Abstract
Research on college student stress has typically focused on institutions where the student population is predominately White and continuing-generation. This study explored student stress in a unique context—a public regional university where the majority of students are Latinx, first-generation (FGCS), and of low socioeconomic status (SES). Of the 355 participants in the study, 72.4% self-identified as Latinx and 59.7% were FGCS. Additionally, on a subjective scale of socioeconomic status (1 = lowest, 10 = highest), the mean response was 5.76 (SD = 1.56). Participants (18 years old or older) who were enrolled in a first-year seminar course were recruited for this study. Through an online survey during Fall 2018, first-year students reported levels of perceived and experienced stress related to academic, economic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal concerns. Results of regression analyses indicated that most types of stress were predicted by students’ Latinx identity status and SES; FGCS status did not significantly predict stress. These findings highlight the need to explore solutions to address stress for Latinx and/or low SES students. Additionally, the study underscores the necessity of conducting research at educational institutions in which Latinx, FGC, and low SES students comprise the majority of the student body.
Keywords
Introduction
Stress is a prevalent issue for college students and has significantly increased in recent years (Beiter et al., 2015). College students who experience stress are at greater risk for poor academic performance (Arria et al., 2015) and developing personal difficulties such as substance abuse, binge-drinking, depression, and decreased self-esteem and life satisfaction (Chen & Feeley, 2015; Hirsch et al., 2019; Rezaei & Mousanezhad Jeddi, 2020). Stress may also lead to significant issues with students’ mental health as reported by campus counseling centers (Beiter et al., 2015). The most common source of stress for college students is academic stress (e.g., academic workload, fear of failing; Beiter et al., 2015; Britz & Pappas, 2010). However, college students also experience other significant sources of stress. The other leading types of stress include environmental stressors (e.g., not receiving financial support from family or having poor internet collection; Ong & Cheong, 2009; Pariat et al., 2014); interpersonal stressors (e.g., relationships/interactions with others such as romantic partners or friends; Lee & Jang, 2015); and intrapersonal stressors (e.g., internal conflicts such as loneliness, not getting enough sleep; Ong & Cheong, 2009).
Stress is particularly problematic for ethnic minority, first-generation, and economically disadvantaged college students (Alvan et al., 1996; Terenzini et al., 1994; Walpole, 2008). Although the literature on student stress is relatively robust, most of the research either took place at predominantly White and traditional (i.e., majority continuing-generation) institutions or the demographic make-up of the university was not a primary focus (e.g., Chen & Feeley, 2015; Counts et al., 2018; Hirsch et al., 2019; Rubio et al., 2017). Without providing clear contextual information, the implicit message is that perhaps Latinx, first-generation college, and low SES students are homogenous; that is, these students are always in the minority. However, this is a faulty assumption.
As the educational landscape evolves, new institutions may focus on recruiting and serving Latinx and FGC students. Because of such efforts, students who would typically be in the minority on traditional university campuses become the majority share of the student body (i.e., a minority-majority university). This new identity, as belonging to the majority as opposed to the minority, may relate to processes that influence student stress (e.g., social comparison, Suls & Wheeler, 2000). When students belonging to historically underrepresented groups (i.e., Latinx, low SES, FGCS) look for targets of social comparison at traditionally continuing-student and White serving institutions, they may routinely make upward contrast comparisons. This type of comparison involves students focusing on differences between themselves and targets who are seemingly better off. This process may lead to lower self-evaluations and negative feelings, such as frustration and resentment (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). However, when these students look for targets of social comparison on a minority-majority campus, they may be more likely to engage in lateral (i.e., comparing themselves to others who are similar) or upward identification comparisons. Upward identification allows students to focus on similarities between themselves and targets who are seemingly better off, leading to a desire to adopt strategies and learn information that may help them pursue similar tasks and goals (Buunk et al., 1990). This upward identification comparison can enhance self-image and evoke positive feelings such as hope and admiration.
The current study examines stress for first-year college students attending a university where the majority of the student population is Latinx, almost three-quarters of students identify as FGCS, and the majority are from a low SES background. Specifically, this project compares the relative predictors of student stress including identifying as Latinx, being a FGCS, and belonging to low SES. Ultimately, this study attempts to bridge this critical gap in knowledge by providing empirical data that may bolster students’ opportunity to equitably and successfully pursue college. Below, we address the outcomes of the study (perceived academic stress and experienced stress related to academic, environmental, interpersonal, and intrapersonal sources) and our main predictors (students’ Latinx identity, FGCS status, and SES).
In the current study, we examined perceived stress and experienced stress. Perceived stress is the degree to which one appraises situations in one’s life as stressful (Cohen, 1983). This variable is typically measured using Likert questions that ask students to indicate the degree of stress various situations may engender (Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015). Experienced stress is the amount of stress students encounter in their lives across different domains over a certain period. This variable is typically measured using a checklist format, where students indicate whether they have experienced the specific stress over a specific time period (e.g., the last month; Ross et al., 1999).
Latinx identity and stress
Latinx students endure “minority stress,” in which they experience negative emotions from being linked to social, physical, and cultural attributes with their specific ethnic minority group (Smedley et al., 1993). For instance, students’ Latinx identity may decrease their efforts to build social connections in the school setting (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). This process may exacerbate their self-perception that they do not belong, which may increase their stress and decrease their academic performance (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). Additionally, Latinx students endure acculturation stress, which comes from having to adapt to the dominant culture while maintaining their heritage norms (Castillo et al., 2008). Latinx college students may also experience intragroup marginalization by their family because they feel the need to adjust to their institution’s culture to have an accomplished college career (Castillo et al., 2008). Finally, Latinx students may experience stress from the multifaceted roles they perform for their family. For example, Latinx students are typically viewed as the caretaker of the family by the parents, leaving the students to encounter difficulties in prioritizing their activities leading to stressful work-school conflicts (Sy, 2006).
First-generation college students (FGCS) and stress
In our study, we define a first-generation college student (FGCS) as a student who does not have a parent who completed their bachelor’s degree. We define a continuing-generation student as a student whose parents have completed at least a bachelor’s degree. FGCS students are often burdened with family obligations and responsibilities, such as serving in parental roles as an adolescent and providing financial assistance to the family (Covarrubias et al., 2019). Although FGCS experience pride by taking on these roles for their families (Covarrubias et al., 2019), the additional roles invariably lead to further stress outside of their academic life. Additionally, because parents of FGCS have limited or no experience with higher education, FGCS often do not receive the proper guidance and support. FGCS have fewer conversations about college (e.g., preparing for college, application process, expectations of college) with their parents than continuing-generation students, which may contribute to lower positive self-concepts (Covarrubias et al., 2020). Moreover, parental emotional and informational support was much lower among FGCS than continuing-generation students, which is problematic because those forms can be protective against stress (Rubio et al., 2017).
Student socioeconomic status and stress
Socially disadvantaged college students are at a high risk of experiencing stress. Students from low socioeconomic status (SES) have fewer interactions with faculty, less available time to devote to studying, little involvement in school organizations, and tend to work more hours than students high in SES (Walpole, 2008). Additionally, socioeconomic factors have enduring connections with students’ mental wellbeing (Peltz et al., 2020). For example, low childhood SES can predict poor sleep quality for college students, affecting their academics and psychological health, potentially relating to more stress (Counts et al., 2018).
Intersectionality of identities/interaction of factors
Although we have reviewed these identities individually to underscore their specific significance, students may simultaneously identify with several identities (i.e., intersectionality; Núñez, 2014); thus, it is critical to address the interactions that can occur between these identities in relation to stress. For example, the combination of Latinx and low SES may produce lower self-esteem and lower life satisfaction, which are significant contributors to stress, particularly when students feel unclear about their position on the socioeconomic ladder (Destin et al., 2019). Moreover, low SES and Latinx children may face greater environmental stress because they experience greater levels of neighborhood disadvantage compared to disadvantaged White children (Henry et al., 2019) and are more likely to attend a low-quality school that offers only reduced resources (Thapa, et al., 2013). Additionally, the intersecting identities of FGCS status and low SES may lead to increased academic and environmental stress, which can lower graduation rates. This outcome can result from a combination of not being familiar with academic expectations and requiring more student loans and/or having to work full-time (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014). Being a FGCS from a low SES background may also lead to intrapersonal stress because students may feel devalued by their institution when faculty and staff lack an understanding of the challenges they face (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014). Moreover, when considering all three identities, research has demonstrated that Hispanic FGCS tend to have lower family SES compared to Hispanic non-FGCS (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). These students may experience both academic and interpersonal stress from encountering financial challenges, lack of university experience, and academic unpreparedness (Latino, 2020; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Therefore, it is critical to examine how these identities, individually and in combination, contribute to students’ stress.
Main aim and hypotheses
Stress is a major concern among Latinx, first-generation, and low SES college students. Previous research on this topic has relied heavily on samples from universities where continuing-generation college students and White students make up the majority. The main aim of this study was to examine students’ perceived academic stress and experienced stress (environmental, academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal sources) in a minority-majority university, where the enrollment largely consists of Latinx, first-generation, and low SES students. We hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1: Latinx identity will be a significant predictor of perceived and experienced stress. Hypothesis 2: First-generation college student (FGCS) status will be a significant predictor of perceived and experienced stress. Hypothesis 3: Students’ socioeconomic status (SES) will be a significant predictor of perceived and experienced stress.
Method
Design
The current study employed a cross-sectional design. The outcome variables were perceived and experienced stress and the predictor variables were students’ Latinx identity, first-generation college student status, and socioeconomic status. All variables were measured using self-report questionnaires.
Institution
Participants were recruited from a regional university in South Central Texas. The university was originally founded as the first upper-division (transfer) institution of higher education in the area. It became a standalone university in 2009 and began accepting first-year (freshmen) students in 2017. Today, the university serves approximately 6,500 students, 72% of whom are Hispanic, 60% are female, and 77% are the first in their family to attend college (tamusa.edu). Additionally, 81% of all students at the institution qualified for financial aid (Texas A&M University‐San Antonio, 2019).
Participants
The inclusion criteria were that participants (N = 355) had to be enrolled in the first-year seminar course during Fall 2018 at this particular university and participants needed to be 18 years of age or older. No other exclusionary criteria were used. The course was dedicated to teaching students strategies that could enhance their college experience and improve their academic success. All first-year students were required to enroll in this course. Although recruitment occurred during class time, students’ participation was voluntary. This sample size exceeds the N needed for our regression analysis as suggested by a power analysis using G*Power 3.0 with the following criteria: effect size f2 = .05, alpha = .05, power = .80, number of predictors = 3. Demographic information is presented in Table 1.
Demographic information for study participants.
aSubjective scale of socioeconomic status (1 = lowest, 10 = highest; Adler & Stewart, 2007).
Measures
Perceived academic stress
Perceived stress was measured via the Perception of Academic Stress Scale (PAS; Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015). To develop the scale, the researchers had content experts rate a series of items generated from a rigorous literature review; then, they administered the items to student volunteers. They arrived at a four-factor solution after several exploratory principal component analyses. Ultimately, the PAS contains 18 items (separated into four sub-scales) that measure students’ perceptions of academic stress and its sources. Sample items for each subscale are listed below. There were five items that pertain to pressure to perform (e.g., “My teachers are critical of my academic performance”; “The unrealistic expectations of my parents stresses me out”; four items for perceptions of workload (e.g., “I believe that the amount of work assigned is too much”; “The size of the curriculum [workload] is excessive”; five items for time restrains (“I am unable to catch up if I get behind on work”; “The time allocated to classes and academic work is enough [R]; four items for academic self-perceptions (“I fear failing courses this year”; “I am confident that I will be a successful student [R]);. Participants responded to these statements using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) based on how they felt in the last month.
Experienced stress
In addition to perceived academic stress, we also measured experienced stress using the Student Stress Survey (SSS; Ross et al., 1999). The SSS contains 40 items to measure potential sources of stress. The 40 items are separated into four categories of potential sources: environmental, academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. There were 10 items for environmental sources of stress (e.g., vacation/breaks, waited in long line, computer problems), eight items for academic sources of stress (e.g., increased class work time, lower grade than anticipated, change of major), six items for interpersonal sources of stress (e.g., change in social activity, roommate conflict, work with people you don’t know), and 16 items for intrapersonal sources of stress (e.g., change in sleeping habits, change in eating habits, new responsibilities). Students read through these categories and marked each item they experienced within the last month.
Demographic information
In addition to the two stress measures, students provided demographic information. These questions included information about the participant’s age and ethnicity, current year in school and major, and SES. SES was measured using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 2000). Participants viewed a ladder number vertically from 1 (at bottom) to 10 (at top). They were asked to select a number on the ladder which represented their standing in society, where 1 is the segment of society that is worst off and 10 is the segment of society that is best off. Whereas objective measures of SES tend to capture singular components of participant’s lives (i.e., education, income), this subjective SES scale provides a summative measure of social status and allows for participants to provide a deeper understanding of their own economic standing (Adler & Stewart, 2007). This subjective measure of SES is more effective at predicting participant outcomes than traditional objective SES measures (e.g., education, income; Singh-Manoux et al., 2005). Participants were also asked if they are a FGCS, with a reminder that they are considered a FGCS if neither of their parents completed a bachelor’s degree. In addition to the measures presented, the students also participated in a writing exercise and completed other measures not pertinent to this paper (e.g., personality measures).
Procedures
Data collection occurred in person in a course dedicated to university success for first-year students. Researchers coordinated with instructors in advance for a class period of data collection. When the researchers arrived, instructors introduced the research team, which consisted of student researchers and the primary researcher (the first author). The researchers informed students about the study and emphasized that participation was voluntary and that participants could quit anytime during the study. Because the study occurred during class time, students who elected to not participate in the study were provided with an academic article on humility and success to ensure that they gained some educational experience that day. Students were allowed to use their personal laptops, and if they did not want to use their laptops or did not have a laptop, one was provided to them. Then, researchers provided students with the website where the study was hosted (Qualtrics). Once students arrived at the website, they read an information sheet. Following consent procedures, students completed the stress measures, which were presented in random order to prevent potential order effects. Once students completed the study measures, they completed the demographic questionnaires. Students completed the study at their own pace; all students had to remain in class for the entire period regardless of how quickly they completed the study. Prior to the end of the class period, the researchers debriefed students on the purpose of the study and thanked them for their participation.
Analyses
Several regression models were tested to determine if the different types of stress were predicted by Latinx identity, FGCS status, indicated position on the SES ladder, the interaction between Latinx identity and SES ladder position, the interaction between FGCS and SES ladder position, and the interaction between Latinx identity, FGCS, and SES ladder position. The predictor variable SES ladder was mean centered, and the dichotomous variables of ethnicity (Latinx compared to Non-Latinx) and FGCS (FGCS status compared to continuing-generation college student status) were dummy coded. The data were then screened for normality and univariate outliers and no cases were found to be extreme in nature as to warrant exclusion from analyses.
We began by testing models in which all primary predictors, two-way interactions, and three-way interactions were included for every outcome. We found that none of the interactions were significant (highest B = –0.29, lowest p = 0.067), except for the SES × Latinx interaction for Experienced Academic stress (B = –0.29, p = 0.012). However, we elected to not present this interaction in the final results because there was no clear pattern about the way that SES interacted with Latinx status. This lone interaction may reflect a spurious significant effect and focusing on it may detract from the study's main findings about how FGCS status, Latinx identity, or SES predict perceived and experienced stress for students. Below, we present the most parsimonious test of our hypotheses using only FGCS status, Latinx identity, and SES as predictor variables.
As linear regression models were tested, multivariate outliers were found in several cases and thus excluded from the models reported in the Results. Criteria for excluding influential cases included studentized residual values more extreme than ±3, leverage values that were more than two-thirds times the previous value, and standardized DFFIT values that were more than two-thirds times the previous value. Models were assessed for multicollinearity and none were found to be in violation of this assumption (i.e., all tolerance values were greater than 0.2). Models were also assessed for homoscedasticity, and upon visual inspection of the zresid*zpred plot, no model was found to be in violation of this assumption.
Results
Experienced stress
Regression analyses were conducted using the subscales of SSS as outcome variables. Results of all regression analyses are reported in Table 2.
Regression models predicting stress based on demographic information.
*Model or Predictor significant at p < .05.
Academic stress was significantly predicted by a regression model, F(3, 331) = 4.84, p = .003, which accounted for 4.2% of the variance. In this model, the only significant predictor was Latinx identity, with students identifying as Latinx scoring .41 units higher on the Academic stress measure compared to students who identified as non-Latinx. Six multinomial outliers were removed from the above model as their studentized residual values were greater than 3.
The regression model predicting Environmental stress was significant, F(3, 337) = 3.00, p = .031, despite only accounting for a small portion of the variance (2.6%). SES ladder was a significant predictor, with a one unit increase in the SES ladder status indicating a 0.19 unit decrease in Environmental stress scores. Three multinomial outliers were removed from the above model, as three studentized residual values were greater than 3.
The regression model predicting Intrapersonal stress was significant, F(3, 340) = 6.40, p = .001, and accounted for 5.3% of the variance. Of the individual predictor variables, only the SES ladder was significant, with a one unit increase in the SES ladder status indicating a 0.31 unit decrease in Intrapersonal stress scores. No multinomial outliers were detected in this model.
The regression model tested to predict Interpersonal Stress was not statistically significant (F(3, 338) = 1.75, p = .156; see Table 2), despite two multivariate outliers being removed due to two cases having studentized residual values above 3.
Perceived stress
Regression analyses were conducted using the subscales of PAS as outcome variables. Pressure to Perform was significantly predicted by the regression model, F(3, 330) = 4.38, p = .005, and the model accounted for 3.8% of the variance. Latinx status was a significant predictor variable with those students who identified as Latinx reporting .27 higher Pressure to Perform scores than those who identified as non-Latinx. No multinomial outliers were detected in this model.
Perception of Workload was significantly predicted with the regression model, F(3, 334) = 5.10, p = .002, and accounted for 4.4% of the variance. SES ladder was a significant predictor variable with a one unit increase on the SES ladder corresponding to a 0.07 unit decrease in Perception of Workload. Additionally, Latinx status was a significant predictor variable with those students who identified as Latinx reporting .18 higher Perception of Workload scores than those who identified as non-Latinx. One multinomial outlier was detected in this model due to having a studentized residual score below –3, and thus, this case was excluded from analysis.
Academic Self-perception was significantly predicted with the regression model, F(3, 332) = 9.17, p < .001, and accounted for 7.6% of the variance. SES ladder was a significant predictor variable with a one unit increase on the SES ladder corresponding to a 0.06 unit decrease in Academic Self-perception. Additionally, Latinx status was a significant predictor variable with those students who identified as Latinx reporting .42 higher Academic Self-perception scores than those who identified as non-Latinx. One multinomial outlier was detected in this model due to having a studentized residual score above 3, and thus, this case was excluded from analysis.
The regression model tested to predict Time Restraints was not statistically significant (F(3, 334) = 2.41, p = .067; see Table 2). No multinomial outliers were detected in this model.
Discussion
The results indicate that Latinx identity was a significant predictor for experienced academic stress, perceived pressure to perform, perception of workload, and perceived academic self-perception. These findings are consistent with previous research on student stress generally. Latinx students tend to experience “minority stress” from their identification with their specific ethnic minority group (Smedley et al., 1993). This stress may cause negative emotions that lead them to withdraw from efforts to build social connections, worsening their sense of belonging (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012). Additionally, Latinx students may have to work to support their family financially because they are under pressure to prioritize family needs over their own (Sy, 2006). This burden creates an obstacle for their schoolwork and may lead them to feel that the academic workload is too overbearing for the little time they have left after work and family. Moreover, Latinx students may feel pressure to perform in school because they fear that their performance will make their cultural group appear academically weak (Rodriguez et al., 2000). Therefore, when they worry about their course work, they may feel that it is a weakness of character. Finally, acculturation stress and intragroup marginalization may help explain why Latinx identity is predictive of stress even at minority-majority universities (Castillo et al., 2008). As Latinx students engage in college, they may begin to feel an inconsistency between their Latinx heritage culture and the culture of higher education. This tension may play out through interpersonal conflicts with their family members who perceive them as lacking loyalty to their Latinx heritage culture (Castillo et al., 2008; LaFromboise et al., 1993).
We also found that SES predicted experienced environmental stress, perceived academic self-perceptions, perception of workload stress, and intrapersonal stress. Low SES students are more likely to have environmental stressors like technology-related issues, such as having no internet connection or not having a computer (Devlin & McKay, 2018). These technology-related problems may lead students to drive to stores that have free Wi-Fi or go to a campus library every time they have to complete an assignment, which adds significant burden to their already hectic schedule (Devlin & McKay, 2018). Moreover, low SES students may be especially stressed because they internalize the negative stereotypes of being less competent than high SES students (Durante et al., 2017). The negative perceptions of their competence can be the reason for the negative academic self-perception because they may already feel though they are going to fail their classes or assignments. (Durante et al., 2017). Additionally, because low SES students work more hours than high SES students do, they have little to no time for themselves. Balancing a hectic schedule may lead to a range of challenges, such as not eating well and not getting enough sleep (Counts et al., 2018; Peltz et al., 2020). With poor sleep quality and eating habits, low SES students may struggle to hold on to their job, which may correspond to further intrapersonal stress. Moreover, low SES students experience a lack of family support in higher education (Karimshah et al., 2013), which may increase feelings of loneliness and exacerbate issues related to intrapersonal stress.
The most surprising finding in our study is that first-generation college students reported the same level of experienced and perceived stress as continuing-generation students. The lack of difference in stress may be due to a few reasons. Prior research has demonstrated that stress for FGCS and continuing-generation students is different because FGCS lack of proper guidance and support from parents (Covarrubias et al., 2019). However, it may be possible that this stress can be mitigated by minority-majority universities through targeted efforts. For example, the university where the data were collected has a first-generation center to centralize all support for FGCS. Within the center, students can learn about resources that connect them to their needs on and off campus, connect students with the proper departments on campus to help address their academic questions, and create events and resources around campus to help FGCS specifically. Thus, these targeted efforts may help reduce FGCS stress by filling the gaps put in place by the lack of parental support. Another reason that FGCS experience more stress than continuing-generation students is because FGCS tend to have lower positive self-concept (Covarrubias et al., 2020). However, it is possible that minority-majority universities can mitigate this effect by celebrating FGC status. For example, this specific university celebrates FGC status by having a first generation student organization, a first generation week, and creating videos of staff and faculty to share their experience as a FGCS. Thus, FGCS may not feel invisible in these contexts, and may present a sense of belonging and pride in potentially being the first in their family to complete a bachelor’s degree. These factors may also increase students’ positive self-concept. Additionally, overall efforts to increase visibility of FGCS may be related to decreased stress by encouraging FGCS to step out of their comfort zones to join organizations, connect with professors, and join study groups (Clayton et al., 2019). Overall, these efforts may help to even the playing field for FGCS with continuing-generation students by mitigating potential stress specific to FGCS status.
This study’s findings have broad theoretical implications and practical applications. The results demonstrate that, when it comes to studying student stress, there is nuance to be sifted. For example, it may be misleading to simply state that FGCS struggle more than traditional students without fully conceptualizing the educational context. Such a statement would assume that FGCS are always in the minority, which may not or no longer be true. Therefore, the current study’s findings suggest that future research on underserved college students provide more context to offer clarity on the scope of their impact.
Practically, the findings offer insight on how to mitigate potential stress experienced by FGC students. For example, administrators and educators can look to universities who strategically celebrate FGCS through programming and support dedicated to FGCS. Such programs might include efforts to create “First-Gen Week (or Month)” to celebrate FGCS and normalize and highlight their presence on campus. Moreover, FGCS may benefit when campuses highlight their own staff and faculty members who are FGCS (e.g., distributing “first-gen” stickers or office door decals). These efforts may lead students to embrace their identity and strive for success through constructive modes of social comparison. Our study also challenges administrators and educators to find strategies to support Latinx and low SES students, particularly if they work in minority-majority institutions. For example, administrators can create programs to match primarily Spanish-speaking students with bilingual students to reduce their discomfort in the classroom and around campus. They can also support Latinx students by creating events that promote Latinx culture and regularly celebrate successful Latinx students to promote lateral and upward identification comparisons. Furthermore, educators and administrators may pursue grants to offer opportunities for work-study and assistantships to offset the financial burden of college attendance for low SES students and also promote financial literacy through campus programming. Finally, administrators and educators can create, promote, and support strategies to help students effectively balance their school and work lives.
Limitations and future directions
A notable limitation of our study is the fact that we recruited first-year students during their first semester of college. Data were collected in early October, which means that students would have been considered college students for about seven weeks. This relatively short period may not be long enough for students to engross in the critical social comparison processes that may lead to stress. On the other hand, despite seven weeks being a relatively short period, it may be enough time to initiate some of those processes. For example, students are often asked about their upbringing, origin, and future goals during course introductions or in casual meetings with peers within the first few weeks of classes starting. Students may have also had submitted works and received grades in their courses. These activities may be enough for students to begin assessing their status and identity relative to their peers. For example, research indicates that educators can predict students’ likelihood to drop out of college within the first 20% of their first-year’s course work (Baars & Arnold, 2014). Overall, despite the short period, the current study adds important evidence to the literature about stress for college students early on in their college pursuit. This evidence may be useful as a comparison point for future studies that attempt to study stress related processes for more advanced students at minority-majority universities.
Another potential limitation of this study is the use of perceived SES instead of objective SES. However, our deliberate choice to use subjective SES stems from research that indicates that subjective SES is a better predictor of essential outcomes than to objective SES (Adler & Stewart, 2007). Additionally, although this study aimed to examine student stress where ethnic minority students are not minorities on campus, the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. Our results may generalize to only institutions where Latinx students are the majority. Future studies may explore student stress on campus where the distribution of White students and Latinx students are relatively equal. Moreover, our study failed to include other variables that might be relevant to the contemporary political climate. Future research should factor in students’ concerns about prejudice, particularly as it pertains to Latinx identity and immigration status. Furthermore, we recognize that not all of our hypotheses were supported, but we wanted to present all of them as to be more in line with transparent scientific practice. Additionally, some of our effects, although significant, were small. Future research should continue to examine these relationships to determine their overall impact.
Finally, a limitation of our study is the cross-sectional design, which bounds our ability to make causal conclusions about the results. For example, it is not possible to determine whether SES affects perceptions of stress or stress affects perceptions of one’s socioeconomic standing relative to others (i.e., subjective SES). Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits our ability to make conclusions about the long-term effects of stress for students. For example, it is not possible for us to determine how Latinx identity will affect students throughout their college career. Future studies can address this limitation by conducting longitudinal studies on college students’ stress, specifically focusing on students from minority-majority universities.
Conclusion
Our study demonstrated that at minority-majority institutions, when it comes to student stress, both perceived and experienced, SES and Latinx identity are significant predictors, while FGCS status is not. Our study expands the scope of research to be more inclusive of Latinx serving institutions and our findings have important implications for institutions that serve non-traditional students.
Footnotes
Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethics approval
The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University – San Antonio (Protocol #2018–65).
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Texas A&M University-San Antonio President’s Strategic Plan Grant Initiative.
