Quantifying the effects of the ‘at-risk’ label

Abstract

Institutional efforts to address attainment gaps in higher education have traditionally centered on deficit-oriented discourses that frame Black and Hispanic students, low-income students, and first-generation college students as ‘at-risk’ and ‘underprepared’. Given the extensive amount of evidence documenting the adverse consequences of labeling and stigmatization, relying on negative descriptors to characterize marginalized students may be detrimental to their motivation and persistence in college—and may inadvertently exacerbate disparities in graduation rates between these students and students from more privileged backgrounds. A total of three online studies were conducted for this dissertation, which explores the deficit-oriented labeling experiences of low-income, first-generation Black and Hispanic college students (LIFG; n= 256) and their non-low-income, continuing-generation White peers (NLIFG; n= 317). In Studies 1 and 2, participants were asked to respond to a series of prompts designed to examine the extent to which deficit-oriented labels were applied to them, the contexts in which this occurred, and the motivational and affective consequences they experienced as a result. In Studies 1 and 3, hypothetical scenarios were used to probe participants’ interpretations of both deficit-oriented and alternative labels (i.e., first-generation student), as well as the perceived consequences of being characterized by these descriptors. Study 3 also explored potential stereotype threat effects that might result from being characterized by a deficit-oriented label. Specifically, participants were randomly assigned to recall an experience in which they were labeled as an at-risk or first-year student, and then asked to complete an analytical task. Students’ academic mindsets, stereotype vulnerability, and racial identity beliefs were also explored as potential moderators for within and between-group differences in Studies 2 and 3. Results showed that relative to NLIFG students, LIFG students were significantly more likely to report being labeled by deficit-oriented descriptors. The frequency of these labeling experiences was also significantly associated with negative academic self-perceptions, sense of belonging, and affect, for both LIFG and NLIFG students. Across both sample groups, participants generally indicated that these labels were most often communicated to them by instructors and advisors. Responses to the hypothetical scenarios indicated that LIFG students were more nuanced in their interpretations of different labels, but there were no sample group differences in the extent to which participants expected these labeling experiences to negatively affect hypothetical students. There was no evidence of stereotype threat effects on subsequent performance, but this result may have been due to limitations associated with the manipulation task. Lastly, there was evidence to suggest that endorsing stronger academic growth mindsets may mitigate the negative effects of these stigmatizing experiences. The implications of these findings and recommendations for future work are also discussed.