Influences of classmates' ability level on physical self-evaluations

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247 www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Influences of classmates’ ability level on physical self-evaluations Nicolas Margasa, Paul Fontayneb,*, Philippe C. Brunelc a

Laboratory ‘Centre de Recherches en Activite´s Physiques et Sportives (CRAPS) (EA 2131)’, University of Caen, France Laboratory ‘Centre de Recherches en Sciences du Sport (CRESS) (EA 1609)’, University of Paris-Sud 11, CRESS, UFR STAPS, Baˆtiment 335, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France c Laboratory of ‘Savoir Cognition et Rapports Sociaux (SACO) (EA 3815)’, University of Limoges, France

b

Available online 19 September 2005

Abstract Objectives: The Big Fish Little Pond Effect (BFLPE) states that students use social comparisons with their classmates as a baseline for their own self-evaluations. Indeed, participating in a physical education high ability class results in lower physical education self-evaluations. However, according to Social Identity Theory, this typical social comparison effect of high ability groupings can be counterbalanced by social identification to such a positively valued group. Methods: About 46 French physically gifted students participating in a high ability class and in traditional heterogeneous classes. Physical education self-evaluation and social identification (perceived class status, selfcategorisation) with the class are repetitively collected during a 1-year period. Results: Students show different variations of self-evaluations but similar final self-evaluations in the two groupings. In the high ability class, a strong positive social identification effect occurs but decreases during the year. Self-categorisation mainly explains the variation of self-evaluation in the high ability class. Conclusions: Homogeneous groupings do not undermine self-evaluations of physically gifted students in as much as they are aware of their class status and categorise themselves in comparison to this group. The decrease of selfevaluations in the high ability class is explained by a progressive lack of self-categorisation in comparison to the high ability class. Practical implications for teachers and sport coaches are discussed. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Physical self-evaluations; High ability groupings; Social comparison; Social identification

Physical self cannot be adequately understood if the role of frames of reference is ignored. Indeed, the external frame of reference model, also labelled ‘Big Fish Little Pond Effect’ (BFLPE) (Marsh & Parker, 1984) highlights the importance of social groups and social comparison. In sport and physical education

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C33 1 6915 7381; fax: C33 1 6915 6222. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Fontayne). 1469-0292/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.008

236

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

(PE) contexts, teams and ability grouping emphasize the importance of social comparison (interpersonal and intergroup) of normative performances in the building of physical self. In fact, the relationship between self-evaluation and achievement in a specific domain depends on standards of comparison, the frame of reference that individuals use to evaluate themselves. Although studies on the BFLPE were mainly conducted in educational settings and assess academic self-evaluations, they have significance for physical self-evaluations. Based on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), the BFLPE states that individuals in a class of academically gifted students possess more negative academic self-evaluations than equally able individuals in a lower academic context. According to social comparison theory, Marsh and Parker (1984) explained that individuals are assumed to compare their own ability with that of their classmates and use this social impression as a baseline for their own self-evaluations. Thus, if an individual compares his/her ability level to that of a more able one, a negative ‘social comparison effect’ will occur. Self-evaluations depend not only on one’s own academic achievement but also on the performance of peers in the same educational context. BFLPE especially shows how important the perceptions of classmates’ abilities are for defining our own self-evaluations. Empirical support for the BFLPE comes from numerous studies based on different experimental approaches and methodological designs (for a review, see Marsh & Craven, 2002). Many of these demonstrated BFLPE by comparing academic self-evaluations of students from schools (e.g. Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999) as well as from classes (e.g. Kulik & Kulik, 1982) with various levels of achievement. Furthermore, studies revealed that BFLPE was not a short-term adjustment effect but continued to increase over time (e.g. Craven, Marsh, & Print, 2000). These studies strongly support BFLPE theoretical model in academics. Although BFLPE on physical self-evaluations have received less attention, similar findings have been observed in sport (Marsh, 1998) and in PE contexts (Chanal, Sarrazin, Chalabaev, & Tessier, 2003; Margas & Fontayne, 2001). Marsh (1998) who did not specifically aim at studying BFLPE but tried to compare self-evaluations of elite athletes with that of non-elite athletes has found consistent results: students enrolled in high-level sport in school reported lower physical selfevaluation than equally able participants but who were not selected. It has also been appeared that average class level in sport negatively influenced students’ self-evaluations of sport competence (Chanal et al., 2003). Similarly, BFLPE has been supported within class ability grouping. Margas and Fontayne (2001) have demonstrated that the best students in high-level homogeneous groups reported lower self-evaluations than equally able students in heterogeneous groups. Even if further investigations are needed, these results indicate that BFLPE also occurs with physical selfevaluations, which is consistent with social comparison theory and multidimensionality of selfconcept. These findings are particularly relevant for the context of high-level competitive sports as well as for the context of PE. Indeed, in almost all high-level competitive sports, high ability groupings are nearly systematically used, even with younger children. Similar observations can be made in PE context such as within class and between class ability groupings mainly used by teachers. Is it useful to make high ability groupings if this proceeding leads to lower sport and physical self-evaluations and consequently to lower motivation, a higher drop out rate and a decrease in well being (see Fox, 1997 for a review on the importance of physical self-perceptions)? Accordingly, it seems particularly relevant to better understand how high ability groupings impact physical self-evaluations and, if this is the case, to find out how to avoid BFLPE.

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

237

BFLPE and social identity theory (SIT): two complementary approaches? The typical negative effect of high ability groupings on self-evaluations is based on strong and numerous empirical justifications. However, as the BFLPE has been usually explained using only social comparison effect, it is important that a recent study (Marsh, Kong, & Hau, 2000) has shown that attending high school-average achievement classes resulted not only in a more demanding basis of comparison for one’s own accomplishments (a negative social comparison effect) but also in a source of pride (a positive assimilation effect). For example, being selected in a high PE level class can result in a positive assimilation effect on physical self-evaluations. But comparing his/her own performances with those of other classmates can negatively affect physical self-evaluations through a social comparison effect. As the social comparison effect appeared to be stronger than the assimilation effect (Marsh et al., 2000), a negative effect of high ability groupings was finally obtained—a finding which was consistent with the traditional studies on BFLPE. The BFLPE must be considered as a net effect of social comparison and assimilation to other group members (Marsh & Craven, 2002). This ‘assimilation effect’1, also labelled ‘reflected glory effect’ and ‘identification’ to the group (Marsh et al., 2000), has been especially investigated in the light of Social Identity Theory (SIT; Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, physical self-evaluations are both influenced by personal identity, including specific attributes such as competence, talent or ability as well as by social or collective identity which is derived from one’s membership to groups, teams and classes together with the value and the emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel, 1981). Studies referring to SIT as a framework (for a recent review, see Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle, 2004) have usually shown a relationship between self-appraisals of one’s social group and personal identity with different kinds of groups and even, but rarely, with sport teams (Dru & Constanza, 2003). With regards to these results, social identification with a group represents a determining factor in building personal self-evaluations. Studies on SIT mainly focus on ‘social identification’ and, to that extent, seem to be able to better explain this aspect of BFLPE. In a laboratory study, McFarland and Buehler (1995) have found BFLPE to be strongest among individuals with lower collective selfevaluations and a weaker bond toward a particular social group. Traditional BFLPE and SIT paradigms could bring complementary explanations of the BFLPE phenomenon. Social identification to a group is determined by three distinct components: group self-esteem (a positive or negative value connotation attached to this group membership—the evaluative components), self-categorisation (a cognitive awareness of one’s group membership—the cognitive component) and commitment to the group (a sense of emotional involvement in the group—the affective component) (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). This means that when individuals do not categorise themselves as typical members of a group or do not consider a strong bond or connection with this social group, they are unaffected by the group performances (e.g. Hirt, Zillman, Erickson, & Kennedy, 1992) and no social identification effect can occur. 1

‘Social identification’ seems to be more precise and will be used in the rest of the article. ‘The terms ‘assimilation’ and ‘contrast’ are generic in the sense that they refer simply to the direction of context effects’ (Martin, Seta, & Crelia, 1990, p. 27). So assimilation and contrast effects can occur at different levels of identity (interpersonal ingroup, interpersonal outgroup and intergroup comparisons) whereas ‘social identification’ only refers to relations between personal identity and collective identity which derive from an individual’s sense of belonging to a social group.

238

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

Although McFarland and Buehler (1995) have shown that social identification could counterbalance social comparison effect, they could not really explain the evolution of self-evaluations over time due to laboratory design. Indeed, this kind of studies have difficulty accounting for the relation between collective and personal identity because they are not able to catch the meaning of the group in front of a specific situation (Simon, Hastedt, & Aufderheide, 1997). Furthermore, we can notice that differences between results from laboratory studies and retrospective methodologies and findings from natural designs have been often observed (Collins, 1996). With regards to these findings, longitudinal studies with natural social groups appear more efficient in analysing BFLPE. But to our knowledge, no study has ever shown that social identification can counterbalance the typical social comparison effect of BFLPE in such conditions, at least in the areas of sport and physical education.

Overview of the present study To test McFarland and Buehler’s (1995) possible counterbalancing of typical social comparison effect by social identification in natural conditions, a one-year longitudinal study was conducted in a PE context. High PE achievers, in a high ability class were compared with equally able students involved in traditional heterogeneous classes. But our design offered several advantages compared to previous BFLPE researches. First, the specific conditions of this natural design tended to specifically promote social identification. The way students were selected in the high ability class gave to it a clearly established high status and individuals may have easily perceived themselves sharing in the stereotype of the group. As this class was unique in the whole it could be considered a minority group. According to Simon and Hamilton (1994), Brewer and Weber (1994), this may have reinforced the bond between collective identity and personal identity, self-categorisation and consequently social identification. The specificity of this class also allowed for intergroup comparisons with other schoolmates from traditional classes. The possibility of such comparisons could have enhanced group self-esteem and consequently social identification. Secondly, contrary to Marsh et al. (2000), PE self-evaluations were specifically measured before the students were grouped (high ability class vs. heterogeneous classes). Hence, we were then able to take into account the expected social identification effect once the grouping had been effective. Thirdly, consistent with SIT, social identification was not only measured by assessing perceived class status in PE, but also by assessing self-categorisation to the class. According to these advantages, the authors attempted to show that (H1) high PE level students attending a one year high selective class do not have lower PE self-evaluations than equally able individuals who were in more traditional heterogeneous classes (H2) social identification (represented by both perceived class status and self categorisation) is stronger at the beginning of the year for high PE achievers in high ability level class compared to equally able participants in traditional heterogeneous classes, while this difference declines over time. BFLPE theory states that (for review, see Marsh & Craven, 2002) the negative effect of homogeneous grouping for high achieving students has been explained by a strong negative social comparison effect and a weak positive social identification effect (Marsh et al., 2000). However, in homogeneous groups, students must have a similar PE level. Then, due to low difference in ability level, only a weak social comparison effect should occur. In contrast, high achievers in heterogeneous classes have higher levels in PE than other classmates and, consequently, should

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

239

benefit from a strong positive social comparison effect. In fact, the decrease of self-evaluations for high ability homogeneous group should be better explained by a decrease in positive social identification effect rather than an increase in negative social comparison effect. Therefore, to the extent that H1 and H2 were confirmed, then the authors predicted that (H3) for high PE level students practicing in a high ability class, self-categorisation explained a more important part of PE self-evaluation over time than for students who were in traditional classes.

Method Participants and procedure The study was conducted during the entire second year of the French secondary school calendar with participants (NZ118, MageZ12.35 years old, SDZ.56) from five different public schools with similar sizes (MZ476 students, SDZ47.13). These semi-rural schools were all mixed, located in Normandy (in the vicinity of Rouen) and had similar heterogeneous socio-economic catchments areas. None of them belonged to ‘priority educational areas’ and ‘sensitive areas’. In one school, at the end of the first year of secondary school (June), it was announced to all students that for the upcoming year, a high PE ability class would be organized. They were also told that individuals would be selected on the basis of their PE performances during the present year (and if parental consent was given). Hence, the best students of the school were then selected (nZ22, 8 girls and 14 boys) from a total of four classes. PE teachers were in charge of selecting these participants. Similarly, for the four traditional heterogeneous classes of the four different schools, their PE teachers were asked to evaluate their students and to rank them on the basis of their PE results. The upper quarter of the ranking (nZ24) was kept in for statistical analyses. Indeed, it corresponded to the boys and girls ratio involved in the high level homogeneous class (8 girls and 16 boys). As mentioned above, all participants were enrolled in four different classes ensuring that each one belonged to a heterogeneous class. Furthermore, we also ensured that all participants of the heterogeneous class group displayed the same ability level in PE. Finally, only high PE achievers (nZ46) were kept in for statistical analysis: the high sport level class and the best students of each heterogeneous class. During the year following the selection, that is the next September, traditional French PE curriculum (3 h of practice per week) was used for all classes. However, the high ability class received special attention. Thus, it was the only class allowed to go to the stadium by bus for practise (instead of walking). Furthermore, their head teacher was the PE teacher. Finally, the selection was presented to the whole school so that the students of this class were recognised by all other students of the school. Measures Three constructs were assessed during the year: self-evaluation in PE, class self-esteem on this PE dimension and self-categorisation with regard to the class on this PE dimension as well. Self-evaluation in PE was completed at the end of the first year of secondary school before the announcement of students’ selection in the high ability class (T0). Measures of self-evaluation in PE, class self-esteem

240

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

and self-categorisation with regard to the class were then administered during the first week (T1), week 8 (T2), 15 (T3), 23 (T4), 31 (T5), and the end of the year (T6). Full scales (Cronbach’s alpha O.70) were constructed and validated for this study2 and were used for T0 and T1. But, to allow for repeated measures, one-item scales were also used (only the T0 to T6 oneitem scores were used for all the statistical analyses). These items were considered as the most representative ones of the questionnaire with regard to correlations with full-scale response averages without the item. The item used to measure PE self-evaluation was ‘Overall in physical education, I am efficient’. While social identification is sometimes assessed by one single measure (e.g. Dru & Constanza, 2003), empirical evidence (Cameron, 2004; Ellemers et al., 1999; Jackson, 2002) has demonstrated it is necessary to distinguish its three components (cognitive, evaluative and affective). Therefore, group self-esteem (the evaluative component) was assessed by a measure of perceived class status adapted from Marsh et al. (2000) (‘My class has good results in physical education’). The extent to which people categorise themselves as typical members of the class (the cognitive component) was obtained by assessing the perceived relationship between the perceived class level and that of the student: ‘The level of the class I belong to in physical education corresponds well to my level in this activity’3. To avoid any learning effect (Ninot, Forte`s, & Delignie`res, 2001), items were each time presented in a different order and responses were collected on visual analogic scales. Participants were requested to rate the extent to which they were in agreement with each item on a scale anchored from not at all (0) to absolutely (100).

Results Validity of measures and manipulation checks Physical education self-evaluations The measure of PE self-evaluation was externally validated by high correlation with subjective PE teacher’s evaluation of students at T0 (rZ.64, p!.05). Class self-esteem (status) Discriminant function analysis with perceived class status as independent variable correctly classified 76.09% of individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous class (Wilks’s LambdaZ.72, F(1,44)Z 17.08, p!.001, h2Z.28) by using one-item scale at T1, and 80.43% of them (Wilks’s LambdaZ.57, F(1,44)Z32.81, p!.001, h2Z.43) by using full scale at T1. Students were aware of the status of the group they belong to, indicating that at T1, individuals in homogeneous class (HG) perceived their class status significantly more positive than equally able one in heterogeneous classes (HT) by using full scale 2 Measures (with several other dependant variables which are not presented here) needed parental and school consents. They were assessed during PE lessons so time of completion had to be short. Furthermore, as the survey was frequently presented over the year it was important that the questionnaires should not to bore the students to ensure validity and sincerity in their answers. For these different reasons, we chose to adopt one-item scales for measuring each variable. 3 The affective component of social identification was not measured in our study because we were only interested in evaluative and cognitive aspects of social identification and their repercussions on self-evaluations.

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

241

(MHGZ88.8, SDZ14.2; MHTZ61.1, SDZ18.2) and also one-item scale (MHGZ89.7, SDZ12.6; MHTZ62.9, SDZ27.8). Self-categorisation to the class Selected high ability students tended to self-categorise themselves (see themselves as typical members) more in comparison to a high ability class in which they were selected for their level in PE than if they had been in a traditional heterogeneous class with a moderate and variable level in PE. Discriminant function analysis with in-group self-categorisation as independent variable correctly classified 73.91% of all individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous class (Wilks’s LambdaZ.70, F(1,44)Z18.59, p!.001, h2Z.30) by using one-item scale at T1, and 82.6% of them (Wilks’s LambdaZ.64, F(1,44)Z25.04, p!.001, h2Z.36) by using full scale at T1. Moreover, at T1, students in the homogeneous class categorised themselves in comparison to the class significantly more than students in heterogeneous classes by using the full scale (MHGZ85.3, SDZ11.7; MHTZ64.4, SDZ 16.1) and also one-item scale (MHGZ84.2, SDZ14.2; MHTZ62.1, SDZ19.8). Main analysis With regards to our first hypothesis, the purpose was to show that social identification counterbalances the social comparison effect in self-evaluation in PE. The one-way MANOVA with PE self-evaluations as dependent variable (seven repeated measures [from T0 to T6]) revealed a significant effect of type of groupings (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous), Wilks’s LambdaZ.62, F(7, 38)Z3.33, p!.01. Follow-up ANOVA with seven repeated measures was then conducted. An interaction effect between type of group and repeated measures of self-evaluation in PE (F(6,264)Z 3.11, p!.01, h2Z.07) showed that the evolution of self-evaluation in PE was significantly different in the two groups. However, according to our hypothesis, planned comparisons (p!.05) of self-evaluation in PE between homogeneous and heterogeneous classes at T0 (F(1,44)Z.07, pZ.79; MHGZ72.5, SDZ 13.7; MHTZ73.8, SDZ19.9) and T6 (F(1,44)Z.58, pZ.45; MHGZ72.3, SDZ25.8; MHTZ77.3, SDZ 18.3) were non-significant. Both groups showed similar self-evaluations in PE at the beginning and at the end of the procedure but the type of group influenced them during the year (see Fig. 1). In the homogeneous class, self-evaluation of high ability students increased just after they were selected in the high achieving class and decreased progressively during the rest of the year. In heterogeneous classes, self-evaluation in PE of equally able individuals increased progressively during the year. Therefore, our first hypothesis appeared to be confirmed. For the second hypothesis, it was expected that for gifted students who are in a high ability class compared with equally able ones in traditional heterogeneous classes, social identification was stronger at the beginning of the year but the difference declined over time. Two one-way MANOVAs with perceived class status and self-categorisation (two different components of social identification) as dependent variables (six repeated measures from T1 to T6) yielded a significant effect of type of groupings (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) on perceived class status, Wilks’s LambdaZ.65, F(6,39)Z 3.50, p!.01 and on self-categorisation, Wilks’s LambdaZ.44, F(6,39)Z8.40, p!.001. Follow-up ANOVAs with similar repeated measures were then conducted with such types of groupings as factors and self-categorisation and perceived class status as dependant variables. Scores between the two groups on self-categorisation and perceived class status were expected to be significantly different at T1 but not at T6.

242

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247 HG self-categorisation

HT self-categorisation

HG self-evaluation

HT self-evaluation

HG perceived status

HT perceived status

90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 T0

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

Time Fig. 1. One-year variations on self-evaluation in PE, self-categorisation and perceived class status of high ability students practising in homogeneous (HG) and heterogeneous (HT) classes.

For the self-categorisation variable (the cognitive component of social identification), an effect of types of grouping was found (F(1,44)Z6.40, p!.02, h2Z.13) and an interaction effect of types of grouping and repeated measures of self-categorisation was demonstrated (F(5,220)Z4.96, p!.001, h2Z.09). Moreover, planned comparisons (p!.05) indicated that while self-categorisation at T1 (F(1, 44)Z18.59, p!.001, h2Z.30; MHGZ84.2, SDZ14.2; MHTZ62.1, SDZ19.8) was significantly different between the two types of grouping, no difference was found at T6 (F(1,44)Z.006, pZ.93; MHGZ71.6, SDZ27.6; MHTZ72.2, SDZ19.2). Self-categorisation of students in the high ability class was stronger than self-categorisation of equally able students in the traditional heterogeneous classes. However, although self-categorisation for students in the homogeneous group was more important than self-categorisation of students in the heterogeneous at the beginning of the year (see Fig. 1), it decreased during the year. At same time, self-categorisation of students in traditional classes increased and caught up with self-categorisation of students in high ability class at T5 (F(1,44)Z.01, pZ.92; MHGZ74.4, SDZ25.2; MHTZ73.6, SDZ22.3) and T6. Similar results were found for the perceived class status variable (the evaluative component of social identification). As expected, a significant effect of types of grouping on perceived class status variable was found (F(1,44)Z13.82; p!.001, h2Z.24) and also a significant interaction effect for types of groupings with repeated measures of perceived class status (F(5,220)Z2.26, p!.05, h2Z.04). Planned comparisons (p!.05) indicated that even though students from homogeneous class perceived their class status as higher than individuals in heterogeneous classes at T1 (F(1,44)Z17.08, p!.001, h2Z.28; MHGZ89.7; SDZ12.6; MHTZ62.9, SDZ27.8), no difference was found at T6 (F(1,44)Z2.74, pZ.10; MHGZ86.9, SDZ19.8; MHTZ77.8, SDZ17.1). Perceived class status of students in homogeneous group was more important than perceived class status of students in heterogeneous at the beginning of the year (see Fig. 1). It decreased during the year whereas perceived class status for those in heterogeneous classes increased and did not differ significantly from perceived class status of individuals in homogeneous class at T6. So, for gifted students in high ability

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

243

Table 1 Regressions of self-categorisation to the class on self-evaluation in PE from T1 to T6 for high ability students practising in homogeneous or heterogeneous classes (p!.05) df

p

R2

3.34

1,20

ns

.14

.91 .87 .77 .94 .85 .64

95.62 64.27 30.05 156.48 51.28 14.87

1,20 1,20 1,20 1,20 1,20 1,22

.001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001

.83 .76 .60 .89 .72 .40

.16 .42 .36 .69 .48

.59 4.70 3.14 19.70 6.26

1,22 1,22 1,22 1,22 1,22

ns .05 ns .001 .05

.02 .18 .13 .47 .23

Subjects

Time of measurement

b

Homogeneous (nZ22)

T1

.38

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Heterogeneous (nZ24)

F

class compared with equally able ones in more traditional heterogeneous classes, both selfcategorisation and perceived class status were stronger at the beginning of the year. Consequently, social identification appeared to be stronger as well. However, the difference declined over time. Our second hypothesis seemed to be confirmed. Finally, in order to examine the extent to which variation in self-categorisation explained variation in PE self-evaluation, regressions of self-categorisation on PE self-evaluation were conducted at each time (T1–T6) separately for students in homogeneous class and in heterogeneous classes (see Table 1). For the homogeneous group, results showed that except at T1, regressions were significant and accounted for at least 60% and a maximum of 89% of the variability of self-evaluation in PE. In contrast, for heterogeneous grouping, regressions of self-categorisation on PE self-evaluation were non significant at T2 and when they became significant, they explained from 18 to 47% of the variability of self-evaluation in PE. Therefore, the impact of self-categorisation on evolution of PE self-evaluation was more important in homogeneous grouping than in heterogeneous grouping. Hence, hypothesis 3 appeared supported.

Discussion Results of this 1-year longitudinal study did not reveal any effect of type of grouping on final selfevaluation in PE. However, even though self-evaluations in PE prior to and at the end of the second year of secondary school were similar in both groupings, variations of self-evaluation in PE were different. Students in traditional classes increased progressively their self-evaluation in PE over time. However, the high ability class produced a strong positive effect at the beginning of the year, just after the students were informed that they were selected in this class, and progressively a negative effect during the rest of

244

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

the year. According to numerous studies on BFLPE (for review, see Marsh & Craven, 2002) which emphasised a negative effect of the school average achievement on academic self-evaluations, these results are quite surprising. However, according to SIT, experimental conditions from previous studies do not seem to have been able to produce as much social identification effect as in the present study. Indeed, the selection method used to determine the participants of the high ability class informed them, not only on their own normative PE ability, but also on the ability to be in this class. Then, they shared the class’s stereotype: its high level of PE ability. This gave the class a strong and clearly established stereotype such as self-categorisation and perceived class status found at T1. Moreover, this class was the only one of the school with such characteristics. Others were more traditional heterogeneous classes consisting of the remaining students. So, relative to the whole school, this class represented a minority group which was more able to produce social identification (Brewer & Weber, 1994; Mullen, 1991; Simon, 1992; Simon & Hamilton, 1994). In fact, minority membership, due to its rarity or numerical distinctiveness, attracts more attention and becomes salient in classmates’ perception (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; McGuire & McGuire, 1988). Therefore, social identification was expected to be stronger in our study than in those using either the whole school as group of reference (e.g. Marsh, 1998; Marsh et al., 2000), or traditional classes (Chanal et al., 2003)—both of which were unable to produce a clearly established status and social identification effect. In previous BFLPE studies, self-categorisation or perceived group status were not meaningful enough in the situation and consequently no social identification effect could occur. However, some studies, attempting to compare homogeneous and heterogeneous classes (e.g. Kulik & Kulik, 1992) or to measure the impact of gifted and talented programme on academic self-evaluations (Marsh, Chessor, Craven, & Roche, 1995) have been able to include a social identification effect in their procedure. However, these studies mainly used a one-time measurement design or just initial and final measures and could not catch the evolution of selfevaluations. Moreover, they did not measure self-evaluations before grouping students and then could not demonstrate a strong social identification effect, similar to the one which occurred at T1 in this study. Finally, our investigation focused on physical self-evaluations. Indeed, this domain seems to produce more explicit and visible social comparisons than academic achievement. It is not mediated by evaluations and grades which rarely allow intergroup or interclass comparison due to the specificity of each exam. In sport and PE domains, norms of reference (e.g. speed running) are culturally based and interclass comparisons become easier. According to SIT, intergroup context reinforces social identification. All these factors explain the strong social identification found for the homogeneous group at the beginning of the year. As our results showed, specific conditions of our investigation (which are also natural conditions) seemed to increase both perceived class status and self-categorisation. Therefore, positive social identification counterbalanced the traditional negative social comparison effect over 1 year. However, results at T6 indicated that, even though students spent all year in the same high ability class, the strong increase in self-evaluation in PE observed at T1 no longer occurs. It is possible, that spending several years in these conditions could finally influence negatively selfevaluation in PE and so PE motivation, orientation or simply well being (Fox, 1997). For the high-level homogeneous group, the two components of social identification (selfcategorisation and group self-esteem) decreased over time while they increased for the heterogeneous group. Instability of these constructs show the relevance of using longitudinal studies with repeated measures rather than one-shot measure for understanding social identification and BFLPE phenomenon. Furthermore, social identification evolved as if a new frame of reference was built during the year. It seems that students were attracted by their new frame of reference and forgot the intergroup context

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

245

and consequently the level of their class. In the high ability class where the bond between individuals and their class was strong at the beginning of the year, they finally did not really identify themselves to the intergroup. Conversely, in the heterogeneous class, where social identification was low at the beginning of the year, participants felt a strong bond with their class by the end of the year. Traditional BFLPE theory (for a review, see Marsh & Craven, 2002) has explained the negative effect of homogeneous grouping for high achieving students by a negative social comparison effect which undermined progressively self-evaluations little by little. According to confirmations of H1 and H2, the progressive negative influence of high ability grouping may be better explained by a strong social identification effect which decreases during the time. However, as Seta and Seta (1996) have proposed, both effects may be related. Students’ inferred position within the high-status class may have mediated their possibility to benefit from belonging to such an advantaged class. Then, self-categorisation may have explained both social identification and social comparison and the variations of PE self-evaluation in both the homogeneous class (where social identification was strong at the start of the year) and the heterogeneous classes (where social comparison was strong). However, results showed for homogeneous grouping that variation in self-categorisation explained an important part of selfevaluation in PE variability each time (O.60 from T2 to T6). Besides, self-categorisation evolution weakly explained variability of self-evaluation in PE in heterogeneous group except at T5 and T6. At these times, self-categorisation and perceived class status were important and able to represent a social identification effect to the heterogeneous class. This finding tends to show that self-evaluation of high PE achievers in a homogeneous class does not decrease due to social comparison effect as suggested by the BFLPE model puts forward (for review, see Marsh & Craven, 2002) but mainly due to a decrease in social identification. Social identification and social comparison effects do not seem to operate on the same level of identity. Social identification effect bears on the ‘self in-group’ dimension and is dependent on both self-categorisation and intergroup comparisons which determine perceived group status. Social comparison effect may be the result of in-group interindividual comparisons. This is relevant with Brewer and Gardner’s theory (1996) that includes three different levels to define identity: the individual level using interpersonal comparison as frame of reference, the interpersonal level using reflection as frame of reference and, the group level using intergroup comparisons as frame of reference.

Conclusion Contrary to previous studies on BFLPE, our investigation showed that, in specific conditions enhancing social identification, being in a highly selective homogeneous class or in a traditional heterogeneous class does not matter for self-evaluation in PE of high level sport students. In fact, according to McFarland and Buehler (1995), it is not harmful for high achieving individuals to be in homogeneous classes if they are aware of their group status and identify themselves as worthy members of this group. PE teachers and sport coaches should not only avoid interpersonal intragroup comparisons between individuals to limit negative social comparison effect, but also should pay attention to group social identification to help teenagers maintain physical self-evaluations and consequently sport motivation, sport orientation and simply well-being (Fox, 1997). According to our results, social identification may be reinforced by a clearly established high group status and by perceptions of a strong bond between individuals and their group.

246

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

From another point of view, BFLPE theory and SIT appear complementary. Taking into consideration SIT allows a new interpretation of traditional BFLPE in that it especially focuses on social identification and helps to better understand this aspect of BFLPE. Social identification (both self-categorisation and perceived group status) evolves over time in interaction with the specific constraints exerted by the group. These results prevent us from using a laboratory design and a one-shot measure for studying BFLPE. They also help to understand how group memberships can influence personal identity. Further research needs to catch both social identification (its different components) and social comparison effect with specific measures and avoid interference between the two. Some factors can also be influenced by types of grouping such as motivational climate and teacher’s evaluations and indirectly influence selfevaluation in PE. In PE as well as in broader sport contexts, homogeneous grouping is the rule rather than the exception, even with children. Surprisingly, only few studies have tried to investigate this topic. Surveys with larger population, specific measures of each variables and multilevel statistical analyses (e.g. hierarchical linear modelling) are needed to be able to understand the whole influence of types of grouping and consequently types of relationships on physical self-evaluations of both high achieving and low achieving students. A better understanding of these phenomena is particularly relevant in various areas such as sport, PE and academic segregated classes, within class ability grouping and choice of boys and girls co-education.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully thank Dr. Paul Wylleman (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) for his advised comments during the elaboration of this article.

References Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. New York: Springer. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268–275. Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262. Chanal, J., Sarrazin, P., Chalabaev A., & Tessier, D. (2003). L’effet du niveau moyen de la classe sur le sentiment de compe´tence personnel: Le Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect en EPS [Effect of the class’ average level on the perceived competence: The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect in Physical Education context]. In proceedings of the 10th international congress of ACAPS, Toulouse, France. pp. 123–124. Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or for worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 51–69. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Print, M. (2000). Selective, streamed and mixed-ability programs for gifted students: Impact on self-concept, motivation and achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 44, 51–75. Dru, V., & Constanza, C. (2003). Effet de l’identification sociale et du re´sultat d’une compe´tition collective sur les jugements d’homoge´ne´ite´ [Effects of social identification and collective competition on homogeneity judgments]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 53, 102–108. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

N. Margas et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 235–247

247

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fox, K. R. (Ed.). (1997). The physical self: From motivation to well-being. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hirt, E. R., Zillman, D., Erickson, G. A., & Kennedy, C. (1992). Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724–738. Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 246–276. Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11–33. Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary schools students: A meta analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 799–806. Margas, N., & Fontayne, P. (2001). Influences des formes de groupements homoge`ne/ he´te´roge`ne en EPS sur l’estime de soi et le concept de soi physique [Influence of the homogeneous/heterogeneous groupings on self-esteem and self-concept in Physical Education context]. In Proceedings of the ninth international congress of ACAPS, Valence, France. Marsh, H. W. (1998). Age and gender effects in physical self-concepts for adolescent elite-athletes and non-athletes: A multicohort-multi-occasion design. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 237–259. Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic selfconcept: The big-fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2002). The pivotal role of frames of reference in academic self-concept: The ‘Big-Fish-LittlePond’ effect. In F. Pajares, & T. Urban, Adolescence and education: Academic motivation of adolescents (vol. 2) (pp. 83– 123). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc. Marsh, H. W., Kong, C. K., & Hau, K.-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337–349. Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213–231. Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27–37. McFarland, C., & Buehler, R. (1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1055–1070. McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1988). Content and process in the experience of self. In L. Berkowitz, Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 21) (pp. 97–144). New York: Academic Press. Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297–323. Ninot, G., Forte´s, M., & Delignie`res, D. (2001). A psychometric tool for the assessment of the dynamics of the physical self. European Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 205–216. Seat, J. J., & Seat, C. E. (1996). Big fish in a small pond: A social hierarchy analysis of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1210–1221. Simon, B. (1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Re-introducing the intergroup context. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone, European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 3) (pp. 1–30). Chichester, England: Wiley. Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711. Simon, B., Hastedt, C., & Aufderheide, B. (1997). When self-categorization makes sense: The role of meaningful social categorization in minority and majority members’ self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 310–320. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations 2nd ed. (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). The big-fish-little-pond effect for academic self-concept, test anxiety, and school grades in gifted children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 305–329.