Maximizing science achievement is a critical target of educational policy and has important implications for national and international economic and technological competitiveness. Previous research has identified both science interest and socioeconomic status (SES) as robust predictors of science achievement, but little research has examined their joint effects. In a data set drawn from approximately 400,000 high school students from 57 countries, we documented large Science Interest × SES and Science Interest × Per Capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) interactions in the prediction of science achievement. Student interest in science is a substantially stronger predictor of science achievement in higher socioeconomic contexts and in higher-GDP nations. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that in higher-opportunity contexts, motivational factors play larger roles in learning and achievement. They add to the growing body of evidence indicating that substantial cross-national differences in psychological effect sizes are not simply a logical possibility but, in many cases, an empirical reality.
AltonjiJ. G.MansfieldR. K. (2011). The role of family, school, and community characteristics in inequality in education and labor-market outcomes. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity?Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 339–358). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
2.
BradleyR. H.CorwynR. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.
3.
CattellR. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
ColemanJ. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
6.
FredricksJ. A.EcclesJ. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519
7.
FriedmanT. L. (2013, December7). Can’t we do better?The New York Times, p. SR11.
8.
HanushekE. A. (2014). Why the U.S. results on PISA matter. Education Week, 33, 20–21.
9.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
10.
HullemanC. S.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067
11.
JacobsJ. E.EcclesJ. S. (2000). Parents, task values, and real-life achievement-related choices. In SansoneC.HarackiewiczJ. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation (pp. 405–439). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
KleinR. A.RatliffK. A.VianelloM.AdamsR. B.BahnikS.BernsteinM. J . . . NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152.
14.
KnudsenE. I.HeckmanJ. J.CameronJ. L.ShonkoffJ. P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 10155–10162. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600888103
15.
MarshH. W.MartinA. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 59–77. doi:10.1348/000709910X503501
16.
MarshH. W.O’MaraA. (2008). Reciprocal effects between academic self-concept, self-esteem, achievement, and attainment over seven adolescent years: Unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives of self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 542–552. doi:10.1177/0146167207312313
17.
MarshH. W.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KöllerO.BaumertJ. (2005). Academic self-concept, interests, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76, 397–416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x
18.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
19.
NagengastB.MarshH. W. (2012). Big fish in little ponds aspire more: Mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1033–1053. doi:10.1037/a0027697
20.
NagengastB.MarshH. W.ScalasL. F.XuM. K.HauK. T.TrautweinU. (2011). Who took the “×” out of expectancy-value theory? A psychological mystery, a substantive-methodological synergy, and a cross-national generalization. Psychological Science, 22, 1058–1066. doi:10.1177/0956797611415540
21.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/9789264026407-en
24.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Vol. 2. Data. Paris, France: Author.
25.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris, France: Author.
26.
SchiefeleU.KrappA.WintelerA. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In RenningerK. A.HidiS.KrappA. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
SearsD. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
29.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
30.
Tucker-DrobE. M.BrileyD. A. (2012). Socioeconomic status modifies interest-knowledge associations among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 9–15. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.004
31.
Tucker-DrobE. M.BrileyD. A.HardenK. P. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on cognition across development and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 349–355. doi:10.1177/0963721413485087
32.
Tucker-DrobE. M.HardenK. P. (2012a). Intellectual interest mediates Gene × Socioeconomic Status interaction on adolescent academic achievement. Child Development, 83, 743–757. doi:10.1111/j/1467-8624.2011.01721.x
33.
Tucker-DrobE. M.HardenK. P. (2012b). Learning motivation mediates gene-by-socioeconomic status interaction on mathematics achievement in early childhood. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 37–45. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.015
34.
van EwijkR.SleegersP. (2010). The effect of peer socioeconomic status on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 5, 134–150.
35.
von StummS.AckermanP. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 841–869. doi:10.1037/a0030746
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
