0.001; OR = 4.29). This suggests that male adolescents and those with higher interest in physical education are more likely to be classified into the high relationship quality profile compared to the moderate group.
4 Discussion
This study adopted a person-centered approach to examine adolescents' perceived teacher–student and friendship relationships, identifying three distinct profiles of relational quality—low, moderate, and high—and linking these to students' interest in physical education. The findings highlight that relational experiences in schools are heterogeneous rather than uniform, with clear implications for adolescents' engagement in learning and physical activity contexts.
4.1 LPA of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality among adolescents
Identifying three profiles—Low-, Moderate-, and High-relationship quality—extends previous research showing that adolescents' perceptions of their social environment are not evenly distributed but cluster in meaningful ways. For example, Wang and Peck (66) identified heterogeneous profiles of school engagement using LPA, demonstrating that subgroups of students follow markedly different trajectories of adjustment. Likewise, Spilt reported that different patterns of teacher–student and peer relationships are linked to adolescents' academic and social outcomes (67). By extending these person-centered approaches to the joint consideration of teacher–student and friendship relationships, the present findings underscore the complexity of students' relational experiences and suggest that multidimensional profiles better capture this heterogeneity than variable-centered methods.
Crucially, this study linked these relational profiles with adolescents' interest in physical education, rather than broader constructs such as general academic motivation. Interest represents a more domain-specific and affective–cognitive orientation, encompassing enjoyment and value attribution toward physical education classes. Previous research has emphasized the role of supportive relationships in enhancing motivation in physical education (19, 22, 68–70), but relatively few studies have examined students' specific interest in physical education as an outcome. Our findings address this gap: adolescents in the High-relationship quality profile reported the strongest physical education interest, whereas those in the Low profile showed substantially lower interest. This suggests that high-quality teacher–student and peer relationships can nurture students' interest in physical education, while relational difficulties are associated with diminished interest.
The results also provide theoretical and practical insights. Theoretically, they highlight the utility of a person-centered lens to capture different constellations of relational experiences and their consequences for physical education interest. This enriches current knowledge by showing that interest—a key yet distinct motivational construct—varies systematically across relational profiles. Practically, the profiles suggest pathways for targeted interventions. Students in the Low-relationship quality profile, who struggle with conflict or limited support, may need relational interventions in physical education classes to build trust and cooperative engagement. For most Moderate profiles, strengthening teacher–student connections and peer support could further enhance their enjoyment and sustained interest in physical education.
In conclusion, this study integrates insights from prior person-centered research on school relationships (67, 71) with the physical education literature (2, 19, 72–74), providing new evidence that adolescents' interest in physical education is closely tied to the quality of their relational experiences. These findings highlight that fostering high-quality relationships in schools is not only vital for socioemotional development but also a key condition for cultivating adolescents' lasting interest in physical education.
4.2 Impact of demographic variables on latent profiles of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality among adolescents
This study identified notable gender-related variations in adolescents' perceived relationship quality. Compared with females, males were more likely to be classified into the high-relationship quality profile. Prior research suggests that girls tend to emphasize intimacy, emotional support, and dyadic closeness, whereas boys are more inclined to highlight companionship through shared activities and group participation (75–77). Because activity-based interactions are often positively associated with relationship satisfaction, such orientations may partly explain why male adolescents in this study evaluated their peer relationships as higher in quality.
Beyond these activity-based explanations, self-efficacy may constitute an additional factor. Evidence from physical activity research indicates that males often report higher levels of self-efficacy, which strengthens the link between self-perceptions and engagement behaviors (78). By extension, greater social self-efficacy may enable adolescents to initiate and sustain peer interactions more confidently, thereby perceiving their relationships as higher in quality. Sociocultural factors may also contribute: norms encouraging boys to project confidence and independence may reinforce self-perceptions of strong relational ties (79), whereas girls' heightened emotional sensitivity and reflective awareness may lead them to evaluate relationships more critically, reporting lower quality even when supportive ties are present (80). Taken together, gender differences appear to reflect both developmental tendencies and sociocultural expectations rather than fixed or essentialized traits.
In contrast, no significant urban–rural differences were observed in profile membership. At first glance, this might be surprising given that prior studies sometimes report disparities in adolescents' social resources across urban and rural settings (81, 82). However, recent changes in educational policy and digital connectivity may reduce such differences in relational experiences, making adolescents' perceptions of teacher–student and peer relationships more similar regardless of residence (83). This null finding is consistent with research suggesting that school-based environments increasingly provide comparable relational opportunities across contexts. Key variations within urban and rural communities—such as school quality or class size—may also be more influential than residence itself (84, 85). These explanations imply that while residence has long been considered a salient contextual factor, its role in shaping adolescents' relational profiles may weaken (86). For research on physical education interest, this signals the importance of focusing on proximal relational processes rather than broad demographic categories when explaining variation in students' school experiences.
Beyond demographic differences, it is also vital to interpret the present findings with conceptual precision. Specifically, this study examined interest in physical education, distinct from broader motivational constructs. Interest reflects a relatively enduring, domain-specific orientation involving enjoyment, curiosity, and valuing. In contrast, intrinsic motivation in Self-Determination Theory (11) refers to the situational drive to engage in activities for inherent satisfaction. The two are closely related but not interchangeable: interest can provide the foundation for sustaining intrinsic motivation, yet it remains a distinct construct. Viewed this way, the present results show that adolescents in the high-relationship quality profile reported stronger interest in physical education, not merely greater “motivation”. This clarification enhances the theoretical contribution of our study by positioning interest as a meaningful and independent outcome within the broader literature on adolescent social relationships.
4.3 Impact of latent profiles of teacher–student relationship and friendship quality among adolescents on interest in physical education
The present study identified three distinct relational profiles among adolescents—low, moderate, and high relationship quality—systematically linked to their interest in physical education. Adolescents in the high-quality profile reported the strongest interest in physical education, those in the low-quality profile the weakest, with the moderate group situated between these extremes. This pattern underscores the role of perceived relational support as a critical factor in shaping students' willingness to engage with physical education (39, 70, 87–89).
These findings can be interpreted in light of Self-Determination Theory, which highlights the satisfaction of the need for relatedness as a foundation for intrinsic motivation (29, 90–92). When adolescents perceive strong support from teachers and peers, they are more likely to feel connected and to sustain their interest in physical education (39, 57, 70, 88, 93, 94). Conversely, weaker relational perceptions may foster a sense of disconnection that undermines students' interest and engagement (95, 96).
Beyond the general benefits of supportive relational climates, prior research indicates that teacher–student relationship quality plays a decisive role in shaping adolescents' interest in physical education (23, 29, 32, 74). Teachers who adopt autonomy-supportive practices—such as offering meaningful choices, acknowledging students' perspectives, and minimizing controlling behaviors—can strengthen students' sense of relatedness and foster both situational and longer-term physical education interest (97–99). Likewise, peer relationships are critical: acceptance, collaboration, and encouragement from classmates enhance enjoyment and sustained participation in physical education (52, 88, 93, 100), whereas negative dynamics such as exclusion or bullying may erode students' willingness to participate and diminish their physical education interest (101). These insights suggest that schools can support adolescents' physical education interest by cultivating autonomy-supportive instructional practices and intentionally structuring peer interactions to be more collaborative and inclusive.
It is also necessary to acknowledge influences beyond the school context. Studies indicate that adolescents' relational quality and subsequent interest in physical activity are shaped by family climates, including parental support, modeling, and encouragement of autonomy (102–104). Families that value physical activity and provide positive reinforcement may amplify the impact of supportive teacher–student and peer relationships. In contrast, limited family support could constrain the development of strong physical education interest regardless of school environments (105).
Notably, a considerable proportion of adolescents had a moderate profile. Although these students did not perceive very poor relationships, their intermediate levels of support may leave them vulnerable to declines in physical education interest when facing academic or interpersonal stressors. School-based initiatives that strengthen teacher–student bonds and peer collaboration—potentially reinforced by family involvement in adolescents' physical activity—may be especially effective in cultivating and sustaining physical education interest for this group.
By adopting a person-centered approach, this study contributes to understanding how variations in relational quality correspond to adolescents' different levels of interest in physical education. The findings highlight that high-quality relational contexts function as protective resources and as essential conditions for fostering adolescents' sustained interest and enjoyment in physical education, offering practical guidance for educators, schools, and families.
5 Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents us from drawing causal inferences. For example, it remains unclear whether supportive teacher–student or peer relationships enhance adolescents' interest in physical education, or whether students who are already more interested in physical education are more likely to perceive their relationships positively. Second, all measures were self-reported, which may introduce social desirability bias and recall errors despite the safeguards implemented to encourage honesty and anonymity. Third, convenience sampling from a limited number of schools in one region constrains the generalizability of the findings to broader populations. Moreover, only students from grades 7, 8, 10, and 11 were included. Grades 9 and 12 were excluded due to the unique academic pressures associated with entrance examinations at these levels, which raised logistical challenges for recruitment and follow-up.
Several directions for future research can help address these limitations. Longitudinal designs are needed to establish causal processes linking relational quality to physical education interest more convincingly. In addition, although this study explored gender and urban–rural differences descriptively, we did not formally conduct measurement invariance testing. Future studies should assess whether the identified relational profiles are psychometrically equivalent across demographic subgroups to enable meaningful comparisons. Importantly, multilevel modeling approaches are also recommended, as students are nested within classrooms and schools that systematically shape relationships and opportunities to engage in physical education. Accounting for this clustering will allow researchers to disentangle individual-level effects from contextual-level ones on adolescents' physical education interest. Extending the sample to include grades 9 and 12 would further capture potential turning points in students' interest that coincide with high-stakes examination years.
Research can move beyond descriptive profiling by incorporating longitudinal, invariance, and multilevel approaches in future work to provide more rigorous and context-sensitive evidence. Such advances will clarify how supportive relationships function across developmental and institutional settings and deepen understanding of how these relationships specifically promote adolescents' interest in physical education, thereby extending theory and guiding practical interventions in schools.
6 Conclusions
Three relationship quality profiles emerged from the LPA: low, moderate, and high relationship quality profiles. These profiles were significantly associated with differences in adolescents' reported interest in physical education, with students in the high relationship quality profile reporting the greatest interest, those in the low relationship quality profile the least, and those in the moderate relationship quality profile in between. Gender differences were also observed, as boys were likelier to belong to the high relationship quality profile, whereas girls were relatively more represented in the moderate relationship quality profile.
These findings indicate meaningful heterogeneity in adolescents' relational experiences and their systematic associations with physical education interest. By adopting a person-centered approach, this study extends prior work by emphasizing interest in physical education—rather than motivation more broadly—as a key outcome linked to relational contexts. As elaborated in the Discussion, cultivating autonomy-supportive teaching and inclusive peer environments represents a promising direction for practice. Future longitudinal and multilevel approaches will be essential to clarify causal pathways and contextual influences.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author's.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Physical Education College, Jiangxi Normal University (IRB-JXNU-PEC-2023129). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
XC: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CH: Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Grazia V. A longitudinal study of school climate: reciprocal effects with student engagement and burnout. Psychol Sch. (2022) 59:1521–37. doi: 10.1002/pits.22691
2. Eccles JS, Roeser RW. Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. J Res Adolesc. (2011) 21:225–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x
3. Wang M-T, Degol JL. School climate: a review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educ Psychol Rev. (2016) 28:315–52. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
4. Longobardi C, Settanni M, Lin S, Fabris MA. Student–teacher relationship quality and prosocial behaviour: the mediating role of academic achievement and a positive attitude towards school. Br J Edu Psychol. (2021) 91:547–62. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12378
5. Burns EC, Van Bergen P, Leonard A, Amin Y. Positive, complicated, distant, and negative: how different teacher-student relationship profiles relate to students’ science motivation. J Adolesc. (2022) 94:1150–62. doi: 10.1002/jad.12093
6. Sun Y, Shi W. On the role of teacher–student rapport and teacher support as predictors of Chinese EFL Students’ affective learning. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:856430. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856430
7. Wang Y, Jiang G, Yao Z, Liu L. The influence of teacher–student relationship on Chinese high school students’ academic motivation for the ideological and political subject: the mediating role of academic emotions. Front Psychol. (2024) 14:1329439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1329439
8. Xuanchen Z. How does school physical education stimulate Students’ interest in sports? J Adv Sport Phys Edu. (2022) 5:68–72. doi: 10.36348/jaspe.2022.v05i04.002
9. Su W, Liu Q. The impact of physical education teacher support on sport participation among college students: the chain mediating effects of physical education learning motivation and self-efficacy. Front Psychol. (2025) 16:1592753. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1592753
10. Wang Y, Wang Y, Lv M, Cheng Z, Tao Y. The influence of interpersonal relationships on college students’ physical activity: chain-mediated effects of social support and exercise motivation. Front Psychol. (2025) 16:1567122. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1567122
11. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. (2000) 11:227–68. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
12. Lye CM, Kawabata M. Perception of boredom in physical education lessons: what factors are associated with Students’ boredom experiences? J Teach Phys Educ. (2021) 41:710–9. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0090
13. Burgueño R, García-González L, Abós Á, Sevil-Serrano J. Students’ need satisfaction and frustration profiles: differences in outcomes in physical education and physical activity-related variables. Eur Phy Educ Rev. (2023) 29:563–81. doi: 10.1177/1356336X231165229
14. Hao H, Zhu Q, Feng C. The impact of multiple supports on university students’ physical education learning motivation: a dual analysis based on SEM and fsQCA. Front Psychol. (2025) 16:1446317. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1446317
15. Mouratidis AA, Vansteenkiste M, Sideridis G, Lens W. Vitality and interest–enjoyment as a function of class-to-class variation in need-supportive teaching and pupils’ autonomous motivation. J Educ Psychol. (2011) 103:353–66. doi: 10.1037/a0022773
16. Franco E, Coterón J, Huéscar E, Moreno-Murcia JA. A person-centered approach in physical education to better understand low-motivation students. J Teach Phys Educ. (2020) 39:91–101. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2019-0028
17. Crotti M, Borgogni A. Investigation of model-based practices and pedagogies for an interest promoting physical education. Italian J Health Edu, Sport Incl Didactic. (2025) 9. doi: 10.32043/gsd.v9i1.1310
18. Simonton KL, Garn AC, Washburn N. Caring climate, emotions, and engagement in high school physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. (2022) 41:401–10. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0086
19. An F, Yu J, Xi L. Relations between perceived teacher support and academic achievement: positive emotions and learning engagement as mediators. Curr Psychol. (2023) 42:26672–82. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03668-w
20. Shahrour G, Ananbh N, Dalky H, Rababa M, Alzoubi F. The role of teacher-student relationship on Teachers’ attitudes toward school bullying: a study from Jordan. Int J Bully Prev. (2023):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s42380-023-00194-6
21. Xiao J, Chen M, Yang Y, Liu M. An exploratory multimodal study of the roles of teacher–student interaction and emotion in academic performance in online classrooms. Educ Inf Technol. (2025) 30:15507–27. doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13426-7
22. Heiman T. Quality and quantity of friendship: students’ and Teachers’ perceptions. Sch Psychol Int. (2000) 21:265–80. doi: 10.1177/0143034300213004
23. Opdenakker M-C, Maulana R, Den Brok P. Teacher–student interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one school year: developmental changes and linkage. Sch Eff Sch Improv. (2012) 23:95–119. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2011.619198
24. Obsuth I, Murray AL, Malti T, Sulger P, Ribeaud D, Eisner M. A non-bipartite propensity score analysis of the effects of teacher–student relationships on adolescent problem and prosocial behavior. J Youth Adolesc. (2017) 46:1661–87. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0534-y
25. Rucinski CL, Brown JL, Downer JT. Teacher–child relationships, classroom climate, and children’s social-emotional and academic development. J Educ Psychol. (2018) 110:992–1004. doi: 10.1037/edu0000240
26. Wanders FHK, Dijkstra AB, Maslowski R, Van Der Veen I. The effect of teacher–student and student–student relationships on the societal involvement of students. Res Pap Edu. (2020) 35:266–86. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1568529
27. Ansari A, Buckley MN, Woods SC, Gottfried M. The cumulative, timing-specific, and enduring associations between student–teacher relationships and early elementary outcomes. Child Dev. (2025) 96:475–91. doi: 10.1111/cdev.14177
28. Deng L, Yang D, Liang G, Hu C, Zhang P. The impact of generative AI’S information delivery methods on emotional exhaustion among bullying roles in the medical workplace. Front Public Health. (2025) 13:1649342. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1649342
29. Zhao J, Qin Y. Perceived teacher autonomy support and Students’ deep learning: the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating role of perceived peer support. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:652796. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652796
30. Hajovsky DB, Chesnut SR, Helbig KA, Goranowski SM. On the examination of longitudinal trends between teacher–student relationship quality and social skills during elementary school. School Psych Rev. (2023) 52:679–95. doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1883995
31. Chen H, Zhang S, Xu J, Du R, Tang S. Effect of the teacher–student relationships on feedback literacy of high school students in Tibetan areas of China: mediating effect of emotional intelligence and moderating effect of ethnicity category. Asia-Pacific Edu Res. (2024) 33:419–29. doi: 10.1007/s40299-023-00739-9
32. Poulou MS, Garner PW. Teacher–student relationships: the roles of teachers’ emotional competence, social emotional learning beliefs, and burnout. Teachers Teaching. (2025) 31(7):1–22. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2024.2435080
33. Wang C. The effect of the teacher–student relationship on the academic adjustment of returned migrant children: the chain mediating role of school attitude and resilience. Front Psychol. (2025) 15:1464904. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1464904
34. El Zaatari W, Maalouf I. How the bronfenbrenner bio-ecological system theory explains the development of Students’ sense of belonging to school? Sage Open. (2022) 12:21582440221134089. doi: 10.1177/21582440221134089
35. Brandmiller C, Schnitzler K, Dumont H. Teacher perceptions of student motivation and engagement: longitudinal associations with student outcomes. Eur J Psychol Educ. (2024) 39:1397–420. doi: 10.1007/s10212-023-00741-1
36. Engels MC, Spilt J, Denies K, Verschueren K. The role of affective teacher–student relationships in adolescents’ school engagement and achievement trajectories. Learn Instr. (2021) 75:101485. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101485
37. Rodríguez S, Núñez JC, Valle A, Freire C, Ferradás MDM, Rodríguez-Llorente C. Relationship between Students’ prior academic achievement and homework behavioral engagement: the mediating/moderating role of learning motivation. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1047. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01047
38. Ekatushabe M, Kwarikunda D, Muwonge CM, Ssenyonga J, Schiefele U. Relations between perceived teacher’s autonomy support, cognitive appraisals and boredom in physics learning among lower secondary school students. IJ Stem Ed. (2021) 8:8. doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00272-5
39. Leo FM, Mouratidis A, Pulido JJ, López-Gajardo MA, Sánchez-Oliva D. Perceived teachers’ behavior and students’ engagement in physical education: the mediating role of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. (2022) 27:59–76. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1850667
40. Marquez J, Lambert L, Khanna D. Exploring factors associated with student wellbeing in the United Arab Emirates: PISA 2018. J Res Int Edu. (2024) 23:41–59. doi: 10.1177/14752409241243011
41. Ourda D, Kavoukoglou A, Gregoriadis A, Barkoukis V. The role of school environment on the sustainable development of pre-schoolers’ motor creativity. Sports. (2025) 13:229. doi: 10.3390/sports13070229
42. Endedijk HM, Breeman LD, Van Lissa CJ, Hendrickx MMHG, Den Boer L, Mainhard T. The teacher’s invisible hand: a meta-analysis of the relevance of teacher–student relationship quality for peer relationships and the contribution of student behavior. Rev Educ Res. (2022) 92:370–412. doi: 10.3102/00346543211051428
43. Zhou D, Liu S, Zhou H, Liu J, Ma Y. The association among teacher–student relationship, subjective well-being, and academic achievement: evidence from Chinese fourth graders and eighth graders. Front Psychol. (2023) 14:1097094. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1097094
44. Di Lisio G, Milá Roa A, Halty A, Berástegui A, Couso Losada A, Pitillas C. Nurturing bonds that empower learning: a systematic review of the significance of teacher–student relationship in education. Front Educ. (2025) 10:1522997. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1522997
45. Zhang Z, Wang Y, Deng W, Ma X, Qi C. The impact of teacher care on teacher–student relationship: evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Front Psychol. (2025) 16:1551081. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1551081
46. Ma L, Liu L, Liu J. Mediation of enjoyment and burnout in the link between teacher–student relationships and foreign language achievement and its gender differences. Innov Lang Learn Teach. (2025) 45(8):906–27. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2024.2418353
47. Di Lisio G, Halty A, Berástegui A, Milá Roa A, Couso Losada A. The longitudinal associations between teacher–student relationships and school outcomes in typical and vulnerable student populations: a systematic review. Soc Psychol Educ. (2025) 28:144. doi: 10.1007/s11218-025-10107-8
48. Wanders FHK, Van Der Veen I, Dijkstra AB, Maslowski R. The influence of teacher–student and student–student relationships on societal involvement in Dutch primary and secondary schools. Theory Res Soc Edu. (2020) 48:101–19. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2019.1651682
49. Peugh JL, DiLillo D, Panuzio J. Analyzing mixed-dyadic data using structural equation models. Struct Equ Model. (2013) 20:314–37. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2013.769395
50. Rosenberg J, Beymer P, Anderson D, van Lissa CJ, Schmidt J. tidyLPA: an R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. JOSS. (2018) 3:978. doi: 10.21105/joss.00978
51. Wu F, Jiang Y, Liu D, Konorova E, Yang X. The role of perceived teacher and peer relationships in adolescent students’ academic motivation and educational outcomes. Educ Psychol (Lond). (2022) 42:439–58. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2022.2042488
52. Daumiller M, Hemi A. Peer relationships and student motivation: theoretical and methodological approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Br J Edu Psychol. (2025):bjep.70030. doi: 10.1111/bjep.70030
53. McIlroy D. An evaluation of the factor structure and predictive utility of a test anxiety scale with reference to students’ past performance and personality indices. Br J Edu Psychol. (2000) 70:17–32. doi: 10.1348/000709900157949
54. Chen S, Chen A, Zhu X. Are K–12 learners motivated in physical education? A meta-analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. (2012) 83:36–48. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2012.10599823
55. Zhu X. Research on the Status Quo and Relationship of Mathematics Learning Quality, Teacher–Student Relationship and Mathematics Learning Achievement of Junior Middle School Students Abstract. Xining: Qinghai Normal University (2023). doi: 10.27778/d.cnki.gqhzy.2023.000092
56. Wang Y, Wang X. Development of teacher-student relationships and its relation to factors in primary school. Psychol Dev Edu. (2002) 03:18–23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4918.2002.03.004
57. Parker JG, Asher SR. Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Dev Psychol. (1993) 29:611–21. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611
58. Zhou ZK, Sun X, Zhao D, Tian Y, Fan C. The development of peer relationship in childhood. Psychol Devel Edu. (2015) 31:62–70. doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.01.09
59. Wang X. Research on the Reform of Physical Education Learning Assessment in Primary and Secondary Schools in China. Shanghai: East China Normal University (2005). Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CDFD&dbname=CDFD9908&filename=2005086162.nh (Accessed September 28, 2025).
60. Widiger TA, Samuel DB. Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders–fifth edition. J Abnorm Psychol. (2005) 114:494–504. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.494
61. Widiger TA, Livesley WJ, Clark LA. An integrative dimensional classification of personality disorder. Psychol Assess. (2009) 21:243–55. doi: 10.1037/a0016606
62. Charter RA. Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability, generalizability, and validity coefficients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. (1999) 21:559–66. doi: 10.1076/jcen.21.4.559.889
63. Holmbeck GN, Devine KA. Editorial: an author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. J Pediatr Psychol. (2009) 34:691–6. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp046
64. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. (2003) 88:879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
65. Aguirre-Urreta MI, Hu J. Detecting common method bias: performance of the harman’s single-factor test. SIGMIS Database. (2019) 50:45–70. doi: 10.1145/3330472.3330477
66. Wang M-T, Peck SC. Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles. Dev Psychol. (2013) 49:1266–76. doi: 10.1037/a0030028
67. Spilt JL, Hughes JN, Wu J, Kwok O. Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child Dev. (2012) 83:1180–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x
68. Kingery JN, Erdley CA, Marshall KC. Peer acceptance and friendship as predictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill Palmer Q. (2011) 57:215–43. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2011.0012
69. Wang M, Eccles JS. Social support matters: longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Dev. (2012) 83:877–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x
70. Li X, Bergin C, Olsen AA. Positive teacher–student relationships may lead to better teaching. Learn Instr. (2022) 80:101581. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101581
71. Roorda DL, Bosman RJ. What if I don’t like all of them? A person-centered approach to examine student–teacher relationships in the first year of secondary school. J Early Adolesc. (2022) 42:1026–51. doi: 10.1177/02724316221088755
72. Suldo SM, McMahan MM, Chappel AM, Loker T. Relationships between perceived school climate and adolescent mental health across genders. School Ment Health. (2012) 4:69–80. doi: 10.1007/s12310-012-9073-1
73. Longobardi C, Prino LE, Marengo D, Settanni M. Student–teacher relationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high school. Front Psychol. (2016) 7:1988. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01988
74. Kit PL, Liem GAD, Chong WH. Teacher–student relationship and student engagement: the moderating role of educational hope. Educ Psychol (Lond). (2022) 42:1180–97. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2022.2108766
75. Borys S, Perlman D. Gender differences in loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. (1985) 11:63–74. doi: 10.1177/0146167285111006
76. Delgado E, Serna C, Martínez I, Cruise E. Parental attachment and peer relationships in adolescence: a systematic review. IJERPH. (2022) 19:1064. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031064
77. Rudolph KD, Dodson JF. Gender differences in friendship values: intensification at adolescence. J Early Adolesc. (2022) 42:586–607. doi: 10.1177/02724316211051948
78. Sheng J, Ariffin IAB, Tham J. The influence of exercise self-efficacy and gender on the relationship between exercise motivation and physical activity in college students. Sci Rep. (2025) 15:11888. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-95704-5
79. Rogers AA, Nielson MG, Santos CE. Manning up while growing up: a developmental-contextual perspective on masculine gender-role socialization in adolescence. Psychol Men Masculinities. (2021) 22:354–64. doi: 10.1037/men0000296
80. Barth JM, Masters SL, Parker JG. Gender stereotypes and belonging across high school girls’ social groups: beyond the STEM classroom. Soc Psychol Educ. (2022) 25:275–92. doi: 10.1007/s11218-021-09683-2
81. Izadi G. Human capital investment and employment in Iran: the importance of urban-rural distinctions (doctoral). University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom (2018). doi: 10.34737/Q551Y
82. Liu X, Fu R, Li D, Liu J, Chen X. Self- and group-orientations and adjustment in urban and rural Chinese children. J Cross Cult Psychol. (2018) 49:1440–56. doi: 10.1177/0022022118795294
83. Wu J, Fu H, Zhang Y. A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived social support and student academic achievement: the mediating role of student engagement. Adv Psychol Sci. (2023) 31:552. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00552
84. Shin Y, Raudenbush SW. The causal effect of class size on academic achievement: multivariate instrumental Variable estimators with data missing at random. J Educ Behav Stat. (2011) 36:154–85. doi: 10.3102/1076998610388632
85. Altinok N, Kingdon G. New evidence on class size effects: a pupil fixed effects approach. Oxf Bull Econ Stat. (2012) 74:203–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00648.x
86. Seo C, Kruis N, Park S. School violence and safety policies and practices in urban and rural communities: does location matter? IJRC. (2022) 6:273–97. doi: 10.18061/ijrc.v6i2.8341
87. Long E, Zucca C, Sweeting H. School climate, peer relationships, and adolescent mental health: a social ecological perspective. Youth Soc. (2021) 53:1400–15. doi: 10.1177/0044118X20970232
88. Zou Y, Liu S, Guo S, Zhao Q, Cai Y. Peer support and exercise adherence in adolescents: the chain-mediated effects of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Children. (2023) 10:401. doi: 10.3390/children10020401
89. Hu C, Zhang W, Huang W, Jin C. How grit enhances physical exercise in college students: mediating roles of personal growth initiative and self-efficacy. Front Psychol. (2025) 16:1652984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1652984
90. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. (2000) 55:68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
91. Barszcz SJ, Oleszkowicz AM, Bąk O, Słowińska AM. The role of types of motivation, life goals, and beliefs in pro-environmental behavior: the self-determination theory perspective. Curr Psychol. (2023) 42:17789–804. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-02995-2
92. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. (2000) 25:54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
93. Weiss MR, Smith AL. Friendship quality in youth sport: relationship to age, gender, and motivation variables. J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2002) 24:420–37. doi: 10.1123/jsep.24.4.420
94. Huang W, Chen B, Hu C. The latent profile structure of negative emotion in female college students and its impact on eating behavior: the mediating role of physical exercise. Front Public Health. (2025) 13:1663474. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1663474
95. Alsarrani A, Hunter RF, Dunne L, Garcia L. Association between friendship quality and subjective wellbeing among adolescents: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. (2022) 22:2420. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14776-4
96. Yip PK, Cheng L, Cheung P. The association of children’s motivation and physical activity levels with flipped learning during physical education lessons. Eur Phy Educ Rev. (2023) 29:601–18. doi: 10.1177/1356336X231170990
97. Standage M, Duda J, Ntoumanis N. Predicting motivational regulations in physical education: the interplay between dispositional goal orientations, motivational climate and perceived competence. J Sports Sci. (2003) 21:631–47. doi: 10.1080/0264041031000101962
98. Haerens L, Vansteenkiste M, De Meester A, Delrue J, Tallir I, Vande Broek G, et al. Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. (2018) 23:16–36. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2017.1346070
99. Cheon SH, Reeve J, Marsh HW, Song Y-G. Intervention-enabled autonomy-supportive teaching improves the PE classroom climate to reduce antisocial behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2022) 60:102174. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102174
100. Jõesaar H, Hein V, Hagger MS. Youth athletes’ perception of autonomy support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport setting: one-year effects. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2012) 13:257–62. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.001
101. Sentenac M, Gavin A, Gabhainn SN, Molcho M, Due P, Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. Peer victimization and subjective health among students reporting disability or chronic illness in 11 western countries. Eur J Public Health. (2013) 23:421–6. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cks073
102. Beets MW, Cardinal BJ, Alderman BL. Parental social support and the physical activity-related behaviors of youth: a review. Health Educ Behav. (2010) 37:621–44. doi: 10.1177/1090198110363884
103. Niermann CYN, Wagner P, Ziegeldorf A, Wulff H. Parents’ and children’s perception of self-efficacy and parental support are related to children’s physical activity: a cross-sectional study of parent–child dyads. J Fam Stud. (2022) 28:986–1004. doi: 10.1080/13229400.2020.1773901
104. Hosokawa R, Fujimoto M, Katsura T. Parental support for physical activity and children’s physical activities: a cross-sectional study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. (2023) 15:90. doi: 10.1186/s13102-023-00700-9
Keywords: interest in physical education, teacher–student relationship, adolescents, friendship quality, latent profile analysis
Citation: Chen X, Huang W and Hu C (2025) Associations of perceived teacher–student relationship and friendship quality with adolescents' interest in physical education: a latent profile analysis. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1677083. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1677083
Received: 7 August 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025;
Published: 13 November 2025.
Edited by:
Marco Batista, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, PortugalReviewed by:
Gerardo Fuentes-Vilugrón, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, ChileGonzalo Monfort, University of Valencia, Spain
Copyright: © 2025 Chen, Huang and Hu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Wenying Huang, aHVhbmd3ZW55aW5nNjZAMTYzLmNvbQ==; Chang Hu, aHVjaGFuZ0BqeG51LmVkdS5jbg==