View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Are Students Who Make an Effort Perceived as Successful or Just Liked by Their Teachers?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Are Students Who Make an Effort Perceived as Successful or Just Liked by Their Teachers?
Language: English
Authors: Saidah, Berenice (ORCID 0000-0001-7775-7800), Louvet, Eva, Pansu, Pascal
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. Apr 2019 22(2):405-419.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Student Relationship, Teacher Attitudes, Personality Traits, Academic Achievement, Middle School Teachers, Social Desirability, Competence, Social Values, Beliefs, Student Motivation
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-019-09481-x
ISSN: 1381-2890
Abstract: The aim of the present paper was to analyze the social value of effort versus competence in the field of education. In Study 1, participants (N = 116) were asked to indicate the importance of effort- and competence-related personality traits in achieving academic success. We also examined their meritocratic beliefs. In Study 2, middle school teachers (N = 87) were asked to judge the academic success (social utility) and perceived likeability (social desirability) of students described as high versus low on effort and competence. Results showed that participants judged effort as being more important for academic success than competence, especially concerning participants showing high levels of meritocratic beliefs (Study 1). Despite this normative value of effort, effort was judged less predictive of academic success than competence, suggesting a low social value of effort with regard to social utility. A reversed pattern was observed for social desirability.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1213556
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHH6Na8vi3Kgj8XtX0D7p9QAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDETQV-mBfsOJ6-12SAIBEICBmgAzdcNVQuJB6ypNFzP4UzagubdRJwombyazMyD0erutKWkY3HMkacoTl4q_sETUqLVOTlQ4kdnlzy2V54x5Zn_4z6QRyO9xR2P6g8CttfR-8X-wW4WgZFkRE-uPdv8Kpg3qpSMUJs4-ixXRQ3UUwss6XZTGMGJcmA3VARiwVO3G5I609yWZ-i2hcXUgQAR3SBEwxDCFGfiLkA0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0136098842;luo01apr.19;2019Apr27.05:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0136098842-1">Are students who make an effort perceived as successful or just liked by their teachers? </title> <p>The aim of the present paper was to analyze the social value of effort versus competence in the field of education. In Study 1, participants (N = 116) were asked to indicate the importance of effort- and competence-related personality traits in achieving academic success. We also examined their meritocratic beliefs. In Study 2, middle school teachers (N = 87) were asked to judge the academic success (social utility) and perceived likeability (social desirability) of students described as high versus low on effort and competence. Results showed that participants judged effort as being more important for academic success than competence, especially concerning participants showing high levels of meritocratic beliefs (Study 1). Despite this normative value of effort, effort was judged less predictive of academic success than competence, suggesting a low social value of effort with regard to social utility. A reversed pattern was observed for social desirability.</p> <p>Keywords: Competence; Effort; School judgment; Social norms</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Barack Obama's famous "yes we can", as well as the traditional proverb saying "where there is a will there is a way" are good examples of the fact that effort seems to be a central value in our western societies based on meritocracy (Duru-Bellat and Tenret [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]), especially in an educational context where the principle of meritocracy is particularly prevailing. It is as if all we have to do in order to get what we want is to make some effort, implying that everyone is responsible for his or her own fate, and consequently deserves what he or she gets (Lerner [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]). However, it is important to distinguish between two interpretations of the value of effort. Typically, the value of effort refers to a kind of behavioral norm (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]; Pansu et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; Pansu and Gilibert [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]): People are expected to make an effort in order to get what they want. An alternative interpretation of the value of effort refers to its social value as highlighted in the evaluative approach of social judgment (Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]). Here, effort is viewed as a judgment criterion that communicates the value to be expected from a person adopting this normative behavior in a given social environment. In other words, effort indicates the benefit that a social organization (school, company) can obtain from a person who makes an effort and their reputation for being able to succeed in this context (Beauvois and Dubois 2012). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that although effort is assumed to be an important behavioral norm in educational settings (students are expected to make an effort), students known to make an effort will not necessarily be associated with high academic success.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-3">The behavioral norm of effort in the educational context</hd> <p>In the literature, social values are usually defined as socially shared evaluative beliefs indicating what should be regarded as good versus bad, desirable versus undesirable in our society (Pansu and Dubois [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]; Morchain [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]). Social values are closely linked to social norms, except that the former refers to general principles whereas the latter refers to specific actions and situations. These evaluative beliefs influence both individuals' behaviors and their judgments about the behaviors of others. Effort is undoubtedly a significant social value in our western societies, especially in education (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; Matteucci et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]; Pansu [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]; Perrenoud [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]). At school, students are expected to make an effort and work hard in class, do their homework, and take on challenges. These expectations are perceived by children very early in their school career: primary school students as well as junior high school students desired to portray themselves as effortful to teachers (Juvonen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]). Similarly, teachers chose more severe educational interventions towards students with achievement failure due to a lack of effort, than towards students who failed because of a lack of ability (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]). To sum up, for students as well as for teachers, a lack of effort is considered as a form of transgression of school standards (Weiner [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The social value of effort in education has also received some empirical support in the field of attributional self-presentations strategies. It has been shown that both students and teachers not only valued internal explanations of success and failure at school, but specifically valued effort-based explanations rather than other types of internal explanations such as ability (Dompnier and Pansu [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]; Pansu [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Pansu et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]; Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). Similar results have been obtained concerning the social value of achievement goals. Mastery goals (the desire to learn), which have been recently shown to be strongly related to effort (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref20">7</reflink>]), are particularly valued at university. Teachers explicitly promote mastery goals in their institutional discourse. Similarly, mastery goals were frequently chosen by students when they were instructed to generate a positive image of themselves (Darnon et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>This social valuation of effort may have its roots in meritocratic beliefs which is a widespread ideology in our western societies, and refers to the belief that people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Lerner [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]; Rubin and Peplau [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]). A person would be considered as deserving their own fate, if this fate relies on internal and especially controllable factors. Insofar as effort is perceived as both internal and controllable (Weiner [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref24">35</reflink>]), linking success/failure to effort/lack of effort means that people are responsible for what is happening to them, and consequently deserve what they get. In contrast, linking success/failure to some inherited qualities such as ability means that people cannot be held responsible for what is happening to them as they do not have any control over the events, and consequently do not deserve what they get.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-4">The social value of students who make an effort</hd> <p>Within the framework of social judgment, Beauvois and Dubois recently suggested an alternative and quite original definition of the concept of social value (Beauvois and Dubois [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]). According to this approach, social value can be defined as the value attributed to persons in a given social environment, reflecting what one can, must or should do with these persons (Beauvois and Depret [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]; Pansu and Dubois [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]). In line with the dominant bi-dimensional approach of social judgment (Abele and Wojciszke [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; Cuddy et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]), social value encompasses two basic components, namely social desirability and social utility (Dubois et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]). Social desirability refers to the value of a person in his or her relationship with others and can be defined as his or her reputation for arousing positive affects in other people and for satisfying other people's motivations. It can be expressed by personality traits referring to social and moral qualities such as warmth, helpfulness, and honesty. Social utility refers to the value of a person in a specific social organization (such as at work or at school) and can be defined as his or her reputation for being able to meet the requirements of this organization and to occupy high status positions. It can be expressed by personality traits referring to the resources and energy that he or she invests in his or her activities such as capability, competence, and effort. In other words, social utility can be defined as the "economic" value or "capacity to succeed" attributed to a person within a given social organization, whereas social desirability can be defined as the "affective value" or "capacity to be liked" attributed to a person in his or her interpersonal relationships. Thus, when a student is said to be intelligent or hardworking, he or she is characterized by a high level of social utility; when a student is said to be friendly or helpful, he or she is characterized by a high level of social desirability. According to these definitions of social value, effort undoubtedly refers to social utility, insofar as it can be seen as a kind of energy invested in order to succeed.</p> <p>The next step is to question the relative contribution of effort to social utility as compared to other characteristics, namely competence. Recent work (Mateucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]) in the field of impression management in an educational context revealed that self-presentation strategies based on effort attributions were more valued on social utility than other self-presentations strategies, including strategies based on ability attributions. Students described as explaining their success by effort while ascribing their failure to not having worked hard enough, received the highest expectations of future academic success. However, recent research in the field of social judgment in a professional context suggested that effort was less linked to social utility than competence (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]; Rohmer and Louvet [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]). For example, individuals described by personality traits or behaviors reflecting competence were attributed higher positions within an organizational context and higher income levels than individuals described as incompetent, whereas effort versus lack of effort did not affect status perception (Louvet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>]). Furthermore, employees described by traits and behaviors depicting effort were associated with lower status positions within their organization and lower income levels than employees described with traits and behaviors depicting competence (Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]). These discrepancies in the literature can be explained by several factors. First of all, context-related differences may be responsible for these discrepancies. Recent work suggested discrepancies between valued qualities for workers and students (Spinath et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>]). Effort has been shown to be particularly valued in an educational context (Juvonen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]; Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]), whereas this may be less the case in a work context. In a work setting, successful individuals are generally described as efficient, and are not particularly expected to make an effort (Carrier et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]; Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]). Secondly, research conducted in the field of attributional self-presentation strategies dealt with social value attributed to persons explaining their success or failure by effort versus lack of effort (the explanation given), whereas research in the field of social judgement analyzed social value attributed to persons actually displaying behaviors related to effort (what was done). In conclusion, while effort seems to be an important behavioral norm in an educational context (students are expected to work hard), as well as an important judgment norm (students are expected to explain the events that happen to them by effort), students who actually make an effort are not necessarily attributed a high level of social utility, that is they are not necessarily perceived as successful.</p> <p>However, these students may be valued on social desirability. Students who described themselves as making an effort were liked better by their teachers than those who described themselves as lazy (Juvonen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]). Furthermore, students described as explaining the events that happen to them by effort/lack of effort were not only attributed high academic success, but were also seen as popular and well-liked by their teachers, suggesting that the norm of effort may be rooted both in social utility- and social desirability (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]).University students described as adopting mastery goals, which have been shown to be associated to a high level of effort (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]), were not only perceived as successful, but also as likable. In other words, these students were valued on both social utility and social desirability (Darnon et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref52">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-5">Overview</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to test a discrepancy between the normative value of effort in an educational context and the social value attributed to students who meet this norm: while effort is a relevant norm in our meritocratic society, a student who is known to make an effort does not necessarily communicate significant academic value. In Study 1, we explored the normative value of effort versus competence by asking participants (teachers and non-teachers) to indicate the importance of effort- and competence-related personality traits in achieving academic success. We also examined their meritocratic beliefs, predicting that the normative value of effort may be based on meritocracy. In Study 2, we explored the social value of effort in terms of social utility and social desirability by asking teachers to judge the academic success and likability of students previously described as high or low on effort and competence.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-6">Study 1</hd> <p>Study 1 aimed to test our first hypothesis suggesting that effort is particularly valued at school, in line with the prevailing meritocratic beliefs. The participants were asked to choose the three traits they considered to be most important for success at school from a list of personality traits such as <emph>motivated, persevering</emph> (traits related to effort) and <emph>clever, able (</emph>traits related to competence). They were also asked to rank their choices in order of importance. After this, they completed a questionnaire measuring their personal adherence to meritocracy in the educational context. We expected their answers to reveal that effort is more important than competence for a child to achieve success at school. We also expected a positive relationship between the value attached to effort and meritocratic beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136098842-8">Participants</hd> <p>One hundred and sixteen French adults (87 women and 29 men) voluntarily accepted to take part in Study 1. Age ranged from 18 to 67 years (<emph>M </emph>= 35.94, <emph>SD </emph>= 10.7). Sixty-seven of them were teachers from middle and high schools, the others came from a wide range of occupational areas. Participants had to consent to participate to this study and were informed that their answers would remain anonymous. They were also informed that they could leave the survey at any time, and were given an email address to contact the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-9">Material and procedure</hd> <p>The study was done online and appeared as a web-based "Survey on Perception of School". Invitations to participate went to various professional social media. The survey's home page provided some information about the general nature of the survey, stating that it was measuring "some general beliefs about the educational system". The survey comprised two main sections. In the first section, participants were asked to choose three traits from a list of twelve and rank them in order of importance for a child's success at school. Four of these traits were related to effort (<emph>motivated, persevering, hard</emph>-<emph>working, willing</emph>), and four were related to competence (<emph>clever, capable, efficient, competent</emph>). These traits were selected from previous research on the dimensions underlying social judgment in an achievement context (Louvet and Rohmer [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Rohmer and Louvet [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). The remaining four traits were fillers that have nothing to do with academic achievement (e.g. friendly, good-natured). Concerning the dependent measurement, a score was attributed to each trait selected by the participant according to its rank (first position: 3; second position: 2; third position: 1). This score was calculated separately for traits related to effort and traits related to competence resulting in possible scores of 0 when the three traits selected did not pertain to the dimension considered, to 6 when all three traits selected pertained to the dimension considered. In the second section, meritocratic beliefs were assessed by using a questionnaire about "justice at school" (Lannegrand-Willems [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref56">17</reflink>]). This questionnaire was composed of 6 statements assessing belief in fairness at school as defined by the belief that at school, students get what they deserve and deserve what they get (<emph>«</emph><emph>When a student fails, she/he has no one to blame but herself/himself » ; « If students make an effort, they almost always get what they want » ; « School treats students fairly » ; «</emph><emph>Students get the marks they deserve » ; « Students who do well in their work are generally rewarded » ; « Students deserve the rewards and punishments they get </emph><bold>»</bold>). Answers to these items were submitted by clicking in one of seven response options ranging from "disagree completely" to "agree completely". A composite score was computed by averaging the ratings on the 6 items (Cronbach's alpha =.84). Finally, participants were asked for gender, age and occupation. Clicking a "submit" button recorded the data.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-10">Results</hd> <p>First of all, results revealed no significant effect of gender, type of school (middle versus high school) or job experience. To examine whether participants valued effort more than competence at school, we performed a 2 dimension (effort versus competence) × 2 occupation (teacher versus non-teacher) ANOVA with the first factor varying within participants and the second varying between participants. A significant dimension effect, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref58">115</reflink>) = 109.54, <emph>p</emph> <.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.49, revealed that ratings were higher on effort (<emph>M </emph>= 4.37; <emph>SD</emph> =.17) than on competence (<emph>M</emph> = 1.14; <emph>SD</emph> =.15). This effect appeared regardless of occupation. Second, as expected, meritocracy scores were positively correlated with rank effort scores (<emph>r </emph>=.27; <emph>p</emph> <.05). Conversely, meritocracy scores were negatively correlated with rank competence scores (<emph>r </emph>= −.24; <emph>p</emph> <.05). The opposite sign of these correlations supports the idea that effort and competence are two different constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this first study was to confirm that effort would be particularly valued at school, and that this valuation might be linked to meritocratic beliefs. The results supported this hypothesis. First of all, teachers as well as non-teachers judged personality traits related to effort as being more important for academic success than personality traits related to competence. In other words, participants considered that students have to be hard-working and persevering, rather than clever and capable to succeed at school. Secondly, as expected, valuation of effort seemed to be positively linked to meritocratic beliefs. This positive relationship may be explained by the fact that effort can be seen as both internal and controllable (Weiner [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]). Consequently, linking academic success or failure to effort or lack of effort means that students are responsible for their own academic outcomes, and therefore deserve the marks they obtain. Moreover, it is worth noting that valuation of competence was negatively linked to meritocratic beliefs: the more participants adhered to meritocratic beliefs, the less they judged traits related to competence as important to succeed in school. This unexpected negative relationship could be explained by the widespread view that one has a certain amount of intelligence and that there is not much one can do to change it (Dweck [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]). Thus, although internal, intelligence is not controllable. Consequently, linking academic success or failure to intelligence or lack of intelligence means that students are not responsible for their academic outcomes, and therefore do not deserve the marks they obtain. An alternative interpretation of this negative relationship between meritocratic beliefs and competence may be the potentially compensatory link between competence and effort suggesting that the less competent one is the harder one has to work (Juvonen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref61">16</reflink>]; Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the participants seem to think that effort is an essential criterion for academic success, which raises the question whether students who make an effort are actually perceived to be successful at school. In other words, how students, who meet this expected criterion, are judged in terms of academic success? The following study aimed to answer this question.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-12">Study 2</hd> <p>Building on the evaluative approach of social judgment (Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>]), the aim of study 2 was to examine the social value of effort versus competence in academic judgments. The participants (teachers) were asked to judge social utility (academic success) as well as social desirability (likeability) of students described as high versus low on effort and competence. In line with previous research in the field of social judgment (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]; Louvet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]), we hypothesized that despite its strong normative value (see Study 1), effort would be less valued on social utility than competence. Insofar as effort has been shown to be closely linked to social desirability (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref67">22</reflink>]), we further hypothesized that effort would be more valued on social desirability than competence. In other words, we expected the normative value of effort to be more rooted in social desirability than in social utility.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-13">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136098842-14">Participants</hd> <p>Eighty-Seven experienced French teachers (61 women and 26 men) from middle and high schools voluntarily and anonymously participated in this study. They were informed that they could leave the survey at any time, and were given an email address to contact the authors. Age ranged from 22 to 62 years (<emph>M </emph>= 38, <emph>SD </emph>= 10). They were all 'working as teachers at the time of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-15">Material and procedure</hd> <p>Participants were invited via various professional media to take part in an online survey about "how teachers perceive their students". The survey's first page provided some information about the general nature of the survey, stating that participants would be asked to form impressions of a student based on behavior at school. Respondents had to consent to participate to this study and were informed that their answers would remain anonymous. They were also informed that they could leave the survey at any time, and were given an email address to contact the authors. As we were interested in social utility versus social desirability of effort as a behavioral norm, participants were given a short description of a student reporting six behaviors at school. Three of these behaviors concerned effort (e.g., <emph>he regularly learns his lessons</emph>), and three concerned competence (e.g., <emph>he works fast</emph>). The behaviors were selected from a pretest conducted with 50 teachers (mean age = 35.0; <emph>SD</emph> = 10.7). They were asked to judge a pool of 46 school-related behaviors on their effort or their competence. The two rating questions were "how much does each of the following behaviors describe a student who is competent regardless of their level of effort?" and "how much does each of the following behaviors describe a student who makes an effort regardless of their level of competence?" Responses were given on a scale ranging from − 3 (not at all) to + 3 (totally). We calculated a mean score for each question. We then selected behaviors that were diagnostic of one of the two dimensions (utility or desirability) and neutral on the other one, using the following criteria: To be selected as diagnostic of one of the two dimensions (e.g. effort), the mean score on this dimension had to be significantly higher than the mean score on the other dimension (competence); the mean score also had to be significantly above the midpoint of the scale for the dimension (effort), and not significantly different from the midpoint of the scale for the other dimension (competence).</p> <p>The participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions referring to four descriptions (see Appendix A): a student who is competent and makes an effort (C+/E+), a student who is competent but makes no effort (C+/E−), a student who makes an effort but lacks competence (C−/E+), and a student who lacks competence and makes no effort (C−/E−). The order of presentation of competence and effort behaviors was counterbalanced. The participants were asked to read the description carefully in order to form an impression of the student described. Then, they had to think about a student who was similar to the description provided, and judge this student's academic success (social utility) and likeability (social desirability) on a 7-point-scale ranging from − 3 (very low) to + 3 (very high). Concerning social utility, they had to indicate to what extent they thought that this student had good (versus bad) grades, was among the best (versus worst) performers in the class and had (or not) the potential for higher education. Concerning social desirability, the participants had to indicate to what extent they thought that this student was liked (versus disliked) by their teachers, would be liked (versus disliked) by themselves, and would get positive (versus negative) comments in his or her school report. Two composite scores were computed by averaging the three items measuring perceived academic success (Cronbach's alpha =.90) on the one hand, and the three items measuring perceived likeability (Cronbach's alpha =.85) on the other hand. Finally, in order to ensure that our experimental manipulation was successful, the participants were asked to judge the student on eight personality traits: four referring to effort (Cronbach's alpha =.93), and four referring to competence (Cronbach's alpha =.86). These traits were the same as those used in Study 1.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136098842-17">Manipulation check of effort and competence</hd> <p>In order to ensure that our experimental manipulation was successful, we examined perceived effort and competence ratings by averaging across the four effort items, and the four competence items. To examine differences in perceived effort versus competence as a function of the description provided, we ran a 2 (dimension: competence versus effort) × 4 (type of description: C+E+/C+E−/C−E+/C−E−) ANOVA with the score of judgment as repeated measurement for the first factor, and the second factor varying between participants. The results revealed the dimension × description interaction <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>, 83) = 26.26, <emph>p</emph> <.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.48. Pairwise comparisons showed that students described as making an effort were indeed judged more positively on effort than those described as making no effort, regardless of their level of competence (<emph>p</emph> <.0001 for all comparisons). Similarly, students described as competent were judged more positively on competence than those described as incompetent. There was again no difference in competence ratings for students described as competent, regardless of their level of effort. However, students described as incompetent, but as making an effort, were judged more positively on competence than students described as incompetent and making no effort (<emph>p</emph> <.0001). Taken together, these results confirm that our manipulation of effort and competence was successful.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-18">Perceived academic success and perceived likeability</hd> <p>The correlation between social utility and social desirability was significant (<emph>r</emph> =.45), suggesting that the two measurements refer to the same construct but do not assess the same dimensions. In order to test the social value of effort versus competence in terms of social utility and social desirability, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with experimental condition (type of description: C + E+/C + E−/C−E +/C−E−) as a between-participants factor was computed for the two dependent variables: perceived academic success and perceived likeability. The combination of dependent variables were significantly affected by the experimental condition, Wilk's Lambda =.10197, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>, 94) = 33,395 <emph>p</emph> <.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.68): profile C + E + and C + E− were clearly judged more positively than profile C−E + and C−E− (<emph>p</emph> <.0001 for all comparisons) and C−E + was also judged more positively than profile C−E− (<emph>p</emph> <.01). To examine the effect of experimental condition on each dependent measure, pairwise comparisons were performed by means of the Fisher's LSD (Table 1). Regarding perceived academic success, these comparisons showed that, students described as competent received the highest ratings, regardless of the amount of effort provided (<emph>p</emph> <.0001 for all comparisons). Not surprisingly, students described as lacking competence and making no effort received the lowest ratings (<emph>p</emph> <.0001). More interestingly, results also revealed that students described as competent but making no effort were judged more positively with regard to their academic success than students described as making an effort but lacking competence (<emph>p</emph> <.0001). These results suggest that in terms of social utility, effort is less valued than competence.</p> <p>Mean scores (and standard deviations) of ratings on perceived academic success and ratings on perceived likeability according to the description provided</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th><th align="left"><p>Perceived academic success <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Perceived likeability <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>C+E+</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.17 (0.26) a</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.54 (0.17) a</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C−E+</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.97 (0.23) b</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.2 (0.15) a</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C−E−</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.81 (0.40) c</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67 (0.25) b</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C+E−</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.56 (0.35) a</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.41 (0.22) b</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups (<emph>p</emph> <.001)</p> <p>Regarding perceived likeability, pairwise comparisons showed that students described as making an effort received higher ratings than students described as making no effort, regardless of their level of competence (<emph>p</emph> <.0001 for all comparisons). Thus, students described as making an effort but lacking competence were more positively judged on perceived likeability than students described as competent but making no effort. These results suggest that in terms of social desirability, effort is more valued than competence.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of our second study was to examine the value of effort versus competence in terms of social utility versus social desirability. We expected effort to be less predictive of perceived academic success than competence, whereas the reversed pattern was expected concerning perceived likability. The results supported this hypothesis: students described as competent were positively judged on academic success regardless of the amount of effort provided. Furthermore, students described as competent but making no effort were judged as more likely to succeed at school than students described as making an effort but lacking competence. These findings are consistent with previous research which has shown that academic as well as professional success relies more on competence than on effort (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]; Rohmer and Louvet [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref72">32</reflink>]; Louvet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref73">19</reflink>]). A reversed pattern was observed for social desirability. Students described as making an effort but lacking competence were judged more positively by their teachers than students described as competent but making no effort. This result could be explained by the normative value of effort in line with meritocracy, indicating that effort is something desirable at school. Consequently, students who meet this standard are highly valued on social desirability.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-20">General discussion</hd> <p>The aim of the present paper was to analyze the social value of effort at school. We expected effort to be an important behavioral norm, especially rooted in social desirability rather than in social utility. In other words, students are expected to make an effort, students who actually display this behavior are well-liked by their teachers, but not necessarily perceived as successful. This discrepancy might be explained by the difference between the normative value of effort and the social value attributed to persons who meet this norm. When participants are asked to indicate how students should be or what they are expected to do in order to succeed at school, they are questioned about the prevailing social values, which are usually defined as what is considered as desirable in a given social context. In line with this definition of social value, effort is valued at school based on meritocratic beliefs: students are expected to make an effort in order to succeed at school. Conversely, when participants are asked to predict academic success, they are questioned about social utility, which is defined as the reputation of a student for being able to succeed at school. In line with this alternative definition of social value, effort appears to be less predictive of academic success than competence. This result is consistent with recent research suggesting that competence is more important than effort in predicting professional success (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref75">13</reflink>]; Louvet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, although the social value of effort appeared to be low with regard to social utility in comparison to competence, we observed the reversed pattern with regard to social desirability. Students described as making an effort received very high ratings on likeability regardless of their competence. Consequently, effort might be considered as a kind of behavioral norm prescribing what students have to do at school rooted in social desirability: students who make an effort are liked by their teachers, whereas those who make no effort are not, even if they are competent. These findings could be considered as apparently in contrast with previous research suggesting that the norm of effort may be rooted in both social desirability and social utility (Matteucci [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref77">22</reflink>]). However, this research was conducted in the field of attributional self-presentation strategies and consequently investigated the social value of effort as a judgment norm, whereas the present work investigated the social value of effort as a behavioral norm.</p> <p>The discrepancy between the high normative value of effort in meritocratic society and the low social value of students meeting this requirement on social utility must be questioned from a practical point of view. On the one hand, education policies and the educational system convey a message that is quite clear: they present work, personal investment, and effort as essential behaviors to succeed. However, when it comes to selecting students, competence becomes the main criterion. We can legitimately ask ourselves about the impact of this paradox, especially on the most hard-working students, who do not obtain the expected results. These students may consider that they are not treated fairly, and may lose their motivation to pursue their efforts. These conflicting practices could, instead of creating a learning space where everyone has the same chances of success, on the contrary, increase existing competence gaps.</p> <p>To conclude, the present research represents an attempt at evaluating the social value of effort in the field of education. One direction that would be interesting to take into account in further research is to go beyond a strictly experimental setting. In order to have a more realistic approach, we have to look at how teachers judge their own students according to their perceived effort and competence. This approach would also allow us to control for the actual level of competence of these students through standardized tests. On the same level of competence, are teachers' judgments of academic success still more related to perceived competence than to perceived effort? Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate the relevance of effort versus competence depending on the education level (primary school, middle or high school, university). On the basis of previous research suggesting a low value of effort in a professional context (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>]; Dubois and Beauvois [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref79">13</reflink>]; Louvet et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]), we can expect a negative relationship between the educational level and the relevance of effort for success: the higher the educational level, the lower the relevance of effort will be. Future studies are needed to examine these hypotheses and to replicate these results in other contexts in order to verify the scope and generality of our conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-21">Compliance with ethical standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136098842-22">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors certify that they do not have any affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers' bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter discussed in this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0136098842-23">Appendix A: Behavioral profile (Study 2)</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Profile</p></th><th align="left"><p>Behaviors</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Competent + effort +</p></td><td align="left"><p>X is a pupil who understands quickly the concepts discussed in class. Faced with new problems, he (she) often responds tit for tat and correctly. In class, he (she) works fast</p><p>Moreover, X does his exercises as best as possible, he (she) generally listens to the instructions and regularly learns his lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Competent + effort −</p></td><td align="left"><p>X is a pupil who understands quickly the concepts discussed in class. Faced with new problems, he (she) often responds tit for tat and correctly. In class, he (she) works fast</p><p>However, X tends to botch his work, and does not listen to the instructions. He regularly does not learn his lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Competent − effort +</p></td><td align="left"><p>X is a student who takes time to understand the concepts discussed in class. He is often wrong in his exercises. In class, he (she) works very slowly</p><p>However, X does his exercises as best as possible, he (she) generally listens to the instructions and regularly learns his lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Competent − effort −</p></td><td align="left"><p>X is a student who takes time to understand the concepts discussed in class. He is often wrong in his exercises. In class, he (she) works very slowly</p><p>Moreover, X tends to botch his work, and does not listen to the instructions. He regularly does not learn his lessons</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0136098842-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0136098842-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abele AE, Wojciszke B. The Big Two in social judgment and behavior. Social Psychology. 2013; 44: 61-62. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref32" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abele A, Wojciszke B. Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2014; 50: 198-255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beauvois JL, Dépret E. What about social value?. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2008; 23: 493. 10.1007/BF03172755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beauvois JL, Dubois N. Affordances in social judgment: Experimental proof of why it is a mistake to ignore how others behave towards a target and look solely at how the target behaves. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2000; 59: 16. 10.1024//1421-0185.59.1.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beauvois JL, Dubois N. Lay psychology and the social value of persons. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2009; 3: 1082-1095. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00225.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carrier A, Louvet E, Chauvin B, Rohmer O. The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. Social Psychology. 2014; 45: 347-356. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref20" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen J, Darnon C, Mollaret P. Distinguishing the desire to learn from the desire to perform: The social value of achievement goals. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2017; 157: 30-46. 10.1080/00224545.2016.1152216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cuddy AJ, Fiske ST, Glick P. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2008; 40: 61-149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Darnon C, Dompnier B, Delmas F, Pulfrey C, Butera F. Achievement goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 96: 119. 10.1037/a0012824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dompnier B, Pansu P. Social value of causal explanations in educational settings: Pupils' self-presentation and teachers' representations. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2010; 69: 39-51. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubois N, Beauvois J-L. Désirabilité et utilité : deux composantes de la valeur des personnes dans l'évaluation sociale. Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle. 2001; 30: 391-400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubois N, Beauvois JL. Normativeness and individualism. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2005; 35: 123-146. 10.1002/ejsp.236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dubois N, Beauvois JL Rossi G. The social value of persons: Theory and applications. Psychology-selected papers. 2012: Rijecka (Croatie); Intech: 307-330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duru-Bellat M, Tenret E. Who's for meritocracy? Individual and contextual variations in the faith. Comparative Education Review. 2012; 56: 223-247. 10.1086/661290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S. (2000). Teorie del se': Intelligenza, motivazione, personalita' e sviluppo. Trento, Italy: Erickson. (Translation of Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juvonen J. The social functions of attributional face-saving tactics among early adolescents. Educational Psychology Review. 2000; 12: 15-32. 10.1023/A:1009080816191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lannegrand-Willems L. Sentiment de justice et orientation: croyance en la justice de l'école chez les lycéens professionnels. L'Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle. 2004; 33: 249-269. 10.4000/osp.2153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner MJ. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. 1980: Boston; Springer: 9-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louvet E, Cambon L, Milhabet I, Rohmer O. The relationship between social status and the components of agency. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2019; 159; 1: 30-45. 10.1080/00224545.2018.1441795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louvet E, Rohmer O. Les travailleurs handicapés sont-ils perçus comme des travailleurs compétents ?. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations. 2010; 16: 47-62. 10.1016/S1420-2530(16)30160-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matteucci MC. Teachers facing school failure: The social valorization of effort in the school context. Social Psychology of Education. 2007; 10: 29-53. 10.1007/s11218-006-9011-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matteucci MC. Social utility versus social desirability of students' attributional self- presentation strategies. Social Psychology of Education. 2014; 17: 541-563. 10.1007/s11218-014-9256-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matteucci MC, Tomasetto C, Selleri P, Carugati F. Teacher judgments and pupils' causal explanations: Social valorization of effort-based explanations in school context. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2008; 23: 421-432. 10.1007/BF03172750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morchain P. Psychologie sociale des valeurs. 2009: Paris; Dunod</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu P Columbus A. The internality bias in social judgments: A sociocognitive approach. Advances in psychology research. 2006: New York; Nova Science Publishers Inc: 75-110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu P, Bressoux P, Louche C Dubois N. Theory of the social norm of internality applied to education and organizations. A sociocognitive approach to social norms. 2003: London; Routledge: 196-230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu P, Dubois N Morris EF, Jackson M-A. The social origin of personality traits: An evaluative function. Psychology of personality. 2013: New York; Nova Science Publishers, Inc: 1-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu P, Dubois N, Dompnier B. Internality-norm theory in educational contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2008; 23: 385-397. 10.1007/BF03172748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu P, Gilibert D. Effect of causal explanations on work-related judgment. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2002; 51: 505-526. 10.1111/1464-0597.00105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrenoud P. Métier d'élève et sens du travail scolaire. 1994: Paris; ESF</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohmer O, Louvet E. Le stéréotype des personnes handicapées en fonction de la nature de la déficience. L'Année Psychologique. 2011; 111: 69-85. 10.4074/S0003503311001035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohmer O, Louvet E. Utilité sociale et réussite universitaire d'étudiants ayant ou non des incapacités motrices : rôles respectifs de la compétence et de l'effort. Journal of Human Development, Disability, and Social Change. 2013; 21: 65-76</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin Z, Peplau LA. Who believes in a just world ?. Journal of Social Issues. 1975; 31: 65-89. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spinath B, Eckert C, Steinmayr R. Gender differences in school success: What are the roles of students' intelligence, personality and motivation?. Educational Research. 2014; 56: 230-243. 10.1080/00131881.2014.898917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner B Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET. Attribution, emotion, and action. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. 1986: New York; Guilford Press: 281-312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner B. The classroom as a courtroom. Social Psychology of Education. 2003; 6: 61-90. 10.1023/A:1021736217048</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Berenice Saidah; Eva Louvet and Pascal Pansu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Berenice Saidah is currently a Ph.D. candidate in experimental social psychology at the University of Strasbourg (France). Her research mostly focuses on social judgment in educational contexts, in line with ideological values widespread within the school.</p> <p>Eva Louvet is professor of social psychology at the University of Strasbourg (France). Her research focuses primarily on social judgment in occupational and educational settings.</p> <p>Pascal Pansu Ph.D. in social psychology, is full Professor at Grenoble Alpes University (France). His research mainly concerns social judgment and its effect on the self and on others. In educational settings, he has studied teachers' judgments and their influence on student's self-evaluation and how the evaluative indices present in the classroom regulate students' learning and performance.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1213556
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Are Students Who Make an Effort Perceived as Successful or Just Liked by Their Teachers?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saidah%2C+Berenice%22">Saidah, Berenice</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7775-7800">0000-0001-7775-7800</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Louvet%2C+Eva%22">Louvet, Eva</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pansu%2C+Pascal%22">Pansu, Pascal</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. Apr 2019 22(2):405-419.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Teachers%22">Middle School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Desirability%22">Social Desirability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Values%22">Social Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-019-09481-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of the present paper was to analyze the social value of effort versus competence in the field of education. In Study 1, participants (N = 116) were asked to indicate the importance of effort- and competence-related personality traits in achieving academic success. We also examined their meritocratic beliefs. In Study 2, middle school teachers (N = 87) were asked to judge the academic success (social utility) and perceived likeability (social desirability) of students described as high versus low on effort and competence. Results showed that participants judged effort as being more important for academic success than competence, especially concerning participants showing high levels of meritocratic beliefs (Study 1). Despite this normative value of effort, effort was judged less predictive of academic success than competence, suggesting a low social value of effort with regard to social utility. A reversed pattern was observed for social desirability.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1213556
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1213556
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-019-09481-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 405
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Desirability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Are Students Who Make an Effort Perceived as Successful or Just Liked by Their Teachers?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saidah, Berenice
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Louvet, Eva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pansu, Pascal
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1