In a transformative new study emerging from Ohio State University, researchers have delved deep into the nuanced psychology of college students navigating the rigors of introductory STEM coursework. Their findings shed critical light on how the perception of effort—both in absolute terms and relative to peers—profoundly shapes students’ confidence and academic outcomes, particularly in demanding chemistry courses that serve as a gateway to scientific disciplines. The research underscores the detrimental impact of comparative effort—the act of measuring one’s hard work against that of classmates—revealing how such constant calibration can erode a student’s belief in their own scientific abilities, thereby undermining success.
The investigation focused on a large cohort of 690 undergraduates enrolled in Ohio State’s introductory chemistry courses during the fall semester of 2020. This period, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, added an extra layer of complexity to students’ academic experiences, prompting the researchers to factor in pandemic-related disruptions alongside traditional academic variables such as standardized test scores and demographics. The longitudinal study measured students’ perceived effort—differentiating between “criterion effort,” or self-assessment of the hard work they personally invested, and “comparative effort,” which involves evaluating one’s effort relative to peers—at three distinct points during the semester. Parallelly, science self-concept was tracked, capturing students’ belief in their capacity to succeed in scientific fields.
The distinction between criterion and comparative effort proved pivotal. Students who simply recognized their own earnest labor without juxtaposing it against others’ efforts showed a bolstering of science self-concept, particularly among women. Conversely, those who perceived themselves as exerting more effort than peers frequently internalized this differential as a signal of deficient innate ability, negatively influencing self-concept regardless of gender. This internalization aligns with broader psychological theories positing that human beings interpret greater effort needed for success as evidence of lower ability, as effortless achievement is often culturally linked to high aptitude.
Gender differences formed a compelling dimension of the findings. Women who endorsed criterion effort—acknowledging their diligent engagement without comparative framing—demonstrated an uplift in their scientific self-belief and tended toward higher achievement in the chemistry course. This may reflect women’s increased awareness of and response to pervasive gender stereotypes in STEM, whereby exertion is reframed as a tool to overcome systemic biases rather than an indicator of incompetence. In contrast, men’s self-confidence in science appeared anchored more strongly in prior tangible achievements (such as standardized test scores) than in their subjective perceptions of effort. Their science self-concept showed less fluctuation in response to self-reported effort, possibly due to a cultural baseline of perceived scientific competence common among male students.
The reciprocal nature of the relationships between perceived effort and achievement was particularly striking. Early in the semester, students who reported higher criterion effort achieved better scores on midterm exams. This success in turn reinforced their belief in the value of their own hard work, creating a positive feedback loop that fostered both motivation and performance improvements. However, the pattern was attenuated or reversed in cases where comparative effort dominated students’ narratives. Those focusing on how much harder they worked compared to others generally recorded lower chemistry grades, indicating that social comparison can sap both motivation and achievement in high-stakes STEM environments.
This dynamic is especially concerning given the competitive and often “weed-out” nature of many introductory STEM courses. The climate in these classes can inadvertently encourage students to gauge themselves against their peers rather than to cultivate an intrinsic sense of progress and mastery. The researchers emphasize that such a comparative mindset can erect psychological barriers that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups, ultimately exacerbating existing disparities in STEM retention and success. By contrast, fostering a mindset attuned to criterion effort—an internal gauge of effortfulness disconnected from social comparison—appears critical for sustaining confidence and achievement among diverse student populations.
The technical rigor of the study is underscored by its robust methodology, including three-timepoint assessments of effort perception, science self-concept, and exam performance, as well as controls for prior academic achievement and pandemic-related effects. The sophisticated modeling of reciprocal effects between variables allowed the research team to parse out not only correlations but also potential causal directions, revealing how early academic experiences and self-perceptions dynamically influence one another over time. This contributes novel empirical evidence to educational psychology, especially regarding how perceptions of effort interact with confidence and outcomes in authentic, high-pressure undergraduate STEM contexts.
Lead author Hyewon Lee, who conducted the study during her doctoral training at Ohio State, highlights the practical implications for educators and institutions. “The findings point to a crucial need for early interventions in STEM courses that help students focus on their own growth and effort rather than fixating on how others seem to perform,” Lee explained. Such strategies could involve targeted messaging, self-reflective exercises, and institutional policies that minimize unhealthy competition and foster intra-individual benchmarks of success. For women in particular, reinforcing the view that effort is a source of empowerment—not a mark of deficiency—may be key to closing confidence and achievement gaps.
Co-author Shirley L. Yu, an associate professor specializing in educational psychology and leader of Ohio State’s SPARKS Lab, elaborated on the conceptual underpinnings. She framed criterion effort as “the belief that you work hard to learn because that effort is necessary to master course material.” In contrast, comparative effort is laden with implications that can be psychologically toxic: “If you’re comparing your effort to others and feel like you have to work harder, it may suggest a perceived lack of ability, which undermines science self-concept.” Yu’s insights suggest that beyond curriculum design, attention must be paid to the social and psychological climates of STEM classrooms to foster resilience and self-efficacy.
The study also illuminates the layered nature of effort perception and achievement, which are not static but dynamically interwoven. While criterion effort boosted midterm performance, students’ actual grades then positively influenced subsequent perceptions of effort invested in the course. This cyclical relationship was more pronounced among women, emphasizing how reinforcing early successes can promote sustained engagement. Contrastingly, reliance on social comparison yielded a more convoluted and generally detrimental pattern, reinforcing the necessity of shifting pedagogical focus towards individualized measures of effort and accomplishment.
Importantly, this research fills a notable gap in understanding how subtle psychological constructs operate in real-world STEM classrooms rather than controlled experimental settings. The authentic context, large sample size, and repeated measures provide high ecological validity, making the results highly relevant for educators, policymakers, and researchers striving to enhance inclusion and persistence in science disciplines. The study’s unique contribution lies in its delineation of two distinct but interacting types of perceived effort and their profound, gender-differentiated consequences on science self-concept and achievement.
Given that introductory STEM courses often serve as critical filter points determining students’ continuation in scientific fields, the findings underscore a pressing need for educational reform. Cultivating environments where students can internalize effort as a positive and self-referential metric may not only improve academic outcomes but also help dismantle persistent gender gaps and foster diverse scientific talent pipelines. As Yu succinctly stated, “We need to find ways to take away barriers that may keep qualified students, particularly women, from succeeding,” a challenge this study powerfully illuminates.
In sum, this groundbreaking research offers an intricate portrait of how students’ inner narratives about effort and ability influence their trajectories in STEM education. By distinguishing between harmful social comparisons and empowering self-assessments of effort, the study charts a path toward more inclusive and effective pedagogical practices. As STEM fields continue to seek broader participation and equity, insights like these hold promise for informing interventions that nurture resilience, confidence, and sustained achievement among all students.
—
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: “Am I trying hard or harder than others?”: Gender differences in reciprocal relations between perceived effort, science self-concept, and achievement in chemistry
News Publication Date: 5-Feb-2025
Web References:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X25000141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102349
References:
Lee, H., Yu, S. L., Lin, T.-J., & Kim, M. (2025). “Am I trying hard or harder than others?”: Gender differences in reciprocal relations between perceived effort, science self-concept, and achievement in chemistry. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102349
Keywords: STEM education, perceived effort, science self-concept, gender differences, chemistry achievement, educational psychology, social comparison, criterion effort, comparative effort, undergraduate STEM retention, academic motivation, gender stereotypes in STEM
