Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2015, 3, 127-135

Published Online May 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jss

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.35018

Academic Success in College: Socioeconomic

Status and Parental Influence as Predictors
of Outcome
Devin L. Merritt, Walter Buboltz*
Department of Psychology, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USA
*
Email: dlm056@latech.edu, Buboltz@latech.edu

Received 11 February 2015; accepted 25 May 2015; published 28 May 2015

Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract
Bandura (1986) postulated that beliefs about one’s ability (self-efficacy) were better predictors of
achievement than ability itself [1]. Therefore, in academics, the higher the beliefs that a student
develops regarding his or her ability to succeed in school, the greater the likelihood that he or she
will attain academic success. Although academic goals vary among students, academic self-efficacy
appears to be essential in order for academic aspirations to be achieved. Multiple factors, includ-
ing socioeconomic status (SES) are related to academic self-efficacy. Past research has noted that
SES influences academic attainment [2] [3]. Familial backgrounds, such as SES [4] and parental in-
fluence [5], have been found to impact academic achievement. This study examined the relation-
ship between socioeconomic status, academic self-efficacy, and perceived success in college. A to-
tal of 298 undergraduate students from a southern university completed self-report measures that
consisted of sociodemographic questions, the Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy
(MSPSE), and the Perceptions of Parental and Teacher Academic Involvement. Results indicated
that SES was significantly related to self-efficacy, and parental influence was a significant predic-
tor of academic self-efficacy. Results also showed that parental involvement mediated the rela-
tionship between familial SES and self-efficacy.

Keywords
Self-Efficacy, Socioeconomic Status, Parental Involvement, Academic Performance

1. Introduction
The ancient Greek philosopher Herclitus made the immortal statement, “Change is the only constant” (trans.
*
Corresponding author.

How to cite this paper: Merritt, D.L. and Buboltz, W. (2015) Academic Success in College: Socioeconomic Status and Pa-
rental Influence as Predictors of Outcome. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 127-135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.35018
D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

1968). With the onset of a global society, and a global market, major changes are being brought about in regard
to employment and careers. Ever more pressing is the need for higher education and training to succeed and ad-
vance in today’s global economy. With employers looking for more educated personnel to hire, necessary prep-
aration and determination to enroll in and graduate from college are a major change facing modern families.
Research has been devoted to examining the differences between various groups and specific attributes that
may lead to success or attrition in college [6] [7]. Results from these studies suggest that socioeconomic status
(SES) is likely to play a role in the academic progression and success of students [8]. Socioeconomic status
(SES) represents the availability of important social, educational, and economic resources that a family has [9].
Tucker-Drob and Harden (2012) proposed that SES was also a demographic factor that had a profound effect on
cognitive abilities. Genetic influences have been found to account for roughly 50% of academic performance,
whereas the other 50% is related to environmental influences [4]. Environmental influences are manifested
through a number of indirect modalities that are related to familial SES [10]. Not only does SES affect access to
resources and the development of cognitive abilities, it has been found to strongly predict the academic achieve-
ment of students [11]. Both direct links (i.e. cognitive abilities) and indirect links (access to resources) of SES
on academic achievement have been found to be significant.
Socioeconomic status appears to be important in academic achievement and academic self-efficacy [2] [3] [8]
[12]-[14]. The relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance denotes that individuals raised in
homes of lower SES report lower levels of self-efficacy [3] [15]. Shah et al. (2012) alternatively reported a posi-
tive relationship between academic achievement and familial SES. Although this connection has not been found
to be causal, the association between SES and self-efficacy signifies that certain demographic variables influ-
ence the beliefs that one develops concerning his or her ability to perform in academics. Students from lower
SES backgrounds are more likely to come from homes where parent(s) did not attain a degree beyond a high
school diploma [16]. Additionally, students who originate from a home where no college degree has been earned
are less likely to be encouraged by parents to attend college [17], and they are likely to hold misperceptions
about postsecondary education [18]. A significant amount of research has focused on SES and how it relates to
the availability of financial aid, academic guidance, and encouragement from parents, as well as access to insti-
tutions of higher learning [6] [16].
Meta-analyses have been conducted on the effect of familial SES on academic achievement. Small to medium
effect sizes have been found between these two variables. White (1982) found a small to medium effect size
between SES and academic achievement (r = 0.25) [19]. Sirin (2005) found an effect size of r = 0.29, which was
also a small to medium effect. The home environment from which a student originates impacts the level of aca-
demic achievement that the student reaches. Lower SES homes have been characterized as being less organized
and providing fewer learning opportunities [20] [21]. Dilworth-Bart (2012) stated that individuals who came
from a higher SES background were likely to receive constant and consistent care-giving, psychosocial re-
sources, and more favorable learning opportunities [22]. Individuals who come from a lower SES social class
are less likely to experience parental teaching, receive less cognitive stimulation, have reduced exposure to
grade-level appropriate books, and are taught fewer academic skills [4]. The characteristics of the home envi-
ronment, which are related to SES, affect the scholastic attitude, and the academic skills that a student develops.
It also affects the quality of educational resources that individuals have access to. In sum, low SES homes and
environments do not afford children the same opportunities to develop the cognitive abilities, academic beliefs,
and academic aspirations that more affluent environments may offer.
Parents exert additional influences on the educational attitudes and achievements that their children will exhi-
bit. Parents are the primary source of beliefs and attitudes towards academic studies [5]. Parental reactions to
behaviors and parental modeling of appropriate behaviors affect the learning of students. These behaviors are
reinforced by the educational system, particularly by teachers.
Parents who are able to create a positive environment, encourage the development academic self-efficacy and
enhance motivation in their children. Parents’ aspirations for success in school are positive predictors of their
children’s aspirations [23]. In a study conducted by Garg, Kauppi, Lewko, and Urajnik (2002), parental in-
volvement was examined in relation to academic self-efficacy. This study found parental influence to account
for a significant amount of the variance in educational ability and the instilling of the perspective that education
was rewarding [24]. They also found that SES had significant effects on the involvement of parents in the edu-
cational pursuits of their children. Parents’ educational level also was related to the amount of involvement that
parents had in their students’ school work. Although SES did not have a direct effect in this study, the presence

128
 D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

of SES as a contributor to the model was significant. Parents are important sources of knowledge and modeling,
especially early in child development [24]. Other research has also expounded upon other social supports and
modeling processes that influence educational outcomes [25]. Such research suggests that peers and faculty
mentors can have a tremendous impact on post-secondary success [25].
Parents have been found to be motivating factors in students’ success in post-secondary institutions [26].
Sanchez, Reyes, and Singh (2005) found that a parent’s encouragement and support was a significant predictor
of enrolling in college and graduating. This finding fits Bandura’s (1986) vicarious learning and modeling di-
mensions of self-efficacy theory. Parents who supported students in going to class, helped with homework, and
encouraged matriculation in college bolstered academic success in their children. Many students, in turn, stated
that they were motivated to earn a higher degree in order to repay their parents for their help and support. Vica-
rious learning, therefore, not only serves as a bolster of academic self-efficacy through the observation of mod-
els succeeding, but can also provide examples of other alternatives [27].
Bandura et al. (2001) found that socioeconomic status had a mediating effect on children’s academic self-
efficacy. They found that parents who were able to instill higher levels of academic achievement were more
likely to develop higher academic aspirations. The stronger that parents felt that they were able to affect their
children’s academic success (relating to their own self-efficacy), the more motivated they were to nurture such
potential. Underscoring parents’ perceived self-efficacy was the level that children themselves had achieved [26].
Therefore, students who are able to develop high levels of academic self-efficacy are unlikely to be dismayed by
external events. Such an attribute turns perceived abilities into actual achievements.
Usher and Pajares (2006) found that self-mastery experiences were predictive of academic self-efficacy, but
only for students who fell within the average to high-average range of academic achievement [28]. These find-
ings indicate that students are more likely to engage in a task when they feel that success in performing the task
can be reached. Students who do not have mastery experiences may be susceptible to developing attitudes of
avoidance. Just as success buttresses confidence, failure elicits the perception of a lack of ability and perfor-
mance suffers. A student receiving a failing grade may, in consequence, develop the notion that he or she cannot
succeed in that particular course or area. In light of familial SES and access to academic resources, individuals
who are not given adequate opportunities to gain mastery experiences in school settings are less likely to have a
high sense of academic self-efficacy.
The research on self-efficacy has been extensive and widely accepted. Past research has been greatly benefi-
cial in identifying variables (such as SES) underlying academic success, and ultimately career accomplishment.
However, further research is needed to examine the impact that these variables have on perceived academic
success. The aim of this research project was to examine the effects of socioeconomic status, parental involve-
ment, and academic self-efficacy on academic success.

2. Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: It is hypothesized that students who come from a higher SES will have higher levels of self-
efficacy.
Hypothesis 2: Parental involvement will be predictive of the self-regulated learning skills that students have
developed.
Hypothesis 3: As academic self-efficacy increases, the outcome expectations (or the expected earning of
higher degrees) will increase in students.
Hypothesis 4: The effect of familial SES on self-efficacy in students will be mediated by parental involve-
ment.

3. Method
3.1. Participants
Undergraduate students (N = 298) in introductory psychology courses at a southern university, completed an on-
line survey. The age range was 18 to 53 with a mean age of 19.7 (SD = 2.3). In terms of gender, 54% (n = 160)
were male and 46% (n = 138) were female. Participants’ ethnicities were African American (19%), Asian (2%),
Caucasian (73%), Hispanic (1%), Native American (2%), and Bicultural (3%). Year classification was predo-
minately Freshman (60%), but Sophomores (17%), Juniors (7%), and Seniors (16%) were also represented.

129
D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

3.2. Instruments
A sociodemographic questionnaire was developed by the researchers. This survey included questions regarding
the participants age, race, gender, year in school, high school GPA, current college GPA, household income, de-
sired level of education, highest level of education achieved by mother and father, number of family members,
highest level of education achieved by an immediate family member, number of credit hours currently enrolled
in, current employment, number of hours worked per week, and funding for education. The sociodemographic
questionnaire provided the necessary information regarding the SES of the participant. This included asking the
participant to identify the average yearly income of his or her family of origin. The highest level of education
desired served as the outcome expectation in college academics. It included the options of Associates degree,
Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and Doctorate degree. This variable was selected as the outcome measure
because it evaluated the academic standards that the student has set for himself or herself, as well as the per-
ceived success that he or she will have in his or her college career. Prior to data analysis, all surveys were
de-identified in order to ensure anonymity and to protect participant information.

3.3. Academic Self-Efficacy

The Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy (MSPSE) developed by Bandura (1989) was used to
assess academic self-efficacy [29]. This measurement includes nine subscales: Enlisting Social Resources (4
items), Academic Achievement (9 items), Self-Regulated Learning (11 items), Leisure-Time Skill and Extracur-
ricular Activities (8 items), Self-Regulatory Efficacy to Resist Peer Pressure (9 items), Meet Other’s Expecta-
tions (4 items), Social Self-Efficacy (4 items), Self-Assertive Efficacy (4 items), and Enlisting Parental and
Community Support (4 items). All subscales will be used in this study. Additionally, a total score for self-
efficacy can be calculated. The MSPSE has shown high reliability and validity. This measurement was also
proven to have sufficient divergent and construct validity [30]. Each item is arranged on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (not well at all) to 7 (very well). The larger the overall score, the higher the self-efficacy of
the student (Williams & Coombs, 1996). Examples of questions are: “How well can you get teachers to help you
when you get stuck on school work” and “How well can you concentrate on school subjects” [30].

3.4. Perceptions of Parental Involvement

The Perceptions of Parental and Teacher Involvement Scale (PPTIS) assesses both parental and teacher support
that students perceive they are receiving, but was adapted for this study and only items referencing parents were
included. The PPTIS includes a total of eight base statements with the terms parent or teacher substituted to
form 16 total items. Hence, parental monitoring and support was represented by four items. This scale has
shown appropriate levels of reliability and has been positively correlated to students’ mastery goals and perfor-
mance goals [31].

3.5. Procedure
Participants were university students and were therefore able to give informed consent. After approval from the
Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited through in-class presentations of the study and through
contact via email. During the overview, either in-class or through email, students were given information con-
cerning the study and how to access the survey online. Some of the course instructors offered extra credit for
those that participated in the study. For students who did not wish to participate in the study, an alternate means
of obtaining extra credit was offered. It took approximately 30 minutes to complete the survey.

4. Results
4.1. Preliminary Analyses
Data screening was conducted to screen for missing values, outliers, and to verify the meeting of assumptions.
Deleting cases due to missing values is a common approach when data cleaning [32] and missing values sur-
passing 20% can affect study validity [33]. During this process, 10 cases were deleted due to more than 20% of
the items of their surveys not being completed. A mean substitution was inserted for missing values in the
MSPSE and the Perceptions of Parental Involvement scale for cases with less than 20% of items missing. The
assumptions of normality, independence, homoscedasticity, and linearity were met. In order to better facilitate

130
 D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

the analysis of SES, and to corroborate findings with currently established economic classes, family income was
coded into three groups, lower class, middle class, and upper class. These socioeconomic classes were deter-
mined by the classification system set forth by the US Department of Commerce (2010) [34]. In the relevant re-
port, they identified the middle class as having a cut-off, or lowest quartile, at $50,800/year. The US Department
of Commerce found that the median middle-class income was $80,600 a year, with the highest quartile reaching
$122,800 a year. In following these guidelines as closely as possible, the above mentioned groups were desig-
nated by the following incomes: lower class $0 - $50,000, middle class $50,001 - $100,000, and upper class
$100,001 and above. Finally, in order to determine if group differences existed between genders and SES, an
ANOVA was conducted which resulted with no statistically significant differences found, F (1, 294) = 1.522, p
= 0.218. A correlational analysis was conducted in order to determine the relationships between the variables of
self-efficacy, familial SES, parental involvement, and parental college experience. All variables were significantly
correlated. The results from the correlational analysis denote that parental college experience, familial SES, and
parental involvement in their child’s academics are positively related to self-efficacy. See Table 1 for results.

4.2. Analysis of Variance

A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the hypothesis that familial SES groups were
associated with different levels of self-efficacy in college students. The overall self-efficacy score was used as
the dependent variable in this model. The independent variable was the level of familial SES. Results showed
that familial SES level was significant, with different levels of self-efficacy in college students, F (2, 295) =
3.040, p = 0.049, ηp2 = 0.020. However, post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni pairwise comparison indicated that
there were no statistically significant differences between working class (M = 277.97, SD =42.55), middle class
(M = 289.47, SD = 38.63), and upper class (M = 291.81, SD = 35.92). The effect size (partial eta squared) of
0.020 denotes a small to medium effect.
The second hypothesis stated that self-efficacy would be predictive of outcome expectations in college stu-
dents. The outcome expectation was operationalized as the level of education that the student desires to achieve.
A logistic regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis. The subscales (self-regulated learning and aca-
demic achievement) of the Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy were included in the model as
predictors of the outcome variable (expectation of desired level of education), which was operationalized as
earning an undergraduate degree versus a graduate degree. Results indicate that the overall model was (−2 Log
Likelihood = 371.197) significantly reliable in distinguishing those desiring undergraduate and graduate degrees
(χ2 (2) = 7.702, p = 0.021). This model correctly classified 65.8% of the cases. Regression coefficients are pre-
sented in Table 2. Wald statistics indicate that self-regulated learning and academic achievement significantly
predicts level of education desired. The odds ratio for this variable indicated that as self-regulated learning and
academic achievement increase, the odds of the outcome, or academic expectations, also increase. Finally, the
Hosmer and Lemeshow’s statistic was calculated and found to be nonsignificant (χ2 (8) = 1.241, p = 0.996),
which further validates the goodness-of-fit for this model.

Table 1. Correlational analysis results.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Father college
2. Mother college 0.445**
3. Familial SES 0.310** 0.272**
**
4. Self-efficacy 0.161 0.171** 0.130*
** **
5. Parental involvement 0.222 0.284 0.180* 0.393**
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Table 2. Regression coefficients for level of education desired.

β Wald df p Odds ratio

SR learning 0.031 4.883 1 0.027 1.032
Acad. ach. 0.002 0.012 1 0.912 1.002
Constant −0.989 1.643 1 0.200 0.372

131
D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

In examining the third hypothesis, parental involvement was designated as the predictive variable and the
Academic Achievement Self-Efficacy dimension of the MSPSE was used as the outcome variable. Both sub-
scales of the parental involvement scale, parental academic monitoring and parental academic support, were in-
cluded in the analysis. Regression results indicate that parental academic monitoring and support are significant
predictors of Academic Achievement Self-Efficacy, R2 = 0.053, R2adj = 0.047, F (2, 295) = 8.311, p < 0.001. Pa-
rental involvement accounted for 4.7% of the variance in college students perceived academic achievement ef-
ficacy expectations. Parental academic support was the only significant predictor. Table 3 illustrates the regres-
sion coefficients for this model.

4.3. Mediation Analysis

The final hypothesis stated that the effect of familial SES on overall student self-efficacy would be mediated by
parental involvement. Previous statistical analyses have shown that familial SES and parental involvement are
significant predictors of self-efficacy and level of education desired by students. Iacobucci (2012) examined the
use of categorical data in mediation analysis. In her article, she states that, “If the independent variable, X, is
(categorical [35]), but M and Y are continuous, the standard techniques are perfectly suitable…” (p. 2). There-
fore, the variable familial SES, although categorical, was included in the mediation analysis as the independent
variable. Familial SES was dummy coded so that the mediation analysis could be conducted. This analysis sup-
ported parental involvement as a mediator (β = 0.380, p < 0.001) as familial SES (working β = −0.064, p = 0.265;
upper β =0.010, p = 0.859) became a non-significant predictor of Overall Self-efficacy. See Table 4 for the cor-
relation coefficients of the mediation analysis.

5. Discussion
This study intended to expand the knowledge of factors that influenced college success. Much of the research
that has evaluated SES and academic success has looked into the accessibility that SES provides to higher edu-
cation for low-income students. This study examined whether familial SES influenced levels of self-efficacy in
students. The results indicated that familial SES was related to the level of self-efficacy of college students. The
positive relationship between these two variables indicates that as familial SES increases so does self-efficacy. It
is important to point out that although familial SES is a significant predictor of self-efficacy, the effect size is
small to medium. It is therefore assumed that the influence of familial SES is likely to be manifested though
various mechanisms.
According to Bandura (1977), having appropriate models from whom to learn vicariously is an influential means
of developing self-efficacy. Familial SES is positively correlated with parents having gone to college, thus sup-
porting past results that level of education increases and socioeconomic status vary together. The findings of this
study also show a positive relationship between familial SES and self-efficacy. The relationship between parents
having attended college and academic self-efficacy is significant and moves in a positive direction. Therefore, one

Table 3. Regression coefficients for parental involvement as predictors of academic self-efficacy.

B β t p Bivariate r Partial r
Parental support 0.483 0.216 3.112 0.002* 0.230 0.178
Parental monitoring 0.050 0.025 0.361 0.719 0.149 0.021
Note: academic achievement self-efficacy (outcome variable).

Table 4. Correlation coefficients for mediation analysis.

Variable 1 2 3
1. Parental involvement -
2. Familial SES 0.180** -
3. Overall self-efficacy 0.393** 0.130* -
M 28.171 1.902 286.535
SD 6.549 0.697 39.592
Note: *p < 0.05., **p < 0.01.

132
 D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

potential mechanism through which familial SES may impact self-efficacy is through the modeling of academic
success by parents. As noted by Choy (2001), students who had parents who attended college were more pre-
pared to meet the demands of the academic rigors of post-secondary learning. Students who have parents who
attended college have appropriate models from whom they can learn attitudes and behaviors that are likely to
increase their self-efficacy as it relates to academics.
Another finding was the relationship between the mother having gone to college and academic self-efficacy
versus the comparable relationship for the father having gone to college. This may be due to the traditional role
of mothers being primary care givers and academic supporters, especially during the early years of schooling. A
household that has a mother who has achieved higher learning is related to higher levels of self-efficacy in
children. This relationship was found to be stronger for mothers than for fathers, although fathers having at-
tended college were also significantly correlated to academic beliefs. The overarching significance in these
findings is that there is a significant, positive relationship between parents who have attended college and levels
of self-efficacy in children.
The second hypothesis stated that higher academic self-efficacy would be predictive of higher levels of edu-
cation desired in students. The results suggest that a higher level of self-efficacy is predictive of the student be-
ing more likely to pursue higher-level degrees. Certain facets of self-efficacy were significant predictors of
higher academic pursuits. The results suggest that students who have learned to self-regulate their learning are
more likely to seek advanced degrees. Self-regulation is an important academic attitude because it denotes that
the individual has a capacity to “override one’s thoughts, emotions, impulses, and automatic or habitual beha-
viors” [37]. Dedication to studies will provide greater mastery experiences, which has been linked to increased
self-efficacy. Furthermore, students who believe in their ability to succeed in college and graduate, are more
likely to pursue such degrees. According to Social Cognitive Theory, individuals who attain mastery expe-
riences in certain fields are likely to develop higher self-efficacy in those fields [36]. Thus, students who have
been able to develop studying and learning skills that have been adaptable and beneficial in earning high marks
are likely to have had academic mastery experiences and to have developed a higher sense of self-efficacy in the
academic realm.
The third hypothesis examined and found support for the predictive nature of parental involvement on aca-
demic self-efficacy. As mentioned, parents are likely to act as models for children, as well as sources of support
and encouragement for academic performance. Only the parental support scale was a significant predictor. The
parental monitoring scale was not a significant predictor of academic self-efficacy.
The results indicate that parents who are supportive, who offer encouragement and assistance, are more likely
to help their college students develop a higher sense of academic self-efficacy. According to Kristjansson and
Sigfusdottir (2009) parental support can take the form of parental accessibility, open discussions about life and
academic progress, warmth, and advice [38]. Parents who display such attitudes and behaviors are likely to have
a significant impact on the academic performance of their students. More importantly, parents who adopt and
apply supportive tendencies instill in their students the beliefs that he or she can succeed in their educational
pursuits.
In the final analysis, a mediation effect was established between familial SES, parental support, and self-
efficacy. Familial SES became a nonsignificant predictor once parental support was included as a mediating va-
riable. This finding demonstrates the tremendous impact that parents can have on their students’ development of
self-efficacy. Students who perceive their parents as supportive and interested in their academic pursuits are
more likely to have a higher level of self-efficacy, even if they come from a lower socioeconomic class. Even
though students who are from high SES are more likely to have parents who attended college and are more like-
ly to have greater access to institutions of higher learning [6] [16], their level of self-efficacy is mediated by how
active a role their parents take in their academic lives. Just as in any endeavor, college students continue to need
advice, support, and encouragement from parents in order to bolster their self-efficacy and academic success.

References
[1] Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs.
[2] Cheung, S.Y. and Andersen, R. (2003) Time to Read: Family Resources and Educational Outcomes in Britain. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 413-434.
[3] Weiser, D.A. and Riggio, H.R. (2010) Family Background and Academic Achievement: Does Self-Efficacy Mediate

133
D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

Outcomes? Social Psychology and Education, 13, 367-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9115-1

[4] Tucker-Drob, E.M. and Harden, K.P. (2012) Intellectual Interest Mediates Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on
Adolescent Academic Achievement. Child Development, 83, 743-757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0055-9
[5] Sainz, M., Palmen, R. and Garcia-Cuesta, S. (2012) Parental and Secondary School Teachers Perceptions of ICT Pro-
fessionals, Gender Differences and Their Role in the Choice of Studies. Sex Roles, 66, 235-249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0055-9
[6] Choy, S. (2001) Students Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment.
Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001. Retrieved from EBSCO Host.
[7] Bui, V.T. (2002) First-Generation College Students at a Four-Year University Background: Characteristics, Reasons
for Pursuing Higher Education, and First-Year Experiences. College Student Journal, 36.
[8] Shah, M., Atta, A., Qureshi, M.I. and Shah, H. (2012) Impact of Socio Economic Status (SES) of Family on the Aca-
demic Achievements of Students. Gomal University Journal of Research, 28, 12-17.
[9] Altschul, I. (2012) Linking Socioeconomic Status to the Academic Achievement of Mexican American Youth through
Parental Involvement in Education. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 3, 13-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.2
[10] Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P. and Garcia Coll, C. (2001) The Home Environments of Children in the
United States. Part 1: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. Child Development, 5, 1844-1867.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00382
[11] Sirin, S.R. (2005) The Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and School Outcomes: Meta Analytic Review of
Research, 1990-2000. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4088.
[12] Gottfried, A.W., Gottfried, A.E., Bathurst, K., Guerin, D.W. and Parramore, M.M. (2003) Socioeconomic Status in
Children’s Development and Family Environment: Infancy through Adolescence. In: Bornstein, M.H. and Bradley,
R.H., Eds., Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 189-207.
[13] Masten, A.S., Hubbard, J., Gest, S.D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N. and Ramirez, M. (1999) Adversity, Resources, and
Resilience: Pathways to Competence from Childhood to Late Adolescence. Developmental and Psychopathology, 11,
143-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579499001996
[14] Teachman, J. (1987) Family Background, Educational Resources and Educational Attainment. American Sociological
Review, 52, 548-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095300
[15] Coleman, P.K. and Karraker, K.H. (1997) Self-Efficacy and Parenting Quality: Findings and Future Applications. De-
velopment Review, 18, 47-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1997.0448
[16] Engle, J., Bermeo, A. and O’Brien, C. (2006) Straight from the Source: What Works for First-Generation College Stu-
dents. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Washington DC.
[17] Billson, J.M. and Terry, M.B. (1982) In Search of the Silken-Purse: Factors in Attrition among First-Generation Stu-
dents. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Colleges, Denver.
[18] Vargas, J.H. (2004) College Knowledge: Addressing Information Barriers to College. The Education Resources Insti-
tute (TERI), Boston.
[19] White, K.R. (1982) The Relation between Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement. Psychological Bulletin,
91, 461-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.461
[20] Evans, G.W. (2004) The Environment of Childhood Poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77
[21] Vernon-Feagans, L., Garret-Peters, P., Willoughby, M. and Mills-Koonce, R. (2012) Chaos, Poverty, and Parenting:
Predictors of Early Language Development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 339-351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.001
[22] Dilworth-Bart, J. (2012) Does Executive Function Mediate SES and Home Quality Associations Readiness? Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 416-425.
[23] Wentzel, K.R. (1998) Parents’ Aspirations for Children’s Educational Attainments: Relations to Parental Beliefs and
Social Address Variables. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 20-37.
[24] Garg, R., Kauppi, C., Lewko, J. and Urajnik, D. (2002) A Structural Model of Educational Aspirations. Journal of Ca-
reer Development, 29, 87-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019964119690
[25] Edman, J.L. and Brazil, B. (2007) Perceptions of Campus Climate, Academic Efficacy and Academic Success among
Community College Students: An Ethnic Comparison. Social Psychology and Education, 12, 371-383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9082-y
[26] Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. and Pastorelli, C. (2001) Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Shapers of Children’s
Aspirations and Career Trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273

134
 D. L. Merritt, W. Buboltz

[27] Sanchez, B., Reyes, O. and Singh, J. (2005) Makin’ It in College: The Value of Significant Individuals in the Lives of
Mexican American Adolescents. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5, 48-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1538192705282570
[28] Usher, E.L. and Pajares, F. (2006) Sources of Academic and Self-Regulatory Efficacy Beliefs of Entering Middle
School Students. Contemporary Education Psychology, 31, 125-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002
[29] Bandura, A. (1989) The Multidimensional Self-Efficacy Scales. Unpublished Test, Stanford.
[30] Williams, J.E. and Coombs, W.T. (1996) An Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Bandura’s Multidimensional
Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York, 8-12 April 1996.
[31] Regnar, I., Loose, F. and Dumas, F. (2009) Students’ Perceptions of Parental and Teacher Academic Involvement:
Consequences on Achievement Goals. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 263-277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173016
[32] Karmaker, A. and Kwek, S. (2007) An Iterative Refinement Approach for Data Cleaning. Intelligent Data Analysis, 11,
547-560.
[33] Schulz, K.F. and Grimes, D.A. (2002) Sample Size Slippages in Randomized Trials: Exclusions and the Lost and
Wayward. The Lancet, 359, 781-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07882-0
[34] US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Office of the Vice President of the United
States (2010) Middle Class in America.
http://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2010/01/25/middle-class-america-task-force-report-pdf
[35] Iacobucci, D. (2012) Mediation Analysis and Categorical Variables: The Final Frontier. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 22, 582-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.03.006
[36] Bandura, A. (1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-
215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
[37] Gailliot, M.T., Mead, N.L. and Baumeister, R.F. (2012) Self-Regulation. In: John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A.,
Eds., Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, The Guilford Press, New York, 472-491.
[38] Kristjansson, A.L. and Sigfusdottir, I.D. (2009) The Role of Parental Support, Parental Monitoring, and Time Spent
with Parents in Adolescent Academic Achievement in Iceland: A Structural Equation Model of Gender Differences.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 481-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830903180786

135