A Comparison of Educationally Advantaged and Disadvantaged College Students: Academic Goal Engagement and Psychological

1. A Comparison of Educationally Advantaged and Disadvantaged College Students: Academic Goal Engagement and Psychological Well-Being Presented by Daniel K. Park Undergraduate Research Symposium University of California, Irvine Saturday, May 14, 2005

2. Why is Education Important? • Education plays an important role in the future plans of adolescents. • Past research has shown that higher levels of education are associated with: • Higher income • Lower unemployment • General well-being (Garb et al., 2002)

3. Past Research • Research consistently shows that educational achievement is highly correlated with social class (Ballantine, 2001). • Previous research has found that mother’s and father’s SES, education, and family background influences one’s educational and career attainment (e.g., Beeghley, 1996)

4. Why Look at Psychological Well-Being? • Performing beyond normative expectations by outperforming their parents educationally can lead to: • Fear of failure • Lack of parental guidance Vulnerability to more depressive symptoms and less life satisfaction

5. The Life-Span Theory of Control • Addresses engagement with and disengagement from life goals during the life course. • Primary control: Behavior directed at producing effects in the environment and “attempts to change the world to fit the needs and desires of the individual” (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) • Secondary control: Addresses internal processes related to one’s motivation and emotion.

6. The Present Study • This study examines college students with parents from high vs. low educational backgrounds and students’ utilization of control strategies  psychological well-being (e.g., satisfaction with life, CES-D). • Parents with high educational (HE) attainment = Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S.) and beyond • Parents with low educational (LE) attainment = Associate’s degree (A.A., A.S.) or less

7. Hypothesis One • H1: College students with parents from LE backgrounds will report higher scores of depression and be less satisfied with life in comparison to students from HE backgrounds.

8. Hypothesis Two • H2: College students with parents from LE backgrounds are more likely to use secondary control strategies in order to overcome disadvantage: • Self-protection • Goal engagement • Goal disengagement

9. Hypothesis Three • H3: Use of control strategies (primary, secondary) make a greater difference for predicting psychological well-being in students from low educational backgrounds than for students from high educational backgrounds.

10. Research Methodology/Design • Surveys were distributed in four Social Ecology courses during the first and second summer sessions in 2004. • Participants were asked to complete a survey at home that consisted of the following: • Demographic section (including parents’ level of education) • Primary and secondary control strivings scale – General OPS scale (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) • Academic OPS scale– OPS domain-specific academic achievement scale (Heckhausen, 2004) • Satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al., 1985) • CES-D 10-item version scale (Radloff, 1977)

11. Parents’ Educational Attainment N=152

12. Participants by Gender N=152 51 M (33.6%), 101 F (66.4%)

13. Participants by Race/Ethnicity N=152

14. Operationalization of Variables • Educationally advantaged vs. disadvantaged students (Independent variable): • Parents’ educational attainment: • Two-year college degree or less = low educational attainment (LE) • Four-year college degree and/or beyond = high educational attainment (HE) • Control strivings (Independent variable): • Primary and secondary control scales – General OPS scale (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) • Academic OPS scale (Heckhausen, 2004) • Psychological well-being (Dependent variable): • Satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al., 1985) • Center for Epidemiological Studies Short Depression scale (Ten-item version; Radloff, 1977)

15. Results

16. H1: Psychological Well-Being Lower in LE Compared to HE Students t(146) = 2.046, p<.05

17. H1: Psychological Well-Being Lower in LE Compared to HE Students (cont.)

18. H2: Secondary Control Strategies Higher in LE than HE Students

19. H3: Parents’ Education and Use of Control Strategies as Stronger Predictors of Psychological Well-Being for LE Students • No interactions were found. Hypothesis not confirmed.

20. Additional Findings • Predictors of Psychological Well-Being: • Utilization of primary control strategies is associated with greater life satisfaction. • Secondary control strategy of goal disengagement is associated with greater life satisfaction.

21. Main Findings • College students with parents from LE backgrounds report more depressive symptoms, but are not more likely to be less satisfied with life in comparison to those from HE backgrounds. • Students from LE backgrounds utilize the secondary control strategy of goal disengagement less than those from HE backgrounds. • Use of primary and secondary control strategies didn’t make a greater difference for predicting LE students’ psychological well-being.

22. Discussion • Implications of findings for educationally advantaged and disadvantaged college students: • Do depressive symptoms of LE students persist throughout time? • HE students more aware of their limitations • LE students more persistent about attaining goals • Perception of impossible goals is subjective.

23. Future Directions for Research • Future research should consider the following: • Longitudinal research • To examine other disadvantaged college students: • Transfer students • Low-income students • First-generation college students • Nontraditional students (e.g., older students who return to earn their college degrees).

24. Professor Jutta Heckhausen, Ph.D. Professor Valerie Jenness, Ph.D. Esther S. Chang, Laura Gil-Trejo, and Sarah Roper-Coleman Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program School of Social Ecology’s Honors Program PSB’s Excellence in Research Program Study participants, Summer Session instructors in Social Ecology Acknowledgments

25. Contact Information: Daniel K. Park Department of Psychology and Social Behavior School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine danielkp@uci.edu