1

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2020)

© 2020 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Family socio-economic status and children’s

academic achievement: The different roles of
parental academic involvement and subjective
social mobility
Feng Zhang, Ying Jiang, Hua Ming, Yi Ren, Lei Wang and Silin Huang*
Institute of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal
University, China

Background. Low family socio-economic status (SES) is usually associated with

children’s poor academic achievement, but the mechanisms underlying this relationship
are less understood.
Aims. The present study examined the mediating role of parental academic involvement
and the moderating role of parental subjective social mobility in this relationship with
cross-sectional data.
Sample and methods. A total of 815 fourth- to sixth-grade children were recruited
from five elementary schools in China. Family SES (measured by parents’ education,
parents’ occupation and family income) and parental subjective social mobility were
obtained directly from parents, parental academic involvement was reported by children,
and information on children’s academic achievement was collected from their teachers.
Results. The results showed that (1) both family SES and parental academic involvement
were positively correlated with children’s Chinese and math achievement, (2) parental
academic involvement mediated the relationships between family SES and children’s
Chinese and math achievement, and (3) parental subjective social mobility moderated the
path from family SES to parental academic involvement. The models of children’s Chinese
and math achievement showed that the association between family SES and parental
academic involvement was weak among children’s parents who reported high levels of
subjective social mobility.
Conclusions. These findings suggest that there is a pathway from family SES to
children’s academic achievement through parental academic involvement and that this
pathway is dependent on the level of parental subjective social mobility.

Differences in children’s academic achievement due to family socio-economic status (SES)

have been widely recognized. On average, children from low SES families exhibit poor
academic outcomes than do their more affluent counterparts (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002;
Kim, Cho, & Kim, 2019; Liu, Peng, & Luo, 2020; Sirin, 2005; White, 1982). This SES
inequality in children’s academic outcomes is linked by one important aspect of family
practices, that is, parental involvement behaviours (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010).
However, the correlation among family SES, parental academic involvement, and

*Correspondence should be addressed to Silin Huang, Beijing Normal University, 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Beijing 100875, China
(email: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12374
2 Feng Zhang et al.

academic achievement has been predominately examined in European and American

countries (Benner, Boyle, & Sadler, 2016; Tazouti & Jarl
egan, 2019), and thus, there is
scarce evidence from other countries regarding this issue (Bornstein et al., 2012).
Specifically, few studies have been conducted to examine the mediating mechanism of
parental academic involvement with respect to the relationship between family SES and
academic achievement in mainland China (for example, Guo et al., 2018).
In the context of China’s contemporary education system (The National College
Entrance Examination), attaining high academic achievement is a key pathway to high
social status. Moreover, children’s academic achievement extends beyond personal
values in China. Rather, it is further regarded as a collective effort that represents family
honour and reflects the worth of the parents as based on the academic achievement of the
child (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Ng, Pomerantz, & Deng, 2014). As such, compared with
Western parents, Chinese parents are well known to engage more extensively in their
children’s education (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011) through more rigid parental practices
via training and governing (Chao, 1994, 2000).
Recent evidence has demonstrated that lower SES families are correlated with lower
parental academic involvement in China (Guo et al., 2018; Wang, Deng, & Yang, 2016).
This is, in part, because the lack of resources (e.g., time and finances) that are associated
with low SES families inevitably prevents parents from being more involved in their
children’s academics (Barg, 2019). However, little is known as to why some Chinese
parents from lower SES families do engage heavily in their children’s education
(Yamamoto, Li, & Liu, 2016). One possible explanation is that parental subjective social
mobility may buffer the adverse effects of low family SES on parental academic
involvement. Given that, a recent study has proposed that endorsing the social mobility
beliefs may motivate parents from diverse family backgrounds to become involved in their
children’s education (Ng & Wei, 2020). Therefore, the present study aims to examine the
mediating role of parental academic involvement in the relationship between family SES
and children’s academic achievement as well as the moderating effect of parental
subjective social mobility on this relationship in the context of China’s educational
system.

Family SES and children’s academic achievement

Placing tremendous emphasis on academic achievement is common in the Chinese
culture (Phillipson & Phillipson, 2007), particularly because improved academic
achievement is an effective way to prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty
(Behrman et al., 2017). Chinese families with low SES hope that high academic
achievement will change the fate of their children, and thus result in better futures and
improved family status (Chi & Rao, 2003; Kim & Fong, 2013). However, compared with
high SES families, low SES families encounter more challenges and barriers as they strive to
enhance the academic success of the next generation (Barg, 2019; Evans, 2004). This
premise is supported by social capital theory, which posits that the capital (e.g., resources
and assets) possessed by low SES families is unable to effectively address their children’s
educational needs, thus leading to their children’s failure to achieve academic success
(Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh, 2002). As such, children from low SES families may have
fewer opportunities to attain better educational resources and high levels of academic
achievement, a reality that may adversely affect them throughout their lives (OECD,
2018).
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 3

Over the past decades, the positive associations between family SES and academic
achievement have been markedly highlighted (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2001;
Blanden & Gregg, 2004), and recent research indicates that the role of family SES in
predicting academic performance has been consistently demonstrated among preschool
and elementary school children (Hair, Hanson, Wolfe, & Pollak, 2015; Hentges, Galla, &
Wang, 2019). Therefore, it is generally accepted that children from low SES families lag
behind their more advantaged peers on a variety of standardized tests (Bradley & Corwyn,
2002; Letourneau, Duffett-Leger, Levac, Watson, & Young-Morris, 2013). Moreover, this
gap in academic achievement due to family SES is widening (Blanden & Gregg, 2004).
Although family SES is directly related to children’s academic achievement, some meta-
analysis studies have indicated that the strength of this relationship varies from weak to
moderate (Kim et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Sirin, 2005; White, 1982). Moreover, there is a
lack of consensus among prior findings with respect to this relationship. While some
researchers have found that family SES is not significantly related to children’s reading
achievement (K. K. H. Chung, Liu, Mcbride, Wong, & Lo, 2016), other studies have
identified a significant but weak relationship (Duan, Guan, & Bu, 2018; Pong & Hao,
2007). Therefore, to explain the inconsistent findings in previous research, it is necessary
to examine the mechanisms through which and under what conditions family SES is
associated with children’s academic achievement.

Parental academic involvement as a mediator

Parental academic involvement refers to parental involvement in their children’s
education and schooling, and it is defined as parental participation in their children’s
school and parental engagement in working with their children to benefit their children’s
educational outcomes (Hill et al., 2004; Hill & Taylor, 2004). Parental academic
involvement includes a series of parental behaviours, such as attending parent–teacher
conferences, school activities and events and discussing school-related topics with their
children (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Significant benefits of parental involvement in
their children’s education have been found with respect to children’s adaptation in
kindergarten (Wolf & Mccoy, 2017), their academic achievement in primary school
(Khajehpour & Ghazvini, 2011), junior and senior high school (Benner et al., 2016), and
even college (W. W. Chen & Ho, 2012).
The family investment model posits that a high level of family SES increases parental
investment in their children’s development, thus improving the academic achievement of
these children (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). The types of family investment include
human, social, and cultural capital (Huston & Bentley, 2010), as well as parental
involvement in their children’s education (Mcneal, 1999; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013; Wolf &
Mccoy, 2017). Thus, based on the family investment model, parental academic
involvement may be a mediator that links family SES and children’s academic achieve-
ment.
Moreover, prior evidence has implied a mediating role of parental academic
involvement in the relationship between family SES and children’s academic achieve-
ment. On the one hand, the well-established and positive association between parental
academic involvement and children’s academic achievement has been demonstrated
previously. Not only have cross-sectional studies demonstrated a significantly positive
correlation between parental academic involvement and children’s academic outcomes
(Driessen et al., 2005; Khajehpour & Ghazvini, 2011), but longitudinal studies have also
demonstrated the long-lasting effects of parental academic involvement on children’s
4 Feng Zhang et al.

academic performance (Benner et al., 2016; Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006).
Additionally, meta-analysis studies have consistently indicated significant and positive
associations between parental academic involvement and children’s academic achieve-
ment (Castro et al., 2015; Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005). On the other hand, previous
studies have indicated that family SES is correlated with parental academic involvement.
For instance, high family financial strain is related to less parental involvement in
schooling for adolescents (Camacho-Thompson, Gillen-O’Neel, Gonzales, & Fuligni,
2016). In contrast, advantaged families are able to offer more cognitive activities than are
disadvantaged families (Mistry, Biesanz, Chien, Howes, & Benner, 2008). In addition,
positive correlations among family SES and parental participation in school activities and
academic advice have been found (Benner et al., 2016). When considering this evidence
together, it is reasonable to hypothesize that parental academic involvement mediates the
relationships between family SES and children’s academic achievement.

The moderating role of parental subjective social mobility

A number of studies have suggested the significant role of parental factors in shaping the
association between family SES and family processes (Conger et al., 2010; Conger &
Donnellan, 2007; Kaplan, Liu, & Kaplan, 2001; Mayer, 1997). Moreover, a recent study has
reviewed several parental beliefs that underlie parents’ learning-related practices (e.g.,
academic involvement), and has determined that parents’ social mobility beliefs may
motivate their academic involvement regardless of family backgrounds (Ng & Wei, 2020).
As such, parental subjective social mobility may be a potential moderator underlying the
aforementioned mediational mechanism.
Subjective social mobility is defined as one’s subjective belief of his or her ability to
move up to a position of higher social class (Huang et al., 2017; Kelley & Kelley, 2009). In
particular, according to previous researchers (Mayer, 1997; Ng & Wei, 2020), parental
subjective social mobility may be positively correlated with parental academic involve-
ment and, accordingly, may be beneficial for children from low SES families. Individuals
with a high level of subjective social mobility are more likely to believe in social equality
and justice (Kelley & Kelley, 2009) and are also more likely to ascribe success to self-effort
(e.g., diligence and willpower) (Gugushvili, 2016), thus may believe that the more they
pay, the more likely they are to achieve upward social mobility. Therefore, combined with
the fact that education level is closely related to their children’s future SES (Blanden,
2013), it is more likely that parents with a high level of subjective social mobility are more
involved in their children’s education, independent of family SES.
The protective role of subjective social mobility for low SES individuals has been
demonstrated in prior studies. Specifically, a recent study has revealed that children from
low SES families with a high level of subjective social mobility are more persistent in
striving for academic achievement (Browman, Destin, Carswell, & Svoboda, 2017).
Additionally, previous study has found that the subjective social mobility of migrants
alleviates the adverse effects of low SES on their well-being (Huang et al., 2017). Moreover,
Ng and Wei (2020) have suggested the protective role of parental social mobility beliefs in
the relationship between family SES and parental academic involvement be more
thoroughly examined. Accordingly, the findings suggest that parental subjective social
mobility may be a protective factor for children from low SES families and may exert
moderating effects on the relationship between family SES and parental academic
involvement.
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 5

The current study

Using multi-informational data collected from children and their parents and teachers, this
study aimed to examine the relationship between family SES and children’s academic
achievement as measured by children’s Chinese and math scores and to test the mediating
and moderating mechanisms underlying this relationship. Moreover, two minor limita-
tions related to previous studies are aimed to be addressed herein. First, the indicators of
family SES used in previous studies may not be comprehensive. Rather, three common
indicators, namely parents’ education, parents’ occupation, and family income, may
better reflect the general levels of family SES (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Second, few
studies have focused on parental academic involvement as reported by children. Evidence
has indicated that the levels of parental academic involvement as self-reported by parents
are usually higher than those reported by children (Leung & Shek, 2016). We argue that
the latter may be a more proximal factor for children’s academic achievement than the
former. Therefore, family SES was assessed based on parents’ education, parents’
occupation, and family income, and parental academic involvement was reported by
children in the current study.
Several hypotheses were tested to examine (1) whether family SES is positively related
to children’s academic achievement, (2) whether parental academic involvement
mediates the relationship between family SES and children’s achievement in Chinese
and math, and (3) whether parental subjective social mobility moderates the path from
family SES to parental academic involvement. Specifically, the relationship between
family SES and parental academic involvement is weak for children whose parents have
high levels of subjective social mobility.

Methods
Participants
Initially, 966 fourth- to sixth-grade students participated in the present study. All
participants were recruited from five rural public elementary schools in northern and
southern China, specifically, the provinces of Hebei and Anhui. Some incomplete or
partially completed questionnaires (n = 112) were excluded, and some participants
(n = 39) were excluded due to missing information regarding academic achievement,
that is, absent for the examination. Thus, the final sample consisted of 815 participants
with a mean age of 10.56 years (range 9 to 12 years, SD = 0.99 years). Of the participants,
42.82% were girls (n = 349), 68.99% were from Anhui Province (n = 562), and 31.01%
were from Hebei Province (n = 253). Power analysis (power = 0.95, alpha = 0.05) was
conducted using GPOWER 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), and the results
suggested that a sample size of 624 was required for detecting a small effect (f2 = 0.03) in a
multiple regression with six predictors. In other words, the total number of valid
participants in this study was much higher than the above suggested minimum.

Procedure
The data were collected during the fall semester of 2018, and the investigation protocol
was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ affiliation, the local
educational departments, and the principals of each school. Informed consent was
obtained from all children, parents, and teachers prior to data collection, and all children
were informed that their participation in our investigation was voluntary and that they
6 Feng Zhang et al.

could withdraw at any time. The multi-informational design was adopted to collect the
data reported by children, their parents, and their teachers. The children completed the
demographic information and parental academic involvement questionnaires in a quiet
classroom after verbal instructions were offered to ensure that children understood the
measurement items. Children were then asked to take the questionnaires home, and one
of their parents who self-identified as the primary caregiver was required to complete the
questionnaires. Written instructions were offered to ensure that parents understood the
items, and fathers or mothers answered a series of questionnaires, including those about
family SES and subjective social mobility. Finally, children’s Chinese and math scores from
their mid-term examinations of the fall semester were provided directly by their teachers.
Each child received a gift of approximately $3 as a reward for his or her participation.

Measures
Family SES
Family SES was measured using a composite index that including parents’ education (both
mother’s and father’s), parents’ occupation (both mother’s and father’s), and family
monthly income as reported by parents. First, parents reported the highest educational
level that they attained by selecting one of nine options that ranged from 1 = elementary
education not completed to 9 = completed graduate education. Second, parents’
occupation was assessed according to the categories of China’s occupation classification
(Shi & Shen, 2007). Parents selected one of the five occupational categories that ranged
from 1 (temporary workers) to 5 (senior managers). Third, parents reported their monthly
household income based on the following 6-point scale: 1 ≤ ¥ 1000, 2 = ¥ 1001 ~ ¥ 3000,
3 = ¥ 3001 ~ ¥ 6000, 4 = ¥ 6001 ~ ¥ 10,000, 5 = ¥ 10,001 ~ ¥ 30,000, and 6 ≥ ¥ 30,001 (¥ is
the unit of RMB). Parents selected one of the six income ranges according to their monthly
income of all family members. Consistent with prior research (K. K. H. Chung et al., 2016),
the standardized z-scores for the five variables, that is, mother’s education, father’s
education, mother’s occupation, father’s occupation, and family monthly income, were
included in the factor analysis. The index of family SES used in this study was the single
factor scores calculated from the factor analysis, with higher scores reflecting higher
levels of family SES.

Parental academic involvement

Because parent–child communication regarding school and parental school contact and
participation were the two key components of parental involvement in children’s
schooling (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005), to measure parental academic involvement
the seven items reflecting these two components were adopted from prior studies (Carter
& Wojtkiewicz, 2000; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Nokali, Bachman,
& Votrubadrzal, 2010). Specifically, four items of parent–child communication regarding
school were presented as follows: ‘My parents communicate with me about (a) school
activities and events, (b) things related to what I am studying in school, (c) the selection of
courses at school, and (d) the planning of school programs’. Three items of parental
school contact and participation were then presented: ‘My parents (a) attend parent-
teacher conferences, (b) talk to my teachers or school counsellors in person, on the phone
or over the internet, and (c) visit the school or classroom’. Children responded to the items
using a 3-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 3 (very often) to indicate the
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 7

frequency of parental academic involvement. The mean scores of all items were
calculated, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of parental academic involvement.
These items were also used among Chinese students (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011).
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.68 in the present study.

Subjective social mobility

Parental subjective social mobility was assessed using the 6-item subjective social mobility
scale (Huang et al., 2017) with parents self-reporting their scores. An example of an item is
as follows: ‘I will achieve a higher social status in the future’. The fathers or mothers who
self-identified as the primary caregiver of the children rated how strongly they agree with
each item on the scale based on scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The mean scores of all items were computed, with higher scores reflecting higher
levels of subjective social mobility. This scale has been successfully used among Chinese
adolescents and adults (Huang et al., 2017). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .78.

Academic achievement
The scores for children’s academic achievement in two main subjects, that is, Chinese and
math, were obtained from schools’ administrations and teachers and were based on the
objective mid-term examinations conducted by each school. The examinations were time-
limited and based on national curriculum standards for elementary school students. The
original maximum score of the examinations for both Chinese and math was 100. In the
present study, each child’s Chinese and math scores are standardized within their classes
to compare them with the different classes and grade levels.

Data analyses
All data were analysed using SPSS20.0 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA) and the SPSS
PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013). First, the descriptive statistics and correlations among the
main variables and demographic characteristics were analysed. Second, the mediating
effects of parental academic involvement on the relationship between family SES and
children’s Chinese and math achievement scores were examined using the PROCESS macro
developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004). Third, the moderating effects of parental
subjective social mobility on the association between family SES and parental academic
involvement in the mediation models were explored also using the SPSS PROCESS macro. A
bootstrapping resamples with 1000 runs was then conducted and resulted in generating
95% confidence intervals, and the moderated mediation models were considered to be
effective when the interaction item was significant and when the 1000 bootstrapped 95%
confidence interval did not include zero (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Finally, simple
slope analyses were conducted when the moderating effects were significant.
In addition, a one-way ANOVA and an independent-sample t-test were used to estimate
the effects of the differences in age and gender on the study variables. The results
indicated there were no significant age differences among the study variables (ps > .05).
However, girls’ Chinese achievement scores were higher than those of boys (t = 6.83,
p < .001, d = 0.47), and girls’ parental academic involvement scores were higher than
those of boys (t = 2.90, p < .01, d = .21). Though the one-way ANOVA found no
significant age differences among the study variables, the age of the children was regarded
as a covariate variable, and thus, it was controlled for in this study because previous
8 Feng Zhang et al.

evidence has implied that children’s age was likely to affect parental academic
involvement (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Sacker, Schoon, & Bartley, 2002). Accordingly, these
two variables were regarded as control variables in the subsequent analyses. Specifically,
children’s gender was coded as a dummy variable, and their age was a z-transformed
variable, while other continuous variables were standardized, and the interaction term
was calculated based on these standardized scores.

Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the main variables
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the main variables are presented in
Table 1. The results showed that family SES was significantly and positively related to
parental academic involvement (r = .13, p = .001), parental subjective social mobility
(r = .11, p = .004), and children’s Chinese and math achievement (both r = .21,
ps < .001). Parental academic involvement was positively related to parental subjective
social mobility (r = .10, p = .010) and children’s Chinese and math achievement (r = .18,
p < .001; r = .16, p < .001, respectively).

The mediating role of parental academic involvement

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, the results showed that family SES was positively
related to parental academic involvement, which in turn was positively associated with
children’s Chinese achievement (indirect effects point estimate = .02, SE = .01, 95%
CI = [0.0061, 0.0314]). The mediating effects accounted for 8.23% of the total effects.
Similarly, family SES was positively related to parental academic involvement, which in
turn was positively related to children’s math achievement (indirect effects point
estimate = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI = [0.0065, 0.0345]), and the mediating effects
accounted for 8.76% of the total effects.

The moderated mediation analyses

As shown in Table 3, for the models with family SES as the independent variable and
children’s Chinese or math scores as the dependent variable, the interaction term

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables (n = 815)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender —
2. Age .02 —
3. Family SES .02 .10** —
4. Parental academic involvement .10** .06 .13** —
5. Parental subjective social .01 .03 .11** .10* —
mobility
6. Chinese .23*** .04 .21*** .18*** .02 —
7. Math .02 .06 .21*** .16*** .01 .73*** —
M 0.57 10.56 0 2.01 3.24 0 0
SD 0.50 0.99 1 0.39 0.78 1 1

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, and *p < .05; gender is a dummy variable (boys = 1, girls = 0); family SES
is standardized score; and Chinese and math achievement are standardized z-scores within each class.
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 9

Table 2. Standardized estimates, errors, and confidence intervals for mediation models

Model a path (b, SE) b path (b, SE) c’ path (b, SE) Indirect effect (b, SE, 95% CI)

Family SES ? parental (.13, .04) (.12, .03) (.17, .03) (.02, .01, [0.0061, 0.0314])
academic involvement
? Chinese
Family SES ? parental (.13, .04) (.13, .04) (.18, .04) (.02, .01, [0.0065, 0.0345])
academic involvement
? math

between family SES and parental subjective social mobility significantly and negatively
predicted parental academic involvement (for the model with Chinese scores, b = 0.11,
t = 2.64, p = 0.008; the same for the model with math scores, b = 0.11, t = 2.64,
p = 0.008). Table 4 presents the bootstrapping estimates and slope coefficients for the
conditional indirect effects of the models. For the model with children’s Chinese or math
scores as the dependent variable, family SES was positively related to parental academic
involvement at low ( 1 SD) rather than high (+1 SD) levels of parental subjective social
mobility.
The simple slope analysis (Figure 2) indicated that the positive association between
family SES and parental academic involvement was significant for children whose parents
reported a lower level of subjective social mobility (simple slope = 0.23, t = 4.20,
p < 0.001) but not for those whose parents reported a higher level of subjective social
mobility (simple slope = 0.01, t = 0.18, p = 0.855).

Parental academic
involvement

***
.13 (.04) ***
***
.13 (.04) .12 (.03)

***
Family SES .17 (.03) Chinese

***
.18 (.04)

Math

Figure 1. Mediating effects of parental academic involvement. Note. Outside of the brackets are the
standardized coefficients, and inside the brackets are the standard errors. Gender and age were
controlled for but are not shown for simplicity of presentation.
 10
Feng Zhang et al.

Table 3. The moderated mediation models

Parental academic involvement Chinese Math

Predictors b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI b SE 95% CI

Consent .15** .06 [0.04, 0.27] .26*** .05 [0.16, 0.37] .01 .05 [ 0.11, 0.10]
Gender .22** .08 [ 0.37, 0.07] .38*** .07 [ 0.52, 0.24] .11 .07 [ 0.03, 0.25]
Age .08* .04 [0.01, 0.16] .03 .03 [ 0.10, 0.04] .06 .04 [ 0.13, 0.01]
Family SES .12** .04 [0.05, 0.19] .17*** .03 [0.11, 0.24] .18*** .04 [0.11, 0.25]
Parental subjective social mobility .08* .04 [0.002, 0.15]
Family SES 9 parental subjective social mobility .11** .04 [ 0.18, 0.03]
Parental academic involvement .12*** .03 [0.06, 0.19] .13*** .04 [0.06, 0.20]
R2 .05 .10 .07
F 6.86*** 19.64*** 12.17***

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, and *p < .05.
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 11

Table 4. Bootstrap estimates of indirect effects at 1SD and + 1SD Moderator Levels

SD level Indirect effect (b, Boot SE) 95% CI

Family SES ? parental academic involvement ? Chinese

1 SD .0279, .0105 [0.0120, 0.0550]
+1 SD .0016, .0066 [ 0.0102, 0.0166]
Family SES ? parental academic involvement ? math
1 SD .0296, .0112 [0.0118, 0.0593]
+1 SD .0017, .0070 [ 0.0112, 0.0165]

Low parental subjective social mobility

0.5
High parental subjective social mobility
Parental academic involvement

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
–0.1 Low family SES High family SES
–0.2
–0.3
–0.4
–0.5

Figure 2. Parental subjective social mobility moderates the relation between family SES and parental
academic involvement. Note. Two levels of parental subjective social mobility are graphed: one standard
deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean.

Discussion
This study aims to explore the mechanisms underlying the relationship between family
SES and children’s academic achievement. To our knowledge, there is a paucity of
research that has simultaneously investigated the moderating and mediating mechanisms
pertaining to the direct relationship between family SES (as measured by parents’
education, parents’ occupations, and family income) and children’s academic achieve-
ment in China. This study finds that parental academic involvement partially mediates the
relationship between family SES and children’s achievements in both Chinese and math.
Furthermore, parental subjective social mobility moderates the pathway from family SES
to parental academic involvement. Specifically, the relationship between family SES and
parental academic involvement is not significant among children’s parents who possessed
high levels of subjective social mobility compared with parents reporting low levels of
subjective social mobility.
Consistent with our hypothesis, family SES is positively related to children’s academic
achievement. In the present study, the indicator of family SES is composited by parents’
education, parents’ occupation, and family income. As a result, we find that family SES is
directly linked with the two main subjects, that is, Chinese and math, studied by Chinese
elementary school children, which is consistent with the results of prior research (Sirin,
2005; White, 1982). Pearson’s correlation coefficient is 0.21 for family SES and children’s
achievement in both Chinese and math. This is consistent with a recent meta-analysis
study that indicated there is a moderate relationship between family SES and academic
12 Feng Zhang et al.

achievement in China, that is, the effect size for elementary school children is r = .23 (Liu
et al., 2020). As such, this positive correlation highlights the concerns regarding academic
development for children from low SES families. Moreover, recent study has documented
a weak relationship between family SES and academic achievement in developing
countries, that is, the effect size for elementary school children is r = .08 (Kim et al.,
2019). The correlation coefficient (r = .21) of this study is higher than that of Kim et al.
(2019). This difference between the coefficients may reflect the severity of family SES gap
in Chinese children’s academic achievement and may suggest that efficient interventions
must be explored and developed. Moreover, consistent with social capital theory, the
failure in academic outcomes of children from low SES families may result from the
deficient resources provided by these families (Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh, 2002).
Therefore, low family SES is a crucial and relevant risk factor for children’s negative
academic performance as parents from low SES families face challenges with respect to
providing resources that are directly and positively correlated with their children’s
academic outcomes.
Consistent with the extensive attention directed towards the link of family processes
(Conger et al., 2010; Huston & Bentley, 2010), our findings suggest that an environmental
factor (i.e., family SES) is positively related to a proximal parental factor (i.e., academic
involvement), which in turn is positively associated with children’s academic achieve-
ment. Specifically, parental academic involvement mediates the relationship between
family SES and children’s academic achievement. This finding expands our knowledge
regarding the mechanism underlying this relationship by uncovering the mediating role of
parental academic involvement. Moreover, prior studies have adopted the parental
involvement reported by parents (Guo et al., 2018; Tazouti & Jarl
egan, 2019), which may
overestimate its association with academic outcomes because prior evidence has
suggested that the levels of parental involvement reported by parents are often higher
than those reported by children (Leung & Shek, 2016). With respect to children’s
academic achievement, the levels of their parental involvement perceived or reported by
the children are more proximal and objective than those reported by their parents.
Accordingly, future research should examine parental academic involvement as reported
by both parents and children. Nonetheless, this finding adds new evidence to the family
investment framework (Conger et al., 2010; Huston & Bentley, 2010) and suggests that
the direct effects of family SES on children’s academic outcomes are partly explained by
parental academic involvement.
To understand the indirect effects, several possible explanations are presented.
First, parents with low family SES cannot afford to provide the appropriate amount of
involvement in their children’s education. In struggling to support their families,
parents from low SES families are often working jobs with rigid schedules that require
them to spend most of their time working (Barg, 2019; Edin & Kissane, 2010) at the
expense of having the time to be involved in their children’s education, thus making it
extremely difficult for these parents to attend school events or participate in school
functions. Second, parents with low family SES may not be capable of providing
effective, high-quality involvement in their children’s education. Because of the early
experience of failure in education and limited educational levels attained, parents from
low SES families may feel low self-efficacy in being involved in their children’s
education (Kaplan et al., 2001; Tazouti & Jarl
egan, 2019). As such, it is difficult for
parents with low SES to provide effective advice and strategies to help their children
navigate school, and thus inhibit their children’s academic outcomes. Finally, the
limited quantity and quality of parental academic involvement may cause the children
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 13

of such parents to neglect or not realize the value of academic achievement

(Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007) and may not foster positive self-effort on the
part of the children towards academic achievement (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011). For
example, limited parental academic involvement, such as a lack of parent–child
interactions and communications, hinders children’s school success (Pace, Luo, Hirsh-
Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2017; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013). Therefore, though unintentional,
low SES familial parents are not able to act as effective resources at home to facilitate
their children’s academic performance at school (Barg, 2019), which ultimately leads to
the children’s academic failure.
Additionally, consistent with the hypothesis, the association between family SES and
parental academic involvement is weak among children whose parents report higher
levels of subjective social mobility. More specifically, with respect to academic
achievement in both Chinese and math, the moderating effects of parental subjective
social mobility are significant. These findings are helpful for explaining why some
parents can still be involved in their children’s education, even though they are
exposed to low family SES. Moreover, these findings broaden the suggestions of prior
studies with respect to the buffering roles of parental factors (Conger et al., 2010;
Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Kaplan et al., 2001; Mayer, 1997) and provide empirical
evidence for the assumption of Ng and Wei (2020) by further indicating the role of
parental subjective social mobility in shaping the relationship between family SES and
parental academic involvement.
A potential explanation is that subjective social mobility, as well as the positive
psychological traits previously identified (E. Chen, Lee, Cavey, & Ho, 2013), is an
additional non-economic resource that continually motivates parents from low SES
families to be involved in their children’s education. On the one hand, subjective social
mobility is closely connected to a series of positive traits, for example, persistence, and
self-control (Browman et al., 2017; Lucia, Fernald, Nancy, Stefano, & Leonard, 2015). As
such, high levels of parental subjective social mobility not only compensate for the lack of
perceived control and self-agency for parents from low SES families (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-
Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Manstead, 2018), but they also enhance self-
attribution beliefs and motivations for behaviours in the context of low SES (Gugushvili,
2016). On the other hand, to achieve upward social mobility, parents engage in
behaviours that are beneficial to the development of their families or next generations
(Den Berg, 20112011; Yamamoto et al., 2016). Notably, education is a major and direct
pathway to achieve social mobility (I. Chung & Park, 2019; Marginson, 2017), and thus, it
is extremely valued, especially by low SES families in China (Chi & Rao, 2003; Kim & Fong,
2013). Therefore, higher levels of subjective social mobility may undoubtedly translate
into increased academic involvement of parents so that their children can achieve upward
social mobility through education, and thus interrupt the intergenerational transmission
of low family SES.
As a result, although low SES families have less advantages in transferring sufficient
endowments to their children, these children can benefit from the receipt of high
levels of parental subjective social mobility in facilitating their academic achievement.
Prior research has indicated the detrimental effects of accumulated disadvantages on
children’s academic performance (Potter & Roksa, 2013). Indeed, as our findings
suggest, children who encounter both distal (low family SES) and proximal (parents
with low levels of subjective social mobility) risk factors within families engage in
double jeopardy, leaving them helpless in the face of academic achievement and thus
ultimately leading to poorer academic outcomes. Therefore, our study expanded the
14 Feng Zhang et al.

extant research into a new field by unpacking the buffering effects of high levels of
parents’ subjective social mobility on their academic involvement and thus improving
their children’s academic achievement.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations should be addressed with respect to the current study. In particular,
parental academic involvement is a multilevel concept (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
The current study mainly focuses on parent–child communication regarding school
topics and parental participation in school activities and events. Prior studies have
indicated inconsistent relationship between parental involvement and academic devel-
opment of children (Fan & Chen, 2001). Thus, future research should include more items
of parental academic involvement to specifically examine which types of parental
academic involvement have stronger correlations with family SES and children’s academic
achievement. Moreover, the present cross-sectional data may not indicate a more stable
and causal relationship among the study variables, and experimental research should be
conducted in future studies.
Despite these limitations, the current study has made contributions in several ways.
First, this study has confirmed that low family SES was indeed a crucial risk factor that
was correlated with Chinese children’s academic achievement. Second, this study has
unpacked the linking mechanism of parental academic involvement between family
SES and children’s academic achievement, which may help broaden the family
investment model and added new evidence to the literature on the processes of low
SES families. Third, this study has uncovered the buffering effects of parental subjective
social mobility in the face of adversity. These findings shed new light on interventions
for children from low SES families to prevent the intergenerational transmission of low
family SES.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the children, parents, and teachers who participated or contributed to
this study. This study was supported by the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social
Science Research Project (18YJA190003) and Youth Scholars Program of Beijing Normal
University.

Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions
Feng Zhang (Conceptualization; Investigation; Data curation; Data analysis; Writing -
original draft; Writing - review & editing) Ying Jiang (Conceptualization; Investigation;
Writing - review & editing) Hua Ming (Investigation; Project administration; Writing -
review & editing) Yi Ren (Investigation; Data curation) Lei Wang (Investigation; Data
curation) Silin Huang (Conceptualization; Resources; Project administration and super-
vision; Writing - review & editing).
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 15

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: a
seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 23, 171–191. https://doi.org/
10.3102/01623737023002171
Barg, K. (2019). Why are middle-class parents more involved in school than working-class parents?
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 59, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2018.
12.002
Behrman, J. R., Schott, W., Mani, S., Crookston, B. T., Dearden, K., Duc, L. T., . . . Stein, A. D. (2017).
Intergenerational transmission of poverty and inequality: Parental resources and schooling
attainment and children’s human capital in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 65, 657–697. https://doi.org/10.1086/691971
Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016). Parental involvement and adolescents’ educational
success: The roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 45, 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0431-4
Blanden, J., & Gregg, P. (2004). Family income and educational attainment: A review of approaches
and evidence for Britain. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 245–263. https://doi.org/10.
1093/oxrep/20.2.245
Blanden J. (2013). Cross-country rankings in intergenerational mobility: a comparison of approaches
from economics and sociology. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27, 38–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00690.x.
Bornstein, M. H., Britto, P. R., Nonoyamatarumi, Y., Ota, Y., Petrovic, O., & Putnick, D. L. (2012).
Child development in developing countries: Introduction and methods. Child Development, 83,
16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01671.x
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
135233
Browman, A. S., Destin, M., Carswell, K. L., & Svoboda, R. C. (2017). Perceptions of socioeconomic
mobility influence academic persistence among low socioeconomic status students. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.006
Camacho-Thompson, D. E., Gillen-O’Neel, C., Gonzales, N. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2016). Financial
strain, major family life events, and parental academic involvement during adolescence. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0443-0
Carter, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2000). Parental involvement with adolescents’ education: Do
daughters or sons get more help? Adolescence, 35, 29–44.
Castro, M., Exp
osito-Casas, E., L

opez-Mart
ın, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L.
(2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding
chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x
Chao, R. K. (2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations
between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 21, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00037-4
Chen, E., Lee, W. K., Cavey, L., & Ho, A. (2013). Role models and the psychological characteristics
that buffer low-socioeconomic-status youth from Cardiovascular risk. Child Development, 84,
1241–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12037
16 Feng Zhang et al.

Chen, W. W., & Ho, H. Z. (2012). The relation between perceived parental involvement and
academic achievement: The roles of Taiwanese students’ academic beliefs and filial piety.
International Journal of Psychology, 47, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.
630004
Cheung, C. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2011). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in the United
States and China: Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child
Development, 82, 932–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01582.x
Chi, J., & Rao, N. (2003). Parental beliefs about school learning and children’s educational
attainment: Evidence from rural China. Ethos, 31, 330–356. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2003.
31.3.330
Chung, I., & Park, H. (2019). Educational expansion and trends in intergenerational social mobility
among Korean men. Social Science Research, 83, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.
2019.04.020
Chung, K. K. H., Liu, H., Mcbride, C., Wong, M. Y., & Lo, J. C. M. (2016). How socioeconomic status,
executive functioning and verbal interactions contribute to early academic achievement in
Chinese children. Educational Psychology, 37, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.
1179264
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and
individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x
Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic
context of human development. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 58, 175–199. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-
income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653
Den Berg, M. V. (2011). Subjective social mobility: Definitions and expectations of ‘moving up’ of
poor Moroccan women in the Netherlands. International Sociology, 26, 503–523. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0268580910393042
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543072001031
Driessen, G., Smit, F., & Sleegers, P. (2005). Parental involvement and educational achievement.
British Educational Research Journal, 31, 509–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01411920500148713
Duan, W., Guan, Y., & Bu, H. (2018). The effect of parental involvement and socioeconomic status
on junior school students’ academic achievement and school behavior in China. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 952. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00952
Edin, K., & Kissane, R. J. (2010). Poverty and the American family: A decade in review. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00713.x
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77–92.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 70, 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1009048817385
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00747.x
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 17

Gugushvili, A. (2016). Intergenerational social mobility and popular explanations of poverty: A

comparative perspective. Social Justice Research, 29, 402–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11211-016-0275-9
Guo, X., Lv, B., Zhou, H., Liu, C., Liu, J., Jiang, K., & Luo, L. (2018). Gender differences in how family
income and parental education relate to reading achievement in China: The mediating role of
parental expectation and parental involvement. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 783. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00783
Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2015). Association of child poverty, brain
development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 822–829. https://doi.org/10.
1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 51, 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
Hentges, R. F., Galla, B. M., & Wang, M. (2019). Economic disadvantage and math achievement: The
significance of perceived cost from an evolutionary perspective. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12242
Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004).
Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations:
Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491–1509. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement:
Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment
of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763. https://d
oi.org/10.1037/a0015362
Huang, S., Hou, J., Sun, L., Dou, D., Liu, X., & Zhang, H. (2017). The effects of objective and
subjective socioeconomic status on subjective well-being among rural-to-urban migrants in
China: The moderating role of subjective social mobility. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 819.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00819
Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in children’s schooling: Different
meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 398–410. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.006
Huston, A. C., & Bentley, A. C. (2010). Human development in societal context. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100442
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to Urban elementary
school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0042085905274540
Kaplan, D. S., Liu, X., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Influence of parents’ self-feelings and expectations on
children’s academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 360–370. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220670109598773
Kelley, S. M. C., & Kelley, C. G. E. (2009).Subjective social mobility: Data from 30 nations. Charting
the Globe: The International Social Survey Programme1984-2009. Available at SSRN: https://
ssrn.com/abstract=1306242.
Khajehpour, M., & Ghazvini, S. D. (2011). The role of parental involvement affect in children’s
academic performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1204–1208. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.263
Kim, S. W., Cho, H., & Kim, L. Y. (2019). Socioeconomic status and academic outcomes in
developing countries: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89, 875–916. https://d
oi.org/10.3102/0034654319877155
Kim, S. W., & Fong, V. L. (2013). How parents help children with homework in China: Narratives
across the life span. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12564-013-9284-7
18 Feng Zhang et al.

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class,
solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review,
119, 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756
Letourneau, N. L., Duffett-Leger, L., Levac, L., Watson, B., & Young-Morris, C. (2013). Socioeconomic
status and child development: A meta-analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 21, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611421007
Leung, J. T. Y., & Shek, D. T. L. (2016). Parent–child discrepancies in perceived parental sacrifice and
achievement motivation of Chinese adolescents experiencing economic disadvantage. Child
Indicators Research, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9332-4
Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic
achievement in China: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(), 49–76. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09494-0
Lucia, R. W. M., Fernald, L. C. H., Nancy, A., Stefano, B., & Leonard, S. S. (2015). Perceptions of social
mobility: Development of a new psychosocial indicator associated with adolescent risk
behaviors. Frontiers in Public Health, 3, 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00062
Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts
thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 267–291. https://d
oi.org/10.1111/bjso.12251
Marginson, S. (2017). Higher education, economic inequality and social mobility: Implications for
emerging East Asia. International Journal of Educational Development, 63, 4–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.03.002
Mayer, S. (1997). What money can’t buy: Family income and children’s life chances. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Mcneal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science
achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 117–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3005792
Mistry, R. S., Biesanz, J. C., Chien, N., Howes, C., & Benner, A. D. (2008). Socioeconomic status,
parental investments, and the cognitive and behavioral outcomes of low-income children from
immigrant and native households. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 193–212. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.002
Ng, F. F., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2014). Why are Chinese mothers more controlling than
American mothers? "My child is my report card". Child Development, 85, 355–369. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12102
Ng, F. F., & Wei, J. (2020). Delving into the minds of Chinese parents: What beliefs motivate their
learning-related practices? Child Development Perspectives, 14, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cdep.12358
Nokali, N. E. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votrubadrzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s
academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988–1005.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x
OECD (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). Identifying pathways between
socioeconomic status and language development. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 285–308.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034226
Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2007). Academic expectations, belief of ability, and involvement
by parents as predictors of child achievement: A cross-cultural comparison. Educational
Psychology, 27, 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601104130
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 373–410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567
Pong, S. L., & Hao, L. (2007). Neighborhood and school factors in the school performance of
immigrants’ children. International Migration Review, 41, 206–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1747-7379.2007.00062.x
 Socio-economic status and academic achievement 19

Potter, D., & Roksa, J. (2013). Accumulating advantages over time: Family experiences and social
class inequality in academic achievement. Social Science Research, 42, 1018–1032. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.005
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 36, 717–
731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Sacker, A., Schoon, I., & Bartley, M. (2002). Social inequality in educational achievement and
psychosocial adjustment throughout childhood: Magnitude and mechanisms. Social Science
and Medicine, 55, 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00228-3
Shi, B., & Shen, J. (2007). The relationships among family SES, intelligence, intrinsic motivation and
creativity. Psychological Development and Education (in Chinese), 23, 30–34. https://doi.org/
10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2007.01.006
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/3515987
Sohr-Preston, S. L., Scaramella, L. V., Martin, M. J., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L., & Conger, R. (2013).
Parental socioeconomic status, communication, and children’s vocabulary development: A
third-generation test of the family investment model. Child Development, 84, 1046–1062.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12023
Tazouti, Y., & Jarl
egan, A. (2019). The mediating effects of parental self-efficacy and parental
involvement on the link between family socioeconomic status and children’s academic
achievement. Journal of Family Studies, 25, 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.
2016.1241185
Wang, Y., Deng, C., & Yang, X. (2016). Family economic status and parental involvement: Influences
of parental expectation and perceived barriers. School Psychology International, 37, 536–553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316667646
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.461
Wolf, S., & Mccoy, D. C. (2017). Household socioeconomic status and parental investments: Direct
and indirect relations with school readiness in Ghana. Child Development, 90, 260–278.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12899
Yamamoto, Y., Li, J., & Liu, J. L. (2016). Does socioeconomic status matter for Chinese immigrants’
academic socialization? Family environment, parental engagement, and preschoolers’
outcomes. Research in Human Development, 13, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15427609.2016.1194706

Received 11 November 2019; revised version received 5 May 2020