The Journal of Experimental Education, 2011, 79, 64–83
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright ISSN: 0022-0973 print /1940-0683 online
DOI: 10.1080/00220970903292884
MOTIVATION AND SOCIAL PROCESSES
Impact of Discussion on Peer
Evaluations: Perceptions of Low
Achievement and Effort
Todd M. Huenecke and Gregory A. Waas
Northern Illinois University
The authors placed 5th-grade students into small groups of 3 in order to examine the
impact of group discussion and displayed effort on children’s evaluations of a lowachieving peer. Low effort by a target peer resulted in negative evaluations across
attributional, affective, help-giving, and social response dimensions. Children who
participated in group discussion before making individual evaluations exhibited a polarizing effect in which more extreme evaluations were made than when children did
not participate in group discussion. Although all children were affected by both effort
level and discussion conditions, gender differences were observed. These findings
(a) highlight the importance of addressing the role of the peer group when working
with low-achieving children and (b) underscore the impact of effort attributions and
low achievement on peer perceptions among elementary-age children.
Keywords: achievement, attribution, child development, individual differences,
peers and peer influence, social context, social development
CHILDREN WHO EXHIBIT low levels of academic achievement are at greater
risk of social rejection by their peers than are normal-achieving classmates (e.g.,
Stone & La Greca, 1990; Vaughn, McIntosh, Schumm, Haager, & Callwood,
1993). A large body of research has examined the characteristics of low-achieving
Address correspondence to Gregory A. Waas, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, 1425 West Lincoln Highway, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. E-mail: gwaas@niu.edu
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
65
children that are associated with peer relationship difficulties (e.g., Kistner &
Gatlin, 1989; Margalit & Levin-Alyagon, 1994). However, these efforts leave unaddressed the degree to which negative peer evaluations are based on a child’s low
achievement itself or on characteristics that are often attributed to low-achieving
children such as low effort. Moreover, this research has neglected important group
social factors that may contribute to children’s evaluations of a struggling classmate.
This failure to clearly delineate the ways in which children’s social interactions
influence how they understand and respond to achievement information about a
peer is unfortunate because school is the primary social setting for most children,
and achievement-related information is likely to be available and salient to the peer
group. In the present study, we sought to examine the unique impact of perceived
low effort on children’s evaluations of a target peer and to investigate the role that
children’s social discussion plays in the formulation of peer judgments about an
at-risk child.
Social Discussion and Individual Decision Making
A large body of research has documented the impact of social discussion on attitudes, beliefs, and decisions among adults (e.g., Kerr, MacCoun, & Kramer, 1996).
For example, group discussion has been shown to have both an attenuating and
polarizing effect on group members’ attitudes depending on such factors as the
characteristics of the group and decision-making task demands. Attenuation occurs
when group discussion mitigates the tendency for individuals to make dispositional
attributions about a target person (i.e., fundamental attribution error). Such an effect might result from group members correcting each other’s judgment errors or
increasing individuals’ sensitivity to mitigating situational factors when evaluating the target person (e.g., Wright, Luus, & Christie, 1990). Polarizing effects,
however, might also occur in which group discussion increases an individual’s
tendency to make extreme judgments about an issue or a person. Among adults,
group polarization may arise as a result of exposure to new information, reinforcement among group members, repetition of stated positions, and social perception
factors (e.g., Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 1995; Zuber, Crott, & Werner, 1992).
Despite the extensive research that exists on the impact of social discussion
on adults’ decision making, there has been virtually no empirical research on the
influence of group discussion on children’s social perceptions of peers. Instead,
previous research with children has tended to aggregate individual children’s
evaluations of a target peer (e.g., calculate mean sociometric ratings) in order
to estimate peer group perceptions. Such an approach is limited by its failure to
account for the influence of children’s group interaction on their perceptions of
a peer. Indeed, emerging research investigating the impact of social interaction
modalities such as relational aggression and gossip underscore the importance of
66
HUENECKE AND WAAS
such group-based processes in children’s peer evaluations (e.g., Crick, Ostrov, &
Werner, 2006; Ostrov & Godleski, 2007).
This influence of group social discussion is particularly relevant to older children. An extensive body of research has demonstrated that children engage in
more psychologically complex discussions of peers as they get older. For example, whereas preschool children tend to tell stories about a peer that involve simple
scripts and routines, elementary-age children make more extensive use of psychological (e.g., goals, motivations) and evaluative content in their stories (e.g., Engel
& Li, 2004; Nelson, 1993). Including the effects of group discussion in analyses
of peer evaluations is also important because such constructs as peer rejection are
inherently social phenomena involving group interaction, which may be subject to
group processes such as polarization and attenuation. One of the most pervasive
types of information that school-age children share about each other—and use
as the basis for peer evaluations—relates to academic performance (e.g., Gest,
Domitrovich, & Welsh, 2005; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989).
Perceived Effort and Peer Evaluations
Although many aspects of a child’s academic performance (e.g., concentration,
problem-solving strategies) are not easily observable by the peer group, children
are often aware of classmates’ stated attitudes, overt behaviors, and academic
outcomes. One of the most likely cues children look to in an attempt to understand
another child’s performance is observed effort (Newman & Spitzer, 1998). If an
individual is observed to fail at an academic task while exhibiting low levels of
effort, observers will tend to attribute control of and responsibility for his or her
failure to the individual (Weiner, 1993). Moreover, because such failure could
potentially be mitigated by greater effort, observers will also tend to experience
low levels of pity and be unlikely to engage in helping behaviors. Last, there is
an increased probability of anger and negative behavioral response by observers
when failure is viewed as being due to low effort. Conversely, when an individual
is perceived as exerting high levels of effort, observers are more likely to offer
assistance (Weiner, 1980).
Karasawa (1991) investigated the influence of perceived effort on peer responses by examining college students’ evaluation of three hypothetical scenarios
in which peers were depicted as having academic difficulties arising from being
sick, not trying, or trying and still failing. Participants provided attributions about
the likely cause of the problem, ratings of their intentions to help the student,
whether they would criticize or praise the student, and how much effort they
believed the student had exerted. As predicted, low effort was perceived as a controllable cause, and raters reacted to failure outcomes as a result of low effort with
anger, low pity, and a disinclination to help the peer.
In an extension of Karasawa’s (1991) study, Bennett and Flores (1998)
asked elementary and middle school children to imagine being a member of a
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
67
partnership, working on an assigned project with a hypothetical peer depicted as
either sick or exerting no effort, thus placing the assigned project in jeopardy. As
expected, all children attributed more culpability and fault to the peer exhibiting
low effort, and all children felt more anger, less pity, and were less willing to help
the peer. Younger participants (third- and fourth-grade students), however, rated
themselves as somewhat less angry and more willing to help the peer than were
older participants (sixth- through eighth-grade students). These findings support
the hypothesis that even elementary-age children are sensitive to displayed effort
by their peers when such effort information is highly salient and the participant
is directly affected by the peer’s level of effort and achievement outcome. Left
unaddressed, however, is the degree to which children are responsive to effort
information in more realistic academic settings in which direct dependency on
the peer does not exist. In the present study, we examined children’s sensitivity
and responsiveness to displayed effort cues that children are likely to encounter
in day-to-day classroom interactions (e.g., work habits) but that do not involve
dependency on the low-effort peer’s academic success.
Bennett and Flores (1998) noted that any factor that increases the salience
or effect of effort cues may have significant implications for social interactions
such as help-giving behavior. One of the most common ways that a child’s effort
and achievement outcomes might be highlighted among peers is through group
discussion. As such, evaluating the influence of social discussion on children’s
perceptions of a low-achieving target peer will provide greater understanding of
one mechanism by which children form such peer evaluations and make decisions
regarding social acceptance of a peer.
The Present Study
In the present study, we examined the influence of group discussion on children’s
evaluations of a hypothetical low-achieving peer exhibiting either high or low
effort. Participants were asked about their responses toward a hypothetical classmate across attributional, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. We hypothesized
that participants would view the peer exhibiting low effort more negatively across
affective, attributional, and interpersonal dimensions than the peer exhibiting high
levels of effort, and that these differences would be magnified when participants
had engaged in social discussion about the target peer.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 120 fifth-grade students (M = 10 years, 8 months), equally divided
by gender, participated in the study. Participants were from lower to middle
socioeconomic status homes (43% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and
68
HUENECKE AND WAAS
represented the ethnic composition of the community (85% Anglo American,
12% Hispanic American, 3% African American and Asian American). All children received informed parental consent and provided oral assent before their
participation in the study.
Target Peer Descriptions
All participants heard descriptions of two hypothetical classmates depicted as
experiencing academic failure. In the high-effort condition, the target peer was
described as being compliant with task instructions, exerting maximum effort, and
using class time efficiently. In the low-effort condition, the target peer was described as frequently not completing assignments, exhibiting low motivation, and
exerting minimum effort. In both conditions, target peers were depicted as receiving poor grades and often having to redo class assignments. With the exception
of effort level, the target peer descriptions were controlled for non–effort-related
details, overall length, and readability level. Target peer descriptions are presented
in the Appendix.
Group Discussion Condition
Participants were randomly assigned to either a discussion or no-discussion condition. Following each peer description, participants in the discussion condition
engaged in a semistructured discussion. These discussions consisted of a trained
interviewer prompting the group to discuss the target peer on the dimensions of
academic performance (e.g., “Let’s talk about what kind of student he/she is, and
how that affects his/her grades”), affective response (e.g., “How do you feel about
him/her?”), and social inclusion (e.g., “Let’s talk about whether you would like to
do things with him/her”). The group discussed each dimension for 3 minutes, and
the interviewer ensured that all participants stated an opinion on each dimension.
The interviewer provided up to two prompts if the group did not use the full 3
minutes, the discussion was off topic, or a specific member of the group did not
contribute during the time allotted for discussion. During these discussion periods,
children were generally willing to discuss the target peer, and in the majority
of cases, children used the full 3 minutes allotted. Participants often related the
information presented about the target peer to actual peers in their classrooms, and
group discussions were most spontaneous and animated when children discussed
their willingness to include the target peer in a social or academic group.
The order in which evaluation dimensions were discussed was counterbalanced
between groups. After the group discussion, participants individually completed
the dependent measures. In the no-discussion condition, participants completed
the dependent measures immediately after the peer descriptions.
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
69
Dependent Measures
Participants’ individual perceptions of and responses toward the low-achieving
target peer were examined on seven dimensions used in previous research on
children’s attributions (e.g., Juvonen, 1992; Karasawa, 1991; Weiner, 1980). These
included the following: perceptions of the target peer’s effort level (e.g., How hard
does Adam/Beth try to do well in school?); attributional beliefs about the target
peer’s control over his or her academic performance (e.g., Could Adam/Beth have
gotten better grades?); affective responses of anger (e.g., How mad would you feel
toward Adam or Beth when he or she received a bad grade?) and pity (e.g., How
sorry would you feel for Adam/Beth when he/she received a bad grade?) toward
the target peer; willingness to include the peer as a group member in an academic
setting (e.g., How much would you like to have Adam/Beth be in your group to do
a science project?) and social setting (e.g., How much would you like Adam/Beth
to be on your after-school soccer team?); and an estimation of the target peer’s
ability level (e.g., How smart is Adam/Beth?). Participants rated the peer on each
dimension using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot).
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to same-gender groups composed of 3 students (20 groups of boys and 20 groups of girls). Groups consisted of same-gender
peers to reflect the composition of typical fifth-grade social affiliations. Individual
groups comprised children from the same classroom so that all participants were
familiar with other members and group discussion occurred among known peers.
After completion of assent procedures, each group was orally read two peer
descriptions (in counterbalanced order) describing a same-gender hypothetical
peer who exhibited either high or low effort in conjunction with academic failure.
After group discussion (in the discussion condition) or immediately after the peer
description (in the no-discussion condition), participants were provided written
response forms on which to record their ratings of the peer on the seven dependent measures. Each group received a randomly ordered set of ratings, with the
exception of the ability item, which was always presented last. Participants were
seated so that children were not aware of other group members’ ratings. After all
participants completed the ratings for the first target peer, a distracter task was
completed (i.e., children were asked to indicate three things they would most like
to do with their best friend, and then share one choice with the group), and the
process was then repeated for the second target peer.
RESULTS
To examine the impact of group discussion on children’s evaluation of the target
peer, we conducted a series of 2 × 2 × 2 repeated measure analyses of variance in
70
HUENECKE AND WAAS
which peer effort level, discussion condition, and gender served as the independent
variables, with effort condition serving as the repeated measure. Children’s ratings
of the target peer on effort, control, anger, pity, academic acceptance, social
acceptance, and ability served as the dependent measures. Means and standard
deviations for participants’ ratings on these measures are provided in Table 1.
As an initial check of the displayed effort manipulation, participants were
asked to rate the target peer on the degree to which they viewed the peer as
trying to do well in school. As expected, participants in the high-effort condition
viewed the peer as exhibiting significantly greater effort than did participants in
the low-effort condition, F(1, 116) = 235.01, p < .001, η2 = .67. This strong main
effect, however, was qualified by a three-way interaction involving effort condition,
discussion condition, and gender, F(1, 116) = 9.17, p < .01, η2 = .07. Followup examination of the two-way interactions for male and female participants
separately indicated that among girls only, a polarizing effect was observed in
the discussion condition. As depicted in Figure 1, there was a greater discrepancy
between girls’ effort ratings of high- and low-effort peers when engaging in group
discussion of the peer than in the no-discussion condition, F(1, 58) = 12.60, p <
.001, η2 = .18.
5
High Effort Peer
Low Effort Peer
4
3
2
1
0
Discussion
No Discussion
Discussion Condition
FIGURE 1
Discussion × Effort interaction among girls for ratings of effort.
71
4.27 (1.17)
4.17 (0.83)
2.97 (1.16)
1.93 (1.17)
3.83 (1.44)
3.47 (1.31)
3.23 (1.19)
Boys
Boys
3.63 (1.77)
3.83 (0.83)
2.83 (1.21)
2.43 (1.36)
3.77 (1.25)
2.93 (1.31)
3.17 (1.42)
Girls
No discussion
4.50 (0.97)
3.87 (0.86)
2.93 (1.36)
2.60 (1.19)
3.80 (1.19)
3.10 (1.52)
3.13 (1.14)
High effort
4.53 (0.82)
3.80 (0.61)
2.93 (1.05)
1.67 (1.15)
4.30 (0.70)
2.87 (1.25)
3.60 (1.13)
Girls
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Effort
Control
Ability
Anger
Pity
Academic acceptance
Social acceptance
Peer rating
Discussion
1.13 (0.35)
3.37 (1.40)
1.53 (0.86)
2.63 (1.43)
2.07 (1.14)
1.20 (0.41)
1.83 (1.15)
Boys
Boys
2.50 (1.69)
4.07 (0.91)
3.13 (1.38)
2.20 (1.13)
3.20 (1.21)
2.67 (1.56)
3.13 (1.41)
Girls
No discussion
1.47 (0.86)
3.67 (1.15)
1.57 (0.86)
3.00 (1.46)
2.07 (1.39)
1.50 (0.78)
2.30 (1.06)
Low effort
1.20 (0.48)
3.63 (1.30)
1.90 (0.92)
2.33 (1.37)
2.03 (1.19)
1.53 (0.90)
2.17 (1.12)
Girls
Discussion
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Peer Ratings
72
HUENECKE AND WAAS
As expected, children rated peers who exhibited low levels of effort in the
context of school failure more negatively across all dimensions. They viewed the
peer as having lower control, F(1, 116) = 4.28, p < .05, η2 = .04; having lower
ability, F(1, 116) = 37.25, p < .001, η2 = .24; deserving less sympathy, F(1, 116)
= 121.82, p < .001, η2 = .51; and more anger, F(1, 116) = 6.32, p < .05, η2 = .05.
Moreover, participants were less likely to accept the low-effort peer in academic
group activities, F(1, 116) = 78.41, p < .001, η2 = .40; and in social group
activities, F(1, 116) = 41.69, p < .001, η2 = .26. These findings were qualified,
however, by interactions involving both the participants’ gender and participation
in group discussion about the peer.
We found strong and consistent evidence for the hypothesized polarizing effects
of social discussion about the low-achieving peer. As depicted in Figure 2, participants in the discussion condition were much more willing to accept the high-effort
peer into a social activity than the low-effort peer, whereas this distinction was less
pronounced in the no-discussion condition, F(1, 116) = 11.78, p < .001, η2 = .09.
We found polarizing effects consistent with this pattern for academic acceptance,
F(1, 116) = 7.88, p < .01, η2 = .06; feelings of anger toward the peer, F(1, 116)
4
High Effort Peer
Low Effort Peer
3
2
1
0
Discussion
No Discussion
Discussion Condition
FIGURE 2 Discussion × Effort interaction for ratings of social acceptance.
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
73
= 3.87, p < .06, η2 = .03; and attributions about control, F(1, 116) = 4.91, p <
.05, η2 = .04.
Similar to the results for attributions about effort, we found three-way interactions for ratings of pity, F(1, 116) = 8.44 p < .01, η2 = .07; and ability, F(1,
116) = 4.79, p < .05, η2 = .04. We followed up these three-way interactions by
examining the Effort × Discussion interactions for each gender separately, and
these analyses indicated that only girls exhibited the polarizing effects of group
discussion. As depicted in Figure 3, girls in the discussion condition were more
sympathetic toward the high-effort peer than the low-effort peer, whereas this difference was less pronounced in the no-discussion condition, F(1, 58) = 19.46, p <
.001, η2 = .25. We found a similar pattern for ratings of ability. Girls participating
in discussion made a greater distinction between high- and low-effort peers, with
high-effort peers being rated as having more academic ability, than did girls in the
no-discussion condition, F(1, 58) = 9.14, p < .01, η2 = .14.
Additional effects involving gender were found for participants’ willingness to
accept the low-achieving peer into a student work group and attributions about
the controllability of the peer’s academic performance. As depicted in Figure 4,
we observed an Effort × Gender interaction for academic acceptance in that boys
5
High Effort Peer
Low Effort Peer
4
3
2
1
0
Discussion
No Discussion
Discussion Condition
FIGURE 3
Discussion × Effort interaction among girls for ratings of pity.
74
HUENECKE AND WAAS
4
High Effort Peer
Low Effort Peer
3
2
1
0
Boys
Girls
Participant Sex
FIGURE 4
Effort × Gender interaction for ratings of academic acceptance.
were more negative (i.e., less willing to work with the peer on a group project)
toward the low-effort peer than toward the high-effort peer, whereas this effect
was not as pronounced among girls, F(1, 116) = 13.48, p < .001, η2 = .10. It is
interesting to note, however, that we observed an opposite pattern in a Discussion
× Gender interaction for academic acceptance, in that girls were more negative
about the peer following discussion, whereas boys showed no discrepancy as a
function of discussion condition, F(1, 116) = 4.31, p < .05, η2 = .04. Last, we
observed an Effort x Gender interaction for attributions of controllability, in that
boys viewed the high-effort peer as having greater control than the low-effort peer,
whereas girls exhibited no differences in their ratings of the target peers, F(1, 116)
= 5.59, p < .05, η2 = .05.
DISCUSSION
The primary goals of the present study were to examine the ways in which children’s perceptions of a low-achieving classmate’s academic effort influenced social
evaluations about the peer and, in particular, the degree to which group discussion
about the peer affected these social evaluations. We predicted that peers displaying
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
75
low levels of academic effort would be viewed more negatively than would peers
exhibiting high levels of effort, and social discussion would tend to have a polarizing effect on children’s evaluations across a wide array of social dimensions.
These predictions were largely supported, and they have implications for both
how we conceptualize low-achieving children’s peer relationships and possible
interventions with children experiencing academic difficulties.
The Impact of Perceived Effort on Evaluations
The existence of peer-relationship problems among low-achieving children is well
established in the research literature (e.g., Stone & La Greca, 1990; Vaughn et al.,
1993). The present study demonstrated experimentally that elementary-age children were highly responsive and negative toward peers exhibiting low levels of
effort in the context of school failure. Indeed, children exhibited less pity and
greater anger toward the low-effort peer, and participants were less willing to
accept the low-effort peer into both academic and social groupings.
These findings are consistent with previous research involving both adults and
children. Karasawa (1991), for example, reported strong and pervasive negative
evaluations among college students when evaluating a peer described as falling
behind on a class group project as a result of low effort. Bennett and Flores (1998)
replicated these findings among elementary and middle school age children and
reported that participants viewed a low-effort peer with greater anger, blame, and
perceptions of responsibility. Participants also responded to the peer with less pity
and less willingness to provide assistance.
It is important to note that in these previous studies the hypothetical peer was
depicted as being a member of a small group that included the study participant,
and the group was described as working together on a required academic project.
Participants, therefore, had a direct stake in the productivity of the peer, thus making the peer’s effort highly salient and the repercussions for low effort by the peer
directly relevant to the welfare of the participant (i.e., peer’s performance would
influence participant’s grade). In the present study, however, no such participant
dependence on the peer was suggested in the hypothetical scenarios. Nevertheless, participants remained strongly influenced by the effort level displayed by the
target peer across all evaluation dimensions, even those dimensions not related
to academic achievement. Participants directed more anger and less pity at the
low-effort peer, and they were less willing to include the peer in either academic
or social activities.
These findings are consistent with Weiner’s (1994) argument that attributions
of effort implicate moral judgments about a target peer, and these judgments are
most negative when low achievement is viewed as a consequence of low effort.
The fact that children were resistant to including the low-effort target peer in
76
HUENECKE AND WAAS
even nonacademic activities (e.g., a soccer game) highlights the generality of
such evaluations among elementary-age students when considering the academic
performance of peers. The fact that such negative and general evaluations were
made even when the peer’s low effort had no consequences for the participant raters
underscores the importance of effort cues among elementary-age children. It will
be important for future researchers to explore the ways that children integrate such
effort cues with other types of peer information such as ability, interpersonal, and
emotional cues.
It is interesting to note that participants tended to rate the peer exhibiting high
effort as having greater academic ability and greater control over their level of
achievement than the low-effort target peer. Although consistent with participants’
relatively positive view of the high-effort peer, these ratings conflict with the other
key piece of information presented about the target peer, that he or she experienced
academic failure despite high levels of effort. One may expect that when faced
with the combination of information that a target peer is both failing and exerting
high levels of effort, an observer would conclude that the peer actually had low
academic ability and therefore relatively low control over achievement success.
The failure of fifth-grade students in the present study to reach these conclusions
may be related to children’s limited ability to differentiate between such constructs
as ability, effort, and control. Several researchers, for example, have reported that
before approximately 11 years of age, children tend to overestimate the power of
effort in producing success and preventing failure, and they tend to conflate effort
and ability (e.g., Kunnen, 1993; Normandeau & Gobeil, 1998; Skinner, 1990).
Miller and Hom (1997) reported that only 28% of fourth-grade students exhibited
an understanding of ability as “capacity” (i.e., ability constrains the effects of
effort) in reasoning about a peer’s achievement, whereas by the sixth grade, 72%
of children demonstrated this understanding. In the present study, among children
at a transition age (M age = 10 years, 8 months), there appeared to be a strong
tendency to conflate these constructs when evaluating the target peer. It may be
that the developmental progression of children’s thinking about such concepts as
achievement, effort, control, and ability is somewhat slower when carried out in
more realistic social contexts in which children are required to coordinate multiple
pieces of information about a target peer.
One implication of these findings is that the impact of public attributions about
a child’s effort and ability may be more complicated than once thought. Previous
research has suggested that a teacher’s attribution of low effort in response to a
child’s poor achievement would increase the child’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, and
future effort on the task (e.g., Clark, 1997; Weiner, Graham, Stern, & Lawson,
1982). Moreover, Juvonen and Murdock (1993) reported that among eighth-grade
adolescents, students were sensitive to attributions about effort and ability depending on whether the attributions were being used to explain success or failure and
whether the attributions were being made to parents, teachers, or peers. Whereas
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
77
adolescents were more likely to attribute academic success to high ability when
communicating with parents or teachers, they were more likely to cite low effort
as responsible for failure when communicating with peers.
These different attributional patterns are likely the result of adolescents’ firm
understanding of the compensatory relation between effort and ability, such that
high effort resulting in failure is suggestive of low ability (Graham, 1990; Juvonen
& Murdock, 1993). When communicating with peers, attributing failure to low
effort may be a strategy for saving face; however, when communicating with
teachers or parents, such a strategy would be more likely to evoke anger. For
adolescents, therefore, a teacher’s strategy of attributing failure to low effort makes
sense in that it promotes greater effort by the student on future tasks and preserves
the preferred public image of the adolescent. However, among younger children,
such as those in the present study, public attributions about low effort may have the
paradoxical effect of further damaging peers’ opinion of the low-achieving child’s
ability. Such public attributions may also lead to greater levels of anger, less
sympathy, and more social rejection. These findings underscore the importance of
teacher sensitivity to developmental differences in how children make use of social
information about others and understand the public attributions that are common
in the classroom. It will be important for future research to more clearly delineate
the progression of children’s understanding and use of attributional information in
the classroom context. Moreover, cultural differences in perceptions of effort and
academic achievement (e.g., Taylor & Graham, 2007), and how these perceptions
are integrated with other characteristics associated with social popularity and
rejection await further investigation.
We expected the negative implications of perceived low effort by a peer found
in the present study, and these findings represent a direct extension of previous
research efforts. However, children’s evaluations about each other typically take
place in a social context involving social exchanges such as gossip, information
sharing, and social inferences. By experimentally manipulating children’s discussion of a target peer in the present study, we were able to explore the impact of
such discussion on children’s subsequent social evaluations.
The Role of Social Discussion
Children who participated in group discussion exhibited consistent polarizing
effects across multiple dimensions of evaluation. For ratings of controllability,
anger, and both academic and social acceptance, all participants who engaged in
discussion made a greater distinction in their evaluations between high- and loweffort peers than did participants in the no-discussion condition. Similar polarizing
effects were exhibited by girls only when rating the target peer on the dimensions
of effort, sympathy, and ability.
78
HUENECKE AND WAAS
Research on group discussion with adult participants has demonstrated that the
social act of discussing beliefs and available information about a target person,
a pending decision, or a controversial issue tends to influence group member’s
attitudes, beliefs, and decision making (e.g., Crott, Szilvas, & Zuber, 1991;
Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1995; Wright & Wells, 1985). However, previous research efforts have reported that group interaction can have either a polarizing or
a corrective effect on participants’ judgments. For example, Wright and Wells reported that group discussion tended to reduce dispositional bias (i.e., the tendency
to make dispositional inferences about a target other) among adults, and Wright
et al. (1990) reported that participants who made judgments after a discussion
of a target person’s behavior were less likely to manifest the consensus underutilization effect (i.e., under use of information about how others behave when
considering the causes of a target’s behavior). Conversely, other researchers have
reported increased polarization following group discussion (e.g., Brauer et al.,
1995; Crott et al.; Zuber et al., 1992). To date, however, the degree to which such
group discussion influences children’s judgments has been largely unaddressed.
A number of explanations have been offered to explain the group polarization phenomenon including participants’ exposure to new information through
discussion, repeated attitude expression, hearing other group members repeat and
validate each others’ ideas, a desire to be consistent with group norms, and a variety of interpersonal processes (e.g., Brauer et al., 1995; Zuber et al., 1992). Kerr
et al. (1996) noted that when a person is making judgments within the context of a
group, the information-processing task is altered from that of individual decision
making to one involving a variety of social interactive variables. For example,
members are often concerned with maintaining group interpersonal relationships,
and therefore issues relating to impression management may influence decisions,
attentional processes are altered (e.g., distractions increase), other group members’
reactions to stated opinions may influence information processing, and articulating and defending one’s own views (and hearing others defend their views) may
heighten awareness of alternative positions and information-processing strategies.
Whereas the research on how such mechanisms influence decision making
among adult group members is extensive, little is known about how such mechanisms might influence children’s attitudes and behaviors following group discussion. It is interesting to note that much of the previous research indicating the
corrective influence of group interaction has involved groups reaching a collaborative decision representing the entire group. In the present study, however, children
maintained their independence to formulate their own conclusions about the target
peer following group discussion. This difference in the nature and task demands
of the group experience may account for the fact that polarization was observed
in the present study. Children participated in a fairly structured discussion in
which all children articulated their opinions about the target peer’s achievement,
effort, and possible motivation. The repetitive exposure to fellow group members’
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
79
viewpoints on these issues may have served to reinforce more extreme views of
the peer than if evaluations were made without group discussion.
This possibility is consistent with Brauer et al. (1995), who suggested that
exposure to repeated expressions of an attitude may be an important mechanism
in shifting individuals’ judgments. This phenomenon is particularly relevant to
the group discussions in the present study specifically but also to the nature of
children’s reputation information exchange more generally. In our study, children
engaged in a discussion of the peer that involved a substantial amount of repetition
of participants’ expressed views of the target peer. Brauer et al. reported that such
repetition and validation of views in the context of group discussion is partly
responsible for the group polarization effect.
When considered in the context of how children likely communicate with one
another about a target peer’s academic performance, these findings shed light on
one mechanism by which low-achieving children may be socially ostracized by
their peers. Children’s informal communication and gossip about another peer’s
academic struggles likely involve a high rate of repeated observations and judgments about the peer rather than reflective analysis of the peer’s performance.
Such repetition of stated viewpoints is precisely the kind of information exchange
that Brauer et al. (1995) found to be instrumental in generating more extreme
judgments of a target peer. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that in the
absence of a precise verbal record of the participants’ discussions, it is impossible
to draw firm conclusions about the specific mechanism by which social discussion resulted in the observed polarizing effect. However, the present findings that
children’s discussions have such a polarizing effect on their judgments of a peer
underscore the importance of future research more closely examining the impact
of social interactions on peer perceptions.
It is interesting that, although evidence of the polarizing effect of discussion
was found among all children for ratings of anger, attributions of controllability,
and willingness to accept the peer into an academic work group, the polarizing
effect only among girls was found for ratings of pity, ability, and effort. These
findings may suggest a somewhat greater sensitivity and responsiveness of girls
to the effects of group discussion. This possibility is consistent with reported
gender differences in social interactions in that the peer relationships of girls are
characterized by higher levels of intimacy and self-disclosure than are the social
relationships of boys (e.g., Underwood, 2004).
In contrast with girls’ greater sensitivity to the group discussion manipulation,
boys were found to be somewhat more responsive to the effort manipulation
for attributions of control and academic acceptance. Juvonen and Murdock (1993)
suggested that effort attributions may be related to perceptions of competitiveness,
and in the present study children tended to view low effort as associated with lower
ability. These findings may suggest that boys are more sensitive to peer-related
social information that has relevance for competitive success. As such, boys were
80
HUENECKE AND WAAS
less willing to accept the peer into an academic work group in which the peer’s
relatively low effort, control, and ability might negatively impact the participant’s
own grade. Although the reasons that girls may be more responsive to discussion
and boys may be more responsive to effort cues remain speculative, these findings
underscore the possibility that older elementary-age children may exhibit genderbased differences in how social information about a peer’s academic performance
is processed and used during the formulation of judgments about the peer. The
precise nature and implications of such differences for classroom based practices,
as well as academic interventions, remains for future research.
Last, it is worth noting that although we demonstrated the effects of group
discussion on peer perceptions of a child exhibiting low achievement, these findings may also be relevant to the effects of social information exchange through
group discussion for other child characteristics relevant to peer relationships. For
example, it is well established that such characteristics as aggression, impulsivity,
and other externalizing behavioral difficulties are strongly related to negative peer
perceptions (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1987). Moreover, it has been widely reported
that improving the social acceptance of children exhibiting such difficulties is a
major challenge for clinicians (e.g., Bierman, 2004; Weisz, Weiss, Han, Granger,
& Morton, 1995).
The present findings regarding the impact of group discussion may point to
one mechanism by which a child’s negative reputation is propagated, and even increased, among the peer group. It will be important for future research to examine
the role of social discussion in peer evaluations of other characteristics that are relevant to peer relationships, and for both researchers and clinicians to incorporate
the role of the peer group into their treatment planning for such at-risk children.
To this end, it will be useful for future research efforts to examine the precise
mechanism by which social discussion influences children’s social decisions. Audiotaping and coding of children’s group discussion will allow for a more precise
analysis of why such polarization occurs and may contribute to the development
of interventions that target peer perceptions of at-risk children. A more detailed
assessment of children’s perceptions and attitudes toward the low-achieving peer
will also be important in future research efforts. The use of structured interviews,
for example, would provide greater insight into what dimensions of evaluation
are most relevant to the group polarization process. Finally, although this study
is useful in experimentally documenting the impact that children’s low effort and
group discussion may play in peer evaluations, it will be important to replicate
and extend these findings in the naturalistic environment of the classroom.
AUTHOR NOTES
Todd Huenecke is a practicing school psychologist in the Western suburbs of
Chicago with research interests in the areas of social perception and decision
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
81
making. Gregory Waas is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology
at Northern Illinois University with research interests in children’s peer relationships and social cognition.
REFERENCES
Bennett, T. R., & Flores, M. S. (1998). Help giving in achievement contexts: A developmental and
cultural analysis of the effects of children’s attributions and affects on their willingness to help.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 659–669.
Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection. New York: Guilford Press.
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude
polarization during group discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1014–1029.
Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 30, 69–79.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N. E. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational aggression,
physical aggression, and children’s social-psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 34, 131–142.
Crott, H. W., Szilvas, K., & Zuber, J. A. (1991). Group decision, choice shift, and polarization in
consulting, political, and local political scenarios: An experimental investigation and theoretical
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 22–41.
Engel, S., & Li, A. (2004). Narratives, gossip, and shared experience: How and what young children
know about the lives of others. In J. Lucariello, J. Hudson, R. Flvush, & P. Bauer (Eds.), Development
of the mediated mind: Sociocultural context and cognitive development (pp. 151–174). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. (2005). Peer academic reputation in elementary school:
Associations with changes in self-concept and academic skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,
97, 337–346.
Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes
do. In S. Graham & V. S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental
health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 17–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Juvonen, J. (1992). Negative peer reactions from the perspective of the reactor. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 314–321.
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social approval: Effects of audience and
achievement outcome on publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85, 365–376.
Karasawa, K. (1991). The effects of onset and offset responsibility and effects on helping judgments.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 482–499.
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and
groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.
Kistner, J. A., & Gatlin, D. (1989). Correlates of peer rejection among children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 133–140.
Kunnen, S. (1993). Attributions and perceived control over school failure in handicapped and nonhandicapped children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 113–125.
Margalit, M., & Levin-Alyagon, M. (1994). Learning disability, subtyping, loneliness, and classroom
adjustment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 297–310.
Miller, A. T., & Hom, H. L. (1997). Conceptions of ability and the interpretation of praise, blame, and
material rewards. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 163–177.
82
HUENECKE AND WAAS
Nelson, K. (1993). Events, narratives, memory: What develops? In C. Nelson (Ed.), Memory and affect
in development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Newman, R. S., & Spitzer, S. (1998). How children reason about ability from report card grades: A
developmental study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 133–146.
Normandeau, S., & Gobeil, A. (1998). A developmental perspective on children’s use of causal
attributions in achievement-related situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
22, 611–632.
Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2007). Relational aggression, victimization, and language development: Implications for practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 27, 146–166.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted
children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Skinner, E. A. (1990). What causes success and failure in school and friendship? Developmental
differentiation of children’s beliefs across middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 13, 157–176.
Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual
competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.
Stone, W. L., & La Greca, A. M. (1990). The social status of children with learning disabilities: A
reexamination. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 32–37.
Taylor, A. P., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between achievement values
and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and Latino students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 52–64.
Underwood, M. K. (2004). Gender and peer relations: Are the two gender cultures really that different?
In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations (pp. 21–36). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Callwood, D. (1993). Social status, peer
acceptance, and reciprocal friendships revisited. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8,
82–88.
Weiner, B. (1980). May I borrow your class notes? A attributional analysis of judgments of help giving
in an achievement related context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 676–681.
Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation.
American Psychologist, 9, 957–965.
Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral determinants of achievement evaluation
and achievement as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29, 163–172.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., Stern, P., & Lawson, M. E. (1982). Using affective cues to infer causal
thoughts. Developmental Psychology, 18, 278–286.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy with
children and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 450–468.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1995). The role of prior expectancy and group discussion in the
attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 82–105.
Wright, E. F., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Does group discussion attenuate the dispositional bias? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 531–546.
Wright, E. F., Luus, C. A. E., & Christie, S. D. (1990). Does group discussion facilitate the use of
consensus information in making causal attributions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 261–269.
Zuber, J. A., Crott, H. W., & Werner, J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of
arguments and social decision schemas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 50–61.
IMPACT OF DISCUSSION ON PEER EVALUATIONS
83
APPENDIX
Target Peer Descriptions
High effort (boy version):
When you are in class, you notice that Adam is usually working on the things
he is supposed to. Last week you were sitting with Adam when the teacher gave an
assignment; he started to work on it right away. The other day, when you worked
on a project with Adam, he worked really hard. You noticed that when the class
has an assignment, Adam uses the whole class period. He said that he wants to try
really hard to do a good job. When he doesn’t understand something, he asks the
teacher for help. When you sit next to Adam and you get your papers back, you
see that he gets bad grades. Sometimes he has to do assignments over because he
did them wrong the first time.
Low effort (girl version):
Whenever you look over at Beth, it seems like she is hardly ever working. The
other day the teacher was collecting everyone’s papers, and Beth didn’t turn hers
in. Later, when you were working with Beth, you noticed that it was hard to get
her to try very hard. When you work next to Beth, it seems like she takes a long
time to get started. One time, you saw Beth just write some answers down and
put the assignment away. She said she didn’t understand it anyway, but she didn’t
even ask for help. Other kids told you that Beth gets bad grades. One time you
saw her homework, and the teacher wrote a note saying that she had to do it over.
Copyright of Journal of Experimental Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.