The family-study interface and academic outcomes: Differences and similarities between ethnic minority and ethnic majority students
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , Volume 20 - Issue 3 p. 401- 412
The present study investigated possible differences in the family-study interface between ethnic minority and ethnic majority students as an explanation for the poorer study results of ethnic minority students compared with those of majority students. We used a model for family-study conflict and facilitation derived from family-work and work-study models. This model held true for the full sample and both non-Western ethnic minority students (N = 342) and ethnic majority students (N = 1314) separately at a major Dutch university. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that ethnic minority students reported less study effort and earned lower grades compared with ethnic majority students. Regarding the family-study interface, ethnic minority students reported more family-study conflict than did ethnic majority students. No differences were found between the 2 groups in family-study facilitation. Ethnic minority students participated more in family activities and were more involved with their family than ethnic majority students. Levels of experienced family support were equal for both groups of students. Students who received more family social support reported less conflict and more facilitation. This latter finding held more strongly for majority students, resulting in more study effort and higher grades for this group. The results demonstrated the explanatory power of the family-study conflict and facilitation model for both groups.
|, , , ,|
|Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology|
|Organisation||Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences|
Meeuwisse, M, Born, M.Ph, & Severiens, S.E. (2014). The family-study interface and academic outcomes: Differences and similarities between ethnic minority and ethnic majority students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 401–412. doi:10.1037/a0036698