Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /cedpsych

Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes:The role of competence beliefs and task values

Isabelle Plante c,⇑, Roxane de la Sablonnière b, Joshua M. Aronson a, Manon Théorêt d

a Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, United Statesb Département de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canadac Département d’Éducation et de Formation Spécialisées, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canadad Département de Psychopédagogie et d’Andragogie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 10 April 2013

Keywords:Gender stereotypesExpectancy-value theorySchool performanceCareer intentionsGender differences

0361-476X/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.004

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Département d’édlisées, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 88Montréal (Québec), Canada H3C 3P8.

E-mail address: plante.isabelle@uqam.ca (I. Plante

a b s t r a c t

In most Western societies, males are stereotyped as having stronger mathematical abilities than femaleswhereas females are stereotyped as having stronger verbal abilities than males. Exposure to negativeability stereotypes reliably undermines performance in laboratory experiments, yet the mechanismsby which such stereotypes may influence boys’ and girls’ achievement outcomes in the more naturalisticsetting of primary and secondary school remain unclear. The current study evaluated a hypothesis sug-gested by expectancy-value theories (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002): the relationship between stereotypesand achievement outcomes is importantly mediated by a student’s perceived competence and his or hervaluation of the domain in question. We tested the hypothesis by examining the career intentions andgrades of 762 sixth and eighth graders. As expected, even after controlling for prior achievement, stereo-type endorsement primarily predicted grades and career intentions indirectly, through students’ compe-tence beliefs and task values. These results suggest that stereotypes predict achievement-relatedoutcomes most clearly when students internalize them.

� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘‘Man often becomes what he believes himself to be. If I keep onsaying to myself that I cannot do a certain thing, it is possible thatI may end by really becoming incapable of doing it. On the contrary,if I have the belief that I can do it, I shall surely acquire the capacityto do it even if I may not have it at the beginning’’.

Mahatma Gandhi, cited in Attenborough (1983)

Educational research has provided ample verification of Gan-dhi’s faith in the power of belief to shape reality. Studies conductedsince the 1960s have found that students who hold or who are ex-posed to high expectations regarding their competence and poten-tial achieve better outcomes and have higher aspirations than theirunlucky counterparts who are exposed to lower expectations (Ban-dura, 1977; Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992; Rosen-thal & Jacobson, 1968; Tiedemann, 2000). Students’ beliefs abouttheir abilities are shaped by multiple influences and experiences.Our research examined the role of ability stereotypes, which por-

ll rights reserved.

ucation et formation spécia-88, Succursale Centre-Ville,

).

tray certain groups as either good or bad at some endeavor andhence provide a rough, category-based expectancy by which peo-ple may evaluate themselves and others (Aronson & Steele, 2005;Lips, 2005). Thus, African Americans are frequently stereotypedas intellectually inferior to Caucasian Americans, Asians are stereo-typed as superior at mathematics, women are stereotyped as moreverbal and less mathematical than men, and so on.

A great deal of research—particularly laboratory research basedon stereotype threat theory—has shown how stereotypes can di-rectly impact intellectual performance. Stereotype threat is said tooccur when individuals’ awareness of negative stereotypes abouttheir group becomes an apprehension about confirming such ste-reotypes. According to the stereotype threat formulation, the acti-vation of a negative stereotype via experimental instructions orother cues in the environment can elicit a disruptive state thatcan undermine performance and aspirations in stereotype relevantdomains (see Aronson & Steele, 2005; Steele, 1997). Applied to aca-demic gender stereotypes, research on stereotype threat generallyfinds that girls will perform more poorly when exposed to cuesthat remind them of the stereotypes that depict them as less ablethan boys in mathematics (Brown & Josephs, 1999; Inzlicht & Kang,2010; Quinn & Spencer, 2001; Schmader & Johns, 2003; Spencer,Steele, & Quinn, 1999). The negative influence of stereotype threatis frequently cited as a factor in the underrepresentation of womenin fields related to mathematics and in girls’ tendency to lag behind

226 I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

boys in mathematics as they move to higher levels of schooling orwhen they take high-stakes, timed tests like the SAT (e.g., Aronson& Steele, 2005; Halpern et al., 2007). Yet, nearly all of the researchon stereotype threat examines the effects of exposure to stereo-types over a brief period of time and measures their influence ona discrete, timed task of limited duration (e.g., a 30-min mathe-matic test taken during a psychology experiment). Moreover, thefocus in the few stereotype threat studies of longer duration hasbeen on college-level students (e.g., Massey & Fischer, 2005). Thisleaves unanswered vital questions about the role of academic ste-reotypes in school performance and career decision-making thatwe address with our research.

1.1. The relationship between mathematics stereotypes andachievement

First, do stereotypes predict performance in mathematics overtime among students in elementary and high school? Laboratoryexperiments performed with college samples find that remindingstudents about gender stereotypes undermines females’ perfor-mance on standardized mathematics tests (for reviews, see Aron-son & Steele, 2005; Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Yet in contrast to theresults of such studies, girls at the elementary and high school lev-els tend to perform as well as or even better on standardized math-ematics tests (Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2008; Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2005) and earnbetter grades in mathematics than boys (Downey & Yuan, 2005;Hyde & Mertz, 2009). Although such achievement patterns donot necessarily mean that stereotypes alleging a male superiorityin mathematics do not suppress elementary and high school girls’performance, they certainly underscore the possibility that stereo-types might produce different effects in schools than they do inlaboratories. Moreover, surveys suggest that students’ beliefs alignwith these performance patterns. Recent Australian studies, forexample, have found that students believe mathematics a domainequally fitting for boys and girls (Forgasz, Leder, & Kloosterman,2004), and recent studies from France (Martinot & Désert, 2007),America (Rowley, Kurtz-Costes, Mistry, & Feagans, 2007) and Can-ada (Plante, Théorêt, & Favreau, 2009), find that students perceive afemale advantage in their mathematics courses. This match be-tween stereotype endorsement and actual patterns of performancein school suggests that stereotype endorsement is likely to play animportant role in shaping students’ achievement in school overlonger periods of time. However, very few studies have specificallyfocused on students’ endorsement of stereotypes about mathemat-ical ability to examine whether these conceptions are related toachievement.

1.2. The relationship between language arts stereotypes andachievement

A second question is whether stereotypes affect boys, who arestereotyped as less able than girls in language arts—and who con-sistently perform worse than girls on tests and school performancein the language arts domain. For example, in the most recentadministration of the Programme for International Student Assess-ment (PISA), female students outperformed male students in read-ing literacy in every country (OECD, 2010). Coupled with the factthat vulnerability to stereotypes has been documented among bothsexes in the laboratory (Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson, 2006; Nguyen& Ryan, 2008), this raises the possibility that stereotypes mayinterfere with the verbal performance and learning of boys inschool. Moreover, recent studies found that students from elemen-tary and high school strongly endorse stereotypes alleging a femaleadvantage in language arts (Plante et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2007).However, field studies examining the links between the endorse-

ment of verbal stereotypes and boys’ and girls’ school outcomesare, to our knowledge, nonexistent. The current study thus sur-veyed students to examine the relationships between theirendorsement of both mathematics and language arts stereotypesand two important educational outcomes: grades and careerintentions.

1.3. The role of competence beliefs and task values in the relationshipbetween stereotype endorsement and achievement

What are the mechanisms underlying the relationship betweenstudents’ endorsement of mathematics or language arts stereo-types and their achievement outcomes in school? Stereotypethreat experiments have identified numerous mediators of stereo-type-performance effects (see Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008;Smith, 2004). However, there are reasons to believe that the mech-anisms involved in the stereotype-achievement relationship willdiffer over longer stretches of time and in the school context—where stereotypical cues are probably less consistent and salientthan in the laboratory. As a step toward identifying these mecha-nisms, the present study investigated the role of competence be-liefs and task values, two motivational variables assumed tomediate the relationships between gender stereotypes andachievement in school (Eccles, 1994; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Expectancy-value models posit that important achievementoutcomes, such as grades and occupational choices, are influencedmost proximally and directly by students’ expectations of successin a domain and the degree to which they value that domain (Ec-cles et al., 1983; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles,2000). The expectancy component refers to individuals’ beliefsabout their competence and self-efficacy whereas the value com-ponent corresponds to the degree to which they believe that anacademic task is worthwhile, important, and interesting (see Eccles& Wigfield, 2002; Eccles et al., 1983).

An extensive literature supports the validity of expectancy-va-lue models by showing that students’ competence beliefs and taskvalues predict achievement and choices in mathematics (Greene,DeBacker, Ravindran, & Krows, 1999; Marsh & Yeung, 1998; Spi-nath, Spinath, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2004) and language arts (Eccles,1987; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Spinath et al., 2004). Morespecifically, performance in school appears to stem directly fromfeelings of competence (Eccles et al., 1983; Marsh & Yeung,1998; Meece et al., 1990), whereas plans and enrollment decisionsappear to be a function of the value students place on a particularability domain (Crombie et al., 2005; Eccles, 2005; Stevens, Wang,Olivarez, & Hamman, 2007). Thus, the expectancy and value com-ponents of the model have independent and complementary ef-fects on behaviors and both are necessary to predict careeraspirations and choices as well as overall achievement.

Both competence beliefs and task values are thought to be influ-enced by socio-cultural variables (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Feather,1988; Pintrich, 2003). For instance, Eccles et al. (1983) propose thatsocial stereotypes affect students’ competence beliefs and task val-ues, which in turn, influence their school performance and careerdecisions. In other words, students’ competence beliefs and taskvalues should mediate the relationships between ability stereo-types and achievement-related outcomes. Only recently has thevalidity of this mediational hypothesis been empirically examined.Bonnot and Croizet (2007) evaluated the direct and indirect linksbetween the mathematics stereotypes endorsed by female univer-sity students enrolled in a field related to mathematics, their com-petence beliefs, and their grades. Among these women,internalization of stereotypes favoring males in mathematics pre-dicted lower competence beliefs in mathematics, which in turnpredicted lower grades in this domain.

I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235 227

Although these results show the mediating role of competencebeliefs in the stereotype-performance link among female collegestudents, they lack a number of important indicators that can clar-ify the relationships between stereotype endorsement andachievement outcomes among younger students, before they havechosen school-tracks related to mathematics, language arts, orotherwise. First, research conducted among younger students hasalmost exclusively examined the negative effects of stereotypesalleging a male superiority in mathematics on girls’ performance(Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001). Because recent studies sug-gest a changing landscape—there is a growing trend among stu-dents to see mathematics as more female than previouslyassumed (e.g., Rowley et al., 2007)—this warrants examination ofstereotypes and how they relate to both boys’ and girls’ achieve-ment and aspirations. Second, given that ability stereotypes notonly describe males’ and females’ intellectual capacities but alsoprescribe how they should feel about mathematics and languagearts (e.g., Leder & Forgasz, 2002), we expect stereotypes to predictnot only students’ competence beliefs but also their task values.Because task values influence enrollment decisions (e.g., Crombieet al., 2005), they may have an important mediating role in therelationship between stereotype endorsement and students’ careerintentions. Finally, because of the strength of students’ endorse-ment of stereotypes favoring girls in language arts (Plante et al.,2009; Rowley et al., 2007), the motivational processes linking suchstereotypical conceptions to boys’ and girls’ language arts perfor-mance or career aspirations need to be investigated further.

1.4. The present study

The present study evaluated the hypothesis that competencebeliefs and task values mediate the relationships between mathe-matics and language arts stereotype endorsement and twoachievement-related outcomes: grades and career intentions.According to previous literature (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Marsh &Yeung, 1998; Stevens et al., 2007), we predicted that it is primarilystudents’ competence beliefs that mediate the links between ste-reotypes and grades whereas we expected that the relationship be-tween stereotypes and career intentions is most importantlymediated by students’ valuation of the domain. Toward this end,we performed path analyses to test a theoretical model, presentedin Fig. 1, designed to evaluate the direct and indirect (i.e., medi-ated) links among the studied variables. In contrast with previousstudies that almost exclusively examined traditional stereotypesadvantaging males in mathematics and girls’ underachievement,

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

e e

e e

School Performance

Career Intentions

Fig. 1. Theoretical model evaluating the direct and indirect links between academicgender stereotypes, competence beliefs, task values, and the achievement outcomesof school performance and career intentions. Dashed lines represent paths that areexpected to be non-significant.

we were interested in evaluating the relationships between stereo-types favoring either gender in mathematics and language arts andboth boys’ and girls’ school outcomes. We therefore used a stereo-type measure that allowed participants to express stereotypesfavoring either boys or girls in mathematics and language arts,and tested our theoretical model separately for each gender andacademic domain.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Data were drawn from a large-scale study examining the role ofstereotypes and motivational variables on achievement-relatedoutcomes. In particular, prior work based on the same data setexamined how achievement goals might be related to expec-tancy-value variables in predicting achievement-related outcomes(see Plante, O’Keefe, & Théorêt, 2013). Rather, the current investi-gation focuses on the role of ability stereotypes and on the under-lying processes linking students’ stereotypical conceptions toachievement-related outcomes. Therefore, students for whom ameasure of ability stereotypes was available were selected. Thesample comprised 762 grade 6 (11–12 years old) and 8 (13–14 years old) French-speaking Canadians who took part in thestudy in mathematics (n = 718; m = 317, f = 401) and language arts(n = 700; m = 308, f = 392). Participants came from 14 publicschools in rural and suburban areas around Montreal (Quebec,Canada) mainly populated by Canadians of French Caucasianancestry. According to the socioeconomic index used by the Que-bec Ministry of Sports (2006) these schools were predominantly lo-cated in low-socioeconomic areas. All students at the appropriategrade level in each school were asked to participate and 76% ofthem both agreed and obtained parental authorization. Six addi-tional outliers were excluded because they deviated by more thanthree standard deviations from the mean for the studied variables.

2.2. Procedure

Students completed two in-classroom questionnaires measur-ing their stereotype endorsement, competence beliefs, task val-ues, and career intentions in mathematics and language artsrespectively. Because the current study included participantsyounger than those in most studies using similar self-reportmeasures, care was taken to ensure that the students understoodthe constructs being assessed. Thus, all questions were readaloud to the students. Additionally, in each classroom, the re-search assistant answered students’ questions about the wordingof any item and systematically provided a few examples of ca-reers related to mathematics (i.e., mathematic teacher; mathe-matician) or language arts (i.e., French teacher; author). Toavoid fatigue, the questionnaires were administered over two20- to 30-min sessions with an interval of 2 weeks between eachsession. To prevent order effects, questionnaire order was coun-terbalanced; half the students (randomly chosen) received themathematics questionnaire first, the other half received the lan-guage arts questionnaire first.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Gender stereotypesStudents’ gender stereotypes were assessed with two question-

naires previously validated among French-speaking Canadians(Plante, 2010). Each questionnaire included 32 items subdividedinto a Male Domain and Female Domain subscale, each comprising16 items. The Male Domain subscale evaluates the degree to which

(A) Girls in mathematics (B) Girls in language arts

(C) Boys in mathematics (D) Boys in language arts

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

TaskValues

.57 .54

.65 .61

.30***

School Performance

Career Intentions

.65*** .36***

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

TaskValues

.48 .42

.63 .57

.24***

School Performance

Career Intentions

.51*** .40***

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

TaskValues

.53 .54

.59 .68

.31***

School Performance

Career Intentions

.81*** .35***

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

TaskValues

.46 .49

.66 .66

.18***

School Performance

Career Intentions

.52*** .30***

Fig. 2. Final models for girls in mathematics (A) and in language arts (B) and for boys in mathematics (C) and in language arts (D) with maximum likelihood estimates(standardized estimates). �p < .05, ��p < .01, ���p < .001. All error terms are significant at p < .001.

228 I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

students agree with the notion that mathematics/language arts fa-vors boys (e.g., ‘‘The mathematical/language arts tasks performedin class are more suited to boys than girls’’; amathematics = .92; alan-

guage = .91). The Female Domain subscale evaluates the degree towhich students agree with the notion that mathematics/languagearts favors girls (e.g., ‘‘Girls have more natural mathematical/lan-guage arts ability than boys do’’; amathematics = .89; alanguage = .89).For each item, participants had to indicate their response on a se-ven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (1) to‘‘Strongly agree’’ (7).

In line with recent empirical studies conducted on students’ability stereotypes (Martinot & Désert, 2007; Rowley et al.,2007), mathematics and language arts stereotype scores weregenerated based on students’ ratings for each scale (Male Do-main and Female Domain). More precisely, difference scoreswere computed between the Male Domain and Female Domainscales. Subtracting the scores obtained for each scale revealsthe tendency to favor one gender over the other (see Plante,2010, for further details). To ensure coherence in scoring, thesubtraction [Male Domain–Female Domain] was performed forboys, and the subtraction [Female Domain–Male Domain] wasperformed for girls. Thus, a positive difference score indicatesthat students believe that the academic domain is better suitedfor their own gender, whereas a negative difference score indi-cates the opposite.

2.3.2. Competence beliefs and task valuesParticipants’ competence beliefs and task values in mathemat-

ics and language arts were measured with two scales validatedamong French-speaking Canadian students by Vezeau, Chouinard,Bouffard, and Couture (1998). The competence beliefs scales inmathematics and language arts each consists of 10 items evaluat-ing students’ self-perceptions of their competence in the given do-main (e.g., ‘‘I am certain I can succeed in mathematics/languagearts’’; amathematics = .89; alanguage = .83). The task values scale, whichcontains seven items for both domains, evaluates the value stu-dents place on mathematics or language arts (e.g., ‘‘Mathematics/French is useful for everyday life’’; amathematics = .80; alanguage = .80).For each item, participants indicated their response on a five-pointLikert scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘Stronglyagree’’ (5).

2.3.3. Career intentionsParticipants’ intention to work in fields related to mathematics

or language arts was measured by items used in prior research (seeCrombie et al., 2005; Stevens et al., 2007): ‘‘Later, I would like towork in a field related to mathematics’’ and ‘‘Later, I would liketo work in a field related to language.’’ For each item, participantsindicated their degree of agreement on a four-point Likert scaleranging from ‘‘Not at all true for me’’ (1) to ‘‘Totally true for me’’(4).

Table 1Mean group differences and correlations among variables as a function of academic domain and gender.

Mathmatics Language arts Correlations

Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

Girls1. Gender stereotypes .80 .97 1.42 .91 – .35*** .14** .06 .21***

2. Competence beliefs 3.37 .84 3.50 .74 .43*** – .54** .26*** .44***

3. Task values 3.61 .77 3.69 .66 .31*** .59*** – .40*** .14**

4. Career intentions 2.47 .92 2.55 .81 .21*** .39*** .47*** – .095. School performance .17 .94 .34 .88 .22*** .50*** .13* .10* –

Boys1. Gender stereotypes .27 1.41 �.87 1.09 – .26*** .19** .16** �.042. Competence beliefs 3.61 .80 3.19 .70 .42*** – .42*** .28*** .43***

3. Task values 3.70 .78 3.12 .70 .39*** .65*** – .36*** .074. Career intentions 2.77 .98 1.89 .88 .34*** .32*** .43*** – .085. School performance �.04 .97 �.23 .91 .08 .57*** .20*** .08 –

Values above the diagonal represent correlations in language arts. Values below the diagonal represent correlations in mathematics.* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235 229

2.3.4. Mathematics and language arts performanceThe participating schools provided us with students’ grades in

mathematics and French as they appeared on their report cards.For sixth graders, grades were obtained as numbers ranging from1 to 4, with 1 corresponding to the highest mark and 4 to the low-est. For eighth graders, grades were given as percentage scores. Toachieve consistency in scoring, scores for sixth-grade studentswere reversed so that the higher scores (close or equal to 4) indi-cate good marks, while the lower scores (close or equal to 1) indi-cated weak marks. Subsequently, grades in mathematics andFrench were converted in z-scores.

3. Results

Did competence beliefs and task values mediate the relation-ship between endorsement of ability stereotypes and studentgrades and career intentions? To address this question, we per-formed path analyses separately for boys and girls in mathematicsand in language arts. Before presenting the results of these pathanalyses, we first report means and standard deviations for thevariables included in the models, test for mean gender differences,and present the correlations among variables. In a second section,we present the results of the path analyses, which allowed us toevaluate the hypothesized model (see Fig. 1). Finally, in a third sec-tion, we test whether the relationships between the variables goabove and beyond individual differences in initial achievementby providing the results of the hypothesized model including stu-dents’ prior grades (see Fig. 3).

3.1. Descriptive statistics and mean group differences

Descriptive statistics and mean group differences for all vari-ables are shown in Table 1. For all five measured variables, weexamined the mean differences between boys and girls using t-tests. Because our hypotheses pertain to the within-subject rela-tionships among the different variables and not to average groupdifferences, we will only briefly describe these group differences.First, although both boys and girls conceived of mathematics as adomain more suited for their own gender, this pattern was morepronounced among girls (t(716) = �5.84; p < .001; g2 = .05). In lan-guage arts, the gender difference in students’ stereotypes wasstriking; both genders endorsed stereotypes favoring girls in lan-guage arts (t(698) = �29.61; p < .001; g2 = .56). These results lar-gely replicate findings examining self-reports of academic gender

stereotypes (Martinot & Désert, 2007; Rowley et al., 2007). Second,boys self-reported greater mathematical competence than girls(t(716) = 3.83; p < .001; g2 = .02) whereas boys’ and girls’ task val-ues did not significantly differ (t(716) = 1.62; p = .106; g2 < .01). Inlanguage arts, girls reported having more competence(t(698) = �5.35; p < .001; g2 = .04) and task values(t(698) = �10.46; p < .001; g2 = .14) compared to boys. Again, thesefindings are consistent with the repeatedly observed motivationalgaps between boys and girls in mathematics and language arts (Ja-cobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Marsh & Yeung,1998; Watt, 2008). Boys reported a higher likelihood of having acareer related to mathematics than did girls (t(716) = 4.01;p < .001; g2 = .02), while girls reported a greater inclination to pur-sue a career related to language arts (t(698) = �10.12; p < .001;g2 = .13). Finally, consistent with recent international surveys(Mullis et al., 2008; OECD, 2010), girls obtained higher grades thanboys in mathematics (t(716) = �2.93; p < .01; g2 = .01) and clearlyoutperformed them in language arts (t(698) = �8.45; p < .001;g2 = .09).

To evaluate the links between the studied variables, we thenexamined the correlations among the variables in mathematicsand in language arts. The correlations among the variables for bothgenders in mathematics and language arts are displayed in Table 1.As expected, the variables were generally correlated, with theexception of career intentions and grades, which were eitherweakly or non-significantly associated. These results are consistentwith those of previous studies showing direct links between stu-dents’ stereotypes and other motivational or achievement-relatedvariables (e.g., Guimond & Roussel, 2001; Schmader, Johns, & Bar-quissau, 2004).

3.2. Do competence beliefs and task values mediate the relationshipbetween stereotypes and school outcomes?

To evaluate the hypothesis that the links between stereotypeendorsement and the two output variables are mediated by stu-dents’ competence beliefs and task values, we tested our hypothe-sized model (see Fig. 1) by performing path analyses using Amosstatistical package Version 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006). In addition, be-cause competence beliefs and task values are generally found tobe highly correlated (Eccles et al., 1983; Spinath et al., 2004; Wig-field & Eccles, 2000), the error terms of these variables were al-lowed to covary in the tested model. Before performing pathanalyses, we conducted multigroup comparison analyses to exam-

Table 2Indexes of fit for initial and final models.

Model v2 df v2/df CFI RMSEA R2 career R2 grades

GirlsMathematics Initial model .34 1 .34 1.00 .00 .24 .29

Final model 1.66 3 .55 1.00 .00 .24 .29

Language arts Initial model .04 1 .04 1.00 .00 .16 .21Final model 3.02 4 .55 1.00 .00 .16 .21

BoysMathematics Initial model .17 1 .17 1.00 .00 .22 .40

Final model .17 2 .92 1.00 .00 .22 .40

Language arts Initial model .01 1 .01 1.00 .00 .16 .22Final model 1.51 2 .76 1.00 .00 .16 .22

230 I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

ine invariance across school level and gender. To test for school le-vel invariance, a model in which all paths were allowed to varyacross school level was compared to a model in which all pathswere constrained to be equal across groups, using chi-square dif-ference tests. Results showed that the constrained and uncon-strained models fit equally well in mathematics (Dv2(9) = 14.73;p = ns) and language arts (Dv2(9) = 8.72; p = ns), suggesting thatthe paths do not significantly vary across school level. Therefore,sixth and eighth graders were combined in path analyses. Toexamine gender invariance, a model in which all paths were al-lowed to vary across gender was compared with a model in whichall paths were constrained to be equal across groups. Chi-squaredifference tests revealed that the model fit was significantly im-proved when the paths were allowed to vary across gender inmathematics (Dv2(9) = 25.93; p < .01) and language arts(Dv2(9) = 21.04; p < .05). Therefore, the hypothesized model wastested separately for boys and girls, in mathematics and languagearts.

As recommended (Hoyle, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999), several fitindexes were examined to better assess the adequacy of our mod-els, including chi-square (v2) and its ratio with degree of freedom(v2/df), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the RootMean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). Thechi-square is a test of the level of discrepancy between the fittedcovariance, as specified in the hypothesized model, and the samplecovariance. A finding of non-significance corresponds to an ade-quate model. A good fit of a specified model to the data is also gen-erally indicated when the v2/df ratio is less than three (Kline,2005). For the CFI, values above .90 indicate good model fit (Ben-tler, 1990; Bollen, 1990; Kline, 2005). RMSEA values below .05indicate an excellent model fit, whereas values of .05–.08 reveala good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Additionally, our mediationalhypothesis (i.e., the indirect links between gender stereotypes andthe output variables) was assessed by performing bootstrap analy-ses that simulated 2000 samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Thebootstrapping method tests whether the indirect relationship be-tween a predictor variable and the outcome variable is significantin the context of a model that controls for multiple covariates (Che-ung & Lau, 2008). Finally, to evaluate our hypothesis that the rela-tionships between competence beliefs and grades would be greaterthan those between competence beliefs and career intentions, afully constrained model was compared to a model in which thepaths between competence beliefs and the outcome measureswere allowed to vary, using chi-square difference tests. Similarly,to test our prediction that task values would be a better predictorof career intentions than grades, a fully constrained model wascompared to a model in which the links between task values andthe achievement-related outcomes were allowed to vary, usingchi-square difference tests. Fit indexes of the initial and final mod-els are displayed separately for both genders, in mathematics and

language arts, in Table 2. The final models are displayed in Fig. 2a–d. Results are explained separately for both genders and school do-mains in the next section.

3.2.1. Stereotypes and girls’ achievement3.2.1.1. Mathematics. For girls in mathematics, the initially hypoth-esized model provided an excellent fit to the data (see Table 2).Additionally, as expected, the direct paths between endorsementof stereotypes in mathematics and the two achievement outcomeswere not significant. After removing these non-significant links, re-sults of the path analysis still indicated a very good fit to the data(see Table 2). This model was thus considered as final. Fig. 2a dis-plays the standardized estimates for girls in mathematics. Asshown in Fig. 2a, results for girls in mathematics confirmed our ini-tial hypothesis that competence beliefs and task values mediatethe relationship between endorsement of mathematical stereo-types and both career intentions and grades. Indeed, bootstrap re-sults revealed that the mediating role of competence beliefs andtask values led to significant indirect links between stereotypesand grades (b = .20, p < .001; 95% CI: .14, .26), as well as betweenstereotypes and the intention to work in a field related to mathe-matics (b = .19, p < .001; 95% CI: .13, .24). Additionally, as expected,the link between girls’ competence beliefs and their grades inmathematics (b = .65, p < .001) was greater than that between theircompetence beliefs and career intentions (b = .18, p < .001), asrevealed by the chi-square difference test (Dv2(2) = 15.31;p < .001). Conversely, chi-square difference results,Dv2(2) = 39.00; p < .001, showed that the link between task valuesand career intentions (b = .36, p < .001) was greater than that be-tween task values and grades, which happened to be negative(b = �.26, p < .001).

3.2.1.2. Language arts. Results of the path analysis for girls in lan-guage arts revealed that the theoretical model showed a very goodfit to the data (see Table 2). Again, as hypothesized, the direct linksbetween girls’ stereotypes in language arts and the achievement-related outcomes were not significant. Less expectedly, however,girls’ competence beliefs did not significantly predict their careerintentions. The final model, which did not include these non-signif-icant paths, yielded similar fit indexes (see Table 2). Fig. 2b dis-plays the standardized estimates of the final model for girls inlanguage arts. As hypothesized, results confirmed that competencebeliefs and task values mediate the relationship between languagearts gender stereotypes and grades. Specifically, path coefficientsrevealed a positive indirect link between girls’ stereotypes andtheir language performance, which was significantly mediated bytheir competence beliefs and task values (b = .16, p < .01; 95% CI:.11, .21). Although the link between girls’ competence beliefs andcareer intentions was removed, the indirect relationship betweentheir stereotypes and their intentions to work in a language-re-

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

e e

e

Current School Performance

Prior School Performance

e

Career Intentions

e

Fig. 3. Theoretical model evaluating the direct and indirect links between academicgender stereotypes, competence beliefs, task values, and the achievement outcomesof school performance and career intentions while controlling for prior achieve-ment. Dashed lines represent paths that are expected to be non-significant.

I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235 231

lated field, through their task values, was also significant, as re-vealed by a bootstrap analysis (b = .06, p < .01; 95% CI: .02, .10). Gi-ven that the link between competence beliefs and career intentionswas removed from the final model, we could not statisticallyexamine our hypothesis that competence beliefs better predictsgrades than career intentions. Nevertheless, it should be noted thatthe relationship between competence beliefs and grades washighly significant (b = .51, p < .001) whereas the relationship be-tween competence beliefs and career intentions was non-signifi-cant and thus was removed from the final model. Additionally, ashypothesized, the chi-square difference test, Dv2(2) = 29.24;p < .001, indicated that the link between task values and careerintentions (b = .40, p < .001) was greater than that between taskvalues and grades, which was once again negative (b = �.14,p = .009).

3.2.2. Stereotypes and boys’ achievement3.2.2.1. Mathematics. Results of the path analysis for boys in math-ematics showed that the initial model provided a good fit to thedata (see Table 2). Examination of the coefficients showed that incontrast with our mediational hypothesis that the direct paths be-tween stereotypes and the achievement outcomes would not besignificant, the only non-significant link was between competencebeliefs and career intentions. Removing this non-significant pathled to similar fit indexes (see Table 2). This second model was thusconsidered as final. Fig. 2c illustrates the final model with the stan-dardized coefficients for boys in mathematics. The final model forboys in mathematics revealed that competence beliefs and taskvalues partially mediate the relationship between stereotypesand grades. Indeed, bootstrapping revealed a significant indirectrelationship between stereotypes and grades (b = .24; p < .001;95% CI: .17, .32), and between stereotypes and the intentions towork in a field related to mathematics (b = .14; p < .001; 95% CI:.10, .19). In contrast to predictions, there was also a significant po-sitive direct link between stereotype endorsement and careerintentions (b = .20; p < .001) and a negative direct link between ste-reotype endorsement and grades in mathematics (b = �.16;p = .002). Although we could not statistically confirm that compe-tence beliefs are a better predictor of grades than career intentionsbecause the path between competence beliefs and career inten-tions was removed from the final model, the link between compe-tence beliefs and grades was quite substantial (b = .81, p < .001)whereas the relationship between competence beliefs and careerintentions was non-significant. Conversely, the chi-square differ-ence test, Dv2(2) = 18.36; p < .001, confirmed that the link betweentask values and career intentions (b = .35, p < .001) was greaterthan that between task values and mathematics grades, whichwas once again negative (b = �.27, p < .001).

3.2.2.2. Language arts. Results of path analysis for boys in languagearts revealed that the initial model provided good fit indexes (seeTable 2). In line with a part of our mediational hypothesis, the di-rect link between language arts stereotypes and career intentionwas not significant. After removing this non-significant path, thissecond model still provided acceptable fit indexes and was thusconsidered as final (see Table 2). Standardized estimates for boysin language arts are displayed in Fig. 2d. The final model for boysin language arts revealed that competence beliefs and task valuespartially mediate the relationship between language arts stereo-types and grades, as confirmed by a bootstrap analysis (b = .11,p < .001; 95% CI: .06, .17). However, we also found a negative directlink between boys’ language arts stereotypes and their grades(b = �.15, p = .004), which almost nullified the relationship be-tween stereotypes and grades, as shown by the negligible correla-tion between these two variables (r = �.04, p = .501). Additionally,bootstrapping revealed that boys’ competence beliefs and task val-

ues significantly mediate the relationship between stereotypes andthe intentions to work in a language-related field (b = .10, p < .001;95% CI: .05, .15). As expected, chi-square difference results re-vealed the link between competence beliefs and language artsgrades (b = .52, p < .001) to be greater than that between compe-tence beliefs and career intentions (b = .16, p < .001;Dv2(2) = 32.03; p < .001). In a similar fashion, a chi-square differ-ence test, Dv2(2) = 18.80; p < .001, showed that the link betweentask values and career intentions (b = .30, p < .001) was more pro-nounced than that between task values and grades, which wasonce again negative (b = �.12, p = .029).

3.3. Ruling out prior achievement as an alternative explanation of therelationships between the studied variables

Finally, we explored the possibility that the relationships de-scribed above could be due to students’ prior achievement inmathematics or language arts. Indeed, it is possible that the posi-tive links between students’ ability stereotypes, motivation andthe achievement outcomes are explained by the fact that studentswho are high achievers endorse stereotypes favoring their owngender group and are highly motivated. To rule out this possibility,we tested an additional path model similar to the initial one butcontrolling for students’ prior grades. This model is displayed inFig. 3.

Given that a graded score of the beginning-of-year performancewas only available for the eighth graders in our sample, this pathmodel was tested among eighth-grade students (n = 407), sepa-rately in mathematics (n = 386; m = 160, f = 226) and language arts(n = 380; m = 154, f = 220) and for both genders. Final models aredisplayed in Fig. 4a–d and fit indexes of these additional path anal-yses are presented in Table 3. Results showed that most of the linksremained significant and in the same direction. Additionally, aftercontrolling for students’ prior achievement, none of the direct linksbetween students’ stereotypes and the two achievement outcomeswere significant, even for boys. Furthermore, with the exception ofthe indirect relationship between girls’ language arts stereotypesand their grades, which was marginally significant (p = .09), boys’and girls’ academic gender stereotypes indirectly predicted theirachievement outcomes (all ps < .05).

(A) Girls in mathematics (B) Girls in language arts

(C) Boys in mathematics (D) Boys in language arts

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

.44 .53

.29 .62

.26***

Current School Performance

Career Intentions

.14** .36***

Prior School Performance

.76***

.23***.86

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

.40 .41

.35 .61

.23***

Current School Performance

Career Intentions

.17** .40***

Prior School Performance

.72***

.34***.74

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

.32 .41

.35 .79

.18***

Current School Performance

Career Intentions

.35*** .35***

Prior School Performance

.63***

.21**.96

Gender Stereotypes

Competence Beliefs

Task Values

.31 .48

.47 .66

.15***

Current School Performance

Career Intentions

.21** .32***

Prior School Performance

.53***

.99

Fig. 4. Final models controlling for prior achievement for girls in mathematics (A) and in language arts (B) and for boys in mathematics (C) and in language arts (D) withmaximum likelihood estimates (standardized estimates). �p < .05, ��p < .01, ���p < .001. All error terms are significant at p < .001.

Table 3Indexes of fit for initial and final models controlling for prior achievement.

Model v2 df v2/df CFI RMSEA R2 career R2 grades

GirlsMathematics Initial model 1.23 1 1.23 .99 .03 .24 .67

Final model 3.83 4 0.96 1.00 .00 .24 .67

Language arts Initial model .80 1 .80 1.00 .00 .17 .57Final model 5.52 7 .79 1.00 .00 .17 .57

BoysMathematics Initial model .23 1 .23 1.00 .00 .22 .63

Final model 2.06 5 0.41 1.00 .00 .23 .63

Language arts Initial model 4.48* 1 4.48 .98 .15 .16 .40Final model 11.32 8 1.41 .98 .05 .16 .40

* p < .05.

232 I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

4. Discussion

The current study sought to examine the underlying mecha-nisms by which ability stereotypes influence boys’ and girls’

achievement and aspirations in the natural setting of school. To-ward this end, we tested the mediating role of competence beliefsand task values in the relationship between stereotype endorse-ment and both school grades and career intentions. Extending

I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235 233

prior work on stereotypes and girls’ achievement in mathematics(e.g., Ambady et al., 2001; Bonnot & Croizet, 2007), we evaluatedthese links in both mathematics and language arts among bothboys and girls from elementary and high school. Another originalaspect of the study was that it evaluated a model that includedboth students’ competence beliefs and task values as mediatorsof the relationship between academic stereotypes and two impor-tant achievement outcomes: grades and career intentions.

4.1. Summary and integration of findings

Overall, our results provided support for the hypothesis thatstereotype endorsement predicts school outcomes, although thecorrelations between stereotype endorsement and grades and ca-reer intentions were somewhat smaller than would be expectedfrom the experimental research. Additionally, after controlling forstudents’ prior grades, the links between gender stereotypes, com-petence beliefs and achievement were relatively small, especiallycompared with the strong coefficients between previous schoolperformance and future school performance. Most importantly, re-sults of the current study showed that in contrast to the portraitpainted by laboratory studies, the relationship between ability ste-reotypes and school outcomes is indirect. Specifically, competencebeliefs and task values mediate the association between mathe-matics and language arts stereotypes and the achievement out-comes of school performance and career intentions. For girls inmathematics and language arts, the relationship between stereo-type endorsement and educational outcomes was indirect andcompletely mediated by their competence beliefs and task values,or exclusively by their task values in language arts for the stereo-types-career intention link. For boys, the data yielded evidencefor partial mediation: the indirect associations between their ste-reotype endorsement and their grades and career intentions weresignificant in both academic domains. In controlling for initial lev-els of performance, our study also showed that the indirect rela-tionships between students’ stereotypes and their schooloutcomes are not simply a function of prior achievement. Addi-tionally, students’ school performance was predicted mainly bytheir competence beliefs, whereas their career intentions were pre-dicted mainly by their task values, a result consistent with previ-ous findings (e.g., Crombie et al., 2005; Eccles, 1994). These lastresults suggest that the association between stereotypes andgrades was mediated primarily by feelings of competence, whereasthe relationship between stereotype endorsement and careerintentions was mediated primarily by how much students valuethe domain in question.

On the whole, such mediational findings suggest that in school,it is not students’ stereotypical views per se that predict theirschool performance and career intentions, but rather the internali-zation of these stereotypes reflected by their self-competence andtask values. These findings have important implications. They sug-gest that even if students personally endorse stereotypes favoring agender in a given domain, such conceptions are likely to be unre-lated with their school outcomes if they do not internalize them.Consequently, more effort should be exerted to promote the ideathat even if stereotypes portray a domain as better suited to a spe-cific gender, individuals need not internalize these stereotypes.Understanding why some students are more or less likely to usegender stereotypes to define their own self-competence and taskvalues is a valuable direction for future research.

The use of path analysis also yielded unexpected findings thatcould not have been observed with simple correlations and thatunderline the complexity of the links between stereotypes, moti-vational beliefs, and achievement outcomes. In contrast withprior literature predicting a small but positive link between taskvalues and school performance (Crombie et al., 2005; Eccles,

1994; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), we repeatedly observed a nega-tive relationship between task values and grades. This unex-pected negative link between task values and grades originatesfrom a reciprocal suppressor effect (Lancaster, 1999; Lutz,1983) that occurs when two predicting variables mutually sup-press irrelevant variance in each other, hence the term ‘‘recipro-cal’’ (Lutz, 1983). This phenomenon leads to a significantcorrelation between two variables and between themselves anda third predicted variable, as well as to significant reversedregression weights between one of the variables and the depen-dent one (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood,2000). In our study, the suppressor effects revealed that despitesignificant and positive correlations between task values andgrades and career intentions, there was a negative regressionpath between task values and school grades. This means thatwhen the variance related to competence beliefs—the best pre-dictor of grades—is controlled, task values predict lower schoolperformance. In other words, the portion of students’ task valuesthat is not consistent with their competence beliefs (i.e., theresidual variance exclusively related to task values) negativelypredicts their school performance.

Although these negative paths between task values and gradesappear counter-intuitive, they nicely fit with what is often de-scribed as the ‘‘choking under pressure’’ phenomenon. This phe-nomenon has repeatedly shown that high pressure can lead todecrements in cognitive performance (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001;Gimmig, Huguet, Caverni, & Cury, 2006). Such findings suggest thathaving high task values but low competence beliefs, increasespressure to perform, which in turn, impairs school performance.Consequently, interventions aimed at enhancing students’ task val-ues might be pernicious if they are not coupled with high compe-tence beliefs. This ‘‘choking under pressure’’ interpretation couldalso explain the negative direct link between boys’ stereotypesand their grades. Thus, when combined with low self-competenceand task values, endorsing strong stereotypes favoring the in-group might increase pressure to perform well and lead to under-performance. Nevertheless, more studies will be needed to evalu-ate this ‘‘choking under pressure’’ hypothesis.

The only direct positive link between stereotypes and achieve-ment outcomes was observed between boys’ stereotypes and theirintention to work in a field related to mathematics when priorachievement was not included in the analyses. This result suggeststhat even if boys do not internalize their stereotypes through theircompetence beliefs and task values, endorsing positive stereotypesin mathematics may be sufficient to increase their desire to enrollin a field related to mathematics. Thus, in spite of students’ overalltendency to view mathematics as a more neutral domain, or evenas a domain better suited to females, the remnants of traditionalstereotypes favoring boys in mathematics directly predict boys’intentions to work in a field related to mathematics. Such pressureto conform to traditional mathematics stereotypes could help ex-plain the increased representation of boys in mathematical do-mains, despite that girls obtain similar or higher grades inmathematics than boys do (Downey & Yuan, 2005; Hyde & Mertz,2009). These results are also consistent with findings showing thatboys feel more pressure than girls do to conform to gender norms(Smith & Leaper, 2005). Further studies evaluating the role ofgender conformity in the relationship between gender stereotypesand career decisions could clarify this interpretation.

4.2. Limitations and future directions

This study has some limitations that need to be considered andshould be addressed in future research. Despite the use of pathanalysis, the correlational nature of the data does not permit causalinferences. Additionally, because most data has been collected at a

234 I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235

single time point, the regression weights resulting from the pathanalyses might have been inflated. Thus, experimental researchwould be needed in order to make stronger claims regarding thecausal influence of stereotype endorsement and motivational vari-ables on educational outcomes. Importantly however, in control-ling for initial levels of performance, our study was able to showthat the relationship among ability stereotypes, motivation andschool outcomes are beyond individual differences in priorachievement. A second limitation of the present study concernsthe generalizability of the results. Given that the study was con-ducted predominantly in low-socioeconomic areas, it is possiblethat students held different stereotypes than do students frommore privileged areas (Lips, 2005; Schneider, 2004) and showeddifferent patterns of achievement (see Sirin, 2005 for a meta-anal-ysis). However, there are reasons to believe that the links betweenstereotypes, motivational variables and achievement outcomeswould be similar with students from more privileged areas. Indeed,the links between stereotypes and self-perceptions were observedwith samples from various socioeconomic backgrounds (e.g., Mar-tinot & Désert, 2007), thus suggesting that socioeconomic back-ground does not moderate these links. Additionally, prior workfound that the relationship between expectancy-value variablesand achievement remains similar regardless of socioeconomicbackground (Ming & Xihua, 2008; Schultz, 1993). Nevertheless,more studies conducted in various socioeconomic areas will beneeded to further support the generalizability of our results.

A third limitation of the study is related to the use of a one-itemmeasure to assess students’ career intentions. Given that one-itemmeasures make it impossible to calculate reliability indicators, re-sults about students’ intentions to work in a field related to math-ematics or language arts should be interpreted with caution.Additionally, the examples provided during the administrationsof the questionnaires regarding a career related to mathematicsor language arts might have influenced students’ interpretationof the items. Therefore, despite the fact that the correlations be-tween career intentions and motivational variables corroborateprior findings (e.g., Crombie et al., 2005; Marsh & Yeung, 1998),and thus support the validity of the career aspiration measures, fu-ture research replicating the results with more refined measures ofthe construct or actual course enrolment will be needed. Finally,another relevant avenue for future research on the topic wouldbe to investigate how ability stereotypes in different school do-mains might shape students’ basis to evaluate their self-compe-tence (i.e., internal or external, see Marsh & Hau, 2004) andpredict their achievement outcomes.

5. Conclusion

Consistent with expectancy-value models (e.g., Eccles & Wig-field, 2002), the current investigation showed that the relation-ships between the endorsement of gender stereotypes inmathematics and language arts and educational outcomes are gen-erally mediated by students’ competence beliefs and task values.Such findings suggest that in the natural setting of school, endors-ing stereotypes may not be sufficient to predict students’ gradesand career intentions. Rather, it is the internalization of ability ste-reotypes, through self-competence and task values, which maysuppress or increase students’ achievement outcomes. Future re-search evaluating the distinctive characteristics of individualswho do not use stereotypes as a basis of their competence beliefsand task values would serve to better understand how to preventthe negative effects of academic stereotypes. Overall, a betterunderstanding of the underlying mechanisms of social stereotypesis a step toward equity, which is a central value and goal of mostWestern societies (Forell, 2006).

Acknowledgments

We thank Mathieu Roy and Tricia Voda for thoughtful com-ments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a doctoralscholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada to the first author, and by a Spencer ResearchGrant to the third author.

References

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility inchildren: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance.Psychological Science, 12(5), 385–390.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User’s guide. Pennsylvania, PA: SPSS.Aronson, J. M., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic

competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436–456). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Attenborough, R. (1983). The words of Gandhi. New York, NY: Newmarket Press.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What

governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130(4), 701–725.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109.

Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of samplesize effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259.

Bonnot, V., & Croizet, J.-C. (2007). Stereotype internalization and women’s mathperformance: The role of interference in working memory. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 857–866.

Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance andgender differences in math performance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 76(2), 246–257.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects oflatent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 11(2), 296–325.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for thebehavioral sciences. New York, NY: Wiley.

Crombie, G., Sinclair, N., Silverthorn, N., Byrne, B. M., DuBois, D. L., & Trinneer, A.(2005). Predictors of young adolescents’ math grades and course enrollmentintentions: Gender similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 52(5), 351–367.

Downey, D. B., & Yuan, A. S. (2005). Sex differences in school performance duringhigh school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations. Sociological Quarterly,46(2), 299–321.

Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–171.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices:Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task-value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence andmotivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al.(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA:Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. AnnualReview of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.

Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role ofpersonal values within an expectancy-valence framework. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 80(3), 381–391.

Forell, C. A. (2006). Gender equality, social values and provocation law in the UnitedStates, Canada and Australia. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 14(1),26–69.

Forgasz, H. J., Leder, G. C., & Kloosterman, P. (2004). New perspectives on the genderstereotyping of mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4),389–420.

Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J.-P., & Cury, F. (2006). Choking under pressure andworking memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluidintelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1005–1010.

Greene, B. A., DeBacker, T. K., Ravindran, B., & Krows, A. (1999). Goals, values, andbeliefs as predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematicsclasses. Sex Roles, 40(5), 421–458.

Guimond, S., & Roussel, L. (2001). Bragging about one’s school grades: Genderstereotyping and students’ perception of their abilities in science, mathematics,and language. Social Psychology of Education, 4(3–4), 275–293.

I. Plante et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013) 225–235 235

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbache, M. A.(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. PsychologicalScience in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance

structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,106(22), 8801–8807.

Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threatsto social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 467–481.

Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being thetarget of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262–269.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypicbeliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 63(6), 932–944.

Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes inchildren’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences acrossgrades one through twelve. Child Development, 73(2), 509–527.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Guilford.

Lancaster, B. P. (1999). Defining and interpreting suppressor effects: Advantages andlimitations. Paper presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association,San Antonio, TX.

Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. (2002). Two new instruments to probe attitudes (No.Document ERIC no. ED463312): ERIC, Resources in Education.

Lips, H. M. (2005). Sex & gender: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lutz, J. G. (1983). A method for constructing data which illustrate three types ofsuppressor variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(4),373–377.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Suppression effect.Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations betweenacademic self-concepts and achievements: Cross-cultural generalizability of theInternal/External frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal ofEducationa Psychology, 96(1), 56–67.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models ofacademic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in thedevelopment of math and English constructs. American Educational ResearchJournal, 35(4), 705–738.

Martinot, D., & Désert, M. (2007). Awareness of a gender stereotype, personal beliefsand self-perceptions regarding math ability: When boys do not surpass girls.Social Psychology of Education, 10(4), 455–471.

Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M. J. (2005). Stereotype threat and academic performance.New findings from a racially diverse sample of college freshmen. Du BoisReview: Social Science Research on Race, 2(1), 45–67.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and itsinfluence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performancein mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60–70.

Ming, M. C., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematicsachievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction,18(4), 321–336.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, O. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematicsreport: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study atthe fourth and Eighth grades. Boston, MA: IMSS & PIRLS International StudyCenter.

Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect testperformance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimentalevidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009results: What students know and can do. Student performance in reading,mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Retrieved 24.01.11. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). Education at aglance: OECD indicators 2005. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons Inc..

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, andapplications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Plante, I. (2010). Adaptation and validation of instruments measuring genderstereotypes in mathematics and language arts. Mesure et Évaluation enÉducation, 33(2), 1–34.

Plante, I., O’Keefe, P. A., & Théorêt, M. (2013). The relation between achievementgoal and expectancy-value theories in predicting achievement-relatedoutcomes: A test of four theoretical conceptions. Motivation & Emotion, 37(1),65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9282-9.

Plante, I., Théorêt, M., & Favreau, O. E. (2009). Student gender stereotypes:Contrasting the perceived maleness and femaleness of mathematics andlanguage. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 385–405.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies forassessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Quebec Ministry of Sports and Education (2006). Indices de défavorisation. <http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/Stat/Indice_defav/index_ind_def.htm> Retrieved17.04.07.

Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). The interference of stereotype threat withwomen’s generation of mathematical problem-solving strategies. Journal ofSocial Issues, 57(1), 55–71.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (Eds.). (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacherexpectations and student intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt.

Rowley, S. J., Kurtz-Costes, B., Mistry, R., & Feagans, L. (2007). Social status as apredictor of race and gender stereotypes in late childhood and earlyadolescence. Social Development, 16(1), 150–168.

Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threatreduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(3), 440–452.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting genderdifferences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in themath domain. Sex Roles, 50(11–12), 835–850.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model ofstereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2),336–356.

Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Schultz, G. F. (1993). Socioeconomic advantage and achievement motivation:

Important mediators of academic performance in minority children in urbanschools. The Urban Review, 25(3), 1993.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review ofmediational variables and new performance goal directions. EducationalPsychology Review, 16(3), 177–206.

Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2005). Self-perceived gender typicality and the peercontext during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), 91–103.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’smath performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.

Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2004). Predicting schoolachievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsicvalue. Intelligence, 34(4), 363–374.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identityand performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An intervalestimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

Stevens, T., Wang, K., Olivarez, A., Jr., & Hamman, D. (2007). Use of self-perspectivesand their sources to predict the mathematics enrollment intentions of girls andboys. Sex Roles, 56(5–6), 351–363.

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictorsof children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144–151.

Vezeau, C., Chouinard, R., Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (1998). Adaptation andvalidation of the Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitudes scales among highschool boys and girls. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 30(2),137–140.

Watt, H. M. (2008). A latent growth curve modeling approach using an acceleratedlongitudinal design: The ontogeny of boys’ and girls’ talent perceptions andintrinsic values through adolescence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(4),287–304.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievementmotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.