A social identity perspective on the social-class achievement gap: Academic and social adjustment in the transition to university

Abstract

First-generation students show lower academic performance at university compared to continuing-generation students. Previous research established the value in taking a social identity perspective on this social-class achievement gap, and showed that the gap can partly be explained by lower compatibility between social background and university identities that first- compared to continuing-generation students experience. The present paper aimed to increase insight into the processes through which this low identity compatibility leads to lower academic achievement by examining first-year university students’ adjustment to university in two key domains: the academic and the social domain. These were examined as two routes through which the social-class achievement gap may arise, and hence perpetuate this group-based inequality. Adjustment was examined both through students’ actual integration in the academic and social domains, and their internally experienced concerns about these domains at university. A longitudinal study among 674 first-year university students (13.6% first-generation) showed that first-generation students experienced lower identity compatibility in their first semester, which was in turn related to lower social, but not academic, integration. Lower identity compatibility was also related to more concerns about the social and academic domains at university. Low identity compatibility was directly related to lower academic achievement 1 year later, and this relationship was mediated only by lower social integration at university. These findings show that to understand, and hence reduce, the social-class achievement gap, it is important to examine how low identity compatibility can create difficulties in academic and particularly social adjustment at university with consequences for achievement.

Tackling Educational Inequalities with Social Psychology: Identities, Contexts, and Interventions

“…Social identity threat and/or identity incompatibility have been found to reduce the performance of Black and Latino students in U.S. schools and colleges (Chu & Brown, 2017;Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002;Steele & Aronson, 1995); students and young children of lower social class in the United States (Désert, Préaux, & Jund, 2009;B. Spencer & Castano, 2007), France (Croizet & Claire, 1998), and Belgium (Veldman, Meeussen, & van Laar, 2019); children of immigrants in Belgium (Baysu, Celeste, Brown, Verschueren, & Phalet, 2016); women and girls in stereotypically masculine subjects such as maths and science (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001;Picho, Rodriguez, & Finnie, 2013;S. J. Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999); and boys in general performance and in stereotypically feminine subjects such as reading, English, and languages (Hartley & Sutton, 2013;Pansu et al, 2016).…”

“…Although social identity threat and identity incompatibility have a range of consequences on educational outcomes, the most well‐documented is on academic performance. Social identity threat and/or identity incompatibility have been found to reduce the performance of Black and Latino students in U.S. schools and colleges (Chu & Brown, 2017; Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995); students and young children of lower social class in the United States (Désert, Préaux, & Jund, 2009; B. Spencer & Castano, 2007), France (Croizet & Claire, 1998), and Belgium (Veldman, Meeussen, & van Laar, 2019); children of immigrants in Belgium (Baysu, Celeste, Brown, Verschueren, & Phalet, 2016); women and girls in stereotypically masculine subjects such as maths and science (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001; Picho, Rodriguez, & Finnie, 2013; S. J. Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999); and boys in general performance and in stereotypically feminine subjects such as reading, English, and languages (Hartley & Sutton, 2013; Pansu et al., 2016). Indeed, estimates based on effect sizes derived from two meta‐analyses incorporating data from nearly 19,000 individuals suggests that threat accounts for 17–28% of the White–Black attainment gap on SATs, 23–39% of the White‐Latino SAT attainment gap, and 57–94% of the gender gap on SAT mathematics in the United States (Walton & Spencer, 2009; Walton et al., 2013).…”

Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

“…Other research has also shown that there can be a mismatch between qualities, values, or norms that tend to be associated with members of traditionally underrepresented groups and the settings they are entering and that this is subtly signaled in the context (Stephens et al, 2012a,b, 2014; Schmader and Sedikides, 2018; Veldman et al, 2019). For example, Gaucher et al (2011) showed that this may occur for women through job descriptions that use more masculine-themed words (e.g., emphasizing dominance, competitiveness).…”

Against the Professorial Odds: Barriers as Building Blocks for Educational Advancement

“…Another factor that impacts FGCS’ college retention and completion involves college choice, which is generally based on convenience of location and commuting (Garza & Fullerton, 2018) rather than institutional selection (Davies & Guppy, 1997), especially for those who must live at home due to lack of finances. Moreover, the type of institution attended (i.e., 2-year, 4-year, public, private, minority-serving, non-profit, or for-profit) can impact challenges on retention (Pascarella et al, 2003), which are grounded in students’ perceptions of fit within the institution (Gloria et al, 2005; Lubrano, 2003; Palardy, 2013), readiness for college experience (DeAngelo & Franke, 2016), structural and social integration issues (Billson & Terry, 1982; Veldman et al, 2019), sense of belonging (Morrow & Ackermann, 2012; O’Keeffe, 2013), cultural displacement (Próspero et al, 2012), and other formidable barriers (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pratt et al, 2019). These factors all reinforce how classist and elitist norms insidiously play a part in excluding lower SES students from opportunities to educationally advance.…”