Developing a Family Achievement Guilt Scale Grounded in First-Generation College Student Voices

Abstract

As the first in their families to attend college, first-generation students plausibly experience family achievement guilt—socioemotional distress related to “leaving family members” to attend college. Family achievement guilt is little studied but a promising indicator of student outcomes. The present work used psychometric methods to develop the family achievement guilt scale. First-generation (46.6%) and continuing-generation (i.e., at least one parent has a 4-year degree, 53.4%) students completed a 41-item guilt measure online. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors, including guilt related to Leaving Family Behind, Having More Privileges, Becoming Different, and Experiencing Pressures about not being successful. The scale yielded good internal and test–retest reliability. Moreover, guilt predicted greater engagement in family roles and interdependent motives for college, even after controlling for general negative affect. In measuring guilt in psychometrically sound ways, we validate the voices of first-generation college students and alert institutions to adjust how they serve students.

Keywords

first generation family achievement guilt college transition scale development

As the first in their families to attend college, first-generation college (FGC) students confront cultural discrepancies between life in their working-class homes and middle-to-upper class college campuses (Lubrano, 2003; Stephens et al., 2012; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). When FGC students transition to college, they may experience family achievement guilt—a socioemotional experience students might have due to “leaving family members behind” to study in a cultural setting that has historically reflected norms of middle-to-upper class, White families (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Davidson, 2017). FGC students may feel the lifestyle afforded to them by college grants privileges that are denied to equally deserving family members who have not graduated from a 4-year institution and compromises their ability to continue to contribute to their family (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). In this sense, leaving family behind is the feeling of starting on a path of upward social and economic mobility not readily available to family members.

There is some promising but limited evidence that FGC students experience family achievement guilt more than continuing-generation college (CGC) students (i.e., at least one parent with a 4-year degree; Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Family achievement guilt among FGC populations negatively relates to students’ mental well-being (Covarrubias et al., 2015) and is theorized to relate negatively with academic performance (Piorkowski, 1983). This is of particular importance given rising concern about the mental health challenges of college students nationwide (Mistler et al., 2012), especially given that FGC students are a fast-growing demographic group in higher education (Redford & Hoyer, 2017). Given the strong link between mental health and student outcomes (e.g., belonging, grades; Pittman & Richmond, 2008), knowing more about family achievement guilt might help programs charged with increasing FGC retention and graduation rates. Although prior work in measuring family achievement guilt has produced some promising findings, these remain limited and tentative in the absence of a more psychometrically robust measure. The present work used psychometric methods to develop a reliable and valid measure of the family achievement guilt construct.

Guilt Research and Measurement Challenges

The concept of family achievement guilt (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015) builds on a brief theoretical review of a particular form of guilt experienced by low-income, Black FGC students (Piorkowski, 1983). Drawing from a small sample of counseling sessions, Piorkowski theorized that these students experience survivor guilt when they witness close others in their lives endure trauma (death, abuse) and stress (unemployment) which they themselves have escaped by attending college. She reported one Black adult male describing guilt because he had been working on a college degree when he lost his brother in a drug-related crime. As a result of this guilt, students reported experiencing depressive symptoms, a link that has been reported in other studies (see Austin et al., 2009; Covarrubias et al., 2015).

Piorkowski’s work in 1983 prompted subsequent investigations of survivor guilt among college students, with important variations in its conceptualization. Subsequent conceptualizations included more subtle forms that did not include actual death of family members; specifically, survivor guilt included fear about hurting others (Weiss, 1986). Guilt might arise from engaging in one’s own pursuits and, subsequently, reaping benefits or good experiences from those pursuits while close others are not (e.g., London, 1986; Spurlock, 1985; Whitten, 1992). Through interviews, London (1986) found that FGC students experienced survivor guilt when leaving family to attend the university. Similarly, both Spurlock (1985) and Whitten (1992) reported that Black students who surpassed the academic achievement of family members experienced survivor guilt as well as other mental health consequences (e.g., depression, ambivalence).

While these scholars conceptualized guilt as related to a fear of surpassing the achievements of family members and leaving them behind, measures to assess these experiences are limited. Studies have relied on the survivor guilt subscale of the Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire (IGQ; O’Connor et al., 1997), which includes both a 45-item and 67-item version with four subscales—Survivor Guilt, Separation Guilt, Omnipotent Guilt, and Self-Hate Guilt—that have been validated with clinical and nonclinical samples. Austin et al. (2009) used the 22-item Survivor Guilt subscale and found guilt was significantly associated with depressive symptoms for Black college students. In their work, the Survivor Guilt measure had marginally acceptable internal consistency (.68). Using the same scale, Hooper (2014) found that Latinx FGC students reported higher survivor guilt than Latinx CGC students and that guilt was significantly correlated with depressive symptoms.

Although these findings shed light on the guilt experiences of marginalized students in university contexts, they do not address family achievement guilt. The IGQ survivor guilt items focus on guilt related to strangers who are struggling (e.g., I am able to retain my good humor even after seeing beggars or homeless people) rather than family members. Focusing on guilt related to family is more theoretically relevant given that FGC students cite their family as a top motive for attending college (Jackson et al., 2016) and report attending college closer to home to be near family (Allen et al., 2015).

To more closely reflect relationships with family in the experience of guilt, Covarrubias and Fryberg (2015) developed a three-item scale adapted from the Survivor Guilt subscale (e.g., I feel uncomfortable because I have more academic opportunities than my siblings or parents). Similar to Piorkowski (1983), Covarrubias and Fryberg argued that engagement in two cultural contexts—social class and race/ethnicity—that both value family connectedness may exacerbate guilt, especially among FGC (Lareau, 2003; Stephens et al., 2012) and Latinx (Rogoff, 2014; Valdés, 1996) populations. The authors found, as predicted, that Latinx FGC students reported higher instances of guilt relative to White FGC, Latinx CGC, and White CGC students (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). These results suggested Latinx FGC students were experiencing high levels of family achievement guilt because of their families’ economic struggles. Indeed, in a follow-up study of FGC and CGC White and ethnic minority students (e.g., Latinx, Black, Native), Covarrubias and Fryberg found that perceiving greater family struggle was related to higher guilt. In the same study, Covarrubias and Fryberg also administered the IGQ Survivor Guilt subscale and found no differences in this measure among student groups, further providing support that family achievement guilt is a more relevant conceptualization of guilt experienced by FGC students in the university context.

These findings, however, remain tentative because of measurement limitations. The measure used by Covarrubias and Fryberg had only three items that yielded marginally satisfactory internal consistency values of .61 and .65 across both studies. Although internal reliability values slightly below .70 are a reasonable enough criterion in exploratory studies of family achievement guilt, a major challenge to future investigations of this construct is measurement development.

Guilt as a Prosocial Emotion

An important consideration in measurement development for family achievement guilt is understanding the unique experience of guilt as different from negative affect and understanding its convergence with related phenomena. Negative affect broadly reflects distress or unpleasant feelings (e.g., Watson et al., 1988). There is no consensus on how to best conceptualize or measure negative affect. Nonetheless, when it is assessed via self-report, researchers commonly prompt participants to rate negatively valenced terms (e.g., anger, fear, sadness) on a Likert-type scale. Some self-report measures of negative affect include guilt (e.g., Russell, 1980; Watson et al., 1988) and others do not (e.g., Gross & Levenson, 1995). Moreover, while guilt is sometimes subsumed, conceptually and methodologically, within negative affect, its phenomenology includes distinct features associated with self-reflection and social ties that set it apart from other affective experiences.

In the current study, we examine the link between guilt and negative affect further by testing two hypotheses. First, we test whether guilt and negative affect are positively associated given that some work subsumes the basic emotion of guilt within negative affect, including items to assess guilt when measuring negative affect (e.g., Russell, 1980; Watson et al., 1988). Given that guilt is distinguishable from negative affect as a self-conscious emotion (Tangney et al., 2007), we expect for guilt to be positively correlated, but conceptually distinct from negative affect. Second, we test whether guilt, beyond negative affect, predicts theoretically relevant outcomes that capture the prosocial nature of guilt, including empathic concerns, family roles, and interdependent motives for going to college. Testing both hypotheses gives a deeper understanding of both the degree of overlap between family achievement guilt and how guilt might also predict relevant outcomes, above and beyond negative affect.

Research has shown that, different than negative affect, guilt is an adaptive emotion as it can help maintain important interpersonal connections (O’Connor et al., 1997). Specifically, guilt includes self-awareness and facilitation of social goals (Tangney et al., 2007). People need to be able to self-reflect on their actions and assess them against internal norms, past experiences, and social norms. Part of these social norms for FGC students include the motivation to maintain ties to close others (e.g., Allen et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2016). Thus, when leaving family members for college and a life different from home, students might experience cultural incongruence or dissonance linked to feelings of guilt. Such feelings London (1986) described as “breakaway guilt” to define guilt related to leaving home and entering a new cultural context in college. Drawing from interviews with FGC students, London (1986) argued that FGC students felt guilty for becoming different in college in ways that disrupted familial relationships. As a prosocial emotion, guilt might prompt students to correct this disruption. The need for corrective action might arise given the link between guilt and empathy that is focused on alleviating the suffering or hurt of close others (O’Connor et al., 1997). Indeed, research has demonstrated an empirical link between guilt and empathic concern (Tangney et al., 1992). The current work tests these positive links using established scales of cultural incongruence and empathetic concern for others.

As part of the empathic concern, guilt might motivate particular prosocial behaviors that help maintain a connection to family. For example, to reduce the adverse feelings associated with leaving family behind, FGC students might engage more in their home roles and responsibilities to help support parents and siblings. FGC students’ increased familial engagement might include offering instrumental, financial, or emotional support to parents or engaging heavily in sibling caretaking (see Covarrubias et al., 2019; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). Students who experience more guilt might also endorse stronger family-based motivations for attending college, including helping family after graduating (Jackson et al., 2016; Stephens et al., 2012). Past work has not directly examined the links among guilt, family roles, and interdependent motives; the current work addresses this gap. Given the prosocial nature of guilt, we predict a strong positive link between guilt and both family roles and interdependent motives for going to college.

To further test whether family achievement guilt is prosocial and adaptive, we also included a measure of depression. Past theoretical and qualitative work has demonstrated a positive link between guilt and depression for low-income, FGC students of color (Piorkowski, 1983). Follow-up research using measures of guilt validated with clinical samples has found similar links (see Austin et al., 2009; Covarrubias et al., 2015). This link might make sense when guilt is maladaptive (see Tangney et al., 1992). For example, in Piorkowski’s (1983) work with low-income, FGC students of color, she conceptualized guilt as related to surviving trauma and described the experiences of depression felt from dealing with trauma-related guilt. Yet, if family achievement guilt taps into a more prosocial, adaptive experience, one would expect a weak or zero correlation with depression. We test these competing hypotheses in the current study to further examine the concept of family achievement guilt.

The Present Study

The current study developed and began the validation of a measure of the family achievement guilt construct. Because the original three-item family achievement guilt scale used by Covarrubias and Fryberg (2015) likely under-represented the relevant experiences of guilt for students, we conducted background research to generate a more nuanced account of what guilt entails phenomenologically. First, we briefly review focus group data with FGC students designed to capture the ways in which they experience guilt and designed to help generate items for a new, more reliable measure of family achievement guilt. We then briefly describe our process of collecting survey data to identify a preliminary structure for family achievement guilt. These studies provided the basis for the guilt scale tested in the main study.

We have three goals for the main study. First, through an exploratory factor analysis, we identify the structure of the guilt scale. Second, we examine the reliability of the measure by testing both internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Third, we test the predictive validity of the scale. We test the link between guilt and constructs for which we expected positive associations based on past work or theory, including cultural incongruence (London, 1986), family roles and interdependent motives (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015), and empathic concern for others (Tangney et al., 1992). We also test the link between guilt and a construct for which we expected a weak or nonsignificant association (i.e., self-efficacy). We reasoned that guilt should be unrelated or weakly related to general beliefs about one’s ability to carry out difficult or new tasks (i.e., general self-efficacy). Yet, because general self-efficacy is considered a positive self-belief (see Schwarzer, 1992), it should be negatively related to general negative affect.

We also include two constructs (i.e., negative affect, depression) that help us better understand the nature of family achievement guilt as either an adaptive or maladaptive emotion. To do this, first, we test the correlation between guilt and negative affect and test the predictive validity of guilt and the other constructs while controlling for negative affect. Given that guilt is often considered a part of negative affect but is also considered to have distinct self-conscious qualities, we anticipate that guilt will (a) be positively related to negative affect and separately (b) predict theoretically relevant constructs (e.g., cultural incongruence, family roles, interdependent motives, empathic concern), even after controlling for negative affect. Second, we test the correlation between guilt and depressive symptoms. If family achievement guilt is adaptive, we predict a weak or zero correlation with depression.

Testing the predictive validity of guilt enables us to understand how guilt is related to important outcomes for student success and sheds light on one component of how students are experiencing the university context. We build on current literature that examines how FGC students struggle to find a place of fit within the university environment (e.g., Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pascarella et al., 2004; Stephens et al., 2015). Extending this work, the current study focuses on what happens to familial relationship at home as FGC students transition to college. Few studies focus on how leaving for college impacts family dynamics and how students experience this shift (e.g., Azmitia et al., 2018; Covarrubias et al., 2019; Destin et al., 2017; Jehangir, 2010; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). We examine the socioemotional consequences of that shift.

Description of Background Studies

The research team conducted two background studies to build the family achievement guilt scale. All members of the research team, which included two faculty members (one Latina, one White male) and one graduate student (Latino), identified as FGC and as experiencing some aspects of family achievement guilt during their academic careers. We drew from these experiences to inform the work. We provide a brief summary of these studies to describe how we arrived at the current measure in the main study.

Step 1: Semi-Structured Interviews

To begin scale development, the research team conducted 60- to 90-minute, semi-structured focus group or individual interviews with 34 FGC students. Students were recruited from a 4-year, large public university on the West Coast of the United States. Using a convenience sampling method, participants were recruited via the psychology department subject pool (n = 25) or via word of mouth from classroom announcements or previous participants (n = 9). The majority of the participants were female (74%) and identified as Latino/a¹ (62%) and Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (35%).

Because an in-depth analysis of the semi-structured interviews is not the goal of this article, we provide a brief summary of the coding procedure and results. The full details of the study can be read at Covarrubias et al. (revision). We utilized conventional/inductive and directed/deductive methods to develop codes or categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Inductive methods were used to understand the underlying meaning of guilt experiences. Using a deductive approach, the search for codes was guided by theory around guilt in college settings (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; London, 1986; Piorkowski, 1983). Guilt themes were categorized based on codes thought to be significant in explaining events or processes related to guilt (Charmaz, 2004).

Four main themes were constructed by the research team. The most frequent theme mentioned was Leaving Family Obligations Behind. This theme indicated the important roles that students could not fully continue while in college, ranging from lending financial support to parents, being present for family gatherings, or supporting siblings emotionally or academically. The second most prevalent theme was Having More Privileges, which was described as freedoms, luxuries, and opportunities not available to family back home. A third prominent theme was that of Becoming Different or changing because of the college experience. Although a few students mentioned teasing comments from family members, most reported feeling guilty and frustrated due to feeling distant because of changing interests and practices, or to not feeling understood when trying to communicate their college experiences. The final theme included Experiencing Financial Distress or distress related to other pressures to succeed. Students often remarked on the sacrifices, including financial sacrifices, that families have made and continue to make to support their education, and the associated pressure to succeed.

The first two authors drew from interview findings to generate 54 initial items. The items were refined and discussed with the third author. Given that achieving a simple factor structure was a priority, no reverse-worded items were included in the final instrument since reverse items may produce a method factor and may reduce reliability over time and internal consistency (Hazlett-Stevens et al., 2004). See Table 1 for examples of how interview findings were translated into scale items. This scale was tested with a separate, diverse sample.

Table 1.

Construction of Family Achievement Guilt Scale Items from Interview Findings.

Theme	Example interview excerpt	Scale items
Leaving family obligations behind	• Well, sometimes . . . dad calls me first off and I’m really busy, I feel guilt that I’m not there helping. So I guess that’s the only guilt I feel, that I’m not there to help my family when they need it. • Like I have a lot of worries about them sometimes, like so much responsibilities, because there’s not much I can do, um, and that annoys me and frustrates me, [be]cause like I see what goes on, like I hear or see what goes home and it bothers me . . .	• I feel bad that I am not there when my family needs me • feel sad when I hear about struggles back home while I’m away at college
Having more privileges	• I feel guilty mainly when I think I’m having fun, like if I go to the beach with my friends, or I meet college friends, I do these achievements and I get to feel so special and my parents never get to feel that, like in academics. • I’ll be here and I’ll be sitting with my friends in the meadows looking at the campus that we have; it’s super green and everyone’s really cool and just like friendly and everyone is super smart and I think, like, that’s not how it is back home. It’s definitely not the same feeling. It like almost like a movie, some really cool resort where you get to get smart. . . . Yeah. I just feel, like, I shouldn’t be here when my family is just not here. It kind of goes back to this [definition of guilt] I guess. Every day that I’m here, it just feels like it’s wrong to be enjoying myself.	• I feel sad that family cannot experience the opportunities I have in college • I feel bad that I have it pretty good in college while family members struggle
Becoming different	• I feel like I’ve become a little more independent than I’ve used to be like when I’m at home my mom tries to like doing stuff for me, but I feel bad. I don’t know, I guess I’m just used to doing things on my own now • I tell them [about what I am studying] but they don’t really understand. I think that’s the only big part about [of my guilt], that I see myself different from my family members. Even like with my cousins and with my aunts and stuff but then like they don’t really know so I feel somehow that were different. But, I feel like it’s not because like they wanted it that way, but just because, like, that’s just the way it happened. • But, whenever we run into any sort of argument or we couldn’t agree on something, his first line of defense was, “Just because you’re in college now, you think you know more than me, or you think you’re better than me.” And that was kind of like when I started to notice that he was making me feel guilty for I guess not being in college	• I feel bad when my family thinks that college is changing me • I worry that my family sees me differently now that I am in college • I feel frustrated when my family thinks I’m “all that” now that I’m in college
Experiencing financial distress or other pressures	• I know that my parents have great expectations for me, of me succeeding . . . I’m like their investment, we’re a low income family . . . whatever money they save up they invest in me, so I kinda like feel that pressure . . . I can’t afford to mess up because my parents put so much in me • Yes, primarily because of financial issues, since . . . we’re low-income, so my parents are struggling to like um, like to make ends meet sometimes, I would feel really, really bad when I would have to rent, because at home, they would say, they’re saving enough, they’re making enough to help me through college . . .	• I worry that I won’t be able to succeed in college for my family • I feel pressured to do well so as to not disappoint my family

Step 2: Survey Data Collection

In the second step, we had both FGC and CGC students complete the family achievement guilt scale online, via an online survey tool Qualtrics, at their convenience and on their own devices. Items were administered in random order. Participants answered 54 items. After conducting exploratory factor analyses, the research team created a revised version of the survey with 27 items. All participants were compensated with course credit. See supplemental materials (Appendix A) for a full description of the survey, including details about participants, procedure, and results.

The survey findings informed the current family achievement guilt measure used in the main study. First, we were able to improve the response scale to clarify the meaning. In the original survey, we utilized a Likert-type scale from 0 to 4, with 0 being not true/doesn’t apply. This potentially conflated two responses with different meanings. Thus, we refined this to a 1 to 6 Likert-type scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree, to help clarify the response meanings. Second, because we used a new response scale, we also reverted back to the original 54 items (with refined language) used in the original survey. However, instead of using all 54 items, we removed items that seemed like a poor conceptual fit with family achievement guilt. For example, we removed I feel embarrassed about my level of preparation compared with my college peers and other items that included a comparison between peers rather than between home and college experiences. These changes yielded 41 items to test in the main study.

Main Study

Method

Participants

One hundred eighty-eight participants were recruited from the psychology subject pool at the same institution as the background studies. Six participants were dropped from the survey because they did not complete the demographic questionnaire and eight participants were dropped because they did not pass the attention check question embedded in the survey. This resulted in a final sample of 174 participants (M_age = 20.08, SD = 1.87).

To assess first-generation status, we asked students to report the “highest level of education attained by your parent(s)/guardian(s).” Students selected one option for each parent/guardian from the following: 1 = less than high school; 2 = high school diploma; 3 = some college or 2-year college degree (AA or AS); 4 = 4-year college degree (BA or BS); 5 = graduate or professional degree (MA, PhD, JD, MD); or 6 = I don’t know. Students were considered FGC if they reported that both parents had not earned a 4-year college degree and CGC if at least one parent earned a 4-year college degree. The sample included 53.4% CGC students and 46.6% FGC students. Of all FGC students, the majority (70.4%) reported being the very first person in their families to attend college (i.e., pioneers).

Participants identified as majority female (74.7%), followed by male (18.4%) and nonbinary or other (6.9%). The sample included 26.4% first years, 27.6% second years, 29.3% third years, 11.5% fourth years, 2.9% fifth years, and 2.3% who reported other. Most participants identified as Caucasian/European American² (28.2%), Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (25.9%), and Latino/a (24.1%), followed by non-White Multiracial (8.0%), White Biracial (8.0%), African American/Black (4.0%), and Middle Eastern (1.7%).

Student income was determined based on family income using an 8-point scale in U.S. dollars (1 = less than US$10,000; 2 = US$10,000–US$29,999; 3 = US$30,000–US$49,999; 4 = US$50,000–US$69,999; 5 = US$70,000–US$100,000; 6 = US$100,000–US$150,000; 7 = US$150,000–US$200,000; 8 = more than US$200,000). The average income of the sample was 4.42 (SD= 1.81), which ranged from approximately US$50,000 to US$69,999. An independent sample t test revealed that FGC students reported lower levels of family income (M = 3.49, SD = 1.30) relative to CGC students (M = 5.48, SD = 1.74), t(128) = 7.29, p < .001. For proceeding analyses, we created a mean split where students coming from family incomes of US$10,000 to US$69,999 were considered working class (n = 72) and those coming from family incomes of US$70,000 to more than 200,000 were considered middle-to-upper-class (n = 58). There were several students (n = 44) who did not report income information. The vast majority also reported that their families lived in California (93.1%), spanning the entire state. Only a small percentage (9.8%) of students’ parents lived in surrounding cities within 35 miles of the campus.

Procedure

Participants were invited to complete the study online, via the online survey tool Qualtrics, at their convenience and on their own devices. There were two data collection time points. The purpose was to examine test–retest reliability for the guilt measure and to assess whether guilt at Time 1 predicted outcomes at Time 2. The first survey was distributed during the beginning of the spring 2019 term and included 41 items and several demographic questions. It took less than 5 min to complete. The second survey was distributed 4 weeks later and included the guilt measure along with other psychological and behavioral measures. This second part took less than 25 min to complete. After participants complete both surveys, they received course credit for their participation.

Time 1 and Time 2 measures

Family achievement guilt was measured using 41 items. Participants read the following prompt:

College is a time when students experience a lot of ups and downs. The following statements highlight some challenging emotions students might feel as they compare their experiences in college with their experiences back home. Students might feel these emotions despite the support they receive from close others back home (e.g., parents, legal guardians, siblings).

They then rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of guilt. See Table 2 for a list of items and Table 3 for scale reliabilities, means, and standard deviations of each subfactor. The subfactors yielded good reliability (all αs are above .86).

Table 2.

Factor Loadings and Communalities from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (N = 174).

Item		Factor				h ²
Item		1	2	3	4	h ²
1. g23	I feel sad when I can’t help with challenges back home	.867	.052	−.106	−.074	.670
2. g29	I feel bothered when I can’t help my family because of school	.851	−.011	−.003	.030	.737
3. g32	I feel bad for not being able to fulfill my responsibilities back home	.808	−.071	.049	.035	.655
4. g21	I feel sad when I hear about struggles back home while I’m away at college	.777	.055	−.129	.035	.597
5. g31	I feel bad when my school responsibilities prevent me from helping out at home	.765	.123	.063	−.084	.705
6. g25	I feel bad that I am not there when my family needs me	.733	.009	−.106	.034	.503
7. g8	I worry I am neglecting family or responsibilities back home when I am away at school	.714	−.182	.215	.074	.602
8. g28	I feel frustrated when I am not in the loop about challenges back home	.686	.057	−.072	.112	.562
9. g26	It bothers me when school keeps me from participating in activities back home	.647	.066	−.074	−.047	.400
10. g7	I feel bad for focusing on school when there are problems at home	.600	.003	.188	−.026	.490
11. g24	I worry about my family back home since I am not there anymore	.580	.190	−.138	.033	.442
12. g27	I feel bad for leaving home to pursue my interests in college	.558	.149	.152	−.137	.476
13. g35	I feel bad because going to college means many sacrifices from my family	.432	−.020	.200	.201	.453
14. g17	I feel bad that my family didn’t have the opportunity to go to college	−.063	.920	−.201	.115	.705
15. g22	I feel angry that my family doesn’t have access to the same kind of opportunities that I do	.030	.835	−.087	.059	.696
16. g18	I feel sad that I have more opportunities (e.g., learning new material, attending social events) in college than family members have back home	.043	.810	.059	−.004	.753
17. g14	I feel sad that family cannot experience the opportunities I have in college	.015	.722	.119	−.021	.626
18. g19	I feel bad that I have benefits in college (e.g., freedom, privacy) that my family does not	.144	.701	.073	−.020	.689
19. g20	I feel bad that I have it pretty good in college while family members struggle	.260	.652	−.025	.006	.680
20. g41	I feel sad that my family is not exposed to the things I’m learning in college	−.016	.637	.261	−.102	.573
21. g16	I feel conflicted that I have more freedom in college than family members have back home	.161	.585	.096	−.041	.539
22. g39	I feel bad when my family thinks that college is changing me	.101	−.142	.851	.004	.698
23. g11	I worry that my family sees me differently now that I am in college	−.068	−.015	.844	.074	.699
24. g37	I worry if my family thinks that I’m changing in college	.193	−.115	.789	−.084	.644
25. g12	I worry that my family thinks I am too good for them or smarter than them	−.165	.171	.749	−.091	.551
26. g13	I feel frustrated when my family thinks I’m “all that” now that I’m in college	−.108	.106	.697	−.045	.475
27. g10	I feel uncomfortable talking about my academic goals in front of my family	−.139	.004	.516	.261	.359
28. g36	I feel sad when my family doesn’t seem to understand my college experiences	−.101	.310	.513	.102	.512
29. g40	I feel bad when I disagree with the opinions of my family, even if I keep it to myself	.189	−.075	.432	.066	.293
30. g3	I worry that I won’t be able to meet the expectations of my family	−.164	.100	.034	.873	.723
31. g1	I feel pressured to do well so as to not disappoint my family	−.069	.063	.049	.744	.572
32. g5	I worry that I won’t be able to succeed in college for my family	.148	−.008	−.017	.690	.583
33. g2	I feel bad if my family thinks that I am not doing well in college (e.g., academically, socially, mentally)	.054	−.029	.057	.661	.495
34. g4	I worry that I won’t be able to repay my family for their investment in me (e.g., working long hours, educational support)	.246	−.077	−.078	.620	.500

Note. Factor loadings >.4 are in bold. h² = extracted communalities. Factor interpretations: 1 = Leaving Family Behind, 2 = Having More Privileges, 3 = Becoming Different, 4 = Experiencing Pressures.

Table 3.

Family Achievement Guilt Factor Reliability, Bivariate Correlations, and Descriptives.

Guilt subscale	α	r	1.	2.	3.	4.	M (SD)	Skew	Kurtosis
1. Leaving Family Behind	.94	.78	—	.71	.53	.59	3.89 (1.10)	−0.34	−0.50
2. Having More Privileges	.93	.85	.65	—	.65	.50	3.29 (1.27)	0.07	−0.87
3. Becoming Different	.88	.81	.50	.54	—	.44	2.82 (1.09)	0.55	−0.06
4. Experiencing Pressures	.86	.80	.52	.39	.43	—	4.40 (1.22)	−0.68	−0.19

Note. Correlations (all significant at p < .001) below the diagonal reflect scores at Time 1, whereas correlations above the diagonal reflect Time 2. α = Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate. Test–retest (r) was conducted a month apart. α, M, SD, Skew, and Kurtosis values reflect scores at Time 1. Range for each factor = 1–6.

Time 2 measures

Cultural incongruence was measured with 13 items from the Cultural Congruity Scale (Gloria & Kurpius, 1996). Participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). Example items included, I feel that I have to change myself to fit in at school and my cultural values are in conflict with what is expected at school. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of incongruity (M = 2.91, SD = 1.10) and reliability was good (α = .87).

Family roles were measured with 19 items from the Parentification Inventory (Hooper, 2009). Participants rated the extent to which each statement was true on a scale from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true). The scale consisted of two subscales. The Parent-focused subscale consisted of 12 items. Example items included, most children living in my community contributed to their family’s finances and I was the person with whom family members shared their secrets. The reliability was good (α = .87). The sibling-focused subscale consisted of seven items. Example items included, I was responsible for helping my siblings (brother/sister) complete their homework and I was the primary person who disciplined my siblings. The reliability was acceptable (α = .77). Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of parent-focused (M = 2.48, SD = 0.78) and sibling-focused (M = 1.87, SD = 0.66) family roles.

Empathic concern was measured with seven items using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983). Specifically, we used the Empathic Concern subscale which “assesses ‘other-oriented’ feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others.” Participants rated the extent to which each item described them on a scale from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well). Example items included, I am often quite touched by things that I see happen and I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of empathic concern (M = 4.00, SD = 0.69) and reliability was good (α = .82).

Interdependent and independent motives were measured with 12 items from Stephens et al. (2012). Participants reported yes or no to whether each statement was a top reason for wanting to attend college. The scale consisted of two subscales. The Interdependent Motives subscale consisted of six items. Example items included, help my family out after I’m done with college and be a role model for people in my community. The Independent Motives subscale also consisted of six items. Example items included, become an independent thinker and expand my understanding of the world. For each subscale, we created a sum composite score. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of Interdependent (M = 3.74, SD = 1.86) and Independent (M = 5.30, SD = 1.34) motives. Reliabilities were acceptable for both Interdependent motives (α = .73) and Independent motives (α = .79).

General self-efficacy was measured with 10 items from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (exactly true). Example scale items included, I can usually handle whatever comes my way and I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of self-efficacy (M = 3.03, SD = 0.40) and reliability was good (α = .83).

Negative affect was measured with eight items spanning the dimensions of valence and arousal according to the circumplex model (Russell, 1980). Participants rated the extent to which they experienced each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Specifically, the following items were averaged: upset, tense, fearful, frustrated, unhappy, ashamed, sad, and exhausted. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of negative affect (M = 3.12, SD = 1.27) and reliability was excellent (α = .90).

Depressive symptoms were measured with seven items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale–Short Form (CES-D-S; Levine, 2013). Participants rated how frequently they experienced each item on a 1 (rarely or none of the time [less than 1 day]) to 4 (all of the time [5–7 days]) scale. Example scale items included, I did not feel like eating and I felt that everything I did was an effort. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated higher levels of depressive symptoms (M = 2.47, SD = 0.74) and reliability was good (α = .84).

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on Time 1 guilt items to determine whether the generated items clustered into meaningful, underlying factors and to identify the number of factors present. Our goal was to achieve a simple factor structure that captured related but distinguishable dimensions of family achievement guilt suggested in the focus group interviews. Factorability of the guilt items was demonstrated by the significant correlation of each item with at least one other item. In addition, a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of sample adequacy yielded a value of .928, above the recommended value of .6 (Beavers et al., 2013). Moreover, the corrected interitem correlations were all above .48, greater than the recommended .30 (M = .62, SD = .09; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Given the low reliability in interpretation associated with scree plots (Crawford & Koopman, 1979; Streiner, 1998), we utilized a parallel analysis simulation to determine the number of factors to extract (B. P. O’Connor, 2000). A parallel analysis simulation generates random correlation matrices with the same number of variables and participants in a given data set for comparison to determine how many derived eigenvalues are solely due to chance. Using SPSS syntax developed by B. P. O’Connor (2000), we calculated 1,000 randomly generated data sets with 174 cases and 41 variables. The first four mean eigenvalues were 13.73, 3.02, 2.57, and 1.94, and the parallel analysis indicated they were too rare in a sampling distribution of eigenvalues to be due to chance, suggesting an optimal four-factor solution. Principal axis factoring was used to extract the four factors. Oblique rotation (promax) was used to help interpret them because the factors were expected to be correlated with each other. After a second iteration, seven items were omitted due to cross-loading of at least .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; g6, g30, g33, g34), due to low factor loading (g15, g38), or due to low factor loading and cross-loading (g9), resulting in a final 34 items. All except one (g40) of the extracted communalities were above .30 (M = .578, SD = .116; Velicer & Fava, 1998). The four factors explained 63% of the variance in the items.

The first factor explained the most variance and was interpreted as Leaving Family Behind (40.37%, 13 items), followed by Having More Privileges (8.87%, eight items), Becoming Different (7.57%, eight items), and Experiencing Pressures (5.70%, five items). See Table 2 for factor structure details. Computed averages demonstrated good internal reliability for each subscale (αs = .94, .93, .88, and .86, respectively). There were significant inter-subscale associations with correlations ranging between .39 to .71, with Leaving Family Behind and Having More Privileges correlating the highest at .71. See Table 3 for subscale internal reliability values and inter-subscale associations.

College generation status and income differences on guilt subscales at Time 1

We tested for college generation status and income differences separately on all guilt subscales measured at Time 1. In addition, see supplemental materials (Appendix B) for racial/ethnic differences on guilt subscales and for analysis of the interaction between college generation status, income, and race/ethnicity on guilt subscales.

College generation status

A series of independent sample t tests yielded significant college generation (FGC, CGC) differences on each guilt subscale. FGC students reported higher levels of guilt related to Leaving Family Behind (M = 4.19, SD = 1.04) relative to CGC students (M = 3.63, SD = 1.10), t(171) = 3.43, p = .001. FGC students reported higher levels of guilt related to Having More Privileges (M = 3.91, SD = 1.17) relative to CGC students (M = 2.75, SD = 1.11), t(169) = 6.65, p = .000. FGC students reported higher levels of guilt related to Becoming Different (M = 3.01, SD = 1.05) relative to CGC students (M = 2.65, SD = 1.10), t(171) = 2.17, p = .031. Finally, FGC students reported higher levels of guilt related to Experiencing Pressures (M = 4.72, SD = 1.10) relative to CGC students (M = 4.11, SD = 1.25), t(171) = 3.37, p = .001. These findings held when controlling for income, all ps ranged from .001 to .021.

Income

We then conducted a series of independent sample t tests to examine the link between income (working-class, middle-to-upper-class) and each guilt subscale. There were no significant income differences on guilt related to Leaving Family Behind (p = .18), Becoming Different (p = .18), and Experiencing Pressures (p = .99). There were significant income differences on guilt related to Having More Privileges, t(125) = 2.83, p = .005. Working-class students reported higher levels of guilt related to Having More Privileges (M = 3.70, SD = 1.13) relative to middle-to-upper-class students (M = 3.09, SD = 1.31).

College generation status differences on outcome variables at Time 2

For all Time 2 analyses, 17 participants were dropped from the Time 1 sample because they did not complete Time 2 measures and 24 were dropped because they did not pass the attention check question embedded within the Time 2 survey. This left a final sample of 133 participants (M_age = 20.15, SD = 1.96), including 53.4% CGC and 46.6% FGC students. We conducted a series of independent sample t tests to examine college generation status (FGC, CGC) differences on each outcome variable. See Table 4 for means, standard deviations, and test statistics. There were no college generation status differences on cultural incongruence, empathic concern, independent motives, depression, and self-efficacy. However, there were differences on parent- and sibling-focused family roles, interdependent motives, and negative affect. Relative to their CGC counterparts, FGC students reported engaging in heavier parent- and sibling-based family roles, endorsing higher levels of interdependent motives for going to college, and experiencing higher levels of general negative affect.

Table 4.

College Generation Status Differences on Time 2 Outcome Variables.

Dependent variables	FGC students M (SD)	CGC students M (SD)	t statistic	p value
Cultural incongruence	3.05 (1.08)	2.79 (1.07)	1.38	.171
Family roles, parent-focused	2.74 (0.83)	2.31 (0.70)	3.22	.002
Family roles, sibling-focused	2.12 (0.67)	1.72 (0.59)	3.62	.000
Empathic concern	4.06 (0.66)	3.94 (0.72)	0.969	.334
Interdependent motives	4.74 (1.55)	3.00 (1.76)	6.03	.000
Independent motives	5.33 (1.29)	5.20 (1.46)	0.541	.589
Self-efficacy	3.03 (0.38)	3.03 (0.42)	0.008	.994
Negative affect	3.43 (1.20)	2.94 (1.30)	2.26	.025
Depression	2.50 (0.76)	2.42 (0.71)	0.616	.539

Note. FGC = first-generation college; CGC = continuing-generation college.

Test–retest reliability

To examine the consistency of the family achievement guilt measure across time, we tested for test–retest reliability. We conducted a Pearson correlation of Time 1 and Time 2 guilt, which were measured 4 weeks apart. See Table 3 for correlations. The r values ranged from .78 to .85, indicating good test–retest reliability.

Convergent and discriminant validity

We then explored the predictive value of the measure. We focused on testing convergent (i.e., a correlation with other similar or theoretically informed measures) and discriminant (i.e., a lack of or weak correlation with measures that are different or not expected to be related) validity. Measurement of negative affect sometimes includes guilt and sometimes does not. Moreover, the association between guilt and depression might differ depending on whether guilt is maladaptive or adaptive. Therefore, we did not make a case for convergent or discriminant validity of negative affect and depression. Instead, we tested competing hypotheses for each of these constructs to learn more about the nature of the family achievement guilt construct. See Table 5 for standardized coefficients from regression analyses with the guilt subscales as simultaneous predictors for each outcome.

Table 5.

Family Achievement Guilt Subscales at Time 1 Predicting Dependent Variables at Time 2.

Dependent variables	Guilt subscales as simultaneous predictors
Dependent variables	Leaving family behind	Having more privileges	Becoming different	Experiencing pressures
Cultural Incongruence	.14 (.11)	.10 (.09)	.31 (.10)**	−.09 (.08)
Family roles—Parent-focused	.23 (.08)*	.23 (.07)*	−.04 (.07)	.10 (.06)
Family roles—Sibling-focused	.10 (.06)	.32 (.06)**	.09 (.06)	−.14 (.05)
Empathic concern	.28 (.07)*	.03 (.06)	−.01 (.07)	−.02 (.06)
Interdependent motives	−.02 (.18)	.50 (.15)***	−.13 (.17)	.22 (.13)*
Independent motives	−.27 (.15)*	.12 (.13)	.11 (.14)	.06 (.12)
Self-efficacy	−.17 (.04)	.07 (.04)	−.13 (.04)	.03 (.03)
Negative affect	.02 (.13)	−.06 (.11)	.33 (.12)**	.22 (.10)*
Depression	.16 (.08)	.05 (.07)	.10 (.08)	.03 (.06)

Note. Nonparenthetical values are standardized coefficients. Parenthetical values are standard error estimates. Values of .00 reflect estimates <.01. Dependent variables were measured at Time 2 whereas guilt subscale scores were collected at Time 1.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Convergent validity

We selected constructs that we reasoned would correlate with guilt based on theory or past literature, these included cultural incongruence, family roles parent- and sibling-focused, empathic concern, and interdependent and independent motives for college. For all constructs, there was some correlation between one of the guilt subscales and the construct. Higher levels of guilt related to Leaving Family Behind predicted higher engagement in parent-focused family roles, higher levels of empathic concern, and lower levels of independent motives for going to college. Higher levels of guilt related to Having More Privileges predicted higher engagement in parent- and sibling-focused family roles and higher levels of interdependent motives for going to college. Higher levels of guilt related to Becoming Different predicted higher levels of cultural incongruence between home and school. Finally, higher levels of guilt related to Experiencing Pressures predicted higher interdependent motives for going to college.

Discriminant validity

We also tested a construct (e.g., self-efficacy) that we thought would not correlate or would correlate weakly with guilt. As expected, no subscales of guilt predicted self-efficacy (βs = .03 to .17, ps > .24).

Negative affect and depression

We tested whether different subscales of guilt predicted negative affect and whether they predicted depression (see Table 5). We found that higher levels of guilt related to Becoming Different and to Experiencing Pressures were associated with higher levels of negative affect. Yet, guilt related to Leaving Family Behind and to Having More Privileges was unrelated to negative affect. Moreover, we found no links between any of the guilt subscales and depression.

Family achievement guilt as a predictor controlling for negative affect

We then examined the unique role of guilt in predicting the same outcome variables, controlling for negative affect (see Table 6). After controlling for negative affect, the guilt subscales continued to predict the same constructs as described above.³

Table 6.

Family Achievement Guilt Subscales at Time 1 Predicting Dependent Variables at Time 2, Controlling for Negative Affect at Time 2.

Dependent variables	Guilt subscales as simultaneous predictors				Covariate
Dependent variables	Leaving Family Behind	Having More Privileges	Becoming Different	Experiencing Pressures	Negative Affect
Cultural incongruence	.12 (.11)	.14 (.09)	.22(.10)*	−.13 (.08)	.31 (.07)***
Family roles—Parent-focused	.23 (.08)*	.25 (.07)*	−.14 (.08)	.04 (.06)	.27 (.05)**
Family roles—Sibling-focused	.10 (.07)	.32 (.06)**	.03 (.07)	−.18 (.05)	.18 (.05)
Empathic concern	.28 (.08)*	.04 (.06)	−.04 (.07)	−.06 (.06)	.10 (.05)
Interdependent motives	.00 (.18)	.50 (.15)***	−.14 (.17)	.20 (.14)*	.00 (.12)
Independent motives	−.27 (.16)*	.12 (.13)	.15 (.15)	.09 (.12)	−.11 (.11)
Self-efficacy	−.16 (.04)	.05 (.04)	−.07 (.04)	.06 (.03)	−.21 (.03)*
Depression	.13 (.07)	.11 (.06)	−.04 (.07)	−.06 (.05)	.53 (.05)***

Note. A separate model for each dependent variable with the guilt subscales as simultaneous predictors and negative affect as a covariate. Nonparenthetical values are standardized coefficients. Parenthetical values are standard error estimates. Values of .00 reflect estimates <.01. The guilt subscales scores were all measured at Time 1. Dependent variables and negative affect measured at Time 2.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Negative affect also significantly predicted several outcome variables (see Table 6). Higher levels of negative affect were associated with higher levels of cultural incongruence between home and school, higher engagement in parent-focused family roles, and higher depression. As expected, negative affect, but not any of the guilt subscales, predicted lower levels of self-efficacy.

General Discussion

Family achievement guilt was first conceptualized as a socioemotional experience related to “leaving family members behind” to pursue individual goals in college (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Because of limited measurement development, students’ guilt experiences may not have been fully captured. The current work makes some progress toward a more robust and reliable instrument with predictive value. Our findings resulted in four subscales that captured different aspects of family achievement guilt, produced good internal and test–retest reliability, and presented initial evidence for convergent and discriminant validity.

The first factor (13 items), the most representative of family achievement guilt, was interpreted as guilt related to leaving family behind and not being able to fulfill important roles that are central to the functioning of the family (Covarrubias et al., 2019; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). The second factor (eight items) included guilt related to having more privileges. Closely related to the original concept proposed by Covarrubias and Fryberg (2015), this factor includes recognizing the discrepancy between privileges and opportunities available in the university and those less readily available to members in working-class homes (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Piorkowski, 1983). The third factor (eight items) included guilt related to becoming different from family. This guilt closely resembles London’s (1986) notion of “breaking away” and the fear of growing distant from family by becoming educationally mobile. The final factor (five items) was guilt related to experiencing pressures concerned with not being able to be successful for their families or pay back their family’s investment.

Across all subscales, we found that FGC students reported higher levels of guilt relative to their CGC counterparts, even when controlling for income. This is consistent with our predictions and prior work (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Piorkowski, 1983; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). Moreover, we found no income differences on three of four guilt subscales (Leaving Family Behind, Becoming Different, Experiencing Pressures). This suggests that family achievement guilt might tap into a cultural experience related to being the first person to go to college rather than an experience solely informed by financial resources. For example, as FGC students leave family to go to college, they might experience guilt for becoming different than them culturally. In this way, guilt is about the cultural differences experienced in both the home and university contexts. Interestingly, working-class students did report higher levels of guilt related to having more privileges than their middle-to-upper class counterparts. Although this form of guilt can also be cultural (e.g., experiencing a privileged cultural experience at the university), it also taps into financial resources in that working-class students are experiencing more wealth at the university than what might be available at home. Future work should study the nuances and intersections of these differences.

Another main goal and contribution of the current work was to explore the predictive value of the guilt subscales. Although guilt was positively associated with negative affect, guilt was also found to predict theoretically relevant constructs when controlling for negative affect. For example, we found that higher levels of guilt related to becoming different were linked to higher levels of incongruity between home and school. That is, when students experience greater wedges between their home and school lives, this might elicit feelings of guilt. Different from negative affect, guilt is a prosocial emotion that facilitates the maintenance of interpersonal connections (L. O’Connor et al., 1997). In this way, guilt might facilitate family-engagement behaviors, including helping at home and going to college to help family. Indeed, we found that higher levels of guilt related to leaving family behind and having more privileges was related to higher engagement in family roles and higher interdependent motives for college (and fewer independent reasons for going to college). This adaptive responding might be one way to confront what might be left behind as students transition to college.

This adaptive responding also sheds light on the link to depression. Inconsistent with past work linking guilt with depression (Austin et al., 2009; Covarrubias et al., 2015; Piorkowski, 1983), the family achievement guilt subscales were not associated with depression, yet negative affect was. One reason for this difference is that past work has utilized the IGQ Survivor Guilt subscale and has discussed that guilt can be maladaptive when it is inhibiting (Tangney et al., 1992). Under these circumstances, guilt is likely to be related to depression, capturing more general distress (which explains the link to negative affect). Our findings suggest a more adaptive feature of family achievement guilt as an emotion that provokes engagement with close others. This might explain the lack of correlation between family achievement guilt and depression. Future work is needed to directly test this idea.

Finally, we present initial evidence for discriminant validity. Consistent with our predictions, the guilt subscales were not associated with self-efficacy, yet negative affect predicted lower self-efficacy. This provides support for the distinctive nature guilt apart from negative affect.

Future Directions and Implications

One possible limitation of the new measure is its generalizability. All items were drawn from interviews with FGC students at a midsize public R1 university in California. Although the subscales are experiences that are supported by prior work with FGC students, it would be important for future research to validate and test the reliability of these measures with FGC students in other university contexts (e.g., community colleges, highly selective universities, and in other geographical regions with a range of ethnic and racial diversity). For example, our samples were predominantly Latinx, White, and Asian, pioneers, and from across the state of California. Would similar themes emerge for Black FGC students at historically black college and universities or for White FGC students in rural areas of the country? Future work should strive to recruit larger, more diverse samples to conduct further validation of the family achievement guilt scale, including employing confirmatory factor analysis techniques. This would not only help understand the generalizability of the phenomenon but also would allow the opportunity to better understand the interactions between college generation status, income, and racial/ethnic identity.

In better understanding what is left behind when marginalized students leave for college, educational settings can respond effectively and sensitively to the needs of FGC students. Although we find that family achievement guilt might lead to prosocial outcomes, the experience of guilt might create a stressful tension for FGC students. There is a sense of dissonance and distress that occurs when students witness themselves simultaneously becoming more upwardly mobile by going to college and becoming different and distant from their family’s lifestyles and responsibilities. The freedom and privileges afforded by university life might feel like a wedge between the student’s life at home and on campus (Stephens et al., 2012; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). This wedge can be especially acute in families where no one has gone to college.

This distancing is created by institutional structures that can do more to consider the dissonance; that is, even though the result of guilt might be prosocial, students are left to cope with this stressful tension on their own and may not always cope adaptively. Institutions cannot rely on students’ resilience to ensure their graduation from college. Indeed, Piorkowski (1983) commented that although the concept of guilt may alleviate some of the distress, as it helps students draw closer connections to families, this isolation or distancing is particularly important to address by creating norms and placing structures that help FGC students develop better interpersonal support networks in the new college environment. Without an interpersonal support network, students may continue to view their college transition as a selfish endeavor.

What policies on campus might help alleviate this dilemma? Few scholars have begun to write about strategies for alleviating guilt, in particular, for FGC students. Tate et al. (2013) outlined a specific form of therapy that they reason will help FGC students deal with guilt by finding meaning in their place at the university. Although this work brings awareness to the socioemotional experiences of FGC students, there is a serious risk of treating guilt experiences as mental disorders that should be addressed by psychotherapy. This approach places the focus of the response on students to cope. Instead, responses should consider how systemic mismatches between university and home settings, and the subtle cues elicited by each of these contexts, can have an effect on this nuanced socioemotional experience.

By privileging FGC voices in creating the family achievement guilt scale, we hoped to alert faculty, staff, and administrators to tensions created by a cultural wedge. For example, in learning that FGC students might feel guilt related to experiencing pressures or of leaving family behind and not being able to fulfill similar opportunities campuses might seek ways to alleviate this tension. Often FGC students have to choose between part-time work to cover living, school, and family expenses, and unsupported professional development activities designed to build critical career skills (Carnevale & Smith, 2018). If universities provide more paid internships, students would not have to choose between gaining experience and supporting themselves and their families. Universities could also integrate family-based programming that reflects the cultural understandings of FGC students and their families and affirms the role of families in the college journey (see Covarrubias et al., 2020).

In being able to measure guilt in psychometrically sound ways and to test preliminary links with important outcomes, we move closer to understanding and validating the voices of students who experience dissonance between their homes and a university setting not designed for them and their families. This dissonance is a site and opportunity for institutions to grow in the ways they serve and support students.

Supplemental Material

Covarrubias_Online_Appendix – Supplemental material for Developing a Family Achievement Guilt Scale Grounded in First-Generation College Student Voices

Supplemental material, Covarrubias_Online_Appendix for Developing a Family Achievement Guilt Scale Grounded in First-Generation College Student Voices by Rebecca Covarrubias, Isidro Landa and Ronald Gallimore in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Supplemental Material

Guilt_Scale_Appendices_Jan_7 – Supplemental material for Developing a Family Achievement Guilt Scale Grounded in First-Generation College Student Voices

Supplemental material, Guilt_Scale_Appendices_Jan_7 for Developing a Family Achievement Guilt Scale Grounded in First-Generation College Student Voices by Rebecca Covarrubias, Isidro Landa and Ronald Gallimore in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

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.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rebecca Covarrubias

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

References

Allen

J. M.

Muragishi

G. A.

Smith

J. L.

Thoman

D. B.

Brown

E. R.

(2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1, 331–341.

Austin

Clark

Ross

Taylor

(2009). Impostorism as a mediator between survivor guilt and depression in a sample of African American college students. College Student Journal, 43, 1094–1109.

Azmitia

Sumabat-Estrada

Cheong

Covarrubias

(2018). “Dropping out is not an option”: How educationally resilient first-generation students see the future. In Cooper

C. R.

Seginer

(Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development: Navigating pathways in multicultural nations: Identities, future orientation, schooling, and careers (pp. 89–100). John Wiley.

Beavers

Lounsbury

Richards

Huck

Skolits

Esquivel

(2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18, 1–13. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=6

Carnevale

Smith

(2018). Balancing work and learning: Implications for low-income students. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/LearnAndEarn/#full-report

Charmaz

(2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 976–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266795

Covarrubias

De Lima

Landa

Valle

Hernandez Flores

(revision). What is left behind? Dimensions of family achievement guilt for low-income, first-generation students of color.

Covarrubias

Fryberg

S. A.

(2015). Movin’ on up (to college): First-generation college students’ experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 420–429. doi.org/10.1037/a0037844

Covarrubias

Romero

Trivelli

(2015). Family achievement guilt and mental well being of college students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 2031–2037. doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0003-8

10.

Covarrubias

Valle

Laiduc

Azmitia

(2019). “You never become fully independent”: Family roles and independence in first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(4), 381–410.

11.

Covarrubias

Vazquez

Moreno

Estrada

Valle

Zuniga

(2020). Engaging families to foster holistic success of low-income, Latinx first-generation students at a Hispanic-Serving Institution. In Garcia

G. A.

(Ed.), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) in practice: Defining “servingness” at HSIs (pp. 315–338). Information Age Publishing.

12.

Crawford

C. B.

Koopman

(1979). Inter-rater reliability of scree test and mean square ratio test of number of factors. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 49, 223–226.

13.

Davidson

(2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. Basic Books.

14.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

15.

Destin

Rheinschmidt-Same

Richeson

J. A.

(2017). Status-based identity: A conceptual approach integrating the social psychological study of socioeconomic status and identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 270–289.

16.

Engle

Tinto

(2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504448

17.

Gloria

A. M.

Kurpius

S. E. R.

(1996). The validation of the Cultural Congruity Scale and the University Environment Scale with Chicano/a students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 533–549.

18.

Gross

J. J.

Levenson

R. W.

(1995). Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 87–108.

19.

Hazlett-Stevens

Ullman

J. B.

Craske

M. G.

(2004). Factor structure of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Examination of a method factor. Assessment, 11, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104269872

20.

Hooper

A. G.

(2014). Empathy-based guilt among Latino first-generation college students (Order No. AAI3578737). http://www.eparg.org/APS-052014-Latino-sm.pdf

21.

Hooper

L. M.

(2009). Parentification inventory. University of Alabama.

22.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

23.

Jackson

M. C.

Galvez

Landa

Buonora

Thoman

D. B.

(2016). Science that matters: The importance of a cultural connection in underrepresented students’ science pursuit. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0067

24.

Jehangir

(2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553. doi.org/10.1177/0042085910372352

25.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class and family life (2nd ed.). University of California Press.

26.

Levine

S. Z.

(2013). Evaluating the seven-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale short-form: A longitudinal US community study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(9), 1519–1526.

27.

London

H. B.

(1986). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal of Education, 97(2), 144–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084908

28.

Lubrano

(2003). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. John Wiley.

29.

Mistler

B. J.

Reetz

D. R.

Krylowicz

Barr

(2012). Association for university and college counseling center directors annual survey. http://files.cmcglobal.com/Monograph_2012_AUCCCD_Public.pdf

30.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed., Vol. 56). McGraw-Hill.

31.

O’Connor

B. P.

(2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807

32.

O’Connor

Berry

Weiss

Bush

Sampson

(1997). Interpersonal guilt: The development of a new measure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 73–89.

33.

Pascarella

E. T.

Pierson

C. T.

Wolniak

G. C.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.

34.

Piorkowski

G. K.

(1983). Survivor guilt in the university setting. Journal of Counseling & Development, 61(10), 620–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-4918.1983.tb00010.x

35.

Pittman

L. D.

Richmond

(2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–362.

36.

Redford

Hoyer

K. M.

(2017). First-generation and continuing generation college students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences (NCES 2018-009). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf

37.

Rogoff

(2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human Development, 57(2–3), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356757

38.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.

39.

Schwarzer

(1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In Schwarzer

(Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217–243). Hemisphere.

40.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.

41.

Spurlock

(1985). Survival guilt and the Afro-American of achievement. Journal of the National Medical Association, 77(1), 29–32.

42.

Stephens

N. M.

Fryberg

S. A.

Markus

H. R.

Johnson

C. S.

Covarrubias

(2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0027143

43.

Stephens

N. M.

Townsend

S. S.

Hamedani

M. G.

Destin

Manzo

(2015). A difference-education intervention equips first-generation college students to thrive in the face of stressful college situations. Psychological Science, 26, 1556–1566.

44.

Streiner

D. L.

(1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots. Psychological Reports, 83, 687–694.

45.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.

46.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Mashek

D. J.

(2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

47.

Tangney

J. P.

Wagner

Gramzow

(1992). Proneness to shame, proneness to guilt, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 469–478.

48.

Tate

K. A.

Williams

III. Harden

(2013). Finding purpose in pain: Using logotherapy as a method for addressing survivor guilt in first-generation college students. Journal of College Counseling, 16, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2013.00028.x

49.

Valdés

(1996). Raising children. In Valdés

(Ed.), Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools—An ethnographic portrait (pp. 116–139). Teachers College Press.

50.

Vasquez-Salgado

Greenfield

P. M.

Burgos-Cienfuegos

(2015). Exploring home-school value conflicts: Implications for academic achievement and well-being among Latino first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 271–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414561297

51.

Velicer

W. F.

Fava

J. L.

(1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251.

52.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

53.

Weiss

(1986). Unconscious guilt. In Weiss

Sampson

(Eds.), The psychoanalytic process: Theory, clinical observation and empirical research (pp. 43–67). Guilford Press.

54.

Whitten

(1992). Survival conflict and survivor guilt in African-American college students. In Lang

Ford

(Eds.), Strategies for retaining minority students in higher education (pp. 64–74). Thomas Books.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

0.21 MB