↓ Skip to main content

Knowing One’s Place: Parental Educational Background Influences Social Identification with Academia, Test Anxiety, and Satisfaction with Studying at University

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowing One’s Place: Parental Educational Background Influences Social Identification with Academia, Test Anxiety, and Satisfaction with Studying at University
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Janke, Selma C. Rudert, Tamara Marksteiner, Oliver Dickhäuser

Abstract

First-generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not attend university) often experience difficulties fitting in with the social environment at universities. This experience of personal misfit is supposedly associated with an impaired social identification with their aspired in-group of academics compared to continuing-generation students (i.e., students with at least one parent with an academic degree. In this article, we investigate how the postulated differences in social identification with the group of academics affect first-generation students' satisfaction with studying and test anxiety over time. We assume that first-generation students' impaired social identification with the group of academics leads to decreased satisfaction with studying and aggravated test anxiety over the course of the first academic year. In a longitudinal study covering students' first year at a German university, we found that continuing-generation students consistently identified more strongly with their new in-group of academics than first-generation students. The influence of social identification on test anxiety and satisfaction with studying differed between groups. For continuing-generation students, social identification with the group of academics buffered test anxiety and helped them maintain satisfaction with studying over time. We could not find these direct effects within the group of first-generation students. Instead, first-generation students were more sensitive to effects of test anxiety on satisfaction with studying and vice versa over time. The results suggest that first-generation students might be more sensitive to the anticipation of academic failure. Furthermore, continuing-generation students' social identification with the group of academics might have buffered them against the impact of negative experiences during the entry phase at university. Taken together, our findings underscore that deficit-driven approaches focusing solely on first-generation status may not be sufficient to fully understand the importance of parental educational background for students' well-being. More specifically, continuing-generation students might reap benefits from their parental educational background. These benefits widen the social gap in academia in addition to the disadvantages of students with first-generation status. In sum, understanding the benefits of continuing-generation status has important implications for interventions aiming to reduce social class gaps in academia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 31%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Linguistics 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,717,389
of 23,426,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,455
of 31,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,493
of 318,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#82
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,426,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.