- Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Download available
Content available from Social Psychology of Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Social Psychology of Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09789-9
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention
among 7th graders inGermany: Testing forvariations
byheritage group, discrimination experiences
andclassroom diversity climate
LindaP.Juang1 · MajaK.Schachner2 · TuğçeAral1 ·
MiriamSchwarzenthal3 · DavidKunyu1 · HannaLöhmannsröben1
Received: 17 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 April 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
We tested whether a brief self-affirmation writing intervention protected against
identity-threats (i.e., stereotyping and discrimination) for adolescents’ school-related
adjustment. The longitudinal study followed 639 adolescents in Germany (65% of
immigrant descent, 50% female, Mage = 12.35 years, SDage = .69) from 7th grade
(pre-intervention at T1, five to six months post-intervention at T2) to the end of 8th
grade (one-year follow-up at T3). We tested for direct and moderated (by heritage
group, discrimination, classroom cultural diversity climate) effects using regression
and latent change models. The self-affirmation intervention did not promote grades
or math competence. However, in the short-term and for adolescents of immigrant
descent, the intervention prevented a downward trajectory in mastery reactions
to academic challenges for those experiencing greater discrimination. Further, it
protected against a decline in behavioral school engagement for those in positive
classroom cultural diversity climates. In the long-term and for all adolescents, the
intervention lessened an upward trajectory in disruptive behavior. Overall, the self-
affirmation intervention benefited some aspects of school-related adjustment for
adolescents of immigrant and non-immigrant descent. The intervention context is
important, with classroom cultural diversity climate acting as a psychological affor-
dance enhancing affirmation effects. Our study supports the ongoing call for theoriz-
ing and empirically testing student and context heterogeneity to better understand
for whom and under which conditions this intervention may work.
Keywords Brief self-affirmation writing intervention· Adolescents of immigrant
descent· School-related adjustment· Classroom cultural diversity climate·
Germany
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
1 Introduction
For adolescents of immigrant descent, being stereotyped and experiencing discrimi-
nation canundermine academic and socioemotional adjustment (Berry etal., 2006;
Kunyu et al., 2020; Titzmann et al., 2011). One approach to understanding this
harmful process is through considering social identity. Social identity theory empha-
sizes that individuals can derive a positive sense of self through the identification
and sense of belonging to a particular social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). When
social identities are devalued and threatened due to stereotyping or discrimination,
however, this can compromise adolescents’ academic experiences (Verkuyten etal.,
2019). Studies consistently show that discrimination based on social identities (i.e.,
being harassed due to perceived social group membership based on ethnicity-race,
gender, disability, etc.) is linked to greater distress and poorer academic perfor-
mance (Russell etal., 2012).
To counter social identity threats, interventions such as brief self-affirmation writ-
ing tasks that focus on affirming values were developed (Cohen & Sherman, 2014;
Cohen etal., 2006; Steele etal., 2002). Studies testing this type of intervention have
proliferated, culminating in a recent meta-analysis of 58 studies in education (Wu
etal., 2021). Notably, most studies were from the US except for nine (15%). The
results showed that for identity-threatened students, i.e. students potentially expe-
riencing social identity threat because of their group identity and associated nega-
tive stereotype, there was an overall positive and significant average affirmation
effect (Hedges’ g = 0.15, a medium effect according to benchmarks for educational
interventions, Kraft, 2020). For identity non-threatened students, the overall aver-
age affirmation effect was small and not significantly different from zero (Hedges’
g = 0.01). Importantly, this meta-analysis also showed a moderate to high heteroge-
neity of effects for identity-threatened students. Subsequently, the next generation of
testing brief self-affirmation writing tasks should continue to pinpoint factors that lie
behind these variations (Easterbrook etal., 2021; Hanselman etal., 2017; Wu etal.,
2021). The aim of our longitudinal field experiment, then, is to test whether a ran-
domized trial of a brief self-affirmation writing intervention protects against poorer
school-related adjustment for identity-threatened students (adolescents of immi-
grant descent who may be more likely to experience being the target of negative
stereotypes and discrimination) vs. identity non-threatened students (adolescents of
non-immigrant descent). In addition, tapping both into student characteristics and
context conditions, we consider heritage group, experiences of discrimination, and
classroom cultural diversity climate as potential moderators that may explain the
heterogeneity of effects found in previous research.
1.1 Being atarget ofstereotypes anddiscrimination
The experience of being the target of negative stereotypes and living with stereotype
threat—the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group (Steele &
Aronson, 1995)—can be stressful. One of the most prominent stereotypes of immi-
grant descent adolescents in Germany include being less competent academically
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
(Froehlich etal., 2022), even when their competence is not lower than their non-
immigrant peers (Zander etal., 2014). Pre-service teachers who read scenarios of
students that confirmed stereotypes (e.g., a student of Turkish-heritage performing
low academically) vs. disconfirming stereotypes (e.g., a student of Turkish-heritage
being the best student in the class) were more likely to agree with statements that
were negatively biased against students of immigrant descent (Glock & Krolak-
Schwerdt, 2013). Pervasive negative stereotypes of immigrant students in Germany
and throughout Europe, particularly of Turkish or Muslim background, increase the
risk for these adolescents to experience stereotype threat and also more explicit dis-
crimination (Baysu & Phalet, 2019; Frankenberg etal., 2013; Vedder et al., 2007).
When stereotype threat is activated, Turkish-heritage adolescents in Germany per-
formed worse on math tasks (Martiny et al., 2014). However, subsequent meta-
analyses show that these effects are not strong, especially under real-life conditions
(Appel etal., 2015; Froehlich etal., 2022; Shewach etal., 2019).
Related to (implicit) stereotype threat, explicitly experiencing stereotyping and
discrimination in the school context not just from students but also teachers, can also
contribute to disengagement from school and negatively affect academic achieve-
ment (Baysu & Phalet, 2019; Cohen etal., 2009; Easterbrook etal., 2021). A meta-
analysis of 67 studies found that teacher-based racial-ethnic discrimination relates to
lower well-being and academic performance among students (Civitillo etal., 2023).
Taken together, being the target of stereotypes and discrimination in school by class-
mates and teachers undermines positive academic and socioemotional adjustment if
there is nothing to offset the negative effects.
1.2 Self‑affirmation theory andintervention
Self-affirmation theory suggests that if an adolescent is threatened (i.e., devalued) in
an important area of the self (such as being the target of pervasive, negative stereo-
typing concerning academic performance), then affirming a different area of the self
(e.g., reminding adolescents of the important values that they hold), can diffuse the
threat by reinforcing self-integrity, promoting a sense of belonging, and adopting a
more expansive view of the self (Cook etal., 2012; Sherman & Cohen, 2020; Steele
etal., 2002). Therefore, self-affirmation is an important psychological intervention,
especially for identity-threatened students.
Brief self-affirmation writing interventions are short writing exercises where
students reflect on values that are important to them. These self-affirmation inter-
ventions have effectively diffused threat to the self and, importantly, prevented aca-
demic declines for ethnic minority students in the United States (Cohen etal., 2006,
2009; Sherman etal., 2013; Yeager & Walton, 2011). While subsequent studies did
not always show effects (e.g., de Jong etal., 2016; Hanselman etal., 2017), a study
in England showed that another “underperforming” stereotyped group—students of
low SES–benefited from a self-affirmation writing intervention such that it reduced
the academic performance gap with high SES students by 62% (Hadden et al.,
2020). As noted above, while effects are not always evident in every study, a recent
meta-analysis of this type of intervention in education shows an overall positive,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
significant effect for identity-threatened students (Wu etal., 2021). Therefore, in our
study, we hypothesize that the intervention will benefit school-related adjustment for
adolescents of immigrant descent (who are assumed to experience higher stereotype
threat, especially as they are also more likely to have lower SES, SVR-Forschun-
gsbereich, 2016), but not for those of non-immigrant descent (who are assumed to
experience lower stereotype threat).
To date, studies and the recent meta-analysis show heterogeneity of effect sizes,
suggesting that potential moderators should be taken into account for a more pre-
cise understanding for whom and under what conditions the intervention may be
effective (Easterbrook etal., 2021; Hanselmann et al., 2017; Wu etal., 2021). For
instance, implementation by teachers is important as it conveys that the school envi-
ronment reinforces students’ affirmed views. Nonetheless, European research also
shows the opposite: Whereas an intervention administered by researchers was effec-
tive amongst Turkish- and Arab‐heritage German students, at least for short-term
follow-up (8 weeks after the intervention was administered) (Lokhande & Müller,
2019; Müller & Lokhande, 2017), a study targeting Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch
students where the intervention was administered by teachers showed no effect on
school achievement or problem behavior (de Jong etal., 2016). Nonetheless, in the
meta-analysis, effect sizes were greater when the affirmation task was administered
by teachers as part of a regular classroom assignment rather than researchers (Wu
etal., 2021). Such variations are important to consider and empirically test.
1.3 Potential moderators producing heterogeneity ofeffects
Theorized heterogeneity (i.e., explanations for variations in the effectiveness of the
intervention based on theory) is necessary to move the field of self-affirmation inter-
ventions forward (Easterbrook etal., 2021; Hanselmann etal., 2017). Therefore, we
focus on three theoretically important moderators that focus on student characteris-
tics and context conditions: heritage group, experiences of discrimination, and class-
room cultural diversity climate.
One important potential moderator is heritage group. Attention to varia-
tion within the broad grouping of adolescents of immigrant descent is neces-
sary to better pinpoint for whom protective factors may be more likely to
work. Although large-scale studies of academic achievement report that being
an immigrant predicts poorer achievement (e.g., PISA, TIMSS), these find-
ings obscure important variations within and between different heritage groups
(Brenick & Titzmann, 2015). For example, Aussiedler (German heritage immi-
grants from Russia) and their descendants attain, on average, a higher level of
education compared to adolescents from other heritage groups (Fuchs & Sixt,
2007). Turkish-heritage and Arabic-speaking country heritage 7th graders in
Germany (but not Eastern European-, or other heritage groups) showed higher
math competence for those who participated in a brief writing affirmation
intervention compared to a control group (Lokhande & Müller, 2019; Müller
& Lokhande, 2017). As different heritage groups are distinguished by different
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
migration histories and experiences, lumping them together in one group erases
important variations. Therefore, in our study we tested whether the effectiveness
of the intervention may vary by specific heritage group.
Another important moderator is experiences of discrimination. Focusing on
categories of heritage groups is a proxy for group-related experiences (Easter-
brook et al., 2021). A more precise way to understand group variations is to
directly assess those experiences. For instance, adolescents with Turkish-herit-
age and heritage from Arabic-speaking countries report higher levels of discrim-
ination compared to other ethnic minority groups (Antidiskriminierungsstelle
des Bundes, 2013). Rather than relying solely on heritage group categorization
that may gloss over the specific mechanism to explain variation in intervention
effectiveness, we include adolescents’ self-reported experiences of discrimina-
tion to test whether the affirmation intervention would be more consequential
for those experiencing more discrimination (and thus more identity threat) com-
pared to those experiencing less.
In addition to student variables, considering the school context is also impor-
tant (Hanselmann etal., 2014). The classroom cultural diversity climate reflects
how teachers and schools approach and manage diversity (Schachner et al.,
2021). It is part of the learning environment and may also moderate the effec-
tiveness of the affirmation intervention. Two of the most widely studied class-
room climate dimensions are cultural pluralism and equality and inclusion. The
cultural pluralism dimension emphasizes that cultural diversity in the classroom
should be acknowledged, valued, seen as a resource, and opportunities should
be provided to learn about this diversity. The equality and inclusion dimension
emphasizes that all students from all backgrounds should be treated equally, no
one should be excluded, and opportunities for contact, cooperation, and creat-
ing common goals among diverse groups, are intentionally supported. There are
two ways moderation could work. On the one hand, studies show that a positive
diversity climate–both naturally observed and experimentally induced–produces
similar effects as self-affirmation interventions by boosting students’ sense of
belonging and achievement, notably amongst identity threatened groups (Celeste
et al., 2019, 2021; Schachner et al., 2019). Thus, intervention effects may be
more pronounced in the absence of a positive cultural diversity climate. In our
study, we expect that students from contexts with higher contextual threat in
their school (e.g., in more negative cultural diversity climates, defined by less
emphasis on cultural pluralism or equality and inclusion) may benefit more from
the intervention (Hanselmann etal., 2014). On the other hand, drawing on the
research above (e.g., Celeste, 2021) and accumulating evidence that supportive
contexts afford affirmation effects to take hold and grow (Bailey etal., 2017;
Walton & Yeager, 2020), it is plausible that the affirmation intervention may
be more pronounced in a more positive cultural diversity climate. Further, we
expect that the intervention can be even more effective when it includes implicit
messages valuing pluralism and diverse cultural heritages. Therefore, besides
the traditional self-affirmation intervention, we included an additional culture-
sensitive intervention condition that explicitly included messages valuing cul-
tural pluralism.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
1.4 The current study
The current study tests whether students of immigrant descent in 7th grade who par-
ticipate in a brief self-affirmation writing intervention administered by their teacher
would be protected against poorer school-related adjustment in both the short-term
(at the end of 7th grade five to six months after the intervention) and longer-term
(at the end of 8th grade one year after the intervention). In the federal state of Ber-
lin, where the study was conducted, 7th grade is the year following the transition to
secondary school. We chose this grade because interventions targeted at students in
transitional periods (and thus periods of higher uncertainty and threat) may be more
effective than in periods of more stable development (Sherman etal., 2013).
Self-affirmation studies in education have focused predominantly on academic
performance in terms of grades (Cohen et al., 2006), math motivation (Gaspard
etal., 2015), or math competence (Lokhande & Müller, 2019; Müller & Lokhande,
2017). Because self-affirmation interventions can affect a range of educational out-
comes (Easterbrook etal., 2021), we include grades and math competence as well
as other important but less studied school-related indicators of adjustment such as
disruptive school behavior, reactions to academic challenges, and behavioral and
emotional school engagement.
1.5 Hypotheses
H1 (intervention effects): Adolescents of immigrant descent who receive the self-
affirmation writing intervention will show better school-related adjustment com-
pared to adolescents of immigrant descent in the control group who do not receive
the intervention, with effects more pronounced in the culturally sensitive interven-
tion condition compared to the traditional self-affirmation condition. Further, these
effects will be evident in the short-term (five to six months after the intervention) as
well as long-term (one year after the intervention). No intervention effects will be
observed for adolescents of non-immigrant descent.
H2 (moderators of intervention effects): Because we expect that the intervention
will be more effective for those experiencing more identity threat, we hypothesize
that the intervention will show greater effects depending on the heritage group and
experiences of discrimination. More specifically, we hypothesize that the self-affir-
mation intervention would be most effective for adolescents with Turkish heritage
and those with South-West Asian and North African (SWANA) heritage1 (H2a) and
those experiencing more discrimination (H2b). For classroom cultural diversity cli-
mate, our test of moderation is exploratory as previous research suggests diverging
plausible outcomes (H2c).
1 SWANA heritage includes those from Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,
Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, Chad, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Bahrain, Dji-
bouti, Eritrea, United Arab Emirates, Kurdish from Iraq and Yemen. They share a commonality in terms
of language and religion. Most (but not all) are primarily Arabic-speaking countries.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Our study hypotheses and analyses were pre-registered before we started analy-
ses: https:// osf. io/ 7d4bs/? view_ only= 187b1 e8b25 1d491 19e70 19140 ebdc4 86. In
this study, we focus on our pre-registered Research Questions 2 (Does the inter-
vention protect against identity threat over time?) and 3 (What factors moderate
the effects of the intervention?) and focus on a subset of outcomes (i.e., academic
and school-related and not socioemotional adjustment). We did not focus on all out-
comes and all research questions from the pre-registration as it was too much to
include in one paper.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
All 211 secondary schools in Berlin were contacted by mail and followed up by
phone, prioritizing those schools with a high share of students with a non-German
heritage language (statistics on which are published on the website of the Berlin
Senate Administration for Education, Youth, and Family). Fifteen principals (7%)
agreed to participate in the study. The principals were told that it would be desirable
for as many 7th grade classrooms as possible from their schools to participate in the
study. Overall, 58 classes participated, including 38 at Integrierte Sekundarschulen
(comprehensive schools or integrated secondary schools), 14 at Gemeinschaftss-
chulen (non-academic track secondary schools) and six at Gymnasien (academic
track secondary schools).2 Next, a parental consent letter was drafted, translated
into Albanian, Arabic, English, French, Polish, Russian, and Turkish, and mailed to
the schools for distribution amongst parents. Members of our research team intro-
duced the study at school parent nights and were available for questions. In exchange
for participation, classrooms received 25€ for their class fund at each time point.
Schools received information about the study results through a newsletter.
The sample included 639 7th grade adolescents with data collected in October/
November/December 2017 (T1), May/June/July 2018 (T2), and May/June 2019
(T3). Most (n = 413, 65%) adolescents were of immigrant descent, while the rest
were of non-immigrant descent (Mage = 12.35 years, SDage = 0.69, 50% female).
Eight percent of immigrant descent adolescents were first-generation (born out-
side of Germany and immigrated after they began school) and the rest were second
(79%) and third (10%) generations. Adolescents represented five heritage groups:
2 In our sample, SES varied by school type (F (2,556) = 15.289, p < .001, np2 = .079). Students attending
Gymnasium reported the highest SES (factor score M = .39, SD = .84), Gemeinschaftsschulen the lowest
(M = -.33, SD = .85), and Integrierte Sekundarschule in-between (M = .04 SD = 1.05). Percent of students
of immigrant descent also varied by the three school types, χ2 (2) = 31.87, p < .001. The Gemeinschafts-
chule had the highest percentage (84%), Gymnasium the lowest (56%), and Integrierte Sekundarschule
in-between (60%). As school type is strongly correlated with SES and percentage of students of immi-
grant descent, testing for moderation by immigrant descent status/heritage group and SES addressed
these potential effects of school type. Moreover, as our analyses are at the individual level and not school
or classroom level, we deemed it more appropriate to include individual-level SES than school type.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
non-immigrant descent (n = 211), Turkish heritage (n = 107), South-West Asian and
North African (SWANA) heritage (n = 121), Eastern European heritage (n = 115),
and other heritage immigrant descent (n = 70). These groups were based on the
birthplace of their parents and grandparents in combination with their self-reported
heritage identity.
2.2 Procedure
We received approval from the ethics committee of the University of Potsdam and
the Berlin Senate Administration for Education, Youth, and Family. Students with
parental consent voluntarily completed the three surveys and two interventions.
Each survey was administered by researchers with teacher support during two class
periods and the survey materials were available in German, the language of instruc-
tion in the schools.
Based on information from the first questionnaire, students were grouped into
heritage groups (SWANA, Turkish, Eastern European, other heritage immigrant
descent, no immigrant descent). For each heritage group, the students were further
classified into immigrant generations (1st vs. 2nd/3rd generation), and then into gen-
der groups (male vs. female). Within each stratified group (heritage group by immi-
grant generation by gender), the students were then randomly assigned across three
intervention conditions: traditional self-affirmation (n = 212), culture-sensitive self-
affirmation (n = 197), and no-affirmation control group (n = 205). Based on the effect
size from a previous experimental self-affirmation study in Germany with a simi-
lar sample (Cohen’s d = 0.28, Müller & Lokhande, 2017), with Type I error of 0.05
(power of 0.95), for three groups a sample size of N = 370 was required. Thus, our
sample size had adequate power to detect the estimated main intervention effect. In
addition, we conducted post-hoc power analysis for our tests of interactions. Using
semPower (Moshagen & Erdfelder, 2016), we calculated the actual power with
the available sample size to detect misspecifications of a model corresponding to
RMSEA = 0.05 with an alpha error of 0.05.
The interventions were administered by teachers during a single class period and
each student received a closed envelope containing either the self-affirmation or
control group writing task. The teachers received prior training and were asked to
administer the tasks with the same procedure for all conditions (Cohen etal., 2006;
Sherman et al., 2013). In this procedure, teachers presented the task as a normal
classroom activity. Students, teachers, and researchers did not know the treatment
group to which students were assigned. After administering the intervention, teach-
ers were asked to fill out a feedback sheet responding to questions regarding the
implementation such as how well students cooperated, whether students asked about
why they were doing the writing task, and whether students thought the task was
affiliated with the university.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
2.3 Intervention andcontrol conditions
Established self-affirmation procedures suggest administering the intervention
across several time points with slightly different intervention tasks at each time
point. The self-affirmation tasks in our study were structured (intervention 1) and
open-ended (Intervention 2) and had previously been implemented by Sherman and
colleagues (2013). To encourage greater engagement with the task, we presented
the self-affirmation tasks in the form of a comic based on the German study finding
that students wrote more when presented in this form (Müller & Lokande, 2017).
See Supplemental Material FiguresS1 and S2 for examples of the self-affirmation
materials. In terms of timeliness, the 2017 school year began on September 4. Of
the 58 classes, Intervention 1 was completed in November/December 2017 for 55
classes and 3 classes in March 2018. For Intervention 2, 48 classes were completed
in February/March and 10 classes in May/June 2018. We aimed to administer the
interventions shortly before a math test. We had also originally planned for a third
intervention tailored to students’ responses at Intervention 2, but were not able to
schedule it because of the long delays to complete Intervention 2 due to illnesses in
schools, non-responsiveness of some teachers, and school activities.
2.3.1 Traditional self‑affirmation task
The tasks followed the original materials (Cohen etal., 2006) as well as slight modi-
fications (Müller & Lokhande, 2017). For the self-affirmation task for Intervention
1 adolescents read a comic where a friendly alien came to earth and asked: “What
is important to you in life? What do you like to do? Please read the following list.
Mark the two most important things.” Twelve values were presented (e.g., being
with family/friends, being free and independent, and being good at art). In the next
step, as a writing aid, students were asked to note down seven words related to why
the two values were important to them. This was followed by instructions asking
them to write an essay about these values, using the words that they noted down.
Finally, to reinforce the affirmation, students again were asked to list the two val-
ues and asked “How do you feel when you think of these two things? When I think
about these two things…” and responded to 5 items such as, “I know that I belong
and am not alone.”
Intervention 2 was an open-ended task. Adolescents read another comic about the
alien who returned to earth and wanted to learn more, and asked them to write about
what is important in their lives and why.
2.3.2 Culturally‑sensitive self‑affirmation task
We slightly modified the instruction of the brief self-affirmation task to explic-
itly affirm being of various cultural backgrounds. The modified instruction said,
“In different parts of the world people find different things important. Please read
through the following list. Which of these is important to you in your life? What
do you like to do? Please circle the two most important things” “We also added,
“You can choose to write in German or your heritage language, whatever feels more
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
comfortable for you.”. As we wanted to explore if this culturally sensitive instruction
would improve overall intervention effectiveness, half of the participants in the inter-
vention condition received the culturally sensitive instruction. Even though most of
our participants represent the second or third generation of immigrant descent and
may not have sufficient writing skills in their heritage language to complete the tasks
in this language (indeed, only seven students used their heritage language for Inter-
vention 1 and three for Intervention 2), the assumption was that allowing them to
use their heritage language would communicate that their background and heritage
identity are valued and can be a resource when completing academic tasks in school.
2.3.3 No affirmation control group
Following the original control group task (Cohen etal., 2006) and modified as with
the affirmation tasks (Müller & Lokhande, 2017), students in the no-affirmation
control group were presented with a comic of an alien that came to earth and said
“Some people find things important that are not so important to you. What is not
important to you in life? What do you not like to do? Please read the following list.
Mark the two least important things.” The same set of 12 values were presented as in
the affirmation task and the rest of the writing instructions were the same.
Intervention 2 was an open-ended task. Adolescents read another comic about
the alien who returned to earth and were asked to write down for the alien what time
they woke up that morning, what they had for breakfast if they did, and how they got
to school.
2.3.4 Fidelity check
As a check on the fidelity of the intervention, we noted whether the intervention was
completed before a math test. We also had teachers note the number of students who
noticed that there were different written tasks (i.e., different conditions) after doing
the intervention. They also rated how much the following statements were true for
them “I was motivated to do the writing tasks with the class”, “I believe the writing
assignments were helpful to the students”, and “The study and writing assignments
were additional tasks that made too much work for me as a teacher”. The response
scale for these three items were 1 = not at all, 2 = not quite true, 3 = Neither true or
not true, 4 = rather true, 5 = that is true.
2.4 Measures
We calculated mean scores for all scales. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correla-
tions are reported in Tables1 and 2.
2.4.1 School‑related adjustment
2.4.1.1 Math, German, andEnglish Grades Teachers were asked to report student
grades in these subjects at all three time points. Because the schools used different
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Table 1 Descriptive Information of the Measures for Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Descent Students in
the Control and Intervention Groups
Pre-test (T1) Post-test (T2) Follow-up (T3)
Measures Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N
(Nonimmigrantdescent) Control Group
Math grades 68.57 15.12 63 61.54 18.02 52 57.38 20.48 42
German grades 69.35 12.33 62 64.30 12.97 50 64.88 12.62 41
English grades 69.60 13.62 63 64.62 17.73 52 65.35 14.93 43
Math competence 6.45 3.13 68 6.73 3.02 61 7.47 3.38 46
Mastery reactions to academic challenges 2.95 .63 67 2.85 .75 61 2.68 .81 48
Disruptive school behavior 2.02 .67 66 2.06 .68 61 2.51 .84 48
Behavioral school engagement 3.80 .71 67 3.54 .89 61 3.44 .74 48
Emotional school engagement 3.42 .83 67 3.19 .88 61 3.10 .91 47
Discrimination 1.17 .46 68 1.19 .56 61 1.17 .61 48
(Un)equal treatment 1.72 .87 67 1.69 .77 60 1.70 .76 48
Heritage and intercultural learning 2.37 .89 67 2.41 .96 60 2.31 1.01 48
(Non-immigrant descent) Intervention Group
Math grades 69.23 15.49 117 66.97 18.89 107 64.83 18.82 87
German grades 69.40 12.36 117 66.31 14.66 113 66.80 14.48 85
English grades 70.04 14.36 115 66.59 15.96 109 65.30 16.04 88
Math competence 5.95 3.08 137 6.67 2.94 119 6.75 3.53 94
Mastery reactions to academic challenges 3.01 .54 135 2.89 .57 119 2.83 .51 97
Disruptive school behavior 1.88 .50 134 2.18 .82 118 2.15 .69 98
Behavioral school engagement 3.68 .71 135 3.57 .79 119 3.48 .74 97
Emotional school engagement 3.36 .76 134 3.22 .86 119 3.23 .79 97
Discrimination 1.09 .32 135 1.15 .51 117 1.19 .59 97
(Un)equal treatment 1.60 .69 135 1.65 .64 118 1.69 .68 97
Heritage and intercultural learning 2.22 .81 135 2.19 .84 118 2.25 .87 97
(Immigrant descent) Control Group
Math grades 62.05 17.53 117 61.14 17.10 100 59.24 18.56 82
German grades 64.74 13.71 118 62.28 13.98 103 60.85 15.73 82
English grades 67.63 16.46 118 62.08 18.51 106 63.99 18.01 84
Math competence 4.15 2.78 134 5.31 2.83 116 5.09 3.34 94
Mastery reactions to academic challenges 3.04 .62 132 2.78 .70 116 2.83 .68 94
Disruptive school behavior 2.06 .68 133 2.17 .76 117 2.31 .77 94
Behavioral school engagement 3.83 .81 132 3.58 .80 116 3.62 .88 94
Emotional school engagement 3.47 .82 132 3.27 .81 116 3.25 .84 94
Discrimination 1.28 .61 132 1.29 .58 113 1.26 .62 94
(Un)equal treatment 1.65 .80 129 1.77 .82 111 1.73 .75 93
Heritage and intercultural learning 2.23 .92 130 2.26 .97 113 2.29 .97 93
(Immigrant descent) Intervention Group
Math grades 61.03 16.94 227 59.54 19.14 192 60.14 17.58 145
German grades 64.74 13.71 229 62.02 15.35 196 61.89 15.73 141
English grades 65.72 15.56 221 62.59 17.64 198 62.44 17.34 144
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
grading assessments (i.e., “regular” grades with 1 as outstanding and 6 as fail, points,
percentages, colors, and certificates using ratings of expert, basic, etc.), we converted
all forms into percentages to make them comparable (see Supplemental Material, S1
for a chart on how grades were converted into percentages).
2.4.1.2 Math competence A German standardized mathematics test, the DEMAT
6 + designed for sixth and seventh graders, was used to assess mathematical com-
petence at T1, T2, and T3 (Götz etal., 2013). The math items of subscales A and
C of the DEMAT were divided across waves. Each wave contained 15 items, seven
of which remained the same while eight differed across waves. The average item
difficulty was kept constant across waves, following the procedure of Müller and
Lokhande (2017). The range of possible scores was 0 to 15.
2.4.1.3 Mastery reaction toacademic challenges A subscale of Skinner etal. (2009)
motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection measure was used to assess
how persistent adolescents were in the face of academic challenges (i.e., showing a
mastery reaction). An example item is, “If I can’t get a problem right the first time, I
just keep trying”. The four items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = that’s not
right to 4 = that’s completely right). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.73, 0.78, and 0.79 for
T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
2.4.1.4 Disruptive school behavior Jenkins’ (1995) scale on school delinquency
and school commitment was used to assess disruptive school behavior. Five items
that were age-appropriate and used in previous research in Germany were selected
(Schachner etal., 2018). An example item is, “How often did you refuse to do a task
given by the teacher in the last four weeks?”. The items were rated on a 5-point Lik-
ert scale (1 = almost never to 5 = very often). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.61, 0.73, and
0.70 for T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
2.4.1.5 Behavioral andemotional school engagement Two subscales from Skinner
and colleagues (2009) were used where adolescents reported on their effort, atten-
tion, and persistence during their participation in classroom activities. The measures
Table 1 (continued)
Pre-test (T1) Post-test (T2) Follow-up (T3)
Measures Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N
Math competence 4.45 2.92 258 5.71 2.88 221 5.70 3.34 165
Mastery reactions to academic challenges 3.01 .59 252 2.85 .62 220 2.83 .61 172
Disruptive school behavior 2.08 .68 255 2.31 .80 220 2.20 .79 171
Behavioral school engagement 3.70 .77 256 3.49 .86 221 3.48 .79 172
Emotional school engagement 3.48 .80 255 3.25 .86 220 3.23 .79 171
Discrimination 1.29 .61 255 1.13 .62 219 1.36 .66 171
(Un)equal treatment 1.71 .81 254 1.71 .75 217 1.83 .80 170
Heritage and intercultural learning 2.30 .91 254 2.37 .97 217 2.44 .91 170
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Table 2 Bivariate correlations of the outcomes across time
1234567891011
1 Math grades T1 – .52** .43** .49** .18** −.25** .20** .09 .46** .15* .22**
2 German grades T1 .53** – .53** .31** .17** −.20** .17** 0.07 .16** .17** .26**
3 English grades T1 .51** .55** – .20** .22** −.27** .25** .14* .14* .16** .48**
4 Math competence T1 .58** .34** .38** – .05 −.09 .05 −.04 .36** .11* .22**
5 Mastery react to acad. ch. T1 .31** .27** .29** .34** – −.35** .61** .52** .23** .16** .13*
6 Disruptive school behavior T1 −.19** −.21** −.16* −.10 −.36** – −.47** −.33** −.28** −.12* −.22**
7 Behavioral school engagement T1 .33** .31** .28** .23** .65** −.41** – .69** .27** .18** .11*
8 Emotional school engagement T1 .24** .32** .25** .20** .63** −.32** .74** – .20** .02 −.01
9 Math grades T2 .34** .23** .19* .34** .14 −.16* .18* .22** – .36** .33**
10 German grades T2 .26** .38** .32** .25** .18* −.14 .20** .09 .44** – .34**
11 English grades T2 .06 .14 .29** .11 .09 −.08 .16* .07 .30** .43** –
12 Math competence T2 .55** .33** .29** .67** .28** −.21** .34** .28** .35** .18* .14
13 Mastery reactions to acad. ch. T2 .28** .30** .32** .26** .50** −.34** .57** .61** .28** .19* .20**
14 Disr uptive school behavior T2 −.22** −.21** −.26** −.18* −.39** .51** −.46** −.39** −.19* −.18* −.11
15 Behavioral school engagement T2 .23** .22** .28** .17* .54** −.36** .71** .62** .25** .24** .21**
16 Emotional school engagement T2 .23** .27** .23** .18* .50** −.32** .60** .72** .29** .18* .13
17 Math grades T3 .46** .29** .31** .39** .15 −.17 .27** .22* .47** .28** .06
18 Ger man grades T3 .36** .49** .27** .25** .20* −.19* .32** .15 .32** .54** .19*
19 English grades T3 .16 .27** .37** .18* .11 −.20* .20* .08 .11 .19* .45**
20 Math competence T3 .48** .35** .34** .66** .30** −.17* .29** .22** .30** .14 .03
21 Master y reactions to acad. ch T3 .33** .28** .24** .29** .40** −.36** .40** .48** .20* .08 −.01
22 Disr uptive school behavior T3 −.23** −.16 −.19* −.15 −.31** .49** −.36** −.24** −.13 −.07 .01
23 Behavioral school engagement T3 .34** .34** .25** .29** .36** −.31** .48** .42** .19* .20* −.01
24 Emotional school engagement T3 .27** .30** .25** .17* .34** −.24** .39** .51** .26** .17 −.01
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Math grades T1 .50** .19** −.23** .20** .05 .44** .28** .27** .45** .20** −.16* .19** .04
2 German grades T1 .32** .22** −.17** .19** 0.07 .24** .39** .34** .25** .23** −.20** .24** .07
3 English grades T1 .33** .23** −.16** .26** .14* .16* .31** .40** .23** .16* −.10 .14* .09
4 Math competence T1 .65** .08 −.14** .10 −.03 .40** .24** .27** .70** .11 −.13* .08 .03
5 Mastery react to acad.
ch. T1
.07 .51** −.38** .47** .35** .08 .16* .09 .06 .44** −.30** .40** .31**
6 Disruptive school behavior
T1
-.10 −.39** .56** −.42** −.30** −.07 −.11 −.010 −.10 −.31** .41** −.38** −.26**
7 Behavioral school engage-
ment T1
.07 .54** −.38** .63** .53** .09 .14* .07 .09 .37** −.31** .48** .36**
8 Emotional school engage-
ment T1
.04 .48** −.19** .52** .60** .06 .06 −.04 .06 .37** −.19** .41** .44**
9 Math grades T2 .35** .26** −.27** .29** .18** .46** .21** .16* .40** .23** −.24** .24** .12
10 German grades T2 .11 .19** −.23** .21** .14* .25** .32** .21** .27** .14* −.17* .23** .07
11 English grades T2 .32** .16** −.19** .18** .11 .19** .34** .56** .33** .11 −.08 .08 .11
12 Math competence T2 – .16** −.16** .16** .04 .43** .38** .32** .69** .14* −.29** .20** .12
13 Mastery reactions to acad.
ch. T2
.31** – −.49** .75** .64** .15* .25** .10 .19** .65** −.47** .61** .45**
14 Disruptive school behavior
T2
−.23** −.39** – −.54** −.34** −.10 −.21** −.03 −.19** −.39** .59** −.46** −.27**
15 Behavioral school engage-
ment T2
.26** .67** −.50** – .71** .17* .27** .08 .19** .53** −.46** .67** .45**
16 Emotional school engage-
ment T2
.30** .68** −.43** .74** – .05 .21** −.02 .05 .47** −.31** .51** .56**
17 Math grades T3 .38** .15 −.08 .24** .22* – .33** .30** .43** .20** −.20** .20** .12
18 German grades T3 .18* .17 −.21* .32** .20* .39** – .42** .33** .27** −.27** .30** .18**
19 English grades T3 .31** .11 −.24** .26** .08 .20* .22* – .31** .16* −.10 .10 .07
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Table 2 (continued)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
20 Math competence T3 .61** .23** −.24** .28** .27** .26** .19* .25** – .15* −.24** .15* .09
21 Mastery reactions to acad.
ch T3
.24** .52** −.31** .37** .47** .30** .22* .05 .26** – −.43** .69** .59**
22 Disruptive school behavior
T3
−.15 −.38** .50** −.37** −.39** −.17* −.20* −.11 −.19* −.45** – −.51** −.30**
23 Behavioral school engage-
ment T3
.19* .43** −.25** .44** .50** .31** .35** .12 .27** .72** −.45** – .66**
24 Emotional school engage-
ment T3
.13 .46** −.13 .41** .56** .32** .28** .10 .17* .68** −.34** .79** –
Correlations for adolescents of non-immigrant descent below the diagonal, correlations for adolescents of immigrant descent above the diagonal.Note: *p < .05, **p <
.001
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
have been used with German adolescents (Bakadorova & Raufelder, 2014). A sam-
ple item for behavioral school engagement is, “When I’m in class, I participate in
class discussions” and a sample item for emotional school engagement is, “When we
work on something in class, I feel interested”. Each subscale had five items that were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = No, that’s not right to 5 = Yes, that’s right). Cron-
bach’s alphas for behavioral engagement were 0.82, 0.86, and 0.84, and for emotional
engagement, 0.81, 0.83, and 0.84 for T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
2.4.2 Moderators
2.4.2.1 Heritage group As noted above, adolescents were categorized into five herit-
age groups: Turkish, SWANA,Eastern European, other heritage immigrant descent,
no immigrant descent.
2.4.2.2 Discrimination We used the perceived discrimination subscale from a meas-
ure for migration-specific hassles that was initially developed for adolescents of
immigrant descent in Germany (Titzmann etal., 2011). Six items assessed the events
of unfair or negative treatment experienced by adolescents that were attributed to
their ethnic background in the last year. Although this scale was developed for ado-
lescents of immigrant descent, all adolescents responded to the measure. A sample
item for discrimination is, “My schoolmates laughed at me because of my heritage
culture”. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = never, 2 = 1 to 2 times,
3 = 3 to 5 times, 4 = 6 to 10 times, and 5 = more than 10 times). Cronbach’s alphas for
discrimination were 0.86, 0.88, and 0.87 for T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
2.4.2.3 Classroom cultural diversity climate We used two subscales of the Class-
room Cultural Diversity Climate Scale (Schachner etal., 2021): the 5-item unequal
treatment subscale to measure the opposite of equality and inclusion, and the 7-item
heritage culture and intercultural learning subscale to measure cultural pluralism.
A sample item for unequal treatment is “Students from certain heritage cultures
are teased more often than students from other heritage cultures”. A sample item
for the heritage and intercultural learning subscale is “During class we learn about
the heritage cultures of fellow students”. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas for unequal treatment
were 0.81, 0.74, and 0.75 for T1, T2, and T3, respectively. For heritage culture and
intercultural learning, Cronbach’s alphas were 0.87, 0.88, and 0.89 for T1, T2, and
T3, respectively. Higher scores indicated higher unequal treatment and greater herit-
age and intercultural learning.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
3 Results
3.1 Randomization check
To ensure randomization was effective, we tested for pre-intervention (T1) dif-
ferences on demographics (age, SES, importance of religion, German writ-
ing, German reading, cognitive test) and main study variables between students
in the control and intervention conditions. The adolescents in the control, tra-
ditional intervention, and culture-sensitive intervention groups did not differ in
their scores at pre-test (see Supplemental Material, TableS2 for a more detailed
description of how demographics were measured and results of this randomiza-
tion check).
3.2 Opportunity gap check
We tested baseline (T1) differences on study variables between immigrant and non-
immigrant descent students across all treatment conditions as an indication of the
degree of “achievement disparity” (Wu etal., 2021) and varying contextual con-
ditions. Adolescents of immigrant descent differed from those of non-immigrant
descent in math competence, F (1,621) = 49.724, p < .001, ηp
2 = 0.074, and disrup-
tive behavior, F (1,611) = 6.448, p = .011, ηp
2 = 0.010, but not on mastery reactions
to academic challenges or behavioral and emotional school engagement across all
treatment conditions. Non-immigrant descent students scored higher on math com-
petence (M = 6.09 SD = 3.08) than immigrant descent students (M = 4.33, SD = 2.89).
They also reported lower disruptive school behavior (M = 1.94, SD = 0.57) than
immigrant descent students (M = 2.08, SD = 0.67).
We also tested whether students of immigrant descent differed from those of
non-immigrant descent regarding contextual moderators. At baseline, students
of immigrant descent (M = 1.28, SD = 0.61) reported higher discrimination than
students of non-immigrant descent (M = 1.11, SD = 0.37), F (1,614) = 13.270,
p < .001, ηp
2 = 0.021. Students of immigrant descent (M = 2.27, SD = 0.91) and
non-immigrant descent (M = 2.26, SD = 0.83) did not differ in heritage and inter-
cultural learning classroom climate, F(1, 610) = 0.005, p = .942, ηp
2 = 0.000. Stu-
dents of immigrant descent (M = 1.69, SD = 0.80) and non-immigrant descent
(M = 1.64, SD = 0.76) also did not differ in unequal treatment classroom climate,
F(1, 609) = 0.468p = .494,ηp
2 = 0.001.
3.3 Manipulation check
As a manipulation check we based our procedures on Hanselmann etal. (2017). Two
trained independent coders who were blind to the experimental condition coded all
essays (first independently coding then discussing and reaching consensus on codes
not in agreement) to examine whether students in the intervention group wrote more
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
affirming responses (e.g., by expressing either the importance of the value for them-
selves, by expressing that they are “good in” the valued domain, or by expressing
positive emotions) than students in the control group. Essays of the students in the
intervention group were coded as moreself-affirming than essays of the students in
the control group for both the first,χ2(2) = 437.77, p < .001, and second interven-
tion,χ2(2) = 20.180, p < .001.Most of the essays in Intervention 1 (95%) and Inter-
vention 2 (87%) in theintervention group were coded as expressing self-affirmation.
3.4 Fidelity check
A majority of students (67%) did Intervention 1 before a math test while (33%) did
Intervention 1 one day after.3 For Intervention 2, all students did the intervention
before a math test. Most of the teachers (n = 45 out of 47 teachers) who gave the
intervention responded to fidelity check questions. After both interventions, 43%
of teachers reported that no students noticed different written tasks and the mean
number of students the teachers reported noticing was 2.54. Thus, on average, two
students in a class noticed differences.4 Of those who filled out the teacher survey,
28% of the teachers reported either “not quite true” or “not at all” to being motivated
to do the writing task while 39% reported either “rather true or “true”. Thirty-four
percent reported either “not quite true” or “not at all” to seeing the writing assign-
ments as beneficial for the students, 11% reported “rather true” and none reported
“true”. Finally, 43% of the teachers reported either “rather true” or “true” that the
intervention was an additional task that caused extra workload, while 32% reported
“not quite true” or “not at all”.
3.5 Attrition andmissing data
A total of 639 adolescents participated in the pre-test (T1) and at least one of the
two intervention tasks. Among those, 86% (n = 549) participated in the post-test
(T2). Among the adolescents present in both pre-test (T1) and post-test (T2), 73%
(n = 399) participated in the follow-up (T3). The attrition rates in the intervention
and control groups between the pre-test (T1) and the post-test (T2) were similar
3 There was no difference in math results between students who did intervention 1 before or after a math
test. For instance, after selecting those who did intervention 1 before a math test, the intervention and
control groups did not differ regarding math grades from T1-T2 (Wald χ2 (1, n = 316) = .602, p = .43) or
T2-T3 (Wald χ2 (1, n = 316) = 3.354, p = .07). They also did not differ regarding math competence from
T1-T2 (Wald χ2 (1, n = 374) = .240, p = .62) or from T2-T3 (Wald χ2 (1, n = 374) = .140, p = .70).
4 In additional analyses, we selected those students in classrooms where no one noticed the different
intervention conditions and tested the direct effect of the intervention on the study outcomes. The sample
size decreased in these analyses, n = 250. The main effects of the intervention were the same as with
the larger sample. Namely, the main effects were significant only for disruptive school behavior and
not for other outcomes. For disruptive school behavior the change scores differed between the interven-
tion and control groups for T1-T2 (Wald χ2 (1, n = 250) = 3.694, p = .054) and for T2-T3 (Wald χ2 (1,
n = 250) = 4.53, p = .033). Model fit was acceptable, χ2 (250) = 738.020, p < .001; CFI = .958, TLI = .949,
RMSEA = .044 (90% CI = .003- .066), SRMR = .09).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
(control: 12%, traditional intervention: 14%, culture-sensitive intervention: 15%,
χ2(2) = 0.82, p = .66, ηp
2 = 0.001). The attrition rates in the intervention and control
groups between the post-test and follow-up were also similar (control: 26%, tradi-
tional intervention: 29%, culture-sensitive intervention: 23%, χ2(2) = 1.50, p = .47,
ηp
2 = 0.001).
For further attrition analyses, we followed the same approach from another lon-
gitudinal study (Miklikowska et al., 2019). To test whether attrition from T1 to T2
(n = 90) or from T1 to T3 (n = 204) was related to the demographic and the study
variables, we conducted logistic regression testing whether attrition (0 = dropped,
1 = retained) was predicted by demographic (e.g., gender) or the study variables
at T1. The results showed that attrition from T1 to T2 was related to the cogni-
tive skills test, behavioral school engagement and discrimination. Adolescents who
scored higher at the cognitive skills test were more likely to participate at both time
points (T1 and T2) than adolescents who scored lower at the cognitive skills test, F
(1,637) = 8.856, p = .003, ηp
2 = 0.030. Adolescents who reported lower discrimina-
tion were more likely to participate at both time points (T1 and T2) than those who
reported higher discrimination, F (1,627) = 5.697, p = .017, ηp
2 = 0.013. Adolescents
who reported higher behavioral school engagement were more likely to participate
at both time points (T1 and T2) than those who reported lower behavioral school
engagement, F (1,627) = 16.035, p < .001, ηp
2 = 0.038. Nagelkerke R2 of the regres-
sion model was 0.08.5
Attrition from T1 to T3 was not significantly related to the demographic (e.g.,
gender) or study variables except the cognitive skills test. Again, adolescents who
scored higher on the cognitive skills test were more likely to participate in all time
points (T1, T2, and T3) than adolescents who scored lower on the cognitive skills
test, F (1, 637) = 15.354, p < .001. Nagelkerke R2 was 0.03. We added the cognitive
skills variable to the models as an auxiliary variable (Graham, 2003).
Missing data for the study variables were less than 7% within each time point.
Participants with and without complete data were compared on the study vari-
ables using Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test within each time
point. Results suggested that missing values were missing completely at random
for T1, χ2 (78, n = 639) = 67.114, p = .80, not missing completely at random for T2,
χ2 (14, n = 536) = 27.147, p = .018, and again completely at random for T3, χ2 (21,
n = 399) = 17.950, p = .652. Due to the small amount of missing data overall, we
used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) to handle missing data.
3.6 Measurement invariance
We tested measurement invariance for all study measures across time and immigra-
tion status groups (immigrant descent vs non-immigrant descent; see Supplemental
5 Nagelkerke R2 refers to an adjusted version of Cox and Snell R-square that are usually used in logistic
regression analyses (Allison, 2013). An adjusted Nagelkerke R2 ranges between 0 to 1 and refers to the
variance explained by the independent variable. Therefore, our percentages of 0.8% and 0.3% are small
and not likely to affect subsequent analyses.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
Material, Tables S3-S9) as measurement invariance is necessary to meaningfully
interpret latent difference scores (Geiser, 2012). We first tested configural invariance
(specifying the same measurement model in all groups, without constraining factor
loadings or intercepts to be equal across groups), metric invariance (factor loadings
were constrained to be equal across groups), and scalar invariance (intercepts were
constrained to be equal across groups). Metric invariance implies that associations
can be compared across groups and scalar invariance implies that means can be
compared across groups.
All measures demonstrated scalar invariance across time and immigrant status
group except for one measure. One item (i.e., How often have you been too late for
class in the morning or after lunch break in the last four weeks?) of the disruptive
school behavior measure was removed to establish scalar measurement invariance
(with four items) to proceed to testing a latent change model.
3.7 Steps totest hypotheses
We built multigroup latent change models using Mplus, using intervention vs. con-
trol condition as a grouping variable. In each model, we allowed the same items
to correlate with each other across time. We then generated latent change vari-
ables/scores for the change between T1 and T2 and the change between T2 and T3.
In a latent change model, a latent state variable at T2 is a function of the latent
state variable at T1 plus a variable capturing the change from T1 to T2 (Geiser,
2012). In other words, because T1 scores between intervention and controls groups
are the same, the calculated latent state variable at T2 reflects only the change in
latent scores between T1 and T2. Likewise, the calculated latent state variable at T3
reflects only the change in latent scores between T2 and T3.
We then used the “model test” function in multigroup analyses to compare
whether the change score for T1 to T2 and T2 to T3 significantly differed between
intervention and control groups. We did this separately for students of immigrant
descent and non-immigrant descent (H1). We did not add any covariates to the mod-
els as groups had been randomized by participants’ heritage group, generation, and
gender within classes. However, based on preliminary analysis regarding attrition,
we added cognitive skills as an auxiliary variable to the models.
Regarding moderators, to test whether the intervention was effective for specific
heritage groups among immigrant descent adolescents, we used a categorical vari-
able for heritage groups and tested the direct effects of theintervention by select-
ing sub-samples (H2a). However, the sample size for each heritage group was small
(e.g., n = 114 for SWANA, n = 107 for Turkish heritage).
To test the moderators of discrimination and classroom cultural diversity climate
among immigrant descent adolescents, we used a single group model where change
scores for T1 to T2 and T2 to T3 were regressed on the treatment condition (0 = con-
trol, 1 = intervention), the moderator, and the interaction term between the treatment
condition and the respective moderator (H2b and H2c).
Against our hypotheses, we note that there were no differences between the tra-
ditional and culture-sensitive self-affirmation tasks in any of the main analyses.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Therefore, we combined the two intervention conditions into one group and report
main results based on this combined intervention group vs. control group, below.
3.8 Effects oftheintervention onschool‑related adjustment
With regards to Math, German, and English grades, we could not use latent change
models because each grade was assessed with just one item. Therefore, we tested
for an intervention effect with two steps. First, we used a multigroup (interven-
tion vs. control) regression model where grade (each tested separately) at T2 was
regressed on T1 and grade (each tested separately) at T3 was regressed on T2. Using
the model test function, we examined whether the regression parameters were equal
across the two groups. Based on the best fitting model, we calculated the predicted
values (the estimated model parameters) for T1, T2, and T3 to test for an interven-
tion effect.Second, we combined the intervention and the control groups. Control-
ling for grade at T1, grade at T2 was regressed on a categorical variable represent-
ing the intervention conditions (0 = control, 1 = intervention). Controlling for grades
at T1 and T2, grade at T3 was regressed on the intervention conditions. Based on
these steps, there was no intervention effect for students of immigrant descent, non-
immigrant descent (H1), or specific heritage groups (H2a). Discrimination and two
dimensions of classroom cultural diversity climate did not moderate intervention
effects on grades for students of immigrant descent (H2b & H2c).
We could not use latent change models for math competence because the scale
was one ordinal item ranging from 0 to 15. Therefore, we followed the same ana-
lytic approach with grades. We found no intervention effect on math competence
for students of immigrant descent, non-immigrant descent (H1), or specific heritage
groups (H2a). Discrimination and two dimensions of classroom cultural diversity
climate did not moderate intervention effects for math competence for students of
immigrant descent (H2b & H2c).
With regards to mastery reactions to academic challenges, change scores did not
differ between the control and intervention groups for T1-T2 and T2-T3 for students
of immigrant descent, non-immigrant descent (H1), or specific heritage groups
(H2a). However, students of immigrant descent who experienced high levels of dis-
crimination may have benefited more from the intervention, at least in the short term
(H2b). More precisely, they showed a smaller decline in their mastery reactions to
academic challenges compared to students who experienced high levels of discrimi-
nation in the control group (interaction term approached significance, ß = 0.243,
p = .064) at T2. But this effect was not significant in the long term, meaning that
students of immigrant descent who experienced high levels of discrimination ended
up with similar scores on mastery reactions to academic challenges at T3 regard-
less if they received the intervention or not (see Fig.1 and Table3). The post hoc
power analysis suggested that with the available sample size (n = 394), we had suf-
ficient power (99.88%) to reject a poor-fitting model (df = 85). The two dimensions
of classroom diversity climate did not moderate the intervention effects on mastery
reactions to academic challenges in the short- or long-term for students of immi-
grant descent (H2c).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
With regards to disruptive school behavior, change scores differed between
the intervention and control groups for T1-T2 and T2-T3 for both students of
immigrant descent (Wald χ2 (1, n = 413) = 4.489, p < .05 for T1-T2; Wald χ2 (1,
n = 413) = 7.257, p < .01 for T2-T3) and non-immigrant descent (Wald χ2 (1,
n = 226) = 4.535, p < .05 for T1-T2; Wald χ2 (1, n = 226) = 14.214, p < .001 for
T2-T3) (H1). More specifically, from T1 to T2, the intervention group initially
showed greater disruptive behavior than the control group, but from T2 to T3 this
reversed.By T3, the intervention group showed less disruptive behavior compared
to the control groupfor students of non-immigrant descent (see Figs.2 and 3 and
Table3). In other words, the intervention lessened an upward trajectory in disrup-
tive behaviorfor both groups. This finding did not support our hypothesis as the
intervention benefitted both students of immigrant and non-immigrant descent con-
cerning disruptive behavior, at least in the long term. The change scores in disrup-
tive behavior for T1-T2 and T2-T3 did not differ by intervention condition for spe-
cific heritage groups (H2a). Discrimination and the two dimensions of classroom
climate did not moderate the intervention effects on disruptive behavior for students
of immigrant descent (H2b and H2c).
With regards to behavioral school engagement, change scores did not differ
between the intervention and control groups for T1-T2 or T2-T3 for students of
immigrant descent, non-immigrant descent (H1) or specific heritage groups
(H2a). Discrimination and unequal treatment climate did not moderate the inter-
vention effects among students of immigrant descent (H2b and H2c). But there
was a significant interaction for the intervention effect and heritage/intercultural
learning classroom climate between T1 and T2 (ß = 0.281, p = .013) and T2 and
T3 (ß = 0.288, p = .025) for students of immigrant descent (H2c, see Fig.4 and
Beginning of 7th gradeEnd of 7th gradeEnd of 8th grade
Intervention - high discrimination3.03 2.85 2.99
Control - high discrimination 3.03 2.68 2.94
Intervention - low discrimination 3.02 2.82 2.93
Control - low discrimination 3.02 2.89 3.01
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Reactions to academic challenges
Fig. 1 Discrimination as a Moderator of the Intervention Effect on the Reactions to Academic Chal-
lenges for Students of Immigrant Descent (n = 413, low = 1 SD below the mean, high = 1 above the mean)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Table 3 Model fit indices for the latent change models that show significant effects
Mastery reactions to academic challenges
Discrimination as moderator for immigrant descent students (H2b) χ2 (413) = 176.835, p < .001; CFI = .935, TLI = .922, RMSEA = .051 (90% CI = .040—
.062), SRMR = .126
Disruptive school behavior
Direct effects for immigrant descent students (H1) χ2 (394) = 147.790, p < .01; CFI = .960, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .043 (90% CI = .024—
.060), SRMR = .07
Direct effects for non- immigrant descent students (H1) χ2 (205) = 152.210, p < .01; CFI = .931, TLI = .916, RMSEA = .063 (90% CI = .037—
.085), SRMR = .100
Behavioral school engagement
Heritage/intercultural learning norms as moderator for immigrant
descent students (H2c)
χ2 (413) = 424.008, p < .001; CFI = .895, TLI = .876, RMSEA = .075 (90% CI = .067—
.083), SRMR = .152
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
Table 3). In the short‐term (T2), students of immigrant descent who perceived
high heritage and intercultural learning in the classroom benefitted more from
the intervention (had a smaller decline in behavioral engagement) compared to
those who perceived high heritage and intercultural learning in the classroom but
Beginning of 7th gradeEnd of 7th gradeEnd of 8th grade
Intervention 2.08 2.33 2.29
Control 2.06 2.16 2.34
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Disruptive School Behaviour
Fig. 2 Direct Effects of the Intervention on Disruptive School Behavior for Students of Immigrant
Descent (n = 413, low = 1 SD below the mean, high = 1 SDabove the mean)
Beginning of 7th gradeEnd of 7th gradeEnd of 8th grade
Intervention 1.88 2.15 2.10
Control2.02 2.07 2.50
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Disruptive SchoolBehaviour
Fig. 3 Direct Effects of the Intervention on Disruptive School Behavior for Students of Non-Immigrant
Descent (n = 226, low = 1 SD below the mean, high = 1 SDabove the mean)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
did not receive the intervention. At T3, the intervention effect was not sustained
such that the intervention and control groups both increased in behavioral school
engagement similarly. The post hoc power analysis suggested that with the avail-
able sample size (n = 413), we had sufficient power (99%) to reject a poor-fitting
model (df = 127). Overall, students in the higher heritage and intercultural learn-
ing classroom showed greater behavioral school engagement compared to those
in lower heritage and intercultural learning classrooms across all time points.
With regards to emotional school engagement, change scores did not differ
between the control and intervention group for T1-T2 or T2-T3 for adolescents of
immigrant descent, non-immigrant descent (H1), or specific heritage groups (H2a).
Discrimination and two dimensions of classroom climate did not moderate interven-
tion effects for adolescents of immigrant descent (H2b and H2c).6
Beginning of 7th gradeEnd of 7th gradeEnd of 8th grade
Intervention - high
heritage/intercul. 4.01 3.52 3.72
Control - high heritage/intercul4.01 3.33 3.8
Intervention - low
heritage/intercul3.59 2.99 3.32
Control - low heritage/intercul3.59 3.14 3.38
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Behavioral school engagement
Fig. 4 Heritage and Intercultural Learning Climate as a Moderator of the Intervention Effect on Behavio-
ral School Engagement for Students of Immigrant Descent (n = 413, low = 1 SD below the mean, high = 1
SDabove the mean)
6 We also conducted additional exploratory, non-pre-registered analyses to test whether gender and SES
moderated the relations between condition and adjustment indicators. SES did not moderate the relations.
Gender was a significant moderator for disruptive school behavior. For students of immigrant descent,
the interaction of gender and the effect of the intervention was significant between T1 to T2 (ß = .311,
p < .01) and not significant between T2 to T3 (ß = . -170, p = .173, see Figure S6). For students of non-
immigrant descent, the interaction of gender and the effect of the intervention was marginally significant
between T1 to T2 (ß = .322, p = .065) and significant between T2 to T3 (ß = . -078, p = .046, see Figure
S7). The results suggest that the intervention worked differently by gender. More specifically, compared
to the control group, boys in the intervention group (but not girls) increased in disruptive behavior in
the short-term, but in the long-term showed less disruptive behavior. We added the two figures to Sup-
plemental Materials with a note that model fit for students of non-immigrant descent was not very good.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
4 Discussion
Adolescents of immigrant descent may experience stereotyping and discrimination,
creating threats to their identity that may undermine their school-related adjustment.
In our study we tested whether engaging in a brief self-affirmation writing task
would protect adolescents against a decline in school-related adjustment from the
beginning of 7th to the end of 8th grade. We also considered whether heritage group,
experiences of discrimination, and classroom cultural diversity climate would con-
tribute to heterogeneity of effects. Our overall conclusion is that the brief self-affir-
mation writing intervention shows a small effect on some aspects of school-related
adjustment for adolescents of immigrant descent and may sometimes be beneficial
also for adolescents of non-immigrant descent. The context of the intervention is
also important, with classroom cultural diversity climate acting as a psychological
affordance to enhance affirmation effects, at least in the short term.
We did not find that the self-affirmation writing intervention benefited students
of immigrant descent regarding grades or math competence, two of the most widely
studied academic outcomes in education (Wu etal., 2021). Our findings contrast
to Müller and Lokhande’s (2017; Lokhande & Müller, 2019) study that had a very
similar sample drawn from the same city and found their intervention to be effec-
tive for boosting math competence using the same measure. Several differences with
their study may explain our divergent findings. In their study the intervention was
administered by the researchers and the effects were assessed immediately after the
intervention and again eight weeks later. In our study the intervention was admin-
istered by teachers and effects were assessed five to six months and one year later.
We trained teachers to implement the intervention based on the theoretical impor-
tance of having affirmation clearly linked to school (Easterbrook etal., 2021). While
we tried to be consistent in the training, teachers also varied in motivations. Some
were enthusiastic about the intervention and others less so. Perhaps this variation
in teacher training compliance and effectiveness contributed to fewer intervention
effects compared to the previous study. Indeed, implementation fidelity has been
identified as a likely moderator of self-affirmation intervention effectiveness also
in previous research, and this particularly applies for interventions implemented by
teachers (Bradley etal., 2016). For teacher-implemented studies with smaller sam-
ples, procedures can be followed and monitored more carefully and close collabora-
tions can be established with teachers. This was difficult to attempt to do in a larger-
scale study such as ours, and indeed some of the larger self-affirmation studies with
the goal of scaling up the intervention were less successful than the initial, smaller
studies.
In addition, especially in the East German federal states including Berlin, many
schools are under-resourced and there is a drastic shortage of teachers. This becomes
even more problematic when facing additional challenges, such as providing school-
ing for large numbers of refugee students who arrived in the years of our study. It
means that there is less time available for teacher training and careful implemen-
tation of an intervention in addition to their regular teaching content. Scaling up
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
paired with teacher implementation may therefore cumulate in additional challenges
for intervention effectiveness.
Despite the absence of a main intervention effect on grades and math compe-
tence, we did find effects on a few outcomes. Our findings for mastery reactions
to academic challenges are somewhat in line with self-affirmation findings showing
that the intervention prevented a decline in academic motivation and performance
(Cohen etal., 2009; Sherman et al., 2013), but under specific conditions. Our find-
ings show (tentatively as these results approached significance at p = .064) that ado-
lescents of immigrant descent who participated in the intervention were more likely
to show less decline in their mastery reactions to academic challenges, at least in the
short term, from T1 to T2, but only those who experienced higher (not lower) lev-
els of discrimination. These results suggest that those who experience the greatest
direct threat to their sense of self could be targeted for affirmation interventions to
reinforce and make clear that they are valued. Finding that these effectslast only in
the short‐term demonstrates the importanceof studying longer-term effects to draw
conclusions about overall effectiveness. Yet finding a short-term effect also suggests
there may be windows of opportunity for intervention effectiveness that might make
sense to target. The non-immigrant descent adolescents did not show any of these
effects for mastery reactions to academic challenges, in line with theoretical reason-
ing that the intervention would not affect adolescents assumed to experience less
identity threat, especially in an educational context.
Regarding disruptive school behavior, we found that the self-affirmation writing
intervention prevented an upward trajectory in disruptive school behavior from the
7th to end of 8th grade for all adolescents, regardless of immigrant status. While
disruptive school behavior can increase throughout secondary school (Zimmer-
mann etal., 2013), the intervention appears to have prevented some of this increase.
Engaging in disruptive behavior is consequential for relationships with teachers,
school grades, and perceptions of the self (Zimmermann etal., 2013), and thus an
important outcome to pay attention to.
Our results do not align with findings with sixth and seventh grade Dutch stu-
dents, where a brief self-affirmation writing task did not reduce problem behav-
iors across an academic school year (de Jong etal., 2016). Yet our results do align
with findings with U.S. students, where multiple brief self-affirmation writing tasks
across three years reduced discipline incidents (taken from school records) in 7th
and 8th grade, with no difference by ethnic group (Binning etal., 2019). Similarly,
contrary to hypotheses, the intervention in their study did not solely benefit identity-
threatened adolescents, but all adolescents.
There is some evidence that self-affirmation tasks can reduce effects of identity
threat in general and not only threats tied to a specific group identity (Cohen &
Sherman, 2014). In Germany, the often-used categories of immigrant descent vs.
not is contested as a relevant or meaningful identity as it is a label that the majority
of people in Germany officially designated as “migration background”, do not self-
identify with (Nesterko & Glaesmer, 2019). The risk for susceptibility to stereotype
threat has been argued to be greater for those who identify more strongly with the
group that is being targeted, but there are very few studies in Europe on this topic
and the few show mixed evidence for immigrant groups (Appel etal., 2015). This
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
may be a reason why we did not find consistent differences in the effectiveness of
the intervention for these two groups.
Classroom cultural diversity climate moderated the effect of the self-affirmation
writing task on behavioral school engagement. In the short term, students of immi-
grant descent who perceived high heritage and intercultural learning in the class-
room (less identity threat) showed a smaller decline in behavioral school engage-
ment (i.e., benefitted more from the intervention) compared to students who
perceived low heritage and intercultural learning in the classroom. In the long-term,
however, there were increases in behavioral school engagement for all students from
the end of 7th into 8th grade, regardless of treatment condition. Thus, a positive
classroom diversity climate acted as a protective factor for those participating in the
intervention in the short-term, and later, as an enhancing factor for all adolescents in
the long-term. These results illustrate the importance of defining both vulnerabili-
ties and opportunities when considering interventions within real-life social contexts
(Walter & Yeager, 2020). Our results suggest that a positive diversity climate in the
classroom could be considered a psychological affordance, a feature of the context
that can act as a resource to allow an affirmation intervention to take hold (Walter &
Yeager, 2020) as well as foster positive school adjustment beyond the intervention.
Our findings are also in line with findings from a previous study showing that trust
in teachers and school, and a more positive school climate may contribute to positive
affirmation intervention effects (Binning etal., 2019).
Against our hypothesis, we did not find that the intervention was effective in
changing emotional school engagement. While negative stereotypes for immigrant
descent students and families in Germany, especially for those of Turkish- or Arab-
heritage regarding school engagement, for instance in terms of being bildungsfern
(“academically distant”) (Emmerich & Hormel, 2013), perhaps the stereotype is not
as pronounced towards the entire group of students of immigrant descent. Alter-
natively, not all members belonging to the same negatively stereotyped group are
equally affected because they may not be aware of the stereotype, do not endorse the
stereotype, or do not identify with the group (Spencer etal., 2016). We did not find
other studies that included this dependent variable so we await future studies to test
this further.
Regarding heritage group as moderator, we did not find it moderated the effec-
tiveness of the intervention. Heritage groups are broad categories that do not
directly assess potentially important experiences, such as the degree of discrimina-
tion experienced. Discrimination indeed moderated some of the intervention effects,
suggesting it is more important to consider such experiences rather than solely rely
on categorizations.
Based on theory and empirical evidence, the self-affirmation writing intervention
should be more effective when the “achievement gap” between identity-threatened
adolescents and identity non-threatened adolescents is large (Wu etal., 2021). In
our study for the whole sample at pre-test, we found that adolescents of immigrant
descent differed from those of non-immigrant descent in math performance and dis-
ruptive behavior, but not on mastery reactions to academic challenges or behavioral
and emotional school engagement. Further, these differences were small. The fact
that the two groups did not show substantial school-related adjustment gaps in most
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
of the study variables, could also explain why we found few effects. Despite persis-
tent educational disparities between students of immigrant descent and non-immi-
grant descent in Germany, the school system in the federal state of Berlin is more
inclusive than elsewhere in Germany, with a longer period of primary schooling and
more within-school (as opposed to between-school)tracking in integrated secondary
schools(Teltemann & Schunck, 2016).
Overall, our results speak to the importance of considering a range of conditions
to clarify self-affirmation effects in educational settings as the quality and timing of
implementation, demographics and experiences of students and teachers, and avail-
ability of school resources can all contribute to heterogeneity of effects (Easterbrook
etal., 2021; Hanselmann etal., 2017). Notably, in theWu etal. (2021) meta-analy-
sis, of the nine studies that were conducted outside the US, only four included ado-
lescents, with two studies finding effects (England and Germany) and two that did
not (Netherlands). Although the overall meta-analytic effect is positive, significant,
and medium size for identity-threatened students, which is encouraging, the authors
clearly note that because of the great heterogeneity in effect sizes, it will be the case
that single studies may show a null effect (Wu etal., 2021). As noted earlier, future
studies should continue to detail moderators on various levels to uncover when and
for whom this intervention may be effective.
4.1 Limitations
There were some limitations to our study that could have affected our study findings.
One such limitation is that our timing and dosage were not ideal. We had planned
to implement the first intervention at the very beginning of the year, directly after
students transitioned to secondary school, based on the importance of starting before
negative recursive processes begin, especially during or after a transition (Sher-
man etal., 2013). However, a delay in receiving ethics approval prevented us from
doing so and thus we started further into the school year (eight weeks) than desired.
Indeed, a 4-week delay can significantly decrease the effectiveness of the affirmation
intervention (Cook etal., 2012). We also originally planned for three inventions but
were only able to complete two. Nonetheless, dosage may be less important than
timing (Wu etal., 2021) and other aspects of our study were well-timed in that we
focused specifically on 7th graders after a period of transitioning into secondary
school and attempted to schedule interventions before math tests.
4.2 Strengths andavenues forfuture research
One strength is that we tested for theorized heterogeneity andfocused on student
(heritage group, experiences of discrimination) and contextual (classroom quality
climate) moderators. Other moderators such as implementation quality (Bradley
etal., 2016), teacher-related (e.g., growth mindset), and other school-related aspects
(Easterbrook etal., 2021; Hanselmann etal., 2017; Wu etal., 2021) are also impor-
tant. In future studies we plan to also test mediators to explain why self-affirma-
tion writing interventions work in terms of the underlying psychological processes
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
(Easterbrook et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021). Based on self-determination theory
(Ryan & Deci, 2020), we included measures of sense of belonging, autonomy, and
competence. There is evidence that a key mechanism for why self-affirmation tasks
work is enhancing a sense of belonging (Celeste etal., 2021; Cook et al., 2012;
Shnabel etal., 2013). A greater sense of belonging seems to provide a context for
doing well in school academically (Celeste etal., 2019). Relatedly, self-affirmation
tasks can promote a sense of trust with teachers and school and contribute to better
school behavior among adolescents (Binning etal., 2019). Less known is whether
self-affirmation tasks enhance the two other basic needs of self-determination–a
sense of autonomy and competence–so we plan to test this in the future.
Our findings are useful in that the intervention seems to offer some protection
for school-related adjustment, for both students of immigrant and non-immigrant
descent, depending on the particular aspect of adjustment and context. Although
we did not find strong support for all hypotheses with our wide range of outcomes,
the strengths of the study are the theoretical foundation, adequate sample size, real-
life conditions and longer-term school-related adjustment measured. Our findings
are still important to demonstrate under what conditions and for what outcomes the
intervention does and does not seem to work.
We also would like to highlight our agreement with recent studies that recog-
nize the limitations of only focusing on affirming students with an individual-level
intervention (Easterbrook etal., 2021; Wu etal., 2021). Broader societal and struc-
tural level supports, as well as within the school, will be necessary to provide the
resources and nurturing environment that will allow students to be affirmed, valued,
and supported for who they are (Walton & Yeager, 2020).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s11218- 023- 09789-9.
Acknowledgements This research is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Project Num-
ber 335746752, awarded to Linda P. Juang and Maja K. Schachner. We thank Mohini Lokhande, Tim
Müller, and David Sherman for generously sharing their study materials and experiences. We thank
our collaborators Güseli Baysu, Karen Phalet, and Ruth Ditlmann as well as the students, teachers, and
schools that participated in and supported the study.
Author Contributions LJ and MKS: conceptualized, designed, acquired funding for, and supervised the
study. Material preparation, school and participant recruitment, and data collection were coordinated by
MS and performed by all authors but primarily by MS, TA, DK, and HL. Teacher training was conducted
primarily by HL. Data analyses were performed by TA with input from other authors. The first version
of the full manuscript was drafted by LJ based on reports written by all authors, the methods and results
were primarily edited by TA and DK, and all authors commented on and edited previous versions of the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from
the corresponding author [L.J.]. The data are not publicly available as we do not have permission from
the participants.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest The authors do not have any conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen
ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Allison, P. (2013, February 13). What’s the best R-squared for logistic regression? Statistical Horizons.
https:// stati stica lhori zons. com/ r2log istic/
Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes [Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency] (2013). Diskriminierung
im Bildungsbereich und im Arbeitsleben [Discrimination in education and employment]. Berlin.
https:// www. antid iskri minie rungs stelle. de/ Share dDocs/ downl oads/ DE/ publi katio nen/ BT_ Beric ht/
gemei nsamer_ beric ht_ zweit er_ 2013. pdf?__ blob= publi catio nFile &v=4
Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants: Review
and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2015. 00900
Bailey, D., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of
child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 7–39.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19345 747. 2016. 12324 59
Bakadorova, O., & Raufelder, D. (2014). The mediating role of socio-motivational support in the asso-
ciation between individual school self-concept and achievement motivation amongst adolescent
students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 347–366. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10212- 013- 0202-5
Baysu, G., & Phalet, K. (2019). The up- and downside of dual identity: Stereotype threat and minority
performance. Journal of Social Issues, 75(2), 568–591. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12330
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition:
Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Binning, K. R., Cook, J. E., Purdie-Greenaway, V., Garcia, J., Chen, S., Apfel, N., Sherman, D. K., &
Cohen, G. L. (2019). Bolstering trust and reducing discipline incidents at a diverse middle school:
How self-affirmation affects behavioral conduct during the transition to adolescence. Journal of
School Psychology, 75, 74–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp. 2019. 07. 007
Bradley, D. N., Crawford, E. P., & Dahill-Brown, S. E. (2016). Defining and assessing FoI in a large-scale
randomized trial: Core components of values affirmation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49,
51–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. stued uc. 2016. 04. 002
Brenick, A., & Titzmann, P. F. (2015). Internationally comparative research on minority and immigrant
adolescents’ social, emotional, and behavioral development. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(6),
571–573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2015. 09. 005
Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. (2021). Self-affirmation and test performance in ethni-
cally diverse schools: A new dual-identity affirmation intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 77(3),
824–850. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12418
Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., Meeussen, L., & Kende, J. (2019). Can school diversity policies reduce
belonging and achievement gaps between minority and majority youth? Multiculturalism, color-
blindness, and assimilationism assessed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(11), 1603–
1618. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67219 838577
Civitillo, S., Mayer, A.-M., & Jugert, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the associa-
tions between perceived teacher-based racial-ethnic discrimination with student well-being and aca-
demic outcomes. Manuscript under Review. https:// psyar xiv. com/ d4rva/
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in
self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324(5925), 400–403.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11707 69
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
Cohen, G. L., Garica, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-
psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11283
17
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psycho-
logical intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 333–371. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur
ev- psych- 010213- 115137
Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belong-
ing: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(3), 479–496. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0026 312
Creswell, J. D., Welch, W. T., Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Gruenewald, T. L., & Mann, T. (2005).
Affirmation of personal values buffers neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses. Psycho-
logical Science, 16(11), 846–851. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9280. 2005. 01624.x
de Jong, E. M., Jellesma, F. C., Koomen, H. M. Y., & de Jong, P. F. (2016). A values-affirmation inter-
vention does not benefit negatively stereotyped immigrant students in the Netherlands. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7(691), 1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2016. 00691
Easterbrook, M. J., Harris, P. R., & Sherman, D. K. (2021). Self-affirmation theory in educational con-
texts. Journal of Social Issues, 77(3), 683–701. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12459
Emmerich, M., & Hormel, U. (2013). Ungleichheit als Systemeffekt? [Inequality as a system effect?] In F.
Dietrich, M. Heinrich, & N. Thieme (Eds.), Bildungsgerechtigkeit Jenseits Von Chancengleichheit:
Theoretische und Empirische Ergänzungen und Alternativen zu ‘PISA’ [Educational equity beyond
equal opportunity: Theoretical and empirical extensions and alternatives to PISA] (pp. 137–158).
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Frankenberg, E., Kupper, K., Wagner, R., & Bongard, S. (2013). Immigrant youth in Germany: Psycho-
logical and sociocultural adaptation. European Psychologist, 18(3), 158–168. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1027/ 1016- 9040/ a0001 54
Froehlich, L., Mok, S. Y., Martiny, S. E., & Deaux, K. (2022). Stereotype threat-effects for Turkish-
origin migrants in Germany: Taking stock of cumulative research evidence. European Educational
Research Journal, 21(2), 330–354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14749 04118 807539
Fuchs, M., & Sixt, M. (2007). Zur Nachhaltigkeit von Bildungsaufstiegen. Soziale Vererbung von Bil-
dungserfolgen über mehrere Generationen. [On the sustainability of educational improvement.
Social heredity transmission of educational success over multiple generations]. Kölner Zeitschrift
für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Cologne Journal for Sociology and Social Psychology, 59(1),
1–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11577- 007- 0001-6
Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Brisson, B. M., Häfner, I., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2015).
Fostering adolescents’ value beliefs for mathematics with a relevance intervention in the classroom.
Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1226–1240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ dev00 00028
Geiser, C. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford Press.
Glock, S., & Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2013). Does nationality matter? The impact of stereotypical expecta-
tions on student teachers’ judgments. Social Psychology of Education, 16(1), 111–127. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s11218- 012- 9197-z
Götz, L., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2013). DEMAT 6+. Deutscher Mathematiktest für sechste Klassen
[German math test for 6th grade]. Hogrefe.
Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 80–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/
S1532 8007S EM1001_4
Hadden, I. R., Easterbrook, M. J., Nieuwenhuis, M., Fox, K. J., & Dolan, P. (2020). Self-affirmation
reduces the socioeconomic attainment gap in schools in England. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(2), 517–536. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjep. 12291
Hanselman, P., Bruch, S. K., Gamoran, A., & Borman, G. D. (2014). Threat in context: School modera-
tion of the impact of social identity threat on racial/ethnic achievement gaps. Sociology of Educa-
tion, 87(2), 106–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00380 40714 525970
Hanselman, P., Rozek, C. S., Grigg, J., & Borman, G. D. (2017). New evidence on self-affirmation effects
and theorized sources of heterogeneity from large-scale replications. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 109(3), 405–424. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ edu00 00141
Jenkins, P. H. (1995). School delinquency and school commitment. Sociology of Education, 68, 221–239.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 21126 86
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4),
241–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00131 89X20 912798
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
Kunyu, D., Juang, L. P., Schachner, M. K., & Schwarzenthal, M. (2020). Discrimination among youth
of immigrant descent in Germany. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psy-
chologie, 52(3–4), 88–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1026/ 0049- 8637/ a0002 31
Lokhande, M., & Müller, T. (2019). Double jeopardy – Double remedy? The effectiveness of self-affir-
mation for improving doubly disadvantaged students’ mathematical performance. Journal of School
Psychology, 75, 58–73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp. 2019. 07. 006
Martiny, S. E., Mok, S. Y., Deaux, K., & Froehlich, L. (2014). Effects of activating negative stereotypes
about Turkish-origin students on performance and identity management in German high schools.
Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 27(3–4), 205–225.
Miklikowska, M., Bohman, A., & Titzmann, P. F. (2019). Driven by context? The interrelated effects
of parents, peers, classrooms on development of prejudice among Swedish majority adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 55(11), 2451–2463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ dev00 00809
Moshagen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). A new strategy for testing structural equation models. Structural
Equation Modeling, 23(1), 54–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2014. 950896
Müller, T., & Lokhande, M. (2017). Wider die Stereotypisierung: Bessere Schulleistung durch Selbst-
bestätigung [Counteracting stereotype threat: Increasing achievement in school by self-affirmation].
Vielfalt Im Klassenzimmer. Wie Lehrkräfte Gute Leistung Fördern Können [Diversity in the class-
room. How teachers can promote good student achievements], (pp. 38–56). Berlin Institute for Inte-
gration and Migration Research (BIM) and Research Unit of the Expert Council of German Founda-
tions on Integration and Migration (SVR Research Unit). www. svr- migra tion. de/ publi katio nen/ vielf
alt- im- klass enzim mer).
Nesterko, Y., & Glaesmer, H. (2019). Warum fragen wir nicht direkt nach?: Eine Analyse zur subjektiven
Zuschreibung des Migrationshintergrundes [Why don’t we ask directly?: An analysis of the subjec-
tive attribution of migration background]. Psychologische Rundschau, 70(2), 101–108. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1026/ 0033- 3042/ a0003 99
Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent health and harass-
ment based on discriminatory bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 493–495. https://
doi. org/ 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2011. 300430
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination the-
ory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology., 61, 101860. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2020. 101860
Schachner, M.K., Van de Vivjer, F., & Noack, P. (2018), Acculturation and school adjustment of early-
adolescent immigrant boys and girls in Germany: Conditions in school, family, and ethnic group.
The Journal of Early Adolescence 38(3) 352–384. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02724 31616 670991
Schachner, M. K., Schwarzenthal, M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Noack, P. (2019). How all students
can belong and achieve: Effects of the cultural diversity climate amongst students of immigrant
and nonimmigrant background in Germany. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(4), 703–
716. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ edu00 00303
Schachner, M. K., Schwarzenthal, M., Moffitt, U., Civitillo, S., & Juang, L. (2021). Capturing a
nuanced picture of classroom cultural diversity climate: Multigroup and multilevel analyses
among secondary school students in Germany. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65,
101971. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2021. 101971
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2020). Self-affirmation: Understanding the effects. In J. Aronson &
E. Aronson (Eds.), Readings about the Social Animal (12th ed., pp. 94–113). New York: Worth
Publishers.
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S.,
& Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirma-
tion affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591–618. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0031 495
Shewach, O. R., Sackett, P. R., & Quint, S. (2019). Stereotype threat effects in settings with features
likely versus unlikely in operational test settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 104(12), 1514–1534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00420
Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying values-
affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity
threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663–676. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
01461 67213 480816
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engage-
ment and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
L.P.Juang et al.
1 3
participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 69(3), 493–525. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64408 323233
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology,
67(1), 415–437. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- psych- 073115- 103235
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 0022- 3514. 69.5. 797
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology
of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press.
SVR-Forschungsbereich [SVR-Research Area]. (2016). Doppelt benachteiligt? Kinder und Jugendli-
che mit Migrationshintergrund im deutschen Bildungssystem. Eine Expertise im Auftrag der
Stiftung Mercator [Doubly disadvantaged? Children and youth with a migration background in
the German education system. A report commissioned by the Mercator Foundation]. www. svr-
migra tion. de/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2017/ 07/ SVR- FB_ Doppe lt_ benac hteil igt. pdf
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Teltemann, J., & Schunck, R. (2016). Education systems, school segregation, and second-generation
immigrants’ educational success: Evidence from a country-fixed effects approach using three waves
of PISA. Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57, 401–424 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00207 15216
687348
Titzmann, P. F., Silbereisen, R. K., Mesch, G. S., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2011). Migration-spe-
cific hassles among adolescent immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany and Israel.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 777–794. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 22110
362756
Vedder, P., Sam, D. L., & Liebkind, K. (2007). The acculturation and adaptation of Turkish adoles-
cents in North-Western Europe. Applied Developmental Science, 11(3), 126–136. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 10888 69070 14546 17
Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Gharaei, N. (2019). Discrimination and academic (dis)engagement of eth-
nic-racial minority students: A social identity threat perspective. Social Psychology of Educa-
tion, 22(2), 267–290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11218- 018- 09476-0
Walton, G. M., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Seed and soil: Psychological affordances in contexts help to
explain where wise interventions succeed or fail. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
29(3), 219–226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21420 904453
Wu, Z., Spreckelsen, T. F., & Cohen, G. L. (2021). A meta-analysis of the effect of values affirmation on
academic achievement. Journal of Social Issues, 77(3), 702–750. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12415
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not
magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54311
405999
Zander, L., Webster, G. D., & Hannover, B. (2014). Better than me?! How adolescents with and without
migration background in Germany perceive each others’ performance in class. Psychology, 5(1),
62–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4236/ psych. 2014. 51011
Zimmermann, F., Schütte, K., Taskinen, P., & Köller, O. (2013). Reciprocal effects between adolescent
externalizing problems and measures of achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),
747–761. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0032 793
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Linda P. Juang is a Professor in the Department of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam, Ger-
many. Her work focuses on how experiences of immigration relate to minoritized adolescents’ develop-
ment and adjustment in school, family, and community contexts.
Maja Schachner is aProfessor of Educational Psychology with an emphasis on Socialisation and Cul-
ture at Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany. Her main research interests include the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 3
Effects ofabrief self‑affirmation writing intervention…
cultural diversity climate in schools, school-based cultural diversity-related interventions, and accultura-
tion and adjustment of adolescents of immigrant descent. She has received funding from the German
Research Foundation (DFG), the Jacobs Foundation, and the European Social Funds (ESF).
Tuğçe Aral is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam,
Germany. Her research focuses on ethnic-racial socialization in family and school contexts and their rela-
tions to identity development and intergroup relations.
Miriam Schwarzenthal is a junior professor of School Socialization Research in the School of Education
at the University of Wuppertal in Germany. Her research is situated between the fields of psychology and
education and focuses on socialization processes with regards to cultural diversity and social inequity
in school, family, and peer contexts. Research topics include intercultural competence and critical con-
sciousness among secondary school students and (preservice) teachers, as well as the school diversity
climate.
David Kunyu is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam,
Germany. His research focuses on experiences of discrimination and academic and socioemotional
adjustment among immigrant and refugee youth in Germany and Kenya.
Hanna Löhmannsröben is a Professor of Inclusive Education at the University of Potsdam, Germany. She
is a theologian, former church Superintendent, and special education teacher.
Authors and Aliations
LindaP.Juang1 · MajaK.Schachner2 · TuğçeAral1 ·
MiriamSchwarzenthal3 · DavidKunyu1 · HannaLöhmannsröben1
* Linda P. Juang
juang@uni-potsdam.de
Maja K. Schachner
maja.schachner@paedagogik.uni-halle.de
Tuğçe Aral
tugce.aral@uni-potsdam.de
Miriam Schwarzenthal
schwarzenthal@uni-wuppertal.de
David Kunyu
david.kunyu.khisoni@uni-potsdam.de
Hanna Löhmannsröben
hloeh@uni-potsdam.de
1 Universität Potsdam, Inklusionspädagogik, 24-25 Karl-Liebknechtstrasse, 14476Potsdam,
Germany
2 Institut Für Bildungsforschung, Martin Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Franckeplatz 1,
06110Halle, Germany
3 Institut Für Bildungsforschung, Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119Wuppertal, Germany
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
