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

The study investigates how parental socioeconomic status (SES) shapes adolescents’ expectations regarding their future field of study, focusing on whether they anticipate choosing intrinsically versus extrinsically rewarding domains. Prior research has emphasized SES effects on educational level, but less on field-of-study expectations, which are important predictors of later choices and outcomes. The authors propose three research questions: (1) To what extent does parental SES influence adolescents’ expected field of study? (2) Which SES dimension—economic or cultural status—is more influential? (3) Is the SES effect mediated by parents’ child-rearing values (conformity vs self-direction)? The paper emphasizes the importance of studying expectations (separable from opportunity structures), classifying fields by intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, distinguishing SES into economic and cultural status, and testing mediation through parenting values.

Two competing theoretical perspectives address SES effects on study choices: Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) suggests higher-SES parents steer children into qualitatively advantageous curricula, often with better labor-market prospects (extrinsically rewarding). Relative Risk Aversion (RRA) posits lower-SES families prefer secure options to avoid downward mobility, predicting a tilt toward extrinsically rewarding studies among low-SES youth. Bourdieu’s distinction between economic and cultural capital implies that high economic status may orient children toward law/economics (extrinsic), while high cultural status may orient them toward humanities/social studies (intrinsic). Socialization theories (Kohn and Schooler; Baumrind; Lareau) link SES to parenting values/styles: higher SES fosters authoritative/self-direction and concerted cultivation, whereas lower SES relates to authoritarian/conformity and accomplishment of natural growth. Motivational research (Leung and Kwan) connects authoritative parenting with intrinsic motivation and authoritarian with extrinsic motivation. Hypotheses: H1a (higher parental economic status → more extrinsically rewarding expectations) vs H1b (lower economic status → more extrinsic expectations); H2 (higher parental cultural status → more intrinsically rewarding expectations); H3 (more conformity → more extrinsic expectations); H4 (more self-direction → more intrinsic expectations); H5 (effects of economic and cultural status on expectations are mediated by conformity/self-direction). Gender-specific analyses are planned given possible gendered expectations.

Design and sample: Cross-sectional survey data from the Dutch ‘Youth and Culture’ project (2005–2006). Students (ages 14–17) from 14 municipalities (2 large cities, 8 medium, 4 small) and all secondary tracks (VMBO-B, MAVO/VMBO-T, HAVO, VWO) were sampled via 60 participating schools (87% school response; 78% class response). In-class questionnaires yielded 1544 students; a postal follow-up to parents produced 1001 adolescent–parent pairs. Analytic models used 1512 adolescents with valid gender. Non-responsive parents were slightly less educated than responders. Measures: - Expected field of study: Adolescents rated the likelihood (1–4) of choosing 13 fields (teaching; languages/history/theology; agriculture; math/physics; engineering; transportation; healthcare; economics; law; socio-cultural education; social care; arts; public order and safety). A panel of 49 secondary-school career advisors rated each field on a 4-point intrinsic–extrinsic scale; inter-rater reliability high (average item-total corr = 0.98). Adolescents’ field likelihoods were centered and multiplied by standardized advisor intrinsic–extrinsic scores, then averaged to create a unidimensional intrinsic–extrinsic expectation score (higher = more extrinsically oriented); range approx. -1.91 to 2.82. - Parenting values: Parent-reported 11-item scale (1–4) split into latent factors: Conformity (e.g., respect authority) and Self-direction (e.g., encourage independence). CFA supported two correlated factors (r≈0.33 boys, 0.21 girls); factor loadings significant (see Table 2). - Parental SES: Cultural status measured as a latent factor from both parents’ education recoded to ISLED (0–100). Economic status measured from parent-reported income categories (1–16) converted to euro midpoints; top category set to €5500; combined parental income equivalized using household equivalence factors. - Control: Adolescent’s current secondary track level recoded to ISLED (31.90–69.80). Analysis: Structural equation modeling (Mplus; full information maximum likelihood; cluster correction at class level). Models estimated separately for boys and girls. Primary outcome: intrinsic–extrinsic expectation scale. Secondary analyses: 13 field-specific outcomes. Standardized effects reported; some paths constrained equal across genders; fit indices indicated excellent fit (RMSEA=0.00, CFI=1.00, TLI=1.00).

- Parental economic status positively predicted adolescents’ expectations to choose extrinsically rewarding fields (supports H1a; rejects H1b). On the intrinsic–extrinsic scale, total standardized effects: boys β≈0.141 (p<0.05); girls β≈0.167 (p<0.10–0.05 per table). - Parental cultural status negatively predicted extrinsic expectations (supports H2 overall), with a stronger effect for girls than boys (Wald p=0.039). Total effects on the intrinsic–extrinsic scale: boys β≈-0.144 (p<0.10); girls β≈-0.207 (p<0.10). - Parenting values: • Conformity → more extrinsic expectations for boys (β=0.162, p<0.01); no significant effect for girls (β=-0.032, ns). This partially supports H3 (for boys only). • Self-direction → contrary to H4, girls showed more extrinsic expectations (β=0.129, p<0.05); boys’ effect not significant (β=-0.071, ns). - SES → Parenting values: Cultural status negatively related to conformity (boys β=-0.246, p<0.01; girls β=-0.328, p<0.01) and positively to self-direction (boys β=0.179, p<0.01; girls β=0.178, p<0.01). Economic status showed no relationship with parenting values. - Mediation (H5): Indirect effects of SES via conformity/self-direction were not statistically significant; parenting values did not mediate SES effects on expected fields. - Field-specific patterns (selected): • Economics and law expectations positively associated with parental economic status for both genders (e.g., boys law β=0.270***; economics β=0.148**; girls law β=0.199***; economics β=0.180**), and negatively with cultural status for girls (law β=-0.245***; economics β=-0.255**). • Technical studies: for boys, negatively associated with economic status (β=-0.141**) and higher track level (β=-0.210***). • Intrinsic-leaning fields (e.g., art, teaching, health care) often showed negative associations with economic status among girls; some intrinsic fields (math/physics for boys) positively associated with cultural status (β=0.224**). - Control: Higher current educational level often increased expectations for certain fields (e.g., law, economics) per Tables 3–5.

Findings indicate a two-dimensional SES influence on adolescents’ expected field-of-study orientations. Economic status aligns adolescents toward extrinsically rewarding fields (e.g., economics, law), consistent with the transmission of economically oriented preferences rather than financial constraints in the Dutch context. Cultural status generally aligns adolescents (especially girls) away from extrinsic orientations, consistent with Bourdieu’s cultural capital logic favoring intrinsically valued domains. Parenting values differ by cultural status (lower conformity, higher self-direction among higher cultural status parents), yet these values did not statistically mediate SES effects on expectations. Gender differences emerged: conformity was linked to extrinsic expectations for boys, whereas self-direction unexpectedly aligned girls with more extrinsic, often gender-atypical fields (math/physics, transport, public order and safety, law), suggesting that self-direction may foster independence and willingness to choose nontraditional, higher-status fields. Overall, results address the research questions by showing distinct roles of economic versus cultural parental status and limited explanatory power of parenting values as mediators, with notable gender-specific patterns.

The study advances understanding of how parental SES shapes adolescents’ expected field-of-study orientations by distinguishing economic and cultural status dimensions and incorporating parenting values. Key contributions include: (1) demonstrating that higher parental economic status increases adolescents’ expectations to pursue extrinsically rewarding fields; (2) showing that higher parental cultural status (especially for girls) decreases extrinsic orientations; (3) identifying SES-related differences in parenting values (cultural status → less conformity, more self-direction) without significant mediation of SES effects on field expectations; and (4) uncovering gendered patterns whereby conformity relates to boys’ extrinsic choices and self-direction relates to girls’ extrinsic, sometimes gender-atypical choices. Future research should examine: (a) transmission of parents’ specific educational/occupational fields to children’s preferences; (b) the role of peer networks shaped by SES; (c) additional background factors (e.g., religiosity) influencing conformity; (d) adolescents’ own stated motivations for field choices rather than expert categorizations; and (e) panel data to trace the realization of expectations and causal processes over time.

- Cross-sectional design limits causal inference and assessment of how expectations translate into actual choices; panel data would be needed to track realization of expectations. - Classification of fields as intrinsic vs extrinsic relied on expert (career advisors’) ratings; adolescents’ own motivations were not directly measured. - Parenting values (conformity, self-direction) showed limited mediation and only modest associations with SES (especially for conformity), suggesting unmeasured background factors (e.g., religiosity) may be relevant. - Parental nonresponse bias: nonresponding parents were slightly less educated than responders, which may affect generalizability. - Study context is the Netherlands in 2005–2006; institutional features (e.g., income-dependent subsidies, low tuition) may limit generalizability to other countries.