Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Social Stratification and Mobility

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rssm

Does school matter for students’ self-esteem? Associations of family SES,

peer SES, and school resources with Chinese students’ self-esteem
Weiwei Li a, Xihua Zeng b, e, *, Yun Wang c, *, Robin Curtis d, Erin Sparks d
a
Guangdong University of Education, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
b
Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research), Guangzhou,
Guangdong, People’s Republic of China
c
State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
d
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
e
Department of Psychiatry, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical Uniersity, Guangzhoudong, People’s Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Educational equality has attracted many countries’ efforts to increase school resources to improve poor students’
Socioeconomic status nonachievement development. The present study investigated the associations between family socioeconomic
Self-esteem status (SES) and self-esteem, as well as their variances across school contextual variables (school location, peer
Peer SES
SES, school resources). This study used data from the National Children’s Study of China (NCSC), with a sample
School resources
of 23,627 students (4th – 9th grade, mean age = 12.76 years, 47.1 % female) from 604 schools. The multilevel
Multilevel analysis
linear model analyses mainly found the following: (1) family SES (objective income, subjective income, parental
education) was significantly and positively related to self-esteem; (2) peer parental education and teacher-related
resources were positively and significantly associated with self-esteem; and (3) most importantly, the positive
association between subjective income and self-esteem was stronger in urban schools than rural schools. The
positive association between parental education and self-esteem was stronger in schools with higher peer
parental education but was weaker in schools with higher teacher education. Based on these findings, we provide
suggestions for the efficient allocations of school resources and the promotion of programs for students’ self-
esteem.

1. Introduction influences the development of important life outcomes (Orth et al.,

Educational equality is an important issue in different countries. To
realize educational equality, many countries attempt to increase
educational resources to buffer the negative impact of family SES (so­
cioeconomic status) on poor children’s development, which raises an
increasing concern about the efficiency of school resource investment.
The empirical studies on educational resource investment have focused
intensively on the functions of peer family SES (average students’ family
SES from a school; van Ewijk & Sleegers, 2010) and school resources (all
the school material inputs; OECD, 2013), revealing their important roles
in students’ achievement (e.g., Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Opdenakker &
Damme, 2007). However, scholars are increasingly concerned about the
association between school resources and students’ nonachievement
outcomes such as self-esteem. It has been documented that self-esteem
2012). Self-esteem attained in childhood and adolescence has
far-reaching consequences on students’ development, especially for
poor students) (Mann, Hosman, Schaalma, & De Vries, 2004). For
example, positive self-esteem predicts increased academic resilience
among poor students in disadvantaged situations (Borman & Overman,
2004) and increased success in their future careers (Mann, Hosman,
Schaalma, & De Vries, 2004). Thus, self-esteem is a critical internal
resource for students with low family SES to improve their disadvan­
taged conditions. Unfortunately, most students with low family SES
have impaired self-esteem (e.g., Falci, 2011; Liu & Zhao, 2016; Twenge
& Campbell, 2002; Veselska et al., 2010), which puts them at a disad­
vantage and ultimately hinders intergenerational social mobility. A
limited Western study has found that as the proportions of middle- or
high-income parents increased, low-income students experienced more

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: lweiwei01@gdei.edu.cn (W. Li), zxihuar@163.com (X. Zeng), wangyun@bnu.edu.cn (Y. Wang), Robin.Curtis@Dal.Ca (R. Curtis), Erin.Sparks@
Dal.Ca (E. Sparks).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100565
Received 29 April 2018; Received in revised form 28 August 2020; Accepted 21 October 2020
Available online 24 October 2020
0276-5624/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Li et al.
psychosocial problems such as low self-esteem (Crosnoe, 2009). In­
dividuals’ self-esteem is more contingent on social contexts in Eastern
cultures, such as China (Hwang, 2012; Pelham, 1995). The impact of
family SES on self-esteem could vary across schools with different peer
SES and school resources. To take advantage of school resources to
improve students’ self-esteem, it is necessary to examine whether and
how different school resources affect students’ self-esteem and how they
buffer the association of family SES to self-esteem.
The current study is based on data from the National Children’s
Study of China (NCSC). It aims to test (1) the associations between in­
dividual students’ family SES (objective income, parental education,
subjective income) and self-esteem; (2) the associations between school
location, peer family SES, school resources (material resources, teacher-
related resources) and students’ self-esteem; and (3) whether the asso­
ciations between individual family SES (by means of different SES in­
dicators) and self-esteem vary across school contextual variables (school
location, peer family SES, school resources). This study aims to reveal
not only the impacts of school contextual variables on students’ self-
esteem but also their moderating roles in the associations between
family SES and self-esteem. This study can provide more informed
suggestions, not only for China but also for other countries, about the
efficient allocation of school resources.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. The association between family SES and students’ self-esteem
Self-esteem is defined as an individual’s overall positive or negative
evaluation of the self, emerging from interactions with one’s peers,
family, and other members of society (Rosenberg et al., 1995). Re­
searchers have documented that family SES is an important family
contextual factor relating to self-esteem (Twenge & Campbell, 2002;
Wiltfang and Scarbecz, 1990). Studies conducted in Western countries
and mainland China have provided evidence that higher family SES (as
ascribed by parents) positively predicted children’s and adolescents’
higher self-esteem (Falci, 2011; Feng & Zhang, 2008; Herman et al.,
2011; Zeng et al., 2017).
In the empirical studies to date, researchers have tested family SES
through different indicators, namely, objective family SES and subjec­
tive family SES (Kraus et al., 2012). Specifically, objective family SES
consists of self-reports of an individual’s family or their income, edu­
cation, and occupation (Gottfried, 1985). Subjective family SES is
assessed by an individual’s psychological identification as a member of
their class after comparing their resources with the resources of others,
or with their past income (e.g., Adler et al., 2000).
Objective and subjective SES independently link to self-esteem in
different ways (Zeng et al., 2017). First, objective family SES can relate
to self-esteem through internalizing others’ perceptions about ourselves,
referred to as the ‘looking-glass self’ process (i.e., the reflected ap­
praisals model, Twenge & Campbell, 2002). If we perceive that others
see us as lower/higher class by our visible wealth, we are likely to see
ourselves that way as well and therefore experience lower/higher
self-esteem. In the empirical studies, objective family SES has been
tested with different objective indicators, such as objective income,
occupation, and education (e.g., Conger et al., 2010). Objective income
is the most visible label for self-evaluation. For example, students easily
experience lower/higher self-esteem among peers when others evaluate
their worn-out/fancy clothes. Parental occupation, a measure of
parental working position in the society, is closely connected with par­
ents’ working conditions (Wang et al., 2018). It indirectly influences
students’ outcomes by relating to someone who is close to the child
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Parental education can make differences in the
perception of social class in some societies, such as China. The Chinese
people highly stress the importance of education, and scholars have
enjoyed high social reputation and status since ancient China (Han,
2013). Within such societies, well-educated parents themselves enjoy
2
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
high social status, which also affects others’ evaluations of their children
because of the Chinese belief that “a tiger has no dog son”. As the re­
flected appraisals model assumes, children can perceive high social
status when others positively evaluate them because of their parents’
high level of education, which leads to high self-esteem. Moreover,
well-educated parents’ have better knowledge and parenting practices
and can support and protect children’s self-esteem.
Second, compared with objective SES, subjective SES has a stronger
connection to the perceptions of the social class (Chen et al., 2018, 2019;
Operario et al., 2004; Piko & Fitzpatrick, 2001). According to reference
group theory, subjective SES makes individuals perceive their social
positions by comparing their wealth with that of the referent group in
the immediate social context (Chen, 2019). Irrespective of their objec­
tive SES, people feel richer or poorer than the referent group, which
leads to positive or negative self-evaluations. For example, recent
empirical evidence has found that students with a lower subjective SES
(taking over from parents’ subjective SES) were more vulnerable to low
self-esteem (Zeng et al., 2017).
To summarize, the association between family SES and self-esteem is
comprehensive because of the differentiation between the objective and
subjective indicators, as well as the differentiation among objective SES
indicators. However, there is a shortage of evidence that includes all the
indicators in one study. To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the
impact of family economic context on students’ self-esteem, this study
seeks to differentiate between objective SES (objective income, parental
education) and subjective income to test the links between family SES
and self-esteem at the individual and school levels.
2.2. The associations between school contexts and students’ self-esteem
According to self-categorization theory, peer family SES and school
resources could make a difference in self-esteem. Self-categorization
theory assumes that categorizing oneself as a part of a certain group can
accentuate the perceived similarities (e.g., identity, attitudes) between
the self and the in-group members and accentuate the perceived dif­
ferences between the self and the out-group members (Stets & Burke,
2000; van Dick et al., 2005v). Usually, schools with high peer SES and
with rich school resources are known for their superior students and
better teaching resources (Chiu, 2010). In the schools with high peer
family SES or rich school resources, students can categorize themselves
as a member of the group of privileged people and enjoy a sense of group
glory and pride derived from the distinguished group members, thereby
gaining high self-esteem (e.g., Major & O’Brien, 2005; Marsh et al.,
2000; van Dick et al., 2005v). Speaking to this possibility, students in the
schools with high peer family SES reported significantly higher
self-esteem than did children in the schools with low peer family SES
(Farrell et al., 2009). In another Chinese study, Zheng (2013) compared
students from advantaged schools with those from disadvantaged
schools (based on school types, not contextual variables), finding that
students in the advantaged schools experienced higher self-esteem.
With the growing public awareness of educational investment in
schooling and teaching, most studies have tested the associations be­
tween school resources and students’ achievement (e.g., Caldas &
Bankston, 1997; Opdenakker & Damme, 2007), yet very few studies
focus on students’ self-esteem. Based on the self-categorization process,
people share in the high value and pride that is derived from the
distinguished groups (e.g., Marsh et al., 2000). We expect that high peer
family SES and rich school resources could be a link to students’ high
self-esteem, which needs to be tested by empirical study. Moreover, as
mentioned above, family SES can be linked to self-esteem by means of
different SES indicators. It remains unknown whether and how these
school contextual variables weaken or strengthen the relationships be­
tween family SES (with different indicators) and self-esteem.
W. Li et al.
2.3. School contexts as moderators for the associations between family
SES and self-esteem
Many studies have attempted to test the variations in the associations
between family SES and students’ outcomes across schools. Researchers
have proposed three hypotheses to explain this moderation effect,
namely, the social reproduction hypothesis, the complementary intangible
hypothesis, and the public resources substitution hypothesis (Chiu & Zeng,
2008, for a review). Although these hypotheses are proposed based on
studies about achievement (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Harris,
2010; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005; Ryabov, 2011) and subjective
well-being (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002), they can be used to elabo­
rate on the moderation effect of school context on the family
SES/self-esteem link because self-esteem is one of the important aspects
for the development of children and adolescents, closely relating to
achievement, well-being, etc.
First, the social reproduction hypothesis assumes that the effect of
family SES on students’ self-esteem may not vary across school resources
(Blossfeld & Shavit, 1991). As mentioned above, students can form a
self-evaluation by observing the way that others evaluate by their visible
wealth (the reflected appraisals model). No matter how peer family SES
and school resources vary, richer students in one school can still show off
their visible family wealth (e.g., fancy clothes and learning materials)
and obtain higher self-esteem. For example, it has been documented that
school material resources in different institutions outside of the family
(e.g., countries) did not moderate the effect of individual family SES on
outcomes (Chiu & Zeng, 2008). Thus, the social reproduction hypothesis
indicates that family SES (especially objective family income) could be
constant across schools.
Second, the complementary intangible hypothesis presumes that
school environments may strengthen the association between family SES
and students’ self-esteem. Many studies have found the positive impact
of peer family SES on students’ outcomes (e.g., Perry & McConney,
2010); in particular, when students with high levels of parental educa­
tion aggregate together, schools are more likely to provide advanced
teaching and a complicated curriculum. It has been documented that as
peer SES increases, schools are more likely to provide small groups
working on a scientific experiment, hands-on practical activities, etc.
(Tao et al., 2013). If students can receive the advanced knowledge and
academic support of well-educated parents, they can easily fulfill the
schooling requirement and build up higher self-esteem. Thus, this hy­
pothesis reflects the growing importance of family SES (especially
family intangible resources such as parental education) on self-esteem in
schools with a high peer SES.
Third, the public resources substitution hypothesis (Blossfeld &
Shavit, 1991) assumes that schools with better teacher-related resources
may buffer the impact of family SES on student’s self-esteem. For years,
the question about what kinds of school resources can positively relate
to students’ outcomes has not been confidently settled (e.g., Hanushek,
1997), but researchers have thought highly of teacher-related resources
(e.g., Darling-hammond, 2000). Teacher-related resources, such as
teacher education level and teacher/student ratio, describe the varia­
tions in the instructional support across classrooms (Hanushek, 1997).
Highly educated teachers can provide effective teaching tactics and form
intimate relationships with students, which would reduce the impor­
tance of parental tutoring and instruction (Rjosk et al., 2014) and buffer
the parents’ negative evaluations and parenting practices associated
with low family SES (Li et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2015). Compared with the
null or strengthened moderation effect assumed, the public resources
substitution hypothesis may provide practical advice on what kind of
efforts a school can make, particularly for students with low family SES.
To summarize, the three hypotheses and related evidence provide a
different perspective to explain the moderation effects of the school
environment. Building on the three hypotheses about the effect of the
school environment, we predict that school contextual variables may
neutrally, positively, or negatively moderate the associations been
3
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
family SES and self-esteem, depending on the types of school contextual
variables and family SES indicators in question. Moreover, because
family SES may be linked to self-esteem through different family in­
dicators, it is necessary to explore how the school contextual variables
interact with different family SES indicators to relate to self-esteem.
2.4. The association between school location and students’ self-esteem
Chinese rapid economic development and urbanization has unsur­
prisingly widened the economic disparity between urban areas and rural
areas (e.g., Treiman, 2012). School location (urban schools versus rural
schools) represents the urban-rural disparity to a larger extent and may
relate to students’ self-esteem.
Chinese urban areas enjoy better welfare resources, public goods
resources, and educational resources than rural areas (Treiman, 2012).
Compared with rural schools, urban schools spend far more on educa­
tion and have better health care. In line with the self-categorization
process, students in urban schools could be more likely to categorize
themselves as members of a privileged group, leading to higher
self-esteem.
The associations between family SES and self-esteem may differ be­
tween urban versus rural schools. On the one hand, urban schools can
provide rich educational and public resources, which can buffer the
impact of family SES on self-esteem (as the public resources substitution
hypothesis assumed). On the other hand, the educational market has
grown faster in Chinese urban areas. Urban parents have to spend much
more than rural parents on children’s educational support, such as skill
training and extracurricular learning; thus, family SES is more important
for students’ development in rich areas (Chiu & Zeng, 2008) (as the
complementary intangible hypothesis assumed). At present, many par­
ents have attempted to seek urban schooling for children; it is necessary
to explore whether family SES is more strongly related to self-esteem in
urban schools.
To summarize, due to economic disparity and educational inequity,
it is important to examine whether and how school contexts could
change the link between family SES and self-esteem, which can help us
improve the efficiency of educational investment and increase educa­
tional equality. As seen in Fig. 1, we refer to reflected appraisal theory,
referent group theory, and self-categorization theory to assume that
family SES and school contextual variables positively relate to self-
esteem. This is the first study to use the hierarchical linear model
(HLM) of multilevel analysis to test cross-level interactions between
family SES and school contextual variables on self-esteem. Based on the
three hypotheses of the school context effect, we predict that the cross-
level interactions could be neutrally, positively, or negatively related to
self-esteem, depending on the types of school resources and family SES
indicators.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Data
Data for this study came from the National Children’s Study of China
(NCSC). NCSC is a nationally representative standardized assessment
developed and conducted by the National Key Laboratory of Cognitive
Neuroscience and Learning at Beijing Normal University. The objective
of the NCSC is to assess the academic, cognitive, and psychosocial
development of children and adolescents aged 6–15 years in China
(Dong & Lin, 2011). The NCSC sample was selected from 100 counties in
31 provinces of the Chinese mainland using multistage, stratified, and
unequal probability methods. More details about the design of the NCSC
can be found on its website (http://cddata-china.org/main/index.aspx)
or in the general report of NCSC (Dong & Lin, 2011). The current study
used the social development database from the NCSC and the sample
comprised 23,627 students (11,868 students from 229 primary schools
and 11,759 from 375 middle schools), covering 4th to 9th grade
W. Li et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565

Fig. 1. Hypotheses for the associations between family SES, school contexts, their interactions, and self-esteem. a. We predicted that school-level variables interacted
with an individual-level variable to relate to self-esteem, which includes three possible hypotheses. b = zero cross-level interaction on the association between the
family SES and self-esteem. c = the positive cross-level interaction on the association between family SES and self-esteem. d = the negative cross-level interaction on
the association between family SES and self-esteem. The arrows with dashed lines indicated the cross-level interactions between individual and school-level variables.

students. The mean age of participants was 12.76 years [standard de­
viation (SD) = .17], and 47.1 % (N = 11,118) of participants were fe­ Table 1
Measurements of variables.
male. Consent was obtained from the participants’ parents and school
principals. Self-esteem Overall evaluation of self.

Individual-level
variables
3.2. Measures Objective income Annual income per family over the past year.
Parental education Years of schooling that father or mother has received,
Table 1 shows the details of the measures used in the current study, including 6 years (i.e., primary schools), 9 years (i.e.,
which are arranged into individual-level and school-level variables. middle schools), 12 years (i.e., high schools), above 15
years (i.e., college and university). The longer years
indicate a higher education level.
3.2.1. Student-related variables Subjective income Parents’ perception of their family income in comparison
Self-esteem was measured by the nine-item Chinese version of the with the average level of their local community.
Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978). According to Control variables
Gender Female coded as 0, male coded as 1.
the scale, it measured global self-esteem, which is defined as an overall
Age Students’ biological age.
attitude about the self with an evaluation component, such as ‘I take a Behind age Normal schooling age coded as 0, older than the most
positive attitude towards myself; I am able to do things as well as most frequent or usual age for the grade coded as 1.
other people’. Responses were rated on a four-point scale, ranging from School-level variables
1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). With negatively worded items Peer family income Averaged individual objective income from a school.
Peer parental Averaged individual parental education from a school.
reversed, all items were averaged to form the scale score. Cronbach’s
education
alpha was .85 for this scale in the present study. Peer subjective Averaged individual subjective income from a school.
Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by three indicators: objec­ family income
tive income, parental education, and subjective income. These variables School location Urban coded as 1, rural coded as 0.
were all reported by parents. Objective income was reported by the exact Book collections The book collection that schools have (‘how many books
are there in your school library?’), with response options
combined income of all family members per year and converted to an including 1 (less than 500), 2 (500− 2000), 3
ordinal scale. The scale ranged from 1 (less than 3000 RMB, approxi­ (2001− 5000) and 4 (more than 5000). Higher scores
mately equal to 453 U.S. dollars) to 9 (200,001 RMB or more, approx­ indicate more school resources.
imately equal to 30,199 U.S. dollars). Parental education was measured Equipment The equipment that schools have (‘how many classes (the
approximate rate) are equipped with multimedia,
by the years of schooling that parents have received. Responses included
projection, etc.?’), responded by 1 (0− 20%), 2 (21 %–40
6 years (i.e., primary school), 9 years (i.e., middle school), 12 years (i.e., %), 3 (51 %–60 %), 4 (61 %–80 %), and 5 (80 %–100 %).
high school), and 15 years or more (i.e., college and university), with the Higher scores indicate more equipment applied in
longer years indicating higher education levels. Subjective income was schools.
reported according to the parents’ perception of their family income in Teacher education A number computed from the percentage of teachers with
a bachelor’s, master’s or Ph.D. degree in a given school.
comparison with the average income level of their local community. Teacher/student ratio The number of teachers divided by the number of students
Responses were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (far worse in a given school.
than average) to 5 (far better than average).
Control variables included students’ demographic variables,
including gender, age, and below normal schooling age. We used the age
and grade variable to create the ‘normal schooling age group’ variable. If
students were as old as the normal schooling age, they were categorized
as a group of normal schooling students. If students were older than the

4
W. Li et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565

most frequent or usual age for the grade they attended, they were Table 2
categorized as a group of left-behind students. Descriptions of individual-level and school-level variables.
Variables Mean (SD)/percentage
3.2.2. School-related variables
Dependent variable
School location was reported by principals, who indicated whether Self-esteem 27.555(4.521)
their school was located in an urban area or a rural area (rural = 0, urban Individual level (N ¼ 23,627)
= 1). Based on the administrative division of China (The State Council, Family income 3.57 (1.909)
2006), the urban areas belong to the jurisdiction residents committee Parental education 2.484 (1.134)
Subjective family income 2.89 (.725)
and the rural areas belong to the village committee. Urban area refers to Age 12.765 (1.732)
the area related to the actual construction of residential committees and Behind age (normal age) 96.7 %
other residential buildings in cities, district-level cities, districts, and Gender (Boys = 1) 52.9 %
municipalities. Rural area refers to the area outside the town, defined by School level (N ¼ 604)
School location (urban school) 62.1 %
the regulation of the Chinese administrative division.
Peer objective family income 3.595 (.2771)
Peer family SES was averaged by individual objective income, indi­ Peer parental education 2.493 (.797)
vidual subjective income, and individual parental education from a Peer subjective family income 2.891 (.277)
given school, which was standardized at the school level (Marsh & Hau, Book collections 2.527 (1.156)
2003). Equipment 2.347 (1.763)
Teacher education .462 (.353)
School material resources included equipment and books, which were Teacher/student ratio .061 (.023)
all reported by principals. Equipment was reported with the application
of teaching equipment (e.g., multimedia, projection) in the school,
namely, ‘how many classes (the approximate rate) are equipped with
Table 3
multimedia, projection, etc.?’. Responses were rated on a five-point
Estimated parameters of hierarchical multilevel regression predicting self-
scale from 1 (0− 20%) to 5 (80 %–100 %); higher scores indicated that
esteem by individual family SES (objective income, parental education, sub­
more equipment was available in schools. Books were measured with jective income), school contextual variables (school location, peer family SES,
one item: ‘how many books are there in your school library?’. Responses school resources), and interactions between individual family SES and school
were rated on a four-point scale from 1 (less than 500) to 4 (more than levels.
5000). Again, higher scores indicated more school resources.
M0 M1 M2 M3
Teacher-related resources included teacher education and teacher/
Fixed effect
student ratio. Teacher education was reported by the percentage of
Individual Level
teachers who hold at least a bachelor’s degree. The teacher/student ratio Family income (FI) .055*** .038*** .029**
was calculated by dividing the number of teachers by the number of (.007) (.007) (.011)
students in a school. Subjective income .036*** .032*** .017(.011)
(SI) (.007) (.007)
Parental education .130*** .089*** .102**
3.3. Analytical strategies
(PE) (.008) (.008) (.012)
School level
In the present study, the percentages of missing data ranged from 0.1 Peer parental .138*** .123***
% for self-esteem to 18.5 % for books. We addressed missing data using education (.019) (.019)
EM (Expectation-Maximization) in SPSS 17.0 before conducting a Teacher education .047*** .056***
(.012) (.012)
multilevel analysis. To explore our research questions, we used hierar­ Teacher/student .037*** .036***
chical linear model analysis to explore the relations between SES and ratio (.010) (.010)
self-esteem at the student level and school level. We estimated param­ Cross-Level
eters with a restricted iterative generalized least square method by HLM School location x .043*(.020)
subjective income
version 6.08 (Muthén & Muthén 2012). Before estimation, we stan­
Peer parental .049***
dardized all measures of variables across the entire sample (see Marsh, education x parental (.014)
1987). Peer family SES was determined by taking the average of indi­ education
vidual SES in each school (but with no restandardization so that both Teacher education − .025***
individual and school-level scores were in the same metric). x parental education (.009)
Random effect
We explored our research questions by the following models. First, School-level variance .119(.346) .062*** .034*** .033***
we computed a null model (M0) with a random intercept but no (.250) (.185) (.182)
explanatory variables. In M0, the total variances in the dependent var­ Student-level variance .889(.943) .881(.939) .880(.937) .878(.937)
iable (self-esteem) were decomposed into variations among students and Objective income .001(.026)
slope variance
schools. Second, we tested the family SES model (M1) by adding the
Subjective income .001(.026)
three SES indicators (objective, subjective family income, parental ed­ slope variance
ucation) simultaneously, but with fixed slopes. M1 can test whether a Parental education .002(.040)
significant amount of the variance in self-esteem could be explained by slope variance
family SES after accounting for other individual characteristics. Third, in Number of estimated 2 2 2 11
parameters
model 2 (M2), we added school location, peer family SES, and school − 2LL 65361.172 64897.949 64657.778 64778.137
resources as the predictors for the level-2 intercept, with family SES ΔR2 a 0.785 % 45.289 % 33.591 %
slopes fixed. M2 can test the main effects of school contextual variables
Note. Only significant standardized regression coefficients with standard error in
on self-esteem. Fourth, in model 3 (M3), we added school location, peer
parentheses are shown in table. M0 = the null model without any predictors;
family SES and school resources as predictors for the random slopes of M1= the family SES model with three family indicators added simultaneously;
family SES, interacting with all three family SES indicators simulta­ M2 = the school context model with school variables added into the school level
neously. M3 can test whether the effects of individual family SES on self- intercept; M3 = the cross-interaction model with interactions between school
esteem varied by the school variables. variables and family SES. a: ΔR2 indicated the effect size for the variables added
to the models.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

5
W. Li et al.
4. Results
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for level-1 and level-2 vari­
ables. Table 3 shows the main analysis results of our multilevel regres­
sion models. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the null
model suggests that 11.8 % of the variance in students’ self-esteem was
explained by school variables. With the M1, M2, M3 models, we
sequentially analyzed the associations between family SES, school
contextual variables, and their interactions with self-esteem. We added
three SES indicators simultaneously at the individual level, school level,
and cross-level interactions. In this way, the full model results became
greatly complicated for the 18 cross-level interaction variables. To
simplify the presentation of the results, we only showed the significant
results of all models as follows.
4.1. The associations between family SES and student’s self-esteem
Table 3 shows that with family SES indicators simultaneously added
into M1, the three indicators (objective income, subjective income,
parental education) of family SES significantly and positively related to
self-esteem (objective income βFI=.055, p<.001; subjective income βSI
=.036, p < .001; parental education βPE = .130, p < .001), which
respectively accounted for 7.326 %, 1.587 %, and 32.031 % of the
individual-level variance in self-esteem.
4.2. The associations between school contextual variables and students’
self-esteem
Overall, model 2 (Table 3) shows the significant predictors of self-
esteem at the school level. Specifically, peer parental education (β =
.138, p < .001), teacher education (β = .047, p < .001), and teacher/
student ratio (β = .037, p < .001) significantly and positively related to
self-esteem, which respectively accounted for 12.423 %, 3.710 %, and
3.056 % of the school-level variance in self-esteem. However, school
location, peer family income, peer subjective family income, book col­
lections, and equipment did not significantly relate to self-esteem.
4.3. Variance in the associations between family SES and self-esteem
across school contextual variables
Finally, we simultaneously added school contextual variables into
the cross-level interaction model to interact with each of the three family
SES indicators (M3, Table 3) and found that school location positively
interacted with subjective income (β = .043, p < .05), which accounted
for 15.054 % of the variance in the slope of subjective family income on
self-esteem. Peer parental education positively interacted with parental
education (β = .049, p < .001), which accounted for 13.684 % of the
variance in the slope of parental education on self-esteem. However,
teacher education negatively interacted with parental education (β =
− .025, p < .001), accounting for 7.865 % of the variance in the slope of
parental education on self-esteem. All the remaining school contextual
variables did not significantly interact with family SES (objective in­
come, parental education, subjective income).
5. Discussion
To test the moderation effect of school resources on the link between
family and self-esteem, this study used data from a national survey of
Chinese children and adolescents to explore the associations between
family SES and self-esteem, as well as the extent to which these associ­
ations vary across school contexts. The HLM analysis showed that family
SES (measured by objective income, parental education, and subjective
income) positively and significantly related to Chinese students’ self-
esteem. At the school level, peer parental education, teacher educa­
tion, and teacher/student ratio are positively related to self-esteem. The
positive association between subjective income and self-esteem was
6
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
stronger in urban schools, and the association between parental edu­
cation and self-esteem was stronger in schools with higher peer parental
education but was weaker in schools with higher teacher educational
level.
5.1. The positive associations between family SES and self-esteem
We find that students’ family SES (objective income, parental edu­
cation, and subjective income) significantly and positively related to
self-esteem, which is similar to previous findings (Varga et al., 2014). In
line with the reflected appraisals model, we found that high objective
income and well-educated parents were an accessible way to identify
privilege, improving self-esteem. As we predicted, we also found the
positive role of subjective SES in self-esteem. According to referent
group theory, when students compare themselves with a referent group
on family wealth, they can feel themselves in a certain position of the
social hierarchy in the immediate context and form a self-evaluation
about their social class, thereby forming self-esteem. Interestingly, we
found that parental education accounted for a larger proportion of
variances in self-esteem than family income did. This result is similar to
another Chinese study showing that intangible resources (i.e., parental
education) count more than material resources for students’ outcomes
(Liu & Xie, 2015). Well-educated parents have higher social status,
which leads to others’ positive evaluations of their children. Further­
more, they have a better knowledge of parenting practices and more
positive expectations for interactions with their children (Liu & Xie,
2015), benefiting their children’s self-esteem development. In other
words, these results reflect that different family SES indicators matter
differently to students’ self-esteem, which suggests that educational
practitioners should put more attention on students who subjectively
identify as poor students and those whose parents are undereducated.
5.2. The positive associations between school contexts and students’ self-
esteem
As one of our major concerns, we explored the associations between
school contextual variables and students’ self-esteem. We found that
peer parental education and teacher-related resources (teacher educa­
tion and teacher/student ratio) significantly and positively related to
self-esteem. According to self-categorization theory, individuals’ self-
esteem can derive from memberships in social groups, together with
the value and overall evaluation attached to those memberships
(Crocker et al., 1994). Because of the high social status of scholars in
Chinese societies, being associated with the groups of well-educated
parents enables students to identify self as a member of the high social
class. Consequently, students can share the high self-esteem of a
distinguished group. Schools with a high quality and quantity of
teacher-related resources also have a great reputation for their superior
schooling and teaching. Thus, students in those schools are more likely
to categorize themselves as members of these privileged groups, thereby
deriving positive self-evaluations, resulting in high self-esteem.
However, we did not find significant associations between school
location, peer objective income, peer subjective income, equipment,
book collections, and self-esteem. The reason why there is no effect of
peer objective and peer subjective income could be related to the rapid
development of the Chinese economic and education market. As the
Chinese economy has grown, the educational market has become
competitive and has expanded. Most Chinese parents, regardless of their
wealth, are willing to invest in children’s education, such as extracur­
ricular training and electronic equipment. Peer family income may not
be accessible enough to identify privileged groups and did not signifi­
cantly matter for self-esteem. In this study, book collections were re­
ported based on the approximate number of books in a school’s library
in total, rather than exact numbers for each student, decreasing the
accuracy of this variable. Thus, the number of books as measured in this
study may not be sensitive enough to predict the variance in self-esteem
W. Li et al.
across schools. The positive results of peer parental education and
teacher-related resources suggest the important role of invisible re­
sources, rather than material resources, in self-esteem.
5.3. The variances of associations between family SES and self-esteem
across school contexts
Given the positive effect of school context on self-esteem, we
continued to explore whether the associations between family SES and
self-esteem vary across school contexts. As we predicted, we found that
the cross-level interactions were neutral, positively, or negatively
related to self-esteem, depending on the types of school contextual
variables and family indicators.
First, we found that the association between family income and self-
esteem did not vary as a function of peer family income or schools’
material resources, such as books and equipment. As the social repro­
duction hypothesis assumed, students can still perceive their social
status as the way that others evaluate them by their visible wealth (e.g.,
fancy clothes, iPad), regardless of how the school resources and peer SES
vary. Thus, it is reasonable that the impact of objective family income
was constant.
Second, in line with the complementary intangible hypothesis, we
found that both school location and peer parental education strength­
ened the positive link between family SES (subjective SES, parental
education) and self-esteem. The positive effect of subjective income on
students’ self-esteem was larger in urban schools (rather than rural
schools), which is similar to the findings of a previous study (Chiu &
Zeng, 2008). This result reflects the Chinese disparity of the economy
and educational market between urban-rural areas. Chinese urban areas
enjoy better welfare resources, public good resources, and educational
resources than rural areas (Treiman, 2012). Moreover, compared with
rural schools, urban schools gather more people from various social
statuses. In this case, according to referent group theory, the referent
group can be more accessible for urban parents to subjectively feel their
social status. In particular, Chinese self-evaluation considerably depends
on the views of one’s surrounding group (Chen et al., 2018). Thus,
parents would be more likely to identify the self through social com­
parison in urban areas. Parents’ perception of family wealth can be
passed on to children. Therefore, after controlling for objective income,
students whose parents had higher subjective income experienced
higher self-esteem in urban schools. The Chinese educational market
and related competition has become much more intense. Both in urban
and rural schools, parents would like to invest substantially in their
children’s education, regardless of their wealth or education levels (as
the social reproduction hypothesis assumed). This is why school location
did not interact with objective income and parental education to relate
to self-esteem.
We also found that the positive association between parental edu­
cation (not family income) and self-esteem was larger in schools with
higher peer parental education. Schools with high peer SES usually
provide scientific and complicated learning curriculum and tactics (Tao
et al., 2013). Students from well-educated families are more likely to
succeed in schools and thus have more possibilities to experience higher
self-esteem (in line with the complementary intangible hypothesis).
However, the effect of peer parental education might suggest the
endogeneity problem. For example, parents with high education levels
might reflect on their choices for schools with high achievement stu­
dents, which greatly relates to their children’s self-esteem. If so, schools
should equip more complicated schooling tasks for well-performing
students, which still requires parents’ education practice. Alterna­
tively, the more able students could achieve due to their ability rather
than parental practice, which conflicts with our results. Moreover,
parental choice for better schools is not allowed in China. According to
the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (Na­
tional Peoples’ Congress, 1986), school placement should be decided on
the basis of proximity. School choice for primary schools and junior
7
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
schools is inhibited. Therefore, the moderation effect by peer parent
education on parental education/self-esteem links might not relate to
students’ achievement. However, to clarify the peer parental education
effect, students’ achievement could be included to improve the expla­
nation in the future.
Finally, in line with the public resources substitution hypothesis, we
found that teacher education (rather than the teacher/student ratio)
buffered the association between parental education and self-esteem.
Teachers with high academic degrees are much more likely to provide
positive and warm support and to employ constructive teaching prac­
tices to relieve poor students’ negative self-evaluations. Particularly in
China, teachers are expected to play a role similar to parents, guiding
and caring for students as much as their children (Lo & Lo, 2001; Tian
et al., 2013). However, we did not find a moderating effect of the
teacher/student ratio on self-esteem, which again indicates that the
quality, not the quantity, of teacher-related resources is important.
Nonetheless, we admit that the effect of teacher education could relate
to the endogeneity issue. Highly educated teachers may gather in
schools with well-behaved students, which could improve an in­
dividual’s self-esteem. However, the allocation of educated teachers in
China is mostly driven by teacher employment and management policy.
Chinese tenured policy (bianzhi) has predominantly managed teachers’
employment. With the tenured position, teachers can enjoy permanent
employment, with welfare and insurance financially supported by the
government(Wu & Chen, 2018). In this case, teachers would be more
likely to work in schools with tenured positions rather than in schools
without these positions. Quite often, some private schools can have
much more capable students, even though they do not have tenure po­
sitions to hire highly educated teachers. Consequently, it is still unclear
whether the moderation effect of teacher education levels on family
SES/self-esteem link relates to students’ achievement. Student
achievement should be included in a future study to clarify this issue.
To summarize, because of different types of school contextual vari­
ables and family SES indicators, the links between family SES and self-
esteem complicatedly vary across school contextual variables. With
different moderation patterns by school contexts, we can provide prac­
tical advice on how to efficiently employ school resources according to
students’ family SES background.
6. Strengths, limitations, and future study
Based on the National Children’s Study of China, the present findings
have theoretical and practical implications and strengths that we would
like to highlight. First, considering the important role of self-esteem in
social mobility, we focused on the effect of family SES on self-esteem
rather than achievement. In addition, we simultaneously tested the
objective and subjective SES indicators, finding their independent roles
in self-esteem. These results can enrich the empirical evidence on the
role of family SES in students’ self-esteem, helping improve students’
self-esteem programs. Second, we explore not only the associations be­
tween school contextual variables and self-esteem but also the moder­
ations of school contexts on the associations between family SES and
self-esteem. The results can contribute to theories explaining the
school contexts’ effect on self-esteem and provide guidance on what
types of school effort can be made to improve the self-esteem of students
from different SES families. Based on our findings, some suggestions can
be provided for school practice. First, we show that teacher education
can buffer the negative influences of parental education on self-esteem,
suggesting that more school investment should be used to improve
teachers’ education and ability, especially teachers in less advantaged
schools. High-quality teaching practices will benefit students who lack
parents’ tutoring and support. Second, with the roles of subjective SES in
self-esteem, teachers should direct students to focus on ability growth
rather than wealth when they compare themselves with the referent
group. As parental education has a strong effect on students’ self-esteem,
more attention and assistance should be allocated to improve parenting
W. Li et al.
practices from low SES families.
While our findings have important implications, several limitations
are inherent. First, family SES variables were reported by parents rather
than students. This means that the data cannot represent students’
perceptions of family socioeconomic status. In future studies, family SES
could be reported by both parents and students. Second, as discussed
above, we cannot exclude the endogeneity problem. The moderating
roles of teacher education and peer parental education in the link of
family SES/self-esteem could relate to other factors, such as students’
achievement. Future studies could add student achievement to clarify
the problems. Third, we aggregated SES from the given schools rather
than individual classes, which may bias our estimates of peer effects. In
future research, sample collection could include class data.
. org/10.3102/01623737019002141.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
Funded by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Hu­
manities and Social Sciences, China (Project No.17YJCZH014)；Foun­
dation of "13th Five-Year Plan" for Guangzhou Philosophy and Social
Sciences Development, China (Foundation No. 2018GZYB70)； Foun­
dation of "13th Five-Year Plan" for Guangdong Philosophy and Social
Sciences Development, special project, China (Foundation No.
2019GXJK004).
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of
subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological
functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6),
586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586.
Blossfeld, H. P., & Shavit, Y. (1991). Persisting barriers: Changes in educational. PhD
Proposal. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Borman, G. D., & Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics among
poor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 177. https://doi.
org/10.1086/499748.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on
individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544583.
Chen, Y., & Fan, X. (2019). Subjective social status, income inequality and subjective
perceptions of mobility (2003-2013). Social Sciences in China, 40(3), 70–88.
Chen, X., Fu, R., Liu, J., Wang, L., & Zarbatany, L. (2018). Social sensitivity and social,
school, and psychological adjustment among children across contexts. American
Psychological Association, 54, 1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000496.
Chiu, Ming. Ming (2010). Effects of inequality, family and school on mathematics
achievement: country and student differences. Social Forces, 88(4), 1646–1675.
Chiu, M. M., & Zeng, Xihua (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics
achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4),
321–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.003.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family
processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72,
685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.l741-3737.2010.00725.x.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and
psychological well-being, among white, black, and Asian college students.
Personality and Social Psychology Review : an Official Journal of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 20(5), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167294205007.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Low-income students and the socioeconomic composition of public
high schools. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 709–730. https://doi.org/
10.1177/000312240907400502.
Darling-hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement : A review of
state policy evidence previous research. Education, 8(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/
10.1038/sj.clp.
Diener, E. D., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A
literature review and guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57,
119–169.
Dong, Q., & Lin, C. D. (2011). Handbook for databases on the national children’ study of
china. Science Press.
Falci, C. D. (2011). Self-esteem and mastery trajectories in high school by social class and
gender. Social Science Research, 40(2), 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssresearch.2010.12.013.
8
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
Farrell, L., Sijibengak, A., & Barrett, P. (2009). An examination of childhood anxiety,
depression and self-esteem across socioeconomic groups- A comparison study
between high and low socioeconomic status school communities. Advances in School
Mental Health Promotion, 2(1), 5–19.
Feng, X., & Zhang, X. (2008). Researches about the relationships among pride, explicit
self-esteem and depression in urban poverty adolescents. Psychological Development
and Education, 4, 100–105.
Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research
: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(1), 85–92.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student
achievement. Review of Education, 66(3), 361–396. http://rer.sagepub.com/content/
66/3/361.short.
Han, S. H. (2013). Confucian states and learning life: Making scholar-officials and social
learning a political contestation. Comparative Education, 49(1), 57–71. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03050068.2012.740220.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance:
An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 14–164. https://doi.
Harris, D. N. (2010). How do school peers influence student educational outcomes?
Theory and evidence from economics and other social sciences. The Teachers College
Record, 112(4), 1163–1197. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Herman, K. C., Bi, Y., Borden, L. A., & Reinke, W. M. (2011). Latent classes of psychiatric
symptoms among Chinese children living in poverty. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 21(3), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9490-z.
Hwang, K. K. (2012). Life goals and achievement motivation in Confucian society. In
K. K. Hwang (Ed.), Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations
International and cultural psychology (pp. 219–264). Springer.
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(3), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756.
Li, X., Zou, H., Wang, R., & Dou, D. (2008). The developmental characteristics of
temporary migrant children. Self-Esteem and its relation to learning behavior and
teacher-student relationship in Beijing. Journal of Psychological Science, 31, 909–913.
https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2008.04.025.
Liu, A., & Xie, Y. (2015). Influences of monetary and non-monetary family resources on
children’s development in verbal ability in China. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 40, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2015.02.003.
Liu, Y., Li, X., Chen, L., & Qu, Z. (2015). Perceived positive teacher-student relationship
as a protective factor for Chinese left-behind children’s emotional and behavioural
adjustment. International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 354–362. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ijop.12112.
Liu, X., & Zhao, J. (2016). Chines migrant children the moderating roles of group identity
and types of school. PloS One, 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146559.
Lo, R., & Lo, R. C. C. (2001). The role of class teachers in a key secondary school in
Shanghai. Pastoral Care in Education, 19(1), 20–27.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 393–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3089335.
Mann, M., Hosman, C. M. H., Schaalma, H. P., & De Vries, N. K. (2004). Self-esteem in a
broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research,
19(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg041.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.79.3.280.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Big-fish–Little-pond effect on academic self-concept:
A cross-cultural (26-Country) test of the negative effects of academically selective
schools. The American Psychologist, 58(5), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.58.5.364.
Marsh, H. W., Kong, C.-K., & Hau, K.-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the
big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept : Counterbalancing contrast and
reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus User’s guide (No. 7; seventh ed). Muthén &
Muthén.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results : What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and
practices (Vol. IV).
Opdenakker, M., & Damme, J. Van (2007). Do school context, student composition and
school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education?
British Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01411920701208233.
Operario, D., Adler, N. E., & Williams, D. R. (2004). Subjective social status: Reliability
and predictive utility for global health. Psychology & Health, 19(2), 237–246. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08870440310001638098.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem
and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102(6), 1271–1288.
Pelham, B. W. (1995). Further evidence for a Jamesian model of self-worth: Reply to
Marsh. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1161–1165. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1161.
Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of
socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College
Record, 112(4), 1137–1162. http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid
=15662.
Piko, B., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2001). Does class matter? SES and psychosocial health
among Hungarian adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 53(6), 817–830.
Rjosk, C., Richter, D., Hochweber, J., Lüdtke, O., Klieme, E., & Stanat, P. (2014).
Socioeconomic and language minority classroom composition and individual
W. Li et al.
reading achievement : The mediating role of instructional quality. Learning and
Instruction, 32, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.007.
Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. (1978). Social class and self-esteem among children and
adults. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 53–77. http://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/2777978.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem
and specific self-esteem : Different concepts, different outcomes. American
Sociological Association, 60(1), 141–156.
Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy,, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College
Record, 107(9), 1999–2045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00583.x.
Ryabov, I. (2011). Adolescent academic outcomes in school context: network effects
reexamined. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2010.12.004.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237.
Tao, Y., Oliver, M., & Venville, G. (2013). A comparison of approaches to the reaching
and learning of science in Chinese and Australian elementary classrooms: Cultural
and socioeconomic complexities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1, SI),
33–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21064.
The State Council. (2006). The regulations on the division of urban and rural areas. www.
stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/5rp/html/append7.htm.
Tian, L., Liu, B., Huang, S., & Huebner, E. S. (2013). Perceived social support and school
well-being among Chinese early and middle adolescents: The mediational role of
self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 991–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-012-0123-8.
Treiman, D. J. (2012). Urban–rural disparities.pdf. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 30, 33–47.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and socioeconomic status: A meta-
analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 59–71. https://doi.
org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_3.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (2021) 100565
van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005v). Category salience and
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
78(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X25779.
van Ewijk, R., & Sleegers, P. (2010v). The effect of peer socioeconomic status on student
achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 134–150. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.001.
Varga, S., Piko, B. F., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2014). Socioeconomic inequalities in mental
well-being among Hungarian adolescents: A cross-sectional study. International
Journal for Equity in Health, 13(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0100-
8.
Veselska, Z., Madarasova Geckova, A., Gajdosova, B., Orosova, O., Van Dijk, J. P., &
Reijneveld, S. A. (2010). Socio-economic differences in self-esteem of adolescents
influenced by personality, mental health and social support. European Journal of
Public Health, 20(6), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp210.
Wang, Q., Shen, J. J., Sotero, M., Li, C. A., & Hou, Z. (2018). Income, occupation and
education: Are they related to smoking behaviors in China? PloS One, 13(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192571.
Wiltfang, G. L., & Scarbecz, M. (1990). Social Class and adolescents’ self-esteem: Another
look. Special Issue: Social Structure and The Individual, 53(2), 174–183.
Wu, Zhi-hui, & Chen, Chang-sheng (2018). The contradiction between supply and
demand of public school teachers and its reform methods in compulsory education in
China. Educational Research, 8(463), 88–100.
Zeng, X., Li, W., Wang, Y., Li, J., Huang, X., & Li, X. (2017). Normative importance of
money, family income, and self-esteem: A multilevel latent modeling analysis of data
from Chinese early adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11205-016-1243-3.
Zheng, W. Y. (2013). High school students’ self-esteem development——Empirical research
from WuXi in China. Nanjing Normal University.