↓ Skip to main content

Belief in school meritocracy as a system-justifying tool for low status students

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Belief in school meritocracy as a system-justifying tool for low status students
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginie Wiederkehr, Virginie Bonnot, Silvia Krauth-Gruber, Céline Darnon

Abstract

The belief that, in school, success only depends on will and hard work is widespread in Western societies despite evidence showing that several factors other than merit explain school success, including group belonging (e.g., social class, gender). In the present paper, we argue that because merit is the only track for low status students to reach upward mobility, Belief in School Meritocracy (BSM) is a particularly useful system-justifying tool to help them perceive their place in society as being deserved. Consequently, for low status students (but not high status students), this belief should be related to more general system-justifying beliefs (Study 1). Moreover, low status students should be particularly prone to endorsing this belief when their place within a system on which they strongly depend to acquire status is challenged (Study 2). In Study 1, high status (boys and high SES) were compared to low status (girls and low SES) high school students. Results indicated that BSM was related to system-justifying beliefs only for low SES students and for girls, but not for high SES students or for boys. In Study 2, university students were exposed (or not) to information about an important selection process that occurs at the university, depending on the condition. Their subjective status was assessed. Although such a confrontation reduced BSM for high subjective SES students, it tended to enhance it for low subjective SES students. Results are discussed in terms of system justification motives and the palliative function meritocratic ideology may play for low status students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Master 12 10%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 41%
Social Sciences 25 22%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,224,695
of 25,880,422 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,193
of 34,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,068
of 277,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#123
of 566 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,880,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 566 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.