Communication With Friends and the Academic Adjustment of First- and Non-First-Generation Students in the First Year of College

Abstract

This study examines the role of communication with on-campus friends on first-year students’ college adjustment, measured by academic self-efficacy, among first- and non-first-generation students. It also tests whether school connectedness, students’ perceived sense of being part of the institution, mediates the relation between communication and academic self-efficacy. Participants were 246 students (55% first generation) from diverse ethnic backgrounds attending a large public university in southwestern United States. Participants completed an online survey that included the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale and School Connectedness Scale and responded to questions about frequency and mode of communication about academic, social, and personal concerns with on-campus friends. Regardless of college-generation status, students’ frequency of communication with on-campus friends was positively related to academic self-efficacy and school connectedness mediated this relation. Implications for student affairs professionals and future research are discussed.

Keywords

academic self-efficacy first-generation college students communication with friends school connectedness academic adjustment

There is substantial interest in the experiences and success of first-generation college students, defined here as students for whom neither parent has obtained a 4-year college degree (Davis, 2010; University of California, 2016). First-generation students face many challenges when they enter college, including feelings of guilt and stress associated with this opportunity, demands with juggling home and school responsibilities, and concerns about the potential loss of family ties (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). First-generation students from ethnic minority backgrounds may also experience difficulty negotiating family cultural values with expectations of the institution (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012; Vasquez-Salgado, Greenfield, & Burgos-Cienfuegos, 2014). Research points to the importance of understanding first-generation students’ experiences when they enter college, including how social support from others, in particular on-campus friends, may contribute to their academic success.

Literature Review

Social Support and the First-Year College Student Experience

Previous research has found that social support from parents and peers is important to the academic success of both first-generation and non-first-generation college students (Azmitia, Syed, & Radmacher, 2013; Bryan & Simmons, 2009; Gofen, 2007; Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester, 2008). Research also reports that first-generation students draw support from other family members, especially siblings who have gone to college (Ceja, 2006; Hodge & Mellin, 2010; Hurtado-Ortiz & Gauvain, 2007). However, the effectiveness of support from parents and peers is contingent on regular communication that involves sharing college-related information, providing guidance, and validating student’s emotional concerns (Covarrubias, Jones, & Johnson, 2018; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). While informational college support from parents is more prevalent among non-first-generation students (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Engle, 2007), research shows that parents of first-generation students provide emotional support at levels comparable to parents of non-first-generation students (Palbusa & Gauvain, 2017; Wang, 2014).

Support from friends also plays an important role in the success of first-generation students. Previous research showed that first-generation students receive less support from peers (Dennis et al., 2005) and communicate less with their friends about college experiences than non-first-generation students do (Barry, Hudley, Kelly, & Cho, 2009). However, more recent research findings indicate that support from friends helps first-generation students surmount challenges in college (Azmitia, Sumabat-Estrada, Cheong, & Covarrubias, 2018). A recent qualitative study also reports that first-generation students turn to newly formed campus friends for both informational and emotional support (Gist-Mackey, Wiley, & Erba, 2018).

These findings indicate the need for more research about the support first-generation college students get from campus friends and how this support may contribute to students’ academic experiences and success in this setting. Although prior research has concentrated on peer support in general, we focus on students’ communication with their on-campus friends. These contacts may be especially helpful to first-generation students early in their college careers given the range of informational and emotional challenges these students face. To study how communication with on-campus friends may contribute to first-generation students’ college adjustment, we assess its relation to students’ academic self-efficacy.

Academic Self-Efficacy

Academic self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to perform well academically and respond productively to academic challenges (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). It emerges as students develop mastery in the subject areas they are studying and gain confidence in their capability as a college-level learner (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Increases in academic self-efficacy facilitate learning because the student is willing to take on intellectual challenges, engage with new ideas, and persist at difficult tasks (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).

Studies have identified academic self-efficacy as a psychosocial factor that is predictive of successful academic outcomes, including first-year college student’s first-semester grade point average (Krumrei-Mancuso, Newton, Kim, & Wilcox, 2013) and intent to persist after the first semester of college (Baier, Markman, Pernice-Duca, 2016). While previous research showed that first-generation students reported lower academic self-efficacy compared with non-first-generation students (Wang & Castaneda-Sound, 2008), recent research indicates that academic self-efficacy predicts academic outcomes for both first- and non-first-generation students (Covarrubias et al., 2018). Thus, academic self-efficacy has important implications for student success in the first year on campus and for academic experience as students advance in college (Vuong, Brown-Welty, & Tracz, 2010).

The relation between academic self-efficacy and academic outcomes resonates with the theory of college student development put forth by Chickering (1969; also see Chickering & Reisser, 1993) that views college as an important context for students’ intellectual and psychosocial development. For Chickering, academic self-competence or efficacy is one of seven dimensions, or vectors, central to college student development. The close personal connections, or friendships, that students develop on campus are pivotal in this process because students can share their college experiences, such as perceptions of instructors and academic material. This close interaction can allow student peers to provide each other with guidance and support about college-related concerns (Sidelinger, Bolen, McMullen, & Nyeste, 2015).

School Connectedness

School connectedness refers to the students’ perceived sense of being part of the institution and feeling connected to and engaged in the college environment (Furlong, O’Brennan, & You, 2011). Students’ school connectedness has implications for students’ engagement in school activities and their longer range commitment to the institution (Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). In trying to understand the relation between communication with on-campus friends and academic self-efficacy in first-year college students, school connectedness may play an important role. Students who feel more connected to the institution have greater confidence in their ability to perform well academically (Pittman & Richmond, 2008).

While studies have emphasized students’ participation in campus activities as important for being integrated into the college setting (Jehangir, 2010; Pike & Kuh, 2005), school connectedness may also be cultivated through informal interactions in college, especially with on-campus friends. Such connections are important for transmitting values and resources about college, and they predict students’ sense of belonging and academic engagement on the campus (Soria & Stebleton, 2013). Students who communicate regularly with their on-campus friends about their college experiences may feel a stronger and more positive connection to the institution, which in turn, may foster greater confidence in their ability to perform well academically.

The Present Study

In this study, we investigate whether communication between first-year students and their on-campus friends relates to students’ academic self-efficacy, which is important to college success (Baier et al., 2016; Covarrubias et al., 2018; Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013). The present study addresses the following questions: (a) Does communication with on-campus friends relate to academic self-efficacy for first-year college students? (b) Does school connectedness mediate the relation between first-year college students’ communication with on-campus friends and academic self-efficacy? (c) Does the relation between communication with on-campus friends, school connectedness, and academic self-efficacy differ for first-generation and non-first-generation college students?

Consistent with past research (Dennis et al., 2005, Gist-Mackey et al., 2018; Swenson et al., 2008), we expected that communication with on-campus friends will be positively correlated with the academic self-efficacy of first-year college students. We also expected that this relation will be mediated by the student’s sense of school connectedness (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). As to college-generation status, we expected that first-generation students will report lower academic self-efficacy and less communication with on-campus friends about college concerns than non-first-generation students (Barry et al., 2009; Ramos-Sánchez & Nichols, 2007). Finally, we explored whether the mediation of school connectedness is moderated by college-generation status, such that relations among communication with on-campus friends, school connectedness, and academic self-efficacy differ for first- and non-first-generation students.

Method

Participants

A total of 246 first-year college students, M_age = 18.29, SD_age= .52; 131 (53%) females, attending a large public university in southwestern United States participated. The sample included 33% Latina(o), 53% Asian/Asian American, 3% African/African American, 5% European American, 5% Multiethnic, and 1% unreported. Slightly more than half of the participants (n = 135, 55%) were first-generation college students, which is representative of the campus’ undergraduate population, with most of them Latina(o) (n = 70) and Asian/Asian American (n = 56). The study was conducted at a Hispanic-serving institution (i.e., Latina(o) enrollments of 25% or more of full-time equivalent students; Laden, 2004), composed of 57% Pell Grant-eligible (i.e., low income) students and identified as having a highly positive school climate for a diverse student body (Rankin, 2014; University of California, 2016). Most participants (77%) lived on campus, 26 (11%) lived in off-campus residences, 30 (12%) lived at their family home, and 2 did not report their residential status.

Procedure

Participants were recruited to participate in an online study about “social networks and adjustment to college” through the university webpage as a part of their course credit. A link to the online survey on Survey Gizmo was given to interested and eligible students, which they accessed with a computer available to them. Consent was obtained by participants selecting the button labeled, “I have read the consent from and AGREE to voluntarily participate in this study.” Consent was required to proceed to the survey.

Participants provided demographic information, including their age, gender, ethnicity, year in college, residential status (i.e., campus housing, off-campus residence, and family home), and whether any sibling(s) or close relative(s) attended or graduated from college. Then they completed the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Chemers et al., 2001) and School Connectedness Scale (Resnick et al., 1997) and reported on their communication with on-campus friends.

Academic Self-Efficacy

The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Chemers et al., 2001) has eight statements about students’ belief in their ability to perform academic tasks and achieve academic goals (e.g., “I am very capable of succeeding at the university”). We changed the scale from a 7-point to a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), to exclude midpoint ratings. The mean score of the eight responses was calculated, and higher scores reflect a greater sense of academic self-efficacy. The scale had good reliability (α = .86).

School Connectedness

The School Connectedness Scale (Resnick et al., 1997) consists of five items that ask about participants’ perceived sense of belonging and engagement in the university (e.g., “I feel like I am part of this college/university”). This measure was derived from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health questionnaire (Tourangeau & Shin, 1999), which has shown good reliability (α = .82–.88) and concurrent validity (r =.44–.55) across 18 ethnic groups (Furlong et al., 2011). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The five items were summed with higher scores reflecting a greater sense of school connectedness. The scale had acceptable reliability (α = .77).

Communication with on-campus friends

A set of questions, designed for this study, assessed the frequency and mode of students’ communication with on-campus friends about academic, social, and personal concerns. Before participants saw the questions, the following information was provided: These questions focus on academic, social, and personal concerns defined as follows. Academic concerns refer to any concern related to school performance, expectations, and familiarity with the institution (e.g., understanding course requirements). Social concerns refer to any concern related to your participation in social activities or organizations, relationships, and interactions with other people (e.g., involvement with campus organization/clubs). Personal concerns refer to any concern related to your own feelings or reflections about yourself, your goals, and your responsibilities (e.g., family responsibilities). For each concern, participants reported how often they communicated with their on-campus friend(s) about the concern using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = very often; α = .78).

Participants identified their main academic, social, and personal concerns and responded to questions about their communication about each of these concerns with their on-campus friends. For each concern, participants reported how often they communicated with their on-campus friend(s) about the concern using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = very often; α = .78). If participants responded yes to communicating about the concern with on-campus friends, questions about the frequency, and mode of communication appeared. At the end of the survey, participants provided information about the educational background of their family members.

Participants completed the survey individually in one sitting. The survey took approximately 40 minutes to complete, and participants received one credit toward their course research participation. Participants had an option to be entered into a drawing to receive a pair of movie tickets.

College-generation status

University admission records were used to identify participants’ college-generation status. Participants were identified as first generation if their response indicated that neither parent had obtained a 4-year degree.

Results

Independent-sample t test and multivariate analysis of variance were used to examine group differences in all study variables based on participants’ gender and ethnicity. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons were used to evaluate any significant differences between groups. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to examine differences in communication with on-campus friends, academic self-efficacy, and school connectedness by college-generation status, controlling for gender and ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity variables were dummy coded, and college-generation status was effects coded. Mediation analysis examined the direct relation between students’ communication with on-campus friends and their academic self-efficacy as well as the indirect effect of students’ communication with on-campus friends on academic self-efficacy as explained by school connectedness. The mediation analysis was conducted using A. Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS 2.15 on SPSS 23.0 with 5,000 iterations. A bootstrapping method was used to estimate the indirect effect (A. F. Hayes, 2009).

Lastly, a multiple-group analysis explored whether student’s college-generation status moderated the mediation model. This multigroup analysis was conducted in Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) using full information maximum likelihood. The model fit was examined across first-generation and non-first-generation college students with parameters to vary freely (i.e., unconstrained model). Then another model fit was examined with parameters constrained to be equal across both groups (i.e., fully constrained model). To compare models, fit of each model was assessed by examining a chi-square test of model fit as well as a comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values. A good fit is indicated by a nonsignificant chi-square test, CFI value greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and RMSEA values between .05 and .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

First, we examined whether there were any differences by gender, ethnicity, and college-generation status in academic self-efficacy, school connectedness, and communication with on-campus friends. There were no gender differences in academic self-efficacy, t(244) = 1.31, p = .19, 95% CI [–.96, .29] or school connectedness, t(244) = –0.12, p = .91, 95% CI [–.16, .15]. However, there was a significant gender difference in frequency of communication with on-campus friends, t(244) = 2.25, p = .025, 95% CI [.04, .63], such that female students (M = 3.38, SD = 1.16) reported more frequent communication with on-campus friends compared with male students (M = 3.04, SD = 1.17).

There was a significant ethnic difference (Wilks’ λ = .88, p < .001) in academic self-efficacy, F(4, 240) = 3.31, p = .01, η² = .05, and in school connectedness, F(4, 240) = 2.94, p = .00, η² = .06, but not in frequency of communication with on-campus friends, F(4, 240) = 0.81 p = .52, η² = .01. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any significant differences for ethnic group for academic self-efficacy; however, Latino students (M = 3.92, SD = 0.60) reported more school connectedness than Asian or Asian American students did (M = 3.77, SD = 0.63, p = .001). Students’ academic self-efficacy did not differ by college-generation status, t(244) = –1.05, p = .30, 95% CI [–0.27, 0.08].

Given these results, gender was controlled in all analyses about communication with on-campus friends, and ethnicity was controlled for all analyses about school connectedness. After controlling for gender, there was no significant difference in communication with on-campus friends by college-generation status, F(1, 243) = 2.16, p = .14, η² = .01. For school connectedness, after controlling for ethnicity, there was a significant difference by college-generation status, F(1, 242) = 6.20, p = .01, η² = .03. First-generation college students (M = 3.83, SD = .60) reported greater school connectedness compared with non-first-generation college (M = 3.61, SD = .62), and this difference had a small to moderate effect size (d = 0.35).

Descriptive Statistics by College-Generation Status

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for study variables by college-generation status. The overall bivariate correlations showed that frequency of communication with on-campus friends was positively related to academic self-efficacy (r = .14, p =.03) and school connectedness (r = .27, p < .001). The bivariate correlation also showed that students’ school connectedness was positively related to academic self-efficacy (r = .38, p < .001).

Table 1.
Mean, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for Communication Frequencies, Academic Self-Efficacy, and School Connectedness by College-Generation Status (N=246).

1 2 3 M _FGC SD _FGC

1. On-campus friend communication – .24** .21* 3.33 1.11

2. Academic self-efficacy .05 – .53*** 4.45 0.69

3. School connectedness .32*** .24* – 3.83 0.60

M _Non-FGC 3.08 4.54 3.61 – –

SD _Non-FGC 1.23 0.68 0.62 – –

Note. FGC = first-generation students.

The top right of the table shows the values for first-generation students (n=135), and bottom left shows values for non-first-generation students (Non-FGC, n=111). The communication variable was averaged across three items on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = very often). Academic self-efficacy was the average rating across eight items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). School connectedness was averaged across five items on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree).

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

However, the bivariate correlations between communication with on-campus friends and academic self-efficacy differed when examined separately for first-generation and non-first-generation students. The positive relation between communication with on-campus friends and academic self-efficacy was maintained for first-generation students, but this relation was not significant for non-first-generation students (see Table 1).

Communication With Friends, Academic Self-Efficacy, and School Connectedness

Simple mediation analysis evaluated whether the relation between communication with on-campus friends and academic self-efficacy is explained by students’ sense of school connectedness, controlling for students’ ethnicity. Findings revealed a significant direct effect of students’ communication with on-campus friends on academic self-efficacy (b = 0.09, SE = 0.04, p = .01). The indirect effect of communication with on-campus friends on first-year college students’ academic self-efficacy through sense of connectedness was also significant (b = 0.06, 95% CI [.03, .10], see Figure 1). Thus, students’ communication with on-campus friends was positively related to school connectedness (b = 0.15, SE = 0.03, p < .001), which in turn, was positively related to academic self-efficacy (b = 0.39, SE = 0.07, p < .001). The direct effect was no longer significant after taking the mediator into account, with approximately 18% of the variance in academic self-efficacy explained when school connectedness was included as a mediator.

Figure 1.
Mediation model of the contribution of students’ communication with on-campus friends to academic self-efficacy as mediated by school connectedness.

A multigroup analysis comparing two models explored whether the observed mediation of school connectedness is moderated by college-generation status, controlling for students’ ethnicity. The unconstrained model, in which parameters between first-generation and non-first-generation students freely varied, tested for whether the mediation differed by college-generation status. The unconstrained model had a perfect model fit, χ²(0) = .00, p = .00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00, 90% CI [.00, .00]; standardized root mean squared residual = .00. Next, the unconstrained model was compared with the fully constrained model that equated all parameters across the two generation status groups. This model had adequate model fit χ²(7) = 10.49, p = .16, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.00, .14], CFI = .96, standardized root mean squared residual = .08. However, the chi-square difference test was not significant, Δχ²(7) = 10.49, p > .05, indicating that the fully constrained model did not differ significantly from the unconstrained model based on the college-generation status. Thus, the more parsimonious, fully constrained model showed that for both first- and non-first-generation students, their communication with on-campus friends was positively related to their school connectedness (b = 0.14, SE = 0.04, p < .001), which in turn, was positively related to their academic self-efficacy (b = 0.42, SE = 0.10, p < .001). The indirect effect was significant (b = .06, SE = .02, p =.003), and the multigroup analysis indicated that the mediation occurs similarly for first-generation and non-first-generation students.

Discussion

This study examined the role of communication with on-campus friends and school connectedness on students’ academic self-efficacy in the first year of college and explored possible differences in these relations based on students’ college-generation status. The results indicate that first-year college students’ regular communication with their friends on campus was related to student’s greater academic self-efficacy and, also, that this relation is explained by student’s perceived connection to the school. These findings broaden understanding of factors that contribute to students’ academic experiences and success when they begin college.

First-generation students were as likely as non-first-generation students to talk about their college concerns with on-campus friends, after accounting for gender, and this communication was related to students’ greater academic self-efficacy, regardless of generation status. For both groups, communication with on-campus friends was associated with greater school connectedness, which in turn, was associated with greater academic self-efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of communication with on-campus friends in student adjustment to this new academic setting (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). This communication may take place informally or in the context of student communities on campus, both of which can foster connections to the institution (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Thus, the indirect effect of school connectedness suggests that an association with the institution may explain the effectiveness of communicating with on-campus friends in helping to shore up a student’s academic self-efficacy in the first year of college.

There were some surprising findings. Contrary to prior research (Covarrubias et al., 2018; Ramos-Sánchez & Nichols, 2007; Wang & Castaneda-Sound, 2008), we did not find differences in academic self-efficacy based on college-generation status. The present data were collected at an institution recognized for its support programs, particularly for underrepresented students, and it may be that a higher sense of academic self-efficacy exists on the campus at large (Lovekin, 2013). Moreover, we found that first-generation students reported higher school connectedness than non-first-generation students. The nature of the institution may play a role here. More than half of the study body at this institution are first-generation college students, and there are many federal and campus programs (e.g., TRIO) available to support these students. This institution has high retention rates of first-generation students and less disparity in graduation rates, as compared with other institutions, of some historically underrepresented students (Warren, 2017). Thus, the university’s efforts to provide supportive resources for first-generation students may have wide-reaching effects. More research needs to be conducted in institutions that differ in student body composition and school climate to determine what institutional factors contribute to the academic self-efficacy and school connectedness of first-year college students.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. It is cross-sectional, and, therefore, we cannot know the direction of the relations reported here. More information about the composition of friend networks would also be useful, including the educational background or college-generation status of the friends the students report as their contacts. One study showed that while sharing information with friends has a positive influence on first-year college students’ academic experiences, students benefited more from the information they received from more advanced students who could direct them to appropriate resources (Hurtado et al., 2007).

Future Research

Future research should investigate the nature and quality of communication with friends that contributes to college students’ academic experiences. Perhaps, being in a context with many other first-generation students may help these students relate to each other. Future research should also examine the messages that are communicated between college friends that impact student’s sense of academic competence (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). Longitudinal data are needed to follow students as they advance in school to determine if there are any changes in students’ communication patterns with on-campus friends and how they relate to college outcomes. Such research is especially important given the low graduation rates of first-generation students (Ishitani, 2006; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004).

Implications

Institutions of higher learning put great effort into creating a welcoming school atmosphere to ease students’ transition to college and to continue supporting them as they advance academically. This study showed how a successful transition may be aided through student’s interpersonal communication with on-campus friends. It also showed that conversations about college-related concerns can foster a student’s sense of connection to the school. Faculty, advisors, and other campus staff should encourage first-year students to connect with each other. These students can serve as a reference point about college experiences and help students share instrumental resources. University staff should be aware that the information exchanged during these conversations may influence students’ college outcomes differently (Rice et al., 2016). In particular, having conversations with students that acknowledge their lived experiences can provide avenues for these students to seek out resources and may also influence how they navigate through college (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014). Cultivating a sense of community and belonging on the campus can help students understand that they share these experiences and are going through many of the same challenges. Our findings suggest that these connections also have implications for students’ developing confidence in their ability to do well academically.

	1	2	3	M _FGC	SD _FGC
1. On-campus friend communication	–	.24**	.21*	3.33	1.11
2. Academic self-efficacy	.05	–	.53***	4.45	0.69
3. School connectedness	.32***	.24*	–	3.83	0.60
M _Non-FGC	3.08	4.54	3.61	–	–
SD _Non-FGC	1.23	0.68	0.62	–	–

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Yeram Cheong is a PhD candidate in Developmental Psychology at the University of California, Riverside. Her research program broadly examines the experiences of first-generation college students and cognitive socialization. Her research interests focus on the role of first-generation students' academic and social support from their family and friends on their academic adjustment. Her interests also include how culture and family provide a context for learning and development of ethnically diverse communitites.

Mary Gauvain is a distinguished professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside. She is a developmental psychologist and her research focuses on social and cultural contributions to cognitive development. Dr. Gauvain is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the Association for Psychological Science.

Julienne A. Palbusa is an institutional research analyst in the Office of Institutional Research and Academic Planning at the University of California Office of the President. She earned her PhD in Developmental Psychology from the University of California, Riverside. Her research interests include individual, social, and institutional factors that influence students' access to higher education as well as their college experience and success, especially for first-generation students and students from underrepresented groups. She is also interested in family factors that affect the psychosocial and educational experiences of youth during the transition to adulthood.

References

1.
Azmitia M. Sumabat-Estrada G. Cheong Y. Covarrubias R. (2018). “Dropping out is not an option”: How educationally resilient first-generation students see the future. In C. R. Cooper & R. Seginer (Eds.), Navigating pathways in multicultural nations: Identities, future orientation, schooling, and careers. New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 89–100). Malden, MA: Wiley.

2.
Azmitia M. Syed M. Radmacher K. (2013). Finding your niche: Identity and emotional support in emerging adults’ adjustment to the transition to college. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 744–761.

3.
Baier S. T. Markman B. S. Pernice-Duca F. M. (2016). Intent to persist in college freshmen: The role of self-efficacy and mentorship. Journal of College Student Development, 57, 614–619.

4.
Barry L. M. Hudley C. Kelly M. Cho S. J. (2009). Differences in self-reported disclosure of college experiences by first-generation college student status. Adolescence, 44, 55–68.

5.
Browne M. W. Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen K. A. Long J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

6.
Bryan E. Simmons L. A. (2009). Family involvement: Impacts on post-secondary educational success for first-generation Appalachian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 391–406.

7.
Ceja M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information sources in the college choice process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 87–104.

8.
Chemers M. M. Hu L. Garcia B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.

9.
Chickering A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.
Chickering A. W. Reisser L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.
Covarrubias R. 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, 420–429.

12.
Covarrubias R. Jones J. Johnson R. (2018). Exploring the links between parent-student conversations about college, academic self-concepts, and grades for first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 22, 464–480.

13.
Davis J. (2010). The first-generation student experience. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

14.
Dennis J. M. Phinney J. S. Chuateco L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223–236.

15.
Engle J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students. American Academic, 3, 25–48.

16.
Furlong M. J. O’Brennan L. M. You S. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Add Health School Connectedness Scale for 18 sociocultural groups. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 986–997.

17.
Gist-Mackey A. N. Wiley M. L. Erba J. (2018). “You’re doing great. Keep doing what you’re doing”: Socially supportive communication during first-generation college students’ socialization. Communication Education, 67, 52–72.

18.
Gofen A. (2007). Family capital: How first-generation higher education students break the intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58, 104–120.

19.
Goodenow C. Grady K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71.

20.
Hayes A. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.
Hayes A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

22.
Hodge A. E. Mellin E. A. (2010). First-generation college students: The influence of family on college experience. The Penn State McNair Journal, 7, 120–134.

23.
Hu L. T. Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

24.
Hurtado S. Han J. C. Sáenz V. B. Espinosa L. L. Cabrera N. L. Cerna O. S. (2007). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48, 841–887.

25.
Hurtado-Ortiz M. T. Gauvain M. (2007). Postsecondary education among Mexican American youth: Contributions of parents, siblings, acculturation, and generational status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 181–191.

26.
Ishitani T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885.

27.
Jehangir R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45, 533–553.

28.
Krumrei-Mancuso E. J. Newton F. B. Kim E. Wilcox D. (2013). Psychosocial factors predicting first-year college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 247–266.

29.
Laden B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 181–198.

30.
Lovekin K. (2013, May 21). UC Riverside named as a ‘Next Generation University.’ UCR Today. Retrieved from https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15025

31.
Multon K. D. Brown S. D. Lent R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.

32.
Muthén L. K. Muthén B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

33.
Palbusa J. A. Gauvain M. (2017). Parent-student communication about college and freshmen grades in first-generation and non-first-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 107–112.

34.
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, 249–284.

35.
Pike G. R. Kuh G. D. (2005). First-and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276–300.

36.
Pittman L. D. Richmond A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 343–362.

37.
Ramos-Sánchez L. Nichols L. (2007). Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-first-generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and college adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 6–18.

38.
Rankin S. (2014). University of California Campus climate study executive summary. Retrieved from http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/_common/files/pdf-climate/ucr-full-report.pdf

39.
Resnick M. D. Bearman P. S. Blum R. W. Bauman K. E. Harris K. M. Jones J. , . . . Ireland M. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832.

40.
Rice A. J. Colbow A. J. Gibbons S. Cederberg C. Sahker E. Liu W. M. Wurster K. (2017). The social class worldviews of first-generation college students. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 30, 415–440.

41.
Sidelinger R. J. Bolen D. M. McMullen A. L. Nyeste M. C. (2015). Academic and social integration in the basic communication course: Predictors of students’ out-of-class communication and academic learning. Communication Studies, 66, 63–84.

42.
Soria K. M. Stebleton M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 673–685.

43.
Soria K. M. Stebleton M. J. (2013). Social capital, academic engagement, and sense of belonging among working-class college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 31, 139–153.

44.
Stephens N. M. Fryberg S. A. Markus H. R. Johnson C. S. Covarrubias R. (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.

45.
Stephens N. M. Hamedani M. G. Destin M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25, 943–953.

46.
Swenson L. M. Nordstrom A. Hiester M. (2008). The role of peer relationships in adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 551–567.

47.
Tourangeau R. Shin H. C. (1999). National longitudinal study of adolescent health: Grand sample weight. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center.

48.
University of California. (2016). Annual accountability report. Oakland, CA: UC Regents. Retrieved from http://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2016/welcome.html

49.
Vasquez-Salgado Y. Greenfield P. M. Burgos-Cienfuegos R. (2014). Exploring home-school value conflicts: Implications for academic achievement and well-being among Latino first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 1–35.

50.
Vuong M. Brown-Welty S. Tracz S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 50–64.

51.
Wang C. C. D. C. Castaneda-Sound C. (2008). The role of generational status, self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, and perceived social support in college students’ psychological well-being. American Counseling Association, 11, 101–118.

52.
Wang T. R. (2014). “I’m the only person from where I’m from to go to college”: Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students receive from parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 270–290.

53.
Warren J. D. (2017, March 1). University of California, Riverside a National Leader in African American graduation rates. UCR Today. Retrieved from https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/44994

54.
Wintre M. G. Yaffe M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9–37.