View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Expected and Unexpected Long-Term Effects of Values Affirmation in School

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Expected and Unexpected Long-Term Effects of Values Affirmation in School
Language: English
Authors: Ian R. Hadden (ORCID 0000-0001-7734-5777), Peter R. Harris (ORCID 0000-0003-4599-4929), Matthew J. Easterbrook (ORCID 0000-0002-9353-5957)
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2024 94(4):1177-1191.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Self Esteem, Early Adolescents, Writing Exercises, Followup Studies, Longitudinal Studies, Values, High Stakes Tests, Standardized Tests, Adolescents, Mathematics Tests, Language Tests, English, Gender Differences, Socioeconomic Status
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12711
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: An earlier study in a school in England found that a series of brief values affirmation writing exercises, performed over the course of a school year by students aged 11-14, increased the mathematics attainment of students of low socioeconomic status (SES). Aims: This pre-registered follow-up of the original study aims to investigate the long-term effects of values affirmation on low-SES students' attainment. Sample: The sample consisted of all students in the analytical sample of the original study who remained at the school and for whom the necessary data were available, N = 409 (95 low-SES). Methods: The students' results in high-stakes national standardized assessments at age 16, taken two to four years after the affirmation, were analysed. Results: The evidence did not support the pre-registered hypotheses that values affirmation would raise the attainment of low-SES students in mathematics and English. However, exploratory analyses suggested that for low-SES students in two of the three-year groups, the intervention increased Attainment 8, a broad policy-relevant measure of academic attainment, and increased the attainment of boys in English (in particular English Literature) but reduced the corresponding attainment of girls. Conclusions: The results suggest that the benefits of values affirmation can differ by student cohort and by school subject and that they might be time-limited in some circumstances. This suggests a set of hypotheses that future research could test in order to advance understanding of when values affirmation is, and is not, successful for school students over a sustained period.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447736
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFj0Tz_06DxT_lx-4eUvuWeAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNoShB3hWXJ3gPb35QIBEICBm7xmlflgx1M0ZQ-u_nQartRAjdrJrXCCXppaNViZoY6Hnqf1NJI0Q4bHATecRIOTA2XBU3OOBJTH6RB3w3yjmy4T1wCzKAbe9y1OSnmNadsUYqDKOppXt1FD-duI1umGUxyKy-hed6Ceip5wxXTJK7ykD8NU3bFIt7ZldicGbTX27RbIGPSfrtIgM_7SJ7b2dX27qc31Q8IUIi7K
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180776571;6kx01dec.24;2024Nov12.04:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180776571-1">Expected and unexpected long‐term effects of values affirmation in school </title> <p>Background: An earlier study in a school in England found that a series of brief values affirmation writing exercises, performed over the course of a school year by students aged 11–14, increased the mathematics attainment of students of low socioeconomic status (SES). Aims: This pre‐registered follow‐up of the original study aims to investigate the long‐term effects of values affirmation on low‐SES students' attainment. Sample: The sample consisted of all students in the analytical sample of the original study who remained at the school and for whom the necessary data were available, N = 409 (95 low‐SES). Methods: The students' results in high‐stakes national standardized assessments at age 16, taken two to four years after the affirmation, were analysed. Results: The evidence did not support the pre‐registered hypotheses that values affirmation would raise the attainment of low‐SES students in mathematics and English. However, exploratory analyses suggested that for low‐SES students in two of the three‐year groups, the intervention increased Attainment 8, a broad policy‐relevant measure of academic attainment, and increased the attainment of boys in English (in particular English Literature) but reduced the corresponding attainment of girls. Conclusions: The results suggest that the benefits of values affirmation can differ by student cohort and by school subject and that they might be time‐limited in some circumstances. This suggests a set of hypotheses that future research could test in order to advance understanding of when values affirmation is, and is not, successful for school students over a sustained period.</p> <p>Keywords: attainment gap; schools; socioeconomic status; stereotype threat; values affirmation</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-2">BACKGROUND</hd> <p>Despite decades of policy initiatives designed to reduce educational inequalities, some groups of students continue to feel marginalized by education systems and have poorer educational outcomes (Easterbrook & Hadden, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]). The size of these inequalities varies considerably by geographic location; in England, for example, the largest of the gaps in academic attainment at age 16 between major groups is the one between students of low socioeconomic status (SES) and their better‐off peers; this is shown in Figure 1, where eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is a proxy for low SES. It represents.74 standard deviations, estimated to correspond to around three years of schooling for the average student.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec24/bjep12711-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12711-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Attainment 8 at age 16 of all state‐funded students in England, 2022, broken down by eligibility for free school meals, major ethnicity group and gender (Department for Education, [18]). Note: Most students take General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations in nine or ten subjects at age 16, and Attainment 8 represents a combination of their best eight results, prioritized by certain subjects and with extra weighting for mathematics and English (see Section 10 of the Supporting Information for details). Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is an indicator of low parental income. Major ethnicity groups only: excludes Chinese, Gypsy/Roma and Travellers of Irish descent." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-4">Barriers to education for low‐SES students</hd> <p>Structural and institutional barriers, such as lower access to high‐quality schools (Burgess et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]), parents who are often less proficient in engaging in and supporting their education (Montacute & Cullinane, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref3">28</reflink>]), and bias against low‐SES students in schools' grading and disciplinary practices (Doyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]), are fundamental drivers of this gap. These structural and institutional barriers can trigger <emph>psychological</emph> barriers that also play an important, though less visible, role in reducing the attainment of some groups of students. These barriers result from the interplay between students' social identities and their local social and cultural educational context (Easterbrook & Hadden, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]). For example, in a context where high SES is stereotypically associated with high attainment and low SES with low attainment, low‐SES students are more likely to feel that their social identity is not compatible with their belief about what people who do well in education are like (Nieuwenhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]), and/or to experience a threat to their identity, known as stereotype threat, that they will conform to the stereotype. Both of these psychological processes, triggered by a threatening context, can impair a range of students' outcomes, including attainment (see, for example, Nieuwenhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Walton & Spencer, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-5">Values affirmation</hd> <p>Values affirmation occurs when, by reflecting or acting upon a core personal value, a person bolsters or restores their sense of being an adequate, morally worthy person (Cohen & Sherman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]). This can help make important psychological and social resources salient to them and thereby alter the meaning that identity‐threatened students ascribe to their experience of school, putting stereotype threat into perspective and dampening its negative effects (Critcher & Dunning, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]; Walton & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]). However, studies of values affirmation in schools have shown a wide variation in the extent to which it increases the educational attainment of identity‐threatened students. A range of factors have been proposed as responsible for this variation, including differences in local contexts; for example, values affirmation seems to be most effective in schools when there is a relatively large pre‐existing achievement gap between threatened and non‐threatened students (Borman et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-6">The longevity of the benefits of values affirmation</hd> <p>Longer periods between a values affirmation intervention and the measurement of outcomes yield, on average, slightly greater improvements (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>]). Substantial benefits have in some cases persisted for a surprisingly long time. In one study, Black and Latino students had higher academic and behavioural outcomes five years after a values affirmation administered at age 12–13, such that the gap between them and their White and Asian peers was reduced by 42% (Borman et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]). In another study, Black students who had undertaken a values affirmation up to nine years earlier were more likely to enrol in college than those who did not, and to do so in a four‐year rather than in a two‐year college (Goyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The longevity of these benefits is perhaps surprising given the many examples of interventions in schools in which impressive short‐term benefits have subsequently faded over time (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]; Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]; Cascio & Staiger, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]). For example, one meta‐analysis of 51 interventions in schools found an average effect size of.45 standard deviations post‐intervention; however, this fell to.10 standard deviations for the 30 studies that had follow‐up evaluations after an average of 108 days (Hattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to help explain how values affirmation is capable of yielding sustainable benefits, we draw on a model that sets out three criteria that must be met for an intervention to generate sustainable benefits (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; Borman, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]). These criteria are as follows: (a) the intervention should give the student access to a fundamental and malleable skill, behaviour, capacity or psychological resource to which they would not otherwise have had access; (b) it should be provided at the right time to avoid imminent risks or seize emerging opportunities; and (c) it should be provided in the context of an environment that supports its benefits over time. We will argue that values affirmation meets these criteria in certain circumstances but not in others.</p> <p>Values affirmation is capable of meeting the first of these criteria for negatively stereotyped students, since it can make available psychological resources that may have been suppressed by the students' response to stereotype threat, and whose fundamental nature supports a wide range of capabilities and behaviours (Cohen & Sherman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]). However, values affirmation can make these resources available only when certain conditions hold, such as when students believe that the teachers delivering the exercises care about them as individuals (Protzko & Aronson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref25">40</reflink>]), and if the threat that they are experiencing is not so great that they feel hopeless and/or are substantially disengaged from education (Binning & Browman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second criterion, effective timing, can be met when the threat to students' identities is particularly high (Critcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]), such as around the transition from primary to secondary school or shortly before a high‐stakes examination.</p> <p>The third criterion, a supportive environment, includes two important aspects within a school context. The first is that the learning environment must be of sufficiently high quality for the initial improvements to take root and grow (Walton & Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref28">46</reflink>]). This can create a set of recursive psychological processes within the student that build on each other over a period of years, which can be further strengthened when teachers and peers raise their expectations of the student (Cohen & Sherman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]; Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; Hecht et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Rosenthal & Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]). The second aspect of a supportive environment relates to schools that operate an academic tracking system, whereby students are grouped based on their academic performance. If students can move promptly between academic tracks to accurately reflect changes in their academic performance, the initial boosts from a values affirmation intervention can trigger lower‐performing students to move into progressively higher‐performing tracks (Goyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]; Sherman et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>When a values affirmation intervention meets these criteria, the recursive processes that it triggers can be contrasted with those triggered by interventions focused on academic content, which are not recursive but must instead be repeated or used as a basis for extension of learning; otherwise, students are liable to simply forget the content (Wixted, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). Indeed, the processes triggered by interventions such as values affirmation can sustain themselves through recursive processes, even when memory of the intervention itself has faded (Brady et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]; Walton & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]). Interventions focused on academic content can also exhibit fadeout of benefits in other ways, as observed when a control group catches up with those who received the intervention either through maturation or through subsequently covering the curriculum covered in the intervention (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-7">Present study</hd> <p>The present study investigates the long‐term effects of a values affirmation intervention examined in a previous study in a single school in southern England (Hadden et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]). The intervention consisted of three 15‐min writing exercises administered in 27 English classes across the school year to students in Years 7–9 (aged 11–14). Individual students were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: affirmed or control. The writing exercises asked students in the affirmed condition to choose something important to them personally and write about why it is important; for students in the control condition, the writing exercises asked them to choose something that might be important to other people but was not important to them, and why it might be important to other people. The wording was based on that reported by Sherman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>]); each term's exercises were different in order to avoid repetition, with the summer term exercise tailored so that each student was presented with a selection of eight values that included one that they had written about in the Spring Term (see Figure S3 for an example). Academic performance was measured by scores in mathematics tests taken towards the end of the school year. Four potential psychological mediators of the values affirmation were also measured in a survey near the end of the school year: <emph>stereotype threat experienced</emph>, <emph>self‐integrity</emph>, <emph>stress</emph> and <emph>sense of academic fit</emph> (see Section 8 of the Supporting Information for details). The values affirmation raised the academic performance of students who were eligible for FSM by.38 standard deviations but did not significantly affect the performance of students who were not eligible, reducing the FSM performance gap by 62%. It also reduced the stress reported by the FSM students, but no effect of the intervention was observed for the other three psychological processes measured.</p> <p>Students in England take compulsory high‐stakes national examinations, known as General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs), at the end of compulsory schooling towards the end of Year 11 at age 16. The original study thus offered the opportunity to test the long‐term effects of values affirmation by examining the GCSE results of the participating students between two and four years after they received the intervention (see Figure 2). In addition, it offered the opportunity to examine whether any of the psychological processes measured in the original study mediated the interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition on GCSE results.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec24/bjep12711-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12711-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Relationship between the original study and the present study." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The present study was pre‐registered before analysis of the results took place.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-9">METHODS AND MATERIALS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-10">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were students who formed the analytical sample of the original study, who remained at the school to undertake GCSE exams in Year 11, and for whom baseline academic scores were available for English as well as for mathematics. The parents of the students were sent a letter offering them the opportunity to be excluded from the present study. Of the analytical sample of 562 students in the original study, 409 formed the analytical sample of the present study, of whom 95 were eligible for free school meals (FSM).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-11">Pre‐registered hypotheses</hd> <p>The primary objective of the study was to test the following pre‐registered hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> H1a (mathematics). FSM students in the original affirmation condition will achieve higher grades in mathematics GCSEs than FSM students in the original control condition; however, non‐FSM students will be unaffected by the values affirmation.</item> <p></p> <item> H1b (English). FSM students in the original affirmation condition will achieve higher grades in English GCSEs than FSM students in the original control condition; however, non‐FSM students will be unaffected by the values affirmation.</item> </ulist> <p>We also tested the following secondary pre‐registered hypotheses related to psychological processes:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> H2a...d: compared to FSM students in the original control condition, FSM students in the original values affirmation condition will report better scores in each of the four self‐reported psychological processes (<emph>stereotype threat experienced</emph> , <emph>stress, self‐integrity</emph> , and <emph>academic fit</emph>) measured in the original study; however, non‐FSM students will be unaffected by the values affirmation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180776571-12">Pre‐registered outcome measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-13">Primary outcome measures</hd> <p>The results of mathematics and English GCSEs constituted outcome measures for the primary pre‐registered hypotheses of the present study. Mathematics, English Literature and English Language are compulsory subjects with a high profile in the English National Curriculum and so may be particularly likely to stimulate academic stereotypes (Sherman et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]). Furthermore, our measures of baseline academic performance (scores in national standardized tests taken at age 11 at the end of primary school, known as Key Stage 2) are available only for mathematics and English. Since assessments for English are split between English Language and English Literature, we used the mean of the two as our measure of English attainment. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020, the GCSE attainment of the students who were in Year 7 during the original study was based on teacher assessments rather than national examinations.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-14">Secondary outcome measures</hd> <p>Participating students completed a self‐report survey aimed at assessing the four psychological processes examined in the original study that theory suggests might mediate the benefits of values affirmation (see Section 8 of the Supporting Information for details): <emph>Stereotype threat experienced</emph> (single item, "I worry that people judge me because of my background instead of who I really am"); <emph>Self‐integrity</emph> (single item, "I feel basically OK about myself"); <emph>Stress</emph> (single item, "I often feel stressed at school"); and <emph>Sense of academic fit</emph> (four items, e.g., "I fit in well at school and really feel like I really belong here."). Single‐item measures, while not as robust as measures with multiple items, can nevertheless be an acceptable option when a short survey is required (Gogol et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). Further limitations of the survey measures used in the present study were as follows: they were administered towards the end of Year 10 rather than Year 11 because the sample sizes of the surveys undertaken when the students were in Year 11 were very low because of their focus on preparing for their GCSEs (details in Section 9 of the Supporting Information), and students in Year 9 of the original study did not complete the surveys because the present study did not start in time to allow this (see Figure 2).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-15">RESULTS</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics of academic attainment and raw survey responses are shown in Table 1. Correlations are provided in Table S3.</p> <p>1 TABLE Raw descriptive statistics of academic attainment and survey responses of the analytical sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">All students</th><th align="left">Students eligible for free school meals</th><th align="left">Students not eligible for free school meals</th></tr><tr><th align="left">All</th><th align="left">Affirmed</th><th align="left">Control</th><th align="left">All</th><th align="left">Affirmed</th><th align="left">Control</th><th align="left">All</th><th align="left">Affirmed</th><th align="left">Control</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Baseline KS2 attainment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">KS2 mathematics</td><td align="char" char="(">29.25 (4.68)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.01 (4.61)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.51 (4.75)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.62 (4.19)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.44 (4.33)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.82 (4.06)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.44 (4.81)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.18 (4.69)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.72 (4.93)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">KS2 English</td><td align="char" char="(">28.75 (4.24)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.60 (4.26)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.90 (4.23)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.31 (3.98)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.10 (4.14)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.53 (3.82)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.88 (4.31)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.76 (4.29)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.01 (4.35)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">KS2 maths/English mean</td><td align="char" char="(">29.00 (4.14)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.81 (4.09)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.21 (4.18)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.46 (3.78)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.27 (3.86)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.68 (3.70)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.16 (4.23)</td><td align="char" char="(">28.97 (4.15)</td><td align="char" char="(">29.37 (4.32)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GCSE attainment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GCSE mathematics</td><td align="char" char="(">4.29 (1.88)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.19 (1.96)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.39 (1.96)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.64 (1.71)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.72 (1.76)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.56 (1.67)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.48 (1.89)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.33 (1.80)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.65 (1.97)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GCSE English</td><td align="char" char="(">4.04 (1.73)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.01 (1.80)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.08 (1.79)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.44 (1.63)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.59 (1.64)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.28 (1.61)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.23 (1.72)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.14 (1.67)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.32 (1.78)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Attainment 8</td><td align="char" char="(">41.87 (16.09)</td><td align="char" char="(">42.26 (15.84)</td><td align="char" char="(">43.93 (16.14)</td><td align="char" char="(">36.26 (14.21)</td><td align="char" char="(">38.25 (15.42)</td><td align="char" char="(">36.77 (12.57)</td><td align="char" char="(">43.56 (16.27)</td><td align="char" char="(">43.51 (15.80)</td><td align="char" char="(">46.05 (16.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Survey responses</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Stereotype threat</td><td align="char" char="(">2.72 (1.52)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.59 (1.42)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.85 (1.62)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.02 (1.67)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.96 (1.58)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.08 (1.80)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.64 (1.48)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.49 (1.37)</td><td align="char" char="(">2.79 (1.58)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Stress</td><td align="char" char="(">4.15 (1.50)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.07 (1.53)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.23 (1.48)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.13 (1.42)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.11 (1.40)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.16 (1.46)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.14 (1.53)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.06 (1.57)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.24 (1.49)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐integrity</td><td align="char" char="(">4.10 (1.36)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.14 (1.32)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.06 (1.40)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.23 (1.29)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.41 (1.12)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.04 (1.46)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.07 (1.37)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.07 (1.37)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.06 (1.39)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sense of academic fit</td><td align="char" char="(">3.70 (1.10)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.77 (1.07)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.62 (1.12)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.78 (1.05)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.67 (1.01)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.91 (1.10)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.68 (1.11)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.80 (1.09)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.55 (1.12)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Figures represent means, with standard deviations in parentheses. Key Stage 2 (KS2) scores are the results of exams taken towards the end of primary school at age 11. KS2 English is the mean of the two Key Stage 2 scores in English Reading and English Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling. GCSEs are General Certificates of Secondary Education, compulsory high‐stakes national examinations taken in England at the end of compulsory schooling towards the end of Year 11, at age 16. GCSE English is the mean of the two GCSE scores in English Language and English Literature. Most students take GCSEs in nine or ten subjects, and <emph>Attainment 8</emph> represents a combination of their best eight results, prioritized by certain subjects and with extra weighting for mathematics and English (see Section 10 of the Supporting Information for details). This measure is used in exploratory analyses and so included here for reference. Survey responses are based on surveys taken by students when they were in Year 10 (these exclude students who had been in Year 9 during the original study, see Figure 1).</p> <p>For both FSM students and for non‐FSM students, <emph>t</emph>‐tests provided no evidence of differences by condition between the means of baseline Key Stage 2 mathematics or English attainment, all <emph>p</emph>s > .324. We found no evidence of any differences in demographic characteristics between those whose data we received and analysed and those who dropped out due to attrition, Wilks' Lambda = .998, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>, 551) = .147, <emph>p</emph> = .998; breakdowns of attrition and student demographics are available in Section 1 of the Supporting Information. We found no evidence of any effect of the youngest of the three cohorts having their GCSE results assessed by their teachers in 2020 rather than by formal external examinations (details in Section 3 of the Supporting Information).</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-16">Pre‐registered main hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-17">Analytical plan</hd> <p>We subjected the mathematics and English GCSE results to two separate 2 (FSM status: FSM vs. non‐FSM) × 2 (affirmation condition: affirmed vs. control) ANCOVAs. In line with the analysis for the original study and with the pre‐registration document, for each analysis we included the following covariates: baseline Key Stage 2 mathematics score or English score (for the mathematics and English analyses respectively), gender, year group during original study (Year 8 and Year 9, with Year 7 as reference category), ethnicity (Black, Asian, Mixed, and Other, with White as the reference category), and a marker indicating English as an additional language (EAL). Again in line with the original study, we mean‐centred the baseline Key Stage 2 scores for the FSM and non‐FSM groups separately.</p> <p>Tests for non‐influential outliers and homogeneity of variances were met but tests for normal distribution of residuals were not. We therefore amended our ANCOVA to be robust to non‐normal distribution of residuals by using the SPSS "bootstrap" method with 10,000 random samples. For main effects, the standard errors (<emph>SE</emph>), 95% bias‐corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa CI) and <emph>p</emph>‐values reported below are based on these bootstrapped (robust) estimates.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-18">Pre‐registered main hypothesis 1a: mathematics</hd> <p>The ANCOVA analysis yielded a significant main effect of FSM status on GCSE attainment in mathematics, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>, 409) = 35.595, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0001" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .082. The attainment of students who were eligible for FSM (<emph>M</emph> = 3.575, <emph>SE</emph> = .154, BCa CI [3.264; 3.896]) was significantly lower than that of those who were not eligible (<emph>M</emph> = 4.503, <emph>SE</emph> = .100, BCa CI [4.312; 4.697]), a mean difference of <emph>M</emph><subs>diff</subs> = −.928 (BCa CI [−1.260; −.589]).</p> <p>There was no significant main effect of affirmation condition on GCSE attainment in mathematics, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>, 409) = .118, <emph>p</emph> = .739, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0002" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  < .001. Contrary to hypothesis, the interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>, 409) = 2.712, <emph>p</emph> = .100, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0003" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .008. As expected, the simple main effect for non‐FSM students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>, 409) = 1.854, <emph>p</emph> = .166, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0004" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .005, was not significant. However, contrary to hypothesis, the simple main effect of affirmation condition for FSM students was also not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>, 409) = 1.291, <emph>p</emph> = .275, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0005" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .003.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-19">Pre‐registered main hypothesis 1b: English</hd> <p>The ANCOVA analysis yielded a significant main effect of FSM status on GCSE attainment in English, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>, 396) = 22.969, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0006" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .055. The attainment of students who were eligible for FSM (<emph>M</emph> = 3.451, <emph>SE</emph> = .155, BCa CI [3.149; 3.753]) was significantly lower than that of those who were not eligible (<emph>M</emph> = 4.224, <emph>SE</emph> = .093, BCa CI [4.041; 4.405]), a mean difference of <emph>M</emph><subs>diff</subs> = −.774 (BCa CI [−1.102; −.437]).</p> <p>There was no significant main effect of affirmation condition on GCSE attainment in English, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>, 396) = .207, <emph>p</emph> = .661, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0007" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .001. Contrary to hypothesis, the interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition was also not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>, 409) = 1.840, <emph>p</emph> = .176, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0008" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .005. As expected, the simple main effect for non‐FSM students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>, 396) = .892, <emph>p</emph> = .347, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0009" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .002, was not significant. However, contrary to hypothesis, the simple main effect of affirmation condition for FSM students was also not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>, 396) = 1.068, <emph>p</emph> = .322, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0010" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .003.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-20">Pre‐registered secondary hypotheses: psychological processes</hd> <p>We subjected each of the psychological measures to a 2 (FSM status: FSM, non‐FSM) × 2 (affirmation condition: affirmed, control) ANCOVA with 10,000 bootstrapped samples and the same covariates as for academic performance above (using the mean of the mathematics and English Key Stage 2 scores as the baseline academic measure). Our analysis yielded no main effects of FSM status for reported stress, self‐integrity, or sense of academic fit (all <emph>F</emph>s < .379, all <emph>p</emph>s > .606), but a significant main effect for reported stereotype threat, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>, 249) = 4.517, <emph>p</emph> = .035, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0011" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .019. FSM students reported that they experienced significantly higher levels of stereotype threat (<emph>M</emph> = 3.111, <emph>SE</emph> = .230, BCa CI [2.672; 3.561]) than did non‐FSM students (<emph>M</emph> = 2.617, <emph>SE</emph> = .106, BCa CI [2.420; 2.833]), a mean difference of <emph>M</emph><subs>diff</subs> = .494 (<emph>SE</emph> = .254, BCa CI [.012; 0.993]).</p> <p>No two‐way interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition was significant, all <emph>F</emph>s <1.620, all <emph>p</emph>s > .204.</p> <p>We found no evidence that any of the processes reported in the survey significantly mediated the FSM gap in mathematics or English GCSE attainment, or the interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition on mathematics or English GCSE attainment.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-21">Exploratory analyses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-22">Policy‐relevant outcome measure</hd> <p>Most students take GCSEs in nine or ten subjects at age 16, and <emph>Attainment 8</emph> represents a combination of their best eight results, prioritized by certain subjects and with extra weighting for mathematics and English (see Section 10 of the Supporting Information for details). <emph>Attainment 8</emph> is the UK Government's headline measure of academic attainment at age 16 and is thus particularly policy‐relevant. Furthermore, although mathematics and English are the highest profile subjects, GCSEs overall are associated with high levels of stress in students and therefore likely to trigger academic stereotypes as a whole (Brown & Woods, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]). We therefore included it in the exploratory analyses described below. For analyses using this measure, the mean of the Key Stage 2 scores in mathematics and English was used as the baseline measure of academic attainment.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-23">Interactions with year group</hd> <p>In order to explore any variation in the effectiveness of the affirmation intervention between students in the three year groups of the original study, for each of our three outcome measures we added a three‐way interaction between FSM status, affirmation condition and year group to the ANCOVA analysis. This three‐way interaction was significant for <emph>Attainment 8</emph>, <emph>p</emph> = .042, but not for mathematics or English, <emph>p</emph>s = .194 and.306 respectively. We therefore explored the effect for <emph>Attainment 8</emph> in more detail by analysing the interaction between treatment condition and FSM status broken down by individual year groups. This showed a benefit of the intervention for Years 7 and 9, but not for Year 8. When Year 8 students were omitted from the analysis there was a significant interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>, 254) = 6.554, <emph>p</emph> = .011, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0012" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .026. Decomposition of this interaction revealed a significant simple main effect of affirmation condition for FSM students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>, 254) = 4.977, <emph>p</emph> = .017, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0013" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .020, but not for non‐FSM students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>, 254) = 1.678, <emph>p</emph> = .204, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0014" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .007. <emph>Attainment 8</emph> was higher for FSM students in the affirmed condition (<emph>M</emph> = 39.055, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.126, BCa CI [34.908; 43.264]) than for FSM students in the control condition (<emph>M</emph> = 32.117, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.140, BCa CI [27.427; 36.798]), a mean difference of <emph>M</emph><subs>diff</subs> = 6.938 (BCa CI [1.548; 12.115]), or.43 <emph>SD</emph> (where <emph>SD</emph> = 16.09, Table 1). The FSM attainment gap for these students was 12.683 in the control group and 3.562 in the affirmation group, a reduction of 72%. When we restricted the analysis to Year 8 students only, the interaction between FSM status and affirmation condition was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref60">147</reflink>) = 1.901, <emph>p</emph> = .170, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00070998:media:bjep12711:bjep12711-math-0015" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = .014, and neither were the simple main effects of affirmation for FSM students and for non‐FSM students, <emph>p</emph>s = .161 and.964 respectively. These results are shown in Figure 3, with details in Section 5 of the Supporting Information.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec24/bjep12711-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12711-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Attainment 8 as a function of FSM status and affirmation condition, showing students who were in Year 8 in the original study separately. Error bars represent ± one standard error. *p < .05, ns not significant." /> </p> <p></p> <p>While the three‐way interactions between FSM status, affirmation condition and year group analyses did not reach significance for the outcome measures of mathematics and English, their trends were the in same direction as the results for <emph>Attainment 8</emph>.</p> <p>Further details of these analyses are in Section 4 of the Supporting Information.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-25">Interactions with all relevant student characteristics</hd> <p>In order to maintain consistency with supplementary analyses in the original study, and in line with good practice (Simmons et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]), we ran exploratory ANCOVA analyses for the three outcome measures (mathematics, English and <emph>Attainment 8</emph>) in turn for each relevant student characteristic obtained from the school in addition to FSM, that is, eligibility for pupil premium funding, gender, ethnicity, and a marker for English as an additional language. Of these analyses, one yielded a significant interaction between student characteristic and affirmation condition: gender and English, <emph>p</emph> = .019. The main effect of affirmation condition did not reach significance for either boys or girls, but girls in the affirmation condition tended to do worse than those in the control condition. Looking in more detail, we found that this trend was driven by the results in English Literature, where a significant interaction was observed, <emph>p</emph> = .006. The main effect of affirmation condition did not reach significance for boys, although boys in the affirmation condition did tend to have higher scores than boys in the control condition. However, girls in the affirmation condition had <emph>lower</emph> scores than girls in the control condition, <emph>p</emph> = .024, with a mean difference of <emph>M</emph><subs>diff</subs> = −.480, or.28 <emph>SD</emph>. The analysis is summarized in Figure 4, with further details in Sections 6 and 7 of the Supporting Information.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec24/bjep12711-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12711-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 English mean GCSE results, also showing a breakdown of the mean by English Literature and English Language, as a function of gender and affirmation condition. Error bars represent ± one standard error. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .1, ns not significant." /> </p> <p></p> <p>None of the analyses of other outcome measures (pupil premium status, English as an additional language (EAL) status, and ethnicity) yielded a significant interaction with affirmation condition.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180776571-28">Summary of results</hd> <p>We found no evidence to support the pre‐registered hypotheses that FSM students in the affirmation condition would achieve higher grades in mathematics and English GCSEs than FSM students in the control condition (with non‐FSM students being unaffected by the values affirmation). We also found no evidence to support the pre‐registered hypotheses that FSM students in the affirmation condition would report better scores in each of four pre‐registered psychological processes compared to FSM students in the control condition, although there were some limitations to the measurement of these processes (see the Secondary outcome measures section).</p> <p>However, exploratory analyses revealed a number of potentially valuable findings not captured by the pre‐registered hypotheses. FSM students in the affirmation condition had significantly higher <emph>Attainment 8</emph> scores than FSM students in the control condition, representing a reduction of the FSM gap of 72%; however, these benefits only occurred when the sample was restricted to students in Years 7 and 9 of the original study. Furthermore, boys in the affirmation condition tended to have higher English Literature grades than boys in the control condition, but girls in the affirmation condition had <emph>lower</emph> grades than girls in the control condition. Importantly, we have not corrected for multiple comparisons in these exploratory results; both <emph>when</emph> and <emph>how</emph> to correct for multiple comparisons are complex, contested areas (Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]) with competing arguments about how to apply them. We therefore suggest that readers should interpret them as representing preliminary information that may be useful in guiding the choice of a priori hypotheses in future research.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-29">General discussion</hd> <p>Based on previous evidence and a plausible theoretical rationale, we expected that the substantial early academic benefits to FSM students of a brief values affirmation intervention would be sustained, and even amplified, in high‐stakes GCSE assessments two to four years later. Several explanations present themselves for why we did not observe this.</p> <p>Firstly, it might be that the criteria for the benefits of values affirmation to be sustained across many years are rather stringent, and the school did not meet them. The schools where substantial long‐term benefits were observed (Borman et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]; Goyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>]) might have been exceptional, and the three criteria for sustainable benefits described earlier provide some clues about specific ways in which this might have been the case (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]). For example, there may have been subtle ways in which the teachers in those schools delivered the intervention that helped their negatively stereotyped students access psychological resources in ways that were particularly fundamental and malleable, or the learning environments may have been particularly sustaining through, for example, processes that allowed students to move unusually promptly into more challenging academic tracks when their attainment improved or exceptionally strong teacher‐student relationships (Easterbrook et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]; Goyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]; Walton & Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref68">46</reflink>]). Indeed, it is possible that some classrooms had more supportive environments than others, and such a granular level of heterogeneity may be a useful direction for future research.</p> <p>An alternative explanation is that there were particular characteristics of the Year 8 cohort that nullified the benefits for those students. When Year 8 students were excluded from the sample, exploratory analyses suggested that FSM students in the affirmation condition had higher <emph>Attainment 8</emph> scores than those in the control condition, and this also tended to be the case for the pre‐registered outcome measures of mathematics and English. These more pronounced effects of the intervention on <emph>Attainment 8</emph> might reflect more comprehensive stereotypes triggered by GCSEs overall and correspondingly stronger recursive effects, which seem unlikely to be specific to individual subjects (Brown & Woods, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]). While this result is exploratory and so should be treated with caution, especially since we have not corrected for multiple comparisons due to the lack of consensus on when and how to do this, the large effect size (a reduction of the <emph>Attainment 8</emph> FSM gap of fully 72%, see Figure 3) suggests the possibility that it represents a real phenomenon rather than a statistical artefact. If it <emph>is</emph> a real phenomenon, then it might have been the result either of some distinctive characteristic of that specific Year 8 cohort or alternatively of a characteristic more generally of students in Year 8. For example, it is possible that students generally experience relatively low levels of academic threat in Year 8 because their potentially stressful transition from primary to secondary school in Year 7 is by then well behind them (see Zeedyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref70">49</reflink>]), and they have yet to be exposed to the stress of looking ahead to GCSEs in Year 9. In this case, values affirmation might actually <emph>reduce</emph> their attainment by making their academic work seem less important than other aspects of their life (Binning & Browman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]), and indeed there was a slight tendency towards this in the results (see Figure 3 and Section 5 of the Supporting Information).</p> <p>Together, these two potential explanations suggest the possibility that values affirmation simply did not have a long‐term benefit for our sample as a whole, either because of characteristics related to the school, the students, or a combination of the two.</p> <p>Turning to the unexpected exploratory results by gender in English Literature, these suggest that boys benefitted from the affirmation but that girls' performance may have been impaired by it. The gender gap in reading in favour of girls is well established (Stoet & Geary, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]). Research suggests that parents and teachers endorse negative stereotypes about boys' reading ability and that this is associated with boys' lower performance (Muntoni & Retelsdorf, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]). In one study (Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]), nine‐year‐old French children were given a standard reading test and told either that it was aimed at evaluating their ability in reading (a high‐threat condition) or that it was a game designed for a fun magazine (a low‐threat condition). For children who self‐identified as believing that reading is important, a similar pattern to the results of the present study was observed: boys in the low‐threat condition performed better than those in the high‐threat condition. For girls, the opposite was the case, suggesting that girls in the high‐threat condition may have been benefitting from stereotype lift (Walton & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref76">42</reflink>]) and that this stereotype lift was attenuated in the low‐threat condition. Thus, negative stereotypes about the ability of boys in English Literature may have hampered their performance, with values affirmation buffering this. Girls may have instead been benefitting from stereotype lift, with values affirmation reducing its effects.</p> <p>We would like to make a brief note about the value of exploratory findings. These can often be valuable if they: (a) meet relatively severe tests, reducing the risk that the results are significant purely by chance; (b) are constructed stringently by being parsimonious, reducing the likelihood of overfitting the data; and (c) are consistent with existing theory and evidence, giving them a higher prior probability of being true (Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]). Since the exploratory findings in the present study meet these criteria to a respectable degree, we argue that they provide useful information and warrant consideration as a priori hypotheses for future testing.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-30">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The nuanced results of the present study suggest that the benefits of values affirmation might be time‐limited in some circumstances and point to specific ways in which its benefits might differ by school subject and by individual student cohort. We hope that this will lead to a set of refined hypotheses that future research will test in order to advance our understanding of when values affirmation is, and is not, successful for school students over a sustained period.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-31">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Ian R. Hadden:</bold> Writing – original draft; conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; validation; project administration; writing – review and editing. <bold>Peter R. Harris:</bold> Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; methodology; supervision. <bold>Matthew J. Easterbrook:</bold> Supervision; writing – review and editing; conceptualization; methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-32">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0180776571-33">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Research data are not shared.</p> <p>GRAPH: Appendix S1.</p> <ref id="AN0180776571-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref38" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Based on a standard deviation of <emph>Attainment 8</emph> of 20.22 (Department for Education, [17]), and the estimate that the growth in attainment that occurs in one school year for an average student from ages 15 to 16 is.21 standard deviations (Easterbrook & Hadden, [20]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> There had been widespread concerns in England that, due to the Covid‐19 pandemic, teacher‐assessed GCSEs in 2020 would introduce systematic bias against some groups of students; however, there was no evidence of this at a national level.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> We define 'better scores' as lower scores for <emph>stereotype threat experienced</emph> and <emph>stress</emph> and higher scores for <emph>self‐integrity</emph> and <emph>academic fit</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> In line with Sherman et al. ([38]), we wanted to avoid apparently reducing the pre‐existing gap between FSM and non‐FSM students. Using unmanipulated baseline scores as a covariate could have given a misleading impression that the gap was smaller than it actually was (Sackett et al., [37]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Pupil premium funding is made available to schools for each student who has been eligible for free school meals in any of the last six years.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> A supplementary analysis of the original study found a similar effect (see Section 5 of the Supporting Information).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0180776571-35"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Persistence and fadeout of educational intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21, 55 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10 (1), 7 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, D. H., Nguyen, T., Jenkins, J. M., Domina, T., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. S. (2016). Fadeout in an early mathematics intervention: Constraining content or preexisting differences? Developmental Psychology, 52, 1457 – 1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975 – 978. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Binning, K. R., & Browman, A. S. (2020). Theoretical, ethical, and policy considerations for conducting social–psychological interventions to close educational achievement gaps. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14, 182 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman, G. D. (2017). Advancing values affirmation as a scalable strategy for mitigating identity threats and narrowing national achievement gaps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 7486 – 7488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708813114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., Choi, Y., & Hall, G. J. (2020). The impacts of a brief middle‐school self‐affirmation intervention help propel African American and Latino students through high school. Journal of Education & Psychology, 113, 605 – 620. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., Grigg, J., Rozek, C. S., Hanselman, P., & Dewey, N. A. (2018). Self‐affirmation effects are produced by school context, student engagement with the intervention, and time: Lessons from a district‐wide implementation. Psychological Science, 29 (11), 1773 – 1784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618784016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref36" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brady, S. T., Cohen, G. L., Jarvis, S. N., & Walton, G. M. (2020). A brief social‐belonging intervention in college improves adult outcomes for black Americans. Science Advances, 6 (18), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3689</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, K., & Woods, K. (2022). Thirty years of GCSE: A review of student views and experiences. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29 (1), 51 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2053946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgess, S., Greaves, E., & Vignoles, A. (2020). School Places: A Fair Choice? School choice, inequality and options for reform of school admissions in England. In Educational Review. The Sutton Trust. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/35131/1/School‐Places.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cascio, E. U., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Knowledge, Tests, and Fadeout in Educational Interventions. NBER Working Paper No. 18038. In National Bureau of Economic Research. https://<ulink href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w18038.pdf">www.nber.org/papers/w18038.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self‐affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 333 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐010213‐115137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, J. E., Purdie‐Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (3), 479 – 496. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Critcher, C. R., & Dunning, D. (2015). Self‐affirmations provide a broader perspective on self‐threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (1), 3 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Critcher, C. R., Dunning, D., & Armor, D. A. (2010). When self‐affirmations reduce defensiveness: Timing is key. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (7), 947 – 959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210369557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2021). Response to Freedom of Information request for standard deviation of 2020 Attainment 8 results.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2023). Key stage 4 performance, Academic year 2021/22 (Revised—Last updated 1 February 2023). Department for Education. https://explore‐education‐statistics.service.gov.uk/find‐statistics/key‐stage‐4‐performance‐revised</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, L., Easterbrook, M. J., & Harris, P. R. (2022). Roles of socioeconomic status, ethnicity and teacher beliefs in academic grading. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 91 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrook, M. J., & Hadden, I. R. (2021). Tackling educational inequalities with social psychology: Identities, contexts, and interventions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15 (1), 180 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrook, M. J., Harris, P. R., & Sherman, D. K. (2021). Self‐affirmation theory in educational contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 1–19, 683 – 701. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., Fischbach, A., & Preckel, F. (2014). 'My questionnaire is too long!' The assessments of motivational‐affective constructs with three‐item and single‐item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (3), 188 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goyer, J. P., Garcia, J., Purdie‐Vaughns, V., Binning, K. R., Cook, J. E., Reeves, S. L., Apfel, N., Taborsky‐Barba, S., Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Self‐affirmation facilitates minority middle schoolers' progress along college trajectories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (29), 7594 – 7599. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617923114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadden, I. R., Easterbrook, M. J., Nieuwenhuis, M., Fox, K. J., & Dolan, P. (2020). Self‐affirmation reduces the socioeconomic attainment gap in schools in England. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 249 – 559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99 – 136. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hecht, C. A., Priniski, S. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2019). Understanding long‐term effects of motivation interventions in a changing world. In E. N. Gonida & M. S. Lemos (Eds.), Motivation in education at a time of global change (advances in motivation and achievement, volume 20) (pp. 81 – 98). Emerald Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, C. Y., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Bailey, D. H. (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 590 – 603. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montacute, R., & Cullinane, C. (2018). Parent power 2018: How parents use financial and cultural resources to boost their children's chances of success. The Sutton Trust.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muntoni, F., & Retelsdorf, J. (2018). Gender‐specific teacher expectations in reading—The role of teachers' gender stereotypes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 212 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muntoni, F., & Retelsdorf, J. (2019). At their children's expense: How parents' gender stereotypes affect their children's reading outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 60, 95 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieuwenhuis, M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Easterbrook, M. J. (2019). Accounting for unequal access to higher education: The role of social identity factors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22 (3), 371 – 389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219829824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu, P., Régner, I., Max, S., Colé, P., Nezlek, J. B., & Huguet, P. (2016). A burden for the boys: Evidence of stereotype threat in boys' reading performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 26 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protzko, J., & Aronson, J. (2016). Context moderates affirmation effects on the ethnic achievement gap. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (6), 500 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616646426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1966). Teachers' expectancies: Determinants of pupils' IQ gains. Psychological Reports, 19, 115 – 118. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology, 21 (4), 308 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, M. (2021). When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: A consideration of disjunction, conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese, 199 (3–4), 10969 – 11000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229‐021‐03276‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sackett, P. R., Hardison, C. M., & Cullen, M. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American‐white differences on cognitive tests. The American Psychologist, 59 (1), 7 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie‐Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky‐Barba, S., Tomassetti, S., Nussbaum, A. D., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self‐affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (4), 591 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word Solution. Social Science Research Network, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, E. N., Rozek, C. S., Manke, K. J., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2021). Teacher‐ versus researcher‐provided affirmation effects on students' task engagement and positive perceptions of teachers. Journal of Social Issues, 77, 751 – 768. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within‐ and across‐nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data. PLoS One, 8 (3), e57988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype Lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456 – 467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐1031(03)00019‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social‐belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331 (6023), 1447 – 1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability. Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20 (9), 1132 – 1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2009.02417.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125 (5), 617 – 655. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Seed and soil: Psychological affordances in contexts help to explain where wise interventions succeed or fail. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29 (3), 219 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420904453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wixted, J. T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 235 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Z., Spreckelsen, T. F., & Cohen, G. L. (2021). A meta‐analysis of the effect of values affirmation on academic achievement. Journal of Social Issues, 1–49, 702 – 750. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeedyk, M. S., Gallacher, J., Henderson, M., Hope, G., Husband, B., & Lindsay, K. (2003). Negotiating the transition from primary to secondary school: Perceptions of pupils, parents and teachers. School Psychology International, 24 (1), 67 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024001010</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ian R. Hadden; Peter R. Harris and Matthew J. Easterbrook</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref77"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447736
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Expected and Unexpected Long-Term Effects of Values Affirmation in School
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ian+R%2E+Hadden%22">Ian R. Hadden</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7734-5777">0000-0001-7734-5777</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peter+R%2E+Harris%22">Peter R. Harris</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4599-4929">0000-0003-4599-4929</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Matthew+J%2E+Easterbrook%22">Matthew J. Easterbrook</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9353-5957">0000-0002-9353-5957</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2024 94(4):1177-1191.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– 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: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Esteem%22">Self Esteem</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Exercises%22">Writing Exercises</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Followup+Studies%22">Followup Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Values%22">Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+Stakes+Tests%22">High Stakes Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Tests%22">Mathematics Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Tests%22">Language Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12711
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: An earlier study in a school in England found that a series of brief values affirmation writing exercises, performed over the course of a school year by students aged 11-14, increased the mathematics attainment of students of low socioeconomic status (SES). Aims: This pre-registered follow-up of the original study aims to investigate the long-term effects of values affirmation on low-SES students' attainment. Sample: The sample consisted of all students in the analytical sample of the original study who remained at the school and for whom the necessary data were available, N = 409 (95 low-SES). Methods: The students' results in high-stakes national standardized assessments at age 16, taken two to four years after the affirmation, were analysed. Results: The evidence did not support the pre-registered hypotheses that values affirmation would raise the attainment of low-SES students in mathematics and English. However, exploratory analyses suggested that for low-SES students in two of the three-year groups, the intervention increased Attainment 8, a broad policy-relevant measure of academic attainment, and increased the attainment of boys in English (in particular English Literature) but reduced the corresponding attainment of girls. Conclusions: The results suggest that the benefits of values affirmation can differ by student cohort and by school subject and that they might be time-limited in some circumstances. This suggests a set of hypotheses that future research could test in order to advance understanding of when values affirmation is, and is not, successful for school students over a sustained period.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447736
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447736
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12711
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 1177
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Self Esteem
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Exercises
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Followup Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High Stakes Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Expected and Unexpected Long-Term Effects of Values Affirmation in School
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ian R. Hadden
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Peter R. Harris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Matthew J. Easterbrook
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 94
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1