强调努力悖论：强调努力阻碍对STEM领域的追求

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0918

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

努力作为通往成功道路上的关键因素, 对个人的积极影响不言而喻, 但当前研究对强调努力是否会引发消极影响还不清楚。本研究根据归因理论和“表现 = 努力 + 能力”理论, 结合特定领域能力信念和聪明性别刻板印象, 通过4个实验(N = 1038), 探讨了强调努力对个体追求STEM领域造成的消极影响(实验1~4)及其内在机制(实验3~4)。结果发现, 强调目标个体的努力, 会引发对其不聪明感知, 进而导致他人不建议其追求STEM领域; 同时, 还会降低目标个体自身追求STEM领域的意愿、兴趣、归属感和动机。本研究将这一现象称为“强调努力悖论”, 该概念的提出有助于打破“强调努力 = 积极结果”的片面认知, 对STEM教育具有重要启示意义。

关键词: 强调努力悖论, 不聪明感知, “表现 = 努力 + 能力”理论, 特定领域能力信念, 聪明性别刻板印象

Abstract:

Effort can be defined broadly as the exertion of physical or mental energy to achieve a specific goal or complete a task. It is valued globally and is commonly viewed as a pathway to success. However, recent evidence suggests that emphasizing effort may backfire, as it can imply that individuals have to work hard to compensate for low brilliance. Furthermore, perceptions of low brilliance may negatively impact sense of belonging and motivations for STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). We refer this phenomenon as the paradox of emphasizing effort, indicating that although effort seems to have beneficial effects, overwhelming emphasizing effort may undermine individuals’ pursuit of STEM fields. Field-specific ability beliefs refers to beliefs about the extent to which success in a particular field depends on brilliance. For example, brilliance is believed to be essential for success in STEM fields. When field-specific ability beliefs combined with gender-brilliance stereotype, by which women are stereotypically viewed as less likely than men to possess brilliance, emphasizing brilliance may undermine women’s intentions, interest, sense of belonging, and motivation to pursue STEM fields. Given that individuals tend to perceive effort and ability (or brilliance) as inversely related, according to attribution theory and the “performance = effort + skill (ability)” theory, emphasizing effort might lead to perceptions of low brilliance, which in turn hinders individuals’ pursuit of STEM fields. In this research, across 4 studies (N = 1, 038), we investigated the paradox of emphasizing effort and the underlying mechanism of this paradox.

In Study 1, from the perspective of observers, we explored whether emphasizing a target’s effort led participants to be less likely to suggest that the target should pursue STEM majors, compared to when effort was not emphasized. In Study 2, incorporating the perspective of actors, we examined whether emphasizing effort lowered participants’ own intentions to pursue STEM internships, compared to when effort was not emphasized. In Study 3, we examined whether the paradox of emphasizing effort could be explained by perceptions of low brilliance. In Study 4, we tested whether the results regarding to the mediating role of low-brilliance perceptions could be replicated.

The results showed that participants exposed to a target whose effort was emphasized were less likely to suggest that the target should pursue STEM fields in education and occupation, regardless of the target’s gender (female, male, or unspecified), compared to those exposed to a target whose effort was not emphasized (Studies 1~4). Additionally, when participants own effort was emphasized, they reported lower intentions, interest, sense of belonging, and motivation to pursue STEM fields in occupation, compared to those whose effort was not emphasized (Studies 2~4). Furthermore, perceptions of low brilliance were a key mechanism underlying the paradox of emphasizing effort. Specifically, emphasizing effort led to perceptions of low brilliance, which in turn caused individuals to steer away from STEM fields in occupation (Studies 3~4).

The first theoretical contribution of this research is to advance the literature of effort. Previous work on effort has primarily focused on positive consequences of effort, our research is the first to reveal the negative effects of emphasizing effort on individuals’ pursuit of STEM fields. Second, our research expanded the application of attribution theory and the “performance = effort + skill (ability)” theory. Third, our research, to some extent, advances theory related to field-specific ability beliefs. Our research demonstrated that the negative effects of field-specific ability beliefs could be induced even without directly emphasizing brilliance. Fourth, our research offers a potential new perspective on explaining gender disparities in STEM fields. Finally, our research suggests that deemphasizing the roles of effort and brilliance in achieving success in STEM fields may help mitigate the detrimental consequences of the paradox of emphasizing effort.

Key words: paradox of emphasizing effort, perceptions of low brilliance, “performance = effort + skill (ability)” theory, field-specific ability beliefs, gender-brilliance stereotype

中图分类号:

B849: C91

王祯, 左果果, 管健. (2026). 强调努力悖论：强调努力阻碍对STEM领域的追求. 心理学报, 58(5), 918-934.

WANG Zhen, ZUO Guoguo, GUAN Jian. (2026). Paradox of emphasizing effort: How emphasizing effort discourages pursuit of STEM fields. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(5), 918-934.

图/表 9

参考文献 56

[1]	Amemiya, J., Heyman, G. D., & Walker, C. M. (2023). Emphasizing others’ persistence can promote unwarranted social inferences in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(10), 2977-2988. doi: 10.1037/xge0001428 URL
[2]	Amemiya, J., & Wang, M. T. (2018). Why effort praise can backfire in adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 199-203. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12284 URL
[3]	Apascaritei, P., Radl, J., & Swarr, M. (2024). Material incentives moderate gender differences in cognitive effort among children. Learning and Individual Differences, 114, 102494. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102494 URL
[4]	Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389-391. doi: 10.1126/science.aah6524 pmid: 28126816
[5]	Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018a). Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. American Psychologist, 73(9), 1139-1153. doi: 10.1037/amp0000427 URL
[6]	Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., Murphy, M. C., & Cimpian, A. (2018b). Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 404-420. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006 URL
[7]	Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275-279. pmid: 21152367
[8]	Cheryan, S., Lombard, E. J., Hailu, F., Pham, L. N., & Weltzien, K. (2024). Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and explanations for their persistence. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4(1), 6-19. doi: 10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3
[9]	Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045-1060. doi: 10.1037/a0016239 pmid: 19968418
[10]	Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1037/bul0000052 pmid: 27732018
[11]	Cimpian, J. R., Kim, T. H., & McDermott, Z. T. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317-1319. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7377 pmid: 32554586
[12]	Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481-496. doi: 10.1177/1745691618804166 pmid: 30707853
[13]	Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700-717. doi: 10.1037/a0026659 URL
[14]	Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101861. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861 URL
[15]	Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., & Hu, X. (2024). Cross-cultural patterns of gender differences in STEM: Gender stratification, gender equality and gender-equality paradoxes. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 37.
[16]	Hannak, A., Joseph, K., Larremore, D. B., & Cimpian, A. (2023). Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(4), 681-698. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000348 pmid: 37347899
[17]	Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 337-349. doi: S1364-6613(18)30020-2 pmid: 29477776
[18]	Ito, T. A., & McPherson, E. (2018). Factors influencing high school students’ interest in pSTEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1535. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01535 URL
[19]	Jaxon, J., Lei, R. F., Shachnai, R., Chestnut, E. K., & Cimpian, A. (2019). The acquisition of gender stereotypes about intellectual ability: Intersections with race. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1192-1215. doi: 10.1111/josi.v75.4 URL
[20]	Jenifer, J. B., Jaxon, J., Levine, S. C., & Cimpian, A. (2024). “You need to be super smart to do well in math!” Young children’s field‐specific ability beliefs. Developmental Science, 27(1), e13429. doi: 10.1111/desc.v27.1 URL
[21]	Jiang, S., Simpkins, S. D., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). Individuals’ math and science motivation and their subsequent STEM choices and achievement in high school and college: A longitudinal study of gender and college generation status differences. Developmental Psychology, 56(11), 2137-2151. doi: 10.1037/dev0001110 URL
[22]	Kim, S., Jin, K. S., & Bian, L. (2024). Gender brilliance stereotype emerges early and predicts children’s motivation in South Korea. Child Development, 95(3), 913-928. doi: 10.1111/cdev.14043 URL
[23]	Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Kikas, E., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Nelson, B., ... Zollneritsch, J. (2012). Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The results of an international study from 12 countries. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 77-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.004 URL
[24]	Lee, H., Shirley, L. Y., 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, 80, 102349. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102349 URL
[25]	Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262-265. doi: 10.1126/science.1261375 URL
[26]	Lucca, K., Horton, R., & Sommerville, J. A. (2019). Keep trying!: Parental language predicts infants’ persistence. Cognition, 193, 104025. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104025 URL
[27]	Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485-504. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v51.3 URL
[28]	Master, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Cheryan, S. (2021). Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(48), e2100030118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100030118 URL
[29]	Meyer, M., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 132930.
[30]	Miele, D. B., Browman, A. S., & Vasilyeva, M. (2020). Individual differences in students’ effort source beliefs predict their judgments of ability. Motivation Science, 6(2), 110-132. doi: 10.1037/mot0000124 URL
[31]	Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., & Peters, K. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 465-483. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000059 URL
[32]	Muenks, K., & Miele, D. B. (2017). Students’ thinking about effort and ability: The role of developmental, contextual, and individual difference factors. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 707-735. doi: 10.3102/0034654316689328 URL
[33]	Muenks, K., Miele, D. B., & Wigfield, A. (2016). How students’ perceptions of the source of effort influence their ability evaluations of other students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 438-454. doi: 10.1037/edu0000068 URL
[34]	Muradoglu, M., Arnold, S. H., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2023). “What does it take to succeed here?”: The belief that success requires brilliance is an obstacle to diversity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(5), 379-386. doi: 10.1177/09637214231173361 URL
[35]	Muradoglu, M., & Cimpian, A. (2020). Children’s intuitive theories of academic performance. Child Development, 91(4), e902-e918. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13325
[36]	Muradoglu, M., Horne, Z., Hammond, M. D., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2022). Women—particularly underrepresented minority women—and early-career academics feel like impostors in fields that value brilliance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 1086-1100. doi: 10.1037/edu0000669 URL
[37]	Napp, C., & Breda, T. (2022). The stereotype that girls lack talent: A worldwide investigation. Science Advances, 8(10), eabm3689.
[38]	Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., ... Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593-10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106 URL
[39]	Nyul, B., Ksenofontov, I., Fleischmann, A., & Kahalon, R. (2025). Brilliance as gender deviance: Gender-role incongruity as another barrier to women’s success in academic fields. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 116, 104680. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104680 URL
[40]	Okanda, M., Meng, X., Kanakogi, Y., Uragami, M., Yamamoto, H., & Moriguchi, Y. (2022). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability in Japanese children. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16748.
[41]	Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387. doi: 10.1037/a0026838 pmid: 22352812
[42]	Schmader, T. (2023). Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 219-243. doi: 10.1146/psych.2023.74.issue-1 URL
[43]	Schoneveld, E., & Brummelman, E. (2023). “You did incredibly well!”: Teachers’ inflated praise can make children from low-SES backgrounds seem less smart (but more hardworking). NPJ Science of Learning, 8(1), 31.
[44]	Shu, Y., Hu, Q., Xu, F., & Bian, L. (2022). Gender stereotypes are racialized: A cross-cultural investigation of gender stereotypes about intellectual talents. Developmental Psychology, 58(7), 1345-1359. doi: 10.1037/dev0001356 pmid: 35298190
[45]	Simon, J. (1967). The paradoxical effect of effort. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 40(4), 375-379. pmid: 5582762
[46]	Siy, J. O., Germano, A. L., Vianna, L., Azpeitia, J., Yan, S., Montoya, A. K., & Cheryan, S. (2023). Does the follow-your-passions ideology cause greater academic and occupational gender disparities than other cultural ideologies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(3), 548-570. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000421 pmid: 37141034
[47]	Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131-143. doi: 10.1177/0146167212468332 URL
[48]	Starr, C. R. (2018). “I’m not a science nerd!” STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 489-503. doi: 10.1177/0361684318793848 URL
[49]	Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593. doi: 10.1177/0956797617741719 pmid: 29442575
[50]	Storage, D., Charlesworth, T. E., Banaji, M. R., & Cimpian, A. (2020). Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104020. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020 URL
[51]	Streck, H., & Kessels, U. (2023). Nice, but not smart? Attributional backlash from displaying prosocial behavior in the classroom. Social Psychology of Education, 26(6), 1621-1649. doi: 10.1007/s11218-023-09811-0
[52]	Vial, A. C., Muradoglu, M., Newman, G. E., & Cimpian, A. (2022). An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity- contest cultures. Psychological Science, 33(4), 595-612. doi: 10.1177/09567976211044133 URL
[53]	Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433596 URL
[54]	Workman, J., & Heyder, A. (2020). Gender achievement gaps: The role of social costs to trying hard in high school. Social Psychology of Education, 23(6), 1407-1427. doi: 10.1007/s11218-020-09588-6
[55]	Zhao, L., Li, Y., Qin, W., Amemiya, J., Fang, F., Compton, B. J., & Heyman, G. D. (2022a). Overheard evaluative comments: Implications for beliefs about effort and ability. Child Development, 93(6), 1889-1902. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13829 URL
[56]	Zhao, S., Setoh, P., Storage, D., & Cimpian, A. (2022b). The acquisition of the gender-brilliance stereotype: Age trajectory, relation to parents’ stereotypes, and intersections with race/ethnicity. Child Development, 93(5), e581-e597. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13809 URL

实验	强调努力组 M (SD)	控制组 M (SD)	t [χ²]	d	95% CI
实验1	6.54 (0.81), 96%	4.19 (0.63), 91%	23.75^***	3.21	[2.81, 3.61]
实验2	6.51 (0.86), 96%	4.09 (0.41), 94%	30.60^***	3.48	[3.13, 3.84]
实验3	6.34 (0.91), 97%	4.13 (0.43), 91%	25.42^***	3.15	[2.79, 3.52]
实验4	95%	94%	197.75^***

实验	强调努力组 M (SD)	控制组 M (SD)	t [χ²]	d	95% CI
实验1	6.54 (0.81), 96%	4.19 (0.63), 91%	23.75^***	3.21	[2.81, 3.61]
实验2	6.51 (0.86), 96%	4.09 (0.41), 94%	30.60^***	3.48	[3.13, 3.84]
实验3	6.34 (0.91), 97%	4.13 (0.43), 91%	25.42^***	3.15	[2.79, 3.52]
实验4	95%	94%	197.75^***

实验	女性	男性	未明确性别	χ²
实验1	97%	93%	94%	371.52^***
实验2	97%	96%		293.98^***
实验3	95%	95%		245.12^***
实验4	94%	96%		235.33^***

实验	女性	男性	未明确性别	χ²
实验1	97%	93%	94%	371.52^***
实验2	97%	96%		293.98^***
实验3	95%	95%		245.12^***
实验4	94%	96%		235.33^***

因变量	自变量	M (SD)	F	df	p	η²_p
建议	组别
	强调努力组	3.65 (1.22)	21.55	1, 213	< 0.001	0.09
	控制组	4.31 (0.85)	21.55	1, 213	< 0.001	0.09
	目标个体性别
	女性	3.49 (1.14)	11.94	2, 213	< 0.001	0.10
	男性	4.29 (1.06)
	未明确性别	4.13 (0.95)
	组别×目标个体性别		0.02	2, 213	0.98	0.00