From social class to self-efficacy:
internalization of low social status pupils’
school performance
Virginie Wiederkehr, Céline Darnon,
Sébastien Chazal, Serge Guimond &
Delphine Martinot
Social Psychology of Education
An International Journal
ISSN 1381-2890
Soc Psychol Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11218-015-9308-8
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Soc Psychol Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11218-015-9308-8
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low
social status pupils’ school performance
Virginie Wiederkehr1 • Céline Darnon1,2
Sébastien Chazal1 • Serge Guimond1 •
Delphine Martinot1
•
Received: 17 September 2014 / Accepted: 11 May 2015
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Previous research has largely documented that socioeconomic status
(SES) is a strong and consistent predictor of pupils’ school performance in several
countries. In this research, we argue that children internalize the SES achievement
gap in the form of a lower/higher sense of school self-efficacy. In two studies,
teenaged students’ (Study 1) and children’s (Study 2) self-efficacy was measured.
Their parents’ occupations as well as the students’ anticipated grades (Study 1) and
real grades (Study 2) in mathematics and French were recorded. The results indicated that SES affected both self-efficacy and school performances. Moreover, selfefficacy mediated the link between SES and mathematics performance. Thus, a
seemingly psychological factor (i.e., self-efficacy) actually depends on social status
and further contributes to explain low SES students’ poor performance in school.
Keywords
Self-efficacy School performance Social status Internalization
1 Introduction
For years, governments have been trying to implement actions in order to increase
equal access to education for all children, regardless of their gender, race, or social
background. However, in many countries, this goal of equality has not yet been
Address for correspondence of the author Céline Darnon is Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et
Cognitive, Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, 34 Avenue Carnot, 63037 Clermont-Ferrand
Cedex, France.
& Céline Darnon
[email protected]
1
University Clermont Auvergne, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France
2
Institut Universitaire de France, University Clermont Auvergne, Université Blaise Pascal,
Clermont-Ferrand, France
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
reached. For example, in France, which is the context of the present study, recent
statistics in primary school indicated that two out of ten children whose fathers have
a low social position did not master basic skills, although two out of one hundred
children whose fathers have a higher social position had not mastered the same
skills (N.I.S.E.S. 2008). Statistics also emphasize that about 17 % of the variance in
French children’s performances in written comprehension can be explained by their
socioeconomic background. And these statistics are not restricted to French pupils
(e.g., 18 % in Germany, 8 % in Canada, OECD 2009). In fact, socioeconomic status
(SES) is a consistent and robust determinant of school achievement (Bradley and
Corwyn 2002; Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997). As stated by Laar and Sidanius
(2001), the link has now been observed in several studies and several countries.
What is required now is to understand the ‘‘mediating mechanisms transforming low
social status into low academic achievement.’’ In the present paper, we examine
whether social class differences in academic achievement can be internalized in
such a way that lower class students are led to consider themselves as having a
lower ‘‘academic value’’ than upper class students.
2 School and the internalization of social inequalities
Some authors have documented that the ‘‘norm of internality’’ (Beauvois and
Dubois 1988) typical of our Western culture is particularly salient in the school
system (Pansu et al. 2008). The school system encourages students to believe that
the causes of their actions have to be located within themselves: Students
preferentially select internal explanations of their successes and failures when they
want to provide a positive image of themselves (Pansu et al. 2008). Moreover,
teachers give more value and hand out a better assessment to children who provide
internal explanations of their behaviors (Beauvois et al. 1991; Bressoux and Pansu
2003; Dompnier et al. 2006).
In addition, if individuals are told that success comes from hard work and
high abilities, status hierarchies might be viewed as legitimated as they are
perceived as the reflection of differences in individual merit (Ledgerwood et al.
2011; O’Brien and Major 2009). This meritocratic ideology has important
consequences, including the fact that it makes the internalization process likely
to occur (Son Hing et al. 2011). Indeed, in such a context, the groups who
possess more resources (i.e., high status groups) are considered to have greater
talents or to have worked harder than low status groups (Jost and Hunyady 2005;
O’Brien and Major 2009). As a result, both high and low status group members
are led to develop self-perceptions that are congruent with their position within
the system (Jost et al. 2004; Jost and Burgess 2000; Jost 2001). Research has
also indicated that the more one believes a system is meritocratic, the more one
describes one-self in a stereotyped way (McCoy and Major 2007) and the more
one attributes the status of disadvantaged versus advantaged to internal causes
(Fraser and Kick 2000; Jost 2001).
Several authors argued that meritocracy is an important prescriptive norm in the
school environment (Duru-Bellat et al. 2009; Son Hing et al. 2011). This normative
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
environment may be particularly efficient for making low and high status pupils
believe that their success or failure thereof is not due to their social background, but
rather to differences in efforts and abilities (i.e., in terms of merit). Such an analysis
is congruent with what Bourdieu and colleagues said about the school system
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Indeed, these authors have argued and documented
that the school system is organized in such a way as to reproduce social inequalities
among children based on their parents’ occupations. From this point of view, school
precisely serves to ‘‘transform’’ social class differences into seemingly personal
differences in terms of merit (see also Duru-bellat and Tenret 2009). Given the
importance of educational qualifications in shaping one’s future, such an
internalization process is very efficient for making people accept their social
position in the hierarchy and thereby making social class differences appear as just
and legitimated (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Darnon et al. 2012; Laar and
Sidanius 2001).
3 The perceived ‘‘academic value’’ of low status students
The previous analysis leads to the thinking that, at school, the expected social class
differences in academic achievement are susceptible to being internalized in such a
way that lower class students believe they have a lower ‘‘academic value’’ than
upper class students. Indeed, research conducted primarily with adult students has
demonstrated that university cultural norms fit betters with high SES students’
norms and values. The mismatch experienced by low SES students at university has
a further negative impact on their performances (Smeding et al. 2013; Stephens
et al. 2012). Other research has argued that low SES students have a lower sense of
fit with the academic field, feel a stronger sensitivity to stigmas, and experience
more ego-depletion than high SES students (Johnson et al. 2011). They also suffer
from evaluative practices that are the most often used in schools (Smeding et al.
2013) and assess their intelligence to be lower than high SES students, particularly
when their social class identity is made salient (Kudrna et al. 2010). More generally
speaking, lower class individuals have a lower self-esteem (Twenge and Campbell
2002) and are more prone to feel threatened and feel that they have less control over
events than upper class individuals (Kraus et al. 2012).
In the same vein, research has documented the existence of a negative stereotype
associated with low SES students in school. This negative stereotype has been
identified among adolescents and adults (Croizet and Claire 1998; Harrison et al.
2006; Régner et al. 2002; Spencer and Castano 2007) as well as among children
(Désert et al. 2009). Indeed, these authors demonstrated that both high SES and low
SES children in first grade (6 years old) think that children from advantaged
backgrounds perform better in school than children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Taken together, these results suggest that lower class pupils might think,
either consciously or unconsciously, that they do not have the ability and internal
resources necessary to succeed in school.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
4 Self-efficacy as an explanatory mechanism of low status students’
underperformance
Whether children think that they have the resources to succeed in a system is
fundamental for explaining further academic achievement. In particular, the social
cognitive theory (Bandura 1977, 1986, 1997) argues that self-efficacy is one of the
strongest determinants of children’s academic achievement. Self-efficacy is the
belief that children have in their ‘‘capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainments’’ (Bandura 1997). Research in this area
has fully documented that self-efficacy predicts engagement, aspiration, vulnerability to stress, persistence when experiencing difficulties, and the development of
cognitive competencies. This means that a child who has thoroughly learned and
understood a lesson might have difficulties resolving an exercise if his or her selfefficacy is low in this area. Thus, failures or difficulties are not always related to
children’s lack of knowledge or competence, but can be significantly influenced by
the degree to which these children think they can succeed—namely, their level of
self-efficacy. Several studies have supported that, beyond real academic ability,
self-efficacy is a very strong predictor of academic performances across a wide
variety of subjects, experimental designs, and assessment methods (Multon et al.
1991; Pajares and Schunk 2001): the higher students’ sense of self-efficacy, the
better their school performances.
Research has mostly examined four main predictors of self-efficacy: mastery
experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and emotional and physiological states (for reviews, see Bandura 1997; Usher and Pajares 2006). As far as
mastery experience is concerned, it has been shown that the level of self-efficacy
partly depends on past successes and failures (Bandura et al. 1982): Success raises
self-efficacy; failure lowers it. This link however, is indirect. Indeed, the same levels
of performance can increase, decrease or maintain the self-efficacy’s degree
depending on how various personal, social or environmental factors are interpreted
and weighted (Bandura et al. 1982; Bandura 1997). Observing others is a second
source of self-efficacy development (Bandura 1997; Festinger 1954). When one
observes a successful model (Suls and Miller 1977), the belief of being able to
acquire the same skills is developed (Bandura et al. 1982). The reverse occurs when
the model fails. Third, social persuasion refers to the fact that it is easier to maintain
a great self-efficacy when others express their trust on the fact that one can succeed
in the task. Finally, when assessing their capabilities, people are based on somatic
information transmitted by physiological and emotional states. For example, people
often interpret their arousal in stressful or challenging situations as signs of
vulnerability to dysfunction.
Several authors in the field (Bandura 1997; Gecas 1989; Scarr-Salapatek and
Williams 1973) argue that there is a link between parental socioeconomic status and
the self-efficacy of their children. Notably, Bandura and colleagues have acknowledged the key role played by the family culture, values and practices in explaining
children’s academic achievement (Bandura et al. 1996; Schunk and Pajares 2001).
However, from their point of view, SES can affect school performance through the
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
family’s influence. In particular, they demonstrated that such an effect is actually
due to variations in parental practices and, more specifically, in parents’ sense of
efficacy to provide optimal opportunities for development to their child (Bandura
et al. 1996). We suggest that other reasons may explain the link between parents’
SES and self-efficacy. Indeed, as developed above, low status groups are prone to
accept their position in the hierarchy and develop a sense of their own efficacy that
is congruent with their position in the system (Jost and Hunyady 2005; Jost 2001).
In particular, the internalization of the negative stereotype associated with their
group (Désert et al. 2009; Jost and Hunyady 2005; O’Brien and Major 2009) as well
as their belief of poor fit to academic domain (Johnson et al. 2011; Stephens et al.
2012) and their awareness of social stigma should lead low SES children to develop
a lower sense of school self-efficacy compared to high SES children. In support of
this idea, Gecas (1989) showed that, because of a stronger sense of control over the
environment, their position in the hierarchy, and better life and work conditions,
powerful or higher status individuals have a greater sense of self-efficacy than
powerless or low status individuals.
To summarize, previous research has suggested that, in a school system where
internality and meritocracy are valued, social status might affect children’s sense of
self-efficacy. Research has also documented that self-efficacy has a positive effect
on academic performances (Bandura 1997; Pajares and Schunk 2001). In the present
paper, we hypothesize that a low sense of self-efficacy is precisely one of the
reasons why low status students perform more poorly at school than high status
students. Thus, we test whether the internalization of social class inferiority into
personal characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy) can explain further decreases in school
performance.
5 Overview and hypotheses
The present research examined the links among SES, self-efficacy, and school
performance in mathematics and French. The choice of these school subjects was
based on the fact that French and mathematics are considered to be the most
important topics to be learned in French schools (see O.E.C.D. report, 2009; see
also, Joët et al. 2011). In line with classical statistics, low SES children should
demonstrate poorer performance in both domains than high SES children.
Moreover, because of the internalization process, we think that social class
differences in terms of performance might be ‘‘transformed,’’ in children’s minds,
into individual characteristics—namely, a low sense of school self-efficacy. Thus,
the link between SES and performance should be mediated by self-efficacy. In both
studies, students’ self-efficacy in mathematics and French was measured. Data on
the occupations of students’ parents were collected in addition to students’
anticipated (Study 1) and actual (Study 2) mathematics and French grades. In the
first study, junior high school students’ general self-efficacy was assessed. In Study
2, fourth-grade students’ self-efficacy was measured specific to their mathematics
and French lessons.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
6 Study 1
6.1 Method
6.1.1 Participants
One hundred and forty-eight eighth and ninth grade pupils (72 boys and 76 girls;
M age = 14.06, SD = .74) from two different schools in a medium-sized French
city participated in this study. At the end of the test (see below), participants were
asked to report their parents’ occupation. Students who gave the two parental
occupations were coded as belonging to a high SES or low SES based on their
parents’ highest position. For example, children whose parents were teachers,
accountants, or doctors were categorized as high SES whereas those whose
parents were sales clerks, childcare providers, or the working class were
categorized as low SES (see Smeding et al. 2013 for a similar categorization).
If participants gave the occupation of a single parent, the classification was based
on this information alone. Participants whose status was ambiguous or intermediate (e.g., both parents were craftsmen) were not retained in the analyses. Four
participants did not report their anticipated grades and ten did not provide the
occupation of their parents. Thus, the final sample comprised 134 participants, 101
low SES and 33 high SES participants.
6.1.2 Procedure
Participants completed a questionnaire during one of their classes. The questionnaire contained a measure of school self-efficacy, age, and gender. Moreover, pupils
were asked to report the mean grades they thought they would obtain in
mathematics and in French in the current year and, then, their mother’s and
father’s occupations.
6.1.3 Measures
6.1.3.1 Self-efficacy A short 8-items and adapted version of the General SelfEfficacy Scale (Sherer et al. 1982) was used to assess self-efficacy (a = .65,
M = 4.66, SD = .40). Examples of items include ‘‘When I make plans, I am certain
I can make them work’’ or ‘‘I avoid facing difficulties.’’ The participants reported
the extent to which each statement was true for them on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
6.1.3.2 Anticipated mathematic and French grades Participants were asked to
report the mean grade they thought they would obtain in mathematics and French of
the current year. Estimated grades could range from 0 to 20 (M = 11.28, SD = 3.77
in mathematics; M = 11.26, SD = 2.76 in French), 10 being the passing grade.
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
6.2 Results
To test our hypothesis, we followed the procedures recommended by Baron and
Kenny (1986, see also Brauer 2000).1
6.2.1 Anticipated mathematics grade
In the first regression, SES was tested as a predictor of anticipated mathematics
grade. The statistically significant effect of SES, b = .23, t(134) = 2.69, p \ .009,
g2 = .05, indicated that low SES pupils (M = 10.78, SD = 3.48) reported
expecting lower grades in mathematics than high SES pupils (M = 12.77,
SD = 4.27). In the second regression, the link between SES and self-efficacy was
examined. The positive effect of SES, b = .17, t(134) = 1.92, p \ .06, g2 = .05,
indicated that low SES pupils (M = 4.67; SD = .77) had a lower level of selfefficacy than high SES pupils (M = 4.97; SD = .85). The third regression indicated
that, when controlling for self-efficacy, the effect of SES on anticipated
mathematics grade was still statistically significant, b = .15, t(134) = 2, p \ .05,
g2 = .03, although self-efficacy continued to predict anticipated mathematics grade,
b = .46, t(134) = 5.96, p \ .001, g2 = .21. The Sobel test was statistically
significant, Z = 2.45, p \ .02, indicating that self-efficacy mediated the link
between SES and mathematics grade. The results are summarized in Fig. 1.
6.2.2 Anticipated French grade
The same analyses were repeated for French grades. First, there was a marginal
effect of SES on French grades, b = .16, t(134) = 1.88, p \ .10, g2 = .03: Low
SES pupils (M = 11, SD = 2.59) reported expecting lower grades in French than
high SES pupils (M = 12.04, SD = 3.13). The statistically significant effect of SES
on self-efficacy was presented in the previous section. Finally, when controlling for
the effect of SES on anticipated French grade, the effect of self-efficacy persisted,
b = .37, t(134) = 4.58, p \ .001, g2 = .14. The effect of SES disappeared,
b = .10, t(134) = 1.24, ns. The Sobel test was marginal, Z = 1.77, p \ .09,
indicating that self-efficacy partially mediated the link between SES and French
grade. The results are summarized in Fig. 2.
6.3 Discussion
As previously discussed, in the school system, students from various SES might
internalize their performance inferiority/superiority in the form of a poor/high sense
of self-efficacy. The present study supports this hypothesis. Indeed, it indicated that
junior high school students’ self-efficacy mediates the link between SES and
anticipated grades in mathematics and French. Thus, the effect of SES on self1
Preliminary analysis indicated no main effect of gender on either self-efficacy, F \ 1, or performance,
(mathematics: F \ 1, French: F(1,76) = 1.56, p = .22). Thus, this variable was not retained in the
analyses.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
β=.23**
(β=.15*)
Mathematics
anticipated grade
SES
β=.17*
β=.46***
Self-Efficacy
Fig. 1 Mediation of the link between SES and anticipated mathematics grades (Study 1)
β=.16*
(β=.10, ns)
French anticipated
grade
SES
β=.17*
β=.37***
Self-Efficacy
Fig. 2 Mediation of the link between SES and anticipated French grades (Study 1)
efficacy explains why low SES students anticipate poorer mathematics grades than
high SES students. As academic performances in turn affect self-efficacy (Usher and
Pajares 2006), this might result in a sort of vicious circle for low SES students,
making it hard for them to regain the necessary positive sense of self-efficacy to
engage in school work.
Yet some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, the self-efficacy
scale used in this first study was very general. This is a limitation as it has been
demonstrated that self-efficacy is topic-specific (e.g., Bandura 1986; Smith et al.
2006). Another limitation is that the measures of grades as well as parents’
occupation were all self-reported. Self-reported anticipated grades might not reflect
actual grades, particularly for students from a stereotyped group (Chatard et al.
2007; Kuncel et al. 2005). It is therefore essential to replicate the present results
with actual mean grades. Finally, it is worth noting that Study 1 was conducted on
high school students. One might wonder whether younger students would show the
same pattern. Indeed, although students seems to be aware of the negative
stereotype regarding low SES students in school as early as the age of 6 (Désert
et al. 2009) and if children have been shown to behave in a system-justifying way as
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
early as 3 years old (Olson et al. 2011), one could argue that children in primary
school are too young to really internalize status inferiority versus superiority. In
particular, the meta-analysis of Twenge and Campbell (2002) indicated that the
effect of SES on self-esteem was quite small on young children, but increased as
children grew up. In the same vein, Dunham et al. (2006) demonstrated that young
children’s attitudes toward out-groups were not differentiated depending on status,
but the older the children, the less they showed out-group bias against high status
groups.
The goal of Study 2 is to complete Study 1 by testing the mediation of the link
between SES and grade by self-efficacy on primary school students. Moreover, in
the second study, students’ self-efficacy in specific school areas—namely, French
and mathematics—will be measured. Finally, their grades as well as parents’
occupation will be reported by students’ teachers or administrators.
7 Study 2
7.1 Method
7.1.1 Participants
Sixty-eight fourth-grade children (39 boys; 29 girls; M age = 9.52; SD = .51) from
three different schools participated in this study.2 As in Study 1, students were
coded as belonging to high SES or low SES according to parents’ highest
occupational position (Smeding et al. 2013). Participants whose status was
ambiguous or intermediate were not retained in the analyses. The final sample
comprised 67 students: 46 high SES students and 21 low SES students.
7.1.2 Procedure
Participants completed a questionnaire during one of their classes. The questionnaire contained a measure of mathematics and French self-efficacy, age, and gender.
Administrators or teachers were then asked to indicate the occupations of children’s
parents as well as the children’s grades in mathematics and French.
7.1.3 Measures
7.1.3.1 Self-efficacy in French and mathematics Self-efficacy in French and
mathematics at school was measured using the fourth-grade version of the
questionnaire constructed by Joët and colleagues (Joët et al. 2011; Joët 2009). This
measure is composed of 20 items for French (a = .78, M = 3.14, SD = .34) and 20
2
As in Study 1, there was no main effect of gender on either performance (mathematics or French) or
self-efficacy (mathematics or French), all F \ 1. Thus, gender was not entered in the analyses.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
others for mathematics (a = .82, M = 3.35, SD = .13). Examples of items include
‘‘I am able to do vocabulary exercises,’’ ‘‘I know the difference between singular
and plural,’’ and ‘‘I am able to do grammar exercises’’ (French) as well as ‘‘I am
able to give the multiples of a number,’’ ‘‘I know how to mentally calculate
subtraction,’’ and ‘‘I am able to solve geometry exercises’’ (mathematics). Children
were asked to report the extent to which each sentence was true for them on a scale
ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true).
7.1.3.2 Mean grade in French and mathematics The mean grades were provided
by teachers or administrators of the schools and corresponded to the mean grade
obtained in French and mathematics in the first quarter of the school year
(M = 14.13, SD = 2.75 in French; M = 14.84, SD = 3.12 in mathematics).
7.2 Results and discussion
7.2.1 Mathematics grade
As in Study 1, in the first regression, the main effect of SES on the mean mathematics
grade, b = .32, t(67) = 2.68, p \ .01, g2 = .10, indicated that children from high
SES had a higher grade (M = 15.5, SD = 2.77) than children from low SES
(M = 13.40, SD = 3.43). Second, a statistically significant positive link between SES
and self-efficacy in mathematics, b = .42, t(67) = 3.72, p \ .001, g2 = .18,
indicated that children from advantaged backgrounds had a higher mean self-efficacy
(M = 3.46, SD = .33) than children from disadvantaged backgrounds (M = 3.11,
SD = .41). Finally, when controlling for self-efficacy, the effect of SES on
performance was no longer statistically significant, b = .12, t(67) = 1.05, ns,
although self-efficacy in mathematics continued to predict the mean grade, b = .46,
t(67) = 3.89, p \ .001, g2 = .19. The Sobel test was statistically significant,
Z = 2.20, p \ .03. Thus, self-efficacy mediated the link between SES and mean
grade in mathematics. Results are summarized in Fig. 3.
β=.32**
(β=12, ns)
Mathematics actual
grade
SES
β=.42***
β=.46***
Self-Efficacy
Fig. 3 Mediation of the link between SES and mathematics grades (Study 2)
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
7.2.2 French grade
The first regression indicated a positive effect of SES on the mean grade in French,
b = .31, t(67) = 2.64, p \ .02, g2 = .10: High SES children had a higher grade
(M = 14.71, SD = 2.56) than low SES children (M = 12.88, SD = 2.79). However, the second regression indicated that the effect of SES on self-efficacy in
French was not statistically significant, b = .15, t(67) = 1.22, ns. As this effect was
not significant, further mediation analyses were not conducted. Yet it is worth
noting that both the effect of SES on French grade, b = .23, t(67) = 2.31, p \ .03,
g2 = .05, and the effect of self-efficacy on French grade, b = .52, t(67) = 5.11,
p \ .001, g2 = .27, were maintained when both variables were entered in the
analyses.
The present study replicated the results of Study 1 with a task-specific measure of
self-efficacy and with real, not anticipated, academic mathematics grades. As in
Study 1, the effect of students’ SES on their mathematics grade was mediated by
their self-efficacy in math. A potential explanation for the lack of mediation in
French might be that French is a topic on which social class differences are
particularly pronounced (Berstein 1988; Duru-Bellat et al. 2009; Lahire 1992).
Consequently, if self-efficacy certainly contributes to explaining part of the social
class differences in French, it is not the only mechanism through which social class
differences are produced in this domain. The fact that a partial mediation appeared
when the grades in French were anticipated (Study 1) supports this interpretation, as
self-efficacy more strongly impacts anticipated grades than real grades. Taken
together, the present results provided additional support for the hypothesis that a
sociological effect (SES differences) actually passes through a psychological effect
(self-efficacy) as well as evidence for the internalization process that operates in
schools, especially in math performance.
8 General discussion
We have argued that, in the school system, social class differences are internalized
in children’s minds into personal efficacy. The results obtained in the two present
studies support this hypothesis. Indeed, as Gecas (1989) argued, both children and
teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds have lower school and mathematics
self-efficacy than children and teenagers from advantaged backgrounds. Moreover,
and as observed in other research (e.g., Bandura 1997; Multon et al. 1991; Pajares
and Schunk 2001), self-efficacy predicted mathematics and French performance.
More importantly, the present research highlighted that self-efficacy mediated the
link between SES and mathematics grades. In other words, as students of
disadvantaged backgrounds have lower self-efficacy, they have lower achievements
in math than students from advantaged backgrounds. This mediation process
emerged in math for both children and teenaged students and partially in French
when grades were anticipated.
Taken together, these results supported the hypothesis that school is a system that
contributes to justifying social inequalities by transforming social class differences
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
into personal differences (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). In particular, in schools,
pupils learn to attribute their success or lack of success to internal causes (Pansu
et al. 2008) and thus accept their position in the hierarchy, be it a high status or a
low status position (Jost 2001). In the present study, low and high SES students
developed a sense of their own efficacy that was congruent with their position. This
differential level of self-efficacy in turn affected their mathematics performance,
which might reinforce beliefs that low SES students do not have a sufficient level to
perform in school, creating a sort of vicious circle.
These findings were obtained among two different age groups and with different
measures of self-efficacy and grades. However, future research is needed to confirm
and specify the present results. Notably, a limitation of the present two studies is
that all variables were invoked variables. Thus, common causes might have been
omitted that could explain the covariation among the three measures (SES, selfefficacy, and performances). Some researchers recommend testing mediation effects
only on manipulated variables (Judd et al. 2013). Future research should examine,
while controlling for students’ initial ability, whether manipulated social status (e.g.,
Jost and Burgess 2000; Sachtev and Bourhis 1991) would result in a similar
reduction of self-efficacy and, consequently, academic performance. Moreover, the
present studies were conducted in the French context and replication in other
countries would help being more confident on the generalizability of the findings.
Since the issue of social inequalities at school is not specific to the French context
but also concerns other countries (OECD 2009), there are few reasons to expect the
present findings not to appear in other countries than France. However, such
replications are required to test this assumption. Let us note finally that the present
study examined French and mathematics self-efficacy and grades as both French
and mathematics are important and highly valued topics in schools (see also, Joët
et al. 2011). However, mathematics and French are also stereotyped topics on which
teachers have differential expectations between low and high SES pupils (Auwarter
and Aruguete 2008). In order to exclude the stereotype threat hypothesis as an
explanation for the low SES students’ underperformance via self-efficacy, it is
necessary to test whether the identified links exist in different academic domains
less stereotypically associated with high or low SES performance. We predict that
the present results will be replicated whatever the topic, as long as schools—and,
thus, meritocratic beliefs—are involved.
Despite the need for more research to examine the link between SES, selfefficacy and school performance, the two studies presented herein shed some light
on the reason underlying the SES gap in school and open the door to the possible
remediation of difficulties stemming from students’ disadvantaged social backgrounds. Indeed, if the social reproduction theory (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990) or
the system justification theory (Jost et al. 2004) appear to be quite pessimistic
regarding chances of low SES children to succeed in school, research on selfefficacy, on the contrary, provides very relevant advices on how to increase
students’ self-efficacy. For example, providing appropriate learning structures that
offer ‘‘mastery experiences’’ have positive effects on self-efficacy (Bandura 1997;
Britner and Pajares 2006; Tanti and Labone 2011) by providing challenges through
short-term goals (Schunk 1981). Precise descriptions of tasks (Alfassi 2003;
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
Stajkovic and Luthans 1998), appropriate monitoring (Schunk 1982), or constructive oral feedback (Chen et al. 2014) are other efficient strategies that can be used to
increase self-efficacy. More recently, Darnon et al. (2012) demonstrated that the use
of a cooperative learning method (i.e., jigsaw method; Aronson and Patnoe 1997) in
a class increased vocational students’ self-efficacy. As these practices have been
shown to increase students’ self-efficacy, one could expect them, based on the
present results, to reduce the achievement gap between low and high SES students
in school. Future research should examine this issue and design pedagogical
guidelines accordingly.
However, the identified practical guidelines are focused on how to help low SES
students increase their own level of self-efficacy. Another way to deal with the
problem could be to focus on its origins. In particular, teachers and parents should
be aware that merit is not the only factor that determines one’s chances of success
and failure at school (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Darnon et al. 2012; Dubet 2004;
Duru-Bellat 1996) and should be attentive not to make low SES students think they
have a poorer academic value than their high SES counterparts.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, the
Swiss National Foundation, and the Région Auvergne. We wish to express our gratitude to Lyon Catholic
University for its participation in Study 2.
References
Alfassi, M. (2003). Promoting the will and skill of students at academic risk: An evaluation of an
instructional design geared to foster achievement, self-efficacy and motivation. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 30(1), 28–40.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Counselor perceptions of students who are vary in gender and
socioeconomic status. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 389–395.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co, Publishers.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of selfefficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222.
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of
differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1),
5–21.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Beauvois, J.-L., Bourjade, A., & Pansu, P. (1991). Norme d’internalité et évaluation professionnelle.
Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4(1–2), 9–28.
Beauvois, J.-L., & Dubois, N. (1988). The norm of internality in the explanation of psychological events.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 299–316.
Berstein, B. (1988). Class, codes and control. London: Routedge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London:
SAGE.
Bradley, R., & Corwyn, R. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 371–399.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
Brauer, M. (2000). L’identification des processus médiateurs dans la recherche en psychologie. L’Année
Psychologique, 100(4), 661–681.
Bressoux, P., & Pansu, P. (2003). Quand les enseignants jugent leurs élèves. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2),
55–71.
Chatard, A., Guimond, S., & Selimbegovic, L. (2007). ‘‘How good are you in math?’’ The effect of
gender stereotypes on students’ recollection of their school marks. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43(6), 1017–1024.
Chen, Y. H., Thompson, M. S., Kromrey, J. D., & Chang, G. H. (2014). Relations of student perceptions
of teacher oral feedback with teacher expectancies and student self-concept. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 79(4), 452–477.
Croizet, J.-C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The
intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 588–594.
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Desbar, D. (2012a). The jigsaw technique and self-efficacy of vocational
training students: A practice report. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(3), 439–449.
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2012b). Achievement goals in educational contexts: A
social psychology perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 760–771.
Désert, M., Préaux, M., & Jund, R. (2009). So young and already victims of stereotype threat: Socioeconomic status and performance of 6 to 9 years old children on Raven’s progressive matrices.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 207–218.
Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P. (2006). An integrative model of scholastic judgments: Pupils’
characteristics, class context, halo effect and internal attributions. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 21(2), 119–133.
Dubet, F. (2004). L’école des chances. Qu’est-ce qu’une école juste?. Paris: Seuil.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From american city to Japanese village: A crosscultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77(5), 1268–1281.
Duru-Bellat, M. (1996). Social inequalities in French secondary schools: From figures to theories. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(3), 341–350.
Duru-Bellat, M., Meuret, D., & Bègue, L. (2009). Les sentiments de justice à et sur l’école. Bruxelles: De
Boeck Université.
Duru-Bellat, M., & Tenret, É. (2009). L’emprise de la méritocratie scolaire : Quelle légitimité ? Revue
Française de Sociologie, 50, 229–258.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Fraser, J., & Kick, E. (2000). The interpretive repertoires of whites on race-targeted policies: Claims
making of reverse discrimination. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 13–28.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Psychology, 15, 291–316.
Harrison, L. A., Stevens, C. M., Monty, A. N., & Coakley, C. A. (2006). The consequences of stereotype
threat on the academic performance of White and non-White lower income college students. Social
Psychology of Education, 9(3), 341–357.
Joët, G. (2009). Le sentiment d’auto-efficacité en primaire: de son élaboration à son impact sur la
scolarité des élèves. Université Pierre Mendès France Grenoble 2.
Joët, G., Usher, E. L., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy: An investigation of elementary
school students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 649–663.
Johnson, S. E., Richeson, J. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Middle class and marginal? Socioeconomic status,
stigma, and self-regulation at an elite university. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
100(5), 838–852.
Jost, J. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating
the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskovitz (Ed.), Cognitive social
psychology: The princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102).
Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jost, J., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated
evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6),
881–919.
123
Author's personal copy
From social class to self-efficacy: internalization of low…
Jost, J., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system
justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3),
293–305.
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265.
Judd, C. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Muller, D. (2013). Mediation and moderation. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handobook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class,
solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review,
119(3), 546–572.
Kudrna, L., Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2010). The influence of social class salience on self-assessed
intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(6), 859–864.
Kuncel, N. R., Crédé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The reliability of self-reported grade point averages,
class ranks, and test scores. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–87.
Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2001). Social status and the academic achievement gap: A social dominance
perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 235–258.
Lahire, B. (1992). L’‘‘Illetrisme’’ en questions. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J., & Pohl, M. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated
defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29(3), 322–340.
McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 341–351.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.
National Institut of Statistics and Economic Studies. (2008). Depuis 20 ans, une population de plus en
plus dı̂plômée mais avec des disparités selon le milieu social encore importante [For twenty-five
years, a population more graduated but with differences according to social environment still
important]. France: INSEE références, portrait social.
O’Brien, L., & Major, B. (2009). Group status and feelings of personal entitlement: The roles of social
comparison and system-justifying beliefs. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social
and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 427–443). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Olson, K. R., Dweck, C. S., Spelke, E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Children’s responses to group-based
inequalities: Perpetuation and rectification. Social Cognition, 29(3), 270–287.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Overcoming social
background:equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.oecdilibrary.org/education/pisa-2009-results-overcoming-social-background_9789264091504-en.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self- concept, and
school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London: Ablex
Publishing.
Pansu, P., Dubois, N., & Dompnier, B. (2008). Internality-norm theory in educational contexts. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(4), 385–397.
Régner, I., Huguet, P., & Monteil, J. (2002). Effects of socioeconomic status (SES) information on
cognitive ability inferences: When low-SES students make use of a self-threatening stereotype.
Social Psychology of Education, 5(3), 253–269.
Sachtev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group
relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24.
Scarr-Salapatek, S., & Williams, M. L. (1973). The effects of early stimulation on low-birth-weight
infants. Child Development, 44(1), 94–101.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93–105.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 51(2), 89–93.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2001). Development of Academic Self-Efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles
(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (Vol. 1446, pp. 1–27). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The
self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671.
123
Author's personal copy
V. Wiederkehr et al.
Smeding, A., Darnon, C., Souchal, C., Toczeck-Capelle, M. C., & Butera, F. (2013). Reducing the socioeconomic status achievement gap at university by promoting mastery-oriented assessment. PLoS
One, 8(8), e71678.
Smith, S. A., Kass, S. J., Rotunda, R. J., & Schneider, S. K. (2006). If at first you don’t succeed: Effects of
failure on general and task-specific self-efficacy and performance. North American Journal of
Psychology, 1(8), 171–182.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit
of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433–450.
Spencer, B., & Castano, E. (2007). Social class is dead. Long live social class! stereotype threat among
low socioeconomic status individuals. Social Justice Research, 20(4), 418–432.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen
disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic
performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(6), 1178–1197.
Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives.
Washigton D.C.: Hemisphere.
Tanti, M., & Labone, E. (2011). Step up into teaching: Increasing the engagement and academic selfefficacy of school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The Journal of Catholic School,
83(1), 64–73.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and socioeconomic status: A meta-analytic
review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 59–71.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source of the
academic self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 12, 7–16.
Virginie Wiederkehr is a Ph.D. student in social psychology at University Clermont Auvergne, France.
Her studies aim at examining antecedents of the belief in academic meritocracy and its impact on
students’ school performance and self-concepts depending to their SES.
Céline Darnon is lecturer and researcher in social psychology at University Clermont Auvergne, France.
She studies how the educational system promotes goals, values, and practices that contribute to
accentuating inequalities among low and high status pupils and students.
Sébastien Chazal has a Ph.D. in social psychology. He is currently guidance counselor. His research
focuses on the influence of social comparison on academic self-concept and the role of internal and
external factors of intrinsic motivation.
Serge Guimond is full professor and director of the CNRS laboratory of social and cognitive psychology
(LAPSCO) in Clermont-Ferrand, France. His research concerns intergroup relations and the effects of
education on attitudes, values and ideologies.
Delphine Martinot is Professor of Social Psychology, in Psychology Department of University Clermont
Auvergne. Her research focuses on gender stereotypes, school achievement and social stigmatization.
123