Conventional wisdom in education is that academic success leads children to believe in their academic abilities–which leads to more academic success. But that conventional wisdom is wrong.
All major variables in this study were found to be genetically influenced:
Self-perceived academic ability (SPA) is partially heritable: 12-32% at age 11 and 38-48% at age 17. School grades were 43-47% heritable in language arts and 39-57% in math. Heritability of IQ was 42% at age 11 and 51% at age 17. Conscientiousness heritability was 31% at age 11 and 21% at age 17.
So, everything was partially heritable–which isn’t surprising.
Most of the variables were correlated, too. School grades were correlated with IQ (r = .26 and .34), conscientiousness (r = .16 and 17), and self-perceived ability (r = .12-48).
Where this study gets interesting when the authors explored why these variables were correlated. It turns out that, for most correlations, shared genes are the dominant reason why variables were correlated. This is especially true for the correlations between IQ and grades and between self-perceived ability and grades. This means that a major reason why smarter or more confident children perform better in school is that overlapping genes probably cause these children to be smart, confident, and excellent at school. There is an environmental component to these correlations, but it is much weaker and tends to be the nonshared environment that each child uniquely experiences.
Instead of a model of confidence academic success, educators need to consider that genes partially contribute to academic success and that a realistic understanding of their school performance can lead children to have confidence (or not) in their academic abilities.
Excellent study. Intelligence and success are certainly due to the interplay of various important factors, and the best way to assess these metrics is to look at the bigger picture as opposed to a narrow focus
I worry this could be misused to justify giving up on struggling students. Yes, genetics matter, but that non-genetic component still means environment and effort make a real difference in outcomes.
This is wild. I’ve been teaching for 15 years and always assumed good grades → confidence → better grades. But this study is saying it’s mostly genetics causing both? Like, smart kids do well AND feel confident because of overlapping genes, not because success made them confident. That’s a huge shift in how we think about education.
@Juan_San Yeah the genetic correlations are strong (0.44-0.77 range). The study shows genes explain way more of the relationship between IQ/confidence/grades than environment does. Environmental effects were mostly non-shared (unique to each kid), not shared family stuff.
What got me is conscientiousness was only weakly correlated with grades (r=.16-.17) but still 31-42% heritable. So even personality traits affecting school have genetic components.
The data suggests genes create a natural alignment where smarter, more conscientious kids excel and feel capable without needing success to bootstrap confidence. That said, non-shared environments still contribute, so personalized encouragement or growth-oriented challenges can amplify what’s already there. It’s less about building confidence from scratch and more about channeling existing potential.
I agree. The theory of multiple intelligences suggest that there are more ways to quantify a person’s intellectual capabilities as a whole. The findings of this study can be advantageous when we use it to identify kids who are likely to be smart because of heritability, and then support them by providing access to opportunities that can enhance their cognitive strengths.
Where I come from, most people aren’t highly educated, and there’s always been a heavy emphasis on kids’ efforts. Like if they just work hard enough, get enough support, have the right mindset, they can achieve anything academically. But it’s actually helpful to see research showing genetics play a major role too. It helps reduce some of the guilt or blame parents feel when their kids struggle despite their best efforts. Not saying environment doesn’t matter, but acknowledging the genetic component seems more realistic.
Here we go again with the nature versus nurture debate. I think the whole framing is outdated and harmful. This whole study risks naturalizing educational inequality by suggesting it’s in our DNA rather than examining how schools themselves might be failing to reach certain types of learners.
I’m not sure “excellent study” captures the limitations here. If anything, this study takes a pretty reductive view by focusing on standardized academic metrics and then attributing them largely to genetics. The “bigger picture” would require looking at outcomes beyond school grades and considering how different educational systems might produce different results.
I like this study because of its practical message: if you want to boost kids’ academic confidence, help them obtain some success first. And that will make them more confident to tackle later challenges.
Self-perceived academic ability (SPA) is partially heritable: 12-32% at age 11 and 38-48% at age 17.
