Psychology says parents who make their kids sit with the class topper may be onto something, but there’s a catch

“Sit with the topper and you will become smart too.” For generations, parents have repeated some version of this advice to children. The assumption is simple: spend enough time around the student who gets the highest marks, and some of that intelligence, discipline or academic success will eventually rub off.

Psychology suggests there is some truth hidden inside this belief: but not quite in the way parents imagine. A child does not become academically stronger merely by occupying the same bench as a high-performing student. What matters is the social interaction, behavior, motivation and learning environment that can develop around that relationship.

Psychology Says Children Learn By Watching Other Children

One explanation comes from Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory, which proposes that people can acquire behaviors by observing and modeling others. Children do not have to personally experience every consequence to learn from it; watching another person can provide information about what behaviors are rewarded or effective.


Imagine a student who normally begins homework at 9 p.m. sitting beside a classmate who immediately starts solving practice questions after school. Over time, the first child may begin copying the routine, not because intelligence has magically transferred, but because the behavior has become visible and socially modeled.

The same process could involve asking questions, organizing notes, revising before tests or persisting with difficult problems.

A 2021 study examining peer networks found that students' academic performance was positively associated with the average GPA of their friends, supporting the idea that peer relationships can be connected with academic outcomes.

The “Smart Friend” Can Become A More Capable Learning Partner

The idea also connects with psychologist Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, particularly the Zone of Proximal Development.

Vygotsky argued that there is a difference between what a child can accomplish independently and what the child can accomplish with appropriate assistance from an adult or more capable peer. In education, a stronger student can sometimes provide exactly this kind of temporary support.

Consider a child struggling with algebra. Sitting next to someone who already understands the concept could make it easier to observe how the problem is approached, ask questions and receive an explanation in language that feels less intimidating than a formal lecture.

But there is an important condition: the children have to interact meaningfully.

Simply sitting next to the topper while both students silently complete their own worksheets is unlikely to produce the same learning benefits.

Social Comparison Can Make Children Work Harder

Another explanation comes from Leon Festinger's Social Comparison Theory.

People naturally compare their abilities and performance with others, particularly when they lack an objective way to judge themselves. In school, grades, test scores and classmates can become powerful reference points for evaluating academic ability.

A child who repeatedly sees a classmate solving five problems while they are still working on the first may think, How is she doing this so quickly? That comparison can have different outcomes.

For some children, it can create upward comparison motivation: the high achiever becomes a model of what might be possible. For others, constant comparison can produce discouragement, academic anxiety or the belief that they simply are not “smart enough.” That distinction is crucial for parents.

Research Shows Peer Effects Can Influence Academic Performance

The strongest evidence does not suggest that intelligence is contagious. Instead, studies indicate that peer environments can influence academic behavior and achievement.

A 2023 quasi-experimental study of middle-school classrooms in China found that students randomly assigned to classrooms with higher-achieving classmates subsequently performed better in mathematics and English. Researchers estimated that a one-standard-deviation increase in classmates' earlier average test scores was associated with measurable gains in students' later scores. The researchers also found evidence that the peer effect operated partly through increased study time and confidence in learning.

That is remarkably close to what the traditional parental advice is trying to achieve, but the mechanism is behavioral and motivational, not the transfer of intelligence.

A 2024 study similarly found relationships between peer relationships, learning motivation, learning engagement and academic achievement among junior-high students.

Why “Sit With The Topper” Does Not Always Work

There is another psychological complication: peer selection.

Children do not simply influence one another; they also choose whom they spend time with. Longitudinal research suggests that academic achievement can influence friendship selection, meaning high-achieving students may be more likely to form relationships with other academically successful students in the first place.

This makes the popular parental logic difficult to interpret. If two high-performing children sit together and both succeed, it does not necessarily mean one made the other smarter. They may already have similar motivation, family support, study habits or academic interests.

There is also the Pygmalion effect, associated with psychologist Robert Rosenthal, which demonstrates how expectations can influence performance. Later research has found that teacher expectations can affect students' academic achievement partly through students' academic self-concept.

Parents can therefore accidentally undermine the very effect they want if they tell a child, “You need to sit with the topper because you aren't smart enough.” That message can damage self-efficacy, the child's belief in their own ability to learn.

Psychologist Albert Bandura's research on self-efficacy shows that children's beliefs about their academic capabilities are connected with aspirations, learning regulation and achievement.

The healthiest version of the old advice is therefore not “sit next to a smart child and become smart.”

It is: surround children with peers who model curiosity, persistence, effective study habits and confidence, while helping them develop those qualities for themselves.

A topper cannot transfer intelligence through proximity. But the right peer relationship can make productive behaviors more visible, learning more social and academic success feel more achievable.

FAQs

Why do parents believe smart children influence other children?

The belief can be explained through social learning, social comparison and peer-influence theories. Parents may observe children copying successful classmates' habits and interpret the resulting improvement as becoming “smarter.”

Can sitting with a topper negatively affect a child?

Yes. If the child constantly compares themselves with a much higher-performing peer, upward comparison may produce discouragement or anxiety rather than motivation. The child's personality, self-efficacy and quality of the relationship matter.