Abstract
In the present study, we examined the association between family socioeconomic status (SES) and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts and the mediating and moderating roles of family process factors, verified family investment model. Chinese adolescents (N = 8,723) in Grade 8 reported characteristics of family SES, family arts resources, and family arts atmosphere, and then completed a standardized test assessing academic achievement in music and visual art. The results showed that family SES significantly predicted adolescents’ level of academic achievement in the arts after controlling for adolescents’ gender and school location. The effect of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was partly mediated by family arts resources, constituting 20.51% of the total predicted effect. In addition, family arts atmosphere moderated the association between family SES and adolescents’ achievement in the arts. Specifically, family SES had a stronger relationship with academic achievement in the arts for adolescent with higher family arts atmosphere than for adolescent with poor family arts atmosphere. Findings in this study expands the field of influence of the family environments and enhance an understanding of the influence mechanisms of family environments on arts learning.
Introduction
The arts have long been an important expression of cultural heritage and medium in aesthetic education, which are of great significance in adolescents’ cognitive and emotional development (; ; Toffalini et al., 2018). UNESCO (2013) took promoting arts education as one of the seven objectives of the LMTF (Learning Metrics Task Force). In China, aesthetic education is also one of the four important educational areas (moral, intellectual, physical, and aesthetic education). According to the National Curriculum Standards for Arts Education released by , the compulsory arts course in Chinese schools are designated twice or thrice a week. Nevertheless, because of the particular Chinese educational environment (e.g., the pressure surrounding university entrance examinations and limited budgets), in-school arts education in China cannot meet adolescents’ diverse needs for arts learning. To provide a strong complement to school education, families that value arts education highly play a significant role in adolescents’ arts competency training.
In the context of China, many parents emphasize the cultivation of adolescents’ arts competencies and dedicate increasing investments in arts education, such as taking their children to extracurricular arts classes or hiring in-home arts tutors. According to a national survey of 14,206 Chinese parents with nearly 75% have children aged 7 to 14 (Tencent Education, 2012), approximately 63.8% of parents enroll their children in extracurricular arts classes, which is far more than any other type of extracurricular class such as Olympic math, Chinese, and English. Given the substantial parental involvement and investment in children’s arts education, this study explored the extent in which family environments played a role in adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts.
Additionally, students’ academic achievement would be affected by some factors like gender (Wei et al., 2012; ) and school location (Yusuf and Adigun, 2010; ). Due to the gamut of diversities found in China, it is necessary to draw a picture of academic achievement in the arts and to consider gender and school location difference in this study.
Family Socioeconomic Status and Adolescents’ Academic Achievement in the Arts
According to the ecological systems theory (), family environments, which include family background (e.g., family SES) and processes (e.g., family resources, family atmosphere), play important roles in an individual’s development (). Specifically, family SES largely determines basic family characteristics (Williams and Collins, 1995). Many researchers have found that family SES influences children’s development, including physical health (; ), cognitive development (; Sirin, 2005), and emotional and social adaptation (; ). In particular, SES has been widely found to be closely related to academic performance such as language, reading, math and so on (; ; ).
On the other hand, according to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, only when the basic physiological needs are satisfied will people pursue aesthetic value (), which means that high family SES makes it more possible for parents to support their children learning the arts. Some previous studies on family SES and children’s school performance have been focused on music (e.g., ; ). For example, a study of 1,114 students aged 4–12 in the U.S. who received music training revealed that children from families with low SES had poorer achievement in music than students from families with high SES (). However, we rarely found evidence from mainland China. Considering that children’s arts competency development relies more on family investment than on arts education in schools (Wan, 2009; Tencent Education, 2012; ), we hypothesize that family SES may have a greater influence on Chinese adolescents’ achievement in the arts.
Mediating Effect of Family Arts Resources
Socioeconomic status may not only directly affect children’s development but also indirectly affect children’s development through some family processes factors (). summarized previous studies and proposed the family investment model that assumed a positive correlation between SES and children’s development, because higher SES allowed parents to provide their children with ample resources. Previous studies of family investment models have mainly focused on children’s physical, cognitive and social development (; ; ). In particular, some studies have shown that family resources played a mediating role in the association between SES and children’s academic performance in language (Yeung et al., 2002; Raviv et al., 2004; ). For example, Vasilyeva et al. (2018) research with 1,332 students aged 6–8 years in Russia demonstrated that family income influenced children’s word recognition and reading comprehension through family resources.
Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on the mediating impact of family resources on the association between SES and academic achievement in the arts. Only some relevant evidence has suggested that the family music environment, including family material resources (Zdzinski, 2013), affected children’s musical performance and success (). According to the family investment model, we speculate that family SES influences children’s academic achievement in the arts via family arts resources.
Moderating Effect of Family Arts Atmosphere
In addition to family arts resources, the family arts atmosphere may have great influence on children’s academic achievement in the arts. According to self-determination theorists, a positive family atmosphere may offset or balance disadvantaged factors on adolescents’ developments by giving them more autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Although there is no authoritative and consistent definition of family arts atmosphere, the definition of family atmosphere is found in the Merriam-Adlerian Psychology (), which states that it is determined by the climate of the relationships that exist among the parents and children, which conveys family value, interest, and activities. In this study, we define family arts atmosphere to include parents’ care and attitude for the arts activities and parents’ arts related activities together with their children.
Studies have shown that family atmosphere moderates the relationship between SES and children’s cognitive, behavioral, and emotional development (; ). Moreover, there are two different mechanisms to explain the moderating effect of family atmosphere. Some researchers found that a better family atmosphere may enhance the correlation between SES and children’s development (Sun et al., 2018), which is an enhancement mechanism, as opposed to a compensation mechanism which means that family atmosphere can act as a buffer for the negative effects of low SES on children’s development ().
In the field of children’s learning, some studies have also shown that family atmosphere moderates the association between SES and children’s academic achievement. For example, found that family emotional support was a universal strong protective factor against academic difficulties with lower SES. Given the above findings, does the family arts atmosphere also play a moderating role in the relationship between SES and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts? How is the effect moderated? Examination of these questions will enrich the literature on the influence of family environments and increase our understanding of the mechanism of how SES influences adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts in different family arts atmospheres.
To summarize, we constructed a model (see Figure 1) that shows the influence of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts. Specifically, this study explored the mediating role of family arts resources based on the family investment model and the moderating role of family arts atmosphere. In this study, we sought empirical support and theoretical guidance for the cultivation of adolescents’ arts competence.
FIGURE 1
Materials and Methods
Participants
The participants were selected from 7 provinces in China (Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Shanxi, Henan, Sichuan, and Gansu). In each province, we adopted a three-stage stratification cluster sampling design. In the first stage, counties were stratified into three layers (upper, middle, and lower) by cluster analysis based on their GDP, urbanization level, and education index. Then, at least 2 counties were extracted from each layer. According to the geographical location and the scale of the school, Probability Proportionate to Size Sampling was used to select schools in each sampling county in the second stage. Then, approximately 10 middle schools were selected from each county. Within each school, approximately 18–20 students in Grade 8 (about 13 years old) were randomly selected. The final sample contained 8,723 adolescents, including 4,681 boys (53.7%) and 4,785 urban adolescents (54.9%).
Measures
Family Socioeconomic Status
Three variables (parents’ educational levels, parents’ occupations, and family possessions) were used to develop family SES (). Adolescents reported their parents’ occupations encoded by a four-digit ISCO (International Standard Classification of Occupations) and educational levels (“1 = primary school and below,” “2 = middle school,” “3 = high school,” “4 = college degree,” “5 = bachelor’s degree,” “6 = graduate degree”). We took the average index as the occupation and the higher index as the educational level (; Ren, 2010). Family possessions were measured by five items adapted from the Program for International Students Assessment (). Adolescents were asked the following: “Does your family have the following items: (1) TV, (2) washing machine, (3) refrigerator, (4) computer, and (5) personal cars, vans or trucks.” The answer for each item was “1 = zero,” “2 = one,” “3 = two” or “4 = three and above.”
We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to create a composite SES (). Only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one was extracted, accounting for 66.33% of the variance. The factor loading of the parent’s educational level, occupation, and family possession were 0.86, 0.86, and 0.73, respectively. These would suggest that it was reasonable to construct an index of SES (). The mean synthetic index score was 0.16 ± 1.05 (ranging from −2.18 to 3.41). The overall score evaluates students’ SES in the population. This result (M = 0.16) indicated that the SES of the sample in this study was higher than that of the population as a whole.
Family Arts Resources
Family arts resources were measured by five items adapted from the Program for International Students Assessment (), which assesses the quantity of arts resources in one’s home. Adolescents were asked the following questions: “Does your family have the following items? How many? (1) musical instruments, (2) calligraphy, (3) paintings, (4) arts, and crafts, (5) arts books and picture albums.” The five items were scored as “1 = zero,” “2 = one,” “3 = two” or “4 = three and above.” We computed the total score of all the items (M = 10.40, SD = 4.25). The higher the scores, the richer the family arts resources. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the total scale was 0.81.
In addition, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to verify the construct validity of the scale (KMO = 0.81, χ2 = 11317.30, df = 10, p < 0.001). Only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one was extracted, accounting for 53.85% of the variance. The factor loading of the five items were ranged from 0.64 to 0.76. This would suggest that the scale measures a single construct of family arts resources ().
Family Arts Atmosphere
The adolescents reported the family arts atmosphere, which was measured by five items adapted from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (). The five items were as followed: “(1) Do your family ask about your arts lessons at school? (2) How often do your parents communicate with you about the arts? (3) Do your family listen to music, sing or play with you? (4) Do your family attend art exhibitions or performances with you? (5) Do your family have a positive attitude toward your participations in art-related activities?” Each item was scored as “1 = never,” “2 = sometimes,” “3 = often” or “4 = always,” and we computed the total score of all the items (M = 10.22, SD = 3.17). The higher the score, the higher the family arts atmosphere. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the total scale was 0.78.
In addition, we used EFA to verify the construct validity of the scale (KMO = 0.83, χ2 = 14149.48, df = 10, p < 0.001). Only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one was extracted, accounting for 57.55% of the variance. The factor loading of the five items were ranged from 0.61 to 0.85. This would suggest that the scale measures a single construct of family arts atmosphere ().
Academic Achievement in the Arts
According to National Curriculum Standards for Arts Education released by , the arts compulsory course offered by Chinese schools were mainly music and visual arts. Our study focuses on students’ academic achievement in the arts, so we used these two subjects–music and visual art as the measurement of academic achievement in the arts. The students’ arts achievement was assessed by a standardized test that was developed by a team recruited by National Assessment Center of Education Quality, Ministry of Education, China, including arts education and educational statistics and measurement experts, and outstanding middle school music and visual arts teachers. The arts test measures students’ knowledge and skills in music and visual arts by asking them to observe, describe, analyze, and evaluate works of music and visual arts and to create some original works. The music test included three dimensions: Listening & Identification, Appreciation, and Performance & Creation and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the music test was 0.74; the visual arts test also included three dimensions: Observation & Identification, Appreciation, and Creation and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the visual arts test was 0.81. More details about the test can be seen in the Supplementary Files.
Referring to international large-scale evaluation programs (e.g., ; ), to estimate students’ academic achievement in the arts more accurately, the Scale Score was used to evaluate academic achievements. This score is based on the IRT (Item Response Theory), which converts the original test score into the ability score, and then converts the students’ ability score into a standard score (M = 500, SD = 100).
Procedure
Data on the 8th grade adolescents’ SES, family arts environment and academic achievement in the arts were collected by trained research assistants majoring in psychology or education. All adolescents were measured anonymously in their classrooms after their parents signed the informed consent forms. The recruitment and data collection procedures were approved by the affiliating university’s institutional review board.
Analysis and Results
We used SPSS to conduct the preliminary analyses and PROCESS macro to explore the hypothetical relationships among family SES, family arts resources and arts atmosphere, and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts.
First, we computed the descriptive statistics and the Pearson Product-Moment correlation for all variables in this study. Then a 2 × 2 MANOVA was used to examine the effects of gender and school location (urban and rural). We also followed procedures recommended by , using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, to explore whether the effect of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was mediated by family arts resources and moderated by the family arts atmosphere. The SPSS macro also allowed us to control for the demographic variables (i.e., gender and school location). All effects were tested using the 95% biased-corrected confidence intervals (CI) method, and the number of bootstrapping samples was set to 1,000. Significant indirect effects occur when the 95% CI does not include zero ().
Preliminary Analysis
Table 1 showed means and standard deviation of the variables included in the study. A 2 (gender) × 2 (school location: urban and rural) MANOVA was conducted to examine the differences in family arts resources, family arts atmosphere, and academic achievement in the arts as a function of their gender and school location. Results indicated that girls had significantly higher family arts resources, family arts atmosphere, and academic achievement in the arts than boys (F ranged from 117.03 to 195.52, df = [1, 8,719], p < 0.001). Urban school students’ values for family arts resources and academic achievement in the arts were significantly higher than those of rural school adolescents (F ranged from 35.76 to 97.24, df = [1, 8,719], p < 0.001), while there was no significance between urban and rural school adolescents’ family arts atmosphere. The interaction effect of “gender × school location” on family arts resources, family arts atmosphere, and academic achievement in the arts was non-significant.
TABLE 1
| Family arts resources | Family arts atmosphere | Academic achievement in the arts | ||
| Gender | Boy | 9.94(4.20) | 9.84(3.09) | 509.90(92.14) |
| Girl | 10.94(4.25) | 10.67(3.21) | 538.18(96.19) | |
| School location | Urban | 11.12(4.33) | 10.44(3.22) | 542.39(93.53) |
| Rural | 9.54(3.98) | 9.96(3.09) | 499.45(91.59) | |
| Total | 10.40(4.25) | 10.22(3.16) | 523.00(95.08) | |
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) among gender and school location.
Table 2 showed the correlation matrix of all variables involved. Family SES was positively correlated with family arts resources (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), family arts atmosphere (r = 0.19, p < 0.001), and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (r = 0.19, p < 0.001). Family arts resources had strong positive correlations with family arts atmosphere (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (r = 0.35, p < 0.001). Family arts atmosphere was significantly correlated with adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (r = 0.25, p < 0.001). In addition, gender was positively correlated with family arts resources (r = 0.12, p < 0.001), family arts atmosphere (r = 0.13, p < 0.001), and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (r = 0.13, p < 0.001); school location was positively correlated with family SES (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), family arts resources (r = 0.19, p < 0.001), family arts atmosphere (r = 0.08, p < 0.001), and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (r = 0.23, p < 0.001). Therefore, gender and school location were taken as control variables in the subsequent analysis to examine the role of family environments more accurately.
TABLE 2
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 1 Gender | – | |||||
| 2 School location | – | – | ||||
| 3 Family SES | 0.01 | 0.43*** | – | |||
| 4 Family arts resources | 0.12*** | 0.19*** | 0.40*** | – | ||
| 5 Family arts atmosphere | 0.13*** | 0.08*** | 0.19*** | 0.54*** | – | |
| 6 Academic achievement in the arts | 0.15*** | 0.23*** | 0.42*** | 0.35*** | 0.25*** | – |
Correlation matrix of all study variables.
Gender (1 = girl, 0 = boy), School location (1 = urban, 0 = rural); ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Mediating Effect of Family Arts Resources on the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Adolescents’ Academic Achievement in the Arts
After controlling for gender and school location, family SES significantly predicted adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). The PROCESS macro (Model 4) was used to test the mediating role of family arts resources between family SES and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts. As shown in Figure 2, family SES significantly predicted family arts resources (β = 0.39, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.17, F [3, 8,719] = 610.85, p < 0.001). Both family SES (β = 0.31, p < 0.001) and family arts resources (β = 0.20, p < 0.001) significantly predicted adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (R2 = 0.23, F [4, 8,718] = 648.86, p < 0.001). Further mediation effect tests showed that the association between family SES and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was partly explained by family arts resources (β = 0.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.067, 0.085]). The direct effect accounted for 79.7% of the total effect size and the indirect effect of family arts resources accounted for 21.3% of the total effect size, which indicated that 21.3% of the effect of SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was through family arts resources.
FIGURE 2
Moderating Effect of Family Arts Atmosphere on the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Adolescents’ Academic Achievement in the Arts
The PROCESS macro (Model 1) was used to test the moderating role of the family arts atmosphere (see Figure 3) on the association between family SES and academic achievement in the arts. After controlling for gender and school location, the interaction term “SES × family arts atmosphere” significantly predicted adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (β = 0.02, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.22, F [5, 8,717] = 495.12, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.039]), which meant that family arts atmosphere played a moderating role in the association between SES and adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts.
FIGURE 3
To reveal the nature of the moderating role of family arts atmosphere more clearly, we drew a simple effect analysis diagram (). The results showed that when the family arts atmosphere was high, family SES had a stronger positive effect on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts (Bsimple = 0.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.352, 0.410]); when the family arts atmosphere was low, the promotion effect of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was weaker (Bsimple = 0.34, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.310, 0.368]). In other words, with the improvement in the family arts atmosphere, the effect size of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts increased. Therefore, the interaction pattern conformed to enhancement mechanism (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4
Discussion
This study investigated the role of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts and the related mechanisms. The results showed that family SES significantly predicted adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts, and the direct effect was mediated by family arts resources and moderated by family arts atmosphere, which enriched the field of influence of the family environment and enhanced the understanding of arts learning mechanisms.
Main Results Discussions
The current study found gender differences and school location differences in adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts. First, female adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts was significantly higher than the male counterpart, which was consistent with the results of previous studies on gender differences in academic performance (; ). In the process of gender socialization, parents played an important role and showed different educational expectation and behaviors on boys and girls (), which may led to girls prefer the arts and boys prefer sports. Specifically, we found that girls had more family arts resource and higher family arts atmosphere than boys in our study. All of these contributed to gender difference in academic achievement in the arts. Meanwhile, adolescents in urban school locations have higher academic achievement in the arts than adolescents in rural school locations, which was consistent with the results of previous studies on urban-rural differences in academic performance (Yusuf and Adigun, 2010; ). A possible reason for this situation is that, compared with schools in rural areas where the economy and culture are relatively less modernized (), Chinese urban schools can utilize more arts resources, such as arts galleries, theaters, and museums.
Consistent with our hypotheses and prior research conducted in other academic subjects, such as language, reading, and math (; Raviv et al., 2004; ; ), the current study indicated that SES influenced adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts both directly and indirectly through family arts resources after controlling for adolescents’ gender and school locations. In agreement with the family investment model (), our findings underline the crucial role of family investments in predicting individual differences in adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts. These results obtained by testing the mediation model in a Chinese sample suggested that the family investment model could be applied universally (; ; Vasilyeva et al., 2018). Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (), only parents in families with higher SES can afford to invest money and time in their adolescents’ arts learning, so their adolescent have more opportunities for arts edification and training. As China is a developing country, Chinese families play an important role in adolescents’ arts learning because of the limited arts training in the schools. Meanwhile, the social reality of the widening SES distribution gap of Chinese residents means that families in some areas are still struggling with poverty (). For families with low SES, surviving or pursuing better living conditions is the top priority, and parents do not pay much attention to their adolescents’ arts learning.
Another novel finding of the current study was that the family arts atmosphere moderated the direct effect of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts, which was consistent with previous studies in other fields (; Taylor and Seeman, 1999; ). As the family arts atmosphere increased, the predicted effect of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts also increased, which can be attributed to an enhancement effect. Research has shown that adolescents were more likely to develop strong intrinsic musical motivations when they lived in warm, caring and non-threatening home environments (). Adolescents with a better family arts atmosphere receive more encouragement to participate in the arts activities from their parents and have more intrinsic motivations to learn arts (Ryan and Deci, 2000), which ultimately contributes to the promotion of family SES on adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts. As shown in the survey above, many Chinese parents send their children to extracurricular arts classes (Tencent Education, 2012), but they think that it is enough to have professional teachers to guide their children and do not pay attention to the creation of family arts atmosphere (). In this context, it is of substantial practical importance to promote Chinese parents’ awareness of creating a good family arts atmosphere, which will enhance the effect of family SES in adolescents’ arts achievement.
Application, Limitations and Directions for Future Research
These results point to a specific direction for parents whose target is to improve their children’s arts learning. Parents can provide richer family arts resources, such as musical instruments and art works, to enhance children’s arts competencies. In addition, all parents should pay attention to the cultivation of family arts atmosphere, especially those in low SES, who can create a supportive family arts atmosphere (e.g., talking about arts with their children, singing or drawing with their children) to buffer the less than ideal impact of family background on children’s arts learning. For arts teachers, they can guide parents to attach great importance on family arts education by means of educating parents through school publicity, to create and encourage a good family arts atmosphere for their children.
Based on the current findings, we recommend a few directions for further investigations. First, since data in this study were cross-sectional, it was not possible to draw clear conclusions about the causal relationship among the variables. To further determine the models of family environment and adolescents’ arts development, it is necessary to carry out longitudinal designs or experimental studies. Second, the use of self-reported data in this study might have given rise to false reporting because of social expectations. Future studies should consider collecting reports from parents and teachers. Thirdly, ecological systems theory points to multiple sociocultural processes outside family environments, such as schools and communities. Future researchers can investigate these factors, which may complement the mechanisms on the associations of family environments and adolescents’ arts performance.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
WY designed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. HG collaborated in designing the research. CVF collaborated in manuscript revisions. FC collaborated in manuscript revisions and research theme design. LL assisted with designing the research and manuscript revisions. LX assisted with designing the research. YL provided overall guidance. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751135/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AckermanB. P.BrownE. D.IzardC. E. (2004). The relations between persistent poverty and contextual risk and children’s behaviour in elementary school.Dev. Psychol.40367–377. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.367
2
AdesegunB. T.AdekunleB. D.AduE. O. (2016). School Location and Gender as Correlates of Students’ Academic Achievement in Economics.Int. J. Educ. Sci.13255–261. 10.1080/09751122.2016.11890459
3
AdlerN. E.OstroveJ. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don’t.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.8963–15. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x
4
AlghadirA. H.GabrS. A.IqbalZ. A. (2020). Effect of gender, physical activity and stress-related hormones on adolescent’s academic achievements.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health171–14. 10.3390/ijerph17114143
5
BradleyR. H.CorwynR. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and children’s development.Annu. Rev. Psychol.53371–399.
6
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: experiments by Nature and Design.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7
ButlerY. G.LeV. N. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of parental social-economic status (SES) and young students’ learning of English as a foreign language.System734–15. 10.1016/j.system.2017.07.005
8
CallanG. L.MarchantG. J.FinchW. H.FleggeL. (2017). Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement.Psychol. Sch.541106–1122. 10.1002/pits.22049
9
CenkD. S.DemirA. (2016). The relationship between parenting style, gender and academic achievement with optimism among Turkish adolescents.Curr. Psychol.35720–728. 10.1007/s12144-015-9375-1
10
Chao Heng Arts School (2017). Family Education in Arts Education. Available online at: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_790671b90102xgn0.html(accessed October 10, 2019).
11
China Statistical Yearbooks (2018). Main Indicators of National Economic and Social Development by Eastern, Central and Western Provinces. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 832–833.
12
Chinese Ministry of Education (2011). Arts Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education, 2011 Edn.Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
13
ChowB. W. Y.HoC. S. H.WongS. W. L.WayeM. M. Y.ZhengM. (2017). Home environmental influences on children’s language and reading skills in a genetically sensitive design: are socioeconomic status and home literacy environment environmental mediators and moderators?Scand. J. Psychol.58519–529. 10.1111/sjop.12397
14
ChuiW. H.WongM. Y. H. (2017). Avoiding disappointment or fulfilling expectation: a study of gender, academic achievement, and family functioning among Hong Kong adolescents.J. Child Fam. Stud.2648–56. 10.1007/s10826-016-0550-2
15
CoatsworthJ. D.MastenA. S. (1998). The development of competence in favourable and unfavourable environments: lessons from research on successful children.Am. Psychol.53205–220. 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.205
16
CoddingtonC. H.MistryR. S.BaileyA. L. (2014). Socioeconomic status and receptive vocabulary development: replication of the parental investment model with Chilean pre-schoolers and their families.Early Childh. Res. Q.29538–549. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.06.004
17
CongerR. D.DonnellanM. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development.Annu. Rev. Psychol.58175–199. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
18
DearingE.HamiltonL. C. (2006). V. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables.Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev.7188–104. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x
19
DellC.RinnertN.YapC. C.KeithT.ZdzinskiS.GummA.et al (2015). Musical home environment, family background, and parenting style on success in school music and in school.Contrib. Music Educ.4071–89.
20
ElpusK.AbrilC. R. (2011). The national association for music education high school music ensemble students in the united states: a demographic profile high school music a demographic profile.Sour. J. Res. Music Educ.5912361128–145. 10.1177/002242941
21
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychol. Methods4272–299. 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
22
GanzeboomH. B. G.TreimanD. J. (1996). Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations.Soc. Sci. Res.25201–239. 10.1006/ssre.1996.0010
23
GriffithJ.PowersR. L. (eds) (2007). The Lexicon of Adlerian Psychology: 106 terms Associated with the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler, 2nd Edn. Port Townsend: Adlerian Psychology Associates. 36.
24
GuerreroA. P. S.HishinumaE. S.AndradeN. N.NishimuraS. T.CunananV. L. (2006). Correlations among socioeconomic and family factors and academic, behavioral, and emotional difficulties in Filipino adolescents in Hawai’i.Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry52343–359. 10.1177/0020764006065146
25
HargreavesD. J.AksentijevicA. (2011). Music, IQ, and the executive function.Br. J. Psychol.102306–308. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02029.x
26
HartasD. (2011). Families’ social backgrounds matter: socio-economic factors, home learning and young children’s language, literacy and social outcomes.Br. Educ. Res. J.37893–914. 10.1080/01411926.2010.506945
27
HayesA. F. (2012). Process: a Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Moderation, Mediation, and Conditional Process Modelling. Available online at: http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplusmacros-and-code.html(accessed October 14, 2019).
28
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: a Regression-based Approach.New York: Guilford Press.
29
JaschkeA. C.HoningH.ScherderE. J. A. (2018). Exposure to a musically-enriched environment; Its relationship with executive functions, short-term memory and verbal IQ in primary school children.PLoS One13:e0207265. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207265
30
JiangS.LiC.FangX. (2018). Socioeconomic status and children’s mental health: understanding the mediating effect of social relations in Mainland China.J. Commun Psychol.46213–223. 10.1002/jcop.21934
31
KirschE. A.LambertM. C. (2002). Socioeconomic, Family, and Maternal Influences on Behaviour and Verbal Ability in Young Jamaican Children.Michigan: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Michigan State University. Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/305554672?accountid=8554
32
LawsonG. M.FarahM. J. (2017). Executive function as a mediator between SES and academic achievement throughout childhood.Int. J. Behav. Dev.4194–104. 10.1177/0165025415603489
33
LetourneauN. L.Duffett-LegerL.LevacL.WatsonB.Young-MorrisC. (2013). Socioeconomic status and child development: a meta-analysis.J. Emot. Behav. Disord.21211–224. 10.1177/1063426611421007
34
LinverM. R.Brooks-GunnJ.KohenD. E. (2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development.Dev. Psychol.38719–734. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.719
35
LiuC.GeorgiouG. K.ManolitsisG. (2018). Modeling the relationships of parents’ expectations, family’s SES, and home literacy environment with emergent literacy skills and word reading in Chinese.Early Childh. Res. Q.431–10. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.11.001
36
LohndorfR. T.VermeerH. J.CárcamoR. A.MesmanJ. (2018). Preschoolers’ vocabulary acquisition in Chile: the roles of socioeconomic status and quality of home environment.J. Child Lang.45559–580. 10.1017/S0305000917000332
37
MaslowA. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.Psychol. Rev.50:27. 10.1037/h0054346
38
McphersonG. E. (2009). The role of parents in children-s musical development.Psychol. Music3791–110. 10.1177/0305735607086049
39
Ministry of Education (2014). Several opinions of the Ministry of Education on promoting the development of arts education in schools. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A17/moe_794/moe_795/201401/t20140114_163173.html(accessed October 13, 2019).
40
National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] (2008). Visual Arts: Student Background Questionnaire. Available online at: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/bgq/student/BQ08-ARTS-studentG08.pdf(accessed September 04, 2015).
41
PISA (2009). PISA, Take the Test: sample Questions from OECD’s PISA Assessments. Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/pisatakethetestsamplequestionsfromoecdspisaassessments.htm(accessed September 3, 2019).
42
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: learning to Learn - Student Engagement, Strategies, and Practices (Vol. III).Paris: PISA. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2009resultslearningtolearnvolumeiii.htm
43
RavivT.KessenichM.MorrisonF. J. (2004). A mediational model of the association between socioeconomic status and three-year-old language abilities: the role of parenting factors.Early Childh. Res. Q.19528–547. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.007
44
RenC. (2010). Measurement methodology on social economic status index of students.J. Educ. Stud.577–82. 10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2010.05.010
45
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.Am. Psychol.5568–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
46
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research.Rev. Educ. Res.75417–453. 10.3102/00346543075003417
47
SunJ.LauC.SincovichA.RaoN. (2018). Socioeconomic status and early child development in East Asia and the Pacific: the protective role of parental engagement in learning activities.Child. Youth Serv. Rev.93321–330. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.010
48
TaylorS. E.SeemanT. E. (1999). Psychosocial resources and the SES-health relationship.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.896210–225. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08117.x
49
Tencent Education (2012). According to the Survey, 60% Teenagers Choose arts Extracurricular Interest Classes. Available online at: http://edu.qq.com/a/20120215/000331.html(accessed October 29, 2019).
50
ToffaliniE.GrassiM.PetriniK.Di MauroM. (2018). Effect of long-term music training on emotion perception from drumming improvisation.Front. Psychol.111–12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02168
51
UNESCO (2013). Learning Metrics Task Force: recommendations for Universal Learning.Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Available online at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LMTF-Brochure-FINAL_single-pgs_web.pdf
52
VasilyevaM.DearingE.IvanovaA.ShenC.KardanovaE. (2018). Testing the family investment model in Russia: estimating indirect effects of SES and parental beliefs on the literacy skills of first-graders.Early Child. Res. Q.4211–20. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.08.003
53
WanY. (2009). Achievement, problems and reflection of music basic education in China since reform and opening up.Mod. Educ. Sci.49–52. 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5843-B.2009.06.020
54
WeiW.LuH.ZhaoH.ChenC.DongQ.ZhouX. (2012). Gender differences in children’s arithmetic performance are accounted for by gender differences in language abilities.Psychol. Sci.23320–330. 10.1177/0956797611427168
55
WilliamsD. R.CollinsC. (1995). US socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations.Annu. Rev. Sociol.21349–386. 10.1146/annurev.soc.21.1.349
56
YeungJ. W.LinverM. R.Brooks-GunnJ. (2002). How money matters for young children’s development.Child Dev.731861–1879. 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00511
57
YusufM. A.AdigunJ. T. (2010). The Influence of School Sex, Location and Type on Students’ Academic Performance.Int. J. Educ. Sci.281–85. 10.1080/09751122.2010.11889992
58
ZdzinskiS. (2013). The underlying structure of parental involvement; home environment in music.Bull. Counc. Res. Music Educ.69–88. 10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.198.0069
Summary
Keywords
family SES, family investment model, gender, urban and rural, academic achievement in the arts
Citation
Yuan W, Guo H, Fung CV, Chen F, Liu L, Xu L and Li Y (2021) Family Socioeconomic Status and Chinese Adolescents’ Academic Achievement in the Arts: The Mediating Role of Family Arts Resources and the Moderating Role of Family Arts Atmosphere. Front. Psychol. 12:751135. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751135
Received
31 July 2021
Accepted
17 September 2021
Published
20 October 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Mohamed A. Ali, Grand Canyon University, United States
Reviewed by
Jeffrey Roth, University of Florida, United States; Zlata Tomljenović, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Yuan, Guo, Fung, Chen, Liu, Xu and Li.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yanfang Li, liyanfang@bnu.edu.cn
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.