9

APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TO EDUCATION

LOUISE R. ALEXITCH

CHAPTER OUTLINE
Intrapersonal Processes: Increasing Success, Reducing Failure
What Factors Affect Student Performance
How Can Student Performance Be Improved?
Interpersonal Processes: Teachers and Students Interacting
Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement
Students Interacting With Other Students
When Interactions Turn Deadly: School Violence
Summary

In 1996, after 6 weeks of being taught by a group of health care professionals, 11 high school
students of Native Canadian and Black backgrounds reported on the results of their research
projects. Their work was impressive, and so were their experiences; they had the opportunity
to observe surgery, work alongside university researchers, and watch health care
professionals going about their duties (Galt, 1996). Begun in 1994, the University of Toronto
Summer Mentorship Program was established to address a concern over the lack of Black
and Native Canadians pursuing professions in the health field. The program was designed to
expose high school students from minority groups to the university environment and, by
having them job shadow professionals, to encourage them to consider careers in science and
medicine. The program was aimed specifically at minority students who previously had not
considered university as an educational option because they believed that either they were
not smart enough or they did not have the skills and means to be successful at the university
level. The mentorship program has been so successful that over the years it has been
expanded to include other faculties at the University of Toronto such as law, engineering,
and social work. The program now admits more than 100 students each year. As an indicator
of effectiveness, participants’ high school marks have improved by an average of 10%.
According to Miriam Rossi, associate dean of student affairs in the Faculty of Medicine,
 “Once they see that university is a possibility, they redouble their efforts in high school”
(quoted in Sibbald, 1998). As one student put it, “Now I know I can do it” (quoted in Galt,
1996).

What factors may have affected the students’ motivational levels and aspirations?
Why did these students, who previously viewed themselves as marginal students, come to view
their academic abilities more positively?
How do interactions with mentors, teachers, and role models affect students’ academic
achievement and aspirations?

We can all remember instances from our school pasts that we cherish—good friends made,
inspirational teachers, and moments of accomplishment. We also can recall instances that we would
much rather forget—schoolyard bullies, a teacher who made us feel foolish, or feelings of isolation.
Social psychology has helped to uncover the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes that operate in
the educational environment. For example, there are social psychological theories to explain how
students’ learning experiences may have led the minority students in the opening vignette to view their
academic abilities in a more positive light. In the first section of the chapter, intrapersonal
processes, such as attitudes, achievement motivation, and beliefs about one’s academic skills, are
discussed.
Also, we must not forget that acquiring an education is very much a social process in that teachers
interact with students and students interact with each other. In the vignette, it seems that the minority
students’ interactions with health care professionals led the students to alter their academic
aspirations. The second section of the chapter, which discusses interpersonal processes, considers
how teachers and students interacting together can affect students’ beliefs about their abilities and
their levels of academic achievement.
Of course, many educators and researchers also have applied social psychology in schools to
address more general social issues such as violence, prejudice and discrimination, and health-related
behaviors. Interventions based on social psychological concepts are aimed not only at improving the
academic achievement of students but also at creating learning environments that foster the
development of broad-based emotional, social, and cognitive skills in students. The final section of
the chapter focuses on the problem of school violence. It shows how the school environment reflects
broader societal norms regarding violence and how schools can be used as vehicles for addressing
this pressing social issue.

INTRAPERSONAL P ROCESSES: INCREASING SUCCESS, REDUCING F AILURE

Susan, a psychology major, is worried about her performance in a statistics course. She worries that
she “can’t do math.” To deal with her feelings, she engages in activities that help to distract her from
the requirements of the course such as going out with friends the night before her statistics exam. She
finds reasons for not submitting her assignments on time (or at all) such as “computer problems.” As a
result, Susan fails the exam. How does she feel about statistics now? How would you feel if you were
Susan? Because she failed, Susan believes that her original conception of her ability is correct: She is
lousy at math. Can students’ beliefs about their academic ability be changed? Can these changes result
in better academic achievement and motivation to learn? Social psychology and decades of research
have shown that these changes can occur.

What Factors Affect Student Performance

What is it about Susan that may have led to her poor performance in statistics? Is it her negative
attitude toward math or her previous negative experiences with math courses? Susan attributes her
performance to an internal stable characteristic (i.e., low ability). Will this attribution lead her to
engage in the same nonadaptive behavior in another similar course? This subsection reviews some of
the factors (and related social psychological theories) that may positively or negatively affect
academic performance.

Attitudes and academic behavior. In a classic review of research examining the link between
attitudes and behavior, Wicker (1969) indicated that attitudes and behavior might not always be
consistent. Susan may value statistics as part of her training in psychology, but her behavior (i.e.,
going out with friends instead of studying) seems inconsistent with her positive attitude. In an effort to
address such inconsistencies, Ajzen (1991) formulated the theory of planned behavior (see Figure
8.4 in Chapter 8). The theory takes into account multiple determinants of behavior (attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) that predict a person’s intention to behave in a
particular fashion. It is such intentions to behave that predict eventual behavior. Behavioral beliefs
(i.e., beliefs that an action will lead to a certain outcome) and the evaluation of the outcome both
comprise an attitude toward the behavior. For example, you may believe that working hard in
college will lead to academic success and that academic success is important; these two beliefs form
your positive attitude toward doing course work. But many behaviors are performed in a social
context—we are aware of what others expect of us, and we may (or may not) be motivated to comply
with these expectations. Therefore, in addition to our attitudes, subjective norms may also affect
behavioral intention and behavior. You may be aware that your parents expect you to work hard in
college and to be a serious student. Because you do not want to disappoint them, you are motivated to
meet their expectations.
But we do not always have control over whether we can, in fact, carry out the intended behavior
that will lead to our desired outcome. For example, you would like to get good grades in college, and
you know that good grades are looked on favorably by your family, friends, and professors. You
know that to accomplish this, you must work hard by engaging in behaviors such as keeping up with
your readings, studying on a regular basis, and getting all assignments done. However, you may still
end up with a C average simply because you do not have good study skills, lack the ability to
comprehend the material, or live in a noisy “party” dorm. What happens to you when you know that
you cannot achieve your desired outcomes due to factors that you believe are beyond your control? If
you lack the study skills needed to get good grades in college (or believe that you cannot develop
such skills), you might not work very hard. That is, your intention to work hard and the degree to
which you work hard will be diminished by your perceived lack of control.
Using the theory of planned behavior as a framework, Sideridis and Padeliadu (2001) compared
the importance of achieving good grades in elementary school children who were high-performing
readers with that in elementary school children who were low-performing readers. Specifically, the
researchers wanted to examine how the children’s motivation to achieve good grades was related to
the key components of the theory of planned behavior: (a) attitudes toward high academic
achievement (beliefs about the consequences of studying and evaluation of the importance of doing
well in school), (b) subjective norms about high academic performance (beliefs about the importance
that others’ place on the children’s academic performance and how motivated the children are to
comply with others’ expectations), (c) perceived behavioral control (how easy or difficult the
children view studying to be), (d) behavioral intention (how determined the children are to study hard
to achieve high grades), and (e) actual academic performance in language and mathematics.
Sideridis and Padeliadu (2001) found that high- and low-performing readers had very different
profiles based on the theory of planned behavior. Compared with high-performing readers, low-
performing readers undervalued the importance of being a good student, expressed weaker intentions
to work hard to achieve, perceived weaker subjective norms about the importance of academic
achievement, and demonstrated poorer academic performance. It seemed that the perceived
importance of doing well in school predicted attitudes about studying and beliefs about the
consequences of working hard, was linked to perceived control over the ability to achieve good
grades, and could also be related to the perception of subjective norms. What does this mean for
teachers, students, and their parents? It means that if one can increase the importance of learning in
students and also increase students’ beliefs about their abilities and the amount of control they have
over their academic outcomes, students will want to work harder (behavioral intention) to achieve
better grades.

Academic self-concept and performance. At first glance, the students whom we read about in the
opening vignette and Susan, our hapless statistics student, may have little in common—one is a
success story, and the other is not. In both cases, however, students’ experiences in school changed
the way in which they saw themselves. Due to their positive interactions with researchers,
professionals, and other students in the mentorship program, the minority students could now picture
themselves in health or science professions and believed that they could be successful in university.
The way in which they saw themselves changed, and their grades and aspirations shifted accordingly.
In contrast, Susan believes that she just “can’t do math.” She attributes her poor performance to a lack
of mathematical aptitude, expects to fail any upcoming tests in statistics, and will feel embarrassed by
her performance (especially if other students do well). Will Susan be motivated to study harder?
Probably not—as she sees little point to it. She might even be tempted to drop the course or change
her area of study altogether.
The feelings, attitudes, and perceptions that students hold about their academic ability—especially
when compared with those of other students—is called academic self-concept (Cokley, 2000;
Cokley & Patel, 2007). Academic self-concept has been found to affect motivation and performance
in school settings (self-enhancement effect), and similarly, good performance in school leads to a
more positive academic self-concept (skill development effect). Academic self-concept and
academic achievement, therefore, have a reciprocal relationship, with academic self-concept being
both the cause and the effect of academic achievement (Cokley & Patel, 2007; Guay, Marsh, &
Boivin, 2003; Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2005). Moreover, there is evidence that
academic self-concept can differ on the basis of a student’s age, gender, or ethnicity. For example, in
a sample of elementary school children, Guay and colleagues (2003) found that as children grow
older, their academic self-concept becomes more stable and is more strongly tied with academic
achievement. This implies that it is important for teachers to create a classroom environment that not
only enhances students’ positive beliefs about their scholastic skills but also gives them constructive
feedback concerning their performance.
 Although it is extremely important to help elementary and high school students develop a positive
academic self-concept so that they do well in school, put more effort into tasks, and set higher goals,
it does not mean that we should forget about academic self-concept when students enter college.
Susan certainly has been affected by her beliefs and expectations concerning her math ability (very
likely developed from previous negative experiences in similar circumstances). These beliefs
subsequently influenced the amount of effort she put into the requirements of her statistics course and,
quite possibly, will influence decisions about her major. Her academic self-concept (especially with
respect to math ability) will be further affected if she learns that others in her class are having less
difficulty with statistics. Rodriguez (2009) examined not only the extent to which academic self-
concept and outcome expectations predicted academic attitudes (perceived usefulness and importance
of course material) and academic performance in undergraduate business students, but also how
academic self-concept predicted the learning strategies that these students elected to use. He found
that students who had high academic self-concepts were more likely to use learning strategies that
promoted more in-depth understanding of the material, integration of concepts, and a more critical
approach to the course content. Not surprisingly, these strategies predicted significantly better
academic attitudes and performance. Therefore, college instructors should design courses and
learning tasks that promote more positive beliefs and a sense of competency early in a student’s
program of study. These in turn will motivate students to employ more effective learning strategies,
set higher academic goals, and place greater importance on the value of their education—all of which
lead to greater academic success. Students who do not develop a positive academic self-concept
(like Susan) become disinterested in their education, use more ineffective learning strategies, and
show poorer academic performance—all of which fuel an even more negative academic self-concept
(Marsh et al., 2005; Rodriguez, 2009).

CULTURE CAPSULE: THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND

ACHIEVEMENT
Academic self-concept and achievement is an especially critical issue for minority students. Recall
that the minority students in the opening vignette changed the way they saw themselves due to their
experiences in the mentorship program. We can guess that their academic self-concept became
consistent with being a university student; that is, they came to “identify” with being in an academic
environment. As we saw earlier, this change in their academic self-concept should bring with it
higher motivation to succeed, more involvement in learning tasks, and greater importance placed on
academic success.
Unfortunately, this does not happen for students in all cultural groups. Kevin Cokley and his
colleagues (Cokley, 2000, 2002; Cokley & Moore, 2007) have studied the effects of a negative self-
concept on the engagement and success of African American students. According to Cokley (2002)
and others (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995), African American students begin school with a positive
outlook and are motivated to succeed; however, as these students move through the education system,
their identification with academics, their motivation to do well, and their enjoyment of school all
decrease significantly. Why? Teachers and classmates may hold lower expectations for them, and
they, themselves, may be struggling to remain engaged in an educational setting due to such factors as
a lack of culturally relevant material (Cokley, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995). We will get into how
the expectations of others may affect a student’s academic success later in the chapter, but for now we
can view this “disconnect” between one’s academic self-concept and success in school as academic
disidentification (Cokley, 2002; Cokley & Moore, 2007; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
To explore the phenomenon of academic disidentification, Cokley (2002) compared the
relationship between academic self-concept and academic performance (GPA) in two groups of
college students—359 African American students and 229 European American students—
representing different years of enrollment and a variety of undergraduate programs. Consistent with
our earlier discussion, there was a positive correlation between academic self-concept and GPA for
both groups of students. When scores for academic self-concept by ethnicity were examined,
however, African American students had significantly less positive academic self-concept scores
when compared to European Americans. Furthermore, when Cokley (2002) examined the correlation
of academic self-concept and performance by year of enrollment and by gender, he found that the
correlation sharply decreased for African American males, stayed the same for African American
females and European American males, and increased for European American females. This implies
that the educational environment can have a profound effect on how students see themselves—
whether positive or negative. If faced with an unwelcoming cultural climate, the lower expectations
of others about one’s ethnic group, and the occasional failure at a task, a student may come to believe
that school (or a specific domain within school such as mathematics) does not define him or her and
is not important. Their self-concept shifts away from the academic realm to a nonacademic sphere
and, hence, academic disidentification (Cokley, 2002; Steele, 1997).

Self-handicapping in the classroom. The development of negative attitudes toward school and
downplaying the importance of academic success may lead students to engage in a variety of
behaviors that protect their self-concept or enhance their self-image. These self-serving strategies
(see also Chapter 5) may seem harmless, positive, and even adaptive at first, but many social
psychologists believe that, in the long run, self-serving strategies may be self-defeating (Baumeister
& Scher, 1988). One example of an ultimately self-defeating strategy, commonly used by students, is
self-handicapping, a variable that was considered in Chapter 5 in the context of personal uses of
social psychology.
Self-handicapping refers to creating barriers to successful performance prior to (or simultaneous
with) an achievement task (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Urdan, 2004; Urdan & Midgley, 2001). In
essence, people handicap their own performance on a task so that they have a ready excuse for
failure. In this way, self-handicapping not only reduces the cost of failure by shifting blame away
from individuals but also enhances the value of success because success occurred despite the
handicap. Let us revisit Susan and her statistics course. Suppose that Susan has a statistics test coming
up and is afraid that no matter how hard she studies, she will do poorly on the test. She decides,
therefore, to go out with friends the night before the test and to study for only a few hours.
Handicapping her own performance has two advantages for Susan: If she fails the test, she can
attribute her poor performance to not studying enough and being out with friends the night before. If
she happens to do well on the test, she can feel especially pleased about her good performance
because she attained it under handicapped conditions. Either way, Susan protects her self-esteem
from yet another confirmation of her inability to do math.
Although this might sound like a good strategy, a number of researchers (e.g., Thompson, 1994;
Urdan & Midgley, 2001; Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998) noted that repeated use of self-
handicapping can have negative effects on academic self-concept, academic performance, and other
measures of achievement over the long term. Murray and Warden (1992) warned that reliance on self-
handicapping as a strategy in academic settings may interfere with being able to take responsibility
for one’s performance even when it is a successful outcome. Zuckerman and colleagues (1998)
examined the relationship between self-handicapping and several measures of academic adjustment,
such as academic performance, coping strategies, and self-esteem, in a large sample of undergraduate
students over a period of one year. High self-handicappers were found to employ more negative
coping strategies (e.g., psychological and behavioral disengagement, negative self-focus) and
performed less well academically than students who were low self-handicappers. Not only did high
self-handicappers do less well academically than their low self-handicapping counterparts, they also
employed less effective study habits. Finally, high self-handicappers showed poorer adjustment to
college over time, which led them to rely even further on self-handicapping as a method for coping.
Thus, a cycle was created in which self-handicapping and poor adjustment in an academic setting
reinforced one another.
Given that self-handicapping may have detrimental long-term effects, what can educators do to
encourage students to put effort into their academic work even if the students may fail at some tasks?
How can teachers help students to avoid attributing poor performance to a lack of ability and, instead,
to view it as a normal part of the learning process? Surprisingly, some classroom environments
actually may promote the use of self-handicapping (Turner et al., 2002; Urdan, Midgley, &
Anderman, 1998). Urdan and colleagues (1998) found that students in classrooms where ability and
competition were emphasized were more likely to report using self-handicapping strategies than were
students in classrooms where individual mastery, effort, and learning were emphasized. When the
classroom structure is designed to emphasize the idea that performance is linked to ability, students
who believe that they are not very good will be more likely to engage in strategies (e.g., self-
handicapping) that protect their academic self-concepts.
To create a classroom environment that emphasizes individual mastery and effort rather than ability
and performance, teachers have used instructional strategies such as providing students with choices
among learning tasks, creating multiple ways in which students can demonstrate their knowledge
about a topic, and helping students to set short-term achievable (but still challenging) learning goals.
For example, Turner and colleagues (2002) found that sixth-grade students in mathematics classes
were less likely to engage in self-handicapping and other avoidant behaviors when they were in
classrooms where teachers emphasized learning, motivated students to demonstrate new skills, and
emphasized enjoyment of the material. Teachers in these classrooms told students not to feel ashamed
when they could not understand some of the math and that it was OK to make mistakes (see Figure
9.1).

How Can Student Performance Be Improved?

The research on self-handicapping and academic self-concept suggests that improving students’
performance may be accomplished by changing the reward contingencies and teaching strategies in
the classroom. In other words, if a teacher wants to change a student’s behavior, it might be
constructive to focus on the situation, or on the interaction of the individual and the situation, rather
than solely on the individual. This, of course, reflects the social psychological perspective. The
following sections describe how the emphasis on grades and competition in a classroom can
adversely affect students’ motivation to learn and what educators can do to prevent this from
happening.
 Figure 9.1 A Teacher Helping to Make Learning Fun

SOURCE: Photo courtesy of Cassandra Lee Davis.

Intrinsic motivation and external rewards. It is generally believed that in an intrinsically oriented
system, people will be motivated to engage in an activity, whether it is a hobby, an exercise, or
something new that is being learned. That is, individuals will engage in this behavior not for external
rewards (e.g., grades, recognition, fame) but rather because they simply enjoy engaging in the activity.
It is also known that providing large tangible rewards for an activity may backfire and undermine
people’s intrinsic motivation for the activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Freedman, Cunnigham, & Krismer,
1992; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000).
Why does such undermining occur? Why would people draw less intrinsic enjoyment from an
activity when they receive external rewards for engaging in it? And what does this have to do with
school and with the way in which we educate children? Deci (1978) and others (e.g., Lepper &
Henderlong, 2000; Tang & Hall, 1995) have argued that schools are very extrinsically oriented. You
may remember a teacher giving you a “gold star” when you did well on a school project, or you may
recall being embarrassed in front of others when you did poorly. Gold stars, grades, ranks in class,
and competition all serve to focus children on the extrinsic aspects of learning. The unintended
message conveyed to students is that working on academic tasks is not interesting or is of little value,
and that rewards are needed to get people to learn (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Freedman et al., 1992;
Lepper & Henderlong, 2000). Moreover, this message is more pronounced as children progress
through the school system, leading to a maladaptive shift in achievement goals—from an intrinsic to
an extrinsic orientation.
Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory offered one explanation as to how the change in motivation
might be happening. According to Bem’s (1972) theory, we infer our own attitudes and beliefs by
observing our actions in a detached and logical way. Just as we draw conclusions about other
people’s attitudes from the ways in which they behave, we also infer our attitudes from observing our
own behavior. For instance, you are currently reading this chapter and, thus, might infer that you like
what you are doing. According to self-perception theory, when we begin to receive a reward
(especially a large reward) for doing something we enjoy even without any recompense, we start to
attribute our behavior—engaging in the activity—to the reward (extrinsic factor) rather than to
enjoyment (intrinsic factor). Bem proposed that a reward (especially a large reward) is a salient cue
to us and that our focus for explaining our behavior shifts from an internal factor to an external factor.
As a result, internal factors, such as enjoyment and interest, no longer appear to provide sufficient
justification for engaging in the activity. This is called the overjustification effect (also discussed in
Chapter 16), which refers to the loss of motivation and interest as a result of receiving an excessive
external reward (Bem, 1972; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).

F OCUS ON RESEARCH

Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation

In an experiment to examine the overjustification effect in an educational setting, Lepper and
colleagues (1973) relied on the observation that nursery school children enjoyed playing with “magic
markers.” The children were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) expected
award, (b) no award, and (c) unexpected award. Each participant was brought into a playroom by one
of the researchers, presented with magic markers and paper, and told that there was a person who
was visiting the school to see what kinds of pictures boys and girls like to draw with magic markers.
In the unexpected award and no award conditions, the researcher asked the child if he or she would
like to draw some pictures for the visitor. In the expected award condition, however, the researcher
showed the child a “Good Player Award” (a certificate with a gold seal and ribbon) and informed the
child that the visitor would be giving these awards to children who were willing to draw pictures
with the magic markers. In all three conditions, the researcher left the room, and the “visitor”
(actually a second researcher) was brought into the room to sit with the child. The second researcher
asked the child what kind of picture he or she would like to draw. The child was then allowed to
draw for approximately 6 minutes with minimal input from the second researcher. At the completion
of this session, children in the unexpected award and expected award conditions were given the
awards.
For approximately two weeks following the experimental session, the participants in all three
conditions were observed unobtrusively in their classrooms by the researchers from behind one-way
mirrors. The researchers noted the amount of time that the children engaged (without prompting) in the
target activity (i.e., playing with the magic markers) from among a choice of other activities and
materials (e.g., building blocks, easels). Consistent with the overjustification hypothesis, Lepper and
colleagues (1973) found that for children in the expected award condition, interest in the target
activity decreased significantly after being rewarded for drawing with magic markers, whereas for
children in the unexpected and no award conditions, interest in the magic markers did not decline.
The researchers also noted that the quality of the drawings produced by the children in the expected
award condition was poorer than that produced by the other children in both the experimental session
and postsession observations. These findings clearly suggest that the expectation of a reward may
affect intrinsic motivation and performance on school tasks. The overjustification effect has been
found to occur not only with elementary school children but also with high school and college
students (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Tang & Hall, 1995).

A more current theory that further helps to explain the connection between students’ motivation and
achievement behavior is Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory. Self-determination is
the degree to which an individual sees him- or herself as being autonomous and having a choice in
actions and behaviors, without feeling pressured to behave in a particular manner (Deci & Ryan,
1985). In other words, does a student’s desire to learn a task come from within her, or is it imposed
from the outside by teachers, parents, or society? Self-determination is clearly seen in intrinsically
motivated behavior. For example, a student may spontaneously choose to do some extra reading on a
topic without thought of a reward (e.g., better grade in the course) or because she feels compelled by
others to do so (e.g., the teacher told her to). Intrinsic motivation, however, occupies only one end of
the self-determination continuum. As we move away from pure intrinsic motivation, we encounter
behaviors that are less intrinsically motivated (i.e., self-determined) and more extrinsically motivated
(see Table 9.1). External regulation is at the other end of the continuum, and it is normally what we
would think of as pure extrinsic motivation. In this case, the student would work on an assignment to
simply obtain a good grade and avoid punishment, and would take no pleasure from engaging in the
work.
Between intrinsic motivation and external regulation, Deci and Ryan (1985; Ryan & Deci, 2004)
have identified three intermediary levels of extrinsic motivation: integrated regulation, identified
regulation, and introjected regulation. Integrated regulation is the most self-determined form of
extrinsic motivation where individuals integrate both internal and external information into a coherent
set of values, goals, and priorities, or into their sense of self. In this case, being a “good student”
becomes part of the person’s self-concept, and he or she has internalized external priorities (Ryan &
Deci, 2004). In identified regulation, individuals engage in activities to help them achieve goals that
have become important to them. This is a more utilitarian view of education. A student may choose to
complete assignments and study hard for tests, because this helps move the individual toward
achieving a goal (e.g., obtaining a degree), and not because he or she has an intrinsic interest in
learning. In introjected regulation, the individual is ruled by feelings of “should” and “ought” (Ryan
& Deci, 2004). In this case, an individual’s choices are not integrated into the self, and the choices
are still very much controlled from outside the individual. So, a student may study for an exam to
avoid a bad grade, but also because she would feel bad about disappointing her parents. Finally,
there is amotivation, which falls somewhat outside the self-determination continuum. Here the
student will be plagued by feelings of low self-efficacy, incompetence, and a sense that there is little
connection between her actions and her outcomes.
The approach to motivation presented in self-determination theory has significant implications (and
applications) for the way in which we structure the classroom environment, for how we encourage
students to become interested in learning, and for getting students to stay in school. For example,
Vallerand and Bissonnette (1992) examined how the different types of motivation outlined above
were related to students’ persistence in a college-level course. At the beginning of the school year,
approximately 1,000 junior college students enrolled in a mandatory course were asked to complete a
questionnaire measuring their reasons for going to school, for doing homework, and for engaging in a
variety of other academic tasks. Students who finished the course had higher levels of intrinsic
motivation toward academic activities than students who had dropped the course. Moreover, students
who had higher scores on the two types of self-determined extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified and
integrated regulation), and lower scores on amotivation, also showed higher persistence levels than
students who had dropped the course (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Vallerand, Fortier, and Guay
(1997) obtained similar results with high school students. Those who exhibited lower levels of self-
determined motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, or identified regulation) were
not only more likely to express an intention in dropping out of high school, but were also more likely
to follow through with their intention. One critical element in Vallerand and colleagues’ (1997) study
was how students’ motivation to be engaged in school was affected by their perceptions of others in
the school environment (teachers, parents, and school administrators). If students felt that their
teachers (for example) encouraged them to make their own decisions concerning academic activities
and believed that they had some degree of control over their schoolwork, then students felt more
competent and exhibited a higher level of self-determination and, consequently, a lower intention to
leave school.

Table 9.1 Self-Determination Theory: Examples of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

SOURCE: Adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000).

So does this mean that teachers should not give students extrinsic rewards for engaging in learning
activities? No. Extrinsic rewards can still be used in educational settings in such a way that maintains
interest and motivation in students, but there are some conditions that educators need to consider
before employing them. Tang and Hall (1995) noted that variables, such as the level of initial interest
in a task, the expectation of receiving a reward on task completion, and even the characteristics of a
reward, are also important in predicting whether the overjustification effect occurs in an educational
setting. As stated earlier, if students find the learning task to be interesting even without a reward
(e.g., building a model of the solar system), then being rewarded will decrease motivation and will
decrease subsequent performance on the particular task; however, if the task is uninteresting to
students from the beginning, then intrinsic motivation will remain unaffected or might even increase
when a reward is incorporated (McGraw, 1978). Also, remember that in Lepper and colleagues’
(1973) study, the children who received an unexpected award did not show a decrease in their
interest in playing with the magic markers, nor did they show a decrease in the quality of their
drawings, as was seen with the children who expected an award. Expecting to receive an award for
completing a task connects the task with the reward; in other words, students assume that they are
engaging in the activity because they will receive a reward, not because the activity is intrinsically
interesting. But teachers should be careful. Unexpected rewards, if given frequently for completing or
doing well on a task, may come to be expected by students, and then there may be an accompanying
drop in intrinsic motivation due to the overjustification effect.
Finally, if we use self-determination theory as a basis for structuring rewards in a classroom
setting, Johnmarshall Reeve and his colleagues (Reeve, 2004; Reeve, Ryan, Deci, & Jang, 2008)
suggest strategies that teachers can use to promote autonomy and self-regulated learning in students—
and, thereby, maintain intrinsic motivation among students. For example, rather than behaving in ways
that may be perceived to be controlling by students, teachers need to give students more time to
engage in independent work, praise the quality of the work being produced (rather than its completion
and meeting deadlines), spend more time listening to students’ questions, provide more rationales for
engaging in particular tasks, and give feedback that focuses on improving mastery of a task. Even the
physical environment of the classroom can have an impact on students’ motivation to learn. For
example, in autonomy-oriented classrooms, students rather than the teacher are positioned closer to
the learning materials so that they may freely access these materials (Reeve, 2004; Reeve et al.,
2008). All of these actions help students maintain a sense of control over their learning, believe that
their actions (and outcomes) come from them and are not imposed upon them by others, and develop a
sense of competence in academic tasks. In essence, the classroom environment and learning itself
become rewarding for students.

FOCUS ON INTERVENTION

Reducing the Overjustification Effect

Amabile, Hennessey, and Grossman (1987) examined whether training students to be more
intrinsically motivated would help them to maintain their interest in schoolwork, even when given a
reward. In other words, they wanted to develop an intervention that would “immunize” students
against the overjustification effect. Using 68 elementary school children (third through fifth grades),
the researchers randomly assigned each student to either an intrinsic motivation training group or a
control group for the first part of the study. Then, in the second part of the study, half of the students in
the intrinsic motivation training group and in the control group were promised a reward for engaging
in a creativity task. Therefore, there were four groups of children: (a) intrinsic motivation
training/reward, (b) intrinsic motivation training/no reward, (c) control/reward, and (d) control/no
reward.
The intrinsic motivation training involved showing children videotapes of two 11-year-olds talking
with an adult about various aspects of their schoolwork. The dialogue in the videotapes was designed
to get the participants to focus on (a) the intrinsic reasons for doing schoolwork (e.g., “I like social
studies the best. I like learning about how other people live in different parts of the world”) and (b)
the enjoyment of doing schoolwork and not the extrinsic, socially imposed rewards for doing
schoolwork (e.g., “Sometimes when I know my teacher is going to give me a grade on something I am
doing, I think about that. But then I remember that it’s more important that I like what I’m doing, that I
really enjoy it”). Children in the intrinsic motivation training met in small groups with the
experimenter for two 20-minute training sessions in which they saw and discussed the videotapes. A
number of activities were also included in the training sessions to help the children focus on their
feelings about doing schoolwork. For example, the participants were asked to indicate their
preferences for a variety of school activities. Children in the control condition also met with the
experimenter in small groups; however, the focus was on the children’s favorite nonschool activities.
After the sessions were over, half of the students in the intrinsic motivation training group and
control group were introduced to the reward manipulation. The researcher told them that if they
promised to tell a story for the experimenter, they could take two pictures with an instant camera (the
reward). The reward was made especially salient to these children by having them sign an agreement
that if they told a story, the experimenter would let them use the camera. This agreement was kept in
sight of the children for the remainder of the session. For the other half of the participants who were
not promised a reward, the picture taking and storytelling were simply presented among a list of
things to do during the session, so that one activity was not viewed as a reward for engaging in
another activity. For all groups, the storytelling involved making up a brief story to accompany a set
of pictures in a book.
In examining the creativity of the children’s stories, Amabile and colleagues (1987) obtained some
interesting results. First, consistent with the overjustification effect, the control group participants
who were rewarded produced stories that were less creative than those produced by their
nonrewarded counterparts. Second, and the key part of the research, the children receiving the
intrinsic motivation training plus reward produced stories that were more complex and higher in
creativity than those produced by children in the control plus reward condition. This finding indicated
that the intrinsic motivation manipulation had been effective in preventing the overjustification effect
from occurring. Opposite to expectations, however, the children who received the intrinsic
motivation training and were rewarded scored higher in their creativity than did the children who
received the training but were not rewarded. Amabile and colleagues believed that, for the
intrinsically motivated children, the reward might have led them to alter their perceptions of the
situation such that they actively counteracted the detrimental effects of the reward. Whatever the
reason, the results of this study imply that it is indeed possible to develop interventions to alter
students’ motivation and perceptions of a reward situation so that the usual overjustification effect
may be minimized or even reversed.

Students comparing themselves to other students. In assessing our performance and abilities,
according to Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory, we may use two types of standards:
objective and social. According to this theory, in the absence of an objective standard (e.g., the
proportion of correct responses on a test), we are likely to judge our performance and abilities (as
well as our personality characteristics) in comparison with those of other people in our environment
(e.g., “Am I smart?” “Do I have many friends?”). Usually, comparisons are made with others who are
similar or close to us in terms of the characteristics in question. Furthermore, these comparisons may
be made with people who are slightly better than we are on particular abilities and traits (called
upward social comparisons) or with people who are worse off than we are (called downward social
comparisons). Downward social comparisons will occur when we feel threatened, and serve a self-
protective purpose by making us feel better about our current abilities, achievements, and personal
attributes (Gibbons et al., 2002). Upward social comparisons, on the other hand, motivate us to
improve our performance and help us to set higher goals by providing information to us about what
we are capable of achieving (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999).
As you might imagine, the classroom is an environment that readily lends itself to the process of
social comparison. Let us say that you received a 75% on a math test, whereas a classmate of yours
received a 93% on the test. Comparing your performance with that of your classmate, you may end up
feeling bad even though the grade you received was a fairly good one. Perhaps you are disappointed
with yourself because you had expected to do better than a 75%. As a result, you may simply choose
to compare yourself to another classmate—one who got an 82%. Or, you could discuss the test results
with your higher-performing classmates and get useful information on how to improve your grade on
the next test. The 75% you received may motivate you to try harder the next time by giving you a sense
of what you are capable of achieving and by raising your self-confidence and feelings of self-
efficacy. Or, finally, you may simply decide not to worry about your math performance anymore by
devaluing the importance of mathematical competence, and choosing instead to focus on how you
compare to your classmates in terms of writing ability.
What all this means is that there are a number of possible outcomes when students engage in social
comparisons that go beyond simply making upward or downward social comparisons. Recent studies
(e.g., Blanton et al., 1999; Gibbons et al., 2002; Lane & Gibbons, 2007) have revealed that students’
choice of comparison is not static, and may change depending upon the specific circumstances (i.e.,
positive or negative feedback about academic performance), the classroom context (homogeneous
versus heterogeneous group of students), or a student’s expectations or goals. The type and level of
comparison that a student makes is very often associated not only with available comparison targets
but also with a student’s need to maintain his or her self-esteem and self-concept. Let’s look at a
couple of research examples.
Although classrooms at first glance may seem to be homogeneous entities with all children close in
abilities and with similar chances to achieve, the reality is that classrooms are often made up of
children of very different backgrounds, abilities to learn, and opportunities to succeed. What happens,
for example, when a classroom is made up of children from different ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds? There is evidence that in classrooms where the majority of children are high achievers
from middle-class or affluent backgrounds, minority children from underprivileged groups tend to
have higher levels of academic achievement than do minority children in classrooms composed
predominantly of their own racial groups (Pepitone, 1990). Despite the gains in achievement,
however, minority children’s academic self-concepts are more negative in integrated classrooms than
in racially/ethnically homogeneous classrooms.
Why might this be happening? One of the postulates of Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory
is that we tend to compare ourselves with others who we perceive as similar to ourselves. Making
social comparisons to people from outside our group depends on the availability of contact with
dissimilar others in our environment and the degree to which we come to perceive these others as
similar to us in some relevant domain. For comparisons to occur, children from minority ethnic
backgrounds must see majority children as relevant comparison figures (Pepitone, 1990). Their mere
presence in the same classroom, using the same resources and learning materials, does not guarantee
that the higher-achieving children will be seen by lower-achieving children as similar and, therefore,
as appropriate comparisons. That is, minority children must view the areas of competency displayed
by the majority children as relevant and important parts of their own self-concepts.
Another factor to consider when examining the effects of social comparison on academic
achievement is the notion of perceived control over one’s performance and ability (recall the theory
of planned behavior). It is critical that students perceive that it is not only important to improve but
also possible to improve (Huguet, Dumas, Monteil, & Genestoux, 2001). Keil, McClintock, Kramer,
and Platow (1990) argued that the emphasis on social comparison standards and procedures in
educational settings may be detrimental to children who consistently perform more poorly than their
peers. After repeated lack of improvement in their academic performance, these students may
experience less confidence in their abilities, may lose their motivation on academic tasks, and may
experience lowered feelings of self-worth, consequently leading to lower academic achievement.
One group of students who are faced with constant challenges in school is children with learning
disabilities. Renick and Harter (1989) found that social comparison processes played an important
role in how elementary school students with learning disabilities perceived their academic
competence when they compared themselves to their peers with normal achievement in a regular
classroom and when they compared themselves to their peers with learning disabilities in their
special needs classroom. The researchers also were interested in which group (the peers with normal
achievement or the peers with learning disabilities) the students with learning disabilities
spontaneously used as a comparison group. Students with learning disabilities reported that they
perceived themselves to be more academically competent in the special needs classroom than in the
regular classroom and that they spontaneously compared themselves with their regular classroom
peers. A disturbing finding was that the students with learning disabilities’ perceptions of their own
academic competence decreased across the grades tested in the study (third through eighth grades),
suggesting that as these students progress through school they become increasingly aware that there is
a gap between their own academic performance and that of their peers with normal achievement, a
gap that they may never be able to close. According to Renick and Harter, it is this knowledge that
may have a detrimental effect on the self-perceptions and feelings of self-worth of children with
learning disabilities.
In view of the fact that social comparison processes can have both positive and negative effects in
the classroom, what can educators do to capitalize on the ego-boosting aspects of making
comparisons and, thereby, increase student achievement? The next section may offer some answers by
exploring the interpersonal dynamics of the classroom.

INTERPERSONAL P ROCESSES: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS INTERACTING

People spend many of their formative years in a school environment. Prior to college or university,
they are in school approximately six hours a day, five days a week, ten months a year, for
approximately twelve consecutive years. Although many school administrators, educators, and
researchers focus their attention on how the school environment influences the development of basic
academic skills, the capacity to acquire knowledge, and overall scholastic achievement, school also
provides a medium for social and emotional development. Asp and Garbarino (1988) called school
“the most pervasive socializing institution (outside of the family) in the lives of children” (p. 170). It
should come as no surprise, then, that social psychologists have long been interested in how teachers
and students interact in the school environment and how these interactions affect the development of
individuals.

Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement

One study in social psychology that has generated a lot of research, excitement, and criticism is
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968). Rosenthal and
Jacobson noticed that teachers had higher expectations for the achievement of good students in their
classrooms and wondered whether these expectations could influence students’ academic
performance. In their classic experiment, Rosenthal and Jacobson told teachers early in the school
year that, based on the results of an IQ test, some of their students had above-average academic
potential (a group labeled “bloomers”). In actuality, these “bloomers” had been randomly selected
and were, on average, no smarter than the other students in their classes. The teachers were unaware
that the feedback to them had been falsified, and the students were not told about the label given to
them. By the end of the school year, the bloomers showed significant increases in their IQ scores
when compared to students in the control condition. Remarkably, the teachers’ expectations had come
true. How did the improvement come about? Rosenthal and Jacobson suggested that because the
teachers believed the bloomers to be above-average students, they began to treat these students
differently. In-class observations revealed that teachers provided the bloomers with the following:

A warmer climate by giving them more attention, support, and encouragement

More challenging material to learn
More feedback, both positive and negative, on their schoolwork
More opportunity to respond in class and a longer time to respond

It is important to note, however, that the teachers did not deliberately treat these students differently
from others in their classrooms. Indeed, when the results of the study were released, they evoked a
great deal of alarm and criticism. According to Babad (1993), the Pygmalion study drew concerns
from teachers and other educators that the results could be used to blame teachers for the poor
academic performance of some students—if you expect poor performance, you get poor performance.
Recall that when the study was published, the United States was in the midst of school desegregation
and related busing issues, and many aspects of social institutions were being questioned.
Criticisms aside, it seemed clear from Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) research that the
expectations of teachers can affect students’ academic performance. But what mechanism was
operating behind the relationship between teachers’ expectations and students’ subsequent
performance? Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study was actually an illustration of Robert Merton’s (1948)
concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy refers to having expectations about
another person that influence how you perceive and behave toward that person. Your expectations,
and the behavior based on these, in turn, affect the way in which that person behaves when interacting
with you. In essence, the other person will behave in ways that confirm your expectations, leading to
a strengthening of your beliefs and preconceived notions about that individual. Let’s take an example.
You are at a social gathering and are introduced to Joe, who you learn is a major in physical
education. You might hold a number of ideas about the type of person who is a “phys ed” major:
focused on bodybuilding, interested in sports, less academically inclined, and so on. These ideas will
influence how you interact with Joe—you may discuss the success of the college football team, you
may ask him about effective physical training strategies, or you may want to know what he thinks
about the use of steroids in sports. Joe will have no other option but to respond to your questions and
choice of topics, and you are unlikely to give Joe an opportunity to discuss his interest in classical
music. As a result, your expectations and beliefs about people in physical education are confirmed,
and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What about Joe? Eventually, his self-concept may also be
affected so that it is consistent with others’ expectations of him.
Now, let’s see how this works in a classroom setting. A student may respond to a teacher’s high
expectations by becoming more interested in schoolwork and working harder, all of which lead to
better academic performance. The teacher observes the student’s behavior and is likely to conclude
that his or her expectations regarding the student are correct and accurate. Thus, the cycle is complete
and reinforced. Essentially, the teacher is changing the student’s academic self-concept to conform to
the teacher’s own expectations and beliefs about the student. This, of course, has serious implications
not only for the student’s academic self-concept and achievement but also for choices and decisions
the student might make later in life (e.g., choice of occupation). It also may help to explain the
changes in self-perception, performance, and future goals observed in the minority students in the
opening vignette. The mentors held positive expectations for the students and provided them with a
variety of learning opportunities and feedback that reflected these expectations. The result was the
successful completion of research projects, a change in the way in which the students viewed their
academic abilities, improved performance in high school courses, and higher academic aspirations.
Since Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) initial study, there have been hundreds of investigations of
teacher expectancy effects in educational settings. But their study raised more questions than it
answered. For instance, do teachers’ expectations have long-term effects on students’ self-concepts?
Do positive and negative expectations affect students through similar processes? Moreover, studies
have consistently found only a small effect of teachers’ expectations on the academic achievement of
students, accounting for roughly 5% to 10% of students’ performance (Brophy, 1983). Kuklinski and
Weinstein (2001) suggested that there may be other factors, such as the classroom environment or
characteristics of the students, that interact with teacher expectancies to influence students’
performance and self-concepts.
Madon, Jussim, and Eccles (1997) also argued that certain conditions may augment the effect of
teacher expectancies on students. In their study of 98 teachers and about 1,500 students enrolled in
sixth-grade math classes in Michigan, Madon and colleagues examined the relationship between
teachers’ expectations (whether positive or negative) and the development of self-fulfilling
prophecies in certain types of students. For instance, are students who have negative self-concepts or
who perform poorly in school (low achievers) more susceptible to the expectations of teachers than
are students who have positive self-concepts or who perform well in school (high achievers)? To
address this question, teachers’ perceptions of their students’ self-concepts and their ability, effort,
and performance concerning math were surveyed and examined in relation to their students’ math
achievement.
The results indicated that teachers’ perceptions and expectations (whether positive or negative)
predicted achievement more strongly for low achievers than for high achievers. That is, low
achievers were more susceptible to what teachers thought of them than were high achievers. Why
might this happen? Madon and colleagues (1997) suggested that the history of past school experiences
(mostly negative) may make low-achieving students more sensitive to the expectations of teachers,
thereby affecting their motivation and self-concepts more keenly. In particular, low-achieving
students who for years have been deprived of rewarding school experiences may be inspired by
teachers’ positive expectations. On the other hand, students who are academically more successful
may have many more psychological resources to draw on even when faced with teachers’ negative
expectations and, therefore, are not as greatly affected by teachers’ perceptions.
What happens to students’ academic performance when teachers’ expectations fall along racial or
gender lines? Performance in a specific academic domain (e.g., math, science, sports) may be
affected if that domain carries some special significance tied to a student’s social identity. For
example, teachers frequently hold negative expectations about the achievement of girls in mathematics
and science. Similarly, teachers may expect that African American or Latino students will perform
more poorly in a number of academic areas when compared to White students. As we saw in the
Madon and colleagues’ (1997) study, some students are particularly sensitive to the views held by
others concerning their academic abilities. The anxiety that students feel when they are faced with
expectations consistent with stereotypes about their group is called stereotype threat (Steele, 1997;
Steele & Aronson, 1995). The fear that they will confirm a stereotype in the eyes of others has been
shown to adversely affect students’ academic motivation, self-concept, and academic performance
(Lawrence, Crocker, & Dweck, 2005).
Using children from three elementary school grades (Grades 1, 3, and 5), McKown and Weinstein
(2002) wanted to determine how different types of teacher expectancies (under- or overestimates of
students’ academic abilities) were related to achievement in mathematics and reading for students in
academically stigmatized groups (e.g., girls in math, African Americans in all subjects) and
nonstigmatized groups (Caucasian children and boys). Specifically, they examined how teachers’
expectations for children at the beginning of the school year were related to children’s academic
performance at the end of the school year. They found that the academic performance of children in
the stigmatized groups was affected negatively by teachers’ underestimates of their abilities but was
not affected positively by teachers’ overestimates of their abilities. For example, in the third grade,
African American children were 2.5 times as likely to confirm teacher underestimates of their reading
ability compared to teacher overestimates of their reading ability. Caucasian children in the third
grade, on the other hand, were only 0.5 times as likely to confirm teacher underestimates (compared
to overestimates) of their reading ability. It seemed, then, that children in the nonstigmatized groups
benefited from teachers’ overestimates of their abilities and were not affected by teachers’
underestimates of their abilities. An even more interesting (and disturbing) finding was that the
expectancy effects on students’ achievement either were consistent across elementary school grade
(in the area of reading) or became greater over time (in the area of math). McKown and Weinstein
suggest that as children become older, and familiar with the school setting, they are better able to
perceive the expectations held by others about them and to be able to judge the accuracy of those
beliefs. Unfortunately, this means that they also become aware of prejudice and general expectations
concerning their social group.

FOCUS ON INTERVENTION

Reducing the Effects of Negative Teacher Expectations

Given what we know about the effects of teachers’ expectations on students’ academic achievement,
what do we do about it? Is there a way in which we can counteract the negative effects that teacher
expectations can have on academic performance, especially for students in marginalized groups?
There has been some attempt to make use of the concepts and empirical evidence on teachers’
expectations to design interventions that can be used in educational settings (Babad, 1993).
One approach is to provide teachers with training to help them recognize the differential
expectations that they may hold for high- and low-achieving students and to instruct them on how to
engage in behaviors that reduce the disparity in students’ achievement. The goal of the training is to
improve the academic achievement of all students (Gottfredson, Marciniak, Birdseye, & Gottfredson,
1991). The Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) program provides teachers with
such training (Kerman, Kimball, & Martin, 1980). Recall that Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
identified a number of teacher behaviors that reflected their expectations of students’ abilities (e.g.,
giving “bloomers” more opportunity to respond in class). The TESA program focuses on 15
classroom behaviors that teachers commonly display when interacting with students of different
achievement levels. The behaviors are similar to those observed by Rosenthal and Jacobson as being
indicative of teachers’ expectations of students. The behaviors are divided into three categories: (a)
response opportunities (e.g., amount of time waiting for students to answer, complexity of questions
directed at students), (b) feedback to students (e.g., amount of praise given for success, feedback
given on tests and assignments), and (c) personal regard (e.g., number of positive interactions, amount
of eye contact with students). Teacher training is provided in five 3-hour sessions, with each session
focusing on one behavior from each category. Between sessions, each teacher observes and gives
feedback on the classroom behavior of at least three other teachers, and that teacher is also observed
teaching and giving feedback. The main goal of this training is to make teachers more aware of their
expectations concerning students and to make them more sensitive to the way in which they respond to
students.
Evaluations of the TESA program reveal that teachers and school personnel find the training to be
very helpful, and teachers report making use of the strategies outlined in the program (Cantor, Kester,
& Miller, 2000). In addition, the program has been shown to increase teachers’ positive interactions
with low-achieving students (Gottfredson et al., 1991). Finally, although the effects of this training do
not always lead to increases in the achievement of minority students or poorly performing students (as
theory and research would suggest), teachers report that students still develop more positive attitudes
toward learning (Fenton & O’Leary, 1990).

Students Interacting With Other Students

Forming and maintaining friendships, acquiring leadership skills, learning how to resolve conflicts
and cooperate with others, and developing a positive self-concept are all by-products of attending
school. In the classroom, a child learns how to be not only a student, but also a member or leader of a
group, and is exposed to the norms, language, and values of the community (Asp & Garbarino, 1988).
From the standpoint of researchers and educators, these social, cognitive, and emotional skills
prepare an individual for life outside of school, as well as enhancing academic achievement.

Academic effects of peer interaction. Children who experience social, behavioral, and emotional
difficulties in school are at a disadvantage for reaching their academic potential. In particular,
children who have poor peer relationships, where they are either actively rejected or ignored by their
peers, fail to develop competency in many areas of their lives, including academic achievement
(Bullock, 1992; Coolihan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & McDermott, 2000; Véronneau & Vitaro, 2007).
Simply playing with others helps a child to become socially competent, be more self- confident, and
do better in school. Indeed, positive peer interactions as early as preschool can have significant
effects on later overall adjustment, including academic success (Ladd, Price, & Hart, 1988).
Furthermore, some researchers (e.g., Welsh, Parke, Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001) have also found that
the opposite may occur; that is, academic success during the early school years can lead to social
competence later.
All in all, then, it seems that doing well academically is very much related to being good at
interacting with one’s peers and that the relationship between academic success and social
competence may be reciprocal (Véronneau, Vitaro, Brendgen, Dishion, & Tremblay, 2010). But what
happens when no one wants to be a child’s friend? Adolescents who continually experience rejection
by their peers are at greater risk for dropping out of school, even though many are at least average in
intelligence and have the ability to graduate (Bullock, 1992; Véronneau & Vitaro, 2007). Although the
effects seem to be stronger for boys than for girls, the pattern is the same for both genders: Early poor
social adjustment leads to future academic difficulties, a perception that the school environment is
aversive, and eventual failure in school (Bullock, 1992; Ladd et al., 1988; Véronneau et al., 2010).
Children and adolescents in disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic minorities, the poor, and the
mentally or physically disabled, are especially at risk for “not fitting in” and, consequently, for
experiencing difficulties in school. Coolihan and colleagues (2000) investigated how peer
interactions may be connected to learning readiness in children who are from poor families. Using
more than 500 children enrolled in a Head Start program, they looked at multiple dimensions of peer
play and how these factors related to achievement-orientated variables (e.g., interest in learning,
persistence on tasks, cooperative attitude) and problem behaviors (e.g., aggressive outbursts,
disruptive play). Three general relationships emerged: (a) Children who demonstrated positive play
behaviors also engaged in classroom learning activities, (b) children who hovered around play
activities but did not interact with others very much were inattentive in class and less motivated to
learn, and (c) children who were disruptive in their peer play also displayed conduct problems
during classroom activities.
Researchers have noted the importance of establishing positive peer relationships in developing
academic competence for children and adolescents with disabilities and behavioral difficulties.
Children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are often at risk for academic
underachievement because their behavior disrupts their abilities to attend to teachers and take part in
group discussions (DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998). In an effort to increase ADHD students’
attention to their school tasks (and thereby improve their academic performance), DuPaul and
colleagues (1998) had a small group of elementary school children diagnosed with ADHD tutored by
their peers without ADHD on a variety of school subjects (e.g., math, spelling). The results showed
that the disruptive off-task behavior of the children with ADHD decreased and that their attention to
academic material increased. The peer tutoring also contributed to an increase in the academic test
scores of the children with ADHD, suggesting that peer tutoring might be effective in raising the
academic achievement of students with behavioral disorders.
So, what are the implications of the research on peer interactions and academic behaviors? The
findings suggest that if we can improve children’s academic performance early on in school (e.g., by
providing math and reading tutoring), it can have a positive impact on their later academic and social
development. Moreover, given that successful interactions with others can lead to stronger academic
motivation and performance in later grades (Véronneau et al., 2010), beneficial effects also could be
obtained if social skills training were incorporated into academic programming (Coolihan et al.,
2000). As was seen in DuPaul and colleagues’ (1998) study, encouraging students to help one another
learn may be effective in boosting academic achievement, promoting social and personal
development, and improving interpersonal skills. The classroom intervention strategies outlined in
the next section describe how peer interactions can help children achieve social and developmental
goals in addition to learning goals.

Peer-assisted learning. Nowhere has the relationship between peer interactions and academic
achievement been more clearly demonstrated than in peer-assisted learning. Peer-assisted learning
(PAL) is a general term for any classroom-based strategy that involves peer tutoring, whether it is on
a one-on-one basis (e.g., DuPaul et al., 1998) or in a small group format (e.g., cooperative learning,
learning communities). PAL has been shown to have a significant impact on students’ outcomes such
as enhanced academic self-concept, motivation to learn, and social behaviors (Ginsburg-Block,
Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006). Furthermore, the positive effects of PAL are seen for both tutors and
tutees, and the strategy is especially beneficial for students from marginalized or underprivileged
backgrounds (Ginsburg-Block et al., 2006; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003).
A common (and effective) PAL method is the jigsaw classroom technique (Aronson, Stephan,
Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978; Slavin, 1990). With this procedure, the students in the class are
divided into small groups of five or six members. Groups are typically heterogeneous, composed of
students from different performance levels and ethnic backgrounds. Each group is assigned the task of
learning about a particular topic, and each student within the group is responsible for learning a small
portion of the topic. Each student from the group meets with the members of other classroom groups
who have been assigned the same subtopic; these children work together to learn the subtopic. Then
the students take the information that they have learned back to their groups and teach the material to
other members of their groups. Because each student is evaluated individually, it is important that all
group members pay attention to what their fellow group members present. In other words, members of
the group rely on one another to learn all parts of the assigned material, and no student is considered
to be more or less important than another student. What the jigsaw classroom technique does in the
long term is improve the overall atmosphere of the classroom by having students interact with each
other in a positive and constructive manner so that they may achieve their learning goals (Aronson,
2002). In addition, students are given opportunities to interact with classmates with whom they
usually might not interact (e.g., peers of different ethnic backgrounds, socially ostracized peers).

Figure 9.2 Peer-Assisted Learning: Students Helping Each Other to Learn

SOURCE: Photo courtesy of Cassandra Lee Davis.

But how is it that an individual personal process such as learning can be improved by a group
activity? What can social psychology tell us about why PAL methods are effective in promoting
learning? PAL, and in particular the jigsaw classroom technique, works in several ways. First,
competition among individual students, which can be detrimental to an individual’s self-esteem and
performance, is reduced. Second, a sense of belonging in the classroom is increased, and this
especially can have a positive effect on students who, for whatever reason, may be initially excluded.
Teamwork also adds an element of fun and helps to emphasize that learning is important and valuable,
creating an overall positive climate (Ellis & Feldman, 1994; Slavin, 1990). In particular, peers can
provide feedback and encouragement to each other, model different levels of thinking, and bring
different perspectives to the group. All of this creates an appreciation and positive expectation for the
diversity of skills and thinking present in the classroom (Ellis & Feldman, 1994).
So far, we have discussed how student–teacher and student–student interactions can affect students’
academic performance and overall development, both positively and negatively. For example, PAL
methods such as the jigsaw classroom technique can lead to better academic performance and better
social interactions among students. Because individuals spend so much time in the social environment
of school, some of the negative social behaviors that plague our society, such as prejudice and
violence, may find their way into the school setting. As a result, social psychologists view the school
system as providing a handy medium to study and address broader social issues such as aggression.

When Interactions Turn Deadly: School Violence

In March 1998, two boys, 11 and 13 years of age, shot to death four students and a teacher at their
middle school in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In April 1999, two heavily armed male adolescents, wearing
masks and black trench coats, walked into their Colorado high school and opened fire on students,
teachers, and staff members. By the time the shooting was over, dozens of people were dead or
injured, and the two young gunmen were also dead from self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Just a week
later, a 14-year-old high school student in Taber, Alberta, opened fire with a rifle in his high school,
killing one student and seriously injuring another student. Unfortunately, as Table 9.2 shows, these are
only three terrible incidents of school violence out of many other similar ones during the past decade.
Understandably, we are shocked when we learn of such occurrences. We may wonder what is
going on in our schools. Are students, particularly adolescents, more violent than ever before?
Typically, their classmates describe many of the young perpetrators of school violence as outcasts or
outsiders. Some of the shooters report incidents of rejection or bullying by others. Although extreme
incidents of school violence are not as widespread as the media would have us believe, there is no
denying their tragic consequences. Although there is legitimate concern over the increasing use of
weapons by children and adolescents to settle disputes, other types of aggression and violence (e.g.,
bullying, fighting) are much more common. Can social psychology help to explain what causes some
young people to take such harmful actions against others? If we can identify the factors that lead to
school violence, perhaps we can develop policies and interventions to prevent such incidents from
occurring in the first place (see Figure 9.3).

Figure 9.3 The Need for Anti-Bullying Programs to Be Implemented in Schools

SOURCE: Photo Courtesy of Centre for Flexible Learning, University of Windsor.

Table 9.2 Sample of School Shootings Around the World
SOURCE: Adapted from news reports in The Globe and Mail, The National Post, and Newsweek.

Causes of youth aggression. School-related aggression is a heavily researched topic. In a review of

the literature in this area, Furlong and Morrison (2001) identified some general findings:

Males are more likely than females to be involved in instances of school violence, either as
perpetrators or as victims.
Bullying is more common among elementary school children than among high school students.
The use of weapons is more common among high school students than among elementary school
children.
There is very little difference among urban, suburban, and rural schools in levels of violence.
Guns are brought to schools by a relatively small proportion of students (estimates are usually
less than 15% and vary widely).
Students who bring guns to school tend to be male, report frequent use of alcohol and drugs,
designate themselves as gang members, and are more likely to be involved in aggressive
behavior (e.g., assaults at school, juvenile crimes).

So, what makes young people behave violently? Are they suffering from some neurochemical
imbalances? Can mental illness or a personality disorder be the culprit? These are, of course,
possible answers. Recent explanations for school violence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Henry, 2009;
Yoon & Barton, 2008) have taken a multilevel approach to examining this problem. That is,
individual students will bring particular traits, skills, and abilities to school, along with norms and
experiences from their home, culture, neighborhood, and larger society. These elements will interact
with the school environment, which includes fellow students, teachers, administrators, institutional
polices, and the physical environment, and will ultimately affect a student’s behavior and
achievement. Therefore, to study the problem of school violence at any particular school, whether it
is bullying, verbal abuse, social rejection, or shootings, one must look at the interaction of many
different variables—intrapersonal and interpersonal—in order to adequately address the issue
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Henry, 2009). For example, students with learning disabilities or
psychological problems may be at greater risk for being rejected by peers and for academic failure,
leading to alienation and anger toward the school, its teachers, and fellow students. These students
may come to believe that aggression is the only effective way of dealing with feelings of isolation and
that their violent actions are justified. They may not see any alternative means of coping effectively
with the harmful antisocial behavior that is directed at them. Unfortunately, their aggressive behavior
also may serve to further alienate them from their peers and teachers—in this way making them both
the perpetrators and the victims of school-related aggression (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Henry,
2009).
Taking this multilevel approach, Kashani, Jones, Bumby, and Thomas (2001) identified a number
of psychosocial risk factors associated with youth violence stressing that no one causal factor or
combination of factors accounts for every instance of youth violence. Risk factors occur at the
individual, family, peer group, school, and community/cultural levels. For example, cognitive deficits
at an individual level, such as lower levels of moral reasoning and poorer verbal skills, have been
associated with aggressive behavior in children and adolescents. In addition, family dysfunction, such
as a family history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and little modeling of prosocial behaviors
by parents, is also a contributor. Making matters worse is a larger societal issue revolving around the
access and use of weapons and the media’s glorification of violence as a means of solving problems.
Because children and adolescents spend a great deal of time within the school environment,
incidents of aggression resulting in physical and psychological harm have repercussions not only for
the students involved in the incidents but also for all students, teachers, and staff members. The
overall school climate can be deeply affected. School is no longer seen as a safe environment in
which the emphasis is on academic achievement and on building interpersonal skills and
relationships. Students can no longer focus solely on their learning because they also must be very
vigilant about who they interact with, where they walk, and so forth. Moreover, if students notice that
teachers, staff members, and others in positions of authority ignore violent behavior, then students are
likely to feel that they are alone and that violence is an accepted (or at least tolerated) means of
dealing with conflict. Thus, school may be viewed as simply an extension of the community and home
environment where violence and aggression may be prevalent and the norm (Benbenishty & Astor,
2005; Furlong & Morrison, 2001; Henry, 2009).
Social psychologists have noted that a child’s behavior in school may be influenced by what he or
she perceives to be typical, expected, and normal. As outlined in Bandura’s social cognitive learning
theory (Bandura, 1983; see also Chapter 7), a child may learn by observing others that certain
behaviors can result in desirable (or undesirable) outcomes. For example, a child may learn that
aggressive behavior is not always punished and is, in fact, sometimes rewarded. The child perceives
the consequences of certain actions by observing others and then behaving accordingly. A number of
researchers (e.g., Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) have identified three
normative social processes that may operate within a social setting: (a) descriptive norms (i.e., what
an individual perceives to be typical behavior in a setting), (b) injunctive norms (i.e., what people
are expected to do or ought to do in a setting), and (c) norm salience (i.e., to what extent the norms
are clearly conveyed in the setting). Descriptive norms help the individual to define a situation and
process the information from the situation efficiently; it may be easier just to follow what others are
doing in a setting, especially if the individual is in an unfamiliar environment. Injunctive norms
dictate what ought to be done in a situation and inform the individual of the rewards or punishments
associated with following (or not following) the norms. Descriptive and injunctive norms are said to
affect the individual’s behavior if he or she is made aware of them; if the norms in a situation are
made salient, the individual knows how to behave in norm-consistent ways. We can think about how
these processes relate back to Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory: That is, the observation of
other people’s behavior and the consequences attached to that behavior are important influences on
the individual.
How can social norms, then, operate in the classroom environment in relation to aggression?
Aggressive behavior in the classroom may be an everyday occurrence (descriptive norm). A teacher
may discourage aggressive behavior in a student by a look, a gesture, or words indicating that the
behavior is not appropriate in the classroom (injunctive norm). The teacher also may make these
norms clear to others by excluding the student who has aggressed from the setting (high norm
salience). Other students in the class may also convey norms of behavior by actively including or
excluding peers who are aggressive (highly salient injunctive norms).
Henry (2001) studied how normative social processes in the classroom environment may influence
aggressive behavior in children. Using a large sample of elementary school children, he had children
report on their perceptions of classmates (i.e., aggressive behavior of peers, popularity and rejection
of aggressive peers) and on their beliefs about the appropriateness of physical aggression and verbal
aggression. In addition to the children’s self-reports, Henry used observational methods to assess
teacher and student behaviors in the classroom. He employed these measures to examine the
descriptive norms in the classroom (perception of average aggression level of the child’s
classmates), injunctive norms (the child’s expectations concerning aggression in the classroom), and
norm salience (the child’s views about the popularity of aggressive classmates and the teacher’s
reactions to aggressive behavior).
The findings showed that children’s perceptions of the level of aggression in the classroom
(descriptive norms) had no relation to their actual aggressive behavior but that children’s
expectations about how they ought to behave in the classroom regarding aggressive behavior
(injunctive norms) were significantly associated with their aggressive behavior. That is, students’
beliefs about what was appropriate in the classroom influenced their aggressive behavior more than
did their observations of actual aggressive behavior in the classroom. Furthermore, just as theory
regarding normative social processes would suggest, children believed that aggressive behavior was
unacceptable if they saw that classmates who engaged in it were reprimanded or unpopular among
their peers. However, if children believed that aggression was approved of and tolerated in the
classroom, they regarded it as acceptable, and, thus, aggressive behavior was more prevalent. Henry
(2001) argued that what really influences the level of school aggression is the “moral climate of the
classroom regarding aggressive behavior” (p. 210) rather than the observed behavior of classmates.
Moral climate refers to children’s beliefs about the appropriateness of aggression that are derived
from the beliefs of others in the classroom. Therefore, these results imply that both teachers and
pupils play important roles in the development of norms related to aggressive behavior in a
classroom setting.

Creating a violence-free school environment. What can be done to minimize those aspects of
school environments that promote violence? In their review of school violence and bullying
prevention programs, Yoon and Barton (2008) have noted that such efforts have been employed at
multiple levels (consistent with the approach discussed earlier). Prevention programs may be
designed to address the overall school environment and practices (e.g., amount of adult supervision in
playgrounds, hallways, and cafeterias), academic performance (e.g., students who have learning
difficulties are at greater risk for engaging in aggressive behavior and for being victims), behavior
management techniques (e.g., teachers’ awareness and response to bullying), and academic climate
and expectations (e.g., emphasizing competition rather than cooperation among students). Basically,
effective strategies need to focus on the social context in which aggressive behavior occurs
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Yoon & Barton, 2008).
Certain types of peer-assisted learning strategies, such as the jigsaw classroom technique, are
examples of effective approaches to improving interpersonal and intergroup relationships in a
classroom, and thereby reducing conflict and other antisocial behaviors among students (Aronson et
al., 1978; Slavin, 1990). Having students representing different cultural backgrounds, social strata,
and abilities working together on a common assignment not only enhances learning (as discussed
earlier) but also results in the classroom norm becoming one of cooperation and interdependence
rather than competition and conflict. Indeed, among students, the jigsaw classroom technique has been
shown to promote greater tolerance for diversity, greater empathy and compassion for others, and
increased self-esteem (Aronson, 2002; Aronson et al., 1978). Aronson (2002) suggested that the use
of the jigsaw approach might have prevented the tragedies that occurred at Littleton and Jonesboro.
After all, it is difficult to aggress against another person when your feelings and interactions with that
individual have been positive. In general, PAL has been shown to improve peer interactions,
encourage a more positive perception of school, and create a sense of belonging for students.

FOCUS ON INTERVENTION

A Program to Reduce Violence in Schools

The jigsaw classroom technique represents an intervention that occurs in the school itself and is
directed toward developing a school climate that does not condone and support violence. Other
intervention strategies address factors occurring outside of the school environment that may be
contributing to school-related violence (see Benbenishty & Astor, 2005, for a review). Eddy, Reid,
and Fetrow (2001) describe an elementary school program aimed at children who are at risk for
developing delinquent and violent behaviors during adolescence. The program, called Linking the
Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT), incorporated elements of Bandura’s social cognitive
learning theory by teaching children and their parents nonaggressive methods of dealing with anger,
frustration, and conflict. Parents were included because they operate as significant role models in
their children’s lives. Children were encouraged and rewarded to model their behavior on that of
their parents. The LIFT program contained three components: (a) a classroom-based social and
problem skills training component for the children, (b) a playground-based behavior modification
component for the children, and (c) a group-delivered training component for the parents.
For the classroom component, LIFT classroom instructors met with all students in a classroom for
1 hour twice a week for 10 weeks. Each session included listening to lectures and role-playing on
social and problem-solving skills, practicing skills for interacting with peers, and engaging in
unstructured free play on the playground. Students were taught relationship skills such as identifying
feelings, dealing with anger, responding appropriately to others, and cooperating and problem solving
within peer groups.
For the playground component, students were divided into small groups. The groups engaged in
various activities together, allowing them to demonstrate (and receive social approval for) prosocial
behaviors and the inhibition of negative interactions with peers while playing.
For the third component, sessions were held with parents during the same 10-week period that their
children were undergoing their program components. Each parent session involved information and
role-playing activities aimed at fundamentals of discipline (e.g., using small positive and negative
consequences, paying attention to early signs of problem behaviors) and family management skills
(e.g., giving encouragement, controlling negative emotions, making behavior change contracts with
children). These activities were based on social learning and behavior modification principles that
state that modeling and rewarding prosocial behavior will lead to an increase in the desired
behavior.
The LIFT program was implemented in an urban area in Oregon using schools from three school
districts (Eddy et al., 2001). During the three years the program was in effect, schools randomly
chosen for the program were compared with control schools in the same district. The program was
evaluated using a variety of questionnaires and observations both at school and at home. What did the
researchers find? First, there were significant immediate changes (between the fall and spring of the
first year) in child and parent behaviors attributed to the LIFT program. For example, children in the
LIFT program were less aggressive on the playground and were perceived as more positive by their
teachers than were children in the control group. In addition, parents of LIFT children behaved less
negatively with their children in parent–child problem-solving sessions. What about the long-term
impact of the program? These results were also positive. Three years following the program, LIFT
students were less likely to associate with delinquent peers and were less likely to engage in alcohol
and drug use than were students in the control group.
Interventions, such as LIFT, indicate that while violence in our schools is a serious problem, it is
not an insurmountable one. It is clear from the preceding discussion that principals, teachers, and
school administrators have to provide an atmosphere for students that promotes cooperative (rather
than competitive) learning, that rewards prosocial behavior such as sharing and compassion, and that
teaches students how to engage in effective (and nonaggressive) problem solving and communication
(Yoon & Barton, 2008). In short, we need to “change the process of the typical classroom so that our
schools can transform themselves into more humane social environments for all students” (Aronson,
2002, p. 214).

SUMMARY
Intrapersonal (or individual) factors associated with academic achievement can affect students’
perceptions of their abilities and can affect their academic performance. Attitudes (beliefs about