Academic Self-efficacy, Career Self-efficacy, and Psychosocial Identity Development: A Comparison of Female College Students from Differing Socioeconomic Status Groups

Abstract

A review of current literature indicates the existence of a dynamic theoretical intersection between identity, self-efficacy, gender, education, and socioeconomic status (SES). To facilitate an understanding of that dynamic, differences in academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, and psychosocial identity development among freshmen and sophomore female college students (n = 275) from differing socioeconomic groups were investigated. Class and gender inequities in the educational system and the world of work are also discussed, illustrating their affect on individual identity development, and on academic and career self-efficacy.

Due to societal oppression and the lack of privileges otherwise afforded to individuals from higher SES groups, it was hypothesized that women from lower SES groups would experience lower academic self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, and psychosocial identity development, particularly when adjusting to a higher SES dominated college environment. Participants completed three measures in addition to demographic questions used for determining SES. Administered measures included the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (OMEIS; Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979), the short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSE-SF; Betz & Taylor, 2001), and the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988). SES was determined using a combination of annual family income, parental occupation, and parental education level. The use of a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and t-tests revealed significant differences for female students in the lowest SES group when compared to female students in higher SES groups on measures of both career self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy. A chi-square analysis was used to determine differences in identity development among SES groups; findings were mixed. For example, despite the lowest SES group having the largest number of female students occupy the highest identity status, when compared to all other SES groups, they also represented the largest number of female students in the lowest identity status. These finding indicated significant representation of two identity extremes for women students in lower SES groups. These and other findings are discussed at length. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research are also discussed.