Effects of social economic status and parenting values on adolescents’ expected field of study

The study investigates the impact of socioeconomic background on adolescents' future field of study choices, a crucial determinant of life chances. Existing research emphasizes the influence of parental SES on educational attainment levels, but less is known about its role in shaping field-of-study selections. The study explores whether parental economic or cultural status is more influential, and whether this influence is mediated by parents' child-rearing values. The study focuses on adolescents' *expectations* of future fields rather than actual choices to isolate the influence of parental factors on aspirations, independent of opportunity structures. Fields of study are categorized as either extrinsically rewarding (emphasizing financial gains and job security) or intrinsically rewarding (emphasizing personal fulfillment and intellectual stimulation). The researchers posit that high economic status parents may encourage extrinsic choices, while high cultural status parents may favor intrinsic ones. Finally, the study examines the mediating role of child-rearing values (conformity vs. self-direction), hypothesizing that conformity-oriented parenting favors extrinsic choices, while self-direction favors intrinsic choices.

The literature review discusses competing theories regarding the relationship between SES and field-of-study choices. 'Effectively Maintained Inequality' (EMI) suggests that higher SES parents strategically guide their children towards fields with better job prospects. Conversely, 'Relative Risk Aversion' (RRA) proposes that lower SES parents prioritize secure employment for their children to mitigate downward social mobility. Existing research tends to support RRA, indicating a stronger instrumental orientation towards field selection among lower SES students. The study also incorporates Bourdieu's concept of dual economic and cultural capital, suggesting that economic elite may favor extrinsic fields, while cultural elite may favor intrinsic fields. Finally, the literature review connects parenting styles (authoritative vs. authoritarian) and child-rearing values (conformity vs. self-direction) to SES, suggesting a link between parenting styles and field-of-study choices. Authoritative parenting (supportive, encouraging independence) is linked to intrinsic motivation, while authoritarian parenting (demanding obedience) is linked to extrinsic motivation.

Data were collected in 2005 from 1544 Dutch adolescents (aged 14-17) and 1001 parent-adolescent pairs. Adolescents' field-of-study expectations were measured using a 13-item list, with responses indicating the likelihood of pursuing each field. Fifty-two career counselors rated these fields on an intrinsic-extrinsic reward scale. An overall score was calculated to represent each adolescent's leaning towards extrinsic or intrinsic fields. Parents completed a questionnaire assessing their child-rearing values (conformity and self-direction). Parental SES was measured using parents' educational attainment (cultural status) and income (economic status). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the relationships between parental SES, parenting values, and adolescents' field-of-study expectations, separately for boys and girls. The models included both manifest and latent variables, using full information maximum likelihood estimation with a class-level cluster correction to handle item non-response.

The results show that parental economic status positively correlated with adolescents' expectations to choose extrinsically rewarding fields, supporting the hypothesis that higher economic status parents transmit preferences for high-earning fields. This effect was observed for both boys and girls. Parental cultural status negatively correlated with adolescents' expectations of extrinsic fields, but this effect was stronger for girls than boys. This suggests that a high cultural background influences girls more to choose intrinsically rewarding fields, supporting the hypothesis. Conformity-oriented parenting positively correlated with boys' expectations of extrinsic fields, whereas self-direction in girls was unexpectedly linked to extrinsic field expectations. However, the hypothesized mediating effect of parenting values on the relationship between parental SES and field-of-study expectations was not significant. Further analysis of individual fields revealed patterns consistent with the overall findings: economic status positively correlated with preferences for extrinsic fields (law, economics), while cultural status showed mixed effects. Conformity influenced boys' choices for extrinsic fields (law, public order and safety), while self-direction influenced girls' choices for both intrinsic and extrinsic fields, particularly for fields defying traditional gender roles.

The findings highlight the complex interplay between parental SES, parenting values, and adolescents' field-of-study expectations. Parental economic status appears to influence aspirations toward high-earning fields, potentially reflecting the transmission of values and preferences. Parental cultural status has a stronger impact on girls' aspirations towards intrinsically rewarding fields, potentially suggesting the influence of cultural capital. The unexpected positive correlation between self-direction in girls and extrinsic field choices may be linked to a desire for independence and breaking traditional gender roles. The absence of mediation by parenting values suggests that other mechanisms, such as direct transmission of occupational preferences or influence of peer networks, might be at play. The study's findings are relevant to understanding social inequality in education and occupational choices.

The study reveals the significant influence of parental SES and parenting values on adolescents' field-of-study expectations, particularly differentiating effects for boys and girls. Future research should investigate other factors influencing these choices, such as direct transmission of specific occupational preferences and the role of peer networks. Further exploration of adolescents' intrinsic motivations and longitudinal studies tracking the realization of expectations are also needed.

The study's cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality. The reliance on expert ratings for the intrinsic-extrinsic scale may introduce subjectivity. The focus on Dutch adolescents may limit the generalizability of findings to other cultural contexts. Further investigation into other mechanisms influencing the transmission of field-of-study choices is also needed.