Content uploaded by Kezia Olive
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kezia Olive on Aug 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
1041-6080/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Social and dimensional comparisons of achievement in multifaceted task
value formation among adolescents
☆
Kezia Olive
*
, Junlin Yu , Janica Vinni-Laakso , Katariina Salmela-Aro
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 5, P.O. Box 9, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Prior achievement
Academic performance
Subjective task value
Generalized internal/external frame of
reference
Gender
ABSTRACT
Students routinely compare their achievement across different subjects (dimensional comparison) and against
that of their peers (social comparison). Yet, it is unclear how these comparison processes inuence their task
values (intrinsic, attainment, utility, cost) and the observed gender differences in these values. Utilizing struc-
tural equation models, we tested the associations between Grade 7 achievement (in Finnish and math) and Grade
8 task values among 1325 Finnish students (Mage at Grade 7 =12.8 years, 52 % girls). We observed positive
social comparison (within-domain) effects on all value facets, and partial negative dimensional comparison
(cross-domain) effects: higher Finnish achievement was associated with lower intrinsic value and higher cost in
math. Despite outperforming boys in Finnish and math, girls reported lower intrinsic value and higher cost in
math – effects not explained by achievement comparisons. These results imply that task values development may
rely on comparisons of other factors beyond individual achievement.
Educational relevance statement
By assessing how common it is for students to compare their
achievement across subjects and against their classmates, we aim to
show how these comparisons shape their subsequent perceptions of task
value (i.e., whether they like a specic subject, nd it useful and
important, or too costly or effortful). The ndings indicate that students
who were better performers in a subject (e.g., languages) ended up
valuing this very subject, while also labeling the contrasting subject (e.
g., math) as less interesting and more taxing. This pattern was similar
among both male and female students, yet girls perceived math as less
interesting and more taxing regardless of their achievement. Given the
important role of task value in students' educational and career decision-
making, we invite educators and researchers alike to consider carefully
how these students compare their academic success across different
subjects. We also invite further consideration of the social and contex-
tual factors that could support students in developing adaptive task
values.
1. Introduction
Throughout schooling, students commonly compare their achieve-
ments to those of their peers and against their own grades in different
subjects – yet we know relatively little about how such comparisons
inuence their task values, or their perceptions of enjoyment, impor-
tance, and usefulness of a task. Although studies guided by Situated
Expectancy Value Theory (SEVT, Eccles & Wigeld, 2020) have pri-
marily demonstrated the importance of task values in shaping students'
academic achievement (Gaspard et al., 2019; Trautwein et al., 2012),
less is known about how these values develop in response to student
achievement. Given the crucial role adolescents' task values play in
inuencing their educational and career choices (e.g., Bong, 2001; Durik
et al., 2006; Musu-Gillette et al., 2015; see Wigeld & Eccles, 2020 for a
summary), this study aims to investigate the development of students'
value beliefs in relation to their academic achievement.
Academic achievement may inuence task values through both so-
cial comparisons (comparing with others) and dimensional comparisons
(comparing across different subjects), with the latter suggested as the
more prominent process for adolescents (Wan et al., 2021). Social and
☆
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant
agreement No. 953326. The data collection was supported by the Research Council of Finland (grant #336138 and #345117 to KS–A and #354742 to JY). All the
authors declare no conicting interests.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kezia.olive@helsinki. (K. Olive).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102534
Received 16 October 2023; Received in revised form 14 August 2024; Accepted 16 August 2024
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
2
dimensional comparisons of achievement are well-documented in the
formation of student expectancy or ability self-concept (Wigeld et al.,
2020; for meta-analyses, see M¨
oller et al., 2020 and Wan et al., 2021),
yet it is unclear to what extent these comparison processes also shape
various facets of task value. Previous studies have mostly been con-
ducted with samples of students within academic tracks and focused on
intrinsic value formation, which limits our understanding of whether
and how students utilize achievement comparisons in forming other task
value facets. Moreover, the results have been mixed depending on how
different task value facets are modeled (e.g., Arens & Niepel, 2023;
Umarji et al., 2023; van der Westhuizen et al., 2023). The inconsistent
modeling approaches and results raise questions about when we can
expect achievement comparisons to inuence distinct facets of task
value, and whether this is a process that can be explored to improve
students' learning. The current study addresses the inconsistencies by
examining the inuence of both social and dimensional comparisons of
achievement on all task value facets simultaneously.
Previous research has also highlighted a potential link between
achievement and gendered values development. These studies reveal
that girls and boys have different achievement patterns, and hint that
such differences may contribute to girls having higher language values
and boys having higher math-related values (e.g., Chow & Salmela-Aro,
2011; Nagy et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2013). Identifying pathways con-
necting previous achievement to gendered values could inform inter-
vention efforts supporting girls' and boys' values formation. The second
aim of the current study, therefore, is to test two potential pathways
based on theoretical assumptions and results of previous studies. We aim
to nd out whether (1) the impact of initial achievement on subsequent
task values differs in magnitude between genders (i.e., moderation), or
(2) previous achievement differs by genders and subsequently affects
values through social and dimensional comparisons (i.e., mediation).
In sum, this study aims to shed light on how students use achieve-
ment comparisons across various domains to develop different facets of
their task values, and the potential of this process in contributing to
gender differences in task values. Specically, we integrate M¨
oller's
(2016) generalized internal/external (GI/E) model into Eccles and
Wigeld's (2020)SEVT framework, and analyze data from a large cohort
of middle school students in Finland to address these questions.
1.1. Achievement comparisons in the generalized internal/external (GI/
E) frame of reference model
According to the GI/E framework (M¨
oller, 2016), students' academic
achievement can inuence their subsequent expectancy or self-concept
of ability through two comparison processes: (1) social comparison,
when they compare their achievement in a subject with that of other
students; and (2) dimensional comparison, when they compare their
own performance across different subject domains (see M¨
oller et al.,
2020 for a meta-analysis). In the former case, they externally compare
their own achievement with the perceived achievement of their peers
and rely on other students' achievement as a frame of reference. This
usually leads to higher-achieving students having a more positive self-
concept of their ability, reected as a positive within-domain correla-
tion between achievement and ability beliefs. Such within-domain as-
sociations have been used as an indicator of social comparisons in
studies applying the GI/E approach, measured by regressing students'
academic beliefs on their individual achievement in the corresponding
domain. On top of the external comparison, students internally compare
their achievement in one domain (e.g., math) with that in another,
usually contrasting, domain (e.g., language). This internal frame of
reference typically results in a negative cross-domain path between
achievement in one domain to ability beliefs in a contrasting domain (e.
g., “Since I have higher grades in math compared to language, I am more
of a math person than a language person”; M¨
oller & Marsh, 2013). This
cross-domain association is how dimensional comparison is operation-
alized, linking students' achievement in a subject to their academic
belief in a contrasting subject.
More recent studies have highlighted the impact of social and
dimensional comparisons beyond self-concept of ability. Following the
GI/E framework (M¨
oller, 2016), multiple studies have reported that
students rely on achievement comparisons to develop constructs that
impact students' learning, such as test anxiety, coursework selection,
interest, and academic emotions – both through within- and cross-
domain comparisons (e.g., Arens et al., 2017; Dickh¨
auser et al., 2005;
Goetz et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2015; Schurtz et al., 2014). Similar
ndings were also reported for students' task values, aligned with situ-
ated expectancy-value theory (SEVT), which proposes a reciprocal
relationship between students' academic achievement and subjective
task values: “today's … performances become tomorrow's past experi-
ence” (Eccles & Wigeld, 2020, p.3). However, only a small number of
studies have examined this relation (Wan et al., 2021; Wigeld et al.,
2020), some of which yielded mixed ndings.
Previous studies using GI/E and SEVT frameworks indicate that
students engage in social and dimensional comparisons of achievement
to form their task values, with the former more consistently observed
than the latter. For instance, studies involving secondary school stu-
dents, who are mostly enrolled in academic tracks (e.g., Arens & Niepel,
2023; Gaspard et al., 2018), consistently show that both within- and
between-domain comparisons inuenced students' task values. Howev-
er, rst-grade students seem to engage in social comparison but not
dimensional comparison to form their values (e.g., van der Westhuizen
et al., 2023). This difference seems to suggest that younger students may
nd dimensional comparisons less relevant for value formation because
they have less exposure to achievement experiences and the environ-
ment also places less emphasis on achievement. Furthermore, when
academic domains were considered, such as in math, language, physics,
and chemistry (e.g., Gaspard et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017) both social
and dimensional comparisons were observed to inuence task values
across all the subject domains. This is not the case for studies that
included non-academic subjects, such as music (e.g., Lohbeck, 2022)
and physical education (Arens & Preckel, 2018): they only found partial
dimensional comparison effects of achievements inuencing task values.
In sum, the mixed results from previous studies suggest that the inu-
ence of achievement comparisons on students' task values is nuanced.
Although students readily engage with social comparisons to develop
their values, they might rely more on dimensional comparisons if (1)
they have been exposed extensively to academic achievements (i.e.,
older students), (2) they are primarily exposed to the subject within an
academic context and much less outside school (e.g., in academic sub-
jects, such as math), and (3) there is a strong emphasis of academic
achievements in their context (i.e., for students enrolled in academic
tracks).
The current study seeks to further explore these dynamics by
examining adolescent students in Grades 7 to 8 from Finland, where
students only started receiving formal numeric grades from schools from
the end of Grade 6 and have limited exposure to achievement evalua-
tions. Therefore, our study provides a unique opportunity to test
whether achievement comparisons in math and language as theoreti-
cally described are prominent in such a sample. Moreover, to extend the
results from past studies, this study also investigates the effect of both
social and dimensional comparisons of achievement for adolescents' task
values across different facets, as we describe next.
1.2. Achievement comparisons in task values
The four facets of subjective task value according to SEVT are intrinsic,
attainment, utility, and cost (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigeld, 2020).
They reect the quality or characteristics individuals assign to tasks, and
are thought to be developed to some extent through comparison pro-
cesses (Wigeld et al., 2020). Intrinsic value is the personal enjoyment
derived from engaging in a specic task, representing individuals' pos-
itive affective perception of a task. This value can be identied in
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
3
students as early as rst grade (Wigeld, 1994), and is assumed to
develop from individuals' comparisons of enjoyment across different
activities (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Attainment value refers to the
importance of an activity concerning one's identity, and utility value is
the perceived usefulness of a task. Attainment and utility values are
posited to be shaped mainly by comparing and adopting the beliefs of
important socializers, such as parents, teachers, peers, and the media
(Eccles, 2009): which activities, behaviors, and/or goals are perceived to
be appreciated or rewarded. Cost represents the perceived negative
consequences of engaging in a task and is posited to develop by
comparing the costs associated with different activities — including how
much negative emotions are experienced and the effort that one needs to
exert for different tasks. Given that each value facet is assumed to
develop to a certain extent through comparisons of different experi-
ences, we proceed to describe empirical evidence related to the inu-
ence of achievement experiences on multifaceted subjective task values.
In terms of social comparisons of achievement, studies have consis-
tently reported that it inuences intrinsic values across various school
subjects but have not thoroughly explored other value facets. When
students' achievements in single subject domains were explored, most
studies reported consistent within-domain effects of achievement on
values. For example, adolescent students with higher math performance
report higher intrinsic, attainment, utility value, and lower cost for math
in secondary or high schools (e.g., Simpkins et al., 2006; Wang, 2012;
Weidinger et al., 2020). Similar patterns have been also reported for
language-related (e.g., Durik et al., 2006; Viljaranta et al., 2014) and
science subjects (e.g., Simpkins et al., 2006). On the other hand, when
students' achievements in multiple subject domains were simultaneously
explored, the within-domain relationship was mostly identied for
intrinsic value (e.g., Arens & Niepel, 2023; Arens & Preckel, 2018; von
Keyserlingk et al., 2021), and only few studies have tested the effect
beyond intrinsic value (e.g., Gaspard et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017;
Lazarides & Lauermann, 2019; Umarji et al., 2023). These studies
indicated that there is a general effect of social comparison on all task
values regardless of the subject domain, although only a handful of these
studies examined this by including all task value facets. Therefore, we
aim to provide more evidence that students' social comparison of
achievement is also relevant to the perception of the subject's impor-
tance, usefulness, and cost.
In contrast, cross-domain or dimensional comparisons of achieve-
ments seem to inconsistently affect different task value facets depending
on the value facet in question. A consistent effect of cross-domain
comparisons was observed for adolescents' intrinsic value (e.g., Arens
& Niepel, 2023; van der Westhuizen et al., 2022; von Keyserlingk et al.,
2021), but was not consistently found for utility value. Only some
studies reported small effects of dimensional comparisons on adolescent
students' utility value (e.g., Guo et al., 2017; Lazarides & Lauermann,
2019), while others did not nd it (e.g., Gaspard et al., 2018). This
inconsistency may be due to similar levels of utility value reported
across different domains by adolescent students, and indication that
they have yet to develop the relation between specic tasks and their
personal goals. These patterns suggest that dimensional comparisons
may more consistently affect adolescents' domain-specic constructs
(M¨
oller, 2016) such as intrinsic value and cost (Trautwein et al., 2012),
and less for domain-general constructs such as attainment and utility
values.
Furthermore, the inuence of dimensional comparisons on task
values has varied depending on the different approaches used to model
task value facets. Studies that modeled task values as different facets
consistently found cross-domain effects, especially for intrinsic value (e.
g., Gaspard et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017; Lazarides & Lauermann, 2019).
On the contrary, in a study that utilized a single composite construct of
values, no evidence of dimensional comparison effects was found
(Umarji et al., 2023). The different approaches and mixed results
highlight gaps in our understanding regarding the potential effects of
dimensional comparisons on all task value facets. To address these gaps,
our study will examine achievements in math and language alongside
the distinct facets of task values in both domains simultaneously in a
single model, without reducing them to a single composite variable. This
approach will provide deeper insights into whether achievement com-
parisons as posited by GI/E, especially dimensional comparisons, indeed
inuence each task value facet or only specic facets.
1.3. Achievement comparisons and gender differences in task values
The open questions related to how achievement comparisons inu-
ence task value formation also invite questions about whether social and
dimensional comparisons of prior achievement may contribute to the
development of gendered values. Indeed, earlier studies have compared
boys' and girls' task values and found gender differences (e.g., Chow &
Salmela-Aro, 2011; Gaspard et al., 2020; Nagy et al., 2006; Olive et al.,
2022; Wang et al., 2013), such that girls report valuing languages more
highly and have better achievements, whereas boys value math-related
subjects and achieving higher in these subjects. However, these studies
have not explicitly tested the specic pathways that link achievement to
such gendered outcomes. In line with theoretical assumptions in SEVT
and results reported in previous empirical studies, we identify two po-
tential pathways: gender could either (1) affect the strength and direc-
tion of the effect of previous achievement on values (i.e., moderation),
or (2) inuence initial achievement and subsequently affect values (i.e.,
mediation).
In support of the former, SEVT posits that values are shaped by in-
dividuals' personal interpretations of achievement experiences – which
may vary by gender (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigeld et al., 2020). Based on
this assumption, we could test whether gender inuences the direction
and/or strength of how achievement relates to task values. Evidence of
difference in magnitude and direction would most likely indicate that,
even if male and female students have the same level of achievement,
they would still form different levels of task values. For example, a boy
may look at an excellent math performance and say, “I like math even
more!” while a girl may look at the same performance and say, “It is such
a burden to keep up with such achievement, I like math even less.”
Such gender moderation of the relation between achievement and
task value seems to be visible during specic schooling stages. Studies
done with younger samples, such as primary school and early secondary
school students, reported that both girls and boys engaged in within- and
cross-domain achievement comparisons to form their intrinsic values (e.
g., Arens & Niepel, 2023; van der Westhuizen et al., 2023). On the
contrary, samples of older students enrolled in academic tracks tend to
show differences between girls and boys on the within- and cross-
domain relations of achievement and intrinsic value (Nagy et al.,
2006). For these students, cross-domain effects from math and Biology
domains were invariant for both gender groups, but the within-domain
effect for Biology was only signicant for girls. As these students were
required to specialize in one of the sciences early in their schooling,
gender moderation was attributed to potential reliance on gender ste-
reotypes, leading boys and girls to engage in achievement comparisons
differently in developing their value.
Beyond intrinsic value, gender moderation of achievement in other
task value facets, such as cost, attainment, and utility value, has only
been hinted at by results of studies that investigated conceptually similar
beliefs. For instance, when reporting math-related anxiety, a similar
construct with cost, adolescent girls were more sensitive to their per-
formance in math compared to boys although they have comparable
achievement (e.g., Goetz et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2023). Similarly, boys are
more strongly inuenced by their achievement in math when forming
their aspirations compared to girls with similar achievements (e.g.,
Korhonen et al., 2016; Widlund et al., 2020). Given that aspirations are
closely related to what students believe is useful for their future and
what they nd important, similar ndings may be observed for utility
and attainment value. The results of these studies highlight the potential
moderating effect of gender in all value facets, which implies that
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
4
additional research is needed to clarify whether adolescent boys and
girls utilize different mechanisms in interpreting their achievement to
task value. Therefore, the current study investigates the moderating
effect of gender to nd out how it may affect the relationship between
math/verbal achievements and different value facets.
Alternatively, the second pathway describes a mediation mechanism
where differences in achievement between boys and girls lead to the
development of gendered values. Girls have indeed been observed to
have higher achievement in languages compared to math-related sub-
jects (e.g., Wang et al., 2013; Watt, 2004). Therefore, in line with
dimensional comparison theory (M¨
oller & Marsh, 2013), girls may
subsequently devalue math in favor of languages, and the reverse may
be true for boys. These assumptions are supported by ndings in studies
that observed different initial achievements for male and female stu-
dents, which are correlated with their values within a specic domain (e.
g., Chow & Salmela-Aro, 2011; Wang et al., 2013). For instance, it seems
that boys' higher performance in math is strongly correlated with their
higher values and aspirations related to math and Science. Similarly,
other studies explicitly tested the relation between previous achieve-
ment and intrinsic value or a composite task values variable (Jansen
et al., 2021; Nagy et al., 2008). In this case, girls had higher achievement
in language compared to math, and through within- and cross-domain
comparisons of achievement, also valued language more highly. These
studies indicate that the mediation pathway, intensied by social and
dimensional comparisons, contributes at least partially to gendered
values formation. It remains an open question, however, whether such
mediation inuences all facets of task value similarly. The current study
aims to test the extent to which gender shapes task values through
achievement comparisons.
1.4. The present study
The current study aims to address the gaps that have yet to be
addressed about the role of achievement comparisons in task value
development, which includes the potential differential processes
contributing to gender differences. We rst tested both the social and the
dimensional comparison effects of math and verbal achievement on the
formation of multifaceted task values, as described in the GI/E model
(see Fig. 1). Following the rst aim, we identied the pathways through
which gendered task values emerged.
Our research questions and hypotheses were as follows:
RQ1: How does student achievement in the verbal and math domains
inuence subsequent facets of subjective task values?
- H1: We expect to nd social-comparison effects in all facets, and
dimensional-comparison effects in some facets of subjective task
values.
o H1a: In the case of social-comparison effects, we expect positive
within-domain relationships between math/verbal achievement
and the respective math/verbal values. Higher achievement will
be followed by higher intrinsic, attainment, and utility values as
well as lower costs in the same domain.
o H1b: Regarding dimensional-comparison effects, we expect nega-
tive cross-domain relationships between math-verbal achievement
and the subsequent values in the contrasting domain. Higher
achievement in math will predict lower intrinsic value and higher
cost in the verbal domain. We formed no prior hypotheses for
attainment and utility values. We also expect the same relation in
the case of verbal achievement and math values.
RQ2: How does gender inuence the relation between past
achievement and subjective task values?
Previous studies have not conrmed which pathway connecting
previous achievement to gendered values is more likely (i.e., moderation
or mediation), therefore we formed no prior hypotheses related to this
process. We tested both pathways and explored the processes
contributing to gender differences in task values.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample
Participants in this study were a cohort of students from 31 middle
schools in Helsinki, Finland, who were involved in an ongoing longitu-
dinal study. We obtained achievement data in 2019 when the students
were in the seventh grade (M
age
=12.8 years), and questionnaire data in
the subsequent year when they were in the eighth grade. The ques-
tionnaire data were collected in the fall semester through online
questionnaires.
Participation was voluntary, with active consent obtained from stu-
dents and their parents. The study protocol was reviewed and approved
by the ethical review board of the authors' institution. This study is the
rst to be published from the longitudinal dataset using the variables
described below.
As our inclusion criterion, the students had to be present during the
Grade 7 data collection and showed no evidence of straight-lining in
their responses during Grade 8. Of the 1357 students who had
achievement data and parental consent, 32 were excluded on such
grounds, leaving a nal analytic sample of 1325 students. Approxi-
mately 52 % self-identied as girls, 45 % as boys, and 3 % as other.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. T1 achievement (Grade 7)
In Grade 7, students' grades in Finnish and math were obtained from
the school registry as an indicator of their academic achievement. We
operationalized achievement using actual school grades, which as
shown in a previous study appear to have a stronger subject-specic
Fig. 1. A conceptual model of the dimensional and social-comparison process.
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
5
relationship with personal expectancy compared to standardized test
scores (Jansen et al., 2014; M¨
oller et al., 2020). Higher grades in the
Finnish system indicate better achievement, ranging from 4 =fail to 10
=excellent.
2.2.2. T2 subjective task values (Grade 8)
During Grade 8, subjective task values were measured using a short
version of the expectancy-value scale (Eccles & Wigeld, 1995). This
eight-item scale measures intrinsic value (i.e., “(this subject) interests me”,
“I like (the subject)”), attainment (i.e., “(this subject) is important to me”, “It
is important for me to be good at (this subject)”), utility value (i.e., “(this
subject) is useful for me”, “(this subject) is useful for my future profession”),
and relative cost (i.e., “(this subject) is exhausting me”, “studying (the
subject) stresses me”). The scale measures values separately for math and
Finnish. The responses were rated on a seven-point scale (1 =not true at
all; 7 =very true).
2.3. Statistical analysis
First, we analyzed the missing data patterns to identify potential
systematic bias from attrition and missing responses. This was followed
by conrmatory factor analyses (CFAs), which we conducted in both
subject domains to evaluate the factor structure of the task value con-
structs. We modeled task values as latent factors, indicated by multiple
items, and treated as continuous variables. To account for parallel items
across domains, we included correlated uniqueness between matching
indicators (Marsh & Hau, 1996).
Following the CFAs, we tested the items for reliability, their bivariate
correlations, and measurement invariance across genders. The degree of
invariance for the latent factor structure was determined by ΔCFI <
0.01, as recommended by Chen (2007). All the main analyses were
performed in Mplus 8.6 (Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 1998–2017), which by
default deletes cases without responses to all the focal variables, and
handles other missing values with the robust maximum likelihood
estimator (MLR). We used an alpha level of 0.05 in all the signicance
testing.
The main model (see Fig. 1) was tted using structural equation
modeling to address our rst research question, which concerned the
process of social and dimensional comparisons in the development of
task values across the domains. Task value constructs in math and
Finnish were included as separate latent factors and regressed on stu-
dents' grades in both domains (see Online Supplement for Mplus syntax).
We also adjusted the standard error for the clustering effect of students
in classes using the TYPE =COMPLEX command.
Next, we tested two different models to enhance understanding of
the processes contributing to gender differences in task values: (1) a
model testing the moderating role of gender in the effects of achieve-
ment on task values, and (2) another model testing the mediating role of
achievement between gender and task values. Only a subset of the data
(n =1115) was included in this part of the analysis, as we removed
students identifying as non-binary (n =37) and those who provided no
responses for gender (n =173). To test the gender-moderating effect, we
rst estimated a multigroup model in which all paths between
achievement and task values were constrained as equal across boys and
girls. Next, we compared the t of the constrained multigroup model to
an alternative model in which all paths were freely estimated. A sig-
nicant difference in model t indicates differences in the strength of
the relationship between achievement and subsequent task values for
boys and girls. For the mediation model, we regressed values and
achievement on gender. Signicant indirect pathway(s) illustrate the
effects of gender on values through achievement, indicating that gender
differences in achievement partly explain differences in task values. The
model t was considered satisfactory in all the analyses following the
cutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), with CFI and TLI
values close to 0.95, SRMR values close to 0.08, and RMSEA values close
to 0.06.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analysis
Of the 1325 students who had achievement data in Grade 7, 719
students completed the questionnaire in Grade 8, and missing-data rates
were low on the item and domain levels (all <10 %), but higher for
math-related variables (3–5 %) compared to the Finnish-related vari-
ables (1–3 %). We tested whether the drop-out and missingness were
related to gender and grades, and found that students who had missing
data in Grade 8 were more likely to be boys and to have had lower
achievement in Grade 7. These patterns indicate a missing-at-random
(MAR) process, therefore we opted to utilize full information
maximum likelihood estimation rather than listwise deletion to handle
the missingness. This estimation strategy can provide unbiased param-
eter estimates even in such high missingness conditions (e.g., Enders,
2010).
Factor analysis supported the distinctiveness of the intrinsic value
and cost items. However, the attainment and utility value items were
highly correlated and loaded together in this sample. They were there-
fore treated as a single latent variable (attainment-utility) in subsequent
analyses. Moreover, we followed the suggestion from the modication
indices to correlate the residuals from the rst items measuring attain-
ment and utility (i.e., “(this subject) is important to me” and “(this subject)
is useful for me”), as they showed a strong residual association. The
model t from the conrmatory factor analysis for this model was
excellent (CFI ≥0.95, TLI ≥0.95, RMSEA <0.06, SRMR <0.08, see
Supplementary Table 1 for the exact t indices).
All the scales used in this study showed good reliability according to
Cronbach's alpha (for the four-item scales, i.e., attainment-utility value),
and the Spearman-Brown formula (for the two-item scales, i.e., intrinsic
value and cost). The observed reliability for items assessing task value in
Finnish was
ρ
=0.89 for intrinsic value,
α
=0.81 for attainment-utility
value, and
ρ
=0.67 for cost, compared with
ρ
=0.89,
α
=0.82, and
ρ
=
0.76, respectively in math.
The bivariate correlation (Table 1) revealed an association between
achievement in Grade 7 and values in Grade 8: higher achievement in
Grade 7 correlated signicantly with higher task values for matching
subjects in Grade 8 (r ≤0.30, p <.001), and less strongly with non-
matching subjects (r ≤0.16, p <.001).
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for achievement
and task values in the overall sample. Small gender differences were
observed: female students tended to have higher grades in both subjects,
but the difference was more pronounced in Finnish than in math.
Additionally, male students reported higher intrinsic values and lower
cost in math, and higher cost in Finnish.
We tested the invariance assumption up to metric invariance (see
Supplementary Table 1). Metric invariance supports the notion that
relationships between latent factors are comparable across groups, and
that group differences for the factor loadings of each task value are
unbiased. Given that we aimed to compare group-based relations among
the constructs and not the mean differences between the groups, evi-
dence of metric invariance was sufcient (Gregorich, 2006).
3.2. Social and dimensional comparisons
Our rst research question concerned social and dimensional com-
parison processes. In terms of social comparison, we expected that
higher achievement would be positively associated with task values in
matching domains, and that regarding dimensional comparisons higher
achievement would be negatively associated with task values from
contrasting domains. Our results (illustrated in Fig. 2) indicate that
students engaged in both within- and cross-domain comparisons of
achievements to develop their task values, although only partially for
cross-domain comparison (see Supplementary Table 2 for the detailed
regression coefcients of the main model).
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
6
As expected, we observed within-domain associations in both math
and Finnish, indicating social comparison processes, as all matching
paths between grades and value facets were signicant (p <.05). In
other words, compared to students with lower achievement, those with
higher achievement in Grade 7 subsequently reported higher intrinsic
value (β =0.20, p <.001 for Finnish, β =0.45, p <.001 for math),
higher attainment-utility value (β =0.20, p <.001 for Finnish, β =0.34,
p <.001 for math), and lower cost (β = − 0.32, p <.001 for Finnish, β =
−0.34, p <.001 for math) for the matching subject.
Moreover, we observed partial cross-domain comparison from
Finnish achievement to math intrinsic value and cost: students with
higher grades for Finnish in Grade 7 subsequently reported less interest
(β = − 0.14, p =.005) and higher cost (β =0.12, p =.04) in math.
However, no signicant paths were found from math grades to Finnish
values, providing no evidence of dimensional comparison from math to
the verbal domain in our sample.
3.3. The role of gender
Our second research question concerned the processes contributing
to gender differences in task values. We tested two processes posited to
contribute to gendered values: (1) the moderating role of gender in the
effects of achievement on task values, and (2) the mediating role of
achievement between gender and task values.
The moderation model did not support the gender moderating effect
(see Supplementary Table 3 for the model ts and chi-square compari-
sons). No signicant differences in the t statistics emerged when we
compared models with gender-varied paths between achievement and
values to the constrained model. This result indicates that the strength
and/or direction of relationships between achievement and task values
did not differ between boys and girls.
Table 1
Bivariate correlations of value facets, achievement, and grades.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender
(0 =boys, 1 =girls)
Finnish
2 Prior Achievement (Grade 7) 0.32***
3 Intrinsic Value 0.00 0.15***
4 Attainment-Utility Value 0.02 0.16*** 0.58***
5 Cost −0.09*−0.25*** −0.38*** −0.25***
Math
6 Prior Achievement (Grade 7) 0.14*0.67*** 0.07 0.12*−0.14***
7 Intrinsic Value −0.12*** 0.13*0.35*** 0.27*** −0.16*** 0.30***
8 Attainment-Utility Value −0.04 0.16*** 0.25*** 0.40*** −0.14*** 0.27*** 0.54***
9 Cost 0.10*−0.09 −0.18*** −0.11 0.50*** −0.21*** −0.40*** −0.24***
Note: Bivariate correlations of value facets were calculated from prior achievement (collected in Grade 7) and the summed items of each variable (collected in Grade 8).
*
p <.05.
***
p <.001.
Table 2
Mean and standard deviations of value facets and achievement in each domain.
Variable Total
Sample
Girls Boys Cohen's d
M SD M SD M SD
Finnish
Prior Achievement (Grade 7) 8.4 1.1 8.7 1.0 8.0 1.1 0.67
Intrinsic Value 4.1 1.7 4.1 1.7 4.1 1.7 0.01
Attainment-Utility Value 5.6 1.3 5.6 1.3 5.6 1.4 0.05
Cost 3.9 1.8 3.8 1.8 4.1 1.8 0.18
Math
Prior Achievement (Grade 7) 8.5 1.2 8.7 1.2 8.3 1.2 0.28
Intrinsic Value 4.7 1.8 4.5 1.8 4.9 1.7 0.24
Attainment-Utility Value 6.0 1.3 5.9 1.3 6.0 1.2 0.08
Cost 4.1 1.8 4.2 1.8 3.9 1.8 0.20
Note: This table presents the mean and standard deviations of prior achievement
in Grade 7 (ranging from 4 to 10) and averaged value items in Grade 8 (each
item based on a 7-point scale) from the total sample, girls and boys. The effect
sizes of the differences between the gender groups are also presented as Cohen's
d (interpretation of effect size as 0.2 =small; 0.5 =medium; 0.8 =large).
Fig. 2. A summary of the signicant paths between achievement and values.
Note. This gure summarizes signicant regression paths from the main model
(p <.05). Detailed information about the regression coefcients and standard
errors of all the paths tested in the main model is given in Supplemen-
tary Table 2.
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
7
In the mediation model (summarized in Fig. 3), gender inuenced
task values through social comparison, but not dimensional comparison.
Girls had higher grades in both Finnish and math, which in turn were
associated with higher values and lower cost. Furthermore, we found a
signicant direct effect of gender on intrinsic value and cost in math,
such that girls tended to report lower intrinsic value (β = − 0.17, p <
.001) and higher cost (β =0.20, p =.007). Supplementary Table 4 de-
scribes the signicant direct, indirect, and total effects of the model in
more detail.
4. Discussion
The focus of the current study was on how students' achievement
comparisons inuence subsequent task value development across do-
mains. Following a sample of students from Grades 7 to 8, we investi-
gated the social and dimensional comparison processes and its
implications for gendered values development. The effect of within-
domain or social comparison was visible for all facets, whereas the
only effect of cross-domain or dimensional comparison on the values
was for math-related intrinsic value and cost. Furthermore, the value
differences we observed between male and female students most likely
developed through the inuence of other factors beyond the comparison
of individual achievements. In the following, we discuss the implications
of these ndings as well as their limitations and include suggestions for
future studies and practice.
4.1. Achievement comparisons based on GI/E and SEVT
The rst research question in this study examined to what extent
verbal and math achievements inuence subsequent task value facets.
We observed that students' achievement experience indeed inuenced
their subsequent task values as predicted by GI/E: fully through within-
domain associations, but only partially through cross-domain compari-
sons affecting math intrinsic value and cost.
Our observation of positive within-domain relationships for task
values in both math and language supports the GI/E prediction that
social comparisons inuence the formation of multiple constructs,
including all facets of task value. Following Hypothesis 1a, students with
higher achievement levels in both Finnish and math reported higher
subsequent intrinsic, attainment, and utility values and lower cost in the
same domain. This positive within-domain effect is similar to what
Gaspard et al. (2018) have reported, although the average path coef-
cient we observed (average of β =0.33 for intrinsic value, β =0.27 for
attainment-utility value, and β =0.33 for cost, see Fig. 2) is lower than
the average of what Gaspard and colleagues observed (average of β =
0.54 for intrinsic value, β =0.28 for attainment-utility value, and β =
0.49 for cost). Nevertheless, the pattern suggests that students are likely
to engage in positive within-domain association when they experience
high achievement, regardless of the domain. This process can be inter-
preted as evidence of social comparison that leads students to believe
that this subject is more enjoyable, important, useful, and less costly.
On the other hand, we found limited support for GI/E prediction on
cross-domain achievement comparison in task value formation. Partially
aligned to Hypothesis 1b, we observed that students with higher
achievements in Finnish reported lower intrinsic value and higher cost
for math. The path coefcients (β = − 0.15 for intrinsic value and β =
0.13 for cost) were comparable to those Gaspard et al. (2018) reported
(β = − 0.16 for intrinsic value and β =0.15 for cost). Our observation
Fig. 3. A summary of the signicant direct paths between gender, achievement, and values.
Note. This gure summarizes signicant direct regression paths for the mediation model (p <.05): see Supplementary Table 4 for detailed information about the
regression coefcients and standard errors of all the paths.
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
8
that there is no cross-domain association between math achievement
and Finnish values seems to indicate that students selectively rely on
dimensional comparison of achievement when developing their values
for specic domains.
The math-specic dimensional comparison may stem from the
different processes through which students develop their math and
language skills, a phenomenon particularly evident in the Finnish
educational context. Past studies have observed that the nature of the
Finnish language made it easier for students to develop different lan-
guage skills faster and earlier (Aunola et al., 2002; Seymour et al., 2003),
and highlight that students usually receive broader exposure to tasks
and skills related to language beyond the school context. The wider
opportunities for language-related experience and the relatively late
exposure to numeric grades most likely provided students with more
sources of information beyond academic achievement to form their
language values. Such context may have inuenced them to put less
reliance on cross-domain comparison of achievement in shaping their
values, as they potentially compare other experiences outside of school.
On the other hand, an average student will be primarily exposed to the
math domain through academic settings. Such limited opportunity likely
leads to a greater reliance on academic achievements as their primary
source of information to develop perceptions of whether they enjoy the
tasks or nd them exhausting. Previous ndings (Viljaranta et al., 2014)
supported this notion: the inuence of achievement on Finnish students'
interest is more prominent in years when they have to learn skills that
are primarily taught at school. Such a pattern may also explain the
inconsistent dimensional comparison observed in studies focusing on
non-academic domains, such as music (Lohbeck, 2022) and physical
education (Arens & Preckel, 2018).
These results suggested a more complex view of GI/E assumptions
regarding the effect of achievement comparisons on task values. In do-
mains where students primarily rely on academic achievement to
develop their values, students potentially engage more in cross-domain
comparisons. However, in domains where students have broader expe-
riences beyond school, cross-domain comparisons of achievement may
not necessarily be the primary information used by students to develop
their task values. This is further illustrated in the next section, where we
discuss the inuence of social and dimensional comparisons for each
specic task value facet.
4.2. Achievement comparisons for each task value facets
On top of the domain-specic effect, we also observed adolescent
students' facet-specic engagement with achievement comparisons. This
was illustrated by the partial support for Hypothesis 1b, where the cross-
domain effect was only observed for math intrinsic value and cost. This
facet-specic effect indicates that dimensional comparison of achieve-
ment primarily inuences students' affective perceptions, reected
through their intrinsic value and cost. Students develop such affective
perceptions of a task primarily through observing their own experience,
which could explain why students are more likely to rely on internal
comparisons such as their own achievements across domains, similar to
how they develop expectancies for success (Guo et al., 2016; Lee et al.,
2023; Trautwein et al., 2012). On the other hand, attainment and utility
values reect one's identity and goals both personally and within a social
context (Eccles, 2009). This contextual dependency may prompt stu-
dents to rely more on social inuence: they may compare input from
other people, or compare their own experience to other people's expe-
rience, rather than relying solely on personal experiences. Moreover,
during adolescence, students are still in the process of solidifying their
personal identity and goals — which may result in lower domain-
specicity in these values and less reliance on dimensional compari-
son of achievement to inform their attainment and utility values. As they
progress in their education and begin to specialize, students tend to
deepen their engagement in their specialization while also disengaging
from other domains (Gaspard et al., 2020), which potentially leads to
more domain-specic attainment and utility values. These ndings
therefore align with the assumption that some values are more exter-
nally regulated (Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Simons et al., 2004).
These observations could inform interventions to support students'
value development and learning. First, we observed that students are
more likely to engage in negative cross-domain comparisons for aca-
demic subjects such as math, as in such settings, their achievements are
the most salient sources of information. Thus, interventions could
facilitate students to identify the similarities of various subjects they
learn at school (Helm et al., 2016; Sticca et al., 2023), such as what
similar learning strategies, skills, and benets of learning are translat-
able across domains. This approach could help students buffer the effect
of dimensional comparisons on their self-beliefs, as they are introduced
to other perspectives that support their learning across different subjects
(Helm et al., 2016; Sticca et al., 2023). In addition, helping students to
realize the relevance of academic domains to daily life (Gaspard, Dicke,
Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015; Hulleman et al., 2010) may help them to
have less reliance on their achievement when developing what they nd
enjoyable, worth engaging, and even important for them and useful for
their present and future goals (e.g., Acee et al., 2018; Gaspard, Dicke,
Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2018). Second,
our results highlighted that students' math intrinsic value and cost are
the values most inuenced by dimensional comparisons. Given the
impact of achievements on these beliefs, it is important for interventions
to help students reframe their prior achievements in various domains.
Instead of framing their “successes” and “failures” as a function of innate
talent (Dweck, 2007) which easily leads to less interest and debilitating
self-beliefs, support students to frame them as learning opportunities to
improve their work (Hill et al., 2010). Lastly, we observed that dimen-
sional comparisons were not the main factor that inuenced attainment
and utility value formation. This suggested that there is increasing
importance for interventions that tap into social and contextual re-
sources, as they are likely to be more benecial for attainment and
utility value formation. These can include, for instance, providing sup-
port for parents to understand the relevance of specic academic sub-
jects, and thereby encourage their children (e.g., Harackiewicz et al.,
2012), or leveraging cultural knowledge in teaching (e.g., Yu, Hsieh,
et al., 2022).
Furthermore, our results highlight the need to consider other sources
of information beyond achievement that shape students' values.
Although comparisons of prior achievement inuence the formation of
subsequent values, the effects appear somewhat limited. This observa-
tion may indicate that this process should be examined alongside other
inputs such as parental feedback and expectations (e.g., Bleeker & Ja-
cobs, 2004; Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Simpkins et al., 2012), or dif-
ferential teacher support (e.g., Dietrich et al., 2015; Helm et al., 2020;
Yu, Kreijkes, & Salmela-Aro, 2022). These social factors are experienced
routinely by students alongside their achievement experiences, and
communicate the cultural/group identities together with expectations
and opportunities (Eccles, 2009). Some recent studies indicate that
students juxtapose social cues from different domains in forming their
values, similar to the way they compare achievement experiences (see
Dietrich et al., 2015; Helm et al., 2020). For example, those who
perceived higher levels of teacher support (Dietrich et al., 2015) and
lower levels of unfairness (Helm et al., 2020) in the math and language
domains reported higher intrinsic value, interests, and subjective
importance for the same subjects. On the other hand, when they noticed
more teacher support and less unfairness in their math class relative to
language class, they reported less values in language, and vice-versa. It
thus seems that adolescents compare their teachers' beliefs and behavior
in different subjects, which subsequently inuences their own beliefs
over time. In other words, their task values development appears to rely
not only on comparisons of individual achievement but also on com-
parisons of social affordances. Exploration of these inuences alongside
prior achievement experiences, as encouraged by Wigeld and Eccles
(2020), would therefore be a fruitful next step in mapping the
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
9
complexities of students' developmental reality.
4.3. Inuence of prior achievement on gendered values
In addressing our second research question we analyzed the role of
prior achievement in the formation of gendered values. We examined
two potential processes through which prior achievement could
contribute to gender differences in task values. The results indicate that
gender did not moderate the strength or direction of the relationships
between achievement and task values. Instead, it inuenced math-
related intrinsic value and cost directly, and indirectly only through
achievement within the same domain.
Findings from the moderation model showed comparable results
among boys and girls: the relationships between achievement and each
value facet in the different subject domains were similar in strength and
direction across genders. This result could imply that boys and girls
indeed utilize comparable strategies when interpreting their achieve-
ment. Another possible implication of this is that in the Finnish
schooling context, adolescents from both gender groups did not expe-
rience the need to rely on their achievement differently. This may mean
that we might still observe such moderation in more specialized sub-
jects, or in subjects where more gender stereotypes are more prevalent,
as Nagy et al. (2006) observed. Taken together, our results point to
another potential pathway for the development of gendered values.
The mediation model demonstrated that girls' and boys' differing
achievement affected their gendered values through comparisons within
the same domain. We observed that female students outperformed male
students in Finnish and math. However, the higher achievement only
enhanced the values of these students in the same domains but did not
affect them across domains. This result shows that, even though girls
have higher achievement in language, it does not necessarily lead to
gender-specic de-valuing of the subjects in which they perform more
weakly. Our result differs from results from previous studies where both
within- and cross-domain comparisons of achievement were observed,
and signicantly inuenced the formation of gendered intrinsic value (e.
g., Jansen et al., 2021). We only observed partial dimensional compar-
ison which suggests that students showed limited reliance on their
achievement across domains. We interpret this as evidence that
adolescent students are more likely to utilize a different pathway to
develop their gendered task values. Our ndings hint that although
partially inuenced by gendered achievement, there are more factors
contributing to students' gendered value development than just girls'
advantage in languages (e.g., Wang et al., 2013).
Beyond the hypothesized pathways, we observed a direct effect of
gender on math-related intrinsic value and cost, above and beyond the
inuence of prior achievements. These direct effects revealed that girls
showed lower intrinsic value and higher cost in math, regardless of their
prior achievement. This result further emphasizes the more direct and
critical role that other sources of information play in shaping students'
values than individual students' perceptions of prior achievement alone.
As outlined previously, although task values development is inuenced
by comparisons of individual achievement, students also rely strongly
on their social affordances. Girls and boys may put varying emphasis on
others' interpretations rather than transferring their individual
achievements into task values differently. This may be especially true for
input from critical socializers such as parents, teachers, and peers. This
assumption aligns with previous research ndings that students' beliefs
about themselves are inuenced by their teachers' response to their
performance (e.g., Dickh¨
auser et al., 2017; Yu, Kreijkes, & Salmela-Aro,
2022), which may differ based on their gender (Robinson-Cimpian et al.,
2014). Taken together, the ndings from the gender models also
demonstrate the importance of not only considering the effect of indi-
vidual achievement comparison. In providing appropriate support for
adolescent students in their learning, it is critical to examine and
disentangle social and contextual sources alongside the individual fac-
tors that shape their values.
4.4. Limitations and suggestions for future studies
Our study complements previous research in enhancing the under-
standing of how social and dimensional comparisons of achievement
contribute to the development of all facets of task value within a unied
model. However, a few limitations should be considered in interpreting
the results, which we elaborate with our suggestions for future studies.
The limitations of our measurements and research design should
inform future studies aiming to examine students' task value develop-
ment. First, we utilized two-item scales to measure each value facet,
reducing the reliability of the items (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994),
especially the cost items. To represent students' motivational beliefs
more accurately, we recommend the use of longer scales in future
studies, which provide a more holistic representation of their value
dynamics (e.g., Beymer et al., 2022). Second, the items representing
attainment and utility values correlated strongly with one another and
formed a single factor. It is plausible that students interpreted state-
ments such as “This subject is useful for me” similarly to “This subject is
important to me”. Thus, future studies could utilize measures that provide
a better distinction of how each of the facets is understood by students.
For example, further specifying attainment as personal importance or
utility as utility for school or daily life could enhance clarity (e.g.,
Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Schreier, et al., 2015). Third, although we
assessed student achievement and task values at two separate time
points, they were not measured repeatedly. This means that our results
could not shed light on the comparison processes after controlling for the
longitudinal interrelations of the constructs. Given these points, there is
still further work to be done to derive more nuanced causality claims
concerning how achievement experiences shape values.
Moreover, to arrive at a full understanding of the relation between
achievement and values, future studies should also pay specic attention
to the potential mediating role of expectancy beliefs. It remains an open
question to what extent expectancy mediates the inuence of prior
achievement on subsequent values. Recent studies reported inconsistent
ndings, with some suggesting full mediation (Gaspard et al., 2018),
whereas others report only partial (van der Westhuizen et al., 2023) or
even non-mediation (Arens & Niepel, 2023). This inconsistency may be
linked to students' context, as we observed in this study. In contexts
where achievement information is salient, students are more likely to
rely on their comparisons of successes and failures to form their values.
In such contexts, expectancy may play a bigger role as a mediator be-
tween achievement and task values. On the other hand, in contexts
where there is less emphasis on academic achievement, such mediation
by expectancy beliefs may not be as apparent. As this possibility has yet
to be explored and measured explicitly, we recommend future studies to
include the potential mediating effect of expectancies in students'
varying academic contexts, to shed further light on the complex re-
lations linking achievement, expectancy, and values.
Additionally, future studies would benet from having a more
representative sample. We utilized a convenience sample gathered from
31 schools in a specic city in Finland, which means that although we
can condently derive generalizability to students within the region, we
are limited in our claim of generalizability to other populations. The
limited sample also means that we could only provide limited insights
into how much contextual factors, such as differences in cultural back-
grounds, inuenced our results. It would therefore be necessary to
conduct further studies in broader contexts that could provide more
nuance into factors inuencing students' developing values and
decisions.
Furthermore, this study represented a limited model of social com-
parison, which has yet to capture fully how students compare them-
selves with others in their proximity. We interpreted within-domain
effect of achievement as students engaging in social comparisons – yet
this operationalization potentially captures both students' self-
enhancement alongside social comparisons. Recent studies based on
the GI/E model have highlighted the importance of considering
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
10
aggregated achievement in schools and classrooms to better capture the
dynamics of social comparison (e.g., Guo et al., 2017; Schurtz et al.,
2014). Given that this study only modeled the impact of individual
achievement, we recommend future studies to consider these broader
factors and thereby provide deeper insights into student development.
4.5. Conclusion
Taken together, our study underscores the importance of under-
standing how students use achievement comparisons as an important
information source to develop their task values. Most importantly, we
demonstrated that dimensional comparison of prior achievement plays a
role in shaping students' interests and perceived costs in math, but not in
language. This observation highlights the possibility that the dimen-
sional comparison process depends on whether academic achievements
are considered as salient information in students' contexts. Our ndings
further show that male and female students form task values based on
their achievement in a similar manner, with gender differences in task
values only partially mediated by comparisons of prior achievement.
These ndings indicate that factors other than individual comparisons of
achievement play a role in adolescents' task values development. Thus,
future studies could explore contextual factors such as parental and
teacher expectations as students' task values do not develop in a vacuum.
In sum, our ndings highlight that although students' task values are
shaped by their achievements, they are not solely dened by them.
Helping students make sense of their achievement experiences across
different domains could be one important strategy in fostering their
adaptive value beliefs.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kezia Olive: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Visualization, Validation, Software, Project administration, Methodol-
ogy, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Junlin Yu:
Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
Conceptualization. Janica Vinni-Laakso: Writing – review & editing,
Project administration, Conceptualization. Katariina Salmela-Aro:
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102534.
References
Acee, T. W., Weinstein, C. E., Hoang, T. V., & Flaggs, D. A. (2018). Value reappraisal as a
conceptual model for task-value interventions. The Journal of Experimental Education,
86(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381830
Arens, A. K., Becker, M., & M¨
oller, J. (2017). Social and dimensional comparisons in
math and verbal test anxiety: Within- and cross-domain relations with achievement
and the mediating role of academic self-concept. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 51, 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.005
Arens, A. K., & Niepel, C. (2023). Formation of academic self-concept and intrinsic value
within and across three domains: Extending the reciprocal internal/external frame of
reference model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 545–570. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjep.12578
Arens, A. K., & Preckel, F. (2018). Testing the internal/external frame of reference model
with elementary school children: Extension to physical ability and intrinsic value.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2018.06.003
Aunola, K., Nurmi, J., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002).
Developmental dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performance, and
parental beliefs. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/
10.1598/RRQ.37.3.3
Beymer, P. N., Ferland, M., & Flake, J. K. (2022). Validity evidence for a short scale of
college students’ perceptions of cost. Current Psychology, 41(11), 7937–7956.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01218-w
Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’
beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97
Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efcacy and task-value in predicting college students’
course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26(4), 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1048
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of t indexes to lack of measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Task-values across subject domains: A gender
comparison using a person-centered approach. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 35(3), 202–209.
Dickh¨
auser, O., Janke, S., Praetorius, A.-K., & Dresel, M. (2017). The effects of teachers’
reference norm orientations on students’ implicit theories and academic self-
concepts. Zeitschrift Für P¨
adagogische Psychologie, 31(3–4), 205–219. https://doi.org/
10.1024/1010-0652/a000208
Dickh¨
auser, O., Reuter, M., & Hilling, C. (2005). Coursework selection: A frame of
reference approach using structural equation modelling. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75(4), 673–688. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709905X37181
Dietrich, J., Dicke, A.-L., Kracke, B., & Noack, P. (2015). Teacher support and its
inuence on students’ intrinsic value and effort: Dimensional comparison effects
across subjects. Learning and Instruction, 39, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2015.05.007
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors
of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(2), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci, &
W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science?: Top researchers debate the
evidence (pp. 47–55). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/
11546-004.
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and
collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. E., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., &
Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior. In J. T. Spence,
G. Lindzey, & R. E. Thompson (Eds.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp.
75–138). W. H. Freeman and Company.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigeld, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003
Eccles, J. S., & Wigeld, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-
value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Brisson, B. M., H¨
afner, 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/dev0000028
Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Schreier, B., H¨
afner, I., Trautwein, U., &
Nagengast, B. (2015). More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences
in value beliefs about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 663–677.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000003
Gaspard, H., Jiang, Y., Piesch, H., Nagengast, B., Jia, N., Lee, J., & Bong, M. (2020).
Assessing students’ values and costs in three countries: Gender and age differences
within countries and structural differences across countries. Learning and Individual
Differences, 79, Article 101836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101836
Gaspard, H., Wigeld, A., Jiang, Y., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., & Marsh, H. W. (2018).
Dimensional comparisons: How academic track students’ achievements are related
to their expectancy and value beliefs across multiple domains. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.003
Gaspard, H., Wille, E., Wormington, S. V., & Hulleman, C. S. (2019). How are upper
secondary school students’ expectancy-value proles associated with achievement
and university STEM major? A cross-domain comparison. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.005
Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience
more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797613486989
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Hall, N. C., & Pekrun, R. (2008). Antecedents of academic
emotions: Testing the internal/external frame of reference model for academic
enjoyment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.002
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across
diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the conrmatory
factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94. https://doi.org/
10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f
Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J., & Dicke, T. (2017). Extending
expectancy-value theory predictions of achievement and aspirations in science:
Dimensional comparison processes and expectancy-by-value interactions. Learning
and Instruction, 11.
Guo, J., Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Kelava, A., Gaspard, H., Brandt, H., …
Trautwein, U. (2016). Probing the unique contributions of self-concept, task values,
and their interactions using multiple value facets and multiple academic outcomes.
AERA Open, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415626884
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents
to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a
utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956797611435530
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
11
Harackiewicz, J. M., Tibbetts, Y., Canning, E., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to
promote motivation in education. In S. A. Karabenick, & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Vol. 18.
Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 71–105). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018002.
Helm, F., Arens, A. K., & M¨
oller, J. (2020). Perceived teacher unfairness and student
motivation in math and German: An application of the generalized internal/external
frame of reference model. Learning and Individual Differences, 81, Article 101891.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101891
Helm, F., Mueller-Kalthoff, H., Nagy, N., & M¨
oller, J. (2016). Dimensional comparison
theory: Perceived subject similarity impacts on students’ self-concepts. AERA Open, 2
(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416650624
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4102_4
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing
interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506
Jansen, M., Becker, M., & Neumann, M. (2021). Dimensional comparison effects on
(gendered) educational choices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(2), 330.
Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Academic self-concept in science:
Multidimensionality, relations to achievement measures, and gender differences.
Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2013.12.003
Korhonen, J., Tapola, A., Linnanm¨
aki, K., & Aunio, P. (2016). Gendered pathways to
educational aspirations: The role of academic self-concept, school burnout,
achievement and interest in mathematics and reading. Learning and Instruction, 46,
21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.006
Lazarides, R., & Lauermann, F. (2019). Gendered paths into stem-related and language-
related careers: Girls’ and boys’ motivational beliefs and career plans in math and
language arts. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1243. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01243
Lee, H. R., Tang, X., Alvarez-Vargas, D., Yang, J. S., Bailey, D., Simpkins, S., …
Wigeld, A. (2023). Networks and directed acyclic graphs: Initial steps to efciently
examine causal relations between expectancies, values, and prior achievement.
Current Psychology.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04871-z
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Perez, T., Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Godin, E.,
Snyder, K. E., … Schwartz-Bloom, R. (2018). Repairing the leaky pipeline: A
motivationally supportive intervention to enhance persistence in undergraduate
science pathways. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 181–195. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.03.001
Lohbeck, A. (2022). Social and dimensional comparison effects on children’s music self-
concept and intrinsic value: An extension of the generalized internal/external frame
of reference model to the music domain. Psychology of Music. https://doi.org/
10.1177/03057356221118118, 030573562211181.
Marsh, H. W., Abduljabbar, A. S., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J. S., Abdelfattah, F.,
Nagengast, B., … Abu-Hilal, M. M. (2015). The internal/external frame of reference
model of self-concept and achievement relations: Age-cohort and cross-cultural
differences. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 168–202. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0002831214549453
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of t: Is parsimony always
desirable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364–390. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604
M¨
oller, J. (2016). The generalized internal/external frame of reference model: An
extension to dimensional comparison theory. Frontline Learning Research, 4(4), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.14786/r.v4i2.169
M¨
oller, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review,
120(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032459
M¨
oller, J., Zitzmann, S., Helm, F., Machts, N., & Wolff, F. (2020). A meta-analysis of
relations between achievement and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 90
(3), 376–419. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919354
Musu-Gillette, L. E., Wigeld, A., Harring, J. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Trajectories of
change in students’ self-concepts of ability and values in math and college major
choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13803611.2015.1057161
Muth´
en, L. K., & Muth´
en, B. O. (1998). Mplus user guide (pp. 1–8). Muth´
en & Muth´
en.
Nagy, G., Garrett, J., Trautwein, U., Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2008).
Gendered high school course selection as a precursor of gendered careers: The
mediating role of self-concept and intrinsic value. In H. M. G. Watt, & J. S. Eccles
(Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social,
and cultural inuences (pp. 115–143). American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/11706-004.
Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., K¨
oller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and course
selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and
intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13803610600765687
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Olive, K., Tang, X., Loukomies, A., Juuti, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). Gendered
difference in motivational proles, achievement, and STEM aspiration of elementary
school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 954325. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954325
Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., & Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2014).
Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics prociency may exacerbate early
gender gaps in achievement. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1262–1281. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0035073
Schurtz, I. M., Pfost, M., Nagengast, B., & Artelt, C. (2014). Impact of social and
dimensional comparisons on student’s mathematical and English subject-interest at
the beginning of secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 34, 32–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.001
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., & collaboration with COST Action A8 network.
(2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of
Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and
future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology
Review, 16(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000026609.94841.2f
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A
longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental
Psychology, 42(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles’ expectancy-
value model from mothers’ beliefs in childhood to youths’ activities in adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027468
Sticca, F., Goetz, T., M¨
oller, J., Eberle, F., Murayma, K., & Shavelson, R. (2023). Same
same but different: The role of subjective domain similarity in the longitudinal
interplay among achievement and self-concept in multiple academic domains.
Learning and Individual Differences, 102, Article 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2023.102270
Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K.
(2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: A
latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470
Umarji, O., Wan, S., Wolff, F., & Eccles, J. S. (2023). The system of academic task values:
The development of cross-domain comparisons of values and college major choice.
Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001519
van der Westhuizen, L., Arens, A. K., Greiff, S., Fischbach, A., & Niepel, C. (2022). The
generalized internal/external frame of reference model with academic self-concepts,
interests, and anxieties in students from different language backgrounds.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, Article 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2021.102037
van der Westhuizen, L., Arens, A. K., Keller, U., Greiff, S., Fischbach, A., & Niepel, C.
(2023). The formation of academic self-concept and interest in primary school:
Examining the generalized internal/external frame of reference model with rst- and
third-grade children. Contemporary Educational Psychology. , Article 102167. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102167
Viljaranta, J., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2014). The developmental
dynamics between interest, self-concept of ability, and academic performance.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 734–756. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00313831.2014.904419
von Keyserlingk, L., Dicke, A.-L., Becker, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2021). What matters when?
Social and dimensional comparisons in the context of university major choice. AERA
Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211020711, 233285842110207.
Wan, S., Lauermann, F., Bailey, D. H., & Eccles, J. S. (2021). When do students begin to
think that one has to be either a “math person” or a “language person”? A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(9), 867–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000340
Wang, M.-T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal
examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and
interests. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1643–1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0027247
Wang, M.-T., Eccles, J. S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice:
Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24(5), 770–775. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797612458937
Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task
perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian
students. Child Development, 75(5), 1556–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2004.00757.x
Weidinger, A. F., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2020). The value of valuing math:
Longitudinal links between students’ intrinsic, attainment, and utility values and
grades in math. Motivation Science, 6(4), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/
mot0000179
Widlund, A., Tuominen, H., Tapola, A., & Korhonen, J. (2020). Gendered pathways from
academic performance, motivational beliefs, and school burnout to adolescents’
educational and occupational aspirations. Learning and Instruction, 66, Article
101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101299
Wigeld, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02209024
Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). Chapter ve—35 years of research on students’
subjective task values and motivation: A look back and a look forward. In A. J. Elliot
(Ed.), Vol. 7. Advances in motivation science (pp. 161–198). Elsevier. https://doi.org/
10.1016/bs.adms.2019.05.002.
Wigeld, A., Eccles, J. S., & M¨
oller, J. (2020). How dimensional comparisons help to
understand linkages between expectancies, values, performance, and choice.
Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
020-09524-2
K. Olive et al.
Learning and Individual Dierences 115 (2024) 102534
12
Yu, J., Kreijkes, P., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). Students’ growth mindset: Relation to
teacher beliefs, teaching practices, and school climate. Learning and Instruction, 80,
Article 101616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101616
Yu, M. V. B., Hsieh, T., Lee, G., Jiang, S., Pantano, A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2022).
Promoting Latinx adolescents’ math motivation through competence support:
Culturally responsive practices in an afterschool program context. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 68, Article 102028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2021.102028
Yu, X., Zhou, H., Sheng, P., Ren, B., Wang, Y., Wang, H., & Zhou, X. (2023). Math anxiety
is more closely associated with math performance in female students than in male
students. Current Psychology.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04349-y
K. Olive et al.
