ERIC EJ920105: Social-Identity and Self-Efficacy Concern for Disability Labels

2010·0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

Social-identity and self-efficacy concern
for disability labels
David Jodrell
Introduction: Educational policy in the UK has moved towards inclusion (Lindsay, 2003), resulting in
debate over the use of disability labels (Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). Labelling influences social-identity
(Olney & Brockelman, 2003), this paper suggests social-identity influences self-efficacy and, therefore,
academic performance (Zimmerman, 1996, 2001).
Aims:To investigate if past performance of in-group members will influence students’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Method: A convenience sample of 30 undergraduates was recruited, half of whom were dyslexic.
Participants were split equally into three conditions and informed of either high-dyslexic or high non-
dyslexic performance or were kept naive of past performance. Scores for efficacy beliefs were taken and
analysed for differences between conditions.
Results: For dyslexic participants both the high-dyslexic and high non-dyslexic performance conditions
resulted in significantly differing self-efficacy scores when compared to dyslexic participants in the control
group. Scores also significantly differed for non-dyslexic participants in the high-dyslexic performance
compared to non-dyslexic controls, for one self-efficacy scale, however, no significant differences were found
between non-dyslexic’s in the control condition and those in the high non-dyslexic performance condition.
Conclusions: While, dyslexic students showed predicted differences in efficacy scores relative to in-group
member’s performance. For non-dyslexic students, a significant difference was only found for those in the
high-dyslexic performance condition. Therefore, results suggest that dyslexic students’ self-efficacy was
influenced by social identity. For non-dyslexics this was not the case. The small number of participant’s per-
condition and the impact of stereotyping are suggested as mitigating predicted significant differences in self-
efficacy scores for non-dyslexics. The effect of past dyslexic performance on dyslexic self-efficacy scores is
described in relation to disability labels. Due to alternative theoretical explications for data trends found, and
methodological limitations the study’s principal conclusion is the need to expand on findings demonstrated.
Keywords: disability; specific learning difficulties; dyslexia; social identity; self-efficacy; university
students; disability labels.
I
N RECENT YEARS, inclusion has become tional benefits (Lindsay, 2003; Sebba &
a key theme for policy concerned with Sachdev, 1997). Despite a weak evidence-
educating disabled young people. Since base, inclusion has caused marked changes
the Salamanca Statement for special needs to the way disability in education is viewed.
educational (UNESCO, 1994) adherence to Specifically, a ‘social model’ of disabilities
inclusive policy has increased, and now is has been adopted, which argues the disad-
advanced in the UK. The example of such vantages faced by disabled people are
adherence can be seen in the Special Educa- created by their social environment (Low,
tional Needs and Disability Act 2001, which 2001). UK adherence to a social model of
states that children with special educational disability is demonstrated though many
needs must be educated in mainstream Government papers, such as, the Disability
schools unless this would impede the effec- Rights Commission Act (DRC) stating that
tive education of peers and/or is against the ‘exclusion experienced by disabled people is not a
wishes of parents. inevitable result of their impairments or medical
While UK policy advocates inclusion, conditions but rather stems from environmental
reviews have failed to demonstrate its educa- barriers.’ In the UK this has led to disability
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No 2 111
© The British Psychological Society 2010
David Jodrell
labels being reviewed, to the existent use of Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1987). Its application to
the term disability, itself, has been debated. disability labels in education was not, there-
From a academic perspective the debate fore, obvious. Self-categorisation theory
over use of disability labels is also fiercely (Turner, 1987), a later addition to the social
contested with some authors arguing that identity framework, can be more appropri-
disability labels perpetuate environmental ately applied.
barriers to inclusion (Keil et al., 2006) Social identitytheory and its more current
through stigma. For example, Hunt (2006) addition, self-categorisation, differ in two
found dyslexia was viewed more disruptive to fundamental ways: first, in how individual
the social and academic success of students, reality and social identity are viewed and,
than Attention Deficit Hyperactivity second, regarding how an individual’s action
Disorder. Conversely, research advocating is influenced by their social identity. Both
their use claim that disability labels famil- differences have implications for the influ-
iarise people with impairments and can ence of disability labels on academic
increase tolerance (Gross, 1994). Riddick performance. Social identity theory views
(2000) argues that stigmatisation occurs social, and individual identity as distinct,
without the influence of labels and that whereas self-categorisation views the social as
labels simply encapsulate a disability. She part of individual identity, just at a different
also provides evidence that dyslexic students level of abstraction (Turner, 1987). Abstrac-
find their label useful, as it is an explanation tion takes place through depersonalisation
of academic problems experienced. There- shifting an individual’s self-perception
fore, current research has been unable to towards that of the groups. Depersonalisa-
resolve the usefulness of disability labels in tion is governed by the ease that a social
education with reviews, such as Lauchlan identity is retrieved from memory and its fit
and Boyle’s (2007) being unable to put with explaining people’s actions (Hogg &
forward suggestions over their use. Williams, 2000; Oakes, 1987; Oakes et al.,
The social identity framework offers an 1994; Turner, 1987). Therefore, self-cate-
under-researched avenue in the labelling gorisation allows one’s social identity to be
debate. It suggests that labelling produces adopted outside of collective interactions.
‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’, influencing the For example, a disabled social identity could
self-esteem of those affected (Abrams, 1990; influence individual classroom behaviour, if
Finlay & Lyons, 1998; Gillman et al., 2000). it was sufficiently salient to a student and
In other words, the social identity adopted fitted with their current actions. Meaning
by disabled students could have large impli- disability labels could have a bearing on
cations for their academic achievement, as academic outcomes.
how students feel about themselves influ- The original and contemporary varia-
ences their academic outcomes (Oyserman tions of the social identity framework also
et al., 1995). differ over the process through which social
The evidence linking disability labels to identity influences action. Self-categorisation
social identity is scarce. In a rare example, theory views social identity, itself as influ-
Olney and Brockelman (2003) found that encing group adherence and behaviour. By
students with learning difficulties socially contrast, social identity theory suggests a
identify with their disability. Lack of investi- person’s self-esteem comes from group
gation may reflect the misapplication of the membership, and, therefore, alters people’s
social identity framework. Early social iden- behaviour during collective action. For
tity theory was primarily concerned with example, when abroad, especially un-
group behaviour when a social identity was familiar cultures, self-esteem results in
clearly used over an individual’s identity, as people feeling their nationality far more
in a crowd situation (Hogg & McGarty, 1990; keenly. Social identities agent, self-esteem is,
112 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Social identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels
however, not predictive of academic independent of the social environment, the
outcomes (Mone et al., 1995; Pajares & mediation of which is based upon internal
Schunk, 2001; Hansford & Hattie, 1982). factors (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
This is unsurprising as self-esteem is too Notwithstanding this point, vicarious
global a concept: while, it is linked to past experience offers, mechanism for social
achievements, its effect on academic achieve- identity to interact with self-efficacy. Self-effi-
ment is mediated by many factors, such as cacy theory suggests that efficacy beliefs are
self-worth and self-respect (Mone et al., influenced by social sources such as models
1995). Because social identity forms the basis (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1987). A model
for group adherence and individual actions, refers to a person who is performing a task
self-categorisation theory places an indi- for which efficacy beliefs are being
vidual’s social identity in a position to influ- constructed, to simplify it some what, a
ence behaviour through other self-referent pupil’s (model) performance on a spelling
constructs. test would, intern influence other class
Self-efficacy is one such construct, which members efficacy for the same task. Perform-
also influences academic performance ance appraisal that is referenced to others
through judgments of future ability (e.g. ‘You did better/worse than other
(Bandura, 1997). Efficacy beliefs rely on four children’) increases a model’s impact on
sources of influence: mastery of experience, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). This type of
vicarious experience (observation of others), social comparison is apparent in academic
verbal persuasion and physiological and environments (Huguet et al., 2001; Jacobs et
affective states (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy al., 1984), through students performance
is robustly linked to academic performance being judged relative to classmates, class
(Pajares, 1997; Zimmerman, 1996, 2000). wide testing would be just one example.
Studies that have compared self-esteem and The perceived similarity of models also
self-efficacy show that the latter is signifi- increases their influence on the recipient’s
cantly more predictive of academic efficacy beliefs. Initially, as one might expect,
outcomes (Mone et al., 1995; Lane et al., performance similarity produces stronger
2004). More specifically, efficacy beliefs have modelling (Bandura, 1997; Brown & Inouye,
been shown to affect academic performance 1978; Schunk, 1995). However, other similar
through level of effort, persistence, attributes, that are more associated with
emotional reactions and choice of activities those that form a social identities, also
(Miuton et al., 1991; Zimmerman, 1996, bolster a model’s influence on efficacy
2000). They also influence self-regulatory beliefs. Namely research has demonstrated
learning through goal setting, strategy use, attributes, such as, age, educational and
self-evaluation and self-monitoring socio-economic status, sex and race have
(Zimmerman, 1996, 2000). been shown to increase a model’s influence
Despite self-efficacy’s predictive power, on efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Schunk &
the theory has been criticised for its lack of Hanson, 1985). Bandura (1997) suggests
acknowledgment of the social environment that the effect of attribution similarity on
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991,). In response, efficacy is due to over-generalisation from
Bandura (1997) states that all sources of self- other activities, where such attributes are
efficacy, excluding mastery of experience, influential. For example, a models gender
are dynamically related to the surrounding would be a important attribution to ‘factor
social environment and systems (society), in’ when making efficacy beliefs over
and provides examples of how the theory sporting abilities, however, over-generalisa-
works collectively. Even so it is arguable that tion would result in, taking account of
the theory is individualistic insofar as it views gender where it is not as important, such as,
the ‘self’ as a self-contained entity that is a spelling test.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 113
David Jodrell
While at first glance over-generalisation 1997; Zimmerman, 1996, 2000). Therefore,
offers neat explanation similarity of a the aim of this investigation was to under-
model’s attributes influence on self-efficacy stand if disability labels influence students’
on closer inspection such explanation is not self-efficacy.
elaborated on, this seems inadequate, and
furthermore it has received no empirical Method
support. This paper draws on ‘social projec- While, the SpLD (specific learning diffi-
tion’, the process through which people culty) label that is made up of individual
come to view others as increasingly similar to disabilities, such as, dyspraxia, dyscalculia
their selves (Robbins & Krueger, 2005). and dyslexia (Heathcote & Brindley, 2006) is
Social projection is strongest when people in vogue with UK education professionals
share the same social identity (in-groups (Alm, 2004), it is unlikely to be meaningful
members) but it is inhibited when, anothers’ to students. In contrast, dyslexia is mean-
social identity is view as different (out-group ingful to diagnosed individuals (Riddick,
members) (Bramel, 1963; Robbins & 2000). It is also the most prevalent SpLD
Krueger, 2005). (Roongpraiwan et al., 2002). As a result, the
Drawing on these theoretical frame- label of dyslexia was investigated in this
works, this article suggests that the influence study.
of model similarity on self-efficacy is chan-
nelled through self-categorisation and social Study design
projection. Self-categorisation allows those The investigation incorporated a 2x3
sharing the same social identity (such as the between-subjects design. Eligible undergrad-
same age, race or socio-economic status) to uates were allocated to one of three condi-
increase social projection and therefore tions, each containing 10 participants half of
perceive others sharing this identity as more whom were dyslexic. Participants in the high-
similar and subsequently becoming a more dyslexic performance condition received
salient gauge for the formation of efficacy instruction sheets explaining the upcoming
beliefs. task. These contained fictitious information
Tying this prediction to disability in stating that past dyslexic undergraduates
education, disability labels produce a social performed significantly better on the
identity (in-group) through self-catigorisa- upcoming academic tasks than non-dyslexic
tion. In turn, those in-group members undergraduates. Participants in the high non-
(others with the same label) will be dyslexic performance condition received
perceived as more similar, through social instruction sheets claiming that non-dyslexic
projection, and, therefore, provide a supe- participants performed significantly better.
rior modelling influence on an individual’s Participants in the control condition
self-efficacy. The mediation of self-efficacy received the explanation of the upcoming
will influence the performance of students, test but without fictions reference to prior
as perceived efficacy is uniformly a good performance. See Figure 1 for overview of
predictor of academic outcomes (Pajares, the design.
Figure 1: Detailing participant allocation to study conditions.
Participants Control High dyslexic performance High non-dyslexic performance
Dyslexic 5 5 5
Non-dyslexic 5 5 5
114 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Social identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels
Following this, an identical procedure confident’) to 10 (‘fully confident’).
was followed for each condition. Participants Following its construction, the scale was
were administered the self-efficacy scale and assessed for its internal validity, yielding a
then completed the sentence-comprehen- Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.94 overall.
sion task, which involved filling in missing The two discrete subscales both demon-
words of incomplete sentences over four strated sufficient reliability and validity (for
minutes. Finally, the word-reading task was details on scales reported here see Jodrell,
administered. Word reading was completed 2008).
individually, with participants reading out as
many words as possible over 30 seconds. Analysis
Two 2x3 between-subjects ANOVAs
Sample (univariate analysis of variance) were used to
Undergraduates were sampled because investigate interaction between students with
disabled identities are heightened on dyslexic and non-dyslexic labels and their in-
coming to university (Borland & James, group performance (high-dyslexic, high
1999). Thirty participants were recruited non-dyslexic and control) for the two self-
through convenience sampling: 15 were efficacy measures. Following this, a Tukey
dyslexic, while the remaining 15 had no post-hoc test was used to examine simple
SpLD. Participants were excluded if they main effects of in-group performance for
were over 25 years because the hierarchal both dyslexic and non-dyslexic participants.
nature of social categorisation meant older Subsequent pairwise comparison investi-
students may of adhered to a more specific gated at what level of in-group performance
in-group (Turner, 1987). (high-dyslexic, high non-dyslexic) caused
any of the two efficacy outcome measures to
Measures differ significantly from control participants
While self-efficacy can be measured by a scores in respective dyslexic and non-
variety of questioners (Bandura, 2006; dyslexic cohorts.
Pajares, 1996), the scales need to be specific
to the domain of investigation (Bandura, Results
2006). As no appropriate questionnaire was Two hypotheses were generated from the
available for the present study’s population literature. The first (H1) was, self-efficacy
and performance task, a self-efficacy scale scores of dyslexic participants in the control
was constructed. This study’s performance condition would be significantly lower then
task was the word-reading and sentence- dyslexic participants in the ‘high dyslexic
comprehension measures of the Wider performance condition’ and significantly
Range Achievement Test (WRAT) higher then dyslexic participants in the ‘high
(Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006). non-dyslexic performance condition’. The
Self-efficacy scales were constructed by second hypothesis (H2) was non-dyslexic
studying both the word-reading and participants self-efficacy scores in the control
sentence-comprehension measures of the condition would be significantly higher than
WRAT. This led to development of two those of non-dyslexic participants in the high
domain-specific subscales: one measuring dyslexic performance condition’ and signifi-
efficacy beliefs for sentence comprehension cantly lower than those of non-dyslexic
one gauging self-efficacy for the academic students in the high non-dyslexic perform-
tasks as a hole. Each question related to the ance condition.
upcoming academic tasks such as ‘I know the Figure 2 displays the mean dyslexic and
meaning of most the words I read.’ Each item’s non-dyslexic test efficacy scores and SEM for
response was recorded on an 11-point scale these. Figure 3 displays mean sentence
of efficacy strength ranging from 0 (‘not comprehension efficacy scores for non-
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 115
David Jodrell
Figure 2: Mean test efficacy scores.
50
45
ks
as 40
or test t 35
es f 30
or
y sc 25
efficac 20
elf- 15
n s 10
a
e
m
5
0
high-dyslexicperformance control low-dyslexicperformance high-dyslexicperformance control low-dyslexicperformance
non-dyslexic dyslexic
Figure 3: Mean self-efficacy scores for sentence comprehension task.
40
35
ks
self-efficacy scores forntence comprehension tas 3221105050
se 5
0
high-dyslexicperformance control highnon-dyslexicperformance high-dyslexicperformance control highnon-dyslexicperformance
non-dyslexic dyslexic
116 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Social identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels
dyslexic and dyslexic participants, along with dyslexics in the ‘high-dyslexic’ or ‘high non-
their SEM. Descriptive findings displayed dyslexic’ performance conditions did not
here show that high-dyslexic performance differ significantly from controls.
produced increased efficacy beliefs for
dyslexic students, when compared to Discussion
controls, but reduced efficacy beliefs for Recent interest in the labeling of disabilities
non-dyslexics. By contrast, the high non- in education has prompted arguments both
dyslexic performance condition produced advocating and dismissing their use. However,
higher efficacy beliefs for non-dyslexics, but little research has been conducted into their
lower efficacy beliefs for dyslexics. influence on academic outcomes. A review of
Inferential statistics indicate a significant social identity and self-efficacy theories
interaction between group-identity and in- suggests that disability labels could influence
group performance for the test-efficacy a student’s academic achievement, through
measure [F(2,24)=16.60, p<0.01]. Dyslexic in-group identification increasing a model’s
and non-dyslexic cohorts both had a main influence on self-efficacy. Therefore, the
effect of in-group performance: study’s primary aim was to investigate if social
[F(2,24)=10.20, p<0.001] and [F(2,24)=7.25, identity influences students’ self-efficacy.
p<0.005] respectively. Pairwise comparison The study’s results provide mixed
indicated that dyslexic participants in the support for the two hypotheses explored.
control produced significantly lower test effi- Knowledge of in-group performance caused
cacy scores then those in the ‘high dyslexic predicted directional differences in all effi-
performance’ (p<0.05) condition and signifi- cacy measures for dyslexic students, thus
cantly higher scores than dyslexic partici- supporting H1. The identified effect of
pants in the ‘high non-dyslexic performance’ social identity on dyslexic students’ self-effi-
condition (p<0.05). Non-dyslexic partici- cacy can be interpreted as social identity
pants’ test-efficacy scores in the ‘high-dyslexic increasing a model’s influence on efficacy
performance’ condition were significantly beliefs as in-group performance was manipu-
lower then those for controls (p<0.01); lated. Research has demonstrated that the
however, no significant difference was attribute similarity of a model will increase
apparent between non-dyslexics in the the model’s influence on efficacy beliefs
control and those in the ‘high non-dyslexic (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). Findings from
performance’ condition. the dyslexic participants in the present study
Sentence comprehension efficacy meas- support this. Furthermore, the results
ures also showed a significant interaction presented here suggest that attribute simi-
between group-identity and in-group larity influence is the result of in-group iden-
performance [F(2,24)=21.57, p<0.001]. tity and subsequently social projection,
A significant simple main effect of in-group thereby providing a theory-based path for
performance was identified for both dyslexic model similarities’ influence on self-efficacy
[F(2,24)=21.70 p<0.001] and non-dyslexic over that of over-generalisation (Bandura,
[F(2,24)=22.04, p<0.001] students. Subse- 1997). Bandura’s (1997) superficial explana-
quent pair-wise comparison showed that tion of over-generalisation is a prime
dyslexic participants in the control condition example of the self-efficacy construct being
had significantly lower sentence comprehen- conceptualised as independent of the social
sion efficacy scores than their counterparts environment, an approach that has been
in the ‘high dyslexic performance’ condition criticised (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Find-
(p<0.005) and significantly higher scores ings from the present study support such
then those in ‘high non-dyslexic perform- criticisms.
ance’ condition (p<0.005). Sentence Non-dyslexic participants produced
comprehension efficacy score for non- inconclusive support for H2. While descrip-
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 117
David Jodrell
tive analysis of data showed those in the dyslexic social identity is of more signifi-
high-dyslexic performance condition, cance and thus more accessible in memory
compared to controls had a reduction in of dyslexic students than a ‘non-dyslexic
test, and sentence comprehension efficacy identity’ of students with no SpLD. Differ-
scores, and that non-dyslexic participants ences in ease dyslexic and non-dyslexic social
high non-dyslexic performance condition identities are adopted could have under-
also showed an increase in scores for both mined the influence of in-group perform-
efficacy measures in the high dyslexic ance on non-dyslexics’ efficacy beliefs,
performance condition, compared to particularly when taken into account the
control. A reduction in efficacy beliefs for number of participants per-condition.
the academic test as a whole was the only A larger sample size would have also
significant difference found. Despite this, permitted the study to investigate if the
the findings do not necessarily contradict differing self-efficacy scores where linked to
the influence of social identity on self-effi- academic performance. With larger
cacy, as the lack of significant differences numbers, an effect would have been likely, as
found can be attributed to both the small self-efficacy’s influence on academic
sample size used and stereotyping of out- outcomes is widely reported (Pajares, 1997;
group members. Zimmerman, 1996, 2000),
Social identity predicts that in-group Descriptive statistics showed that self-effi-
identification uniformly causes the stereo- cacy scores were mirrored between dyslexic
typing of out-group members (Abrams, and non-dyslexic participants. This interac-
1990). Dyslexia is stereotyped as being tion could not be elaborated past a general
academically adverse (Hunt, 2006). There- trend because the study’s use of between-
fore, it is likely that some non-dyslexic parti- subjects design precluded adoption of an
cipants viewed dyslexic out-group members ANCOVA. An ANCOVA would allow relative
as being protypical of such stereotypes. This comparison between the dyslexic and non-
would result in some or all, non-dyslexic dyslexic cohorts by controlling for pre-
participants assuming dyslexic academic existing covariate differences. To compare
performance should be inferior. For those dyslexic and non-dyslexic cohorts it would
participants when high non-dyslexic have been crucial to control for prior differ-
performance was reported it was not inter- ences between groups, as academic self-effi-
preted as, high non-dyslexic performance cacy varies between dyslexic and
per se but as typical poor dyslexic perform- non-dyslexic students (Gresham et al., 1988).
ance. It is likely that this undermined any For an ANCOVA to be adopted the study’s
increases in non-dyslexic efficacy beliefs design would have to of been within-subjects.
thorough superior non-dyslexic perform- While self-esteem is not predictive of
ance on the academic tasks. academic outcomes a correlation between
Considering the small number of partici- self-esteem and self-efficacy has been
pants pre-condition perhaps the significant reported (Lane et al., 2004, Saracoglu et al.,
differences found could be indicative of the 2001), and despite causality being disputed,
influence social identity has on self-efficacy, several authors have suggested that self-
when disability labels are used. Self-categori- esteem mediates self-efficacy (Dodgson &
sation theory suggests that a social identity Wood, 1998; Lane et al., 2002). Consistent
becomes apparent through depersonalisa- with social identity theory, self-esteem is the
tion. Depersonalisation is furthered by the motivational influence for group adherence,
emotional salience of a category (or a social and is linked to in-group evaluation
identity) (Turner, 1987), along with the ease (Abrams, 1990). Therefore, the past
with which it is retrieved from memory performance of in-group members may have
(Hogg & Williams, 2000). It is clear that a influenced group evaluation, subsequently
118 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Social identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels
influencing self-esteem. Because, the use of In conclusion, the influence of social
dyslexic and non-dyslexic labels caused a identity on self-efficacy was supported by
high level of fit for these social identities data obtained from dyslexic students. Retro-
participants self-esteem is unlikely to have spective theoretical analysis suggests that
been improved through their group identity, inconclusive findings from non-dyslexic
therefore, self-esteem was manipulated by students can be explained through the social
past in-group performance. This may have, identity framework. Hence, findings have
inturn, influenced self-efficacy. This alterna- noteworthy implications for both theories
tive explanation of findings cannot be ruled along with important consequences for
out as no measure of self-esteem was taken. disability labels in education. Due to
Regardless of the path of mediation, a methodological limitations and possible
relationship between past in-group perform- alternative theoretical explanations of the
ance and self-efficacy has been demonstrated study’s findings, the study’s main conclusion
in dyslexic students. Therefore, the wider is the importance of expanding the findings
implications of this study are potentially quite demonstrated.
significant. Indirectly it has been demon-
strated that dyslexic students may adhere to Correspondence
such a social identity and, furthermore, this David Jodrell is a junior researcher at the
identity can influence self-efficacy, which is Social Research Unit Dartington, Totness,
likely to influence academic performance Devon.
(Pajares, 1997; Zimmerman, 1996, 2000). E-mail: [email protected]
The study’s findings, therefore, suggest that
dyslexic labels can perpetuate environmental This article was part of a student dissertation
barriers that lead to exclusion, hence criti- given by David in 2008.
cising their use in education. The conclu-
sions drawn hear may translate to other
categories of SpLD’s as all SpLD show some
level of impaired academic performance.
In consideration of alternate theoretical
explanations, further experimentation
should endeavor to investigate if the data-
trends identified here were due to in-group
identity increasing a model’s influence on
efficacy beliefs, or if self-efficacy was influ-
enced by relative in-group performance
through self-esteem. Additionally, cohorts of
SpLD students should also be investigated to
increase the applicability of findings. Use of
ANCOVA statistical tests would permit past
in-group performance to be inferentially
investigated between cohorts, thus
extending the general interaction high-
lighted by descriptive statistics.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 119
David Jodrell
References
Abrams, D. (Ed.) (1990). Social identity theory. Hogg, M. & Williams, K. (2000). From I to We: Social
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics:
Alm, J. (2004). Dyslexia: Relevance of concepts, validity of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 81–97.
measurement, and cognitive functions. Phd.Uppsala: Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Montwil, J. & Genestoux, N.
Uppsala University. (2001). Social comparison choices in the class-
Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of room: Further evidence for students’ upward
control.New York: W.H. Freeman & Co. comparison tendency and its beneficial impact
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-effi- on performance. European Journal of Social
cacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self- Psychology, 31(5) 557–578.
efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich: Hunt, F. (2006). The effects of labelling and social
Information Age Publishing. desirability on perceived success of a learning
Borland, J. & James, S. (1999). The learning experi- disabled student. Journal of Undergraduate Psycho-
ence of students with disabilities in higher educa- logical Research, 1(1), 9–12.
tion. A case study of a UK university. Disability and Jacobs, B., Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. (1984).
Society, 14(1), 85–101. Understanding persistence: An interface of
Bramel, D. (1963). Selection of a target for defensive control theory and self-efficacy theory. Basic and
projection. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, Applied Social Psychology, 5(4), 333–347.
66, 381–324. Jodrell, D. (2008). Social-identity and self-efficacy concern
Brown, I & Inouye, D. (1978). Learned helplessness for disability labels. Unpublished dissertation.
through modelling: the role of perceived simi- University of Wales Institute Cardiff.
larity in competence. Journal of Personality and Keil, S., Miller, O. & Cobb, R. (2006). Special educa-
Social Psychology, 36(8) 900–908. tional needs and disability. British Journal of Special
Cohen, J. (Ed.) (1988). Statistical power analysis for the Education, 33(4), 168–172.
behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Lane, A., Jones, L. & Sevens, M. (2002). Coping with
Erlbaum Associates. failure: The effects of self-esteem and coping on
Dodgson, P. & Wood, J. (1998). Self-esteem and the changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Behaviour,
cognitive accessibility of strengths and weak- 25(4), 331–345.
nesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Lane, A., Lane, J. & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-effi-
Psychology, 75(1), 178–197. cacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic
Finlay, M. & Lyons, E. (1998). Social identity and performance. Social Behaviour and Personality,
people with learning difficulties: Implications for 32(3), 247–256.
self-advocacy groups. Disability & Society, 13(1), Lauchlan, F. & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in
37–51. special education helpful? Support for Learning,
Gillman, M., Heyman, B. & Swain, J. (2000). What’s 22(1), 36–41.
in a name? The implication for people with Low, C. (2001). Have disability rights gone to far?
learning difficulties and their family careers. City Insights Lecture. Retrieved 18 January 2008,
Disability and Society, 15(3), 389–409. from:
Gresham, F., Evans, S. & Elliott, S. (1988). Self-effi- www.city.ac.uk/whatson/
cacy differences among mildly handicapped, city_insights_lecture_3.htm
gifted, and non-handicapped students. Lindsay, G,. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical
The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 231–241 perspective. British Journal of Special Education,
Gross, J. (1994). Asperger’s syndrome: A label worth 30(1), 3–12.
having? Educational Psychology in Practice, 10(2), Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the
104–110. self: Implications for cognition, emotion and
Hansford, B. & Hattie, J. (1982). The relationship motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
between self and achievement/performance Mone, M., Baker, D. & Jeffries, F. (1995). Predictive
measures. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), validity and time dependency of self-efficacy, self-
123–142. esteem, personal goals, and academic perform-
Heathcote, V. & Brindley, F. (2006). 16- to 18-year-old ance. Educational & Psychological Measurement,
students with specific learning difficulties: Transition 55(5), 716–727.
into HE. Retrieved 21 March 2008, from: Multon, K., Brown, S. & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of
www.aimhigheryandh.co.uk/uploads/files/ self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes:
1_SpLD-Main-Report.pdf A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Coun-
Hogg, M. & McGarty, C. (1990). Self-categorisation selling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.
and social identity. In D. Abrams (Ed.), Social
identity theory. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheat-
sheaf.
120 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2