1
British Journal of Social Psychology (2011)
!
C 2011 The British Psychological Society
The
British
Psychological
Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Brief report
What is the best model for girls and boys faced
with a standardized mathematics evaluation
situation: A hardworking role model or a gifted
role model?
C´eline Bag`es∗ and Delphine Martinot∗
Clermont Universit´e, Universit´e Blaise Pascal, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et
Cognitive, UMR CNRS, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Same-gender role models are likely to improve girls’ math performance. This field
experiment examined whether the explanation given for a role model’s success also
influence children’s math performance. Fifth graders were presented with a female or a
male role model before a difficult math test and were informed about the cause of his/her
math success (effort vs. ability vs. no explanation). The results showed that the gender
of a hardworking role model did not influence math performance. In contrast, when
the role model’s success was not explained or explained by abilities, children performed
better with the female role model than with the male role model. The hardworking role
model and the female role model allowed reducing stereotype threat among girls.
Chelsea is in fifth grade and does her math homework. Her neighbours, William and
Emma, both brilliant sixth graders in mathematics, come to visit her and talk about
their success in this domain. William talks about the important effort and hard work he
regularly puts into it, whereas Emma mentions her gift. Which of these two children
is likely to have the most influence on Chelsea’s progress in math? As a girl, Chelsea is
likely to be more inspired by another girl than by a boy (Lockwood, 2006). Therefore,
Emma is expected to be the best role model to influence Chelsea’s math performance.
However, individuals do not necessarily consider the role model’s gender as the most
relevant information to make expectations about their own future success (Bandura,
1997; Javidan, Bemmels, Devine, & Dastmalchian, 1995). Therefore, is Emma really the
best role model for Chelsea, while Chelsea has information beyond gender, as the reason
of her neighbours’ math success? This experiment aims to answer to such a question in
studying whether the explanation given for a role model’s math success moderates the
role model’s gender effect on children’s math performance.
∗ Correspondence should be addressed to C´eline Bag`es and Delphine Martinot, LAPSCO, 34 avenue Carnot, 63000 ClermontFerrand, France (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02017.x
2
C´eline Bag`es and Delphine Martinot
Examining who may be the best role model for improve Chelsea’s math performance
is an especially relevant issue. Indeed, although girls actually perform as well as or better
than boys in math in elementary school and in the first years of junior high school
(see Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010, for a review, and see PISA,1 TIMMS,2 for surveys),
they continue to perform less well on standardized math tests when the evaluative
context makes salient the stereotype regarding girls’ poor math abilities (e.g., Huguet &
R´egner, 2007; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003), particularly in France (see PISA). In such a
threatening situation, could young girls benefit from exposure to role models renowned
for their success in math? And overall, who is the best role model for children in math? As
comparison targets (Gibson, 2004), successful role models may be considered as a source
of information to make expectations about one’s own future success (e.g., Lockwood
& Kunda, 1997), and may exert a positive impact on motivation (Lockwood, Jordan,
& Kunda, 2002), self-evaluation (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997), and performance (Earley
& Kanfer, 1985), but only when they are perceived as attainable role models. Indeed,
Lockwood and Kunda (1997) showed that students were more inspired by an advanced
student than by a same-year student, as they realized that it was too late for them to
accomplish in school what this outstanding student had managed to achieve. Moreover,
slightly upward comparison targets are likely to be inspirational and lead to academic
progress when individuals feel similar to them (see Dijkstra, Kuyper, Buunk, Van der
Werf, & Van der Zee, 2008, for a review). Thus, fifth graders are likely to perceive a
sixth grader (i.e., slightly upward comparison) as a relevant role model because he/she
is similar to them in terms of academic interests, but not self-threatening because his/her
achievements seem attainable.
Moreover, interesting benefits of role models have been shown in the field of
stereotype threat. Marx and Roman (2002) observed among adults that a successful
female role model in math (i.e., a counter-stereotypical model) minimizes the impact of
gender stereotypes by permitting the women to think that they, too, can be successful
in math. In contrast, presenting women with a male role model (i.e., a stereotypical role
model) reminds them how difficult it is for them to be as successful as men in math: such
a model could demoralize them and lead to poorer performance. Because boys benefit
from a positive gender stereotype concerning math ability, the role model’s gender
should be less relevant for them and not influence their math performance. Therefore,
we suggest that girls should perform as well as boys in a difficult math test after exposure
to a successful female role model in math but less well than boys if the role model is
male (H1).
However, we suggest that the explanation given for the role model’s math success
(effort or abilities) may create a motivational framework, which is likely to moderate
the impact of the role model’s gender on children’s math performance. Indeed,
this explanation concerning the role model’s math success may affect children’s beliefs
regarding the link between effort and performance. Success attributed to a person’s
unrelenting effort and regular work is a controllable explanation, whereas success
attributed to abilities is not (Weiner, 1985). Perceiving the negative content of a
stereotype as being controllable minimizes the effects of stereotype threat on women’s
performance. Thoman, White, Yamawaki, and Koishi (2008) showed that women
1
PISA: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Programme for International Student Assessment
(http://www.pisa.oecd.org)
2 TIMMS: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995.html)
Role model and student’s math performance
3
performed better on a math test when the superiority of men in math was explained by
their more intensive efforts (a controllable factor) rather than by a biological difference
(an uncontrollable factor). Good, Aronson, and Inzlicht (2003) also reported that female
college students had significantly higher standardized math test scores when they
were mentored by college students to consider intelligence as malleable or to attribute
academic difficulties in the seventh grade to the novelty of the educational setting. Thus,
students who receive information to consider intelligence as a result of controllable
factors such as effort and hard work perform better and are more motivated than students
who think of intelligence as a gift or a fixed trait which is unlikely to develop with learning
(Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Comparison information also leads to perceive
one’s performance as controllable or not. Indeed, upward comparison information that
indicates how to improve oneself (i.e., to exert high effort) reinforces an individual’s
perception of control over his/her own performance (Van Yperen, Brenninkmeijer, &
Buunk, 2006). The opposite is observed when upward comparison information leads
individuals to believe that effort will not improve their performance (Van Yperen et al.,
2006).
Accordingly, children exposed to a description of a successful role model renowned
for his/her gift in math may reason that math ability is innate, and may infer that
working harder would be insufficient to succeed because their math performance is
not controllable. On the contrary, children who learn that the math success of a role
model is the result of a long struggle and hard work may reason that it is possible for them
to overcome difficulties and achieve success, and consequently may be more willing to
engage in processes (e.g., working harder) to achieve successful outcomes.
Therefore, in a second hypothesis (H2), we suggest that boys as well as girls, exposed
to a role model whose math success is explained by his/her gift, should perform worse
in math than children exposed to a role model renowned for his/her effort, whatever the
role model’s gender. In contrast, when the role model’s success in math is not explained,
the role model’s gender may become relevant: only a female role model will enable girls
to succeed just as well as boys in math, without impairing the performance of the latter.
Method
Participants
In all, 405 French fifth-grade children (196 girls and 209 boys), mean age 10 years
7 months (SD = 5 months), participated in the study with their parents’ consent. The
children attended urban and rural state schools (22 classes) selected in order to reflect
a wide variety of social backgrounds. The experiment was presented to the parents as a
‘study of children’s performance at school’ and they were informed that the children’s
data would remain confidential. We also obtained each pupil’s math grades before
conducting our study. The following experimental design was used: 2 (Pupils’ gender)
× 2 (Role model’s gender) × 3 (Explanation for the role model’s math success: effort,
ability, or no explanation), and the children were randomly assigned to the role model’s
gender by success explanation conditions.
Procedure
A female experimenter randomly divided each class into mixed-gender groups of 8 to
14 students because math evaluations are performed in a mixed gender context in
France. To avoid the ‘teacher effect’ (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004), the
pupils’ teachers were not present during testing. The experimenter distributed booklets
4
C´eline Bag`es and Delphine Martinot
containing the experimental manipulation and the math test. The pupils in all the
conditions were asked to read a short text about a sixth grader’s success in math (Marc
or Marie depending on the role model’s gender) before completing a standardized math
test. For all the pupils, Marc/Marie was described as a successful student in math. In
the hardworking role model condition, this math success was explained by the sixth
grader’s regular efforts and hard work. In the gifted role model condition, this success
was explained by his/her talent for math. In the unexplained condition (i.e., only the
skilled role model), no reason was given for his/her math success.
The experimenter then administered a math test that included 10 exercises from the
French national standardized math evaluation, usually administered to sixth graders at
the beginning of the school year. This test was feasible but difficult for fifth graders. All of
the exercises were selected because they represented items on which the performance
of French sixth-grade boys is 8% to 17% better than that of girls (French Department of
Education, 2007). The instructions given to the pupils were identical in all respects to
those used when the test is formally administered. The pupils had 1 hour to complete
the test. A grader, blind to gender and condition, awarded 1 point for a correct answer
and 0 for an incorrect answer or no answer. The highest possible score was 10. After
completing the test, to check that the pupils share the role model’s interest in math,
they had to rate the importance they accorded to math on seven items (e.g., ‘I study
math because I know how useful it is’) from the Mathematics Attitudes Scale (Vezeau,
Chouinard, Bouffard, & Couture, 1998). The reliability level computed on the seven
items was acceptable (Cronbach’s ! = .83). Each item was scored on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Finally, we verified that the children were
able to distinguish between ‘working hard’ and ‘being gifted’. The pupils had to match
these concepts with a number of positive items (e.g., ‘work a lot’, ‘have great ability’,
‘spend a lot of time learning and doing exercises’, etc.). This manipulation check was
administered at the end of the experiment, just before a thorough debriefing. Eight
participants (2 girls and 6 boys) who failed to distinguish between the concepts of
hard work and innate talent were eliminated, thus leaving 397 participants for the final
analysis (194 girls and 203 boys).
Results
The preliminary analyses showed no effect of the pupils’ previous math grades on the
different measures (math importance and math test performance), all Fs < 1 ns,3 and
therefore it was not included in subsequent analysis. We then conducted a 2 (pupil’s
gender) × 2 (role model’s gender) × 3 (explanation of the role model’s math success)
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) on each of the measures with all the variables treated as
between-participant factors.
Importance attached to math3
The analyses did not show any effect of our variables on math importance, all Fs < 1 ns.
However, as expected, on average, the pupils cared about their performance in math
(M = 3.88, SD = .81), as confirmed by the individual one-sample t-test compared to the
value 3 (midpoint), t(330) = 19.74, p < .001.
3
Sixty-one participants did not complete this measure because their schools’ head teachers refused to give authorization.
Role model and student’s math performance
5
Table 1. Mean math test performance as a function of the role model’s gender and the role model’s
success explanation
Female role model
Male role model
Role model’s
success explanation
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
Effort
Abilities
No explanation
75
66
68
5.79a
4.74a
6.11a
.27
.28
.29
72
63
53
6.05a
3.99b
4.91b
.27
.28
.31
Note. Within a line, means without a common subscript differ at a significance level of at least p " .05.
Standardized math test performance
The ANOVA showed a main effect of pupils’ gender, F(1, 385) = 24.44, p < .001, # =
.24. The boys (M = 5.83, SD = .16) performed better than the girls (M = 4.70, SD = .16)
in the math test. The main effect of the role model’s gender was significant, F(1, 385) =
6.11, p < .05, # = .13. The pupils performed better with the female role model (M =
5.55, SD = .16) than with the male role model (M = 4.98, SD = .16). The main effect
of the explanation given for the role model’s success was also significant, F(1, 385) =
30.39, p < .001, # = .27. The pupils exposed to the gifted role model presented the
lowest performance (M = 4.37, SD = .19) compared to the other two conditions (no
explanation of the role model’s success, M = 5.51, SD = .21; hardworking role model,
M = 5.92, SD = .19). Although the three-way interaction was not significant (F < 1, ns),
all the two-way interactions were significant confirming partially H2. The Role model’s
gender × Explanation for the role model’s math success interaction was significant, F(2,
385) = 3.75, p < .05, # = .14, demonstrating that, as expected, the explanation given for
success moderated the impact of the role model’s gender on math performance. When
the role model was presented as hardworking, the children performed just as well with
a female (M = 5.79, SD = .27) and a male (M = 6.05, SD = .27) role model, F < 1, ns
(Table 1). In contrast, when the role model’s success was not explained or explained by
abilities, both boys and girls performed better with the female role model (gifted role
model, M = 4.74, SD = .28, ‘no explanation’ role model, M = 6.11, SD = .29) than with
the male role model (gifted role model, M = 3.99, SD = .28, ‘no explanation’ role model,
M = 4.91, SD = .31), F(1, 385) = 4.74, p < .05, # = .10, and F(1, 385) = 8.40, p < .01,
# = .14, respectively.
The Pupils’ gender × Role model’s gender interaction confirmed the virtue of a
female role model for both the boys and the girls, as expected in H1, F(1, 385) = 8.93,
p < .01, # = .15 (Table 2). The girls scored (M = 5.32, SD = .22) just as well as the boys
(M = 5.77, SD = .22) with the female role model, F(1, 385) = 2.04, p > .10, ns, but they
Table 2. Mean math test performance as a function of pupils’ gender and the role model’s gender
Girls
Role model’s sex
Female role model
Male role model
Boys
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
104
88
5.32a
4.08b
.22
.24
105
100
5.77a
5.89a
.22
.23
Note. Means without a common subscript differ at a significance level of at least p " .05.
6
C´eline Bag`es and Delphine Martinot
Table 3. Mean math test performance as a function of pupils’ gender and the role model’s success
explanation
Girls
Boys
Role model’s success explanation
n
M
SD
n
M
SD
Effort
Abilities
No explanation
70
63
59
5.29a
4.28b
4.54b
.27
.28
.29
77
66
62
6.55a
4.45b
6.48a
.26
.28
.29
Note. Within a column, means without a common subscript differ at a significance level of at least p "
.05.
underperformed (M = 4.08, SD = .24) compared to the boys (M = 5.89, SD = .23) with
the male role model, F(1, 385) = 29.64, p < .001, # = .27.
Finally, the Pupils’ gender × Explanation for the role model’s math success
interaction was significant, F(2, 385) = 4.88, p < .01, # = .16. The best role model
for the girls was the hardworking role model since they performed best after exposure
to this role model (M = 5.29, SD = .27) compared to the gifted role model (M = 4.28,
SD = .28) or the ‘no explanation’ role model (M = 4.54, SD = .29), F(1, 188) = 4.72,
p < .05, # = .16. The boys’ math performance was lowest when they were exposed to
the gifted role model (M = 4.45, SD = .28) compared to the boys exposed to the ‘no
explanation’ role model (M = 6.48, SD = .29) or the hardworking role model (M = 6.55,
SD = .26), F(1,203) = 34.03, p < .001, # = .38, (Table 3).
Discussion
The results of this research are encouraging, particularly because they were obtained in
a field context rather than in a laboratory, with just a brief description of a successful
pupil. Two of the role models were particularly beneficial: a hardworking role model and
a female role model. According to Hypothesis 1, a successful female role model could
improve girls’ performance in a math test by overcoming the negative effects resulting
from gender stereotype, but without impairing boys’ math performance. These effects
obtained with pupils replicated those reported by Marx and Roman (2002) with adults.
Moreover, and as expected, the explanation given for success moderated the impact of
the role model’s gender on math performance. Thus, when the reasons for success were
not identified or seemed uncontrollable, the female role model was a better role model
than the male role model. Indeed, when the role model’s success was not explained or
explained by abilities, both boys and girls obtained a better math score with the female
role model than with the male role model. In contrast, the role model’s gender might be
neglected if his/her success was linked to controllable factors as regular efforts. When
the role model was presented as hardworking, the children’s math performance did not
depend on the role model’s gender.
The present results also showed that a gifted role model led children to have their
worst math performance. Then, a gifted child should be avoided as a role model for
other children. When the role model was simply presented as successful in math (i.e.,
no explanation of the role model’s success), he/she seemed to inspire the boys as
much as a hardworking role model, but he/she seemed to inspire the girls less than a
hardworking role model. We suggested that the role model for which no explanation
for his/her math success was given, offered the girls no information to help them to
succeed in this threatening domain. This lack of information might lead girls to think
Role model and student’s math performance
7
that they were inferior in math compared to this model and it always will be so. In
contrast to the girls, the boys would not need guidance on how to succeed because they
have a good reputation in math (Steele, 2003). In sum, only the hardworking role model
seems to be beneficial for both gender groups. However, future research should attempt
to understand how a role model may cause pupils to doubt themselves and their own
success, thus leading them to ‘give up’, or, on the contrary, to increase their motivation
and effort. We suggest that a gifted role model leads children to perceive less control
over their performance or to diminish their self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Bouffard
& Bordeleau, 1997), resulting in less efforts on the math task at hand. In contrast, a
hardworking role model may increase perceived control and self-efficacy leading to
greater efforts on the math task at hand.
In spite of its limits, the main contribution of this study is to show that the explanation
given for a role model’s success moderates the role model’s gender effect on children’s
math performance. Previous research has shown that girls were more inspired by another
girl than by a boy (Lockwood, 2006), and only a successful female role model in math
could minimize the stereotype threat on girls’ math performance (e.g., Marx & Roman,
2002). The present results showed that a role model, regardless of his/her gender, who
has succeeded in math thanks to regular hard work helps girls to obtain their best
math score and thus to reduce the stereotype threat, even if the performance difference
between the boys and the girls did not disappear with this hardworking model. Moreover,
our study confirms that an explanation of personal success attributed to a controllable
factor such as effort has a more positive effect on individuals’ performance than an
explanation of personal success based on uncontrollable factors such as talent or biology
(e.g., Dweck, 1999; Good et al., 2003; Thoman et al., 2008).
Because the present results were obtained in a field context, they contribute to
advise that everyone must be careful in explaining the success of others, especially when
parents and teachers praise the success of persons who they wish the children would
take as role models. When they are presented as hardworking, both male and female
role models may be chosen to help girls to succeed in math. Thus, male classmates and
brothers, renowned for their efforts, would be able to inspire girls.
Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to C´eline Darnon and Sandrine Redersdorff for their helpful
advice and comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. doi:10.1002/
9780470479216.corpsy0836
Bouffard, T., & Bordeleau, L. (1997). Croyances de contrˆ
ole et rendement scolaire chez des e´l`eves
francophones du primaire au Qu´ebec. [Control beliefs and academic achievement of Frenchspeaking elementary school children in Quebec]. International Journal of Psychology, 32,
231–245.
Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., Buunk, A. P., Van Der Werf, G., & Van Der Zee, Y. (2008). Social comparison
in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 828–879. doi:10.3102/
0034654308321210
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on
goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 378–390. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90006-8
8
C´eline Bag`es and Delphine Martinot
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in
mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
French Department of Education. (2007). Diagnostic Assessments – Statistics. Retrieved from
http://evace26.education.gouv.fr.
Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134–156. doi:10.1016/50001-8791(03)00051-4
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance:
An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology,
24, 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Huguet, P., & R´egner, I. (2007). Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom
circumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 545–560. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.
3.545
Javidan, M., Bemmels, B., Devine, K. S., & Dastmalchian, A. (1995). Superior and subordinate
gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Human Relations, 48, 1271–1284.
doi:10.1177/001872679504801102
Keller, J., & Dauenheimer D. (2003). Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the
disrupting threat effect on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 371–381. doi:10.1177/0146167202250218
Lockwood, P. (2006). Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same
gender role models? Psychology of Women Quaterly, 30, 36–46. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.
2006.00260.x
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models:
Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 854–864. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.854
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on
the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103.
Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math test
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193. doi:10.1177/
01461672022812004
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257. doi:10.3102/01623737026003237
Steele, J. (2003). Children’s gender stereotypes about math: The role of stereotype stratification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2587–2606. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.
6602782.X
Thoman, D. B., White, P. H., Yamawaki, N., & Koishi, H. (2008). Variations of gender-math
stereotype content affect women’s vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 58, 702–712.
doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9390.x
Van Yperen, N. W., Brenninkmeijer, V., & Buunk, A. P. (2006). People’s responses to upward and
downward social comparisons: The role of the individual’s effort-performance expectancy.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 519–533. doi:10.1348/014466605X53479
Vezeau, C., Chouinard, R., Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (1998). Adaptation et validation des e´chelles
de Fennema et Sherman sur les attitudes en math´ematique des e´l`eves du secondaire [Adaptation and validation of the Fennema Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales in mathematics
throughout childhood and adolescence]. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 30, 137–
140. doi:10.1016/50008-400X(02)00112-4
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548–573.
Received 24 February 2010; revised version received 8 December 2010