Grade-Level ^£Perences in the Social Value ofEffort: Implications for Self-PresentationTactics of Early Adolescents

Jaana JuvonenUniversity of Delaware

Tamera B. MurdockUniversity of Missouri—Kansas City

JUVONEN, JAANA, and MUBOOCK, TAMERA B. Grade-Level Differences in the Social Value of Effort:Implications for Self-Presentation Tactics of Early Adolescents. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1995, 66,1694-1705. Differences in fourth, sixth, and eighth grade (10-, 12-, and 14-year-old) students'willingness to portray themselves as diligent to their popular peers and teachers and their percep-tions of the social value of effort and ability ascriptions were examined. The results revealedthat the fourth- and sixth-grade students desired to portray themselves as effortful to teachersand peers, whereas the eighth graders were more reluctant to convey to their popular peers thanteachers that they study hard. Consistent with these findings, the fourth graders perceived higheffort to increase teacher approval as well as popularity among peers, whereas the eighth gradersviewed diligence as facilitating teacher approval but low effort expenditure as improving peerpopularity. Reasons for youngsters' changing notions of the social value of achievement ascrip-tions and their self-presentation tactics in school are discussed.

Early during their school careers, chil- port from other findings suggesting that, bydren come to understand that good perfor- adolescence, some students attempt to hidemance due to high effort is valued by adults their achievement efforts from others andand that teachers are most likely to reward give the appearance of not expending effortthose who work hard (Barker & Graham, (e.g., Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).1987; Harari & Covington, 1981; Weiner &Peter, 1973). Similarly, students realize that Age-related changes in youngsters' pref-teachers disapprove of poor performance erence to be diligent versus not hard-due to laziness and lack of effort and that working have been associated with their de-more approval is even given to low- veloping understanding of the link betweenachieving students when they do exert effort ability and effort (e.g.. Chapman & Skinner,(Barker & Graham, 1987; Rest, Nierenberg, 1989; Harari & Covington, 1981; Nicholls,Weiner, & Heckhausen, 1973). Given these 1978; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Mettetal,findings, one would anticipate that students 1986). Young children perceive that effortprefer to be diligent or at least appear to be and ability positively covary: one who workshard-working. However, when Harari and hard is smart (Kun, 1977). Beginning in pre-Covington (1981) asked students whether adolescence, however, students typicallythey would like to be low or high in effort come to believe that the relation betweenand low or high in ability, they found that, effort and ability is compensatory: the morealthough all students from first grade to col- one must study, the less smart one is (e.g.,lege preferred to be high in ability, only ele- Nicholls, 1978). Some researchers thereforementary school students desired to be hard have argued that adolescents' preferencesworkers. These results have received sup- not to be hard-working are guided by a de-

This study was supported by the National Academy of Education Spencer Post-Doctoralfellowship to Jaana Juvonen. We tbank Robert Bigelow and the Christina School District staffand pupils foi cooperation and Bernard Weiner for his comments on the manusciipt. Parts oithis article were presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment in New Orleans and of the American Educational Research Association in Atlanta in 1993.Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Jaana Jiivonen, Departmentof Psychology, UCLA, Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 9(K)24.

[Child Development, 1995,66,1694-1705. © 1995 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Irit.All rights reserved. 0009-3920/95/6606-0013$01,00]

sire to protect their high ability perceptionsand self-worth (e.g., Covington & Omelich,1979; Frankel & Snyder, 1978).

We believe, however, that there may beat least two different motives that guide thetendency of adolescents to play down therole of effort: ability-related self-protectivegoals, as just discussed, as well as social mo-tives (e.g., gaining the approval of others).In this article, we examine grade-level dif-ferences in (a) youngsters' preferences forpubUcly portraying themselves as diligentand (b) their understanding of the socialvalue of effort and ability ascriptions. Whilethere is a great deal of developmental re-search on the intrapsychological processesand self-related functions of effort and abil-ity ascriptions, there are no studies that ex-amine the effect of different social contextson students' preferences to appear diligentacross age groups. Thus, we also investigatethe self-presentational preferences of stu-dents in different social contexts by manipu-lating the "audience" of their achievementaccounts (i.e., persons with whom they in-teract).

Developmental Differences inSelf-Presentation

To master impression managementstrategies that facilitate the approval of oth-ers, children must (a) be aware of what theother values or expects and (b) present them-selves in a manner that is consistent with theother's values or expectations (see Baumeis-ter, 1982; Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski,1990). As stated earlier, young elementaryschool students are cognizant of teachers'achievement values. Therefore, one wouldexpect that to please their instructors theywould want to appear hard-working. Giventhat young children are also more willing toaccept the values and comply with thenorms endorsed by authority figures than areadolescents (Bemdt, 1979; Steinberg & Sil-verberg, 1986; Youniss & SmoUar, 1985), thevalues and norms of their peer culture arelikely to be consistent with, or at least notoppositional to, those of adults. If this is thecase, then they should also promote a dili-gent view of themselves to their peers whenattempting to elicit peer approval.

On the other hand, early adolescents,who have heightened concerns about peerappraisal (Bemdt, 1982; Gooley, 1902; Da-mon & Hart, 1988; Erickson, 1968; Mead,1934), are likely to be aware of differencesbetween the values of peers and authorityfigures (see Harter, 1986, 1990; James, 1890;

Juvonen and Murdock 1695

Rosenberg, 1986). After all, adolescent peergroups are presumed to challenge certamadult-imposed values, including the impor-tance of effort in academics (Goleman, 1961).Indeed, recent ethnographic investigationsof urban African-American youth (Fordham& Ogbu, 1986) and Gaucasian youngstersfrom low socioeconomic backgrounds (Eck-ert, 1989) demonstrate that high achieve-ment due to effort is punished, whereas lackof effort is rewarded among certain peergroups.

Gonsistent with the ethnographic inves-tigations, we (Juvonen & Murdock, 1993)found that suburban, upper-middle-classWhite eighth graders believed that teachers'ideal students (i.e., diligent, competent, andsuccessful) are unpopular among their class-mates. Furthermore, consistent with tlieirbeliefs about peer group values, they wereless likely to convey to their classmates thanto their parents and teachers that they didwell on an exam because they studied hard.These findings intimate that the tendency togive the appearance of not expending eifortmay be a social strategy specifically targetedat promoting peer approval. This suggeststhat the social context of students' behavior(i.e., the persons with whom one interacts,one's perceptions ofthe values of others, andmotives to get along with these individuals)will influence self-presentation tactics re-garding effort expenditure.

Our goal in this research is to investi-gate sociai reasons why adolescents mightportray themselves as if they do not workhard. As indicated, in the past, the main ex-planation that has been maintained for thisobservation has focused on ability-relatedself-protective motives. We propose insteadthat the tendency to play down or hide one'sachievement strivings has an important so-cial function in promoting peer approvalduring early adolescence. If our argument iscorrect, then there should be a develop-mental progression in the audience speci-ficity of youngsters' willingness to provideeffort accounts. This differentiation shouldrefiect youth's perceptions of the differentsocial values of effort endorsed by teachersand peers.

To examine the developmental asser-tions outlined above, one study with twoparts was conducted, using three grade lev-els representing middle childhood, preado-lescence, and early adolescence. We exam-ined grade-level changes in (a) students'willingness to portray themselves as diligent

1696 Child Development

to their teachers and peers and (b) their un-derstanding of teachers' and peers' approvalof hypothetical others who vary in their levelof effort expenditure. Adopting the meiod-ology used with eighth graders and collegestudents (Juvonen & Murdock, 1993), in Part1 of the study we asked fourth-, sixth-, andeighth-grade students to explain to theirteachers and popular peers why they haddone very poorly or very well in an impor-tant exam (cf. Antaki, 1990; Tedeschi, 1990;Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987).Teachers rather than parents were used asthe adult audience because instructors andclassmates are both present in the contextwhere students' failures and successes takeplace. The peer group was defined as thosewho are considered popular because popu-lar peers are typically perceived to be theones that others look up to, wish to be like,and also elicit the most envy (e.g.. Brown,1989). We hypothesized that, while theyounger students desire to present them-selves as effortful to both teachers and class-mates, the oldest students would alter dieirself-presentation tactics between these twoaudiences. Only the eighth-grade studentswere expected to portray themselves as lessdiligent to popular peers than to teachers.

In the second part of the study, we ex-plored the reasons why students may or maynot alter their achievement explanations todifferent audiences. Specifically, young-sters' perceptions of teachers' and peers' ap-proval of hypothetical students who vary intheir level of effort and ability were exam-ined (cf. Weiner & Kukla, 1970). We pre-dicted that by middle childhood, childrenhave leamed that teachers like diligent stu-dents more than those who do not try(Weiner & Peter, 1973). In contrast toteacher liking, we predicted grade-level dif-ferences regarding students' beliefs aboutanticipated peer approval. We expected that,by the e i ^ t h grade, students view high ef-fort to decrease and low effort to increasepopularity among classmates. In sum, wepresumed that students' communicated ex-planations (Part 1) are consistent with theirbeliefs about the social value of effort andability ascriptions (Part 2).

The same participants completed bothparts ofthe study. To minimize die possibil-ity of reactivity effects and increase the inde-penttence of the data, two procedures wereundertaken. First, all participants completedPart 1 (i.e., their decisions to communicateachievement accounts) prior to Part 2 (i.e.,the evaluation ofthe social consequences of'

achievement ascriptions). We believed thatthis order would have less impact on subse-quent responses than if the evaluation taskwas conducted preceding the experiment in-volving decision making. Second, partici-pants responded to different outcome condi-tions in each of the two parts of the .study.For example, participants who first made de-cisions about dieir failure explanations sub-sequently evaluated teachers' and peers' ap-proval of successful hypothetical students.

Part 1

For Part 1, students made decisionsabout their own communication strategies.The participants were depicted as havingfailed or succeeded on an important examand then had to explain why they receiveda low or a high grade to their teachers andpopular peers. They rated how likely theywould tell their teachers and popular class-mates that they failed or succeeded becauseof effort or ability. We predicted that the old-est respondents would be more likely to varytheir effort explanations according to theiraudience than the youngest participants.Specifically, it was expected that the eighth-grade students would be less hkely to telltheir popular peers than their teachers thatthey succeeded because of high effort. In asimilar manner, they should be more willingto admit to their pt^uiar peers than teachersthat they failed due to lack of effort. We hadno a priori hypotiieses about students' will-ingness to attribute their exam outcomes tohigh or low ability.

MethodThis study was conducted as part of a

larger research project in collaboration witha semi-urban school district in the Mid-Atlantic region. Principals of three elemen-tary schools and one middle school solicitedteachers willing to participate in the studyduring their class periods. Students camefrom five fourth-grade classrooms (10-year-olds) in three schools and from four sixth-grade classrooms (12-year-olds) in one ofthethree elementary schools. The eighth-gradestudents (14-year-olds) were drawn fromfour English classes in one middle school.Parents were notified about the study, butno parenbil permissions were required be-cause the study was carried out as part of anevaluation project in the school district. Allstudents present at the predesignated classperiods f^preed to participate in the study.In the final sample, there were 103 fourthgraders (54 male, 49 female), 101 sixth grad-

Juvonen and Murdock 1697

ers (54 male, 48 female), and 108 eighthgraders (62 male, 46 female). There were60%-65% Gaucasian and 30%-35% African-American students at each grade leveL

The study was conducted during differ-ent lessons at different sites, except for theeighth graders, who participated duringtheir English period. A female Gaucasian ex-aminer told the participants that the goal of

the study was to find out how students thinkabout and deal with situations that have todo with getting good and bad grades. Allclasses were tested in group settings in theabsence of teachers. The questions wereread aloud to the students, although studentswere allowed to complete the question-naires at their own pace. The experimenterand another female college student providedindividualized help as needed.

Failure: Lack of Effort Failure: Low Ability

9 -

8 -

7 -

5 4H

z -

1

9

8 -

7 -

6 -

5 -

4 -

3 -

2-

1

P M T

Taachar

4th fith 8ih

Grad*

41h 6th Bth

Grad*

Success: High Effort Success: High Ability

4 -

3 -

2 -

9 -

B-

7

6

5

4

3

2

PsarTaachsr

4!h erh

Grad*

StM

Grade

stn

Fic. 1.—Likelihood of communicating effort and ability accounts as the reasons for exam failureand success to a teacher versus peers (high values indicate greater likelihood).

1698 Child Development

The participants were asked to imagine

foUowS:

that you did really poorly (well) on thisi - Your teacher (popular group of

HSpi|i5£Hthem when they ask you(well)?

why you did so poorly

Z e d order (effort f o l l o gorder of the audiences (i.e.teachers vs. peers) was altered.

taitui^ accounts.—¥oT theeffort explanations following bi U a riiain effect of audience, . ,-, ^ - .6 98 p < 01, as well as an interaction otaudience x grade level, F(2, I5o) - 4.D.1,r < Ol! as L s predicted (see upper lepanel of Fig. D- The withm-grade^ev^hanalyses indicated that, whereas fourth andsixth graders didnot vary their-^^^^

The participants had been randomly as-- 3 respond to a failure or a successm They responded on two pages, la^• m a t would you tell the teacher?

d -What would you tell the popular kidsin your class?" Given that social needs^andpreferences vary between middle childhoodand early adolescence (Berndt, iy»A ^^^man & Buhrmester, 1992), we wanted to

7\ for tbe social motive across the audi-Hence, the participants were specife-

cal"

panel of

because they are not goodaddition, a Significant g a

s\withr:tu^likely at the eighth grade.

accounts.-¥or success com-

The data were analyzed separately for

ir negative an

Bfects ifects involving audience S ^ | ^simple effects were analyzed by grade

hence to facilitate positive interactions be-tween the classmates (see Murdock, 1993).

The data for the ability explanation isdepicted in the lower right-hand portion ofFigure 1. Although the fourth gradersseemed to be more likely to tell their popu-lar peers than instructors that they did wellbecause they are good at the subject, therewere no statistically significant main effectsor interactions.

In summary, our hypotheses were sup-ported in that the early adolescents weremost likely to vary their communication ofthe effort accounts as a function of their audi-ence. The eighth-grade students wanted toportray themselves as less diligent to theirclassmates than to their teachers: They weremore likely to attribute their failures to lackof effort and less likely to ascribe their suc-cesses to high effort when dealing with theirpopular peers rather than instructors. Therewere no reliable differences between thethree grade levels regarding the communica-tion of ability after success, but given failure,the eighth-grade respondents were morelikely to publicly announce that their poorexam performance was due to low abilitythan were the students at the two lowergrade levels. Examination of sex diiferencesshowed that the responses of female andmale students did not differ.

Part 2The goal of Part 2 was to investigate

youngsters' perceptions of teachers' andpopular classmates' approval of hypotheticalstudents who vary in their level of effort(low, high) and ability (low, high). Abilityand effort were manipulated in a 2 x 2within-subjects design to detect the inde-pendent and combined effects of the twoachievement ascriptions. Specifically, wevi'anted to know whether the level of efforthas an independent effect on students'views of interpersonal evaluation. We pre-dicted that participants at each grade levelbelieve that teachers like diligent studentsmore than those who do not try, regardlessof their achievement level (Weiner & Peter,1973). In addition, successful, smart, and dil-igent students were expected to be viewedas most liked by their teachers (Juvonen 6cMurdock, 1993; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Incontrast to perceived teacher liking, we pre-dicted grade-level differences regarding stu-dents' perceptions of peer approval. We ex-pected that, with advancing grade level,students view low effort to increase and high

Juvonen and Murdock 1699

effort to decrease popularity among class-mates.

MethodAn attributional experiment in which

participants evaluate imaginary students (cf.Weiner & Kukla, 1970) was modified for thepurpose of this study. As mentioned earlier,the same participants responded to bothparts of the study, but to a different outcomecondition in each. That is, those subjectswho rated their willingness to use differentaccounts following an imagined exam failurein Part 1 rated teachers' and peers' approvalof academically successful students in Part2, and vice versa. Within both outcome con-ditions, four students were described asvarying in ability and effort. The vignettesread as follows:

Everyone knows that Betty tries very hard (doesnot try hard) in school. She always (rarely) has herhomework done and pays attention (does nat payattention) in class. Betty is very smart so learningis easy for her (is not very smart so learning isdifficult for her). She gets good (bad) grades.

The hypothetical students were of thesame gender as the respondent. Participantspredicted how much teachers would likeeach of the students and how popular ttiesestudents would be among their classmates attheir own grade levei. Children's definitionsof popularity were elicited prior to their re-sponses. The examiner asked students toverbally describe what it means to be popu-lar. The most common responses at all gradelevels included "to have many friends" and"to have power over others" (cf. Brown,1989). Both answers of teacher liking andpopularity among classmates were recordedon six-point Likert scales, anchored at ex-tremes (e.g., 1 = very unpopular, 6 = verypopular). The order ofthe dependent vari-ables was determined randomly. The twoquestions (i.e., teacher liking followed bypeer popularity) were embedded amongthree filler questions (e.g., "How much doyou think Betty likes school?") that are notreported in this article. These questionswere further supposed to reduce the linksbetween the two parts ofthe study. Whereasthe four scenarios were counterbalanced,the order ofthe questions was held constantbecause the items were read aloud to thestudents. To reduce a possible response set,the participants rated two scenarios, a dis-tractor task (unrelated peer nomination task),and then the remaining two scenarios.

1700 ChOd Development

Consistent with Part 1, the data were an-alyzed separately for the failure and successscenarios. Thus, 2 (effort: within-subjectsfactor) X 2 (ability: within-subjects fac-tor) X 3 (grade level) analyses of variance(ANOVAs) were computed separately for thedependent measures of teacher liking andpeer popularity widiin each outcome condi-tion. All interaction effects were examinedby collapsing the data on the remaining in-dependent variables. For grade-level inter-actions, simple effects were analyzed bygrade, and significant effects were then ana-lyzed using Tukey comparisons for within-subjects designs for each grade level. Simpleeffects were also analyzed between gradesfor specific cells, and significant effects werefollowed by Tukey post hoc comparisons forbetween-subjects factors.

ResultsPerceived social reactions to unsuccess-

ful students.—Consistent with our hypothe-sis a main effect of effort was obtained forteacher liking, F(l, 145) = 133.02, p < .001.As shown in the upper left-hand panel ofFigure 2, participants at each grade level be-lieved that teachers prefer failing studentswho try hard (depicted as solid lines) tothose who fail because of lack of effort (de-picted as dotted lines).

Analysis of perceived peer popularityreveled a significant effort x ability inter-action, F(l, 146) = 5.34, p < .05, as well asan effort >; grade level interaction, F(l, 146)= 9.06, p < .001. As shown in the upperright-hand panel of Figure 2, the analyseswithin each grade level revetJed that onlyfourth graders perceived high effort (i.e., dil-igent) students to be significantly more pop-ular than low effort (i.e., lazy) students, F(l,50) = 63.11, V < -OOl- Furthermore, the re-spondents' views regarding peers' reactionsto the smart and lazy student (depicted asdotted lines anchored with squares) becameincreasingly positive with advancing gradelevel, F(2,148) = U.96, p < .001. The sixth-and ei^th-grade participants viewed thesestudents to be significantly (ps < . 05) morepopular than did the fourth graders.

Taken together, our hypotheses weregenerally supported. Students at all threegrade levels recognized that teachers likefailing students who exert effort more thanthose who do not try, regardless of their abil-ity level. The youngest participants believedthat low effort also hurts peer status,whereas the sixth- and eighth-grade respon-dents did not report the level of effort to

have any independent effect on peer popu-larity given failure. Instead, they consideredthe combination of high ability and low ef-fort to promote peer approval.

Perceived social reactions to successfulstudents.—The results for the success con-dition were more complex. The analysis ofteacher liking revealed main effects of'effortF(l, 154) = 225.89, p < .001, ability, F(l,154) = 56.78, p < .001, and an ability xeffort interaction, F(l, 154) = 20.84, p < .001.These data are depicted in the lower left-hand portion of Figure 2. The interaction ef-fect revealed that ail participants thoughtthat teachers like smart and diligent studentsmore than any other students (all Fs > 4.22,ps < .05), as was predicted. When sex wasincluded in the ANOVA design, a three-wayinteraction for ability x sex x grade levelwas also obtained, F(2,151) = 3.91, p < .02,When examining the ability x sex effectwithin each grade level, a significant interac-tion was obtained only among fourth grad-ers, F(l, 50) = 16.82, p < .001. Post hoc testsshowed that fourth-grade boys believed thatteachers prefer smart students over thosewho are low in ability (ps < .05), whereasgirls in that grade did not believe that abilityinfluences teacher's evaluations. This find-ing is consistent with research on teacherpraise. Dweck and Elliott (1983) found thatelementary school teachers praised malestudents according to their ability, whereasfemale students were rewarded according toeffort. Except for this finding, there were nosex differences.

Analysis of perceived peer popularityindicated a significant effort x ability inter-action, F(l, 155) ^ 4.78, p < .05, as well asan efibrt x grade level interaction, F(2,155)= 12.32, p < .001, as we expected. The spe-cific grade-level analyses showed that,whereas the fourth graders believed that dil-igent students were more popular than thelazy students, F(l, 50) = 11.07, p < .01, thereverse was true for the eighth graders (al-though the differences within eighth gradewere not statistically significant). The com-parisons between the grade levels showedthat the perceived popularity of the smartand diligent students (depicted as a solidline anchored with squares) declined as afunction of grade level, F(2, 157) = 9.30,p < .001. The fourdi graders rated these stu-dents as significantly more popular than didthe sixth and eighth graders (ps < .05). Fur-thermore, as revealed in the lower right-hand panel of Figure 2, the youngest partici-pants perceived these smart and diligent

Juvonen and Murdock 1701

FailureTeacher Liking Peer Popularity

Ability, Effort

Low, HighHigh, High

High, Low

Low, Low

Ability, Etfort

High, Low

Low, LowLow, HighHigh, High

ethQrad*

6thQrada

Teacher LikingSuccess

Ability, Effort '

High, High

Low, Higti s

High, LowLow, Low

Peer Popularity

Ability, Effort

High, LowLow, Low

Low, High

MhQrad*

ethQrada

FIG. 2.—Perceived teacher liking and peer popularity by grade level for failure and success (highvalues indicate greater approval).

students to be most popular, whereas theoldest participants viewed them as leastpopular (ps < .05). In contrast, the popular-ity ofthe low ability, lazy students (depictedas a dotted line with stars) increased withadvancing grade level, F(2, 156) = 9.12,p < .001. The difference between the youn-gest and the oldest participants was signifi-cant (p < .05), while the level of effort didnot affect the sixth-grade students' ratings ofpeer popularity.

For perceived peer popularity, therewas also a significant ability x grade level

interaction, F(2, 155) = 7.04, p < .001. Theanalyses within each grade level revealedthat, whereas fourth graders believed thatsmart students are more likely to be popularthan those low in ability, F(l, 50) = 12.80,p < .001, sixth and eighth graders did notbelieve that ability affects students' popular-ity independently of effort.

In summary, the results of the successcondition also supported our main hypothe-ses. Respondents at each grade level be-lieved that teachers like diligent and smartstudents over others. In contrast, the paitici-

1702 ChUd Development

pants' perceptions of the popularity of thesmart and diligent students changed as afunction of their grade level: Their peer sta-tus was believed to decrease from the mostpopular at fourth grade to the least popularat the eighth grade. Conversely, the per-ceived popularity of low ability, lazy stu-dents increased from the least popular at thefourth grade to being among the most popu-lar at the eighth grade.

Taken together, the results ofthe failureand success conditions were similar in a fewways. High level of effort made the hypo-thetical students seem more likable byteachers than those expending no effort.Consequently, the lazy students, and espe-cially the ones with high ability, were per-ceived as increasingly popular with advanc-ing grade level in both the failure andsuccess conditions. The most notable differ-ence between the two outcome conditionswas the declining peer status of the smartand diligent students between the sixth andeighth grade in the success but not in thefailure scenarios.

DiscussionIn this study, we examined grade-level

differences in students' public explanationsof their achievement failures and successesas well as their perceptions of the values ofthose with whom they interact. Our primarygoals were to find out (1) whether early ado-lescents, in contrast to elementary-school-age children, are likely to portray them-selves as less diligent to their popular peersthan to teachers and (2) whether they be-lieve that lack of effort enhances popularityamong their classmates. Considering the re-sults across the failure and success condi-tions, clear grade-related differences weredocumented in student preferences to por-tray themselves as putting forth effort totheir peers versus their teachers. We hypoth-esized that this differentiation refiectsyouth's views ofthe changing social valuesof their audiences. Indeed, the results ofthesecond part of the study revealed that theshifi in self-portrayal paralleled grade-leveldifferences in the perceived effects of dili-gence on peer popularity.

But why would effort expenditure bevalued among the "popular kids" at fourthgrade but not at eighth grade? In the intro-duction we proposed that early adolescentstend to defy certain adult-imposed values.By challenging the importance of effort, theappearance of being independent and auton-

omous is promoted, which in turn facilitatestheir status in a peer group. Indeed, the re-sults of the second part of our study showthat two types of lazy students (the smart andlazy student who fails and the one who man-ages to succeed in spite of laziness and lowability) were considered least liked by theirinstructors at all grade levels and unpopularamong their classmates at fourth grade, butamong the most popular students at eighthgrade.

Rather than (or in addition to) defyingadult-imposed norms, the increased devalu-ing of effort in the peer group may be influ-enced by differences in the educational en-vironments between elementary and middleor junior high school. Certain alterations instructural features, educational policies, andinstructional practices that create a poormatch between the psychological needs ofearly adolescents and their educational envi-ronments are known to be detrimental toschool adjustment (Eccles & Midgley, 19891990; Simmons & Blyth, 1987). It ,seemslikely that some of these changes (e.g., in-creased anonymity due to larger schools andcompartmentalized classes, tracking ac-cording to performance level that promotesdifferences rather than similarities amongstudents, and increasingly competitive grad-ing practices) also may cultivate peer normsand values that promote beliefs that oneshould not try hard (Ames, 1992; Maehr &Midgley, 1991). For example, when norma-tive grading practices are used, a smart stu-dent who works hard and "sets the curve"makes others look bad and is likely to beostracized (cf Part 2 ofthe study). Thus, stu-dents may not wish to work hard to excel, orat least not show that they do, because of afear of peer rejection (see Brown, 1993).

Regardless ofthe underlying causes ofthe belief that popular peers devalue effortexpenditure, the finding that early adoles-cents attempt to play down their achieve-ment strivings when interacting with someof their classmates is important because"self-presentations influence not only howthey [youngsters] are regarded and treatedby others, but also how they come to viewthemselves" (McKillop, Berzonsky, &Schlenker, 1992, p. 789). Impression man-agement research on adults indicates thatpublic behaviors are more committing thanprivate behaviors or thoughts because theyforce individuals to build a reputation bywhich they are known and treated. At thesame time, public images are difficult to re-voke (Goffman, 1959; Hymel, Wagner, &

Butler, 1990; McKillop et al., 1992; Tedeschi& Norman, 1985). Thus, some adolescentswho first use strategies to please their popu-lar peers may eventually adopt these pat-terns of behavior. Indeed, it is during earlyadolescence when students' grades, interestin school work, and self-concept decline (seeEccles & Midgley, 1989; Simmons & Blyth,1987, for reviews). It would therefore be im-portant to investigate questions such aswhether decreased competition will alterearly adolescents' perceptions of peer groupvalues as well as their self-presentation tac-tics (cf Elliott & Dweck, 1988).

Thus far, we have discussed possiblereasons for the increased behef that peersdo not value hard work and the implicationsof these findings. However, our data alsoprovide evidence for another type of age-related difference. Recall that, compared tothe younger students, the eighth graderswere rather willing to admit to their peers,and especially to their teachers, that theyfailed because they are not good at the sub-ject. This finding is inconsistent with self-presentation research suggesting that peopledo not want to portray themselves to othersin ways that question their ability or compe-tence, especially when seeking social ap-proval (Covington & Omehch, 1979; Jaga-cinski & Nicholls, 1990; Snyder & Higgins,1988). However, from an attributional per-spective the present results are interpret-able. Compared to young elementary-school-age children, adolescents are knownto view ability as uncontrollable (Nicholls,1978). Uncontrollable causes ehcit sympa-thy from others (Graham, Doubleday, &Cuarino, 1984) which, in tum, facilitatesprosocial behaviors and social acceptance(Graham & Barker, 1990; Juvonen, 1991;Weiner, 1986). Thus, the present data inti-mate that in unsuccessful achievement situa-tions there might be social benefits in por-traying oneself as incapable or low in abilityin a particular subject or task. Students maybeheve that they can avoid punitive socialresponses and instead elicit sympathy, espe-cially from their teachers.

Using low ability as a self-presentationtactic requires rather sophisticated under-standing of psychological principles and thecorresponding practices that favorably affectthe reactions of others. This may explainwhy only the oldest participants were likelyto use low ability communications. Alterna-tively, this finding might also reflect the dif-ferent goal structures or stresses (relativeemphasis on ability vs. effort goals) enforced

Juvonen and Murdock 1703

in elementary schools compared to middleschools, as was discussed earlier in the con-text of effort ascriptions.

ConclusionTo date, affiliation and achievement

have been thought to be very distinct moti-vations: their interaction and interplay haverarely been considered (Juvonen & Weiner,1993). We believe that to understand grade-related differences in motivation (e.g., will-ingness to put forth effort) and other similarschool behaviors, it is paramount to go be-yond private achievement-related cogni-tions (e.g., self-related attributions, goal ori-entations, perceptions of self-efficacy) andtake into account the effects of various socialcontexts (e.g., the expectations and values ofpeers, parents) in which achievement striv-ings take place. In this article, we began toredress this imbalance and contended tliataffiliation and achievement-related behav-iors are intertwined. One next step is toinvestigate the relations between publicportrayals of academic self and actualachievement behavior. Just as self-pres-entation tactics might influence effort ex-penditure and school performance, in asimilar manner actual achievement level,aptitude, and diligence may affect impres-sion management needs and strategies. Forexample, it is the smart and diligent highachiever in middle school who particularlyneeds to master tactics that facilitate peerstatus. It is therefore likely that self-presentation tactics and actual achievementbehavior form a bidirectional and complexrelation badly in need of disentanglement.

ReferencesAmes, C. (1992 ). Classrooms: Goals, structures,

and student motivation. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Antaki, C. (1990). Explaining events or explainingoneself? In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin(Eds.), The psychology of tactical communi-cation (pp. 268-282), Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.

Barker, G, P., & Graham, S. (1987), Develop-mental study of praise and blame as attribu-tional cues. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy. 79, 62-66.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentationalview of social phenomena. Psychological Bul-letin, 91, 3-26.

Bemdt, T, J. (1979). Developmental changes inconformity to peers and parents. Develop-mental Psychology, 15, 608-616.

Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of

1704 ChUd Development

friendships in early adolescence. Child De-velopment, 53, 1447-1460.

Brown, B. B. (1989, March). Can Nerds and Dmg-gies be chums? Mapping social distance inadolescent peer groups. Paper presented atthe meeting ofthe American Educational Re-search Association, San Francisco.

Brown, B. B. (1993). School culture, social poli-cies, and the academic motivation of U.S. stu-dents. In T. M. Tomlinson (Ed.), Motivatingstudents to learn: Overcoming barriers tohigh achievement (pp. 63-98). Berkeley:McCutchan.

Chapman, M., & Skinner, E. A. (Z989). Children'sagency beliefs, cognitive performance, andconceptions of effort and ability: Individualand developmental differences. Child Devel-opment, 60, 1229-1238.

Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society.New York: Free Press.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the so-cial order. New York: Scribner's.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort:The double-edged sword in school achieve-ment. Journa/ of Educational Psychology 77446-459. '

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understandingin childhood and adolescence. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievementmotivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal-ity, and social development (pp, 643-691)New York: Wiley.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appro-priate classrooms for early adolescents. InR. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on moti-vation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186),New York: Academic Press,

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes inacademic motivation and self-perceptionsduring early adolescence. In R. Montemayor,G. R. Adams, & T. P. GuUotta (Eds.), Fromchildhood to adolescence: A transitional pe-riod? New York: Sage.

Eckert, P. (1989). jocks and burnouts: Social cate-gories and identity in the high school. NewYork: Teachers College.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C, S. (1988). Goals: Anapproach to motivation and achievement.Journal of Personality and Social Psycholosu25, 109-116,

Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and cHsisNew York: Wiley.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students'school success: Coping with "burden of'act-ing white.'" Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. L. (1978). Poor perfor-

mance following unsolvable problems:Leamed helplessness or egotism? Journalof Personality and Social Psycholoeu 361415-1423. '

, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992), Age andsex differences in perceptions of networks ofpersonal relationships. Child Development63, 103-115.

Coffinan, E. (1959). The presentation of self ineveryday life. Garden City, NY: DoubledayAnchor.

Graham, S., & Barker, G. P. (1990). The down sideof help: An attributional-developmental anal-ysis of helping behavior as a low ability cue.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 7-14.

Graham, S., Doubleday, G., & Guarino, P. A,(1984). The development of relations be-tween perceived controllability and the emo-tions of pity, anger, and guilt. Child Develop-ment, SS, 561-565.

Harari, O,, & Covington, M. V, (1981). Reactionsto achievement behavior from a teacher andstudent perspective: A developmental analy-sis. American Educational Research Journal18, 15-28.

Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the con-struction, maintenance, and enhancement ofself-concept in children. In J. Suls & A, G.Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectiveson the self (Vol. 3, pp. 137-182). Hillsdale,NJ: Eribaum.

Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development.In S, S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), Atthe threshold: The developing adolescent (pp,352-387). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & BuUer, L. J. (1990), Rep-utational bias: Views from the peer group. InS. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejectionin childhood (pp. 156-186). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. C. (1990). Reduc-ing effort to protect perceived ability:"They'd do it but I wouldn't.'7ooma; of Edu-cational Psychology, 82, 15-21,

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology(Vols. 1, 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Juvonen, J. (1991). Deviance, perceived responsi-bility, and negative peer reactions. Develop-mental Psychology, 27, 672-681,

Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B, (1993). How to pro-mote social approval: Effect of audience andoutcome on publicly communicated attribu-tions. yo«ma? of JErfucofiono/ Psucholoau 85365-376.

Juvonen, J., & Weiner, B. (1993). An attributionalanalysis of students' interactions: The socialconsequences of perceived responsibility.Educational Psychology Review, 5, 325-345,

Kun, A. (1977). Development of magnitude-covariation and compensation schemata inability and effort attributions of performance.Child Development, 48, 862-873.

Leary, M. R,, & Kowalski, R. M, (1990), Impres-sion management: A literature review andtwo-component model. Psychological Bulle-tin, 107, 34-47.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991), Enhancingstudent motivation: A school-wide approach.Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-426.

McKillop, K, J., Berzonsky, M, D,, & Schlenker,B, R. (1992). The impact of self-presentationson self-beliefs: Effects of social identity andself-presentation. Journal of Personality, 60,789-808.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Murdock, T. B. (1993, April). "If I'm the best, howcome I feel so lousy?" The effects of socialcomparison information on social motivationin the classroom. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Atlanta.

Nicholls, J. C, (1978). The development of con-cepts of effort and ability, perceptions of ownattainment, and the understanding that diffi-cult tasks require more ability. Child Devel-opment, 49, 800-814.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M,, & Mettetal, C,(1986). Conceptions of ability and intelli-gence. Child Development, 57, 636-645.

Rest, S,, Nierenberg, R., Weiner, B., & Heck-hausen, H. (1973). Further evidence concern-ing the effects of perceptions of effort andability on achievement evaluation. 7ourr(a( ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 28,187-191.

Rosenberg, M, (1986). Self-concept from middlechildhood through adolescence. In J, Suls &

Juvonen and Murdock 1705

A C Creenwald (Eds.), Psychological per-spectives on the self (Vol. 3, pp. 107-136).Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Movinginto adolescence. Hawthorne, NY; deGruyter,

Snyder, G. R., & Higgins, R, L. (1988). Excuses:Their effective role in negotiation of reality.Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23-35.

Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986), The vi-cissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence.Child Development, 57, 841-851.

Tedeschi, J, T. (1990). Self-presentation and socialinfluence: An integrationist perspective. InM. J, Cody 6r M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Thepsychology of tactical communication (pp,301-323). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters,

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Socialpower, self-presentation, and the self. InB. R. Schlenker (Ed,), The .self and social life(pp. 293-322). New York: McGraw Hill.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of mo-tivation. New York: Springer-Verlag,

Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S,, & Verette,J. (1987). An attributional analysis of excusegiving: Studies of naive theory of emotion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 316-324.

Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributionalanalysis of achievement motivations. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 15,1-20.

Weiner, B., & Peter, N. (1973). A cognitive-developmental analysis of achievement andmoral judgments. Developmental Psychology,9, 290-309.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J, (m85)Adolescent rela-tions with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.